Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 213 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1452
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread.
I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible.
I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125. The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
The meat of this thread however is about missiles. There's a number of missile changes we have planned for the Winter, including the already announced buff to light missiles, a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles.
Light Missiles -Explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40 -Damage increased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant light missiles, including FOF.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range significantly, increase damage slightly
Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time Explosion radius and explosion velocity -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range script lowers flight time Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
186
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
I lived to see the day! |
tgl3
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
161
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time Explosion radius and explosion velocity -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range script lowers flight time
My pilgrim approves of this. I write a blog. I think people read it. http://throughnewbeyes.wordpress.com
Mate |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1225
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
First in an awesome thread!
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
110
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
I lived to see the day! Did you? How many more times will you be podded before this takes effect? Ideas for drone improvement |
DeBingJos
Weirdo Asylum Shadow Rock Alliance
366
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.
But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)
Drakes will be even more op than now...
/me is sad Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Heimdallofasgard
Apex Overplayed Coalition Fatal Ascension
250
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
Due to the powergrid reduction of lasers as well, do you think the harbinger requires a pg nerf as well? Kick Heim... MATE |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
186
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1453
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.
But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)
Drakes will be even more op than now...
/me is sad
The "less shields more gank" thing was a discussion at a previous CSM summit, not a finalized design. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Pisov viet
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Is that only heavy missiles, or also heavy assault missiles? |
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1968
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:40:00 -
[11] - Quote
Posting in a Fozzie thread. Love Fozzie long time. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Heimdallofasgard
Apex Overplayed Coalition Fatal Ascension
250
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:40:00 -
[12] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.
But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)
Drakes will be even more op than now...
/me is sad
20% reduction in heavy middle damage is far from a drake buff Kick Heim... MATE |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
186
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Optimal range script lowers flight time Eh? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1453
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
Pisov viet wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Is that only heavy missiles, or also heavy assault missiles?
Just heavy missiles. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
DeBingJos
Weirdo Asylum Shadow Rock Alliance
366
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
Just noticed this! Holy crap CCP, 20% nerf to damage and 25% nerf to range?!
Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1453
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Optimal range script lowers flight time Eh?
I clarified the OP, thanks. That was talking about the disruption scripts from the TD. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Heimdallofasgard
Apex Overplayed Coalition Fatal Ascension
250
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
Nerf drakes erryday! Kick Heim... MATE |
tgl3
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
161
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
Noo, my Sleeper "kite outside of their 80km neut range" Tengu! But I seriously look forward to the change. Just have to adjust! I write a blog. I think people read it. http://throughnewbeyes.wordpress.com
Mate |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
272
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
Mother of god. http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Alua Oresson
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
131
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
Time to stock up on some Pilgrims and curses and go hunting Drakes. http://pvpwannabe.blogspot.com/ |
|
Sonya Amminen
Centrelink Australia The Methodical Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:49:00 -
[21] - Quote
wow 20% reduction in heavy missile damage is a bit too excessive IMHO. Considering the range is also nerf'd a fair bit. |
Cass Lie
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
Holy hell, the implications. Drakes fitting tracking enhancers and tech 2 missiles now? More damage types than kinetic? Is this actually a nerf? |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:52:00 -
[23] - Quote
TDs affecting everything seems like it's arguably going to make them too powerful in small scale pvp - a boosted pilgrim with multiple TDs will shut down a small gang even more reliably than a falcon, without any of that pesky chance of missing a jam. |
Boogie Jones
The Milkmen Test Alliance Please Ignore
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:53:00 -
[24] - Quote
The powergrid nerf on the cane is a bit much imo. It should be able to fit a full rack of 425s + the neuts. daquaris: there are very few places in this game you are safe from me daquaris: AAA C isn't one of them |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
762
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Interesting |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2192
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:55:00 -
[26] - Quote
I think these sound good, but of course people will need to play with them on the test server. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:57:00 -
[27] - Quote
Boogie Jones wrote:The powergrid nerf on the cane is a bit much imo. It should be able to fit a full rack of 425s + the neuts. Survey says NO. |
Aethlyn
EVE University Ivy League
133
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:57:00 -
[28] - Quote
Not sure I like the PG reduction on the Hurricane. It's already rather thight to fit ACs (not Artillery) with a Gang Link. Well, guess I finally have a good reason to do that long train for AWU5 - unplanned, but... well.
I'm just not really sure whether this wouldn't be another change in favor of off-grid boosters rather than having at least some links on the field. Hope there are some changes that way as well, to make sacrificing one or two guns worth it. Looking for more thoughts? Read http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/ or follow me on http://twitter.com/Aethlyn. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1225
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:58:00 -
[29] - Quote
Boogie Jones wrote:The powergrid nerf on the cane is a bit much imo. It should be able to fit a full rack of 425s + the neuts.
Why?
Quote:wow 20% reduction in heavy missile damage is a bit too excessive IMHO. Considering the range is also nerf'd a fair bit.
Looks about equal to other LR medium guns, with the exception that it can actually hit things that are inside long point range.
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Alara IonStorm
3159
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:58:00 -
[30] - Quote
I would rather you did not reduce the Canes Grid at all but keep the Artillery Grid Changes.
Instead replace the second Dmg bonus with something else and add a seventh turret eating more of its grid. It also gets rid of those double Nuets that hurt Cruisers so much at the same time.
I suggest optimal range so it can be a better Arty Boat to compete with the Drake. Also 20% is a little much, 10% would be better along with making the Harbinger and Ferox better with LR Weapons.
Roime wrote: Looks about equal to other LR medium guns,
That is my big problem, Medium LR guns not so great. The Hurricane is pretty much the only Battlecruiser that fits them in PvP currently. |
|
Tover Chris
Suicide Kings
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Hello Drake, this is Pilgrim. It's about time we met. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:02:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: -Explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40
Ahemm... Psst it's Explosion Radius I'm sure? |
LakeEnd
FinFleet Raiden.
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:05:00 -
[33] - Quote
Could you take a look into Defender missiles at some point? if those worked at all, they could allow lots of new stuff fitting and tactics wise. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1436
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:07:00 -
[34] - Quote
undeniable proof that CCP is staffed by ncdot and nulli :\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ |
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:07:00 -
[35] - Quote
Sonya Amminen wrote:wow 20% reduction in heavy missile damage is a bit too excessive IMHO. Considering the range is also nerf'd a fair bit.
I actually tend to agree with this, particularly since TDs will be able to impact them as well.
Here is how I currently view cruiser-sized weapons, as they are now:
- Autocannons: Kite from range with falloff, laugh as you use superior speed.
- Artillery: BLAP! Ganked with alpha!
- Blasters: NomNomNom DPS
- Railguns: Medium-sized rails are pretty bad. Very poor damage as compared to small and large rails. Proportions are all wrong.
- Pulse Lasers: Haven't flown enough laser boats to know, but they seem pretty awesome on certain ships.
- Beam Lasers: Same as above; I'm not really sure what to think, though they seem to do less DPS in comparison to pulses.
- HAMs: Not much DPS gain compared to HMLs, particularly when you consider the fact that it costs more PG and CPU and has much less range.
- HMLs: Great range, mediocre damage as compared to other weapons systems once we take into account the damage application delay between launch and hit
So really just buffing HAMs would be better IMO. Nerfing HML damage will only make them even more mediocre, though I do agree with range nerf. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1436
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:07:00 -
[36] - Quote
"vince draken" is even an anagram of "hilmar peturrson" |
Nicholai Sanse
League of Non-Aligned Worlds Nulli Secunda
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:08:00 -
[37] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:undeniable proof that CCP is staffed by ncdot and nulli :\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
:smug: |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1436
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
(3:08:05 PM) Don Peyote: Blawrf you should look into this further (3:08:16 PM) Don Peyote: who knows, in a few years' time, we could be posting on Blawrf.com (3:08:22 PM) Blawrf: who knows how deep the rabbithole goes (3:08:27 PM) Marivauder: i'd vote for that (3:08:29 PM) Don Peyote: about CCP's heinous spawning of T2 Tech Moon BPOs for NCdot (3:08:41 PM) Blawrf: "blawrf mctaggart" will be a censored name for years (3:08:48 PM) Don Peyote: The more things change, the more they stay the same (3:09:11 PM) nicholai_sanse: wait who told you about those bpos?!
it's all coming out now fozzie |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!
|
Bilaz
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:10:00 -
[40] - Quote
First thing that i find strange - is range decrease on Precision missiles - when shooting something small and fast you need extra range so your missile can hit some over-nanoed dramiel/vagabond on high orbit (and if it is webbed - no reason to use them anyway). So i would rather have less damage and more range on them.
Also what about heavy assault missiles? if they are affected by tracking disruptor - maybe they should be guided ? |
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
429
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:10:00 -
[41] - Quote
This looks good, but I suspect there will be a proliferation of Tracking Disruptors on unbonused ships. It might become necessary to weaken them on unbonused ships. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
181
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:12:00 -
[42] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!
Unless you fit a td or a tc. |
Fatyn
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:12:00 -
[43] - Quote
Fozzie I think what you and the team are doing is pretty breathtaking. It's been so good to see CCP rumble into gear on ship balancing over the last year or so. The tentative, glacial changes of the past have been replaced by a much bolder approach - the core game of EVE pewpew always deserved so much more than one dev in a broom cupboard.
I hope you guys feel the power in your fingertips because you are supercharging our awesome game with every new balance patch.
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
190
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:13:00 -
[44] - Quote
Btw, when are medium rails going to become in any way usable in PvP? Arty clearly is, HMs have been, beams too. Rails are just godawful on Gal or Cal ships. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:13:00 -
[45] - Quote
I can hear the tears from FOTM pilots across the cluster "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
NiGhTTraX
FISKL GUARDS Nulli Secunda
160
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:13:00 -
[46] - Quote
The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.
The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well....
CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho. If you're gonna post here thinking your idea is the greatest thing since bacon and that it will save EVE and possibly all humankind with it, you're gonna have a bad time. |
Hosiden
The Drunken Empire Fatal Ascension
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:14:00 -
[47] - Quote
I expect this giftcard to arrive in fozzies mailbox as the winter expansion arrives. "Superpilots everwhere hopes you are happy with that extra "Christmas bonus"" Signed Nerfed hurricane |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:15:00 -
[48] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho.
Not flown a Brutix recently then, I take it. "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Tyrus Tenebros
Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:15:00 -
[49] - Quote
I virtually never post to eve-o forums but the missile changes are way to excessive.
While I generally never join the whines of "don't make everything the same" I have to agree that the move to make missiles "more inline" with other weapon types is misguided. Missiles have always done low-ish to moderate dps in exchange for being reliable and difficult to stop barring outranging them. Shoving them in to the TE/TD paradigm dramatically affects the character of missiles.
While I understand the desire to increase the use of HAMs and promote the LR/CR dichotomy, I also don't think needing HMLs in ti the ground is the way to go with that either. 1) DPS reduction is too high. 10% would be a better start. 2) Range reduction is slightly too significant. 15-20% base might be better... missiles don't have falloff and are subject to chase distance against fast targets 3) TE/TD paradigm will likely reduce DPS further as some lows are swapped to TEs. While I "get" how the reduced dps is supposed to be compensated for slightly by increased applied damage to small targets, I don't think it will play out very well. 4) TDs themselves become extremely powerful. I suggest dropping the TE/TD change entirely, there's no reason for it. As they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.. and the balance of missile damage actually applied is fine as is, even if tweaks need to be applied there'sno need for a wholesale shift.
The 10% damage nerf should be sufficient to promote the use of HAMs. Slightly increasing damage applied by HAMs would also promote their use.
Edit: well played dropping the cane nerf in front of the overboard missile changes to derail the thread from that discussion. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
191
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:15:00 -
[50] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho. Who said the intended purpose was 2 medium neuts? Or that BCs were balanced? Or that a Brutix can fit Neutrons while using its active tank bonus? |
|
DeBingJos
Weirdo Asylum Shadow Rock Alliance
367
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:16:00 -
[51] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.
Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range?
Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:16:00 -
[52] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!
Unless you fit a td or a tc.
Yes, as if shield tanks have enough slots for random crap, its enough that armor tanks can fit ECCM and TCs and everything they need to combat ewar while shield tanks just die in a fire. |
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:17:00 -
[53] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!
Drones. Hurrr. |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc. State Section 9
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:18:00 -
[54] - Quote
On to the attack cruisers thread to see if they've killed the Caracal with these HM nerfs. I do hope that they changed the Caracal with that in mind, I always found it difficult to fit HAM's, HM's had pathetic DPS, and Light Assaults were... Oh god.
But I'm happy to see change, so HUZZAH! On with change! |
adopt
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
416
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:20:00 -
[55] - Quote
20% damage nerf is far too much. Same with the Hurricane PG Nerf.
I think you should reduce damage by 15% not 20%, and cut the PG by 150 rather than 225.
If you follow through with these changes you're making the entire BattleCruiser class obsolete. Shadoo > Always remember to fit Cynosural Field Generator I, have 450 Liquid Ozone in your cargo and convo a friendly Pandemic Legion member if you have a capital or super capital ship tackled.
FREE XOLVE ~ THE HERO TEST NEEDS |
Haargoth Civire
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:20:00 -
[56] - Quote
Hey Null sec blobs... get it right round yees.. |
Haargoth Civire
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:23:00 -
[57] - Quote
Fatyn wrote:Fozzie I think what you and the team are doing is pretty breathtaking. It's been so good to see CCP rumble into gear on ship balancing over the last year or so. The tentative, glacial changes of the past have been replaced by a much bolder approach - the core game of EVE pewpew always deserved so much more than one dev in a broom cupboard. There will always be some whiny fucks whose favourite ship / tactic / fitting is now superceded, but if the objective of making EVE PvP broader, deeper and more balanced is achieved most people won't care.
I hope you guys feel the power in your fingertips because you are supercharging our awesome game with every new balance patch.
But fatyn all the blobs in null sec will now have to get skills for decent ships and they will have to spend isk on better hulls.. what are they gonna doooooooo.. |
Lili Lu
434
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:24:00 -
[58] - Quote
Interesting. And to all the folks who put so much effort into saying there is nothing wrong with HMs, Tengus, or Drakes . . welp.
Anyway, if I'm reading these changes correctly it is only a nerf to current kiting tactics with Drakes and other heavy or heavy assault missile boats. A ship that has such a sturdy tank should not get a pass with range advantage as well. Ironically it may signal that the resist bonus might be staying (but that is not to say the same hp or regen stats will be there).
Basically you are losing damage with standard ammo at range, and you are losing base range. You will be gaining damage with Fury, if you fit for it, i.e. painter or painter support, and rigs to overcome the drawbacks (thus competing with tanking rigs). If you want to retain the present Drake sweetspot of 70km you will need to fit TE or TC and thus lose either tank or damage mods. And just like turrets you will be wary of TDs.
Not sure what to make of precision missile changes. Frigs may have to start fearing an ammo switch to it.
WIth Rage you are gaining damage, if you get closer than you may be presently used to. Rage HAMs will opperate more like blasters.
Just my quick impression and without all the coming other changes apparent. So the Tengu and Drake are getting an indirect nerf to their current ease of fitting and tactics. They can keep the range but at the expense of tank and/or damage, or they can keep the damage and possibly more damage but at the expense of range and the need for support painter and webbing ships.
Fozzie, are you guys considering any slight nerf to TD base strength? Because if not, everyone and his mother will be fitting TDs. It seems to me that the module could use little nerf, so as not to become the must have "multispec of doom", and to make the speicialized ships more desirable in fleets.
|
Alara IonStorm
3159
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:25:00 -
[59] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.
Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range? 479 to 20 with to TE's 40 for 320 with Mid Range Ammo, 70 at 270 with Tremor.
New Drake 257 DPS + Flight Time.
I don't think Heavy Missiles are too good, Medium Range Guns just suck with Damage Projection and Fitting, Ships like the Ferox don't help either.
CCP should look into making more Medium Weapons viable not nerfing the ones that are. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:25:00 -
[60] - Quote
A 20% damage reduction on HMs is just too much. I'd say 10% is way more reasonable considering the range nerf.
I would think a 10% reduction to HM damage and a 10% increase to HAM damage would be more reasonable, because the reason HMs are used so much right now is because of two reasons:
1. They have pretty good damage, but not amazing, they're "just right" in terms of missiles. 2. Hams are barely better for damage, whereas they should be considerably higher DPS, like the difference between cruises and torps (around 300-400 dps for cruises to torps, should be around 200-250 for HMs to HAMs)
Thus, by buffing HAMs, you fix one of those, and by nerfing HM damage, you fix another. Nerfing one of them a huge amount just makes the respective weapon completely useless. That's why I would think a 10% reduction for HM damage along with a 10% increase in HAM damage is better. HAMs are decent but they are always avoided in PvP because they can't match up to HMs. But making HMs useless to promote HAMs is stupid, HMs should simply be made a bit worse and HAMs should be made a bit better, which will solve the problem.
I understand the range nerf though, such huge range on HMs is really unnecessary. |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
208
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:25:00 -
[61] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.
Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range?
this!
plus...
Daneel Trevize wrote:NiGhTTraX wrote:CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho. Who said the intended purpose was 2 medium neuts? Or that BCs were balanced? Or that a Brutix can fit Neutrons while using its active tank bonus?
bring on the drake army and whelpfleet tears
also medium rails need some love and gal ships need to be fixed without changing their intended tank style or weapon choices. |
NiGhTTraX
FISKL GUARDS Nulli Secunda
161
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:25:00 -
[62] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.
Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range?
Nonetheless, the new 257 DPS is laughable. You can't kill anything with that if you're solo. If you're gonna post here thinking your idea is the greatest thing since bacon and that it will save EVE and possibly all humankind with it, you're gonna have a bad time. |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:25:00 -
[63] - Quote
This is amazing stuff. The dmg difference between 220s and 425s arent too steep, less fitting really addresses the core issue of the cane, in that it honestly does a bit of everything a bit too well. You can have great utility, or great DPS, just like every other ship.
Really excited about the beam changes. Lets see if it actually does it though. With the HML changes one might actually fit beams, though I think arty is still far more versatile and does more practical damage. Happy to test it though!. |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:26:00 -
[64] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS. The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? Goodbye solo missile platforms! CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible imho.
to be fair, consider that the current range is at "peak" around 80km, the 25% nerf will take it down to around 60km meaning you'll engage at most around 50km. thats still not exactly BAD when you have 100% of the damage being applied out that far and still have reasonable options to push that range out further?
as for "no other battlecruiser needs fitting implants or gun downgrading", brutix and ferox. sweeping claims woo!
Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
stoicfaux
1650
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:26:00 -
[65] - Quote
TDs (and TCs/TEs) only affect guided missiles? (not rockets, HAMs and torps.)
Is anyone going to bother using TPs on guided missile boats?
How much is the Fury damage increase going to be? You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head. Feature Request: -áDamnation Ship Codpiece-áfor the NeX store.
|
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:26:00 -
[66] - Quote
Tyrus Tenebros wrote:I virtually never post to eve-o forums but the missile changes are way to excessive.
While I generally never join the whines of "don't make everything the same" I have to agree that the move to make missiles "more inline" with other weapon types is misguided. Missiles have always done low-ish to moderate dps in exchange for being reliable and difficult to stop barring outranging them. Shoving them in to the TE/TD paradigm dramatically affects the character of missiles.
While I understand the desire to increase the use of HAMs and promote the LR/CR dichotomy, I also don't think needing HMLs in ti the ground is the way to go with that either. 1) DPS reduction is too high. 10% would be a better start. 2) Range reduction is slightly too significant. 15-20% base might be better... missiles don't have falloff and are subject to chase distance against fast targets 3) TE/TD paradigm will likely reduce DPS further as some lows are swapped to TEs. While I "get" how the reduced dps is supposed to be compensated for slightly by increased applied damage to small targets, I don't think it will play out very well. 4) TDs themselves become extremely powerful. I suggest dropping the TE/TD change entirely, there's no reason for it. As they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.. and the balance of missile damage actually applied is fine as is, even if tweaks need to be applied there'sno need for a wholesale shift.
The 10% damage nerf should be sufficient to promote the use of HAMs. Slightly increasing damage applied by HAMs would also promote their use. Have to agree with this guy. The whole TE/TD/TC change is way too much homogenization and there is simply no need for that. There is also the difference, that a pilot can undo the penalties done by TDs to a degree, by going into range or by flying parallel and recuding the transversal. There is no way to undo a worse explosion radius/speed and it is significantly harder to get into range with somethign that is running away from you at decent speed, because it could mean that even if youre 1km away from him, given enough speed he will outrun your missiles. The damage reduction to HMLs is beyond all good and holy of course. With faction missiles, a 3 bcs tengu does ~470 dps on a target that is standing still. A 2bcs drake does 407. A thrasher does 350 and an enyo can reach 450. But were talking about medium sized guns. Reducing the range of missiles is ok as i agree that HMLs had way too much range, especially combined with range bonuses on hulls like caracal and tengu. |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:26:00 -
[67] - Quote
Why are the tech 2 missles still **** compared to tech 2 auto, blaster or pulse ammo. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:27:00 -
[68] - Quote
Boogie Jones wrote:The powergrid nerf on the cane is a bit much imo. It should be able to fit a full rack of 425s + the neuts. You mean the same way a Myrmidon should be able to fit a full rack of Neutrons and a triple rep tank? |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:28:00 -
[69] - Quote
adopt wrote:20% damage nerf is far too much. Same with the Hurricane PG Nerf.
I think you should reduce damage by 15% not 20%, and cut the PG by 150 rather than 225.
If you follow through with these changes you're making the entire BattleCruiser class obsolete.
I don't care much about the changes to HMLs, they might be a bit over the top with both a dps and a range nerf but whatever - I ******* hate flying Drakes.
The nerf to the hurricane is much much too harsh, however. Nerf autocannons rather than specific hulls - autocannons are too versatile. |
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:29:00 -
[70] - Quote
Well death to OP battlecruisers. Now EVE gonna have some room for other tacticis than blobbing with t1 cheap **** battlecruisers. See ya on the field :) |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1462
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:29:00 -
[71] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: -Explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40
Ahemm... Psst it's Explosion Radius I'm sure?
:oops: Indeed.
Lili Lu wrote: Fozzie, are you guys considering any slight nerf to TD base strength? Because if not, everyone and his mother will be fitting TDs. It seems to me that the module could use little nerf, so as not to become the must have "multispec of doom", and to make the speicialized ships more desirable in fleets.
Yup it's something we're looking very closely at. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:29:00 -
[72] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote:There is also the difference, that a pilot can undo the penalties done by TDs to a degree, by going into range or by flying parallel and recuding the transversal. There is no way to undo a worse explosion radius/speed Painters, webs, rigs. ZOMG committing and not fitting full tank on your brick drakes/Tengus?
Cry more. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:31:00 -
[73] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:for christs sake, why do TDs need to affect missiles? Now you can't properly ever fight back against something wielding a TD!
Baww. The rage is "Nerf ECM", did you forget? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:33:00 -
[74] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.
Yeah, at a 2km Optimal range. At actual engagement range.... Not so much. GTFO EFT |
Jack bubu
GK inc. Pandemic Legion
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:34:00 -
[75] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS. The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? Goodbye solo missile platforms! CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho. Explain to me why you compare the DPS of a long range weapon to that of a close range weapon?
use heavy assault missiles, with the TC/TE boost they will be amazing. |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:35:00 -
[76] - Quote
RIP Heavy Missiles, you now get to go to that special place where hybrids lived for so many years. Maybe you'll be useful again in 2016 |
Memrox
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:37:00 -
[77] - Quote
Heavys range nerf.. ok. The DMG nerf is bad, Fozzie wake up!?!?!?! |
Fowler
Black Flag Operations The Kadeshi
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:38:00 -
[78] - Quote
I'm curious what will happen to the Nighthawk and Cerberus after theese changes to missiles and especially heavy missiles.
Seems the Nighthawk gets a smack in the face it doesn't deserve. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:39:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Excellent changes. Will there be name changes for these modules to go along with their expanded roles? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:40:00 -
[80] - Quote
Memrox wrote:Heavys range nerf.. ok. The DMG nerf is bad, Fozzie wake up!?!?!?! Yeah!! Wake up and give us medium railguns that has 400 dps at 0-80 km!!!! |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:40:00 -
[81] - Quote
Also, reducing rage range is just going to make them even less used. They are fine how they are currently regardless of damage.
I am thinking of rage rockets, they really need the range they currently have to be useful, nerfing it at all makes them completely useless. I flown rocket hawks in PvP for a long time and they need that rage range to fit their niche. (This was before ASBs, but still.) It's really important that a rocket boat can hit at 9km with rage, because if they can successfully kite within scram range, their mediocre dps compared with other close range weapons can grind them down. Making rage have less range is basically saying "now you have to use CN ammo to do it", which is basically nerfing rocket damage in general, since CN ammo has less DPS.
Rage HAMs have short enough range, 18km? Thats well within scorch range, barrage range, which are similar in applied DPS when you get down to it because of the ****** explosion radius/velocity on rages. HAMs need more DPS in general, regardless of damage type, so slightly buffing rage missile damage while nerfing range really doesnt help.
Rage torps are horrible NOW, why would anyone every use them in the future if their range gets nerfed? They can't hit anything that is moving as it is, so decreasing their range is just a horrible idea, even if they get additional DPS. Leave them as they are in terms of range and make them better for hitting targets to become closer to other torps, if anything. |
Raging Beaver
VAMPIRE COUNTS
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:40:00 -
[82] - Quote
Most of the changes seem interesting to me apart from this:
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
So maybe let's call the missiles' flight to the target "tracking", this is the only way it would made sense to me. You have an anti-missile module, it's called a launcher, a launcher loaded with defender missiles. It's useless? Make it useful then, don't introduce a ridiculous mechanic like the one above. |
Heimdallofasgard
Apex Overplayed Coalition Fatal Ascension
251
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:41:00 -
[83] - Quote
Suddenly... Armor tank bc fleets everywhere! Kick Heim... MATE |
Bap1811
Club Bear
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:41:00 -
[84] - Quote
I would like to know what was the reasoning behind making TDs affect missiles? What made you decide to go ahead with this, what was the problem with missiles that making them TD-able fixes?
This and the base HML nerf is a massive nerf to small gang podla drake pvp which was the biggest small gang pvp "doctrine". Not only do we have to play with less range and damage (trivial I suppose...) but making TDs affect missiles means that our 5-6 man gangs are gonna be forced in even closer to gangs usually twice or three times our size. HML range and damage projection is literally the only thing that allowed us to do that, nothing else really works.
Meaning that we'll probably have to start fitting TE to our drakes, and its not like drake DPS is good to start with. Or we'll probably just have to run from any gang with any amount of random TD equipped. I know no one gives a **** about small gang pvp and solo to a lesser extent but at least leave it alone, dont nerf it.
So apart from my ranting, i'm still interested in what you are hoping to fix/change with the TDs affecting missiles part.
The hurricane changes are kinda bad as they are asymmetrical to how its always been. Its always been that you can shield tank a typically armor ship and have more PG to play around for guns and high utility. Its the exact same for the rupture, shield tank it and you can get a rack of 425s and some med neuts, same with Thorax, if you shield tank it you can shove a bunch of ions/neutrons on it etc. Hurricane fit this perfectly. Moreover not only that but it means you are litterally shitting all over the armor cane.
Also just buff HAMS a little, reduce PG a little or smth, because the caracal is still **** even with the cruiser changes.
|
stoicfaux
1650
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:42:00 -
[85] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote:Reducing the range of missiles is ok as i agree that HMLs had way too much range, especially combined with range bonuses on hulls like caracal and tengu.
Meh.
New Range of Fury missiles: Cerberus ~128km Tengu, Caracal, ~85km Drake, Nighthawk ~57km (no range bonus)
TC range script possibilities for Drake and Tengu. 10% : 63km 94km (i.e. 110% times base ranges above, or 63km for Drake, 94 for Tengu) 20% : 68km, 102km 30% : 74km, 111km
I would like more numbers on how the TCs/TEs will affect missiles. Because it's going to be interesting on how to balance them without the Tengu's HML's easily having the same range again.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head. Feature Request: -áDamnation Ship Codpiece-áfor the NeX store.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:42:00 -
[86] - Quote
Steelshine wrote:RIP Heavy Missiles, you now get to go to that special place where hybrids lived for so many years. Maybe you'll be useful again in 2016
Perhaps we can expect to see some variety in fleet compositions now. Less "oh look, another drake gang" is a good thing in my book. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
303
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:43:00 -
[87] - Quote
eat **** Tengus This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:43:00 -
[88] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote:Reducing the range of missiles is ok as i agree that HMLs had way too much range, especially combined with range bonuses on hulls like caracal and tengu. Meh. New Range of Fury missiles: Cerberus ~128km Tengu, Caracal, ~85km Drake, Nighthawk ~57km (no range bonus) TC range script possibilities for Drake and Tengu. 10% : 63km 94km (i.e. 110% times base ranges above, or 63km for Drake, 94 for Tengu) 20% : 68km, 102km 30% : 74km, 111km I would like more numbers on how the TCs/TEs will affect missiles. Because it's going to be interesting on how to balance them without the Drake and Tengu HMLs easily having the same range again.
They have to sacrifice tank to do it though. Like every other ship in the game. Seems to be more in line with everything else this way. |
Lili Lu
434
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:43:00 -
[89] - Quote
Steelshine wrote:RIP Heavy Missiles, you now get to go to that special place where hybrids lived for so many years. Maybe you'll be useful again in 2016 LOL, no. It's back to BSs with you, nbd. No more cheap ass drake blobs. Earn those tech moons brother. Well at least until they are also nerfed. I think you guys will be able to adjust.
And wtg Blarff, love the trolling.
This is all subject to tweaking on percentages. But don't anybody think the base ideas are going to be nixed. |
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:44:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
HELL YES
Death to all drakes!
|
|
Vince Draken
D00M. Northern Coalition.
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:44:00 -
[91] - Quote
Well, **** you tengus and **** you drakes v0v
Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
^ This is the best part of the changes imo.
This is a good change CCP Fozzie, it will require certian alliances in eve online to use their heads a little when coming up with fleet comps! |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
768
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:44:00 -
[92] - Quote
At least give NH some grid (FINALLY) to somewhat offset damage reduction. You cutting that of Cane shows you can easily do it. 14 |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
193
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:45:00 -
[93] - Quote
I love how every single enemy has suddenly managed to fit TDs for all the crying missile users. |
Lelob
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:45:00 -
[94] - Quote
Sounds like a caracal nerf to me :( |
Way Rin
Onion Corps SOLAR FLEET
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:48:00 -
[95] - Quote
someone cried a lot and got the result
|
muhadin
Origin. Black Legion.
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:49:00 -
[96] - Quote
+ motherfucking 1 "Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love" |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc. State Section 9
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:49:00 -
[97] - Quote
I love seeing all these "DEATH TO DRAKE AND TENGU" posts without thinking about other ships that might've had to use HM's...
Nighthawk, Caracal, Cerberus, etc.
The Caracal's getting a slight buff, but the DPS with HM's is going to be terrible.
Ed: and don't even get me started on the other two... |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:49:00 -
[98] - Quote
Since I don't use dreadnaughts, what is the implication of this change with regards to pilots using Phoenix's? |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:50:00 -
[99] - Quote
Very interesting changes.
I do like the idea of gaining more fitting options for missile boats. Many Caldari boats have already been discussed but one thing that sprung to my mind is a Torpedo Typhoon using these updated Tracking Enhancers.
Depending on how much they increase the range and reduce the explosion velocity this could turn into one mean Battleship, even more so than it is now. Especially since TEs benefit ACs as well.
The new Bellicose likewise seems to open some interesting options. Combining these new Tracking Enhancers with a bonused Target Painter will probably do very, very nasty things to frigates, even with the reduced HM damage.
I don't fly Caldari, so I'll leave other to comment on that. But I like how this will benefit Minmatar Ships with split weapon systems.
Could this possibly even be a buff to the Naglfar? And, seeing as TEs would provide exactly what Citadel Torps need, maybe even the Phoenix? |
baltec1
Bat Country
2143
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:50:00 -
[100] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Sounds like a caracal nerf to me :(
I use lights on mine so I'm getting buffed |
|
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
457
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:50:00 -
[101] - Quote
Guess we'll have to come up with another cheap fleetcomp with which we'll be able to outblob everyone on this side of the galaxy and suicide those fleets on much more expensive fleets.
Life goes on. |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:51:00 -
[102] - Quote
Uhm...cough...did you check on armor cane fittings when you were working out that PG nerf? Because armor cane will be hit really hard by this, there wasn't so much free pg
Aside this, pretty cool changes |
arbalesttom
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:52:00 -
[103] - Quote
Ehhhh wait...i thought the Drake was the problem...not heavy missiles WTG :ccp: |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:54:00 -
[104] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Steelshine wrote:RIP Heavy Missiles, you now get to go to that special place where hybrids lived for so many years. Maybe you'll be useful again in 2016 Perhaps we can expect to see some variety in fleet compositions now. Less "oh look, another drake gang" or "hey look, a tengu gang" is a good thing in my book.
I agree with this, personally between my main and alt I have Large Hybrid, Projectile, and Laser V, excited to get to use some more of them.
Just concerned about the newbros across eve, the HML + drake has been a great low SP workhorse. Perhaps too good. These numbers now look like an execution though, not a reduction in general effectiveness. |
Terrorina
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:55:00 -
[105] - Quote
Seriously nerfing HML's as a whole is way too excessive. What about us null-sec ratters who have come to rely on the Tengu because it is the only somewhat effective ship to make money while the low-high sec guys get to play FW and incursions for big isks.
I agree Drakes have become too OP for a BC ship and they should have their bonus's reduced or changed accordingly but nerfing HML's entirely is like chopping off an arm because of a broken finger.
If you're going to change them anyway, at least for the love of god give us null-sec grunts a way to make some decent money. You've already nerfed tech, which is fine.. but you didn't replace it with a bottom up way for us grunts to make money (and please don't say sigs, i'm not flying around for hours in the hopes to find a decent site and then hoping a ton of other people haven't found it first in the hopes that I have a slim chance of getting a module that is worth something if I can survive hauling it to Jita). |
Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
160
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:55:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Pisov viet wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Is that only heavy missiles, or also heavy assault missiles? Just heavy missiles.
and what about the heavy assault missile? doesn't it need a buff? noone uses them... [Discussion] - New POS System (Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) |
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard Bora Alis
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:55:00 -
[107] - Quote
Huurraaaa!!!! |
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:55:00 -
[108] - Quote
For everyone comparing blasters to heavy missiles, you're dead wrong and they should be compared to HAM's. |
Malleus Sicarius
0utLaw. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:56:00 -
[109] - Quote
lol, keep nerfing those damn useless ships maybe goons will refit to other kinds of fleet doctrine ships ..... YOU TAKING AWAY GOONS TOYS, REALLY?
THEY ALLREADY STARTED CRYING ON STATE OF GOONION BOUT THIS NERF :))))
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:56:00 -
[110] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Pisov viet wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Is that only heavy missiles, or also heavy assault missiles? Just heavy missiles. and what about the heavy assault missile? doesn't it need a buff? noone uses them... ....because HML's were too awesome, not because HAMS were bad. |
|
Sebastian Hoch
Black Lance Fidelas Constans
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:57:00 -
[111] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. With 7x T2 HAM launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing Scourge outputs 401 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 720mm Artys and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 371 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 477 DPS. The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range or 320 DPS with HAMs. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? Goodbye solo missile platforms! CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other high tier battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho.
Don't forget missile boats still have their native disadvantages of travel time to apply dps and unique vulnerability to firewall defenses. Even if missile boats are made equal in damage and range, they would already have issues in comparison.
|
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:57:00 -
[112] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Earn those tech moons brother. Well at least until they are also nerfed. i see what you did there |
DeadDuck
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:58:00 -
[113] - Quote
So HAM's continue to be crap and the Sacrilege useless... |
Cravenel
Confederated Armed Traders High Rollers
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:58:00 -
[114] - Quote
how is this an expansion... this is just another irrelevant, arbitrary change to game mechanics.
Fleets will switch to yet another optimum ship, people who can fly any ship will just buy another one and the only people who will see the difference in their game experience will be new player who were unaware that choosing Caldari as your start race is a terrible mistake. |
StevieTopSiders
Evolution The Retirement Club
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:59:00 -
[115] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
I lived to see the day!
**** YEAH WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP
This is literally the best change ever.
CCP saving the game. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:59:00 -
[116] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:undeniable proof that CCP is staffed by ncdot and nulli :\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What, did CCP fire all the Goon Devs then?
|
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:00:00 -
[117] - Quote
All of what CCP seems to have been doing lately indicates an implicit drone boat buff. Drones can get the same-ish range you desire with HMLs if you fit for it. And have you tried TDing a single drone? Bet you'll feel smart after you try that. But we'll see. |
Alara IonStorm
3159
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:00:00 -
[118] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: ....because HML's were too awesome, not because HAMS were bad.
No it was because HAM's were bad along with Medium Beams and Rails and the ships they go on.
Cutting this basically means the only LR Medium Weapon boat that is semi viable is the Cane.
They should not be nerfing the Drakes Dmg by 20% they should be fixing LR Medium Guns so they don't require a double Dmg bonus like on the Cane and can actually be used on Cruisers and Battlecruisers. |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
261
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:01:00 -
[119] - Quote
Heavy missile damage nerf makes sense to me. The difference in damage between the HML and HAMs has always seemed too slight in my opinion, especially when combined with the Drake hull.
Drakes can kick out 400+ raw dps at 85kms and still fit a tank using HMLs at present. The bottom line is that now I have one of those annoying signatures. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:02:00 -
[120] - Quote
I don't really understand why CCP continue to do this "pendulum" style of balancing. Make something overpowered -> useless -> overpowered -> useless. |
|
Slighet
Perkone Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:02:00 -
[121] - Quote
Yeah have to chime in and agree that that HML nerf is excessive. Agree with a bit of a range nerf (though do remember there's no falloff), but HML dps is already fairly anemic, do they really need slapping so hard? Especially as there's already the delayed application of DPS compared to turret weapons.
If it's aimed at the Drake, which I presume it is, isn't the problem more about its tank and slot layout?
|
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:03:00 -
[122] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:Heavy missile damage nerf makes sense to me. The difference in damage between the HML and HAMs has always seemed too slight in my opinion, especially when combined with the Drake hull.
Drakes can kick out 400+ raw dps at 85kms and still fit a tank using HMLs at present.
what would you know you're in empire |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:03:00 -
[123] - Quote
The current proposals for missile changes as they stand fix a lot of what drake blobs cause in null sec, which is understandable, but it just makes missile boats so much worse in small scale PvP, and this is the reason people think some of the nerfs are too much. Nerfing the HM damage so much will make drake fleets less useful, but on the small scale, you can no longer do anything useful in any HM boats. The nano drake gang becomes horrible, Cerbs get even worse, nighthawks get even worse, caracal is thrown right back down to where it currently is, and so on. Just because these changes help out huge null sec blobs to use more than drakes doesnt fix it for everyone else. Clearly quite a few people have issues with the damage nerf so it's reasonable to decrease it at least. (once again, 10% instead of 20%, while buffing HAM damage, would be optimal) |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
120
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:03:00 -
[124] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
The first one (tracking enhancers) will make missile boats absolute frigate murders. Just change your script and viola you can switch from long range to anti-frig point defense. A very bad decision.
The second one (TDs affect missiles) will make TDs the must have module for all frigates... having "must have" modules is very sad. |
Way Rin
Onion Corps SOLAR FLEET
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:03:00 -
[125] - Quote
-ü-üp primary target, missile launch - Start! |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:04:00 -
[126] - Quote
Meditril wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time The first one (tracking enhancers) will make missile boats absolute frigate murders. Just change your script and viola you can switch from long range to anti-frig point defense. A very bad decision. The second one (TDs affect missiles) will make TDs the must have module for all frigates... having "must have" modules is very sad.
Must have modules currently include a long / short point and a prop mod |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:05:00 -
[127] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:I don't really understand why CCP continue to do this "pendulum" style of balancing. Make something overpowered -> useless -> overpowered -> useless.
Why use a scalpel when a hatchet feels so much more rewarding? |
Emphyria
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:06:00 -
[128] - Quote
Don't forget to re-adjust TC/TE skill requirements into being more missile friendly if these ideas go through. |
Rexorol
Gallentian Legitimate Businessmen
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:08:00 -
[129] - Quote
A small request from CCP: Can you let us know which ships you approve of and feel are nicely balanced so I can just fly those?
I feel like I wasted 5 months of training with specializing in Caldari cruisers and HML's now. Yeah, I can take advantage of what I learned before the nerf, but if the hammer is going to come down this hard on both their damage and their range, there really isn't any point to flying Caldari missile cruisers/battlecruisers after this winter expansion.
Time to start speculating on what will be considered overpowered next, and get my skill training started before it happens. |
Berluth Luthian
14th Legion Eternal Evocations
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:08:00 -
[130] - Quote
I'm thinking too, that if the new Destoryers can scale up as TD/support/anti-tackle with medium turrets, we will see the T1 BC blobs have to go for some much more mixed doctrine.
Combined arms ftw. |
|
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:08:00 -
[131] - Quote
What are you ******* whining about for this owns This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:10:00 -
[132] - Quote
I like the basic principle of TDs/TCs/TEs having an effect on missiles, but I don't think it should be the same modules. One of the things that make missiles strategically interesting is that you need a different set of tools to deal with them versus turret ships. It's part of EVE's eternal intel war. If you know your opponent is bringing missiles, you can bring something that would counter that but not guns (e.g., a firewall, smaller ships). If you know they're bringing guns, you can bring something that counters that but not missiles (TDs, fight from range).
In short, I'd prefer to see TD/TC/TE equivalents for missiles, but that are their own mods. That preserves all of the distinct strategic benefits of missiles while still allowing for missile users to adjust their range and "tracking" much like turret users, and to be countered the same way. Also, it makes more sense "flavor"-wise. Missiles don't have "tracking". |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2935
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:10:00 -
[133] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:and what about the heavy assault missile? doesn't it need a buff? noone uses them...
Well, thats because the HAM is supposed to be the high-damage, close range variant. Right now heavy missiles are a high-damage, long range variant. There's little reason to equip HAM's when you can get get almost the same DPS and much longer range. Scaling back the heavy missile DPS allows the HAM's to shine as the superior choice if you want maximum DPS. I predict that HAM's will become much more popular for Drakes, caracals, and other ships wanting to achieve optimum DPS in a fitting. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1225
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:11:00 -
[134] - Quote
Schmell wrote:Uhm...cough...did you check on armor cane fittings when you were working out that PG nerf? Because armor cane will be hit really hard by this, there wasn't so much free pg left even with 220mm guns
Aside this, pretty cool changes
1600mm + 220 IIs + Medium Neut IIs + MWD II without a single fitting mod is tight for you?
1600mm + 425 IIs + HML IIs + meta MWD also too tight?
Do you need to have free PG left even with all slots filled?
These minmatards
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Hoarr
RPS holdings
44
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:12:00 -
[135] - Quote
I can't believe no one has latched on to how ******* rockstar HAMs are going to be now. Most missile boats have a decent number of mid slots and the TC will ******* own.
As far as the PG nerf goes, I think it's a bit much especially for armor canes. I can understand where Fozzie is coming from, though. |
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:13:00 -
[136] - Quote
Fozzie, will TDs affect only guided missiles or ALL missiles? If they impact even rockets, HAMs, and torps then I think that'd be a bit OP. It would also make your efforts in implicitly buffing HAMs pretty much futile; a single TD would halve its flight time and a HAM would go like 7km. |
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:15:00 -
[137] - Quote
Also TE affecting missiles is a steath buff for nagflar ;P |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:16:00 -
[138] - Quote
I agree with the majority of the posters that the damage nerf on heavy missiles is too much, I agree on a damage nerf but 20% is honestly too much, I expected around 10% but double that really makes me feel like heavies would be almost useless.
I understand that TD/TC/TE effecting missiles somewhat compensates for the range nerf and yeah, I agree that spewing missiles to lock range with no range bonus was abit ridiculous too. But heavies never really had problem applying damage (only with fast frigs but nothing except small weapons can hit those), damage mods remain unchanged so a 20% hit to dps is huge and can't be compensated for. |
Eternal Error
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
135
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:16:00 -
[139] - Quote
20% off the HMs seems a bit excessive to me, maybe try 10-15% and go from there.
The hurricane nerf looks good, and I think that that one is non-controversial enough that you might want to roll it out a bit early if you can.
Medium rails need looked at. |
Way Rin
Onion Corps SOLAR FLEET
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:17:00 -
[140] - Quote
liquid space, slow missiles, what's next? Sorry for my bad English... |
|
Desiderya
Wiyrkomi Honor Guard
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:18:00 -
[141] - Quote
Quick question regarding TE/TC and TD effects:
Will they work with all/against all missiles or only the guided missiles? Current rigs and skills that affect explosion size and explosion velocity are only affecting Light, Heavy and Cruise Missiles, so a clarification would be neat.
|
zoturi
Erasers inc. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:18:00 -
[142] - Quote
Thank you. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4630
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:19:00 -
[143] - Quote
That's a really massive damage nerf to the heavy missile, especially with the range nerf as well.
20%? Really?
Even 10% would be pretty heavy; 20% is just going to render most of the medium missile boats nearly useless. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Deyo
BURN EDEN Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:19:00 -
[144] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:I don't really understand why CCP continue to do this "pendulum" style of balancing. Make something overpowered -> useless -> overpowered -> useless.
I am afraid this will happen. It will make TD's either a "must fit module" or nerf them to oblivion (like sensor dampeners of old). At least make them 2 separate modules, instead of piling everything on poor TD's. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:19:00 -
[145] - Quote
Range and damage nerf to HMLs is absolutely right, tho maybe a bit too heavy handed as proposed.
TD/TC/TEs affecting missiles is a very interesting change, I approve. I also approve of changes to T2 missile ammo.
Are we finally gonna see more HAM Drakes now? |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:19:00 -
[146] - Quote
Lord MuffloN wrote:For everyone comparing blasters to heavy missiles, you're dead wrong and they should be compared to HAM's.
HAMs still need a slight damage boost IMO. But, yeah, this. |
Way Rin
Onion Corps SOLAR FLEET
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:20:00 -
[147] - Quote
thus missile ships lined by turrets fallof Sorry for my bad English... |
Lady LowSec
The Magnificents Space Mongolians
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:20:00 -
[148] - Quote
OMG Leave the missiles alone! they need a buff not a Nerf. Missiles take time to reach their target. And when guns shoot, it is almost instant. Buff the missiles, don't Nerf them. Some of us are purely caldari and live and die by missiles. And why in the world would a tracking disruptor affect missiles? Crows would be ineffective of anything now beside just tackle. You guys already messed up the paper thin bombers switching them to a close range ship instead of the long range we loved when they used cruise missiles.
The game gets better, then u make it way worst in the very next patch. LEAVE THE MISSILES ALONE! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4630
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:21:00 -
[149] - Quote
Rexorol wrote:A small request from CCP: Can you let us know which ships you approve of and feel are nicely balanced so I can just fly those?
I feel like I wasted 5 months of training with specializing in Caldari cruisers and HML's now. Yeah, I can take advantage of what I learned before the nerf, but if the hammer is going to come down this hard on both their damage and their range, there really isn't any point to flying Caldari missile cruisers/battlecruisers after this winter expansion.
Time to start speculating on what will be considered overpowered next, and get my skill training started before it happens.
It's incredibly relaxing to have trained all T2 weapons :smug: Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Arthello
D00M. Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:21:00 -
[150] - Quote
How about fixing the Drake before you nerf all the other BC's. The Drake is the number 1 overpowered ship in EVE at the moment. |
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:23:00 -
[151] - Quote
After mulling these Missile changes over for a bit, where does this leave Caldari? They have historically been the "long-range" race. But now all their long-range weapons suck in the medium ship class. Even ECM is getting the (well deserved) nerfbat in the winter.
To make matters worse. The standard doctrine of long-range/high-PG vs short-range/low-PG weapons was reversed for Hvy Missiles & HAMs. And Caldari ships had the powergrid to push them towards hvy missiles. The Drake can use HAMs effectively. Not so much with the Nighthawk, Crapacal, and Cerb.
Some sort of missile change needed to be made. But I think the overall effect is going to be rather severe for Caldari specced players. It'll be like Gallente's 2008, but all at once instead of spread out over 3 expansions. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:23:00 -
[152] - Quote
I'm picturing a world where, instead of making sweeping changes across the board twice a year, CCP could make small iterative changes once a month or so, and watch the effect. Then maybe change some more if it wasn't enough. |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
120
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:23:00 -
[153] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Meditril wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time The first one (tracking enhancers) will make missile boats absolute frigate murders. Just change your script and viola you can switch from long range to anti-frig point defense. A very bad decision. The second one (TDs affect missiles) will make TDs the must have module for all frigates... having "must have" modules is very sad. Must have modules currently include a long / short point and a prop mod
This is true, but not a reason to add one more module to the list of "must have modules".
@Devs: Will there be a difference how Tracking Enhancers and TDs are affecting Guided vs. Unguided missiles? Currently it is for example not possible to change (reduce) explosion radius of Unguided missiles with Warhead Rigor Catalyst rigs as far as I know. Will this mean that Unguided missiles will be only affected 50% by Tracking Enhancers / TDs compared to Guided missiles? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4630
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:24:00 -
[154] - Quote
Arthello wrote:How about fixing the Drake before you nerf all the other BC's. The Drake is the number 1 overpowered ship in EVE at the moment.
But Tengus are just fine even though they do more DPS, have more tank, better resists, longer targetting range and higher sensor strength, faster m,issile velocity and are much smaller and faster, because you like flying those, right? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
289
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:24:00 -
[155] - Quote
20% nerf to damage is ridiculous. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4633
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:26:00 -
[156] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:I'm picturing a world where, instead of making sweeping changes across the board twice a year, CCP could make small iterative changes once a month or so, and watch the effect. Then maybe change some more if it wasn't enough.
I'm picturing a world where CCP devs don't derive a huge amount of entertainment fromt he reactions they get from trolling the ever-living crap out of us.
(It's pretty dull. I'm mostly playing some other game) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Sebastian Hoch
Black Lance Fidelas Constans
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:26:00 -
[157] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:I don't really understand why CCP continue to do this "pendulum" style of balancing. Make something overpowered -> useless -> overpowered -> useless.
I have observed the same and not just in ship changes. I think it is by design--the purpose being to 'reset' the game board once groups and individuals have aligned themselves around related goals and achieved great success exploiting a mechanic. The desired result is to keep fresh challenges alive in the game at the cost of what was was achieved and fairly won. This applies to training/ doctrines and isk sinks, Anomoly buff/nerf, tech buff/nerf, Gun mining buff/nerf, incursion buff/nerf, FW buff/future nerf, ect.. Each change provides a new "gold rush" that players make goals around and eventually reap above average rewards, but whose welcome is worn out over time. The principle extends to the training goals that players make.
Unlike other MMO's, which drive massive content infusions with new releases, Eve has to keep more or less the same universe interesting.
What we really need CCP to provide is the new character choice of a Panda and this game will be crap until they do that. |
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:26:00 -
[158] - Quote
All I'm hearing is "Ohnoooz, my long range weapons don't nearly outdamage my close range weapons anymore!"
Look at hybrids and cry me a river. |
Z1gy
Vindicator Corporation Strategic Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:27:00 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread. I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible. I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.
what about those that use armor hurricane? 1600mm plate? |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
713
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:27:00 -
[160] - Quote
It's a bloody joke that CCP keeps balancing this game around fleet combat. Even if you'd argue that fleet combat is the ultimate "goal" in EVE, it's still lag riddled and so full of pilots + potential varieties/different roles/segmets of the fleet, that that's just wrong to begin with.
* Drake is not overpowered in any way until you field a blob of them. * Tengu has too high damage output overboard when it combines the dmg + engineer subsystem, but a cloaky Tengu for example has lower damage output than a recon. This could easily be tweaked by (as a wise man told me) a simple RoF fix. The balance between the kin and non-kin damage is good as is. * Nighthawk is already very low on the pecking order and does need alot of love, especially in the damage department (but it's also quite sad it can't even sport an X-L booster). * Caracal and Cerberus lol. Khanid ships with HML lol.
TL;DR HML is not an issue, balancing game around fleet combat is, and a tweak for the Tengu damage subsystem could be in place.
(edit; oh, I could buy the argument that HML hits frigs too easily.. tho the damage output of HML's is not an issue, in fact it's pretty low in non-dps-subsystem-Tengu cases) AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
|
BadAssMcKill
Ghost Headquarters The Ghost Army
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:28:00 -
[161] - Quote
Missiles are not turrets, I really don't like having TDs/TEs affecting them.
Starships were meant to fly~ |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:28:00 -
[162] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Arthello wrote:How about fixing the Drake before you nerf all the other BC's. The Drake is the number 1 overpowered ship in EVE at the moment. But Tengus are just fine even though they do more DPS, have more tank, better resists, longer targetting range and higher sensor strength, faster m,issile velocity and are much smaller and faster, because you like flying those, right?
If only drakes were nerfed, only newer/poorer players would be effected. |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:28:00 -
[163] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:(It's pretty dull. I'm mostly playing some other game) How is that different from the current situation? |
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:29:00 -
[164] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Lord MuffloN wrote:For everyone comparing blasters to heavy missiles, you're dead wrong and they should be compared to HAM's. HAMs still need a slight damage boost IMO. But, yeah, this. If HM are supposed to be the same as rails, arty and beams then maybe they should be fixed first and then a slight reduction to the HM and a slight buff to HAMs to equalize things. Not a range nerf to HMs though if they are supposed to be the LR version. That's a bit much. |
Danny Centauri
Ghost Headquarters The Ghost Army
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:29:00 -
[165] - Quote
Wow quite shocking to read the comments, why on earth are you people comparing HMLs to pulse/blasters/autos? For god sake atleast compare like to like weapons platforms to spot weaknesses.
Don't like the HML changes, I find med rails a hell of a lot more frustrating! If you really want to compare drake to blaster boats atleast use HAM stats otherwise reading your posts is just cringe worthy. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4633
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:30:00 -
[166] - Quote
I'd be OK with a 20% damage nerf to heavies if they gave the Drake 8 launcher slots!
DO IT FOZZIE YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
EDIT: Oh yeah and give the Cerb another launcher too, plus some grid and CPU, for the love of mike. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:30:00 -
[167] - Quote
Real men HAM Drake anyway "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
290
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:30:00 -
[168] - Quote
In other words, its another nerf to small gang and solo (where the damage nerf comes into play), and another buff to blobs (where the damage and range nerf doesnt matter nearly as much).
The entire theme of winter so far is "buff blobs, make solo impossible."
CCP obviously wants every in blobs (since making #s important makes ccp more isk), and is ok with removing small gang (lol ewar buffs, more free damage mitigation that is easier to get, nerfs to the most common solo ships) |
Domiblob
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:31:00 -
[169] - Quote
This is pretty much the most badly thought out balancing change I've ever seen. I don't disagree for a second that the Drake is over-powered, but it's over-powered because it has a battleship sized tank and huge range (which isn't currently affected by tracking). The nerf to a Drake should be in the form of a reduction in tank, followed by a reduction in range, if anything. The last thing that needs touching is it's DPS, which is already it's most underwhelming quality. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:31:00 -
[170] - Quote
I have to agree with everyone else on this one. I love my drake and I love to go solo'ing in it, but when you kill the dps by 20%.....really ccp? really?
Nerf the range, acceptable. Make them receive TD penalties. we'll see how much it hurts them Kill their DPS: USELESS SHIP NOW
I agree, bring the nerf hammer down on drakes and canes, but make sure we nerf the right part and we do efficiently. If we haven't learned anything in the past, panic nerfs to the extreme ruin ships for years to follow *cough* gallente *cough*
Also, side note: Someone better be looking at TD's native strengths at all lvl 5 skills on an non-bonused ship and how they can be avoided so that the entire eve playerbase doens't automatically fit scram/web/TD before going out to solo. They need to be specialized enough that they are useful, but not so much that they ruin everything |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4633
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:31:00 -
[171] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Malcanis wrote:(It's pretty dull. I'm mostly playing some other game) How is that different from the current situation?
Thatsthejoke.gif Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:31:00 -
[172] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I'd be OK with a 20% damage nerf to heavies if they gave the Drake 8 launcher slots!
DO IT FOZZIE YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO
EDIT: Oh yeah and give the Cerb another launcher too, plus some grid and CPU, for the love of mike.
The ship model screams this should have 8 launchers.
|
Ensign X
229
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:32:00 -
[173] - Quote
Whiners: DRAEK AND TENGOO TOO POWERFUL! NERFFFF!!
CCP: Welp, they do make a good point. The Drake and Tengu both use Heavy Missiles, so let's nerf Heavy Missiles.
Random, intelligent ex-CCP employee: But won't that nerf every other ship that uses Heavy Missiles?
CCP: So what, nerfing 1 weapon system is WAY easier than nerfing 2 ships.
Random, intelligent ex-CCP employee: But aren't we already nerfing the Drake?
CCP: Shut up, you're fired.
Whiners: YAY! |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
327
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:32:00 -
[174] - Quote
have you considered to look at the maelstrom at the same time you look at the drake ? nerfing only the drake (and tengu) could have some not so nice consequences for quite a lot of pilots :( |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
195
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:32:00 -
[175] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. With 7x T2 HAM launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing Scourge outputs 401 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 720mm Artys and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 371 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 477 DPS. The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range or 320 DPS with HAMs. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? Goodbye solo missile platforms! CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other high tier battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho.
Hate to tell you this bud but fitting an oversize tank (LSE) is not "fulfilling its intended purpose". Having to fit smaller guns or use a fitting mod to fit a ship size aboves tanking mod seems pretty sensible to me......
|
The End
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:32:00 -
[176] - Quote
Why don't you just remove missiles altogether and just give us sticks and rocks to toss at one another ? |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Fatal Ascension
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:33:00 -
[177] - Quote
While the nerf to HML nerf to range i can agree with, the nerf to damage is pretty dam awful 20% and is a terrible terrible idea imo. Cerebus HAC has just went from bad to Eagle bad, and trust me there now both worst HAC there is....... |
Melina Lin
Universal Frog
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:33:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly Weren't these of all missiles the ones with the absolute shortest range? I hope they still make it out the launch tubes without a tracking mod. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4633
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:33:00 -
[179] - Quote
Danny Centauri wrote:Wow quite shocking to read the comments, why on earth are you people comparing HMLs to pulse/blasters/autos? For god sake atleast compare like to like weapons platforms to spot weaknesses.
Don't like the HML changes, I find med rails a hell of a lot more frustrating! If you really want to compare drake to blaster boats atleast use HAM stats otherwise reading your posts is just cringe worthy.
So your argument, if I am following it correctly, would appear to be:
"Medium rails are crappy and heavy missiles are good, so the right thing to do is make the missiles as crappy as the rails"
Yes? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:33:00 -
[180] - Quote
Range reduction is great. As a drake pilot it was really unfair to the other BCs that I was so awesome cause I could hit so far.
However the damage reduction.... Well let's just say it's not so good. Drakes were already out DPS'ed by canes and the cane only had 6 turrets. In addition drakes are slower, can't fit neuts, have no damage type variety. My drake could hit maybe 400 DPS. Canes were hitting 550+ DPS. I think HMs should get a slight (5-10%) damage reduction, but HAMs should get a slight damage upgrade (5-10%). Really make HAM drakes competitive with Canes.
I can't wait to see what CCP has in store for the drake. But don't nerf HM damage by 20%. This in one thing that can be fixed with a nerf and a buff. |
|
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:33:00 -
[181] - Quote
Some thoughts:
20% damage reduction? Maybe a bit too high, 10-15% perhaps. Are the changes to range and so only for guided missiles or all? TD's will need an overall nerf, not much. Medium rails and beams still suck. Hurricanes double damage bonus makes 720 artys "too good" compared to the rest of the mid sized weaponry, but I'm sure it'll be nerfed once the hammer swings to battlecruisers, oh, they're next on the list are they? *glee*
EDIT: Seeing Minmatar pilots having to choose between gank and tank, their misty eyes and dialated pupills along with the general panic and confusion, oh god, it's so sweet and so long overdue, the saying that he who waits for something good never waits too long, it's so true, it was all worth this.
But all in all I think most of the changes are good, keep it up! |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
458
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:34:00 -
[182] - Quote
While I'm not particularly against those changes, I feel the need to state/remind a few things.
HAMs really are underused right now. Except for the few HAM Drakes and the HAM PVE Tengus (I don't see many HAM PVE Tengus, and everytime I suggest that a corpmate should use HAM, it's always the same "I want to shoot farther than 5kms, thank you"), every Tengu is a HM Tengu, every Drake is a HM Drake.
You should really look into those so you can released both changes at the same time.
I'm against the Hurricane change. Change one of the two damage bonuses to something else, remove the missile launcher slots and add a turret hardpoint. That would help with the PG nerf you want, wouldn't hurt the DPS so much, and it would definetly look cool.
This is a creative nerf, and it would still allow armor tanked autocanes. Which is good.
And about the HM missile changes, I really feel like the problem is the Drake, not the HMs. The Drake's problem is its tank. It has a good damage projection, low DPS and very high tank (That can challenge battleships' ).
This has to change. But I don't think that giving it an even worse DPS will fix it the way it should be fixed.
I'm pretty sure the solution revolves around the Drakes' bonuses.
Also, I don't know if It's completly out of the "Winter rebalance patch", but please, please look into BS sized missiles so that the Raven becomes a usable battleship again, for both PVP and PVE purposes (What I mean is that new Caldaries train for the Drake, and then train for the Tengu. Make it so that it's actually cool to aim for a usable Raven).
If you want a couple ideas for the Raven :
A PG buff (+3000 PWG so you can actually fit dual Heavy Neutralizers without fitting mods. It's a good way to make an otherwise baddish ship a good ship. The Tempest without its' neuts would be "meh").
A change to the "10% bonus to velocity for all BS sized missiles" bonus is required.
Along with this, buff torpedoes speed.
Who shoots Cruise missiles at long range ? I mean, for PVE purposes, you won't shoot farther than 100km anyway, and for PVP purposes...I don't think I need to explain.
Now Torpedoes. Without skills, they hit at 9kms. Which is...less than enjoyable. Maybe they'll be usable with the new tracking enhancer change and that'll be cool. But seriously. Give torps a bit more range, and switch that velocity bonus to something usable/useful. Maybe you'll end up with a usable PVP Missile battleship. Even tho I'm pretty sure this will never happen.
|
Sellendis
Masters of Zen Circle-Of-Two
156
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:34:00 -
[183] - Quote
Holy crap people, its all ok, since we are getting a massive Cruise miss. buff.....o wait.....what? Didn't think so..
So can CCP tell us what Caldari ships we are supposed to fly? Since the rest of the lineup are almost useless at their roles, Raven, CN raven, SNI. What about rails? Crappy overall.
One working weapon system nerfed with range and dmg? Ok, what do we get in return? Can we get 20% DPS and range buff for minmatar ACs? It would only be fair. |
Grog Drinker
The Tuskers
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:35:00 -
[184] - Quote
Not sure I like the tracking changes with tds and missiles. The HML and cane nerf both look good and should shake up the meta game significantly. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:38:00 -
[185] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Alx Warlord wrote:and what about the heavy assault missile? doesn't it need a buff? noone uses them... Well, thats because the HAM is supposed to be the high-damage, close range variant. Right now heavy missiles are a high-damage, long range variant. There's little reason to equip HAM's when you can get get almost the same DPS and much longer range. Scaling back the heavy missile DPS allows the HAM's to shine as the superior choice if you want maximum DPS. I predict that HAM's will become much more popular for Drakes, caracals, and other ships wanting to achieve optimum DPS in a fitting.
HMs > 10% decrease in damage HAMs > 10% increase in damage
will make things more reasonable |
Anessa Smith
Interference Research Inc Beyond Event Horizon.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:38:00 -
[186] - Quote
does it mean that faction HMLs with faction missiles are going to do more damage than t2 HMLs with t2 fury missiles? |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:38:00 -
[187] - Quote
I think the range nerf is just fine, but the damage nerf to go with it is a bit much. It's not like HMLs are exactly DPS monsters as it is, they only seem sort of out of line with how far you can project their average damage to. I don't see them being useful in any role at all after this nerf. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
292
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:38:00 -
[188] - Quote
Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?) |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:41:00 -
[189] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?)
TCs, TEs, and Drones really are something that need to be added to the game I guess "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:41:00 -
[190] - Quote
Sellendis wrote:One working weapon system nerfed with range and dmg? Ok, what do we get in return? Can we get 20% DPS and range buff for minmatar ACs? It would only be fair. You might have a future at CCP. You should put in an application.
|
|
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:41:00 -
[191] - Quote
RIP Faildari, hello Amarr supremacy. |
Memrox
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:41:00 -
[192] - Quote
Fozzie was a null sec blobber....... need i say more? |
baltec1
Bat Country
2143
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:42:00 -
[193] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?)
Use ECM?
Use disruptors? |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
194
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:43:00 -
[194] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?) You ********? Drones basically ignore TDs. Neuts too. Painters, webs, TCs, TEs all help counter TDs. Also ammo and weapon choice. Piloting still applies, orbitting at optimal with guns vs a missile user hurts your tracking but reduces incoming damage, or sit still for both doing max dps. Also, everyone always wants another tackle mod, and cap injector, and tank mod, and dps mod... |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
181
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:43:00 -
[195] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?) Fit a tracking enhancer, fit a tracking computer, fit a web, fit a painter, fit neuts, use appropriate ammo, or use ecm. |
Peter Tjordenskiold
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:44:00 -
[196] - Quote
hahaha even a Enyo makes more damage than a Drake |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
714
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:45:00 -
[197] - Quote
Making TD's work against missiles is a major mistake too btw. I like the idea of having a TD-ish mechanic work against missiles, that is not a bad thing per se. But when you make missiles affected by TD then you have a nobrainer to fit TD on every ship that has midslots to spare.
Now picture this; which race has the most mids to spare? Gallente. They also happen to be short range (blaster and drones). when TD will affect all weapontypes, Gallente will just force people to go up close or run. It's a bit too early to paint doomsday scenarios, but this could very well rupture the whole game in the nationality balance. I don't mind flying drone boats myself, my Gallente skills are top notch, but it's worrying overall if the devs just don't even think about this on such an early state of development process, to be honest. Make a new module, TD-ish, that counters missiles, and you got my love, that's a whole different story. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:46:00 -
[198] - Quote
Vicar2008 wrote:While the nerf to HML nerf to range i can agree with, the nerf to damage is pretty dam awful 20% and is a terrible terrible idea imo. Cerebus HAC has just went from bad to Eagle bad, and trust me there now both worst HAC there is.......
I fear this is the truth :(
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
195
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:46:00 -
[199] - Quote
Peter Tjordenskiold wrote:hahaha even a Enyo makes more damage than a Drake Than a HAM drake? With the same range? The same EHP behind it to turn DPS into a larger total damage applied? |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
143
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:47:00 -
[200] - Quote
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHA
another nerf
first where supers... then titans... then lets kill otec and nerf tec... now lets kill the drake blob, the welpcanes blob and all tengus blob (what a coincidence, all ship doctrines the CFC uses in mass, lol, pure coincidence of course, no tinfoil teories here)
This just make my work day
Can you see we are like the Borg, we will just adapt and tomorrow we will just use "put be best low cost ship name vs dps ratio here" to blob all our enemies again and again and again!
...and 6 months from now we will all be here nerfing that ship and/or weapon system we will be using at that time...
You can try but you can't stop the blob !
Fake edit: I can see all carriers beeing nerfed next.... "no sentry drones for you" Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
292
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:47:00 -
[201] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?) Fit a tracking enhancer, fit a tracking computer, fit a web, fit a painter, fit neuts, use appropriate ammo, or use ecm.
Do you really think that a tracking computer counters a tracking disruptor?
PS. Show me the shield cane fit with a tracking computer and a web. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
432
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:47:00 -
[202] - Quote
Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. |
Anja Suorsa
Wiyrkomi Honor Guard
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:48:00 -
[203] - Quote
I support all proposed changes for the Winter Expac so far with the exception of
CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Wow. That's pretty terrible. Entire Caldari cruiser/Battlecruiser line made obsolete at range with Med rails being rubbish and HML nerferd into the floor.
Please reconsider. 10% decrease to HML damage and 10% increase for HAMs would surely make more sense?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
This doesn't take into account any travel time on your missiles, already the big disadvantage they have. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
292
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:50:00 -
[204] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
Your analysis doesnt include that HMLs dont do full damage to frigates and cruisers (or particularly fast BCs even), regardless of how you pilot. |
Cede Forster
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:50:00 -
[205] - Quote
my dear drake, my lovely tengu it was fun while it lasted i am sorry but we must part 20% - i am sure you understand we can stay friends - i promise i visit you
in the hanger
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:50:00 -
[206] - Quote
What does ccp have against the nighthawk is the real question, 2 hml bonuses lol. Such an awesome looking ship too ...... shame. |
muhadin
Origin. Black Legion.
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:50:00 -
[207] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHA another nerf first where supers... then titans... then lets kill otec and nerf tec... now lets kill the drake blob, the welpcanes blob and all tengus blob (what a coincidence, all ship doctrines the CFC uses in mass, lol, pure coincidence of course, no tinfoil teories here) This just make my work day Can you see we are like the Borg, we will just adapt and tomorrow we will just use "put be best low cost ship name vs dps ratio here" to blob all our enemies again and again and again!...and 6 months from now we will all be here nerfing that ship and/or weapon system we will be using at that time... You can try but you can't stop the blob !Fake edit: I can see all carriers beeing nerfed next.... "no sentry drones for you"
I hope you packed an umbrella and tissues "Love the Life you Live, Live the Life you Love" |
Lin Fatale
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:53:00 -
[208] - Quote
Drake: You killing one of the last usefull caldari ships - range nerf ok, dmg nerf not, drake dmg is already low
Cane: kill the last usefull roaming bc
CCP which BC do you recommend for romings in your super blobby fail sovmechanic universe?
|
Corteztkiller
Pwn 'N Play Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:53:00 -
[209] - Quote
I'm actually largely fighting against drakes so this nerf means good things for me but I actually think it's a little too rough on drakes. So many people use them for PVE and heavy missiles aren't exactly damage machines. Drakes are good for the CFC and HBC because they can be perma mwded and have huge shield buffer, paired with great range.
I think a little less of a damage loss would be fair. Mind you with TE's and TC's affecting missiles maybe assault missiles will be more useful.
So basically the TLDR is that my gut reaction is the damage nerf is too much 5 or 10% paired with the range nerf seems fair. Then maybe make it harder to mount a decent tank on a perma MWD drake. That would be a better nerf. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:53:00 -
[210] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?) Fit a tracking enhancer, fit a tracking computer, fit a web, fit a painter, fit neuts, use appropriate ammo, or use ecm.
On my shield tanking ship with 2 slots left over for ewar, one of them is a disruptor, the other one is a web...yeah, i can fit all of those! There is a reason missile ships werent supposed to be affected by TDs and it's because as mostly shield tanks, they don't have ROOM to fit stuff that can fight back, whereas armor ships have 3,4 slots for ewar defence!
As well, if you are a turret boat, if you are getting your tracking disrupted, you can just minimize transversal to hit for your full DPS. With missiles, you cant ever do anything to fix your explosion radius/velocity, except use a TP. It's basically like "You can't do your maximum DPS anymore if I TD you". That's stupid, specific piloting should be able to combat ewar (Getting close up/minimizing transversal)
People are saying "oh, just fit a TC and then you nullify the effect of the TD on you!" Yeah, because my shield tanking missile ship needs another mid slot ewar defence as it is! I already can't fit ECCM, Painters, TDs, or anything else, because I need a slot for a disruptor, web, and MWD! That means the minimum of 6 slots to fit a 3-slot tank and 3 slot ewar is not enough to combat ewar or fight back in any way. Adding TCs to that makes combating ewar on a missile boat even more of a pain! |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:53:00 -
[211] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs.
Unless beams and projectiles are suddenly modified to be somehow "deflected" by smart bombs, HMLs will become 100% useless in fleet sized warfare.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
292
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:55:00 -
[212] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Ravcharas wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?) Fit a tracking enhancer, fit a tracking computer, fit a web, fit a painter, fit neuts, use appropriate ammo, or use ecm. On my shield tanking ship with 2 slots left over for ewar, one of them is a disruptor, the other one is a web...yeah, i can fit all of those! There is a reason missile ships werent supposed to be affected by TDs and it's because as mostly shield tanks, they don't have ROOM to fit stuff that can fight back, whereas armor ships have 3,4 slots for ewar defence! As well, if you are a turret boat, if you are getting your tracking disrupted, you can just minimize transversal to hit for your full DPS. With missiles, you cant ever do anything to fix your explosion radius/velocity, except use a TP. It's basically like "You can't do your maximum DPS anymore if I TD you". That's stupid, specific piloting should be able to combat ewar (Getting close up/minimizing transversal) People are saying "oh, just fit a TC and then you nullify the effect of the TD on you!" Yeah, because my shield tanking missile ship needs another mid slot ewar defence as it is! I already can't fit ECCM, Painters, TDs, or anything else, because I need a slot for a disruptor, web, and MWD! That means the minimum of 6 slots to fit a 3-slot tank and 3 slot ewar is not enough to combat ewar or fight back in any way. Adding TCs to that makes combating ewar on a missile boat even more of a pain!
m8 you just need to bring more ships than they have tracking disruptors. Eveiseasy |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
143
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:55:00 -
[213] - Quote
now in a more serious note...
Quote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
I should be able to fit turrents 720 without having to be max skilled in power and use implants. I understand the nerf need, but maybe you can use this nerf to review the medium artillery PW needs ?????
Quote:Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
this aplies to all types: t1, t2 and faction?
why a damage reduction of 20% and not 10% or 15%, what was your main line of though and calculations that lead to this final number? Allow us to change characters of the same account without the need to logout and put the password again. |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
181
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:55:00 -
[214] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Ravcharas wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?) Fit a tracking enhancer, fit a tracking computer, fit a web, fit a painter, fit neuts, use appropriate ammo, or use ecm. Do you really think that a tracking computer counters a tracking disruptor? PS. Show me the shield cane fit with a tracking computer and a web. It sure mitigates it.
Another counter could be to bring a friend with tracking links. Hue hue. |
Sellendis
Masters of Zen Circle-Of-Two
156
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:56:00 -
[215] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Sellendis wrote:One working weapon system nerfed with range and dmg? Ok, what do we get in return? Can we get 20% DPS and range buff for minmatar ACs? It would only be fair. You might have a future at CCP. You should put in an application.
Well, some buff to most under-used race in PvP would be nice. Did anyone even see a minmatar BC or Comm. ship in the AT X? They need some love, and no, i am not just saying this couse i have AC trained to hell.
I dont think Heavys need a nerf this strong, nerf range...ok. Nerf dmg by 20% is WTF? How is that balancing when blasters were almost useless and a minor buff of 5% makes them ok, but this deserves range and dmg nerf of 20% each....i dont see the logic here. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2143
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:56:00 -
[216] - Quote
Doddy wrote:What does ccp have against the nighthawk is the real question, 2 hml bonuses lol. Such an awesome looking ship too ...... shame.
They havent reached t2 BC yet |
baltec1
Bat Country
2143
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:57:00 -
[217] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:
why a damage reduction of 20% and not 10% or 15%, what was your main line of though and calculations that lead to this final number?
Ahem. |
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:58:00 -
[218] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Making TD's work against missiles is a major mistake too btw. I like the idea of having a TD-ish mechanic work against missiles, that is not a bad thing per se. But when you make missiles affected by TD then you have a nobrainer to fit TD on every ship that has midslots to spare.
Now picture this; which race has the most mids to spare? Gallente. They also happen to be short range (blaster and drones). when TD will affect all weapontypes, Gallente will just force people to go up close or run. It's a bit too early to paint doomsday scenarios, but this could very well rupture the whole game in the nationality balance. I don't mind flying drone boats myself, my Gallente skills are top notch, but it's worrying overall if the devs just don't even think about this on such an early state of development process, to be honest. Make a new module, TD-ish, that counters missiles, and you got my love, that's a whole different story.
You and I seem to have very, very different versions of Gallente ships, sure, it'll be a boon to the drone boats (and you can't seriously say they don't deserve it), but the blaster hulls all already have required mids, scram, web, injector and mwd, now tell me, how many blaster hulls have more than 4 mids? Not many, Myrmidon, Dominix and the Hyperion I believe, and out of them the only pure blaster boat is the hyperion, which in turn have a lot of other issues, that said, my Dominix just became a ultra voilent psycopathic murderer instead of a voilent psycopathic murderer, if I choose to skip the ECCM or other, oh god, I'll have to make choices, no more cookie cutter builds, my god, it's almost interesting again! |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Fatal Ascension
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:58:00 -
[219] - Quote
Yeah come to think of it, the majority of the Caldari Cruiser, and Battlecruisers team ahave been benched according to CCP. The Naga and Rokh are the only two decent ships Caldari have left, the majority of their frigates suck also, apart from the Merlin, its still a brawler :D |
Kriorth
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:59:00 -
[220] - Quote
This is the sort of idiocy that makes me wonder why people bother to play this game.
My character was never trained for missiles... I looked into the options and decided it was worth spending MONTHS training the skills because it was worth it. Now CCP decides to make them worthless....
I have no problem with them tweaking the game when they need to in order to balance things, but Now that they took away the reason to train missiles skills they should be required to refund my training time.
|
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 15:59:00 -
[221] - Quote
Terrorina wrote:Seriously nerfing HML's as a whole is way too excessive. What about us null-sec ratters who have come to rely on the Tengu because it is the only somewhat effective ship to make money while the low-high sec guys get to play FW and incursions for big isks.
I agree Drakes have become too OP for a BC ship and they should have their bonus's reduced or changed accordingly but nerfing HML's entirely is like chopping off an arm because of a broken finger.
If you're going to change them anyway, at least for the love of god give us null-sec grunts a way to make some decent money. You've already nerfed tech, which is fine.. but you didn't replace it with a bottom up way for us grunts to make money (and please don't say sigs, i'm not flying around for hours in the hopes to find a decent site and then hoping a ton of other people haven't found it first in the hopes that I have a slim chance of getting a module that is worth something if I can survive hauling it to Jita).
It's not just null sec ratters who will feel the pinch, CCP has been talking about reducing NPC bounties for a while to. Lots of people (like me) kill rats with heavy missles, this will affect EVERY caldari HML using PVE player (namely mission runners)
Maybe eve to the point where Mission ad anomaly running Tengus might just get replaced by Tracking Computer +Tracking Speed scripted + tracking enhancer + target paineter Cruise Navy Ravens.
As SOON as these changes go live on the test server I'm buying ever single Tracking Computer in jita :)
|
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
110
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:00:00 -
[222] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs.
Have you ever seen that actually done? "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:00:00 -
[223] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently. DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8 Time to hit: instant
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Time to hit: 10 seconds
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
fixed |
Tanaka Aiko
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:00:00 -
[224] - Quote
huuu wait both a range AND a damage reduction for heavy missiles ? isn't that a bit too much at the same time ? and 20% o_O
I hope the damage increase on fury will mitigate that a lot... cause this seems like too big a nerf. i'm okay will losing some range, cause honestly they have too much, but losing range and damage at the same time, and for this much... that's too much :/ |
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:01:00 -
[225] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
Your analysis doesnt include that HMLs dont do full damage to frigates and cruisers (or particularly fast BCs even), regardless of how you pilot.
Because medium railguns, arties or beams always do full damage to frigs and cruisers right? There isn't any random element to it eit... oh... |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:01:00 -
[226] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Doddy wrote:What does ccp have against the nighthawk is the real question, 2 hml bonuses lol. Such an awesome looking ship too ...... shame. They havent reached t2 BC yet
Nighthawk is already horribly underpowered compared to drake/tengu, 6 months waiting for a t2 bc balancing expansion will kill it off entirely.
|
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:01:00 -
[227] - Quote
Have to agree here, if that HM nerv is going live ships like the Nighthawk are going from so-so to terribad.
For me right now the HM vs. HAM PVE(!)-question is nonexistent because of range and that little skill called guided missle precision that gives me at least "some" dmg on small-sig targets. I don't PvP much with missles, therefor won't comment on it.
Melina Lin wrote:... Weren't these of all missiles the ones with the absolute shortest range? I hope they still make it out the launch tubes without a tracking mod.
I am smirking right now, need to wait if I need to cry because it was "too" true...
cu |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:02:00 -
[228] - Quote
Sellendis wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Sellendis wrote:One working weapon system nerfed with range and dmg? Ok, what do we get in return? Can we get 20% DPS and range buff for minmatar ACs? It would only be fair. You might have a future at CCP. You should put in an application. Well, some buff to most under-used race in PvP would be nice. Did anyone even see a minmatar BC or Comm. ship in the AT X? They need some love, and no, i am not just saying this couse i have AC trained to hell. I dont think Heavys need a nerf this strong, nerf range...ok. Nerf dmg by 20% is WTF? How is that balancing when blasters were almost useless and a minor buff of 5% makes them ok, but this deserves range and dmg nerf of 20% each....i dont see the logic here.
I don't think what you watched was the Alliance Tournament...
Were there like robots with a moving red light in the place of eyes? Or maybe lightsabers? |
Sirane Elrek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:02:00 -
[229] - Quote
Sellendis wrote:Did anyone even see a minmatar BC or Comm. ship in the AT X? Uh. Sleipnir, Cyclone. Almost 300 fielded ships, that's basically NONE~ |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:02:00 -
[230] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:
m8 you just need to bring more ships than they have tracking disruptors. Eveiseasy
Yes, because every fight is not a solo fight |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:03:00 -
[231] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: As SOON as these changes go live on the test server I'm buying ever single Tracking Computer in jita :)
lolitwillbewaytolatethen
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
195
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:03:00 -
[232] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:As well, if you are a turret boat, if you are getting your tracking disrupted, you can just minimize transversal to hit for your full DPS. With missiles, you cant ever do anything to fix your explosion radius/velocity, except use a TP. It's basically like "You can't do your maximum DPS anymore if I TD you". That's stupid, specific piloting should be able to combat ewar (Getting close up/minimizing transversal)
People are saying "oh, just fit a TC and then you nullify the effect of the TD on you!" Yeah, because my shield tanking missile ship needs another mid slot ewar defence as it is! I already can't fit ECCM, Painters, TDs, or anything else, because I need a slot for a disruptor, web, and MWD! That means the minimum of 6 slots to fit a 3-slot tank and 3 slot ewar is not enough to combat ewar or fight back in any way. Adding TCs to that makes combating ewar on a missile boat even more of a pain! So what you're saying is, the guy who fitted a TD might not really be able to get effective use from that slot vs a turret ship, but you shouldn't have to also fit 1 module to counter theirs? Even if it would almost always help your dps? Also, TEs in lows, keep your shield tank. |
Gary Goat
XDC-UK
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:03:00 -
[233] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
Not empty quoting.
All the people comparing HMLs to blasters and ACs seem to be missing the point completely. |
xVKx
High Venture Team Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:04:00 -
[234] - Quote
yep... allright CCP... lets nerf everything in EVE...
(btw what are u smoking there? 20% DMG and 25% flightrange nerf at once... huh...) |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:04:00 -
[235] - Quote
The nighthawk already has lower dps than all the other field command ships, and this change to heavy missiles is going to make it even worse. Why would anyone fly a nighthawk after these changes? CCP could come back and say that command ships will be rebalanced as well, but I would bet that will happen well after the missile changes are put in place. That leaves the nighthawk very much out in the cold.
|
Redd Dredd
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:05:00 -
[236] - Quote
My poor Damnation. Now with even less damage. :( |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:06:00 -
[237] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.
But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)
Drakes will be even more op than now...
/me is sad
it gets a reduced range... so if you want to project your weapons further out you will need to fit a te or tracking comp... so this is really a nerf to hml drakes and a boost to hamm drakes... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:07:00 -
[238] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAAHA another nerf first where supers... then titans... then lets kill otec and nerf tec... now lets kill the drake blob, the welpcanes blob and all tengus blob (what a coincidence, all ship doctrines the CFC uses in mass, lol, pure coincidence of course, no tinfoil teories here) This just make my work day Can't you see we are like the Borg, we will just adapt and tomorrow we will just use "put here the best low cost ship name vs dps ratio here" to blob all our enemies again and again and again!...and 6 months from now we all be here again, nerfing the ship(s) and/or weapon system(s) we will be using at that time... You can try, but you can't stop the blob !Fake edit: I can see all carriers beeing nerfed next.... "no sentry drones for you"
JFYI champion but the CFC were the ones most happy at the super nerf
o7 |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:07:00 -
[239] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done?
Every day.
Some people actually fight other players. |
Kriorth
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:07:00 -
[240] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently. DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8 Time to hit: instant
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Time to hit: 10 seconds
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. fixed
Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
|
|
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1540
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:09:00 -
[241] - Quote
20%? seriously? 5 or even 10 would be ok, but 20% is the same as slapping people who have HM skills trained and kick them right on the groins. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch
254
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:10:00 -
[242] - Quote
Sad thing is that Tracking Distruptor will be over power after this change, there will be lot of TD on every ship after this change.
|
Dread Pirate Pete
Tribal Core Defiant Legacy
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:11:00 -
[243] - Quote
I would like to thank Fozzie for buffing all the things I like to fly, and nerfing all the things that shoot me down on a regular basis |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
227
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:11:00 -
[244] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done?
???
Yea, like every single time my alliance has fought CFC and the FC called for FIREWALL ships. Which has been A LOT lately in Tribute lol.
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:12:00 -
[245] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:there will be lot of TD on every ship after this change. How?
Will someone please tell me how we get free TDs on all the ships?! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:12:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Fozzie, are you guys considering any slight nerf to TD base strength? Because if not, everyone and his mother will be fitting TDs. It seems to me that the module could use little nerf, so as not to become the must have "multispec of doom", and to make the speicialized ships more desirable in fleets.
Yup it's something we're looking very closely at.
yeah give it the same treatment that rsd got back in the day... just up the bonus on specialty ships so not every one fits one...
i mean you cant find a ship in faction warfare that does not have a TD for this reason...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1540
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:12:00 -
[247] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done? Yes, infact, we (and I'm sure other alliances/coallitions as well) do firewalls quite often. It's a fairly common tactic to reduce and even nullify incoming missile damage. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:13:00 -
[248] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
Not sure if I'm missing some sarcasm or you're unaware of medium railguns having terrible tracking & range combos regardless of ammo. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:13:00 -
[249] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:20%? seriously? 5 or even 10 would be ok, but 20% is the same as slapping people who have HM skills trained and kick them right on the groins.
good!
drake fleet was never meant to be a doctrine...
kill all drakes! Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:14:00 -
[250] - Quote
The changes sound harsh and I am weeping for my collection of almighty hurricanes but I think they are needed. Take a few days and think about them and the greater picture and you will see. |
|
Sellendis
Masters of Zen Circle-Of-Two
156
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:14:00 -
[251] - Quote
Sirane Elrek wrote:Sellendis wrote:Did anyone even see a minmatar BC or Comm. ship in the AT X? Uh. Sleipnir, Cyclone. Almost 300 fielded ships, that's basically NONE~
That was intended sarcasm :) Minm ships were deployed like crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY&feature=related Pretty sure this is how CCP balances things....sadly.
AT X ship usage...
Merlin - 149
Tengu - 48 Drake - 7
Sleipnir - 146 Cyclone - 129
According to this numbers, nerfing HMs is completely ok. |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:14:00 -
[252] - Quote
uh, one thinghy i nearly forgot:
like the Carebear i am i want to ask if all the NPCs are going to get some "defender-turrets"? Because, like how it is now missles against NPCs already receive an "applied" damage reduction that turrets do not?
cu |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
645
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:15:00 -
[253] - Quote
How nice of CCP announce these changes in advance so I can make sure to sell my Tengu and whatever Drakes I have lying around.
You keep doing these heavy-handed changes--supercarriers and mining barges, for example--and it never ends well. Ever. EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
110
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:15:00 -
[254] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done? Yes, infact, we (and I'm sure other alliances/coallitions as well) do firewalls quite often. It's a fairly common tactic to reduce and even nullify incoming missile damage.
I confess myself surprised, always assumed it was a gimmick. "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
Planetary Genocide
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:15:00 -
[255] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Danggg. Dat Tengu/Drake nerf. +1 |
Kriorth
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:16:00 -
[256] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Kriorth wrote:Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
Not sure if I'm missing some sarcasm or you're unaware of medium railguns having terrible tracking & range combos regardless of ammo.
No, no sarcasm.. stats were quoted with DPS for each weapon (assuming they hit)... But missiles do reduced damage against moving targets based on the velocity do they not?! |
darius mclever
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:16:00 -
[257] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done?
no never.
also nobody runs smart bomb only t3s in fleet regularly. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
288
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:16:00 -
[258] - Quote
Oh dear
All that adoration you have received the past few months must have gone straight into reinforcing your balls for you to touch the third rail of balancing: Missiles.
Not sure the damage hit on heavies is warranted/needed with the other changes mentioned, but guess that is what testing is for.
By the by, could you tone down mission Sansha TD spam the same way you toned down Serpentis ECM .. these changes will make drone boats the only viable way of running the missions with large spawns. As Amarr only using a Tachy Paladin I have started declining all Sansha missions as 5km optimal 90% of the time really does no good |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:17:00 -
[259] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:
Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
There's this thing called tracking, you might've heard of it. It reduces your damage if your target is moving in any direction but directly towards or away from you. |
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:18:00 -
[260] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently. DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8 Time to hit: instant
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Time to hit: 10 seconds
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. fixed Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there? uhhh yeah lol Your kidding right? oh and missiles are affected by transvers movement as well as a targets speed. Anyone who uses an AB on an anomaly tengu will confirm this. :) |
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:18:00 -
[261] - Quote
While we're at it could we buff HAM's? I feels HAM's could get a bit more dps or range and reduction in PG cost.
Lower the exp radius and/or increase exp velocity since missile exp radius rigs don't affect HAMs. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[262] - Quote
I support the general direction of these changes.
In terms of skill training and making the game more interesting. Do you think it might be better to add 2 new modules for missiles instead of having TE's and TC's effect missiles? While keeping the TD the ewar against all.
That way missile skills would get you missile bonuses. Though keeping it the way you have planned makes split weapon system ships more viable. |
DeadNite
Focused Annihilation Detrimental Imperative
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[263] - Quote
CCP Foz, I have a few questions regarding missiles: - Do you think it is time to remove the specific damage type bonus on ships so they can make full use of their weapon systems? Now with HM damage being lowered, it makes sense that they should be able to use all missile types to their full effect. - Will mods/rigs/implants that currently enhance LM/HM/CM finally affect Rockets/AM/HAM/Torps like the other weapon systems? - Will bombs be impacted by any of this? (e.g.; Attempt to target bombers as they de-cloak and dampen to reduce bomb damage or equip TEs/TCs on your bomber to increase damage application to smaller/moving targets)
I know that CCP has tried very hard to keep from missiles being just another turret type but one would think they should still be consistent in fitting choices that affect them like other weapons systems (e.g.; some of the questions above).
|
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[264] - Quote
Booo! All the ships I can fly are now terrible. Thanks. |
Kriorth
Deadspace Knights
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:19:00 -
[265] - Quote
Cpt Gobla wrote:Kriorth wrote:
Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
There's this thing called tracking, you might've heard of it. It reduces your damage if your target is moving in any direction but directly towards or away from you.
Reduces you damage or your chance to hit? |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:20:00 -
[266] - Quote
Kriorth wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Kriorth wrote:Except that missiles shouldn't be doing maximum damage against moving targets. There isn't a reduction in damage to a moving target from a railgun is there?
Not sure if I'm missing some sarcasm or you're unaware of medium railguns having terrible tracking & range combos regardless of ammo. No, no sarcasm.. stats were quoted with DPS for each weapon (assuming they hit)... But missiles do reduced damage against moving targets based on the velocity do they not?! And turrets can constantly miss things while missiles will always do some damage.
Kriorth wrote:Cpt Gobla wrote:There's this thing called tracking, you might've heard of it. It reduces your damage if your target is moving in any direction but directly towards or away from you. Reduces you damage or your chance to hit? Both, especially when combined with falloff, if you don't know this you perhaps shouldn't comment. Not quite the place to ask for such info either. |
Lelob
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:20:00 -
[267] - Quote
Hurricanes have always been insanely overpowered with 2 medium neuts, capless guns and fairly awesome speed. It's a nice change to remove 1 of the medium neuts, but in all likelihood the ship itself will still probably be a little overpowered with the excellent tracking from 220s and a single medium neut (shield fit anyways). |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:21:00 -
[268] - Quote
Why are you increasing the explosion radius of precision missiles?
Isn't this counter intuitive? "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Uris Vitgar
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:23:00 -
[269] - Quote
Instead of flight time, why not make range-scripted TDs affect missile speed instead? Not only does it make more sense from a fluff perspective, but it aso gives them some potential synergy with defenders and smartbombs.
As for disruption scripts, I suspect that modifying missile explosion radius/velocity at all is a dangerous road to go down, but that will be revealed in testing. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
435
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:23:00 -
[270] - Quote
In comparing HMLs and other long range weapon system, one important thing that is often forgotten is fitting requirements.
Beam lasers, artillery and railguns have higher fitting requirements than their close range equivalent. In particular beam and artillery ships tend to be glass cannons due to the high fitting requirements. In contrast, HMLs have similar fitting requirements as their close range equivalent (slightly more CPU, slightly less PG). This means they have room for a substantial tank.
I believe that this is the main compensation for the drawback of travel time. HML ships take longer to apply damage, which is why they are more durable. |
|
Tarithell
Rim Collection RC Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:23:00 -
[271] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread. I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible. I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons. The meat of this thread however is about missiles. There's a number of missile changes we have planned for the Winter, including the already announced buff to light missiles, a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles. All MissilesIncrease missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players. Light Missiles-Explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40 -Damage increased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant light missiles, including FOF. Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF. Tech Two Missiles-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar-Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Is ccp prepared for the sh1tstorm is causing with missile nerf? |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
105
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:24:00 -
[272] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Bad Messenger wrote:there will be lot of TD on every ship after this change. How? Will someone please tell me how we get free TDs on all the ships?!
The answer: Because people won't be flying primarily HML ships now. |
whaynethepain
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:25:00 -
[273] - Quote
Didn't want that drake anyway, insta-canes with an LSE II only increases it's sig.
But yea, thanks CCP, I really was getting fed up of the drake, nice ship, but it's place as the primary choice for a large fleet, was an insult to my training queue.
Of course we will need a T II combat BS with Jump-Drives, to fill the void, but that's another thread. Getting you on your feet.
So you've further to fall. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:27:00 -
[274] - Quote
20% is waaaay to much. If you add to it that people will have to swap one BCS tor low slot tracking module damage nerf goes into 30's %
You should consider lowering HML nerf and FIX HAM's explosion velocity, missile velocity and explosion radius so that they can actually deal their damage, maybe add a small buff to their damage.
Instead you just killed entire Caldari ship line.
Also - With missiles we have to wait a loooong time to deal damage, while all other weapons are instant. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:28:00 -
[275] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently. DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5 Time to hit: instant Affected by range outside of maximum range+falloff: Yes Contains random elements to damage: Yes Can choose damagetype: Nope, fixed. Reload Time: 5s
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8 Time to hit: instant Affected by range outside of maximum range+falloff: Yes Contains random elements to damage: Yes Can choose damagetype: Nope, fixed. Reload Time: Instant
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24 Time to hit: instant Affected by range outside of maximum range+falloff: Yes Contains random elements to damage: Yes Can choose damagetype: To a great degree yes. Reload Time: 10s
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Time to hit: 10 seconds Affected by range outside of maximum range+falloff: Nope Contains random elements to damage: Nope Can choose damagetype: Yes, bonus may or may not apply. Reload Time: 10s
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. fixed
Aaaaand once we sprinkle some additonal stats and intellectual honesty to it...
Oh hey, that looks good, on paper at least, guess we should slap this ***** on Buckingham and give it a spin.
(That said, all medium weaponry suck, but now they can suck equally!)
And hey, if you want to hit moving targets then you better load precision, because god knows I have to load stuff other than Javelin, Conflag, Void etc. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
880
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:29:00 -
[276] - Quote
having recon and eaf at 5 and loving the pilgrim and sentinel i somehow do not like the new omni powers of TD.
firstly it renders defender missiels from useless to officially useless. Secondly ships like sentinels are already good enough in solo mode, i don't see why its good to increase the range of potential victims. Whats really left after the patch are gallente drone boats which would beat a sentinel solo.
Last but not least its difficult to justify that a module targeted at a ship influences the flightrange of a missile... this won't work even in star trek.
Instead of making a TD into a WD (weapon disruptor) i would rather like to see a new, medium slot, anti missile mod which is useable for solo and fleet support. Remove defender missiles and add something what works please.
(and if you really give the change a go, please rename TD into WD) a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Wicked Princess
D00M. Northern Coalition.
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:31:00 -
[277] - Quote
BEST...NERF...EVER.
Thank you, CCP!!! :) |
Tover Chris
Suicide Kings
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:34:00 -
[278] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Since I don't use dreadnaughts, what is the implication of this change with regards to pilots using Phoenix's?
The Phoenix excels at one thing, shooting towers. I think the tracking will be a-ok. |
Smoke Adian
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:37:00 -
[279] - Quote
Why doesn't CCP just give every ship a permanent TD slot already prefitted? Will save a lot of clicking. TIA |
Royal Hammer
Wormbro Ocularis Inferno
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:38:00 -
[280] - Quote
So anyone that has spent months training up skills to use drakes or tengus just gets completely shafted? Was anyone complaining about heavy missiles being too powerful? The drake already does **** for damage. And now it's going to be worse? CCP, please do not go through with a huge nerf that gives a big middle finger to Caldari pilots everywhere. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2936
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:39:00 -
[281] - Quote
For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
OlRotGut
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:39:00 -
[282] - Quote
HAM's already were quite blah, and now they are worse.
Missile speeds only increased 6.66%? Should be much more. Range nerf is totally fine with me, but please fix bonuses on ships that prefer one damage type.
I also think that you should clarify the changes to the T2 missiles. It says you increased fury damage, but how does that translate with the 20% damage nerf of all Heavy missiles?
|
Vincent VanDamme
EVE University Ivy League
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:39:00 -
[283] - Quote
So,
*looks at all the time spent on missile skills*
Any chance of a Respec? Because I think I wasted some time on a soon to be useless weapon system.
I mean i could try Hybrid..no..wait...hybrids still suck.
So , if you can let me know what weapon systems wont be colossally nerfed to innefectivness , that would be super. And a respec, so i can get out of the Caldari niche, and go into a niche that actually will allow me to scratch other things.
P.S. I woudl suggest your game design team doing staged Nerfs to see how it works as opposed to just destroying the viability of several Caldari ships.
|
djswitch47
Double-Down Transmission Lost
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:42:00 -
[284] - Quote
Let all the bears shed tears we will be sitting back collecting them with 5 gal buckets to water our ganja plants with |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:43:00 -
[285] - Quote
Why don't you stop thinking about just the drake and tengu and consider the other ships that use Heavy missiles:
Caracal Bellicose(future suggestion by CCP) Navy Caracal Nighthawk Rook Cerberus
What I don't like is the blanket nerf, that not only nerfs the drake and tengu, but nerfs ships that were never OP, and mostly UP in the first place. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:44:00 -
[286] - Quote
The fitting is still backwards for all launchers except frigate-sized. Rockets and torps still have not enough launcher capacity. Hams and torps still don't hit stuff well enough. Torp range is still too low. Heavies still hit small stuff too well. Would be cool as well if GMP skill and rigor rigs affected all types. |
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:44:00 -
[287] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story.
Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok. |
Roderick Grey
Assisted Genocide Black Legion.
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:46:00 -
[288] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Canes suck drakes suck.
That's great and all but what about the cyclone? dual XLASB and great DPS and cheaper... and by extension what about ancillary shield boosters, are they going to be nerfed?
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1174
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:49:00 -
[289] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike:>Needs buff, medium rails are the most useless thing in the game currently. DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:>Needs buff, probably will get one cause they suck DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8 Time to hit: instant
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24 Time to hit: instant
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Time to hit: 10 seconds
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. fixed
Keep in mind you've listed every gun with its equivalent long-range but ****** dps ammo - except for the HML. With the HML you included faction ammo. This skews things a bit.
Instead of normalizing for distance, normalize the DPS, and highlight the disparity in range.
On first glance, I think the 20% nerf on damage may be a bit excessive - its the range that was out of line.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2936
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:50:00 -
[290] - Quote
Athena Themis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok.
Of course it doesn't.
I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:51:00 -
[291] - Quote
So....
Tracking Disruptors will decrease the range/explosion radius/velocity of my missiles?
Therefore, in the interests of balance, which I assume you have thought about, you will be allowing me to fit tracking enhances/computers to re-enhance these things?
I'm curious as to the reasons behind these changes. Is this an attempt to control ISK flow into the game from ratting/missioning or because you genuinely believe they are OP?
I don't see how they are generally OP, this can only be an attempt at controlling ISK income. You don't see so many Drake gangs around now-a-days.
Also.... if you are nerfing missiles, just what are Caldari ships going to be good at?
If you believe that they are OP, just how on earth have they been left like this for so long? and if they are OP now, how insanely OP must they have been before the recent buff to guns?
Terrible decision if you ask me....... but then, you're not going to are you.
Regards
Barrak |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:52:00 -
[292] - Quote
This change hits on so many levels, it is wonderful This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:52:00 -
[293] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?
If that were the case, every single long range ship would be a missile ship. Last time I checked, they were not.
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:52:00 -
[294] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Athena Themis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok. Of course it doesn't. I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?
Because those long range systems can outdps HML at closer ranges? Isn't that not obvious?
How did a dummy like you become CSM? "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:53:00 -
[295] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:I In terms of skill training ......
It just hit me, isn't it time to streamline missile training? Right now if you training guns, you get close range and long range guns of given size from 1 skill, and tech 2 variations come from 2 different skills.
For missile you have 2 skills for each branch of each size + specialization. Are ppl ok with it? |
Iri'yana
Corvus Technologies
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:53:00 -
[296] - Quote
I'm currently not sure, how I should feel about those changes. Sure, the Tengu and to some extent the Drake are doing too well right now, with esp. the Tengu outperfoming even more dedicated ships in their roles. But I'm not sure if CCP's way of changing things is the correct one. I would have prefered a change to the ships themselves, rather then to (only one of) their DPS systems.
And regarding that change itself ... well, it seems to be a nerf according to the CCP way of nerfing. I.e. if you take out the nerf hammer, then make damn sure that it hits critically. And leaving HAMs unaffected will really just make a lot of pilots shift to them and thus not really affect the Tengu and the Drake as much as probably desired.
On the topic of tracking disruptors (TD), I'm howver fairly entrenched in my objection to this particular change. Mostly based on the fact, that it will have a lot of negative side effects on missile boats and missile using playstyles in general:
1) Guns right now have their "nemesis" in TDs. Missiles on the other hand had their (intended) counter in speed and defender missiles. Speed works, defender missiles ... not so much too put it lightly. Defenders cost you a lot of your own DPS and are on top of that not very effective at their task, just taking out one of the incoming flight of missiles and thus reducing incoming DPS in no degree to their effect on outgoing DPS. Not really a wonder, that nobody uses them really ... well, apart from NPCs. Which brings us to the side effect of making missile based ships relatively less effective in PvE as they are right now. They get double-countered by NPCs if that change should go live. And while that might be somewhat okay, to get the Tengu of its pedestal of "King of Mission Runners". it will put Raven based hulls more behind their gun-based equivalents.
2) Leaving PvE, missile based ships will become even less desirable in PvP as they are (with the exception of Drakes and Tengus ... but see the heavy missile changes for that) right now. On top of their previous issues, they will now have to handle TDs as well.
3) Ships with bonuses to TDs will receive an (unintended) buff, potentially upsetting the balance with the E-war hulls ... altough I'm not sure if that is a bad thing, as I don't fly those too much. Maybe TD ships could need a bit of love.
4) Points one and two will put the missile launcher skill tree even further behind gunnery as it is right now. Esp. if you consider that most pilots got into it, due to the Drakes and Tengus, which will have their potential already reduced by the heavy missile changes.
So what could be an alternative to the TD changes? Two come to mind. One is to let TDs affect missiles, but then to get rid of the non-used defenders (to put guns and missiles on the same footing here) and to compensate missiles in other ways ... and not in the way that heavy missiles get "compensated" right now.
Another approach could be to change defender missiles. Instead of being just an alternative charge for regular launchers, why not turn them into a mid-slot based "point defence system" or charges for such a system. This would make defenders more effective to use, getting rid of the DPS reduction that using them entails. Yet, such a PD system should maybe be more effective in the reduction of incoming DPS as it (compared to TDs) affects a lower percentage of potential damage soruces, with only less then 25% of the combat ships in EVE being missile based.
Iri'yana
PS: What about the other missile types? Are cruise missiles and the unguided missiles (rockets, HAMs and torpedos) working as intended or are changes planned for |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch
254
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:54:00 -
[297] - Quote
Royal Hammer wrote:So anyone that has spent months training up skills to use drakes or tengus just gets completely shafted? Was anyone complaining about heavy missiles being too powerful? The drake already does **** for damage. And now it's going to be worse? CCP, please do not go through with a huge nerf that gives a big middle finger to Caldari pilots everywhere.
drake has been most used pvp ship for a several years, time to change FOTM |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:56:00 -
[298] - Quote
At what point did TD need a buff?
What are your plans for SD, which were previously the only sure way to counter missile ships. Will they now affect turret optimal range as well?
These recent changes, together with the rebalance of T1 Frigates (which saw a homogenizing of fitting slots across all ships) is a sign that CCP has absolutely no idea what to do, besides bringing all ships closer in line to each other and removing any variety between races and fitting choices. First it was frigates, now weapons (missiles vs. turrets).
Where is the variety, where is the choice and decision making involved in fitting my ship or choosing a race? Previously, Slasher and Condor has different slots. Now they have the same slots, but differetn weapons. And in the future you plan on removing any differences whatsoever in these weapons?
Realistically, why then would I choose a condor over a slasher now? |
StevieTopSiders
Evolution The Retirement Club
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:56:00 -
[299] - Quote
So being on the other side of the battlefield from Goonswarm's Tengu and Drake blobs, I was like, "OMG, yes!" But I think the nerf needs to be aimed less at HML's and more at the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem.
(NB: These numbers come from T2 HML's with CN Scourge being shot on an All V's character in the latest version of EFT.)
The 25% range nerf:
This allows Tengus to hit at 90km for 570 DPS. (3 BCU) This allows Drakes to hit at 63km for 370 DPS. (2 BCU)
The 20% damage nerf w/ range nerf:
This allows Tengus to hit at 90km for 455 DPS. (3 BCU) This allows Drakes to hit at 63km for 296 DPS. (2 BCU)
The alpha numbers:
Before:
Tengu hits for 2.2k Alpha every 4 seconds. Drake hits for 2.4k Alpha every 6.7 seconds.
After:
Tengu hits for 1.8k alpha every 4 seconds. Drake hits for 2k alpha every 6.7 seconds.
Now let's take a look at Accelerated Ejection Bay bonuses:
5% bonus to Kinetic Missile Damage per level 7.5% bonus to Heavy, Heavy Assault and Assault missile launcher rate of fire per level 10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault missile velocity per level
The Drake gets one more Heavy Missile Launcher than the Tengu, and they both get the 5% Kinetic damage bonus. Where they differ, however, is the Tengu's ability to shoot these missiles 37.5% faster and at 50% more range.
When we look at the alpha numbers from a fleet combat perspective, we find ourselves really not losing a great amount of performance. When we look at the DPS number from a solo/small gang perspective, however, we find ourselves really lacking for damage.
I propose the following:
A 10% Heavy Missile Damage nerf.
Our Tengu now hits for 2k alpha every 4 seconds for 513 DPS. Our Drake now hits for 2.16k alpha every 6.7 seconds for 333 DPS.
A 10% Heavy Missile Range nerf.
Our Tengu now hits out to 102km Our Drake now hits out to 68km.
A 5% bonus to missile velocity for the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem:
Our Tengu now hits out to 85km.
A 5% bonus to missile launcher ROF for the Accelerated Ejection Bay subsystem:
Our Tengu now hits for 2k alpha every 5 seconds for 400 DPS.
These changes limit the sheer alpha/DPS power of the Tengu, while still keeping the Drake a viable and cheap T1 alternative.
Also, buff the other ships that use HML's.
Cerberus I love you. |
Vincent VanDamme
EVE University Ivy League
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:57:00 -
[300] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:Why don't you stop thinking about just the drake and tengu and consider the other ships that use Heavy missiles:
Caracal Bellicose(future suggestion by CCP) Navy Caracal Nighthawk Rook Cerberus
What I don't like is the blanket nerf, that not only nerfs the drake and tengu, but nerfs ships that were never OP, and mostly UP in the first place.
Caracal has gone from useless to utterly useless. And it is in dire need of a buff.
The lackluster buff to it here only adds to the fact it is being nerfed to the stone age.
|
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:57:00 -
[301] - Quote
What I disagree is having a one TD mod affect all.
TD will become a module that you can guarantee that everyone and their mother will fit. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
GreenSeed
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:00:00 -
[302] - Quote
why nerfing the weapon system when the one with the problem is the ship? tengus/drakes need rebalancing... i mean i know noone uses anything BUT tengus and drakes as a HML platform, but there are other ships that use HML and HAML that were already pretty crappy and now will be even crappy-er. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2939
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:00:00 -
[303] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Of course it doesn't.
I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way? Because those long range systems can outdps HML at closer ranges? Isn't that not obvious? How did a dummy like you become CSM?
Um, please actually run the numbers - check out rails on the Ferox, rails on the Brutix, beams on the Harbinger, and artillery on the Hurricane. Load tech 2 long-range ammo. Compare. Please demonstrate how these systems do more raw DPS at closer ranges than HML's, than you can continue calling me a dummy CSM. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:01:00 -
[304] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ashera Yune wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Of course it doesn't.
I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way? Because those long range systems can outdps HML at closer ranges? Isn't that not obvious? How did a dummy like you become CSM? Um, please actually run the numbers - check out rails on the Ferox, rails on the Brutix, beams on the Harbinger, and artillery on the Hurricane. Load tech 2 long-range ammo. Compare. Please demonstrate how these systems do more raw DPS at closer ranges than HML's, than you can continue calling me a dummy CSM.
Dont use t2 long range ammo at close range? |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
438
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:01:00 -
[305] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story.
Something like this?
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gif
This is with max skills, no other modules besides the weapons and long range ammo. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1174
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:01:00 -
[306] - Quote
Barrak wrote:So....
Tracking Disruptors will decrease the range/explosion radius/velocity of my missiles?
Therefore, in the interests of balance, which I assume you have thought about, you will be allowing me to fit tracking enhances/computers to re-enhance these things?
Umm... yes they did add the buff to TEs and TCs to affect missile positively. Did you not read the whole thing in your rush to post?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Atherin Gaius
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:03:00 -
[307] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. With 7x T2 HAM launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing Scourge outputs 401 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 720mm Artys and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 371 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 477 DPS. The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range or 320 DPS with HAMs. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? So let me get this straight. Missiles will loose some of their range, will have the lowest DPS among weapons, they have flight time and they will also be tracking disrupted? And their only advantage will remain the ability to choose damage types? Goodbye solo missile platforms! CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other high tier battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho. TDs will be the new and improved ECM. At least with ECM you're taking the risk of bringing the wrong jammer. If TD effects will apply to everything there's absolutely no reason to not bring one.
This change will essentially push caldari missile platforms back to the bottom of the list for PVP platforms. How is this even remotely a balanced approach to PVP? This is the most FAIL approach to balancing PVP ever CCP....go back to the drawing board.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:03:00 -
[308] - Quote
i love these changes... they are making drone ships worth using!!! keep it up! death to single ship fleet doctrines! Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Ensign X
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:04:00 -
[309] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ashera Yune wrote:How did a dummy like you become CSM? Load tech 2 long-range ammo. Compare. Please demonstrate how these systems do more raw DPS at closer ranges than HML's, than you can continue calling me a dummy CSM.
Umm, Hans, when you're trying to refute somebody calling you dumb, you should probably try harder to not make your reply so dumb. |
OlRotGut
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:05:00 -
[310] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Something like this? http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gifThis is with max skills, no other modules besides the weapons and long range ammo.
Good graph, could you make another one for HAM's, and the close range guns/ammo for the others? |
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:06:00 -
[311] - Quote
What they are doing is a blanket nerf to ships that use heavy missiles.
Caracal and its variants - completely useless now. Nighthawk - Worst Field CS is now even more worse than ever. Lol Bellicose is useless for the future too.
"Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Ensign X
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:06:00 -
[312] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Something like this? http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gifThis is with max skills, no other modules besides the weapons and long range ammo.
What ammo are you using? Yes, you say long range ammo, but only the Drake shows that and what you're actually using is High damage faction ammo. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:07:00 -
[313] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:What they are doing is a blanket nerf to ships that use heavy missiles.
Caracal and its variants - completely useless now.
how about you put hamms on the caracal...
try getting out of your cookie cutter fits and get creative ffs! Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2940
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:07:00 -
[314] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Something like this? http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gifThis is with max skills, no other modules besides the weapons and long range ammo.
Yes, exactly. Many thanks for providing this. As you can see in the graph, heavy missiles pretty much dominate this range class of weapons, with the only weapons system providing any advantage at all being railguns on a Ferox - and at a huge DPS hit to achieve this.
If you run the same graph after the changes Fozzie is proposing, you will see that there are now actual advantages to using other weapons besides HML at these ranges. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:07:00 -
[315] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Athena Themis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Yes because paper numbers is totally how eve pvp works. Yeah ok. Of course it doesn't. I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way?
The point being is that this nerfs far too much at once. If eve history has shown anything about nerfs, it's that ccp is incredibly excessive with the nerf bat.
20% dmg reduction on HMLs. You can make an argument for that. 25% range reduction. You can also make a valid argument for this. TD now effecting missiles. Again, you can make an argument here.
HOWEVER, all 3 at once is overboard and will have a tremendous impact on pvp and even pve, which was the saving grace to an otherwise underwhelming caldari race. Only a fool would think this is a good idea. If you want to nerf the drake, or the tengu....then nerf the drake or the tengu. This is rediculous. |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:08:00 -
[316] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Ashera Yune wrote:What they are doing is a blanket nerf to ships that use heavy missiles.
Caracal and its variants - completely useless now.
how about you put hamms on the caracal... try getting out of your cookie cutter fits and get creative ffs!
Because a caracal can't fit HAMS, weak tank, and less dps than other short range ships. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1541
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:09:00 -
[317] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. You must have realized that missiles have their own problems, a blanket solution and saying that missiles should be brought to the DPS level of other weapon types doesn't make sense.
- Aside from bombs, missiles (and it's variants) are the only weapon type that doesn't deal instantaneous damage
- the only weapon type that can be firewalled
- the only weapon system in which target sig penalty always applies, regardless of whether they're moving or not
- and it is the primary weapon system for most caldari ships in which : a lot of new players are using/training into and a lot of older players invested into, and it uses launcher hardpoints, so it's not interchangeable to other weapon types like guns do.
I don't disagree with the nerf, but the damage reduction is too much considering the other nerfs are also put in place. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1175
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:09:00 -
[318] - Quote
If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:09:00 -
[319] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Ashera Yune wrote:What they are doing is a blanket nerf to ships that use heavy missiles.
Caracal and its variants - completely useless now.
how about you put hamms on the caracal... try getting out of your cookie cutter fits and get creative ffs! Because a caracal can't fit HAMS, weak tank, and less dps than other short range ships.
is that so?
Caracal: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1) Signature radius: 135 (-10) Cargo capacity: 450
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Metal Icarus
Endless Destruction Against ALL Anomalies
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:10:00 -
[320] - Quote
Like the curse wasn't awesome enough.... |
|
Ensign X
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:10:00 -
[321] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Yes, exactly. Many thanks for providing this. As you can see in the graph, heavy missiles pretty much dominate this range class of weapons, with the only weapons system providing any advantage at all being railguns on a Ferox - and at a huge DPS hit to achieve this.
If you run the same graph after the changes Fozzie is proposing, you will see that there are now actual advantages to using other weapons besides HML at these ranges.
That graph is flawed. It's using high-damage faction ammo for the Drake and, we're assuming, low-damage t2 ammo on the turret based ships. So, yes, Apples and Oranges are different. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4638
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:10:00 -
[322] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ashera Yune wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Of course it doesn't.
I'm simply asking why missiles should provide consistent DPS that is higher than all other long range turrets in their optimals and can project that DPS longer than those same turrets' falloff distance. What is wrong with having advantages to choosing other weapons platforms besides HML's ? Why not have pro's and con's for each instead of HML being better in every single way? Because those long range systems can outdps HML at closer ranges? Isn't that not obvious? How did a dummy like you become CSM? Um, please actually run the numbers - check out rails on the Ferox, rails on the Brutix, beams on the Harbinger, and artillery on the Hurricane. Load tech 2 long-range ammo. Compare. Please demonstrate how these systems do more raw DPS at closer ranges than HML's, than you can continue calling me a dummy CSM.
Compare Tier 1s to tier 2s for a start.
Also, instant alpha is arty's forte, not DPS. Long range DPS is what missiles are supposed to be for. That's why you put up with all the other disadvantages like delayed damage, explosion radius, etc.
If we're going to be normalising missiles with turrets, then fair enough, but we ought to go the whole way. An immediately obvious gap is that there are no weapon tiers for missiles like there are for turrets. Can't fit Neutron Blasters? Well you can always use Ion Blasters, my friend. They even track a little better as well.
Can't fit Seige Launchers? Well that's too bad. Leave a slot empty, I guess. Sure would be nice to fit Medium tier Seige launchers with maybe a smidgen worse RoF and a smaller ammo capacity or something, but nope. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:15:00 -
[323] - Quote
Current Fact: -HML outdps medium turrets at long ranges.
-Medium turrets at dps HML at short ranges.
After Patch fact:
-Medium Turrets outdps HML at all ranges. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:15:00 -
[324] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:What I disagree is having a one TD mod affect all.
TD will become a module that you can guarantee that everyone and their mother will fit. This is also my view. Guns and missiles should have separate countering modules. |
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:19:00 -
[325] - Quote
ITT: Tracking disruptor... the new god module.
"oh you trained caldari? hahahaah." |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:20:00 -
[326] - Quote
Dhaaran wrote:love the changes, tengu & drake had their years of dominance, now its time to spin the wheel once more
You forget the other ships that use Heavy Missiles, those are going to be hit hard as well. They never had any dominance either.
CCP is applying a terrible blanket nerf. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
baltec1
Bat Country
2145
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:20:00 -
[327] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:Ashera Yune wrote:What I disagree is having a one TD mod affect all.
TD will become a module that you can guarantee that everyone and their mother will fit. This is also my view. Guns and missiles should have separate countering modules.
What you mean just like ECM and disruptors?
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2941
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:23:00 -
[328] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
You're suggesting that the shorter range, higher DPS, faction HML ammo should be able to be projected consistently farther than the falloff of most the other long-range turret platforms? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:24:00 -
[329] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Oraac Ensor wrote:Ashera Yune wrote:What I disagree is having a one TD mod affect all.
TD will become a module that you can guarantee that everyone and their mother will fit. This is also my view. Guns and missiles should have separate countering modules. What you mean just like ECM and disruptors?
The problem is you have a one module fits all situation.
Multispec ECM is weak on nonbonused ships, a real Bonused ECM ship will have a variety of ECM jammers.
Disruptors are good at holding things at range but doesn't prevent a faster ship from burning off. A scramble has short range but turns off mwd.
TD is a module that encompasses all in one pack, all you have to do is change the script and behold, you have the GOD module that affects all dps ships. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4641
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:25:00 -
[330] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
You're suggesting that the shorter range, higher DPS, faction HML ammo should be able to be projected consistently farther than the falloff of most the other long-range turret platforms?
Are you suggesting that missiles should be instant damage? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:26:00 -
[331] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
You're suggesting that the shorter range, higher DPS, faction HML ammo should be able to be projected consistently farther than the falloff of most the other long-range turret platforms?
Its fair, considering that at shorter range LR turrets will outdamage Heavy missiles with faction high damage ammo. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Matsudaira Takuma
Legio Prima Victrix Imperius Legio Victrix
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:26:00 -
[332] - Quote
Hey CCP, lay down the crack pipe, slap the **** out your ears and maybe start thinking straight.
You're going to nerf the Drake and the Cane instead of bringing say the Myrm and Harb up to par. That's bullshit, what about all the low SP null sec players, Alliances like TEST, GOON, Fcon etc are going to be hit incredibly hard because suddenly all those low SP players can't even fly a semi-useful drake because welp, it's toilet now.
Also, wtf, nerfing the Drakes damage, it doesn't have any. If you're going to balance anything on that ship, balance its retardedly high tank.
I actually can't write exactly how bad this set of changes looks right now without resulting to petty name calling so I'm just gunna leave it here, **** heads. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
155
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:26:00 -
[333] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Grideris wrote:Mother of god. Not empty quoting.
WTF!!!!!!!! I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Ensign X
235
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:29:00 -
[334] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:Dhaaran wrote:love the changes, tengu & drake had their years of dominance, now its time to spin the wheel once more You forget the other ships that use Heavy Missiles, those are going to be hit hard as well. They never had any dominance either. CCP is applying a terrible blanket nerf.
Essentially, this. The Nighthawk is already one of the worst and least used Command Ships. This will gut it. The Cerberus is already one of the worst and least used HACs. This will gut it. Not to mention the world of hurt this heavy-handed nerf will have on the Onyx, Rook, Navy Caracal and any other ship that dared use HMLs.
We get it, the Drake and the Tengu are too strong (they aren't, really, but we get that you think they are). But why be so lazy and choose the most inelegant way to nerf these 2 ships by nerfing the entire weapon system? It makes no sense to nerf this way. What you did to the Hurricane was a far better solution to that problem. Why not just nerf the CPU on the Drake so it can't fit a full rack of HMLs and such a huge buffer? Why not just nerf the subsystem bonus on the Tengu?
Laziness, that's why. |
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:32:00 -
[335] - Quote
This is a bit ridiculous, heavy missiles were the only missiles that were viable for PvP now there are no missies except torps on bombers.
This nerf is too extreme it should be small changes, like a 5-10% nerf and then see how it is, then nerf more if there still considered OP.
What is the justification for nerfing heavies anyway? Is it because they are too strong in PvE? If people were worried about drake blobs its just gonna be some other kind of blob in nullsec. heavy missiles were a way that alowed smaller groups to take on larger groups through kiting, skill etc rather than just F1 the primary in alphabetical order, all this encourages is a different kind of blob.
And in wormholes the effects are even worse, currently its armor T3's and guardians everyware, there were a few viable shield ships that relied on heavy missiles, shield ships basically just got deleted from wormholes. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
645
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:32:00 -
[336] - Quote
CCP showing their usual prowess at ship balancing ITT EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
206
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:33:00 -
[337] - Quote
I don't normally use missile boats because I don't like them so I'm probably wrong on this but I just checked my old T2 nano drake and it gets 400dps with 7 launchers and 2 BCUs using LR scourge. I switched my blaster ferox to use 6x 250mm rails with two MFSs and it gets 300 dps with javelin. For faction ammo I get 350 on drake ( CN scourge ) and 295 on that Ferox ( CN AM ). Even when I added third MSF it is still has less dps than Drake.
All gunnery/missile support skills at level 4.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2942
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:33:00 -
[338] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
You're suggesting that the shorter range, higher DPS, faction HML ammo should be able to be projected consistently farther than the falloff of most the other long-range turret platforms? Are you suggesting that missiles should be instant damage?
No, not really. I'm just pointing out the many advantages missiles have had to offset the fact that they are not instant damage. I would certainly agree that there's a lot of variables in motion here to be considered.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:34:00 -
[339] - Quote
People seem to be forgetting the impact of the tracking enhancer buff. It makes missiles as a weapon family much more viable. Why are you complaining about the HML nerf if your HAMs can reach necessary ranges with better damage?
It means making torps viable, a mod that both increases their range, and effectiveness against smaller targets. Rockets, HAMS, and torps all become super awesome. I am very excited to see torp ships on the field, stealth bombers, the caldari BS lineup, and the typhoon are going to be mean.
My suggestion, (someone commented this earlier) is make a separate mid and lowslot module for missiles instead of just adding more effects to the TE and TC. Missile users shouldn't have to train high end gun skills to use a TC, it should be a missile skill and a mod solely for missiles. It will help retain the diversity and flavor of eve. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1228
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:34:00 -
[340] - Quote
ITT people who don't realize that HMLs are still the best medium sized long range weapons.
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
|
Luc Chastot
Moira. Villore Accords
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:38:00 -
[341] - Quote
Changes are terribad.
I fly Drake. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
92
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:38:00 -
[342] - Quote
When you said, "bringing heavy missiles in line with other long range cruiser weapons" did you have beam lasers in mind?
Because you've turned Heavy Missiles into the new Railguns. Bottom of the barrel here, we're going to. Now if HMLs only lost maybe 5% of their damage, but kept their -25% current range like you propose, that'd probably be ok. But this change is reducing a fifth of their current damage output from them. That's kind of significant. Unless you're going to boost their RoF to try and compensate slightly (for maybe a net 5 or 10 percent loss in damage output), which I don't think is going to happen.
It doesn't seem like you guys are very good at balancing things. If something is too effective you don't take your tools to it and chisel away, reshaping the role and powers of a ship, which is generally a rational approach.
You take a sledgehammer, and you smash out the metaphorical legs of the construction, and leave the wreck of what could've still been something decent to rot.
That's Caldari medium missile platforms right now. I'm fully aware that you can still boost the range back to how it was before. But this is at the cost of now utterly **** poor DPS compared to other long range weapon systems. The problem with the Drake wasn't sheer damagedealing potential. It was damage projection. Which isn't something you fix by making the damage that they project nearly irrelevant compared to other weapon systems. So now the Drake is going to have average at best defensive capabilities, but utterly awful offense.
So with this horribad blanket nerf you've thrown over Caldari, you've axed the Caracal's ability to strike at things it's own size or larger (somehow I don't think it's going to be that great with HAMs), the entire Caldari HAC lineup is overwhelmingly useless for a multitude of reasons, the Nighthawk? Oh well.
Why not just remove Caldari from the game? It's not like they're going to have much of a presence after all is said and done anyways. Unless you guys somehow manage to make the Moa and Ferox truly awe inspiring in a balanced fashion. |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:38:00 -
[343] - Quote
Short question: Nerf on Heavy missiles doesn-¦t affect heavy assault missiles. Right? |
Ensign X
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:39:00 -
[344] - Quote
Roime wrote:ITT people who don't realize that HMLs are still the best medium sized long range weapons.
With the plethora of evidence you've submitted to support this claim, I don't know how we could ever have doubted this. Thank you, Roime, for helping us all see the clear light of day. |
rofflesausage
State War Academy Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:39:00 -
[345] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Hi CCP Fozzie.
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
Their travel time, reload time, being reduced by smartbombs (a genuine problem when in capital warfare), and having vastly reduced damage by anything moving are serious problems.
Their biggest advantage is their range - which often means being out of tackle range and offering alpha support, thus being later into the battle anyway when in small cloaky fleets.
I simply can not see why you think they are over powered. It feels like someone has taken a look at a DPS spreadsheet and ignored everything else about them. This isn't far off 2 BCUs worth of damage.
Please take a look at the ships that use Heavy Missiles and check out their actual use in PvP - it's small compared to other damage systems. Caldari HACs are massively underused, The Nighthawk is barely used, and I've seen many Onxy just fit as many bubbles as they can with scripts because they are so bad.
I would urge you to look at what players are actually doing, and not what a spreadsheet is saying.
Regards
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
562
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:40:00 -
[346] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Are you suggesting that missiles should be instant damage?
no but they should still be the highest dps... but not by that much...
20% might be to harsh... perhaps 15% would be better...
but look at advantages for missiles
damage selection...
no decrease of damage over range
sure it has delayed damage but thats ok....
its just td's are now kind of OP and should have thier base bonus reduced...
i would reduce base bonus on TD to 15% for falloff optimal range and tracking...
but inkind i would increase the bonus on amarr special ships to 10% to compensate...
that way TD will be good but only on amarr special EW ships...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1541
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:40:00 -
[347] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Sarah Schneider wrote:You must have realized that missiles have their own problems, a blanket solution and saying that missiles should be brought to the DPS level of other weapon types doesn't make sense.
- Aside from bombs, missiles (and it's variants) are the only weapon type that doesn't deal instantaneous damage
- the only weapon type that can be firewalled
- the only weapon system in which target sig penalty always applies, regardless of whether they're moving or not
- and it is the primary weapon system for most caldari ships in which : a lot of new players are using/training into and a lot of older players invested into, and it uses launcher hardpoints, so it's not interchangeable to other weapon types like guns do.
I don't disagree with the nerf, but the damage reduction is too much considering the other nerfs are also put in place. I understand where you're coming from, missile have some inherent disadvantages, but these changes STILL leave HML's as king of DPS in their optimal range, even after damage and range nerfs. "Too many nerfs at once" is itself an arbitrary sentiment - these changes should be evaluated based on where they leave missiles in comparison to other weapons systems. There is no magic number of nerfs (1? 2? 3?) that is "too many" for any change that needs to happen to any ship. It all boils down to whether they achieve the desired results. Why does where I'm coming from got to do with anything? I wasn't talking about pvp/fleet battle pov of missiles. I was talking about missile mechanics in general, regardless of the application. The point was that missiles are different, people treat them differently because they are different, we can't really compare missiles to other weapon types only by reviewing their dps potential, they have different mechanics.
The only thing missiles are really good at, is it's potential range for a medium weapon platform and how the changes in range affects the dps projection in which missiles have none, as you know it already, as long as it's in range, they deal the same amount of dps regardless of range and transversal, as for the rest, they are worse than the other, they have travel times, signature penalties in which still applies even to static targets and can be countered in a way that gunnery weapons can't. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
The Djentleman Paulson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:41:00 -
[348] - Quote
BUT MY HURRICANE |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
562
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:41:00 -
[349] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote: This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP...
stopped reading at that point
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:42:00 -
[350] - Quote
Roime wrote:ITT people who don't realize that HMLs are still the best medium sized long range weapons.
Because making everything **** is preferable to making everything viable. |
|
eVRiAL
Pact Of Honour Red Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:43:00 -
[351] - Quote
CCP, why not give the missiles instant damage if you encourage rebalance them with guns. |
rofflesausage
State War Academy Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:44:00 -
[352] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:rofflesausage wrote: This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP...
stopped reading at that point
Helps if you get into PvP to be fair. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:44:00 -
[353] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
Long Range Tech 2 missile ammo?
You do realize that both T2 missiles have shorter range than T1 and Faction missiles right?
Faction Missiles are the ones used for long range engagements. They are the more expensive long range ammunition of choice, just like the T2 ammo is. |
2ofSpades
Medic.
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:44:00 -
[354] - Quote
This looks cool as long as the damage doesn't get nerfed too much in the end. I thought the idea was high damage ammo is made made to hit big targets hard but little targets not so well. |
Inggroth
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:45:00 -
[355] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Please please please reconsider this. Its one huge step towards making every weapon system the exact same, which makes for a shallow game.
HM nerf was waiting to happen for a very long time - i'm sure you'll have to correct the exact numbers a bit but the overall idea is fine in my opinion. I interpret the Hurricane PG nerf and Arty PG requirement tweak as a nice little Muninn buff, so thats cool
|
Fras Siabi
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:45:00 -
[356] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote:
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
What? Have we lost Fountain yet? |
darius mclever
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:47:00 -
[357] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Malcanis wrote: Are you suggesting that missiles should be instant damage?
no but they should still be the highest dps... but not by that much... 20% might be to harsh... perhaps 15% would be better... but look at advantages for missiles damage selection...
To some extend. most of the time you will be using the bonused missiles.
Quote: no decrease of damage over range
sure it has delayed damage but thats ok....
* even in flying away from your attacker in a straight line will reduce the incoming dps. with turrets you will just give them perfect tracking until you manage to run out of their range. * smart bombs. * and soon to be tracking disruptors.
Quote: its just td's are now kind of OP and should have thier base bonus reduced...
i would reduce base bonus on TD to 15% for falloff optimal range and tracking...
but inkind i would increase the bonus on amarr special ships to 10% to compensate...
that way TD will be good but only on amarr special EW ships...
|
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1541
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:47:00 -
[358] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote: This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
You are wrong. It's exactly the opposite.
rofflesausage wrote: Their travel time, reload time, being reduced by smartbombs (a genuine problem when in capital warfare), and having vastly reduced damage by anything moving are serious problems.
Their biggest advantage is their range - which often means being out of tackle range and offering alpha support, thus being later into the battle anyway when in small cloaky fleets.
I simply can not see why you think they are over powered. It feels like someone has taken a look at a DPS spreadsheet and ignored everything else about them. This isn't far off 2 BCUs worth of damage.
Please take a look at the ships that use Heavy Missiles and check out their actual use in PvP - it's small compared to other damage systems. Caldari HACs are massively underused, The Nighthawk is barely used, and I've seen many Onxy just fit as many bubbles as they can with scripts because they are so bad.
I would urge you to look at what players are actually doing, and not what a spreadsheet is saying.
edit - you might want to also factor in that rails are still poor, meaning Caldari are really getting hit hard here.
You are right. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
None ofthe Above
324
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:48:00 -
[359] - Quote
Tanaka Aiko wrote:huuu wait both a range AND a damage reduction for heavy missiles ? isn't that a bit too much at the same time ? and 20% o_O
I hope the damage increase on fury will mitigate that a lot... cause this seems like too big a nerf. i'm okay will losing some range, cause honestly they have too much, but losing range and damage at the same time, and for this much... that's too much :/
you should only tweak the numbers a bit for now, and with for full BC rebalance to change more these, cause nerfing hurricane and drakes/tengu for that much for 3 months ago will have a lot of repercussion on farming and pvp on high low null and wh...
This has always been the CCP way. After all, if something can be balanced by a 5% decrease, surely it must be more balanced by a 20%? And yeah lets throw in another "balance", and another! There! We've balanced it! Yay! Wait...what do you mean its useless? It's just heavily balanced.
Lighten up on the nerf sledgehammer CCP!
Or better yet, leave working ships and weapon systems alone and fix the broken ones. Missiles as a whole are pretty broken and largely laughable. HMLs were the one bright spot.
Thank you so much for the "end-game content", from a disgusted now destined to be Faildari pilot.
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Alexandr Archer
Astral Industry Service ROL.Citizens
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:52:00 -
[360] - Quote
First of all i must apologise for my English, it is far from perfect.
But i have proposition have to resolve this problem with HM:
1.Fury modification of missiles : a)cutoff half from range b)damage remain the same as it is now c)Remove penalties on signature of ship
Concept of using: VS slower then you,but more survivable ship Exaple: Drake vs BSips,
2.Precision modification of missiles: a)range of current Fury/Faction/T1 missiles b)damage remain the same as it is now c)remove penalties of ship's speed
Concept of using: VS faster and smaller targets,less dps but with improve range.Also work as longrange modification of another t2 ammo. Exaple:Nighthwak vs intercepter(with Fury you even willn't scratch it) 3.Faction modification of missiles
a)33% cutoff from range b)damage reduced by 10% Concept of using:Vs medium ship types. Exaple:Drake vs Hurricane,Harbringer.
4.T1 modification of missiles: a)33% cutoff from range b)damage reduced by 10% Concept of using:Vs medium ship types. Exaple:Drake vs Hurricane,Harbringer.
Bloobs cant get same DPS with the same range.Medium and small scale pvp is still an option.PVE don't lose all,but only half of range.All caldari ships still will be in using.
Thanks for reading! |
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
442
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:52:00 -
[361] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
What is the long range tech II ammo for HMLs?
|
Ensign X
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:54:00 -
[362] - Quote
The makers of Ben and Jerry Ice Cream became aware that their Chunky Monkey brand of Ice Cream was outselling all their other flavours. It seemed everybody wanted to eat Chunky Monkey because it was so delicious. But Ben and Jerry wanted their other brands to be just as good as Chunky Monkey so that everybody could enjoy them. So Ben and Jerry went and took a **** in their next batch of Chunky Monkey. When asked why would they do this, they answered:
"It was just so much easier to make Chunky Monkey taste like **** than to make the other flavours taste better."
CCP went to the Ben and Jerry School of Product Design. |
Jean Leaner
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:54:00 -
[363] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done?
Often, its called firewall. |
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:55:00 -
[364] - Quote
OP = Legend.
About time HML got brought into line. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
345
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:56:00 -
[365] - Quote
Hooray for 90% tracking disruptors! |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:58:00 -
[366] - Quote
For reference, and because someone else quoted laughably wrong numbers before:
Currently: All level 5 skills, no drones Drake, 7 HML IIs, 2 BCU IIs, regular scourge missiles: 321 dps @ 84.4 km
Harbinger, 7 Heavy beam laser IIs, 2 heatsink IIs, regular multifrequency: 407 dps @ 15+10 km
Cane, 6 720mm howitzer IIs, 2 gyros IIs, regular EMP 371 dps @ 15+22 km
Myrm (bad comparison, because of lack of drones 6 250mm railgun IIs, 2 magstab IIs, regular antimatter 265 dps @ 18+15 km |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:58:00 -
[367] - Quote
Awesome changes CCP Fozzie have a gold star on me :P |
Shrrrg
Friends Of Harassment
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 17:59:00 -
[368] - Quote
I have some major problems with the whole "Td can affect anything". Not only that you have now your module for everything but how does the td or tc or te affect missiles? Is every missile customly build in your ship and a td affect how much is build in?
i mean the lore is maybe not that important but that is a harder kick in the face of the lore than "DD can only target capitals".
In addition i would say that 20% dmg nerf are way to hard, but it's okay with these changes i will just fly my ham drake with 440 dps at 40km. Ham nerf incoming! |
Esteban Dragonovic
Odyssey Inc SpaceMonkey's Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:00:00 -
[369] - Quote
Why does CCP hate my nighthawk? What did it ever do to you? D: |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:00:00 -
[370] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTWuVDWmhLo CCP hard at work |
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
601
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:01:00 -
[371] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.
But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)
Drakes will be even more op than now...
/me is sad
Cane got nerfed when ASB came out. Minus a drake a solo cane pilot had a chance in a fight, than the ASB came out. This is just pissing on it's grave. Glad I switched to missiles when I realized the cane was dead, oh wait I better read the rest of this post.
But don't worry if you have a bunch of canes you just fit 720s and do some high sec ganking, untill you can fit a proper Tornado. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
92
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:01:00 -
[372] - Quote
Esteban Dragonovic wrote:Why does CCP hate my nighthawk? What did it ever do to you? D:
Better question really is why does CCP hate Caldari? |
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:02:00 -
[373] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:The makers of Ben and Jerry Ice Cream became aware that their Chunky Monkey brand of Ice Cream was outselling all their other flavours. It seemed everybody wanted to eat Chunky Monkey because it was so delicious. But Ben and Jerry wanted their other brands to be just as good as Chunky Monkey so that everybody could enjoy them. So Ben and Jerry went and took a **** in their next batch of Chunky Monkey. When asked why would they do this, they answered:
"It was just so much easier to make Chunky Monkey taste like **** than to make the other flavours taste better."
CCP went to the Ben and Jerry School of Product Design.
LOL sums up this nerf perfectly. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1229
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:04:00 -
[374] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Roime wrote:ITT people who don't realize that HMLs are still the best medium sized long range weapons.
With the plethora of evidence you've submitted to support this claim, I don't know how we could ever have doubted this. Thank you, Roime, for helping us all see the clear light of day.
Open EFT or pyfa, test it out for yourself.
HMLs currently not only have almost 30% higher base damage, they also hit at 100% damage every time against BCs and larger, moving or not.
Also, chance to hit. Did you know that in addition to transversal, sig, falloff and vulnerability to TDs, turrets are rolled against a random number on every hit? Turrets can miss, how cool is that!
Now missiles have equal range and damage, but they still hit every single time.
So ITT "boohoo, my medium-sized LR weapon system is not completely and utterly insanely OP anymore"
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:05:00 -
[375] - Quote
about that range nerv... nobody wrote something about the one small little problem all missle based weapons share: there is NO falloff, if your target is just one little millimeter out of range you're doing how much dmg? Right: Zero.
if it is CCPs intention to bring weapon systems "inline" please consider an appropriate change to guns that have the shocking abillity to hit things outside of their "optimal"...
i still use that nighthawk now and then - but after these changes i can't think of anything usefull i could fly it for besides making it a somewhat expensive hauler with a 700m3 cargobay.
the longer i think about these changes the more they aggravate me
cu |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:05:00 -
[376] - Quote
Athena Themis wrote:Ensign X wrote:The makers of Ben and Jerry Ice Cream became aware that their Chunky Monkey brand of Ice Cream was outselling all their other flavours. It seemed everybody wanted to eat Chunky Monkey because it was so delicious. But Ben and Jerry wanted their other brands to be just as good as Chunky Monkey so that everybody could enjoy them. So Ben and Jerry went and took a **** in their next batch of Chunky Monkey. When asked why would they do this, they answered:
"It was just so much easier to make Chunky Monkey taste like **** than to make the other flavours taste better."
CCP went to the Ben and Jerry School of Product Design. LOL sums up this nerf perfectly.
pfft, yeah if the icecream flavors were in an arena trying to kill each other gladiator style.
QQ my OP ships aren't OP anymore QQ |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:05:00 -
[377] - Quote
Athena Themis wrote:Ensign X wrote:The makers of Ben and Jerry Ice Cream became aware that their Chunky Monkey brand of Ice Cream was outselling all their other flavours. It seemed everybody wanted to eat Chunky Monkey because it was so delicious. But Ben and Jerry wanted their other brands to be just as good as Chunky Monkey so that everybody could enjoy them. So Ben and Jerry went and took a **** in their next batch of Chunky Monkey. When asked why would they do this, they answered:
"It was just so much easier to make Chunky Monkey taste like **** than to make the other flavours taste better."
CCP went to the Ben and Jerry School of Product Design. LOL sums up this nerf perfectly.
Actually it doesn't.
I'm glad CCP didn't go the powercreep way and just made everything better. |
tom trade valine
DOCS RUFF RIDERS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:06:00 -
[378] - Quote
Let me guess someone ran to CCP and started complaing about drakes being OP so there solution was to nerf Heavy missiles across the board to bring this in line. If ccp is really this stupid to contiue this style of what they call balanceing then when there game goes bust they can only blame them selfs. Some things are going to be OP but it dosent make them near unstopable so this continueing to rebalance of everythig to make everyone have the same whatever is getting way over done |
Alara IonStorm
3161
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:06:00 -
[379] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Yes, exactly. Many thanks for providing this. As you can see in the graph, heavy missiles pretty much dominate this range class of weapons, with the only weapons system providing any advantage at all being railguns on a Ferox - and at a huge DPS hit to achieve this.
If you run the same graph after the changes Fozzie is proposing, you will see that there are now actual advantages to using other weapons besides HML at these ranges.
Which other Medium Range Weapons Systems do you think will replace them.
I will give you a hint, it starts with none and ends with none. Not gonna see anymore LOL Medium Beams or LOL Medium Rails, maybe a few 720mm Whelp Boats but only if they have the vaunted double DPS Bonus.
So how does nerfing the good weapons system so none of them are good help EVE Hans. Why can we not see buffs to medium weapons and bonuses so Ferox's, Harbingers and Canes are seen as much as Drakes and keep the Drake as a viable fleet option instead of this Death to Drakes out of spite thing and every other Cruiser that uses Heavy Missiles along with it. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:07:00 -
[380] - Quote
Y'know, on the plus side I will never have to worry about facing a Drake with my Merlin ever again. Just have to pop 5 light drones and I'm set.
HML Drake? LOL I can tank your crap damage.
HAM Drake? LOL your explosion radius and velocity can't touch me.
Doesn't matter what range I come in at. I can beeline straight at the Drake without a worry at all. Could never do that against an Arty Cane, Beam Harbie, or Rail Boat. And by the looks of it, even Precision missiles won't be to much of a threat.
Truly, this is gonna be a golden age of comedy killmails. |
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:08:00 -
[381] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
This will make missiles obsolete. Turrets are way better.
|
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:08:00 -
[382] - Quote
I too think that the heavy missile nerf is a bit excessive. Yeah, they did need a nerf and all these changes should make things interesting but maybe start with a -10% damage first and see how it goes? I don't think we want another vanguard-like mess for overnerfing things. This post was rated "C" for capsuleer. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:10:00 -
[383] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Y'know, on the plus side I will never have to worry about facing a Drake with my Merlin ever again. Just have to pop 5 light drones and I'm set.
HML Drake? LOL I can tank your crap damage.
HAM Drake? LOL your explosion radius and velocity can't touch me.
Doesn't matter what range I come in at. I can beeline straight at the Drake without a worry at all. Could never do that against an Arty Cane, Beam Harbie, or Rail Boat. And by the looks of it, even Precision missiles won't be to much of a threat.
Truly, this is gonna be a golden age of comedy killmails.
My new bait drake stuffed with T2 missiles and tracking mods is waiting for you. |
Lance Shrike
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:11:00 -
[384] - Quote
I predict a Burn Jita "Drake Edition" event soon.
This nerf is horrible, you should feel bad CCP. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
563
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:12:00 -
[385] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:
To some extend. most of the time you will be using the bonused missiles.
which is why a bunch of ships are loosing the kin damage bonus and getting a base damage bonus or a rate of fire bonus...
which means you can select any damage type you want... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
CraftyCroc
Gunpoint Diplomacy
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:14:00 -
[386] - Quote
Please fix ECM |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
229
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:15:00 -
[387] - Quote
I'm glad ccp mixes things up from time to time and whatever they do I'll adapt, but I will say this: This HML change seems like a classic case of CCP over-nerf.
I've seen it too many times in EVE. They made upgradeable systems, then (despite feedback fro the start saying that upgradeable systems might make null sec TOO "even", which they ignored), they nerfed the upgrade scheme, making much of null worthless, which they then came back and fixed by buffing the anomalies...to the point where Titans could make 3-400 mil an hour in forsaken hubs, which they then fixed by nerfing Titans...which turned titans into glorified null sec fleet taxis and nothing else..
It happens with incursions , over nerfing them just to turn around and somewhat un-nerf them. Over and over again we've seen it.
I ask simply, from an efficiency stand point, wouldn't it make more sense to make small incremental changes and see how they pans out? To many nerfs at once simply creates "unintended consequences" (like in this case, you end up nerfing missiles ships that already suck, because the Drake is to good a blob ship).
Because Firewalls and missile travel time exists, bringing HMLs in line with other medium ship weapons don't mean harmony and balance in fleet fights, it means drakes go from over-used to not-used and other caldari missile ships join the Eagle on the "don't -not-use-ever" shelf.
It's too much. It's sensor Dampeners all over again (for those who don't know what a sensor damp is because you've never seen one used, visit eve-wiki lol).
|
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
102
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:16:00 -
[388] - Quote
Rita May wrote:about that range nerv... nobody wrote something about the one small little problem all missle based weapons share: there is NO falloff, if your target is just one little millimeter out of range you're doing how much dmg? Right: Zero.
Isn't it terrible not having your damage degrade over range? Missiles would be so much better if they lost damage as they traveled. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
601
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:18:00 -
[389] - Quote
Takes forever to train a skill, and only seconds for CCP to make it useless.
Dosn't it take like a month to get heavy missile 5? Isn't that a 25% damage increase. +100mil ISK for %5 implant.
All that time and ISK to seethe benefit reduced by 66%.
Are missiles that OP? I guess that's why all PVP is done in caldari ships.
I mean really what's the benefit of training anything? In all likelihood the object is going to get nerfed before you finish the traing.
Oh wait, never mind I see will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Sounds like another FU to bittervets crying about every "miner" change!
Serious I need some assurance on what wont be nerfed. I don't see a reason to waist all this time traing skills that you are going to make useless at a later date. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1542
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:20:00 -
[390] - Quote
Roime wrote:Ensign X wrote:Roime wrote:ITT people who don't realize that HMLs are still the best medium sized long range weapons.
With the plethora of evidence you've submitted to support this claim, I don't know how we could ever have doubted this. Thank you, Roime, for helping us all see the clear light of day. Open EFT or pyfa, test it out for yourself. HMLs currently not only have almost 30% higher base damage, they also hit at 100% damage every time against BCs and larger, moving or not. Also, chance to hit. Did you know that in addition to transversal, sig, falloff and vulnerability to TDs, turrets are rolled against a random number on every hit? Turrets can miss, how cool is that! Now missiles have equal range and damage, but they still hit every single time. So ITT "boohoo, my medium-sized LR weapon system is not completely and utterly insanely OP anymore" You're forgetting something :
- HML in a drake (for example) deal more damage than others because it is a ship with kinetic damage bonus, if you use different ammo types, then this "advantage" doesn't apply. Yes, drakes can switch ammo types, yes drakes should just use scourges, but the point where 'missiles can easily switch damage types' becomes moot if we're talking about damage/dps.
- While turrets can miss, they do full damage when the target is not moving, or webbed below the tracking speed of the turret, without any penalties, at all. Missiles, whether the target is moving or sitting there like a duck, still get that penalty damage from signature radius.
- You can slingshot and play around with traversal, regardless of the target's speed, if they fall below your tracking speed, the target is dead. With missiles, if they go fast enough, even with 0 angular and right in your face, you, will, miss.
- You can firewall missiles, hence reduce incoming damage or even eliminate them completely on a perfect scenario. You cannot do the same with guns.
- You need to wait until the missiles reach their target, if they initiated warp before then, it's gone. This also made missiles less useful than guns on some scenarios like vanguard blitzing for example.
"I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:21:00 -
[391] - Quote
Care to explain why Heavy Missiles are being nerfed so catastrophically and why the Hurricane as 'an arty ship' is being nerfed despite it never being used as an arty ship?
'Hey, artilleries are too hard to fit. Let's reduce the PG requirement for them and reduce the Hurricane PG requirement so that they're still hard to fit.'
No one will still fit medium artilleries, you know, because a) they'll still be hard to fit and b) they'll still suck major league balls.
Bravo CCP |
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive Blue Nation
103
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:22:00 -
[392] - Quote
A 20% nerf to heavy missile damage is pretty heavy handed. I would have thought the range nerf would be enough to be honest. I wouldn't be suprised if you ended up completely destroying heavy missiles' usefullness. |
Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
164
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:22:00 -
[393] - Quote
My initial gut reaction to the HML nerf is that it seems a bit heavy handed.
Before I jump to conclusions on that one though, I have to ask; what's the baseline weapons system performance benchmark you're going for with cruiser sized weapon systems? |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:23:00 -
[394] - Quote
HMLs still have the highest sustained damage, second highest range and second highest volley of all the systems. Sure, missiles take a while to reach a target, but when they do, they are more consistent in applying the damage to targets of equal or higher size, as it should be for all weapon systems.
You look at the massive nerf percentages, but you fail to perceive how strong they were compared to other weapon systems. Stop whining, you really have no basis to stand on. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1230
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:24:00 -
[395] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Yes, exactly. Many thanks for providing this. As you can see in the graph, heavy missiles pretty much dominate this range class of weapons, with the only weapons system providing any advantage at all being railguns on a Ferox - and at a huge DPS hit to achieve this.
If you run the same graph after the changes Fozzie is proposing, you will see that there are now actual advantages to using other weapons besides HML at these ranges.
Which other Medium Range Weapons Systems do you think will replace them. I will give you a hint, it starts with none and ends with none. Not gonna see anymore LOL Medium Beams or LOL Medium Rails, maybe a few 720mm Whelp Boats but only if they have the vaunted double DPS Bonus. So how does nerfing the good weapons system so none of them are good help EVE Hans. Why can we not see buffs to medium weapons and bonuses so Ferox's, Harbingers and Canes are seen as much as Drakes and keep the Drake as a viable fleet option instead of this Death to Drakes out of spite thing and every other Cruiser that uses Heavy Missiles along with it.
This is the only valid concern in this thread so far.
So what's the problem of other medium weapons, tracking, low dps or both?
(aka why HMs we're OP )
Or could it be that they only sucked in comparison to HMLs?
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Wolfgang Eisenstern
Ashfell Celestial Equilibrium POD-SQUAD
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:24:00 -
[396] - Quote
I just have to wonder why CCP opts to solve a problem by severely reducing missile effectiveness?
A more constructive way would be to fix the counter-stuff that don't work or perhaps add other stuff to have this counter effect.
1. Defender missiles. Boost these instead. Anti-missile-missiles that should be more effective. 2. Tracking disruptors working on missiles is good. 3. Make short range turrets to have anti-missile capabilities. To get short-range Anti-Missile-gatlings or something to select a missile defense program for them. 4. Scripts to load affecting probability of hitting missiles and drones. 5. Other forms of defense systems. An EVE version of todays technologies with Chaffs, Flares etc would be a definate choice. 6. Add a new class of defense drones specialized in anti-missile combat. 7. Add a swarm battery of micro-missiles that have same sort of ammo-loading that cap-chargers etc, with a pretty fast cycle time, that will engage all missiles within a certain range (if they have time to track them for enough time). This will enable anti-missile defense ships for fleet battles.
This is just suggestions I come up with in a short time... and all I read suggested is "NERF, NERF, NERF!!!"... Not that constructive... I hope CCP reads this and thinks - 'Aahhh... maybe we should approach this the same way as mining'... that is to make other stuff better to balance. I just think adding new equipment would be better. Makes for more research, more production and more ISK - which we all want. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
93
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:25:00 -
[397] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:My initial gut reaction to the HML nerf is that it seems a bit heavy handed.
Before I jump to conclusions on that one though, I have to ask; what's the baseline weapons system performance benchmark you're going for with cruiser sized weapon systems?
I personally think they had railguns in mind for the new HML stats. Find the problem.
Hint, it's railguns. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
721
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:26:00 -
[398] - Quote
My main concern with these changes is that you are fully removing a SIXTH of the Hurricane's powergrid, all in one fell swoop. This affects far more than simply artillery Hurricanes; virtually every kind of Hurricane fit today is adversely affected by these changes. Is this intended?
I might also make note that Rapid Light launchers with Fury will do 96% the DPS of Heavy launchers with faction after these changes, albeit with half the range. Are you sure you aren't nerfing HML DPS a little too much? Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:29:00 -
[399] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote:Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
Let's pull up the top 20 page on eve-kill dot net
RankWeaponsKills 1Heavy Missile Launcher II78177 2425mm AutoCannon II20772 3Heavy Pulse Laser II15799
Yeah, you're pretty much full of ****. Heavy missiles are OP and should be nerfed. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2169
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:32:00 -
[400] - Quote
These changes make both TEs and TDs both must-have modules for every ship. They need a nerf.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:32:00 -
[401] - Quote
I support the OP.
Most of it seem good (but I'm a bit unsure about the T2 missiles). |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:33:00 -
[402] - Quote
I also can't understand this obsession with swinging the nerfhammer around like some bloodthirsty viking. Why not retrieve the significantly underused buffhammer from its dusty shelf instead? |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
96
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:37:00 -
[403] - Quote
Haquer wrote:
Let's pull up the top 20 page on eve-kill dot net
RankWeaponsKills 1Heavy Missile Launcher II78177 2425mm AutoCannon II20772 3Heavy Pulse Laser II15799
Yeah, you're pretty much full of ****. Heavy missiles are OP and should be nerfed.
You can correlate that with the Drake being the top ship. HMLs on most other ships are meh. Hell, this is also almost all kinetic damage! If you change to something else, it's much less. I can guarantee you that maybe 75000 of those HML II kills were using kinetic missiles grunted out of a drake. The problem is the combination of traits the Drake has/had that make it viable. Nobody screams bloody murder if you put HMLs on a Rook, or a Lachesis. Also what about the Minmatar missile boats that are going to be negatively impacted by this, such as the new Bellicose this winter? Well, it's probably going to become Caracal II and the bane of frigates and destroyers everywhere. Making the Caracal useless.
Watch how this all changes after winter. Caldari and Gallente are going to be having a tea party together, down at the "least used ships" rung of the ladder. |
rofflesausage
State War Academy Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:38:00 -
[404] - Quote
Fras Siabi wrote:rofflesausage wrote:
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
What?
You could do what I just did - check your own TEST killboard on both losses and kills and see how many ships use missiles in general.
Hint: It's not a lot. If you exclude Drakes and Tengus, missile use looks even more pitiful.
Finding a PvP ship that uses cruise missiles is difficult, heavys are propped in position by Drakes and Tengus, lights are only suited to a handful of ships and torps are not often used outside of Stealth Bombers.
I'll say it again: Missiles are already underused in PvP. Take away the Drake and the Tengu and the numbers start to look awful. Your own killboard shows this. |
progodlegend
101st Space Marine Force Nulli Secunda
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:39:00 -
[405] - Quote
Finally Drakes and Heavy missiles are getting the nerf they deserve. Heavy missiles are way too OP, and this has been long overdue.
If you don't go through with the heavy missile nerf, it will just prove what everyone already suspects, that goons hold a significant influence over CCP and adjust the game as they see fit.
Quote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script)
Your range will be fine. |
Etheoma
The Dark Space Initiative
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:40:00 -
[406] - Quote
HERE COMES THE NERF BATE AGAIN; AND OH NOOOOOO! THEY TOOK A SWING AT THE HEAVY MISSILES!
20% damage decrease wtf I get the range decrease and would have been disappointed but also would have seen why if they left it at that BUT NO they had to f*** with the already mediocre damage of heavy missiles... great... And I don't even use heavy missiles that much. Well I'm going to be switching to a loki for doing PVE |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:40:00 -
[407] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote:Fras Siabi wrote:rofflesausage wrote:
This is awful. Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
What? You could do what I just did - check your own TEST killboard on both losses and kills and see how many ships use missiles in general. Hint: It's not a lot. If you exclude Drakes and Tengus, missile use looks even more pitiful. Finding a PvP ship that uses cruise missiles is difficult, heavys are propped in position by Drakes and Tengus, lights are only suited to a handful of ships and torps are not often used outside of Stealth Bombers. I'll say it again: Missiles are already underused in PvP. Take away the Drake and the Tengu and the numbers start to look awful. Your own killboard shows this.
Keyword there being 'if you exclude drakes and tengus'. What? Are you ********? |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
601
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:40:00 -
[408] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:HMLs still have the highest sustained damage, second highest range and second highest volley of all the systems. Sure, missiles take a while to reach a target, but when they do, they are more consistent in applying the damage to targets of equal or higher size, as it should be for all weapon systems.
You look at the massive nerf percentages, but you fail to perceive how strong they were compared to other weapon systems. Stop whining, you really have no basis to stand on.
Sounds like a case of make it suck as bad as everything else. 425's will still work good but You'll have to fit them to BS if you want any tank at all. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
96
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:42:00 -
[409] - Quote
I think another prong to this issue here is the fact that to my knowledge the Drake is the only T1 missile focused battlecruiser. Has anyone else noticed that? Because that seems to be a thing. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:43:00 -
[410] - Quote
Because that is exactly what you want to do when we have a blob landscape as we have right now: increase the damage and range on everything so that **** dies even faster. This is balance, friend. There are other ship classes to hold in regard as well. |
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
601
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:44:00 -
[411] - Quote
Honda makes a good car, Ford makes a crappy car. Auto manufactures get together and decide to nerf Honda. Immersion? Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Corteztkiller
Pwn 'N Play Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:44:00 -
[412] - Quote
Is there any chance that heavy assault missles could get a slight buff? It might just be me but they seem to be an underused weapons system. |
Asmodes Reynolds
Rayn Enterprises
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:44:00 -
[413] - Quote
confirming that ccp is to incompetent to balance their game properly, instead of having unique in vastly different mechanics for their weapons systems and tanking modules to make the game exciting and engaging, where the meta-game is constantly changing and they have decided to make every tanking type, and every weapons system at virtually the same. .
A couple patches back in Inferno, they wanted to change shield/armor function virtually the same. Favoring passive/active changing as your choice. Needless to say that's a very bad idea. They started by trying to change the rigs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99872 ( CCP bouncing ideas, are as close to good , as fire is to ice .because none of them actually play it again besides missioning/mining in high-sec ).
Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players.. all it will do is dumbed down eve even more. It is gotten so bad that there is very little difference between the races, Beyond what slots they used to tank, and what flavor of gun they put in their high slots. well I admit there is problems with most of the missile boats in the game at the moment I think that is more wrong with ships themselves than the actual missile mechanic.
what is going to make this thing easier for new players, is more mechanics built in that facilitates experienced players teaching the new players. Here's some ideas off the top of my head. Reworking the certificate system so that players, make and share certificates among the corporation mates and their alliance mates easily. The certificates could be used for anything such as an easy to look up new player training plan. All the way up to figuring out if you have enough skills to qualify for reimbursement on a particular ship.
Because God knows none of the CCP staff are qualified to teach someone how to properly fit a ship or the skills required to properly fitted anymore. I'm going to hazard a guess and say no CCP dev is playing the way the average player does since the T2 lottery scandal. THE FACT THAT NO Dev plays the game the way the majority of pvper play. They have no clue about balancing past they care bearing in hisec.
so I urge you to put new player training in the hands of current players and give usThe tools to do it. Instead of dumbing down eve to the lowest of dominator |
Ensign X
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:46:00 -
[414] - Quote
Haquer wrote:rofflesausage wrote:Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
Let's pull up the top 20 page on eve-kill dot net RankWeaponsKills 1Heavy Missile Launcher II78177 2425mm AutoCannon II20772 3Heavy Pulse Laser II15799 Yeah, you're pretty much full of ****. Heavy missiles are OP and should be nerfed.
Yup, those numbers aren't skewed by HMLs being one of only 2(HAM being the other) weapon systems that the Drake can fit, whereas the Hurricane commonly uses as many as 5-7 different weapon systems (180mm, 220mm, 425mm, 720mm, etc.). And it's also not skewed by the Drake being heavily reimbursed by Null entities in their Null blobs.
Context. You fail at it. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
206
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:46:00 -
[415] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:HMLs still have the highest sustained damage, second highest range and second highest volley of all the systems. Sure, missiles take a while to reach a target, but when they do, they are more consistent in applying the damage to targets of equal or higher size, as it should be for all weapon systems.
You look at the massive nerf percentages, but you fail to perceive how strong they were compared to other weapon systems. Stop whining, you really have no basis to stand on. Sounds like a case of make it suck as bad as everything else. 425's will still work good but You'll have to fit them to BS if you want any tank at all. Wait, what? Battleship-sized weapons will have to be fitted to battleships to have a decent tank against comparable weapons?!
|
Oleszka
Syntropia Of Avatara
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:47:00 -
[416] - Quote
EvE-Craft....USK 0 you have never seen more useless changes and statistiks. EvE-Movie, take a look and enjoy it PushMe |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
857
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:49:00 -
[417] - Quote
I haven't read everything yet...
So excuse me.
But seriously... nerf cane but not drake first?
Seriously, the cane is hardly overpowered compared to the Drake.
Going back to reading. Getting my rage out early... Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
230
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:49:00 -
[418] - Quote
Aglais wrote:
You can correlate that with the Drake being the top ship.
Exactly, alliances use the drake for the combo of factors, mainly the Bs-like EHP. If Drakes used Civilian Gatling Guns those things would be considered overpowered lol.
I'm all for tweaks, this is too much too fast and it will have too many negative affects on things ccp aren't trying to "balance" like PVE. i'll adapt (buying Navy raven and serp tracking comps for my ratting in 3...2....1....) but it's just a waste of dev time because if history tells us anything, their WILL be an un-nerf cycle to follow this nerf. |
Ensign X
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:49:00 -
[419] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:If you don't go through with the heavy missile nerf, it will just prove what everyone already suspects, that goons hold a significant influence over CCP and adjust the game as they see fit.
Because the GOONS couldnt have used any other fleet doctrine to keep your alliance cowering in stations before you tucked tail and ran out of Nullsec. ****, they could have been parked outside your stations in Rifters and had the same effect. Drake blobs aren't the reason for the downfall of your alliance. Terrible leadership is the reason for the downfall of your alliance. |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:49:00 -
[420] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:I also can't understand this obsession with swinging the nerfhammer around like some bloodthirsty viking. Why not retrieve the significantly underused buffhammer from its dusty shelf instead? ... We have a dozen threads in this forum that's showcasing the use of the buffhammer. It boggles my mind that you don't notice unless it's affecting whatever ship you're flying today. -Liang Yes, buffing the T1 frigates so a majority become redundant and useless and the T1 cruisers in a way which doesn't actually solve the problem of why they're never used. Meanwhile, the staples of my ship hangar - Drake, Hurricane and Tengu - get their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer. |
|
Ana Fox
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:51:00 -
[421] - Quote
So now one med slot MUST be TD ?Did we just get new form of ECM ?
HML range was to much ,who says it was not is realistic.But damage nerf is too much .Drake and Tengu are not only ship that use HML ,point is you dont use lazy approach to fix two ships.Tengu fix was easy ,just reduce range and oversized AB ,and also give him some dps nerf. Now what with all other ships ?Why they hell you would now train to max out Gila if you can do that with Ishtar in half less time.What is Nighthawk role now?Cereberus and all other HML ships.
Saying that HMLs were on line is wrong ,but this much no way.
It is not problem to train something else ,but this for me will mostly affect new players.Most of Caldari new players that got a chance to fly proper Drake after 6 months training will now be like wtf I need to do now ?
Two ships was problem and mostly cause of blob warfare.You dont need to kill whole ship line cause of two ships that have ability not to commit to fight and sick kite option.
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
602
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:51:00 -
[422] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Lord Ryan wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:HMLs still have the highest sustained damage, second highest range and second highest volley of all the systems. Sure, missiles take a while to reach a target, but when they do, they are more consistent in applying the damage to targets of equal or higher size, as it should be for all weapon systems.
You look at the massive nerf percentages, but you fail to perceive how strong they were compared to other weapon systems. Stop whining, you really have no basis to stand on. Sounds like a case of make it suck as bad as everything else. 425's will still work good but You'll have to fit them to BS if you want any tank at all. Wait, what? Battleship-sized weapons will have to be fitted to battleships to have a decent tank against comparable weapons?!
The other 425's. The ones that are relevant to this thread. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
ZeroeZ Redshift
SPEAR CORPORATION
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:51:00 -
[423] - Quote
Alright,
I can honestly say that this is an ill-conceived plan. If this goes through it will cause a whole chain of problems down the line. I get that it's easy to see a fraction of the picture and make a decision based upon that, but that is a total fallacy. See, the issue runs much deeper that just nerfing the Drake.
There are other ships besides the Drake that rely on HMLs that will get totally blind sided by this. The Caracal/Cerberus and the Niighthawk come to mind. These ships already have to deal with the mediocre damage that are inherent to HMLs, the flight-time delay and the explosion velocity dramas.
I do concur that these changes will bring the drake back into line, there's no doubt. In doing so, however, other ships will pay an extremely heavy price. For one, Command ships are already broken - It takes longer to train up for a command ship than it does a Strategic Cruiser, yet Strategic Cruisers do more damage, tank better and are much more versatile. I do realise that there is a certain amount of risk like subsystem skill losses, but the difference in training time totally outstrips that.
Implementing this nerf as it currently stands will totally unbalance Caldari Command Ships even more than they currently are. Eventually this will have to be rectified and who the heck wants to suffer through all that?
Once again, I agree HML range is too far. But seriously, if the issue is HAM usage, BUFF THE HAMS, DON'T BREAK OTHER STUFF.
In conclusion, I think the range nerf is totally fine. The damage nerfis way too much, way too quickly.
|
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:52:00 -
[424] - Quote
Etheoma wrote:HERE COMES THE NERF BATE AGAIN; AND OH NOOOOOO! THEY TOOK A SWING AT THE HEAVY MISSILES!
20% damage decrease wtf I get the range decrease and would have been disappointed but also would have seen why if they left it at that BUT NO they had to f*** with the already mediocre damage of heavy missiles... great... And I don't even use heavy missiles that much. Well I'm going to be switching to a loki for doing PVE.
Unless there going to increase the damage on heavy fury's and decrease the range to really bring it into line with other weapon systems and add Long medium and short range to the standard and faction ammo then this will kill missiles.
Actually, when you look at effective (as opposed to theoretical) DPS against 200 m/sec moving targets of equal (cruiser) size, the numbers still come out with an advantage to HMLs even after the nerf, and thats before any damage reduction as a result of transversal is factored in. I'd say that HMLs still will deliver twice the effective DPS as a 250mm rail/spike combo for example. |
D3vastator
Fight With Gusto
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:52:00 -
[425] - Quote
I've played off & on since 2004 & am up to just over 24m Skill Points. Here's a chart that shows what this change does to almost 15% of my skill points.
As you can see, I've trained specifically to sling Heavy Missiles from a Tengu so that I can run level 4 missions. This really really screws over players like me who couldn't give two craps about what goes on out in drama-sec. If you want to nerf the Drakespam, nerf Drakes...not an entire weapon system. EVE is already at a point, PvE-wise, where my buddy's Ishkur already outdoes my Tengu in both tank & gank for L4 missions. This change will just make PvE even more lopsided away from Caldari. |
Reticle
Sight Picture
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:54:00 -
[426] - Quote
One mission tengu for sale
One tengu pilot for sale |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1329
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:55:00 -
[427] - Quote
CCP Fozzie is now my most favorite dev.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Lelob
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:55:00 -
[428] - Quote
It also occured to me:
Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
What about tracking links? |
Inggroth
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:55:00 -
[429] - Quote
Do a 1000dps 50k range HAM Tengu then |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
721
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:55:00 -
[430] - Quote
Aside from the Hurricane changes, I just think that nerfing Heavy Missiles THREE DIFFERENT WAYS (25% range, 20% DPS, and TD susceptibility) is too, too much.
Remember when they nerfed Incursions 2 different ways and everything went to ****? I think this could be a repeat of that. Consider taking it a little slower please, CCP. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:57:00 -
[431] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Lord Ryan wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:HMLs still have the highest sustained damage, second highest range and second highest volley of all the systems. Sure, missiles take a while to reach a target, but when they do, they are more consistent in applying the damage to targets of equal or higher size, as it should be for all weapon systems.
You look at the massive nerf percentages, but you fail to perceive how strong they were compared to other weapon systems. Stop whining, you really have no basis to stand on. Sounds like a case of make it suck as bad as everything else. 425's will still work good but You'll have to fit them to BS if you want any tank at all. Wait, what? Battleship-sized weapons will have to be fitted to battleships to have a decent tank against comparable weapons?! The other 425's. The ones that are relevant to this thread. I assumed you hadn't gone full ****** so to suggest putting unbonused medium weapons on a battleship. My bad. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
230
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:59:00 -
[432] - Quote
Inggroth wrote:Do a 1000dps 50k range HAM Tengu then Problem solved ISK to Inggroth
People will, along with TCs/TEs on Caldari/Guristas Cruise Missle Battleships, people will adapt. That's not the point, you don't over-nerf one thing (heavy missles) when another thing (Drakes and Tengus) are the problem, you just end up screwing other ships.
Now, if they want to talk about buffs to caracals, Cerbs (damn it, i want to fly my Cerb again) and nighthawks, nerf HMLs away. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
96
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 18:59:00 -
[433] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Actually, when you look at effective (as opposed to theoretical) DPS against 200 m/sec moving targets of equal (cruiser) size, the numbers still come out with an advantage to HMLs even after the nerf, and thats before any damage reduction as a result of transversal is factored in. I'd say that HMLs still will deliver twice the effective DPS as a 250mm rail/spike combo for example.
"If you'll see here, the effective damage that missiles will output compared to railguns is approximately double." >Missiles will output compared to railguns >compared to railguns >railguns
Don't compare things to railguns. Everything will be better than railguns. This is objective fact. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
858
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:00:00 -
[434] - Quote
Light Missiles
I like.
Heavy Missiles -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
I like this, especially when combined with tracking enhancers below.
Tech Two Missiles -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius)
I always hated and thought the penalties were beyond stupid. It's not actually the penalty ITSELF that was a problem it was that it was STACKING PENALTIES OVER AND OVER AND OVER for each launcher. THAT was stupid stupid stupid.
Either way, just get rid of them and adjust accordingly as you have done so. Much approved, thank you.
Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time[/quote]
I like this a lot, very cool. I think this is a great balance to the above changes and will force missile users to think a bit more about their setups! I dig it. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:00:00 -
[435] - Quote
Honestly, I liked seeing Tengus because usually for those of us in W-space, they meant an easy kill. Once in a while you'd have a 100mn Tengu that was flown competently, but even that was rewarding to catch and pop. But in general, unless it was hero tackle or armour-ECM Tengus or you were in a Pulsar, you wouldn't see them in w-space PvP. Drakes in w-space are amusing :)
Since the main complaint seems to center around full damage projection at max range, which no other weapon type can do -- at least once the bug with Magnetars was eliminated -- why not address that directly instead of stomp these ships into the ground? Missiles were already lower DPS than other weapons; bringing the damage projection in line is all that's needed now.
I've already heard one great example of how to make this happen. Document/declare that part of the long-range missile's damage potential is relative to the remaining fuel it carries with it, so beyond a certain range the damage decreases to some minimum value. This could be compared to "falloff" damage. I'm sure there are other very sensible and logical ways to explain this.
Even with the proposed changes, you will still have issues with Drake blobs in large groups. Maybe you'll need some more Drakes, and maybe you'll need to move in a little closer, but it's still full damage projection at max range, which was the main concern. Cheap, disposable ships that you can fit your noobs into. You don't need to train them how to fly effectively in PvP. You just teach them how to push a button at the right time, and to keep pushing that button until they're destroyed.
A "falloff" type damage reduction combined with tracking nerf is sufficient. Without that, nothing you do will be sufficient, and only puts the problem off for another day. In the meanwhile, you have the potential to render a few ships nearly useless in their other roles.
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:00:00 -
[436] - Quote
They haven't even gotten to T2/T3 cruisers and Command Ships yet. Hold your ******* horses, these dev blogs are far from over.
Quote:Missiles were already lower DPS than other weapons; bringing the damage projection in line is all that's needed now.
A little bit of a correction: HMLs, even with the damage nerf, will still be the highest sustained damage platform of all the cruiser sized long range weapons. So stop spouting nonsense. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
51
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:01:00 -
[437] - Quote
The HML nerf was necessary to properly balance all those ships. After it is done, I'm sure we'll see buffs to the other HML ships like the cerberus, navy caracal, nighthawk and Gila. So this is not really an argument against this change.
And btw every ship is affected by target painters or ECM. But we don't fit target painters and ECM to all our ships, do we ? |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:01:00 -
[438] - Quote
D3vastator wrote:I've played off & on since 2004 & am up to just over 24m Skill Points. Here's a chart that shows what this change does to almost 15% of my skill points.As you can see, I've trained specifically to sling Heavy Missiles from a Tengu so that I can run level 4 missions. This really really screws over players like me who couldn't give two craps about what goes on out in drama-sec. If you want to nerf the Drakespam, nerf Drakes...not an entire weapon system. EVE is already at a point, PvE-wise, where my buddy's Ishkur already outdoes my Tengu in both tank & gank for L4 missions. This change will just make PvE even more lopsided away from Caldari.
Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.
Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.
Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:02:00 -
[439] - Quote
Ok this is all very nice..
Now can you buff rails? |
Kiru SnaKe
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:03:00 -
[440] - Quote
Dear CCP,
If HML's are to be nerfed at that level of sh*t please at least reimburse my skill points... |
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:03:00 -
[441] - Quote
D3vastator wrote:I've played off & on since 2004 & am up to just over 24m Skill Points. Here's a chart that shows what this change does to almost 15% of my skill points.As you can see, I've trained specifically to sling Heavy Missiles from a Tengu so that I can run level 4 missions. This really really screws over players like me who couldn't give two craps about what goes on out in drama-sec. If you want to nerf the Drakespam, nerf Drakes...not an entire weapon system. EVE is already at a point, PvE-wise, where my buddy's Ishkur already outdoes my Tengu in both tank & gank for L4 missions. This change will just make PvE even more lopsided away from Caldari. Assuming you meant Ishtar, you're saying a HAC, dedicated DPS boat that takes longer to train to max skills, does better what is a mostly dps-based activity than a supposedly jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none tech3?
\o/ Balance, we have it people!!!
If you meant Ishkur... how's he tanking?
Also no one cares about your ability to just run lvl4s like they're their own little bubble universe, instead we care only how quickly you can produce isk, LP and ingame items from them to manage inflation throughout the whole economy & game. If you ran lvl4s in twice the time but everything dropped to half the price while we got more balanced weapond & ships, so be it. |
OlRotGut
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:03:00 -
[442] - Quote
Well, we'll just blob in another ship that isn't nerfed until they decide to nerf that ship. I mean really, the only real nerf to Goons is to nerf the fleet size limiter. lol.
The missile changes I can't really speculate on without seeing the DPS graphs of other systems in comparison first. At first read it appears to be too heavy handed, but I'd like to see the graphs. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2170
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:04:00 -
[443] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:I also can't understand this obsession with swinging the nerfhammer around like some bloodthirsty viking. Why not retrieve the significantly underused buffhammer from its dusty shelf instead? ... We have a dozen threads in this forum that's showcasing the use of the buffhammer. It boggles my mind that you don't notice unless it's affecting whatever ship you're flying today. -Liang Yes, buffing the T1 frigates so a majority become redundant and useless and the T1 cruisers in a way which doesn't actually solve the problem of why they're never used. Meanwhile, the staples of my ship hangar - Drake, Hurricane and Tengu - get their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer.
Those ships are getting their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer in order to make room for other ships to be flown. It really is necessary, and your response is a perfect example of how individual players never have a game's long term interests at heart. They only have their own short term interests in mind, even if it kills the game in the process.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Thalen Draganos
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:04:00 -
[444] - Quote
It's true that Transversal angles have no bearing on missiles but that is a part of the nature of a missile. It's basically a rocket powered bomb. Make more sense now? On the other side of the coin, if you speed up you escape more and more of the damage that a missile can do the faster you go. That's something that EFT may not be able to tell you. It's certainly something that only PVP and PVE experience can tell you if you pay attention. As an example: A missile boat sitting still in an anomaly will get the full damage of the NPC missiles but if you orbit something and kick in an after burner you will be able to tank it better because you are avoiding some of the damage due to the rate of explosion velocity. That's probably why that whole part of a missiles stat is in there. Instead of nerfing the range or damage output, how about the explosion velocity some how. It would be a lot better I think than making the whole line of heavy missile using missile boats suffer. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:04:00 -
[445] - Quote
Kiru SnaKe wrote:Dear CCP,
If HML's are to be nerfed at that level of sh*t please at least reimburse my skill points...
You had your flavor of the month, get on with the next. |
D3vastator
Fight With Gusto
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:04:00 -
[446] - Quote
Aaron Greil wrote:Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.
Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.
Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock.
Ah, my bad. IshTAR :P |
Catabolistic
Higg's Zombie Fusion
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:05:00 -
[447] - Quote
CCP needs to understand that a 20% HML damage reduction will equal a 20% subscriber loss.
Justification: You will have rendered Caldari pilots like myself useless. Between the drake and tengu thats about a years worth training thrown out the window. In your math did you fail to realize that missles do significantly less damage to moving targets as well as targets with a smaller sig radius? Do you really want your new Caldari pilots in a drake taking 15 minutes to kill a single angel viper?
Try this: Buff the other medium long range weapons so that they are actually useful. Quite simply they need a 15% base increase in both tracking and dps. Once that is done, now pilots will have more viable fitting options and noone will ragequit over range tweekings. |
TheSpyInCorp
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:06:00 -
[448] - Quote
hey CCP fozzie why don't you nerf the 400km range of sleepers too so we can actually use TD's against them? as far as im concerned sleepers have infinite range and while they are susceptible to ECM and target painting forms of EWAR, sensor dampeners and TD's so absolutely nothing |
Mourning Souls
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:07:00 -
[449] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant.
How is that an upshot? From my understanding the word "upshot" is supposed to be a good thing.
Full rack of 720's with a MWD and LSE right now only requires a ACR, needing a RCU2 as well isn't an upshot. |
Ensign X
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:07:00 -
[450] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Kiru SnaKe wrote:Dear CCP,
If HML's are to be nerfed at that level of sh*t please at least reimburse my skill points... You had your flavor of the month, get on with the next.
HMLs were never FOTM. 2 of the ships that use them were FOTM. Try not to be so intentionally obtuse. |
|
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:08:00 -
[451] - Quote
Aglais wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Actually, when you look at effective (as opposed to theoretical) DPS against 200 m/sec moving targets of equal (cruiser) size, the numbers still come out with an advantage to HMLs even after the nerf, and thats before any damage reduction as a result of transversal is factored in. I'd say that HMLs still will deliver twice the effective DPS as a 250mm rail/spike combo for example.
"If you'll see here, the effective damage that missiles will output compared to railguns is approximately double." >Missiles will output compared to railguns >compared to railguns >railguns Don't compare things to railguns. Everything will be better than railguns. This is objective fact.
Allright. Compared to beam lasers, the nerfed HMLs will deliver almost twice as much effective DPS. Compared to Artillery, the nerfed HMLs will deliver 3.5 times the effective DPS with 80% of the artillery alpha.
Conclusion: After the nerf, the HMLs will probably still be the best weapon system in the game in effective damage application. Its downside will continue to be the delay of that application, but all in all i'd say we have a better balance now. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
448
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:09:00 -
[452] - Quote
Here are some numbers on HAMs. The maximum range of HAMs with Javelin missiles is 30.4 km.
I'm assuming a bonus of +30% flight time per Tracking Computer loaded with the optimal range script. This gives the following
Javelin max range with no velocity rigs: 1 TC: 39.5 km 2 TC: 47.4 km 3 TC: 52.6 km
Javelin max range with a +15% velocity rig: 1 TC: 45.3 km 2 TC: 54.4 km 3 TC: 60.4 km
Javelin max range with two +15% velocity rigs: 1 TC: 51.3 km 2 TC: 61.6 km 3 TC: 68.4 km
Javelin max range with three +15% velocity rigs: 1 TC: 55.7 km 2 TC: 66.9 km 3 TC: 74.3 km
And for fun, max range with two +20% velocity rigs, one +15% velocity rig, a 5% velocity implant and three tracking computers: 84.5 km.
Disclaimer: we don't actually know how much tracking computers will increase flight time on missiles, the 30% is just my speculation. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:09:00 -
[453] - Quote
D3vastator wrote:Aaron Greil wrote:Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.
Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.
Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock. Ah, my bad. IshTAR :P https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1938285#post1938285
Seriously, your more expensive tech3 is meant to be a stepping stone to the superior specialised t2 ship for the particular role. Because you can get isk faster than SP. Tengus are brokenly overpowered, they need nerfs. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:11:00 -
[454] - Quote
For the record, hate all the missile changes. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
859
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:11:00 -
[455] - Quote
On the cane thing. I think 225 might be a bit much.
Maybe like 180 PG? So that means my 1600mm plated Hurricane can just drop 1 neut and still be flown?
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Ensign X
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:11:00 -
[456] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:Allright. Compared to beam lasers, the nerfed HMLs will deliver almost twice as much effective DPS. Compared to Artillery, the nerfed HMLs will deliver 3.5 times the effective DPS with 80% of the artillery alpha.
What kind of terrible, Anchorman math is this? Even Ron Burgundy could see through this steaming pile of nonsense. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:12:00 -
[457] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:D3vastator wrote:Aaron Greil wrote:Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.
Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.
Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock. Ah, my bad. IshTAR :P https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1938285#post1938285Seriously, your more expensive tech3 is meant to be a stepping stone to the superior specialised t2 ship for the particular role. Because you can get isk faster than SP. Tengus are brokenly overpowered, they need nerfs.
All T3s do. And they will. Give it a couple of days for those dev blogs to go live.
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:For the record, hate all the missile changes. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.
(they are broken) |
Iogrim
Kaer Industries
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:14:00 -
[458] - Quote
Not sure whether it was posted (23 pages, yay), but will we get TC and TE equivalents for missiles? |
Ensign X
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:15:00 -
[459] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:All T3s do. And they will. Give it a couple of days for those dev blogs to go live.
You said this before, but now I'm wondering what insight you have that suggests CCP will be releasing Dev Blogs about T2 and T3 ship re-balancing in the next couple days? |
D3vastator
Fight With Gusto
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:16:00 -
[460] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Assuming you meant Ishtar, you're saying a HAC, dedicated DPS boat that takes longer to train to max skills, does better what is a mostly dps-based activity than a supposedly jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none tech3?
\o/ Balance, we have it people!!!
I did mean Ishtar. However, considering the fact that neither Caldari HAC can come close to soloing L4 missions, I'd say that we don't really have balance here. The Tengu outclasses both Caldari HACs by an enormous margin. In fact, this update appears to make the Caracal almost on-par with the Cerberus...
Daneel Trevize wrote:Also no one cares about your ability to just run lvl4s like they're their own little bubble universe, instead we care only how quickly you can produce isk, LP and ingame items from them to manage inflation throughout the whole economy & game. If you ran lvl4s in twice the time but everything dropped to half the price while we got more balanced weapond & ships, so be it.
I understand that. I just wanted to point out how badly this will effect those in my situation. Tengu has been the go-to Caldari mission ship for years. I just sold my SNI less than two weeks ago to trade into a Tengu. It looks like I'm going to have to trade back after this update. |
|
Ensign X
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:16:00 -
[461] - Quote
Iogrim wrote:Not sure whether it was posted (23 pages, yay), but will we get TC and TE equivalents for missiles?
Dude, it was right in the OP.
Quote: -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script)
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2947
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:16:00 -
[462] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: Those ships are getting their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer in order to make room for other ships to be flown. It really is necessary, and your response is a perfect example of how individual players never have a game's long term interests at heart. They only have their own short term interests in mind, even if it kills the game in the process.
-Liang
Not to mention that there's plenty of threads out there where players rightfully express concern about "stat creep" whenever CCP's response to imbalance is solely to buff a statistic. Either way, these kind of changes inevitably cause complaint regardless of merit.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:17:00 -
[463] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Btw, when are medium rails going to become in any way usable in PvP? Arty clearly is, HMs have been, beams too. Rails are just godawful on Gal or Cal ships.
^^^^This
HM nerf not needed.
Medium Rails buff needed. |
Eradin Amakiir
Duragon Pioneer Group Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:18:00 -
[464] - Quote
Whelp, guess there's no reason to train Caldari ships any more.
I mean, really, Drake and Tengu are too strong, so let's ruin a whole bunch of Caldari ships. Great idea. |
sembur
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:18:00 -
[465] - Quote
Some interesting changes here. Look forward to shaking up the metagame. Buffered armor cane is going to get pinched a bit, but that just means we need to get active armor tanking revisited soon.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Two things:
- I still don't see a clarification: are these changes to explosion velocity and radius ALL missiles or just Guided?
- Tracking speed disruption is the new counter to Target Painters. Amarr ewar counters Minmatar ewar. ISWYDT
I read 20 pages of this drek and didn't see someone else mention the TD vs TP bit.
P.S. Thanks for doing BSB #20. Stay visible, the communication is appreciated, yadda yadda, but plz also geef devblog when changes solidify. Trolling the forums is a terrible experience and makes me listen to emo rock. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:19:00 -
[466] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:All T3s do. And they will. Give it a couple of days for those dev blogs to go live. You said this before, but now I'm wondering what insight you have that suggests CCP will be releasing Dev Blogs about T2 and T3 ship re-balancing in the next couple days?
It just has to happen. They are modifying a lot of weapons and base hulls, and T3s have always been too strong. A lot is going to be shifted around before a reasonable measure of balance can be achieved. |
Ensign X
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:19:00 -
[467] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:there's plenty of threads out there where players rightfully express concern about "stat creep" whenever CCP's response to imbalance is solely to buff a statistic.
Citation needed. |
Ensign X
246
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:20:00 -
[468] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Ensign X wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:All T3s do. And they will. Give it a couple of days for those dev blogs to go live. You said this before, but now I'm wondering what insight you have that suggests CCP will be releasing Dev Blogs about T2 and T3 ship re-balancing in the next couple days? It just has to happen. They are modifying a lot of weapons and base hulls, and T3s have always been too strong. A lot is going to be shifted around before a reasonable measure of balance can be achieved.
Ohh, so you don't have a reason to proclaim that T2 and T3 re-balancing devblogs are forthcoming? That's cool. Talking out of one's ass can be fun. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:21:00 -
[469] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Allright. Compared to beam lasers, the nerfed HMLs will deliver almost twice as much effective DPS. Compared to Artillery, the nerfed HMLs will deliver 3.5 times the effective DPS with 80% of the artillery alpha. What kind of terrible, Anchorman math is this? Even Ron Burgundy could see through this steaming pile of nonsense.
It is math that take into account gun signature resolution, target signature radius, missile explosion radius and -velocity, moving targets and effective tracking, but excluding transversal velocity because that would permit manipulating numbers in HMLs disfavour. You should try it sometime. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:22:00 -
[470] - Quote
B-b-b-but guys myyy drrraaakkkkeee ((((((((( |
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:23:00 -
[471] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Ensign X wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:All T3s do. And they will. Give it a couple of days for those dev blogs to go live. You said this before, but now I'm wondering what insight you have that suggests CCP will be releasing Dev Blogs about T2 and T3 ship re-balancing in the next couple days? It just has to happen. They are modifying a lot of weapons and base hulls, and T3s have always been too strong. A lot is going to be shifted around before a reasonable measure of balance can be achieved. Ohh, so you don't have a reason to proclaim that T2 and T3 re-balancing devblogs are forthcoming? That's cool. Talking out of one's ass can be fun.
I never guaranteed that it is going to happen. I just said that, in order to complete their re-balancing sweep, they will have to visit T2/T3 cruisers and CS. T3s are too strong and versatile, they have in a lot of cases swept T2s under the rug entirely, and some of them have even managed to replace CS (EHP and links are better). |
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:24:00 -
[472] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:Ensign X wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Allright. Compared to beam lasers, the nerfed HMLs will deliver almost twice as much effective DPS. Compared to Artillery, the nerfed HMLs will deliver 3.5 times the effective DPS with 80% of the artillery alpha. What kind of terrible, Anchorman math is this? Even Ron Burgundy could see through this steaming pile of nonsense. It is math that take into account gun signature resolution, target signature radius, missile explosion radius and -velocity, moving targets and effective tracking, but excluding transversal velocity because that would permit manipulating numbers in HMLs disfavour. You should try it sometime.
Care to share it? Or was it all made up.... |
Bree Okanata
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:25:00 -
[473] - Quote
There seems to be a typo. It says you are decreasing all heavy missile damage by 20%. You going to remove the Drake and Tengu from the game too? |
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:25:00 -
[474] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Ensign X wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Ensign X wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:All T3s do. And they will. Give it a couple of days for those dev blogs to go live. You said this before, but now I'm wondering what insight you have that suggests CCP will be releasing Dev Blogs about T2 and T3 ship re-balancing in the next couple days? It just has to happen. They are modifying a lot of weapons and base hulls, and T3s have always been too strong. A lot is going to be shifted around before a reasonable measure of balance can be achieved. Ohh, so you don't have a reason to proclaim that T2 and T3 re-balancing devblogs are forthcoming? That's cool. Talking out of one's ass can be fun. I never guaranteed that it is going to happen. I just said that, in order to complete their re-balancing sweep, they will have to visit T2/T3 cruisers and CS. T3s are too strong and versatile, they have in a lot of cases swept T2s under the rug entirely, and some of them have even managed to replace CS (EHP and links are better).
Implying ccp always does what they logically should do. |
Ensign X
248
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:25:00 -
[475] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:Ensign X wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Allright. Compared to beam lasers, the nerfed HMLs will deliver almost twice as much effective DPS. Compared to Artillery, the nerfed HMLs will deliver 3.5 times the effective DPS with 80% of the artillery alpha. What kind of terrible, Anchorman math is this? Even Ron Burgundy could see through this steaming pile of nonsense. It is math that take into account gun signature resolution, target signature radius, missile explosion radius and -velocity, moving targets and effective tracking, but excluding transversal velocity because that would permit manipulating numbers in HMLs disfavour. You should try it sometime.
Try what? Pulling numbers out of my ass without citing the source or the math I used to reach those numbers? I guess I can try that, though I'm unsure what point that will make...
Here, let me try;
99% of all statistics on the internet are 75% exaggerations.
How's that? |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:25:00 -
[476] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:I also can't understand this obsession with swinging the nerfhammer around like some bloodthirsty viking. Why not retrieve the significantly underused buffhammer from its dusty shelf instead? ... We have a dozen threads in this forum that's showcasing the use of the buffhammer. It boggles my mind that you don't notice unless it's affecting whatever ship you're flying today. -Liang Yes, buffing the T1 frigates so a majority become redundant and useless and the T1 cruisers in a way which doesn't actually solve the problem of why they're never used. Meanwhile, the staples of my ship hangar - Drake, Hurricane and Tengu - get their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer. Those ships are getting their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer in order to make room for other ships to be flown. It really is necessary, and your response is a perfect example of how individual players never have a game's long term interests at heart. They only have their own short term interests in mind, even if it kills the game in the process. -Liang I liked the part where you just ignored half of my post. Want to see other battlecruisers more? Give the Brutix more PG and give the Prophecy a bonus which will make it something more than a brick with a metric **** ton of EHP. Want to see cruisers more? Give them more base HP so they don't die to gate guns in like 30 seconds. Nerfing aspects of the game to affect a few ships without considering the knock-on effects to other ships such as the Cerberus and Nighthawk is stupid. |
Korinth Daemenshan
Eclipse Navy Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:26:00 -
[477] - Quote
This seems very premature.
BC rebalance is coming. Let it come and do the job properly, not this half assed nonsense. In the scope of wider changes to the BC class? These changes make sense. Without that scope? It's a half ass, premature, poorly conceived fix to something that was going to be fixed anyways. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
51
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:26:00 -
[478] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Ensign X wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:All T3s do. And they will. Give it a couple of days for those dev blogs to go live. You said this before, but now I'm wondering what insight you have that suggests CCP will be releasing Dev Blogs about T2 and T3 ship re-balancing in the next couple days? It just has to happen. They are modifying a lot of weapons and base hulls, and T3s have always been too strong. A lot is going to be shifted around before a reasonable measure of balance can be achieved. Ohh, so you don't have a reason to proclaim that T2 and T3 re-balancing devblogs are forthcoming? That's cool. Talking out of one's ass can be fun.
You can be sure that they will come. I'd say after cruisers and frigs this winter (and missiles) we will see BCs and BSs finished in spring if not earlier and then T2 frigs and cruisers next summer together with T3s
P.S: This change is the perfect preparation for the BC rebalance |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. Varangon Tagma
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:27:00 -
[479] - Quote
Powergrid and damage nerf to missiles and canes is excessive.
Some more moderate nerf for first iteration would be wiser. Like -10% to damage to heavy missiles and -100 to cane powergrid first. IF that is not enough once you get to proper BC rebalancing you can always apply additional nerfs. But if you do this massive nerf all at the same time you are risking making those ships horribly underpowered. Cane especially with with massive -20% grid is at risk, everyone will simply start using Cyclones instead because you wont be able to fit a decent Cane any more, too much slots will have to go for AC and PG.
Else seems good and reasonable. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:27:00 -
[480] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Ensign X wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Allright. Compared to beam lasers, the nerfed HMLs will deliver almost twice as much effective DPS. Compared to Artillery, the nerfed HMLs will deliver 3.5 times the effective DPS with 80% of the artillery alpha. What kind of terrible, Anchorman math is this? Even Ron Burgundy could see through this steaming pile of nonsense. It is math that take into account gun signature resolution, target signature radius, missile explosion radius and -velocity, moving targets and effective tracking, but excluding transversal velocity because that would permit manipulating numbers in HMLs disfavour. You should try it sometime. Try what? Pulling numbers out of my ass without citing the source or the math I used to reach those numbers? I guess I can try that, though I'm unsure what point that will make... Here, let me try; 99% of all statistics on the internet are 75% exaggerations. How's that?
I'd say you are exceeding my expectations. Well done. |
|
Bree Okanata
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:29:00 -
[481] - Quote
Catabolistic wrote:CCP needs to understand that a 20% HML damage reduction will equal a 20% subscriber loss.
Justification: You will have rendered Caldari pilots like myself useless. Between the drake and tengu thats about a years worth training thrown out the window. In your math did you fail to realize that missles do significantly less damage to moving targets as well as targets with a smaller sig radius? Do you really want your new Caldari pilots in a drake taking 15 minutes to kill a single angel viper?
Try this: Buff the other medium long range weapons so that they are actually useful. Quite simply they need a 15% base increase in both tracking and dps. Once that is done, now pilots will have more viable fitting options and noone will ragequit over range tweekings.
This. Sorry for double post, but I just spent two months training to get into my Tengu. Hell, I rarely even played while I was training just because I was so giddy to be able to fly it. Now it just gets nerfed hardcore and I feel like a moron for not going for Proteus or Loki or pretty much any other ship. If this goes live, I am going to unsub and focus more on GW2 or something. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
190
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:29:00 -
[482] - Quote
How about fixing point defence vs missiles, aka defender missiles, instead of making TD's the must have module or an Arbitrator/Pilgrim a must have in fleets.
TD's being able to affect missiles is a bad move in my opinion. I would far prefer a real point defence system that actually works against missiles and drones. Please fix that instead of making TD's affect missiles
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:31:00 -
[483] - Quote
Now that I think about it more, I begin to see larger version of the problem:
The reason Heavy Missiles appear to be so overpowered in comparison with range medium turrets, is simply because the long range turrets for medium size, for the most part, suck.
Medium rails, are just horrible, dont deal enough DPS, considering their bad tracking. They should have great tracking, only a bit less than pulses for example, or around that, such that their tracking is best of the long range turrets. They also need better damage in comparison with other weapons. Just by destroying heavy missiles does not solve the issues that medium rails have, people still wont use them just because their caldari missile boats are so crap. Nerfing HM damage will in fact cause people to take more of a look at rails however, especially if the moa/eagle line actually get a damage bonus. But nerfing heavies completely into the ground isn't really fair just to get people using HAMs and medium rails.
Medium beams aren't that great because scorch pulses are just so much better and get only a little less range. Perhaps they need a damage buff too, if a minor one, while buffing scorch's damage a little and reducing its range a little.
Arties are always good due to their alpha, but medium arties are not all that common in PvP, save for the arty cane or muninns. Perhaps buff their rate of fire slightly.
Heavies are in fact too powerful, but 20% damage reduction is a bit much in this case no matter how you look at it. Perhaps the other long range guns should be looked at in the process, and the heavy missile damage nerf should be reduced. |
rofflesausage
State War Academy Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:33:00 -
[484] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote: Keyword there being 'if you exclude drakes and tengus'. What? Are you ********?
It's TWO ships out of every missile ship being available....that's the point |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:33:00 -
[485] - Quote
This is the most ******** thing I've seen CCP propose to date. *I've seen more than a few doozies
Please for the love of the gods stop dumbing down eve.
This is not balancing - this is making everything the same crap with different models. Killing all of the strategic options and differences between the racial ships. When they are done we are going to have WoW in space and it's going to be just another trash MMO. Way to go atlanta office - I can't wait for the east coast to sink so we can get real designers working on eve again. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2171
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:36:00 -
[486] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:This is the most ******** thing I've seen CCP propose to date. *I've seen more than a few doozies
Please for the love of the gods stop dumbing down eve.
This is not balancing - this is making everything the same crap with different models. Killing all of the strategic options and differences between the racial ships. When they are done we are going to have WoW in space and it's going to be just another trash MMO. Way to go atlanta office - I can't wait for the east coast to sink so we can get real designers working on eve again.
I wasn't aware that it was 'strategic options' for the only BCs worth flying to be Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek and sometimes WelpCane.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
El 'Terrible
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:36:00 -
[487] - Quote
20% Reduction in damage for HML
Are you serious?
I'm finally able to get into a half decent skilled tengu post incursion nerf and now its pretty much useless. Their have been several major nerfs this year and almost all deal with nerfing the amount of isk a player can make while prices for ships/mods have vastly increased.
Drone nerf - No more drone poo, ship/mod prices rocketed.
Incursion nerf - can more isk running L4s, so why bother trying to get in a fleet?
Missile launcher nerf - No more running anoms/complexes in tengus
Tech Nerf - Tech (although still valuable) will steadily decrease taking isk out of alliances pockets/
All these nerfs this year and not a single buff to anything that isn't completely insignificant and useless (t1 frig buff WTF). Balancing making isk and Pvp'ing is already stupid being able to make 60mil or so per hour max. The only real way for newish players to make their own income is to buy and sell plex, I mean why rat for 12 hours when you can just spend money right CCP? I mean I would have thought you would be more interested in making it easier for players to have a decent income so they can do the only decent thing in the game (pvp), with F2P mmos springing up I'll probably just cancel my subscriptions, I really won't have the time to play this game anymore.
NERF online. |
Travis117
APEX ARDENT COALITION Persona Non Gratis
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:38:00 -
[488] - Quote
There goes my tengu.... |
Svodola Darkfury
Heaven's End League of Infamy
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:40:00 -
[489] - Quote
Eradin Amakiir wrote:Whelp, guess there's no reason to train Caldari ships any more. I mean, really, Drake and Tengu are too strong, so let's ruin a whole bunch of Caldari ships. Great idea.
Seriously. Caldari already had the weakest line of PVP ships in the game and CCP just nerfed their two flag ships, the drake and the tengu.
Granted, Falcon is a fantastic ship, but it's not in anyway related to heavy missiles.
Lets take a look at Caldari ships in the medium/large size:
Ferox: useless. Drake: Now basically a Rail Brutix with less damage and travel time for your damage. Raven: Too much travel time, not enough damage; torpedoes broken, not worth it in the slot Rokh: Making a comeback with the hybrid changes, Rails still kind of meh Naga: great, not a missile boat, newer ship too so not subject to the Caldari sadness. Eagle: awful. Cerberus: awful. Scorpion: slower version of the recons with no advantage. Widow: Can't warp cloaked, but still very hot Rook/Falcon: great ships, Rook uses HMLs sometimes, did okay damage with them (just under 300). Caracal: doing mediocre, but its a cruiser Moa/Osprey: awful Blackbird: paper, but nice role Onyx: no dps Onyx, it will live Nighthawk: rarely used in pvp, glorified drake, subject to same issues Vulture: booster ship, for our purposes, not measured Tengu: Already the worst Covert Ops because of weak dps; obscene DPS with Acceleration Bay, this probably brings IT ALONE in line.
Lets call that Drake, Rokh, Naga, Rook, Falcon, Blackbird, Widow and Tengu as usable ships pre-nerf.
4 of those are jammers, so take those out. That leaves Drake, Rokh, Naga, Tengu. Drake and Tengu are getting nerfed, Tengu probably still usable but prohibitively expensive, Drake now sub-par for DPS, still a decent tank. That leaves Naga and Rokh for DPS, both capable of long-ranged setups or Blaster setups.
Where are the missile boats? They're not here, because they're now subject to tracking disrupting and are already the worst damage delivery platform this side of medium rail-guns in pvp.
By comparison Usable ships of the other races: Gallente (admittedly the next weakest): Thorax, Vexor, Ishtar, Deimos (meh), Phobos, Megathron, Dominix, Sin (meh), Myrmidon (meh), Brutix (meh), Hyperion (meh), Proteus, Arazu, Lachesis, Talos, Astarte (MEH), Eos (meh, but booster ship)
Amarr: Arbitrator (meh), Omen Navy?, Abaddon, Armageddon, Apocalypse, Navy Apocalypse, Navy Geddon, Zealot, Sacrilege (meh), Devoter, Pilgrim, Curse (meh, but I love it), Legion. Redeemer, Harbinger (meh), Oracle, Absolution, Damnation
Minmatar: Stabber, Stabber Fleet, Rupture, Vagabond, Muninn (meh), Broadsword, Tornado, Tempest, Tempest Fleet Issue, Maelstrom, Typhoon (meh, but NC. used it as missile disruption with smartbombs), Huginn, Rapier, Loki, Cyclone (ASB loves this thing), Hurricane, Sleipnir, Claymore (meh, but booster ship).
That's a LOT of what we would call "usable" or "meh, usable" ships compared the the 8 that Caldari have. Admittedly, Gallente are the next weakest because they're the "wait until I get into range" race, but that's part of the packaged deal. By comparison, while training for Gallente, you're training all the support skills for Amarr, which opens you up to a completely different ship class. Caldari has some cross-over with Minmatar, but with no pure missile platforms, this leaves a lot of Caldari players shipping up, down, or out.
Svodola Darkfury (P.S. I fly Minmatar mostly, like most sane people). |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:40:00 -
[490] - Quote
one possible way of doing this without destroying it:
- Remove the 5% per Lvl Kin-bonus - Replace it with a 1% Dmg-Bonus for HM and a 5% Dmg-Bonus for HAM consider NOT to balance Missles without balancing the ships using them.
Congrats you now have nerved HMs by 20% BUT given us the option to actually use ALL missle types...
|
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:40:00 -
[491] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote:Laura Dexx wrote: Keyword there being 'if you exclude drakes and tengus'. What? Are you ********?
It's TWO ships out of every missile ship being available....that's the point
I thought we were just talking heavy missiles. Silly me, talking about the subject at hand. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:40:00 -
[492] - Quote
Bree Okanata wrote:There seems to be a typo. It says you are decreasing all heavy missile damage by 20%. You going to remove the Drake and Tengu from the game too? basically yes, because no one will use tengu or drake after this nerf, missile ships will become obsolete.
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:40:00 -
[493] - Quote
So the Cerberus .. is now worth flying even less than it was before.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:41:00 -
[494] - Quote
This thread is so full of bad.
The nerf is fine.. You can still get the range with a TE/TC and the DPS was to high.
You will all adjust. |
Lelob
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:42:00 -
[495] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:This is the most ******** thing I've seen CCP propose to date. *I've seen more than a few doozies
Please for the love of the gods stop dumbing down eve.
This is not balancing - this is making everything the same crap with different models. Killing all of the strategic options and differences between the racial ships. When they are done we are going to have WoW in space and it's going to be just another trash MMO. Way to go atlanta office - I can't wait for the east coast to sink so we can get real designers working on eve again.
Feel free to look at the top 3 ships flown in EVE. I can pretty well gurantee it will almost always be drake>hurricane and then most likely tengu. These ships are overpowered and have been for quite a while now. Cries for a drake nerf have been heard for a very long time, and its about time CCP started to looking at why a tier 2 bc hull should be able to project 400 dps out to 80km with a 100k ehp tank for under 50mil. |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:42:00 -
[496] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Wolfstorm wrote:This is the most ******** thing I've seen CCP propose to date. *I've seen more than a few doozies
Please for the love of the gods stop dumbing down eve.
This is not balancing - this is making everything the same crap with different models. Killing all of the strategic options and differences between the racial ships. When they are done we are going to have WoW in space and it's going to be just another trash MMO. Way to go atlanta office - I can't wait for the east coast to sink so we can get real designers working on eve again. I wasn't aware that it was 'strategic options' for the only BCs worth flying to be Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek and sometimes WelpCane. -Liang Like I said -
Brutix needs a slight PG upgrade and possibly another low slot. Prophecy needs a bonus other than LOL HP Myrmidon could do with some kind of small damage bonus or something Ferox needs medium rails to be less **** Harbinger and Cyclone both get used an acceptable amount.
I think you seem to forget that Caldari is the most popular race so of course Drakes are going to be the most popular battlecruiser.
|
rofflesausage
State War Academy Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:43:00 -
[497] - Quote
Haquer wrote:rofflesausage wrote:Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
Let's pull up the top 20 page on eve-kill dot net RankWeaponsKills 1Heavy Missile Launcher II78177 2425mm AutoCannon II20772 3Heavy Pulse Laser II15799 Yeah, you're pretty much full of ****. Heavy missiles are OP and should be nerfed.
So not only can't you actually read what I said (I said MISSILES as a weapon type, not Heavy Missiles), you're quoting out of context to try and support an argument against something I didn't say. Stay classy Haquer.
Let's quote it in full:
1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 78207 2 425mm AutoCannon II 20830 3 Heavy Pulse Laser II 15924 4 200mm AutoCannon II 14974 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 13406 6 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 11938 7 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 11414 8 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 11344 9 150mm Light AutoCannon II 10500 10 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 9112 11 Light Neutron Blaster II 8393 12 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 7480 13 Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I 6692 14 425mm Railgun II 5687 15 800mm Repeating Artillery II 5526 16 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 5502 17 Light Ion Blaster II 5285 18 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 5264 19 Heavy Beam Laser II 5246 20 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I 5008
3 out of 4 of the weapons in bold are the same missile system type (heavy). Torps are in there due to Stealth Bombers - they are almost not used outside of that ship class.
Not a single other missile system type makes an appearance. |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:43:00 -
[498] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
I wasn't aware that it was 'strategic options' for the only BCs worth flying to be Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek and sometimes WelpCane.
-Liang
It's not my fault that blob use vs small gang use is completely different. Missiles will be useless for NPC/Solo/Small gang work now.
Blobbers suck but you know what this won't fix blobs - we will just get a new blob doctrine.
Right now CCP is putting their pants on their head and singing I'm a little teapot pretending this will fix things when in all reality it's going to break most stuff, and just force the null sec super blocks to pick a new blob ship. |
Martin0
Maximum-Overload
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:44:00 -
[499] - Quote
Cool, but now TD are I WIN button, consider nerfing them a bit. |
Athena Themis
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:45:00 -
[500] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Wolfstorm wrote:This is the most ******** thing I've seen CCP propose to date. *I've seen more than a few doozies
Please for the love of the gods stop dumbing down eve.
This is not balancing - this is making everything the same crap with different models. Killing all of the strategic options and differences between the racial ships. When they are done we are going to have WoW in space and it's going to be just another trash MMO. Way to go atlanta office - I can't wait for the east coast to sink so we can get real designers working on eve again. Feel free to look at the top 3 ships flown in EVE. I can pretty well gurantee it will almost always be drake>hurricane and then most likely tengu. These ships are overpowered and have been for quite a while now. Cries for a drake nerf have been heard for a very long time, and its about time CCP started to looking at why a tier 2 bc hull should be able to project 400 dps out to 80km with a 100k ehp tank for under 50mil.
Yes, and instead of fixing those problems we'll just nerf HMLs. Problem solved........wait a second... |
|
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1127
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:45:00 -
[501] - Quote
Ok, five, but cut defender missles for the love of glob http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Mourning Souls
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:45:00 -
[502] - Quote
Tengus and Drakes are the reason for the nerf right? Given how other missile ships look sad in comparison I'm gonna say yes.
Why not affect the ships directly?
Drop the damage bonus on Drakes from 5 to 2-3% and remove the resist bonus. As far as Tengus go I'm not sure what to say other than nerf everything. T3's are supposed to be a jack of all trades, but they shouldn't be that good at them.
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:47:00 -
[503] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:This thread is so full of bad.
The nerf is fine.. You can still get the range with a TE/TC and the DPS was to high.
You will all adjust. We will adjust by not using missile ships.
People, start training for turret ships.
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:47:00 -
[504] - Quote
rofflesausage wrote:Haquer wrote:rofflesausage wrote:Missiles are already underused in PvP, being pretty much banned in some fleets I've been in.
Let's pull up the top 20 page on eve-kill dot net RankWeaponsKills 1Heavy Missile Launcher II78177 2425mm AutoCannon II20772 3Heavy Pulse Laser II15799 Yeah, you're pretty much full of ****. Heavy missiles are OP and should be nerfed. So not only can't you actually read what I said (I said MISSILES as a weapon type, not Heavy Missiles), you're quoting out of context to try and support an argument against something I didn't say. Stay classy Haquer. Let's quote it in full: 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 782072 425mm AutoCannon II 20830 3 Heavy Pulse Laser II 15924 4 200mm AutoCannon II 14974 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 13406 6 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 11938 7 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 11414 8 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 11344 9 150mm Light AutoCannon II 10500 10 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 9112 11 Light Neutron Blaster II 8393 12 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 7480 13 Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I 669214 425mm Railgun II 5687 15 800mm Repeating Artillery II 5526 16 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 550217 Light Ion Blaster II 5285 18 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 5264 19 Heavy Beam Laser II 5246 20 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I 50083 out of 4 of the weapons in bold are the same missile system type (heavy). Torps are in there due to Stealth Bombers - they are almost not used outside of that ship class. Not a single other missile system type makes an appearance.
Yes, let's just ignore that medium missiles are either HML or HAM and HAMs have pitiful range on an unbonused ship so HMLs will be used frequently. Let's also ignore that Medium ACs are 2nd and 7th. We can also just ignore how easy it is to train for T2 missiles compared to T2 guns, right? Go figure. |
D3vastator
Fight With Gusto
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:49:00 -
[505] - Quote
Mourning Souls wrote:As far as Tengus go I'm not sure what to say other than nerf everything. T3's are supposed to be a jack of all trades, but they shouldn't be that good at them.
That would be perfectly fine, if the Caldari HACs weren't complete ****. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:49:00 -
[506] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Wolfstorm wrote:This is the most ******** thing I've seen CCP propose to date. *I've seen more than a few doozies
Please for the love of the gods stop dumbing down eve.
This is not balancing - this is making everything the same crap with different models. Killing all of the strategic options and differences between the racial ships. When they are done we are going to have WoW in space and it's going to be just another trash MMO. Way to go atlanta office - I can't wait for the east coast to sink so we can get real designers working on eve again. Feel free to look at the top 3 ships flown in EVE. I can pretty well gurantee it will almost always be drake>hurricane and then most likely tengu. These ships are overpowered and have been for quite a while now. Cries for a drake nerf have been heard for a very long time, and its about time CCP started to looking at why a tier 2 bc hull should be able to project 400 dps out to 80km with a 100k ehp tank for under 50mil.
Maybe instead of nerfing the drake and tengu, CCP should buff other medium weapon platforms and ships to make them more appealing? I refuse to use medium rails - they're garbage.
I am fine with the HML range nerf.. it is a little ridiculous being able to pop things from 120km with HML when the other ship's effective ranges are about half that even using their long range option. But the HML damage nerf doesn't make much sense to me. If you nerf HML range by a good amount, HAMs become more appealing by virtue of that alone. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:52:00 -
[507] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
I wasn't aware that it was 'strategic options' for the only BCs worth flying to be Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek Draek and sometimes WelpCane.
-Liang
It's not my fault that blob use vs small gang use is completely different. Missiles will be useless for NPC/Solo/Small gang work now. Blobbers suck but you know what this won't fix blobs - we will just get a new blob doctrine. Right now CCP is putting their pants on their head and singing I'm a little teapot pretending this will fix things when in all reality it's going to break most stuff, and just force the null sec super blocks to pick a new blob ship.
You're saying small gang don't use drakes? I'm sure PODLA would be willing to talk you out of that notion. |
Mourning Souls
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:52:00 -
[508] - Quote
D3vastator wrote:Mourning Souls wrote:As far as Tengus go I'm not sure what to say other than nerf everything. T3's are supposed to be a jack of all trades, but they shouldn't be that good at them.
That would be perfectly fine, if the Caldari HACs weren't complete ****.
Cerberus is beyond bad, I like the BEagle though. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:52:00 -
[509] - Quote
I think you need to deliver a new Ewar Device that focuses specifically on missles rather than make TD's so powerful. What you've done is given the Eve Player base a 100% effective form of Ewar that any ship can fly w/o a single good counter. That complete goes against choices.
Instead, having two separate modules allows groups of players to counter each other differently w/o allowing a 1 stop fitting choice.
In addition, if you are going to allow such strong ewar against missiles, you need to increase their Structure HP. Because there is already an effective counter to missiles with firewalling, adding a new option means that you can basically completely destroy even a large fleet of missile users super easily. I would suggest giving missiles about 3-5x the amount of structure HP they currently have if these changes go through. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:54:00 -
[510] - Quote
Bree Okanata wrote:This. Sorry for double post, but I just spent two months training to get into my Tengu. Hell, I rarely even played while I was training just because I was so giddy to be able to fly it. Now it just gets nerfed hardcore and I feel like a moron for not going for Proteus or Loki or pretty much any other ship. If this goes live, I am going to unsub and focus more on GW2 or something. This PvP game? You're doing it wrong.
And these are proposed changes. While you train for an actually better ship like a pirate faction BS, you may find the HM dps nerf is tweaked to say 15%, and the TD stuff delayed/adjusted again/more details about the ewar changes are released. |
|
Mr Burns91
Yulai Guard 1st Fleet Yulai Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:55:00 -
[511] - Quote
HML nerf is to harsh.
with max skills range is 60km and volley damage is 1731 assuming drake keeps bonuses and using scourge fury. That means the DPS is 277 using no damage mods and fury missiles.
The damage is even more horrid than it already is.
I do not approve.
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
602
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:56:00 -
[512] - Quote
After reading tons of pages I've learned that Drake is Op so nerf cane.
Other BC suck so nerf cane and drake,
Other T3's suck so nerf tengu.
I remember when no one flew Caldari in PVP, looks like those days are coming again.
Anyways nerf missles to hell, just give me back my SP. Took me 3 years to start training missiles because they kind of suck and now they suck a little more. Atleast I trained AC 5 and BC 5 I can still fly my pimp cane, oh wait. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Antoine Jordan
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:58:00 -
[513] - Quote
D3vastator wrote:I've played off & on since 2004 & am up to just over 24m Skill Points. Here's a chart that shows what this change does to almost 15% of my skill points.As you can see, I've trained specifically to sling Heavy Missiles from a Tengu so that I can run level 4 missions. This really really screws over players like me who couldn't give two craps about what goes on out in drama-sec. If you want to nerf the Drakespam, nerf Drakes...not an entire weapon system. EVE is already at a point, PvE-wise, where my buddy's Ishtar** already outdoes my Tengu in both tank & gank for L4 missions. This change will just make PvE even more lopsided away from Caldari. **Edit: I accidentally a kur instead of tar. I dualbox ishtar and tengu, and you must be doing something wrong if his Ishtar is outpacing your Tengu as the game is now. |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 19:59:00 -
[514] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:[
You're saying small gang don't use drakes? I'm sure PODLA would be willing to talk you out of that notion.
No what I said is drakes aren't broken in small gang use now.
They are only really broken as a blob fleet.
You do not fix broken stuff by breaking the working stuff. The lead designer needs to be fired cus a monkey with half his brain in a jar could see you fix the other stuff that is broken to bring it in line with stuff that is working.
Fix medium rails, fix the really crappy ships that are competing with the drake - this is complete lazy crap on a stick. CCP used to be good for actually promoting the racial differences in ships until they got these new clowns who brought you walking in stations and micro transactions.
Fire them all and get some real designers who are't afraid of a challenge. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:00:00 -
[515] - Quote
Oracle (t-2 mega pulse lasers) Multifreq: 696 dps Oracle (t-2 mega pulse lasers) Scorch: 646 dps (75km range with tracking computers) Tengu (T-2 launchers), scourge t-1: 496 dps
So much for OP tengu. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:01:00 -
[516] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:After reading tons of pages I've learned that Drake is Op so nerf cane.
Other BC suck so nerf cane and drake,
Other T3's suck so nerf tengu.
I remember when no one flew Caldari in PVP, looks like those days are coming again.
Anyways nerf missles to hell, just give me back my SP. Took me 3 years to start training missiles because they kind of suck and now they suck a little more. Atleast I trained AC 5 and BC 5 I can still fly my pimp cane, oh wait.
I know this isn't very constructive but..
So.. Much.. BAD! |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
983
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:01:00 -
[517] - Quote
Tengu goes from 113,906 km to 85,050 and does 20% less damage.
Drake goes from 75,937 to 56,700 and does 20% less damage.
Dominion trailer will have to be edited... no need for second cyno ship as the first one would be out of range |
El 'Terrible
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:04:00 -
[518] - Quote
CCP promotes the entire inferno patch on making missiles look pretty (that and nerfing incursions and dronelands) and now no one will be using them. How ironic. |
OlRotGut
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:05:00 -
[519] - Quote
El 'Terrible wrote:CCP promotes the entire inferno patch on making missiles look pretty (that and nerfing incursions and dronelands) and now no one will be using them. How ironic.
Look at it this way, it'll cut down their support tickets to their helpdesk complaining about the poor performance the game client gives players post launcher graphics patch.
|
Lelob
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:05:00 -
[520] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Lelob wrote:Wolfstorm wrote:This is the most ******** thing I've seen CCP propose to date. *I've seen more than a few doozies
Please for the love of the gods stop dumbing down eve.
This is not balancing - this is making everything the same crap with different models. Killing all of the strategic options and differences between the racial ships. When they are done we are going to have WoW in space and it's going to be just another trash MMO. Way to go atlanta office - I can't wait for the east coast to sink so we can get real designers working on eve again. Feel free to look at the top 3 ships flown in EVE. I can pretty well gurantee it will almost always be drake>hurricane and then most likely tengu. These ships are overpowered and have been for quite a while now. Cries for a drake nerf have been heard for a very long time, and its about time CCP started to looking at why a tier 2 bc hull should be able to project 400 dps out to 80km with a 100k ehp tank for under 50mil. Maybe instead of nerfing the drake and tengu, CCP should buff other medium weapon platforms and ships to make them more appealing? I refuse to use medium rails - they're garbage. I am fine with the HML range nerf.. it is a little ridiculous being able to pop things from 120km with HML when the other ship's effective ranges are about half that even using their long range option. But the HML damage nerf doesn't make much sense to me. If you nerf HML range by a good amount, HAMs become more appealing by virtue of that alone.
Any buff that would make a weapon platform shoot out to 80km with 400 consistent dps that hits almost anything decently well and took no cap would be utterly game crushing. This nerf needs to happen. |
|
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:05:00 -
[521] - Quote
group 1: NERF THEM!! group 2: NO NERF THEM! Developer: Distributes nerfs Group2: THEY NEED NERFS NAOW! Group 1: NO NERF THEM! Developer: Distributes nerfs on and on...
What is this, battlenet?!?
If something seems overpowered, in this case an effect of all medium missile boats? ...I just consider it poor-lazy development practice to issue [substantial] nerfs across the board (or to missile boats in this case) rather than just bringing the weaker up to standard. I've seen this just too many times in other mmo's, resulting in a cascade effect of unhappy players screaming for moar nerfs. Nerfs should only happen as fine tuning after introducing something new into the formula which suddenly made them overpowered, not after years of something being a set standard. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
603
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:06:00 -
[522] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:[
You're saying small gang don't use drakes? I'm sure PODLA would be willing to talk you out of that notion. No what I said is drakes aren't broken in small gang use now. They are only really broken as a blob fleet. You do not fix broken stuff by breaking the working stuff. The lead designer needs to be fired cus a monkey with half his brain in a jar could see you fix the other stuff that is broken to bring it in line with stuff that is working. Fix medium rails, fix the really crappy ships that are competing with the drake - this is complete lazy crap on a stick. CCP used to be good for actually promoting the racial differences in ships until they got these new clowns who brought you walking in stations and micro transactions. Fire them all and get some real designers who are't afraid of a challenge.
Seems to be policy at CCP.
You would think by now we would be used to being kicked in the knutts.
BTW these new players you are catering to are just my alts. You are not attraching new players, you are never going to. Maybe a little loyalty to your long time customers and less focus on an imaginary customer Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:06:00 -
[523] - Quote
Caldari missile shipline is officially dead now. After those changes Caldari missile ships beyond frig-size will become as rare as damp-focusing Lachesis nowadays. Let's see all categories of missiles.
1. Frig size. 1.1. Rockets: almost fine, it's just their DPS is weak. 1.2. Light missile launchers: noone use them, propably we will see them now and then as often as small railguns. Low dps, hard to fit.
2. Cruiser size. 2.1. Rapid light missile launchers: beyond some gimmick fits almost never used and I highly doubt they will after Winter. 2.2. Heavy missile launchers: now they will have a terrible DPS while being the only choice a missile boat of this size can fit without crippling itself. With upcoming Drake nerf it won't be used much. 2.3. HAML: they just useless. Hard to fit, extremely short range that can't be buffed by overpowered TE and TC. On top of that low dps and can't hurt small targets.
3. Battleship size. 3.1. Torpedoes: outside of bombers torps are awful. Extremely short range and can't even do full damage to the Death Star without gazilion of target painters. 3.2. Cruise missiles: too much range that noone needs, very low damage output and cant hurt cruiser-size targets without TP's or a lot of rigs + very good missile skills.
4. Capital size. Don't know much about that, but I know for sure that capital-sized missile launchers are worse than capital-size turrets.
So what do we have: Bad for PvP and bad for PvE missile ships. There are almost no point ever training: - Light missiles - HAM - HM (after Winter) - Cruise missiles - Caldari capitals The only viable missile types we left with are rockers and torps (for SB only). I want my SP in missiles back. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:07:00 -
[524] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Oracle (t-2 mega pulse lasers) Multifreq: 696 dps Oracle (t-2 mega pulse lasers) Scorch: 646 dps (75km range with tracking computers) Tengu (T-2 launchers), scourge t-1: 496 dps
So much for OP tengu.
I'm not even going to bother pointing out the flaw here.
Wait, I am. Have you tried this against a moving cruiser or frigate? See who comes out on top. EHP? Sig radius? Speed? Capacitor? Faction ammo? |
Tamiya Sarossa
Resistance is Character Forming
194
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:08:00 -
[525] - Quote
HM nerf good, homogenization of guns and missiles bad. |
Svodola Darkfury
Heaven's End League of Infamy
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:10:00 -
[526] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Caldari missile shipline is officially dead now. After those changes Caldari missile ships beyond frig-size will become as rare as damp-focusing Lachesis nowadays. Let's see all categories of missiles.
1. Frig size. 1.1. Rockets: almost fine, it's just their DPS is weak. 1.2. Light missile launchers: noone use them, propably we will see them now and then as often as small railguns. Low dps, hard to fit.
2. Cruiser size. 2.1. Rapid light missile launchers: beyond some gimmick fits almost never used and I highly doubt they will after Winter. 2.2. Heavy missile launchers: now they will have a terrible DPS while being the only choice a missile boat of this size can fit without crippling itself. With upcoming Drake nerf it won't be used much. 2.3. HAML: they just useless. Hard to fit, extremely short range that can't be buffed by overpowered TE and TC. On top of that low dps and can't hurt small targets.
3. Battleship size. 3.1. Torpedoes: outside of bombers torps are awful. Extremely short range and can't even do full damage to the Death Star without gazilion of target painters. 3.2. Cruise missiles: too much range that noone needs, very low damage output and cant hurt cruiser-size targets without TP's or a lot of rigs + very good missile skills.
4. Capital size. Don't know much about that, but I know for sure that capital-sized missile launchers are worse than capital-size turrets.
So what do we have: Bad for PvP and bad for PvE missile ships. There are almost no point ever training: - Light missiles - HAM - HM (after Winter) - Cruise missiles - Caldari capitals The only viable missile types we left with are rockers and torps (for SB only). I want my SP in missiles back.
Mostly good points; Cruises will still be good for PVE as they are unaffected by this change (Except vs. Sansha? They TD right?)
|
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
137
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:10:00 -
[527] - Quote
So hey look, I hated drakefleet and i dont mind the pvp ramifications, but what am I supposed to make money with in nullsec as a low-sp pilot? I can salvage off of kinder vets sometimes, but that's a finite and pretty limited source of isk. I'm just now able to do forsaken hubs on my own, and that's my only steady source of isk. With these nerfs on the board it really sounds like you're dicking low-sp pilots that live in nullsec out of one of their major sources of income, which wasn't that major to begin with.
I was also slowly training for a tengu to rat and now i'm second guessing that. Did you guys even think this nerf through? Do you actually want people to never use the drake or heavy-missile based ships ever again?
It seems like you could have reduced the viability of heavy missiles in pvp without completely screwing low-sp income sources. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1177
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:10:00 -
[528] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
You're suggesting that the shorter range, higher DPS, faction HML ammo should be able to be projected consistently farther than the falloff of most the other long-range turret platforms? I completely understand comparing apples to apples - but the problem is that a shorter range, high DPS ammo is outclassing falloff ranges on long-range turret platforms. The purpose of the graph wasn't to make a direct comparison, is was to highlight this specific imbalance.
I'm not suggesting that at all.
I'm suggesting you make comparisons that are meaningful. Yes, scourge missiles project farther than their counterpart in damage for turrets. But those graphs cherry pick some of the worst DPS turret ammo and compare them to the 2nd best HML ammo, simply to try and compare range projections.
Compare Tech II long range ammo across the board. Compare Faction DPS ammo across the board. Compare Tech II high DPS "tracking" ammo across the board.
Then compare the results of each of those graphs to find the balance. Don't cherry pick your data.
HMLs need a nerf, don't get me wrong, but they need to be compared fairly and honestly. My gut still says 20% damage reduction on top of 25% range reduction is an over-nerf and will kill HML use entirely.
But I'll wait for the above graphs (or make them myself if CCP is hiring amateur game designers and wants to pay me :) ).
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
603
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:10:00 -
[529] - Quote
Instead of endless cycle of nerf, buff nerf, nerf and nerf some more. just make every weapon the same but with differeent names and get it over with. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:11:00 -
[530] - Quote
I don't think one player every said Heavy Missiles needed a massive DPS nerf. I think most people said nerf range... Yet you go way over the top by doing both in huge totals.
Fozzie is proving how bad CCP is becoming. Drone on every god damn ship in game, Lazy EWAR that's way OP now... No seperation of TD's and missile disruption. No separation between T1 cheap bullshit, and T2 expensive.... mildly better ships.
Do you guys even get what this game once was? I mean ******* hell, lets just murder every principle the game was built on. |
|
OlRotGut
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:11:00 -
[531] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Caldari missile shipline is officially dead now. After those changes Caldari missile ships beyond frig-size will become as rare as damp-focusing Lachesis nowadays. Let's see all categories of missiles.
1. Frig size. 1.1. Rockets: almost fine, it's just their DPS is weak. 1.2. Light missile launchers: noone use them, propably we will see them now and then as often as small railguns. Low dps, hard to fit.
2. Cruiser size. 2.1. Rapid light missile launchers: beyond some gimmick fits almost never used and I highly doubt they will after Winter. 2.2. Heavy missile launchers: now they will have a terrible DPS while being the only choice a missile boat of this size can fit without crippling itself. With upcoming Drake nerf it won't be used much. 2.3. HAML: they just useless. Hard to fit, extremely short range that can't be buffed by overpowered TE and TC. On top of that low dps and can't hurt small targets.
3. Battleship size. 3.1. Torpedoes: outside of bombers torps are awful. Extremely short range and can't even do full damage to the Death Star without gazilion of target painters. 3.2. Cruise missiles: too much range that noone needs, very low damage output and cant hurt cruiser-size targets without TP's or a lot of rigs + very good missile skills.
4. Capital size. Don't know much about that, but I know for sure that capital-sized missile launchers are worse than capital-size turrets.
So what do we have: Bad for PvP and bad for PvE missile ships. There are almost no point ever training: - Light missiles - HAM - HM (after Winter) - Cruise missiles - Caldari capitals The only viable missile types we left with are rockers and torps (for SB only). I want my SP in missiles back.
What are these Cruise missiles you speak of? lol ;) |
Lucien Eginald
Skull Valley Whiskey Militia
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:12:00 -
[532] - Quote
Nerfs just don't make sense to me. Buffs make more sense.
Let's go with the premise "Eve is Real," and it takes place in space. Progress is what folks in space would want, not steps backward. If your ship is underpowered, under tanked, etc, you would move to a better ship / weapon / armor / or shield combo, right? You wouldn't ask folks around you to make their ships worse.
Let's really go with Eve being real. When a pilot docks up and meets up with the local repair / engineering shop they wouldn't say, "Make my ship worse....." That would be like saying I want a 12mpg car instead of the 36mpg car I currently run. What's real about that?
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:12:00 -
[533] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:Instead of endless cycle of nerf, buff nerf, nerf and nerf some more. just make every weapon the same but with differeent names and get it over with.
Stop being so bad. |
Reticle
Sight Picture
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:13:00 -
[534] - Quote
Mourning Souls wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant.
How is that an upshot? From my understanding the word "upshot" is supposed to be a good thing. Full rack of 720's with a MWD and LSE right now only requires a ACR, needing a RCU2 as well isn't an upshot. "upshot" is a way of saying "in essence" or "basically" or "this is the key information, all else is left out" |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:14:00 -
[535] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I don't think one player every said Heavy Missiles needed a massive DPS nerf. I think most people said nerf range... Yet you go way over the top by doing both in huge totals.
Fozzie is proving how bad CCP is becoming. Drone on every god damn ship in game, Lazy EWAR that's way OP now... No seperation of TD's and missile disruption. No separation between T1 cheap bullshit, and T2 expensive.... mildly better ships.
Do you guys even get what this game once was? I mean ******* hell, lets just murder every principle the game was built on.
These new design team are ****. I think it's time for another revolution and the burning of jita mark 2 to teach em to not put their pants on their head and do some real damn work. Cus really it ain't that hard - I should know, it's what I do elsewhere.
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
449
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:14:00 -
[536] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
I'm not suggesting that at all.
I'm suggesting you make comparisons that are meaningful. Yes, scourge missiles project farther than their counterpart in damage for turrets. But those graphs cherry pick some of the worst DPS turret ammo and compare them to the 2nd best HML ammo, simply to try and compare range projections.
Compare Tech II long range ammo across the board. Compare Faction DPS ammo across the board. Compare Tech II high DPS "tracking" ammo across the board.
Then compare the results of each of those graphs to find the balance. Don't cherry pick your data.
You keep saying this but I think you're confused. There is no T2 long range ammo for HMLs. You're thinking of Javelin missiles which are only usable in HAMs.
The T2 missiles for HMLs have both lower range than T1 missiles. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
268
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:15:00 -
[537] - Quote
Im sorry CCP but a 20% reduction in Heavy Missile damage is way out of line. I agree with the range decrease, because they have a ridiculously high range for medium sized weapon. But a 20% reduction in damage is catastrophic. Caldari are reknown for their missile boats and as it stands none of thier missile platforms are useful. There are only three truly useful Caldari missile boats, Golum, Tengu and Drake... two of which use heavies.
You will destroy the Caldari ship line like this. The Caracal is already terrible and useless, and that uses heavies, your just going to make it worse. Not to mention the Cerb is one of the most useless of the HACs, and your definitely going to make that worse. If it wasn't before it definitely will be now.
I very rarely think badly of CCP, but that change will make me deaply unhappy. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
194
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:17:00 -
[538] - Quote
My Moros can do 18kdps while my tengu barely scrapes the 600dps mark. Therefore missiles are fine and this nerf is uncalled for. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Lili Lu
438
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:17:00 -
[539] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote: I think you seem to forget that Caldari is the most popular race so of course Drakes are going to be the most popular battlecruiser.
And which came first the chicken or the egg?
I do not find the qq-ing itt surprising. So many people that entered this game in the last 3 or so years followed the obvious easy path, Drake -> Tengu and that's basically all you needed. That is being taken away.
Seriously, though it does surprise me that so many are failing to notice concurrent buffs that should be welcome. Faster missiles, removal of tech II ammo penalties, improved unguided missiles, and if the current frigate and cruiser rebalancing is any indication the hated kinetic bonus is being done away with (which is interesting for where it leaves Gallente tech II resists?).
People really need to take a deep breath, slow down and read the op. And as usual try to read the previous posts itt because some of the arguments have already been stated and even addressed. For instance, it appears likely that TDs base stats will be altered/reduced so that they don't become the new old-style multispec, per one of Fozzie's followup posts.
As for ships, welcome to wishing they could move faster to general BC rebalancing and on to tech II cruisers and BCs.
So it appears the two overused BCs will be getting an interim nerf. Thanks Ytterbium btw. At least the Drake is not getting a direct one, and really all the but it will be useless posters should wait for the comprehensive rebalance. CCP is wisely choosing to trim these two ships back in the interim and most likely balance the other BCs up to them. This will mean that the newly buffed cruisers won't just slide back into weaksauce in comparison. Did you all really expect that they could buff the other 6 BCs up to current Drake and Cane standards and just moot all the work on Cruisers?
Seriously, light missiles are getting a buff. I would bet that cruises could be getting a similar buff when they start addressing BSs and BS sized weapons. This is a process folks.
Maybe if all you whining are correct and armor turret boats come to dominate the killboards and pve activity the way the drake and tengu have you can wait 3+ years for that to get fixed. Welcome to a more complex game. A game where you want to train something other than one race of ships and one weapon system. And where you don't just load your lows with damage mods and your mids with tank, hit f1 and watch the missiles travel to your target. Welcome to thinking about how you get range, or damage application, and have to balance that with tank. Hey at least you don't need to worry about cap for your guns on top of that. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:18:00 -
[540] - Quote
The Cerb will get CCPs attention next year, just wait for it. |
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
194
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:19:00 -
[541] - Quote
Also, a Revelation can reliably score hits at 200km yet an Osprey struggles to obtain a mining yield of over 600m3. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
85
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:20:00 -
[542] - Quote
Hi everyone!
We appreciate that any such threads are always bound to generate strong opinions for and against anything being discussed but I'm asking you to please consider if what you're posting is constructive before you click the post button.
If you feel that a post is breaking the rules, trolling/ranting and so on, please use the report button to let the moderators know to have a look.
Lastly, personal attacks against CCP employees are both against the rules and viewed very poorly and may well lead to forum privileges being revoked.
Thanks and fly safe.
PS: As a final note, please note the wording of CCP Fozzie's post; these are tentative plans and as such are subject to change/complete reversal as always. Please consider that before going off on the deep end! ISD Suvetar Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:21:00 -
[543] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote: just give me back my SP.. THIS!
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
206
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:24:00 -
[544] - Quote
Thank you for this 'voice of reason' post Lili. |
Malcolm Clayton
Funghitech Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:26:00 -
[545] - Quote
oh... overpowered to useless.... CCP play your own game and patch then . |
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:26:00 -
[546] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Terrible, meandering, disingenuous post
Thank you for this ' useless wall of text' post Lili.
English must be your second language so i fixed that for you |
Gandin Grothe
United Allegiance of Undesirables
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:26:00 -
[547] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Something like this? http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gifThis is with max skills, no other modules besides the weapons and long range ammo. Yes, exactly. Many thanks for providing this. As you can see in the graph, heavy missiles pretty much dominate this range class of weapons, with the only weapons system providing any advantage at all being railguns on a Ferox - and at a huge DPS hit to achieve this. If you run the same graph after the changes Fozzie is proposing, you will see that there are now actual advantages to using other weapons besides HML at these ranges.
Ohh like critical hits and instant damage. meh
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
605
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:27:00 -
[548] - Quote
ISD Suvetar wrote:Hi everyone!
We appreciate that any such threads are always bound to generate strong opinions for and against anything being discussed but I'm asking you to please consider if what you're posting is constructive before you click the post button.
If you feel that a post is breaking the rules, trolling/ranting and so on, please use the report button to let the moderators know to have a look.
Lastly, personal attacks against CCP employees are both against the rules and viewed very poorly and may well lead to forum privileges being revoked.
Thanks and fly safe.
PS: As a final note, please note the wording of CCP Fozzie's post; these are tentative plans and as such are subject to change/complete reversal as always. Please consider that before going off on the deep end!
First get out! You have no business here. You are not a Dev and can not fix our issues or answer any of our questions. Second either you are deleting faster than I can read or I'm missing the personal attacks. Your presence will do nothing but further agitate us. May sound harsh but I'm tired of ISD heavy handediness. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Reticle
Sight Picture
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:27:00 -
[549] - Quote
Lelob wrote:[quote=Nikolai Dostoyevski]Any buff that would make a weapon platform shoot out to 80km with 400 consistent dps that hits almost anything decently well and took no cap would be utterly game crushing. This nerf needs to happen. It should be pointed out that missiles are the only charge/ammunition that can be destroyed and the only ammunition that can be outrun entirely. The tradeoff, at least what I thought was the tradeoff, for missile boats was, you get the full damage at range, but that damage is mitigated by the targets speed, size, and ability to destroy or outrun the missiles (firewall anyone?). These changes reduce the damage and range and provide two more options for mitigating damage. Something about that just doesn't make sense.
edit: also, if defender missiles worked properly, complaints about HMs would probably stop |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
206
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:27:00 -
[550] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Terrible, meandering, disingenuous post
Thank you for this ' useless wall of text' post Lili. English must be your second language so i fixed that for you
You seem to be mad over something. |
|
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
77
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:27:00 -
[551] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Compare Tech II long range ammo across the board. Compare Faction DPS ammo across the board. Compare Tech II high DPS "tracking" ammo across the board.
There are no Tech II long range Heavy Missiles. Faction DPS Ammo has optimal ranges of under 20km, providing around 50 more base DPS on BC hulls (no damage mods or rigs), compared to Faction Scourge. Tech II DPS Ammo has optimal ranges of under 10km, providing around 25 more base DPS on BC hulls (no damage mods or rigs), compared to Scourge Furies.
Those comparisons would be even more in favour of missiles due to their extreme damage projection. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:29:00 -
[552] - Quote
Reticle wrote:Lelob wrote:[quote=Nikolai Dostoyevski]Any buff that would make a weapon platform shoot out to 80km with 400 consistent dps that hits almost anything decently well and took no cap would be utterly game crushing. This nerf needs to happen. It should be pointed out that missiles are the only charge/ammunition that can be destroyed and the only ammunition that can be outrun entirely. The tradeoff, at least what I thought was the tradeoff, for missile boats was, you get the full damage at range, but that damage is mitigated by the targets speed, size, and ability to destroy or outrun the missiles (firewall anyone?). These changes reduce the damage and range and provide two more options for mitigating damage. Something about that just doesn't make sense.
Guns can't be outrun? I guess I must have missed tracking all this time. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:31:00 -
[553] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:So hey look, I hated drakefleet and i dont mind the pvp ramifications, but what am I supposed to make money with in nullsec as a low-sp pilot? I can salvage off of kinder vets sometimes, but that's a finite and pretty limited source of isk. I'm just now able to do forsaken hubs on my own, and that's my only steady source of isk. With these nerfs on the board it really sounds like you're dicking low-sp pilots that live in nullsec out of one of their major sources of income, which wasn't that major to begin with.
I was also slowly training for a tengu to rat and now i'm second guessing that. Did you guys even think this nerf through? Do you actually want people to never use the drake or heavy-missile based ships ever again?
It seems like you could have reduced the viability of heavy missiles in pvp without completely screwing low-sp income sources.
Edit: And if anyone tells me that I should mine I will take a veldspar asteroid and cram it waaayyy up your ass. Group PvE, in this MMO?!
Seriously, do it, surprise yourself. It's not like you even need to worry about aggro switching when shooting non-sleepers & non-incursion sanshas. |
iskflakes
Magnets Inc.
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:31:00 -
[554] - Quote
Posting within the first 30 pages of an impending threadnought!
The nerf is slightly too large, I think a 10% damage reduction would do it. When you consider the delayed DPS it is clear the missile ships should have a slightly higher range-damage product than instant damage turret ships. The improvement in precision missiles is VERY welcome though.
I am worried by the general trend of this rebalancing, which seems to be sending the message that ISK isn't relevant anymore and that all ships should be equally good (e.g. T1 vs T2 logi cruisers, T1 frigates vs everything). To be clear, I think this is a VERY bad direction to go in. The most significant factors in determining the outcome of a battle should be: Ship choice, ISK, skillpoints and blob size, in that order. The way this balancing is going, ship choice and blob size will be the ONLY factors. Track your wealth with EVE Stats: https://ohheck.co.uk/EVEStats/home.php |
Reticle
Sight Picture
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:31:00 -
[555] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Reticle wrote:Lelob wrote:[quote=Nikolai Dostoyevski]Any buff that would make a weapon platform shoot out to 80km with 400 consistent dps that hits almost anything decently well and took no cap would be utterly game crushing. This nerf needs to happen. It should be pointed out that missiles are the only charge/ammunition that can be destroyed and the only ammunition that can be outrun entirely. The tradeoff, at least what I thought was the tradeoff, for missile boats was, you get the full damage at range, but that damage is mitigated by the targets speed, size, and ability to destroy or outrun the missiles (firewall anyone?). These changes reduce the damage and range and provide two more options for mitigating damage. Something about that just doesn't make sense. Guns can't be outrun? I guess I must have missed tracking all this time. try outrunning them in a straight line some time |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:33:00 -
[556] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:
First get out! You have no business here. You are not a Dev and can not fix our issues or answer any of our questions. Second either you are deleting faster than I can read or I'm missing the personal attacks. Your presence will do nothing but further agitate us. May sound harsh but I'm tired of ISD heavy handediness.
Agreed ISD is useless. They need to go - they serve no purpose of value to the community. |
Lili Lu
439
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:34:00 -
[557] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Terrible, meandering, disingenuous post
Thank you for this ' useless wall of text' post Lili. English must be your second language so i fixed that for you And meanwhile I've seen some other Goons post favorably on the changes, and I've been getting some likes from Goons. Thank you for restoring my faith in the individuality of every member of the goon collective. Maybe I'll pony up the 500mil i was told was all I need to pay to get in. That was 500mil to you right? |
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:35:00 -
[558] - Quote
The knee jerk unreasoned tears in this thread are simply depressing.
This nerf is completely needed to bring hml in-line with the other weapon systems. You should see proliferation of other ships and setups now because of this.
+1 fozzie! Two Step for CSM |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:36:00 -
[559] - Quote
Mourning Souls wrote:Tengus and Drakes are the reason for the nerf right? Given how other missile ships look sad in comparison I'm gonna say yes.
Why not affect the ships directly?
Drop the damage bonus on Drakes from 5 to 2-3% and remove the resist bonus. As far as Tengus go I'm not sure what to say other than nerf everything. T3's are supposed to be a jack of all trades, but they shouldn't be that good at them.
It's just
- Accelerated Ejection Bay
- Augmented Capacitor Reservoir
that makes a Tengu overpowered ..
If the Tengu itself was the problem then
- Power Core Multiplier
- Magnetic Infusion Basin
would be equally overpowered AND popular aswell.
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:36:00 -
[560] - Quote
Reticle wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Reticle wrote:Lelob wrote:[quote=Nikolai Dostoyevski]Any buff that would make a weapon platform shoot out to 80km with 400 consistent dps that hits almost anything decently well and took no cap would be utterly game crushing. This nerf needs to happen. It should be pointed out that missiles are the only charge/ammunition that can be destroyed and the only ammunition that can be outrun entirely. The tradeoff, at least what I thought was the tradeoff, for missile boats was, you get the full damage at range, but that damage is mitigated by the targets speed, size, and ability to destroy or outrun the missiles (firewall anyone?). These changes reduce the damage and range and provide two more options for mitigating damage. Something about that just doesn't make sense. Guns can't be outrun? I guess I must have missed tracking all this time. try outrunning them in a straight line some time
Whoa we're settling on a direction now? |
|
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:38:00 -
[561] - Quote
James1122 wrote:The knee jerk unreasoned tears in this thread are simply depressing.
This nerf is completely needed to bring hml in-line with the other weapon systems. You should see proliferation of other ships and setups now because of this.
+1 fozzie!
Other ships need to be brought in line with being useful - not taking a working and nuanced platform and making it 100% useless.
CCP forgot how to make new content and fix broken stuff - they got their tech in hand but lost all of the designers worth a damn.
It's time to burn Jita again and demand they hire some decent designers who won't take the lazy way out. |
Reticle
Sight Picture
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:39:00 -
[562] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Guns can't be outrun? I guess I must have missed tracking all this time. try outrunning them in a straight line some time Whoa we're settling on a direction now? Pick any direction you like with a firewall setup. Do those work on turret based weapon ammo? Didn't think so. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2953
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:40:00 -
[563] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I don't think one player every said Heavy Missiles needed a massive DPS nerf. I think most people said nerf range...
They probably did, but..... Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Ana Fox
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:41:00 -
[564] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:So hey look, I hated drakefleet and i dont mind the pvp ramifications, but what am I supposed to make money with in nullsec as a low-sp pilot? I can salvage off of kinder vets sometimes, but that's a finite and pretty limited source of isk. I'm just now able to do forsaken hubs on my own, and that's my only steady source of isk. With these nerfs on the board it really sounds like you're dicking low-sp pilots that live in nullsec out of one of their major sources of income, which wasn't that major to begin with.
I was also slowly training for a tengu to rat and now i'm second guessing that. Did you guys even think this nerf through? Do you actually want people to never use the drake or heavy-missile based ships ever again?
It seems like you could have reduced the viability of heavy missiles in pvp without completely screwing low-sp income sources.
Edit: And if anyone tells me that I should mine I will take a veldspar asteroid and cram it waaayyy up your ass.
This is my main concern.New players will be those who will have hard time.When I say new I think those that are up to 6-7 months old.It is not problem to get other ships more used it is that they / we dont have what other ships to use to be if nothing close to effective as there two that are mostly reason for this nerf it seems.
I would not have problem to use T2 cruiser on my Caldari pilot ,but that T2 suck so bad .
I will say same as I did in my previous post ,HML was op in some things like range and same dps application no matter of target distance ,but was that dmg so much op to be 20% less now with this proposed changes?
Again I would not have problem if I am player that is two years old and you have gunnery and cross trained ship options,but sadly I dont have.For us it will be even more hard to get involved in some cool stuff older players do just cause some went Caldari way.
Lucky for me I have one more pilot with gunnery :/.
|
Matthius Carole
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:41:00 -
[565] - Quote
The first thing I would like to say is that this is a feature and ideas DISCUSSION thread. These changes have not been made yet. They aren't even on the test server. All of the folks that are only saying things like "this, this, and this ship sucks now!" and "just give me my SP back" are in the wrong forum. The devs post this stuff so that intelligent people can give constructive feedback and work to make eve better. Once again, make EVE better. Not YOU, YOUR ship, or the the type of weapon YOU use. All some of you are doing is making the constructive ones have to read through more bull crap to get to the discussion at hand.
One thing I would like to say about missiles is that the the paper dps and the applied dps are completely different things on this weapon system. The payoff you get for a lower amount of paper dps is that so long as you are in range and you're engaging the proper sized ship, your missiles are going to hit for the same amount of damage every time.
I think a 20% nerf to the damage of heavy missiles will be a good starting point. We can work from there. The range nerf had a long time coming. Firing vollies from 100km away and not having to worry about tracking always seemed a little unbalanced to me.
Missiles being affected by tracking enhancers and disruptors is awesome but I agree with some of the others in the thread that this will be used by a lot of ships that aren't bonused to td's. There's nothing inherently wrong with that but that last thing a lot of us want to see is yet another piece of ewar that is part of the standard pvp fit. We'll see what happens with that when we get to buckingham though.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1972
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:42:00 -
[566] - Quote
This thread was worth the wait. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:43:00 -
[567] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:James1122 wrote:The knee jerk unreasoned tears in this thread are simply depressing.
This nerf is completely needed to bring hml in-line with the other weapon systems. You should see proliferation of other ships and setups now because of this.
+1 fozzie! Other ships need to be brought in line with being useful - not taking a working and nuanced platform and making it 100% useless. CCP forgot how to make new content and fix broken stuff - they got their tech in hand but lost all of the designers worth a damn. It's time to burn Jita again and demand they hire some decent designers who won't take the lazy way out.
I don't understand this argument, If everything is equally useless then surely everything is also equally useful ? (i.e. balanced, nothing is significantly OP or UP compared to each other ?)
To the moderators: If my comments below are to harsh please leave the top bit of my post in when you delete it, Ta.
Requesting a jita riot because the developers are working on ship balencing ? You are a f**king clown and the absolute problem with this game. I feel sorry for the developers having to deal with people like you, the type that moan at them for not doing anything, and then moan at them when they do try to do stuff. Two Step for CSM |
Ensign X
256
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:43:00 -
[568] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Hey look on the bright side, your TDing HAM Sacs are starting to look good!
Hey look, it's the only person who made an intelligent and thoughtful proposal in the recent CSM minutes to the "drake problem". Too bad they ignored you completely, Elise. A CPU nerf to the Drake would have fixed the biggest problem with the drake, it's huge buffer combined with it's massive range.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:44:00 -
[569] - Quote
ISD Suvetar wrote:Hi everyone!
Lastly, personal attacks against CCP employees are both against the rules and viewed very poorly and may well lead to forum privileges being revoked.
Thanks and fly safe.
PS: As a final note, please note the wording of CCP Fozzie's post; these are tentative plans and as such are subject to change/complete reversal as always. Please consider that before going off on the deep end!
b/c we haven't see a massive load of bad ideas get emo raged out and still make it into game... God forbid players should be upset with such awful foresight and poor choices. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:45:00 -
[570] - Quote
Reticle wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Guns can't be outrun? I guess I must have missed tracking all this time. try outrunning them in a straight line some time Whoa we're settling on a direction now? Pick any direction you like with a firewall setup. Do those work on turret based weapon ammo? Didn't think so.
So lets see those Muninns perform in killing small ships orbiting at close range versus Drakes/Tengus. |
|
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:45:00 -
[571] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Proletariat Tingtango wrote:So hey look, I hated drakefleet and i dont mind the pvp ramifications, but what am I supposed to make money with in nullsec as a low-sp pilot? I can salvage off of kinder vets sometimes, but that's a finite and pretty limited source of isk. I'm just now able to do forsaken hubs on my own, and that's my only steady source of isk. With these nerfs on the board it really sounds like you're dicking low-sp pilots that live in nullsec out of one of their major sources of income, which wasn't that major to begin with.
I was also slowly training for a tengu to rat and now i'm second guessing that. Did you guys even think this nerf through? Do you actually want people to never use the drake or heavy-missile based ships ever again?
It seems like you could have reduced the viability of heavy missiles in pvp without completely screwing low-sp income sources.
Edit: And if anyone tells me that I should mine I will take a veldspar asteroid and cram it waaayyy up your ass. Group PvE, in this MMO?! Seriously, do it, surprise yourself. It's not like you even need to worry about aggro switching when shooting non-sleepers & non-incursion sanshas.
I already group when I can because it's faster/easier to generate more money and way less boring, but no, I should not have to group up to generate income. If the only time I can log in is during off-peak hours I have no chance of grouping up.
It's worth repeating, I'm almost glad to see the drake nerfed in pvp, but there's no real viable replacement for newbies in nullsec pve, and while i'd rather not, if I have to set foot in low sec or high-sec to generate a reasonable amount of income, I'm just going to scam it out of someone rather than waste my time.
|
Jhan Niber
Big Johnson's Ascendance.
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:47:00 -
[572] - Quote
The Hurricane nerf might be a bit too heavy. I understand it does too many things too well but a 1/6 cut seems like a bit too large of a cut.
While I wish that missiles had their own counter *looks at the broken defender missiles* so that we could have a fleet anti missile ship ala Patriot missiles, this will make for an interesting dynamic. As usual though we will adapt to the given constraints and I'm glad I'm already training Amarr cruiser V. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
716
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:47:00 -
[573] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
..because comparing guns with missiles is good to begin with? Why don't you add in drones in that equation too, that's about as reasonable as your apples and oranges. If you wanted to be fair, you'd at the very least also mention missiles travel time, and mention smartbomb/FoF that kills missiles/drones but not gun damage (but you could mention TDs affect guns/drones but not missiles).
You also forgot to mention which ships that is affected in what way with what bonuses (gun- and missile ships tend to have a different way of handing out bonuses, like your beam comment should mention that almost every damn Amarr ship there is has a cap bonus built in).
Horrible one-sided argument with obvious flaws, mate, try again. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Lakshata Chawla
Blue-Fire Tribal Band
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:48:00 -
[574] - Quote
My poor drake.... Guess I'll have to upgrade to a raven until they change the drakes kinetic bonus out to something useless.
I see the need for changes, and think the range nerf is a good start.
I don't exactly agree with the nerf to damage because I fly primarily drakes, but it would be nice to see HAM's be useful. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:48:00 -
[575] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Proletariat Tingtango wrote:So hey look, I hated drakefleet and i dont mind the pvp ramifications, but what am I supposed to make money with in nullsec as a low-sp pilot? I can salvage off of kinder vets sometimes, but that's a finite and pretty limited source of isk. I'm just now able to do forsaken hubs on my own, and that's my only steady source of isk. With these nerfs on the board it really sounds like you're dicking low-sp pilots that live in nullsec out of one of their major sources of income, which wasn't that major to begin with.
I was also slowly training for a tengu to rat and now i'm second guessing that. Did you guys even think this nerf through? Do you actually want people to never use the drake or heavy-missile based ships ever again?
It seems like you could have reduced the viability of heavy missiles in pvp without completely screwing low-sp income sources.
Edit: And if anyone tells me that I should mine I will take a veldspar asteroid and cram it waaayyy up your ass. Group PvE, in this MMO?! Seriously, do it, surprise yourself. It's not like you even need to worry about aggro switching when shooting non-sleepers & non-incursion sanshas. I already group when I can because it's faster/easier to generate more money and way less boring, but no, I should not have to group up to generate income. If the only time I can log in is during off-peak hours I have no chance of grouping up. It's worth repeating, I'm almost glad to see the drake nerfed in pvp, but there's no real viable replacement for newbies in nullsec pve, and while i'd rather not, if I have to set foot in low sec or high-sec to generate a reasonable amount of income, I'm just going to scam it out of someone rather than waste my time.
This game isn't supposed to be easy for newer players. I started Amarr and I had a hell of a hard time trying to work my way through the Omen, Harbinger and Apocalypse with T1 fittings. The fact that this game is such a breeze with a t1 drake or raven is an insult to all other races. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:48:00 -
[576] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125. The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.
Way to completely hamstring the hurricane. You won't be able to fit a decent armor cane with these changes. It's now a ****** nano-cane or nothing. Nice work on making the game even more uniform and less interesting. |
Lili Lu
439
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:50:00 -
[577] - Quote
Reticle wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Guns can't be outrun? I guess I must have missed tracking all this time. try outrunning them in a straight line some time Whoa we're settling on a direction now? Pick any direction you like with a firewall setup. Do those work on turret based weapon ammo? Didn't think so. Firewall was an extreme solution to the lack of a dedicated anti-missile mechanic in the game. It is hardly ideal and has problems in application. Now with this single buff/nerf masses of newbies in Crucifiers, Vigils, Arbitrators, and Bellicoses and their tech II varietes may become as sought after as those in Griffins and Blackbirds et al. We can only hope damp boats are made as desireable as well.
This will open up the game to new fleet doctrines and even better, non-monoculture fleets. This will be good for the health of the game. And eventually some of you who put all your eggs in the one basket of heavy missile boats will realize the joys of crosstraining. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
610
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:50:00 -
[578] - Quote
Ana Fox wrote:Proletariat Tingtango wrote:So hey look, I hated drakefleet and i dont mind the pvp ramifications, but what am I supposed to make money with in nullsec as a low-sp pilot? I can salvage off of kinder vets sometimes, but that's a finite and pretty limited source of isk. I'm just now able to do forsaken hubs on my own, and that's my only steady source of isk. With these nerfs on the board it really sounds like you're dicking low-sp pilots that live in nullsec out of one of their major sources of income, which wasn't that major to begin with.
I was also slowly training for a tengu to rat and now i'm second guessing that. Did you guys even think this nerf through? Do you actually want people to never use the drake or heavy-missile based ships ever again?
It seems like you could have reduced the viability of heavy missiles in pvp without completely screwing low-sp income sources.
Edit: And if anyone tells me that I should mine I will take a veldspar asteroid and cram it waaayyy up your ass. This is my main concern.New players will be those who will have hard time.When I say new I think those that are up to 6-7 months old.It is not problem to get other ships more used it is that they / we dont have what other ships to use to be if nothing close to effective as those two are mostly reason for this nerf it seems. I would not have problem to use T2 cruiser on my Caldari pilot ,but that T2 suck so bad . I will say same as I did in my previous post ,HML was op in some things like range and same dps application no matter of target distance ,but was that dmg so much op to be 20% less now with this proposed changes? Again I would not have problem if I am player that is two years old and you have gunnery and cross trained ship options,but sadly I dont have.For us it will be even more hard to get involved in some cool stuff older players do just cause some went Caldari way. Lucky for me I have one more pilot with gunnery :/.
Take away the range and damage, than you need to make missle instant damage with short fire cycles. Not mention you can only load 24 charges
Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:51:00 -
[579] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly
Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
As someone who spends a lot of time in things that have to shoot drakes, I think a 20% decrease in range vs 25% is a bit more fair. Reducing flight time by only 20% instead of 30% also seems a bit more fair.
On a large fleet scale, drakes will have to be realigning more when shooting towers making them much more susceptible to bombing runs. |
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:51:00 -
[580] - Quote
Re-arrange these words:
Worms Can of Open.
I can not see past this being an ISK controlling exercise.... and an incredibly badly though out one.
*just wanted to list some things that are not good about missiles for those that don't really use them.
1. The training for one weapon platform. Gun supports support three different races. Missile support only supports Missiles. 2. Only ammo that can be speed tanked whilst flying directly at it. 3. As far from 'instant' damage as you can get. You can actually align and warp before these things hit you sometimes. 4. Low Alpha compared to other similar platforms. |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
44
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:51:00 -
[581] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:
This game isn't supposed to be easy for newer players. I started Amarr and I had a hell of a hard time trying to work my way through the Omen, Harbinger and Apocalypse with T1 fittings. The fact that this game is such a breeze with a t1 drake or raven is an insult to all other races.
Yes, because the raven is a breeze to use.
Because everyone always waits until they do level 4s before starting PvP right?
Drake is op, everyone knows that. Nerfing it down to 250 dps isn't really a good way of fixing it, nerfing a bit and improving the other options it has than heavies is better. |
Elder Ozzian
Stargates and Smuggler Barons
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:52:00 -
[582] - Quote
"...and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players."
Does this mean that finally you are fixing the infamous 'When i hit warp button, all my missiles are losing it's payload and will not do any damage' -function? ...Or is it still working as intended? |
Ensign X
257
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:52:00 -
[583] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Way to completely hamstring the hurricane. You won't be able to fit a decent armor cane with these changes. It's now a ****** nano-cane or nothing.
Sure you can. You just won't be able to fit 2 1600mm plates, 2x Medium Neuts and 425mm ACs. You'll have to work for your fitting. Try using 1 plate. Or downgrade your neuts. Or downgrade your ACs. Trust me, it works.
|
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:53:00 -
[584] - Quote
James1122 wrote:
I don't understand this argument, If everything is equally useless then surely everything is also equally useful ? (i.e. balanced, nothing is significantly OP or UP compared to each other ?)
To the moderators: If my comments below are to harsh please leave the top bit of my post in when you delete it, Ta.
Requesting a jita riot because the developers are working on ship balencing ? You are a f**king clown and the absolute problem with this game. I feel sorry for the developers having to deal with people like you, the type that moan at them for not doing anything, and then moan at them when they do try to do stuff.
The other ships are actually useful - the real issue and it's been an issue for years - is blobbing. It's not that missiles are OP - they have very strict drawbacks and uses and counters - like everything in game is supposed to have. The current proposed changes make them useless for everything except blobbing where they will then be just ok.
This is not good game design, in fact it's more of what I'd expect out of one of my first year students.
I want CCP to get off it's ass and actually do the work to keep the feel, vibrancy, vavriancy, and nuanced tactics - and this change only addresses blob warfare by putting blinders on and pretending that's the only way people use these ships.
So YES we should burn jita again - remind them we hold them to a higher standard of game design. If we wanted elementary level crap we'd play WOW.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
300
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:54:00 -
[585] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:Way to completely hamstring the hurricane. You won't be able to fit a decent armor cane with these changes. It's now a ****** nano-cane or nothing. Sure you can. You just won't be able to fit 2 1600mm plates, 2x Medium Neuts and 425mm ACs. You'll have to work for your fitting. Try using 1 plate. Or downgrade your neuts. Or downgrade your ACs. Trust me, it works.
You cant fit that. Dual plate requires 180s.; |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:56:00 -
[586] - Quote
Reticle wrote:edit: also, if defender missiles worked properly, complaints about HMs would probably stop I have them trained a little, early on, until I found that they were worthless. This would make actual sense. So I punch through with four out of five missiles a volley, there 's the 20% reduction. I think missile boat drivers can live with that and it's not a nerf. Though I can imagine the tears of players needing to load defenders on hardpoint. Best option is still bringing non-missile boats up to standard. But just fixing the defender compared to nerfing is an acceptable lazy fix in comparison to fixing the rest of the fleet where it needs fixing. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
716
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:57:00 -
[587] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Ravcharas wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Also making TDs affect missiles is goddamn ********. Now there is literally NO situation in which you dont want TDs fitted and there is NO counter to someone using TDs (apart from blobbing them....see a theme?) Fit a tracking enhancer, fit a tracking computer, fit a web, fit a painter, fit neuts, use appropriate ammo, or use ecm. Do you really think that a tracking computer counters a tracking disruptor? PS. Show me the shield cane fit with a tracking computer and a web. It sure mitigates it. Another counter could be to bring a friend with tracking links. Hue hue.
Welcome to blob online, bring a fleet of ships to counter a single enemies ewar. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Ensign X
259
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:57:00 -
[588] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Ensign X wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:Way to completely hamstring the hurricane. You won't be able to fit a decent armor cane with these changes. It's now a ****** nano-cane or nothing. Sure you can. You just won't be able to fit 2 1600mm plates, 2x Medium Neuts and 425mm ACs. You'll have to work for your fitting. Try using 1 plate. Or downgrade your neuts. Or downgrade your ACs. Trust me, it works. You cant fit that. Dual plate requires 180s.;
And Small Neuts. I'm aware. I was referring more to the implication that somehow 'Canes will no longer be able to fit an armor tank when, in reality, they just won't be able to dual plate their armor 'Canes. |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:59:00 -
[589] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:
Way to completely hamstring the hurricane. You won't be able to fit a decent armor cane with these changes. It's now a ****** nano-cane or nothing. Nice work on making the game even more uniform and less interesting.
Armor cane FTW ... no one but pirates seem to fly one anymore tho.
But again our CCP design team is crap and they don't look at all the uses a ship gets and instead only go hey, it can be used in one way we think we might not like so we gotta break it so it can't be used like that, but damn the side effects of other things it's no longer good for.
We don't want WOW in space, in fact we want WOW in space players to quit and go find a game suited to them. |
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:00:00 -
[590] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Hate to be the one to let you know, but isn't a Submarine we're talking about where the missiles/Torp are connected to the boat via cable.
I assume by using TD's you are going to make people target individual missiles and TD them else I don't see how this works in accordance with EvE's mechanics.
You're breaking your own physics to nerf something........ at least put some effort into creating something specific that does this, rather than the outstanding idea someone clearly had sitting around the large conference table with a coffee in their hand......."oh let a gun tracking disruptor that affects turrents ON ships, now affect an intelligent ammo that has it's own built in systems".
|
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:00:00 -
[591] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125. The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.
Way to completely hamstring the hurricane. You won't be able to fit a decent armor cane with these changes. It's now a ****** nano-cane or nothing. Nice work on making the game even more uniform and less interesting.
[Hurricane, 1125 base PG (AWU III ENGI V)] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 200
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M Small Energy Neutralizer II Small Energy Neutralizer II
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Warrior II x5 Warrior II x1
There. Still a great brawling ship. Still has the utility slots. Just not as brutally strong as it used to be. If you really want a med neut, drop the 425s to 220s and you can switch a small neutralizer for a medium one. You have to make choices now. Like all the rest of us. |
stoicfaux
1652
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:01:00 -
[592] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script)
How do TC/TEs impact Target Painters? Will TPs become primarily a fleet weapon?
Golem. If TC/TEs are "better" than TPs, will the Golem's Target Painting and/or Explosion Velocity bonii be changed?
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head. Feature Request: -áDamnation Ship Codpiece-áfor the NeX store.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1329
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:01:00 -
[593] - Quote
It's like CCP Fozzie can read my mind!
Also can you please look at medium rails Fozzie, they are completely useless on everything. Please look at the insanely high fitting requirements of them. There is plenty of time before winter gets here.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:02:00 -
[594] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. ..because comparing guns with missiles is good to begin with? Why don't you add in drones in that equation too, that's about as reasonable as your apples and oranges. If you wanted to be fair, you'd at the very least also mention missiles travel time, and mention smartbomb/FoF that kills missiles/drones but not gun damage (but you could mention TDs affect guns/drones but not missiles). You also forgot to mention which ships that is affected in what way with what bonuses (gun- and missile ships tend to have a different way of handing out bonuses, like your beam comment should mention that almost every damn Amarr ship there is has a cap bonus built in). Horrible one-sided argument with obvious flaws, mate, try again.
TDs will now effect missiles. Ok travel time but missiles still have more base range and damage. They have upped missile velocity to compensate. Missiles are capless (the amarr bonus is considered as a waste cos its there to compensate for a built in redundancy with weapons)
Two Step for CSM |
Catabolistic
Higg's Zombie Fusion
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:02:00 -
[595] - Quote
Really this whole can of worms will be a game killer. No easly trainable PVE ship will exist for low skill pilots. TD will be a god module. The blob is the real issue but instead you kill off a large section of solo play with these proposed changes. I might as well put discos on my tengu and go f*ck someone up in jita. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:03:00 -
[596] - Quote
Ensign X wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:Way to completely hamstring the hurricane. You won't be able to fit a decent armor cane with these changes. It's now a ****** nano-cane or nothing. Sure you can. You just won't be able to fit 2 1600mm plates, 2x Medium Neuts and 425mm ACs. You'll have to work for your fitting. Try using 1 plate. Or downgrade your neuts. Or downgrade your ACs. Trust me, it works.
Decent armor cane fit is 220s, 2 med nuets, mwd, and 1 1600mm plate. With these changes, you'll either lose about 8k EHP by switching a trimark to an ACR, have to drop to 180s, or use small neuts. Pretty much all of these mean you'll have a hard time going toe-to-toe with any of the other BCs. |
PinkKnife
The Scope Gallente Federation
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:03:00 -
[597] - Quote
Oh my god. This thread.
9/10 complaining about their drake and tengu. 10/10 people haven't seen the impending changes to the drake/tengu. How can you say something is usless, when you haven't seen what they want to do with it?
So, IGNORE the stupid drakegu, and look at these medium weapons on the cruisers listed, not on hypothetical theorycrafting about ships not yet balanced. CCP is likely largely aware of the huge nerf to the drake and will give it some changes to compensate and not make it useless.
See that, it's called being reasonable.
+1 for Cane needing tradeoffs like other ships, and having to make fitting decisions.
+1 for HMLs being brought in line in terms of damage projection at range
+1 for T2 missile buffs
+1 TD effecting missiles, now my pilgrim can go on blops roams without remote reps equipped
+1 Tracking Enhancers/computers effecting Missiles, to counter the range nerf, and tracking disruptor.
On the "omg tracking disruptors now the god module" Sensor dampners would like a word with you and how little you see them used despite the fact they effect every ship with 0% chance of missing.
Sure TD's might be due to a slight nerf, but they won't proliferate on that basis alone, as damps have obviously not done as so either. (Yes I know they were nerfed, and Yes they are being talked about brought back into effectiveness, ECM is not the only ewar module out there). |
Basil Wencislas
limited infinity. The Machine.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:03:00 -
[598] - Quote
Applying TDs to Missles makes absolutely no sense. Alot of people forget that there already is a counter to missles, just no one uses them because they take up a high slot and a missle launcher spot to boot. Why not create a module specific for countering missles, something along the lines of an AMS ZWIS like todays Naval fleets use, and perhaps make it a low or medium slot item?
TDs should apply to the ship, not the launcher. It would make perfect sense to have a TD however that say, limited the fire rate of missle launcher. To say that a TD somehow affects missle explosion velocity is absurd in my opinion. That is the point of missles, they are a different class of weapon with different characteristics, and different counter measures. By implementing a patch that makes everything apply to everything is not a direction CCP should be taking because people are unhappy with drake blobs.
If the problem is the drake, fix the drake. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:04:00 -
[599] - Quote
Although everybody is talking about cruisers and battlecruisers, I want to divert attention to another point that seems to be overlooked.
What will these changes mean on battleship level. Will torpedoes have longer range with TC/TE's now. Are we going to get torpedo ships that can actually hit smaller stuff by using TE/TC's. Did you guys consider these parameters when thinking about TE/TC for missiles?
Everybody is talking about the 20% damage nerf which is just one part of the nerf hammer.
"-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity"
T2 Fury missiles were actually very efficient missiles for their job and they were adding a lot of DPS. Many tengu/drake pilots were using them as default as they are cheaper than their faction counterparts. With the new changes I doubt they can be used against anything cruiser sized anymore.
I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Go Fozzie!!!!
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:07:00 -
[600] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote: The current proposed changes make them useless for everything except blobbing where they will then be just ok.
This is exactly it. Everyone who is like "Yay, this change is the best!" Hasn't really thought about how drakes are only "reasonably good" in small scale and solo PvP, now they will just be useless, along with any other boat that usually uses heavy missiles, in this form of warfare. |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
984
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:09:00 -
[601] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) So _all_ Caldari missile ships are getting additional low and mid slots?
Because we all know how few low slots they have, and their lack of spare mids are already a problem for PvP. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2177
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:11:00 -
[602] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) So _all_ Caldari missile ships are getting additional low and mid slots? Because we all know how few low slots they have, and their lack of spare mids are already a problem for PvP.
I don't tend to have any problems PVPing in Caldari ships.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:11:00 -
[603] - Quote
I'm not one to whinge about updates but really, what clown thought this was going to get a postiive reception?
CCP MORE CONTENT!!!!!!!! stop messing with modules. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
211
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:11:00 -
[604] - Quote
Catabolistic wrote:No easly trainable PVE ship will exist for low skill pilots.
Not everyone trained for stupid easy-mode missiles or afk drone boats. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
610
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:12:00 -
[605] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Wolfstorm wrote: The current proposed changes make them useless for everything except blobbing where they will then be just ok. This is exactly it. Everyone who is like "Yay, this change is the best!" Hasn't really thought about how drakes are only "reasonably good" in small scale and solo PvP, now they will just be useless, along with any other boat that usually uses heavy missiles, in this form of warfare. Not just the drake the cane too. I think CCP may just pulled stealth solo/small gang nerf. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2177
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:12:00 -
[606] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Wolfstorm wrote: The current proposed changes make them useless for everything except blobbing where they will then be just ok. This is exactly it. Everyone who is like "Yay, this change is the best!" Hasn't really thought about how drakes are only "reasonably good" in small scale and solo PvP, now they will just be useless, along with any other boat that usually uses heavy missiles, in this form of warfare.
So what you're telling me is that you won't be using the equivalent to Railguns and Beam Lasers in small gang PVP? Shocking that someone might want to use a "close range" weapons system (I use the term a little loosely).
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
716
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:12:00 -
[607] - Quote
Lord MuffloN wrote:Misanth wrote:Making TD's work against missiles is a major mistake too btw. I like the idea of having a TD-ish mechanic work against missiles, that is not a bad thing per se. But when you make missiles affected by TD then you have a nobrainer to fit TD on every ship that has midslots to spare.
Now picture this; which race has the most mids to spare? Gallente. They also happen to be short range (blaster and drones). when TD will affect all weapontypes, Gallente will just force people to go up close or run. It's a bit too early to paint doomsday scenarios, but this could very well rupture the whole game in the nationality balance. I don't mind flying drone boats myself, my Gallente skills are top notch, but it's worrying overall if the devs just don't even think about this on such an early state of development process, to be honest. Make a new module, TD-ish, that counters missiles, and you got my love, that's a whole different story. You and I seem to have very, very different versions of Gallente ships, sure, it'll be a boon to the drone boats (and you can't seriously say they don't deserve it), but the blaster hulls all already have required mids, scram, web, injector and mwd, now tell me, how many blaster hulls have more than 4 mids? Not many, Myrmidon, Dominix and the Hyperion I believe, and out of them the only pure blaster boat is the hyperion, which in turn have a lot of other issues, that said, my Dominix just became a ultra violent psycopathic murderer instead of a violent psycopathic murderer, if I choose to skip the ECCM or other, oh god, I'll have to make choices, no more cookie cutter builds, my god, it's almost interesting again!
Tell that to the Retribution, or any Caldari hull, or most other Amarrians.. Yah, you're right, Gallente doesn't have that many mids. They just happen to have more than anyone else.
Obviously I'm talking non-blob combat, TD in a flood of people will be damn hard to spread enough, and who fields blasters in blobs anyway? We're talking small scale PvP here, and in those situations, I'd much rather get the new TD over ECCM, and in many cases I'd take it over a Web as well. You'd lose some targets that'd run away, but you'd force more targets in scramble range, and wouldn't be kited nearly as much as is today. I think overall this is a huge Gallente boost. Blobs wouldn't even notice tho. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:13:00 -
[608] - Quote
Deerin wrote:Although everybody is talking about cruisers and battlecruisers, I want to divert attention to another point that seems to be overlooked.
What will these changes mean on battleship level. Will torpedoes have longer range with TC/TE's now. Are we going to get torpedo ships that can actually hit smaller stuff by using TE/TC's. Did you guys consider these parameters when thinking about TE/TC for missiles?
Everybody is talking about the 20% damage nerf which is just one part of the nerf hammer.
"-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity"
T2 Fury missiles were actually very efficient missiles for their job and they were adding a lot of DPS. Many tengu/drake pilots were using them as default as they are cheaper than their faction counterparts. With the new changes I doubt they can be used against anything cruiser sized anymore.
I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Go Fozzie!!!!
Will it? Because I have two PVP accounts that rely on PLEX'ing from my now slighly crapper Caldari ship, If it starts taking me too long to earn the cash then the two accounts go defunct. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2177
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:13:00 -
[609] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Wolfstorm wrote: The current proposed changes make them useless for everything except blobbing where they will then be just ok. This is exactly it. Everyone who is like "Yay, this change is the best!" Hasn't really thought about how drakes are only "reasonably good" in small scale and solo PvP, now they will just be useless, along with any other boat that usually uses heavy missiles, in this form of warfare. Not just the drake the cane too. I think CCP may just pulled stealth solo/small gang nerf.
Small gang PVP is fine. Arguably, Caldari ships by and large just got a massive buff with the TE changes. Yeah the HML Draek just ate a nerf, but with the bonuses to HAMs.... !
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Arec Bardwin
753
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:16:00 -
[610] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Uber boost to torpedoes and HAM! + Pilgrim
|
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:19:00 -
[611] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Deerin wrote:Although everybody is talking about cruisers and battlecruisers, I want to divert attention to another point that seems to be overlooked.
What will these changes mean on battleship level. Will torpedoes have longer range with TC/TE's now. Are we going to get torpedo ships that can actually hit smaller stuff by using TE/TC's. Did you guys consider these parameters when thinking about TE/TC for missiles?
Everybody is talking about the 20% damage nerf which is just one part of the nerf hammer.
"-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity"
T2 Fury missiles were actually very efficient missiles for their job and they were adding a lot of DPS. Many tengu/drake pilots were using them as default as they are cheaper than their faction counterparts. With the new changes I doubt they can be used against anything cruiser sized anymore.
I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Go Fozzie!!!!
Will it? Because I have two PVP accounts that rely on PLEX'ing from my now slighly crapper Caldari ship, If it starts taking me too long to earn the cash then the two accounts go defunct.
And this is supposed to be our problem why? All you are really proving here is that those caldari ships you're flying are stronger than all the other ships you could be flying to earn your keep. |
Praetor Abre-Kai
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:19:00 -
[612] - Quote
Haargoth Civire wrote:Fatyn wrote:Fozzie I think what you and the team are doing is pretty breathtaking. It's been so good to see CCP rumble into gear on ship balancing over the last year or so. The tentative, glacial changes of the past have been replaced by a much bolder approach - the core game of EVE pewpew always deserved so much more than one dev in a broom cupboard. There will always be some whiny fucks whose favourite ship / tactic / fitting is now superceded, but if the objective of making EVE PvP broader, deeper and more balanced is achieved most people won't care.
I hope you guys feel the power in your fingertips because you are supercharging our awesome game with every new balance patch. But fatyn all the blobs in null sec will now have to get skills for decent ships and they will have to spend isk on better hulls.. what are they gonna doooooooo..
2/10 |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
199
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:22:00 -
[613] - Quote
The ratio of good posts to dumb posts on this forum is usually pretty horrible, but I didn't think it could get this awful before reading this entire thread. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:22:00 -
[614] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:Deerin wrote:Although everybody is talking about cruisers and battlecruisers, I want to divert attention to another point that seems to be overlooked.
What will these changes mean on battleship level. Will torpedoes have longer range with TC/TE's now. Are we going to get torpedo ships that can actually hit smaller stuff by using TE/TC's. Did you guys consider these parameters when thinking about TE/TC for missiles?
Everybody is talking about the 20% damage nerf which is just one part of the nerf hammer.
"-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity"
T2 Fury missiles were actually very efficient missiles for their job and they were adding a lot of DPS. Many tengu/drake pilots were using them as default as they are cheaper than their faction counterparts. With the new changes I doubt they can be used against anything cruiser sized anymore.
I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Go Fozzie!!!!
Will it? Because I have two PVP accounts that rely on PLEX'ing from my now slighly crapper Caldari ship, If it starts taking me too long to earn the cash then the two accounts go defunct. And this is supposed to be our problem why? All you are really proving here is that those caldari ships you're flying are stronger than all the other ships you could be flying to earn your keep.
Err no a vindicator or a carrier and probably a few more earns more than my tengu does. Think before you speak. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:25:00 -
[615] - Quote
Deerin wrote: I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Oddly enough, this was about the same thinking of SOE/LA regarding SWG:NGE. Funny how things worked out, eh?
|
Siiee
The Riot Formation Executive Outcomes
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:26:00 -
[616] - Quote
I can't say that I'm really opposed to the idea of having damage application/EWAR mods for missiles, but I really dislike the re-use of current TD ewar for it. It really does bring a rock-paper-scissors arrangement into rock-paper in the sense that TD becomes a direct "counter all weapons" which is kindof blah.
The pilgrim is my favorite ship ever, and this will be a massive buff for it, but I kind of liked having to take into account the weapons. Trying to counter a well-fit well-tanked drake made for an interesting decision.
Introduce new missile support/anti-missile systems. Let it be something that will be a terrible blight on a homogenous fleet doctrine, but that a mixed fleet won't be as bothered by. |
Parry Rhodan
Octopus Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:26:00 -
[617] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:I love seeing all these "DEATH TO DRAKE AND TENGU" posts without thinking about other ships that might've had to use HM's... Nighthawk, Caracal, Cerberus, etc. The Caracal's getting a slight buff, but the DPS with HM's is going to be terrible. Ed: and don't even get me started on the other two... I can understand those Drake and Tengu haters too, probably because they donGÇÖt fly them as I donGÇÖt fly (skilled) other ships than Caldari.
Cravenel wrote:how is this an expansion... this is just another irrelevant, arbitrary change to game mechanics. Fleets will switch to yet another optimum ship, people who can fly any ship will just buy another one and the only people who will see the difference in their game experience will be new player who were unaware that choosing Caldari as your start race is a terrible mistake. This is not just an issue for new players. After 2 -+ years of Eve playing I am not one of those, who can just switch to GÇ£gun bonusGÇ¥ ships and having equal advantages. It would take again ages for me to skill turrets and/or Amarr/Gallente/Minmatar ships to get to the same level as I am now with Caldari /Missile ships.
Rexorol wrote:A small request from CCP: Can you let us know which ships you approve of and feel are nicely balanced so I can just fly those? I feel like I wasted 5 months of training with specializing in Caldari cruisers and HML's now. Yeah, I can take advantage of what I learned before the nerf, but if the hammer is going to come down this hard on both their damage and their range, there really isn't any point to flying Caldari missile cruisers/battlecruisers after this winter expansion. Time to start speculating on what will be considered overpowered next, and get my skill training started before it happens. Exactly and which Caldari Ships are out there with gun bonuses? -> Not many worth to accept long skilling times (and like me, to start skilling from zero)! ItGÇÖs said that in Eve you can skill any race to take advantage of their ships/bonuses, but regarding the coming changes I would not have favoured Caldari two-and-a-half-years ago.
|
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
92
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:26:00 -
[618] - Quote
Watch me fit all my ships with tracking disruptors.
Watch everyone fit tracking disruptors on their ship.
Watch everyone whine that they can't kill each other or its taking forever.
CCP nerfs TD to oblivion and makes its useless for 3 years.
CCP balancing process sucks it takes forever just to change a few digits.
You still haven't fix core philosophy problems with Gallente ships being slow armor tank and having the shortest range guns.
Railguns are the biggest POS of eve. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:26:00 -
[619] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:Deerin wrote:Although everybody is talking about cruisers and battlecruisers, I want to divert attention to another point that seems to be overlooked.
What will these changes mean on battleship level. Will torpedoes have longer range with TC/TE's now. Are we going to get torpedo ships that can actually hit smaller stuff by using TE/TC's. Did you guys consider these parameters when thinking about TE/TC for missiles?
Everybody is talking about the 20% damage nerf which is just one part of the nerf hammer.
"-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity"
T2 Fury missiles were actually very efficient missiles for their job and they were adding a lot of DPS. Many tengu/drake pilots were using them as default as they are cheaper than their faction counterparts. With the new changes I doubt they can be used against anything cruiser sized anymore.
I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Go Fozzie!!!!
Will it? Because I have two PVP accounts that rely on PLEX'ing from my now slighly crapper Caldari ship, If it starts taking me too long to earn the cash then the two accounts go defunct. And this is supposed to be our problem why? All you are really proving here is that those caldari ships you're flying are stronger than all the other ships you could be flying to earn your keep. Err no a vindicator or a carrier and probably a few more earns more than my tengu does. Think before you speak.
What is your point, friend? I still don't understand what you're trying to prove here. If a vindicator earns you more, why don't you use that instead? |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:28:00 -
[620] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote:Watch me fit all my ships with tracking disruptors.
Watch everyone fit tracking disruptors on their ship.
Watch everyone whine that they can't kill each other or its taking forever.
CCP nerfs TD to oblivion and makes its useless for 3 years.
CCP balancing process sucks it takes forever just to change a few digits.
You still haven't fix core philosophy problems with Gallente ships being slow armor tank and having the shortest range guns.
Railguns are the biggest POS of eve.
Soon "Because of Falcon" will be replaced by "Because of Pilgrim." |
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
357
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:29:00 -
[621] - Quote
i do not have anything to say on the hurricane but the proposed HML changes can only be called ham-handed (no pun intended). CCP please consider the following points: 1. the only two ships that are successful with heavy missiles are drake and tengu. the tengu gets a total 100% bonus to (kinetic) heavy missile damage. the drake has a superb slot layout and a great defensive bonus, making it a battleship-like brick. if you want to nerf these two ships, you should be nerfing the ships, not the weapon system. 2. making the tracking paradigm apply to missiles is stupid. not only does it make no sense, especially with unguided missiles, it also takes away game depth. after the change, the only real difference between heavy missiles and medium artillery would be that missile damage is delayed and has somewhat smaller alpha (but slightly more range). 3. the most dramatic failure would be to make tracking disruptors affect missiles. this would make them THE allround one-size-fits-all ewar. i can already see fleets of invincible merlins swarming any other fleet like fire ants.
now that that is out of my system, here is what i would suggest to bring missiles in line: 1. make the tengu's Accelerated Ejection Bay missile velocity bonus apply only to HAMs. (while you're at it, give the same bonus to the legion's Assault Optimization) 2. reduce HML flight time by 10-15% 3. remove one launcher hardpoint from the drake or make CPU tighter so that people have to decide between a full Rack of T2 launchers and 100k EHP. 4. increase the velocity of torps. their reach is currently the same as HAMs which is ludicrous. 5. do NOT make missiles affected by tracking. not only will this make the game more homogenous and boring, it will overbuff tracking disruptors and also throw PVE totally out of whack.
edit: the light missile changes seem allright.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:30:00 -
[622] - Quote
Omega Sunset wrote:Deerin wrote: I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Oddly enough, this was about the same thinking of SOE/LA regarding SWG:NGE. Funny how things worked out, eh?
The NGE was aimed at making things easier for everyone, especially new players. It wasn't because it was a major overhaul that it failed, but how they handled it and how they simplified the game with it, along with some of the more advanced content. That you're trying to liken this balancing patch to the likes of the NGE patch really tells me a lot about your lack of intelligence. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:30:00 -
[623] - Quote
I crunched some pyfa numbers with the current state of affairs and one thing kind of stuck out at me: HAMs are clearly going to be the go-to, but are the tracking enhancers and tracking computers going to be enough? I can eke 625 DPS out of a Drake using Scourge Rage, lows full of ballistic control systems, weapon rigs, and HAMs, but that's all on paper. Other battlecruisers can shame that if they so choose. Are HAMs going to be looked at as part of this maneuver? |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:34:00 -
[624] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:
Way to completely hamstring the hurricane. You won't be able to fit a decent armor cane with these changes. It's now a ****** nano-cane or nothing. Nice work on making the game even more uniform and less interesting.
Armor cane FTW ... no one but pirates seem to fly one anymore tho. But again our CCP design team is crap and they don't look at all the uses a ship gets and instead only go hey, it can be used in one way we think we might not like so we gotta break it so it can't be used like that, but damn the side effects of other things it's no longer good for. We don't want WOW in space, in fact we want WOW in space players to quit and go find a game suited to them.
Pretty much this. They balance based on how the ship is used by a bunch of F1 monkeys who couldn't kill a damn thing on their own, and completely ignore how the ships behave when you don't have 250 of them on the field. They need to consider both scenarios, not just one, when balancing.
Also, if they actually wanted to increase arty use on the attack cruisers, why not give them a role bonus to PG reduction rather than modifying the base grid amount on the medium long range guns, thus requiring a PG nerf to nerf the cane?
As a side note, I do like the TD/TE/TC/TL changes for missiles, it makes this option of ecm more viable. Just be careful with how powerful these are. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:34:00 -
[625] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:Deerin wrote:Although everybody is talking about cruisers and battlecruisers, I want to divert attention to another point that seems to be overlooked.
What will these changes mean on battleship level. Will torpedoes have longer range with TC/TE's now. Are we going to get torpedo ships that can actually hit smaller stuff by using TE/TC's. Did you guys consider these parameters when thinking about TE/TC for missiles?
Everybody is talking about the 20% damage nerf which is just one part of the nerf hammer.
"-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity"
T2 Fury missiles were actually very efficient missiles for their job and they were adding a lot of DPS. Many tengu/drake pilots were using them as default as they are cheaper than their faction counterparts. With the new changes I doubt they can be used against anything cruiser sized anymore.
I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Go Fozzie!!!!
Will it? Because I have two PVP accounts that rely on PLEX'ing from my now slighly crapper Caldari ship, If it starts taking me too long to earn the cash then the two accounts go defunct. And this is supposed to be our problem why? All you are really proving here is that those caldari ships you're flying are stronger than all the other ships you could be flying to earn your keep. Err no a vindicator or a carrier and probably a few more earns more than my tengu does. Think before you speak. What is your point, friend? I still don't understand what you're trying to prove here. If a vindicator earns you more, why don't you use that instead?
My point is the game desperately needs content not constant module messing. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:34:00 -
[626] - Quote
The Drake Range isn't a problem, The drake dps isn't a problem, The Drake buffer isn't a problem, a problem is that when combined its a problem or that there isn't a good alternative.
However saying that Heavy Missiles need a nerf because the drake / tengu needs a nerf is completly the opposite. Other battlecruisers have no problems getting the same or longer range then a drake, nor do they have problems getting the same dps or more then a drake They do however lack getting the same effective hp's or a combination of the dps / range / buffer. But thats a SHIP problem and not a WEAPONSYSTEM problem.
So instead of looking at the Heavy missiles as a weapon platform to be nerfed look at the individual ships that need a nerf. The tengu missile subsystem suddenly is in line with one less launcher, the drake is in line with one less launcher and perhaps downgradeing its shield resist to 2 or 3% per level (or another bonus)
Lets take in consideration the reworked caracal with 2 bcu's with rapid light launchers vs Heavy missile launchers and current proposed missile changes. And lets compare this to a Thorax 250 Rail setup with 2 mag stabs
Caracal RLM 60.3km range 177 dps (214 dps up to 60km includeing drones) (Rapid Light Missile) Caracal HML 91.5km range 203 dps (242 dps up to 60km includeing drones) (Heavy Missile Launcher) Caracal HML 91.5km range 243 dps (280 dps up to 60 km includeing drones) (Heavy Missile Launchers with 20% damage bonus) Thorax 250J 24.0km range 311 dps (470 dps up to 24km includeing drones) (250mm Rail Gun II with Javelin) Thorax 250S 79.9km range 178 dps (336 dps up to 60km includeing drones) (250mm Rail Gun II with Spike)
In this example you see the caracal haveing a higher dps at long range (above 60km) but significantly lower below it. Even WITH 20% heavy missile damage (as it is now) its still 56 dps lower then the thorax up till 60 km range
Another thing that i would like to point out is the only 30 km and 30 dps range difference between the HML and the RLM launcher setup. With half the powergrid need and only a 30 dps drop, and a small range drop, The added power is more then enough to add an extra LSE TII
Dont get me wrong, i agree with the range nerf, and i agree that some ships that use heavy missile launchers need to be nerfed. But don't break the Heavy missile launchers themselves please! |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
199
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:36:00 -
[627] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done?
Nothing better when blops dropped by a bomber gang tbh, cant touch this (until i run out of cap boosters).
|
Green J Smoker
high times industries High Sec Dropouts
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:37:00 -
[628] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
LetGÇÖs start off by saying thanks for all the information you are providing us with the upcoming balances. A lot of good stuff is on its way and the Eve community cannot wait to start mixing things up.
A big problem I have seen recently is the changes to damage output of the heavy missiles. This will really put Caldari at a big disadvantage compared to the other races, in my opinion in cruisers and battlecruisers (which I believe are the two ship types mostly used for PVP). It already seems when I fit up a Caldari ship the DPS always ranks below other races. Making the DPS lower is going to prevent people using them for PVP and PVE.
Will there be adequate balancing done to CaldariGÇÖs cruisers and battlecruisers to make up for the big losses?
Changing the range is an acceptable starting point when it comes to the distance with heavy missiles, would much rather seen it start around 10% to 15% but can understand why they needed a Nerf anyway.
It seems like all too much is happening with changes to how missiles are going to be affected and more mods that affect guidance systems but I think itGÇÖs all a bit too much all at once.
puff puff passing it on-down, Smoker
|
Ensign X
261
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:38:00 -
[629] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Golem. If TC/TEs are "better" than TPs, will the Golem's Target Painting and/or Explosion Velocity bonii be changed?
Bonuses. The plural of bonus is bonuses. LoL "bonii".
Otoh, buff Golem! |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
345
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:38:00 -
[630] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:I crunched some pyfa numbers with the current state of affairs and one thing kind of stuck out at me: HAMs are clearly going to be the go-to, but are the tracking enhancers and tracking computers going to be enough? I can eke 625 DPS out of a Drake using Scourge Rage, lows full of ballistic control systems, weapon rigs, and HAMs, but that's all on paper. Other battlecruisers can shame that if they so choose. Are HAMs going to be looked at as part of this maneuver?
Old-school HAM Drake used to reliably beat other BCs in a close-range brawl, with the exception of the Myrm. Some things have changed since 2008 but it's still very competitive. It fell out of favour because HML Drakes was better, not beause HAM Drake was bad. |
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:40:00 -
[631] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:My point is the game desperately needs content not constant module messing.
So leave things unbalanced and add more **** to the mix to unbalance it even further? They add content, you whine about balance. They balance, you whine about the lack of new content. Can't please everyone. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2179
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:40:00 -
[632] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote:I crunched some pyfa numbers with the current state of affairs and one thing kind of stuck out at me: HAMs are clearly going to be the go-to, but are the tracking enhancers and tracking computers going to be enough? I can eke 625 DPS out of a Drake using Scourge Rage, lows full of ballistic control systems, weapon rigs, and HAMs, but that's all on paper. Other battlecruisers can shame that if they so choose. Are HAMs going to be looked at as part of this maneuver? Old-school HAM Drake used to reliably beat other BCs in a close-range brawl, with the exception of the Myrm. Some things have changed since 2008 but it's still very competitive. It fell out of favour because HML Drakes was better, not beause HAM Drake was bad.
This is pretty much true. It all boiled down to the difference between Jav HAM vs HML - which is to say there wasn't much of one. Even if we ignored the HML changes, the addition of TEs affecting HAMs would have obsoleted the HML Drake in small gang PVP.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
batterfly Rin
Restfreekidding
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:40:00 -
[633] - Quote
OMG- -just delete the heavy missile and Caldari and all will be fine.. |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:42:00 -
[634] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Omega Sunset wrote:Deerin wrote: I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Oddly enough, this was about the same thinking of SOE/LA regarding SWG:NGE. Funny how things worked out, eh? The NGE was aimed at making things easier for everyone, especially new players. It wasn't because it was a major overhaul that it failed, but how they handled it and how they simplified the game with it, along with some of the more advanced content. That you're trying to liken this balancing patch to the likes of the NGE patch really tells me a lot about your lack of intelligence. Hmmm... the lack of intelligence comment came to mind about your post and repeatedly using "long run" in the same sentence. But hey, I didn't mention it as I wasn't here to insult you, but obviously that is your only real worth while tactic, sadly.
NGE threw off it's existing subscribers in an all out nerf of the game, and as a surprise patch since they knew existing subscribers would object beforehand. You seem quite content to shed loyal players here, which SOE/LA gambled on and lost. Nerfing serves no good purpose when it's far better to fix the broken things of this game to bring the rest of the fleet up to standard. It's a lazy fix indeed, and only divides the community, and yes possibly loosing accounts as you so elegantly pointed out, Sir.
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:42:00 -
[635] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:My point is the game desperately needs content not constant module messing. So leave things unbalanced and add more **** to the mix to unbalance it even further? They add content, you whine about balance. They balance, you whine about the lack of new content. Can't please everyone.
I've never personally complained about balance. Next? God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:44:00 -
[636] - Quote
Would still like to hear someone from CCP comment on the Firewall/Smartbomb problelm.
You're gonna "bring HMLs in line with other weapons" by both nerfing range and damage AND making the susceptable to tracking disruption, Shouldn't "other weapons" also becomes susceptable to both Defender Missles (lul) and Smartboms (not so lul)?
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
345
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:45:00 -
[637] - Quote
Millions of people have said it, but why not one more.
TEs and TCs should not affect missiles, there should be additional modules to do this. Similarly, TDs, should not affect missiles, there should be a new ewar mod (for which the Amarr TD ships should gain appropriate bonuses). Otherwise TDs will be overpowered, especially with overpowered warfare links. |
Bilaz
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:45:00 -
[638] - Quote
Hmm... i can see where that 20% came from - with it missiles would have similar (a bit better actually) dps to tech2 long rage ammo on lr-turrets. But missiles dont go past their range while turrets can somehow hit, plus turrets have close range ammo both tech 1 and 2 - dps one can get from beams or arty upclose. for instance hurricane can get 1.5 more damage going from tremor to emp, while drake get 10% boost when changing from t1 to close range t2. So it would be very nice if heavy missiles would get same options for 20-30 km range. It would be even better to have more tech 1 variants for different ranges - even if that meaning missiles would (like turrets) have not 8 t2 missiles (and f.o.f) per type, but two with race-specific damage profiles.
Second point about te giving bonus to both speed of explosion AND explosion radius. Last time i checked turrets have signature that get no benefit from tracking computers, but have huge effect on tracking. So why missiles are so different? maybe it would be a better idea to make either speed or size of explosion - unique to missile type contant to ensure that battleships are not swapping frigates with torpedoes or that light missiles cant scratch interceptors.
And yes HAMS - now becouse they are unguided they deal as much damage as heavy missiles (as example empty bellicose - no prop modules, nothing). After changes to heavy missiles that would be 20% more - but nowhere near other close range weapon systems. And its not only that but the fact that range on hams horribly short. Maybe new missile dynamics would help to get a few km on ham range, but its still too short to be effective anywhere outside web range. Pease note that 3k (or 5) km/s is quite slow and such missile cant hope to hit even vagabond on orbit - and that exactly what you would want to hit with hams (and as i said before - you would be lucky to get 60% or your dps on that vagabond simply becouse he is cruiser and you are loser missile user) And thats even before we begin to think "why would anyone want to use a close range weapon when he/she can shoot on 70km with 700dps from naga?" - thus i think it may be a good idea (and time) to boost hams, possibly make their damage depend on range they flew - make them look like swarm minution and make more and more of the swarm miss target as they fly, or i dunno - make them aoe.
Other than that cant wait to see numbers te and track. disruptors give/take. |
Deena Amaj
Community for Justice Resurrection by Election
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:46:00 -
[639] - Quote
Winter's gonna be hot in iceland this year :D!
ME GUSTA the changes. confirthisposmed
I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
718
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:46:00 -
[640] - Quote
Ashera Yune wrote:Why don't you stop thinking about just the drake and tengu and consider the other ships that use Heavy missiles:
Caracal Bellicose(future suggestion by CCP) Navy Caracal Nighthawk Rook Cerberus
What I don't like is the blanket nerf, that not only nerfs the drake and tengu, but nerfs ships that were never OP, and mostly UP in the first place.
And Gila.
But yah, it's quite a weird decision by CCP to do a generalised weapon type nerf, rather than looking what causes the will to do the nerf to begin with. One is how a certain fairly-low-damage-and-well-allround-balanced ship being very powerful in blob combat. The other being how one t3, with a fairly low base damage output (200-250ish for a regular cloak setup Tengu) goes up to very-high (for a cruiser hull) when it combines the damage and engineering subsystem. Other t3's doesn't do the same.
If CCP had simply watched it this way, they'd probably be consider something more reasonable (like slightly tweaking the RoF bonus on the dmg subsystem, as that seems to be the main cause), and in the first case with the blob just flat out ignore it. As in blobs, there has always been a ship X that is the FotM and 'most versatile', while there's multiitudes of other ships playing support role for them. Drakes out of blob combat doesn't have all those light tacklers, dictors, fleet boosts, titanbridges etc to go, for one. And a solo PvP Drake has obvious flaws (not very agile, not great speed, easy to pin down and counter, fairly low damage, both weapon systems easily disrupted by smartbombs, fairly tight fit, cannot really active tank so definate high sig), with few perks (range, hits anything from frigs and up, decent buffer tank, ok-ish slot layout even for a Caldari).
TL;DR CCP just feels it's better to look at what blobs do, and blantanly strike down on a complete weapon system, rather than looking and what potential could be causing this skewed vision. We all know CCP wants everyone to fly blobs, bring friends to tackle for you so ships will never be balanced around the need for tackle slots for example. Ships that lives too long while dealing damage (no matter how low) obviously is doing "too much damage" (as they take time to kill, so the killers can't move on to next target faster). Lag and support compositions is not taken into consideration. Etc. And noone really knows why doesn't even look at how the Tengu goes from a low-damage balanced boat, to a high damage long-range platform just by fitting a single subsystem.
Do CCP even play this game, or are they just the same kind of mindless drones as the average pilots in the blobs? AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:46:00 -
[641] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:My point is the game desperately needs content not constant module messing. So leave things unbalanced and add more **** to the mix to unbalance it even further? They add content, you whine about balance. They balance, you whine about the lack of new content. Can't please everyone. I've never personally complained about balance. Next?
Highlighted a keyword for you.
Misanth wrote:Ashera Yune wrote:Why don't you stop thinking about just the drake and tengu and consider the other ships that use Heavy missiles:
Caracal Bellicose(future suggestion by CCP) Navy Caracal Nighthawk Rook Cerberus
What I don't like is the blanket nerf, that not only nerfs the drake and tengu, but nerfs ships that were never OP, and mostly UP in the first place. And Gila. But yah, it's quite a weird decision by CCP to do a generalised weapon type nerf, rather than looking what causes the will to do the nerf to begin with. One is how a certain fairly-low-damage-and-well-allround-balanced ship being very powerful in blob combat. The other being how one t3, with a fairly low base damage output (200-250ish for a regular cloak setup Tengu) goes up to very-high (for a cruiser hull) when it combines the damage and engineering subsystem. Other t3's doesn't do the same. If CCP had simply watched it this way, they'd probably be consider something more reasonable (like slightly tweaking the RoF bonus on the dmg subsystem, as that seems to be the main cause), and in the first case with the blob just flat out ignore it. As in blobs, there has always been a ship X that is the FotM and 'most versatile', while there's multiitudes of other ships playing support role for them. Drakes out of blob combat doesn't have all those light tacklers, dictors, fleet boosts, titanbridges etc to go, for one. And a solo PvP Drake has obvious flaws (not very agile, not great speed, easy to pin down and counter, fairly low damage, both weapon systems easily disrupted by smartbombs, fairly tight fit, cannot really active tank so definate high sig), with few perks (range, hits anything from frigs and up, decent buffer tank, ok-ish slot layout even for a Caldari). TL;DR CCP just feels it's better to look at what blobs do, and blantanly strike down on a complete weapon system, rather than looking and what potential could be causing this skewed vision. We all know CCP wants everyone to fly blobs, bring friends to tackle for you so ships will never be balanced around the need for tackle slots for example. Ships that lives too long while dealing damage (no matter how low) obviously is doing "too much damage" (as they take time to kill, so the killers can't move on to next target faster). Lag and support compositions is not taken into consideration. Etc. And noone really knows why doesn't even look at how the Tengu goes from a low-damage balanced boat, to a high damage long-range platform just by fitting a single subsystem. Do CCP even play this game, or are they just the same kind of mindless drones as the average pilots in the blobs?
They haven't even gotten to T2/T3/CS yet and you're already harking. Harden the **** up and wait until everything is laid out in full. |
danibw0i
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:47:00 -
[642] - Quote
Tengu-wise i can understand the range nerf and all, but 20% dmg reduction to heavy missiles is a joke. |
Jean Leaner
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:48:00 -
[643] - Quote
Someone tell me why a heavy missile should do twice as much damage at long range as any other medium long range weapon system? Because its special?
Oh and don't do something silly like compare beam lasers with Gleam loaded to heavy missiles at 80km. Apples to Apples a drake does ~400 dps at max range, any other turret does 200-250. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:52:00 -
[644] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:My point is the game desperately needs content not constant module messing. So leave things unbalanced and add more **** to the mix to unbalance it even further? They add content, you whine about balance. They balance, you whine about the lack of new content. Can't please everyone. I've never personally complained about balance. Next? Highlighted a keyword for you.
Ahh ok because I'm now not everyone my post has no validity?
Ignore the drake and the tengu for now and lets take another ship I'm skilled for The Nighthawk.
Now I'm trained for it near perfectly but I never flew it because it was underpowered humm guess what I still won't be flying it because now it's even worse if that is possible, this affects too many ships to be considered good. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:52:00 -
[645] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Edit: removed rant
Please feel free to debate this 'tentative' change in a constructive manner.
ISD Suvetar.
It was a constructive rant on why people are so mad. Censoring any negative feedback and stating that players who are upset with such lacking thought from developers is tragic is removing half of this debate.
Look at other games that are regularly updated such as HON where the Devs have actually withdrawn from the idea of mass content pacing in place of quality fixes and you will see huge player support. I personally think these changes are very poorly thought out and that the devs are rushing through simplistic and poorly thought out changes rather than competent changes that match the core fundamentals this game was founded upon.
If we aren't allowed to voice this fact in this thread, then it just conceeds the point that the Devs are content to push through more **** changes for the sake of change rather than change for the good of the game.
You cannot argue that these changes are good. They are horribly thought out and to try and iterate on poor thoughts is much more useless than asking for a restart and proper solutions.
This whole arguement goes back to addressing core problems in the game. Rather than fix those problems first, CCP is trying to balance ships around problematic features. It makes no sense to balance ships around poor core fundamentals.
Fix WEBS, fix TRACKING, Fix CAPITALS, fix Sig Radius at range, Fix missiles properly, Fix Jamming, Fix Blobbing, Fix 0.0 Mechanics, , and stop wasting our time with these other changes.
I've watched Every ship thread so far, and in every one of those threads, constructive feedback has been cast aside almost completely and the bulk concept of ship designs has remained. How can you expect us to feel good knowing that you are just ramming **** down our throats? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
533
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:55:00 -
[646] - Quote
I highly doubt the missile changes are such a huge nerf....
HML's are no more balanced with respect to long range weapon platforms... oh, how will we ever deal with it... Now that you can use TEs & TCs to enhance missiles, I HAMs will be very nice... The Cane actually needs to make choices at the fitting screen... You can have the same tank and dps, but lose the dual heavy neuts, but so what...
TD's are borderline the new FOTM EWAR, but CCP will keep an eye on it....
Overall, a big +1 from me!!! |
griezell
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:55:00 -
[647] - Quote
maby an idea is to have target painter cancel out a TD on missiles like eccm counter on ecm.. that way sum mini ships with target painter bonus wil be a valid option again. remember when fitting a td we using a mid slot so why not counter it with another midslot |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2180
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:55:00 -
[648] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: You cannot argue that these changes are good. They are horribly thought out and to try and iterate on poor thoughts is much more useless than asking for a restart and proper solutions.
I'm pretty sure that it's easily argued that these changes are good. Unless you think HML should just get a free pass for iWin?
-Liang
Ed: Also, I've never been moderated in these threads despite being pretty harsh. There's a difference between constructive feedback and RAEG RAWR **** YOU I HATE ALL OF Y(OU DIE DIE DIE DIE DIDE#!!!!!!
Tone it down a notch and discuss things reasonably. This is something you're historically very poor at. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:55:00 -
[649] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:My point is the game desperately needs content not constant module messing. So leave things unbalanced and add more **** to the mix to unbalance it even further? They add content, you whine about balance. They balance, you whine about the lack of new content. Can't please everyone. I've never personally complained about balance. Next? Highlighted a keyword for you. Ahh ok because I'm now not everyone my post has no validity? Ignore the drake and the tengu for now and lets take another ship I'm skilled for The Nighthawk. Now I'm trained for it near perfectly but I never flew it because it was underpowered humm guess what I still won't be flying it because now it's even worse if that is possible, this affects too many ships to be considered good.
So you want us to not nerf the drake and the tengu because the nighthawk is ****? How about we nerf the drake and the tengu and then wait for the dev blog about command ships before we start making hasty comments. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:55:00 -
[650] - Quote
And keep in mind, these poorly thought out changes have massive outside implications such as:
MASSIVELY BOOSTED:
Loki Sliepnir Muninn Absolution Legion
MASSIVELY NERFED:
Nighthawk---- b/c it wasn't already **** enough.
~Post change, NH is going to have at best, maybe 333 DPS at any range, and the only way to get comparable range to turrets is to sacrifice its limited low slots for dps or it's already horrid tank slots.... But hey, I'm sure one day you'll come along and give it more drones b/c that's good balance ^-^ |
|
Fluffy Hyena
State Protectorate Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:57:00 -
[651] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: {...}a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles. {...}
If you could expand on the reasons for these changes in more details (graph of damage vs range for the long range cruiser weapons, etc.) I think a lot of the complaints would go away and you might get some more constructive feedback. |
Gaara's sniper
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:57:00 -
[652] - Quote
If they are going to make TD affect missiles, they should make Ballistic enhancers of some sort |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2180
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:57:00 -
[653] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:And keep in mind, these poorly thought out changes have massive outside implications such as:
MASSIVELY BOOSTED:
Loki Sliepnir Muninn Absolution Legion
MASSIVELY NERFED:
Nighthawk---- b/c it wasn't already **** enough.
I assume you're talking about the Arty Loki and Arty Sleip? Those... are not really common fits. Even still, they're kinda underwhelming. The Muninn would matter except for the whole LRHACs not mattering at all. The Absolution and Legion both need some buffing.
And the HAM NH is actually getting a pretty massive buff. And the HML NH is getting a relative boost next to the Tengu, which I personally find to be a good thing.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2180
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:58:00 -
[654] - Quote
Gaara's sniper wrote:If they are going to make TD affect missiles, they should make Ballistic enhancers of some sort
You mean like... tracking enhancers?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:58:00 -
[655] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote: So you want us to not nerf the drake and the tengu because the nighthawk is ****? How about we nerf the drake and the tengu and then wait for the dev blog about command ships before we start making hasty comments.
I'm puzzled to the fact you class this as hasty? The fact is the Nighthawk "now" is underpowered and this makes it even worse so it cant be hasty can it? God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:59:00 -
[656] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: MASSIVELY BOOSTED:
... Absolution Legion
How is it that ships that didn't change somehow received a massive boost from this? |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:59:00 -
[657] - Quote
Fluffy Hyena wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: {...}a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles. {...}
If you could expand on the reasons for these changes in more details (graph of damage vs range for the long range cruiser weapons, etc.) I think a lot of the complaints would go away and you might get some more constructive feedback.
http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gif
Four pages back. Reading the thread tends to help your argument a bit.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I'm Down wrote: MASSIVELY BOOSTED:
Loki Sliepnir Muninn Absolution Legion
How is it that ships that didn't change somehow received a massive boost from this?
They'll have more spare powergrid! To the ragemobile! |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:59:00 -
[658] - Quote
doublepost |
Gaara's sniper
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:59:00 -
[659] - Quote
yeah nevermind, read the post again, they are going to make tracking enhancers work with missiles. Still i'm Caldarian and i find this dev post offensive |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:01:00 -
[660] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote:And keep in mind, these poorly thought out changes have massive outside implications such as:
MASSIVELY BOOSTED:
Loki Sliepnir Muninn Absolution Legion
MASSIVELY NERFED:
Nighthawk---- b/c it wasn't already **** enough. I assume you're talking about the Arty Loki and Arty Sleip? Those... are not really common fits. Even still, they're kinda underwhelming. The Muninn would matter except for the whole LRHACs not mattering at all. The Absolution and Legion both need some buffing. And the HAM NH is actually getting a pretty massive buff. And the HML NH is getting a relative boost next to the Tengu, which I personally find to be a good thing. -Liang
But is that really any good, so to get any decent dps out of the nighthawk you have to fit it with HAMS and thats ok as long as you want to shoot anything within 6 inches. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:03:00 -
[661] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
I assume you're talking about the Arty Loki and Arty Sleip? Those... are not really common fits. Even still, they're kinda underwhelming. The Muninn would matter except for the whole LRHACs not mattering at all. The Absolution and Legion both need some buffing.
And the HAM NH is actually getting a pretty massive buff. And the HML NH is getting a relative boost next to the Tengu, which I personally find to be a good thing.
-Liang
How is a HAM NH getting any boost? How does it in any way bring it in line with a tengu? I mean seriously dude, do you just throw **** out there and hope it sticks or do you have an actual reason for what you say?
Arti Loki and Arti Sleip were never common for one particular reason, fittings. That just changed drastically. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
718
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:03:00 -
[662] - Quote
Metal Icarus wrote:Like the curse wasn't awesome enough....
It's not as great as it once was, but it is good. And it would be near it's old power, if the TD changes come through.. was thinking the same. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Metal Icarus
Endless Destruction Against ALL Anomalies
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:06:00 -
[663] - Quote
NEW MODULE!!!!!
Missile Guidance Disruptor
Intercepts guidance systems for missiles (derp)
2 scripts Warhead Core Dampener: Explosion velocity/ radius Rocket Engine Interference: Missile Velocity/Total missile flight time
You guys are making the tracking disruptor to powerful. With this buffed mod, you will see it on EVERY solo/small gang ship, especially frig gangs.
I am officially complaining that this mod will be WAY to effective at making ANY weapon system less effective. Either make more scripts for the damn thing or make a new mod.
EDIT: ugh, and I just stepped into a curse last night.... WHY DO I SHOOT MYSELF IN THE FOOT?! |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:09:00 -
[664] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:i do not have anything to say on the hurricane but the proposed HML changes can only be called ham-handed (no pun intended). CCP please consider the following points: 1. the only two ships that are successful with heavy missiles are drake and tengu. the tengu gets a total 100% bonus to (kinetic) heavy missile damage. the drake has a superb slot layout and a great defensive bonus, making it a battleship-like brick. if you want to nerf these two ships, you should be nerfing the ships, not the weapon system. 2. making the tracking paradigm apply to missiles is stupid. not only does it make no sense, especially with unguided missiles, it also takes away game depth. after the change, the only real difference between heavy missiles and medium artillery would be that missile damage is delayed and has somewhat smaller alpha (but slightly more range). 3. the most dramatic failure would be to make tracking disruptors affect missiles. this would make them THE allround one-size-fits-all ewar. i can already see fleets of invincible merlins swarming any other fleet like fire ants.
now that that is out of my system, here is what i would suggest to bring missiles in line: 1. make the tengu's Accelerated Ejection Bay missile velocity bonus apply only to HAMs. (while you're at it, give the same bonus to the legion's Assault Optimization) 2. reduce HML flight time by 10-15% 3. remove one launcher hardpoint from the drake or make CPU tighter so that people have to decide between a full Rack of T2 launchers and 100k EHP. 4. increase the velocity of torps. their reach is currently the same as HAMs which is ludicrous. 5. do NOT make missiles affected by tracking. not only will this make the game more homogenous and boring, it will overbuff tracking disruptors and also throw PVE totally out of whack.
edit: the light missile changes seem allright.
This so much - It still doesn't really fix blobs, but blobs are a problem that can't be solved by nerfing ships. You want to fix blobs, you gotta fix fleets. and CCP doesn't have the balls to fix fleets. |
Fluffy Hyena
State Protectorate Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:09:00 -
[665] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: {...} The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons. {...}
So the Hurricane will be wonky until the summer 2013 expansion? Since it will change then, maybe you could have a go at it now so you would not have to come back to it? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1001
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:09:00 -
[666] - Quote
So gamewide in mission hubs and across 0.0 ratting areas what are the 2 most common ships you see ratting and mission running?
The Tengu and Drake.
This thread is full of people whining about how they've spent all this time training for a Tengu that is now wasted. Thats a showing sign of something wrong. When the entire game tries for a single ship type (like say the vaga back in the Nano age) then that ship type is obviously skewed and out of balance.
Looking objectively as somebody who an use and fly every single ship type there is a reason you dont see Harbinger fleets or Brutix fleets with their medium gun kits fitted on them: A) the ship is nigh impossible to fit in those configurations and B) the weapons systems of those 2 are vastly out classed by the heavy missile.
Long ago when you roamed 0.0 you would see nothing but Ravens, because torps could shoot as far as cruise and nobody used anything else. Torp range was nerfed and the Tengu was released and suddenly the Raven was gone, because a better smaller ship made ratting easier. The Tengu also brought a level of safety to the ratter thats not been adjusted in any way, but giving the average ratter an align time of about 8 seconds, meaning by the time the hunters scan finishes the ratter was already on his way to safety.
The default ship to do NPCing in has become the HML Tengu, screaming that it needs a balance adjustment. Theres lierally no reason to use a BS in PVE at all right now and the Tengu is the reason.
Personally I'd rather just see the drake and Tengu nerfed because the nighthawk is pretty boss but I honestly dont see this as being as big of an issue as all the crybabies are making it out to be. You can achieve similar range if you just adjust your fit a bit and as far as DPS....
You are all aware that looking at DPS numbers on HML's is like comparting DPS numbers on artillery right? They're alpha weapons, their DPS doesn't mean **** all, its what their alpha is which is what matters, and their alpha will still be quite high. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
718
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:09:00 -
[667] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:War Kitten wrote:If you're going to compare long range guns and HMLs, use the long range tech II ammo in the HML too.
Then do your graphs again with CN scourge vs. CN antimatter and Navy MF.
At least talk apples to apples. Then you can at least make useful comparisons.
You're suggesting that the shorter range, higher DPS, faction HML ammo should be able to be projected consistently farther than the falloff of most the other long-range turret platforms? Are you suggesting that missiles should be instant damage?
No, he's suggesting missiles should be instant damage, and gunfire destroyable by smartbombs (and something you can travel away from while damage is 'in the air'). He's also suggesting guns need to separate all t2 specializations so you don't have to go through a whole tier to unlock heavier weapon types. He's also suggesting all gunnery should get a +x % dmg to their primary damage type, while having ammo for all other damage types too. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
725
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:12:00 -
[668] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
I assume you're talking about the Arty Loki and Arty Sleip? Those... are not really common fits. Even still, they're kinda underwhelming. The Muninn would matter except for the whole LRHACs not mattering at all. The Absolution and Legion both need some buffing.
And the HAM NH is actually getting a pretty massive buff. And the HML NH is getting a relative boost next to the Tengu, which I personally find to be a good thing.
-Liang
How is a HAM NH getting any boost? How does it in any way bring it in line with a tengu? I mean seriously dude, do you just throw **** out there and hope it sticks or do you have an actual reason for what you say? Arti Loki and Arti Sleip were never common for one particular reason, fittings. That just changed drastically. All missile ships are getting a boost via the TE/TC change. The Arty Loki and Arty Sleip weren't common because they're underwhelming, not because they were particularly hard to fit. -Liang
Wow can't wait............ God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
T's little helper
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:12:00 -
[669] - Quote
Heavy missiles are already the weakest weapon, lowest damage, significant delay between launch and hit, low rate of fire. If heavy missiles are too powerful on cruisers, then adjust the cruiser hulls, not the missiles or their launchers. Can also agree on nighthawk, it has needed a boost for a VERY long time now. Changing misiles this much to the worse will have a dramatic effect on an already suffering ship, so if this change will ever happen, the nighthawk need extreme bonuses the very same day this change goes active.
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:12:00 -
[670] - Quote
Fluffy Hyena wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: {...} The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons. {...}
So the Hurricane will be wonky until the summer 2013 expansion? Since it will change then, maybe you could have a go at it now so you would not have to come back to it?
A couple of pages back I posted a Hurricane fit to show that yes, even with the changes, it's still not a problem to fit it with mediocre skills. You're just going to have to make some decisions about what you want, instead of just going 'I'll have 425s, a 1600mm, full tackle, an mwd and two medium neuts'. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2184
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:13:00 -
[671] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Wow can't wait............
I actually can't wait. The HAM Drake will be utterly ridiculous, and every other Caldari ship is getting a pretty massive boost as well. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:13:00 -
[672] - Quote
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
those missle nerfs (range reduction /flight sleed buff is ok) are horribad, its the only thing we had vs the superior armor tankers in pvp |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:14:00 -
[673] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
I assume you're talking about the Arty Loki and Arty Sleip? Those... are not really common fits. Even still, they're kinda underwhelming. The Muninn would matter except for the whole LRHACs not mattering at all. The Absolution and Legion both need some buffing.
And the HAM NH is actually getting a pretty massive buff. And the HML NH is getting a relative boost next to the Tengu, which I personally find to be a good thing.
-Liang
How is a HAM NH getting any boost? How does it in any way bring it in line with a tengu? I mean seriously dude, do you just throw **** out there and hope it sticks or do you have an actual reason for what you say? Arti Loki and Arti Sleip were never common for one particular reason, fittings. That just changed drastically. All missile ships are getting a boost via the TE/TC change. The Arty Loki and Arty Sleip weren't common because they're underwhelming, not because they were particularly hard to fit. -Liang
Yeah, I agree, an Artillery Sliep that does 600+ DPS and 5000 alpha with great speed, drone and slot flexibility and shield tanking logistics (which everyone knows are superior is in no way good.
TE/TC change isn't a boost, it's a straight nerf to a NH which doesn't have the built in range bonus that the tengu does.
The devs didn't even consider the fact that the only arguement for missiles doing too much damage was the Tengu... Yet the only reason this is true is because they gave the tengu an ungodly 7.5% ROF bonus on top of 6 launchers and a massive tank and plenty of low slots.... heaven forbid they actually fix the problem with the ship, not the problem with the missiles.
Hence, the only problem with missiles that was ever argued was range.
See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2184
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:14:00 -
[674] - Quote
T's little helper wrote:Heavy missiles are already the weakest weapon, lowest damage, significant delay between launch and hit, low rate of fire. If heavy missiles are too powerful on cruisers, then adjust the cruiser hulls, not the missiles or their launchers. Can also agree on nighthawk, it has needed a boost for a VERY long time now. Changing misiles this much to the worse will have a dramatic effect on an already suffering ship, so if this change will ever happen, the nighthawk need extreme bonuses the very same day this change goes active.
I'm sorry, did you just say that Heavy Missiles are the weakest weapon system? And you said it with a straight face?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
725
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:15:00 -
[675] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Signal11th wrote:Wow can't wait............ I actually can't wait. The HAM Drake will be utterly ridiculous, and every other Caldari ship is getting a pretty massive boost as well. :) -Liang
As long as they use HAMS....oh and lose a slot for one or more tracking modules. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2190
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:16:00 -
[676] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Yeah, I agree, an Artillery Sliep that does 600+ DPS and 5000 alpha with great speed, drone and slot flexibility and shield tanking logistics (which everyone knows are superior is in no way good.
Oh this is gonna be good. Lets see the fit. :)
Quote: TE/TC change isn't a boost, it's a straight nerf to a NH which doesn't have the built in range bonus that the tengu does.
What...
The...
****...
?
The TE/TC change obviously isn't a boost.... because you say so?
Quote:See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped.
I have ***** slapped you every single time I've seen you post in any of these F&I threads. Literally. Every. Single. Time.
Never stop posting.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
193
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:16:00 -
[677] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:You are all aware that looking at DPS numbers on HML's is like comparting DPS numbers on artillery right? They're alpha weapons, their DPS doesn't mean **** all, its what their alpha is which is what matters, and their alpha will still be quite high.
This. |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:16:00 -
[678] - Quote
Jean Leaner wrote:Someone tell me why a heavy missile should do twice as much damage at long range as any other medium long range weapon system? Because its special?
Oh and don't do something silly like compare beam lasers with Gleam loaded to heavy missiles at 80km. Apples to Apples a drake does ~400 dps at max range, any other turret does 200-250.
It should because missiles are a shoot and forget - they can be destroyed in flight, out run, and in general aren't very good except at being constant up close and far away.
CCP is just lazy and can't be bothered to fix the real problems. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2190
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:17:00 -
[679] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Signal11th wrote:Wow can't wait............ I actually can't wait. The HAM Drake will be utterly ridiculous, and every other Caldari ship is getting a pretty massive boost as well. :) -Liang As long as they use HAMS....oh and lose a slot for one or more tracking modules.
It's totally blasphemy that someone would want to get better damage application instead of better EFT damage.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:21:00 -
[680] - Quote
Has anyone crying about the proposed HM damage nerf stopped to consider that tracking enhancers and tracking computers would also provide an applied damage buff? They would improve explosion radius and velocity, enabling you to improve dps vs small and or fast targets. Something missile users have been asking for for ages. And they would return to you the lost range.
Doesn't really seem like much of a nerf you look past the EFT numbers. More like a nice buff to HAMs and torps. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:21:00 -
[681] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:...aren't very good except at being constant up close and far away. Isn't that part of the issue? Being good at all ranges? |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
725
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:21:00 -
[682] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Signal11th wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Signal11th wrote:Wow can't wait............ I actually can't wait. The HAM Drake will be utterly ridiculous, and every other Caldari ship is getting a pretty massive boost as well. :) -Liang As long as they use HAMS....oh and lose a slot for one or more tracking modules. It's totally blasphemy that someone would want to get better damage application instead of better EFT damage. -Liang
Ahh sarcasm, lowest form of wit and all that. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1005
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:22:00 -
[683] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
I assume you're talking about the Arty Loki and Arty Sleip? Those... are not really common fits. Even still, they're kinda underwhelming. The Muninn would matter except for the whole LRHACs not mattering at all. The Absolution and Legion both need some buffing.
And the HAM NH is actually getting a pretty massive buff. And the HML NH is getting a relative boost next to the Tengu, which I personally find to be a good thing.
-Liang
How is a HAM NH getting any boost? How does it in any way bring it in line with a tengu? I mean seriously dude, do you just throw **** out there and hope it sticks or do you have an actual reason for what you say? Arti Loki and Arti Sleip were never common for one particular reason, fittings. That just changed drastically. All missile ships are getting a boost via the TE/TC change. The Arty Loki and Arty Sleip weren't common because they're underwhelming, not because they were particularly hard to fit. -Liang Yeah, I agree, an Artillery Sliep that does 600+ DPS and 5000 alpha with great speed, drone and slot flexibility and shield tanking logistics (which everyone knows are superior is in no way good. TE/TC change isn't a boost, it's a straight nerf to a NH which doesn't have the built in range bonus that the tengu does. The devs didn't even consider the fact that the only arguement for missiles doing too much damage was the Tengu... Yet the only reason this is true is because they gave the tengu an ungodly 7.5% ROF bonus on top of 6 launchers and a massive tank and plenty of low slots.... heaven forbid they actually fix the problem with the ship, not the problem with the missiles. Hence, the only problem with missiles that was ever argued was range. See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped.
Thats it Yaay, rage because you're in an alliance that had one viable fleet comp that just got nerfed into the ground.
You've already been destroyed by Fozzie in the other thread with all your made up ****. Here, let me help, finish you off:
Missile ships will now be forced to make the same sacrifices as turrnet ships to extend the range of their weapons, giving up tank and utility slots to achieve their longest ranges. So while the Nighthawk got a little gimped on its overall range, it can give up a low and or mid and easily get that range back, with the added bonus of being able to hit smaller targets harder if they want.
Also please stop flinging out 4 damage mod fits that nobody but you would ever undock and use in a fight, it makes you look dumb when you post.
Missiles got nerfed and now AAA has no viable doctrines outside of Arty Loki's (you remember, the ship you claim in your post that nobody uses only thats not true and multiple alliances are currently using alpha lokis as a part of a doctrine) and you're mad about it, we get it, but you just keep posting this stupid outright false bullshit to try and save you from that fate. You're like the Fox News of fitting Yaay.
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:23:00 -
[684] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped.
Pretty sure you're the one who gets ***** slapped, seeing as your grasp on game mechanics, their application and what could/should be done to fix the flaws is among the worse I have ever had the displeasure of seeing in this community, if not straight out the worst. There's a reason people routinely go "lol yaay", and it's not out of uninformed bandwagoning. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:23:00 -
[685] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Signal11th wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Signal11th wrote:Wow can't wait............ I actually can't wait. The HAM Drake will be utterly ridiculous, and every other Caldari ship is getting a pretty massive boost as well. :) -Liang As long as they use HAMS....oh and lose a slot for one or more tracking modules. It's totally blasphemy that someone would want to get better damage application instead of better EFT damage. -Liang Ahh sarcasm, lowest form of wit and all that.
The fact that you've resorted to personal attacks yourself, rather than trying to rebuke his points, really does tell me more about yourself than it does about him. |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:24:00 -
[686] - Quote
Oops! Looks like liang beat me to it :) |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:24:00 -
[687] - Quote
Matthius Carole wrote: I think a 20% nerf to the damage of heavy missiles will be a good starting point. We can work from there.
Yes, after that we can change Heavy Missiles so that they have much better sig radius and explosion velocity and then we will have missile launcher shaped guns with delayed dps making the game more homogenous.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2190
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:24:00 -
[688] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Ahh sarcasm, lowest form of wit and all that.
Can I take it that you don't have anything actually intelligent to respond with? So you agree that by and large missiles will be getting both better range and better damage application?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:25:00 -
[689] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
What...
The...
****...
?
The TE/TC change obviously isn't a boost.... because you say so?
*snip* -Liang
hm, i would really like to see a Nighthawk fit, that has tackle, propmod, your "boost" moduls and still can fit a tank... where do you find all those slots, last time i checked my Nighthawks had 5 mids and lows, how about yours?
cu |
Marcus Harikari
Guitar Players of EVE
88
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:27:00 -
[690] - Quote
NONONO drake already does less dmg than other BC's why 20% dmg drop?? |
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:27:00 -
[691] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:And keep in mind, these poorly thought out changes have massive outside implications such as:
MASSIVELY BOOSTED:
Loki Sliepnir Muninn Absolution Legion
MASSIVELY NERFED:
Nighthawk---- b/c it wasn't already **** enough.
~Post change, NH is going to have at best, maybe 333 DPS at any range, and the only way to get comparable range to turrets is to sacrifice its limited low slots for dps or it's already horrid tank slots.... But hey, I'm sure one day you'll come along and give it more drones b/c that's good balance ^-^ Yeah, I agree - NH needs more drones. I mean every other ship gets drones, why not the NH too?
In fact why don't we just have one ship in the game with one set of bonuses and a variety of different skins. Seems like it will save CCP a lot of time in trying to sneak in these changes which makes all ships and weapon systems do the same thing *cough* T1 frigates *cough* |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1009
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:28:00 -
[692] - Quote
Rita May wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
What...
The...
****...
?
The TE/TC change obviously isn't a boost.... because you say so?
*snip* -Liang
hm, i would really like to see a Nighthawk fit, that has tackle, propmod, your "boost" moduls and still can fit a tank... where do you find all those slots, last time i checked my Nighthawks had 5 mids and lows, how about yours? cu
Look up Fond's Rocket Witchcraft videos, he's got one dedicated to the nighthawk that does what you say, also guess what: Theres a low slot version of a Tracking Computer called a Tracking Enhancer. Midslots aren't the only way to get what you need out of a ship.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2153
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:28:00 -
[693] - Quote
Look at all of these terrified Tengu/Drake pilots flailing at the windows. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2191
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:28:00 -
[694] - Quote
Rita May wrote:hm, i would really like to see a Nighthawk fit, that has tackle, propmod, your "boost" moduls and still can fit a tank... where do you find all those slots, last time i checked my Nighthawks had 5 mids and lows, how about yours?
You aren't understanding what is being posted. Is the NH fine? No. Does that mean that the NH (and every other missile ship) isn't being boosted by the TE/TC change? No. Because they are.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:30:00 -
[695] - Quote
CCP says: We're removing missiles.
Why ? because no one will use them.
|
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
93
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:30:00 -
[696] - Quote
Yeah, not sure if my current mission drake fit will be able to do L4's anymore... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1009
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:31:00 -
[697] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:Yeah, not sure if my current mission drake fut will be able to do L4's anymore...
You'll still have the DPS to finish them, it just might take you a bit longer than before. Alternatively you can skill up to a Raven or any other BS and diversify to avoid future nerfs by making sure you can fly ships from multiple races with multiple weapons types at your disposal. |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:32:00 -
[698] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Wolfstorm wrote:...aren't very good except at being constant up close and far away. Isn't that part of the issue? Being good at all ranges?
That isn't a problem - missiles are SUPPOSED to be good at all ranges - not very good, nor very bad... just OK. That's how missile systems work.
The real issue is people whine about having fast short range ships vs slow long range ships. Drakes are only broken in blobs... and you know what ... I can take a blob of 500 frigates out and pown 95% of any fleet in game.
Fix blobs, anything else is smoke blown up your ass.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2191
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:33:00 -
[699] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Look at all of these terrified Tengu/Drake pilots flailing at the windows.
The funny thing about it is that if people bothered to engage their brain instead of simply flailing about they'd see that this is likely going to result in a net boost to the PVE Tengu. Consider that HAMs aren't being directly nerfed but you'll have a low and 2 'utility' mids on the optimal PVE setup to spend on TE/TCs. Just how far are we going to be able to push the range these HAM Tengus? How much better is the damage application going to be? My gut feeling says that they're going to be a lot better than today's HML setup for virtually all practical use cases.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1009
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:33:00 -
[700] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote: I can take a blob of 500 frigates out and pown 95% of any fleet in game.
No you can't.
|
|
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:33:00 -
[701] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:Yeah, not sure if my current mission drake fit will be able to do L4's anymore...
You're doing level 4s in a t1 battlecruiser? The fact that it's even possible is pretty ridiculous. You try doing that in a Harbinger, sure you'll have a lot of fun warping out every odd minute. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2191
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:33:00 -
[702] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:Yeah, not sure if my current mission drake fit will be able to do L4's anymore...
Fit an active tank, a prop mod, and HAMs. You'll be fine.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:33:00 -
[703] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: lierally no reason to use a BS in PVE at all right now and the Tengu is the reason. I have used a Tengu for mission running in HS and the DPS isn't as good as everyone seems to think it is. It's good, but not spectacular. You will get more DPS from a CNR, Rattlesnake, DNI - maybe even a torpedo SNI with some TPs in the meds. HML is not an 'insta-win' against turrets and to suggest that they are OP in terms of damage is a bit silly imo. Sure, nerf the range a bit, but the damage shouldn't change significantly.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:34:00 -
[704] - Quote
while not exactly the weakest, heavy missiles in and of themselves are far from strong. to see this, just compare HML ships to similar hulls: caracal vs. rupture. cerberus (lol) vs ishtar or vagabond. nighthawk vs sleipnir etc.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:34:00 -
[705] - Quote
SAY NO TO DMG NERF ON MISSLES!!
tkae a moment to think loki prot an dlegion will s**t stomp tengu in dps also the Nighthawk will be even worse and how can trackign computers help missles when the normal guided missles are self tracking, nothing to do with the ship
and gunnery is already good, missles are **** poor compaired to guns so why change? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:36:00 -
[706] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Shizuken wrote:Yeah, not sure if my current mission drake fit will be able to do L4's anymore... You're doing level 4s in a t1 battlecruiser? The fact that it's even possible is pretty ridiculous. You try doing that in a Harbinger, sure you'll have a lot of fun warping out every odd minute.
I've done a L4 in a merlin, being able to do them doesnt make a ship OP, it just makes them able to fit towards a PVE role well. |
Archon Zeratul
Viziam Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:37:00 -
[707] - Quote
oh the goon and cfc tears, enjoying this thread
so instead of 800 blob drakes what you going to do now goon faggots
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
710
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:37:00 -
[708] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:baltec1 wrote:Look at all of these terrified Tengu/Drake pilots flailing at the windows. The funny thing about it is that if people bothered to engage their brain instead of simply flailing about they'd see that this is likely going to result in a net boost to the PVE Tengu. Consider that HAMs aren't being directly nerfed but you'll have a low and 2 'utility' mids on the optimal PVE setup to spend on TE/TCs. Just how far are we going to be able to push the range these HAM Tengus? How much better is the damage application going to be? My gut feeling says that they're going to be a lot better than today's HML setup for virtually all practical use cases. -Liang Yeah, I was irritated at first until I realize this is probably the likely case scenario. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:37:00 -
[709] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Rita May wrote:hm, i would really like to see a Nighthawk fit, that has tackle, propmod, your "boost" moduls and still can fit a tank... where do you find all those slots, last time i checked my Nighthawks had 5 mids and lows, how about yours? You aren't understanding what is being posted. Is the NH fine? No. Does that mean that the NH (and every other missile ship) isn't being boosted by the TE/TC change? No. Because they are. -Liang the TE/TC changes are a buff to missles, on that i can agree.
Now look at the ships that are NOT considered OP (read: Tengu) like the nighthawk or the cerberus. If you fit these - and they are tight on slots to play around and put on top of that the proposed changes to HMs... for me this looks like a whole weapon system will be mostly useless - just telling everyone: "use HAMs" is partly OK, because most other ships fit close-range systems too, but the layout of these missle ships was not intended to use yet another module to apply its damage. so i am saying if CCP touches missles the need to touch the ships that use them at the same time or it will not work.
cu |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:39:00 -
[710] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:while not exactly the weakest, heavy missiles in and of themselves are far from strong. to see this, just compare HML ships to similar hulls: caracal vs. rupture. cerberus (lol) vs ishtar or vagabond. nighthawk vs sleipnir etc.
If you really want fair engagements:
Put a HM caracal up against a arty rupture. Good luck even fitting four arties to a rupture. Rail warden ishtar against HM cerb? Cerb wins without contest. Arty vagabond? Are you kidding me? Arty sleip vs HM NH? That'd be a pretty even fight.
If you're going to compare ships, compare them using the RIGHT weapon types. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
710
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:39:00 -
[711] - Quote
Archon Zeratul wrote:oh the goon and cfc tears, enjoying this thread
so instead of 800 blob drakes what you going to do now goon faggots
Cheer because most of us ******* hate Drakes because they're so boring to fly. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Sueara Koshun
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:39:00 -
[712] - Quote
why dont just make everything equal and put some different names on it? than theres no need for the "socalled" balancing the differences made this game interesting but it looks like you want to make a wow in space out of it, where everything is as good as any other, so people dont have to think what they choose
looks like eve will be another game whats becomes nerved to death |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2195
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:40:00 -
[713] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: lierally no reason to use a BS in PVE at all right now and the Tengu is the reason. I have used a Tengu for mission running in HS and the DPS isn't as good as everyone seems to think it is. It's good, but not spectacular. You will get more DPS from a CNR, Rattlesnake, DNI - maybe even a torpedo SNI with some TPs in the meds. HML is not an 'insta-win' against turrets and to suggest that they are OP in terms of damage is a bit silly imo. Sure, nerf the range a bit, but the damage shouldn't change significantly.
You don't have a torp SNI fit that's better than a Tengu. I guarantee it.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
OlRotGut
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:40:00 -
[714] - Quote
Archon Zeratul wrote:oh the goon and cfc tears, enjoying this thread
so instead of 800 blob drakes what you going to do now goon faggots
report you ...for starters.
|
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:41:00 -
[715] - Quote
Interesting changes Fozzie, it's great to have you on board as part of the balance team.
The only thing that frightens me about making TDs affect missiles as such is that Tracking Disruptors are pretty much the go-to EWAR as it is when you have an unbonused midslot to spend on EWAR. There's nothing more effective in said unbonused slot than a TD as it is, and now with these changes I wonder if it won't skew most EWAR choices to either a) lots of falcons or b) lots and lots of TDs. Just a thought. It feels like there should be some sort of counter there to make sure people still want to use other forms of EWAR. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2195
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:41:00 -
[716] - Quote
Rita May wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Rita May wrote:hm, i would really like to see a Nighthawk fit, that has tackle, propmod, your "boost" moduls and still can fit a tank... where do you find all those slots, last time i checked my Nighthawks had 5 mids and lows, how about yours? You aren't understanding what is being posted. Is the NH fine? No. Does that mean that the NH (and every other missile ship) isn't being boosted by the TE/TC change? No. Because they are. -Liang the TE/TC changes are a buff to missles, on that i can agree. Now look at the ships that are NOT considered OP (read: Tengu) like the nighthawk or the cerberus. If you fit these - and they are tight on slots to play around and put on top of that the proposed changes to HMs... for me this looks like a whole weapon system will be mostly useless - just telling everyone: "use HAMs" is partly OK, because most other ships fit close-range systems too, but the layout of these missle ships was not intended to use yet another module to apply its damage. so i am saying if CCP touches missles the need to touch the ships that use them at the same time or it will not work. cu
I have absolutely no doubt that we'll be seeing changes to those ships.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:42:00 -
[717] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Wolfstorm wrote:...aren't very good except at being constant up close and far away. Isn't that part of the issue? Being good at all ranges? That isn't a problem - missiles are SUPPOSED to be good at all ranges - not very good, nor very bad... just OK. That's how missile systems work. The real issue is people whine about having fast short range ships vs slow long range ships. Drakes are only broken in blobs... and you know what ... I can take a blob of 500 frigates out and pown 95% of any fleet in game. Fix blobs, anything else is smoke blown up your ass. Fixing blobs is bad for a variety of reasons regarding the core of the game itself, but as is being seen missiles have uses where other medium long range weapons systems don't and as it would appear aren't meant to. And no, missiles, particularly HM's are not supposed to be used in all situations. HAM's need to be comparatively better within their intended ranges to the point where it becomes a viable choice. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:43:00 -
[718] - Quote
Everyone is crying about HML nerf..
but noone seems to be comprehending the HAM + TE/TC thing.. /o\
MADNESS
If anything a TE/TC HAM drake will be better at 28km than the current hml drake? (although worse against frigs, boohoo) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:44:00 -
[719] - Quote
I fail. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2154
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:44:00 -
[720] - Quote
Archon Zeratul wrote:oh the goon and cfc tears, enjoying this thread
so instead of 800 blob drakes what you going to do now goon faggots
Crush you into dust with alpha fleet and Das Boot blobs. |
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
194
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:45:00 -
[721] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:while not exactly the weakest, heavy missiles in and of themselves are far from strong. to see this, just compare HML ships to similar hulls: caracal vs. rupture. cerberus (lol) vs ishtar or vagabond. nighthawk vs sleipnir etc.
Why are you still comparing short range weapons to the long range heavy missile? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:47:00 -
[722] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:NONONO drake already does less dmg than other BC's why 20% dmg drop?? Confirming massive blobs of Brutix's and Myrmidons being able to apply full damage at 80km.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
719
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:48:00 -
[723] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:These changes make both TEs and TDs both must-have modules for every ship. They need a nerf.
-Liang
* TE need a nerf in it's present state (that's the main reason of the revival and popularity of Minmatar, not AC's or the ships itself). It almost definately does not need to be changed to also affect missiles. * TD is fine in present state, but should never hit the field in the suggsted affect-all-role
TL;DR a small nerf to present-TE is in place, and the suggested changes to TE/TD should never be implemented. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:48:00 -
[724] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Marcus Harikari wrote:NONONO drake already does less dmg than other BC's why 20% dmg drop?? Confirming massive blobs of Brutix's and Myrmidons being able to apply full damage at 80km.
Only if your alliance ticker is AHARM....
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Bilaz
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:49:00 -
[725] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Yeah, I agree, an Artillery Sliep that does 600+ DPS and 5000 alpha with great speed, drone and slot flexibility and shield tanking logistics (which everyone knows are superior is in no way good.
TE/TC change isn't a boost, it's a straight nerf to a NH which doesn't have the built in range bonus that the tengu does.
The devs didn't even consider the fact that the only arguement for missiles doing too much damage was the Tengu... Yet the only reason this is true is because they gave the tengu an ungodly 7.5% ROF bonus on top of 6 launchers and a massive tank and plenty of low slots.... heaven forbid they actually fix the problem with the ship, not the problem with the missiles.
Hence, the only problem with missiles that was ever argued was range.
See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped.
To be honest every missile ship give more damage than their turret counterpart @ 50-60km (or @100 if hacs) range. Tengu was just made to be better than drake, which was much better than everything else caldary had - and that everything else was better than their analogs.
For instance cerberus with 2 damage mods give 350 where other hacs have 260. Plus much better "tracking", tank and such. Same stuff with drake - but with more slots, ehp, resists, drones and less cap management problems. nighthawk have what - 100 more dps than drake? pretty sure that it is much better than astarte and absolution, and more tank than arty-sleipnir. Maybe not better becouse med arty is quite broken also - but not much worse either.
So no - problems are not only with drake and tengu - problems with heavy missiles we also have. Another problem is passive shield tank - both tengu and drake are massievly overtanked - and frankly most ships are shield tanked nowdays. While i do not think like Fon that every second ship is horribly overtanked, i do agree that LSE and rigs are major parts of the problem. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:49:00 -
[726] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:These changes make both TEs and TDs both must-have modules for every ship. They need a nerf.
-Liang * TE need a nerf in it's present state (that's the main reason of the revival and popularity of Minmatar, not AC's or the ships itself). It almost definately does not need to be changed to also affect missiles. * TD is fine in present state, but should never hit the field in the suggsted affect-all-role TL;DR a small nerf to present-TE is in place, and the suggested changes to TE/TD should never be implemented.
There's some truth there, but I admit I'm not looking forward to the TE nerf's knock-on affect for blaster ships. Fortunately I seem to only fly missile and laser ships lately. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:49:00 -
[727] - Quote
I think the Drake and HML changes are ********. Really not impressed.
An option to refund SPs now wasted in Missiles would seem appropriate. The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:50:00 -
[728] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Marcus Harikari wrote:NONONO drake already does less dmg than other BC's why 20% dmg drop?? Confirming massive blobs of Brutix's and Myrmidons being able to apply full damage at 80km. Only if your alliance ticker is AHARM.... -Liang Zing!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Smeethan
Tri-Innovation
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:51:00 -
[729] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:I think the Drake and HML changes are ********. Really not impressed.
An option to refund SPs now wasted in Missiles would seem appropriate.
as a daily drake flyer I know this will these changes will NOT be good for me and my drake. I am now switching. Thanks and I am not telling you what i'm switching to because that will be nerfed next.
as always ... NERF QQ **** u ccp etc
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:52:00 -
[730] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:baltec1 wrote:Look at all of these terrified Tengu/Drake pilots flailing at the windows. The funny thing about it is that if people bothered to engage their brain instead of simply flailing about they'd see that this is likely going to result in a net boost to the PVE Tengu. Consider that HAMs aren't being directly nerfed but you'll have a low and 2 'utility' mids on the optimal PVE setup to spend on TE/TCs. Just how far are we going to be able to push the range these HAM Tengus? How much better is the damage application going to be? My gut feeling says that they're going to be a lot better than today's HML setup for virtually all practical use cases. -Liang Yeah, I was irritated at first until I realize this is probably the likely case scenario.
again you still nee web/Target painter to make hams worth while on tengu iv tried it its not good at all plus the fact that you NEED to faction fit and you NEED 6 slots for prop+tank , AB sba x2+medium bosoter (or 2 small boosters and 1 amp) then 2 hardners. |
|
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:53:00 -
[731] - Quote
Misanth wrote: * TD is fine in present state, but should never hit the field in the suggsted affect-all-role
Ya that's a good way of putting it. TDs already had that "p much good in any scenario" power and it seems like they may be too OP on unbonused ships now. |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1981
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:53:00 -
[732] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
I assume you're talking about the Arty Loki and Arty Sleip? Those... are not really common fits. Even still, they're kinda underwhelming. The Muninn would matter except for the whole LRHACs not mattering at all. The Absolution and Legion both need some buffing.
And the HAM NH is actually getting a pretty massive buff. And the HML NH is getting a relative boost next to the Tengu, which I personally find to be a good thing.
-Liang
How is a HAM NH getting any boost? How does it in any way bring it in line with a tengu? I mean seriously dude, do you just throw **** out there and hope it sticks or do you have an actual reason for what you say? Arti Loki and Arti Sleip were never common for one particular reason, fittings. That just changed drastically. All missile ships are getting a boost via the TE/TC change. The Arty Loki and Arty Sleip weren't common because they're underwhelming, not because they were particularly hard to fit. -Liang Yeah, I agree, an Artillery Sliep that does 600+ DPS and 5000 alpha with great speed, drone and slot flexibility and shield tanking logistics (which everyone knows are superior is in no way good. TE/TC change isn't a boost, it's a straight nerf to a NH which doesn't have the built in range bonus that the tengu does. The devs didn't even consider the fact that the only arguement for missiles doing too much damage was the Tengu... Yet the only reason this is true is because they gave the tengu an ungodly 7.5% ROF bonus on top of 6 launchers and a massive tank and plenty of low slots.... heaven forbid they actually fix the problem with the ship, not the problem with the missiles. Hence, the only problem with missiles that was ever argued was range. See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped. Thats it Yaay, rage because you're in an alliance that had one viable fleet comp that just got nerfed into the ground. You've already been destroyed by Fozzie in the other thread with all your made up ****. Here, let me help, finish you off: Missile ships will now be forced to make the same sacrifices as turrnet ships to extend the range of their weapons, giving up tank and utility slots to achieve their longest ranges. So while the Nighthawk got a little gimped on its overall range, it can give up a low and or mid and easily get that range back, with the added bonus of being able to hit smaller targets harder if they want. Also please stop flinging out 4 damage mod fits that nobody but you would ever undock and use in a fight, it makes you look dumb when you post. Missiles got nerfed and now AAA has no viable doctrines outside of Arty Loki's (you remember, the ship you claim in your post that nobody uses only thats not true and multiple alliances are currently using alpha lokis as a part of a doctrine) and you're mad about it, we get it, but you just keep posting this stupid outright false bullshit to try and save you from that fate. You're like the Fox News of fitting Yaay.
Grath Tekllin for CSM 8. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:54:00 -
[733] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:I think the Drake and HML changes are ********. Really not impressed.
An option to refund SPs now wasted in Missiles would seem appropriate.
Yeah, like they refunded SP for the falcon change, gang boosting command ships when t3s came out and when they nerfed nano. Oh wait. You've had your flavor of the month, it's time for other ships and weapons to step into the limelight. |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
93
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:54:00 -
[734] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Shizuken wrote:Yeah, not sure if my current mission drake fut will be able to do L4's anymore... You'll still have the DPS to finish them, it just might take you a bit longer than before. Alternatively you can skill up to a Raven or any other BS and diversify to avoid future nerfs by making sure you can fly ships from multiple races with multiple weapons types at your disposal.
Sounds good. I have the worst skillset though. I am a master at flipflopping training plans on a regular basis. I am currently spending the next year trying to clean that up... That is why I rely on the Drake for L4's |
Kiandoshia
Grand Shield Industries
1185
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:54:00 -
[735] - Quote
Here's the question...
Can I use tracking links to get back super long range tropedoes? |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:54:00 -
[736] - Quote
Smeethan wrote:as a daily drake flyer I know this will these changes will NOT be good for me and my drake. I am now switching. Thanks and I am not telling you what i'm switching to because that will be nerfed next.
as always ... NERF QQ **** u ccp etc
Agreed.
I have a CNR & SNI but prefer to Lvl 4 in a Drake because HMs apply damage more effectively again Cruisers and smaller than CMs. I have been considering training for a Tengu, but thanks to these idiotic nerfs I won't bother.
I guess I'll have to train for a Mach now.
Oh, and **** you CCP.
The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
769
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:54:00 -
[737] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1912574#post1912574
CCP Fozzie wrote:Improving solo options without either killing fun aspects of group play or making solo too easymode is definitely a goal of ours Yeah, thanks for new TDs - now we gonna have even 'more' options [:clown:]
14 |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
719
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:55:00 -
[738] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Haquer wrote:
Let's pull up the top 20 page on eve-kill dot net
RankWeaponsKills 1Heavy Missile Launcher II78177 2425mm AutoCannon II20772 3Heavy Pulse Laser II15799
Yeah, you're pretty much full of ****. Heavy missiles are OP and should be nerfed.
You can correlate that with the Drake being the top ship. HMLs on most other ships are meh. Hell, this is also almost all kinetic damage! If you change to something else, it's much less. I can guarantee you that maybe 75000 of those HML II kills were using kinetic missiles grunted out of a drake. The problem is the combination of traits the Drake has/had that make it viable. Nobody screams bloody murder if you put HMLs on a Rook, or a Lachesis. Also what about the Minmatar missile boats that are going to be negatively impacted by this, such as the new Bellicose this winter? Well, it's probably going to become Caracal II and the bane of frigates and destroyers everywhere. Making the Caracal useless. Watch how this all changes after winter. Caldari and Gallente are going to be having a tea party together, down at the "least used ships" rung of the ladder.
Nopes, it'll be Caldari and Amarr, with Gallente being top dog small scale, and Minmatar for blobs. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
711
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:56:00 -
[739] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:baltec1 wrote:Look at all of these terrified Tengu/Drake pilots flailing at the windows. The funny thing about it is that if people bothered to engage their brain instead of simply flailing about they'd see that this is likely going to result in a net boost to the PVE Tengu. Consider that HAMs aren't being directly nerfed but you'll have a low and 2 'utility' mids on the optimal PVE setup to spend on TE/TCs. Just how far are we going to be able to push the range these HAM Tengus? How much better is the damage application going to be? My gut feeling says that they're going to be a lot better than today's HML setup for virtually all practical use cases. -Liang Yeah, I was irritated at first until I realize this is probably the likely case scenario. again you still nee web/Target painter to make hams worth while on tengu iv tried it its not good at all plus the fact that you NEED to faction fit and you NEED 6 slots for prop+tank , AB sba x2+medium bosoter (or 2 small boosters and 1 amp) then 2 hardners. You're overtanking.
Then again I'm faction fitting too, but I have AB, MSB, 1 SBA, and 2 hardeners. I have a mid slot left over.
When you add the tracking enhancer to missiles, the explosion radius/velocity doesn't matter as far as battleships go, and once I switch damage to shooting cruisers and frigates I can swap out the script instantly to reduce explosion radius/increase explosion velocity.
Alternatively I can take out my fourth BCS and put in a TE for a constant flight time/ER/EV buff. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:56:00 -
[740] - Quote
Bilaz wrote:I'm Down wrote: Yeah, I agree, an Artillery Sliep that does 600+ DPS and 5000 alpha with great speed, drone and slot flexibility and shield tanking logistics (which everyone knows are superior is in no way good.
TE/TC change isn't a boost, it's a straight nerf to a NH which doesn't have the built in range bonus that the tengu does.
The devs didn't even consider the fact that the only arguement for missiles doing too much damage was the Tengu... Yet the only reason this is true is because they gave the tengu an ungodly 7.5% ROF bonus on top of 6 launchers and a massive tank and plenty of low slots.... heaven forbid they actually fix the problem with the ship, not the problem with the missiles.
Hence, the only problem with missiles that was ever argued was range.
See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped.
To be honest every missile ship give more damage than their turret counterpart @ 50-60km (or @100 if hacs) range. Tengu was just made to be better than drake, which was much better than everything else caldary had - and that everything else was better than their analogs. For instance cerberus with 2 damage mods give 350 where other hacs have 260. Plus much better "tracking", tank and such. Same stuff with drake - but with more slots, ehp, resists, drones and less cap management problems. nighthawk have what - 100 more dps than drake? pretty sure that it is much better than astarte and absolution, and more tank than arty-sleipnir. Maybe not better becouse med arty is quite broken also - but not much worse either. So no - problems are not only with drake and tengu - problems with heavy missiles we also have. Another problem is passive shield tank - both tengu and drake are massievly overtanked - and frankly most ships are shield tanked nowdays. While i do not think like Fon that every second ship is horribly overtanked, i do agree that LSE and rigs are major parts of the problem. a re you insane? look at NH vs sleipnir . NH gets a nominal tank and if these changes come barley 350 dps while sleipnir gets nearly 1k dps with 425s+1HAM launcher and usually enough PG and mids for a good XL booster fit. hell even cane gets 800ish dps our equivelent tier 3 BC dosnt even come close even when useing HAMs |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2155
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:56:00 -
[741] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:I think the Drake and HML changes are ********. Really not impressed.
An option to refund SPs now wasted in Missiles would seem appropriate.
No SP refund for you. Learn to adapt like everyone else. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2195
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:57:00 -
[742] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Marcus Harikari wrote:NONONO drake already does less dmg than other BC's why 20% dmg drop?? Confirming massive blobs of Brutix's and Myrmidons being able to apply full damage at 80km. Only if your alliance ticker is AHARM.... -Liang
We are but a small corp, we don't have massive blobs...
(also, alliance ticker is K162) CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:57:00 -
[743] - Quote
Bilaz wrote: both tengu and drake are massievly overtanked
drake- yes, it has a big tank
tengu - no...not at all. Look at the proteus. 200k tank with armor easily. Look at the Loki. 100k tank easily wth a single 1600 plate. Tengu has trouble getting 100k passive tank, and thats with only 2 mid slots left over for MWD and disruptor. Plus, the real issue lies with 100MN tengus, their tanks are not huge at all, its just their speed mitigating damage that makes it seem that way. Even moreso, to fly an 100mn tengu, you NEED to pimp fit it, and having an extremely expensive tengu should be OKAY to have it as a powerful ship. You don't see people constantly flying 1.5bil lokis and legions, like people do with tengus, but if you did, you could surely get 150k-200k armor tank on them as well, just as the tengu gets a good tank when combined with 100mn. However, its tank is not massively unbalanced. Just its damage projection, and reducing its range and a bit of its damage (hopefully not 20% however) is a reasonable way of fixing it up to be more balanced. However- nerfing it into oblivion will make 100mn tengus no longer useful, taking away a lovely style of playing that many people hold dear. (This isn't me whining, I personally don't fly 100mn tengus because I don't have the ISK to buy something too pimped.) Nerfing a form of warfare is really bad for the game. It takes away people's skills using a certain tactic. For example - some people have really practised with kiting others, and thus use it a lot in PvP because it is what they are good at. 100MN tengus require a lot of thinking to manuever properly, and taking out this playstyle really isn't a particularly good/fair idea. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:57:00 -
[744] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:baltec1 wrote:Look at all of these terrified Tengu/Drake pilots flailing at the windows. The funny thing about it is that if people bothered to engage their brain instead of simply flailing about they'd see that this is likely going to result in a net boost to the PVE Tengu. Consider that HAMs aren't being directly nerfed but you'll have a low and 2 'utility' mids on the optimal PVE setup to spend on TE/TCs. Just how far are we going to be able to push the range these HAM Tengus? How much better is the damage application going to be? My gut feeling says that they're going to be a lot better than today's HML setup for virtually all practical use cases. -Liang Yeah, I was irritated at first until I realize this is probably the likely case scenario. again you still nee web/Target painter to make hams worth while on tengu iv tried it its not good at all plus the fact that you NEED to faction fit and you NEED 6 slots for prop+tank , AB sba x2+medium bosoter (or 2 small boosters and 1 amp) then 2 hardners.
A few comments: - The cycle time on the TP means that it's generally not that worthwhile. Or, it feels like more work and if I wanted to work I'd fly a Golem. - We aren't just seeing a range increase from the TEs - we're also seeing damage application. Think of the TE/2 TCs as like 3 extra Flare/Rigor slots (that actually work). - You don't need that much tank for L4s.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:58:00 -
[745] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:baltec1 wrote:Look at all of these terrified Tengu/Drake pilots flailing at the windows. The funny thing about it is that if people bothered to engage their brain instead of simply flailing about they'd see that this is likely going to result in a net boost to the PVE Tengu. Consider that HAMs aren't being directly nerfed but you'll have a low and 2 'utility' mids on the optimal PVE setup to spend on TE/TCs. Just how far are we going to be able to push the range these HAM Tengus? How much better is the damage application going to be? My gut feeling says that they're going to be a lot better than today's HML setup for virtually all practical use cases. -Liang Yeah, I was irritated at first until I realize this is probably the likely case scenario. again you still nee web/Target painter to make hams worth while on tengu iv tried it its not good at all plus the fact that you NEED to faction fit and you NEED 6 slots for prop+tank , AB sba x2+medium bosoter (or 2 small boosters and 1 amp) then 2 hardners. You're overtanking. Then again I'm faction fitting too, but I have AB, MSB, 1 SBA, and 2 hardeners. I have a mid slot left over. When you add the tracking enhancer to missiles, the explosion radius/velocity doesn't matter as far as battleships go, and once I switch damage to shooting cruisers and frigates I can swap out the script instantly to reduce explosion radius/increase explosion velocity. Alternatively I can take out my fourth BCS and put in a TE for a constant flight time/ER/EV buff. i dont believe i am overtanking, the tank barely stands up to AE4 bonus room dps at full speed while popping webber frigs. |
Thash Hirarashi
Trader Emergency Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:58:00 -
[746] - Quote
I recently just trained for a tengu. If these changes are implemented, can I get sp refunded? |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:58:00 -
[747] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Bilaz wrote:I'm Down wrote: Yeah, I agree, an Artillery Sliep that does 600+ DPS and 5000 alpha with great speed, drone and slot flexibility and shield tanking logistics (which everyone knows are superior is in no way good.
TE/TC change isn't a boost, it's a straight nerf to a NH which doesn't have the built in range bonus that the tengu does.
The devs didn't even consider the fact that the only arguement for missiles doing too much damage was the Tengu... Yet the only reason this is true is because they gave the tengu an ungodly 7.5% ROF bonus on top of 6 launchers and a massive tank and plenty of low slots.... heaven forbid they actually fix the problem with the ship, not the problem with the missiles.
Hence, the only problem with missiles that was ever argued was range.
See what happens when you start posting actual content in your post that can be refuted? you get ***** slapped.
To be honest every missile ship give more damage than their turret counterpart @ 50-60km (or @100 if hacs) range. Tengu was just made to be better than drake, which was much better than everything else caldary had - and that everything else was better than their analogs. For instance cerberus with 2 damage mods give 350 where other hacs have 260. Plus much better "tracking", tank and such. Same stuff with drake - but with more slots, ehp, resists, drones and less cap management problems. nighthawk have what - 100 more dps than drake? pretty sure that it is much better than astarte and absolution, and more tank than arty-sleipnir. Maybe not better becouse med arty is quite broken also - but not much worse either. So no - problems are not only with drake and tengu - problems with heavy missiles we also have. Another problem is passive shield tank - both tengu and drake are massievly overtanked - and frankly most ships are shield tanked nowdays. While i do not think like Fon that every second ship is horribly overtanked, i do agree that LSE and rigs are major parts of the problem. a re you insane? look at NH vs sleipnir . NH gets a nominal tank and if these changes come barley 350 dps while sleipnir gets nearly 1k dps with 425s+1HAM launcher and usually enough PG and mids for a good XL booster fit. hell even cane gets 800ish dps our equivelent tier 3 BC dosnt even come close even when useing HAMs
You're comparing apples to oranges. Compare a 425 sleip to a ham nh, or a hm nh against an arty sleip. Not a HM nh to a 425 sleip. |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:58:00 -
[748] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:John Ratcliffe wrote:I think the Drake and HML changes are ********. Really not impressed.
An option to refund SPs now wasted in Missiles would seem appropriate. No SP refund for you. Learn to adapt like everyone else.
No. I'll ******* moan until CCP realise they are stupid and leave things as they are.
QQ, cry more blah blah blah.
The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2195
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 22:59:00 -
[749] - Quote
Thash Hirarashi wrote:I recently just trained for a tengu. If these changes are implemented, can I get sp refunded?
Sure. Just send the 500 million ISK skill refunding fee to me, and I will be happy to refund your SP. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:00:00 -
[750] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:while not exactly the weakest, heavy missiles in and of themselves are far from strong. to see this, just compare HML ships to similar hulls: caracal vs. rupture. cerberus (lol) vs ishtar or vagabond. nighthawk vs sleipnir etc. If you really want fair engagements: Put a HM caracal up against a arty rupture. Good luck even fitting four arties to a rupture. Rail warden ishtar against HM cerb? Cerb wins without contest. Arty vagabond? Are you kidding me? Arty sleip vs HM NH? That'd be a pretty even fight. If you're going to compare ships, compare them using the RIGHT weapon types.
who says the RIGHT weapon type is the long range type? to me, it is rather the type that works best with the respective hull. just as you can't fit arties on a rupture, you can't really fit HAMs on a caracal. please keep in mind, the thing that ultimately has to be balanced are not numbers (range, dps etc.) or 1v1 fights but the overall performance of the ships.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9521
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:00:00 -
[751] - Quote
Awesome! GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
Salmon Ella
Exolon Trading
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:00:00 -
[752] - Quote
Seleene wrote:
Grath Tekllin for CSM 8.
Why does he talk as much shite as the rest of you do? If so I'm a voting. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
719
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:01:00 -
[753] - Quote
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:confirming that ccp is to incompetent to balance their game properly, instead of having unique in vastly different mechanics for their weapons systems and tanking modules to make the game exciting and engaging, where the meta-game is constantly changing and they have decided to make every tanking type, and every weapons system at virtually the same. . A couple patches back in Inferno, they wanted to change shield/armor function virtually the same. Favoring passive/active changing as your choice. Needless to say that's a very bad idea. They started by trying to change the rigs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99872 ( CCP bouncing ideas, are as close to good , as fire is to ice .because none of them actually play it again besides missioning/mining in high-sec ). Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players.. all it will do is dumbed down eve even more. It is gotten so bad that there is very little difference between the races, Beyond what slots they used to tank, and what flavor of gun they put in their high slots. well I admit there is problems with most of the missile boats in the game at the moment I think that is more wrong with ships themselves than the actual missile mechanic. what is going to make this thing easier for new players, is more mechanics built in that facilitates experienced players teaching the new players. Here's some ideas off the top of my head. Reworking the certificate system so that players, make and share certificates among the corporation mates and their alliance mates easily. The certificates could be used for anything such as an easy to look up new player training plan. All the way up to figuring out if you have enough skills to qualify for reimbursement on a particular ship. Because God knows none of the CCP staff are qualified to teach someone how to properly fit a ship or the skills required to properly fitted anymore. I'm going to hazard a guess and say no CCP dev is playing the way the average player does since the T2 lottery scandal. THE FACT THAT NO Dev plays the game the way the majority of pvper play. They have no clue about balancing past they care bearing in hisec. so I urge you to put new player training in the hands of current players and give usThe tools to do it. Instead of dumbing down eve to the lowest of dominator
I want your space-babies.
AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:03:00 -
[754] - Quote
Ah well, guess I'll stock TD's, queue that last tier of marketing, wait for the right time to contract 80% of my useless t2 and missile boat fleet, and wait for WiS to launch before I ever get out of CQ again (not that I want WiS or even use CQ until now). Park my butt in hisec. I guess some gw2 time between now and then is my only viable option. Hope they change their path before my current sub year is up. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:03:00 -
[755] - Quote
Yeah, HAM tengus are already decent for missions and can gain some pretty good range, with the option of TE and TCs you'd get ALOT more range/damage application.
6 slots for L4 tank is too much, I've always run with T2 AB + Pithi C-Type Small + 2 T2 Hardeners and my tank has never even been in danger, some missions need care like Mordus Headhunters cause of tons of webbers on top of you but even then. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2155
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:03:00 -
[756] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:
No. I'll ******* moan until CCP realise they are stupid and leave things as they are.
QQ, cry more blah blah blah.
Whats stupid is a cruiser with a BS tank, the range of a sniper and the DPS of a brawler BC.
This nerf should have happened years ago. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:04:00 -
[757] - Quote
Two step wrote:Thash Hirarashi wrote:I recently just trained for a tengu. If these changes are implemented, can I get sp refunded? Sure. Just send the 500 million ISK skill refunding fee to me, and I will be happy to refund your SP. w how about a fist full of rusty corncob holders where the sun dont shine? |
School Nickname Worldmonkey
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:06:00 -
[758] - Quote
Welp. A proposition CCP. Make all Gurista rats orbit at ~20-25k and I'll forget this whole thing ever happened. HelI I might even train gallente to compensate you! Or at least T2 Blasters. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:08:00 -
[759] - Quote
School Nickname Worldmonkey wrote:Welp. A proposition CCP. Make all Gurista rats orbit at ~20-25k and I'll forget this whole thing ever happened. HelI I might even train gallente to compensate you! Or at least T2 Blasters.
what about EOM and other LONG RANGE rats? :P |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:10:00 -
[760] - Quote
School Nickname Worldmonkey wrote:Welp. A proposition CCP. Make all Gurista rats orbit at ~20-25k and I'll forget this whole thing ever happened. HelI I might even train gallente to compensate you! Or at least T2 Blasters.
Or start using battleships like it was intended. If you're that dead set on using a cruiser, you're going to have to deal with having to get in range like all the other cruisers do. |
|
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:10:00 -
[761] - Quote
These changes are awesome and will bring much needed balance to alot of game play. (especially when combined with the other medium guns changes) Please do not listen to the knee jerk whinners. Two Step for CSM |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:10:00 -
[762] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Two step wrote:Thash Hirarashi wrote:I recently just trained for a tengu. If these changes are implemented, can I get sp refunded? Sure. Just send the 500 million ISK skill refunding fee to me, and I will be happy to refund your SP. w how about a fist full of rusty corncob holders where the sun dont shine?
I'll sell those to you for 500 million ISK.
That or keep demanding for a SP refund, it's really entertaining for most of us to see people flailing around ITT when they're too short-sighted to make the best of these changes and instead resort to stomping their feet like self-entitled children. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Veryez
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:11:00 -
[763] - Quote
The nerf to heavy missiles is about time, but you seriously can't fix 1/2 the missiles and not the others. How about a range and explosive velocity/radius buff to HAMs and Torps (hams velocity, torps need both)? Does the fact that they have practically the same range not bother you in the least? Why are you doing 1/2 the job?
Hams are supposed to be cruiser sized weapons, yet the average cruiser takes less than full damage against them due to their slow explosion velocity (and you're even buffing base cruiser speed - nice job). Torps are supposed to be battleship weapons, yet suffer in both the explosion velocity and radius. They both need their base range increased (congratz on having the only cruiser and battleship sized weapons with the same range) by 50 to 100% on unbonused ships (like the Sac and the Phoon) which are obviously suppose to use them. Feel free to nerf the range bonus on other ships to balance this out.
Nerfing heavy missiles is fine, but not giving missile based ships an other option (i.e. usable hams) further puts missile ships in the dustbin.
The reduction in PG on cruiser artillery has huge consequences, ones I'm not sure are so good for all ships. However if you're thinking this change will make the Muninn useful, that won't happen w/o a layout change, as far as nerfing the cane, meh, I still prefer the harb. |
James Ogeko
Templar Battalion Kraken.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:11:00 -
[764] - Quote
Roime wrote:Schmell wrote:Uhm...cough...did you check on armor cane fittings when you were working out that PG nerf? Because armor cane will be hit really hard by this, there wasn't so much free pg left even with 220mm guns
Aside this, pretty cool changes 1600mm + 220 IIs + Medium Neut IIs + MWD II without a single fitting mod is tight for you? 1600mm + 425 IIs + HML IIs + meta MWD also too tight? Do you need to have free PG left even with all slots filled? These minmatards so after the change an armor cane with 1600mm meta plate + 180 IIs + meta medium nuets + meta MWD is going to be 5% PG over with perfect skills?
smallest guns and meta the rest of my mods and i still need a fitting rig or implant to fly an armor cane? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
711
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:11:00 -
[765] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:School Nickname Worldmonkey wrote:Welp. A proposition CCP. Make all Gurista rats orbit at ~20-25k and I'll forget this whole thing ever happened. HelI I might even train gallente to compensate you! Or at least T2 Blasters. Or start using battleships like it was intended. If you're that dead set on using a cruiser, you're going to have to deal with having to get in range like all the other cruisers do. Except the Tengu isn't strictly a cruiser. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
358
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:12:00 -
[766] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:School Nickname Worldmonkey wrote:Welp. A proposition CCP. Make all Gurista rats orbit at ~20-25k and I'll forget this whole thing ever happened. HelI I might even train gallente to compensate you! Or at least T2 Blasters. Or start using battleships like it was intended. If you're that dead set on using a cruiser, you're going to have to deal with having to get in range like all the other cruisers do. confirming that a sandbox game must follow rigid boring rules with no exceptions.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:14:00 -
[767] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:School Nickname Worldmonkey wrote:Welp. A proposition CCP. Make all Gurista rats orbit at ~20-25k and I'll forget this whole thing ever happened. HelI I might even train gallente to compensate you! Or at least T2 Blasters. Or start using battleships like it was intended. If you're that dead set on using a cruiser, you're going to have to deal with having to get in range like all the other cruisers do. confirming that a sandbox game must follow rigid boring rules with no exceptions.
It's not because it's as agile as a frigate, as tanky as a battleship and as offensively capable as a battlecruiser that it isn't a cruiser-class ship using cruiser-class weapons. You're a ******* idiot. Go stick it to 'the man' somewhere else. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:16:00 -
[768] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:School Nickname Worldmonkey wrote:Welp. A proposition CCP. Make all Gurista rats orbit at ~20-25k and I'll forget this whole thing ever happened. HelI I might even train gallente to compensate you! Or at least T2 Blasters. Or start using battleships like it was intended. If you're that dead set on using a cruiser, you're going to have to deal with having to get in range like all the other cruisers do.
caracal.. cerberus and im sure im forgetting some others. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:17:00 -
[769] - Quote
It's confirmed that TE, TC, and TD will effect both guided and unguided missiles, doesn't this logically suggest that rig limitations should be removed as well? It makes no sense to be able to give up mids/lows for range/damage application but not rigs slots on HAMs/Rockets/Torps and just arbitrarily limits the options of boats that fit said weapons (gun boats already get more rig options with algid administration and I feel its unfair to missiles). |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
711
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:17:00 -
[770] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:It's not because it's as agile as a frigate It isn't.
Laura Dexx wrote:as tanky as a battleship It isn't.
Laura Dexx wrote:and as offensively capable as a battlecruiser It isn't.
None of these apply unless you use faction modules all over the place. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:20:00 -
[771] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Yeah, HAM tengus are already decent for missions and can gain some pretty good range, with the option of TE and TCs you'd get ALOT more range/damage application.
6 slots for L4 tank is too much, I've always run with T2 AB + Pithi C-Type Small + 2 T2 Hardeners and my tank has never even been in danger, some missions need care like Mordus Headhunters cause of tons of webbers on top of you but even then.
that sounds paper thin and wouldnt ever handle bonus room in angels extrav 4 or comparable missions. |
Wolfstorm
Knights of Free Space Tribal Band
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:21:00 -
[772] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Asmodes Reynolds wrote:confirming that ccp is to incompetent to balance their game properly, instead of having unique in vastly different mechanics for their weapons systems and tanking modules to make the game exciting and engaging, where the meta-game is constantly changing and they have decided to make every tanking type, and every weapons system at virtually the same. . A couple patches back in Inferno, they wanted to change shield/armor function virtually the same. Favoring passive/active changing as your choice. Needless to say that's a very bad idea. They started by trying to change the rigs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99872 ( CCP bouncing ideas, are as close to good , as fire is to ice .because none of them actually play it again besides missioning/mining in high-sec ). Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players.. all it will do is dumbed down eve even more. It is gotten so bad that there is very little difference between the races, Beyond what slots they used to tank, and what flavor of gun they put in their high slots. well I admit there is problems with most of the missile boats in the game at the moment I think that is more wrong with ships themselves than the actual missile mechanic. what is going to make this thing easier for new players, is more mechanics built in that facilitates experienced players teaching the new players. Here's some ideas off the top of my head. Reworking the certificate system so that players, make and share certificates among the corporation mates and their alliance mates easily. The certificates could be used for anything such as an easy to look up new player training plan. All the way up to figuring out if you have enough skills to qualify for reimbursement on a particular ship. Because God knows none of the CCP staff are qualified to teach someone how to properly fit a ship or the skills required to properly fitted anymore. I'm going to hazard a guess and say no CCP dev is playing the way the average player does since the T2 lottery scandal. THE FACT THAT NO Dev plays the game the way the majority of pvper play. They have no clue about balancing past they care bearing in hisec. so I urge you to put new player training in the hands of current players and give usThe tools to do it. Instead of dumbing down eve to the lowest of dominator I want your space-babies.
This again! |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:22:00 -
[773] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
Thats it Yaay, rage because you're in an alliance that had one viable fleet comp that just got nerfed into the ground.
You've already been destroyed by Fozzie in the other thread with all your made up ****. Here, let me help, finish you off:
Missile ships will now be forced to make the same sacrifices as turrnet ships to extend the range of their weapons, giving up tank and utility slots to achieve their longest ranges. So while the Nighthawk got a little gimped on its overall range, it can give up a low and or mid and easily get that range back, with the added bonus of being able to hit smaller targets harder if they want.
Also please stop flinging out 4 damage mod fits that nobody but you would ever undock and use in a fight, it makes you look dumb when you post.
Missiles got nerfed and now AAA has no viable doctrines outside of Arty Loki's (you remember, the ship you claim in your post that nobody uses only thats not true and multiple alliances are currently using alpha lokis as a part of a doctrine) and you're mad about it, we get it, but you just keep posting this stupid outright false bullshit to try and save you from that fate. You're like the Fox News of fitting Yaay.
Actually, I came right back at Fozzie with proof pudding.
As for rage about the Tengu, you are obviously Illiterate as I've stated 100s of times that the ship, and all t3s need to be nerfed to hell and back. But I said hammer that ship for it's own design, not for missiles in general, which only had an issue with range.
But then again, it's Grath, a clueless emo **** who doesn't know jack **** about this game even though he talks a big game since he's in "PL"
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:24:00 -
[774] - Quote
Man those 100mn afterburner fit Proteus are dangerous...
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:24:00 -
[775] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Whats stupid is a cruiser with a BS tank, the range of a sniper and the DPS of a brawler BC.
This nerf should have happened years ago.
I couldn't give a **** about the Tengu, I was talking from the perspective of the Drake. Yes, happy for the Tengu to have a nerf - it should never have been allowed to fit HMLs in the first place, but nerfing HMLs on the Drake is so ******* ******** I can't think even straight.
****. The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:24:00 -
[776] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:But then again, it's Grath, a clueless emo **** who doesn't know jack **** about this game even though he talks a big game since he's in "PL"
Sounds awfully like you, except you don't get to claim the last part anymore, thankfully. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
720
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:27:00 -
[777] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:D3vastator wrote:Aaron Greil wrote:Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.
Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.
Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock. Ah, my bad. IshTAR :P https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1938285#post1938285Seriously, your more expensive tech3 is meant to be a stepping stone to the superior specialised t2 ship for the particular role. Because you can get isk faster than SP. Tengus are brokenly overpowered, they need nerfs.
Yes and no. You're right about the stepping stone, and t2 ship role, and you're right that the Tengu performs very (probably too) well. But you're wrong that the Tengu needed the nerf. Tengu in non-dps subsystem is fine and very much in-line with other cruiser hulls. So the issue is not with the Tengu itself, but rather with a particular subsystem (especially combined with the engineering one that gives +1 launcher).
The funky thing is that that particular Tengu configuration, still have a decent balance between the +kinetic bonus and the other damage types. The bonuses applies goes in-line with Caldari in general too. There's two possible solutions to tweak this to make it more reasonable: either a) tweak the RoF bonus, or b) tweak the raw damage bonus itself (preferably keep the separated +kin bonus, to suit the Caldari damage bonus that goes on other ships too).
Tengu is fine. Its damage subsystem is not. Drake is fine. In blobs they die too slow. Poems are cool. I can't write em.
AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:28:00 -
[778] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:I'm Down wrote:But then again, it's Grath, a clueless emo **** who doesn't know jack **** about this game even though he talks a big game since he's in "PL" Sounds awfully like you, except you don't get to claim the last part anymore, thankfully.
I honestly don't know whose more thankful. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:28:00 -
[779] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:baltec1 wrote:Whats stupid is a cruiser with a BS tank, the range of a sniper and the DPS of a brawler BC.
This nerf should have happened years ago. I couldn't give a **** about the Tengu, I was talking from the perspective of the Drake. Yes, happy for the Tengu to have a nerf - it should never have been allowed to fit HMLs in the first place, but nerfing HMLs on the Drake is so ******* ******** I can't think even straight. ****. if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2158
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:29:00 -
[780] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:baltec1 wrote:Whats stupid is a cruiser with a BS tank, the range of a sniper and the DPS of a brawler BC.
This nerf should have happened years ago. I couldn't give a **** about the Tengu, I was talking from the perspective of the Drake. Yes, happy for the Tengu to have a nerf - it should never have been allowed to fit HMLs in the first place, but nerfing HMLs on the Drake is so ******* ******** I can't think even straight. ****.
The drake is also far too good. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:29:00 -
[781] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****.
I like how you post this with no justification, yet I posted (with reasoning) why the Tengu may be solidified further solidified as the best mission runner.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:31:00 -
[782] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:D3vastator wrote:Aaron Greil wrote:Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.
Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.
Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock. Ah, my bad. IshTAR :P https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1938285#post1938285Seriously, your more expensive tech3 is meant to be a stepping stone to the superior specialised t2 ship for the particular role. Because you can get isk faster than SP. Tengus are brokenly overpowered, they need nerfs. Yes and no. You're right about the stepping stone, and t2 ship role, and you're right that the Tengu performs very (probably too) well. But you're wrong that the Tengu needed the nerf. Tengu in non-dps subsystem is fine and very much in-line with other cruiser hulls. So the issue is not with the Tengu itself, but rather with a particular subsystem (especially combined with the engineering one that gives +1 launcher). The funky thing is that that particular Tengu configuration, still have a decent balance between the +kinetic bonus and the other damage types. The bonuses applies goes in-line with Caldari in general too. There's two possible solutions to tweak this to make it more reasonable: either a) tweak the RoF bonus, or b) tweak the raw damage bonus itself (preferably keep the separated +kin bonus, to suit the Caldari damage bonus that goes on other ships too). Tengu is fine. Its damage subsystem is not. Drake is fine. In blobs they die too slow. Poems are cool. I can't write em.
what about proteus? thats the most OP of em all.. up to 850k EHP.. 1300 dps drones! and so on.. (if my eft was correct) |
Meldorn Vaash
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:31:00 -
[783] - Quote
I think the Devs should put a hold on the heavy missiles and Hurricane changes until they get to the actual Battlecruiser tiercide changes. That way they can determine if this is a weapon systems/ammo issue or a problem with Battlecruisers in general. Once done, they can adjust the cruiser class shortcomings or overpower issues with the weapon systems.
My 2 cents... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:31:00 -
[784] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Actually, I came right back at Fozzie with proof pudding.
Actually you continued to make completely unsupported assertions and provided no proof whatsoever regarding anything you said. If you would be so kind as to return to the thread and provide fits that back up your ridiculous assertions, that'd be pretty great. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:32:00 -
[785] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:Misanth wrote:Asmodes Reynolds wrote:confirming that ccp is to incompetent to balance their game properly, instead of having unique in vastly different mechanics for their weapons systems and tanking modules to make the game exciting and engaging, where the meta-game is constantly changing and they have decided to make every tanking type, and every weapons system at virtually the same. . A couple patches back in Inferno, they wanted to change shield/armor function virtually the same. Favoring passive/active changing as your choice. Needless to say that's a very bad idea. They started by trying to change the rigs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99872 ( CCP bouncing ideas, are as close to good , as fire is to ice .because none of them actually play it again besides missioning/mining in high-sec ). Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players.. all it will do is dumbed down eve even more. It is gotten so bad that there is very little difference between the races, Beyond what slots they used to tank, and what flavor of gun they put in their high slots. well I admit there is problems with most of the missile boats in the game at the moment I think that is more wrong with ships themselves than the actual missile mechanic. what is going to make this thing easier for new players, is more mechanics built in that facilitates experienced players teaching the new players. Here's some ideas off the top of my head. Reworking the certificate system so that players, make and share certificates among the corporation mates and their alliance mates easily. The certificates could be used for anything such as an easy to look up new player training plan. All the way up to figuring out if you have enough skills to qualify for reimbursement on a particular ship. Because God knows none of the CCP staff are qualified to teach someone how to properly fit a ship or the skills required to properly fitted anymore. I'm going to hazard a guess and say no CCP dev is playing the way the average player does since the T2 lottery scandal. THE FACT THAT NO Dev plays the game the way the majority of pvper play. They have no clue about balancing past they care bearing in hisec. so I urge you to put new player training in the hands of current players and give usThe tools to do it. Instead of dumbing down eve to the lowest of dominator I want your space-babies. This again!
and again. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2196
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:32:00 -
[786] - Quote
Meldorn Vaash wrote:I think the Devs should put a hold on the heavy missiles and Hurricane changes until they get to the actual Battlecruiser tiercide changes. That way they can determine if this is a weapon systems/ammo issue or a problem with Battlecruisers in general. Once done, they can adjust the cruiser class shortcomings or overpower issues with the weapon systems.
My 2 cents...
This is a reasonable opinion, but you must consider that BCs use cruiser weapons, not the other way around. The cruiser rebalance is damn near done and thus the weapons are also going to need balanced.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:32:00 -
[787] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****. I like how you post this with no justification, yet I posted (with reasoning) why the Tengu may be solidified further solidified as the best mission runner. -Liang
B/C everyone wants to run missions with 400dps boats that do **** all damage to smaller ships.
Not like the Golem is going to be heaps better now with the higher DPS, bonuses to hitting smaller ships, and TC/TE effects on larger missiles. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:34:00 -
[788] - Quote
Has there been any clarification on how the TE/TC boost will affect missile range. Is it going to use the optimal bonus? Or the falloff bonus? Or both of them added together? |
Kentren
Blade of the Wolf Klaw
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:35:00 -
[789] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread. I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible. I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons. The meat of this thread however is about missiles. There's a number of missile changes we have planned for the Winter, including the already announced buff to light missiles, a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles. All MissilesIncrease missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players. Light Missiles-Explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40 -Damage increased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant light missiles, including FOF. Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF. Tech Two Missiles-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar-These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time DON'T YOU TOUCH MY MISSILES YOU GO BE STUPID ELSE WHERE |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:38:00 -
[790] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****. I like how you post this with no justification, yet I posted (with reasoning) why the Tengu may be solidified further solidified as the best mission runner. -Liang B/C everyone wants to run missions with 400dps boats that do **** all damage to smaller ships. Not like the Golem is going to be heaps better now with the higher DPS, bonuses to hitting smaller ships, TP bonus, and TC/TE effects on larger missiles. Oh wait, there was that time long ago when LR torpedos were all the rage of Mission running... who knew they'd ever bring that back.
The HAM Tengu puts out > 1000 DPS, and will do so with better damage application and better range than ever before. Please learn how to fit a ship.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:39:00 -
[791] - Quote
Oh yeah, anyone want to talk about the double wammy of ratting in the south where rats Tracking disrupt and spew defender like no other. Guess Missiles are worthless ratting platforms through and through and through down there now.
Good thing they haven't ****** over drones yet. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:39:00 -
[792] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Has there been any clarification on how the TE/TC boost will affect missile range. Is it going to use the optimal bonus? Or the falloff bonus? Or both of them added together?
It sounds like it'll be a separate stat, not tied to either optimal or falloff.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1014
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:39:00 -
[793] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote: re you insane? look at NH vs sleipnir . NH gets a nominal tank and if these changes come barley 350 dps while sleipnir gets nearly 1k dps with 425s+1HAM launcher and usually enough PG and mids for a good XL booster fit. hell even cane gets 800ish dps our equivelent tier 3 BC dosnt even come close even when useing HAMs
Im interested in what DPS your Sliep does at 50km (let me give you a hint, its about 4 dps)
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:40:00 -
[794] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****. I like how you post this with no justification, yet I posted (with reasoning) why the Tengu may be solidified further solidified as the best mission runner. -Liang B/C everyone wants to run missions with 400dps boats that do **** all damage to smaller ships. Not like the Golem is going to be heaps better now with the higher DPS, bonuses to hitting smaller ships, TP bonus, and TC/TE effects on larger missiles. Oh wait, there was that time long ago when LR torpedos were all the rage of Mission running... who knew they'd ever bring that back.
takes ages to train for golem, you should never fly one with out t2 torps and elite skills not to mention maurauders have uber weak sensor strength whhich means another 1 low/mid sacrificed to raise the strength up that ontop of TC TEs? pfft please. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
711
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:40:00 -
[795] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The HAM Tengu puts out > 1000 DPS Uh, please let me know what fit you're using to get that. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:42:00 -
[796] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote: re you insane? look at NH vs sleipnir . NH gets a nominal tank and if these changes come barley 350 dps while sleipnir gets nearly 1k dps with 425s+1HAM launcher and usually enough PG and mids for a good XL booster fit. hell even cane gets 800ish dps our equivelent tier 3 BC dosnt even come close even when useing HAMs
Im interested in what DPS your Sliep does at 50km (let me give you a hint, its about 4 dps)
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/60152-PVE-Arty-Sleipnir-824-DPS-600-Tank.html
^ nuff said. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
721
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:42:00 -
[797] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Those ships are getting their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer in order to make room for other ships to be flown. It really is necessary, and your response is a perfect example of how individual players never have a game's long term interests at heart. They only have their own short term interests in mind, even if it kills the game in the process.
-Liang
Not to mention that there's plenty of threads out there where players rightfully express concern about "stat creep" whenever CCP's response to imbalance is solely to buff a statistic. Either way, these kind of changes inevitably cause complaint regardless of merit.
Power Creep is indeed bad. These generic missiles changes are, too.
All these changes got one thing in common: it streamlines missiles into more like the gunnery platforms. This has been mentioned by numerous posters here already, I shouldn't need to elaborate, but: a) HML changes are non-stop argued by comparison to gunnery dps stats, completely ignoring the innate differences between missiles and guns. b) TD/TE/TC affecting all weapon platforms.
It's a worrysome development, as it hints on CCP (and CSM, if you guys are involved in this) either 1) don't know enough about the innate differences between missiles/guns, 2) don't care and/or have a secret agenda to streamline this (if this is intentional, but not mentioned to players, this is virtually deceiving and no better than lies).
Just see how this thread pans out. * HML nerf pro-posters compare a mid-range platform that has several innate counters guns don't (travel time - and you can outrun missiles too, defenders, smartbombs), with long-range gunnery that operate on completely different terms/mechanics * HML nerf pro-posters tend to even post long-range gun ammo and compare it with optimal ammo type on HML, skewing numbers (and this even disregards the point I just did above, which is quite major) * HML nerf pro-posters tend to ignore that there's alot more natural HML ships that are in a "bad" (not very much used, at all) shape, than there is those two (Drake, Tengu) ones that is. They also fail to present why the Drake and Tengu respectively is being so "overpowered", while, if they had done that, they could identify issues with those ships (and the role they are given) themselves, rather than the HML themselves. * TD/TE/TC affecting all weapon types will have a major impact on the game, it's not something that should and could just be brushed aside as a side-note in a post about missile changes. This is a major game mechanic uphaul that could potentially change the whole shape of PvP as we know it. It deserves as separate thread, and should be broadcasted better to the public.
Yes, you are right that Power Creep is bad. The suggested game mechanic changes here, too, are. Not because the intention is bad (it isn't). Not because, like you suggest, that we somehow are against nerfing overall (not all of us are). But rather because CCP seems to either shoot from the hip and chance with potential game-overhauling changes, or have some hidden agenda is equally game upsetting. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:43:00 -
[798] - Quote
can i get neural remap, that i used for current training, back. since these changes ? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
711
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:44:00 -
[799] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Those ships are getting their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer in order to make room for other ships to be flown. It really is necessary, and your response is a perfect example of how individual players never have a game's long term interests at heart. They only have their own short term interests in mind, even if it kills the game in the process.
-Liang
Not to mention that there's plenty of threads out there where players rightfully express concern about "stat creep" whenever CCP's response to imbalance is solely to buff a statistic. Either way, these kind of changes inevitably cause complaint regardless of merit. Power Creep is indeed bad. These generic missiles changes are, too. All these changes got one thing in common: it streamlines missiles into more like the gunnery platforms. This has been mentioned by numerous posters here already, I shouldn't need to elaborate, but: a) HML changes are non-stop argued by comparison to gunnery dps stats, completely ignoring the innate differences between missiles and guns. b) TD/TE/TC affecting all weapon platforms. It's a worrysome development, as it hints on CCP (and CSM, if you guys are involved in this) either 1) don't know enough about the innate differences between missiles/guns, 2) don't care and/or have a secret agenda to streamline this (if this is intentional, but not mentioned to players, this is virtually deceiving and no better than lies). Just see how this thread pans out. * HML nerf pro-posters compare a mid-range platform that has several innate counters guns don't (travel time - and you can outrun missiles too, defenders, smartbombs), with long-range gunnery that operate on completely different terms/mechanics * HML nerf pro-posters tend to even post long-range gun ammo and compare it with optimal ammo type on HML, skewing numbers (and this even disregards the point I just did above, which is quite major) * HML nerf pro-posters tend to ignore that there's alot more natural HML ships that are in a "bad" (not very much used, at all) shape, than there is those two (Drake, Tengu) ones that is. They also fail to present why the Drake and Tengu respectively is being so "overpowered", while, if they had done that, they could identify issues with those ships (and the role they are given) themselves, rather than the HML themselves. * TD/TE/TC affecting all weapon types will have a major impact on the game, it's not something that should and could just be brushed aside as a side-note in a post about missile changes. This is a major game mechanic uphaul that could potentially change the whole shape of PvP as we know it. It deserves as separate thread, and should be broadcasted better to the public. Yes, you are right that Power Creep is bad. The suggested game mechanic changes here, too, are. Not because the intention is bad (it isn't). Not because, like you suggest, that we somehow are against nerfing overall (not all of us are). But rather because CCP seems to either shoot from the hip and chance with potential game-overhauling changes, or have some hidden agenda is equally game upsetting. This is a good post. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:44:00 -
[800] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The HAM Tengu puts out > 1000 DPS Uh, please let me know what fit you're using to get that.
usually needs 4 CNBCS 5% hardwires. but thats just dmg numbers its actuall applyed dps is much much lower due to hams beign rubish at hitting things smaller then BC usually needing a targetpainter or 2 and/or webs |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:44:00 -
[801] - Quote
Asmodes Reynolds wrote:...Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players... Maybe I missed something that stated that the "missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players" was meant for anything other than the calculation of range. The addition of the TC/TE/TD effects actually complicates fittings for missile ships which before had module types that in no way were useful to them before in ways unique to the weapon system. That's another thing for you to train new players on. |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:45:00 -
[802] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote: re you insane? look at NH vs sleipnir . NH gets a nominal tank and if these changes come barley 350 dps while sleipnir gets nearly 1k dps with 425s+1HAM launcher and usually enough PG and mids for a good XL booster fit. hell even cane gets 800ish dps our equivelent tier 3 BC dosnt even come close even when useing HAMs
Im interested in what DPS your Sliep does at 50km (let me give you a hint, its about 4 dps) http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/60152-PVE-Arty-Sleipnir-824-DPS-600-Tank.html^ nuff said.
Oh, a PvE fit. I thought we were talking about things that actually mattered. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:46:00 -
[803] - Quote
SyntaxPD wrote:can i get neural remap, that i used for current training, back. since these changes ?
Wait a few months. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
711
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:47:00 -
[804] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The HAM Tengu puts out > 1000 DPS Uh, please let me know what fit you're using to get that. usually needs 4 CNBCS 5% hardwires. but thats just dmg numbers its actuall applyed dps is much much lower due to hams beign rubish at hitting things smaller then BC usually needing a targetpainter or 2 and/or webs I have that exact fit on my HML Tengu, so when I switch over I just need to get the 5% AM hardwiring. Still, with all lvl 5 skills, both 5% hardwirings, and 4 CNBCS, I get 988 dps. So it's close to 1000 dps, but again, this is with a fit that very heavily emphasizes DPS. The only real way to get more DPS out of this is to use officer BCS or add a damage rig and forgo range rigs that I'd probably inevitably favor with a HAM setup. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:48:00 -
[805] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote: re you insane? look at NH vs sleipnir . NH gets a nominal tank and if these changes come barley 350 dps while sleipnir gets nearly 1k dps with 425s+1HAM launcher and usually enough PG and mids for a good XL booster fit. hell even cane gets 800ish dps our equivelent tier 3 BC dosnt even come close even when useing HAMs
Im interested in what DPS your Sliep does at 50km (let me give you a hint, its about 4 dps)
I'm interested in this 700 dps fit that totally works with the proposed gun fitting changes:
[Sleipnir, New Setup 1] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Reactor Control Unit II Damage Control II
10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M Heavy Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Heavy Missile
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hammerhead II x3 Warrior II x2
Or several other ASB fits that are also similar.
or the 400 dps it can project out to 50-60km just with weapons and no drones.
or the variety of other ways you can fit it into more of a true sniper boat with 100km range and solid buffer tank. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2201
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:48:00 -
[806] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The HAM Tengu puts out > 1000 DPS Uh, please let me know what fit you're using to get that.
Heh, the original (L4) PVE Tengu was HAM fit. I did a fair amount of campaigning about range and damage application hurting it, but those problems should be getting significantly better with the changes. That was also before the mission MWD changes, so the range really hurt it. The raw damage will go down a bit if you replace one of the BCUs with a TE though.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:51:00 -
[807] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The HAM Tengu puts out > 1000 DPS Uh, please let me know what fit you're using to get that. Heh, the original (L4) PVE Tengu was HAM fit. I did a fair amount of campaigning about range and damage application hurting it, but those problems should be getting significantly better with the changes. That was also before the mission MWD changes, so the range really hurt it. The raw damage will go down a bit if you replace one of the BCUs with a TE though. -Liang Were you the one a few threads ago who bitched at me for doing pimped t2 fits and bonuses, and here you're making an impossible dps statement unless you go with billions in fitting options?
why yes, yes you were the one. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:54:00 -
[808] - Quote
These changes are great !
Infact, making TD/TC/TE to affect missiles is an elegant way to fix BS missiles : they will now be able to hit their target for good applied damages.
And HML are now more in line with turret for long range : they will need to gimp their fit a little to achieve long range, and they will still do 50% more damage than railguns at 70-80km. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
396
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:55:00 -
[809] - Quote
Eek. I don't know what to say. I hate Drakes, but while I'm happy to see them nerfed, I don't think ****-chopping the damage off of heavy missiles is the way to do it. I like the range nerf, but I'd rather see the DPS output stay the same and have explosion radius + velocity nerfed instead. I don't have a problem with Drakes / Tengus doing 400-600 dps to other ships their own size, but the ridiculous range on heavies and the way they hit smaller ships (especially frigates) for so much damage in a way that's so tough to mitigate makes me mad.
Personally I'd leave DPS, keep your range nerf, and bump mitigating factors (sig radius / exp velocity) on heavies up by ~25-40%.
I also dislike the idea of making TEs and TCs (and disruptors) affect missiles. I'm all for having ways to interfere with missiles, but for the love of god don't make them the same module that does turrets. Otherwise EWAR becomes as simple as "Does it use weapons? Put a TD on it, win fight." Make a separate line of missile enhancements and counter modules. It will mean making some new module icons (potentially) but will be much better for the game.
The changes to medium weapons are mind-bogglingly poorly conceived. While I understand that the Omen / Navy Omen have issues fitting a rack of guns, I don't see why you can't fix this by buffing PG output on the relevant ships. You're also completely neglecting hybrids despite the fact that ships like the Brutix are often difficult to fit. The shrinking of med arty grid requirements only seems to make sense as a way to justify kneecapping the Hurricane (since last I checked fitting most arty ships wasn't exactly difficult, and the only ships that are difficult to fit arty on are ones designed for ACs, like the Vaga).
Speaking of which, why are you nerfing the Cane? I made a whole separate thread about this, but seriously, the Cane and Harbinger are like the only BCs in the game that correctly straddle the line between "underpowered garbage" (the rest) and "OP bullsh*t" (the Drake) (tier 3 BCs excluded, of course. They're alright).
I really had high hopes for the "bigger-than-frigates" rounds of changes. The cruisers look OK (although its pretty much impossible to tell from a sheet of default hull facts-- without being able to put them in Pyfa or in game there's not much that can be deduced re: their capabilities), but some of these changes are pretty bizarre. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2204
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:56:00 -
[810] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Were you the one a few threads ago who bitched at me for doing pimped t2 fits and bonuses, and here you're making an impossible dps statement unless you go with billions in fitting options? And then chucked in Overheating stats to boot.
why yes, yes you were the one.
A few comments: - This particular branch of the conversation is about PVE. People regularly faction fit their Tengus. I personally have multiple PVE Tengus that are faction fit. - Those stats are not overheated. - I yelled at you for **** fitting and posting unrealistic PVP fits.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
68
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:56:00 -
[811] - Quote
Heavy Missiles:
Well, I was suggesting a NERF to heavy missile range for a long time now. The aforementioned had a serious advantage over comparable turrets (artillery, beam laser). @ first I didn't like the reduction in damage, but it makes sense when compared to artillery and beam laser @ 60,000m (using long range ammunition).
Increasing heavy assault missiles range by fitting tracking enhancers is interesting, but isn't needed if CCP's removing the penalties of javelin missiles...
So, pilots have to fit 3 damage mods on thier heavy missile-Drakes instead of 2 (I rock 3 now). You'd need 3 damage modules to repilcate what 2 damage modules are capable of doing currently. How much will this really NERF the Tengu? Not that much. Infact, it puts the Tengu inline with a Proteus using railguns or a Legion using pulse lasers @ 45 - 55,000m. However, there's still a significant difference in range and damage maintained @ that range. Solo-Tengu setups will be hit HARD. CCP should also remove the ability of strategic cruisers to fit ganglinks altogether. To make sure Command ships are the first and only choice for that purpose.
Cruisers:
These changes are the most interesting. I'm not going to go into why to much, but the Caracal and Thorax seem to make it out like bandits. I'm waiting to see what will happen with the Rupture and Vexor. I'm worried about the Vexor, but after seeing the Thorax changes I'm worried about the Thorax @tleast in warp scrambler and stasis webifier range. However, the Moa could suprise me esp if they increased the drone bay like they with the Omen.
- end of transmission |
baltec1
Bat Country
2158
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:57:00 -
[812] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: This is a good post.
It isn't.
He ignores the fact turrets will hit for less damage on fast moving targets or miss entirely.
He ignoresthe fact that the other guns need to use their longest range ammo to match the range of missiles.
He ignores the fact that all ships are going to be changed. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
711
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:00:00 -
[813] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:He ignores the fact turrets will hit for less damage on fast moving targets or miss entirely. False. Missiles behave that way. Turrets don't unless that fast moving target is at close range and moving transversal to the attacker.
baltec1 wrote:He ignoresthe fact that the other guns need to use their longest range ammo to match the range of missiles. Not really.
baltec1 wrote:He ignores the fact that all ships are going to be changed. Not really. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:00:00 -
[814] - Quote
While i think some of these changes are indeed needed, the idea of using tracking disrupters to effect missiles seems a very lazy solution.
Instead, why not introduce more missile types, much like we use for ammo (except not ammo duh).
If we had non-t2 heavy missiles that had extended flight time for reduced damage, and larger damage for reduced flight time, i think it would make a LOT more sense.
I mean think about it, this is a missile, it has a limited capacity. To increase the range, you must reduce the size of the warhead and vice versa.
This would seem to me to adress the issue that we have now of massive drake blobs kiting people, as it would be far less enticing to do it if you only had 150dps per ship.
Mind you idk a lot about missiles so vov |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
99
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:01:00 -
[815] - Quote
Oh my god, please stop comparing missiles in a positive light to medium railguns.
They're easily the most broken weapon system in the game. Saying that something still does X% better than railguns is NOT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT. It's like being 35% more intelligent than the kid who has finally learnt that pain means you are damaging your body, or whoever thought that reducing HML damage output by a fifth was a good idea when their damage WASN'T THE PROBLEM, rather it was the damage PROJECTION! They need just as much work as HMLs are GOING to if this change goes through.
It's utterly irrelevant to compare something to the worst of something and then claim that this is excellent, without also taking into effect the fact that beam lasers are a better long range platform than railguns for comparison. AFAIK, beam lasers are actually quite well balanced in terms of damage projection and how much pain they actually cause. They should be more of a benchmark for the HML changes than railguns!
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:04:00 -
[816] - Quote
Wolfstorm wrote:Misanth wrote:Asmodes Reynolds wrote:confirming that ccp is to incompetent to balance their game properly, instead of having unique in vastly different mechanics for their weapons systems and tanking modules to make the game exciting and engaging, where the meta-game is constantly changing and they have decided to make every tanking type, and every weapons system at virtually the same. . A couple patches back in Inferno, they wanted to change shield/armor function virtually the same. Favoring passive/active changing as your choice. Needless to say that's a very bad idea. They started by trying to change the rigs. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99872 ( CCP bouncing ideas, are as close to good , as fire is to ice .because none of them actually play it again besides missioning/mining in high-sec ). Now they're trying to change missiles to match the turret-based weapons, claiming that it'll make it easier for new players.. all it will do is dumbed down eve even more. It is gotten so bad that there is very little difference between the races, Beyond what slots they used to tank, and what flavor of gun they put in their high slots. well I admit there is problems with most of the missile boats in the game at the moment I think that is more wrong with ships themselves than the actual missile mechanic. what is going to make this thing easier for new players, is more mechanics built in that facilitates experienced players teaching the new players. Here's some ideas off the top of my head. Reworking the certificate system so that players, make and share certificates among the corporation mates and their alliance mates easily. The certificates could be used for anything such as an easy to look up new player training plan. All the way up to figuring out if you have enough skills to qualify for reimbursement on a particular ship. Because God knows none of the CCP staff are qualified to teach someone how to properly fit a ship or the skills required to properly fitted anymore. I'm going to hazard a guess and say no CCP dev is playing the way the average player does since the T2 lottery scandal. THE FACT THAT NO Dev plays the game the way the majority of pvper play. They have no clue about balancing past they care bearing in hisec. so I urge you to put new player training in the hands of current players and give usThe tools to do it. Instead of dumbing down eve to the lowest of dominator I want your space-babies. This again!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2158
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:06:00 -
[817] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: False. Missiles behave that way. Turrets don't unless that fast moving target is at close range and moving transversal to the attacker.
Wrong again. Go use rails.
Quote:baltec1 wrote:He ignoresthe fact that the other guns need to use their longest range ammo to match the range of missiles. Not really. Yes really. To get the same range as HML you need the longest range ammo. So wrong again.
baltec1 wrote:He ignores the fact that all ships are going to be changed. Not really.[/quote]
Stike three. CCP are doing every single ship. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
331
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:06:00 -
[818] - Quote
Hmm reduced base range by 25%, IxTC II with Range script or 2x TE II = 30%, hmm why are people complaining?
O right, Tengu having to choose between dps/range/tank.
Lets all look at the armor ships that have been making the DPS/Tank trade off for well EVER.
I wonder how far HAMS will go with a TE II and a TC II. Time to return to the L4 Ham Tengus.
As for the Cane, 220 being the order of the day, fine with me. Just hope the prices of those things doesn't sky rocket now EVERY Cane has to use them.
*Edit, I remember a hole list of people gleefully telling "whiny highsec miners too choose between yield and tank" Tengu gets the same options and suddenly lessons forgot. Wonder what group of people will ***** next because its their turn. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:09:00 -
[819] - Quote
lets not forget how acheingly long we gotta wait for the first volly to hit the target while guns hit instantly. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1014
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:09:00 -
[820] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote: re you insane? look at NH vs sleipnir . NH gets a nominal tank and if these changes come barley 350 dps while sleipnir gets nearly 1k dps with 425s+1HAM launcher and usually enough PG and mids for a good XL booster fit. hell even cane gets 800ish dps our equivelent tier 3 BC dosnt even come close even when useing HAMs
Im interested in what DPS your Sliep does at 50km (let me give you a hint, its about 4 dps) I'm interested in this 700 dps fit that totally works with the proposed gun fitting changes: [Sleipnir, New Setup 1] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Reactor Control Unit II Damage Control II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M Heavy Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Heavy Missile Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hammerhead II x3 Warrior II x2 Or several other ASB fits that are also similar. or the 400 dps it can project out to 50-60km just with weapons and no drones. or the variety of other ways you can fit it into more of a true sniper boat with 100km range and solid buffer tank.
You keep talking about the DPS output of artillery, I don't think you get how artillery works.
Also Yaay, while you're extolling the your own virtues while bashing my ingame knowledge why dont you tell the audience about your Ahac Sac fleet that went so well.
Your arguments are all strawman bullshit backed up with 4 damage mod fits purpose built to suit your argument and ignoring the actual practices used in game.
You say nobody uses Arty lokis, when YOUR alliance actually uses arty lokis.
You fail to address any of the core issues, those being that HML's perform far above the parameters of every other lr medium ship weapons platform, on EVERY ship, its just that the Drake and Tengu are shining examples of exactly what is wrong with the ship. The only time the other weapons systems outperform missiles is generally under 10km, then their higher DPS numbers come into play.
But please, do just fling out more insults instead of backing it up with functioning in game knowledge since you only play during the summer when the kids are out of school (and then only if the group you're with massages your delicate little ego, which we wouldn't do for you).
Tell me this Yaay, if missiles are so well balanced, why does AAA rely only on that particular fleet comp for its heavy lifting? Why haven't you moved them all over to arty sleips?
|
|
Aracturus
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:09:00 -
[821] - Quote
No. Bad idea. Shouldn't a ships effectiveness scale with it's price? Cruisers and frigates being more powerful is nice and all, but I really don't see how making two of the commonly used battlecruisers less useful or powerful really helps anything. Consider the drake, which on a good day gets about 300dps, and can hit out to somewhere around 70k. suddenly, by reducing heavy missile flight time and damage, you're reducing the dps of a ship that's already pretty pathetic to somewhere around 225 dps - which most cruisers can tank pretty easily.
I don't care about the range, but nerfing the damage of HMLs all the while buffing other weapons systems seems like you are trying to target someone in particular. someone who may just use lots and lots of drakes.
Take that as you will Fozzie, but my opinion/support of your balance changes drops with every change you propose - not because the changes aren't needed, but because you seem to miss the point. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:10:00 -
[822] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Bla Railguns are worse system ever
Actually, 70km is the range were railguns start to become even or better than beams. Yes railguns are bad until this range, but don't take the only thing they have please. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1014
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:10:00 -
[823] - Quote
I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.
Ahac HAM Sac's. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:10:00 -
[824] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:baltec1 wrote:He ignores the fact turrets will hit for less damage on fast moving targets or miss entirely. False. Missiles behave that way. Turrets don't unless that fast moving target is at close range and moving transversal to the attacker. Doesn't the tracking formula also work to determine (though from what I understand indirectly) hit quality? Meaning that smaller targets with higher transversal would receive less of the damage output then a larger stationary target?
Also, in my experience, it's much easier to miss high tranvsersal targets with turrets than it is to have missiles miss unless dealing with particularly high-speed fits. |
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:10:00 -
[825] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:I'm Down wrote:But then again, it's Grath, a clueless emo **** who doesn't know jack **** about this game even though he talks a big game since he's in "PL" Sounds awfully like you, except you don't get to claim the last part anymore, thankfully. I honestly don't know whose more thankful.
Without meaning to come @ you in a theorycrafting thread, I'm going to because I don't like you.
I am, without a doubt, the most thankful. The fact that you were in MY alliance because of shadoo's weakness for collecting burnt out FC's from failed alliances made me physically sick. Your arroance, ignorance, and unbelivable ability to be at the 'top' of this game's playerbase while maintaining an astounding incompetence amazes me.
Nothing you say has any merit, all the way back to when you basically destroyed the morale of an entire alliance which led to its complete removal from the game (RISE) almost 5 years ago, to when you lost the majority of a supercapital fleet to sheer incompotence while only saving the rest of it through luck and broken game mechanics a few months ago.
We don't need you in this thread, you are not worth the time it took for you to install EFT. Go back to despertely theorycrafting dumbass fleet comps for your alliance to run away in so i can swat your hilarious attempts to theorycraft out of the window without even trying.
Kind regards,
Mr Rive. |
Aracturus
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:11:00 -
[826] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: Tell me this Yaay, if missiles are so well balanced, why does AAA rely only on that particular fleet comp for its heavy lifting? Why haven't you moved them all over to arty sleips?
-A- doesn't even undock, and they use missile boats because we killed all their lokis. |
Boogie Jones
The Milkmen Test Alliance Please Ignore
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:14:00 -
[827] - Quote
Nerfing the crap out of the tier2 battlecruiser class is a terrible move. You managed to bring the cyclone back into prominence and created a wildcard in fleet warfare with tier3 battlecruisers. The Hurricane is a solid workhorse and reliable pvp ship. Leave the guy alone. Adjust the artillery pg accordingly. CptBen: this was the rare nice CptBen, ill probably be back later and boogie will agravate me and ill call you all scrubs |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:18:00 -
[828] - Quote
grath, please differentiate between the ships and the weapon system. if HMLs were really so awesomesauce, the navy caracal would be right up there in the top20. and one more thing: if the drake was BAD, less people would train for the tengu and it would probably fall in line with the loki and proteus on the kill boards.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:18:00 -
[829] - Quote
According to eve-kill.net; the heavy missile launcher is used almost 35% of the time. Followed by 425mm auto cannons being used 8%.
Some of you go on and on about how it is balanced with the other medium weapons, but why is it used so much more than any other medium weapon platform in the game?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Selinate
995
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:21:00 -
[830] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: ....because HML's were too awesome, not because HAMS were bad.
No it was because HAM's were bad along with Medium Beams and Rails and the ships they go on. Cutting this basically means the only LR Medium Weapon boat that is semi viable is the Cane with its Double Dmg Bonus. They should not be nerfing the Drakes Dmg by 20% they should be fixing LR Medium Guns so they don't require a double Dmg bonus like on the Cane and can actually be used on Cruisers and Battlecruisers.
For fucks' sake, this.
Has anyone ever tried to use a set of medium beams?
Go try it. It's terrible. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
711
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:22:00 -
[831] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: False. Missiles behave that way. Turrets don't unless that fast moving target is at close range and moving transversal to the attacker.
Wrong again. Go use rails. Quote:baltec1 wrote:He ignoresthe fact that the other guns need to use their longest range ammo to match the range of missiles. Not really. Yes really. To get the same range as HML you need the longest range ammo. So wrong again. baltec1 wrote:He ignores the fact that all ships are going to be changed. Not really.
Stike three. CCP are doing every single ship.[/quote] As for the first, I get your point.
As for the others, I mean "not really" as in "he's not really ignoring that." http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:25:00 -
[832] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.
Ahac HAM Sac's.
They were never HAM sacs you ****. At least get the concept right before you bash it. An god forbid this game has someone try new things out. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
303
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:25:00 -
[833] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:According to eve-kill.net; the heavy missile launcher is used almost 35% of the time. Followed by 425mm auto cannons being used 8%. Some of you go on and on about how it is balanced with the other medium weapons, but why is it used so much more than any other medium weapon platform in the game?
Because drakes scale very well into large nullsec blobs. They are easy to orbit anchor f1 with and receive reps better than any other bc besides the lolprophecy.
|
Rex Augustus
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:27:00 -
[834] - Quote
MisterNick wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:At which point do you factor in the fact that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) have travel times and that missiles (unlike beams and projectiles) can be destroyed by smart bombs. Have you ever seen that actually done?
Yes. And if you haven't, it's because you aren't flying with the right people, because this sure as **** happens.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
359
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:29:00 -
[835] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:According to eve-kill.net; the heavy missile launcher is used almost 35% of the time. Followed by 425mm auto cannons being used 8%. Some of you go on and on about how it is balanced with the other medium weapons, but why is it used so much more than any other medium weapon platform in the game? where would HMLs be without 100k ehp drakes and 100mn tengus? also consider that there are several different medium turret calibers while there are only 3 different medium launchers.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:31:00 -
[836] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread.
Ahemm... CCP. Why can't you actually improve one area of your game without screwing up another? Seems possible to me... Right now it looks like every new "improvement' is actually a Dev team meddling with next year's battle strategies of the game.
Devs breaking the mechanics of one fleet strategy by changing one ship, while adjusting another ship is mere meddling. EVE will be balanced when there are multiple "favorites" fleet doctrines.
All the turret based ships can shout "yay, down with the Drake" but that merely gives turret pilots the upper-hand at the expense of missile pilots. Fact is your missile nerfs are unnecessary at best. And stinks of gamer politics at worst.
Regards, Isaiah Harms
|
Celes Jaynara
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:32:00 -
[837] - Quote
Two step wrote:I think these sound good, but of course people will need to play with them on the test server. Its a good thing I hate the CSM and never thought they were out for the common good of the game and its player base and not just its own ends. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1016
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:35:00 -
[838] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.
Ahac HAM Sac's. They were never HAM sacs you ****. At least get the concept right before you bash it. An god forbid this game has someone try new things out. Also, we got a **** ton of kills for being outnumbered 3 to 1 and screwed over by several groups in that fight who we were "in discussions with." So maybe you should get all the facts out there bro.
Yea, i wonder why you put heavy missiles on them, maybe because the heavies were easier to fit than any other long range weapon system and comes without any real draw backs other than delayed DPS. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1016
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:36:00 -
[839] - Quote
Also please sit and defend your heavy missile after burning sacs more because it wasn't completely discounted as anything anybody would ever want to use long ago. |
BinaryData
Scorpius Federation Kleinrock Group
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:37:00 -
[840] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread. I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible. I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons. The meat of this thread however is about missiles. There's a number of missile changes we have planned for the Winter, including the already announced buff to light missiles, a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles. All MissilesIncrease missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players. Light Missiles-Explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40 -Damage increased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant light missiles, including FOF. Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF. Tech Two Missiles-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar-These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Congrats Fozzie. You've just made Caldari, just as useless as Gallente is. Can I get my 5mill SP+ in Missile Operation back? Cause this is stupid as f***.
You do realize that missiles are DIFFERENT than turret based weapons.
I'm glad I'm quitting this sh*t tastic game. You guys swing the nerf hammer, and break it into a billion pieces, then takes a year or LONGER to fix it. My god, when will you imbeciles LEARN.
Furthermore, why don't you stop this stupid "ship rebalancing" and balance large scale PvP? Since thats what EVE has evolved into, or are you just going to continue to let blob warfare ruin the game?
Edit: Further more, while you're at it, why don't you make the Amarr crystals have a reload timer, the curse shouldn't have a 100% chance to nuet someone for x amount, it should be a base amount from x amount to y amount. Pilgrims will need a nerf as well, cause you just made them the new OP Falcon. |
|
lil Pheonix
H4V0K. Parental Discretion Advised.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:38:00 -
[841] - Quote
I must admitt. Taking the 425mm's off the Hurricane is kind of lame, CCP you're doiing it wrong |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:39:00 -
[842] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.
Ahac HAM Sac's.
i just had to try this out
[Sacrilege, New Setup 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
10MN Afterburner II Warp Disruptor II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Nova Javelin Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Anti-Thermic Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
might not be so bad with the updated TC... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1016
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:41:00 -
[843] - Quote
Yaay has corrected me, they were HML AB Sacs....yea, I said it. |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:41:00 -
[844] - Quote
Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks). Do not nerf Hurricane powergrid.
If you destroy the battlecruisers to fix cruiser aren't you just making more work (and grief) for everyone down the road?
Oh... and whoever reading this:
IF YOU SUCK SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF DRAKES... go play Wow.
|
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:42:00 -
[845] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.
Ahac HAM Sac's. They were never HAM sacs you ****. At least get the concept right before you bash it. An god forbid this game has someone try new things out. Also, we got a **** ton of kills for being outnumbered 3 to 1 and screwed over by several groups in that fight who we were "in discussions with." So maybe you should get all the facts out there bro.
No one in PL likes you
your personality is terrible
enjoy -a-
lol |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:42:00 -
[846] - Quote
How will this effect missioning and running plexes? The 20% nerf to damage can mean the difference between being able to break the tank on a commander or not. (I know because I've experienced it in a DED 6/10 in a tengu)
Any thought went into the rest of the effects other than just the Drake mass fleets in null? |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
725
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:42:00 -
[847] - Quote
Ana Fox wrote:Proletariat Tingtango wrote:So hey look, I hated drakefleet and i dont mind the pvp ramifications, but what am I supposed to make money with in nullsec as a low-sp pilot? I can salvage off of kinder vets sometimes, but that's a finite and pretty limited source of isk. I'm just now able to do forsaken hubs on my own, and that's my only steady source of isk. With these nerfs on the board it really sounds like you're dicking low-sp pilots that live in nullsec out of one of their major sources of income, which wasn't that major to begin with.
I was also slowly training for a tengu to rat and now i'm second guessing that. Did you guys even think this nerf through? Do you actually want people to never use the drake or heavy-missile based ships ever again?
It seems like you could have reduced the viability of heavy missiles in pvp without completely screwing low-sp income sources.
Edit: And if anyone tells me that I should mine I will take a veldspar asteroid and cram it waaayyy up your ass. This is my main concern.New players will be those who will have hard time.When I say new I think those that are up to 6-7 months old.It is not problem to get other ships more used it is that they / we dont have what other ships to use to be if nothing close to effective as those two are mostly reason for this nerf it seems. I would not have problem to use T2 cruiser on my Caldari pilot ,but that T2 suck so bad . I will say same as I did in my previous post ,HML was op in some things like range and same dps application no matter of target distance ,but was that dmg so much op to be 20% less now with this proposed changes? Again I would not have problem if I am player that is two years old and you have gunnery and cross trained ship options,but sadly I dont have.For us it will be even more hard to get involved in some cool stuff older players do just cause some went Caldari way. Lucky for me I have one more pilot with gunnery :/.
That's the least of all concerns you could have. When I was that young my corp moved to Angel space. There was no Drake in the game, and I was still getting my core capacitor, drone and gunnery up to give my basic Amarr skills. I ended up flying an Armageddon with medium size pulse lasers and five heavy drones, as the Prophecy had too low damage output, there was no rigs in the game, t2 modules was too expensive to fit, and I had no large guns yet (or could sustain them, capwise). I still managed. And I often did rat in pair with some of the corpmates, depending on who was on.
What is more interesting is whether CCP realises they are doing a blanket generalised nerf over a whole weapontype, when what is considered the 'powerful' aspect is two single ships (and for various reasons, damage is not a mutual theme). I.e. our devs have no clue what they are doing.
As for the young-guys ratting: in todays environment where we have rigs, t2 modules are cheap, and hell you could even easily afterburn tank and stack damage mod on a regular t1 cruiser and still get more damage out of it than I did back then.. you'll be fine. There's belt rattings, you don't have to run anomalies. If you're not prepared, you're not prepared, simply put. If you make less isk, then fly cheaper ships in fleets. For my first 1year+ I purely flew t1 frigates, even tho at the end I had bs 5. When you make more isk, then you can spend more isk. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:44:00 -
[848] - Quote
Nothing is keeping you from using modules, rigs and implants to make those 425mm's fit.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:44:00 -
[849] - Quote
Um, Fozzie... what about the Cerberus, Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Nighthawk?
I would rather see the Drake lose a launcher than to see the Caracal et al. get hurt this badly. The Cerberus is now out classed by the Sacrilege. The Nighthawk needed a buff, not a nerf. The Caracal heavy missile damage was always just decent, never a problem. Since when was the Navy Caracal ever a problem? (Yes, I understand that these ships we will need to be balanced, but the HM change that addresses the Drake hurts ships that needed a buff.)
I donGÇÖt even know where to post this under since two or three threads are involved. The Caracal changes are meh at best. One launcher does not equal 3 medium drones. The Bellicose now just out classes it. The EW cruiser that is supposed to be on the slower side is faster than an Attack cruiser that is supposed to be on the faster side. Two low slots mean trying to gain back damage the Caracal was robbed of.
The speed and fittings can help with HAMs (and maybe a DCU) so that is good, but you are way better off in a faster, higher DPS, TP bonus Bellicose. (And you wanted to give that thing 5 medium drones? o.O; I knew the Bellicose changes would make it out class the Caracal. I honestly feel let down.) The LM buff does help it too, but only in a limited way. I just canGÇÖt get excited about this. The typical HM Caracal gains some speed, loses some damage, and gains some EHP. Compared to the boosts to the other ships, this isnGÇÖt much. It feels more like a nerf, but IGÇÖll bet most plays just see how this affects Drake and are happy. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2159
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:44:00 -
[850] - Quote
BinaryData wrote:
Congrats Fozzie. You've just made Caldari, just as useless as Gallente is. Can I get my 5mill SP+ in Missile Operation back? Cause this is stupid as f***.
You do realize that missiles are DIFFERENT than turret based weapons.
I'm glad I'm quitting this sh*t tastic game. You guys swing the nerf hammer, and break it into a billion pieces, then takes a year or LONGER to fix it. My god, when will you imbeciles LEARN.
Furthermore, why don't you stop this stupid "ship rebalancing" and balance large scale PvP? Since thats what EVE has evolved into, or are you just going to continue to let blob warfare ruin the game?
Missiles will still be different just not to the point of outclassing everything else. As a Gallente pilot I am very much looking forwards to beating up your drakes with railguns. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:44:00 -
[851] - Quote
JEFFRAIDER wrote:No one in PL likes you your personality is terrible enjoy -a- lol
omg, online space ship personalities are my crutch. |
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:45:00 -
[852] - Quote
what ships were already using TE and TC and used to fit handicapped missiles just to fill spare highs with extra dps? Minmatar turret\missiles ships are going to completely replace caldari with missiles only in pve
|
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:45:00 -
[853] - Quote
Here are my tears. Take them and leave me alone. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
398
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:46:00 -
[854] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks). Do not nerf Hurricane powergrid.
If you destroy the battlecruisers to fix cruiser aren't you just making more work (and grief) for everyone down the road?
Oh... and whoever reading this:
IF YOU SUCK SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF DRAKES... go play Wow.
How come you didn't sign your post this time? Where are our regards?? |
baltec1
Bat Country
2159
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:47:00 -
[855] - Quote
Obsidiana wrote:Um, Fozzie... what about the Cerberus, Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Nighthawk?
I would rather see the Drake lose a launcher than to see the Caracal et al. get hurt this badly. The Cerberus is now out classed by the Sacrilege. The Nighthawk needed a buff, not a nerf. The Caracal heavy missile damage was always just decent, never a problem. Since when was the Navy Caracal ever a problem? (Yes, I understand that these ships we will need to be balanced, but the HM change that addresses the Drake hurts ships that needed a buff.)
The Caracal is getting two more low slots and more tank. |
BinaryData
Scorpius Federation Kleinrock Group
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:47:00 -
[856] - Quote
Oh yeah,
Fix AFK cloaky camping. Covert Ops cloak needs an overhaul. Permanent cloaking shouldn't be available, balance Citadel Torps & Cruise Missiles, my god a damn Erebus can out run the explosion radius of a Cit Torp. 20m/s? Are you kidding? The only crap that its good for is shooting stationary objects.
Fix stuff thats actually broken, i.e. Drake tank needs to be nerfed, it can have as much friggin' eHP as a plated battleship. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:48:00 -
[857] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).
i dont get it a beam harby with 3 heats with long range ammo does 305 dps
a similar fir for the drake gets 395 dps... take away 20% you get 316... i say take away 15% wich would be 335 which is a ok for me...
by low dps what do you mean? Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:49:00 -
[858] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks). Do not nerf Hurricane powergrid.
If you destroy the battlecruisers to fix cruiser aren't you just making more work (and grief) for everyone down the road?
Oh... and whoever reading this:
IF YOU SUCK SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF DRAKES... go play Wow.
How is nerfing the Drake and Hurricane destroying all the battlecruisers? You do realize there is more than those two right?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
933
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:49:00 -
[859] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:I'll wait right here while Yaay cooks up a few more fits that nobody uses and nobody will for multiple various easily seen reasons.
Ahac HAM Sac's. They were never HAM sacs you ****. At least get the concept right before you bash it. An god forbid this game has someone try new things out.
It's very easy to bash Yaay, but the man has a point and a very solid track record. I for one hope your offer of sitting down with the devs still stands, I'm sure Ytterbium and Fozzie would greatly appreciate your input. In only Greyscale listened to your critiques Titan blobbing would be a thing of the past.
I'm Down wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We're probably going with the square-over-square scaling, so you're hitting the 50% damage point around 1400 sig rather than around 1000, which *somewhat* mitigates this. The real solution here though is improvements to the tracking formula, and we're reluctant right now to go overboard with this stuff in the meantime, plus it's getting late in the day and we need to lock down something workable ASAP so we can ship it next week.
Alright, now I'm going into true ******* mode. This is why your player base has such a horrible connection to you developers. We try to help you and give you massive feedback, and you just **** on everything we do and say so that you can rush in a **** ass patch which I see you're now leaning towards **** ass mechanics once again. I mean, do you even get the point that this game is not spreadsheets online? At what point did you guys think that "omg, this spreadsheet looks good so this idea must be good." YOUR new latest greatest idea does nothing at all to address titan blobbing. It doesn't address titans in bulk on a field. It doesn't address tracking issues as range increases. It doesn't address natural titan counters with the 1 small exception that it removed maelstroms from being as useful a tool against capital fleets since they get hammered even harder now. And if you played the game, you'd see how this is a further buff to titans since the counter to carriers supporting titans just got a nerf.. It very weakly addresses the ability of the ship to hit. And then you throw back in the bullshit artificial damage modification with a small tweak even though we've already addressed in mass why this is a horrible idea. How do you expect the player base to ever get along with you when you make such poor decisions in haste. I mean this is exactly why we have gotten so emo over the years to the point of nearly collapsing your company last fall. I even offered to sit down and have a chat with you in real time free of charge so as to help you along this process which seemed ignored. It's amazing since I'm Literally the most experienced Super Capital FC in game in terms of combat applications and I fly with the most seasoned alliance in terms of Super capitals as well. And that's not even trying to gloat... it's just raw fact. I mean jesus christ, make the proper fix or just delay the fix. But stop doing this ass backwards approach. Next Server patch, Nuke the tracking by half with further changes down the llne and leave it at that. At least it will have some small effect with promises of larger fixes on the way. Then you can go fix your damn tracking formula and make all the appropriate and reasonable sig adjustments there as I've already explained to you how to do.
~ |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:49:00 -
[860] - Quote
don't worry everyone, iterations, future eve, and all.... its only going to be a year or so more. |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:50:00 -
[861] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Yaay has corrected me, they were HML AB Sacs....yea, I said it.
well the 5% to cap recharge is a pointless bonus for the ship...
how about something usefull like a flight time bonus... not as good as velocity but not OP either... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:50:00 -
[862] - Quote
BinaryData wrote:Fix AFK cloaky camping. Remove local, problem solved.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
398
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:50:00 -
[863] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks). Do not nerf Hurricane powergrid.
If you destroy the battlecruisers to fix cruiser aren't you just making more work (and grief) for everyone down the road?
Oh... and whoever reading this:
IF YOU SUCK SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF DRAKES... go play Wow. How is nerfing the Drake and Hurricane destroying all the battlecruisers? You do realize there is more than those two right?
In fairness to him, the other ones are, for the most part, complete garbage. The Harb is good, but the other non-tier-3 BCs are pretty bad :\ |
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:51:00 -
[864] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).
i dont get it a beam harby with 3 heats with long range ammo does 305 dps a similar fir for the drake gets 395 dps... take away 20% you get 316... i say take away 15% wich would be 335 which is a ok for me... by low dps what do you mean?
Now, if you're going to use lasers, you going o shoot with EM\thermal. Put Em or thermal on drake... |
BinaryData
Scorpius Federation Kleinrock Group
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:51:00 -
[865] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).
i dont get it a beam harby with 3 heats with long range ammo does 305 dps a similar fir for the drake gets 395 dps... take away 20% you get 316... i say take away 15% wich would be 335 which is a ok for me... by low dps what do you mean?
RoF with Max skills is still roughly 8 seconds or so. I have L5 on all but 2 skills, and the RoF is still around 8 seconds. Most battlecruiser class ships have a 6second or lower RoF. Not to mention damage is instant, and missiles take 2 - 4 seconds to reach their target, depending on the range.
If anything the damage should be nerfed by 5 -10%, and the flight time of missiles needs to be boosted. Faster flying missiles for less dps, makes sense to me.
Tengu's don't need to be nerfed by this, they already take god damn forever to get into, not to mention if you die in one, you lose SP. Might as well do that for drakes too. You're "balancing" the wrong stuff, once again. |
El 'Terrible
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:51:00 -
[866] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:According to eve-kill.net; the heavy missile launcher is used almost 35% of the time. Followed by 425mm auto cannons being used 8%. LOL
That probably has to do with the fact that the Drake regularly has at least twice the amount of kills of any other ship, the problem isn't the HML at all (Drakes can do 3-400dps max) its the huge buffer the Drake is able to fit, thats reason its used so much.
Rebalancing the amount of CPU the drake has as well as considering removing a midslot would be more appropriate, completely nerfing missiles is not the solution.
|
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:53:00 -
[867] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Oh yeah, anyone want to talk about the double wammy of ratting in the south where rats Tracking disrupt and spew defender like no other. Guess Missiles are worthless ratting platforms through and through and through down there now.
Good thing they haven't ****** over drones yet.
You forgot to add "Where the bots are printing isks." |
Ynot Eyob
Nisroc Angels The Obsidian Front
268
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:54:00 -
[868] - Quote
Whatttttt ??!
Canes are already a soft target compared with others, now even softer?!
This make absolute no sence to me Nisroc Angels Nisroc - Angel of Freedom Nisroc is known as "The Great Eagle".
|
Shade Millith
Fortis Defensor.
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:54:00 -
[869] - Quote
Frankly, HML's are going to be pretty useless for everything now. PVE and PVP.
I'd have rather you'd have removed 50% range than 20% damage. At least Turrets have the OPTION to vastly increase their damage close up.
So, unless that Fury ammo has a 40% damage increase, you've pretty much nerfed it into the ground.
Not to mention you're already gearing up to further nerf the drake into the ground.
Stop flailing around randomly with a sledge hammer, and start carefully adjusting things.
EDIT : And what about HAM's? Not that TD's effect them, they're even worse.
Why use a Close range weapon system that hits things worse than longer range, that then are impacted even more by TD? |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
99
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:55:00 -
[870] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Aglais wrote:Bla Railguns are worse system ever
Actually, 70km is the range were railguns start to become even or better than beams. Yes railguns are bad until this range, but don't take the only thing they have please.
Ok, so they have the highest operational range. Fascinating. But what's their peak damage output compared to beams and artillery? Range is pretty much all they have going for them. If you can present to me a DPS graph in which two ships in the same class, one using medium railguns, and the other using any other kind of long range weapon system for cruisers of the same size rating, with the railgun ship somehow doing more peak DPS than the other, then I'll change my view. |
|
Selaya Ataru
Pink Kitten Kommando To The Moon
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:56:00 -
[871] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks). Do not nerf Hurricane powergrid.
If you destroy the battlecruisers to fix cruiser aren't you just making more work (and grief) for everyone down the road?
Oh... and whoever reading this:
IF YOU SUCK SO MUCH THAT YOU ARE STILL AFRAID OF DRAKES... go play Wow. How is nerfing the Drake and Hurricane destroying all the battlecruisers? You do realize there is more than those two right? In fairness to him, the other ones are, for the most part, complete garbage. The Harb is good, but the other non-tier-3 BCs are pretty bad :\
Ferox is the thing for gas mining though. |
Goldensaver
Vorbild Industries Inc. State Section 9
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:57:00 -
[872] - Quote
You know what, I was sceptical about these changes at first, but so far, I have to say I'm liking the looks of things.
The HML nerfs seemed just a bit overboard, though still quite needed, the buffs to T2 missiles was long since due (penalties were alright, but stacking for each launcher?) and I really like that.
The changes to the T2 ammo overall will be good, as Fury/Rage were meant to be used on larger targets, and it's acceptable that they're inferior on same sized targets.
Light missiles needed the buff, as they have anemic levels of DPS.
Precisions will be even better against smaller targets than before, and you won't have to try and weigh if you're losing more DPS by changing to them or not each time it comes time to use them.
Overall, though I wasn't sure, I've thought it over today, and I like the looks of things.
Except for for the Cerberus and Nighthawk, those things are boned until the rebalancing for them hits. |
Aramis Defranzac
Wild.Stallions The Misfits Of Eve
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:57:00 -
[873] - Quote
Yikes, decreasing damage and range, with a slight velocity increase, hmm time to run the numbers...
Very scepticle.
At this point you might as well turn Rage Torps into a raging smart bomb, that's its new range :P
Dear Santa Claus,
Please fix the torps on my Phoenix so that I don't get laughed at by my friends on the playground :)
o7
|
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:58:00 -
[874] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant.
Fitting a full rack of 720's already requires a PG implant or ACR. Moron.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
Oh yes... because pro pvp'ers fit mixed gun sizes all the time. Thanks for the tip, ya big moron!
Proposition. CCP Fozzie to be removed from this team.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2159
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:58:00 -
[875] - Quote
Shade Millith wrote:Frankly, HML's are going to be pretty useless for everything now. PVE and PVP.
I'd have rather you'd have removed 50% range than 20% damage. At least Turrets have the OPTION to vastly increase their damage close up.
So, unless that Fury ammo has a 40% damage increase, you've pretty much nerfed it into the ground.
Not to mention you're already gearing up to further nerf the drake into the ground.
Stop flailing around randomly with a sledge hammer, and start carefully adjusting things.
HML will still do more damage at long range than the other long range med weapons... |
Jackie Butters
Orion's Fist Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:59:00 -
[876] - Quote
One thing people have overlooked is that if you fire light, heavy or cruise missiles at someone, if you unlock the target...the missiles still hit that target. So how would tracking enhancers, and computers affect that...it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, the missiles have a max flight time, and precise velocity, I propose, that you be able to web missiles, shoot missiles, or require more people to use defender missiles, which is something that everyone likes to ignore.
How would a TE/TC/TD affect how far/accurate, my GUIDED MISSILES ARE? whole point is that they can guide themselves once launched, whereas this is an interesting proposition it still requires you to invent a new module for it, MISSILE DISRUPTORS .
With all due respect, you've got to stop letting your children write forum posts. Because this is ridiculous :p all kidding aside, it looks like a lot of the noob posts. lacking forsight, and common sense. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2159
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:59:00 -
[877] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant.
Fitting a full rack of 720's already requires a PG implant or ACR. Moron.
Their PG is getting reduced. Perhaps you should read these things before acting like a fool. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:01:00 -
[878] - Quote
BinaryData wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).
i dont get it a beam harby with 3 heats with long range ammo does 305 dps a similar fir for the drake gets 395 dps... take away 20% you get 316... i say take away 15% wich would be 335 which is a ok for me... by low dps what do you mean? RoF with Max skills is still roughly 8 seconds or so. I have L5 on all but 2 skills, and the RoF is still around 8 seconds. Most battlecruiser class ships have a 6second or lower RoF. Not to mention damage is instant, and missiles take 2 - 4 seconds to reach their target, depending on the range. If anything the damage should be nerfed by 5 -10%, and the flight time of missiles needs to be boosted. Faster flying missiles for less dps, makes sense to me. Tengu's don't need to be nerfed by this, they already take god damn forever to get into, not to mention if you die in one, you lose SP. Might as well do that for drakes too. You're "balancing" the wrong stuff, once again.
i know what delayed dps is i usually fly drone ships...
thing is you get damage selection... i would not be surprised to see once we get to BC balance you see that kin bonus be replaced with a rate of fire bonus...
then it wont mater what damage type you select it will be the same dps...
i think 20% is too harsh but 15% is great for me... as a weapon system 15% reduction puts the weapon in line and takes into account all its negative and positive attributes...
now the big question is what is this going to do to stealth bomber gangs... those torps are going to be stupid now... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
El 'Terrible
The Scope Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:02:00 -
[879] - Quote
. |
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:02:00 -
[880] - Quote
LOL ppl u dont understand that HMLs were overpowerd all the time.
With all 5 skills on unbonused ship:
720mm Howitrzer Artillery II ammo: Tremor M
54km optimal 22km falloff with 16,8 DPS
+ insta dmg - one DMG type for long range ammo - full DPS only @ 54km then its going down for next 22km - might have tracking issues
Heavy Missile Launcher II Caldari navy scourge Heavy Missile
84.4km range 38.2dps
+ full dps @ full range + cba on tracking - can be smartbombed or target can run - low signature + high speed are lowering DPS
|
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:02:00 -
[881] - Quote
SyntaxPD wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote:Proposition:
Do not nerf Drake DPS (it already sucks).
i dont get it a beam harby with 3 heats with long range ammo does 305 dps a similar fir for the drake gets 395 dps... take away 20% you get 316... i say take away 15% wich would be 335 which is a ok for me... by low dps what do you mean? Now, if you're going to use lasers, you going o shoot with EM\thermal. Put Em or thermal on drake...
oh cool lasers can do kin and ex damage now?
wait until the drake gets a rebalance expect that kin damage bonus to be replaced with a rate of fire bonus... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
725
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:04:00 -
[882] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Pink Marshmellow wrote:Watch me fit all my ships with tracking disruptors.
Watch everyone fit tracking disruptors on their ship.
Watch everyone whine that they can't kill each other or its taking forever.
CCP nerfs TD to oblivion and makes its useless for 3 years.
CCP balancing process sucks it takes forever just to change a few digits.
You still haven't fix core philosophy problems with Gallente ships being slow armor tank and having the shortest range guns.
Railguns are the biggest POS of eve. Soon "Because of Falcon" will be replaced by "Because of Pilgrim."
I wish. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:09:00 -
[883] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:Soon "Because of Falcon" will be replaced by "Because of Pilgrim." I wish. Don't think it's too far-fetched. As it is they are gonna have to nerf the hell outta TDs on unbonused ships, or it's just gonna be RSDs / old-skool ECM all over again.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1330
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:09:00 -
[884] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant.
Fitting a full rack of 720's already requires a PG implant or ACR. Moron. CCP Fozzie wrote: Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
Oh yes... because pro pvp'ers fit mixed gun sizes all the time. Thanks for the tip, ya big moron! Proposition. CCP Fozzie to be removed from this team.
CCP Fozzie and the team he is on is the saving grace of this game we play right now. I have a counter proposition for you:
Learn something new.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Iris Bravemount
The Golden Gaze
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:09:00 -
[885] - Quote
While I see the merit of the proposed changes, I must confess that on a personal level, this disappoints me a little.
I'm a big fan of Khanid ships, which got less beautiful V3 skins than their previous skins (no more blue lights, no more all black hull). Then, the missile graphics overhaul comes and makes up for it. Now a missile nerf will spoil the fun completely. Escpecially the tracking disruptor part, which will ruin the edge they had over other Amarr ships in PvE.
The Drake is what needs to be nerfed. Why nerf all missile boats because of one ship?
And btw: Missiles use a whole different skillset than guns, why allow one Ewar type to affect them both equally? Improve weapon sound effects |
Artyom Hunter
Battlestars En Garde
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:11:00 -
[886] - Quote
"Lets nerf the drakes ****** damage even more" - Said no one ever.
The problem is not the weapon system itself, but the hulls of the the ship. So work on the hulls rather than the missile systems. e.g Look at the Cerb, seriously everyone look at it and laugh.
The cane's Nerf is very harsh, but not entirely undeserved.
|
RAGE QU1T
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:15:00 -
[887] - Quote
CCP YOU JUST MADE THE TENGU USELESS AND NOT ON PAR WITH THE REST OF ITS T3 COUNTERPARTS, "-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)" MISSILES ARELEADY HAD LOW DPS AS OF RIGHT KNOW DO YOU EVEN PLAY THIS GAME. BATPHONING CSM
Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Tech Two Missiles
-At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, weGÇÖll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly |
baltec1
Bat Country
2164
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:18:00 -
[888] - Quote
Artyom Hunter wrote:"Lets nerf the drakes ****** damage even more" - Said no one ever.
Yet even after this nerf HML will be on par with the other med long range weapons. |
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:18:00 -
[889] - Quote
cry more child... |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
571
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:21:00 -
[890] - Quote
how come no one has mentioned stealth bombers yet?
if a tc with a tracking boost script increases ex velocity by 30% and reduces ex radius by 30% (this is an assumption that it will be this much)
you are looking at 207 ex velocity and 315 ex radius for torps... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
|
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:23:00 -
[891] - Quote
Jackie Butters wrote:One thing people have overlooked is that if you fire light, heavy or cruise missiles at someone, if you unlock the target...the missiles still hit that target.
they hit with no damage.
|
Lex Starwalker
Alea Iacta Est Universal Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:23:00 -
[892] - Quote
These changes look great! Looking forward to seeing the final product.
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
725
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:23:00 -
[893] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Misanth wrote:And Gila.
But yah, it's quite a weird decision by CCP to do a generalised weapon type nerf, rather than looking what causes the will to do the nerf to begin with. One is how a certain fairly-low-damage-and-well-allround-balanced ship being very powerful in blob combat. The other being how one t3, with a fairly low base damage output (200-250ish for a regular cloak setup Tengu) goes up to very-high (for a cruiser hull) when it combines the damage and engineering subsystem. Other t3's doesn't do the same.
If CCP had simply watched it this way, they'd probably be consider something more reasonable (like slightly tweaking the RoF bonus on the dmg subsystem, as that seems to be the main cause), and in the first case with the blob just flat out ignore it. As in blobs, there has always been a ship X that is the FotM and 'most versatile', while there's multiitudes of other ships playing support role for them. Drakes out of blob combat doesn't have all those light tacklers, dictors, fleet boosts, titanbridges etc to go, for one. And a solo PvP Drake has obvious flaws (not very agile, not great speed, easy to pin down and counter, fairly low damage, both weapon systems easily disrupted by smartbombs, fairly tight fit, cannot really active tank so definate high sig), with few perks (range, hits anything from frigs and up, decent buffer tank, ok-ish slot layout even for a Caldari).
TL;DR CCP just feels it's better to look at what blobs do, and blantanly strike down on a complete weapon system, rather than looking and what potential could be causing this skewed vision. We all know CCP wants everyone to fly blobs, bring friends to tackle for you so ships will never be balanced around the need for tackle slots for example. Ships that lives too long while dealing damage (no matter how low) obviously is doing "too much damage" (as they take time to kill, so the killers can't move on to next target faster). Lag and support compositions is not taken into consideration. Etc. And noone really knows why doesn't even look at how the Tengu goes from a low-damage balanced boat, to a high damage long-range platform just by fitting a single subsystem.
Do CCP even play this game, or are they just the same kind of mindless drones as the average pilots in the blobs? They haven't even gotten to T2/T3/CS yet and you're already harking. Harden the **** up and wait until everything is laid out in full.
Not gonna happen bro, as long as CCP "fixes" a weapon type affecting alot of ships and they will "maybe" fix the ship types using that weapon. Basicly as is right now we have the Drake + Tengu being useful with the HML, the other weapon types are not. By these changes CCP makes essentially every single HML-ship in the game mediocre (at best) to useless. Even if you magicly was right about your hopeful dream that CCP by some magic have a solution to Tengu (or Drake or both) already figured out; we still face two issues -
1) that's just a few of the HML-using ships in the game, so fixing the ships after the non-broken weapon type is not only quite awkward way to go about, but it also means CCP better have a fix coming for Command Ships, Cruisers, HACs, T3's, Recons etc - all in the same patch. All cruiser hulls. It needs to be fixed same time as the HML or else we have a situation where they are all virtually useless (and what point did the HML 'fix' serve, then?).
2) it also show a worrying sign that CCP work on the wrong things in the wrong order. Most seems to agree that, if anything, the "issue" with HML is not HML itself. It's the Drake (in blobs, not solo or smallscale or PvE), or the Tengu (when using the accelerated dps subsystem). How about this radial idea! Fix Drakes behaviour in blobs, without changing the innate behaviour for small- and midscale PvP + in PvE, and how about altering the bonuses on the Tengu's Accelerated bay.. then have a look at HML later on, after fixing the rest of the HML using hulls?
RADICAL SENSIBLE
AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
88
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:24:00 -
[894] - Quote
nice |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
712
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:26:00 -
[895] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Artyom Hunter wrote:"Lets nerf the drakes ****** damage even more" - Said no one ever.
Yet even after this nerf HML will be on par with the other med long range weapons. Here's a thing:
why couldn't they buff the other medium sized long range weapons? They're pretty underutilized as it is, with the exception of arties. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:27:00 -
[896] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Artyom Hunter wrote:"Lets nerf the drakes ****** damage even more" - Said no one ever.
Yet even after this nerf HML will be on par with the other med long range weapons.
How will the 'short range' weapons compare? IMO HAMs gotta suck a little less and still they'll do less damage. Making HAMs benefit from Guided Missile Precision and rigs would be a good start. IMO that's the main reason people used HMLs over HAMs regardless of engagement range. Even at close ranges HMs hit cruiser hulls harder than HAMs which shouldn't be the case considering that they're cruiser sized weapons. Oh well - we'll see I guess. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
571
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:28:00 -
[897] - Quote
time line for CCP fixing ships:
step 1: fix tech I ships (sub cap)
Step 2: update faction ships
step 3: fix tech II ships
step 4: update pirate faction ships
step 5: nerf the hell out of tech III ships
step 6: look for gaps in tech I and tech II ships and fill them in
step 7: look at capital balance and bring in new ships for missing roles
step 8: bring in for tech III ships like frigs and bs's
step 9: start from step one and repeat.... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
baltec1
Bat Country
2165
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:29:00 -
[898] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Here's a thing:
why couldn't they buff the other medium sized long range weapons? They're pretty underutilized as it is, with the exception of arties.
Nerf one thing to fix many problem or fix everything else to work around HML.
Which sounds easyer to you? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
712
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:31:00 -
[899] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: Here's a thing:
why couldn't they buff the other medium sized long range weapons? They're pretty underutilized as it is, with the exception of arties.
Nerf one thing to fix many problem or fix everything else to work around HML. Which sounds easyer to you? Where does doing the easy thing come into any of this?
How about I put it this way? Do we nerf a weapons platform that sees at most two overutilized applications, leaving three underutilized weapons systems completely untouched? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:31:00 -
[900] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:This looks good, but I suspect there will be a proliferation of Tracking Disruptors on unbonused ships. It might become necessary to weaken them on unbonused ships.
Been thinking this, and hoping they do the same to neuts as well. it's starting to turn into 2 slot needed on pvp ships when able builds. |
|
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:32:00 -
[901] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant.
Fitting a full rack of 720's already requires a PG implant or ACR. Moron. Their PG is getting reduced. Perhaps you should read these things before acting like a fool.
Dear sir.. small details do not escape me.
Aren't RCU II's what we have to fit on cruisers to make them work? Now we gotta go do that with hurricanes? The shame!
You think this is a good idea? Go try to fit an armor tank to the nerfed Hurricane. The thing already has the lightest tank of all the Tier 2 battlecruisers.. now it'll be on par with a cruiser. \0/
|
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:33:00 -
[902] - Quote
Just reviving my concern about Rigors/Flares affecting unguided (HAMs, Rockets, Torps) missiles needs to be implemented now that TC/TE/TD effect missiles, it arbitrarily limits the fitting options of missile boats (which are already less than gun boats as gun boats get various caliber guns AND they can trade PG for CPU with the algid administrations rig) |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:33:00 -
[903] - Quote
Wow... This is a major batch of changes, considering how widespread heavy missiles are used. I love it Clever use of the existing tracking computer to affect missiles too. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2165
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:35:00 -
[904] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Where does doing the easy thing come into any of this?
Less time spent trying to balance everything around HML means CCP get to work on the ships faster which means the nighthawk gets seen to much sooner.
HML are too good, the fact that even after a 20% damage nerf and 25% range nerf is resulting in them being on par with the other long range med weapons is evidence enough. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:40:00 -
[905] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Most seems to agree that, if anything, the "issue" with HML is not HML itself. It's the Drake (in blobs, not solo or smallscale or PvE), or the Tengu (when using the accelerated dps subsystem) Actually I've seem quite the opposite expressed by many here, stating that the ships were overpowered due to the advantages on HML's over turrets of the same size. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
713
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:42:00 -
[906] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Misanth wrote:Most seems to agree that, if anything, the "issue" with HML is not HML itself. It's the Drake (in blobs, not solo or smallscale or PvE), or the Tengu (when using the accelerated dps subsystem) Actually I've seem quite the opposite expressed by many here, stating that the ships were overpowered due to the advantages on HML's over turrets of the same size. If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Neuntausend
Aggressive Exploration
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:45:00 -
[907] - Quote
everyone whining and bitching that the drake will be useless now needs to think out of his tiny little box here.
for damage: fit hams -> 600 or 700 something dps -> comparable to other bcs -> drake still works for range: add a third bcu and a te and sacrifice a little tank like all the other battlecruisers do -> drake still works
same goes for the tengu. or basically any ship using hml.
|
Juniorama
State War Academy Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:45:00 -
[908] - Quote
I would prefer to see missiles have less dps and a greater chance of applying that dps.
Also no chance to apply tracking/range mods and EWAR.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:46:00 -
[909] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Except that as has also been stated repeatedly, missiles don't behave in the same way as turrets do and so you can't make direct comparisons between them, at least not as simply as you're doing.
All weapons work differently, they all have their own drawbacks and plus points. This does not mean that HML should out class everything else in the way they do. HML are being brough back in line. You might dread losing your easy mode but I am looking forwards to the new options that will now be viable. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:49:00 -
[910] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km
I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1331
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:50:00 -
[911] - Quote
Do not forget that missile boats are able to specifically pick the damage type they do. Outside of drones, no other weapon system has that luxury.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:50:00 -
[912] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Misanth wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:D3vastator wrote:Aaron Greil wrote:Please post the fits where an ishkur out dps and out tanks a tengu.
Then we'll laugh at how failfit your tengu must be to be outclassed by an assault frig.
Level 4s are meant to require battleships. Tengus were never supposed to replace BSs. Fly a CNR like everyone else. This is as much a buff to torps as it is a nerf to HMLs. Now torp navy scorps will rock. Ah, my bad. IshTAR :P https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1938285#post1938285Seriously, your more expensive tech3 is meant to be a stepping stone to the superior specialised t2 ship for the particular role. Because you can get isk faster than SP. Tengus are brokenly overpowered, they need nerfs. Yes and no. You're right about the stepping stone, and t2 ship role, and you're right that the Tengu performs very (probably too) well. But you're wrong that the Tengu needed the nerf. Tengu in non-dps subsystem is fine and very much in-line with other cruiser hulls. So the issue is not with the Tengu itself, but rather with a particular subsystem (especially combined with the engineering one that gives +1 launcher). The funky thing is that that particular Tengu configuration, still have a decent balance between the +kinetic bonus and the other damage types. The bonuses applies goes in-line with Caldari in general too. There's two possible solutions to tweak this to make it more reasonable: either a) tweak the RoF bonus, or b) tweak the raw damage bonus itself (preferably keep the separated +kin bonus, to suit the Caldari damage bonus that goes on other ships too). Tengu is fine. Its damage subsystem is not. Drake is fine. In blobs they die too slow. Poems are cool. I can't write em. what about proteus? thats the most OP of em all.. up to 850k EHP.. 1300 dps drones! and so on.. (if my eft was correct)
I own one Proteus, one Legion, three? Loki and about ten Tengus.
AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
714
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:52:00 -
[913] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: Except that as has also been stated repeatedly, missiles don't behave in the same way as turrets do and so you can't make direct comparisons between them, at least not as simply as you're doing.
All weapons work differently, they all have their own drawbacks and plus points. This does not mean that HML should out class everything else in the way they do. HML are being brough back in line. You might dread losing your easy mode but I am looking forwards to the new options that will now be viable. Nerfing the range would have been fine. A 5%-10% damage nerf would have been fine too. 20% is simply too much. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
99
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:52:00 -
[914] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
All weapons work differently, they all have their own drawbacks and plus points. This does not mean that HML should out class everything else in the way they do. HML are being brough back in line. You might dread losing your easy mode but I am looking forwards to the new options that will now be viable.
I'm sorry, but when does "brought back in line" mean "now on par damagewise with railguns in addition to having other factors that severely cripple their damage output"? You do realize also that this is going to be their raw DPS that's breaking through the floor here, not counting anything lost because a target is moving. And cruisers very rarely fight stationary targets.
"Brought back in line" would mean keeping some semblance of being able to do damage, but losing a large chunk of range. Not what's happening here. And if they absolutely HAVE to lose damage, then between five and ten percent, not twenty. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
571
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:54:00 -
[915] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :) -Liang
oh yeah that's right you live in the prison colony... its 10 pm where i am at...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:55:00 -
[916] - Quote
Tragedy wrote:Awesome. HMLs need a nerf in a bad way. They do too much damage at too far of a range. I hope tracking comps wont be able to put them right back to where they were in range with just 1 comp though. NERF THEM MOAR!!!
Oh dear me.. 25-30km is just too much! (gasp).
Remind me to whine about an Autocannon Tornado hitting very nicely at 70km.
Seriously.. this forum is populated by nut jobs who don't actually play the game. Why does CCP listen to them? |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:55:00 -
[917] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km Why do we never worry about what is supposed to keep the target in place at 80km and 50km?
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
715
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:56:00 -
[918] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :) -Liang You're only lending support to my point. Nobody is going to use any of those except for the HML Caracal. Why nerf the one thing people use, instead of boosting something that serves virtually no purpose? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
571
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 01:57:00 -
[919] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km Why do we never worry about what is supposed to keep the target in place at 80km and 50km?
lechasis and rapier?
plus those purdy bubles?
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:04:00 -
[920] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Misanth wrote:Most seems to agree that, if anything, the "issue" with HML is not HML itself. It's the Drake (in blobs, not solo or smallscale or PvE), or the Tengu (when using the accelerated dps subsystem) Actually I've seem quite the opposite expressed by many here, stating that the ships were overpowered due to the advantages on HML's over turrets of the same size. If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup. On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons. Looking at those platforms: Caracal - Being buffed as it was on the loosing end of the tier system while being the missile platform. Before it was inferior by design. Cerberus/nighthawk - Various acknowledged issues that will be fleshed out, though I agree with a change like this it can't happen soon enough.
But the core issue making this a difficult balance is the inflexibility of the weapon. Your capacity to trade damage for range or the reverse is largely nonexistent save fitting a different type of launcher (and the gains were miniscule in most scenarios comparison to the losses) and as such means that some system has to loose out on one end of the spectrum. In this case HML was chosen to loose in the mid rage to long range and retain a slight advantage at max range. Too much? Probably. I'll grant that. Here's hoping those numbers were low-balling and looking to have an increase over testing to get to proper levels. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:04:00 -
[921] - Quote
Aglais wrote:
I'm sorry, but when does "brought back in line" mean "now on par damagewise with railguns in addition to having other factors that severely cripple their damage output"? You do realize also that this is going to be their raw DPS that's breaking through the floor here, not counting anything lost because a target is moving. And cruisers very rarely fight stationary targets.
"Brought back in line" would mean keeping some semblance of being able to do damage, but losing a large chunk of range. Not what's happening here. And if they absolutely HAVE to lose damage, then between five and ten percent, not twenty.
Because turrets arn't impacted by moving targets at all |
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:06:00 -
[922] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Why do we never worry about what is supposed to keep the target in place at 80km and 50km?
Arazu. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
715
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:07:00 -
[923] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aglais wrote:
I'm sorry, but when does "brought back in line" mean "now on par damagewise with railguns in addition to having other factors that severely cripple their damage output"? You do realize also that this is going to be their raw DPS that's breaking through the floor here, not counting anything lost because a target is moving. And cruisers very rarely fight stationary targets.
"Brought back in line" would mean keeping some semblance of being able to do damage, but losing a large chunk of range. Not what's happening here. And if they absolutely HAVE to lose damage, then between five and ten percent, not twenty.
Because turrets arn't impacted by moving targets at all Well keep in mind you also have to take into account the relative velocity. Turret ships can mitigate the effect of the target's velocity by minimizing absolute velocity (you do know how vector addition and subtraction works, I'm assuming). Missile ships can't. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:08:00 -
[924] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time
Oh yeah you're changing it. What you didn't tell everyone is the Hurricane with a typical 1600mm plate can only fit 5 180mm autocannons. P.S. That's with a 5% powergrid implant.
Kind of pathetic. Oh... and very sneaky of you CCP. What's the deal? Don't like the Whelp Cane? Have to save your precious supercapital friends at the demise of every other player in-game?
Can we just eliminate Minmatar and Caldari from the game. I'd like those skillpoints back.
TY. |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:12:00 -
[925] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Do not forget that missile boats are able to specifically pick the damage type they do. Outside of drones, no other weapon system has that luxury.
Uh... Ever looked at Projectile ammo? Guess not. Go do it now. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:12:00 -
[926] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Well keep in mind you also have to take into account the relative velocity. Turret ships can mitigate the effect of the target's velocity by minimizing absolute velocity (you do know how vector addition and subtraction works, I'm assuming). Missile ships can't.
Turret ships have to deal with tracking. Sounds to me like turret and missile ships will have an equal footing after these changes. |
Schenz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:13:00 -
[927] - Quote
As a week old Eve newbie I put together a skill plan to get into a Drake and then later a Tengu using Heavy Missiles. All my research has been into how to train for these ships in PvE and PvP. If i continue with this skill plan am I going to be gimped come the Winter update having no skills for other weapon types? Should I give up now and choose something else? I was just getting my bearings and now I feel lost again. lol. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:18:00 -
[928] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time
Oh yeah you're changing it. What you didn't tell everyone is the Hurricane with a typical 1600mm plate can only fit 5 180mmautocannons. P.S. That's with a 5% powergrid implant. Kind of pathetic. Oh... and very sneaky of you CCP. What's the deal? Don't like the Whelp Cane? Have to save your precious supercapital friends at the demise of every other player in-game? Can we just eliminate Minmatar and Caldari from the game. I'd like those skillpoints back. TY.
Welp canes are shield tank. Also the brutix wants words with you about armour fittings. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
715
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:18:00 -
[929] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: Well keep in mind you also have to take into account the relative velocity. Turret ships can mitigate the effect of the target's velocity by minimizing absolute velocity (you do know how vector addition and subtraction works, I'm assuming). Missile ships can't.
Turret ships have to deal with tracking. Sounds to me like turret and missile ships will have an equal footing after these changes. You're not really thinking this through, are you? Unless your goal happens to be "MAKE ALL DE SYSTEMS DE SAME". http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:21:00 -
[930] - Quote
This thread have shown that it's never too late to double down on crazy, and I'm not talking about the changes in the OP's post. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:24:00 -
[931] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: You're not really thinking this through, are you? Unless your goal happens to be "MAKE ALL DE SYSTEMS DE SAME".
Thinking it through more than you are. The changes are not making missiles exactly the same as everything else, same as how lasers are not the same as arty. What is changing is that HML will no longer out class everything else and the other options are now viable to use. |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:25:00 -
[932] - Quote
Neuntausend wrote:everyone whining and bitching that the drake will be useless now needs to think out of his tiny little box here.
for damage: fit hams -> 600 or 700 something dps -> comparable to other bcs -> drake still works for range: add a third bcu and a te and sacrifice a little tank like all the other battlecruisers do -> drake still works
same goes for the tengu. or basically any ship using hml.
Ummm.. You barely understand concepts such as falloff for turrets... yet you think you have the understanding to discuss missile explosion velocity and explosion radius like a pro.
Since you don't understand them.. go get your Drake and find a dual prop Cynabal and enjoy shooting at it until it kills you. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
715
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:26:00 -
[933] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You're not really thinking this through, are you? Unless your goal happens to be "MAKE ALL DE SYSTEMS DE SAME".
Thinking it through more than you are. The changes are not making missiles exactly the same as everything else, same as how lasers are not the same as arty. What is changing is that HML will no longer out class everything else and the other options are now viable to use. No, this change doesn't make any of the other options more viable except for a mild buff to fitting. That's my entire point.
If I have a piece of candy sitting next to turds from three different people, pouring cow manure on the candy doesn't make the turds more appetizing. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:27:00 -
[934] - Quote
Great job ANY rebalancing. To make this game better its awesome !!! Cheers CCP |
Lili Lu
442
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:28:00 -
[935] - Quote
Schenz wrote:As a week old Eve newbie I put together a skill plan to get into a Drake and then later a Tengu using Heavy Missiles. All my research has been into how to train for these ships in PvE and PvP. If i continue with this skill plan am I going to be gimped come the Winter update having no skills for other weapon types? Should I give up now and choose something else? I was just getting my bearings and now I feel lost again. lol. And see this is part of the problem. Did you choose that plan because it was what appealed to you on an unlearned but aesthetic basis (this is ok for a new player) or was it that everyone said eve is on easy mode and all you ever have to train is HML and Drake Tengu? Because if the latter that is what has been wrong with the last 4 years. I hope it was the former. If it was, just persevere but recognize it won't be the easy button it was.
Anyway, lots of ships getting altered. So, probably would be a good time to experiment a little with frig sized ships and do serious training on support skills (cap, propulsion, both types of tanking, etc) until you have some experience with the weapons, know what you like, and know more about how they will operate in comparison to other choices.
Every character should have two races trained anyway. I know it's hard to do as a new player, but in the long run it is what will make you happy in this game. Too many people went into the 3-4 year old fotm and thought somehow it would never be exposed and nerfed. Contrary to the whiners itt HML and Drakes and Tengus will probably come out of this is relatively ok state. But they won't be what they were and still are for another couple months, which is easy mode and one weapon fits all purposes. |
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:29:00 -
[936] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Neuntausend wrote:everyone whining and bitching that the drake will be useless now needs to think out of his tiny little box here.
for damage: fit hams -> 600 or 700 something dps -> comparable to other bcs -> drake still works for range: add a third bcu and a te and sacrifice a little tank like all the other battlecruisers do -> drake still works
same goes for the tengu. or basically any ship using hml.
Ummm.. You barely understand concepts such as falloff for turrets... yet you think you have the understanding to discuss missile explosion velocity and explosion radius like a pro. Since you don't understand them.. go get your Drake and find a dual prop Cynabal and enjoy shooting at it until it kills you.
Dual prop Cynabal, one of the better ways to kill those are dual web nano HML Drakes, ironically enough. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:31:00 -
[937] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: No, this change doesn't make any of the other options more viable except for a mild buff to fitting. That's my entire point.
Oh so now HML are still better than everything else suddenly? Funny, I thought you just spent the last few pages pulling your hair out over how screwed missile junkies were now that rails, beams and arty could play with them without being out ranged and out damaged. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
571
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:31:00 -
[938] - Quote
Schenz wrote:As a week old Eve newbie I put together a skill plan to get into a Drake and then later a Tengu using Heavy Missiles. All my research has been into how to train for these ships in PvE and PvP. If i continue with this skill plan am I going to be gimped come the Winter update having no skills for other weapon types? Should I give up now and choose something else? I was just getting my bearings and now I feel lost again. lol.
think of it this way missiles are going to be as good as any other medium weapon... so no need to change direction... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:32:00 -
[939] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Because turrets arn't impacted by moving targets at all
Ever heard of sig radius? The thing that missiles have to deal with far more than turrets, that is part of the reason why torpedoes are awful? Because motion is only part of the equation here. And due to the fact that I do indeed also fly turret ships I'm aware of this whole "missing" thing that happens if a target's transversal is greater than a target's tracking speed. But the thing is, at least with railguns, your damage isn't already being cut by the fact that your target doesn't have a retardedly large sig radius. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
715
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:32:00 -
[940] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: No, this change doesn't make any of the other options more viable except for a mild buff to fitting. That's my entire point.
Oh so now HML are still better than everything else suddenly? Funny, I thought you just spent the last few pages pulling your hair out over how screwed missile junkies were now that rails, beams and arty could play with them without being out ranged and out damaged. Let's play a game. See how many pages we can go before you start putting words in my mouth again. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1331
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:37:00 -
[941] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Do not forget that missile boats are able to specifically pick the damage type they do. Outside of drones, no other weapon system has that luxury. Uh... Ever looked at Projectile ammo? Guess not. Go do it now. I clarified my post. I am talking about being able to select a targets resistance whole and pick the damage type to exploit it.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:38:00 -
[942] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Let's play a game. See how many pages we can go before you start putting words in my mouth again.
The only game being played here is your poor attempts to keep your easy mode ratting machines and lazy man pvp missile slingers. |
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:40:00 -
[943] - Quote
My Rook is going to be sad once this expansion comes out |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
715
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:42:00 -
[944] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: Let's play a game. See how many pages we can go before you start putting words in my mouth again.
The only game being played here is your poor attempts to keep your easy mode ratting machines and lazy man pvp milles slingers. Seems you conveniently ignored the part where I said the range nerf was fine but the damage nerf was over the top. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:44:00 -
[945] - Quote
Allandri wrote:Meditril wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time The first one (tracking enhancers) will make missile boats absolute frigate murders. Just change your script and viola you can switch from long range to anti-frig point defense. A very bad decision. The second one (TDs affect missiles) will make TDs the must have module for all frigates... having "must have" modules is very sad. Must have modules currently include a long / short point and a prop mod
Dont forget nos / neut when able, and web vs smaller critters. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:44:00 -
[946] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km Why do we never worry about what is supposed to keep the target in place at 80km and 50km?
Because we're talking about long range weapons systems? If you want to tackle, why don't you fit up close range weapons? Is your argument about HML being weak really that flimsy?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:45:00 -
[947] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Seems you conveniently ignored the part where I said the range nerf was fine but the damage nerf was over the top.
I see you continue to miss the part where everyone has told you multiple times that even after the 20% nerf the HML are on par for damage with the three other weapon types. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:45:00 -
[948] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: Let's play a game. See how many pages we can go before you start putting words in my mouth again.
The only game being played here is your poor attempts to keep your easy mode ratting machines and lazy man pvp missile slingers.
That is the single most elitist comment I've seen in this thread. Ok, so you don't have to take transversal into account in missile ships. That can give you more freedom for evasive manuevers, trying to throw off the other guy's attempts to decrease his transversal as much as possible. By falling into the "All missile users are braindead draek pilots who don't know how to do anything but press f1 and orbit" trap, you label an entire population based on a few people.
Also: HMLs are NOT on par with artillery in terms of damage. DPS maybe, but artillery does facerippingly large volley damage. The only one they'll be close to on Drakes and Caracals is probably going to be railguns, or at least between railguns and beams; the fact that they're near railguns means they're approaching "broken and useless" territory. |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
94
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:45:00 -
[949] - Quote
Medium LR guns are largely pointless weapons, they're really not spectacular in my opinion.
In Warp Disruptor range, Medium LR guns are pretty crap. Medium SR guns are better overall. Medium LR guns eat up more pg and use more cap. They have much inferior tracking and dps in exchange for long range.
Conclusion: Medium LR guns sacrifice too many things for longer range and make them inferior to their shorter range counterparts.
You want to hit and kill targets 30+ km you use Large SR guns like 800mm and Mega Pulse.
You want to hit and kill targets beyond 50 km you use 1400mm, 425mm, and Tachyon Beams.
I have tech 2 Medium LR spec for all 3 turret types, but I have never used them.
Medium LR spec, to me is just a stepping stone to get to the much superior Large LR spec.
I am disappointed in CCP's idea of balancing medium sized LR weapons. Yes they balanced HML to be more inline with other medium LR weapons, but they have given no incentive to use LR medium weapons in general. |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:45:00 -
[950] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Do not forget that missile boats are able to specifically pick the damage type they do. As in 100% of a damage type. Outside of drones, no other weapon system has that luxury.
and you see, fun fact: Those missile boats most talked about here don't have that luxury if you look at those numbers being thrown around up till now: They are all for the ONE bonused dmg type.
Shot with anything else and look at the numbers again. That would be 25% less base damage, 5% LESS as the proposed "patch" for HMs will bring - but wait, those 20% will hit the unbonused damage types too...
cu |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:46:00 -
[951] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :) -Liang You're only lending support to my point. Nobody is going to use any of those except for the HML Caracal. Why nerf the one thing people use, instead of boosting something that serves virtually no purpose?
Feel free to compare boosted ships to the modern Caracal.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
bigboyal
Adversity. No Remorse.
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:46:00 -
[952] - Quote
I`m a bit surprised at how hard the heavy missiles are being nerfed. The range nerf is needed, and very welcome. Even a DPS nerf seems like a good idea, but the current amount seems like far too much to me.
Seems like just a short while ago there were devposts about how the balance team wanted to take things slow, so as not to make ships useless. I`m not saying that the changes discussed in this thread will do anything of the sort, but it is a very heavy-handed change to target ships like drakes and tengus. This patch will affect other ships with already low DPS, like the Cerberus and the Nighthawk. As much as I'm sure many of us would love to see the drake blob fade from popularity, decreasing the DPS on an entire weapon subset to deal with balance issues on two ships is too extreme.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the combined reduction of damage from heavy missiles as well as the TD/TE change seems like too much. What would be the disadvantage of keeping all of the other changes, and changing the DPS reduction to half of what is currently proposed? You'll hear very few people complain about taking the slower route to fix this, especially in the high-DPS environment of the Tier 3 battlecruisers.
Either way it goes though, all the attention on balance has been excellent lately. Way to go, CCP Fozzie and team. You guys are the best. |
Annubis Lorn
Drakken Rhaul
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:47:00 -
[953] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Pisov viet wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Is that only heavy missiles, or also heavy assault missiles? Just heavy missiles.
sorry, but this is just stupid |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
295
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:49:00 -
[954] - Quote
Aglais wrote:baltec1 wrote:Because turrets arn't impacted by moving targets at all Ever heard of sig radius? The thing that missiles have to deal with far more than turrets, that is part of the reason why torpedoes are awful? Because motion is only part of the equation here. And due to the fact that I do indeed also fly turret ships I'm aware of this whole "missing" thing that happens if a target's transversal is greater than a target's tracking speed. But the thing is, at least with railguns, your damage isn't already being cut by the fact that your target doesn't have a retardedly large sig radius. Sig radius actually has the same weight as tracking in the chance to hit formula for turrets. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:50:00 -
[955] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :) -Liang
Sure. Hey let's also compare the HAM caracal with the blaster thorax, pulse omen and ac rupture. |
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
541
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:51:00 -
[956] - Quote
I think destroying Caldari in PVP is a good idea but you should add a 90% reduction in the effectiveness of ECM to go along with it, and perhaps a SP Refund so players can out of the sinking Caldari ship. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:51:00 -
[957] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sig radius actually has the same weight as tracking in the chance to hit formula for turrets.
Ah, but turrets still have a 'stationary' target that has none of these things applied to it. Missiles always, to my knowledge, have to deal with signature radius. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
717
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:52:00 -
[958] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I see you continue to miss the part where everyone has told you multiple times that even after the 20% nerf the HML are on par for damage with the three other weapon types. So you're more or less saying that because nobody ever uses the other long range weapon types, they shouldn't be buffed at all?
Liang Nuren wrote:Feel free to compare boosted ships to the modern Caracal. -Liang "Feel free to compare the Caracal to something that doesn't exist whatsoever".
Uh, sure? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
295
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:53:00 -
[959] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :) -Liang Sure. Hey let's also compare the HAM caracal with the blaster thorax, pulse omen and ac rupture. Genuinely curious, though all of those should be changing, with the caracal and omen being significantly buffed, at the same time the change to HML's happens |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:56:00 -
[960] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :) -Liang Sure. Hey let's also compare the HAM caracal with the blaster thorax, pulse omen and ac rupture.
Sure, let's compare at the edge of point range: 40km.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
295
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:56:00 -
[961] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sig radius actually has the same weight as tracking in the chance to hit formula for turrets.
Ah, but turrets still have a 'stationary' target that has none of these things applied to it. Missiles always, to my knowledge, have to deal with signature radius. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sig radius is always evaluated even if transversal is 0 (both targets stationary). |
Annubis Lorn
Drakken Rhaul
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:57:00 -
[962] - Quote
Instead of fixing what isnt broken...
Why not address the fact that Faction Wars have completely crashed the market on 90% of items available in the LP stores....
Concentrate on REAL game mechanic problems instead of turning 6 months of training time into a complete waste of time simply because pvpers are crying that one of the ships in the game is supposedly OP because it does decent DPS at a decent range...... oh wait, yea thats right, just like the broken mechanics of the Tier 3 battcruisers that do battleship damage from 150km away. |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:57:00 -
[963] - Quote
I understand the nerf, and am not completely against it (will definitely be watching the test server performance though), but I have a question:
It seems that you want people to use mods to up their damage, having to balance between dps and shield tank (TE's are mid slots, are they not?). How will that affect the other races / ships that have minimal mid slots to begin with, namely the armor races?
Damnation, and Sacrilege come to mind specifically, although I am not sure how many mids the Bellicose gets.
I'll be interested in how this turns out. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:57:00 -
[964] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:baltec1 wrote:I see you continue to miss the part where everyone has told you multiple times that even after the 20% nerf the HML are on par for damage with the three other weapon types. So you're more or less saying that because nobody ever uses the other long range weapon types, they shouldn't be buffed at all? Liang Nuren wrote:Feel free to compare boosted ships to the modern Caracal. -Liang "Feel free to compare the Caracal to something that doesn't exist whatsoever". Uh, sure?
My point is that even the newly boosted ships with long range weapons don't compare to today's non-boosted Caracal with HML.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:58:00 -
[965] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:baltec1 wrote:I see you continue to miss the part where everyone has told you multiple times that even after the 20% nerf the HML are on par for damage with the three other weapon types. So you're more or less saying that because nobody ever uses the other long range weapon types, they shouldn't be buffed at all?
Nobody uses them because they are out classed by HML. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:58:00 -
[966] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :) -Liang Sure. Hey let's also compare the HAM caracal with the blaster thorax, pulse omen and ac rupture. Genuinely curious, though all of those should be changing, with the caracal and omen being significantly buffed, at the same time the change to HML's happens
You might be able to cram on some HAMs after the caracal pg boost but you still won't be able to take advantage of guided missile precision or explosion radius/velocity rigs, which is ludicrous. You're going to need to use extra lo/mid slots to bring HAM dps into line with the current HM dps on anything smaller than a BC. Sounds fun :/ |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 02:59:00 -
[967] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:baltec1 wrote:I see you continue to miss the part where everyone has told you multiple times that even after the 20% nerf the HML are on par for damage with the three other weapon types. So you're more or less saying that because nobody ever uses the other long range weapon types, they shouldn't be buffed at all? Nobody uses them because they are out classed by HML. No, nobody uses them because they're ******* awful. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:00:00 -
[968] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: If every ship that used HMLs were good, then yeah you could make that case. But the fact is that HMLs are only good on those ships because of a unique combination of factors specific to the ship and the setup.
On pretty much any other ship they have a status similar to the other long-ranged medium-sized weapons.
Hey I'm at work and don't have EFT handy. Can you please post the following DPS numbers: - HML Caracal at 80km - Beam Omen at 80km - Rail Thorax at 80km - Arty Rupture at 80km - HML Caracal at 50km - Beam Omen at 50km - Rail Thorax at 50km - Arty Rupture at 50km I trust you enough to know you aren't going to whip together complete bullshit unrealistic fits. :) -Liang Sure. Hey let's also compare the HAM caracal with the blaster thorax, pulse omen and ac rupture. Sure, let's compare at the edge of point range: 40km. -Liang
I'll one up your arbitrary choice of distance and say let's compare at the edge of scram range. |
Spanish Aquisition
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:00:00 -
[969] - Quote
Someone at CCP apparently had their poop pushed in by a drake recently
If you think the drake needs a DPS nerf you are bad at Eve and you should feel bad. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9522
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:01:00 -
[970] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Aglais wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sig radius actually has the same weight as tracking in the chance to hit formula for turrets. Ah, but turrets still have a 'stationary' target that has none of these things applied to it. Missiles always, to my knowledge, have to deal with signature radius. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sig radius is always evaluated even if transversal is 0 (both targets stationary). He means that sig_rad/explo_rad always counts as an upper limit for missile damage, whereas turrets stop caring about sig radius if transversal is zero. Yes, the sig radius is still fed into the formula, but since all you end up doing is multiplying it with zero, it doesn't matter what it is, nor its ratio to the gun's signature resolution.
Annubis Lorn wrote:Instead of fixing what isnt broken... GǪthey should adjust HMLs, which are broken in a number of ways. And look! They are! \o/ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:01:00 -
[971] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: No, nobody uses them because they're ******* awful.
Yes, vs HML. Hence why drakes and tengu are used everywhere. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:02:00 -
[972] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Aglais wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sig radius actually has the same weight as tracking in the chance to hit formula for turrets.
Ah, but turrets still have a 'stationary' target that has none of these things applied to it. Missiles always, to my knowledge, have to deal with signature radius. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sig radius is always evaluated even if transversal is 0 (both targets stationary).
That's exactly the point. Doesn't this mean that even if a target is stationary, if it's signature radius is a certain value, missiles are guaranteed to do some amount less damage than if the signature radius is arbitrarily large?
IE. An armor tanking Amarr ship with a small signature radius will naturally take less damage from a missile volley than a heavy shield tanking Caldari ship. And that's even before anything to do with velocity is thrown into the mix, which will take off even more damage potential. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:03:00 -
[973] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: No, nobody uses them because they're ******* awful.
Yes, vs HML. Hence why drakes and tengu are used everywhere. No, they're just awful. Even if HMLs never existed people wouldn't be using beam omens, rail thoraxes, or arty ruptures any more than they do now.
The ONLY reason medium artillery gets used is because of its high alpha. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Annubis Lorn
Drakken Rhaul
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:05:00 -
[974] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:I think destroying Caldari in PVP is a good idea but you should add a 90% reduction in the effectiveness of ECM to go along with it, and perhaps a SP Refund so players can out of the sinking Caldari ship.
A very big +1 from me. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:06:00 -
[975] - Quote
Could i get all my Caldari and the missiles skills back please ? So i can redistribute later.
Edit : While i am thinking about this. Could i get ALL my SP back. Train a new skill name "To be distributed later", it's a skill that never ends.
Wait a year or 2 or 3 until CCP as a stable version. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:08:00 -
[976] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:I'll one up your arbitrary choice of distance and say let's compare at the edge of scram range.
Sure, so now that we've compared HAM Caracal performance at the edge of scram and edge of disruptor range we'll see that HAMs are actually a mostly balanced weapon system. HML, OTOH, is not. Thus it is getting smacked with a nerf bat and HAMs aren't.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2167
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:10:00 -
[977] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: No, they're just awful. Even if HMLs never existed people wouldn't be using beam omens, rail thoraxes, or arty ruptures any more than they do now.
The ONLY reason medium artillery gets used is because of its high alpha.
When you face nothing but HML drakes and tengu it does become a problem. After the changes though rails, beams and arty are going to be used more because they are not out classed. The omen also suffered from massive fitting issues, Issues that should be going away come winter.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:10:00 -
[978] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Aglais wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sig radius actually has the same weight as tracking in the chance to hit formula for turrets.
Ah, but turrets still have a 'stationary' target that has none of these things applied to it. Missiles always, to my knowledge, have to deal with signature radius. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sig radius is always evaluated even if transversal is 0 (both targets stationary). That's exactly the point. Doesn't this mean that even if a target is stationary, if it's signature radius is a certain value, missiles are guaranteed to do some amount less damage than if the signature radius is arbitrarily large? IE. An armor tanking Amarr ship with a small signature radius will naturally take less damage from a missile volley than a heavy shield tanking Caldari ship. And that's even before anything to do with velocity is thrown into the mix, which will take off even more damage potential.
This is generally true of turrets as well. Missiles and turrets are different, and now that HML is being smacked around some neither is obviously superior to the other.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:11:00 -
[979] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Could i get all my Caldari and the missiles skills back please ? So i can redistribute later.
Edit : While i am thinking about this. Could i get ALL my SP back. Train a new skill name "To be distributed later", it's a skill that never ends.
Wait a year or 2 or 3 until CCP as a stable version.
Hahaha, feel free to send me all of your Caldari SP. Caldari is going to be fine in PVP, even without OP HML. I probably have it all trained already anyway, but just on the off chance you've trained something I haven't. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Annubis Lorn
Drakken Rhaul
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:11:00 -
[980] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Could i get all my Caldari and the missiles skills back please ? So i can redistribute later.
Edit : While i am thinking about this. Could i get ALL my SP back. Train a new skill name "To be distributed later", it's a skill that never ends.
Wait a year or 2 or 3 until CCP as a stable version.
agreed |
|
Cede Forster
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:12:00 -
[981] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Aglais wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sig radius actually has the same weight as tracking in the chance to hit formula for turrets.
Ah, but turrets still have a 'stationary' target that has none of these things applied to it. Missiles always, to my knowledge, have to deal with signature radius. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sig radius is always evaluated even if transversal is 0 (both targets stationary).
first of all transversal does not belongs there, it is an atrocity - i never understood why people would put that there, maybe because angular stuff is to complex? anyway
second, you got an F in math
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Angular velocity/ Turret Tracking)*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)
if angular is 0 then angular / tracking = 0 and if you multiply 0 with "whatever you want" its still .... exactly 0 (most of the times at least)
if you then take 0 ^ 2 you still have .... 0
range part we ignore since it is not part of this argument
so we are left with 0,5 ^ 0 which is ... 1
and 1 means in EVE terms BOOM
|
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:14:00 -
[982] - Quote
Well, I suppose the real kicker now is whether or not HAM Caracals are going to shine/be fittable, more than anything else. Kind of hoping that at the end of it all, the only real choice of what ship you PvP in isn't "which of these two/three battlecruisers do I choose".
Onto something a little more befitting of the topic, what of the Kestrel? I mean, I've not heard much good on standard missile performance, ever. With the increase in precision and damage, how's this going to go for a Kestrel that has improved fitting ability, potentially enough to fit four T2 standard launchers without having nothing else? |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:16:00 -
[983] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Well, I suppose the real kicker now is whether or not HAM Caracals are going to shine/be fittable, more than anything else. Kind of hoping that at the end of it all, the only real choice of what ship you PvP in isn't "which of these two/three battlecruisers do I choose".
Onto something a little more befitting of the topic, what of the Kestrel? I mean, I've not heard much good on standard missile performance, ever. With the increase in precision and damage, how's this going to go for a Kestrel that has improved fitting ability, potentially enough to fit four T2 standard launchers without having nothing else?
I'm not 100% sold on the Kestrel, but I've scored dozens and dozens of kills with Light Missiles since the Condor came out. They're ******* boss, and the 10% damage boost is gonna make me giggle like a school girl.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:16:00 -
[984] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:I'll one up your arbitrary choice of distance and say let's compare at the edge of scram range. Sure, so now that we've compared HAM Caracal performance at the edge of scram and edge of disruptor range we'll see that HAMs are actually a mostly balanced weapon system. HML, OTOH, is not. Thus it is getting smacked with a nerf bat and HAMs aren't. -Liang
Actually I think they're a little underpowered as they are. If they'd allow GMP and rigs to affect them that would be a decent compromise. I don't see that happening though so I guess we'll see. I would also love a precision version of the 'unguided' missiles but I don't want to be too greedy. Turrets don't get this treatment with their short range counterparts and it irks me just a bit. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
295
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:18:00 -
[985] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Aglais wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sig radius actually has the same weight as tracking in the chance to hit formula for turrets.
Ah, but turrets still have a 'stationary' target that has none of these things applied to it. Missiles always, to my knowledge, have to deal with signature radius. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Sig radius is always evaluated even if transversal is 0 (both targets stationary). That's exactly the point. Doesn't this mean that even if a target is stationary, if it's signature radius is a certain value, missiles are guaranteed to do some amount less damage than if the signature radius is arbitrarily large? IE. An armor tanking Amarr ship with a small signature radius will naturally take less damage from a missile volley than a heavy shield tanking Caldari ship. And that's even before anything to do with velocity is thrown into the mix, which will take off even more damage potential. Post eaten by the forum gods. rewriting... |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:19:00 -
[986] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:I'll one up your arbitrary choice of distance and say let's compare at the edge of scram range. Sure, so now that we've compared HAM Caracal performance at the edge of scram and edge of disruptor range we'll see that HAMs are actually a mostly balanced weapon system. HML, OTOH, is not. Thus it is getting smacked with a nerf bat and HAMs aren't. -Liang Actually I think they're a little underpowered as they are. If they'd allow GMP and rigs to affect them that would be a decent compromise. I don't see that happening though so I guess we'll see. I would also love a precision version of the 'unguided' missiles but I don't want to be too greedy. Turrets don't get this treatment with their short range counterparts and it irks me just a bit.
I... don't know. Rigs I can see for sure, especially in light of the TE/TC change. GMP though... I dunno. I'd be interested in play testing either way.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Ghazu
195
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:20:00 -
[987] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Could i get all my Caldari and the missiles skills back please ? So i can redistribute later.
Edit : While i am thinking about this. Could i get ALL my SP back. Train a new skill name "To be distributed later", it's a skill that never ends.
Wait a year or 2 or 3 until CCP as a stable version.
I'd like that. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:25:00 -
[988] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:I'll one up your arbitrary choice of distance and say let's compare at the edge of scram range. Sure, so now that we've compared HAM Caracal performance at the edge of scram and edge of disruptor range we'll see that HAMs are actually a mostly balanced weapon system. HML, OTOH, is not. Thus it is getting smacked with a nerf bat and HAMs aren't. -Liang Actually I think they're a little underpowered as they are. If they'd allow GMP and rigs to affect them that would be a decent compromise. I don't see that happening though so I guess we'll see. I would also love a precision version of the 'unguided' missiles but I don't want to be too greedy. Turrets don't get this treatment with their short range counterparts and it irks me just a bit. I... don't know. Rigs I can see for sure, especially in light of the TE/TC change. GMP though... I dunno. I'd be interested in play testing either way. -Liang
I see it as balance for Caldari having the smallest drone bays in the game - missiles *have* (well ok they don't have to but they should) to do at least decent damage to smaller vessels. In my (somewhat limited) experience with HAMs they just don't do that. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:32:00 -
[989] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote: I see it as balance for Caldari having the smallest drone bays in the game - missiles *have* (well ok they don't have to but they should) to do at least decent damage to smaller vessels. In my (somewhat limited) experience with HAMs they just don't do that.
You need to be careful with that. While it's true that sig radius always plays a role in damage mitigation, it also means that it's literally impossible to get "under the guns" of a missile boat. I'm completely fine with missiles having poor damage application to small fry because they're guaranteed to hit*.
* This is mostly true.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession Brothers of Apocrypha.
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:33:00 -
[990] - Quote
As some one else posted I have a feeling these changes will merely bring a new age of "Amarr supremacy". *Shrugs* It's CCP's game and they can make what ever changes they wish.
It seems that after this my armor canes will be rather borked, so I'll just have to trade them in for harby's when I can be arsed to do it. (though they are fugly in comparison to the cane even after the v3 nerf to their looks) I just find it funny that they are getting gutted due to a fit setup I never favored.
So I guess my feed back is this, I think the PG nerf on the cane for an armor tanker might be extreme, but if other fits are causing problems because of it so be it. You can't keep everyone happy all the time. And if my faded frown means 3 other people smile then that is what you should do.
As for the HML changes, by all means go full speed ahead. Misery loves company after all. |
|
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:35:00 -
[991] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote: I see it as balance for Caldari having the smallest drone bays in the game - missiles *have* (well ok they don't have to but they should) to do at least decent damage to smaller vessels. In my (somewhat limited) experience with HAMs they just don't do that.
You need to be careful with that. While it's true that sig radius always plays a role in damage mitigation, it also means that it's literally impossible to get "under the guns" of a missile boat. I'm completely fine with missiles having poor damage application to small fry because they're guaranteed to hit*. * This is mostly true. -Liang
I'm gonna slightly disagree with your 'mostly' and come back at ya with 'sorta.' Also you have to consider that frigs can get popped by bigger ships when they approach with zero transversal - missile boats can't do that. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:39:00 -
[992] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote: I see it as balance for Caldari having the smallest drone bays in the game - missiles *have* (well ok they don't have to but they should) to do at least decent damage to smaller vessels. In my (somewhat limited) experience with HAMs they just don't do that.
You need to be careful with that. While it's true that sig radius always plays a role in damage mitigation, it also means that it's literally impossible to get "under the guns" of a missile boat. I'm completely fine with missiles having poor damage application to small fry because they're guaranteed to hit*. * This is mostly true. -Liang I'm gonna slightly disagree with your 'mostly' and come back at ya with 'sorta.' Also you have to consider that frigs can get popped by bigger ships when they approach with zero transversal - missile boats can't do that.
On the other hand, I avoidance tank gun ships all the time. You literally cannot do that with missiles unless you go so damn fast that the missiles never ever hit you (~6.5-7km/s)
-Liang
Ed: And if you do this, you had better be in a missile ship yourself, because even frigate guns aren't gonna hit **** at that speed. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:40:00 -
[993] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant.
Fitting a full rack of 720's already requires a PG implant or ACR. Moron
Isaiah Harms wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time
Oh yeah you're changing it. What you didn't tell everyone is the Hurricane with a typical 1600mm plate can only fit 5 180mmautocannons. P.S. That's with a 5% powergrid implant.
What kind of god awful fitting skills do you have? A full rack of 720s currently leaves you with just over 200PG left to play with, and in the event you're one of those who favour the Hurricane with a plate, you can fit a pair of T2 1600mm with a full of rack of d180s and still have 62PG left.
Considering you posted the following in this very thread:
Isaiah Harms wrote:Seriously.. this forum is populated by nut jobs who don't actually play the game. Why does CCP listen to them?
I kind of wonder what's wrong with your head. I'd say that calling Mr Fozzie a moron like you did is a rather sad showing of irony, not to mention being poor form to begin with. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:47:00 -
[994] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote: I see it as balance for Caldari having the smallest drone bays in the game - missiles *have* (well ok they don't have to but they should) to do at least decent damage to smaller vessels. In my (somewhat limited) experience with HAMs they just don't do that.
You need to be careful with that. While it's true that sig radius always plays a role in damage mitigation, it also means that it's literally impossible to get "under the guns" of a missile boat. I'm completely fine with missiles having poor damage application to small fry because they're guaranteed to hit*. * This is mostly true. -Liang I'm gonna slightly disagree with your 'mostly' and come back at ya with 'sorta.' Also you have to consider that frigs can get popped by bigger ships when they approach with zero transversal - missile boats can't do that. On the other hand, I avoidance tank gun ships all the time. You literally cannot do that with missiles unless you go so damn fast that the missiles never ever hit you (~6.5-7km/s) -Liang Ed: And if you do this, you had better be in a missile ship yourself, because even frigate guns aren't gonna hit **** at that speed.
Well... no you're right to reach the zero damage threshold you have to be moving pretty dang quick but the damage reduction gains for even a moderate speed are pretty substantial for some (most?) of the missile family (cruise missiles, torps, and, relevant to this conversation, HAMs). |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:51:00 -
[995] - Quote
Trolly McForumalt wrote: Well... no you're right to reach the zero damage threshold you have to be moving pretty dang quick but the damage reduction gains for even a moderate speed are pretty substantial for some (most?) of the missile family (cruise missiles, torps, and, relevant to this conversation, HAMs).
Yes, but the raw HP on small ships like that is pretty low. Allowing missiles to have really good damage projection against small ships would be unquestionably overpowered.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:52:00 -
[996] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote: Were you the one a few threads ago who bitched at me for doing pimped t2 fits and bonuses, and here you're making an impossible dps statement unless you go with billions in fitting options? And then chucked in Overheating stats to boot.
why yes, yes you were the one.
A few comments: - This particular branch of the conversation is about PVE. People regularly faction fit their Tengus. I personally have multiple PVE Tengus that are faction fit. - Those stats are not overheated. - I yelled at you for **** fitting and posting unrealistic PVP fits. -Liang
Yes, nobody fits t2 modules and a few meta 4s and + 3% implants to pvp.. but everyone fits an estamels BCU to their pve ship... you are genius.
And bullshit you're doing 1000dps w/o doing that, b/c you can't get above 900 w/o doing either that or overheating... and even then, you're real damage is nowhere near that much after defenders, range issues, and speed/sig dmg reductions. |
Trolly McForumalt
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:54:00 -
[997] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Trolly McForumalt wrote: Well... no you're right to reach the zero damage threshold you have to be moving pretty dang quick but the damage reduction gains for even a moderate speed are pretty substantial for some (most?) of the missile family (cruise missiles, torps, and, relevant to this conversation, HAMs).
Yes, but the raw HP on small ships like that is pretty low. Allowing missiles to have really good damage projection against small ships would be unquestionably overpowered. -Liang
Well not 'really good' but... we'll say good enough. IMO right it's pretty bad for HAMs (HAM damage against cruiser hulls ain't that great - forget about frigates). |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:58:00 -
[998] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote: Were you the one a few threads ago who bitched at me for doing pimped t2 fits and bonuses, and here you're making an impossible dps statement unless you go with billions in fitting options? And then chucked in Overheating stats to boot.
why yes, yes you were the one.
A few comments: - This particular branch of the conversation is about PVE. People regularly faction fit their Tengus. I personally have multiple PVE Tengus that are faction fit. - Those stats are not overheated. - I yelled at you for **** fitting and posting unrealistic PVP fits. -Liang Yes, nobody fits t2 modules and a few meta 4s and + 3% implants to pvp.. but everyone fits an estamels BCU to their pve ship... you are genius. I guess I never kill Arazu's and Rapiers (daily) that have 3-500 mil pvp fits or faction fit frigs, or any of that mess, no no, never happens. And heavens to Betsy I swear nobody in their right mind would ever fit cruiser sized t2 rigs.... that 30 mil is just too damn expensive. And bullshit you're doing 1000dps w/o doing that, b/c you can't get above 900 w/o doing either that or overheating... and even then, you're real damage is nowhere near that much after defenders, range issues, and speed/sig dmg reductions.
You need to learn to fit a ship, seriously. Every fit that you have posted has been a **** fit and you've lied about the stats. Furthermore, it's not as though it's particularly hard - someone earlier in this thread was talking about a straight replacement of HML -> HAM and getting 988 out of their current fit.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Deena Amaj
Community for Justice Resurrection by Election
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:00:00 -
[999] - Quote
I'm happy with murdering FOTM/cookie cutter stuff.
Would be good to introduce more missile bay "flavors" though with special effects/debuffs. You know, AoE stuff, disruptions, multi-targeting lauches etc, so that missiles are still an interesting feature. confirthisposmed
I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them. |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
686
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:00:00 -
[1000] - Quote
There was a reason I trained all races frigs, cruisers, and bs to 5. And all races t3 sub systems to 5. In additions to training up to use all tech 2 weapons systems.
There ALWAYS seems to be something getting nerfed, and it's the best way to make sure you can fly whatever fotm is until it gets nerfed not long after.
Though, is this really a good thing? |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:01:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
You keep talking about the DPS output of artillery, I don't think you get how artillery works.
I don't think you get that an 8 second rof artillery boat with massive alpha, and that fast a RoF stops becoming just an alpha boat and starts to consider dps. |
Jackie Cross
MacGyver Communications
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:06:00 -
[1002] - Quote
HA! I caught up. 5:30AM as I'm writing this, so bear with me if I typo etc.
The changes proposed to both please and terrify me. I've known since way back that a nerf would be coming for the Drake, much like the Horsemen would be coming after us at the time of the Apocalypse. Still, kinda sad to see my old faithful missioning boat need a refit.
TD on missiles? That's wrong on so many levels it's not funny. I can agree to the function, but not on a module called Tracking Disrupter. Self-guided missiles get their order at launch. I would wager it's not given coordinates, but rather other identifiable references. Create a module that disrupt the signal the missile is given at launch. Same for TE/TC.
My first reaction was "20% less damage and 25% less range? Are you nuts?!" but I got over that. As has been said in this thread, TE/TC can help with that to some extent. My Drake puts out 301 dps (not perfectly fit, I know) with CN Scourge, 262 with T1 Scourge, 210 with T1 Inferno. Sans drones. No, it can't break the tank on all L4 BSs without it's drones. In fact, if I lose a single drone in WC4 I go back to station and pick one up. With a 20% damage reduction it will likely be the end of non-faction ammo Drakes in L4. But, that isn't a bad thing, as long as there are viable alternatives, viable missile boat alternatives.
The old rule of thumb was frig/dessie for L1, cruiser for L2, BC for L3, and BS for L4. I have friends running L3s in dessies without major problems. Cruisers were obsolete for a while, but the new changes should bring them back. Let's see where we end up. We might abide by that old rule again. I wonder though, have cruisers been balanced for how missiles act now, or how missiles will act? Perhaps it's better to wait until BCs have been revamped as well before going at the weapon systems used by both cruiser and BC?
An important part to remember is that a sweeping change to HM will not only affect Drake and Tengu, but a whole lot of other ships, the Caracal (never liked that one), Cerberus, NH for example. Neither one stellar and I think I can count on my fingers the number of those that flew in ATX, perhaps I need my toes as well. HAM versions of them may be getting a buff, depends on the numbers we got from TE/TC, but the HM versions will be losing out.
The NH has been mentioned a few times. I'm glad I aimed at a HAM NH. Astarte with all Vs and the setup my alt is using for 3-man missions will put out 718 at 8km + 18km (fall-off) range. NH with all Vs will manage 555 up to 17km. Yes, please, to HAM buff.
As for skills. I'd wager roughly the same amount of time/SP is needed to max out missile skills for, say, HML as for Arty. The difference is that I, as a missile invested pilot, won't have anything to fall back on or easily train to in case my primary weapon system is nerfed. The amount of training needed to add Beams for an Arty trained pilot is not the same as the time needed for a HML trained pilot. The support skills are already in place. I have WU5, AWU4, and then 85k SP in Gunnery. Long way to go to a well-fit Vulture.
As for the insane debate on damage application between turrets and missiles. They work differently, different aspects apply. Steady damage vs miss/barely scratch/hit/well-aimed/wrecking for one. THEY CAN'T BE PROPERLY COMPARED. We can try to even the difference, OP is one idea, we don't yet know if it's the right choice.
I'm certain I forgot some parts of what I had planned to write, but I just heard my neighbour leave for work, so I'm off to bed. Fly safe. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:12:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
You need to learn to fit a ship, seriously. Every fit that you have posted has been a **** fit and you've lied about the stats. Furthermore, it's not as though it's particularly hard - someone earlier in this thread was talking about a straight replacement of HML -> HAM and getting 988 out of their current fit.
-Liang
max skills 4 caldari navy BCU's 6 HAM 2s 5% rof Implant I can't seem to find any 5% damage implant for HAMs
941 dps In kinetic only, ratting never relies soley on kinetc, and even then you don't get the suggested dps.
I've never once lied about ship fits or stats, you just can't read for **** all and regularly ignore half of my post that supplies specific details about how/why things work a certain way. You never compair apples to apples, you always fudge stats to make it work for whatever bullshit you want to say.
Now tell me this, where is your lvl 4 tank coming from at this point? Are we going x-type hardeners to boot?
This is the bullshit you come up with. By your very definition, I can Pimp fit out a Golem and easily get more range, way more damage, similar tank, more cargo, more useful high slots, and a drone bay to boot. Yet you want to exclaim that tengu is the king of ratting after a huge nerf to missiles.
Funny, considering the huge range limitations that you didn't even account for mean that a proteus will easily match it w/o ever losing damage to NPC defenders.
|
Obsidiana
White-Noise
189
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:22:00 -
[1004] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Obsidiana wrote:Um, Fozzie... what about the Cerberus, Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Nighthawk?
I would rather see the Drake lose a launcher than to see the Caracal et al. get hurt this badly. The Cerberus is now out classed by the Sacrilege. The Nighthawk needed a buff, not a nerf. The Caracal heavy missile damage was always just decent, never a problem. Since when was the Navy Caracal ever a problem? (Yes, I understand that these ships we will need to be balanced, but the HM change that addresses the Drake hurts ships that needed a buff.)
The Caracal is getting two more low slots and more tank. The two low slots, as I already said, almost gives it back its DPS, which was never much. As for tank, ya it gets a pinch more EHP, but it loses some or most of it to fit AB/MWD or tackle. It can do less damage as a long range damage dealer or have a weak tank up close. And, all this at what is still pretty slow IMHO.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:22:00 -
[1005] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
You need to learn to fit a ship, seriously. Every fit that you have posted has been a **** fit and you've lied about the stats. Furthermore, it's not as though it's particularly hard - someone earlier in this thread was talking about a straight replacement of HML -> HAM and getting 988 out of their current fit.
-Liang
max skills 4 caldari navy BCU's 6 HAM 2s 5% rof Implant I can't seem to find any 5% damage implant for HAMs 941 dps In kinetic only, ratting never relies soley on kinetc, and even then you don't get the suggested dps. I've never once lied about ship fits or stats, you just can't read for **** all and regularly ignore half of my post that supplies specific details about how/why things work a certain way. You never compair apples to apples, you always fudge stats to make it work for whatever bullshit you want to say. Now tell me this, where is your lvl 4 tank coming from at this point? Are we going x-type hardeners to boot? This is the bullshit you come up with. By your very definition, I can Pimp fit out a Golem and easily get more range, way more damage, similar tank, more cargo, more useful high slots, and a drone bay to boot. Yet you want to exclaim that tengu is the king of ratting after a huge nerf to missiles. Funny, considering the huge range limitations that you didn't even account for mean that a proteus will easily match it w/o ever losing damage to NPC defenders.
A few comments: - lmgtfy.com?q=1000+dps+tengu - http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/55448-High-dps-enough-tank-medium-price-tengu.html (Not how I'd fit it, but it's servicable and I've used a similar fit) - If you're talking about ratting, make sure that your reload DPS is unchecked. This is also generally true for PVP. - You straight up said the Bellicose gets 40-50k EHP and 550 DPS. You constantly shift goalposts by using T2 rigs and T3 bonuses for your fits but insist that nobody else can when comparing ****. CCP Fozzie straight ripped you a new ******* for being the shitstain that you are. - If you're really yaay: what the **** why are you so ******* bad now? Have I really come so far in this game that I've surpassed you so dramatically in general ship knowledge?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Kegstand Mcfarland
Cruelest Intentions
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:33:00 -
[1006] - Quote
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly
20% reduction in damage for a ship that does crap damage already...BS absolute BS. Range reduction in rage assaults I assume so making hams work even worse then they already did BS absolute BS. Tracking disruption great should effect all weapons.
SO are you folks planning to nerf the damage on the other 3 gun types because if not this is a complete load of steaming dogcrap. |
Mick Fightmaster
Hammer Holding Grand Stellar Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:35:00 -
[1007] - Quote
The hurricane is already a glass cannon....why make it suck at DPS too?
Leave our 425 neut canes alone. Focus on the drake |
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:39:00 -
[1008] - Quote
CCP u r not seeing it clear. Sure u have to nerf drake bloobs. But nerf HML... the only working missile. By doing it u nerf Cerberus, Caracal, nightawk, Damnation, Tengu n Legion. The range nerf is necessary. The DPS for sure it isnt, I will explain.
HML sig radius = 161,25m This alone means dps REDUCE to 75% to hit cruisers hulls. With sig ex = 145,5m/s means that any moving BC will avoid another part of the dmg. Thats why A-HACs r the counter for drake fleets. Futher more thats why torps dont work in PvP.
So missile are terrible and the only thing that they have is range.
The TD is the g* F*** C****** in the face. As sig radius n explosion isnt enough.
To do the theory dmg u have to TP + web ur targets........ face it thats 2 med modules + the 2 low......
So at the end of the day missile will be useless. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:40:00 -
[1009] - Quote
Wpolo wrote: So at the end of the day missile will be useless.
I will buy all of your worthless missile characters at 1 million ISK per million SP in missiles and Caldari. TYIA.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:41:00 -
[1010] - Quote
Kegstand Mcfarland wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly
20% reduction in damage for a ship that does crap damage already...BS absolute BS. Range reduction in rage assaults I assume so making hams work even worse then they already did BS absolute BS. Tracking disruption great should effect all weapons.
SO are you folks planning to nerf the damage on the other 3 gun types because if not this is a complete load of steaming dogcrap.
100% with u |
|
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:42:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Wpolo wrote: So at the end of the day missile will be useless.
I will buy all of your worthless missile characters at 1 million ISK per million SP in missiles and Caldari. TYIA. -Liang
Why i will sell it? |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:45:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Wpolo wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Wpolo wrote: So at the end of the day missile will be useless.
I will buy all of your worthless missile characters at 1 million ISK per million SP in missiles and Caldari. TYIA. -Liang Why i will sell it?
Because all missiles are worthless, of course! Of course, you could just be blowing hot air up everyone's ass about how bad off missiles are going to be... but MMO players would never resort to extreme hyperbole to game game balance in favor of extreme imbalance in their favor.
No, never.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Don Cunningham
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:49:00 -
[1013] - Quote
I've only been playing a month and a half so it's not a big a loss to me as it is for people more invested in these particular SP's, but still, a month is a decent amount of time. Given I've taken the majority of that time to specialize in HML Drake tank to eventually run solo Lv. 4 missions as my primary source of income and the fact that these changes may completely thwart my plans, can players be reimbursed SP to reallocate to something you deem isn't OP? The trio of nerfs is too drastic: Range/Damage/TD effects... I can agree the range is a bit much. But to require me to come in closer to attack on top of reducing the mediocre damage output on top of possibly compromising my damage w/ TD is a recipe for failure. Is it your intent to kill off the general build? If so, please tell us what you think is ok so I can invest my SP into something that won't get jacked off on later? I know this is subject to change, but it feels like time wasted. |
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:50:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Wpolo wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Wpolo wrote: So at the end of the day missile will be useless.
I will buy all of your worthless missile characters at 1 million ISK per million SP in missiles and Caldari. TYIA. -Liang Why i will sell it? Because all missiles are worthless, of course! Of course, you could just be blowing hot air up everyone's ass about how bad off missiles are going to be... but MMO players would never resort to extreme hyperbole to game game balance in favor of extreme imbalance in their favor. No, never. -Liang Seens that u r the one blowing hot air in the rear guard.
read my post again... |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:56:00 -
[1015] - Quote
Everyone kinda missed this, but Sanshas is going to be almost a big a ***** as Guristas after this =P, I've been TD-ed down to 10km optimal on MPL II Scorch from 50km, cruise already needed 3 rigs and a painter to deal damage to cruisers, now Sanshas will ruin missile boats. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:56:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:A few comments: - lmgtfy.com?q=1000+dps+tengu - http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/55448-High-dps-enough-tank-medium-price-tengu.html (Not how I'd fit it, but it's servicable and I've used a similar fit) - If you're talking about ratting, make sure that your reload DPS is unchecked. This is also generally true for PVP. - You straight up said the Bellicose gets 40-50k EHP and 550 DPS. You constantly shift goalposts by using T2 rigs and T3 bonuses for your fits but insist that nobody else can when comparing ****. CCP Fozzie straight ripped you a new ******* for being the shitstain that you are. - If you're really yaay: what the **** why are you so ******* bad now? Have I really come so far in this game that I've surpassed you so dramatically in general ship knowledge? -Liang
No, I said a Belicose can get 20-30k ehp and 550 dps. I said it can still get 40-50k ehp with around a 500 dps build which was 2 bcus, a 3% damage implant, and nothing else special...... I realize American schools are not teaching good reading skills, but jesus, that's pretty awful.
Quote:#216 Posted: 2012.09.14 19:24 | Report | Edited by: ISD TYPE40 I'm sorry, but if you think it's a Paper thin setup on a Belicose because the 4 lows were dedicated to dps, you don't get the point. You can still get this thing upwards of 40,000-50,000 ehp with a bonus ship and still around 500 dps.
I mean do I literally have to theory craft every fit for you just to show you the variety of ways that this is not a good idea?
575 powergrid +25% skill + 15% RC + 10% ancillary = 909 PG. That's easily enough to fit 2 large shield extenders, and a Damage control + 2 slots left for resistance and rigs to boost shielding quite high. Added to the fact that you have high drone + HAM damage you can get 475 DPS just with skills alone. Add in overheating, implants, or other variety of options that ******* rich *people* like me might do, you can see how this quickly gets OP.... |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:57:00 -
[1017] - Quote
well, this has devolved quickly into a **** toss. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2214
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:58:00 -
[1018] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:A few comments: - lmgtfy.com?q=1000+dps+tengu - http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/55448-High-dps-enough-tank-medium-price-tengu.html (Not how I'd fit it, but it's servicable and I've used a similar fit) - If you're talking about ratting, make sure that your reload DPS is unchecked. This is also generally true for PVP. - You straight up said the Bellicose gets 40-50k EHP and 550 DPS. You constantly shift goalposts by using T2 rigs and T3 bonuses for your fits but insist that nobody else can when comparing ****. CCP Fozzie straight ripped you a new ******* for being the shitstain that you are. - If you're really yaay: what the **** why are you so ******* bad now? Have I really come so far in this game that I've surpassed you so dramatically in general ship knowledge? -Liang No, I said a Belicose can get 20-30k ehp and 550 dps. I said it can still get 40-50k ehp with around a 500 dps build which was 2 bcus, a 3% damage implant, and nothing else special...... I realize American schools are not teaching good reading skills, but jesus, that's pretty awful. Quote:#216 Posted: 2012.09.14 19:24 | Report | Edited by: ISD TYPE40 I'm sorry, but if you think it's a Paper thin setup on a Belicose because the 4 lows were dedicated to dps, you don't get the point. You can still get this thing upwards of 40,000-50,000 ehp with a bonus ship and still around 500 dps.
I mean do I literally have to theory craft every fit for you just to show you the variety of ways that this is not a good idea?
575 powergrid +25% skill + 15% RC + 10% ancillary = 909 PG. That's easily enough to fit 2 large shield extenders, and a Damage control + 2 slots left for resistance and rigs to boost shielding quite high. Added to the fact that you have high drone + HAM damage you can get 475 DPS just with skills alone. Add in overheating, implants, or other variety of options that ******* rich *people* like me might do, you can see how this quickly gets OP....
Go back to that thread. Post fits. Romney isn't doing enough ******** **** today and I need good laughs.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:58:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:- If you're really yaay: what the **** why are you so ******* bad now? Have I really come so far in this game that I've surpassed you so dramatically in general ship knowledge?
He really is yaay. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2214
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 04:59:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Aaron Greil wrote:well, this has devolved quickly into a **** toss.
This was expected. CCP nerfs ships that have been overpowered so long that when people join the game they're told "train X because it is literally the only thing worth training". Is it any surprise that people would be butthurt over the nerf? The only way to fix these things kinds of problems is to nerf faster. It's a delicate balance though, because you have to be careful not to nerf before the metagame can adapt - and frankly that can take quite a long time!
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:06:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Aaron Greil wrote:well, this has devolved quickly into a **** toss. This was expected. CCP nerfs ships that have been overpowered so long that when people join the game they're told "train X because it is literally the only thing worth training". Is it any surprise that people would be butthurt over the nerf? The only way to fix these things kinds of problems is to nerf faster. It's a delicate balance though, because you have to be careful not to nerf before the metagame can adapt - and frankly that can take quite a long time! -Liang
Yeah, and nobody see's the problem with TD changes, the huge buffts to fitting LR weapon systems on other cruisers, the unneeded missile damage reduction, and the lack of addressing ships that were the cause of 90% of the problems that were blamed specifically on missiles.
Kinda like nobody saw the horrible concepts for titans and capitals all these years, the horrible 0.0 mechanics, the horrible proliferation effects, the horrible inflationary pressures, etc, etc, etc.
Watching CCP dig it's own grave has been sad over the years. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2214
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:11:00 -
[1022] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Aaron Greil wrote:well, this has devolved quickly into a **** toss. This was expected. CCP nerfs ships that have been overpowered so long that when people join the game they're told "train X because it is literally the only thing worth training". Is it any surprise that people would be butthurt over the nerf? The only way to fix these things kinds of problems is to nerf faster. It's a delicate balance though, because you have to be careful not to nerf before the metagame can adapt - and frankly that can take quite a long time! -Liang Yeah, and nobody see's the problem with TD changes, the huge buffts to fitting LR weapon systems on other cruisers, the unneeded missile damage reduction, and the lack of addressing ships that were the cause of 90% of the problems that were blamed specifically on missiles. Kinda like nobody saw the horrible concepts for titans and capitals all these years, the horrible 0.0 mechanics, the horrible proliferation effects, the horrible inflationary pressures, etc, etc, etc. Watching CCP dig it's own grave has been sad over the years.
TDs are almost certain to be OP, but if we're making TEs and TCs affect missiles it's not exactly an unexpected move. Furthermore, suppose that you have unlimited fittings on the Beam Harbinger and Legion: how would you go about making them compete with the HML Drake and Tengu?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
742
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:15:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Woohoo, this will be awesome, can't wait for winter.
To all the cryer's see you in hi sec stations with +5 impants on now. hurray I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
718
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:20:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:TDs are almost certain to be OP, but if we're making TEs and TCs affect missiles it's not exactly an unexpected move. Furthermore, suppose that you have unlimited fittings on the Beam Harbinger and Legion: how would you go about making them compete with the HML Drake and Tengu?
-Liang I'm still scratching my head here on why a more mild nerf to HMLs coupled with a buff to damage of the other 3 long range types is for some reason completely out of the question.
I'm calling for a buff to three weapons types to actually make more playing styles viable, as opposed to "waaaah HMLs are OP, look at how bad these other weapons are in comparison!"
Not saying YOU are saying that, but if the goal is bringing them in line then shouldn't the underutilized weapons systems be buffed? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:27:00 -
[1025] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Aaron Greil wrote:well, this has devolved quickly into a **** toss. This was expected. CCP nerfs ships that have been overpowered so long that when people join the game they're told "train X because it is literally the only thing worth training". Is it any surprise that people would be butthurt over the nerf? The only way to fix these things kinds of problems is to nerf faster. It's a delicate balance though, because you have to be careful not to nerf before the metagame can adapt - and frankly that can take quite a long time! -Liang Yeah, and nobody see's the problem with TD changes, the huge buffts to fitting LR weapon systems on other cruisers, the unneeded missile damage reduction, and the lack of addressing ships that were the cause of 90% of the problems that were blamed specifically on missiles. Kinda like nobody saw the horrible concepts for titans and capitals all these years, the horrible 0.0 mechanics, the horrible proliferation effects, the horrible inflationary pressures, etc, etc, etc. Watching CCP dig it's own grave has been sad over the years.
You know, you don't have to play EVE if you don't want to?
|
Anhenka
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:32:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Even as a player who loathes flying drakes and tengu's and has to fight drake blobs constantly, I think these are a bit harsh.
Start out with wither the damage or the range nerf and see how that works first. |
Taoist Dragon
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:37:00 -
[1027] - Quote
As a player who has actively avoided the drake/cane FOTM ships as they are way to popular I'll now be training up my medium missile/projectile skills so when these changes come out I can fly stuff that people don't like anymore!!
FOTM is crap! don't be afraid to think outside the box and have fun!! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything. |
Errand Girl
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:38:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Speaking as a relatively new pilot who doesn't have 50 million+ SP and had the misfortune to choose Caldari... What am I supposed to fly now? HMLs already have fairly weak DPS and a 20% damage nerf means that my ship options for both PVE and PVP are totally gimped.
Drakes have too much tank, fine. HMLs have too much range, fine. But the damage nerf means all Caldari cruiser and battlecruiser hulls now pretty much suck. I realize that drake blobs are an issue in null sec, but seriously.... find a way to nerf drake blobs without totally hosing carebears and small gang PVPers.
As a young player, I have very little cross training. I'm all Caldari ship skills and all missiles. Now I'm looking at what? 6+ months of training before I can be good at flying another race's ships and using another races weapons? Maybe that's not a long time to a lot of vets around here (who are much more likely to be well cross-trained already), but to a 1 year player that's a very long time. I'll wait until the final changes are announced, but I would very seriously consider quitting EVE rather than throwing away the millions of SP I have in soon-to-be-worthless crap, plus basically starting over on my ship/gun progression. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
566
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:43:00 -
[1029] - Quote
I always train for the FOTM (or years in this case). When setting up my training plan I never stop to ask myself of it's OP. I don't check the forums to see if there are multiple threads calling for a nerf or if the devs have hinted at a nerf for almost a year. Lastly, I certainly don't look at how long a trend has been going on and ask if I'm jumping on at the end of the bandwagon or the beginning. I just train for FOTM all the time. |
terzslave
RedStar Enterprises RED Citizens
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:50:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Please do not nerf my HMLs. I want to play caldari, I really do but this is just making it impossible. No fleet is going to call for a drake or tengu after this. STAY AWAY FROM MY HMLS!!!! |
|
knobber Jobbler
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:50:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Cut off the arm to fix a broken finger.
If you want to nerf drakes, nerf drakes. Don't penalise everything that uses heavy missiles.
The nerf to Tengu's just doesn't make sense; they're a little OP but then again, PVP'ing with 250 of them is a massive risk to any alliance fielding them. A whelped Tengu fleet is a fast way to bankruptcy. Risk vs Reward and all.
CCP - Go back to the drawing board and figure this out properly. Nerf ships, not the weapon systems and maybe stagger it a little rather than a whole sale killing off. It will only mean another rebalance in a years time...remember missiles were buffed a few years back. |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
686
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:50:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Should be noted that the TD buff was on SISI ages ago, and in the last major patch CCP announced they would eventually be doing this, but that the version of it they had on SISI wasn't exactly what they wanted.
They said they would be coming back to it in the near future.
It caused a few threads of complaints then as well, but people for some reason just forgot about it.
These are screenshots I took in may on SISI.
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2343/tdsisi.jpg
So we all knew SOMETHING would happen to make them effective against missiles, even if we didn't know how it would finally be implemented. |
Nariya Kentaya
Tartarus Ventures Surely You're Joking
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 05:58:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Heimdallofasgard wrote:Due to the powergrid reduction of lasers as well, do you think the harbinger requires a pg nerf as well? hey, i fly harbs all the time, and currently a T2 pvp fit worth anything more then a throwaway gank-boat n pvp will be pushing the lower single-digits in pg, if anything, lwering the pg reuirements for lasers would allow for more then 1 semi-usable fit for the harby compared to other BC's vast adaptability. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:05:00 -
[1034] - Quote
So how to make medium LR weapons viable?
- nerf AC falloff slightly - nerf TE falloff effect less slightly - nerf Scorch range slightly - buff warp disruptor range to 28km
?
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Dorn Val
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:06:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. Something like this? http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gifThis is with max skills, no other modules besides the weapons and long range ammo. Yes, exactly. Many thanks for providing this. As you can see in the graph, heavy missiles pretty much dominate this range class of weapons, with the only weapons system providing any advantage at all being railguns on a Ferox - and at a huge DPS hit to achieve this. If you run the same graph after the changes Fozzie is proposing, you will see that there are now actual advantages to using other weapons besides HML at these ranges.
Sorry for the long quote. I agree with you Hans: People should have to make trade offs when a ship is fitted. HMLs are pretty much a no brainer at present, with very little HAM use except for the ships that have specific bonuses to them. Add to that the relatively easy training time for missiles (since missiles are not divided by ship size the way other weapons are) and you pretty much have an "HML I win" button. Time for a change...
I'm much more excited about the Hurricane getting a power grid nerf -tired of running into a Cane that does more damage, and can neut more of my cap, than an Ashimu.... Just like there is no I in Team there is no Fair in Eve... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1018
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:06:00 -
[1036] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:
Watching CCP dig it's own grave has been sad over the years.
Yea Yaay, you tell them about how they're game has slowly died over 9 years.
Sure bet they wish they'd listened to you more and redid this whole thing so they could a little more life out of her....
|
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:09:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Changing heavy missiles seems like the wrong way to go.
The drake's problem is that it does everything well. It's got a good tank, is cheap, easy to train, does PVE pretty well, has good range and good utility with all the midslots. Before tier 3 battlecruisers it was clearly too strong as a mid to long range damage dealer. I'd argue that the tier 3 battlecruisers fixed a lot of these problems, but I guess some people don't agree.
The 100mn ab tengu is overpowered mostly because of the accelerated ejection bay and fuel catalyst in combination with huge amounts of fitting.
The best thing to do would be to pull a midslot off the drake or change the resist bonus, and to adjust two subsystems on the tengu.
I don't know why people feel the need to take a sledgehammer approach to a problem that really only involves 2 ships. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:12:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Errand Girl wrote:Speaking as a relatively new pilot who doesn't have 50 million+ SP and had the misfortune to choose Caldari... What am I supposed to fly now? HMLs already have fairly weak DPS and a 20% damage nerf means that my ship options for both PVE and PVP are totally gimped.
Drakes have too much tank, fine. HMLs have too much range, fine. But the damage nerf means all Caldari cruiser and battlecruiser hulls now pretty much suck. I realize that drake blobs are an issue in null sec, but seriously.... find a way to nerf drake blobs without totally hosing carebears and small gang PVPers.
As a young player, I have very little cross training. I'm all Caldari ship skills and all missiles. Now I'm looking at what? 6+ months of training before I can be good at flying another race's ships and using another races weapons? Maybe that's not a long time to a lot of vets around here (who are much more likely to be well cross-trained already), but to a 1 year player that's a very long time. I'll wait until the final changes are announced, but I would very seriously consider quitting EVE rather than throwing away the millions of SP I have in soon-to-be-worthless crap, plus basically starting over on my ship/gun progression.
Two of the three Caldari battlecruisers use hybrid weapons. Are they useless now?
And just to repeat what has been said numerous time, and has been long known to all but dreaktards- HMLs have high dps compared to other medium LR weapons, better range and damage application, which is why they get rebalanced to be in line with the others.
Drakes and Tengus are ubiquitously good in PVE, other three races have been very lacking in comparison. Still players of the other races have been doing PVE all this time.
Take it chill, you will be just fine.
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:15:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Quote:And just to repeat what has been said numerous time, and has been long known to all but dreaktards- HMLs have high dps compared to other medium LR weapons, better range and damage application, which is why they get rebalanced to be in line with the others.
To be honest medium rails and beams are in desperate need of a buff. |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:18:00 -
[1040] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125. The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.
This is very bad. It makes a standard buffer Armor Hurricane fitting with 220mm Autocannons impossible as it is already a tight fit.
[Hurricane, Standard Buffer]
6x 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II (Barrage M) 2x Medium Energy Neutralizer II
Warp Disruptor II Warp Scrambler II Stasis Webifier II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 2x Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 2x Gyrostabilizer II Damage Control II
3x Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
With all V , which I do not have, it makes just about 417 dps without drones (which I do not use as they are pretty useless in lowsec) and has a accaptable tank to fight solo at a gate for a short (!) time. Without the fitting advantage the Hurricane is pretty useless IMHO. The new Powergrid would allow a 800mm Steel plate 2 if my estimates are correct. That is a LOT less tank. I am not satisfied with these changes.
And concerning the missles....am about to finish Heavy missiles V....worthless... |
|
Ranamar
Cerulean Eagles Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:27:00 -
[1041] - Quote
I have to agree with the people who feel like the 20% damage nerf was a little steep. That said, having seen the numbers that were posted, it's clear that they were a little over the top. I'm worried about damage at around 30km, though, where other LR weapons can bring higher-damage munitions into play. Is there any chance we can haggle you down to a 10-15% nerf? :p
Also, I'd like to echo the people asking whether the explosion radius or velocity component of the tracking mods will work on unguided weapons. I'd be all for it: it'd be an extra boost to some underused weapons. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
770
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:28:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:[ The new Powergrid would allow a 800mm Steel plate 2 if my estimates are correct. That is a LOT less tank. I am not satisfied with these changes. Why? You gonna have less overtank than before, it's a good thing. 800mm plate should be the biggest one available for cruisers/battlecruisers anyway. 14 |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
566
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:29:00 -
[1043] - Quote
I played more than 4 years eve online. Now you plan the second nerf to missiles!
-25% range -20% damage Make TDs affect Missiles?
Are you dumb or something? If I use missiles I do not have instant damage, every ******* can use defenders against my missiles. Additional to this you will bring this dumb ideas to nerf missiles even more? With these changes you nerf missiles to death! Equal drawbacks compared to other weapon systems PLUS defenders?
One account canceled. I have renewed my account on Fri, 31 Aug 2012 with a 6 month subscription but be sure I will make a petition and demand my money back! You announced these changes AFTER my renewal. I do not wish to pay for a game I do not play anymore! I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Bilaz
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:32:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Bilaz wrote: both tengu and drake are massievly overtanked drake- yes, it has a big tank tengu - no...not at all. Look at the proteus. 200k tank with armor easily. Look at the Loki. 100k tank easily wth a single 1600 plate. Tengu has trouble getting 100k passive tank, and thats with only 2 mid slots left over for MWD and disruptor. Plus, the real issue lies with 100MN tengus, their tanks are not huge at all, its just their speed mitigating damage that makes it seem that way. Even moreso, to fly an 100mn tengu, you NEED to pimp fit it, and having an extremely expensive tengu should be OKAY to have it as a powerful ship. You don't see people constantly flying 1.5bil lokis and legions, like people do with tengus, but if you did, you could surely get 150k-200k armor tank on them as well, just as the tengu gets a good tank when combined with 100mn. However, its tank is not massively unbalanced. Just its damage projection, and reducing its range and a bit of its damage (hopefully not 20% however) is a reasonable way of fixing it up to be more balanced. However- nerfing it into oblivion will make 100mn tengus no longer useful, taking away a lovely style of playing that many people hold dear. (This isn't me whining, I personally don't fly 100mn tengus because I don't have the ISK to buy something too pimped.) Nerfing a form of warfare is really bad for the game. It takes away people's skills using a certain tactic. For example - some people have really practised with kiting others, and thus use it a lot in PvP because it is what they are good at. 100MN tengus require a lot of thinking to manuever properly, and taking out this playstyle really isn't a particularly good/fair idea.
Well if drake is overtanked and tengu can have even more ehp than drake, while (as you claim) being less tanked than other t3 - that means what? It means that all t3 are massievly overtanked. And all they deserve a good old kick. As for 100k on tengu - take 5 launcher one and you would easily get ~110k and free slot for disruptor. And unlike drake tengu have superior range, speed etc, etc. Proposed in this thread changes wont kill tengu as 100mn brawler or fleet ship - they would just even playing field a bit. Yes, before t3 are rebalanced we may see more t3 gangs with lokies, legions and maybe even proteuses. Becouse first two were boosted for some reason with new pg req. for guns even tho both were more than ok. So while i agree that nerfing tengu into oblivion is not a way to go - i dont see reason to panic or deny that even with new missiles tengu is still better than most caldari and many non-caldari ships to the point it could use some tweaking here and there. |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:36:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:[ The new Powergrid would allow a 800mm Steel plate 2 if my estimates are correct. That is a LOT less tank. I am not satisfied with these changes. Why? You gonna have less overtank than before, it's a good thing. 800mm plate should be the biggest one available for cruisers/battlecruisers anyway.
If you fight solo with agression at a gate in lowsec 1600mm is just about enough to finish a fight with another BC and if you win BARLEY get out near structure. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2214
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:42:00 -
[1046] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:TDs are almost certain to be OP, but if we're making TEs and TCs affect missiles it's not exactly an unexpected move. Furthermore, suppose that you have unlimited fittings on the Beam Harbinger and Legion: how would you go about making them compete with the HML Drake and Tengu?
-Liang I'm still scratching my head here on why a more mild nerf to HMLs coupled with a buff to damage of the other 3 long range types is for some reason completely out of the question. I'm calling for a buff to three weapons types to actually make more playing styles viable, as opposed to "waaaah HMLs are OP, look at how bad these other weapons are in comparison!" Not saying YOU are saying that, but if the goal is bringing them in line then shouldn't the underutilized weapons systems be buffed?
Heh, at least you don't deny that HML is a total outlier. I think that the best choice here really is to nerf HML because it's such an outlier that buffing other LR weapons would probably end up with justified complaints and a buff to close range weapons. That'd leave us in the exact same relative place as if they'd just nerfed HML to start with.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
770
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:43:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:[ The new Powergrid would allow a 800mm Steel plate 2 if my estimates are correct. That is a LOT less tank. I am not satisfied with these changes. Why? You gonna have less overtank than before, it's a good thing. 800mm plate should be the biggest one available for cruisers/battlecruisers anyway. If you fight solo with agression at a gate in lowsec 1600mm is just about enough to finish a fight with another BC and if you win BARLEY get out near structure. Another BC, which is in turn overtanked? Cool story 14 |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2214
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:44:00 -
[1048] - Quote
Errand Girl wrote:Speaking as a relatively new pilot who doesn't have 50 million+ SP and had the misfortune to choose Caldari... What am I supposed to fly now? HMLs already have fairly weak DPS and a 20% damage nerf means that my ship options for both PVE and PVP are totally gimped.
Drakes have too much tank, fine. HMLs have too much range, fine. But the damage nerf means all Caldari cruiser and battlecruiser hulls now pretty much suck. I realize that drake blobs are an issue in null sec, but seriously.... find a way to nerf drake blobs without totally hosing carebears and small gang PVPers.
As a young player, I have very little cross training. I'm all Caldari ship skills and all missiles. Now I'm looking at what? 6+ months of training before I can be good at flying another race's ships and using another races weapons? Maybe that's not a long time to a lot of vets around here (who are much more likely to be well cross-trained already), but to a 1 year player that's a very long time. I'll wait until the final changes are announced, but I would very seriously consider quitting EVE rather than throwing away the millions of SP I have in soon-to-be-worthless crap, plus basically starting over on my ship/gun progression.
Three things: - The Drake does not have low DPS by any stretch of the imagination. - Caldari will be fine in PVP. - Caldari is likely going to be improved in PVE with the TE/TC changes.
-Laing Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:46:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Changes seem kinda steep to me too.
Know what's not in line with missiles? Heavies are easier to fit than HAMs. Swap fittings between the two, fix T2 missiles, and give the Drake and Tengu a slight nerf. Amarr t2 might need a slight fittings n
I worry about ships like the Caracal and Cerberus. Don't forget that there are (already useless) Gallente T2 cruisers that use heavies because they can't fit HAMs. |
Xenetex
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:48:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Will we be able to increase the range of HAMs with TEs or will they only work with "guided" missiles? |
|
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:50:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:[ The new Powergrid would allow a 800mm Steel plate 2 if my estimates are correct. That is a LOT less tank. I am not satisfied with these changes. Why? You gonna have less overtank than before, it's a good thing. 800mm plate should be the biggest one available for cruisers/battlecruisers anyway. If you fight solo with agression at a gate in lowsec 1600mm is just about enough to finish a fight with another BC and if you win BARLEY get out near structure. Another BC, which is in turn overtanked? Cool story
No, does not have to be overtanked as in 90% of the cases I will have the agression and the gate guns against me. It can also be a active tanked BC. Right now i can mitigate this by using cycled neuts on an active armor tanked BC and hope he eventually rans out of cap, cap boosters or his cycle is disturbed. It is already nearly impossible to agress a double ancilary shield booster cyclone in a Buffer armor cane at a gate with guns against you if you do it solo. TBO its a buff for falcons :-D. If you want to fly Armor Hurricane - use a falcon Alt....or a scorp outside gategun range.
|
Shaqil
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:51:00 -
[1052] - Quote
There is no need to nerf LSE+425mm hurricane. It's popular in 0.0 mainly because of it's speed, in lowsec triple rep myrm is more popular and HAM drake is generally good too. There is a problem with amarr BCs since harbinger's CPU is too low to fit LSEs and warp disruptor. You won't nerf hurricane just to boost weakest BC? |
Nathan Ernaga
Applesauce Brigade Windowlicking Ninja Turtles
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:51:00 -
[1053] - Quote
CAAAAAANE! If you have in your hands the key to the fulfillment of your life's ambition and superiority over most, if you are aware that there is an absolute power on hand (just over the basic moral principles) how far are you willing to go and through what you are willing to tread? |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:51:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote: Actually, I came right back at Fozzie with proof pudding.
Actually you continued to make completely unsupported assertions and provided no proof whatsoever regarding anything you said. If you would be so kind as to return to the thread and provide fits that back up your ridiculous assertions, that'd be pretty great. :) -Liang
I wish you'd stop being so pretentious. Anyone can type as though they've swallowed a dictionary, you just make yourself look like an @rse. You do have some good ideas, but I just CBA to read them because you seem to think you have to use 10 words when 5 will do.
Post normally FFS and people might actually read what you type. The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
720
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:53:00 -
[1055] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote: Actually, I came right back at Fozzie with proof pudding.
Actually you continued to make completely unsupported assertions and provided no proof whatsoever regarding anything you said. If you would be so kind as to return to the thread and provide fits that back up your ridiculous assertions, that'd be pretty great. :) -Liang I wish you'd stop being so pretentious. Anyone can type as though they've swallowed a dictionary, you just make yourself look like an @rse. You do have some good ideas, but I just CBA to read them because you seem to think you have to use 10 words when 5 will do. Post normally FFS and people might actually read what you type. I don't see anything pretentious in what you quoted, but maybe that's because I payed attention in school. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:55:00 -
[1056] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Errand Girl wrote:Speaking as a relatively new pilot who doesn't have 50 million+ SP and had the misfortune to choose Caldari... What am I supposed to fly now? HMLs already have fairly weak DPS and a 20% damage nerf means that my ship options for both PVE and PVP are totally gimped.
Drakes have too much tank, fine. HMLs have too much range, fine. But the damage nerf means all Caldari cruiser and battlecruiser hulls now pretty much suck. I realize that drake blobs are an issue in null sec, but seriously.... find a way to nerf drake blobs without totally hosing carebears and small gang PVPers.
As a young player, I have very little cross training. I'm all Caldari ship skills and all missiles. Now I'm looking at what? 6+ months of training before I can be good at flying another race's ships and using another races weapons? Maybe that's not a long time to a lot of vets around here (who are much more likely to be well cross-trained already), but to a 1 year player that's a very long time. I'll wait until the final changes are announced, but I would very seriously consider quitting EVE rather than throwing away the millions of SP I have in soon-to-be-worthless crap, plus basically starting over on my ship/gun progression. Three things: - The Drake does not have low DPS by any stretch of the imagination. - Caldari will be fine in PVP. - Caldari is likely going to be improved in PVE with the TE/TC changes. -Laing
Except that's mostly BS.
Yes, the Drake has decent DPS. Not amazing, but decent. Caldari is NOT going to be improved with the TE/TC changes - tank will have to be sacrificed to fit those modules and there's barely enough slots to fit a decent tank on most Caldari BS sized ships as it is.
If they gave us extra Mids/Lows to accommodate the modules then you'd have a point, but they aren't so you haven't.
The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:56:00 -
[1057] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I don't see anything pretentious in what you quoted, but maybe that's because I payed attention in school.
Have a cookie The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
720
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:56:00 -
[1058] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:and there's barely enough slots to fit a decent tank on most Caldari BS sized ships as it is.
If they gave us extra Mids/Lows to accommodate the modules then you'd have a point, but they aren't so you haven't.
Well, the changes don't really affect BS... http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
770
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:58:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Eugene Kerner wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Eugene Kerner wrote:[ The new Powergrid would allow a 800mm Steel plate 2 if my estimates are correct. That is a LOT less tank. I am not satisfied with these changes. Why? You gonna have less overtank than before, it's a good thing. 800mm plate should be the biggest one available for cruisers/battlecruisers anyway. If you fight solo with agression at a gate in lowsec 1600mm is just about enough to finish a fight with another BC and if you win BARLEY get out near structure. Another BC, which is in turn overtanked? Cool story No, does not have to be overtanked as in 90% of the cases I will have the agression and the gate guns against me. It can also be a active tanked BC. Right now i can mitigate this by using cycled neuts on an active armor tanked BC and hope he eventually rans out of cap, cap boosters or his cycle is disturbed. It is already nearly impossible to agress a double ancilary shield booster cyclone in a Buffer armor cane at a gate with guns against you if you do it solo. TBO its a buff for falcons :-D. If you want to fly Armor Hurricane - use a falcon Alt....or a scorp outside gategun range. So basically your complaint comes down to active tanked ship + senties being better in 1on1 fight than the passive one? Looks fine to me. 14 |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:59:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Can anyone help me make sense of why Caldari have their weapons PG requirements the other way round (Less fittings for LR)?
As Eckyy says, wouldn't switching it around make it harder for Drake/Tengus to fit HMs with their classic pvp fits which are quite tight? I'm also still in favor of the 25% range nerf as the Tengus shooting to 110km/Drakes to lock range is a little ridiculous. Also yes, the damage is undeniably better than other LR weapons but missiles do not have short-range high damage ammo options (all turrets have more damage with t2 SR ammo even if you're using HM fury) and has many other drawbacks, I feel like a 10% reduction would be better. |
|
Errand Girl
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 06:59:00 -
[1061] - Quote
Roime wrote:Errand Girl wrote:Speaking as a relatively new pilot who doesn't have 50 million+ SP and had the misfortune to choose Caldari... What am I supposed to fly now? HMLs already have fairly weak DPS and a 20% damage nerf means that my ship options for both PVE and PVP are totally gimped.
Drakes have too much tank, fine. HMLs have too much range, fine. But the damage nerf means all Caldari cruiser and battlecruiser hulls now pretty much suck. I realize that drake blobs are an issue in null sec, but seriously.... find a way to nerf drake blobs without totally hosing carebears and small gang PVPers.
As a young player, I have very little cross training. I'm all Caldari ship skills and all missiles. Now I'm looking at what? 6+ months of training before I can be good at flying another race's ships and using another races weapons? Maybe that's not a long time to a lot of vets around here (who are much more likely to be well cross-trained already), but to a 1 year player that's a very long time. I'll wait until the final changes are announced, but I would very seriously consider quitting EVE rather than throwing away the millions of SP I have in soon-to-be-worthless crap, plus basically starting over on my ship/gun progression. Two of the three Caldari battlecruisers use hybrid weapons. Are they useless now? And just to repeat what has been said numerous time, and has been long known to all but dreaktards- HMLs have high dps compared to other medium LR weapons, better range and damage application, which is why they get rebalanced to be in line with the others. Drakes and Tengus are ubiquitously good in PVE, other three races have been very lacking in comparison. Still players of the other races have been doing PVE all this time. Take it chill, you will be just fine.
Considering that every other post in this thread mentions that medium hybrids stink... The other Caldari battlecruisers were already worthless. How many Ferroxes and Nagas do you see flying around?
While at extreme ranges HMLs have better DPS than guns, it's weaker at lower ranges, no? Especially when high damage ammo is used, an option that isn't available with missiles. Damage application is not necessarily better with missiles either, it's far from a straight comparison. Missiles do very low damage against fast and/or small sig targets while guns do full damage. Those targets are harder for guns to track, obviously, but when they do hit it's for full damage. With guns there are ways to at least try to lower transversal, but that's impossible to do with missiles.
Again, I don't really care about the range nerf so much, but a 20% damage nerf basically kills HMLs as far as I can see. If you have a real suggestion, I'd be happy to hear it and think it over but I don't think "fly a ferrox" counts as a real suggestion. |
Chroniccandy 420
Point of No Return Waterboard
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:01:00 -
[1062] - Quote
RIDICULOUS..
Why must you screw up what works well because you dont feel people are using the other options,.. we dont use those hams in the first place because we know they suck.. 1.they never fit well in the first place 1a. see 1. 2.Duh why are you still not sure about 1. 3.must we keep going in circles
my character is just now startin to get decent in Heavy missile skills , now u want to MESS that all up. Not everyone is skilled in all types of damage types. for some like myself Heavy Missiles might be all of the glory we might be close to obtaining after many years and many $$ invested.
I have put alot of time into this game. The only thing im starting to like about my character is my potentional HM damage.. i dont have great shields or gunnery or even drone skills.. but i sure have put my time in ..
Why dont you make Hams Better because they suck..
And not make HM worste... to me it sounds like ur trying to make poor design appears to be more attractive.
If you want me to bring in my friends to be potential customers dont give me constant bad things to say about eveonline
|
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
753
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:03:00 -
[1063] - Quote
now all they have to do is nerf projectiles. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
567
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:04:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:now all they have to do is nerf projectiles.
.. to nerf all other gunery's I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:05:00 -
[1065] - Quote
Quote:So basically your complaint comes down to active tanked ship + senties being better in 1on1 fight than the passive one? Looks fine to me.
Active tanked ships plus sentries are already better, but whom do I tell that. You know exactly what I mean. |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:09:00 -
[1066] - Quote
TD and TE affecting missiles would make missiles... a lot less different than turrets. I'm leaning toward "do not like". 20% damage nerf to HMLs... are they just ignoring the exclusive double DPS bonus of the Tengu AEB? |
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:09:00 -
[1067] - Quote
I want to buy bulk packs of the following ships and modules please:
Arbitrator Crucifier Curese Impairor Pilgrim Sentinel + any other ship that might get TD bonus or that normally has a spare(ish) mid.
Bye bye Drake gangs, hello TD gangs. |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
385
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:10:00 -
[1068] - Quote
The missile nerf is a bit overdone imo, but I can live with it.
The hurricane nerf was needed.
The thing that bothers me most is that I will have to refit a lot of my pre-fitted pvp-ships. I won't be able to undock in half my ships because most of the fits were already thight.
Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
742
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:11:00 -
[1069] - Quote
"I want to buy bulk packs of the following ships and modules please:
Arbitrator Crucifier Curese Impairor Pilgrim Sentinel + any other ship that might get TD bonus or that normally has a spare(ish) mid.
Bye bye Drake gangs, hello TD gangs."
Falcon will still ruin that though. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Ryuichi Hiroki
Skadi Imperium Kill It With Fire
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:21:00 -
[1070] - Quote
CCP should tell me why I should renew my subscription.
|
|
Auferre
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:24:00 -
[1071] - Quote
Somewhat of two minds about this - I'm a bit nervous about my heavy SP investment in missile skills on this character, but I look forward to the opportunity to anticipate (and hopefully profit from) the resulting market shifts.
Besides, missiles have been boring and dead easy for a while now. The disruptor changes ought to liven things up. |
Nobani
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:25:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:TD and TE affecting missiles would make missiles... a lot less different than turrets. I'm leaning toward "do not like".
I agree. Also:
- Missiles already have a partial counter: smartbombs.
- Most EWAR is situational (ECM excepted). I think expanding TD to more situations is a step in the wrong direction -- overpowered situational modules can be worked around by players; overpowered every situation modules cannot be.
|
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
753
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:26:00 -
[1073] - Quote
Barrak wrote:I want to buy bulk packs of the following ships and modules please:
Arbitrator Crucifier Curese Impairor Pilgrim Sentinel + any other ship that might get TD bonus or that normally has a spare(ish) mid.
Bye bye Drake gangs, hello TD gangs.
but... drakes can use TD pretty well. people need to stop fitting so much tank and have 1-2 EW modules in the extra midslots. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:27:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Ryuichi Hiroki wrote:CCP should tell me why I should renew my subscription.
Because it will be a challenge going from brainless Drakeblob/Artycane crap to a landwhere EWAR runs free (stuff aside from ECM, that is), where a Crucifier can take out a RL missile Caracal, where RR Tengus fear a Pilgrim (<3), where you have wildly different ships, wildly different fights, wildly different meta to invent, theorycraft and test in PVP.
Or, you can quit because you have no imagination and just want to blap people with your Cane/Drake blobs. The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. Sun Tzu localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
567
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:29:00 -
[1075] - Quote
Auferre wrote:Somewhat of two minds about this - I'm a bit nervous about my heavy SP investment in missile skills on this character, but I look forward to the opportunity to anticipate (and hopefully profit from) the resulting market shifts.
Besides, missiles have been boring and dead easy for a while now. The disruptor changes ought to liven things up.
What? How long do ypu play EVE? You have to SKILL missiles to be effective! It is not just so that you train Level 1 and have full damage with missiles. You do not miss with missiles, but without skills you do no damage with them! You have defenders and smartbombs against missiles. Additional to this CCP want to further nerf the missiles with
-25% range -20% damage AND TD affecting missiles.
Thats dumb! I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:33:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Well on the whole, the Winter balancing things on other ship types and classes I generally approve, but this seriously bites ass.
Nerf 20% heavy missile damage, and further nerf the Drake's tank? Wut? The caldari only have one decent BC, the Drake, and now that too is going to be crappy.... |
Debir Achen
The Red Circle Inc.
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:33:00 -
[1077] - Quote
Question: are the effects of Tracking Disruptors, etc applied at launch time or impact time?
Observation: due to how tracking works, effects of sig and speed on guns are attenuated over distance (though you get a second penalty when falloff kicks in). This is not true for missiles. How does this factor into the changes? Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:34:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: Yeah the HML Draek just ate a nerf, but with the bonuses to HAMs.... !-Liang
.......I agree, but then let's see what happens to the HAM damage in the following patch. Like someone else posted, I don't think they have thought through the impact of TE/TC on missiles other than Heavies.
Which again, brings me back to my thoughts that this is an ISK controlling method. Nerf the No.1 ammo type in missions.
Deerin wrote:..................... It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit.
Here's an idea (a silly one I know, but I want to bring some really humour this this thread).
Make this nerf only applicable in Hi-sec............ that'll get people out |
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:36:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:Question: are the effects of Tracking Disruptors, etc applied at launch time or impact time?
Observation: due to how tracking works, effects of sig and speed on guns are attenuated over distance (though you get a second penalty when falloff kicks in). This is not true for missiles. How does this factor into the changes?
They're going to introduce fall off for missiles.
They need too.... Missiles are just to different from any ammo in the game.....and in the interest of balance, we can't possible have something really different. |
Vicar2008
Mindstar Technology Fatal Ascension
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:36:00 -
[1080] - Quote
In the vain effort that Fozzie reads this threadnaught now, "Why the hell have you just gimped an entire race line of ships in an effort to curb Drake and Tengu useage?" Gimp the ships, no tthe race"? |
|
4IN1
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:38:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Well to be honest I also think both HML and drake need some rebalancing, but with such scale with HML, and without giving much consideration to all affected ships at the same time, I'd say it is a bit lazy. Its like selling people a box of puzzle with only half of the pieces in it.
CCP: Ambition but rubbish
|
Webvan
State War Academy Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:40:00 -
[1082] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello everyone! blah blah blah I can't believe I'm going to say this... Can we just have the good ol days of "greed is good" back and forget all of this? This nerf bat better not swing |
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:40:00 -
[1083] - Quote
I just don't get why TDs will be able to impact unguided missiles as well. Why should people use HAMs, something CCP is pushing for, whenever you can halve their range down with the push of a button? Not to mention how they deal poor damage to smaller targets already; load a tracking speed/explosion radius destabilization script and watch your enemy's HAMs plink at your hull harmlessly. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1235
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:46:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Errand Girl wrote: Considering that every other post in this thread mentions that medium hybrids stink... The other Caldari battlecruisers were already worthless. How many Ferroxes and Nagas do you see flying around?
While at extreme ranges HMLs have better DPS than guns, it's weaker at lower ranges, no? Especially when high damage ammo is used, an option that isn't available with missiles. Damage application is not necessarily better with missiles either, it's far from a straight comparison. Missiles do very low damage against fast and/or small sig targets while guns do full damage. Those targets are harder for guns to track, obviously, but when they do hit it's for full damage. With guns there are ways to at least try to lower transversal, but that's impossible to do with missiles.
Again, I don't really care about the range nerf so much, but a 20% damage nerf basically kills HMLs as far as I can see. If you have a real suggestion, I'd be happy to hear it and think it over but I don't think "fly a ferrox" counts as a real suggestion.
Medium LR turrets have problems hitting small, moving targets (all small ships move, or deserve to die) and especially so at shorter ranges. And when they hit, they don't hit for full damage. Turrets have a stat called signature resolution, which makes larger size guns worse at hitting smaller targets. Lowering transversal to a level where you get good hits is not that easy in a BC against a frig. Furthermore TEs or TC are pretty much mandatory on LR turret ships in order to hit anything at all. Now you can fit them on missile ships to the same effect, to improve your damage against small ships... which you hit every time for at least some damage.
Yes, I do see Feroxes and Nagas. Blaster Ferox looks like a fine ship to me (have even considered cross-training for it, it's a bit better at being a Brutix than Brutix, esp so now with ASBs), and Naga is a solid sniper.
Idk, I feel like medium rails have just sucked in comparison to HMLs. HMLs have been PVE easy mode, this change might have a big impact on markets, as it reduces farming and botting efficiency. Drake and Tengu are by far the most common ships in game, this winter will see a more equal spread of ships both in PVE and PVP. Which is pretty cool!
As what comes to the people complaining about the Cane fitting nerf, check this out:
Drake 850 + 525 = 1375 Myrm 1175 + 400 = 1574 Cane 1350 + 400 = 1750 Harbi 1500 + 375 = 1875
Cane had the second highest fitting capacity, but uses weapons that are the second easiest to fit, and is viable both in shield and armor tank setups. 175 more pg than the armor-tanking Myrm. You could only fit highest tier weapons with full T2 everything on the Cane, and even add T2 medium neuts.
Future:
Drake 850 + 525 = 1375 Cane 1125 + 400 = 1525 Myrm 1175 + 400 = 1574 Harbi 1500 + 375 = 1875
Looks balanced to me. On a nano-Cane, all you need to do is drop to meta 4 neuts. On armor cane, drop to meta neuts and add one ACR rig. It's still damn easy to fit IMHO.
I fly Gallente, and 90% of my fits are impossible without a shitload of fitting hardwires, and usually I still need fitting mods.
Fitting resources and requirements make fitting ships and art of balancing between gank, tank and utility. Cane was an exception to this, you could always get the very best modules for everything. No dropping to meta, no fitting mods or rigs.
Consider it fixed! Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Webvan
State War Academy Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:57:00 -
[1085] - Quote
*wonders how many subs CCP is going to loose over this"
Personally, if this were my game, I'd make everyone happ... less irritated by balancing ships up rather than nerfing them down. But hey, it's your game, your subs, your risk. I just hope I get an SP refund, because I'm not going to retrain my account on the clock over some lazy nerf. |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:57:00 -
[1086] - Quote
I'm very disappointed about the Tracking Disruptor changes for missiles.
There where so many creative Ideas in this forum like Flares, AEGIS-Destroyers, Defendermissile upgrades, etc. Making TD affecting Turrets AND Missiles will make it way to overpowered and omnipresent in every fitting. Looks a little bit lazy too... Keep the mechanic but give us a different module to do this so players have to make a choice.
Also, the Drake nerf, Missile changes and TD changes seems a little too much... Now there is only one reason left to skill Caldari ships and that's the Falcon / Blackbird... Witch will be nerfed next with changes of the ECM mecanics |
Gizan
Hounds Of War WHY so Seri0Us
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:58:00 -
[1087] - Quote
DIE IN A FIRE! |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 07:59:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Personaly I think the Heavy missiles nerf is way to steep, and pretty hard to controle when Nerving it at 3 points at teh same time.
Still think a TD for missiles should be a different module than the TD or Guns.
Range nerf, good. Damage Nerf, and TD vunrable due to scripts will probably kill heavy missiles instead of nerving them, both for PvP and PvE |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
435
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:09:00 -
[1089] - Quote
I also have concerns about HAMs being nerfed by TD's. It makes no sense, and they are already a subpar weapon system versus anything which can kite. Or has a sig radius less than a small moon. Or both.
Crucifier vs HAM Drake? Crucifier will just fly away unless his gang turns up, or TD the missiles down below 20km (including Javs!) and sit with utter, utter impunity.
At least you don't need to sensor damp missile boats, right? Just TD the shitter out of their missiles.
The only upside is that fitting TE's will buff missiles as well as guns. This will have an effective flow-on to reducing DPS because HML and HAM Drakes will start fitting TE's to buff range/explosion velocity, instead of BCU's to just buff DPS. So, I am equivocal abut whether you need to spread TD to missiles AND nerf HML DPS.
Secondly, tracking links will become effective as remote-EWAR buffs. HAM drakes fluffed by Scimis? Game on.
TE's will become king for Cyclones, Stabbers and Tempests (if anyone ever fits launchers to them) because the TE will spead a benefit across both weapon systems now, buffing your HAM or HML range/velocity as well as turret optimal/tracking. The skilful employer of men will employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man. Sun Tzu localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Kmelx
The Elysian Agoge Elysian Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:18:00 -
[1090] - Quote
The proposed heavy missile changes go way too far, on top of what may be further nerfs to Tengus in the future the HML nerf would make the Tengu useless for both PVP and PVE, you'd get what 300-350dps on a PVP fit T3 or less? Yeah that's a great plan!
Tracking disruptor change is an awful idea, it would become by far the most overpowered module in the game and a must fit module to any and all PVP ships, currently the module is already powerful, but it is balanced by the fact that it does not work against missiles, keep it as it is.
-1 from me. |
|
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:28:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Really CCP, is EVE's code so broken that you cant get defenders working? Fix defenders, end of problem! You leave things broken for YEARS, nothing new, but don't start nerfing away to cover for your poor coding skills, seriously! |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1331
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:29:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Rita May wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Do not forget that missile boats are able to specifically pick the damage type they do. As in 100% of a damage type. Outside of drones, no other weapon system has that luxury. and you see, fun fact: Those missile boats most talked about here don't have that luxury if you look at those numbers being thrown around up till now: They are all for the ONE bonused dmg type. Shot with anything else and look at the numbers again. That would be 25% less base damage, 5% LESS as the proposed "patch" for HMs will bring - but wait, those 20% will hit the unbonused damage types too... cu If the ship gets a +5% damage for kinetic missiles and you use a different damage type; it is in fact 20% less. Not 25% less.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
350
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:33:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Crucifier vs HAM Drake? Crucifier will just fly away unless his gang turns up, or TD the missiles down below 20km (including Javs!) and sit with utter, utter impunity.
Whereas a turret BC would just happily shoot away despite being TDed... oh.
You're right to say that TDs will be lolOP though, even before the inevitable ubiquitous link T3s push the TD effect up to 90%. |
Calisto Thellere
Klaatu Technologies
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:34:00 -
[1094] - Quote
"CCP; fixing things by ruining other things since 2003." |
Deacon Ix
Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:37:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Not read all 50+ pages so this might have been mentioned.
If TDs will affect missiles will TEs and TCs?
IMO a module which increases the range and exp velocity of missiles has been long over due (there are the rigs but for balance modules are needed too) |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:44:00 -
[1096] - Quote
Swap the grid requirements for fitting HML and HAMs.
Makes HAMs much more viable and addresses another of the OP aspects of current HML fits. Fear God and Thread Nought |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:44:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Deacon Ix wrote:Not read all 50+ pages so this might have been mentioned.
If TDs will affect missiles will TEs and TCs?
IMO a module which increases the range and exp velocity of missiles has been long over due (there are the rigs but for balance modules are needed too)
You obvious did not read the OP.
Yes TE and TC will affect missiles now. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:46:00 -
[1098] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time
Oh yeah you're changing it. What you didn't tell everyone is the Hurricane with a typical 1600mm plate can only fit 5 180mmautocannons. P.S. That's with a 5% powergrid implant. Kind of pathetic. Oh... and very sneaky of you CCP. What's the deal? Don't like the Whelp Cane? Have to save your precious supercapital friends at the demise of every other player in-game? Can we just eliminate Minmatar and Caldari from the game. I'd like those skillpoints back. TY.
Whoa whoa, hold your horses there. Have you ever tried training Engineering or Advanced Weapon Upgrades? I can fit 1600mm, MWD and a full rack of 220s along with one medium neutralizer with Engineering V and AWU III, which is not that far-fetched. If you're going to spout bullshit, at least take it a less less into the extremes because people might just start calling you on it. |
tgl3
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:48:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Deacon Ix wrote:Not read all 50+ pages so this might have been mentioned.
If TDs will affect missiles will TEs and TCs?
IMO a module which increases the range and exp velocity of missiles has been long over due (there are the rigs but for balance modules are needed too)
CCP Fozzie wrote: -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script)
I write a blog. I think people read it. http://throughnewbeyes.wordpress.com
Mate |
baltec1
Bat Country
2176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:50:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Webvan wrote:*wonders how many subs CCP is going to loose over this"
Personally, if this were my game, I'd make everyone happ... less irritated by balancing ships up rather than nerfing them down. But hey, it's your game, your subs, your risk. I just hope I get an SP refund, because I'm not going to retrain my account on the clock over some lazy nerf.
5 or 6. All of them posting in this topic over how its horrible their Op ships are finally getting a nerf. Also, buffing everything else up will result in exactly the same result only it will take far far longer to do. |
|
SubStandard Rin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:51:00 -
[1101] - Quote
[
CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
I can see that you want the lowrange missiles to deal more dammage then the longrange missiles HAM over HML but a ArtyCane calculating on it using a PG implant or a ACR is just plain wrong. if the ships is intended to fly with a certain fit then the PG/CPU of the ships should reflect this!
the PG need since a 720mm Art II takes 275 PG each now and with a 10% reduction its - 27.5 PG or -25.0 PG on a TecI version so with 7 of thoes the PG goes down -192.5 -175 (Tec1)
with your reduction of 225 your removing 32,5PG (Tec2) or 50PG (Tec1) .... from the ship fully equipted.
-2.89% PG with Tec2 720mm or -4,44y% PG with Tec1 720mm
With thoes numbers i can't recomend any new player to use a Hurricane as a Arty base as with so mutch less PG its a problem and for a Tec2 version to be balanced around using a Implant is just plain wrong. my sugestions is instead drop the PG need for Arty with 11% and you should see it work.
i my self prefere the AC cane but thats just me.
on the HML Nerf well im not very extatic as it seems ALOT and im just scrying now but i think that some of the changes will be reverted. atleast the Range nerf that just wrong
HML could be lower dammage but they are long distance missiles.
also hitting HML is hitting alot more hulls then just the Horrific Drake or Tengu your hitting Caracal (Cruiser) and alot of auxillary weapons on Mimatar Cruisers/BC have you realy crunched your numbers? for if your trying to fiddle with alot of ships |
Seramis
57th - The Wildcards
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:52:00 -
[1102] - Quote
You can defend against everything. For Guns you have: - Tracking Disruptor - high Transversal Speed - being out of range
For Missiles you have: - high Speed (the direction doesn't matter) - Smartbombs - Defender Missiles - being or flying out of range - at range you have a lot of time to warp of because of travelling time of the missiles
So currently you already can defend against missiles much easier than against turrets, why do we need another module to defend against missiles?
Drake and Tengu are the only missile boats worth flying in PvP at the moment. After the nerf there is no reason to use any missile boat in PvP anymore. Why does CCP not simply remove missiles from the game if they are so overpowered? They get nerfed to death anyway. Can I have the 13Mio SP in Missiles back and put them into other categories please? This nerfing is just stupid
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:53:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Calisto Thellere wrote:"CCP; fixing things by ruining other things since 2003."
You guys sure know how to overkill will the nerf bat, seriously.
Hows about fixing the broken things instead of nerfing the working as intended parts just because its easier and less work to do?
These things were bronken, and after the nerf they will be in line with everything else. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:53:00 -
[1104] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Webvan wrote:*wonders how many subs CCP is going to loose over this"
Personally, if this were my game, I'd make everyone happ... less irritated by balancing ships up rather than nerfing them down. But hey, it's your game, your subs, your risk. I just hope I get an SP refund, because I'm not going to retrain my account on the clock over some lazy nerf. 5 or 6. All of them posting in this topic over how its horrible their Op ships are finally getting a nerf. Also, buffing everything else up will result in exactly the same result only it will take far far longer to do.
Probably even less but their only seems to be 3 or 4 of the usual people supporting this and everyone else hating it.
What happens when the "new thing" that replaces the Drake and Tengu becomes too popular... It's the same old crappy circles that CCP do instead of concentrating on things people have actually asked for.
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
168
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:56:00 -
[1105] - Quote
Webvan wrote:*wonders how many subs CCP is going to loose over this"
Personally, if this were my game, I'd make everyone happ... less irritated by balancing ships up rather than nerfing them down. But hey, it's your game, your subs, your risk. I just hope I get an SP refund, because I'm not going to retrain my account on the clock over some lazy nerf.
translates to:
I'm a 5 yearold and more is always better! Amat victoria curam. |
Kmelx
The Elysian Agoge Elysian Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:58:00 -
[1106] - Quote
Kmelx wrote:The proposed heavy missile changes go way too far, on top of what may be further nerfs to Tengus in the future the HML nerf would make the Tengu useless for both PVP and PVE, you'd get what 300-350dps on a PVP fit T3 or less? Yeah that's a great plan! Your using the nerf bat to beat Tengus to death, PVP tengus already do crap dps.
Tracking disruptor change is an awful idea, it would become by far the most overpowered module in the game and a must fit module to any and all PVP ships, currently the module is already powerful, but it is balanced by the fact that it does not work against missiles, keep it as it is.
-1 from me.
|
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko Tower of Dark Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:59:00 -
[1107] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, will the tracking mods affect HAMLs/Torpedoes? And will the Motion Prediction skill affect missiles? |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1237
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:00:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:
Probably even less but their only seems to be 3 or 4 of the usual people supporting this and everyone else hating it.
What happens when the "new thing" that replaces the Drake and Tengu becomes too popular... It's the same old crappy circles that CCP do instead of concentrating on things people have actually asked for.
Haters don't seem to be capable of presenting any sensible arguments.
Anyway, Drakes and Tengus are the single anomaly, their overwhelming popularity dwarfing anything else in the game. Why do you think rabalancing this would lead to a similar ridiculous spike, when the other ships are more or less balanced?
Embrace the change, winter will be awesome with a huge number of revamped ships, which will lead into a much more varied field of gang compositions and tactics.
<3
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
baltec1
Bat Country
2179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:01:00 -
[1109] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:
Probably even less but their only seems to be 3 or 4 of the usual people supporting this and everyone else hating it.
What happens when the "new thing" that replaces the Drake and Tengu becomes too popular... It's the same old crappy circles that CCP do instead of concentrating on things people have actually asked for.
We demanded ship balance and thats exactly what they are doing. All of these people you see exploding over the end of the world are all of them the same sort of people who whined about the nano nerf. We more than likely will end up with the new thing but at least HML wont dominate the med weapon ship lineup and the cane is more realistic with fitting requirements.
The simple fact is that the cane will still be a good ship and HML will still be on par with the other med long range weapons after these changes. More options in PVP is always a good thing. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:02:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Roime wrote:Signal11th wrote:
Probably even less but their only seems to be 3 or 4 of the usual people supporting this and everyone else hating it.
What happens when the "new thing" that replaces the Drake and Tengu becomes too popular... It's the same old crappy circles that CCP do instead of concentrating on things people have actually asked for.
Haters don't seem to be capable of presenting any sensible arguments. Anyway, Drakes and Tengus are the single anomaly, their overwhelming popularity dwarfing anything else in the game. Why do you think rabalancing this would lead to a similar ridiculous spike, when the other ships are more or less balanced? Embrace the change, winter will be awesome with a huge number of revamped ships, which will lead into a much more varied field of gang compositions and tactics. <3
Then tweak the ships not the missles. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:05:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:
Then tweak the ships not the missles.
Its the missiles causing the problems. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
727
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:10:00 -
[1112] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:
Then tweak the ships not the missles.
Its the missiles causing the problems.
Not really its the bounses from the ships that cause the problems with the missles, see nighthawk, not really any decent bonuses on it so no one really uses it. Yep I can hit to 80km but the damage isnt that great,
Now put my in a Tengu with all the fancy bonuses and I'm hitting 25% harder 20% further and 15% faster. (these numbers are jusxt for emphasis not any accuracy.) Now with a drake I can stick a BS tank on that and sit with my 100 mates and just sit there taking a shed load of damage from 70k out. So now I'll just bring 120 drakes instead of 100.
Its a sledgehammer to crack a nut. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Webvan
State War Academy Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:11:00 -
[1113] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: 5 or 6. All of them posting in this topic over how its horrible their Op ships are finally getting a nerf.
Now if you hadn't said "5 or 6" etc, I might have taken your comment seriously, considered it. It's all about trolling, pvp and F* everyone else, eh? wtg, get ccp into a nerf frenzy rather than actually fixing this game. Think it'll be more than 5 or 6 just on that reason alone.
|
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:16:00 -
[1114] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:John Ratcliffe wrote:and there's barely enough slots to fit a decent tank on most Caldari BS sized ships as it is.
If they gave us extra Mids/Lows to accommodate the modules then you'd have a point, but they aren't so you haven't.
Well, the changes don't really affect BS...
I meant BC. Apologies.
The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Kmelx
The Elysian Agoge Elysian Empire
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:18:00 -
[1115] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Its the missiles causing the problems.
Which is nonsense, my two 100MNAB PVP Tengus (active and a passive tanked one) with lvl 5 sub skills and fours or fives in most missile skills, do about 400dps with faction launchers and BCUs, these are ships that I've spent billions of ISK on.
On there own Tengus are overpowered because of the tanks that you can achieve on them and the fact that the prop mod allows you to achieve high speeds without a corresponding sig radius increase, so you can run away from anyone you can't fight most of the time, not because of the dps output which is frankly underwhelming.
Lowering damage on these ships would take them to something like 320dps with faction fittings and decent skills, it makes one of the most popular ships in the game untenable in PVP and PVE.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:19:00 -
[1116] - Quote
From my calculations Hurricane could easily be without 400 PG and 50 CPU, so people only have to worry for now if they have poor fitting skills...
Pinky
And I agree DPS from heavy missiles have never been an issue - As said it's the range combined with solid tank and for the Tengu a ******** 100mn Afterburner easily fitting and permarunning... |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
727
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:19:00 -
[1117] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:John Ratcliffe wrote:and there's barely enough slots to fit a decent tank on most Caldari BS sized ships as it is.
If they gave us extra Mids/Lows to accommodate the modules then you'd have a point, but they aren't so you haven't.
Well, the changes don't really affect BS... I meant BC. Apologies.
You not heard of the Drake then?? It's the Drake's ungodly tank that has caused some of this mess. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:19:00 -
[1118] - Quote
Webvan wrote:baltec1 wrote: 5 or 6. All of them posting in this topic over how its horrible their Op ships are finally getting a nerf.
Now if you hadn't said "5 or 6" etc, I might have taken your comment seriously, considered it. It's all about trolling, pvp and F* everyone else, eh? wtg, get ccp into a nerf frenzy rather than actually fixing this game. Think it'll be more than 5 or 6 just on that reason alone.
You can go back and look for all of the rage quit posts if you want. It will number around 5-6 with about 10-20 "I want my skillpoints back!".
Now as for the nerfs, in order to balance something the better option is to nerf two things rather than rebalance an entire game around them. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
727
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:22:00 -
[1119] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Webvan wrote:baltec1 wrote: 5 or 6. All of them posting in this topic over how its horrible their Op ships are finally getting a nerf.
Now if you hadn't said "5 or 6" etc, I might have taken your comment seriously, considered it. It's all about trolling, pvp and F* everyone else, eh? wtg, get ccp into a nerf frenzy rather than actually fixing this game. Think it'll be more than 5 or 6 just on that reason alone. You can go back and look for all of the rage quit posts if you want. It will number around 5-6 with about 10-20 "I want my skillpoints back!". Now as for the nerfs, in order to balance something the better option is to nerf two things rather than rebalance an entire game around them.
And unfortunately this is why CCP knows it can 90% of the time push through any old crap. As as for the nerf yes nerfing two things is better than doing everything so nerf the Drake and the Tengu not everything else that uses HML. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Webvan
State War Academy Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:23:00 -
[1120] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: We demanded ship balance and thats exactly what they are doing. All of these people you see exploding over the end of the world are all of them the same sort of people who whined about the nano nerf.
Hey weren't you that guy that was like 14yo or something? Yeah I remember you. But anyhoot, lad, I'm not that same sort, I object to your illogical and irrational generalizations. In fact I don't fly a drake, I don't even use missiles, but I see how wrong this is for all missile boats as it doesn't just effect one or two of them. This has nothing to do with "balance" and only makes things more complicated across the board, even broken, son.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2180
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:29:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Kmelx wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Its the missiles causing the problems.
Which is nonsense, my two 100MNAB PVP Tengus (active and a passive tanked one) with lvl 5 sub skills and fours or fives in most missile skills, do about 400dps with faction launchers and BCUs, these are ships that I've spent billions of ISK on. On there own Tengus are overpowered because of the tanks that you can achieve on them and the fact that the prop mod allows you to achieve high speeds without a corresponding sig radius increase, so you can run away from anyone you can't fight most of the time, not because of the dps output which is frankly underwhelming. Lowering damage on these ships would take them to something like 320dps with faction fittings and decent skills, it makes one of the most popular ships in the game untenable in PVP and PVE.
You currently get 800+ DPS out of a ratting tengu and the standard tengufleet fit get over 500 DPS. What on earth are you doing to yours? |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:32:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:now all they have to do is nerf projectiles.
Because it would be unthinkable to have a weapon system that was actually worth using?
The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:34:00 -
[1123] - Quote
yeah... see I don't have problems with this all round. why might you ask? because I HAVE BACON!
http://i.imgur.com/H0cMi.jpg
join with me brothers! revel in the magic of bacon! the wonders of a 30km 600+ dps platform now with the prospect of a tracking computer to improve the hit rate against other targets! get over the whine and embrace the option to fit something else \o/
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr65kfx3aW1qzrafwo1_400.jpg Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
baltec1
Bat Country
2180
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:34:00 -
[1124] - Quote
Webvan wrote:baltec1 wrote: We demanded ship balance and thats exactly what they are doing. All of these people you see exploding over the end of the world are all of them the same sort of people who whined about the nano nerf.
Hey weren't you that guy that was like 14yo or something? Yeah I remember you. But anyhoot, lad, I'm not that same sort, I object to your illogical and irrational generalizations. In fact I don't fly a drake, I don't even use missiles, but I see how wrong this is for all missile boats as it doesn't just effect one or two of them. This has nothing to do with "balance" and only makes things more complicated across the board, even broken, son.
Only if the nano nerf happened well over a decade ago.
Now I do fly missile ships and if you took even the slightest bit of time to look at the base stats of the long range med weapons then you would see that HML are around 25% better ranged and around 20% better at DPS than everything else before ship stats are even applied. But I guess looking at actual stats of these things is harder than trying to talk down to me |
baltec1
Bat Country
2180
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:36:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:
And unfortunately this is why CCP knows it can 90% of the time push through any old crap. As as for the nerf yes nerfing two things is better than doing everything so nerf the Drake and the Tengu not everything else that uses HML.
That would leave HML still overpowering the other med long range weapons. The drake and tengu are also going to get a revisit when they get teircided. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
728
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:36:00 -
[1126] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Webvan wrote:baltec1 wrote: We demanded ship balance and thats exactly what they are doing. All of these people you see exploding over the end of the world are all of them the same sort of people who whined about the nano nerf.
Hey weren't you that guy that was like 14yo or something? Yeah I remember you. But anyhoot, lad, I'm not that same sort, I object to your illogical and irrational generalizations. In fact I don't fly a drake, I don't even use missiles, but I see how wrong this is for all missile boats as it doesn't just effect one or two of them. This has nothing to do with "balance" and only makes things more complicated across the board, even broken, son. Only if the nano nerf happened well over a decade ago. Now I do fly missile ships and if you took even the slightest bit of time to look at the base stats of the long range med weapons then you would see that HML are around 25% better ranged and around 20% better at DPS than everything else before ship stats are even applied. But I guess looking at actual stats of these things is harder than trying to talk down to me
Not that I agree with his agrument but I do agree that his age shouldn;t really have any bearing on his argument. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
728
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:40:00 -
[1127] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:
And unfortunately this is why CCP knows it can 90% of the time push through any old crap. As as for the nerf yes nerfing two things is better than doing everything so nerf the Drake and the Tengu not everything else that uses HML.
That would leave HML still overpowering the other med long range weapons. The drake and tengu are also going to get a revisit when they get teircided.
But really is everthing supposed to be equal? There is always going to be something that is better than something else, it's a never ending circle when you try to make everythign the same.
The problem with the drake is its tank and projected damage and its cheap, which is great for new players. The tengu is the same but you pay a much higher price for it and you like everyother T3 lose SP if you lose it. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Webvan
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:41:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:baltec1 wrote:Webvan wrote:baltec1 wrote: We demanded ship balance and thats exactly what they are doing. All of these people you see exploding over the end of the world are all of them the same sort of people who whined about the nano nerf.
Hey weren't you that guy that was like 14yo or something? Yeah I remember you. But anyhoot, lad, I'm not that same sort, I object to your illogical and irrational generalizations. In fact I don't fly a drake, I don't even use missiles, but I see how wrong this is for all missile boats as it doesn't just effect one or two of them. This has nothing to do with "balance" and only makes things more complicated across the board, even broken, son. Only if the nano nerf happened well over a decade ago. Now I do fly missile ships and if you took even the slightest bit of time to look at the base stats of the long range med weapons then you would see that HML are around 25% better ranged and around 20% better at DPS than everything else before ship stats are even applied. But I guess looking at actual stats of these things is harder than trying to talk down to me Not that I agree with his agrument but I do agree that his age shouldn;t really have any bearing on his argument. Ode to the days when you had to be 18yo to play mmo's ...well not that anyone took the tos' seriously *shrugs*. But yes, doesn't apply here.
|
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
687
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:43:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:
And unfortunately this is why CCP knows it can 90% of the time push through any old crap. As as for the nerf yes nerfing two things is better than doing everything so nerf the Drake and the Tengu not everything else that uses HML.
That would leave HML still overpowering the other med long range weapons. The drake and tengu are also going to get a revisit when they get teircided. But really is everthing supposed to be equal? There is always going to be something that is better than something else, it's a never ending circle when you try to make everythign the same. The problem with the drake is its tank and projected damage and its cheap, which is great for new players. The tengu is the same but you pay a much higher price for it and you like everyother T3 lose SP if you lose it.
Well, I think thats one reason that the training multiplier on the t3 subs is only 1. They are super fast to train even from 4 to 5. I've always felt that CCP made the decision to keep the mult at 1 primarily because of the possible loss of SP when piloting a strategic cruiser. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2180
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:45:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Webvan wrote:Signal11th wrote:
Not that I agree with his agrument but I do agree that his age shouldn;t really have any bearing on his argument.
Ode to the days when you had to be 18yo to play mmo's ...well not that anyone took the tos' seriously *shrugs*. But yes, doesn't apply here.
When we have 7 year olds out witting adult miners and haulers age becomes a bit of a non-issue. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2181
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:48:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:
But really is everthing supposed to be equal? There is always going to be something that is better than something else, it's a never ending circle when you try to make everythign the same.
The problem with the drake is its tank and projected damage and its cheap, which is great for new players. The tengu is the same but you pay a much higher price for it and you like everyother T3 lose SP if you lose it.
There needs to be viable counters to everything. Missiles will still be unique in the same way arty is different from rails which are different from beams. Both the tengu and the drake will likely get further changes when their time for teircide comes. |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:56:00 -
[1132] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The drake and tengu are also going to get a revisit when they get teircided.
To nerf them some more? Great...
The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Webvan
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:57:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:
But really is everthing supposed to be equal? There is always going to be something that is better than something else, it's a never ending circle when you try to make everythign the same.
The problem with the drake is its tank and projected damage and its cheap, which is great for new players. The tengu is the same but you pay a much higher price for it and you like everyother T3 lose SP if you lose it.
And all good points. I mean, expanding on what you said about newbies, what is CCP going to do for explorers now? They have frigs, and they have the T3, nothing else. So for missile based explorers, throw them under the buss to appease the purely pvp side of the game? High price for a damaged exploration ship with no alternative.
I love pvp, but this is the conundrum of it in that it is a constant battle over the nerf bat, nerfing one ship or class after another to no end. I've seen it repeated over some odd 16 years playing mmo's. But yeah, there is never equality, it's not possible, I know it, it's illusive as a development resource trap.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2181
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 09:59:00 -
[1134] - Quote
John Ratcliffe wrote:baltec1 wrote:The drake and tengu are also going to get a revisit when they get teircided. To nerf them some more? Great...
Blance it a great thing untill it happens to a ship you like |
Kmelx
The Elysian Agoge Elysian Empire
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:02:00 -
[1135] - Quote
[quote=baltec1 Both the tengu and the drake will likely get further changes when their time for teircide comes.[/quote]
Yes and we all know what those changes will be, people have been calling for nerfs to both ships for years because of lame nullsec blob warfare, the proposed missile changes are a massive indirect nerf to both ships and in all likelihood CCP will go even further in the future and screw both ships totally, probably by reducing the tanks of both Drakes and Tengus.
I don't disagree with the HML range nerf, but a 20% dps is reduction is full ret@rd.
|
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:07:00 -
[1136] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote: TDs will be the new and improved ECM. At least with ECM you're taking the risk of bringing the wrong jammer. If TD effects will apply to everything there's absolutely no reason to not bring one.
Totaly agree. Another thing is that ECM only works effective on a handfull of ships with special bonuses (Blackbird / Falcon / Scorpion / Widow) and that's it. And yes, i know that ECM can be extremly annoying, but at least you know instantly your primary and they go down like sh**.
TD's have a decent performance on every ship that has a Medslot to fit it. Way to overpowered. Better make Defenders useful or give us a "MGD" (Missile-Guidance-Disruption) Modul or something like that (same mecanic like TD, but Missiles only). |
baltec1
Bat Country
2181
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:07:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Kmelx wrote:
I don't disagree with the HML range nerf, but a 20% dps is reduction is full ret@rd.
Not if you look at what the stats are going to be. Even with the 20% dps reduction they will be slightly better at long range damage than everything else. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:07:00 -
[1138] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:John Ratcliffe wrote:baltec1 wrote:The drake and tengu are also going to get a revisit when they get teircided. To nerf them some more? Great... Blance it a great thing untill it happens to a ship you like
Yes and in that is the problem it isn't affecting one ship it's affecting lots. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
567
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:09:00 -
[1139] - Quote
Kmelx wrote: I don't disagree with the HML range nerf, but a 20% dps is reduction is full ret@rd.
Do not miss the sh!t with the TD. Now you can use Defenders, Smartbombs and TD to intercept / disturb missiles. At least do not implement this crap with TD affecting missiles! Or can I use Smartbombs and Defenders against gunnery? Who is that crackbrained dumba$$ who think that this is a good idea? To bring two ships in line with others you ruin one race at once. I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:10:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Kmelx wrote: Tracking disruptor change is an awful idea, it would become by far the most overpowered module in the game and a must fit module to any and all PVP ships, currently the module is already powerful, but it is balanced by the fact that it does not work against missiles, keep it as it is.
Very true !
|
|
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:10:00 -
[1141] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kmelx wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Its the missiles causing the problems.
Which is nonsense, my two 100MNAB PVP Tengus (active and a passive tanked one) with lvl 5 sub skills and fours or fives in most missile skills, do about 400dps with faction launchers and BCUs, these are ships that I've spent billions of ISK on. On there own Tengus are overpowered because of the tanks that you can achieve on them and the fact that the prop mod allows you to achieve high speeds without a corresponding sig radius increase, so you can run away from anyone you can't fight most of the time, not because of the dps output which is frankly underwhelming. Lowering damage on these ships would take them to something like 320dps with faction fittings and decent skills, it makes one of the most popular ships in the game untenable in PVP and PVE. You currently get 800+ DPS out of a ratting tengu and the standard tengufleet fit get over 500 DPS. What on earth are you doing to yours? Yea, and a vindicator can get 2200dps. An enyo can get 500. I wanna see the tengu fit with 800dps...let me take a guess its ham fit? And please, dont even bother posting a 6 launcher setup for a "standard fleet fit" |
baltec1
Bat Country
2181
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:11:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:
Yes and in that is the problem it isn't affecting one ship it's affecting lots.
Indeed it is. Many ships are now going to be viable. |
Webvan
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:14:00 -
[1143] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:When we have 7 year olds out witting adult miners and haulers age becomes a bit of a non-issue. not really. I'd rather see CCP embrace 18+ in tos, but that's just imo. But I'd settle for CCP listening to reasoning and negating the nerf bat.
|
Ahernar
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:14:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Damn .Liked the Tengu AND the Drake but i'm aware that were OP .The thing is the other HM boats were not OP and this weapon system nerf is hurting them more , without reason . Maybe an adjustement to the kin bonus of the drake and tengu would have sufficed (2% per level for ex instead of 5).
Anyway crunching hard HAM's in EFT :) |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
768
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:15:00 -
[1145] - Quote
I approve the changes |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:15:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Rovinia wrote:NiGhTTraX wrote: TDs will be the new and improved ECM. At least with ECM you're taking the risk of bringing the wrong jammer. If TD effects will apply to everything there's absolutely no reason to not bring one.
Totaly agree. Another thing is that ECM only works effective on a handfull of ships with special bonuses (Griffin / Kitsune / Blackbird / Falcon / Scorpion / Widow) and that's it. And yes, i know that ECM can be extremly annoying, but at least you know instantly your primary and they go down like sh**. TD's have a decent performance on every ship that has a Medslot to fit it. Way to overpowered. Better make Defenders useful or give us a "MGD" (Missile-Guidance-Disruption) Modul or something like that (same mecanic like TD, but Missiles only).
Argh... wanted to edit, hit the quote button... Shame on me! :( |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:15:00 -
[1147] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Do not miss the sh!t with the TD. Now you can use Defenders, Smartbombs and TD to intercept / disturb missiles. At least do not implement this crap with TD affecting missiles! Or can I use Smartbombs and Defenders against gunnery? Who is that crackbrained dumba$$ who think that this is a good idea? To bring two ships in line with others you ruin on race at once. As i said, missiles will become obsolete. Take golem for example, if you do level 4 missions with golem and npc's are shooting defender missiles at you, your cruise missiles are going to be destroyed, at least 2 of them that's 50% less dps from defender missiles. Now imagine npc's tracking distrupting and using defender missiles at once... This is how **** missiles will get if this nerf is going to hit TQ.
So with golem you do like 80% less dps because of this. Not to mention range, when 20 sansha frigates track distrupt you, you'll get like 18km on cruise missiles.
in PVP it means: Smartbombs, Tracking Disruptors and defender missiles, so missiles are destroyed before they even get into 30km range. |
Salmon Ella
Exolon Trading
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:15:00 -
[1148] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:
Yes and in that is the problem it isn't affecting one ship it's affecting lots.
Indeed it is. Many ships are now going to be viable.
Please.... Christ it's like Communism or Year 0 everyone is equal everyone is happy everyone is content..
This really has a whiff of 0.0 involvement in it. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1239
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:20:00 -
[1149] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:
Yes and in that is the problem it isn't affecting one ship it's affecting lots.
Indeed it is. Many ships are now going to be viable.
This is the other side of the coin that Draektards refuse to acknowledge.
Nerfing HML efficiency to be on par with other LR med weapons will shift the meta of PVE, making other races just as good choices for many players across New Eden. No longer "train Drake, then Tengu" as the only correct answer for budding bears, now you can choose other ships and not be shadowed by overpowered ships.
Obviously it will reduce the total output of farming and botting as well, making our economy healthier.
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:21:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote: Yea, and a vindicator can get 2200dps. An enyo can get 500. I wanna see the tengu fit with 800dps...let me take a guess its ham fit? And please, dont even bother posting a 6 launcher setup for a "standard fleet fit"
If you want the damage of close range weapons you dont fit long range weapons. HML are not ment to be high damage powerhoses they are for long range combat and thus, are being balanced to the other long range weapons. If you want high damage you use HAMs.
Highs 6x Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Mids 1x 10MN Afterburner II 1x Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction 1x Explosive Deflection Field II 2x EM Ward Field II 1x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Lows 1x Damage Control II 3x Ballistic Control System II Rigs 3x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Subs Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
Standard fleet setup for the CFC, copied from PLs cheap fit, used by just about every powerblock in 0.0 and aside from the swarms of pve tengu is the most common setup going.
500+ DPS with a 93 km range.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:24:00 -
[1151] - Quote
Ahernar wrote:Damn .Liked the Tengu AND the Drake but i'm aware that were OP .The thing is the other HM boats were not OP and this weapon system nerf is hurting them more , without reason . Maybe an adjustement to the kin bonus of the drake and tengu would have sufficed (2% per level for ex instead of 5). Anyway crunching hard HAM's in EFT :)
The HML caracal is going to be in much better shape when this hits |
Salmon Ella
Exolon Trading
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:25:00 -
[1152] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote: Yea, and a vindicator can get 2200dps. An enyo can get 500. I wanna see the tengu fit with 800dps...let me take a guess its ham fit? And please, dont even bother posting a 6 launcher setup for a "standard fleet fit"
If you want the damage of close range weapons you dont fit long range weapons. HML are not ment to be high damage powerhoses they are for long range combat and thus, are being balanced to the other long range weapons. If you want high damage you use HAMs. Highs 6x Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Mids 1x 10MN Afterburner II 1x Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction 1x Explosive Deflection Field II 2x EM Ward Field II 1x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Lows 1x Damage Control II 3x Ballistic Control System II Rigs 3x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Subs Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Standard fleet setup for the CFC, copied from PLs cheap fit, used by just about every powerblock in 0.0 and aside from the swarms of pve tengu is the most common setup going. 500+ DPS with a 93 km range.
On a ship that cost over half a bil and you lose sp when you die... nice. |
Salmon Ella
Exolon Trading
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:27:00 -
[1153] - Quote
Roime wrote:baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:
Yes and in that is the problem it isn't affecting one ship it's affecting lots.
Indeed it is. Many ships are now going to be viable. This is the other side of the coin that Draektards refuse to acknowledge. Nerfing HML efficiency to be on par with other LR med weapons will shift the meta of PVE, making other races just as good choices for many players across New Eden. No longer "train Drake, then Tengu" as the only correct answer for budding bears, now you can choose other ships and not be shadowed by overpowered ships. Obviously it will reduce the total output of farming and botting as well, making our economy healthier.
Then what is the point of different races different modules different ships, everything will be the same in your Utopia so it won't matter what we turn up in. I see that the people who don't agree with this now have a name or a label. First rule of dehumanisation. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:27:00 -
[1154] - Quote
Quote:The HML caracal is going to be in much better shape when this hits
Not really. The extra slots get cancelled out by the missile nerf. Plus, you know, T1 cruisers.
Still wondering why the don't just change the resist bonus/slot layout on the drake and balance the accelerated ejection/fuel catalyst on the tengu. I mean instead of changing all heavy missiles. Wouldn't that make more sense? |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:29:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Salmon Ella wrote:
On a ship that cost over half a bil and you lose sp when you die... nice.
isk cost is never a way to balance things. See titans. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:31:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Quote:The HML caracal is going to be in much better shape when this hits Not really. The extra slots get cancelled out by the missile nerf. Plus, you know, T1 cruisers. Still wondering why the don't just change the resist bonus/slot layout on the drake and balance the accelerated ejection/fuel catalyst on the tengu. I mean instead of changing all heavy missiles. Wouldn't that make more sense?
No because the HML needed to be changed to bring them in line with the other med long range weapons. Both the tengu and the drake will be changing when they get teircided. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:33:00 -
[1157] - Quote
Bringing into line in this case means 'make useless'. You never see rail feroxes or brutixes, beam harbingers or eagles at all for a good reason. The intended effect might be to encourage people into using the other LR medium guns, but in reality people will just switch to tier 3 battlecruisers (and maybe arty canes). |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:34:00 -
[1158] - Quote
Salmon Ella wrote:
Then what is the point of different races different modules different ships, everything will be the same in your Utopia so it won't matter what we turn up in. I see that the people who don't agree with this now have a name or a label. First rule of dehumanisation.
Missiles will retain their ability to hit for exactly the same damage no matter the range where as turret ships do less damage the further away they are. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:35:00 -
[1159] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Bringing into line in this case means 'make useless'. You never see rail feroxes or brutixes, beam harbingers or eagles at all for a good reason. The intended effect might be to encourage people into using the other LR medium guns, but in reality people will just switch to tier 3 battlecruisers (and maybe arty canes).
You dont see them because the drake outclasses them with heavy missiles. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:37:00 -
[1160] - Quote
Quote:You dont see them because the drake outclasses them with heavy missiles.
The intended effect might be to encourage people into using the other LR medium guns, but in reality people will just switch to tier 3 battlecruisers (and maybe arty canes). |
|
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:41:00 -
[1161] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote: Yea, and a vindicator can get 2200dps. An enyo can get 500. I wanna see the tengu fit with 800dps...let me take a guess its ham fit? And please, dont even bother posting a 6 launcher setup for a "standard fleet fit"
If you want the damage of close range weapons you dont fit long range weapons. HML are not ment to be high damage powerhoses they are for long range combat and thus, are being balanced to the other long range weapons. If you want high damage you use HAMs. Highs 6x Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Mids 1x 10MN Afterburner II 1x Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction 1x Explosive Deflection Field II 2x EM Ward Field II 1x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Lows 1x Damage Control II 3x Ballistic Control System II Rigs 3x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Subs Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Standard fleet setup for the CFC, copied from PLs cheap fit, used by just about every powerblock in 0.0 and aside from the swarms of pve tengu is the most common setup going. 500+ DPS with a 93 km range. Did you seriously just post a 10mn ab 6 launcher setup after i specifically told you not to bother posting a 6 launcher setup? Yes they use that...against arty maelstorms because they cant track abing cruisers for **** and tengus have a good tank. Not because HMLs do trollolo dps. And this fit is outdated anyway. current apoc navy doctrine smashse this.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:41:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Quote:You dont see them because the drake outclasses them with heavy missiles. The intended effect might be to encourage people into using the other LR medium guns, but in reality people will just switch to tier 3 battlecruisers (and maybe arty canes).
teir 3 BCs have a soft underbelly that can be exploited by fast cruisers and arty canes high alpha produce a similar DPS to the other long range weapons so its not like the are going to be sitting on a throne made from melted down railboats on a hill of drake skulls. |
Salmon Ella
Exolon Trading
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:42:00 -
[1163] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Smabs wrote:Bringing into line in this case means 'make useless'. You never see rail feroxes or brutixes, beam harbingers or eagles at all for a good reason. The intended effect might be to encourage people into using the other LR medium guns, but in reality people will just switch to tier 3 battlecruisers (and maybe arty canes). You dont see them because the drake outclasses them with heavy missiles.
But again you cant have everything equal, it doesn't work. |
Mr John Smith
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:42:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Heavy Missiles! The new Failguns! I meen railguns.
Also, bad luck Caracal, get buffed by tericide, weapon systems nerfed by CCP next week.
but seriously, the range nerf to HML's was warranted, they are a cruiser based weapon after all and the range on some missile boats is pretty ridiculous, but 20% damage? They're already one of the lowest dps weapon systems around. You're over doing it, please re-think this one; talk with the CSM about it, please.
Also, with this boost to tracking disrupter's could you consider a very slight reduction in base stats? To bring them in line with other E-War which is only very effective on bonus'd ships. |
Salmon Ella
Exolon Trading
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:43:00 -
[1165] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Smabs wrote:Quote:You dont see them because the drake outclasses them with heavy missiles. The intended effect might be to encourage people into using the other LR medium guns, but in reality people will just switch to tier 3 battlecruisers (and maybe arty canes). teir 3 BCs have a soft underbelly that can be exploited by fast cruisers and arty canes high alpha produce a similar DPS to the other long range weapons so its not like the are going to be sitting on a throne made from melted down railboats on a hill of drake skulls.
See again you're for the nerf for HML but everytime you counter an argument you use bonuses or lack of bonuses on the ship to say why its a good idea. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
1239
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:44:00 -
[1166] - Quote
Salmon Ella wrote: Then what is the point of different races different modules different ships, everything will be the same in your Utopia so it won't matter what we turn up in. I see that the people who don't agree with this now have a name or a label. First rule of dehumanisation.
Only their relative efficiency is balanced, that doesn't make them "the same".
Gallente - the choice of the interstellar gentleman |
Lilan Kahn
The Littlest Hobos En Garde
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:45:00 -
[1167] - Quote
Rita May wrote:uh, one thinghy i nearly forgot:
like the Carebear i am i want to ask if all the NPCs are going to get some "defender-turrets"? Because, like how it is now missles against NPCs already receive an "applied" damage reduction that turrets do not?
cu
they have for years its called tracking its a high end feature in eve that checks if you guns hit or not unlike missils that have this always hit thing going for them |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:45:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote: Did you seriously just post a 10mn ab 6 launcher setup after i specifically told you not to bother posting a 6 launcher setup? Yes they use that...against arty maelstorms because they cant track abing cruisers for **** and tengus have a good tank. Not because HMLs do trollolo dps. And this fit is outdated anyway. current apoc navy doctrine smashse this.
This from a guy who expects close range damge from a long range weapon. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:47:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Salmon Ella wrote:
See again you're for the nerf for HML but everytime you counter an argument you use bonuses or lack of bonuses on the ship to say why its a good idea.
If you look at the base stats of the weapon after the change you will see that HML are on par with the other weapons (slightly better DPS at range acctually) |
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:47:00 -
[1170] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote: Did you seriously just post a 10mn ab 6 launcher setup after i specifically told you not to bother posting a 6 launcher setup? Yes they use that...against arty maelstorms because they cant track abing cruisers for **** and tengus have a good tank. Not because HMLs do trollolo dps. And this fit is outdated anyway. current apoc navy doctrine smashse this.
This from a guy who expects close range damge from a long range weapon. No, that post is from me. The guy expecting close range damage from a long range weapon was you by stating a tengu does 800+dps, which it does not. |
|
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:49:00 -
[1171] - Quote
Quote:teir 3 BCs have a soft underbelly that can be exploited by fast cruisers and arty canes high alpha produce a similar DPS to the other long range weapons so its not like the are going to be sitting on a throne made from melted down railboats on a hill of drake skulls.
Not all that soft, nados in particular. The tracking is good enough that a gang of 3 nados/talos should easily beat a greater number of cruisers or even hacs.
Nobody will use medium rail ships. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:50:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Salmon Ella wrote:
But again you cant have everything equal, it doesn't work.
You can have everything balanced. HML doing around the same damage and getting a similar range as the other long range weapons is much better. |
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:50:00 -
[1173] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salmon Ella wrote:
See again you're for the nerf for HML but everytime you counter an argument you use bonuses or lack of bonuses on the ship to say why its a good idea.
If you look at the base stats of the weapon after the change you will see that HML are on par with the other weapons (slightly better DPS at range acctually) Pulse lasers have more optimal than hybrids and autocannons, nerf that to bring it in line. Arties have too much alpha compared to other systems, reduce it to bring it in line with other systems. Hybrids do way too much damage at 1km compared to other systems, reduce it to bring it in line with other systems.
You see where this goes? |
Dani Lizardov
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:51:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Epic Caldary buff
HM are not the only Missiles you can use on your Drake or Tengu.
Current HAM Tengu can do 900+ dps at 40km... Current HAM Drake has 600 dps + 92k ehp + command link
Now add the following:
Quote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
-Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
HM nerf is a good thing. It makes HM on the same level as the other mid sized long range weapon platforms. It you want more range you need to sacrifice tank! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:52:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote:
No, that post is from me. The guy expecting close range damage from a long range weapon was you by stating a tengu does 800+dps, which it does not.
It does with the correct weapons. |
Karah Serrigan
The Hatchery Team Liquid
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:54:00 -
[1176] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Salmon Ella wrote:
But again you cant have everything equal, it doesn't work.
You can have everything balanced. HML doing around the same damage and getting a similar range as the other long range weapons is much better.
The reason they have more _base_ damage because other systems in the first place is that they suffer heavy penalties from anything that is not a standing still battleship and which, unlike with turrets, you cant compensate for by flying your ship in a certain way. The resulting real damage that is applied is almost never 100% and can be as low as 10% or less, not being able to break a frigates passive shield recharge. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2182
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:55:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote: Pulse lasers have more optimal than hybrids and autocannons, nerf that to bring it in line. Arties have too much alpha compared to other systems, reduce it to bring it in line with other systems. Hybrids do way too much damage at 1km compared to other systems, reduce it to bring it in line with other systems.
You see where this goes?
Yes, we have balance now that HML are on par with those weapons. Each of them do the same job differently and are all viable. (aside from the blasters which are a close range weapon and shouldnt be compared to long range guns.)
|
xUnlimitedx
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:55:00 -
[1178] - Quote
Dear CCP,
change the explosion velocity and explosion radius from the long range with shortrange missiles.
Shortrange guns have good tracking good dps bad range Longrange guns have bad tracking bad dps awesome range
The range nerf of hm's is ok. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2187
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:56:00 -
[1179] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote:
The reason they have more _base_ damage because other systems in the first place is that they suffer heavy penalties from anything that is not a standing still battleship and which, unlike with turrets, you cant compensate for by flying your ship in a certain way. The resulting real damage that is applied is almost never 100% and can be as low as 10% or less, not being able to break a frigates passive shield recharge.
Yea thats not going to wash, HML will hit frigates fairly well and turrets suffer from a similar thing called tracking. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:57:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Quote:Each of them do the same job differently and are all viable.
Medium beams and rails are truly awe inspiring weapons. Let me tell you how I don't think it's hilarious when I come across a rail brutix. |
|
Naara Elein
Les Force
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 10:57:00 -
[1181] - Quote
HAMs for damage, HMLs for projection/alpha. Nice to see this fixed. Good call ccp, don't back down!
It might appear like the Caracal, Nighthawk and the Cerberus will suffer badly from this. But those hulls will undergo changes too, surely nobody have missed the ongoing ship revamp? The new Caracal proposal can be found here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155001&find=unread and it has some extra low slots for BCU's and a hullbonus to ROF (no more just kinetic damage). It's still a long range ship but it looks competitive to the other cruisers imho.
The Drake is not a small BS. Well, it is right now actually, but it really shouldn't be because the other tier 1 and 2 BC's are not small BSes. When the Drake is tought of as a small BS, then this nerf feels like a slap in the face, because now it can no longer do BS-ish dps with BS range. But the change is not unfair. The change only seem unfair if the Drake is assumed to be a small BS. But it isn't a BS, it is a BC. And don't compare the Drake to the tier 3 BC's, those are a different breed.
The nerfbat did only a glancing blow to the Tengu. It still does a lot of dps and tanks like something from Jove space. But perhaps it is enough for the other T3's to catch up a little. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:00:00 -
[1182] - Quote
most im seeing is nullfags wanting the missle nerf cause they are sick of dieing to em. people arnt even listening to the lowsec/fw and highsec missle users which are not too meny especially in low which is pritty much over 75% gunnery users
dont let nullseccers dictate what every one else should use! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2187
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:02:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Quote:Each of them do the same job differently and are all viable. Let me tell you how I don't think it's hilarious when I come across a rail brutix.
Welcome to the wonderous world of brutix fitting issues. Hopefully this will be fixed when BC get their turn at teircide. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:02:00 -
[1184] - Quote
Mr John Smith wrote:Heavy Missiles! The new Failguns! I meen railguns.
Also, bad luck Caracal, get buffed by tericide, weapon systems nerfed by CCP next week.
but seriously, the range nerf to HML's was warranted, they are a cruiser based weapon after all and the range on some missile boats is pretty ridiculous, but 20% damage? They're already one of the lowest dps weapon systems around. You're over doing it, please re-think this one; talk with the CSM about it, please.
Also, with this boost to tracking disrupter's could you consider a very slight reduction in base stats? To bring them in line with other E-War which is only very effective on bonus'd ships.
agree the range nerf is fine the flightspeed buff is fine the removal of t2 ammo negatives, fine also. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:03:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Don't think that's going to change anything. Well, as far as a rail brutix goes. Blaster ones should be really good if they buff them. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:06:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Don't think that's going to change anything. Well, as far as a rail brutix goes. Blaster ones should be really good if they buff them.
have you seen some of the tix fits? those thigns are nuts 2km/s full tackle like 1000dps (OH iirc) like 60k to 70k EHP
as for rail-tix never tried them. but i agree with other people medium beams, medium rails need a buff. NOT A HM nerf!! |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:06:00 -
[1187] - Quote
60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged. |
Lord Calus
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:10:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Let me know how it went the last time a weapon system got changed before the ships that used it got changed and what happened to the diversity of ships and weapon systems used ... I'll wait. Oh yeah, we got the projectile "balance" patch which was left unchecked for years and caused a homogenization of ship, tank, and weapon system across the board.
Saying that "the problem will be fixed on the hulls" is a pathetic attempt at being an apologist. We are already seeing the same crap as before on the reworked amarr cruisers. Mattar is getting tracking and falloff/damage, Amarr gets -cap use and something else. Really guys? Matar get 2 useful bonus, and amarr keep the same tired bonus instead of getting a base cap bump? Really sad at the direction this game is taking, just call it Minmattar Online and be done with it already. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:10:00 -
[1189] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged.
its not just drake and tengu effected is all missle ships especially those useing t2 ammo aswell i can definatly foresee a price hike in t1 ammo cause no one will use t2 anymore :/ |
Dani Lizardov
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:11:00 -
[1190] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged.
Ah please don't recap it that way :) Its 60 Pages of Tiers, about a Nerf, where in fact there is a massive buff :) It is hilarious |
|
calexxa
CHAOS SQUAD Shadow Operations.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:11:00 -
[1191] - Quote
OK, so the message for anyone who can fly only Caldari ships would be "sorry guys, delete your accounts and better try another game". Or wait few more months, try to skill another race/guns and forget about missiles. That is just cool, really :/ |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:11:00 -
[1192] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged. i dread it but i wouldn't bet on it tbh.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:11:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote: Did you seriously just post a 10mn ab 6 launcher setup after i specifically told you not to bother posting a 6 launcher setup? Yes they use that...against arty maelstorms because they cant track abing cruisers for **** and tengus have a good tank. Not because HMLs do trollolo dps. And this fit is outdated anyway. current apoc navy doctrine smashse this.
This from a guy who expects close range damge from a long range weapon. No, that post is from me. The guy expecting close range damage from a long range weapon was you by stating a tengu does 800+dps, which it does not.
Well to be honest my HM Tengu does nearly close to 800dps with a range of 114km but it did cost an arm and a leg to get it to that. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Naara Elein
Les Force
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:12:00 -
[1194] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged.
I don't think you read enough comments. Lots of people in favour for these changes, apart from some general uncertainity about the TD buff. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:12:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Lord Calus wrote:Let me know how it went the last time a weapon system got changed before the ships that used it got changed and what happened to the diversity of ships and weapon systems used ... I'll wait. Oh yeah, we got the projectile "balance" patch which was left unchecked for years and caused a homogenization of ship, tank, and weapon system across the board.
Saying that "the problem will be fixed on the hulls" is a pathetic attempt at being an apologist. We are already seeing the same crap as before on the reworked amarr cruisers. Mattar is getting tracking and falloff/damage, Amarr gets -cap use and something else. Really guys? Matar get 2 useful bonus, and amarr keep the same tired bonus instead of getting a base cap bump? Really sad at the direction this game is taking, just call it Minmattar Online and be done with it already.
my friend this is what happens when most desitions are pushed forward by the neumerous pvpers in nullsec while low and high can barely be heard |
Beachura
Perkone Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:14:00 -
[1196] - Quote
Unfortunately I fear that the nighthawk has been caught up in this and will suffer horribly because of this. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:15:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote:baltec1 wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote: Did you seriously just post a 10mn ab 6 launcher setup after i specifically told you not to bother posting a 6 launcher setup? Yes they use that...against arty maelstorms because they cant track abing cruisers for **** and tengus have a good tank. Not because HMLs do trollolo dps. And this fit is outdated anyway. current apoc navy doctrine smashse this.
This from a guy who expects close range damge from a long range weapon. No, that post is from me. The guy expecting close range damage from a long range weapon was you by stating a tengu does 800+dps, which it does not. Well to be honest my HM Tengu does nearly close to 800dps with a range of 114km but it did cost an arm and a leg to get it to that.
a normal tengu is more closer to low 700s in dps numbers probably slightly less factoring in real combat situations of speed/sig rad. but yes t2 ammo gets to like 80km t1 easly 110km but yeah could be stupid and use range/flighttime hards and rigs and get 200km if ya want :P |
Gempei
CHAOS SQUAD Shadow Operations.
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:15:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Range nerf is OK, but damage nerf is bad joke - 220 dps on drake with EM missiles (CN mjolnir, no drones)? Nobody fly this **** solo or in small gang. CCP what's wrong with you? Why you supporting drake blobs? |
Glasgow Dunlop
Gigaverse The Imperial Senate
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:20:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Nice. Can I have what your drinking Fozzy |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:21:00 -
[1200] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged.
One of the issues I have is that I get the impression from the CSM posts in this thread that they have already "signed off" on these changes on our behalf and we should just "Build a bridge and get over it".
My view on Heavy Missiles is that: They simply have too much range. So I support the range nerf even though I feel it should have been closer to 40% total range reduction with TC/TE offering better range by sacrificing Tank/Gank Missiles need a viable counter that works. Defender missiles should be reworked into a real point defence weapon that effectively shoots down missiles and drones. There should also be another module that reduces your signature radius as a missile counter that is simply a "Chaff and Flare" Launcher. Obviously this module would have drawbacks for it's use but it would work as an effective solo missile counter.
TL;DR Range nerf is good Damage nerf is bad Do not give TD's the ability to effect missiles Fix or rework point defence (read defender missiles)
Disclaimer: I have not read a CSM post that stated the exact quotes from above. The phrases in quotation marks above are purely my perception of the CSM's stance and attitude to the players opinion voiced in this thread. I make no personal attacks on players, devs, CSM members or ISD members and have attempted create a post containing constructive feedback. Lets see if the ISD edit this post in their current campaign vs free speech |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2188
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:21:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Gempei wrote:Range nerf is OK, but damage nerf is bad joke - 220 dps on drake with EM missiles (CN mjolnir, no drones)? Nobody fly this **** solo or in small gang. CCP what's wrong with you? Why you supporting drake blobs?
Thats about the same as the other med long range weapons get with med-long range ammo. |
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:23:00 -
[1202] - Quote
Merkal Aubauch wrote:LOL ppl u dont understand that HMLs were overpowerd all the time.
With all 5 skills on unbonused ship:
250mm Railgun II Spike M 65km optimal + 15km falloff with 20 DPS 0,00755 tracking
Heavy Beam Laser II Aurora M
54optimal + 10 falloff with 21,1DPS 0,01031 tracking
720mm Howitrzer Artillery II ammo: Tremor M
54km optimal 22km falloff with 16,8 DPS 0,00687 tracking
general for turrets + insta dmg - one DMG type for long range ammo - full DPS only in optimal then its going down in falloff - might have tracking issues - some of turrets cant change DMG type
Heavy Missile Launcher II Caldari navy scourge Heavy Missile
84.4km range 38.2dps
+ full dps @ full range + cba on tracking - can be smartbombed or target can run - low signature + high speed are lowering DPS
STOP CRYING FFS |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:24:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Quote:Thats about the same as the other med long range weapons get with long range ammo.
I'm picturing fitting a beam harbinger and trying to hit stuff with 0.012 tracking (with 2 te) for a huge 270dps. It's really sad. |
Beachura
Perkone Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:24:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Beachura wrote:Unfortunately I fear that the nighthawk has been caught up in this and will suffer horribly because of this. s some eft warriors already crunshed numbers its normal dps of like 450 to 550 will drop off to like low 300s.
Indeed, CCP you are damaging an entire class of weaponry. As many people have stated here the drake and tengu are the problematic ships, you are damaging command ships such as the nighthawk and HAC's such as the cerberus unduly when they did small amounts of DPS anyway.
I find it hard to justify paying close to 400 million after fitting for a basic T2 Fit command ship with 300 DPS. The range reduction it appears is justified, but the damage reduction is horrible. |
PetersmithII
CHAOS SQUAD Shadow Operations.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:25:00 -
[1205] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Gempei wrote:Range nerf is OK, but damage nerf is bad joke - 220 dps on drake with EM missiles (CN mjolnir, no drones)? Nobody fly this **** solo or in small gang. CCP what's wrong with you? Why you supporting drake blobs? Thats about the same as the other med long range weapons get with med-long range ammo.
Yep and u shoot with all other long range 50-60 km max skill ok then u must be poor man lack of education ? |
Glasgow Dunlop
Gigaverse The Imperial Senate
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:29:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Giveth in 1 hand, taketh away in the other with a wtf nuke powerd hoover.
All those shiny missle graphics for nothing . . . . . |
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co. Fatal Ascension
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:29:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Do we really need to nerf an already crappy weapon system, making every Heavy Missile boat near useless on its own. Not to mention the amount of crying we will hear from the lvl4 mission runners who use them.
Can someone tell me exactly how a TD can affect a system that does not track? Lets be real if you want to effect missiles, do the work and make a mod that does it. Not just assign the attribute to a Mod that shouldn't.
vr East
PS. If HML are a cruiser size weapon, and CML are a Battle ship size weapon, it seems to me that we need a new weapon system for the BCs. Otherwise the BC's should have more than enough PG / CPU for a full rack of Cruiser sized weapons IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES: -á" I drank WHAT?!" |
ito kazami
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:30:00 -
[1208] - Quote
the most idiotic thing ccp has done to this game ...
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
471
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:31:00 -
[1209] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged.
This will happen, absolutely, no question. As was proved with the unified inventory farce, CCP don't really care if people disagree with their proposals, they go ahead and do them anyway. Then when the inevitable shitstorm happens, they try and backtrack and make emergency "iterations". Just enough of them to make us think that they are addressing the problem, but aren't really.
Again with the unified inventory, a lot of the promised iterations never happened, and I believe that they never will.
CCP philosophy:
Bring crap in regardless, and when riots occur, do a couple of slight amendments to keep people quiet until it all dies down. And...... on to the next bit of crap. |
feihcsiM
Last Exit For The Lost Dark Therapy
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:37:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Beachura wrote:Unfortunately I fear that the nighthawk has been caught up in this and will suffer horribly because of this. s some eft warriors already crunshed numbers its normal dps of like 450 to 550 will drop off to like low 300s.
How does this compare with Rail Astarte, Arty Sleipnir, Beam Absolution? It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine. |
|
PetersmithII
CHAOS SQUAD Shadow Operations.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:37:00 -
[1211] - Quote
For me CCP lost its minds they must be complete droged or drinked if let this pass .. And i dont cry yes i am caldari pilot but i can fly lal ships with all guns all TII variants so i dont care .. But there are new guys who trained for missles and u compelte ruin their SP try to rat in drake its **** even now try it after you do this in sansha space for example or anywhere where u cant use kin dmg .. u never see so bad dmg out put there will be cruisers doing more dmg then drake
U have to be realy .... sry for this but if u wanna change use of heavy missles then nerf them by -20(30)% dmg boost their range by +10(20)% so they should be used for snipe from 100+km.. If u lower both they just be ussles .. for expamle this is the way how to make diference between heavy and HAM what u do is just crazy **** becose some ppl cry about drake blob.. Or just lower rezistance on drake it will be good move too caldary loose only one good ship for pvp .. If the heavy missiles are soo uber why nobody fly cerberus ?
And if TDs will work against misseles i hope u remove thats **** so when i am in warp i cant do any ******* dmg to ship .... its nerf for missles like hell they should be explode even when i warp off u forget this is one of the biggest unadwanted in game and nobody cares? |
PetersmithII
CHAOS SQUAD Shadow Operations.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:38:00 -
[1212] - Quote
feihcsiM wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:Beachura wrote:Unfortunately I fear that the nighthawk has been caught up in this and will suffer horribly because of this. s some eft warriors already crunshed numbers its normal dps of like 450 to 550 will drop off to like low 300s. How does this compare with Rail Astarte, Arty Sleipnir, Beam Absolution?
if u compare what is range of this ships ? 60 km i doubt it .. Its realy sad u dont use your education for count numbers like max range of these ships and all these ship u said can do one thing witch missle boat cant they can warp on whoot warp out and they do dmg... missiles ship cant do this ... |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:43:00 -
[1213] - Quote
feihcsiM wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:Beachura wrote:Unfortunately I fear that the nighthawk has been caught up in this and will suffer horribly because of this. s some eft warriors already crunshed numbers its normal dps of like 450 to 550 will drop off to like low 300s. How does this compare with Rail Astarte, Arty Sleipnir, Beam Absolution?
It seem you can get 700dps from an Arty Sleipnir using T2 Arty, a tad more than the nighthawks 300 it looks like. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:43:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged. One of the issues I have is that I get the impression from the CSM posts in this thread that they have already "signed off" on these changes on our behalf and we should just "Build a bridge and get over it". My view on Heavy Missiles is that: They simply have too much range. So I support the range nerf even though I feel it should have been closer to 40% total range reduction with TC/TE offering better range by sacrificing Tank/Gank Missiles need a viable counter that works. Defender missiles should be reworked into a real point defence weapon that effectively shoots down missiles and drones. There should also be another module that reduces your signature radius as a missile counter that is simply a "Chaff and Flare" Launcher. Obviously this module would have drawbacks for it's use but it would work as an effective solo missile counter. TL;DR Range nerf is good Damage nerf is bad Do not give TD's the ability to effect missiles Fix or rework point defence (read defender missiles) Disclaimer: I have not read a CSM post that stated the exact quotes from above. The phrases in quotation marks above are purely my perception of the CSM's stance and attitude to the players opinion voiced in this thread. I make no personal attacks on players, devs, CSM members or ISD members and have attempted create a post containing constructive feedback. Lets see if the ISD edit this post in their current campaign vs free speech
a rnt you forgetting that missles are physical and can be destroyed by smartbombs and bombs? |
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:47:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged. One of the issues I have is that I get the impression from the CSM posts in this thread that they have already "signed off" on these changes on our behalf and we should just "Build a bridge and get over it". My view on Heavy Missiles is that: They simply have too much range. So I support the range nerf even though I feel it should have been closer to 40% total range reduction with TC/TE offering better range by sacrificing Tank/Gank Missiles need a viable counter that works. Defender missiles should be reworked into a real point defence weapon that effectively shoots down missiles and drones. There should also be another module that reduces your signature radius as a missile counter that is simply a "Chaff and Flare" Launcher. Obviously this module would have drawbacks for it's use but it would work as an effective solo missile counter. TL;DR Range nerf is good Damage nerf is bad Do not give TD's the ability to effect missiles Fix or rework point defence (read defender missiles) Disclaimer: I have not read a CSM post that stated the exact quotes from above. The phrases in quotation marks above are purely my perception of the CSM's stance and attitude to the players opinion voiced in this thread. I make no personal attacks on players, devs, CSM members or ISD members and have attempted create a post containing constructive feedback. Lets see if the ISD edit this post in their current campaign vs free speech a rnt you forgetting that missles are physical and can be destroyed by smartbombs and bombs?
and dont have falloff or tracking and can switch damage type and always hit? |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
568
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:47:00 -
[1216] - Quote
CCP.. just think about Tracking Disruptors, Smartbombs AND Defender missiles. All possible options, against one weapon system will not work! Stop this crap with TD affecting missiles or remove defender missiles and stop smartbombs affecting missiles! After this crappatch you can not use missiles in PvP AND PvE. And bring that a$$hole, who had this idea, here so that we can ask why he thinks, that this would be a good idea. Three possibilities to desrupt one weapon system. Thats dumb! I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
PetersmithII
CHAOS SQUAD Shadow Operations.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:47:00 -
[1217] - Quote
One more thing i forgot TDs its again comlete fail only if u remove defence missles from game complete otherwise it just anti missile ... i cant rat becose they are rats what do TDs and rats what do deff missles i will be afected with both and my dmg will be lowered by 20 % thats what i always want |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:48:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:feihcsiM wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:Beachura wrote:Unfortunately I fear that the nighthawk has been caught up in this and will suffer horribly because of this. s some eft warriors already crunshed numbers its normal dps of like 450 to 550 will drop off to like low 300s. How does this compare with Rail Astarte, Arty Sleipnir, Beam Absolution? It seem you can get 700dps from an Arty Sleipnir using T2 Arty, a tad more than the nighthawks 300 it looks like. (obviously you have to factor in drone dps as well).
Range? Hit quality? Why are you ignoring the other two command ships? Is it because you've got nothing sensible to say? Long range damage platforms are supposed to be weak, in favor of a larger range to produce the damage in. Artilleries have a longer range, but a lot of it is fall-off, which means the quality and accuracy of the damage will quickly drop to a point where you'll be wishing you'd brought heavy missiles instead.
You can't have your cake and eat it. There will ALWAYS be trade-offs, now missile boats will have to deal with having to make a choice, too.
EDIT: I just read the drone DPS bit. Aside from the fact that you can't even control drones past 59 kilometers, they won't even be applying any sensible amount of damage since they'd be spending 90% of their uptime trying to reach a target instead. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1008
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:53:00 -
[1219] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Not sure if you're still reading this or not.
However, how about instead of nerfing the drake and hurricane, you buffed the harbi and myrm?
More bandwidth on the myrm and more CPU / Cap on the harbi. Give the harbi, prophecy and brutix all additional mid slots.
Also, if you looked at armor tanking, such as the speed penalties, I think you'd find that you would open up more options for fleet compositions rather than trying to limit them.
Please say you're still keeping up here.
Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:54:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got?
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
^_^ means heavy missiles will have even less damage.lets compare this
right now a drake has about 450 dps`ish with fury and 5 t2 drones compared to a hurricane that has well over 800 dps with t2 drones :D
gg ccp |
|
Naara Elein
Les Force
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:58:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got? -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) ^_^ means heavy missiles will have even less damage.lets compare this right now a drake has about 450 dps`ish with fury and 5 t2 drones compared to a hurricane that has well over 800 dps with t2 drones :D gg ccp
The Drake has long range weapons.
The Cane has short range weapons.
Fair comparison? Put HAM's on the drake or Arty on the cane, then can compare. |
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:58:00 -
[1222] - Quote
I for one would like to thank CCP Fozzie to have the courage to grab that hot iron.
Drake and Tengu are the most popular ships in PvE and PvP because of the combination range/damage/tank (sig for Tengu).
I'm agreeing on all proposed changes except you should think about making a new and seperate "missile disruption" module. Otherwise the classic TD is morphing into a swiss army knife. |
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:59:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:CCP Fozzie,
Not sure if you're still reading this or not.
However, how about instead of nerfing the drake and hurricane, you buffed the harbi and myrm?
More bandwidth on the myrm (enough to field 5 large drones) and more CPU / Cap on the harbi. Give the harbi, prophecy and brutix all additional mid slots.
Also, if you looked at armor tanking, such as the speed penalties, I think you'd find that you would open up more options for fleet compositions rather than trying to limit them.
Please say you're still keeping up here.
Battlecruiser getting the rework later. The PG change on the Cane might be only a hotfix. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:00:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got? -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) ^_^ means heavy missiles will have even less damage.lets compare this right now a drake has about 450 dps`ish with fury and 5 t2 drones compared to a hurricane that has well over 800 dps with t2 drones :D gg ccp
See how much that hurricane is doing at 20 kilometers. Then see how much of that 800 remains when you're at 80 kilometers. There goes your argument. |
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:00:00 -
[1225] - Quote
Naara Elein wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got? -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) ^_^ means heavy missiles will have even less damage.lets compare this right now a drake has about 450 dps`ish with fury and 5 t2 drones compared to a hurricane that has well over 800 dps with t2 drones :D gg ccp The Drake has long range weapons. The Cane has short range weapons. Fair comparison? Put HAM's on the drake or Arty on the cane, then can compare.
yet.cane has more speed,agility,more depensive capability against frigates and other small ships.drake does not.
|
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:02:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got? -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) ^_^ means heavy missiles will have even less damage.lets compare this right now a drake has about 450 dps`ish with fury and 5 t2 drones compared to a hurricane that has well over 800 dps with t2 drones :D gg ccp
800? are you looking at a 4 gyro Hail ammo cane with 1,9km range that they can apply it in? |
Zhephell
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Quixotic Hegemony
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:02:00 -
[1227] - Quote
CCP Fozzie many changes you have done are nice changes, like new cruisers or some frigates, but I don't like some of those new changes that affect missiles.
I think that a nerf in the heavy missiles range is a good decision, like to nerf a little the hurricane fitting, because it was easier to fit and better in ehp that a harbi, i don't know if the pw nerf is more than it should, because i can't see it in the eft or the pyfa now.
But , the reason why I post that is because i don't like the dps change of the Heavy missiles, and that the Tracking Disruptor can now affect missiles like they can be used against turrets.
First i think a 20% nerf in the dps is a lot, if you think that Heavy Missiles are to powerfull and people must use more HAM nerf as much HM dps a 10% but not more, a 20% is a lot of change, i think it ll be better to nerf a 5 or 10% HM dps and put a 5% bonus to HAM, but don't do a 20% dps nerf, that's annoying.
I like your idea to improve the range, and the explosion radius and the explosion velocity with modules like you can do with turrets using the tracking comuter, or the tracking enhancer, but that need a new module, not the same that use turrets.
And i think the same to use "tracking disruptor" change the tracking disruptor to a "weapon disruptor", and put 2 modules to choose "Missile disruptor" and "tracking disruptor" if you think that missiles should be able to be disrupted, and then like using ECM for Radar, Ladar, Gravimetric, and Magnetometric playes sould chouse what kind of weapons they need to disrupt, and the second thing ccp must do is to nerf TD and some EW, an example is that something like a Tracking Computer must defend better your ship agains a TD, or all the EW must have a chance to affect the enemy like the ECM
Summarizing, if something like tracking comuters and TD should be use in, or agains missile ships please develop new modules to improve your weapons, or to use like a TD, but don't join all in the same package, CCP must do it well, and not an abotched job. |
Naara Elein
Les Force
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:03:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Naara Elein wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got? -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) ^_^ means heavy missiles will have even less damage.lets compare this right now a drake has about 450 dps`ish with fury and 5 t2 drones compared to a hurricane that has well over 800 dps with t2 drones :D gg ccp The Drake has long range weapons. The Cane has short range weapons. Fair comparison? Put HAM's on the drake or Arty on the cane, then can compare. yet.cane has more speed,agility,more depensive capability against frigates and other small ships.drake does not.
You are still comparing apples and oranges.
Blasters have more dps than beam lasers, that is also unfair. Right? |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
201
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:04:00 -
[1229] - Quote
To be honest i have no problem with a mod having an effect like they want tds to have on missiles. The real issue is having it effect turrets and missiles with a single mod, bit fail have a 1 mod owns ewar after all the nerfing that has gone into ecm.
Make a guidance scrambler mod that has the same effect you are wanting the tds to have and then give the amarr ships an additional bonus for it OR give it to the minmatar as their ewar type and turn target painters into what you currently want tracking computers to be (buffing missile effect but only for the owning ship). |
Rataxas Immortal
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:04:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Seems like Caldari pilots will need to learn to fly :D |
|
Merkal Aubauch
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:05:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got? -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) ^_^ means heavy missiles will have even less damage.lets compare this right now a drake has about 450 dps`ish with fury and 5 t2 drones compared to a hurricane that has well over 800 dps with t2 drones :D gg ccp
ham drake up to 599dps vs AC cane 633 up to around 700
hml drake around 495 dps vs ARTY cane around 361 dps |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
331
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:06:00 -
[1232] - Quote
BTW, they didn't nerf the Missile range. If you wanna hit out to 70+ in your Drake, Fit a TC II and add the Range script. Thats Plus 30% range right there. Thats 5% MORE then they took off the base range.
They didn't nerf the range. Just moved longer range to a fitting option. Add two and well, Drakes can't target that far so don't worry about it. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:07:00 -
[1233] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote: You can't have your cake and eat it. There will ALWAYS be trade-offs, now missile boats will have to deal with having to make a choice, too.
EDIT: I just read the drone DPS bit. Aside from the fact that you can't even control drones past 59 kilometers, they won't even be applying any sensible amount of damage since they'd be spending 90% of their uptime trying to reach a target instead.
The cerberus has a max effective weapon range of 170ish km The cerberus has a max targeting range of 100ish km
As a Long Range sniper, if CANNOT apply webifier affects, or warp disruption affects To get its maximum range it requires either a local Sensor Booster sacrificing a tanking/AB slot, or a remote boost sacrificing another dps ship in fleet
re:Drone Control Range Base range -- +20km Scout Drone Op -- +25km ECM drone op -- +21km
Drone Link II -- +24km each (normaly 1, occasionally 2) 66km without links 90km with 1 link 114km with 2 links
as targets are usually grouped in clumps, applying that dps isnt really much of an issue after the initial travel delay.
infact drones have a lot in common with missiles Travel time to target Can be shot at en route Can be smart bombed
So yeah ok, go ahead and nerf my 400dps Cerberus to oblivion. Dont come crying to me, when your 800dps Ishtar is crippled back into the stoneage. |
Beachura
Perkone Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:07:00 -
[1234] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:feihcsiM wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:Beachura wrote:Unfortunately I fear that the nighthawk has been caught up in this and will suffer horribly because of this. s some eft warriors already crunshed numbers its normal dps of like 450 to 550 will drop off to like low 300s. How does this compare with Rail Astarte, Arty Sleipnir, Beam Absolution? It seem you can get 700dps from an Arty Sleipnir using T2 Arty, a tad more than the nighthawks 300 it looks like. (obviously you have to factor in drone dps as well). Range? Hit quality? Why are you ignoring the other two command ships? Is it because you've got nothing sensible to say? Long range damage platforms are supposed to be weak, in favor of a larger range to produce the damage in. Artilleries have a longer range, but a lot of it is fall-off, which means the quality and accuracy of the damage will quickly drop to a point where you'll be wishing you'd brought heavy missiles instead. You can't have your cake and eat it. There will ALWAYS be trade-offs, now missile boats will have to deal with having to make a choice, too. EDIT: I just read the drone DPS bit. Aside from the fact that you can't even control drones past 59 kilometers, they won't even be applying any sensible amount of damage since they'd be spending 90% of their uptime trying to reach a target instead.
Aside from the fact insulting others in a thread gets you nowhere, a command ship is a long term skill plan that costs a considerable volume of cash. A drake can be trained in a few weeks, such can the tengu although it's price is also high. A command ship is a ship that with support skills is commonly only flown well by characters with 30 million + skillpoints and consists of years of prior training to get close to maximizing it's ability.
Heavy missiles worked because they dealt less damage than their turret counter parts, the range reduction is somewhat justified as it brings the missile into line and reduces the considered overpowered nature of the drake. I support the reduction of the drake and tengu, but the damage reduction severely damages other class of ship which were not on any imaginable level overpowered to begin with such as the command ship and hac.
Heavy missiles now do much reduced damage per second when it was already low to begin with (understandably low to keep balance). Heavy missiles are also affected by smartbombs, bombs, tracking disruption and defender missiles (ignoring neuting and ECM which affect everything arguably)
Heavy missiles also have a time to target whereas turrets hit instantly.
I do not believe it is justified to spend 400 million isk and spend two years training a ship class which is classed as a 'field' ship, a frontline command ship with a weapon system which can be disrupted by all means barring neutralizing at a mediocre 50 something kilometers dealing 300 damage per second. I do not care for a second that command ships have an extremely good tank, it is something I expect for that price and kind of commitment. |
Anah Karah
Origin. Black Legion.
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:07:00 -
[1235] - Quote
To get a word in before another 10 pages of s***posting, I like the idea of some of these changes but not all.
I love the idea of Tracking disruptors affecting missiles, despite people complaining that the word 'tracking' is somehow breaking immersion, but that's an easy fix. This will bring on a whole new realm of solo PVP iterating on the Ancillary shield boosters etc which has been needed for too long. This may cause the module to be too widely used as 'the new ECM' but i'd be willing to make the mistake and see what happens.
The double Nerf to Heavy missiles seems harsh to me at current stats especially as mentioned to such ships as the Caracal and Cerberus who sorely need love to become useful with current game mechanics. The Tengu needs a Nerf and maybe the drake needs to become less versatile but overall i've seen too many goon Drakes die in a fire over the last few months to think them overpowered. These latter two ships seem to be the root of this problem despite me being a drake lover from birth. It is all too easy to mitigate missile damage with speed, sig radius and/or smartbombs unlike turrets which have no hard fleet wide counter assuming good planning and tactics, and it has taken many years of patches for these few Caldari ships to finally become common in pvp.
Lastly i think this Minmatar artillery buff is good at heart but flawed in essence. Minmatar weaponry maybe less effective on paper than other similar sized variants but in practice alpha beats dps at range and having cap-less guns is a massive advantage and similar to missiles being able to pick 3/4 pure damage types. Making these even easier to fit seems to me like a fatal mistake.
The Hurricane falls in the same category as the Drake and Tengu in that it is too versatile, and also in the same light too good at a certain particular role ie solo Autocannons with neuts etc. Honestly i still believe this is a fault of minmatar weaponry over the ship itself being too good but lets see what happens during testing.
-Anah- |
John Ratcliffe
Sausy Sausages
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:08:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Mr John Smith wrote:but seriously, the range nerf to HML's was warranted, they are a cruiser based weapon after all and the range on some missile boats is pretty ridiculous, but 20% damage?
They are a BC based weapon surely? Light Missiles are a Cruiser based platform.
The men waved their hats, the ladies their umbrellas. One felt they would have liked to touch the steel muscles of the most courageous champions since antiquity. Who will carry off the first prize, entering the pantheon where only supermen may go? |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:09:00 -
[1237] - Quote
A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:12:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Signal11th wrote:feihcsiM wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:Beachura wrote:Unfortunately I fear that the nighthawk has been caught up in this and will suffer horribly because of this. s some eft warriors already crunshed numbers its normal dps of like 450 to 550 will drop off to like low 300s. How does this compare with Rail Astarte, Arty Sleipnir, Beam Absolution? It seem you can get 700dps from an Arty Sleipnir using T2 Arty, a tad more than the nighthawks 300 it looks like. (obviously you have to factor in drone dps as well). Range? Hit quality? Why are you ignoring the other two command ships? Is it because you've got nothing sensible to say? Long range damage platforms are supposed to be weak, in favor of a larger range to produce the damage in. Artilleries have a longer range, but a lot of it is fall-off, which means the quality and accuracy of the damage will quickly drop to a point where you'll be wishing you'd brought heavy missiles instead. You can't have your cake and eat it. There will ALWAYS be trade-offs, now missile boats will have to deal with having to make a choice, too. EDIT: I just read the drone DPS bit. Aside from the fact that you can't even control drones past 59 kilometers, they won't even be applying any sensible amount of damage since they'd be spending 90% of their uptime trying to reach a target instead.
Ahh you again. Good Afternoon. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Inggroth
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:12:00 -
[1239] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters. Which is exactly as it should be. Beam Harbinger, Rail Brutix and Artycane arent exactly dps monsters too.
And HAM Drake will be even better post HM nerf. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:14:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Inggroth wrote:Michael Harari wrote:A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters. Which is exactly as it should be. Beam Harbinger, Rail Brutix and Artycane arent exactly dps monsters too. And HAM Drake will be even better post HM nerf.
A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts. |
|
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:14:00 -
[1241] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters.
A Rail Brutix/Beam Harbinger with perfect gunnery skills can still be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters.
Fit Heavy Assault Missiles. But wait....you need to get closer to your victims. |
Inggroth
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:17:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote: A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts.
Artycanes also have zero tank. And more limited range. Its called balance. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:20:00 -
[1243] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Inggroth wrote:Michael Harari wrote:A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters. Which is exactly as it should be. Beam Harbinger, Rail Brutix and Artycane arent exactly dps monsters too. And HAM Drake will be even better post HM nerf. A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts.
Heavy Missiles are not a close range, high DPS platform.
They are just like artillery/rails/beams in that they are high alpha low DPS. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:20:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Lev Arturis wrote:Michael Harari wrote:A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters. A Rail Brutix/Beam Harbinger with perfect gunnery skills can still be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters.
Er....no it cant? |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:21:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Inggroth wrote:Michael Harari wrote: A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts.
Artycanes also have zero tank. Its called balance.
What do you mean I have to make choices? I can't have tank, range, sustained damage and alpha damage in one ship anymore? |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:22:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Lev Arturis wrote:Michael Harari wrote:A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters. A Rail Brutix/Beam Harbinger with perfect gunnery skills can still be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters. Er....no it cant?
Could you provide sources? My EFT's with 3x gyro/mag/bcu/heat sink show that all the platforms do similar or less damage than HML's and certainly don't have the same ranges with high DPS ammo. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:23:00 -
[1247] - Quote
When did arty canes have zero tank? |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:23:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Merkal Aubauch wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got? -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) ^_^ means heavy missiles will have even less damage.lets compare this right now a drake has about 450 dps`ish with fury and 5 t2 drones compared to a hurricane that has well over 800 dps with t2 drones :D gg ccp ham drake up to 599dps vs AC cane 633 up to around 700 hml drake around 495 dps vs ARTY cane around 361 dps
not much differance |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:23:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:What do you mean I have to make choices? I can't have tank, range, sustained damage and alpha damage in one ship anymore?
Of course you can.
For the next three months at least.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:23:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Inggroth wrote:Michael Harari wrote: A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts.
Artycanes also have zero tank. Its called balance. What do you mean I have to make choices? I can't have tank, range, sustained damage and alpha damage in one ship anymore?
Artycanes have 91% of the total ehp of a podla drake, along with more speed and like 60% the signature radius. |
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1178
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:25:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:War Kitten wrote:
I'm not suggesting that at all.
I'm suggesting you make comparisons that are meaningful. Yes, scourge missiles project farther than their counterpart in damage for turrets. But those graphs cherry pick some of the worst DPS turret ammo and compare them to the 2nd best HML ammo, simply to try and compare range projections.
Compare Tech II long range ammo across the board. Compare Faction DPS ammo across the board. Compare Tech II high DPS "tracking" ammo across the board.
Then compare the results of each of those graphs to find the balance. Don't cherry pick your data.
You keep saying this but I think you're confused. There is no T2 long range ammo for HMLs. You're thinking of Javelin missiles which are only usable in HAMs. The T2 missiles for HMLs are: Precision Heavy Missile for taking down frigates. Fury Heavy Missile for taking down battlecruisers and up. Both have lower range than their T1 equivalent. Fury HMs are not far behind and actually have an even better dps/range ratio than CN Scourge HMs. So no, there is no cherry picking going on. The discrepancy really is that large.
Aww crap, you're right. I was thinking of T2 HAM ammo.
I guess if we're supposed to think of HMLs as railguns, the nerfs make sense... and they'll still be better than railguns.
But then, wouldn't it make sense for HAMs to require *less* powergrid than HMLs now too? Every other weapon system has the short range/DPS platform require less powergrid. But HAMs require more than HMLs.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:26:00 -
[1252] - Quote
hey ccp,can i get back all my caldari spaceshit and missile skills reimbursed into skillpoints so i can invest them in something usefull after the nerf.thanks :D |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:27:00 -
[1253] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Inggroth wrote:Michael Harari wrote: A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts.
Artycanes also have zero tank. Its called balance. What do you mean I have to make choices? I can't have tank, range, sustained damage and alpha damage in one ship anymore? Artycanes have 91% of the total ehp of a podla drake, along with more speed and like 60% the signature radius.
Also, thats not to say the artycane isnt a wholly outdated platform nowadays, with the autocannon nado taking its place. |
Laura Dexx
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:28:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Laura Dexx wrote:Inggroth wrote:Michael Harari wrote: A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts.
Artycanes also have zero tank. Its called balance. What do you mean I have to make choices? I can't have tank, range, sustained damage and alpha damage in one ship anymore? Artycanes have 91% of the total ehp of a podla drake, along with more speed and like 60% the signature radius.
The drake has better range and more efficiently applies its damage, and it has a lot of bonus slots for E-War (in the PODLA set-up, at least). Anyways, with MWD active, your signature radius blooms past anything that would be considered obstructive to battleship or dreadnought-sized weaponry anyways, so that's hardly a point. |
Shokre O'Corwi
The Squid Squad Slumdogs
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:28:00 -
[1255] - Quote
Looks like I'm still the only person who took the time to read the whole first post... |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:28:00 -
[1256] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:hey ccp,can i get back all my caldari spaceshit and missile skills reimbursed into skillpoints so i can invest them in something usefull after the nerf.thanks :D
invest in ishtar and drones thats still 800+ atm untill drones get a nerfbat too |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:30:00 -
[1257] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Inggroth wrote:Michael Harari wrote: A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts.
Artycanes also have zero tank. Its called balance. What do you mean I have to make choices? I can't have tank, range, sustained damage and alpha damage in one ship anymore?
And they you go, in one ship...so nerf the ships not the missiles. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:32:00 -
[1258] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Recoil IV wrote:hey ccp,can i get back all my caldari spaceshit and missile skills reimbursed into skillpoints so i can invest them in something usefull after the nerf.thanks :D invest in ishtar and drones thats still 800+ atm untill drones get a nerfbat too
sad,but true.i can already smell riots in jita just like when cq was introduced :D |
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:32:00 -
[1259] - Quote
The tears in this thread are so ******* delicious.
"bawwww this game is LITERALLY ruined because i might have to change my drake/hurricane fit"
People like you are the main danger to EVE. Shaking op the status quo of ship fitting is an objectively good thing to do for the game. It means that, for a short while, the creative, innovative, intelligent players come up with new fits and new strategies and they're successful. At the same time, the people who just look up the FOTM fit on battleclinic and copy/paste it are lost for a while as they try to fit a square peg into a round hole by using their old fits even though those old fits aren't good anymore.
So, if you're an intelligent player, you should love this, because you have an opportunity to innovate and create new strategies. And if you're not, well i guess you're going to wait until someone smarter than you posts a fit on battleclinc for you to copy. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:32:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:
The drake has better range and more efficiently applies its damage.
Against some things, sure.
|
|
PetersmithII
CHAOS SQUAD Shadow Operations.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:35:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Inggroth wrote:Michael Harari wrote:A drake with perfect HML skills can now be tanked by a single rep myrm until the myrm runs out of cap boosters. Which is exactly as it should be. Beam Harbinger, Rail Brutix and Artycane arent exactly dps monsters too. And HAM Drake will be even better post HM nerf. A myrm cant tank an artycane on a single rep. Artycanes outdamage drakes as they are now AND are faster AND have a larger drone bay AND still have small neuts. Heavy Missiles are not a close range, high DPS platform. They are just like artillery/rails/beams in that they are high alpha low DPS.
eh... so all other races shoot max range 60+ km becose this will be new max range of drake with HM... i think they all can shoot on more then 100km+ why lower range if they are suposed to be long range weapon why dont herf only dmg asi say up its no fair its just stupid thing to do against drake blobs .. and there are too many ways how to deastroy missles + TDs + u can hit target ehn u are at warp all other shipps do dmg until they dont warp out.. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:35:00 -
[1262] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Oh yeah, anyone want to talk about the double wammy of ratting in the south where rats Tracking disrupt and spew defender like no other. Guess Missiles are worthless ratting platforms through and through and through down there now.
Good thing they haven't ****** over drones yet.
Of course not, CCP thinks a blanket change to a staple weapon system will of course only affect pvp. PVE has not been considered in this at all.
|
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:37:00 -
[1263] - Quote
PetersmithII wrote: eh... so all other races shoot max range 60+ km becose this will be new max range of drake with HM... i think they all can shoot on more then 100km+ why lower range if they are suposed to be long range weapon why dont herf only dmg asi say up its no fair its just stupid thing to do against drake blobs .. and there are too many ways how to deastroy missles + TDs + u can hit target ehn u are at warp all other shipps do dmg until they dont warp out..
protip: when you type like this nobody can understand you
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:37:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Also, this is just nerfing last year's meta. Even podla doesnt fly drakes anymore. |
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:38:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:I'm Down wrote:Oh yeah, anyone want to talk about the double wammy of ratting in the south where rats Tracking disrupt and spew defender like no other. Guess Missiles are worthless ratting platforms through and through and through down there now.
Good thing they haven't ****** over drones yet. Of course not, CCP thinks a blanket change to a staple weapon system will of course only affect pvp. PVE has not been considered in this at all. different ships are good at different things who would have ******* guessed |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:41:00 -
[1266] - Quote
At this point I don't even want to continue arguing about the proposed changes, I will watch as the threadnought grows O_o |
Kevin Xiore
Evocations of Shadow Eternal Evocations
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:45:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Already adapted Drake fit to these changes, that's if they happen. Just stops Drakes from being ****** tanked with a Large weapon systems range. Same with Tengus really, apart from you don't really have to drop tank, just utility and still get 90'ish range.
TD's are going to be Overpowered and the new must-have module. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
239
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:46:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Those ships are getting their skulls cracked by the nerfhammer in order to make room for other ships to be flown. It really is necessary, and your response is a perfect example of how individual players never have a game's long term interests at heart. They only have their own short term interests in mind, even if it kills the game in the process.
-Liang
Not to mention that there's plenty of threads out there where players rightfully express concern about "stat creep" whenever CCP's response to imbalance is solely to buff a statistic. Either way, these kind of changes inevitably cause complaint regardless of merit. Power Creep is indeed bad. These generic missiles changes are, too. All these changes got one thing in common: it streamlines missiles into more like the gunnery platforms. This has been mentioned by numerous posters here already, I shouldn't need to elaborate, but: a) HML changes are non-stop argued by comparison to gunnery dps stats, completely ignoring the innate differences between missiles and guns. b) TD/TE/TC affecting all weapon platforms. It's a worrysome development, as it hints on CCP (and CSM, if you guys are involved in this) either 1) don't know enough about the innate differences between missiles/guns, 2) don't care and/or have a secret agenda to streamline this (if this is intentional, but not mentioned to players, this is virtually deceiving and no better than lies). Just see how this thread pans out. * HML nerf pro-posters compare a mid-range platform that has several innate counters guns don't (travel time - and you can outrun missiles too, defenders, smartbombs), with long-range gunnery that operate on completely different terms/mechanics* HML nerf pro-posters tend to even post long-range gun ammo and compare it with optimal ammo type on HML, skewing numbers (and this even disregards the point I just did above, which is quite major) * HML nerf pro-posters tend to ignore that there's alot more natural HML ships that are in a "bad" (not very much used, at all) shape, than there is those two (Drake, Tengu) ones that is. They also fail to present why the Drake and Tengu respectively is being so "overpowered", while, if they had done that, they could identify issues with those ships (and the role they are given) themselves, rather than the HML themselves. * TD/TE/TC affecting all weapon types will have a major impact on the game, it's not something that should and could just be brushed aside as a side-note in a post about missile changes. This is a major game mechanic uphaul that could potentially change the whole shape of PvP as we know it. It deserves as separate thread, and should be broadcasted better to the public. Yes, you are right that Power Creep is bad. The suggested game mechanic changes here, too, are. Not because the intention is bad (it isn't). Not because, like you suggest, that we somehow are against nerfing overall (not all of us are). But rather because CCP seems to either shoot from the hip and chance with potential game-overhauling changes, or have some hidden agenda is equally game upsetting.
+10 and you win lol
I'm in no way anti-change, things need to change, the game can be better, and as anyone could see if they read my posts, my 1st reaction was an "adapt" on (thinking about trading in my FOF tengu for TC/TC FOF Navy Ravens lol).
I'm not even against an HML nerf per se though I think a revamp of the drake and tengu FIRST to see how it pans out would be a better 1st move.
What I object to is CCP always using a hatchet where a scalpel would make more sense. It's simply imprudent to make multiple changes all at once to a complex system (inviting unintended consequences), and the fact that even after ALL the times DEVs have changed something just to go back and un-nerf it when just a little cautious conservatism in the beginning would have prevented the whole mess is, quite frankly exasperating.
How many precious Developer man hours have been lost to these cycles of over-nerf/de-nerf/re-nerf we've seen time and time again. If i were some kind of CCP manager, I'd be clamping down hard on all this lost time that's costing so much money. Do it right the 1st time or don't do it at all.
|
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
504
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:46:00 -
[1269] - Quote
HML nerf is far too heavy, good by only few good ships on caldari.
good job i can fly everything else or that would pee me off significantly http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
308
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:47:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Muad 'dib wrote:HML nerf is far too heavy, good by only few good ships on caldari.
good job i can fly everything else or that would pee me off significantly
I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. |
|
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:50:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Muad 'dib wrote:HML nerf is far too heavy, good by only few good ships on caldari.
good job i can fly everything else or that would pee me off significantly I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed.
its gonna be a riot anyway and people will unsubscribe in mass.just like it was when cq was introduced :D. |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:54:00 -
[1272] - Quote
You QQ now but once you try a Torp raven with tracking enhancers... |
Satracz
Meteoric Security Supply Service
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:54:00 -
[1273] - Quote
what about drugs like optimal/falloff drugs.... did you give them a missile flighttime or speed ability ? |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:57:00 -
[1274] - Quote
I do not bother because of the range and damage nerf. Whereat .. 20% less damage? Thats dumb! But what I hate is the fact that a dev without any knowledge of the game wants to disrupt missiles with TD's. Why? You can destroy missiles with Smartbombs and Defenders, which you can not do with gunnery! If I think of my missions with defenders and lots of frigs with TD I can cancel my subsription as 100% Caldari! What I have done with one account this morning! This account will be the next. So stop this sh!t with TD's on missiles CCP or you will lose another account from a more than 4 years loyal paying customer! I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:58:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:I do not bother because of the range and damage nerf. But what I hate is the fact that a dev without any knowledge of the game wants to disrupt missiles with TD's. Why? You can destroy missiles with Smartbombs and Defenders, which you can not do with gunnery! If I think of my missions with defenders and lots of frigs with TD I can cancel my subsription as 100% Caldari! What I have done with one account this morning! This account will be the next. So stop this sh!t with TD's on missiles CCP or you will lose another account from a more than 4 years loyal paying customer!
they wont loose only 1 account.the numbers will be quite significant.
+ 1 |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 12:59:00 -
[1276] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:You QQ now but once you try a Torp raven with tracking enhancers...
And get vollied by every battleship in existence other than another raven and the scorp before your rage missiles hit... |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
305
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:02:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:You QQ now but once you try a Torp raven with tracking enhancers... And get vollied by every battleship in existence other than another raven and the scorp before your rage missiles hit...
Well I meant for the carebears, I totally agree they suck for pvp. |
Kmelx
The Elysian Agoge Elysian Empire
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:03:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Threadnaught now at 64 pages, 1272 posts before this one and only 38 "likes" of the original post says it all really.
The idea needs some rethinking from CCP in general and Fozzie in particular. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:04:00 -
[1279] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Callidus Dux wrote: ... If I think of my missions with defenders and lots of frigs with TD I can cancel my subsription as 100% Caldari! What I have done with one account this morning! This account will be the next. So stop this sh!t with TD's on missiles CCP or you will lose another account from a more than 4 years loyal paying customer! they wont loose only 1 account.the numbers will be quite significant. + 1 And I hope that all unsubs will be charged to CCP Fuzzy and his more than dumb ideas which leads to a dismissal within CCP! I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:07:00 -
[1280] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:You QQ now but once you try a Torp raven with tracking enhancers... And get vollied by every battleship in existence other than another raven and the scorp before your rage missiles hit... Well I meant for the carebears, I totally agree they suck for pvp.
Yes, however i really think having TDs for missiles just aren't needed, they don't need that form of disruption because of their nature. The only thing it fixes is their usage in blobs, and nothing else at all. TEs/TCs are just a cheap way of making it seem like it wont be that bad. |
|
Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
175
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:10:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. What will they not be able to do after the nerf that they can do now? . |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:12:00 -
[1282] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. What will they not be able to do after the nerf that they can do now? Flying missions against TD's or Defender using NPC's? I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:12:00 -
[1283] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kmelx wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Its the missiles causing the problems.
Which is nonsense, my two 100MNAB PVP Tengus (active and a passive tanked one) with lvl 5 sub skills and fours or fives in most missile skills, do about 400dps with faction launchers and BCUs, these are ships that I've spent billions of ISK on. On there own Tengus are overpowered because of the tanks that you can achieve on them and the fact that the prop mod allows you to achieve high speeds without a corresponding sig radius increase, so you can run away from anyone you can't fight most of the time, not because of the dps output which is frankly underwhelming. Lowering damage on these ships would take them to something like 320dps with faction fittings and decent skills, it makes one of the most popular ships in the game untenable in PVP and PVE. You currently get 800+ DPS out of a ratting tengu and the standard tengufleet fit get over 500 DPS. What on earth are you doing to yours?
With 3 navy bcu and the full rack of t2 hmls I get nowhere near 800dps. Where on earth are you pulling these numbers from? Not everyone is running around with 3bil tengus. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:13:00 -
[1284] - Quote
Emphyria wrote:Don't forget to re-adjust TC/TE skill requirements into being more missile friendly if these ideas go through.
Weapon upgrades V and gunnery II for a TE
Trajectory analysis IV and gunnery IV for a TC
Seriously that is less then two weeks for both from scratch and you should have weapon upgrades already.
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:14:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kmelx wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Its the missiles causing the problems.
Which is nonsense, my two 100MNAB PVP Tengus (active and a passive tanked one) with lvl 5 sub skills and fours or fives in most missile skills, do about 400dps with faction launchers and BCUs, these are ships that I've spent billions of ISK on. On there own Tengus are overpowered because of the tanks that you can achieve on them and the fact that the prop mod allows you to achieve high speeds without a corresponding sig radius increase, so you can run away from anyone you can't fight most of the time, not because of the dps output which is frankly underwhelming. Lowering damage on these ships would take them to something like 320dps with faction fittings and decent skills, it makes one of the most popular ships in the game untenable in PVP and PVE. You currently get 800+ DPS out of a ratting tengu and the standard tengufleet fit get over 500 DPS. What on earth are you doing to yours? With 3 navy bcu and the full rack of t2 hmls I get nowhere near 800dps. Where on earth are you pulling these numbers from? Not everyone is running around with 3bil tengus.
With mine I get 730ish dps but that is with near perfect skills and a 4x CN BCU's obvously not overloaded which takes it upto around 800dps but it did cost ALOT to get it to those specs. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:15:00 -
[1286] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Emphyria wrote:Don't forget to re-adjust TC/TE skill requirements into being more missile friendly if these ideas go through. Weapon upgrades V and gunnery II for a TE Trajectory analysis IV and gunnery IV for a TC Seriously that is less then two weeks for both from scratch and you should have weapon upgrades already. But bring something from MISSILE skillset also into the pre-req's. You want to use TD against missiles without any skills? Learn Missiles to use Tracking Enhancers on your gunnery ship! I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
175
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:16:00 -
[1287] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. What will they not be able to do after the nerf that they can do now? Flying missions against TD's AND Defender using NPC's? If there are such missions, they probably need to be changed and will be. In the meantime, how about just fly some other missions that don't have these kinds of NPCs? One particular kind of missions is hardly a factor for designing a weapons system. . |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:16:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. What will they not be able to do after the nerf that they can do now? Flying missions against TD's AND Defender using NPC's?
Just out of curiosity because I don't do missions myself. What rats are using those TDs? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:17:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote: And I hope that all unsubs will be charged to CCP Fuzzy and his more than dumb ideas which leads to a dismissal of him!
To be fair, until this topic he has been doing quite a good job, and upon writing this topic, the stuff people are debating about is just "an unreasonable change", not "Something I should unsubscribe over and want not to exist in any shape or form".
The issues are such:
-Hurricane can't armor tank well with these changes. It should be changed so it can shield tank and get the neuts on there as well (having only like 30k tank with shields), or get its big armor tank as well without the neuts. (Previously you could get 55k tank with armor, 2 neuts, and a full rack of 220s which is where it got a bit ridiculous)
-Heavy missile damage nerf is too much, bring it down to 10% minimum
-Buff HAMs, they suck too much, thats why everyone gravitates to Heavy missiles, please increase their damage or explosion velocity, or something of the sort.
-This one's debatable, but: TDs don't need to affect missiles, the nature of missiles is different than gunnery platforms, and should stay that way. Otherwise, TDs become too overpowered. Just because heavy missiles are useful doesnt mean all missile types should be screwed over. As well, just because the drake and tengu are OP using heavy missiles doesnt mean heavy missile have to be nerfed, making other ships that use heavy missiles useless in every way. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:18:00 -
[1290] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Onictus wrote:Emphyria wrote:Don't forget to re-adjust TC/TE skill requirements into being more missile friendly if these ideas go through. Weapon upgrades V and gunnery II for a TE Trajectory analysis IV and gunnery IV for a TC Seriously that is less then two weeks for both from scratch and you should have weapon upgrades already. But bring something from MISSILE skillset also into the pre-req's. You want to use TD against missiles without any skills? Learn Missiles to use Tracking Enhancers on your gunnery ship!
Guuner II takes 45 minute total to train, TA is is 4 days no implants not remaps, gunnery IV takes 19hours.
After training all 6 turrets to T2 larges, that is seriously small change. |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
201
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:18:00 -
[1291] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. What will they not be able to do after the nerf that they can do now? Flying missions against TD's AND Defender using NPC's?
I hate to tell you this but the mechanics used by npcs is rather different to that used by players (same with ecm or indeed with things like torps that guristas can hit you with from 100k away). The stats and effects of npcs are in no way effected by module changes so its perfectly possible there will be no difference at all. Or ccp might go an change the npcs effects just to get tears ...
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:19:00 -
[1292] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. What will they not be able to do after the nerf that they can do now? Flying missions against TD's AND Defender using NPC's? Just out of curiosity because I don't do missions myself. What rats are using those TDs?
Sansha, they use both. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:19:00 -
[1293] - Quote
CCP Foozie you are getting some major love with this bomb you dropped on EVE yesterday. While I don't agree with all your proposed changes for the HM system I like the general ideas behind it. As to the people that are saying this DEV has no prior knowledge of the game you are sorely misinformed. I think until these are put on the test server to properly test we can only speculate on how they will preform. Keep up the good work on all the rebalancing you guys are doing and be prepared for more love mail from the unwashed masses.
People have adapted to many changes in EVE and there has never been a SP reimbursement. This Change will not make any skill you trained unusable only changes how items work. If you need further reference please ask all the Nano pilots if they got there skill points back when they nerfed that.
Thanks |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:20:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Gypsio III wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote:I crunched some pyfa numbers with the current state of affairs and one thing kind of stuck out at me: HAMs are clearly going to be the go-to, but are the tracking enhancers and tracking computers going to be enough? I can eke 625 DPS out of a Drake using Scourge Rage, lows full of ballistic control systems, weapon rigs, and HAMs, but that's all on paper. Other battlecruisers can shame that if they so choose. Are HAMs going to be looked at as part of this maneuver? Old-school HAM Drake used to reliably beat other BCs in a close-range brawl, with the exception of the Myrm. Some things have changed since 2008 but it's still very competitive. It fell out of favour because HML Drakes was better, not beause HAM Drake was bad. This is pretty much true. It all boiled down to the difference between Jav HAM vs HML - which is to say there wasn't much of one. Even if we ignored the HML changes, the addition of TEs affecting HAMs would have obsoleted the HML Drake in small gang PVP. -Liang
Good to know. I suppose the glass cannon version of the Drake will involve mids with TCs and webs and whatnot, which I can't work out on paper right now to compare to other honor tanked battlecruisers, and having mids available for tank may give it the edge against something doing 200 more DPS than it but with a paper tank. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:22:00 -
[1295] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Callidus Dux wrote: And I hope that all unsubs will be charged to CCP Fuzzy and his more than dumb ideas which leads to a dismissal of him! To be fair, until this topic he has been doing quite a good job, and upon writing this topic, the stuff people are debating about is just "an unreasonable change", not "Something I should unsubscribe over and want not to exist in any shape or form". The issues are such: -Hurricane can't armor tank well with these changes. It should be changed so it can shield tank and get the neuts on there as well (having only like 30k tank with shields), or get its big armor tank as well without the neuts. (Previously you could get 55k tank with armor, 2 neuts, and a full rack of 220s which is where it got a bit ridiculous) -Heavy missile damage nerf is too much, bring it down to 10% minimum -Buff HAMs, they suck too much, thats why everyone gravitates to Heavy missiles, please increase their damage or explosion velocity, or something of the sort. -This one's debatable, but: TDs don't need to affect missiles, the nature of missiles is different than gunnery platforms, and should stay that way. Otherwise, TDs become too overpowered. Just because heavy missiles are useful doesnt mean all missile types should be screwed over. As well, just because the drake and tengu are OP using heavy missiles doesnt mean heavy missile have to be nerfed, making other ships that use heavy missiles useless in every way.
I have said earlier (month ago) that TD affecting missiles is a very bad idea! But CCP is working on it. I played EVE more than 4 years. I know the arrogant devs of CCP! They never listened to me or other players. They WILL bring this crap online. Perhaps they will play dumb and will apology and promise fast patches... After 6 more month they will bring another crappatch to resolve 10% of the concerns. BUt in the end they will force this sh!t to us. All I can do is cancel my subscruiption.. after 4 years and the second nerf concerning missiles! I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:23:00 -
[1296] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
People have adapted to many changes in EVE and there has never been a SP reimbursement. This Change will not make any skill you trained unusable only changes how items work. If you need further reference please ask all the Nano pilots if they got there skill points back when they nerfed that.
Because it takes as long as it does to train all missiles (or even just heavy missiles and the respective damage/range modifier skills) to V to train for T2 nanos (which you can get 2 hours into starting a new character)
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
309
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:24:00 -
[1297] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. What will they not be able to do after the nerf that they can do now?
Kill a frigate, or another bc |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:26:00 -
[1298] - Quote
To be honest the fact the the OP has 40 likes from a thread that has over 1200 posts is indicative of the mood.
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:27:00 -
[1299] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:MIrple wrote:
People have adapted to many changes in EVE and there has never been a SP reimbursement. This Change will not make any skill you trained unusable only changes how items work. If you need further reference please ask all the Nano pilots if they got there skill points back when they nerfed that.
Because it takes as long as it does to train all missiles (or even just heavy missiles and the respective damage/range modifier skills) to V to train for T2 nanos (which you can get 2 hours into starting a new character)
Will your skills still allow you to use missiles and the only Missile that is getting nerfed is the HM so yes its a pretty even skill train match up. Heavy Missile V High Speed Maneuvering V don't see how this is all that different. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:27:00 -
[1300] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:Michael Harari wrote:I have corpmates who have like 15M sp in missiles, and all their spaceship command in caldari. They are 100% ******, since skills wont get reimbursed. What will they not be able to do after the nerf that they can do now? Flying missions against TD's AND Defender using NPC's? Just out of curiosity because I don't do missions myself. What rats are using those TDs? Sansha, they use both.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are :
1 Gallente 2 Amarr 3 Caldari 4 Minmatar 5 Blood 6 Serpentis 7 Guristas 8 Angel 9 Mercenary 10 FON 11 Drones 12 Khanid 13 Mordu 14 Thukker 15 Sansha
Its like ~6% of mission rats. Doesn't seem like a problem but then again I don't do missions so I might be wrong and it has much bigger actual impact. |
|
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:28:00 -
[1301] - Quote
I am new player so you can consider me to be noob.What is funny I didnt know that this much older players didnt read initial post and tried to understand it.
Only issue here is TDs.There must not be EWAR like that cause it will be overused and must for any pvp.Other than that I dont see problem.
We dont even know what ship bonuses will new BCs have.We dont know how will Caladri HAC look in future.What we know from this post that we will get HAMS as new viable platform. You can check Caracal proposed changes +ROF +Range for HAMS and other modules he will use.You can see that ship will get +2 L slots so guess what is that for?With TC scrip that is affecting sig radius HAMS will get what you always wanted ,they will be able to hit smaller targets.What is even better you can change scripts during fight if you want better range.So where is problem.
I have Tengu pilot and I am not afraid of this changes at all,I never even needed 110 km range on that ship.It was to much anyway.We that used that ship must admit it was not ok that we could apply same dmg from 0 to 100 km.Now we will need to change fits and that is what makes eve interesing.
For me this is only range nerf in trade to great dps in mid range ,and it is to early to say any more cause we dont know any about new ship bonuses that will be announced .
And please dont write crap about unsubing cause this is starting to look like miner tears treads about hulkagedon. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:28:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Soko99 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kmelx wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Its the missiles causing the problems.
Which is nonsense, my two 100MNAB PVP Tengus (active and a passive tanked one) with lvl 5 sub skills and fours or fives in most missile skills, do about 400dps with faction launchers and BCUs, these are ships that I've spent billions of ISK on. On there own Tengus are overpowered because of the tanks that you can achieve on them and the fact that the prop mod allows you to achieve high speeds without a corresponding sig radius increase, so you can run away from anyone you can't fight most of the time, not because of the dps output which is frankly underwhelming. Lowering damage on these ships would take them to something like 320dps with faction fittings and decent skills, it makes one of the most popular ships in the game untenable in PVP and PVE. You currently get 800+ DPS out of a ratting tengu and the standard tengufleet fit get over 500 DPS. What on earth are you doing to yours? With 3 navy bcu and the full rack of t2 hmls I get nowhere near 800dps. Where on earth are you pulling these numbers from? Not everyone is running around with 3bil tengus. With mine I get 730ish dps but that is with near perfect skills and a 4x CN BCU's obvously not overloaded which takes it upto around 800dps but it did cost ALOT to get it to those specs. and I get around 620dps with a T2 fit.
So CCP thinks we are all running around with perfect skills. I see.. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:28:00 -
[1303] - Quote
65 pages, i so do not envy the CCP Fozzie for having through look through all of this to find the good comments..
I really do hope they don't back down on their changes just because people are afraid of having their **** nerfed.
Especially since the TE/TC changes more than make up for it on most missile ships really... |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:28:00 -
[1304] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:MIrple wrote:
People have adapted to many changes in EVE and there has never been a SP reimbursement. This Change will not make any skill you trained unusable only changes how items work. If you need further reference please ask all the Nano pilots if they got there skill points back when they nerfed that.
Because it takes as long as it does to train all missiles (or even just heavy missiles and the respective damage/range modifier skills) to V to train for T2 nanos (which you can get 2 hours into starting a new character) Will your skills still allow you to use missiles and the only Missile that is getting nerfed is the HM so yes its a pretty even skill train match up. Heavy Missile V High Speed Maneuvering V don't see how this is all that different.
No, all missiles are getting nerfed because they instantly have less DPS just from a TD, which isnt the case for TDs on guns. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
570
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:30:00 -
[1305] - Quote
MIrple wrote: Will your skills still allow you to use missiles and the only Missile that is getting nerfed is the HM so yes its a pretty even skill train match up. Heavy Missile V High Speed Maneuvering V don't see how this is all that different.
You missed that TD will affect Missiles. THIS in combination with defenders and smartbombs leads to a destruction of missiles as a whole weapon system! A system which is already NOT the best at PvP. Just to balance two ships, a unknowledged DEV destroys all missiles? |
Achaiah7
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:31:00 -
[1306] - Quote
Wow CCP no words can summarize the ignorance/stupidity of devs. I could possibly live with hml changes (though hml damage already sucks) but TD on missiles? Seriously? Do you guys really think that mixing platform types is really a good idea?
I loved the whole idea of having two different dmg platforms with two different mechanics. Guns can be tracking-disrupted, missiles can be outrun, defended against with other missiles or smart bombed. But TD missiles? Wth were you thinking? |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:32:00 -
[1307] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:65 pages, i so do not envy the CCP Fozzie for having through look through all of this to find the good comments..
I really do hope they don't back down on their changes just because people are afraid of having their **** nerfed.
Especially since the TE/TC changes more than make up for it on most missile ships really...
Yeah would be a shame if seemingly the majority (in this thread anyway) were overuled to satisfy the minority. God Forbid. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
744
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:32:00 -
[1308] - Quote
For CCP Fonzie's read through.
Keep going, only half way through. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:33:00 -
[1309] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:MIrple wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:MIrple wrote:
People have adapted to many changes in EVE and there has never been a SP reimbursement. This Change will not make any skill you trained unusable only changes how items work. If you need further reference please ask all the Nano pilots if they got there skill points back when they nerfed that.
Because it takes as long as it does to train all missiles (or even just heavy missiles and the respective damage/range modifier skills) to V to train for T2 nanos (which you can get 2 hours into starting a new character) Will your skills still allow you to use missiles and the only Missile that is getting nerfed is the HM so yes its a pretty even skill train match up. Heavy Missile V High Speed Maneuvering V don't see how this is all that different. No, all missiles are getting nerfed because they instantly have less DPS just from a TD, which isnt the case for TDs on guns.
So firing guns when being TD and hitting in falloff is not less DPS? News to me. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:34:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:65 pages, i so do not envy the CCP Fozzie for having through look through all of this to find the good comments..
I really do hope they don't back down on their changes just because people are afraid of having their **** nerfed.
Especially since the TE/TC changes more than make up for it on most missile ships really... Yeah would be a shame if seemingly the majority (in this thread anyway) were overuled to satisfy the minority. God Forbid. I was up to page 36 when I logged last night. Damn sleep! I got a lot of reading to catch up on! Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:35:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:MIrple wrote: Will your skills still allow you to use missiles and the only Missile that is getting nerfed is the HM so yes its a pretty even skill train match up. Heavy Missile V High Speed Maneuvering V don't see how this is all that different.
You missed that TD will affect Missiles. THIS in combination with defenders and smartbombs leads to a destruction of missiles as a whole weapon system!
If only we could see those smartbombing anti-missile firewalling ships outside of null warefare If only we could see someone, who actually uses defenders If only you could fit one of those TEs/TCs on your missile boats just like all other boats had to do all this time
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:37:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:Signal11th wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:65 pages, i so do not envy the CCP Fozzie for having through look through all of this to find the good comments..
I really do hope they don't back down on their changes just because people are afraid of having their **** nerfed.
Especially since the TE/TC changes more than make up for it on most missile ships really... Yeah would be a shame if seemingly the majority (in this thread anyway) were overuled to satisfy the minority. God Forbid. I was up to page 36 when I logged last night. Damn sleep! I got a lot of reading to catch up on!
To be honest most of it is utter bollocks, basically most of the changes are pretty good one or two aren't really and its those that are getting repeatedly argued over. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:38:00 -
[1313] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:MIrple wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:MIrple wrote:
People have adapted to many changes in EVE and there has never been a SP reimbursement. This Change will not make any skill you trained unusable only changes how items work. If you need further reference please ask all the Nano pilots if they got there skill points back when they nerfed that.
Because it takes as long as it does to train all missiles (or even just heavy missiles and the respective damage/range modifier skills) to V to train for T2 nanos (which you can get 2 hours into starting a new character) Will your skills still allow you to use missiles and the only Missile that is getting nerfed is the HM so yes its a pretty even skill train match up. Heavy Missile V High Speed Maneuvering V don't see how this is all that different. No, all missiles are getting nerfed because they instantly have less DPS just from a TD, which isnt the case for TDs on guns. So firing guns when being TD and hitting in falloff is not less DPS? News to me.
Yes, but you can fix that by piloting, you can't with missiles. You just do less damage no matter the circumstances. Maybe making them move slower will fix a bit, but you can't really MAKE someone move slower, unless you have the modules to do it. It isn't really fair that one weapon system can pilot their way around an EWAR and the other one has to fit towards it. |
HorseEve
The Concordiat The Jagged Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:40:00 -
[1314] - Quote
When this patch is released, can we also get options to get our skillpoints back for the entirety of any training that went into the Caldari Race? You guys are removing the only reason people used heavy missiles. You are removing the only reason people flew drakes. You are removing the most useful ship for any new players that you are supposedly trying to get more of. You are reducing the crappy damage of an already crappy platform.
So, If I can get my Caldari skill points back I would lvoe to go fly other races that matter! Especially the new mid slot layout of the Thorax. On a bright note everyone, most of these new cruiser layouts can kill the new drake layout!
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:44:00 -
[1315] - Quote
[/quote]Yes, but you can fix that by piloting, you can't with missiles. You just do less damage no matter the circumstances. Maybe making them move slower will fix a bit, but you can't really MAKE someone move slower, unless you have the modules to do it. It isn't really fair that one weapon system can pilot their way around an EWAR and the other one has to fit towards it.[/quote]
You cant fix falloff by piloting unless you mean closing range. Hey guess what you can fix missiles the same way then also. Your argument on this is weak as now you suffer the same issues that turret pilots can face out in space. TD are being changed this winter also so hold on the sky is not falling at the moment. |
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:44:00 -
[1316] - Quote
HorseEve wrote:When this patch is released, can we also get options to get our skillpoints back for the entirety of any training that went into the Caldari Race? You guys are removing the only reason people used heavy missiles. You are removing the only reason people flew drakes. You are removing the most useful ship for any new players that you are supposedly trying to get more of. You are reducing the crappy damage of an already crappy platform.
So, If I can get my Caldari skill points back I would lvoe to go fly other races that matter! Especially the new mid slot layout of the Thorax. On a bright note everyone, most of these new cruiser layouts can kill the new drake layout!
How come?Do you know what ship bonuses Drake will have ?Did you and any of us test that ship on SiSi?
This all sounds "OMG Blizzard you nerfed my paladin I could kill easy all classes and now they kill me ",rally WTF this game community more and more looks like WoW one.
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:45:00 -
[1317] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote: Yes, but you can fix that by piloting, you can't with missiles. You just do less damage.
That is the main difference between missiles and turrets. Missiles are easier because transversal is irrelevant. You don't have control over it. There is a reason why missile boats are considered noob friendly compared to turret boats. You can't get the same maximal effectiveness from both turrets and missiles if the latter involves less skill and effort ( things which are essential for manual piloting ).
Giving you the ability to actually influence this factor ( through piloting ) would need a total rework of missiles. |
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:46:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Willie Horton wrote:HorseEve wrote:When this patch is released, can we also get options to get our skillpoints back for the entirety of any training that went into the Caldari Race? You guys are removing the only reason people used heavy missiles. You are removing the only reason people flew drakes. You are removing the most useful ship for any new players that you are supposedly trying to get more of. You are reducing the crappy damage of an already crappy platform.
So, If I can get my Caldari skill points back I would lvoe to go fly other races that matter! Especially the new mid slot layout of the Thorax. On a bright note everyone, most of these new cruiser layouts can kill the new drake layout!
How come?Do you know what ship bonuses Drake will have ?Did you and any of us test that ship on SiSi? This all sounds "OMG Blizzard you nerfed my paladin I could kill easy all classes and now they kill me ",rally WTF this game community more and more looks like WoW one.
because the same **** happened in wow and nobody play that game anymore :D. |
Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
175
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:46:00 -
[1319] - Quote
Every time I read a demand for skillpoint reimbursement because of a game rebalancing, I feel the urgent need to encounter the poster piloting a T3 and kill him.
Every time someone demands sp reimbursement on the forums, his main should be stripped of 100k sp . |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:46:00 -
[1320] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I'm Down wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:if the missle nerf goes ahead then tengu is gonna be the Nighthawk of the TIII's useless ****. I like how you post this with no justification, yet I posted (with reasoning) why the Tengu may be solidified further solidified as the best mission runner. -Liang B/C everyone wants to run missions with 400dps boats that do **** all damage to smaller ships. Not like the Golem is going to be heaps better now with the higher DPS, bonuses to hitting smaller ships, TP bonus, and TC/TE effects on larger missiles. Oh wait, there was that time long ago when LR torpedos were all the rage of Mission running... who knew they'd ever bring that back. The HAM Tengu puts out > 1000 DPS, and will do so with better damage application and better range than ever before. Please learn how to fit a ship. -Liang Please send me your fit. I too would like to do 1000 DPS. With maxed skills I don't get half the DPS people claim to. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
|
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:50:00 -
[1321] - Quote
You know, the more rage posts I read the more I think this nerf may not be too much.
All these rage posts talk about ALL missiles and ALL caldari now being useless.
Yet only Heavy Missiles have been changed and the TD change has plenty of counters (webs, painters, TCs, TEs).
If HMs really were so good that any other weapon system isn't even worthy of the consideration of Caldari players then I think the nerf might just be needed. |
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:51:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Willie Horton wrote:HorseEve wrote:When this patch is released, can we also get options to get our skillpoints back for the entirety of any training that went into the Caldari Race? You guys are removing the only reason people used heavy missiles. You are removing the only reason people flew drakes. You are removing the most useful ship for any new players that you are supposedly trying to get more of. You are reducing the crappy damage of an already crappy platform.
So, If I can get my Caldari skill points back I would lvoe to go fly other races that matter! Especially the new mid slot layout of the Thorax. On a bright note everyone, most of these new cruiser layouts can kill the new drake layout!
How come?Do you know what ship bonuses Drake will have ?Did you and any of us test that ship on SiSi? This all sounds "OMG Blizzard you nerfed my paladin I could kill easy all classes and now they kill me ",rally WTF this game community more and more looks like WoW one. because the same **** happened in wow and nobody play that game anymore :D.
No you are so wrong .There was totally different reason ,but that is not topic here.Point is missile ships will get tools to control explosive radius and optimal and that is what they never had.If you check how they are changing Kestrel and Caracal ,than you will see that there is no more kinetic bonus so all damage mods will do same dmg and that is awesom.Gallente and Ammar dont have that option for example. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1527
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:51:00 -
[1323] - Quote
Good afternoon everyone. I know some people have been wondering if I'm still following the thread, so let me assure you that I have read every single post so far and I plan to keep that up.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to let us know your opinions on these proposals. It's great to see so much passion from our customers, and I hope I'll be able to demonstrate from now to December and beyond how much I appreciate all your dedication.
I will ask everyone to please keep your feedback and your interactions with each other civil. Remember that this is the Features and Ideas forum, not the wild untamed expanse of General Discussion or the brutal gladiatorial pit of CAOD. This is the section of the forums where intellectual equals meet in mutual admiration to calmly and rationally discuss potential changes to the game, muse casually about overnight interest rates, and sip tea with our pinky extended. Feedback is always more useful when it includes details about the problems you foresee from a specific change. "I don't agree with change X because I believe it will have effect Y for reasons A, B and C" is excellent and very persuasive feedback and I thank the large numbers of you who have provided this kind of feedback so far. "DIE IN A FIRE" is an example of significantly less useful feedback. It doesn't tell us which changes you object to, or what the reasons for your position are. In fact it even makes it hard to tell whether you actually object to the content of the change or are just experiencing an unusually strong craving for S'mores.
Also remember that nothing posted in this forum is ever set in stone at the time of posting. We are committed to making strong balance changes to your spaceships and we are willing to work with you all to realize that goal.
I'm going to cover a few of the themes I'm seeing in the feedback so far in a Q&A format. I don't have any adjustments to the proposal to announce at this time, but there are a few tweaks I'm mulling over at the moment.
The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower? I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.
Why nerf things when you could buff things instead? When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be concious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.
It seems obvious that these changes are biased in favour of the Goons! Is that true? Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.
It seems obvious that these changes are biased against the Goons! Is that true? Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.
Can CCP reimburse skillpoints to people who have trained missiles? In a MMO like Eve balance does change from time to time and skills will not be reimbursed unless their use is being removed from the game. If you believe that these changes make missiles useless then let us know why in as much detail as possible and if we agree the solution won't be to reimburse skills, it will be to adjust the proposal so that missiles are no longer made useless. Heavy missiles were the first medium weapon system I ever trained when I started playing Eve, and I have made excellent use of them through the years so I understand how good it feels to have skills invested in an extremely powerful weapon system. Most people who have been playing the game for a while can name a few times it has felt like their playstyle has been nerfed, because by definition the overpowered areas of the game tend to attract a lot of people. The four most heavily used medium weapons in the game are all Heavy Missile launcher variants, as well as seven of the top eleven. Whenever we need to change something this powerful it will always be painful because so many players will have done the smart thing and flocked to the best game mechanic. If it feels like CCP nerfs you a lot that's just a sign that you're doing it right and getting good at staying on top of the best trends so pat yourself on the back.
Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps? The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
How about remote tracking links? It's possible that we may need to give remote tracking links slightly lower effects to missiles than to guns, but yes the plan is for them to have an effect.
Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fi... Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:52:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Willie Horton wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Willie Horton wrote:HorseEve wrote:When this patch is released, can we also get options to get our skillpoints back for the entirety of any training that went into the Caldari Race? You guys are removing the only reason people used heavy missiles. You are removing the only reason people flew drakes. You are removing the most useful ship for any new players that you are supposedly trying to get more of. You are reducing the crappy damage of an already crappy platform.
So, If I can get my Caldari skill points back I would lvoe to go fly other races that matter! Especially the new mid slot layout of the Thorax. On a bright note everyone, most of these new cruiser layouts can kill the new drake layout!
How come?Do you know what ship bonuses Drake will have ?Did you and any of us test that ship on SiSi? This all sounds "OMG Blizzard you nerfed my paladin I could kill easy all classes and now they kill me ",rally WTF this game community more and more looks like WoW one. because the same **** happened in wow and nobody play that game anymore :D. No you are so wrong .There was totally different reason ,but that is not topic here.Point is missile ships will get tools to control explosive radius and optimal and that is what they never had.If you check how they are changing Kestrel and Caracal ,than you will see that there is no more kinetic bonus so all damage mods will do same dmg and that is awesom.Gallente and Ammar dont have that option for example.
yes and no.gallente and amarr has 3x times the dps of rockets/missiles and so on
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:52:00 -
[1325] - Quote
The HM's were too good for damage projection to begin with. This nerf just puts them back in line. Should've been done a long time ago.
....and to all whiners who are planning to unsubscribe because of HM nerf.
Can I haz your stuff??
Javelin loaded HAM's are the new HM's. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
273
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:52:00 -
[1326] - Quote
Alot of people here seem to be justifying the Heavy Missile nerf by saying "They need it drastically, look how OP Drakes and Tengus are", which is stupidity. Drakes are a little OP, more in blobs than in any other format.
So address drakes as an issue, dont break the entire missile boat Caldari line. Nighthawks, Cerberus, Caracal, just three useless ships that are about to become even more useless. If you really have to nerf drakes, then nerf them directly, don't ruin all the other heavy missile platforms. The missiles are fine as they are, in fact I would go so far as to say Heavy Missiles are about perfect, and HAMs need a buff.
CCP, your really not doing yourself any favours nerfing HMs. I could probably get behind a small nerf. The range nerf on its own would be worth some debate, but the 20% damage reduction is lunacy. What happened to rolling out changes "slowly" so that they can be tested and to make sure there are no big reaction? Its been working so far, why stop now?
Somebody wasn't thinking when this nerf was added to the to-do list. |
Johan March
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:53:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Seems like I won't be training for that Tengu. Chiming in with my views:
I agree with the posters who say the HML damage nerf should be more like 10% coupled with a 10% buff to HAM's. In my opinion, the range AND the damage nerf is too much
Also, the Cane PG nerf is a bit too much. Perhaps a full rack of 425's plus two medium neuts is a bit overpowered, but don't go overboard CCP.
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
473
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:54:00 -
[1328] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:That is the main difference between missiles and turrets. Missiles are easier because transversal is irrelevant. You don't have control over it. There is a reason why missile boats are considered noob friendly compared to turret boats. You can't get the same maximal effectiveness from both turrets and missiles if the latter involves less skill and effort ( things which are essential for manual piloting ).
Exactly. And to compensate for the the less skill and effort required, missiles do crappy damage, which is also delayed by the flight time. So now, the base damage will be reduced, and TD's will bring that down even further. How the hell can you tracking disrupt something that doesn't track. CCP, stop smoking that stuff ffs.
This is too much of a nerf to make any sense.
|
seth Hendar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:56:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:Boogie Jones wrote:The powergrid nerf on the cane is a bit much imo. It should be able to fit a full rack of 425s + the neuts. Survey says NO. it is already hard to fit a armor cane 220m without a pg implant, and even with a +5pg, it will not be possible anymore to have 220mms + 2 med neut + 1600mm plate.
however, it will still be possible to fit 425mm + 2 med neut on a shield cane.
goal missed, this will just kill arty cane (to be checked, since they also reduce de pwg need of artys) and armor close range ones
because dropping a neut or downgrading a plate is not gonna be worth it. congrats, you just made the cane as usefull as a cyclone in the mean time, the triple rep myrm still fly
same for the drake.
tracking disrupting missiles? are you serious?
to balance the drake, the only one thing that was required was giving it a bit less tank, that's all (i bet just removing the resist bonus was enought) |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
319
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:00:00 -
[1330] - Quote
assuming the change might make TDs overpowered, and defender missiles make a lot of lag, can you do something like making defender missiles function similarly to TDs but play a fancy client-side graphic? |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
744
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:01:00 -
[1331] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: "DIE IN A FIRE" is an example of significantly less useful feedback. It doesn't tell us which changes you object to, or what the reasons for your position are. In fact it even makes it hard to tell whether you actually object to the content of the change or are just experiencing an unusually strong craving for S'mores.
I too think all CCP employees are delicious chocolate and marshmallow treats, ready to be dipped into a fire and eaten deliciously.
I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
473
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:01:00 -
[1332] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ?
That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:01:00 -
[1333] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:According to eve-kill.net; the heavy missile launcher is used almost 35% of the time. Followed by 425mm auto cannons being used 8%. Some of you go on and on about how it is balanced with the other medium weapons, but why is it used so much more than any other medium weapon platform in the game? Because drakes scale very well into large nullsec blobs. They are easy to orbit anchor f1 with and receive reps better than any other bc besides the lolprophecy. Why fix Prophecy when you can just break Drake, Nighthawk, Cane and Tengu.
Balance = make everything suck. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:02:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Willie Horton wrote:
No you are so wrong .There was totally different reason ,but that is not topic here.Point is missile ships will get tools to control explosive radius and optimal and that is what they never had.If you check how they are changing Kestrel and Caracal ,than you will see that there is no more kinetic bonus so all damage mods will do same dmg and that is awesom.Gallente and Ammar dont have that option for example.
yes and no.gallente and amarr has 3x times the dps of rockets/missiles and so on
Yes but they have tracking issues maybe?When you fire missile or rocket you dont care will you be in good trasveral .angular or what ever you know that you not miss and do some dmg.So you dont see that as problem at all.
Again I will say I have both Tengu and Drake and I dont see problem in this.It was expected and every game evolve over time so you can please all player per sec.We are not playing this game cause of Drake and Tengu ,but cause of many other things. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1530
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:04:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ? That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?
I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
darius mclever
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:05:00 -
[1336] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good afternoon everyone. I know some people have been wondering if I'm still following the thread, so let me assure you that I have read every single post so far and I plan to keep that up.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to let us know your opinions on these proposals. It's great to see so much passion from our customers, and I hope I'll be able to demonstrate from now to December and beyond how much I appreciate all your dedication.
Thank you for the reply.
Could you address the point that the 20% nerf seems to be a bit harsh and that 10% seems to be more reasonable? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
353
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:06:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Quote:or splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers).
:thumbup:
BTW, going do anything about cruise missiles? And I was surprised to not see any tweak for medium rails, given that other medium LR weapons were altered. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:06:00 -
[1338] - Quote
Satracz wrote:what about drugs like optimal/falloff drugs.... did you give them a missile flighttime or speed ability ?
thats an excelent point! |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:07:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Alot of people here seem to be justifying the Heavy Missile nerf by saying "They need it drastically, look how OP Drakes and Tengus are", which is stupidity. Drakes are a little OP, more in blobs than in any other format.
So address drakes as an issue, dont break the entire missile boat Caldari line. Nighthawks, Cerberus, Caracal, just three useless ships that are about to become even more useless. If you really have to nerf drakes, then nerf them directly, don't ruin all the other heavy missile platforms. The missiles are fine as they are, in fact I would go so far as to say Heavy Missiles are about perfect, and HAMs need a buff.
CCP, your really not doing yourself any favours nerfing HMs. I could probably get behind a small nerf. The range nerf on its own would be worth some debate, but the 20% damage reduction is lunacy. What happened to rolling out changes "slowly" so that they can be tested and to make sure there are no big reaction? Its been working so far, why stop now?
Somebody wasn't thinking when this nerf was added to the to-do list.
Gypsio III wrote: Current dual-BCS Caracal: 263 DPS kinetic, 210 non-kinetic, with CN to 120 km, 8.4 km/s missiles. Future triple-BCS Caracal: 252 DPS all damage types with CN to 90 km, 9 km/s missiles.
I'm glad to see the Caracal surviving the deserved HML Drake/Tengu nerf fine.
Hams + TE/TC's man..
Thats the way to go!
So how is this a massive nerf to the Caracal?
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:09:00 -
[1340] - Quote
i now Declare this thread to be a ... THREAD-NAUGHT! |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
745
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:10:00 -
[1341] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rommiee wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ? That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ? I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.
Looks like someone found the second best way to escape the uni. inv. coming. Moving on to a better job.
I just wasn't around luckily, number one. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
EcthelionStrongbow
PROCORP
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:11:00 -
[1342] - Quote
CCP Fozzie --
Unless I missed the announcement in the preceeding 67 pages, when are these changes due to hit Buckingham so that some testing can be done? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:11:00 -
[1343] - Quote
darius mclever wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good afternoon everyone. I know some people have been wondering if I'm still following the thread, so let me assure you that I have read every single post so far and I plan to keep that up.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to let us know your opinions on these proposals. It's great to see so much passion from our customers, and I hope I'll be able to demonstrate from now to December and beyond how much I appreciate all your dedication.
Thank you for the reply. Could you address the point that the 20% nerf seems to be a bit harsh and that 10% seems to be more reasonable?
Could you address the point that instead of 20% nerf of heavies you could do 10% nerf of heavies and 5%/10% buff of HAMs to get people using HAMs?
|
Beezon
Cosmology Deadly Unknown
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:12:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Will TE/TD affect cruise missiles/FoF cruises/torps too? |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:13:00 -
[1345] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rommiee wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ? That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ? I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.
To help Fozzie out...
Balance changes requires tweaking stats.
The Unified Inventory was a huge code undertaking from the FOUNDATION of EVE up to the highest levels of EVE codes. Making changes on a whim after work was done would've required whole amounts of weeks or more to be scrapped and redone. So, making changes there wasn't just a matter of punching a number in a spreadsheet and adjusting it.
Unified Inventory needed a lot of love when it came out, but it wasn't because they were ignoring you.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:14:00 -
[1346] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rommiee wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ? That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ? I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.
can we get caldari spaceship and missile skillpoints reimbursed to be invested in something worthwhile? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:14:00 -
[1347] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
You cant fix falloff by piloting unless you mean closing range. Hey guess what you can fix missiles the same way then also. Your argument on this is weak as now you suffer the same issues that turret pilots can face out in space. TD are being changed this winter also so hold on the sky is not falling at the moment.
By piloting I mean piloting, meaning not relying on an EWAR module to save you from EWAR, but instead relying on yourself to pilot well (your ships vectoring) to maximize damage. I don't see how the argument is weak. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:14:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Beezon wrote:Will TE/TD affect cruise missiles/FoF cruises/torps too?
Yes Fozzie said they would. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:15:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Willie Horton wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Willie Horton wrote:
No you are so wrong .There was totally different reason ,but that is not topic here.Point is missile ships will get tools to control explosive radius and optimal and that is what they never had.If you check how they are changing Kestrel and Caracal ,than you will see that there is no more kinetic bonus so all damage mods will do same dmg and that is awesom.Gallente and Ammar dont have that option for example.
yes and no.gallente and amarr has 3x times the dps of rockets/missiles and so on Yes but they have tracking issues maybe?When you fire missile or rocket you dont care will you be in good trasveral .angular or what ever you know that you not miss and do some dmg.So you dont see that as problem at all. Again I will say I have both Tengu and Drake and I dont see problem in this.It was expected and every game evolve over time so you can please all player per sec.We are not playing this game cause of Drake and Tengu ,but cause of many other things. "i'm ok with this change so everyone should be!" this, my dear sir is called bigotry. and thank you for pointing out one of the differences between guns and missiles. you may be aware that there are other differences which are not at all as beneficial to the missiles as the one you named.
after reading most of this topic, i have the following to say: everybody in there throwing around random range and dps numbers is an idiot. paper dps do not matter. neither does paper range, neither does EHP or fitting requirements. it's the combination of all these things and a lot lot more that makes a ship balanced, underpowered or overpowered. the fact of the matter is, most heavy missile ships are underpowered where as the drake and tengu are overpowerd in specific situations. nerfing heavy missiles is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is NOT what needs to be done.
as for the tracking idea: all i have to say is that it's beyond stupid and i am baffled that CCP would even come up with something like that.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:16:00 -
[1350] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps?The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
Can you make new module or make this option for missiles affected by other EWAR ,asking cause if it stays like this TD will be no brainer and easy to pick as counter.
|
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:17:00 -
[1351] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance.
This explains so much. At this point I'm just surprised that no one took a thresher to them when HAMs were introduced in the first place.
While I do love the Curse and Pilgrim, I also like the idea of having separate mods for disrupting turrets and missiles, or at least separate scripts. |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
934
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:17:00 -
[1352] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:Boogie Jones wrote:The powergrid nerf on the cane is a bit much imo. It should be able to fit a full rack of 425s + the neuts. Survey says NO. it is already hard to fit a armor cane 220m without a pg implant, and even with a +5pg, it will not be possible anymore to have 220mms + 2 med neut + 1600mm plate. however, it will still be possible to fit 425mm + 2 med neut on a shield cane. goal missed, this will just kill arty cane (to be checked, since they also reduce de pwg need of artys) and armor close range ones because dropping a neut or downgrading a plate is not gonna be worth it. congrats, you just made the cane as usefull as a cyclone in the mean time, the triple rep myrm still fly same for the drake. tracking disrupting missiles? are you serious? to balance the drake, the only one thing that was required was giving it a bit less tank, that's all (i bet just removing the resist bonus was enought)
Why would anyone fly a tripple rep myrm when a dual XL-ASB Myrm is possible? ~ |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
240
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:18:00 -
[1353] - Quote
rodyas wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: "DIE IN A FIRE" is an example of significantly less useful feedback. It doesn't tell us which changes you object to, or what the reasons for your position are. In fact it even makes it hard to tell whether you actually object to the content of the change or are just experiencing an unusually strong craving for S'mores.
I too think all CCP employees are delicious chocolate and marshmallow treats, ready to be dipped into a fire and eaten deliciously.
I doubt they are, if CCP was made up of delicious treats, they would have nerfed both fire AND the physics that let fire happen in the 1st place by now.
*Me clutches Tengu in loving embrace and rocks back and forth slowly as it dies*
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:19:00 -
[1354] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps?The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
How about remote tracking links?It's possible that we may need to give remote tracking links slightly lower effects to missiles than to guns, but yes the plan is for them to have an effect.
Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders?We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.
This change will make Tracking Disruptors very overpowered!That is a very valid concern and one we will be continuing to look very closely at. Some options on the table include making TDs
I am still somewhat confused. Currently, I can TD a gun ship and it can still get a lucky shot off and actually hit me. How would that work for missiles? Are missiles now going to be able to MISS? Also, why would a tracking enhancer, and a tracking computer effect the range of a weapon that's supposedly determined by flight time and speed. (Skills that you train).
Also, turret guns, can adjust their range a little bit. You can take an arty or an A/C and still control your damage out put at different ranges by the ammo you use. Missiles don't have that. Sure you can control your ammo type, but in very very very rare circumstances is that worth doing over the bonus your hull gets to the specific type. On top of that if they're outside of your range, you don't hit. Whereas, turrets get falloff which technically still gives them a chance to do damage OUTSIDE their range, (JUST EXTREMELY SLIM chance). So are we going to get different ranged missiles too?
I can understand that the HMLs may have been too powerful. However, I'm not a veteran pilot, my tengu with HMLs puts out about 350dps up to 110k. (locking range) with 3 navy BCU's. I swapped the stuff out to HAMS. (and other than the fact that I can't even fit a full rack of the t2 HAMS due to PG) Sure I now get an extra 100DPS. but my range is now down to 26km. ON top of that, with the reduction in the HML, a DED 6/10 complex boss, can even outtank my DPS output. (as I have experienced it where I only had 5 launchers on and the thing kept regenning due to the reloading time. While having 6 launchers it burned down albeit slow). Or is the intention to make the exploration tengu's and drakes all use HAMs. instead now. Since your damage with the HMLs will be laughable. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:21:00 -
[1355] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Arduemont wrote:Alot of people here seem to be justifying the Heavy Missile nerf by saying "They need it drastically, look how OP Drakes and Tengus are", which is stupidity. Drakes are a little OP, more in blobs than in any other format.
So address drakes as an issue, dont break the entire missile boat Caldari line. Nighthawks, Cerberus, Caracal, just three useless ships that are about to become even more useless. If you really have to nerf drakes, then nerf them directly, don't ruin all the other heavy missile platforms. The missiles are fine as they are, in fact I would go so far as to say Heavy Missiles are about perfect, and HAMs need a buff.
CCP, your really not doing yourself any favours nerfing HMs. I could probably get behind a small nerf. The range nerf on its own would be worth some debate, but the 20% damage reduction is lunacy. What happened to rolling out changes "slowly" so that they can be tested and to make sure there are no big reaction? Its been working so far, why stop now?
Somebody wasn't thinking when this nerf was added to the to-do list. Gypsio III wrote: Current dual-BCS Caracal: 263 DPS kinetic, 210 non-kinetic, with CN to 120 km, 8.4 km/s missiles. Future triple-BCS Caracal: 252 DPS all damage types with CN to 90 km, 9 km/s missiles. I'm glad to see the Caracal surviving the deserved HML Drake/Tengu nerf fine. Hams + TE/TC's man.. Thats the way to go! So how is this a massive nerf to the Caracal?
Are you on drugs man? So how is loosing 10dps PLUS 1/4 of your range WHILE using an extra BCU not significant??
|
RAGE QU1T
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:21:00 -
[1356] - Quote
CCP. WHY DON'T YOU JUST RIP OUT THE NEW MISSILE EFFECTS ENGINE FROM INFERNO??? I WILL SAVE CPU AND YES I KNOW I CAN TURN OFF THE SETTINGS BUT THAT DOESN'T STOP THE OTHER GUY. PRETTY GRAPHICS DON'T JUSTIFY THEM WITH S~ITTY DPS. YUO ARE MAKING THIS GAME UNPLAYABLE. YOU ARE ONLY JUST CREATING A PURPETUAL ENDLESS CYCLE, GOONS WILL JUSTB. CHANGE THEIR DOCTRINE NOTHING MOAR. You MIGHT AS WELL HAVE A JOVIAN INVASION AND GO SCORCHED EARTH ON JITA. JUST REMOVE THE CALDARI RACE OUT OF THE GAME PLZ BECAUSE YOU JUST NEUTERED THEM FOREVER. CONFERMING EVE IS ON THE SAME ROAD OF UO. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:21:00 -
[1357] - Quote
Willie Horton wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps?The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
Can you make new module or make this option for missiles affected by other EWAR ,asking cause if it stays like this TD will be no brainer and easy to pick as counter.
I agree that there should be a second mod Missile TD as well. TBH there should be different mods for TE and TC for missiles as well. So Missile pilots don't have to train up gunnery skills to use TE or TC. The down side to this is there are a few ships that would benefit from TE and TC effecting both missiles and turrets. But any way that we can put down Winmatar I am ok with :) |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
319
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:21:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:can we get caldari spaceship and missile skillpoints reimbursed to be invested in something worthwhile? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942484#post1942484 |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:21:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ? That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?
Most likely.
Fear not, Ravens are the New Drakes. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:22:00 -
[1360] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:MIrple wrote:Arduemont wrote:Alot of people here seem to be justifying the Heavy Missile nerf by saying "They need it drastically, look how OP Drakes and Tengus are", which is stupidity. Drakes are a little OP, more in blobs than in any other format.
So address drakes as an issue, dont break the entire missile boat Caldari line. Nighthawks, Cerberus, Caracal, just three useless ships that are about to become even more useless. If you really have to nerf drakes, then nerf them directly, don't ruin all the other heavy missile platforms. The missiles are fine as they are, in fact I would go so far as to say Heavy Missiles are about perfect, and HAMs need a buff.
CCP, your really not doing yourself any favours nerfing HMs. I could probably get behind a small nerf. The range nerf on its own would be worth some debate, but the 20% damage reduction is lunacy. What happened to rolling out changes "slowly" so that they can be tested and to make sure there are no big reaction? Its been working so far, why stop now?
Somebody wasn't thinking when this nerf was added to the to-do list. Gypsio III wrote: Current dual-BCS Caracal: 263 DPS kinetic, 210 non-kinetic, with CN to 120 km, 8.4 km/s missiles.Future triple-BCS Caracal: 252 DPS all damage types with CN to 90 km, 9 km/s missiles. I'm glad to see the Caracal surviving the deserved HML Drake/Tengu nerf fine. Hams + TE/TC's man.. Thats the way to go! So how is this a massive nerf to the Caracal? Are you on drugs man? So how is loosing 10dps PLUS 1/4 of your range WHILE using an extra BCU not significant??
Show me any other t1 cruiser that can apply ~250 DPS at 60k + ranges in every damage type |
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:23:00 -
[1361] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps? The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
To clarify your clarification will it affect both explosion velocity and explosion radius of unguided missiles?
As I'm sure you aware currently rigs and skills only affect explosion velocity and not explosion radius for unguided missiles, are there any plans to change this?
Fear God and Thread Nought |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:24:00 -
[1362] - Quote
CCP Fozzie [list wrote:
The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. ... but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good. [/list]
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced? |
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:24:00 -
[1363] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Willie Horton wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Willie Horton wrote:
No you are so wrong .There was totally different reason ,but that is not topic here.Point is missile ships will get tools to control explosive radius and optimal and that is what they never had.If you check how they are changing Kestrel and Caracal ,than you will see that there is no more kinetic bonus so all damage mods will do same dmg and that is awesom.Gallente and Ammar dont have that option for example.
yes and no.gallente and amarr has 3x times the dps of rockets/missiles and so on Yes but they have tracking issues maybe?When you fire missile or rocket you dont care will you be in good trasveral .angular or what ever you know that you not miss and do some dmg.So you dont see that as problem at all. Again I will say I have both Tengu and Drake and I dont see problem in this.It was expected and every game evolve over time so you can please all player per sec.We are not playing this game cause of Drake and Tengu ,but cause of many other things. "i'm ok with this change so everyone should be!" this, my dear sir is called bigotry. and thank you for pointing out one of the differences between guns and missiles. you may be aware that there are other differences which are not at all as beneficial to the missiles as the one you named. after reading most of this topic, i have the following to say: everybody in there throwing around random range and dps numbers is an idiot. paper dps do not matter. neither does paper range, neither does EHP or fitting requirements. it's the combination of all these things and a lot lot more that makes a ship balanced, underpowered or overpowered. the fact of the matter is, most heavy missile ships are underpowered where as the drake and tengu are overpowerd in specific situations. nerfing heavy missiles is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is NOT what needs to be done. as for the tracking idea: all i have to say is that it's beyond stupid and i am baffled that CCP would even come up with something like that.
Sorry but where did I say all people should be ok with this change?I said I am ok with it,cause it is not a big issue as it looks at first.Also I dont plan to fly two ships only during whole time I spent in EVE.So please dont claim I said something that I didnt.
Also calling people idiots cause they are for this change and attempting to explain why they think it is good is bigotry too.Why you need to insult someone to say he is wrong .So my dear mister think about that too.
I wrote just one example how turrets work different from missiles.They all have good and bad things about them ,that is why we choose what is best for us. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:28:00 -
[1364] - Quote
Ynot Eyob wrote:Whatttttt ??! Canes are already a soft target compared with others, now even softer?! This make absolute no sence to me What did expect? Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Metal Icarus
Endless Destruction Against ALL Anomalies
284
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:29:00 -
[1365] - Quote
I still stand by my new module suggestion. To have the TD be able to disrupt ALL weapon systems with one mod is, IMO, too effective. (could be said for ECM, but you need racial jammers to be effective)
I am fine with the mod to have the same prereqs as the tracking disruptor, and recieve the same bonuses. Just have a different module. It will be better for the lore, more intuitive and would not make the TD OP. |
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:29:00 -
[1366] - Quote
If tracking disruptors affect missiles will they be renamed? Fear God and Thread Nought |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:30:00 -
[1367] - Quote
Currently the concern I have with TD changes is that a single module shouldn't be so powerful against every form of weapon (save for drones, but come on).
I think making a separate TD module, (Someone suggested making a defender missile launcher the TD for missiles). I think implementing it like that would be much more reasonable. That way, a ship could fit TDs, Defender TDs, and not have the power of 2 super TDs that can disrupt the power of every type of weapon. If you knew you would be facing a missile boat, you could use Defender TDs, and if you knew you would be facing a turret boat, you could use normal TDs. It's when the combination of both are combined into one module that it just becomes unfair.
Basically this defender TD module would be a midslot launcher (Defender launcher) that can load 2 types of defenders. Fuel valve defenders which strike the rocket fuel area of a missile, reducing its flight time, and guidance system defenders, which emit a disruptive pulse upon colliding with the missiles that reduces their explosion velocity. The module would have limited ammo, of course, and would take the same time as a normal launcher to reload (thus switching disruption types instantly wouldn't be possible). This balances things a little moar.
Also, defenders just completely destroying other missiles would be unfair if they were made to be useful. Say in the lore that caldari designers were like "Uh, no, we just made our missiles armored so they can't be damaged any longer by defenders. "(Thats why heavies have less rocket fuel after the nerf! <_<)
As well, hopefully different ships could have a bonus to these defender TDs than the standard TD ships. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:32:00 -
[1368] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:"i'm ok with this change so everyone should be!" this, my dear sir is called bigotry. and thank you for pointing out one of the differences between guns and missiles. you may be aware that there are other differences which are not at all as beneficial to the missiles as the one you named.
after reading most of this topic, i have the following to say: everybody in there throwing around random range and dps numbers is an idiot. paper dps do not matter. neither does paper range, neither does EHP or fitting requirements. it's the combination of all these things and a lot lot more that makes a ship balanced, underpowered or overpowered. the fact of the matter is, most heavy missile ships are underpowered where as the drake and tengu are overpowerd in specific situations. nerfing heavy missiles is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is NOT what needs to be done.
as for the tracking idea: all i have to say is that it's beyond stupid and i am baffled that CCP would even come up with something like that. "I'm not ok with it and so no one should be". HMLs are OP, their range&applied dps is too good, on top of that the Tengu and Drake themselves are also too good. If they weren't the Tengu and drake wouldn't be used as much and in case of the Tengu you'd see people using non-missile fits. The problem is that other missiles are below par (not counting cruise) so one way of solving that (and the best way imo) is to "nerf" HML and then give people the option to fit modules to boost ALL missile performance, which is what's happening. Then have a look at the new proposed Caracal, range and rof bonus meaning all of a sudden HAMS become a more viable option now and when coupled with TE/TC they will really work quite well and HML will have the "if you want THAT much range then you'll have to accept low dps" just like other weapon systems. HAMs will be the new kid on the block and they'll do well. Deal with it.
My only concern with this on the Drake is as currently the Drake should get its kin bonus changes to a ROF bonus or to a blanket missile damage. This would make the changes more balanced. If not guess we will just have to wait till the get the BC's on the board. |
seth Hendar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:33:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Rommiee wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ? That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ? I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit. To help Fozzie out... Balance changes requires tweaking stats. The Unified Inventory was a huge code undertaking from the FOUNDATION of EVE up to the highest levels of EVE codes. Making changes on a whim after work was done would've required whole amounts of weeks or more to be scrapped and redone. So, making changes there wasn't just a matter of punching a number in a spreadsheet and adjusting it. Unified Inventory needed a lot of love when it came out, but it wasn't because they were ignoring you. the issue with the univ. inv. is not only that most ppl think it sucks, its more the way it was done. CPP first took it to sisi, so they can get feedback from users. feedback showed that it was a really wrong idea, but that a significant amount of player would agree to get it on TQ if a certain number of issues were adressed AND CCP give it more time in sisi to improve it and check bugs. in the end, CCPs ends rushing it on TQ "as it was", ths breaking one of the central tool of the game. and today, it is still painfull to manage big amounts of items, pos etc... so yes, CCP ignored the dozens of pages / thread regarding the issues of the new inventory when it was on sisi, then brought it on TQ, and continue to ignore players on this subject. it is still, today, a pain to manage pos, a pain to manage big amounts of items, a pain to have the windows of inv cargo changing position when undocking. and bugs still remains, like the cargo that still cannot retain their configuration when said to lock or unlock new added items. all thoses points / issues were brought to CCP knowledge as soon as it entered sisi, several monthago , and they still sits here
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
240
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:33:00 -
[1370] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote: HAMs will be the new kid on the block and they'll do well. Deal with it.
I like HAMs, but in game and out (in real life, Tech2 HAM is called Bacon, and it is delicious). And i'm not against tweaking, but what ccp wants to do is too much too soon. I'm all for more stuff being useful and anything that causes even ONE GoonTear is at least worth considering. But we've seen this MULTI/OVER-NERF thing from ccp (pre-Fozzie) before and some of us are tired of it.
The pro-nerf people are being extremely short sighted. Slower more well thought out changes wouldn't have generated this kind of Threadnaught.
|
|
Green J Smoker
high times industries High Sec Dropouts
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:33:00 -
[1371] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:CCP Fozzie [list wrote:
The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. ... but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good. [/list] For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
I would like to see also!!! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2193
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:35:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
|
mental maverick
Percussive Diplomacy PERCUSSIVE PIZZA TIME DIPLOMACY
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:35:00 -
[1373] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good afternoon everyone. I know some people have been wondering if I'm still following the thread, so let me assure you that I have read every single post so far and I plan to keep that up.
I feel for you man, truly i do...
Was wondering about one thing, now that you are working on bringing missile systems in line with their turret based counterparts have you considered bringing Ballistic Control Systems in line with turret based damage mods aswell? As it is now BCSs requires 40 CPU to fit while all the turret based damage mods require only 30 CPU to fit. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:36:00 -
[1374] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders? We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.
I had a horrible feeling that this was the case. It's a shame but are there any other possibilities like scrapping defender missiles for a point defense system based on turrets?
It could simply be a chance based system of shooting missiles and drones down with a nice animation/effect in game. Either that or I would fully support there being two separate weapon disruption modules (ie. a Turret Disruptor and a Missile Disruptor). |
Roy ThunderRoad
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:37:00 -
[1375] - Quote
I wasnGÇÖt going to bother adding to the melee but since Fozzie says he reads all posts then here it comes.
There a 2 different things here. 1 GÇô HM/HAM effectiveness and 2 GÇô ships that use them
1 The HM nerf needs to happen (and I speak as a mostly HM Tengu user). HM has too much damage and range compared to other medium calibre long range weapon systems. It needs to be brought into line and HAMS need buffing to compare to other short range weapons. So Fozzie please donGÇÖt back down to the outcry, just have the courage to do the right thing for game balance.
2 Some ships are correctly nerfed and others are incorrectly totally screwed over. But donGÇÖt let that be the deciding factor GÇô these ships will be rightfully balanced to their desired performance. Sure it's going to take time but so be it. As an alternative you could consider an interim hot fix (gash fix?) to temporarily buff the dps/range of the nighthawk cerberus etc but personally I wouldn't. Do it right GÇô balance the weapon then balance the ships accordingly.
TD affecting missiles. IGÇÖm on the fence here. Id probably vote for reducing the TD effect on all weapons then buff the ships bonuses on the relevant EWAR ships to compensate, thus making the TD bonused ships really effective as force multipliers against all weapons.
The nerfbat swings and the nerfbat hurts. I've felt it GÇô I didn't quit, I adapted and moved on. The game needs to be balanced and just because it might hurt today CCP (and all of us) have to face up to the fact that balancing the sandbox is right for the long-term game interests.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4762
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:38:00 -
[1376] - Quote
my power of two tengu alts :( please leave |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:39:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders? We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.
I had a horrible feeling that this was the case. It's a shame but are there any other possibilities like scrapping defender missiles for a point defense system based on turrets? It could simply be a chance based system of shooting missiles and drones down with a nice animation/effect in game. Either that or I would fully support there being two separate weapon disruption modules (ie. a Turret Disruptor and a Missile Disruptor).
For missiles it would be ok but leave them drones alone. They can already be easily killed by anything : other drones, missiles, turrets and smartbombs. Additionally they can be webbed and then it's like instapop. |
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:40:00 -
[1378] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2193
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:41:00 -
[1379] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:
do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
Yes. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:43:00 -
[1380] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Green wrote:
do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
Yes.
Also After the first volley travel time it is no longer a factor any longer as all missiles after that hit in there cycle time. |
|
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:44:00 -
[1381] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Green wrote:
do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
Yes.
in this case hen the nerf looks to be fine |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:48:00 -
[1382] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Soko99 wrote:MIrple wrote:Arduemont wrote:Alot of people here seem to be justifying the Heavy Missile nerf by saying "They need it drastically, look how OP Drakes and Tengus are", which is stupidity. Drakes are a little OP, more in blobs than in any other format.
So address drakes as an issue, dont break the entire missile boat Caldari line. Nighthawks, Cerberus, Caracal, just three useless ships that are about to become even more useless. If you really have to nerf drakes, then nerf them directly, don't ruin all the other heavy missile platforms. The missiles are fine as they are, in fact I would go so far as to say Heavy Missiles are about perfect, and HAMs need a buff.
CCP, your really not doing yourself any favours nerfing HMs. I could probably get behind a small nerf. The range nerf on its own would be worth some debate, but the 20% damage reduction is lunacy. What happened to rolling out changes "slowly" so that they can be tested and to make sure there are no big reaction? Its been working so far, why stop now?
Somebody wasn't thinking when this nerf was added to the to-do list. Gypsio III wrote: Current dual-BCS Caracal: 263 DPS kinetic, 210 non-kinetic, with CN to 120 km, 8.4 km/s missiles.Future triple-BCS Caracal: 252 DPS all damage types with CN to 90 km, 9 km/s missiles. I'm glad to see the Caracal surviving the deserved HML Drake/Tengu nerf fine. Hams + TE/TC's man.. Thats the way to go! So how is this a massive nerf to the Caracal? Are you on drugs man? So how is loosing 10dps PLUS 1/4 of your range WHILE using an extra BCU not significant?? Show me any other t1 cruiser that can apply ~250 DPS at 60k + ranges in every damage type Also you get more damage in non kinetic missiles how is this bad?
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
240
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:49:00 -
[1383] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eli Green wrote:
do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
Yes.
Do they factor in firewalls?
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:49:00 -
[1384] - Quote
MIrple wrote:baltec1 wrote:Eli Green wrote:
do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
Yes. Also After the first volley travel time it is no longer a factor any longer as all missiles after that hit in there cycle time. Travel time is a factor when the target dies though as missile users will often have in flight missiles that are wasted reducing their DPS.
In PvE you can sometimes mitigate this by salvo counting but clearly this is a PITA and not applicable to many targets, especially in PvP. Fear God and Thread Nought |
Sun Win
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:51:00 -
[1385] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
Quoting this because it's the only part of this debate that's had, you know, numbers. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:53:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Metal Icarus wrote:I still stand by my new module suggestion. To have the TD be able to disrupt ALL weapon systems with one mod is, IMO, too effective. (could be said for ECM, but you need racial jammers to be effective)
I am fine with the mod to have the same prereqs as the tracking disruptor, and recieve the same bonuses. Just have a different module. It will be better for the lore, more intuitive and would not make the TD OP. Harr harr harr, yeah right. 5 x multispec all the way man |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
459
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:54:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Eli Green wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
The travel time is balanced by the low fitting requirements which allow for a substantial tank. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2195
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:57:00 -
[1388] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
Do they factor in firewalls?
I hear its Norton. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
614
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:57:00 -
[1389] - Quote
TDs are already overpowered.
The TD change to effect missiles just dumbs the game down.
Why not just eliminate missiles if everything is going to be the same as turrets?
Instead of shuffling stuff around that never really had much player support why not address the imbalances that players clearly think need addressing?
Offgrid boosts is something that about 100 players said is overpowered here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=10444&find=unread
Is there any thread that says tracking disruptors need a buff with anything close to that sort of support? Fact is that buffing tracking disruptors is going to benefit people with their loki boosters more than it will benefit the players in general.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Obsidiana
White-Noise
190
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:57:00 -
[1390] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Three things: - The Drake does not have low DPS by any stretch of the imagination. - Caldari will be fine in PVP. - Caldari is likely going to be improved in PVE with the TE/TC changes.
-Laing Drake DPS is hotly debated. Caldari PVP was the Drake (Tengu rose slowly too) until it got a boost from ASBs, which will get nerfed somehow. TP already did that, unless we are getting unscripted low slot versions.
I respect your opinion, but I am on the other side of the fence. And, no I haven't fallen off the edge to say HML are useless. I will agree that people are getting dramatic, which doesn't help my case. The Caracal needs more love (and, as I predicted, is out classed by the Bellicose). The Navy Caracal, Cerberus, and Nighthawk got nerfed with the Tengu/Drake. Caldari HACs are now a complete laughing stock.
Huge nerfs like this are something I always frown on. When they affect moderate to under powered ships, such as in this case, it really is ludicrous. I use both missiles and guns, have for years, and this really makes no sense to me.
Btw, while IGÇÖm glad there was a slight speed increase; HML at long range loses DPS from over firing. At close range, this doesnGÇÖt happen, but damage is still meh anyway and on-paper damage at range that is what is argued against. The range needed a nerf more, but range bonuses should have been buffed. Then ships like Cerberus would make HMs shine, while the Drake would fail (Tengu would get a bonus nerf).
I say: Give back the HM damage Make a low slot into a mid slot on the Caracal (mirror the Omen, make it choose gank or tank in lows) Really nerf flight time on HMs (nerfs the Drake and sadly the Nighthawk) Boost the flight time bonus on the Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Cerberus to 20% Nerf the flight time bonus of the Tengu to 5% Maybe buff HAM range slightly (I think it is too short)
This would prevent nerfing under powered ships, give the Caracal a buff instead of a nerf/buff, and at least nerf the Nighthawk less. |
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:59:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote: "I'm not ok with it and so no one should be".
where did i say that? straw man much?Quote: HMLs are OP, their range&applied dps is too good, on top of that the Tengu and Drake themselves are also too good. If they weren't the Tengu and drake wouldn't be used as much and in case of the Tengu you'd see people using non-missile fits. The problem is that other missiles are below par (not counting cruise) so one way of solving that (and the best way imo) is to "nerf" HML and then give people the option to fit modules to boost ALL missile performance, which is what's happening.
the drake and tengu are without a doubt overpowered and people arguing against that are either stupid or dishonest. heavy missile range is also a little too long, not because it's longer than arty or beam range but simply because it's about as long as the targeting range for most ships. it might as well be infinity in these cases (unless sensor boosters blabla).
Quote: Then have a look at the new proposed Caracal, range and rof bonus meaning all of a sudden HAMS become a more viable option now and when coupled with TE/TC they will really work quite well and HML will have the "if you want THAT much range then you'll have to accept low dps" just like other weapon systems.
so what, we nerf the weapon system and then buff all the ships using it to compensate? speak of a job-creation plan...Quote: HAMs will be the new kid on the block and they'll do well. Deal with it.
i don't have a problem with HAMs doing well. i just think that if hams are too weak in general, you should buff hams and not change every single hull that uses them. same goes for heavies. if their range is too excessive, fine, nerf it. but comparing them to other long range systems while in the same sentence crying that said long range systems suck is just idiotic, especially when aside from their range and the two overpowered hulls, they really don't have much going for them.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:59:00 -
[1392] - Quote
Regarding TD's.
Simply add 2 attributes to the Tracking Disruptor. Then add 2 more scrpits to boost the new attributes. Simple to tweak and simple to use and fair for everyone. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2195
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:00:00 -
[1393] - Quote
Obsidiana wrote:
This would prevent nerfing under powered ships, give the Caracal a buff instead of a nerf/buff, and at least nerf the Nighthawk less.
You might want to read the numbers I just posted further up. |
Heimdallofasgard
Apex Overplayed Coalition Fatal Ascension
262
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:01:00 -
[1394] - Quote
Just a quick one Fozzie... Be sure to review the effects of TD/TC/TE usage in combination with wormhole effects. Don't want another episode of infinite range guns/missles again. Kick Heim... MATE |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:07:00 -
[1395] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo compared to Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo
cherry picked data for desired outcome ?? |
Sephanor
Universalis Imperium Tactical Narcotics Team
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:08:00 -
[1396] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
When looking at these numbers keep in mind turrets can change ammo types to take advantage of closer range situations, Heavy Missile users can't.
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:11:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Another good way to fix this nerf is to make fury missiles have even less range (Think 40-55km range, whereas javelin HAMs with a TE would get more dps, but only hit up to about 30km), but the fury heavies have 10% less damage than the current fury missiles instead of 20%. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2197
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:11:00 -
[1398] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:
Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo compared to Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo
cherry picked data for desired outcome ??
That data is for long range. If you can get that kind of range and damage using faction ammo in the turrets then be my guest and post the results. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1181
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:12:00 -
[1399] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:(Lots of good justification and answers)
After giving it a day to think about it and reading further, I think the HML nerfs are pretty fair - but still need testing. And I would make sure you sell the justification up front, in bold letters, with pretty graphs and charts, or you will see lots of rage when the rest of Eve starts to pay attention.
However, there's still one imbalance with respect to HAMs and HMLs, and that is the fitting requirements.
Since close range fighting is the version that requires more tank, shouldn't HAMs, the soon-to-be only way to fight close range with a drake, be the weapon system that has lower fitting requirements, enabling a heavier tank to be fit?
My Caldari alt trained Drakes and HMLs because when comparing them to HAMs, there just was no reason to trade away the extra fittings for less range, less effectiveness vs. small targets and slightly more damage. Now that HAMs will be the only reasonable DPS option for a drake with tackle, shouldn't they have have the lesser fitting requirements like all the other close range weapon systems?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2428
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:14:00 -
[1400] - Quote
jonnykefka wrote:I like the basic principle of TDs/TCs/TEs having an effect on missiles, but I don't think it should be the same modules. One of the things that make missiles strategically interesting is that you need a different set of tools to deal with them versus turret ships. It's part of EVE's eternal intel war. If you know your opponent is bringing missiles, you can bring something that would counter that but not guns (e.g., a firewall, smaller ships). If you know they're bringing guns, you can bring something that counters that but not missiles (TDs, fight from range).
In short, I'd prefer to see TD/TC/TE equivalents for missiles, but that are their own mods. That preserves all of the distinct strategic benefits of missiles while still allowing for missile users to adjust their range and "tracking" much like turret users, and to be countered the same way. Also, it makes more sense "flavor"-wise. Missiles don't have "tracking".
The modules affecting stats on both guns and missiles makes split weapon system boats much, much more viable. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Dante Lioncourt
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:16:00 -
[1401] - Quote
Just a thought , maby the cerberus will get some buffs which will turn it into the less tanky drake , could work out well |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:16:00 -
[1402] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:(Lots of good justification and answers) After giving it a day to think about it and reading further, I think the HML nerfs are pretty fair - but still need testing. And I would make sure you sell the justification up front, in bold letters, with pretty graphs and charts, or you will see lots of rage when the rest of Eve starts to pay attention. However, there's still one imbalance with respect to HAMs and HMLs, and that is the fitting requirements. Since close range fighting is the version that requires more tank, shouldn't HAMs, the soon-to-be only way to fight close range with a drake, be the weapon system that has lower fitting requirements, enabling a heavier tank to be fit? My Caldari alt trained Drakes and HMLs because when comparing them to HAMs, there just was no reason to trade away the extra fittings for less range, less effectiveness vs. small targets and slightly more damage. Now that HAMs will be the only reasonable DPS option for a drake with tackle, shouldn't they have have the lesser fitting requirements like all the other close range weapon systems? I was thinking this too. No reason for HAMs to cost more in terms of fitting. Should be brought in line with the formula used on long and short ranged turrets |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:17:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Sephanor wrote:
When looking at these numbers keep in mind turrets can change ammo types to take advantage of closer range situations, Heavy Missile users can't.
This is not the correct way to look at it.
As I've said, the compensation for the travel time disadvantage is that HML ships can mount a substantial tank.
At closer ranges travel time stops being a disadvantage because it's so short. At that point it's turret ships that need some advantage to stay competitive. This is why turrets get the option of switching to close range ammo with higher damage.
At close ranges, Arty/Railgun/Beam ships are actually worse than HML ships. Paper tank, can barely track cruisers. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2198
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:17:00 -
[1404] - Quote
Sephanor wrote:
When looking at these numbers keep in mind turrets can change ammo types to take advantage of closer range situations, Heavy Missile users can't.
So the missile chucker dictates the range |
Kmelx
The Elysian Agoge Elysian Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:17:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Regarding TD's.
Simply add 2 attributes to the Tracking Disruptor. Then add 2 more scrpits to boost the new attributes. Simple to tweak and simple to use and fair for everyone.
Terrible idea, it would still be a must have and an I win module, there is no delay to changing scripts so you'd change them on the fly with little to no lag and derive a massive combat benefit.
You need a gun disruptor and a missile disruptor, as separate modules to prevent making a single all powerful must have module.
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:19:00 -
[1406] - Quote
Yes with the 20 % damage 25% range nerf the HML launcher will have aproximatly the same dps at long ranges. However unlike all other long range weapon systems HML does not get the option to load Short range High damage ammo (unless the Rage missiles are changed that drasticly) and even if there changed to short range high damage, they still won't compare to eg Javelin ammo, wich gets a TRACKING bonus as well (as the Rage will get a explosion velocity and radius penalty)
Comparing HML to long range weapons ONLY with the long range ammo loaded makes no sense
At short range the Guns based long distance weapons greatly outperforms the HML launcher, and with the relative low speed of pure missile ship (Most of them are caldari or amarr) a gun based ship can dictate the range in most cases.
If you truely want to change the HML launcher to be comparible to a gun, make the (TII) ammo comparable as well Rage could be short range with the same damage mitigation as the current short range TII gun ammo compared to tracking, and the Precision could be the long range ammo then. The normal missiles could then get the medium range as eg the standard crystals and even then i think the dps should be slightly higher then a guns to calculate in travel time. (1 or 2 dps per launcher above average should be adequate) |
Aiifa
My Little Pony - Friendship Force
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:21:00 -
[1407] - Quote
nerf hms by reducing velocity and rof, keep the delayed high alpha
forcing the drake to use kinetic damage was one of the only characteristics about it that made interesting counters like the long-maligned t2 gallente ships with high native kinetic resist viable in a dynamic way. Removing such damage specificity homogenises the game.
making artillery easy to fit homogenises weapons: yet again we're approaching a situation in which each class size has a long range and a short range weapons system, each range coming in four different skins
I hope these changes are reworked totally before being pushed. They're in the right direction, but they're not quite right. The answer to difficult to fly and flimsy ships isn't to throw more slots and fitting at them. It's to balance everything around them. Including gameplay.
I've already whined about this here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=692924#post692924
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:24:00 -
[1408] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:
Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo compared to Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo
cherry picked data for desired outcome ??
That data is for long range. If you can get that kind of range and damage using faction ammo in the turrets then be my guest and post the results.
have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:25:00 -
[1409] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 14 Alpha: 66 Optimal: 58 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -0.8 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 15 Alpha: 65 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.2 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO: DPS: 12 Alpha: 174 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo compared to Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo cherry picked data for desired outcome ??
Updated with FACTION ammo.
You're right. It does indeed look like the results where cherry picked.
Nerf HM range by another 10% and damage by another 25%?
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2198
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:26:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Yes with the 20 % damage 25% range nerf the HML launcher will have aproximatly the same dps at long ranges. However unlike all other long range weapon systems HML does not get the option to load Short range High damage ammo (unless the Rage missiles are changed that drasticly) and even if there changed to short range high damage, they still won't compare to eg Javelin ammo, wich gets a TRACKING bonus as well (as the Rage will get a explosion velocity and radius penalty)
Comparing HML to long range weapons ONLY with the long range ammo loaded makes no sense
At short range the Guns based long distance weapons greatly outperforms the HML launcher, and with the relative low speed of pure missile ship (Most of them are caldari or amarr) a gun based ship can dictate the range in most cases.
If you truely want to change the HML launcher to be comparible to a gun, make the (TII) ammo comparable as well Rage could be short range with the same damage mitigation as the current short range TII gun ammo compared to tracking, and the Precision could be the long range ammo then. The normal missiles could then get the medium range as eg the standard crystals and even then i think the dps should be slightly higher then a guns to calculate in travel time. (1 or 2 dps per launcher above average should be adequate)
The guns get better the closer you get. Missiles shine as they keep their DPS all the way out to max range. If you dont want to tangle with javlin then dont get into its range and use your unique advantage at long range. |
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:28:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Cpt Gobla wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 14 Alpha: 66 Optimal: 58 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -0.8 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 15 Alpha: 65 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.2 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO: DPS: 12 Alpha: 174 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo compared to Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo cherry picked data for desired outcome ?? Updated with FACTION ammo. You're right. It does indeed look like the results where cherry picked. Nerf HM range by another 10% and damage by another 25%? so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
baltec1
Bat Country
2198
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:29:00 -
[1412] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:
have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0.
and also: it has been stated quite often that the long range versions of medium weapons are lacking. do we now need to make heavies suck just because beams suck?
Heavies do not suffer from small targets as much as you are trying to make out here. Frigates die easily enough, cruisers have few if any issues and BC is more or less perfect hits every time. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:32:00 -
[1413] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns?
How am I cherrypicking stats?
Would you rather compare to shorter ranged faction ammo? With ranges under 20km and outclassed by short-range turrets in about every single aspect?
Also fine by me, I guess that'd mean changing Heavy Missiles so that they're worse than Javelin Assault Missiles in every single way.
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:32:00 -
[1414] - Quote
All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.
Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: 671 DPS, 9.75km optimal+8.19km falloff Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: 769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: 822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s: 578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Add in that HAMs require some amount of chasing down one's target and pouncing on them with webs and target painters for DPS resembling what it says on paper, and it looks an awful lot like HAMs need a little love.
The fact that one can compare HMLs at all to pulse lasers/ACs/blasters speaks for itself, really:
Harbinger: 7x focused medium pulse laser II, 2x heat sink II, conflagration, all 5s: 516 DPS, 6.75km + 3.75km falloff Hurricane 1: (N.B. before the PG nerf, one could fit a 1600mm plate with 425s and HAMs, but this will no longer be the case without fitting mods, so I will look at 220s instead) 6x 220mm AC IIs, 2x HAM IIs, 2x gyrostabilizer IIs, hail/scourge fury, all 5s: 663 DPS, 1.35km + 8.25km falloff Alternately, one could eschew using the missile slots and fit 6 425mm ACs: Hurricane 2: 6x 425mm AC IIs, 2x gyrostabilizer IIs, hail, all 5s: 613 DPS, 1.5km + 9km falloff Brutix: 7x heavy ion blaster II, 2x magnetic field stabilizer II, void, all 5s: 685 DPS, 2.81km + 2.5km falloff Drake: 7x heavy missile launcher II, 2x BCS II, scourge fury, all 5s: 411 DPS, ~73 km range.
You can also compare the HAM Drake to this lineup, where on paper it looks like it should belong, but...well...HAMs.
For long-range comparison, this is how the Drake stacks up against some exaggerated sniper fits.
Harbinger: 7x heavy beam laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: GLEAM: 1395 alpha, 323 DPS, 10.6km + 19.2km falloff; AURORA: 797 alpha, 184 DPS, 76.2km + 19.2km falloff. (N.B. while you can currently squeeze HML IIs onto a snipercane, the PG nerf will make this a lot harder, so I'll set aside this possibility for now. Further, after the nerf, a full rack of 720mms will require some fitting implants. I'll look at 720mms and 650mms.) Hurricane 1: 6x 720mm artillery II, 3x gyrostabilizer, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: QUAKE: 4015 alpha, 486 DPS, 10.6km + 42km falloff; TREMOR: 2294 alpha, 278 DPS, 76.2km + 42km falloff. Hurricane 2: 6x 650mm artillery II, 3x gyrostabilizer, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: QUAKE: 2327 alpha, 442 DPS, 8.52km + 42km falloff; TREMOR: 1330 alpha, 253 DPS, 61.3km + 42km falloff Brutix: 7x 250mm railgun II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: JAVELIN: 1777 alpha, 506 DPS, 11.7km + 24.6km falloff; SPIKE: 1016 alpha, 289 DPS, 84.2km + 24.6km falloff. Drake: 7x heavy missile launcher II, 3x BCS II, scourge fury, all 5s: 2919 alpha, 462 DPS, ~73 km range.
Someone else can dump all the raw numbers into a spreadsheet and spreadsheet warrior. I just used pyfa. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:33:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Quote: 250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 14 Alpha: 66 Optimal: 58 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -0.8 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 15 Alpha: 65 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.2 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO: DPS: 12 Alpha: 174 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:34:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:
Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo compared to Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo
cherry picked data for desired outcome ??
That data is for long range. If you can get that kind of range and damage using faction ammo in the turrets then be my guest and post the results. have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0. and also: it has been stated quite often that the long range versions of medium weapons are lacking. do we now need to make heavies suck just because beams suck?
Have you figured out that heavies do close if not full damage to any frigate with a MWD not an intercpetor or assualt?
Cruiser and BCs almost universally get walloped, and its as true at 0km as it at 85.
The comparisons are completely valid, HMLs are STILL the premier MEDIUM long range system after these changes, they just no longer step all over the toes of the Battleship weapons.
Personally, I'm going to train Torps and Cruises now because I have a hunch a torp phoon just became a WHOLE new game. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:34:00 -
[1417] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.
Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: 671 DPS, 9.75km optimal+8.19km falloff Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: 769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: 822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s: 578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Add in that HAMs require some amount of chasing down one's target and pouncing on them with webs and target painters for DPS resembling what it says on paper, and it looks an awful lot like HAMs need a little love.
The fact that one can compare HMLs at all to pulse lasers/ACs/blasters speaks for itself, really:
Harbinger: 7x focused medium pulse laser II, 2x heat sink II, conflagration, all 5s: 516 DPS, 6.75km + 3.75km falloff Hurricane 1: (N.B. before the PG nerf, one could fit a 1600mm plate with 425s and HAMs, but this will no longer be the case without fitting mods, so I will look at 220s instead) 6x 220mm AC IIs, 2x HAM IIs, 2x gyrostabilizer IIs, hail/scourge fury, all 5s: 663 DPS, 1.35km + 8.25km falloff Alternately, one could eschew using the missile slots and fit 6 425mm ACs: Hurricane 2: 6x 425mm AC IIs, 2x gyrostabilizer IIs, hail, all 5s: 613 DPS, 1.5km + 9km falloff Brutix: 7x heavy ion blaster II, 2x magnetic field stabilizer II, void, all 5s: 685 DPS, 2.81km + 2.5km falloff Drake: 7x heavy missile launcher II, 2x BCS II, scourge fury, all 5s: 411 DPS, ~73 km range.
You can also compare the HAM Drake to this lineup, where on paper it looks like it should belong, but...well...HAMs.
For long-range comparison, this is how the Drake stacks up against some exaggerated sniper fits.
Harbinger: 7x heavy beam laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: GLEAM: 1395 alpha, 323 DPS, 10.6km + 19.2km falloff; AURORA: 797 alpha, 184 DPS, 76.2km + 19.2km falloff. (N.B. while you can currently squeeze HML IIs onto a snipercane, the PG nerf will make this a lot harder, so I'll set aside this possibility for now. Further, after the nerf, a full rack of 720mms will require some fitting implants. I'll look at 720mms and 650mms.) Hurricane 1: 6x 720mm artillery II, 3x gyrostabilizer, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: QUAKE: 4015 alpha, 486 DPS, 10.6km + 42km falloff; TREMOR: 2294 alpha, 278 DPS, 76.2km + 42km falloff. Hurricane 2: 6x 650mm artillery II, 3x gyrostabilizer, 2x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: QUAKE: 2327 alpha, 442 DPS, 8.52km + 42km falloff; TREMOR: 1330 alpha, 253 DPS, 61.3km + 42km falloff Brutix: 7x 250mm railgun II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, 1x TC II (optimal range), all 5s: JAVELIN: 1777 alpha, 506 DPS, 11.7km + 24.6km falloff; SPIKE: 1016 alpha, 289 DPS, 84.2km + 24.6km falloff. Drake: 7x heavy missile launcher II, 3x BCS II, scourge fury, all 5s: 2919 alpha, 462 DPS, ~73 km range.
Someone else can dump all the raw numbers into a spreadsheet and spreadsheet warrior. I just used pyfa.
For the love of God. If you are going to presents lots of numbers then at least use *some* formatting. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:35:00 -
[1418] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Quote: 250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 14 Alpha: 66 Optimal: 58 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -0.8 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 15 Alpha: 65 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.2 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO: DPS: 12 Alpha: 174 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600% Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
In correct
DPS is DPS if DPS starts at 1 or dps starts at T10 its still the same DPS.
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:36:00 -
[1419] - Quote
I tried, the forums were terribad at formatting, so I just gave up. Sorry. |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
315
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:36:00 -
[1420] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers).
I actually really like this idea. I'm always a fan of adding more modules to the game, and this seems like a pretty good way to balance forwards instead of backwards. Maybe make separate missile tracking computers and missile tracking enhancers instead of just attaching them to the existing ones as well?
I'm always a fan of what could be termed 'balancing forwards' wherein, you constantly add modules to the game that shift the balance, then, when its clear which modules are the most powerful, you add modules to counter those modules, then when then next cycle comes around, you add more modules to balance the modules you introduced, and keep adding things in until you get back around to where some of the oldest stuff, that may have been rather useless for a while, becomes useful against something that was just added. When you get to that point, you create this sort of MTG scenario wherein you really cannot tell what is 'best' since there's a counter to everything and you just have to gamble that your opponent doesn't have that specific counter fitted. |
|
fy'nite Saraki
The Fall Guys
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:37:00 -
[1421] - Quote
i remeber torp nerf bck in rmr. everyone moved to cruise instead |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:37:00 -
[1422] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
Sweety, why don't you leave Mathematics to those who've finished primary school?
I'm sure there's a wonderful cartoon on television right now that'd be much more interesting. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:38:00 -
[1423] - Quote
Cpt Gobla wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns? How am I cherrypicking stats? Would you rather compare to shorter ranged faction ammo? With ranges under 20km and outclassed by short-range turrets in about every single aspect? i would rather compare the type of ammo that is ACTUALLY USED in the respective situation. which is not close range faction ammo.
Quote: Also fine by me, I guess that'd mean changing Heavy Missiles so that they're worse than Javelin Assault Missiles in every single way.
you are probably one of the guys who goes and keys your neighbors new car just because yours is old and ugly. here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:39:00 -
[1424] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
EFT warriors assemble. As you know, missiles need to reach their target. Likewise, target is rarely stationary. Let's examine effective HML range when a target is moving.
Weapon 'Effective' Range (optimal+1x falloff)
Aurora: 64km Tremor: 76km Railgun: 80km HML: 84km
Range to target: y km Missile speed: 5625m/s
Time for missiles to cover distance to target: ( y km)/(5625m/s) Flight time left: 15s - (Time for missiles to cover distance to target)
Missile leftover range: 5625m/s * (Flight time left) Speed of Enemy Ship required to escape missile range: (Missile leftover range) / 15s
e.g. Tremor (75km). Assume target is @75km. Missile speed is 5625m/s. It will take missiles 13.3 seconds to cover 75km, which leaves 1.7 seconds of their flight time. In 1.7 seconds missiles can still cover (1.7*5625 = 9.562km). Hence, if enemy ship is moving @ speed of > 718m/s (= 9562m/1.7s) not towards the target, missiles will miss. However, as you know missiles will frequently "overshoot" their target and turn around. Quite possibly that @ ranges > 70km, you can be moving at any direction at the required speed to mitigate ALL missile damage. Also this does not take into account missile acceleration.
Speed which will mitigate all missile damage completely @ various ranges:
60km - 1625m/s 65km - 1291m/s 70km - 958m/s 75km - 625m/s
So yeah... that 84km range is basically 70-75km at best.
Well what do you know... Artillery and Railgun are actually better in this respect. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:39:00 -
[1425] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Quote: 250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 14 Alpha: 66 Optimal: 58 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -0.8 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 15 Alpha: 65 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.2 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO: DPS: 12 Alpha: 174 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600% Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
So after the first volly of missiles then what your back to your ~23 DPS its only the first volly that has flight time after that missiles hit every cycle time. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2199
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:40:00 -
[1426] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:
The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
2.3 DPS?
Good god there isnt a faceplam big enough for this post |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:41:00 -
[1427] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Cpt Gobla wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:so if you are willing to be dishonest and cherrypick stats, why don't you compare HMLs to civilian guns? How am I cherrypicking stats? Would you rather compare to shorter ranged faction ammo? With ranges under 20km and outclassed by short-range turrets in about every single aspect? i would rather compare the type of ammo that is ACTUALLY USED in the respective situation. which is not close range faction ammo.
My post was in response to someone feeling that using T2 long-range ammo, the ammo that's actually used, was unfair and that a comparison of faction ammo vs faction ammo should be made.
I did as requested. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:42:00 -
[1428] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:I tried, the forums were terribad at formatting, so I just gave up. Sorry.
DJ P0N-3 wrote:All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.
Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:
Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Maybe try something like this. Its much more readable. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2199
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:43:00 -
[1429] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead?
Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change. |
Terrorfrodo
Deep Space Darwinian Law Enforcement Agency
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:45:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Kudos to CCP Fozzie for his excellent answer.
I really like the idea of splitting TD into a tracking disruptor and a missile disruptor module. We'd need to fit a mix of TD and MD modules on our Curse or Pilgrim, just like we fit a mix of jammers on our Falcon. This will resolve the imbalancedness almost on its own. . |
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:45:00 -
[1431] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead? Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.
by nerfing the two ships perhaps? God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
AlexHalstead
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:47:00 -
[1432] - Quote
Good lords, 72 pages already? Can anyone summarize arguments from those who brought up the point that the TD changes seem to make the armarr EW ships a natural counter to the Caldari missile boats (and minmatar ships that use missiles to a lesser extent)? |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:47:00 -
[1433] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote:I tried, the forums were terribad at formatting, so I just gave up. Sorry. DJ P0N-3 wrote:All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.
Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:
Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Maybe try something like this. Its much more readable.
I have some unexpected free time so I'll muck with it again, but given the amount of complaining going around based on "you're not coming up with the numbers correctly!", I wanted to include the relevant modules so at least people can verify the numbers. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:48:00 -
[1434] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:baltec1 wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:
Tech 2 guns loaded with only 1 type of Tech 2 ammo compared to Tech 2 launcher loaded with FACTION ammo
cherry picked data for desired outcome ??
That data is for long range. If you can get that kind of range and damage using faction ammo in the turrets then be my guest and post the results. have you thought about the fact that your numbers are only valid if the target is large enough and slow enough? because at 50+km, tracking hardly matters at all whereas explosion velocity and radius can still nerf your applied damage significantly. also, while the various turrets still do a portion of dps in falloff, missile damage is cut to 0. and also: it has been stated quite often that the long range versions of medium weapons are lacking. do we now need to make heavies suck just because beams suck? Have you figured out that heavies do close if not full damage to any frigate with a MWD not an intercpetor or assualt? Cruiser and BCs almost universally get walloped, and its as true at 0km as it at 85. The comparisons are completely valid, HMLs are STILL the premier MEDIUM long range system after these changes, they just no longer step all over the toes of the Battleship weapons. please show me the math where a commonly fit pvp drake does full damage to a cruiser going 600m/s. also, not all frigates use MWDs and those that do have all the time in the world to warp away before the first volley even hits them.
as for being the PREMIUM long range weapon system: what's the point if no one will use them just as no one uses medium rails?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:48:00 -
[1435] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead? Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change.
by eliminating the only decent weapons system that Caldari have.. I see..
So are we going to get bigger drone bays to help augment the DPS of the hybrids like gallente do? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:49:00 -
[1436] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. EFT warriors assemble. As you know, missiles need to reach their target. Likewise, target is rarely stationary. Let's examine effective HML range when a target is moving. Weapon 'Effective' Range (optimal+1x falloff) Aurora: 64km Tremor: 76km Railgun: 80km HML: 84km 60km - 1625m/s 65km - 1291m/s 70km - 958m/s 75km - 625m/s So yeah... that 84km range is basically 70-75km at best. Well what do you know... Artillery and Railgun are actually better in this respect.
Try again, optimal + falloff is 50% damage. and do tell, how many ships are over 1625m/s that aren't frigates?
and 76k meters for a 720 with Tremor, try it and tell me how that works out for you. |
MisterArch
Pretenders Inc W-Space
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:49:00 -
[1437] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:For all those that are upset about the heavy missile nerf - we need one of the spreadsheet jockeys here to throw up a graph of DPS vs range for all four battlecruisers. Compare max skilled Drake with HML, navy missiles to a Ferox, Brutix, Hurricane, and harbinger (also with max skills) using the longest-range ammo. Ignore modules and rigs for now - we've seen both tank and gank varieties of all of the above.
Comparing raw DPS and range both before and after the changes, it becomes quite apparent why HML's are being brought in line with other weapons systems. They should provide consistent damage, certainly, but do not need to win both in maximum DPS within optimal AND a base range that exceeds the falloff of most of the long-range turrets.
It's hard to see with numbers on a page - but if you look at the damage curves, they tell the whole story. And THIS one is CSM? Maybe there are more ships using HML? And maybe missiles cannot have perfect hits? And, just maybe, delayed damage? OR firewall protection? Or counter-missiles? That is a cool idea to take complex things and compare them by two parameters only. Using the same logic you can back up almostany nerf - very effective.
The proposed change is awful.
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:50:00 -
[1438] - Quote
AlexHalstead wrote:Good lords, 72 pages already? Can anyone summarize arguments from those who brought up the point that the TD changes seem to make the armarr EW ships a natural counter to the Caldari missile boats (and minmatar ships that use missiles to a lesser extent)?
Shouldn't the way it works be that Amarr counter Minnie and Gallente vs Caldari? Seeming that those are the races that supposed to be at war with each other? |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:50:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead? Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change. By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate.
Still have the problem of HML being so much better than the rest. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
747
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:53:00 -
[1440] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead? Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change. By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate. Still have the problem of HML being so much better than the rest.
Is it though? I much rather go against a tengu in a loki than the other way round. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:53:00 -
[1441] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead? Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change. By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate. Still have the problem of HML being so much better than the rest.
than how come nobody uses drakes and tengus in incursions? Why is it that no other Caldari boat is flown during PVP other than drake and tengu? If the missile system was the problem, you'd see other ships being used as well. but you don't.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
363
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:53:00 -
[1442] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Signal11th wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead? Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change. By nerfing the two ships perhaps? I think it's possible then much of the furore will dissapate. Still have the problem of HML being so much better than the rest. hml being better is not the problem. rails and beams being **** and underused is the problem.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:54:00 -
[1443] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead? Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change. by eliminating the only decent weapons system that Caldari have.. I see.. So are we going to get bigger drone bays to help augment the DPS of the hybrids like gallente do?
As a gal pilot, I can safely say we rarely launch drones in railboats. Given that not only do we shoot past drone range a lot of the time but that drones seldom reach the target in time to matter when they are in range. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:55:00 -
[1444] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soko99 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: here's a groundbreaking idea: how about we make the underpowered weapon systems viable instead? Or we can solve a huge number of issues in a single change. by eliminating the only decent weapons system that Caldari have.. I see.. So are we going to get bigger drone bays to help augment the DPS of the hybrids like gallente do? As a gal pilot, I can safely say we rarely launch drones in railboats. Given that not only do we shoot past drone range a lot of the time but that drones seldom reach the target in time to matter when they are in range.
railboats have a higher alpha than missile boats.. and short range blaster does more DPS.. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:56:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: hml being better is not the problem. rails and beams being **** and underused is the problem.
They only look back because HML are so good. Same goes for the HAMs. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:58:00 -
[1446] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Sephanor wrote:
When looking at these numbers keep in mind turrets can change ammo types to take advantage of closer range situations, Heavy Missile users can't.
So the missile chucker dictates the range
To dictate range, you need to move faster. |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:58:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:DJ P0N-3 wrote:I tried, the forums were terribad at formatting, so I just gave up. Sorry. DJ P0N-3 wrote:All right, here's a very rough comparison of HMLs to their short range and long range contenders. Everything is influenced by ship stats, I haven't run the numbers of how it stacks up vs. new HML stats, but I used Scourge Fury instead of CN Scourge! I also looked at how HAM boats compare to pulses/blasters/ACs right now.
Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:
Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Maybe try something like this. Its much more readable.
I spaced it out better. It takes up more vertical space than a Naglfar, but it's less of a textwall. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:59:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:and short range blaster does more DPS..
That has something to do with long range weapon balance because? |
AlexHalstead
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:59:00 -
[1449] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:AlexHalstead wrote:Good lords, 72 pages already? Can anyone summarize arguments from those who brought up the point that the TD changes seem to make the armarr EW ships a natural counter to the Caldari missile boats (and minmatar ships that use missiles to a lesser extent)? Shouldn't the way it works be that Amarr counter Minnie and Gallente vs Caldari? Seeming that those are the races that supposed to be at war with each other? When the TD affect the missiles, and you have the amarr EW platforms favoring TDs it start to look the way I stated. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:00:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
To dictate range, you need to move faster.
So fit for speed. |
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:00:00 -
[1451] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soko99 wrote:and short range blaster does more DPS.. That has something to do with long range weapon balance because?
because the reason for part of the nerf is because people were not using the HAMS as much.. (I believe it's the first CSM reply in this threadnaught) |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
364
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:01:00 -
[1452] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: hml being better is not the problem. rails and beams being **** and underused is the problem.
They only look back because HML are so good. Same goes for the HAMs. bullshit. no one in their right mind would use medium beams over pulses and rails over blasters except in a few select situations. sniping with medium weapons is just not competitive except with artillery because of its great alpha, cap independence and damage selection. if you nerf HMLs the law of the land will be go artillery or go brawler. nothing in between.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Cartheron Crust
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:01:00 -
[1453] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Why nerf things when you could buff things instead? When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be concious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.
Aware of power creep? You mean like introducing a new BC tier that uses BS weapons and has better agility (+50%) and better speed (+50%) than the current tier 2 BC's that are getting nerfed because they are a little overpowered atm? Or introducing a tanking module that is far better than any other tanking module in the game so much so that it obsoletes other fits meant for a ship via its bonuses? Or introducing Tech 3's that are easier to skill for and overshadow other types of ship in the game at their intended roles (T3's as HAC's/Linkships)? Or Fighterbombers?
Yes I can see CCP is very aware of power creep.
I also await the day of "Put a TD on everything". |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:02:00 -
[1454] - Quote
If long range arty canes were useful, or any other medium long range guns, this nerf could be ok. But none of the long range are good. Thus, nerfing damage and range will make HM useless. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:03:00 -
[1455] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:There was a reason I trained all races frigs, cruisers, and bs to 5. And all races t3 sub systems to 5. In additions to training up to use all tech 2 weapons systems.
There ALWAYS seems to be something getting nerfed, and it's the best way to make sure you can fly whatever fotm is until it gets nerfed not long after.
Though, is this really a good thing?
Same here, but doesn't make it any less of a kick in knutts.
Now we have 10 bad BCs instead of 7 or 8.
Now we have 4 sucky LR weps instead of 3.
Breaking stuff to bring it on par that's progress! Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:04:00 -
[1456] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bloutok wrote:
To dictate range, you need to move faster.
So fit for speed.
I cannot outspeed a cane.... I tried. 2 nanos and still that cane was 100 m/s faster then me. I have all speed related skills to 5 and i use zor's thingy. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:04:00 -
[1457] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: bullshit. no one in their right mind would use medium beams over pulses and rails over blasters except in a few select situations. sniping with medium weapons is just not competitive except with artillery because of its great alpha, cap independence and damage selection. if you nerf HMLs the law of the land will be go artillery or go brawler. nothing in between.
I already use rails over blasters in many situations. |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:04:00 -
[1458] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?[/b] I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
HAMs are not good they are ****. They move slow they have slow explosion speed and can't hit a target if its actually moving unlike the rest of the weapon systems.
Quote: Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:
Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Heavy missiles right now are **** compared to properly fit long range weapon systems on double bonused ships like hurricanes and you are making them even worse. The Biggest ******* thing you idiots dont seem to be factoring in is that all the gun ships have double weapon systems roles on ships and missiles ones are lucky if they have 1 ship bonus to them.
The biggest things you idiots that are redesigning missiles need to do is make the ******* tech 2 ammo work like guns.
1 short range higher damage then the rest of the ammo. This isn't true for a lot of the missile systems. 1 Longer range medium damage. Like pulse, aurora, spike. These dont even exist why are the weapon systems treaded differently. That needs to apply to all missile systems if you are nerfing the ******* range. The reason the range is longer on them is because they dont have range increasing ammo, mods or anything so **** you if you make this change and dont make the weapon systems equal.
Also **** you for nerfing **** instead of making other ones equal to these ones as a base line. Stop nerfing decent ships just because other ones are **** fix them make them all good. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:04:00 -
[1459] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Kesthely wrote:
The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600%
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
2.3 DPS? Good god there isnt a faceplam big enough for this post
Is this big enough?
http://benisawesome.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/facepalm.jpg |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:07:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Quote:I already use rails over blasters in many situations.
Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:07:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:baltec1 wrote:Bloutok wrote:
To dictate range, you need to move faster.
So fit for speed. I cannot outspeed a cane.... I tried. 2 nanos and still that cane was 100 m/s faster then me. I have all speed related skills to 5 and i use zor's thingy.
I outpace canes in a megathron of all things. It is entirely possible. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:11:00 -
[1462] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bloutok wrote:baltec1 wrote:Bloutok wrote:
To dictate range, you need to move faster.
So fit for speed. I cannot outspeed a cane.... I tried. 2 nanos and still that cane was 100 m/s faster then me. I have all speed related skills to 5 and i use zor's thingy. I outpace canes in a megathron of all things. It is entirely possible.
So speed is everything in this game ? I sure think so. But you need enough dps to break a tank. Instead of nerfing damage. Nerf range, a lot. |
Illest Insurrectionist
State Protectorate Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:12:00 -
[1463] - Quote
Seeing as we can't judge the changes in totality until they are all known could we please have the new stats on T2 missiles? Heavies in particular.
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
355
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:13:00 -
[1464] - Quote
There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:15:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Quote:I already use rails over blasters in many situations. Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve.
Small med and large. You see, unlike you, I figure out how to use these things rather than spend all my time chasing the FOTM or bad posting on the forums flapping over an OP weapon system getting nerfed into line with everything else. I am already working out the best way to make a HML caracal work for me. You have been given the numbers that show HML will still be a viable weapon after the changes. No doubt when this change hits you will be on the forums decrying the end of EVE while the rest of us are adapting.
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:16:00 -
[1466] - Quote
Aprudena Gist wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?[/b] I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
HAMs are not good they are ****. They move slow they have slow explosion speed and can't hit a target if its actually moving unlike the rest of the weapon systems. HAMs are also too hard to fit on a ship properly they should be easier to fit then heavy missiles but they are not. Quote: Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:
Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Heavy missiles right now are **** compared to properly fit long range weapon systems on double bonused ships like hurricanes and you are making them even worse. The Biggest ******* thing you idiots dont seem to be factoring in is that all the gun ships have double weapon systems roles on ships and missiles ones are lucky if they have 1 ship bonus to them. The biggest things you idiots that are redesigning missiles need to do is make the ******* tech 2 ammo work like guns. 1 short range higher damage then the rest of the ammo. This isn't true for a lot of the missile systems. 1 Longer range medium damage. Like pulse, aurora, spike. These dont even exist why are the weapon systems treaded differently. That needs to apply to all missile systems if you are nerfing the ******* range. The reason the range is longer on them is because they dont have range increasing ammo, mods or anything so **** you if you make this change and dont make the weapon systems equal. Also **** you for nerfing **** instead of making other ones equal to these ones as a base line. Stop nerfing decent ships just because other ones are **** fix them make them all good.
Too many F-words. You should really learn to voice your opinion in a more appropriate way. Seriously, it can be done without all those asterixes cluttering the view. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:16:00 -
[1467] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Smabs wrote:Quote:I already use rails over blasters in many situations. Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve. Small med and large. You see, unlike you, I figure out how to use these things rather than spend all my time chasing the FOTM or bad posting on the forums flapping over an OP weapon system getting nerfed into line with everything else. I am already working out the best way to make a HML caracal work for me. You have been given the numbers that show HML will still be a viable weapon after the changes. No doubt when this change hits you will be on the forums decrying the end of EVE while the rest of us are adapting.
How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU???? |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:17:00 -
[1468] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem.
In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ?
Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ? |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:18:00 -
[1469] - Quote
Obsidiana wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Three things: - The Drake does not have low DPS by any stretch of the imagination. - Caldari will be fine in PVP. - Caldari is likely going to be improved in PVE with the TE/TC changes.
-Laing Drake DPS is hotly debated. Caldari PVP was the Drake (Tengu rose slowly too) until it got a boost from ASBs, which will get nerfed somehow. TP already did that, unless we are getting unscripted low slot versions. I respect your opinion, but I am on the other side of the fence. And, no I haven't fallen off the edge to say HML are useless. I will agree that people are getting dramatic, which doesn't help my case. The Caracal needs more love (and, as I predicted, is out classed by the Bellicose). The Navy Caracal, Cerberus, and Nighthawk got nerfed with the Tengu/Drake. Caldari HACs are now a complete laughing stock. Huge nerfs like this are something I always frown on. When they affect moderate to under powered ships, such as in this case, it really is ludicrous. I use both missiles and guns, have for years, and this really makes no sense to me. Btw, while IGÇÖm glad there was a slight speed increase; HML at long range loses DPS from over firing. At close range, this doesnGÇÖt happen, but damage is still meh anyway and on-paper damage at range that is what is argued against. The range needed a nerf more, but range bonuses should have been buffed. Then ships like Cerberus would make HMs shine, while the Drake would fail (Tengu would get a bonus nerf). I say: Give back the HM damage Make a low slot into a mid slot on the Caracal (mirror the Omen, make it choose gank or tank in lows) Really nerf flight time on HMs (nerfs the Drake and sadly the Nighthawk) Boost the flight time bonus on the Caracal, Navy Caracal, and Cerberus to 20% Nerf the flight time bonus of the Tengu to 5% Maybe buff HAM range slightly (I think it is too short) This would prevent nerfing under powered ships, give the Caracal a buff instead of a nerf/buff, and at least nerf the Nighthawk less.
A few comments: - Yeah, people are getting overly dramatic. They should stop that. - The Caracal's DPS is being lowered in the single digits. It's not being hit very hard at all. - The Cerb and NH were already laughing stocks and are basically never flown. Arguing against the Drake/Tengu nerf from the perspective that it might nerf ships that are simply never ever flown is complete madness - especially when those ships literally cannot be fixed until the weapons systems they depend on are fixed. - Caldari are getting a net damage application and range boost by way of the TE/TC changes.
To your proposal: - Keeping HML damage constant is extremely short sighted. - I don't think that's a good idea, personally. I like the balanced slot layout, and I'd be extremely leery of the ewar advantage that would give to the Caracal. - You suggest a big nerf to the NH and use the NH as a reason not to nerf HML. What? - HAM range is getting boosted with the TE/TC changes. It's unknown how far they're going to go, but it won't take a whole hell of a lot to push Javs out to the critical areas. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
356
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:18:00 -
[1470] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????
From memory, future Caracal will fit HMLs, MWD and LSE with a single ACR.
Bloutok wrote:Gypsio III wrote:There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem. In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ? Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ?
Because HML Drake was better, not because HAM Drake is bad. |
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:19:00 -
[1471] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Aprudena Gist wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?[/b] I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
HAMs are not good they are ****. They move slow they have slow explosion speed and can't hit a target if its actually moving unlike the rest of the weapon systems. HAMs are also too hard to fit on a ship properly they should be easier to fit then heavy missiles but they are not. Quote: Harbinger: 7x heavy pulse laser II, 3x heat sink II, 2x TE II, conflagration, all 5s: Hurricane: 6x 425mm AC II, 2x HAM II, 3x gyrostabilizer II, 2x TE II, hail and scourge rage, all 5s: Brutix: 7x heavy neutron blaster II, 3x magnetic field stabilizer II, 1x TE II, void, all 5s: Drake: 7x HAM II, 3x BCS II, scourge rage, all 5s:
Harbinger...671 DPS, 9.75km optimal + 8.19km falloff Hurricane...769 DPS, 1.5km optimal + 14.8km falloff/~17km HAM range (will be subject to modification by TEs after patch). Brutix.........822 DPS, 3.88km optimal + 4.06km falloff Drake........578 DPS, ~17km HAM range.
Heavy missiles right now are **** compared to properly fit long range weapon systems on double bonused ships like hurricanes and you are making them even worse. The Biggest ******* thing you idiots dont seem to be factoring in is that all the gun ships have double weapon systems roles on ships and missiles ones are lucky if they have 1 ship bonus to them. The biggest things you idiots that are redesigning missiles need to do is make the ******* tech 2 ammo work like guns. 1 short range higher damage then the rest of the ammo. This isn't true for a lot of the missile systems. 1 Longer range medium damage. Like pulse, aurora, spike. These dont even exist why are the weapon systems treaded differently. That needs to apply to all missile systems if you are nerfing the ******* range. The reason the range is longer on them is because they dont have range increasing ammo, mods or anything so **** you if you make this change and dont make the weapon systems equal. Also **** you for nerfing **** instead of making other ones equal to these ones as a base line. Stop nerfing decent ships just because other ones are **** fix them make them all good. Too many F-words. You should really learn to voice your opinion in a more appropriate way. Seriously, it can be done without all those asterixes cluttering the view. Eat a ****.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:20:00 -
[1472] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Gypsio III wrote:There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem. In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ? Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ?
It's because everyone's fitting HML Drakes or are being dumb and thinking "loldpsdrake" like we see in this thread. The tank/gank ratio of a properly fit HAM Drake is not beatable. Furthermore, it has a resist bonus so it adapts better to larger gangs with logi support.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:21:00 -
[1473] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????
Behold the new Caracal
Caracal: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1) Signature radius: 135 (-10) Cargo capacity: 450
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:22:00 -
[1474] - Quote
Ok perhaps the 2.3 dps was a little bit exagerated in my previous post. But unlike guns you do have the much delayed damage.
Since at this point are all makeing paper scenarios that rarely or never occur you i give you this one: What if a ship is orbiting at say 60km at its top speed around a missile ship with 63 km range? due to the orbital elipse the missiles need to fly further then there max 63 km, doing no damage, while the orbiting gun ship with 60 km range guns will apply its dps fully.
Missiles atm have a unique advantage of haveing the same damage output from 0 to max range. Once you start balancing the range and damage output to be equal with guns at a specific range you need to drasticly change other things as well:
Change the Rage and precision missiles so there equivallent to the short and long range gun ammo, this includes explosion radius and velocity to be comparible. Adjust the damage appropiatly to factor in good and perfect hits Factor in the optimal + falloff in the damage equation for missiles Factor in the flight time in the damage eqation
And i can guarantee you that once its done in this way, the changes to the heavy missiles will not be as clean cut as there presented now.
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:24:00 -
[1475] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soko99 wrote:
How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????
Behold the new Caracal Caracal: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers Fittings: 630 PWG (+100), 430 CPU (+80) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1700(+137) / 1200(+145) / 1500(+171) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 57.5km / 270(+28) / 6 Sensor strength: 16 Gravimetric (+1) Signature radius: 135 (-10) Cargo capacity: 450
Ahh.. soyou're talking about your FUTURE caracal. Cause your posts made it seem like you were talking about one in the game already..
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:24:00 -
[1476] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Smabs wrote:Quote:I already use rails over blasters in many situations. Medium rails? Because then you're either trolling or the worst pvp player in Eve. Small med and large. You see, unlike you, I figure out how to use these things rather than spend all my time chasing the FOTM or bad posting on the forums flapping over an OP weapon system getting nerfed into line with everything else. I am already working out the best way to make a HML caracal work for me. You have been given the numbers that show HML will still be a viable weapon after the changes. No doubt when this change hits you will be on the forums decrying the end of EVE while the rest of us are adapting. How do you fit your HML caracal? since with all 5s you have not enough PG/CPU????
Did you take into consideration that the Caracal will be getting a large CPU buff in the winter? |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:25:00 -
[1477] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Gypsio III wrote:There's basically nothing the matter with HAMs. Old-school HAM Drake would generally win a 1v1 with another t2 BCs, except frequently the Myrmidon. Rage HAMs do almost full damage to an unwebbed Hurricane, CN HAMs do full damage to almost all webbed cruisers. Since the HAM Drake fits a web, this is not a problem. In pretty much all the fleets i end up with where the FC ask to reship into BC. The total ham drakes on the field is always anywhere between none at all to almost none at all. I wonder why ? Maybe it's because there are far better close range BCs ? It's because everyone's fitting HML Drakes or are being dumb and thinking "loldpsdrake" like we see in this thread. The tank/gank ratio of a properly fit HAM Drake is not beatable. Furthermore, it has a resist bonus so it adapts better to larger gangs with logi support. -Liang
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ? |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:26:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Aprudena Gist wrote: Eat a ****.
See only one naughty word now ( down from nine ). You are improving, keep up the good work. |
Random McNally
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:31:00 -
[1479] - Quote
Just a respectful question, Fozzie. At what point do you either go ahead with the proposed change or do someting different?
So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
I think HM should get a range nerf. I think that nerfing their damage is a bad idea. Drake is already widely regarded as the monster tanker with the anemic dps. I can and do fly both HM and HAM.
By radically nerfing HM, you are basically hamstringing ALL the ships that use them (as has been stated in the previous 74 pages). Buh bye Caracal and Nighthawk.
IMHO, more thought should be given to handling the Drake, not the weapon. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:32:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
Ahh.. soyou're talking about your FUTURE caracal. Cause your posts made it seem like you were talking about one in the game already..
Oh I have fits for the current caracal. Light anti frig, front line brawler, HML sniper style and even a HAM vairent. I have much love for that little gem of a ship. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:35:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser.
People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide
If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2201
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:36:00 -
[1482] - Quote
Random McNally wrote:Just a respectful question, Fozzie. At what point do you either go ahead with the proposed change or do someting different?
So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
I think HM should get a range nerf. I think that nerfing their damage is a bad idea. Drake is already widely regarded as the monster tanker with the anemic dps. I can and do fly both HM and HAM.
By radically nerfing HM, you are basically hamstringing ALL the ships that use them (as has been stated in the previous 74 pages). Buh bye Caracal and Nighthawk.
IMHO, more thought should be given to handling the Drake, not the weapon.
If CCP listend to the bawing of the masses then hulks would have twice the base tank and three times more cargo and ore space than they ended up getting. CCP listens to smart and logical arguments. Most of the time...
Right now the changes mean HML will be one of the better med long range weapons and the caracal will be a great little ship. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:37:00 -
[1483] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
The HML Drake is used because the DPS difference is relatively small and it has almost arbitrarily better damage projection and alpha.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:38:00 -
[1484] - Quote
Random McNally wrote:Just a respectful question, Fozzie. At what point do you either go ahead with the proposed change or do someting different?
So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
I think HM should get a range nerf. I think that nerfing their damage is a bad idea. Drake is already widely regarded as the monster tanker with the anemic dps. I can and do fly both HM and HAM.
By radically nerfing HM, you are basically hamstringing ALL the ships that use them (as has been stated in the previous 74 pages). Buh bye Caracal and Nighthawk.
IMHO, more thought should be given to handling the Drake, not the weapon.
Sorry did you even check how new Caracal will look ?
5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity Slot layout: 5 H, 5 M, 4 L (+2), 2 turrets, 5 launchers
As you see L+2 ,put there TE and you have HAM explosion radius problem fix i guess.Add TC in mid slot and you can tweak it even more.
Also dont forget that punny Caracal will be viable in various weapon platforms like anti frig ,long range etc. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1560
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:39:00 -
[1485] - Quote
Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:39:00 -
[1486] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser. People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time.
Fine, nerf the range, not the damage. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:41:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser.
That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:44:00 -
[1488] - Quote
Someone somewhere in this tread posted something about having less launcher types and add amo range. I'd go for that.
Only one medium. The "Medium Missile Launcher". Make a bunch of different missiles with more DPS close range, less DPs long range. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:45:00 -
[1489] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:
That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.
The drake does low end BS damge but its tank is firmly inside BS class. |
AlexHalstead
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:45:00 -
[1490] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. You did also see the implication of the TD being allowed to affect missiles and the fact that the Amarr EW standard tool is the TD? Though it does affect minmatar ships that use missile launchers, it affect the caldari missile boats the most. |
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:45:00 -
[1491] - Quote
I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.
I see no imbalance between heavy missiles and other weapons systems as they are.
Comparing artillery cannons and heavy missiles is stupid because:
The WHOLE POINT of artillery cannons is for alpha strikes with a slow RoF. When your ships are getting hit by big punches all in one go, it makes it hard for the logistics ships to react and land reps in time. Compare that to missiles which have flight time and low alpha and it's clear this is a stupid comparison. Now consider firewalling too. I now see no problem with HMLs.
At short range in small gangs, you get no damage bonus from being close in the missile range, so the dps will be easily outclassed by ACs, Pulse lasers, blasters.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:46:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser. People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time. Fine, nerf the range, not the damage.
As Fozzie stated earlier in the thread: HML contains most of the damage of close range medium missiles with all of the range. If you want to nerf the range you'd better be prepared to have HML become HAMv2 and have literally no long range missile option at all.
I somehow doubt you'd be excited by the Drake's HML range being neutered down to 25km or so.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. Varangon Tagma
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:46:00 -
[1493] - Quote
A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf
First CCP Fuzzie I want to express admiration for your willingness to read throe this entire threadnot. Remember, even when it dose not look like it, most of us appreciate your balancing efforts.
My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps.
IMHO for winter expansion it would be best if HML get range reduction of 25% as suggested, but only 10% damage reduction. Leave it like that for few months until you are ready to introduce full BC rebalancing and then based of feedback and changes of ship/launcher popularity decide if you want to introduce remaining 10% of the nerf.
Similarly for winter expansion cut cain's power grid for only 10%. Leave it like that until you are ready to introduce full rebalance for all BCs, and then based on changes in cane's popularity decide how much more power grid you want to cut, together with any other changes you want to make to that ship and other battlecruisers. If you cut 20% of hurricane power grid at once IGÇÖm afraid you might be making it suboptimal choice compared to other ships in it's class.
I'd like to remind you of danger of overbalancing too much at once, like it was done with buffing Dramiel and nerfing sensor dampeners. Rather do it in gradual iterations, much like you did when introducing tech alchemy. You cautiously decided first to go for 1 to 10 ratio and only later after you see what transpires you likely intend to introduce 1 to 5 reaction. You should take same multi step approach when introducing nerfs to HML and canes.
Also IGÇÖd like to bring your attention to cruiser and battleship sized pulse lasers combined with scorch ammo. Pulse lasers on scorch are already very popular, and are becoming even more so. Pulses on scorch have among turrets unique combination of good tracking ability, projection and raw DPS. In that way they are not unlike HML. They also contributed to making beam lasers obsolete. Now with buff on their power grid requirements I think it is time to consider some changes to scorch ammo. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:47:00 -
[1494] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.
I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:47:00 -
[1495] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end not making EVE completely homogenous is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
I completely agree with you which is why these changes are dumd.
|
AlexHalstead
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:47:00 -
[1496] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.
I see no imbalance between heavy missiles and other weapons systems as they are.
Comparing artillery cannons and heavy missiles is stupid because:
The WHOLE POINT of artillery cannons is for alpha strikes with a slow RoF. When your ships are getting hit by big punches all in one go, it makes it hard for the logistics ships to react and land reps in time. Compare that to missiles which have flight time and low alpha and it's clear this is a stupid comparison. Now consider firewalling too. I now see no problem with HMLs.
At short range in small gangs, you get no damage bonus from being close in the missile range, so the dps will be easily outclassed by ACs, Pulse lasers, blasters.
I alway thought the guided missile was to be about Alpha and Accuracy over distance while the unguided missile was about rapid fire rate and DPS. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:48:00 -
[1497] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
Because the way it is now its does battleship damage at battleship ranges with close to a battleship tank......all while having the maneuverability and align time of a battle-cruiser. People use HMLs over HAMS for two reasons, 1) they DON'T like getting into point range, much less scram range. 2) range the range afforded by the current HML far far outrips the marginal DPS increase HAMs provide If I have the choice to do 400dps at 90km and 525 at 30km I'm going to take the 25% hit for a 400% range advantage, every. single. time. Fine, nerf the range, not the damage. As Fozzie stated earlier in the thread: HML contains most of the damage of close range medium missiles with all of the range. If you want to nerf the range you'd better be prepared to have HML become HAMv2 and have literally no long range missile option at all. I somehow doubt you'd be excited by the Drake's HML range being neutered down to 25km or so. -Liang
I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that. |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:48:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs. I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :) -Liang I would like to point out that Caldari are referred to as the kings of PvE by some people which causes some people to then choose Caldari for the Drake and Tengu. They then do their PvE for a while, get bored, want to do some PvP only to find that the only useful ship they can fly is the Drake. THAT'S why it gets used so often. Not because the Drake is some kind of mother-of-all godships. It's because the rest of the caldari ships are all useless for pvp. |
OlRotGut
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:49:00 -
[1499] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
It appears from the numbers on page 71, that the HAMS need a tweak to their explosion/sig penalties as well as their fitting requirements, I also think their range should be looked at in terms of how they compare to other medium weapon systems. If HAMS are close up weapons, they should be able to hit cruisers and above.
I would also like you to think about giving us solid numbers on what you are doing to the T2 Ammo, so we can properly discuss the changes you are throwing around in this thread. Without real numbers on the T2 ammo we can only speculate what the possible HML changes can do to DPS of Caldari ships.
If T2 Fury missiles are getting a damage increase and removing ship penalty, this changes things. If T2 Precision missiles are tweaked, and removing ship penalties this also changes things.
For HML's; range nerf is fine, damage nerf should be tweaked a bit, maybe 10% damage nerf, but also make it harder to hit targets that have small sig radius, since you are at such an extreme range.
I think there are more ways to balance the HML's than just chopping range, and DPS, to make them more in line w/other systems.
Also, if you are fixing Defenders, please remove firewalling of missiles.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:49:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that.
Cool well I'd be raising holy hell over the complete removal of all long range weapon missile platforms. But no, you have to keep your HML damage for some odd reason. What, did you forget to train the 8 days for HAM 5?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:49:00 -
[1501] - Quote
Please, don't murder my poor little cane! T_T
Murder the drake instead. |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:50:00 -
[1502] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soko99 wrote:
That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.
The drake does low end BS damge but its tank is firmly inside BS class. No its not. A drake does 350dps and has about a 80k tank.
A Battleship usually starts at about a 90k tank and goes to 160-180k tank. Its high on the terms of sub battleship sized tanks sure but not firmly inside. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:50:00 -
[1503] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs. I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :) -Liang I would like to point out that Caldari are referred to as the kings of PvE by some people which causes some people to then choose Caldari for the Drake and Tengu. They then do their PvE for a while, get bored, want to do some PvP only to find that the only useful ship they can fly is the Drake. THAT'S why it gets used so often. Not because the Drake is some kind of mother-of-all godships. It's because the rest of the caldari ships are all useless for pvp.
Hahahahahahahahahhaa, no. You are totally, completely, and utterly wrong. Caldari are the upcoming kings of small gang PVP for anyone who has a clue what they're doing. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:51:00 -
[1504] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote: If it's not beatable why is the HML drake the one that is mostly used ?
Edit: or are you suggesting that the HML is even more unbeatable ?
The HML Drake is used because the DPS difference is relatively small and it has almost arbitrarily better damage projection and alpha. -Liang
The same is going to happen if they force the HML in this direction but then towards tank, with a +10% bonus to light missile damage and -20% penalty to Heavy missile, a Rapid light missile setup for ships that give bonuses to both weapon systems gets you within 15% of the new HML damage while freeing up a lot of power for a heavier tank. If the Tracking enhancers would give a 10-15% bonus to missile range i could get a Rapid light missile caracal over 100km have it at 36k effective hp, and only do less then 15% damage difference between a HML variant. Also the Explosion velocity and exlosion radius would probably give me against many targets more effective damage then the HML variant would.
Doing the HML change to promote HAM use is not going to work.
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:53:00 -
[1505] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soko99 wrote:
That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.
The drake does low end BS damge but its tank is firmly inside BS class.
How is that? without boosts etc? My navy scorp I can get to 120Kehp, my raven had close to 90. My drake has like 70-80.. Are the rest of the caldari BS that tanky or are the rest of the races BS that crap? My alts cane can get about 60k ehp on her cane? (sorry haven't flown the other BS's so can't compare) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
68
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:53:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Quote: 250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 14 Alpha: 66 Optimal: 58 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -0.8 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 15 Alpha: 65 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.2 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO: DPS: 12 Alpha: 174 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600% Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
Wow, that is epicly bad math.. divide by 10.. Wtf? lol
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:54:00 -
[1507] - Quote
AlexHalstead wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs.
I see no imbalance between heavy missiles and other weapons systems as they are.
Comparing artillery cannons and heavy missiles is stupid because:
The WHOLE POINT of artillery cannons is for alpha strikes with a slow RoF. When your ships are getting hit by big punches all in one go, it makes it hard for the logistics ships to react and land reps in time. Compare that to missiles which have flight time and low alpha and it's clear this is a stupid comparison. Now consider firewalling too. I now see no problem with HMLs.
At short range in small gangs, you get no damage bonus from being close in the missile range, so the dps will be easily outclassed by ACs, Pulse lasers, blasters.
I alway thought the guided missile was to be about Alpha and Accuracy over distance while the unguided missile was about rapid fire rate and DPS. The alpha damage on HMLs is pretty poor.
The point I'm trying to make is that the only time HMLs are used at these excessive ranges are blob fights and HMLs are not OP in blob fights because of low alpha, firewalling, etc. 'Waaah but they have higher dps than medium artilleries and medium railguns' Medium railguns are broken anyway, so don't even bother comparing to them, and medium artilleries are meant for alpha strikes so they cause more difficulty for logistics because of less travel time and they have no firewalling. Medium artilleries needed a PG drop, is all, because they were nigh impossible to fit to any ship without gimping the rest of the fit. CCP has, very intelligently, noticed this and decided to make it even harder to fit medium guns to the Hurricane. *golf clap*
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:54:00 -
[1508] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
Fine, nerf the range, not the damage.
The damage is easily arguably too high, HML they only do poor damage when compared to SHORT RANGE medium turrets,
...or pulse fitted Amarr battleships. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:55:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that. Cool well I'd be raising holy hell over the complete removal of all long range weapon missile platforms. But no, you have to keep your HML damage for some odd reason. What, did you forget to train the 8 days for HAM 5? -Liang
It is more complicated then that.
I believe that there are 3 factors. Speed, range and damage. If one of those 3 is to low, it does not matter if the other 2 are the best. If you reduce damage to be the same as long rage medium guns, it wont matter what you do with the other 2 factors.
I ask again, do you think long range medium guns are used ? If no, then nerfing damage to long range guns power means the end of long range missiles. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:55:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Kesthely wrote: The same is going to happen if they force the HML in this direction but then towards tank, with a +10% bonus to light missile damage and -20% penalty to Heavy missile, a Rapid light missile setup for ships that give bonuses to both weapon systems gets you within 15% of the new HML damage while freeing up a lot of power for a heavier tank. If the Tracking enhancers would give a 10-15% bonus to missile range i could get a Rapid light missile caracal over 100km have it at 36k effective hp, and only do less then 15% damage difference between a HML variant. Also the Explosion velocity and exlosion radius would probably give me against many targets more effective damage then the HML variant would.
Doing the HML change to promote HAM use is not going to work.
The Drake doesn't have that luxury because it doesn't have a bonus to AML. Furthermore, the Caracal getting decent performance out of a bonused weapon platform? Blasphemy. But to humor you: what's the pct DPS difference at 30km with 3 BCU HAMs?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:56:00 -
[1511] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
Of course. However, one point that has been mentioned several times already without any response has been that this change to HMLs is attempting to rebalance two of the several ships that use them. If the whole point of rebalancing ships is so that all ships have a viable use, isn't it counterproductive to then make ships like the Caracal, Nighthawk and Cerberus again undesirable due to the changes made to their primary weapon system? Heavy Assault missiles are often not an option either due to poor tank (the caracal/cerberus hulled ships) or fitting consideration (can be an issue with any ship, especially since HAMs use more PG than HMLs).
If you want to rebalance the drake and tengu, rebalance the drake and tengu. Don't pack all the desired changes in the weapon system. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:56:00 -
[1512] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soko99 wrote:
That's just wrong. Drake does not do BS damage, and it has the same tank as most other BC's. If you're referring to tengu's once again it's false since it also doesn't have BS tank. The reason it "tanks" so well is not because of the EHP but because of the speed tanking. It gets webbed down/neuted and it's screwed faster than a BC.
The drake does low end BS damge but its tank is firmly inside BS class. How is that? without boosts etc? My navy scorp I can get to 120Kehp, my raven had close to 90. My drake has like 70-80.. Are the rest of the caldari BS that tanky or are the rest of the races BS that crap? My alts cane can get about 60k ehp on her cane? (sorry haven't flown the other BS's so can't compare)
Funny I'm looking at a 90k eHP drake fit right now, fleet fits that don't use points easily match many battleships.
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:56:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
Fine, nerf the range, not the damage.
The damage is easily arguably too high, HML they only do poor damage when compared to SHORT RANGE medium turrets, ...or pulse fitted Amarr battleships. They will do good damage compared to artilleries or railguns but like I said, that range is only useful in big fights at which point artilleries have their own strengths and railguns are useless anyway so ignore them.
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:57:00 -
[1514] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that. Cool well I'd be raising holy hell over the complete removal of all long range weapon missile platforms. But no, you have to keep your HML damage for some odd reason. What, did you forget to train the 8 days for HAM 5? -Liang It is more complicated then that. I believe that there are 3 factors. Speed, range and damage. If one of those 3 is to low, it does not matter if the other 2 are the best. If you reduce damage to be the same as long rage medium guns, it wont matter what you do with the other 2 factors. I ask again, do you think long range medium guns are used ? If no, then nerfing damage to long range guns power means the end of long range missiles. Long range medium guns aren't really used because HML so utterly and completely dominate that field. Seeing some variety on the field will be a welcome addition. -Liang Let's see you fit some medium artilleries to a Hurricane with or without the proposed changes without gimping the fit.
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:58:00 -
[1515] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that Caldari are referred to as the kings of PvE by some people which causes some people to then choose Caldari for the Drake and Tengu. They then do their PvE for a while, get bored, want to do some PvP only to find that the only useful ship they can fly is the Drake. THAT'S why it gets used so often. Not because the Drake is some kind of mother-of-all godships. It's because the rest of the caldari ships are all useless for pvp.
They're called the kings of PVE... because of the heavy missiles DPS projection.
They're calling the Drake overpowered because of... the heavy missiles DPS projection.
The only missile system that is "great" are... heavy missiles.
What was the last KITE FIT artillery Cruiser you saw used in heavy volumes? (yes they're out there, but rare) The Muninn is a T2 hull basically DESIGNED for it 100%... and you almost never see it out there.
Why? Because they can't project damage even with max bonuses for sniping fits out that far as well as the drake.
The only reason it's the Drake and not a Caracal is... because a Drake has more launcher hardpoints.
You don't see Battleship sniping with missiles because... the missiles have crap sig radius for dps projection.
BUT... the drake can do it.
Blah blah. Heavy missiles project damage to well for their class. Personally, I think all the medium sized range weapons need a boost to effectiveness, but I'll take a nerf to heavy missiles until they come back around for that. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:59:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that. Cool well I'd be raising holy hell over the complete removal of all long range weapon missile platforms. But no, you have to keep your HML damage for some odd reason. What, did you forget to train the 8 days for HAM 5? -Liang It is more complicated then that. I believe that there are 3 factors. Speed, range and damage. If one of those 3 is to low, it does not matter if the other 2 are the best. If you reduce damage to be the same as long rage medium guns, it wont matter what you do with the other 2 factors. I ask again, do you think long range medium guns are used ? If no, then nerfing damage to long range guns power means the end of long range missiles. Long range medium guns aren't really used because HML so utterly and completely dominate that field. Seeing some variety on the field will be a welcome addition. -Liang
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ? |
PetersmithII
CHAOS SQUAD Shadow Operations.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:59:00 -
[1517] - Quote
i have two question if ccp can answer do it please 1, if heavy missiles are so uber why is cerberus so ussles ? 2. do u plan remove nned to be on grid to missiles explode even after i warp off ... now when they will be total ussles this is one of the bigest disadvanteges in game and nobody cares... Model situation cane vs drake cane is 10% structure drake too drake pilot give comand warp to the sun he alighning shooting and dies becose his missiles never reach target they disapear ... explain me if u paln to remove this **** after this silly update :) |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:00:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question.
When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:00:00 -
[1519] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:I think it would be more like 35km and yes, i'd go for that. Cool well I'd be raising holy hell over the complete removal of all long range weapon missile platforms. But no, you have to keep your HML damage for some odd reason. What, did you forget to train the 8 days for HAM 5? -Liang It is more complicated then that. I believe that there are 3 factors. Speed, range and damage. If one of those 3 is to low, it does not matter if the other 2 are the best. If you reduce damage to be the same as long rage medium guns, it wont matter what you do with the other 2 factors. I ask again, do you think long range medium guns are used ? If no, then nerfing damage to long range guns power means the end of long range missiles. Long range medium guns aren't really used because HML so utterly and completely dominate that field. Seeing some variety on the field will be a welcome addition. -Liang Let's see you fit some medium artilleries to a Hurricane with or without the proposed changes without gimping the fit.
Did you miss the post were all medium artiliery are taking a 10% grid reduction.....you don't need as much power to run them. You'll still be able to fit two HAM launchers on a 650 arty cane, you are going to have issues jamming two med neuts on anything though.
...and forget an armor cane. its pretty much dead. Viva la Cyclone. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2201
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:01:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Aprudena Gist wrote: No its not. A drake does 350dps and has about a 80k tank.
A Battleship usually starts at about a 90k tank and goes to 160-180k tank. Its high on the terms of sub battleship sized tanks sure but not firmly inside.
My Drake has 75k EHP and has a spare midslot unused and two of the rigs not used for tank. Lower teir BS start out at 50k. |
|
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:01:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Quote: 250mm Railgun II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 14 Alpha: 66 Optimal: 58 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -0.8 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with FACTION AMMO!: DPS: 15 Alpha: 65 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.2 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with FACTION AMMO: DPS: 12 Alpha: 174 Optimal: 48 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
The Heavy missile DPS is not correct here You forget its 10 second flight time so its dps DAMAGE PER SECOND needs to be divided by its travel time. By your dps counter, the heavy missile should get its damage upgraded by 600% Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 2.3 (previously 2.9) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
wow.... I mean really wow..... I just don't know what to say ...... That genuinely hurt my head a little bit.... Two Step for CSM |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:02:00 -
[1522] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote: Let's see you fit some medium artilleries to a Hurricane with or without the proposed changes without gimping the fit.
Hurricane 6x 650mm Artillery, 2x Neut MWD, Disruptor, 2x LSE 3x Gyro, 2 TE, DC 3x CDFE
It's one of the old standard solo/small gang PVP fits. It works remarkably well. It might need some tweaking with the neuts with the changes, but ECM drones are plenty strong enough as far as counters to frigs go.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2230
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:03:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
I'll still use HML. HAMs just don't reach far enough to work with loki boosted point range.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:03:00 -
[1524] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice?
Always,
Rails for life! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2201
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:04:00 -
[1525] - Quote
PetersmithII wrote:i have two question if ccp can answer do it please 1, if heavy missiles are so uber why is cerberus so ussles ?
Its a bad ship and has been for some time now.
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:06:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Onictus wrote: ...and forget an armor cane. its pretty much dead. Viva la Cyclone.
Not true. The main issue with my armor cane is going to be... the 2 medium neuts.
I have 185 spare PG with one neut on currently (so -225 ish, not taking skills into account) means I will probably need to drop one or both neuts and fit something else, or smaller neuts, or... whatever.
Armor cane will be fine, just need to sort out new utility slots. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
356
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:07:00 -
[1527] - Quote
Onictus wrote:...and forget an armor cane. its pretty much dead. Viva la Cyclone.
I just made a future armour cane with 425s, 1600 plate and dual neuts, it took a single ACR. I was surprised at how easy it was, maybe a 1600 Hurricane should at least have to drop to smaller guns.
The only difference is that the neuts are now small ones. But if you think that it should be able to fit the biggest guns, an oversize plate, MWD and dual med neuts, then you simply don't believe in fitting restrictions. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:08:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. Of course. However, one point that has been mentioned several times already without any response has been that this change to HMLs is attempting to rebalance two of the several ships that use them. If the whole point of rebalancing ships is so that all ships have a viable use, isn't it counterproductive to then make ships like the Caracal, Nighthawk and Cerberus again undesirable due to the changes made to their primary weapon system? Heavy Assault missiles are often not an option either due to poor tank (the caracal/cerberus hulled ships) or fitting consideration (can be an issue with any ship, especially since HAMs use more PG than HMLs). If you want to rebalance the drake and tengu, rebalance the drake and tengu. Don't pack all the desired changes in the weapon system.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:08:00 -
[1529] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote: Let's see you fit some medium artilleries to a Hurricane with or without the proposed changes without gimping the fit.
Hurricane 6x 650mm Artillery, 2x Neut MWD, Disruptor, 2x LSE 3x Gyro, 2 TE, DC 3x CDFE It's one of the old standard solo/small gang PVP fits. It works remarkably well. It might need some tweaking with the neuts with the changes, but ECM drones are plenty strong enough as far as counters to frigs go. -Liang
Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit.
Gypsio III wrote:Onictus wrote:...and forget an armor cane. its pretty much dead. Viva la Cyclone. I just made a future armour cane with 425s, 1600 plate and dual neuts, it took a single ACR. I was surprised at how easy it was, maybe a 1600 Hurricane should at least have to drop to smaller guns. The only difference is that the neuts are now small ones. But if you think that it should be able to fit the biggest guns, an oversize plate, MWD and dual med neuts, then you simply don't believe in fitting restrictions.
To be fair I usually used 220mm to facilitate the medium neuts (sans fitting mods or implants), but that is a judgement call. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:08:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice?
Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P
In other words. Never.
But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong. |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:09:00 -
[1531] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PetersmithII wrote:i have two question if ccp can answer do it please 1, if heavy missiles are so uber why is cerberus so ussles ?
Its a bad ship and has been for some time now.
The problem with the Cerberus is why fly a 200m ISK drake?
And why care about a range bonus when you can already reach 80km?
Cerberus Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage and 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level
Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Assault Missile and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level
Drake Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and assault missiles per level
Drake resistance bonus balances out with the fact that Cerberus has HALF (50%) of shield EHP of the drake.
You get more damage bonuses with the cerberus but... only 5 hardpoints versus 7, so your rate of fire bonus gets you from having 5 launchers... to 7 launchers, like a drake.
So on.
Why fly a 200m ISK Drake? Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
356
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:11:00 -
[1532] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit.
Fit an ACR, easy. In fact the more I play with Hurricane fits the sheer absurdity of its ease of fitting becomes clear. It's very easy to argue that more PG needs to come off. |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule Test Friends Please Ignore
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:12:00 -
[1533] - Quote
The arguments in favor are strong, but some questions still remains for me:
Range turrets (Rails, Beams, Artillery) have multiple types of ammunition and changing that ammunition lets you trade damage for range as needed. Missiles, while having all four damage types available, do not get this luxury. T2 gives some options, but forcing players to train T2 just for any options at all does not seem good for the game.
- The assumption had always been that missiles were given such a good range because their are no "range vs damage" variants. With a general lowering or range and damage at the same time are you concerned that options for missiles will be too limiting?
- This change will give turrets better range and better damage in almost all cases? Have you considered this? What will be the value of ever using missiles?
- Missiles have travel time. This is actually a severe disadvantage in large fleets and skirmishes. Have you considered this as an inherent weakness for which missiles must have compensation?
I think some changes are needed but overall this seems too drastic. This is one change where slow, careful steps with monitoring is needed, not a massive bomb dropped once every 6 months. The problem here is just as much development cycle oriented as the change itself. None of us want to see an entire weapon system ruined and then not touched for another 5 years.
I applaud you for taking decisive steps in an attempt to solve a clear problem. Eve needs this because there are too many issues with core game play holding it back from becoming truly fun to play and expanding its user base. However in this case the remedy is drastic and probably worse then the illness -I suggest a less invasive approach.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2231
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:13:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit. Gypsio III wrote:Onictus wrote:...and forget an armor cane. its pretty much dead. Viva la Cyclone. I just made a future armour cane with 425s, 1600 plate and dual neuts, it took a single ACR. I was surprised at how easy it was, maybe a 1600 Hurricane should at least have to drop to smaller guns. The only difference is that the neuts are now small ones. But if you think that it should be able to fit the biggest guns, an oversize plate, MWD and dual med neuts, then you simply don't believe in fitting restrictions. To be fair I usually used 220mm to facilitate the medium neuts (sans fitting mods or implants), but that is a judgement call.
The biggest fear you should have when flying that ship are long range tackle interceptors (regular frigs die) and close range frigates. Small neuts are superior for capping out the close range frigs and the medium neuts aren't going to bother a long range tackle inty. It's not even a noticeable nerf to the fit.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
541
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:13:00 -
[1535] - Quote
Spanish Aquisition wrote:Someone at CCP apparently had their poop pushed in by a drake recently
If you think the drake needs a DPS nerf you are bad at Eve and you should feel bad.
THIS =) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:13:00 -
[1536] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P In other words. Never. But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong.
So, you'd never fit any other long range platform that can reach 80km. So the Drake is the same now.
Thus it is balanced. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2231
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:13:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P In other words. Never. But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong.
The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:14:00 -
[1538] - Quote
More a comment in support of CCP Fozzie:
I think this is going to be one of those tough changes we're just going to have to swallow. Like the old nano speed nerf. Remember the days when vagas were THE ONLY Assault Cruiser worth flying? We're in the same situation with missile boats atm. I think we're going to need to wait until it hits Sisi before being able to judge the final impact.
On the other hand I welcome the changes this will have on fleet theory crafting. One of my hopes is that we'll see more cruiser sized fleets where appropriate. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:15:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Onictus wrote:Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit. Fit an ACR, easy. In fact the more I play with Hurricane fits the sheer absurdity of its ease of fitting becomes clear. It's very easy to argue that more PG needs to come off.
Won't hear me whining about it.
The fact that it was already the fastest hull in the class (pre -tier3) with dual weapon bonuses AND 6 free low slots always challenged the realm of believably, and the justification for that excursiveness was the Drake.
Well, that is getting knocked down a rung, so I'm not terribly worked up.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:17:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
The biggest fear you should have when flying that ship are long range tackle interceptors (regular frigs die) and close range frigates. Small neuts are superior for capping out the close range frigs and the medium neuts aren't going to bother a long range tackle inty. It's not even a noticeable nerf to the fit.
-Liang
Agreed, I'm also stuck in a lecture looking up numbers and stats on my phone, so I haven't gotten to deep into exactly hwo it will work out.
|
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:17:00 -
[1541] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
We know that's why so many of us are upset. CCP will screw up missiles and BCs just like so many other things in the pass. You will disreguard what we say. Just as in WIS, ISD, NEX(I don't have a problem with) that inventory crap and so many other things. We invest alot of time and money into the game you guys seem to be set on destroying.
Imagine you just spent hundreds of dollars and months studing something, and than the university decided that it's no longer a valid subject. Yeah that's what playing eve is like. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:18:00 -
[1542] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Kesthely wrote: The same is going to happen if they force the HML in this direction but then towards tank, with a +10% bonus to light missile damage and -20% penalty to Heavy missile, a Rapid light missile setup for ships that give bonuses to both weapon systems gets you within 15% of the new HML damage while freeing up a lot of power for a heavier tank. If the Tracking enhancers would give a 10-15% bonus to missile range i could get a Rapid light missile caracal over 100km have it at 36k effective hp, and only do less then 15% damage difference between a HML variant. Also the Explosion velocity and exlosion radius would probably give me against many targets more effective damage then the HML variant would.
Doing the HML change to promote HAM use is not going to work.
The Drake doesn't have that luxury because it doesn't have a bonus to AML. Furthermore, the Caracal getting decent performance out of a bonused weapon platform? Blasphemy. But to humor you: what's the pct DPS difference at 30km with 3 BCU HAMs? -Liang
For your amusement the Ham would get 98% more damage then the rapid light at 30 km with your setup, 100% damage vs 200% range isn't a bad tradeoff on paper, but the RML has a better overal damage when factoring speed and sizes. Also the Effective hp on a RML caracal is 77% higher. If you try to go ranged HAM with Javelins, its dps suddenly drops to only 40% Higher compared to a similar RML setup while still only haveing half the range and half its effective hp
This would eventually result in the same Range + Effective HP vs Damage we've seen on the drake |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:19:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P In other words. Never. But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong. So, you'd never fit any other long range platform that can reach 80km. So the Drake is the same now. Thus it is balanced.
If i'd never fit another 80 km range missile boat, it means it's dead. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
356
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:19:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Onictus wrote:The fact that it was already the fastest hull in the class (pre -tier3) with dual weapon bonuses AND 6 free low slots always challenged the realm of believably, and the justification for that excursiveness was the Drake.
Well, that is getting knocked down a rung, so I'm not terribly worked up.
Nor me, and pretty much for the same reason. There's far too many Drakes and Hurricane in space, and I've long advocated cutting t2 BCs down to t1 levels, which would impact the Drake and Cane much more than Myrm and Harby. Well, this isn't quite t1 levels, but the principle is there.
|
wondering darkness
The Suicide Kings Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1545] - Quote
Use tracking disruptors on a missile are you serious, they use their own guidence systems thats why they are built with guidence systems, as for reducing damage that is ******** in itself, a missile takes an age to reach a target while all other weaponry does instant damage, this gives retards at least a chance to get away and still makes jewing time consuming. if anything the range on the missiles should be reduced but certainly not the dps as it sucks balls neway. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1546] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:
Imagine you just spent hundreds of dollars and months studing something, and than the university decided that it's no longer a valid subject. Yeah that's what all MMOs are like.
Fixed that for you. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:
If that is true then ask yourself if the new long range drake would be your first choice ? I am not only talking about using drakes, i mean, first choice in all ships. Hell, ok maybe not even first. Second ? Third ? None at all ?
Let me reverse this question because it's frankly beneath Lian to even respond. When is a long range Railgun Moa/Ferox your first choice? Hell, i still have medium hybrid skill to 4. I trained medium Arty and AC first and i am now training the secondary gun skills to 5 :P In other words. Never. But the entire point i am trying to make is that there is only 1 or 2 viable dps ships in the caldari line and they are the one getting the nerf to the point of being unusable. I think that is wrong. The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field. -Liang
Fine, Make the ham drake better.
Edit: Or one medium missile launcher with different range amo. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1548] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:baltec1 wrote:PetersmithII wrote:i have two question if ccp can answer do it please 1, if heavy missiles are so uber why is cerberus so ussles ?
Its a bad ship and has been for some time now. The problem with the Cerberus is why fly a 200m ISK drake? And why care about a range bonus when you can already reach 80km? CerberusCaldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage and 10% bonus to Missile velocity per level Heavy Assault Ship Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Assault Missile and Heavy Missile flight time and 5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire per level Drake Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% shield resistance and 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and assault missiles per level Drake resistance bonus balances out with the fact that Cerberus has HALF (50%) of shield EHP of the drake. You get more damage bonuses with the cerberus but... only 5 hardpoints versus 7, so your rate of fire bonus gets you from having 5 launchers... to 7 launchers, like a drake. So on. Why fly a 200m ISK Drake?
^^^ This.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2231
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:20:00 -
[1549] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Kesthely wrote: The same is going to happen if they force the HML in this direction but then towards tank, with a +10% bonus to light missile damage and -20% penalty to Heavy missile, a Rapid light missile setup for ships that give bonuses to both weapon systems gets you within 15% of the new HML damage while freeing up a lot of power for a heavier tank. If the Tracking enhancers would give a 10-15% bonus to missile range i could get a Rapid light missile caracal over 100km have it at 36k effective hp, and only do less then 15% damage difference between a HML variant. Also the Explosion velocity and exlosion radius would probably give me against many targets more effective damage then the HML variant would.
Doing the HML change to promote HAM use is not going to work.
The Drake doesn't have that luxury because it doesn't have a bonus to AML. Furthermore, the Caracal getting decent performance out of a bonused weapon platform? Blasphemy. But to humor you: what's the pct DPS difference at 30km with 3 BCU HAMs? -Liang For your amusement the Ham would get 98% more damage then the rapid light at 30 km with your setup, 100% damage vs 200% range isn't a bad tradeoff on paper, but the RML has a better overal damage when factoring speed and sizes. Also the Effective hp on a RML caracal is 77% higher. If you try to go ranged HAM with Javelins, its dps suddenly drops to only 40% Higher compared to a similar RML setup while still only haveing half the range and less then half its effective hp This would eventually result in the same Range + Effective HP vs Damage we've seen on the drake
I was following you right up until you claimed that a 36k EHP tank was equivalent to a 100k EHP tank.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:21:00 -
[1550] - Quote
I think CCP needs to have a hard look at HAM fittings if they go through with this so if we decide to use the short ranged alternative we can have more PG and CPU to put towards tank or gank. |
|
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:22:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Fozzie I call you a madman and a hero for reading through all this so I think its only fair I make an attempt at a reasoned response.
all told... I approve of the suggested changes hand over fist and I'm more than happy to accept that caldari WILL be getting better pvp platforms based on the continuing balance changes in the form of the upcoming "combat" moa and the eventual rebalancing of the ferox as well. the cane needed a kick in the teeth I reckon as did the drake and tengu, these changes handle this nicely. after all, just because caldari don't have "viable" pvp platforms now at least by the standards of nullblob types it doesn't mean that they WON'T come these changes, after all its impossible to argue that the merlin isn't by far the most dangerous of the "combat" frigate platforms at the moment and I'm eager to see how the Moa is going to shape up as a possible upgrade of the Merlin hull with 5% hybrid damage/RoF and 5% resist/level.
in compensation however I do agree that slightly more love might be in favour of the heavy assault launchers as they take over the roll as primary "close range" missile platform. while this may be covered by the changes to tracking enhancers and tracking computers I think an improvement in explosion speed might be worthwhile regardless in order to support other ships which will be equiping this weapon, most notably the new caracal which will no doubt be adopted by us RVB types as a 30-40km dps support platform for our gudfights.
its also an interesting point that these changes may leave heavy missile operating ships with little recourse in closer ranges where gun platform ships may switch down to close range ammo to help deal with closer targets. it would seem like a reasonable suggestion then to offer an alternative ammunition type with higher damage but significantly reduced range. the T2 missiles would seem like an easy choice for this though their harder to access nature may restrict them. what I would personally propose would be taking the "fury" missile concept and pushing it to a further extreme with the missile changes fluffed along the lines of "rapid burn" response missiles for defense. much shorter range, higher damage but with a vastly accelerated flight speed (the missile doing a quick short burn then adding its remaining fuel to the payload). some way for the heavy missile equipped ships to defend themselves at closer ranges would be most welcome to a lot of people in this threadnought. cut the range a little bit more, buff the damage but keep a large explosion radius so that fury missiles act as a defense against other battlecruisers (or even cruisers if you've got TE's/TC's to improve ER/ES) but at substantially shorter ranges while precision ammo still acts as the anti frigate option. the T2 ammo types adding versitility to the platform as it were :)
I would also like to propose that with the addition of tracking enhancers and computers now providing the "counter balance" to this nerf that ballistic control systems receive a reduction in CPU cost to bring them in line with the other weapon upgrades. with the dps nerf to the heavy missiles coming into effect I would think that the improved CPU would go a fair way to allowing missile using pilots to equip their ships to adapt accordingly with the additional costs for both tracking computers and tracking enhancers for the "improved" preformance making up the difference, much like fitting 2 magstabs and a TE to a blaster moa it would make sense that 2 BCU's and a tracking enhancer would be an ideal choice for a caracal pilot (at least on the new hull).
as for tracking disruptors I think that your own suggestion for splitting the disruptor into two separate blends, one for missiles and one for guns, would solve a lot of the balance concerns with the tracking disruptor becoming some form of "wundermod". it would make sense from a lore perspective as well as it would make sense that a dedicated missile countermeasure system would be developed to take advantage of a missiles weaknesses, most notibly its internal targeting and navigation systems causing preemptive detonation (missiles exploding at much shorter ranges) or messing with the payloads (explosion radius/speed). of course both disruptor types should be effected by pre-existing bonuses and the idea of TD equiped ships bringing a mix of missile and gun disruptors sounds like a most excellent way to avoid the TD becoming a mandatory module on every hull as you won't always know what the opposition has.
that's just some suggestions however, I'm more than happy to work with what's coming and eagerly wait to see what the masters of fit foo will come up with to fill the void and hope to the gods that I'll be able to contribute to that when it happens :)
TL:DR like the proposed changes, but some more love for HAMS, BCU's and the "split" tracking disruptors seems in order Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2231
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:22:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: Fine, Make the ham drake better.
Edit: Or one medium missile launcher with different range amo.
The HAM Drake is getting better at the same time that the HML Drake is being brought down to where the rest of the long range weapons are. Arguably, it's still better than the other long range weapons because you can't get under its weapons and even up close it'll have pretty fantastic damage application.
But then it's just different instead of wtf why would you fit anything else?!?!?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
616
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:23:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lord Ryan wrote:
Imagine you just spent hundreds of dollars and months studing something, and than the university decided that it's no longer a valid subject. Yeah that's what all MMOs are like.
Fixed that for you. Glad this is the only one I play. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:25:00 -
[1554] - Quote
real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)
Quote: 250mm Railgun II + Spike M DPS: 9 Volley: 52 Optimal: 52km Fall-Off: 12km
250mm Railgun II + Javelin M DPS: 14 Volley: 92 Optimal: 7.2km Fall-Off: 12km
Heavy beam Laser II + Aurora M DPS: 10 Volley: 58 Optimal: 43km Fall-Off: 8km
Heavy beam Laser II Gleam M DPS: 17 Volley: 101 Optimal: 6km Fall-Off: 8km
720mm Howitzer Artillary II + Quake M DPS: 8 Volley: 153 Optimal: 43km Fall-Off: 18km
720mm Howitzer Artillary II + Tremor M DPS: 13 Volley: 268 Optimal: 6km Fall-Off: 18km
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Fury Missile DPS: 16 Volley: 192 Optimal: 33.8km
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Precision Missile DPS: 11 Volley: 130 Optimal: 18.8km
The only glaring issue I see is that the DPS/Volley data on Fury/Precision needs reversing, or the Max Range (either works), everything else is just fine at this point. eg
Quote: Change to: Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Fury Missile DPS: 11 Volley: 130 Optimal: 33.8km
Change to: Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Precision Missile DPS: 16 Volley: 192 Optimal: 18.8km
All the imbalance comes from 1 of 2 areas, and in some cases both of these. Unbalanced Ship/Module/Subsystem Modifiers Skill Bonus Modifiers |
Azual Skoll
The Tuskers
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:25:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Fine, Make the ham drake better.
By making tracking enhancers/computers affect missile range, that's exactly what they're doing. HAM drakes with Javelins (which will have no speed penalty) and a couple of TEs/TCs should hit out to around 45km. Eve Blogger at www.evealtruist.com Formerly Director of Agony Unleashed's PVP-University |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
177
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:28:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Azual Skoll wrote:Bloutok wrote:Fine, Make the ham drake better. By making tracking enhancers/computers affect missile range, that's exactly what they're doing. HAM drakes with Javelins (which will have no speed penalty) and a couple of TEs/TCs should hit out to around 45km.
I can't wait to jam a stack of TEs and BCSs on a nano-phoon
May not be the best ever, but it's going to look ****. |
Cpt Gobla
No Bullshit Jokers Wild.
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:28:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. Of course. However, one point that has been mentioned several times already without any response has been that this change to HMLs is attempting to rebalance two of the several ships that use them. If the whole point of rebalancing ships is so that all ships have a viable use, isn't it counterproductive to then make ships like the Caracal, Nighthawk and Cerberus again undesirable due to the changes made to their primary weapon system? Heavy Assault missiles are often not an option either due to poor tank (the caracal/cerberus hulled ships) or fitting consideration (can be an issue with any ship, especially since HAMs use more PG than HMLs). If you want to rebalance the drake and tengu, rebalance the drake and tengu. Don't pack all the desired changes in the weapon system.
They want the Drake and Tengu to have 25% less range and 20% less damage.
How would you achieve this by nerfing the hull? It's already got a single damage bonus that only applies to a single damage type.
Start removing high-slots? That would just screw up other fitting options and ruin the balance between BCs even more. Give it a negative role bonus? Needlessly complicated. Remove a launcher slot? Needlessly nerfing HAM Drakes.
The only way to do this is: - Nerf HMs. - Buff unused HM ships. - Tweak previously overpowered HM ships to work with the new HMs. |
Sophia Ban'ki
Adhara Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:32:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Well, even if I expect noone from CCP to read this, I want to point out, that there are also a few other things to be nerved if missiles are supposed to be turrets.
Surgical Strike (rank 4) 3% damage bonus on all turrets per level Not just that the missile counterpart gives only 2% damage bonus per level it is also a rank 5 skill, meaning that it takes even longer to train.
Solution: Nerv/Adjust: the Surgical Strike skill to 2% bonus and make it a rank 5 skill as well.
Rapid Firing: 4% RoF per level Same again, Rapid Launch is one again lower with 3% RoF bonus.
Solution: Nerv / Adjust Rapid Firing bonus to 3% RoF, to make them more eqal.
Missile Projection: (rank 4 - skill) Bonus to all guided missiles, leaving unguided missiles unaffected. Related Gunnery skills would be Motion Prediction, if we look at the planned TD changes. Motion Prediction is just a rank 2 skill and it affects all turrets.
Solution: Nerv Motion Prediction, so that it no longer affects short range weapons (as unguided missiles are all considered short range) and rank 4 or adjust Missile Projection to affect all missiles.
Requirements for T2 need to be changed as well, T2 medium turrets require more skills than Heavy Missiles. You should make sure that it also requires T2 Light Missiles in order to use T2 Heavy Missiles, otherwise it wouldn't be fair, would it?
Disclaimer: This post might contain traces of irony and sarcasm.
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:32:00 -
[1559] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
I was following you right up until you claimed that a 36k EHP tank was equivalent to a 100k EHP tank.
-Liang
In the initial post on wich you replied i clearly stated that these changes to HML will not promote HAM use on ships that have bonuses for HAM RML and HML Takeing in range and damage in consideration RML with these changes allow for better tanks on those ships and are still able to shoot to (extreme) long ranges Also due the light missile vs the heavy assault missile, the real damage difference vs verry fast and / or small ships will be significantly closer to eachother On these ships i don't think anyone would chose for the HAM.
The reference to the drake was only to show what would happen if people were to chose range + effective hp vs damage NOT to compare the caracal with the drake |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:34:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Onictus wrote:Sadly that won't fit, with medium neuts anymore, it'll fit with a pair of HAM launchers in their place, with an RCUII I think it would wedge in, but with the hull changes its going to be about 8% over grid with a T2 fit. Fit an ACR, easy. In fact the more I play with Hurricane fits the sheer absurdity of its ease of fitting becomes clear. It's very easy to argue that more PG needs to come off. You just proposed a setup with an ACR and not one but two frigate sized modules, and you're using that to argue that the ship's too easy to fit? Riiiiiight. Let me tell you about the excessively generous fitting room on the Brutix, as demonstrated by a setup with a co-processor and two light neutron blasters! |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:36:00 -
[1561] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)
You can't use unskilled data because there are a different number of support skills for each weapon platform.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:37:00 -
[1562] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: I was thinking this too. No reason for HAMs to cost more in terms of fitting. Should be brought in line with the formula used on long and short ranged turrets
I think they will address this when they get to the drake itself in the balance pass. |
FistyMcBumBasher
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:38:00 -
[1563] - Quote
I really like these changes to the hurricane and drake. By neutering these beasts it is clear what you are attempting to do with your balance to the tier 1 cruisers. Having to choose between 425's and no medium neut, or 220's and a medium neut is the proper way to go with the balancing in my opinion because AC's+neuts+drones was a bit too powerful. It was a bit ridiculous that the drake can spit out decent and constant dps from 80 km's, thought it was fun while it lasted. Tengu's can always switch over to HAM's for the extra dps at the cost of range, so I don't see it affecting them all that much.
Keep up the good work! |
Asmodes Reynolds
Rayn Enterprises
77
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:39:00 -
[1564] - Quote
I'm going to admit I was originally pissed at this announcement. but then I got to thinking there is a problem with missiles. There is no counter to missiles in the meta-game. It doesn't cripple you against everything else. I don't think you really want to render an entire section of your skills completely useless in PVP. Post a change you are rendering target painters obsolete. Because tracking computers will do their job better, because of their ability to install scripts you have a wide the range of options.
it got me thinking there is a couple modules in the don't get used. Because in their current form their useless, now one in particular seems to jump to mind once upon a time CCP had a concept called defender missiles, this was an ill-suited concept because it only targeted missiles fired at you and it would pretty much kill it one-to-one ratio. the thought was rolling around in my head for a while. And it came to me
Instead nerffing missiles charge the Defender missile concept make it a module for a mid-slot that destroys incoming missiles, the amount of missiles destroyed is based the amount of missiles that are incoming and a random chance. You can install scripts one script that increases the effectiveness of it defending you, and another script that projects its effects to the people surrounding you, let's say x kilometers, X being whatever number is balanced.
This would give the balance you are seeking, by giving a counter to missiles, some similar to a tracking disruptor, while adding a level of meta-gaming and pulling concepts/skill is currently in the game but not being used for absolutely anything from the proverbial graveyard giving people a reason to train it.
The alternative is your your rendering all your missile boats, your missile skills. Useless in any player versus player engagement. And they won't be used in PVE by any player that doesn't already have the skills be is a will be pointless to train after the change. |
Tek Handle
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:40:00 -
[1565] - Quote
Nothing against the missile nerf, but tracking disruptable/enhancable missiles? Srsly? That makes absolutely no sense. It even makes the related modules a dumb jack of all trades device. Why not add new mods which work against missiles, respectively support them?
Support: E.g. Missile Speed Optimizer or Missile Fuel Compressor/Injector Counter: E.g. a Missile (fits better in this case) Aircraft ECM, which affects the fired missile's speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure wrote:An electronic countermeasure (ECM) is an electrical or electronic device designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar or other detection systems, like infrared (IR) or lasers. It may be used both offensively and defensively to deny targeting information to an enemy. The system may make many separate targets appear to the enemy, or make the real target appear to disappear or move about randomly. It is used effectively to protect aircraft from guided missiles. Most air forces use ECM to protect their aircraft from attack. It has also been deployed by military ships and recently on some advanced tanks to fool laser/IR guided missiles. It is frequently coupled with stealth advances so that the ECM systems have an easier job. Offensive ECM often takes the form of jamming. Defensive ECM includes using blip enhancement and jamming of missile terminal homers. |
Kinet
Frog Steamers
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:41:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Guess it is time to sell off my supply of Drakes and heavy missiles. Once this patch goes live you wont be able to give them away.
Good thing CCP spent the time to work on the missile launcher animations since after this patch most people will be avoiding them like the plague.
This nerf hurts more than just the Drake, what about all the other Caldari missile boats that are going to be turned into dust collectors after this patch? Reduce range by 25% and damage by 20%? Really?
Why didnt I roll a Minnie... |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:41:00 -
[1567] - Quote
Onictus wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Bloutok wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: Cool well I'd be raising holy hell over the complete removal of all long range weapon missile platforms. But no, you have to keep your HML damage for some odd reason. What, did you forget to train the 8 days for HAM 5?
-Liang
It is more complicated then that. I believe that there are 3 factors. Speed, range and damage. If one of those 3 is to low, it does not matter if the other 2 are the best. If you reduce damage to be the same as long rage medium guns, it wont matter what you do with the other 2 factors. I ask again, do you think long range medium guns are used ? If no, then nerfing damage to long range guns power means the end of long range missiles. Long range medium guns aren't really used because HML so utterly and completely dominate that field. Seeing some variety on the field will be a welcome addition. -Liang Let's see you fit some medium artilleries to a Hurricane with or without the proposed changes without gimping the fit. Did you miss the post were all medium artiliery are taking a 10% grid reduction.....you don't need as much power to run them. You'll still be able to fit two HAM launchers on a 650 arty cane, you are going to have issues jamming two med neuts on anything though. ...and forget an armor cane. its pretty much dead. Viva la Cyclone. I guess you missed the part where thew Hurricane gets a 13% grid reduction.
So medium artilleries are now harder to fit.
lol
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:41:00 -
[1568] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote: I was thinking this too. No reason for HAMs to cost more in terms of fitting. Should be brought in line with the formula used on long and short ranged turrets
I think they will address this when they get to the drake itself in the balance pass.
I agree but the fitting of these missile systems should fall more in line of the way turret systems work short range less CPU/PG long range more CPU/PG. If you give the drake more CPU/PG to handle fitting the HAM then you will have even more when you fit HM and this is what some people are voicing there concerns over. I have to say I agree with them HAMS need a CPU/PG reduction. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:42:00 -
[1569] - Quote
Sophia Ban'ki wrote:Well, even if I expect noone from CCP to read this, I want to point out, that there are also a few other things to be nerved if missiles are supposed to be turrets.
Surgical Strike (rank 4) 3% damage bonus on all turrets per level Not just that the missile counterpart gives only 2% damage bonus per level it is also a rank 5 skill, meaning that it takes even longer to train.
Solution: Nerv/Adjust: the Surgical Strike skill to 2% bonus and make it a rank 5 skill as well.
Rapid Firing: 4% RoF per level Same again, Rapid Launch is one again lower with 3% RoF bonus.
Solution: Nerv / Adjust Rapid Firing bonus to 3% RoF, to make them more eqal.
Missile Projection: (rank 4 - skill) Bonus to all guided missiles, leaving unguided missiles unaffected. Related Gunnery skills would be Motion Prediction, if we look at the planned TD changes. Motion Prediction is just a rank 2 skill and it affects all turrets.
Solution: Nerv Motion Prediction, so that it no longer affects short range weapons (as unguided missiles are all considered short range) and rank 4 or adjust Missile Projection to affect all missiles.
Requirements for T2 need to be changed as well, T2 medium turrets require more skills than Heavy Missiles. You should make sure that it also requires T2 Light Missiles in order to use T2 Heavy Missiles, otherwise it wouldn't be fair, would it?
Disclaimer: This post might contain traces of irony and sarcasm.
So since the missiles will ACT like the turrets.. can we get our skills to act like the turret counterparts too? |
patrick elektros
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:43:00 -
[1570] - Quote
this is about CCP making more money, by making people train other skills and this nerfs people making in game money, in effect making it harder for people to pay for plex with in game isk. in effect hoping that people will in turn have to pay real money to play the game. ccp has been about making money, ad not about working with the players on some level fora while now. and this is aNERF on tengus and drakes, the 2 biggest ratting boats in the game.
you got an issue with this, let ccp know, make them rollback the nerf, but keep in mind walmart only rolls back items it's raise prices on first.
the moderate change would have been 7.5% reduction in missile damage and 5% in range. this wasnt against goons or anybody else, it was against all of us to pay more to play (notice plex prices at an all time high) and since the plex sellers are lookin to sell higher price plex and the plex buyers wont be able to make the money, maybe plexes will drop, but i doubt it.
CCP keep in mind we will find better fits for better ships, no matter what you do you need to remember that nerfing pvp/pve ships and buffering industrials is the first step to being like wow, and your sandbox will get sludge in it. |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:45:00 -
[1571] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
I was following you right up until you claimed that a 36k EHP tank was equivalent to a 100k EHP tank.
-Liang
In the initial post on wich you replied i clearly stated that these changes to HML will not promote HAM use on ships that have bonuses for HAM RML and HML Takeing in range and damage in consideration RML with these changes allow for better tanks on those ships and are still able to shoot to (extreme) long ranges Also due the light missile vs the heavy assault missile, the real damage difference vs verry fast and / or small ships will be significantly closer to eachother On these ships i don't think anyone would chose for the HAM. The reference to the drake was only to show what would happen if people were to chose range + effective hp vs damage NOT to compare the caracal with the drake
Hmmm, I see. I think you're partially correct. AML is absolutely a viable weapons system on ships which have a bonus for it. People will be able to fit AML Caracals up with relatively large tanks and engage from long range. This is exactly the one of the niches that the Caracal is designed to fill. However, to claim that nobody will use HAMs "up close" seems a bit wrong.
HAM range is sufficient to engage at the edge of Loki boosted point range and gets, as you say, 98% more DPS. Speaking from experience, range can most certainly be your tank in small gang warfare where these tactics would be most useful. Furthermore, you'll actually be able to point someone and contribute to the gang instead of just engage from 100km+.
So yeah, to claim nobody's going to use HAMs because HML is being nerfed is just wrong. Even on ships that have a bonus to all three weapons systems.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
OlRotGut
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:45:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:Fozzie I call you a madman and a hero for reading through all this so I think its only fair I make an attempt at a reasoned response.
all told... I approve of the suggested changes hand over fist and I'm more than happy to accept that caldari WILL be getting better pvp platforms based on the continuing balance changes in the form of the upcoming "combat" moa and the eventual rebalancing of the ferox as well. the cane needed a kick in the teeth I reckon as did the drake and tengu, these changes handle this nicely. after all, just because caldari don't have "viable" pvp platforms now at least by the standards of nullblob types it doesn't mean that they WON'T come these changes, after all its impossible to argue that the merlin isn't by far the most dangerous of the "combat" frigate platforms at the moment and I'm eager to see how the Moa is going to shape up as a possible upgrade of the Merlin hull with 5% hybrid damage/RoF and 5% resist/level.
in compensation however I do agree that slightly more love might be in favour of the heavy assault launchers as they take over the roll as primary "close range" missile platform. while this may be covered by the changes to tracking enhancers and tracking computers I think an improvement in explosion speed might be worthwhile regardless in order to support other ships which will be equiping this weapon, most notably the new caracal which will no doubt be adopted by us RVB types as a 30-40km dps support platform for our gudfights.
its also an interesting point that these changes may leave heavy missile operating ships with little recourse in closer ranges where gun platform ships may switch down to close range ammo to help deal with closer targets. it would seem like a reasonable suggestion then to offer an alternative ammunition type with higher damage but significantly reduced range. the T2 missiles would seem like an easy choice for this though their harder to access nature may restrict them. what I would personally propose would be taking the "fury" missile concept and pushing it to a further extreme with the missile changes fluffed along the lines of "rapid burn" response missiles for defense. much shorter range, higher damage but with a vastly accelerated flight speed (the missile doing a quick short burn then adding its remaining fuel to the payload). some way for the heavy missile equipped ships to defend themselves at closer ranges would be most welcome to a lot of people in this threadnought. cut the range a little bit more, buff the damage but keep a large explosion radius so that fury missiles act as a defense against other battlecruisers (or even cruisers if you've got TE's/TC's to improve ER/ES) but at substantially shorter ranges while precision ammo still acts as the anti frigate option. the T2 ammo types adding versitility to the platform as it
TL:DR like the proposed changes, but some more love for HAMS, BCU's and the "split" tracking disruptors seems in order
I do like your thoughts on the different ammos for HML's to bring them more in line with the turrets. If they could change the ammo types of the missiles to behave more like turret charges, then, they could balance the missile platforms a little better towards everything.
I always thought it was a little screwy that missiles and turrets were different in that regard.
Also as someone else posted above, I think it would be wise to take a look at the gunnery "support" skills, vs the Missile Launcher "support" skills. Bringing them more in line with one another.
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
935
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:46:00 -
[1573] - Quote
The HAM Drake is pretty 0wnzone without a boost, and it's getting a boost with T2 missile changes. Capless weapons, ~600-650 deeps, two-slot tackle, MWD, 130k EHP. It's only /slightly/ out DPS'd by a Harbinger, but even that goes out the window if you try to give the Harb the same buffer as a Drake. ~ |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:47:00 -
[1574] - Quote
Kinet wrote:Guess it is time to sell off my supply of Drakes and heavy missiles. Once this patch goes live you wont be able to give them away.
Good thing CCP spent the time to work on the missile launcher animations since after this patch most people will be avoiding them like the plague.
This nerf hurts more than just the Drake, what about all the other Caldari missile boats that are going to be turned into dust collectors after this patch? Reduce range by 25% and damage by 20%? Really?
If the patch comes and you can't find anyone to give all of your Caldari assets to, I will gladly pay 1 ISK per 100 ISK of today's market value for all of it. TYVM, TIA.
Quote:Why didnt I roll a Minnie...
Because you didn't want to roll a race with ****** mechanics that's by and large getting anally ****** by the rebalance?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
863
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:48:00 -
[1575] - Quote
To give a serious recommendation.
I don't think Friend or Foe Missiles should be affected by Tracking Disruptors.
If the computational system is on the FOF missile and FOF is partially to counteract ECM, then the FOF missiles shouldn't suffer from TD penalties.
Just throwing that out there.
Then again, noone uses FOF because their target selection is totally trash.
But, you know. Principles and all that. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
patrick elektros
Demon-War-Lords Fatal Ascension
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:51:00 -
[1576] - Quote
the hurricane nerf is in my opinion unnecessary, but it's because some one in ccp don't like em like that, no more welp canes without implants and near perfect skills, no more instacanes without extra pg mods/rigs and less insta
meh
silly nerf in my point of view, as the canes weren't really being used that much, but i think this was done in effect to balance out the drake nerf |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:51:00 -
[1577] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:To give a serious recommendation. I don't think Friend or Foe Missiles should be affected by Tracking Disruptors. If the computational system is on the FOF missile and FOF is partially to counteract ECM, then the FOF missiles shouldn't suffer from TD penalties. Just throwing that out there. Then again, noone uses FOF because their target selection is totally trash. But, you know. Principles and all that.
Heh, I kinda like it. Also, the way to use FOFs is to MWD straight at your target and sit on their face. Works pretty well for Falcons that let you do it. Otherwise you'll just end up shooting drones. :(
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:56:00 -
[1578] - Quote
I am sad that the tengu I recently trained into will not be as OP for clearing 10/10 DED complexes, but the math is undeniable. These changes are for the best, and props to CCP for sticking to their guns (so to speak) in the face of unfortunately unjustifiable tears. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:57:00 -
[1579] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.
-Liang I really don't get why people keep saying this. I didn't compare beams or rails to HMLs when I said "these are total ****, why would I ever use them?" On their own they're awful and need a buff or people won't use them any more just because HMs are being nerfed. The only thing that's going to happen now is that long range combat will be solely in the domain of artillery and rare but specific applications of rails (Nagas, Rokhtrine).
The range nerf is reasonable, 10% damage nerf would also be reasonable on top of that. Giving missiles comparable DPS ignores their many counters (plus one with this patch). http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
189
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:59:00 -
[1580] - Quote
fozzie - You wanted as much details as we can, so here you go:
1. You nerf two things: range (we are talking about LONG RANGE WEAPON) and Damage at the same time, how about leaving at least one feature unchanged?
2. Effect of that is we should start using HAM's for short range, big damage, but at the same time HAM's suffer even greatly than HML's from flight time restriction. its imposible to hit something even remotly close to your range limit - because of the flight time the enemy will simply escape before missile reach target - imagine running after someone trying to get away from point range
3. HAM's have terrible explosion velocity and radius - as short range weapon it should hit relatively smaller targets than HML's- not larger.
So the effect of that situation is this: we get long range, decent dps weapon system turned into medium range, terrible damage weapond, and we are instead have to use huge damage (with the buff you mentioned) weapon that can not hit anything Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
|
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 17:59:00 -
[1581] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.
-Liang I really don't get why people keep saying this. I didn't compare beams or rails to HMLs when I said "these are total ****, why would I ever use them?" On their own they're awful and need a buff or people won't use them any more just because HMs are being nerfed. The only thing that's going to happen now is that long range combat will be solely in the domain of artillery and rare but specific applications of rails (Nagas, Rokhtrine). So much this. People don't not-use medium rails because HML drakes are soooo good, they don't use them because they're **** and nerfing HMLs won't change that
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:00:00 -
[1582] - Quote
NM. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
spellbound spirit
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:01:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Cane is simply too good, and these changes might actually do some good to command ships usage.
Next thing they're gonna nerf will be skirmish boosts, farewell DS.-like drake gangs?
One sad thing about not only this but CCP direction overall is that they seem to promote blobs more and more, instaed of well put and executed small/medium gangs/tactics, not to mention their goal of killing solo.
P.S So when is ECM drones nerf coming? |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:02:00 -
[1584] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.
-Liang I really don't get why people keep saying this. I didn't compare beams or rails to HMLs when I said "these are total ****, why would I ever use them?" On their own they're awful and need a buff or people won't use them any more just because HMs are being nerfed. The only thing that's going to happen now is that long range combat will be solely in the domain of artillery and rare but specific applications of rails (Nagas, Rokhtrine). The range nerf is reasonable, 10% damage nerf would also be reasonable on top of that. Giving missiles comparable DPS ignores their many counters (plus one with this patch).
We cant say that for 100% certainty until we see what all the ship rebalancing have in order have in order. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:03:00 -
[1585] - Quote
Azual Skoll wrote:Bloutok wrote:Fine, Make the ham drake better. By making tracking enhancers/computers affect missile range, that's exactly what they're doing. HAM drakes with Javelins (which will have no speed penalty) and a couple of TEs/TCs should hit out to around 45km.
I was not talking about range.
And i never touch the TD thing cause, i am out of words for it. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:03:00 -
[1586] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)
You can't use unskilled data because there are a different number of support skills for each weapon platform. -Liang
These are numbers at the BASE of the pyramid.. they are foundations that the game bases everything off. So i can use them, because the game does.
The support skills are what start to skew the data The Ship Modifiers skew it even futher
These numbers are at the TOP of the pyramid (that you see in the fitting screen).
Infact using raw data this way shows CCP did infact mess up with missile data, and its easily fixable.
Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Fury Missile DPS: 16 Volley: 192 Optimal: 18.8km Heavy Missile Launcher II + (x) Precision Missile DPS: 11 Volley: 130 Optimal: 33.8km
That instantly puts HML's inline with other medium weapon platforms ... fixed and not nerfed .... is much better outcome. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:05:00 -
[1587] - Quote
spellbound spirit wrote:Cane is simply too good, and these changes might actually do some good to command ships usage.
Next thing they're gonna nerf will be skirmish boosts, farewell DS.-like drake gangs?
One sad thing about not only this but CCP direction overall is that they seem to promote blobs more and more, instaed of well put and executed small/medium gangs/tactics, not to mention their goal of killing solo.
P.S So when is ECM drones nerf coming? No, the cane is where the battlecruisers SHOULD be, not to mention it's an excellent cap/supercap killer. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:06:00 -
[1588] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)
You can't use unskilled data because there are a different number of support skills for each weapon platform. -Liang These are numbers at the BASE of the pyramid.. they are foundations that the game bases everything off. So i can use them, because the game does.
No, your argument is invalid because it completely ignores both what is actually possible and what is reasonably probable.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:07:00 -
[1589] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.
-Liang I really don't get why people keep saying this. I didn't compare beams or rails to HMLs when I said "these are total ****, why would I ever use them?" On their own they're awful and need a buff or people won't use them any more just because HMs are being nerfed. The only thing that's going to happen now is that long range combat will be solely in the domain of artillery and rare but specific applications of rails (Nagas, Rokhtrine). So much this. People don't not-use medium rails because HML drakes are soooo good, they don't use them because they're **** and nerfing HMLs won't change that
Actually, people specifically don't use medium rails because the Drake and HML exists. Go look at the old threads regarding the Rail ferox.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:07:00 -
[1590] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)
You can't use unskilled data because there are a different number of support skills for each weapon platform. -Liang These are numbers at the BASE of the pyramid.. they are foundations that the game bases everything off. So i can use them, because the game does. No, your argument is invalid because it completely ignores both what is actually possible and what is reasonably probable. -Liang Except CCP is changing base stats by looking at the platforms after skill and role bonuses are applied... http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Eromatic 3592AE
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:08:00 -
[1591] - Quote
CCP....DO U THINK WE ARE NUTS?
IF U GUYS WANT TO BE FAIR THEN GIVE US AN INGAME OPTION TO SELL ALL CALDARI SKILLS SO WE CAN PUT THE SP IN GUNS AND IN OTHER RACES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS ALREADY THE XXX TIME SINCE 2005 THAT U GUYS NERF MISSILES SOMEWHERE
FIND ANOTHER JOB INSTEAD OF BORING PEOPLE OFF THE GAME!!! TJEEEEEZ!!! |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:08:00 -
[1592] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The other ships become much more viable once HML stops dominating the **** out of the entire LR cruiser weapon field.
-Liang I really don't get why people keep saying this. I didn't compare beams or rails to HMLs when I said "these are total ****, why would I ever use them?" On their own they're awful and need a buff or people won't use them any more just because HMs are being nerfed. The only thing that's going to happen now is that long range combat will be solely in the domain of artillery and rare but specific applications of rails (Nagas, Rokhtrine). The range nerf is reasonable, 10% damage nerf would also be reasonable on top of that. Giving missiles comparable DPS ignores their many counters (plus one with this patch).
You keep complaining about the counter, but that counter is a natural result of the incredible boost that comes from the TE/TC change.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:09:00 -
[1593] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:real numbers .. with non-cherry picked data using raw data only (this means unskilled, un bonused)
You can't use unskilled data because there are a different number of support skills for each weapon platform. -Liang These are numbers at the BASE of the pyramid.. they are foundations that the game bases everything off. So i can use them, because the game does. No, your argument is invalid because it completely ignores both what is actually possible and what is reasonably probable. -Liang Except CCP is changing base stats by looking at the platforms after skill and role bonuses are applied...
So... you support my position. Cool.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:11:00 -
[1594] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:So... you support my position. Cool.
-Liang No, I'm supporting his, the point being that skill and role bonuses are being ignored yet they're taken into account in the numbers that show that the missiles are overpowered.
Yes they're overpowered, but not as much as you think they are, otherwise they'd be viable on more than simply two platforms. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
771
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:12:00 -
[1595] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This change will make Tracking Disruptors very overpowered!That is a very valid concern and one we will be continuing to look very closely at. Some options on the table include making TDs affect missiles at a lower severity to guns, dropping the base power of TDs and increasing the bonus from TD bonused ships, or splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers). One way or another we will be working with you all to make sure Ewar is as balanced as possible before release in Winter. [/list] I've asked already and since I didn't seem to recieve any answer gonna ask once again. Basically there are only 2 options, kinda like in tests for little kids, so picking one is pretty easy.
a) you believe EW modules should allow their users to completely cripple opposing ship, rendering it totally toothless, which is exactly what happens when you're permitted to stack multiple TDs or RSDs upon the very same target;
b) you believe EW modules should only somewhat debuff the target, still leaving the latter one some offensive capabilities. 14 |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:14:00 -
[1596] - Quote
Azual Skoll wrote:Bloutok wrote:Fine, Make the ham drake better. By making tracking enhancers/computers affect missile range, that's exactly what they're doing. HAM drakes with Javelins (which will have no speed penalty) and a couple of TEs/TCs should hit out to around 45km.
No, more like 30-35.
Good enough IMO. Could just build a new nano drake that has ballistic+TE+2xnano in the lows with javelin assaults and it would be exactly same deal as the standard nano drake, cept less range. Who kites out to 50km in a nano drake anyways.
Thing is, it should still be possible to choose fury missiles for heavies and get a little more range than javelins, while having less DPS (but not a huge amount as it is planned). It's like how javelin rails have a bit more range than null blasters, while having a bit less DPS. There should be a bridge to the gap where missiles can be "Close ammo for long range that does the closest dps to long ammo for close range". Currently the nerf is being considered as "Furies need to do way less DPS". I think it should be like:
Rage HAMs: worst range, best DPS faction HAMs: Middle HAM range, middle DPS javelin HAMs: long HAM range, low HAM dps T1 ammo: same as javelin DPS, middle HAM range.
^This is at least being done
Furies HMs: short HM range, best HM dps faction HMs: Middle HM range, middle HM dps precision HMs: Long HM range, lowest HM dps T1 ammo: same as precision DPS, middle HM range.
However, the above T2 HM parts are not "set in stone". They are currently:
Furies HMs: almost same range as faction, only a little more dps faction HMs: middle damage, middle range (good) precision HMs: Horrible, but we know they will be fixed.
The only discrepancy above is that they haven't specified how they want to change furies. I think the damage nerf will be less yelled about if furies can stay close to their current dps (still getting nerfed, just by not as much as the others), and having there range reduced to bridge the gap between TE boosted javelin HAMs and close-range-ammo HMs.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:15:00 -
[1597] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:So... you support my position. Cool.
-Liang No, I'm supporting his, the point being that skill and role bonuses are being ignored yet they're taken into account in the numbers that show that the missiles are overpowered. Yes they're overpowered, but not as much as you think they are, otherwise they'd be viable on more than simply two platforms.
His argument is that you should ignore all skills and all bonuses. This is both unreasonable and impractical because it ignores what is both possible and what is likely. It is an utterly stupid thing to assert, and your support for it diminishes my respect for your opinion. I get that you want to claim missiles aren't OP, but seriously this is not the way to make the argument.
-Liang
Ed: Also, what you said supported my position, not his. -_- Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Nyla Hunt
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:16:00 -
[1598] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility.
CCP Fozzie,
Lets look at your proposal, well in short dude it sucks.
I trained Heavy Missile spec to 5 because that was what I liked. Now if you do these changes I demand my skill points back and oh yeah lets not forget that the only two ships on Caldari that works is a Drake and a Tengu which willl become redundant too with these changes. Dont even let me get started on the Nighthawk.
So Me being a Caldari Pilot all the way is forced to buy HAMS because you cant find a place for it - really come on man... - what ever happened to common sense? Seems its a lost art.
The only well balanced ship in this game is the Noctis, are you gonna try and break that too?
Why not work on the tons of other useless ships in this game instead of trying to get us to vote on these stupid forums for your idea.
Dude imho you should just resign and go home, you dont belong here.....
Ban me I dont care - you just cost me 3 years of training.
Oh btw Legally I purchased a product with time spent renting your services in the form of a client, then you change the product - thats equal to breach of contract ..... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:17:00 -
[1599] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:So... you support my position. Cool.
-Liang No, I'm supporting his, the point being that skill and role bonuses are being ignored yet they're taken into account in the numbers that show that the missiles are overpowered. Yes they're overpowered, but not as much as you think they are, otherwise they'd be viable on more than simply two platforms. His argument is that you should ignore all skills and all bonuses. This is both unreasonable and impractical because it ignores what is both possible and what is likely. It is an utterly stupid thing to assert, and your support for it diminishes my respect for your opinion. I get that you want to claim missiles aren't OP, but seriously this is not the way to make the argument. -Liang Ed: Also, what you said supported my position, not his. -_- I misinterpreted his point, but I still maintain that the platforms should be looked at a lot more closely, rather than blaming a problem specific to two platforms on an entire weapons system. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:20:00 -
[1600] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: I misinterpreted his point, but I still maintain that the platforms should be looked at a lot more closely, rather than blaming a problem specific to two platforms on an entire weapons system.
The platforms which use the weapons system cannot really be properly balanced until the weapon system itself is properly balanced. And that's really the crux of the issue - because I don't think anyone in their right mind can reasonably claim that HML are not OP as ******* hell.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:21:00 -
[1601] - Quote
I hereby declare that "asking for SP's back" is equivalent to godwins law in these discussions and such requests should render the opinions of the poster null and void as clearly there is no intention to contribute to the debate in a reasonable and meaningful manner :P
you know who wanted his SP's back? ******!
*legs it* Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Erin Ironjade
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:21:00 -
[1602] - Quote
Quote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
lolwut? You want to take turret modules and make them affect the missiles? Are you serious? May be you should think about missile specific modules which will be same to tracking enhancers and computers? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:21:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Nyla Hunt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. CCP Fozzie, Lets look at your proposal, well in short dude it sucks. I trained Heavy Missile spec to 5 because that was what I liked. Now if you do these changes I demand my skill points back and oh yeah lets not forget that the only two ships on Caldari that works is a Drake and a Tengu which willl become redundant too with these changes. Dont even let me get started on the Nighthawk. So Me being a Caldari Pilot all the way is forced to buy HAMS because you cant find a place for it - really come on man... - what ever happened to common sense? Seems its a lost art. The only well balanced ship in this game is the Noctis, are you gonna try and break that too? Why not work on the tons of other useless ships in this game instead of trying to get us to vote on these stupid forums for your idea. Dude imho you should just resign and go home, you dont belong here..... Ban me I dont care - you just cost me 3 years of training.
Three years for one race and the fastest weapon systems to train?
Emo much?
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
726
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:23:00 -
[1604] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: I misinterpreted his point, but I still maintain that the platforms should be looked at a lot more closely, rather than blaming a problem specific to two platforms on an entire weapons system.
The platforms which use the weapons system cannot really be properly balanced until the weapon system itself is properly balanced. And that's really the crux of the issue - because I don't think anyone in their right mind can reasonably claim that HML are not OP as ******* hell. -Liang And as I've said several times, the weapons system itself can be balanced, I just think CCP is going about it a bit too heavy handed. The only difference I'm proposing from Fozzie's nerf is reducing the damage nerf from 20% to 10%.
I'm curious as to how the TE/TC changes will pan out, but those stats haven't been released yet so I can't really say whether I'd be happy using the tracking script on HAMs, for example. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2233
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:29:00 -
[1605] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: I misinterpreted his point, but I still maintain that the platforms should be looked at a lot more closely, rather than blaming a problem specific to two platforms on an entire weapons system.
The platforms which use the weapons system cannot really be properly balanced until the weapon system itself is properly balanced. And that's really the crux of the issue - because I don't think anyone in their right mind can reasonably claim that HML are not OP as ******* hell. -Liang And as I've said several times, the weapons system itself can be balanced, I just think CCP is going about it a bit too heavy handed. The only difference I'm proposing from Fozzie's nerf is reducing the damage nerf from 20% to 10%. I'm curious as to how the TE/TC changes will pan out, but those stats haven't been released yet so I can't really say whether I'd be happy using the tracking script on HAMs, for example.
I'd rather see similar performance between HML and other LR weaponry than leave us in a situation where people are literally lol why would I ever use a rail ship when I can use HML?. You talk about how HML has many counters, but so do turrets. And the damndest thing about it is that they're different. HML will continue to be unaffected by your personal movement and transversal. It will continue to be impossible to get under your guns. It will continue to have relatively high alpha.
In short: Even nerfing HML damage by 20% is not going to render the weapon platform useless. It'll just bring it back down to where there's an actual choice to make about where your weak points should be instead of simply always HML.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:30:00 -
[1606] - Quote
How bad would one TD be for heavy missiles? - a little theorycrafting
First some data
JC Anderson wrote:Should be noted that the TD buff was on SISI ages ago, and in the last major patch CCP announced they would eventually be doing this, but that the version of it they had on SISI wasn't exactly what they wanted. They said they would be coming back to it in the near future. It caused a few threads of complaints then as well, but people for some reason just forgot about it. These are screenshots I took in may on SISI. http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2343/tdsisi.jpgSo we all knew SOMETHING would happen to make them effective against missiles, even if we didn't know how it would finally be implemented.
*With all skills at V and no ship bonus, one scripted T2 disruptor will give 50.25% (value from EFT) penalty to the target as things are right now.
* It's assumed that a scripted TD will increase the explosion radius with +50.25%.
* It is assumed that the explosion velocity will be penalized with the same value but with opposite sign, in other words -50.25%. This is a guess however, it is not verified.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity
* T2 ammo will apparently be changed, so no point in checking the effects of a TD on them. T1 and faction only.
* With all skills a V and no ship bonuses, T1 and faction heavy missiles currently have an explosion radius of 93.75m, the explosion velocity is 121.5m/s.
Missile mechanics - brief:
Explosion radius: If the explosion radius is larger than the targets signature radius, the ratio between the two shows how much damage that gets through. If the ship is bigger it takes full damage but not more. Example: 100m explosion radius vs a target with 40m signature radius, target takes 40% of the damage (speed and resistance also taken into account after this).
Explosion velocity: There is a minimum speed that a target must reach to start reducing missile damage beyond that from just size. The exact speed varies from case to case, for a 125m cruiser being shot by heavy missiles it is 106m/s. If this minimum speed can be reached or surpassed damage will begin to decrease further. If a speed that already reduces damage is doubled, that speed increase will result in a missile damage that is roughly two thirds (66%) of what the target took previously. This is regardless of which type of heavies that is used (the exact numbers are: T1 or faction = 62%, T2 precision = 67% and T2 fury = 54% remaining damage after the speed doubling).
If the TD debuff is -50.25% to the heavy missile explosion velocity (so down to half), this will be mathematically identical to a case where the targets speed instead became twice as fast. As a result the damage drops to roughly two thirds from that TD, at the most, but the reduction can be less too (if the target is big or moving slow).
Some numbers:
Missiles against slow targets (only size reduction to damage):
T1 heavy missiles (93.75m expl rad) against stationary or slow targets of various sizes with one perfect TD debuff: Target (signature radius) -- normal damage -- damage with one debuffing TD (+50.25%) Frigate (40m) -- 42.7% -- 28.4% Cruiser (125m) -- 100% (133%) -- 88.7% BC (250m) -- 100% (267%) -- 100% (177%) BS (400m) -- 100% (427%) -- 100% (284%)
Missiles against "fast" targets (speed reduction to damage):
T1 heavy missiles (93.75m expl rad, 121.5m/s expl vel) against targets of various sizes that has reached the minimum required speed to reduce damage further, also one perfect TD debuff: Target (signature radius) -- speed -- normal damage -- damage with one debuffing TD (+50.25% explosion radius AND -50.25% explosion velocity) Frigate (40m) -- 181m/s -- 42.7 % -- 18% Cruiser (125m) -- 106m/s -- 100% (133%) -- 55% BC (250m) -- 77m/s -- 100% (267%) -- 100% (111%) BS (400m) -- 62m/s -- 100% (427%) -- 100% (177%)
Result: One perfect TD (no ship bonuses) will have the following results on a ship using T1 or faction heavy missiles. It is also assumed that the target is armor tanked (since shield tanks are larger). Against a moving frigate the damage will be halved (42%), when the TD is activated. Against a moving cruiser the damage will be halved (55%), when the TD is activated. No effects seen against BC's (of 250m radius, tier 3 bc's will likely see some reduction). No effect on BS's.
Disclaimer: I could have made calculation errors or wrongful assumptions, these numbers might not be correct. I only did this because I wanted to learn more about missiles and see how a TD might effect them.
References and a few formulas, in case anyone want to bash my math: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage
calculating speeds needed to see a damage reduction effect Vt > Ve * (S/E)^((k-1)/k) where k=(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)) (variable names from link above)
calculating the 'taken damage multiplier' from doubling a speed already high enough to give a damage reduction Damage multiplier = 1 / 2^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)) (drf values for heavy missiles: T1 and faction = 3.2, T2 precision = 2.7, T2 fury = 4.5)
|
Kinet
Frog Steamers
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:31:00 -
[1607] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:[quote=Kinet] Quote:Why didnt I roll a Minnie... Because you didn't want to roll a race with ****** mechanics that's by and large getting anally ****** by the rebalance? -Liang
Honestly it was because I thought they looked silly flying spaceships with sunglasses. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:32:00 -
[1608] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:I hereby declare that "asking for SP's back" is equivalent to godwins law in these discussions and such requests should render the opinions of the poster null and void as clearly there is no intention to contribute to the debate in a reasonable and meaningful manner :P
you know who wanted his SP's back? ******!
*legs it*
Oh hey, the curse blocker removes the name, neat :D
1: i hope a troll remover comes along, cause the **** starts here.
2: The bottleneck in this game is SP. Yes, i would have stooped playing a few times during the few years i played, but i own something like 150 plex. It does not make the game good, it makes it free.
If CCP keeps on nerfing / changing / boosting all over the place with 0 thinking for people who will have worthless toons after said changes, i will take my crystal ball and predict an even bigger treadnaught later. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:34:00 -
[1609] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote: * It's assumed that a scripted TD will increase the explosion radius with +50.25%.
The problem with assumptions is that they are....assumptions. Fozzie already said that TDs will probably have weaker effect on missiles than they have on guns. |
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:37:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:S4nn4 wrote: * It's assumed that a scripted TD will increase the explosion radius with +50.25%.
The problem with assumptions is that they are....assumptions. Fozzie already said that TDs will probably have weaker effect on missiles than they have on guns. I know. But it is so aweful hard to do calculations with no numbers :( So I picked the value that the guns suffer from, seemed reasonable for now. |
|
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:38:00 -
[1611] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:There was a reason I trained all races frigs, cruisers, and bs to 5. And all races t3 sub systems to 5. In additions to training up to use all tech 2 weapons systems.
There ALWAYS seems to be something getting nerfed, and it's the best way to make sure you can fly whatever fotm is until it gets nerfed not long after.
Though, is this really a good thing?
That's fine and dandy if you have a veteran toon. I just started playing about 6 months ago, though, with two accounts - one is Gallente (runs a Sentry Domi) and the other trained up missiles/caldari to run anomalies with a tengu. It takes a LONG, LONG time to train up all these weapon skills, and when you go one direction with the expectation that things are what they are, it really sucks to get blammo nerf batted like this. This isn't a minor nerf. This reminds me of the old Verant swinging the nerf bat without any care. |
Sun Win
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
106
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:39:00 -
[1612] - Quote
Sofia Wolf wrote:A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf
First CCP Fuzzie I want to express admiration for your willingness to read throe this entire threadnot. Remember, even when it dose not look like it, most of us appreciate your balancing efforts.
My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps.
I see that we've moved from denial and rage on to the bargaining stage of grief. Keep at it. You're almost at acceptance. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1334
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:39:00 -
[1613] - Quote
patrick elektros wrote:the hurricane nerf is in my opinion unnecessary, but it's because some one in ccp don't like em like that, no more welp canes without implants and near perfect skills, no more instacanes without extra pg mods/rigs and less insta
meh
silly nerf in my point of view, as the canes weren't really being used that much, but i think this was done in effect to balance out the drake nerf Confirming that being the third most used, behind the Drake and Zealot, ship in combat is totally untrue.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Nyla Hunt
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:41:00 -
[1614] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Nyla Hunt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. CCP Fozzie, Lets look at your proposal, well in short dude it sucks. I trained Heavy Missile spec to 5 because that was what I liked. Now if you do these changes I demand my skill points back and oh yeah lets not forget that the only two ships on Caldari that works is a Drake and a Tengu which willl become redundant too with these changes. Dont even let me get started on the Nighthawk. So Me being a Caldari Pilot all the way is forced to buy HAMS because you cant find a place for it - really come on man... - what ever happened to common sense? Seems its a lost art. The only well balanced ship in this game is the Noctis, are you gonna try and break that too? Why not work on the tons of other useless ships in this game instead of trying to get us to vote on these stupid forums for your idea. Dude imho you should just resign and go home, you dont belong here..... Ban me I dont care - you just cost me 3 years of training. Three years for one race and the fastest weapon systems to train? Emo much? Stand in the corner over there and play with things in your own paygrade - untill then leave a comment that is worth looking at or play WOW. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
863
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:45:00 -
[1615] - Quote
I do think Tracking Disruptors should be a separate module to affect missiles.
At that point you're making another EWAR module, which comes with a list of questions attached.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:45:00 -
[1616] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: I misinterpreted his point, but I still maintain that the platforms should be looked at a lot more closely, rather than blaming a problem specific to two platforms on an entire weapons system.
The platforms which use the weapons system cannot really be properly balanced until the weapon system itself is properly balanced. And that's really the crux of the issue - because I don't think anyone in their right mind can reasonably claim that HML are not OP as ******* hell. -Liang
Wrong. Both on your interpretation of what i have typed, and on what it is I am saying.
And also because part of what i'm trying to get accross was merely implied, because i thought (foolishly) that it would be read by intelligent, literate people, who would see where I was going .... my bad .
The raw unskilled data has an ERROR in it, and looking at that data has highlighted it. The error is specifically in the data for heavy missiles ...... in that they are not balanced at a BASIC level in line with other medium weapons. When the game takes that erroneous data and then modifies it by your skills, and your then by Ship Modifiers, and your finally by your fitting modifiers it has compounded that initial error several times, by multiple factors.
Fix the basic error, then look at what needs to be changed in Module/Ship Modifiers, and skill bonus modifiers, if at all by that point.
See where I was going now .......
I AM saying heavy missiles are broken .... but for a totally different reason to you.
|
Nyla Hunt
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:46:00 -
[1617] - Quote
Sun Win wrote:Sofia Wolf wrote:A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf
First CCP Fuzzie I want to express admiration for your willingness to read throe this entire threadnot. Remember, even when it dose not look like it, most of us appreciate your balancing efforts.
My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps. I see that we've moved from denial and rage on to the bargaining stage of grief. Keep at it. You're almost at acceptance.
Dude open your eyes....
GÇ£There is only one reason for an individual to side-step to the useless side : the fear of a defeat on the useful side.GÇ¥ |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:47:00 -
[1618] - Quote
Nyla Hunt wrote:Onictus wrote:Nyla Hunt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. CCP Fozzie, Lets look at your proposal, well in short dude it sucks. I trained Heavy Missile spec to 5 because that was what I liked. Now if you do these changes I demand my skill points back and oh yeah lets not forget that the only two ships on Caldari that works is a Drake and a Tengu which willl become redundant too with these changes. Dont even let me get started on the Nighthawk. So Me being a Caldari Pilot all the way is forced to buy HAMS because you cant find a place for it - really come on man... - what ever happened to common sense? Seems its a lost art. The only well balanced ship in this game is the Noctis, are you gonna try and break that too? Why not work on the tons of other useless ships in this game instead of trying to get us to vote on these stupid forums for your idea. Dude imho you should just resign and go home, you dont belong here..... Ban me I dont care - you just cost me 3 years of training. Three years for one race and the fastest weapon systems to train? Emo much? Onictus, Stand in the corner over there and play with things in your own paygrade - untill then leave a comment that is worth looking at or play WOW.
Or maybe you can do some thinking for yourself on how you will make these changes work for you instead of standing there with your arms crossed stamping your foot demanding things from CCP. You are not entitled to anything nerfs happen quit acting like a 2 year old or as you so kindly put it WOW is ----> way. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2236
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:51:00 -
[1619] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote: The raw unskilled data has an ERROR in it, and looking at that data has highlighted it.
See where I was going now .......
I AM saying heavy missiles are broken .... but for a totally different reason to you.
None of that matters, because the only balance that matters is the balance that has support skills applied. That's what I'm getting at.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:55:00 -
[1620] - Quote
Nyla Hunt wrote:Onictus wrote:Nyla Hunt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. CCP Fozzie, Lets look at your proposal, well in short dude it sucks. I trained Heavy Missile spec to 5 because that was what I liked. Now if you do these changes I demand my skill points back and oh yeah lets not forget that the only two ships on Caldari that works is a Drake and a Tengu which willl become redundant too with these changes. Dont even let me get started on the Nighthawk. So Me being a Caldari Pilot all the way is forced to buy HAMS because you cant find a place for it - really come on man... - what ever happened to common sense? Seems its a lost art. The only well balanced ship in this game is the Noctis, are you gonna try and break that too? Why not work on the tons of other useless ships in this game instead of trying to get us to vote on these stupid forums for your idea. Dude imho you should just resign and go home, you dont belong here..... Ban me I dont care - you just cost me 3 years of training. Three years for one race and the fastest weapon systems to train? Emo much? Onictus, Stand in the corner over there and play with things in your own paygrade - untill then leave a comment that is worth looking at or play WOW.
I can fly four races with T2 weapons, BS and down.......tell me about my paygrade please.
Specially after it took you three years to train
.....a Drake? |
|
Sun Win
Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire
106
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:56:00 -
[1621] - Quote
Kinet wrote:Guess it is time to sell off my supply of Drakes and heavy missiles. Once this patch goes live you wont be able to give them away.
Tell you what, I'll take the soon to be useless Drakes off your hands at 10k a piece. |
Zernin
Sturm Reich Sturmgrenadier Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:56:00 -
[1622] - Quote
I would much prefer weapon based disruptors over this global disruptor nonsense. If you do implement a missile disruptor, also consider implementing "control disruptors" that affect drone damage stats that can be applied to the controlling ship. This would provide an ewar option that doesn't have to hit each individual drone. I'm not a big fan of all this homogenization, but lets at least homogenize equally if we have to homogenize. |
Orakkus
The Fancy Hats Corporation Kraken.
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:56:00 -
[1623] - Quote
I think the missile changes are pretty decent overall (I remember when HAMs were introduced and that was one of the concerns back then too). The Heavy Missile change I very excited for because it should be comparable to long range weapon damage (like arties/Beams/Railguns) instead of how it is now.
I am really excited about how TDs will now be used (and I am on record as saying it will be the most popular E-war for non E-war ships) and am curious how far CCP is on dealing with ECM and Sensor Dampeners (two systems CCP indicated they were reviewing) and if they have any ideas on what changes, if any, they plan for Target Painting? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
244
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:57:00 -
[1624] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: And as I've said several times, the weapons system itself can be balanced, I just think CCP is going about it a bit too heavy handed. The only difference I'm proposing from Fozzie's nerf is reducing the damage nerf from 20% to 10%.
I'm curious as to how the TE/TC changes will pan out, but those stats haven't been released yet so I can't really say whether I'd be happy using the tracking script on HAMs, for example.
Well said, and that's the thing, A smaller nerf would be much more palatable, because we're talking about 1 of the games 3 travel time weapons (the other 2 being bombs and drones) being brought "in line" with instant damage turret weapons. Travel time weapons NEED some kind of stat based superiority to compensate for the downsides of those weapons (such as vulnerability to smartbombs).
You make HMLs "in line" with turret weapons and you actually make them worse than turret based weapons. THEN add to that letting the modules that negatively affect turrets affect missiles too?
Hasn't CCP learn what too much nerfing does? When I started playing in '07, the Gallente ships were THE pvp ships and multi-nerf after multi-nerf put them on the virtual shelf.
To much nerfing of HMLs simply shifts the imbalance to Tracking assisted (and now faster) Cruiss Missles, HAMs and RLMLs/light missiles. how does making JavHAMS long range weapons fix anything?
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
769
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 18:58:00 -
[1625] - Quote
Adapt or die |
Zernin
Sturm Reich Sturmgrenadier Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:01:00 -
[1626] - Quote
Oh, and another reason to separate missile disruption modules is it opens up the same plan for how TCs affect weapons. Right now lots of ship fits use off-bonus, separate slot weapons in the utility highs. Allowing for a single module to affect both weapon types boosts the role of off-slot weapons in utility highs, or boosts the value of TCs for ships already using off-slot weapons in the utility highs. Break them out and keep the choice. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:04:00 -
[1627] - Quote
Missile tracking high slot?
If that is what you are getting at, it could be pretty cool |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
244
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:05:00 -
[1628] - Quote
Sun Win wrote:Sofia Wolf wrote:A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf
First CCP Fuzzie I want to express admiration for your willingness to read throe this entire threadnot. Remember, even when it dose not look like it, most of us appreciate your balancing efforts.
My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps. I see that we've moved from denial and rage on to the bargaining stage of grief. Keep at it. You're almost at acceptance.
That was not smart. I said the exact same ting about 30 pages earlier.
All people like me and Sofia are saying is that too much change at once is wrong headed, CCP has done it before (over and over and over again), why not smarten up this time and not break something that then requires precious and costly developer time to fix? The risk here is that in attempting to bring HMLs in line, you end up with YET ANOTHER mostly un-used weapon that is simply replaced by other weapons (like HAMs)
Is that concept (the concept of advising caution) to much for people to grasp? Failing to learn from the past is the #1 reason people, societies and in this case a game company can't break out of the "dumb cycle".
We're just saying take it slow, there's no reason to rush.
|
Lili Lu
446
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:06:00 -
[1629] - Quote
Nyla Hunt wrote:Onictus wrote:Nyla Hunt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. CCP Fozzie, Lets look at your proposal, well in short dude it sucks. I trained Heavy Missile spec to 5 because that was what I liked. Now if you do these changes I demand my skill points back and oh yeah lets not forget that the only two ships on Caldari that works is a Drake and a Tengu which willl become redundant too with these changes. Dont even let me get started on the Nighthawk. So Me being a Caldari Pilot all the way is forced to buy HAMS because you cant find a place for it - really come on man... - what ever happened to common sense? Seems its a lost art. The only well balanced ship in this game is the Noctis, are you gonna try and break that too? Why not work on the tons of other useless ships in this game instead of trying to get us to vote on these stupid forums for your idea. Dude imho you should just resign and go home, you dont belong here..... Ban me I dont care - you just cost me 3 years of training. Three years for one race and the fastest weapon systems to train? Emo much? Onictus, Stand in the corner over there and play with things in your own paygrade - untill then leave a comment that is worth looking at or play WOW. Yes you should be banned. You should resign your posting privileges. Well, and actually that of your main, since you choose to get on here and personally insult a dev from a noob corp alt toon. You are the one throwing a childish tantrum that needs a time out in the corner.
However, these kind of reactions were easily predictable. People acting like spoiled children who fad of the three-year period chased would of course come on here and just hurl personal insults when CCP finally does the right things and says heavy missiles should no longer get a pass and everyone flying drakes and tengus is not what the game should devolve into.
Look at what Onictus wrote. It is a valid retort to your rant. Have you really only trained one race and one weapon system in your 3 years in this game? |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
208
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:10:00 -
[1630] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Wrong. Both on your interpretation of what i have typed, and on what it is I am saying. And also because part of what i'm trying to get accross was merely implied, because i thought (foolishly) that it would be read by intelligent, literate people, who would see where I was going .... my bad . The raw unskilled data has an ERROR in it, and looking at that data has highlighted it. The error is specifically in the data for heavy missiles ...... in that they are not balanced at a BASIC level in line with other medium weapons. When the game takes that erroneous data and then modifies it by your skills, and your then by Ship Modifiers, and your finally by your fitting modifiers it has compounded that initial error several times, by multiple factors. Fix the basic error, then look at what needs to be changed in Module/Ship Modifiers, and skill bonus modifiers, if at all by that point. See where I was going now ....... I AM saying heavy missiles are broken .... but for a totally different reason to you.
You simply don't understand how heavy missiles work. You compare them directly to guns, which in the case of base stats ( considering ammo types ) is wrong.
Guns get - long range, weaker damage ammo - short range, better damage ammo + slightly better tracking
Missiles get - long range, medium damage ammo ( applicable in full range ) - short range precision ammo intended to hit small targets
Gun boats can compensate for speed/sig with piloting while missiles boats cant so you need to have ammo, which makes it easier to hit smaller targets. That ammo ( precision ) cannot be stronger for obvious reasons. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
92
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:15:00 -
[1631] - Quote
Merkal Aubauch wrote:Merkal Aubauch wrote:LOL ppl u dont understand that HMLs were overpowerd all the time.
With all 5 skills on unbonused ship:
250mm Railgun II Spike M 65km optimal + 15km falloff with 20 DPS 0,00755 tracking
Heavy Beam Laser II Aurora M
54optimal + 10 falloff with 21,1DPS 0,01031 tracking
720mm Howitrzer Artillery II ammo: Tremor M
54km optimal 22km falloff with 16,8 DPS 0,00687 tracking
general for turrets + insta dmg - one DMG type for long range ammo - full DPS only in optimal then its going down in falloff - might have tracking issues - some of turrets cant change DMG type
Heavy Missile Launcher II Caldari navy scourge Heavy Missile
84.4km range 38.2dps
+ full dps @ full range + cba on tracking - can be smartbombed or target can run - low signature + high speed are lowering DPS STOP CRYING FFS
yeah, lets not consider the damage bump those turrets get in closer ranges at all, b/c those advantages never mattered. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:16:00 -
[1632] - Quote
You actually missed the boat as far as what the issue is. It's not that HM's are over powering. If you nerf HM's, then a nerf to Large projectiles is in order as well as the I'm the comprise most of the leftovers of the top 11 weapons used in game. The only reason most people use lasers is because there's no reload time. But the range on hybrids and lasers blow compared to HM's and projectiles. If you truly look at the stats as far as why people use these 2 types of weapons....it's for the volley damage....HAM's have only marginally better dps, a much lower volley, and takes more CPU and PG to fit...therefore, people avoid them. Common sense....Also, since you are going to nerf the range and dps of HM's, will you be increasing the cycle time as that was the 2 benefits of going with guns, instant dps, which is an immeasurable stat, and a quick cycle time compared to the missiles, meaning you broke someone's tank faster...in Fleet battles, the person you are targetting is already getting reps before the first volley hits him....not so with guns....
Secondly....instead of nerfing the Drake and Hurricane...ask yourself why do people flock to these two ships...not because of the DPS....but the ability to maximize DPS while getting a solid omni-tank, of which both are shield fitted.
How about fixing armor fitting to be in line with Shields....why is ONLY boosted through low slots, while shields mainly boosted through mid slots....my mid slots go to tanking, my lows to dps, because aside from tracking computers for guns, all your DPS upgrades are through your low slots, so right off the bat you are hindering your armor tanking abilities.
You really want to equalize the playing field, try moving everything to shield tanking because at least there is a regen. With current fitting capabilities, to get a decent omni tank on an armor, you have to sacrifice a lot of dps, and it has to be buffer fit as you won't have the cap for a repper, and there is no passive repper like for shields *shield power relays*
Bottom line, it makes more sense to boost HAM's, as well as long range hybrids and lasers to get them range comparable to projectiles. When I talk to FC's about doctrines, it's more about the volley as you might be dead at any minute than the DPS. Hence why I challenge you to show me the statistics of Torando usage compared to the rest of the teir 3 BC's. It's all about the Volley and Range...
Guess I'll have to stop my caldari cross-train and switch to minnie.....long live the large projectile turret.... |
baltec1
Bat Country
2209
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:20:00 -
[1633] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Gun boats can compensate for speed/sig with piloting while missiles boats cant so you need to have ammo, which makes it easier to hit smaller targets. That ammo ( precision ) cannot be stronger for obvious reasons.
You would have a point if it wasn't for the fact that HML don't have too many issues hitting small things. |
shezz
Capital Gents Persona Non Gratis
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:25:00 -
[1634] - Quote
Missiles... suck more than ever now. Pro. Well Done.
Commencing a slow hand clap.
Was the drake OP or something? 300 dps too much?
|
Nyla Hunt
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:27:00 -
[1635] - Quote
Lili
Valid really?, I am exercising my right to disagree, and so did Onictus - he retorted sarcastically to my post and I told him what I thought of it and thus the circle of debate/insults goes....
Just to clarify I trained 3 years to master all Caldari/Indy things(ID10T). Just so you know there is no browny points in the game
O btw next time I want your opinion- Ill give it to you..... |
Dante Lioncourt
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:28:00 -
[1636] - Quote
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:28:00 -
[1637] - Quote
shezz wrote:Missiles... suck more than ever now. Pro. Well Done.
Commencing a slow hand clap.
Was the drake OP or something? 300 dps too much?
Well you know them CCP Devs, they like to nerf that, which is terribly underused. |
Lili Lu
447
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:29:00 -
[1638] - Quote
The problem I see with splitting out the anti-missile module from the anti-turret module is one of what race gets the ewar bonus for this. Things have been settled in eve as ecm-caldari, damps-gallente, TDs-amarr, and painters-minmatar. Frankly amarr and minmatar got the short sticks in this draw and Caldari the longest. Minmatar got a short stick since TPs effect is rather weak and also unlike the others it can't be used defensivley.
TDs have always been weak in that they only effect one particular weapon system that all the other races could side step by just using launchers. Now if the anti-missile ewar were a seperate module it would have to stay with amarr ewar as bonused for it. I suppose it might work to require amarr to fit two modules to cover the weapons that might be arrayed against it. It would be similar to racial ecm modules. But even ecm has multispecs (granted they are weak and not often used). I suppose the use of a missile script in a turret TD (and vice versa of a turret script in a missile TD) could be disfavored such that it would be like using a weaker ecm a la a multispec.
But it gets sorta odd looking and is more coherent to have one weapon disruptor module with two turret scripts and two missile scripts.
As for the strengths of all these that is where the real balancing must come. Currently unbonused use of a TD on a turret ship is op imo. The new Caldari frigs are laughing it up fitting these to a spare mid and turning them on a turret ship such that that turret ship can't do any damage to the disrupting frig. Who even needs an asb if the gunship can't hit you from the td effect. Maybe it's because you know how effective an unbonused TD is on fubaring turrets that so many missile boat pilots are on here yelling against a td effect on missiles.
The whole point though is it shouldn't be that way against either weapon system. Unbonused use should have a rather weak effect, like unbonused ecm does currently. But each weapon type should fear the appearance of a bonused amarr ship with TDs. I also argue that the base strength on painters and damps should similarly be reduced such that the ships bonused for those are equally feared and respected.
If the numbers are done right, we shouldn't see a flood of everyone fitting TDs. And ironically, having the other ewar ships buffed in this way will be to the advantage of ecm boat pilots in that they may no longer be the automatic primary in any engagement. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:30:00 -
[1639] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
You really want to equalize the playing field, try moving everything to shield tanking because at least there is a regen.
The heck is this guy talking about
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:33:00 -
[1640] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Merkal Aubauch wrote:Merkal Aubauch wrote:LOL ppl u dont understand that HMLs were overpowerd all the time.
With all 5 skills on unbonused ship:
250mm Railgun II Spike M 65km optimal + 15km falloff with 20 DPS 0,00755 tracking
Heavy Beam Laser II Aurora M
54optimal + 10 falloff with 21,1DPS 0,01031 tracking
720mm Howitrzer Artillery II ammo: Tremor M
54km optimal 22km falloff with 16,8 DPS 0,00687 tracking
general for turrets + insta dmg - one DMG type for long range ammo - full DPS only in optimal then its going down in falloff - might have tracking issues - some of turrets cant change DMG type
Heavy Missile Launcher II Caldari navy scourge Heavy Missile
84.4km range 38.2dps
+ full dps @ full range + cba on tracking - can be smartbombed or target can run - low signature + high speed are lowering DPS STOP CRYING FFS yeah, lets not consider the damage bump those turrets get in closer ranges at all, b/c those advantages never mattered. Not to mention his numbers are wrong....the max range of a non-bonused HM is 75.9km, and the dps is 32.
Also not mentioned in his numbers are the following Projectile +no cap usage *which does go well for missiles as well
Lasers + minimal reload when a crystal breaks +cycle time
Hybrids + cycle time
Not to mention that at 75k range...I have 2 more volleys in the air just as the first one is hitting the target....whether you are in close or at max range....while guns may not always hit for max dps, don't underestimate the power of an instantaneous hit whether you are at 2k or at 50k... |
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:34:00 -
[1641] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Gun boats can compensate for speed/sig with piloting while missiles boats cant so you need to have ammo, which makes it easier to hit smaller targets. That ammo ( precision ) cannot be stronger for obvious reasons.
You would have a point if it wasn't for the fact that HML don't have too many issues hitting small things.
You are right of course. I should clarify that what I meant was : "They *should* work like that"
EDIT : Just remembered that one horrible night when my Ishkur was so painfully raped by HML Tengu from 80kms in just three volleys. |
LtauSTinpoWErs
Mafia Redux
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:35:00 -
[1642] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
I think the changes you have suggested will become accepted in time. I think there needs to be adjustments on the specifics but overall, I approve of the idea behind these proposed changes. For everyone who thinks these changes will ruin the game and specifically for Caldari pilots, I understand where you are coming from. I was under the same belief when I first read through the coming "changes" but after sitting on it, and holding my tongue, I now see the brilliance behind these proposed nerfs. Being born into the Caldari State, I have spent extensive time training both missile skills (Over 8.2 million skill points in missiles) and Caldari ships.
I am loving the changes to the following sections in your opening post: Hurricane Adjustment All Missiles Light Missiles Tech Two Missiles
The changes to Heavy Missiles and Tracking Disruption needs a little love though.
Starting off with the tracking disruptor change, I would honestly prefer to see a different modules affect missiles; specifically considering the other negatives to missiles that turret based ships do not have to deal with (defenders, smart bombs, travel time, etc). However, every modules should have a pro and a con. That is why certain damage platforms are better at close range and others are better at distance. If you are determined to implement these changes to tracking disruptors then please hear me out. For the tracking disruptors to receive this buff, they would become godly. My proposal for altering tracking disruptors would be to drastically reduce the effectiveness of tracking disruptors, unless used by a bonused ship such as the Sentinel or the Curse. This way, the module would become similar to unbonused ECM. To keep the effectiveness on bonused ships the same as they are now, would require a change in the specific ship bonuses to tracking disruptors. Perhaps increase the bonuses for those ships closer to 20% per level assuming that the base values for the tracking disruptor were indeed low enough.
The heavy missiles do need altering. They are indeed very useful (and some would argue OP) on TWO Caldari ships out of their entire armada, the Tengu and the Drake. The Drake needs adjustment: the 5% bonus to shield resistance per level is supposed to be for the Ferox only. You need to swap out the current 5% shield resistance bonus on the drake for the 10% velocity bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles per level (which would give it the same bonuses as the Raven and the Caracal) as it should have been from the get go. I think that the range bonus is appropriate to put it in line with the other battlecruisers (using long range weapons) and especially if it is given the 10% velocity bonus, there won't be much change in range compared to the current Drake. Since you are boosting all missiles in general (maybe change the proposed Drake bonus to 5% velocity bonus instead) but I am not sold on the 20%.
I understand that heavy missiles are currently working better than they are supposed to but I think a 15% damage reduction would be better. Most people have been showing various statistics for the range and DPS of long range ammo on medium sized long range weapons. However, I don't think anyone showed the statistics of those long range weapons using close range high damage ammo. Turrets are able to change out ammo based on needs of distance (close or far) and can even change damage types when using projectile ammo. Heavy missiles have more or less, one type of ammo to use for targets, in regards to range. The only close range heavy missile ammo (currently precision because of its negative to speed) is designed to counter smaller sized ships rather than dealing higher DPS. Yes, I know the T2 missile negatives are being removed and I love that.
One last thing to note and it has been said before, but the fitting requirements for heavy missiles to heavy assault missiles are backwards and that needs to be adjusted. By changing that, that will also essentially help balance the use of heavy missiles in regards to being overpowered. I did some math to compare the difference between power grid fitting of medium sized short range weapons and their long range counterparts based of their based stats. For this, I grouped the following weapons:
Close Range vs Long Range 425mm Autocannon II and 720mm Artillery Cannon II PG = 154 PG = 275 154/275 = .56 which means that 425 Autos II use 56% of the PG needed by their long range counterparts
220mm Autocannon II and 650mm Artillery Cannon II PG = 110 PG = 220 110/220 = .5 = 50% of PG needed
Heavy Ion Blaster II and 200mm Rail Gun II PG = 158 PG = 189 158/189 = .836 = 83.6% of PG needed
Heavy Neutron Blaster II and 250mm Rail Gun II PG = 212 PG = 236 212/236 = .898 = 89.8% of PG needed
Heavy Pulse Laser II and Heavy Beam Laser II PG = 231 PG = 275 231/275 = .84 = 84% of PG needed
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II and Focused Medium Beam Laser II PG = 132 PG = 165 132/165 = .8 = 80% of PG needed
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II and Heavy Missile Launcher II PG = 126 PG = 105 126/105 = 1.2 or 120% of PG which means that the close range weapon here is using 120% more PG than its long range counterpart. This needs to be reversed. And when it does, the numbers will switch: 105/126 = .833 or 83.3% of PG needed, which puts it in line for fitting purposes with the other weapons of its size.
Continued in next post: |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
244
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:36:00 -
[1643] - Quote
like most i got side tracked by the (IMO) ridicules HML proposal, but other questions pop up.
Are Tracking Computers/Tracking Enhancers going to stack now with Rigor and Flare and missle flight time/speed rigs? And if not, WHY not.
Unstacked TCs/TEs with certain rig combinations could mean some REALLY long ranged HAMs that would simply replace HMLs in mid ranged fights.lol. And since HAMs fire so much faster, that could cause more lag issues in fleet fights, no? |
Dante Lioncourt
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:37:00 -
[1644] - Quote
But seriously guys do you not think that CCP has got plan for the rest of the caldari missile boats that never get used that would balance this out ?
For example the cerb which could be a awesome long range missile boat with wicked speed Or maby they have a suprise for the ferox ? This is EVE anything is possible , just be positive |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
244
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:37:00 -
[1645] - Quote
LtauSTinpoWErs wrote: On a side note, I would love to start seeing T2 FOF missiles :)
Me too, FoF missles I could tell "hey, just shhot the frigs" or "please ignore those structures" lol Doubt it would ever happen though.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
244
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:38:00 -
[1646] - Quote
Dante Lioncourt wrote:But seriously guys do you not think that CCP has got plan for the rest of the caldari missile boats that never get used that would balance this out ? For example the cerb which could be a awesome long range missile boat with wicked speed Or maby they have a suprise for the ferox ? This is EVE anything is possible , just be positive
you must be new......
lol
|
The Steel Harpy
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:38:00 -
[1647] - Quote
patrick elektros wrote:this is about CCP making more money, by making people train other skills and this nerfs people making in game money, in effect making it harder for people to pay for plex with in game isk. in effect hoping that people will in turn have to pay real money to play the game. ccp has been about making money, ad not about working with the players on some level fora while now. and this is aNERF on tengus and drakes, the 2 biggest ratting boats in the game.
you got an issue with this, let ccp know, make them rollback the nerf, but keep in mind walmart only rolls back items it's raise prices on first.
the moderate change would have been 7.5% reduction in missile damage and 5% in range. this wasnt against goons or anybody else, it was against all of us to pay more to play (notice plex prices at an all time high) and since the plex sellers are lookin to sell higher price plex and the plex buyers wont be able to make the money, maybe plexes will drop, but i doubt it.
CCP keep in mind we will find better fits for better ships, no matter what you do you need to remember that nerfing pvp/pve ships and buffering industrials is the first step to being like wow, and your sandbox will get sludge in it.
This! CCP have buffed carebears so much-that non-consensual pvp in hi sec is wrecked-oh! Wardecs? Erm-the carebears don't undock anyway-not like those overtanked Macks can't handle it anyway-but there ya go. But those of us who DO live in null sec & want to make a living? Oh well-time I trained that Legion anyway. I/we who have enough sp's will adapt and survive as ever-but this WILL hurt a great many players-especially those of a Cadari nature <---- Other races deserve a buff-particularly Gallente-Hybrids STILL suck-canes/drakes/tengus are used for a reason-you want to change stuff fine-but at once? I think you'll find Jita riots are the least of it-as well as lots of unsubs-people think life in null sec is cushty-it can only be cos we work hard, we don't just log in to our Macks in Brape & click a mouse once an hour.
Nerfng decent ships without giving viable alternatives is ********. You WILL lose accounts because of this-why fly Caldari? I can't think of a single reason now *sigh* I have plenty of others-but not everyone has that luxury, so -1 Caldari-this one will be on ice-welcome to WOW in space. |
Lili Lu
449
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:39:00 -
[1648] - Quote
Nyla Hunt wrote:Valid really?, I am exercising my right to disagree, and so did Onictus - he retorted sarcastically to my post and I told him what I thought of it and thus the circle of debate/insults goes.... Just to clarify I trained 3 years to master all Caldari/Indy things(ID10T). Just so you know there is no browny points in the game O btw next time I want your opinion- Ill give it to you..... I suppose I should correct my own post in that you do have a corp history and are not in a noob corp. But it is an npc corp and you don't appear to have any pvp history http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1107465
Now maybe all you ever do in this game is pve. That's ok. But then you can't expect this game to cater to all the people like you that identified the esiest pve ship progression when the game decides to alter that easy progression. Lili has heavy missile spec 4. I have two other characters that I pve'd wtih and damn right I took advantage of that easy route through Drakes. But you don't see me on here thinking only what is best for me and not giving a crap about what is best for the game as a whole.
Also, "(ID10T)" Ooh, that's clever and I'm incredibly hurt. Wanting my opinion is not your call. You post here you are open to getting everyone's opinion. Grow up. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:40:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dante Lioncourt wrote:But seriously guys do you not think that CCP has got plan for the rest of the caldari missile boats that never get used that would balance this out ? For example the cerb which could be a awesome long range missile boat with wicked speed Or maby they have a suprise for the ferox ? This is EVE anything is possible , just be positive you must be new...... lol I guess it's just my imagination that every ship in the game is being reworked? |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
617
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:41:00 -
[1650] - Quote
Dante Lioncourt wrote:But seriously guys do you not think that CCP has got plan for the rest of the caldari missile boats that never get used that would balance this out ? For example the cerb which could be a awesome long range missile boat with wicked speed Or maby they have a suprise for the ferox ? This is EVE anything is possible , just be positive No I think most of us lost faith along time ago. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
|
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:43:00 -
[1651] - Quote
If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?
Or did i miss something here? |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2245
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:43:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:like most i got side tracked by the (IMO) ridicules HML proposal, but other questions pop up.
Are Tracking Computers/Tracking Enhancers going to stack now with Rigor and Flare and missle flight time/speed rigs? And if not, WHY not.
Unstacked TCs/TEs with certain rig combinations could mean some REALLY long ranged HAMs that would simply replace HMLs in mid ranged fights.lol. And since HAMs fire so much faster, that could cause more lag issues in fleet fights, no?
I'm going to assume that they stack. I'm super curious what kind of range bonuses and damage application bonuses we'll see though. It'll really be the deciding factor on whether or not this is a nerf to HML or a massive boost to missiles as a whole. It feels like a moderate to large boost to most missile platforms.
Consider that a sniping TC Cruise Raven will really smack cruisers in the face if those TCs work out well.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Dante Lioncourt
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:44:00 -
[1653] - Quote
You have lost faith , You must be saved my brothers follow me to missile heaven where you will saved by thousands of unnerfed HMs that will slap your face gently |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2245
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:44:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Karsa Egivand wrote:If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?
Or did i miss something here?
They should do different things. TPs affect the target while TCs affect your ability to project and apply damage.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Veryez
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:45:00 -
[1655] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
I would disagree with the assertion that Heavy Assault missiles are 'quite good' currently their explosion velocity is below that of the average t1 cruiser, with the buff you are giving t1 cruiser velocity this winter they will fall further behind. This should be looked at closely to see if the current HAMs are still 'quite good' compared to the buffed cruisers coming out.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This change will make Tracking Disruptors very overpowered!That is a very valid concern and one we will be continuing to look very closely at. Some options on the table include making TDs affect missiles at a lower severity to guns, dropping the base power of TDs and increasing the bonus from TD bonused ships, or splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers). One way or another we will be working with you all to make sure Ewar is as balanced as possible before release in Winter.
First off this is a very valid concern, I believe the 2 types of TD's (much like types of ECM) to be a very interesting solution. Second, you cannot seriously believe ECM and Target painters are in any way close to each other in balance, yet you give ECM a 15% bonus and painters a 7.5% bonus per level. Painters have long been the joke of EW, and if you are seriously considering 'balancing them' you should start with reduced cycle times (like 4 sec) and bigger boosts on ships w/target painters (like 15% per level). The fact that you are not touching this module shows to me you probably haven't used it very much.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
You present an excellent arguement for reducing the DPS in heavy missiles, and I think many agree with that, however what is the justification for also reducing the range? Looking at unbonused ships (yet definate missile ships), The Kertral gets 42.2k out of light missiles, the Nighthawk gets 84.4k out of heavies, and the navy Scorp gets 168.8k out of cruise. Surprisingly enough this 2x progression also follows in Artillery, Beam lasers (excluding the tach which remains in a league of it's own), and Railguns. So how can the range on heavy missiles be so out of alignment if lights and cruise missiles are ok and it follows the same paradigm of other long range weapons? |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
244
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:46:00 -
[1656] - Quote
Karsa Egivand wrote:If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?
Or did i miss something here?
It just might depending on how they do it.
The Painter only affects one target and has a cycle time, fall off ect ect. The TC/TE has none of those problems and affects every salvo the missile ship fires, the TE has no cycle time and the TC's cycle time is irrelevant.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:49:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Karsa Egivand wrote:If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?
Or did i miss something here?
All things bring equal, that is a presumed double whammy, bigger Sig AND faster explosion.
Battleship missiles anyone. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:49:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Karsa Egivand wrote:If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?
Or did i miss something here? No more that the tracking mods conflict with webs for turrets now. And there is still the fact that, like webs, TP's affect the target and as a result any allied parties while TE/TC's only affect one ships performance. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:50:00 -
[1659] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:To help Fozzie out...
Balance changes requires tweaking stats.
The Unified Inventory was a huge code undertaking from the FOUNDATION of EVE up to the highest levels of EVE codes. Making changes on a whim after work was done would've required whole amounts of weeks or more to be scrapped and redone. So, making changes there wasn't just a matter of punching a number in a spreadsheet and adjusting it.
Unified Inventory needed a lot of love when it came out, but it wasn't because they were ignoring you.
To help you out....
There were weeks, yes weeks of replies in the Unified Inventory thread detailing the exact problems that the new system would introduce. Very reasonable and sensible suggestions were made by a large number of people BEFORE this was introduced onto TQ.
All these were ignored and it was brought in regardless. Then surprise, surprise most of the EVE community were screaming about the EXACT same problems that were spotted by us on SISI.
So.... Yes, they did completely ignore all the feedback that was given (and there was a lot of it). I think it was a fair question to ask if it is going to happen again. |
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:52:00 -
[1660] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Karsa Egivand wrote:If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?
Or did i miss something here? It just might depending on how they do it. The Painter only affects one target and has a cycle time, fall off ect ect. The TC/TE has none of those problems and affects every salvo the missile ship fires, the TE has no cycle time and the TC's cycle time is irrelevant.
That would make the target painter an even more niche module than it is already... |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:55:00 -
[1661] - Quote
LtauSTinpoWErs wrote: On a side note, I would love to start seeing T2 FOF missiles :)
Noooooo, delete them from the game already |
Yuri Wayfare
Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:57:00 -
[1662] - Quote
patrick elektros wrote:this is about CCP making more money, by making people train other skills and this nerfs people making in game money, in effect making it harder for people to pay for plex with in game isk. in effect hoping that people will in turn have to pay real money to play the game.
You do realize that every PLEX on the in-game market was bought by another player? And that this other player paid more real-world money for it than a normal 30-day subscription would have cost? "In effect" people buying PLEX for ISK are making CCP more money than regular subscribers. "Suddenly, trash pickers! HUNDREDS of winos going through your recyclables." -Piugattuk |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
112
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:57:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:like most i got side tracked by the (IMO) ridicules HML proposal, but other questions pop up.
Are Tracking Computers/Tracking Enhancers going to stack now with Rigor and Flare and missle flight time/speed rigs? And if not, WHY not.
Unstacked TCs/TEs with certain rig combinations could mean some REALLY long ranged HAMs that would simply replace HMLs in mid ranged fights.lol. And since HAMs fire so much faster, that could cause more lag issues in fleet fights, no? I'm going to assume that they stack. I'm super curious what kind of range bonuses and damage application bonuses we'll see though. It'll really be the deciding factor on whether or not this is a nerf to HML or a massive boost to missiles as a whole. It feels like a moderate to large boost to most missile platforms. Consider that a sniping TC Cruise Raven will really smack cruisers in the face if those TCs work out well. -Liang
Cruises need to have there cycle time lengthened and there alpha increased. Then this would be fun. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:57:00 -
[1664] - Quote
After second though, those change to missiles are having side (or intended?) effect: homogenisation of Eve. I personally don't mind it and evem want some steps in this directions (unification of damage modules, but that's another topic), but for spme players it might be unappealing. Secondly, without hatsh emotions I can say now that this will bring HM in line... with other long range missiles: Standart Launchers => Heavy Missile Launchers => Cruise Launchers => Citadel Laucnhers (?). I think that those missile system have same defining characteristics: 1) Very low dps. 2) Very long range. 3) Huge delay before damage. 4) Low alpha-strike. 5) Good damage projection. What else those systems have in common? Obvious answer as that they are actually rare. Almost anything they provide can be made by other weapon systems better and without delay. Yes, they are cap stable and allow you to choose damage type, but so are Projectiles. We don't see any Cruise launchers or Standart launchers and PvP beside few gimmick fits. Personally I want to see those 2 used more, not HML used less.
The other major point here is short-range missile launchers. CCP Fozzie said that HAML are good weapon that got overshadowed by HML. I think that he is only particuallry right, because HAML are actually overshadowed by HML but not good weapon system themselve. I see those reasons for it: 1) Too low dps. HAML offer too low dps output. Compare them to medium beam lasers, blasters and ACs and you will see that difference is rather noticeble. The only good dps with HAMLs can be achieved on pimped tengu which is a problem with hull, not HAMLs. 2) Low range. It might be partially solved with proposed changes to TE and TC, but using low slots for TE on ships with low amount of low slots (bad pun) will harm already low dps. I understand that this range is still higher that range of unbuffed medium short-range turrets, but ships that can use HAMLs are slow and fat. Missile ships just can't fit 3 Ballistics controls and 2 TE and be fine with it. 3) They are hard to fit. Other weapon systems based on idea that short range weapons are easy to fit so they can be used with conjuction of good damage protection and utility. HAMLs just leave you with slow, undertanked short-range ship that can only brawl if opponent is desperate enough to get in melee range (and that mean scram range because of Caldari slowboat doctrine). 4) Have to reaload really often. It's a trait of all missiles, but it really hurts with high RoF. I can even bring you a good example: Sacriliege. An interesting and beautiful ship left in the dust because it is stuck with HAMLs. It could be great ship but it's seldom used despite great tank and tremendous capacitor.
Nerf of HM are probably needed, but it should be either not that harsh or come with a buffs to other missiles (HAM, Torps and Cruise). Of course any torp reworks should include fixing Stealth Bombers.
This change will most of all hurt new players. I remember how I started to play Eve: I was choosing faction by aesthetics and lore, not by fotm (because I haven't know which was a fotm). And it was not a fault of a new players that was told by their friends/corpmates "Train Drake then Tengu". If a new player decide to choose Caldari he or she gonna get disappointed and left with ineffective PvE missile ships, unusable Torps/Cruise in PvP and 2 very short lines: - Naga/Rokh (which arguably is not why any new player choose faction to focus), good for only special fleet formats - Jam ships (same as the above, but even rarer used in 0.0 fleets) |
Ender Sai
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:01:00 -
[1665] - Quote
This is a painful but necessary change.
That said. I love the arbitrator, if this change makes the arbi imba and you slap it hard with the nerfbat I am going to be very very displeased. I will have to comfort eat and get fat.
This is obviously not acceptable so PLEASE PRACTICE DUE CAUTION. (note, I think the idea of splitting off a set of missile bonus mods both for weapons systems and tracking disruption is a good idea). |
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:02:00 -
[1666] - Quote
Karsa Egivand wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:Karsa Egivand wrote:If the Tracking Computer (etc.) now effect missiles .... doesn't that conflict with the Target Painter module?
Or did i miss something here? It just might depending on how they do it. The Painter only affects one target and has a cycle time, fall off ect ect. The TC/TE has none of those problems and affects every salvo the missile ship fires, the TE has no cycle time and the TC's cycle time is irrelevant. That would make the target painter an even more niche module than it is already... That is probably true, squeezing some extra range out of the missiles is probably more appealing for both HAM and HML users. The nice thing with a TP is that it helps your friends to kill the unlucky victim faster, and they can be stacked. But the target has to be in range to begin with ofc. |
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:04:00 -
[1667] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:like most i got side tracked by the (IMO) ridicules HML proposal, but other questions pop up.
Are Tracking Computers/Tracking Enhancers going to stack now with Rigor and Flare and missle flight time/speed rigs? And if not, WHY not.
Unstacked TCs/TEs with certain rig combinations could mean some REALLY long ranged HAMs that would simply replace HMLs in mid ranged fights.lol. And since HAMs fire so much faster, that could cause more lag issues in fleet fights, no?
Stacking may work only on HMLs cause rigors dont work for HAMs ,cause they are not guided missiles.
This ship modification is designed to decrease the signature radius factor for missile explosions at the expense of increased CPU requirements for launchers.
Note: only works on guided missiles, that is light missiles, heavy missiles and cruise missiles.
TE and TC looks more like option for fixing sig penalty for HAMs or giving choices for better range.
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:04:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Why nerf things when you could buff things instead? When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be concious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance. Aware of power creep? You mean like introducing a new BC tier that uses BS weapons and has better agility (+50%) and better speed (+50%) than the current tier 2 BC's that are getting nerfed because they are a little overpowered atm? Or introducing a tanking module that is far better than any other tanking module in the game so much so that it obsoletes other fits meant for a ship via its bonuses? Or introducing Tech 3's that are easier to skill for and overshadow other types of ship in the game at their intended roles (T3's as HAC's/Linkships)? Or Fighterbombers? Yes I can see CCP is very aware of power creep. I also await the day of "Put a TD on everything".
Spot on :) |
Alice Doombringer
Dark Angel's Legion Nite's Reign
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:06:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Here is purely my opinion about reducing Heavy Missile range and dmg. If im right it aims to nerf drake and tengu via nerfing whole weapon system. HM can take some nerfing without throwing all around. But more limited reduction than proposed now by Dev. Why i say this? Well.. as many others before... this nerf doesn't just affect Drake and Tengu but also Caracal (weak ship by all means already), Cerberus, Nighthawk.
Also it affects on new people. Caracal and Drake are 2 steps on general path with missiles as aim. It hurts most to new people who have wery limited resources and Caracal being 1 key in the path which would now get useless pretty much. Old people have already resources and skills or get fast skills to go on like battleships or other stuff.
how about new "general ecm equip" aiming both turrets and missiles. It will become super module must for all pvp people. And if its effect ain't limited by anything.. u could get funny situation wher missiles can't hit on battleship because it goes too fast. ok that was bit exaggerating it but really. ship that goes faster than missile reduces chances to hit to 0% while for turrets there is always minimal chance to hit on too fast ship. also notice that turrets hits instantly whatever the case while missiles.. it will take time to reach target.
Hope Devs takes that into account while tuning stuff |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:06:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:After second though, those change to missiles are having side (or intended?) effect: homogenisation of Eve. I personally don't mind it and evem want some steps in this directions (unification of damage modules, but that's another topic), but for spme players it might be unappealing. Secondly, without hatsh emotions I can say now that this will bring HM in line... with other long range missiles: Standart Launchers => Heavy Missile Launchers => Cruise Launchers => Citadel Laucnhers (?). I think that those missile system have same defining characteristics: 1) Very low dps. 2) Very long range. 3) Huge delay before damage. 4) Low alpha-strike. 5) Good damage projection. What else those systems have in common? Obvious answer as that they are actually rare. Almost anything they provide can be made by other weapon systems better and without delay. Yes, they are cap stable and allow you to choose damage type, but so are Projectiles. We don't see any Cruise launchers or Standart launchers and PvP beside few gimmick fits. Personally I want to see those 2 used more, not HML used less.
The other major point here is short-range missile launchers. CCP Fozzie said that HAML are good weapon that got overshadowed by HML. I think that he is only particuallry right, because HAML are actually overshadowed by HML but not good weapon system themselve. I see those reasons for it: 1) Too low dps. HAML offer too low dps output. Compare them to medium beam lasers, blasters and ACs and you will see that difference is rather noticeble. The only good dps with HAMLs can be achieved on pimped tengu which is a problem with hull, not HAMLs. 2) Low range. It might be partially solved with proposed changes to TE and TC, but using low slots for TE on ships with low amount of low slots (bad pun) will harm already low dps. I understand that this range is still higher that range of unbuffed medium short-range turrets, but ships that can use HAMLs are slow and fat. Missile ships just can't fit 3 Ballistics controls and 2 TE and be fine with it. 3) They are hard to fit. Other weapon systems based on idea that short range weapons are easy to fit so they can be used with conjuction of good damage protection and utility. HAMLs just leave you with slow, undertanked short-range ship that can only brawl if opponent is desperate enough to get in melee range (and that mean scram range because of Caldari slowboat doctrine). 4) Have to reaload really often. It's a trait of all missiles, but it really hurts with high RoF. I can even bring you a good example: Sacriliege. An interesting and beautiful ship left in the dust because it is stuck with HAMLs. It could be great ship but it's seldom used despite great tank and tremendous capacitor.
Nerf of HM are probably needed, but it should be either not that harsh or come with a buffs to other missiles (HAM, Torps and Cruise). Of course any torp reworks should include fixing Stealth Bombers.
This change will most of all hurt new players. I remember how I started to play Eve: I was choosing faction by aesthetics and lore, not by fotm (because I haven't know which was a fotm). And it was not a fault of a new players that was told by their friends/corpmates "Train Drake then Tengu". If a new player decide to choose Caldari he or she gonna get disappointed and left with ineffective PvE missile ships, unusable Torps/Cruise in PvP and 2 very short lines: - Naga/Rokh (which arguably is not why any new player choose faction to focus), good for only special fleet formats - Jam ships (same as the above, but even rarer used in 0.0 fleets)
All great points....the only thing they should honestly do to HM's is switch the PG needs of the HAM and HM....that makes more sense than nerfing HM's range and DPS. Most people don't consider the fact that an HM has to reload every 40 volleys on T2 missiles while you get anywhere from 80-120 before reloading on guns. |
|
Vizas Mar
Tears of Terra Solar Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:11:00 -
[1671] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well:Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Just wanna say to CCP FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
728
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:15:00 -
[1672] - Quote
patrick elektros wrote:this is about CCP making more money, by making people train other skills and this nerfs people making in game money, in effect making it harder for people to pay for plex with in game isk. in effect hoping that people will in turn have to pay real money to play the game. CCP gets the same amount of money whether people use PLEX for game time or subscribe.
Actually, false, CCP makes more money off of PLEX than actual subscriptions.
So overall, fail. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:19:00 -
[1673] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.
The problem I have at the moment is that so far the Tengu has been the only missile boat to perform well enough to make it my dedicated lvl 4 mission runner.
Now, once heavy missiles are nerfed and the not too far after tengu nerfs, I get the feeling it won't be usable in lvl 4 missions, or would be at least less effective than a raven which sucks.
So, my question is, will the tengu nerf be coming before the t1 bs' get buffs (which caldari missile boats probably will) or am I going to be stuck without a mission boat until y'll revamp battleships?
P.S. my tengu also seems to outperform the Golem in performance. I feel that while the tengu being OP does have some play in this, I also feel that the lack luster capabilities of battleship class bs' has a lot more to do with this.
Quote: It seems obvious that these changes are biased in favour of the Goons! Is that true? Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.
It seems obvious that these changes are biased against the Goons! Is that true? Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.
lol....goons...
Quote: Can CCP reimburse skillpoints to people who have trained missiles? When I trained for and purchased the tengu it was specifically for lvl 4 missions. Now that it's losing its effectiveness, and potentially with tengu nerfs the ability all together to be able to run lvl 4 missions, then essentially the SP and time I spent on training heavy missiles and the tengu will have been burned to the ground.
So, in your answer you stated that SP wouldn't be returned because the systems and ships would still exist in game.
However, due to the nerfs, they're losing their capability to perform the task I trained them for. So in a sense, for me at least, they're being removed from my realm of play. Will I be able to fight for an SP reimburstment?
Quote: Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps? The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
How about remote tracking links? It's possible that we may need to give remote tracking links slightly lower effects to missiles than to guns, but yes the plan is for them to have an effect.
Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders? We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.
This change will make Tracking Disruptors very overpowered! That is a very valid concern and one we will be continuing to look very closely at. Some options on the table include making TDs affect missiles at a lower severity to guns, dropping the base power of TDs and increasing the bonus from TD bonused ships, or splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers). One way or another we will be working with you all to make sure Ewar is as balanced as possible before release in Winter.
I tied all these together because they all fit my concern.
Will tracking enhancers be replacing target painters? And why?
Will disruptors replace defenders? Again, why?
Now, my final concern is, will tracking enhancers outperform target painters? Or, if they're not removing target painters, will they be set on equal footing?
Also, I feel that target painters need a buff because of the high demand for them when it comes to corps and cruise missiles, so, if they're not being removed or if tracking computers are replacing them, in either case will they be seeing a buff at all? |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:19:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Vizas Mar wrote: Just wanna say to CCP FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
Thank you for your meaningful contribution. |
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:19:00 -
[1675] - Quote
Fowler wrote:I'm curious what will happen to the Nighthawk and Cerberus after theese changes to missiles and especially heavy missiles.
Seems the Nighthawk gets a smack in the face it doesn't deserve. Rook, Cal Navy Caracal, Nighthawk, Cerberus, all basically screwed.
why is it guns get damage bonuses, and missiles get rate of fire?guns deal isntant damage, missiles have flight time delay to get to target, now there is no longer any compensation for that, and the ROF as opposed to the damage bonuses make it even less likey the bonused DPS for missiles has an actual effect on thre engagement.They basicall took an entire race and made in non viable. Noone ever uses ravens, cause cruise missiles are ****, now heavies are ****, i mean, other than the frigates, what caldari ships are worth a damn anymore? it's going to become a dea line, a dead race. The supposed "buff" to rails never did result in their re-emergence on the battlefield. EvE is becoming a 3 race game, Caldari is officially dead.
Whats the actual DPS , maxed out, per cruiser? Caracal is on the bottom, as always.Add in drones and it's a total joke.I'm real close to being done with this... |
Area51
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:19:00 -
[1676] - Quote
I think the HM changes (nerf?)is necessary to make it on par with long range medium guns. But now, HAMs need more love! |
Cage Man
Evil Guinea Pigs
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:22:00 -
[1677] - Quote
I don't see why you would want TD to work against missile boats? Missiles already have explosion velocity effects. Is it CCP's aim to make all weapon systems equal? This means a counter fit to turrets will work on missiles.. this seems like easy mode to me. I would rather see a defensive module that affects missile velocity\explosion radius to make it less damaging and a scripted mid and low slot mod that counters this for offense. As mentioned above, will HML's now get a bigger volume? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
728
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:26:00 -
[1678] - Quote
Simple way to keep tracking disruptors from being overpowered? Don't change them at all, and put whatever changes you were thinking of into another module called guidance disruptors. Make it so that ships with tracking disruption bonuses also give equivalent bonuses to guidance disruption modules. They will be forced to fit one or the other, or both, but having to give up something in return instead of having a module that works in every single situation.
Otherwise you're turning TD into an I WIN button to fit in every single situation. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:27:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:Fowler wrote:I'm curious what will happen to the Nighthawk and Cerberus after theese changes to missiles and especially heavy missiles.
Seems the Nighthawk gets a smack in the face it doesn't deserve. Rook, Cal Navy Caracal, Nighthawk, Cerberus, all basically screwed. why is it guns get damage bonuses, and missiles get rate of fire?guns deal isntant damage, missiles have flight time delay to get to target, now there is no longer any compensation for that, and the ROF as opposed to the damage bonuses make it even less likey the bonused DPS for missiles has an actual effect on thre engagement.They basicall took an entire race and made in non viable. Noone ever uses ravens, cause cruise missiles are ****, now heavies are ****, i mean, other than the frigates, what caldari ships are worth a damn anymore? it's going to become a dea line, a dead race. The supposed "buff" to rails never did result in their re-emergence on the battlefield. EvE is becoming a 3 race game, Caldari is officially dead. Whats the actual DPS , maxed out, per cruiser? Caracal is on the bottom, as always.Add in drones and it's a total joke.I'm real close to being done with this...
Have you looked at the new stats before posting this or is this just another the sky if falling comment. Fit a Caracal with HAMS and see where it fit in with the damage stack. If you want to argue that HAMS and HM need to have there PG/CPU swapped I would agree completely. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:27:00 -
[1680] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well:Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Translation: All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HMs:
Range: 56.9 (down from 75.9) DPS: 316.8 (down from 396, including reload time) Volley: 2209.6 (down from 2762) CPU used: 291.2 PG used: 661.5
All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HAMs: Range: 18.1 DPS: 493 Volley: 1841 CPU used: 262.5 PG used: 793.8
And none of this takes into account speed and sig radius of target ship....which is something anti-drake/tengu people don't consider when it comes to DPS. |
|
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:28:00 -
[1681] - Quote
*Sensible Post time*
Loving the basis of the change. HML losing approx 20% damage is great. However as much as is it great to hear that following this a Tengu with a range of 110km is no longer going to roughly match that of a Legion or Loki at minimum range, I'm thinking it could be done a different way.
Ignoring the missiles themselves for a second. Comparing short range guns to long range on cruisers. The long range options are barely used. The dps loss on them compared to short range is quite noticeable, and that's before you take into account. I know you're looking at reducing the grid requirements of Beams and Arty - do you think this alone will be enough to make them a better option in comparison with the short range options?
Has the idea of boosting the dps of the ranged guns a little, and coming down with HML a little been toyed with? ie 10% damage increase on the guns, 10% drop for the missiles?
With your planned changes, I'm looking forward to HAM being a more worthwhile option, there is rarely any point in using it currently. Although a large part of that is fitting requirements - they're really quite tough to fit on a lot of ships currently, contrary to guns despite being shorter range they have larger grid requirements. I'd like to see this change personally.
What a huge amount of people seem to be missing (the I'm going to quit this game unless I get my SP back people) is that missile ships suck due to the bonuses and actual ship features. Fozzy nailed this with his comment about the Drake being the long range BC of choice despite no range bonus and the weakest damage bonus.... Following this missile change, I'm sure the Drake will pretty much end up where it is now with its hinted bonus changes, the Tengu will no longer blitz everything. Other missile ships such as the Nighthawk need a massive change to make them worthwhile (ship specific here on the nighthawk, no reason to use one with a drake existing)
I'd like to add I'd love to see the HAM specific ships get a look in. See the HAM subs on the Legion, Loki and then look at the Sacrilege too. They're quite a way behind their Caldari counters.
Regarding Tracking Disruption. Can their be specific scripts for missiles rather than using the gunnery ones. It will limit the OTT'ness once they've come out. People won't just have a catch all for dps ships without atleast working a little bit.... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:29:00 -
[1682] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Simple way to keep tracking disruptors from being overpowered? Don't change them at all, and put whatever changes you were thinking of into another module called guidance disruptors. Make it so that ships with tracking disruption bonuses also give equivalent bonuses to guidance disruption modules. They will be forced to fit one or the other, or both, but having to give up something in return instead of having a module that works in every single situation.
Otherwise you're turning TD into an I WIN button to fit in every single situation.
You can only fit so many modules on a ship.
So, I feel as though having these modules affect all damage modules is fair.
As long as they remove defender missiles anyway.
If they don't and attempt to "fix" defenders, than I'm afraid missiles will be quite a bit more crappy than they will be after these nerfs. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
728
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:31:00 -
[1683] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:You can only fit so many modules on a ship. Yes, which is why making players make choices instead of fitting a single module that works in every single case is a good thing. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
DJCouGaR
Bundy Rum manufacturing
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:32:00 -
[1684] - Quote
What is it with you guys and nerfing Caldari to be honest take missiles out of the game and make everyone use guns Caldari would be better of , and by the way can I have all the skills back i trained on missiles because they are useless now |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:34:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well:Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF. Translation: All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HMs: Range: 56.9 (down from 75.9) DPS: 316.8 (down from 396, including reload time) Volley: 2209.6 (down from 2762) CPU used: 291.2 PG used: 661.5 All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HAMs: Range: 18.1 DPS: 493 Volley: 1841 CPU used: 262.5 PG used: 793.8 And none of this takes into account speed and sig radius of target ship....which is something anti-drake/tengu people don't consider when it comes to DPS.
So we agree that HM fit in fine now with other medium ranged weapons? HAM need to have there DPS buffed a bit 10% would make them close to ~550 with this set up and that seams to be in range of other current short ranged set ups. |
Lili Lu
449
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:35:00 -
[1686] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: the only thing they should honestly do to HM's is switch the PG needs of the HAM and HM....that makes more sense than nerfing HM's range and DPS. Most people don't consider the fact that an HM has to reload every 40 volleys on T2 missiles while you get anywhere from 80-120 before reloading on guns. The dps stats usually take account of reload time, but of course if they haven't then they should.
To digress - I have been a vocal propornent of a drake and tengu nerf. That the first salvo comes on HMLs is not what I envisioned. I have always been more concerned about the resist bonus and the skewed BC shield regen stats. But yeah I have mentioned the range advantage and dps over range advantage that Drakes and HMLs possessed which everyone identified and led to the overuse of the ship.
That being said, I am concerned with the damage nerf on HMs. I fully agree that having similarly bonused Drakes doing 400 dps at 70km (with faction ammo or fury) and any other tier 2 Turret BC doing only 250 or so (with tech II long ranged ammo) at that range was a mistake (tech one turret ammo has an even worse comparison). The balancing should take into account this disparity and shrink it. However, it is a valid point for missile proponents to point out that they do not have the turret short range higher damage option.
Comparing medium pulse, ac, and balster theoretical dps against a Drake with HMs has always been a flawed argument with missile proponents, but comparing tech II long range gun short range high damage ammo with Fury is valid. So let's look at the current situation.
Harbinger with Aurora and two HS II with all level 5 skills dps is 271 Drake with Scourge Fury and two BCS II and all 5 skills dps is 396 Each with 7 weapons, hittiing for this at 70km, no drones
Changing that Harby to Gleam and it's dps is 475 but range is only 10km optimal (2 TC II with optimal)
So from a purely dps balancing perspective (disregarding the downsides of each weapon system with tracking or explosion parameters as each get affected by target speed or sig) the HMs should be coming in somewhere in the middle for dps. A Drake's 400 at 70km is too much. But it is all a matter of what lesser value for the Drake does not skew the pilot choice considerations too far toward the Harby.
Edit - And I feel sorta sad discussing this because part of me is wishing that Drake specialists could go through 4 years of what the Harbinger specialists endured. But then that would not be progress. So there it is. Don't nerf the Drake and HMs too much.
2nd edit - And the range and explosion parameters on TCs and TEs have to of course be careful, lest we get the ridiculous fits for those and we instead of nerfing Drake usuage actually end up with Drake total frig killers or Drake HM sniper or HAM kiters extraordinaire. I have faith that the Fozzie Ytterbium et al team can get the numbers right. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:35:00 -
[1687] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well:Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF. Translation: All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HMs: Range: 56.9 (down from 75.9) DPS: 316.8 (down from 396, including reload time) Volley: 2209.6 (down from 2762) CPU used: 291.2 PG used: 661.5 All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HAMs: Range: 18.1 DPS: 493 Volley: 1841 CPU used: 262.5 PG used: 793.8 And none of this takes into account speed and sig radius of target ship....which is something anti-drake/tengu people don't consider when it comes to DPS.
Since 99% of non-T3 PvP ships have MWDs, you can pretty much ignore sig penalties above the frigate class, because if a AB Ruppie is threatening you in a Drake, you are doing it wrong.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:36:00 -
[1688] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:You can only fit so many modules on a ship. Yes, which is why making players make choices instead of fitting a single module that works in every single case is a good thing.
yes, but at the same time, you're making it unfair for turret boats.
The vast majority of ships in game use turrets, then you have a few here and there that use missiles, so why would I fit against missiles if I'm going to be seeing mostly turret boats, expecially after these nerfs? |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:36:00 -
[1689] - Quote
DJCouGaR wrote:What is it with you guys and nerfing Caldari to be honest take missiles out of the game and make everyone use guns Caldari would be better of , and by the way can I have all the skills back i trained on missiles because they are useless now
Yeah, entirely remove the Caldari race.
No, i am not joking.
One of the problem is that CCP is not giving us the entire picture. What will be done with all the cruiser sized ships ? BCs, BSs ..... Titans ?
We have to decide if it's good with only a few pieces of the puzzle in place.
If they nerf the ECM again. There will truly be nothing left....... |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:38:00 -
[1690] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well:Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF. Translation: All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HMs: Range: 56.9 (down from 75.9) DPS: 316.8 (down from 396, including reload time) Volley: 2209.6 (down from 2762) CPU used: 291.2 PG used: 661.5 All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HAMs: Range: 18.1 DPS: 493 Volley: 1841 CPU used: 262.5 PG used: 793.8 And none of this takes into account speed and sig radius of target ship....which is something anti-drake/tengu people don't consider when it comes to DPS. So we agree that HM fit in fine now with other medium ranged weapons? HAM need to have there DPS buffed a bit 10% would make them close to ~550 with this set up and that seams to be in range of other current short ranged set ups.
Yes, I completely agree...i think the only change would be switching the PG needs of the HM and HAM's....it doesn't make sense to me that the short range weapon should need more PG as it makes the HMs easier to fit.
I also think they need to buff the Rails *extra range is pointless, most people don't care* and Laser's *while it should be a little lower since there is no cycle time compared to projectiles and Rails. Basically....why can't I get the same DPS *not volley damage, but dps* on any one of the 4 main BC's that everyone uses with the same basic damage mods? |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:39:00 -
[1691] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:DJCouGaR wrote:What is it with you guys and nerfing Caldari to be honest take missiles out of the game and make everyone use guns Caldari would be better of , and by the way can I have all the skills back i trained on missiles because they are useless now Yeah, entirely remove the Caldari race. No, i am not joking. One of the problem is that CCP is not giving us the entire picture. What will be done with all the cruiser sized ships ? BCs, BSs ..... Titans ? We have to decide if it's good with only a few pieces of the puzzle in place. If they nerf the ECM again. There will truly be nothing left.......
So you missed the attack and support cruiser threads completely to come in here and say remove Caldari?
Seriously? |
Shaalira D'arc
Quantum Cats Syndicate
496
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:39:00 -
[1692] - Quote
When I first saw this topic yesterday, it was a fairly tame 10 page thread. Now it's a proper threadnaught.
The blowback is to be expected, given that drakes are the most commonly-used ship in both PvP and PvE, and HMLs are the most commonly-used weapon system for the most-commonly-used ship. MMO players get particularly angsty when a balance change hits their preferred playstyle.
As someone that's used the HML drake, I have to agree with the changes. HML was essentially the mid-sized weapon platform for projected damage. Arty canes were a distant second, inferior in DPS, tank, range, and vulnerability to things getting close. Their only advantage, alpha, was eclipsed by the introduction of the Tornado.
With HML in line, we can now see a proper re-balance of battlecruisers down the road. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:40:00 -
[1693] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well:Heavy Missiles-Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF. Translation: All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HMs: Range: 56.9 (down from 75.9) DPS: 316.8 (down from 396, including reload time) Volley: 2209.6 (down from 2762) CPU used: 291.2 PG used: 661.5 All lvl 5 drake dps with 2 T2 BCS and T2 HAMs: Range: 18.1 DPS: 493 Volley: 1841 CPU used: 262.5 PG used: 793.8 And none of this takes into account speed and sig radius of target ship....which is something anti-drake/tengu people don't consider when it comes to DPS. Since 99% of non-T3 PvP ships have MWDs, you can pretty much ignore sig penalties above the frigate class, because if a AB Ruppie is threatening you in a Drake, you are doing it wrong.
the sig radius gained is grossly offset by the explosion velocity penalty of having a MWD.... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
728
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:40:00 -
[1694] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:You can only fit so many modules on a ship. Yes, which is why making players make choices instead of fitting a single module that works in every single case is a good thing. yes, but at the same time, you're making it unfair for turret boats. The vast majority of ships in game use turrets, then you have a few here and there that use missiles, so why would I fit against missiles if I'm going to be seeing mostly turret boats, expecially after these nerfs? Why would you, then? If you think you're only going to be seeing turret boats, by all means fit the turret disruptor. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:41:00 -
[1695] - Quote
Yet again adjusting the game based on the mass blobs of 0.0. Unsubbed. |
Skydell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
293
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:41:00 -
[1696] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:DJCouGaR wrote:What is it with you guys and nerfing Caldari to be honest take missiles out of the game and make everyone use guns Caldari would be better of , and by the way can I have all the skills back i trained on missiles because they are useless now Yeah, entirely remove the Caldari race. No, i am not joking. One of the problem is that CCP is not giving us the entire picture. What will be done with all the cruiser sized ships ? BCs, BSs ..... Titans ? We have to decide if it's good with only a few pieces of the puzzle in place. If they nerf the ECM again. There will truly be nothing left.......
Kinda, sorta. I said it 4 months ago when I left. Missile nerfs have nothing to do with EVE. They are balancing Dust514. Caldari is just taking all the snot from it. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:42:00 -
[1697] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dante Lioncourt wrote:But seriously guys do you not think that CCP has got plan for the rest of the caldari missile boats that never get used that would balance this out ? For example the cerb which could be a awesome long range missile boat with wicked speed Or maby they have a suprise for the ferox ? This is EVE anything is possible , just be positive you must be new...... lol
Or a CCP alt |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:43:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:DJCouGaR wrote:What is it with you guys and nerfing Caldari to be honest take missiles out of the game and make everyone use guns Caldari would be better of , and by the way can I have all the skills back i trained on missiles because they are useless now Yeah, entirely remove the Caldari race. No, i am not joking. One of the problem is that CCP is not giving us the entire picture. What will be done with all the cruiser sized ships ? BCs, BSs ..... Titans ? We have to decide if it's good with only a few pieces of the puzzle in place. If they nerf the ECM again. There will truly be nothing left....... So you missed the attack and support cruiser threads completely to come in here and say remove Caldari? Seriously?
Nice empty posting, i will reply with a nice empty posting.
empty posting. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:45:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Skydell wrote:Bloutok wrote:DJCouGaR wrote:What is it with you guys and nerfing Caldari to be honest take missiles out of the game and make everyone use guns Caldari would be better of , and by the way can I have all the skills back i trained on missiles because they are useless now Yeah, entirely remove the Caldari race. No, i am not joking. One of the problem is that CCP is not giving us the entire picture. What will be done with all the cruiser sized ships ? BCs, BSs ..... Titans ? We have to decide if it's good with only a few pieces of the puzzle in place. If they nerf the ECM again. There will truly be nothing left....... Kinda, sorta. I said it 4 months ago when I left. Missile nerfs have nothing to do with EVE. They are balancing Dust514. Caldari is just taking all the snot from it.
I do not mind that Caldari be re balanced.
What's being proposed is nuking the few good things without giving anything. |
Shaalira D'arc
Quantum Cats Syndicate
496
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:47:00 -
[1700] - Quote
For all the alarmism about the fate of the Caldari ship line:
Drakes and Tengus are not the only Caldari ships in the game, believe it or not.
The light missile buff comes at a time when we're already seeing a profligacy of light missile snipers with the new frigates, as well as upcoming missile-based destroyers. The fact that TE and TC will now affect missiles gives Caldari pilots much more flexibility in fitting their ships, allowing for ranges and engagement envelopes previously unavailable to them.
And the new caracal will be amazing.
My big concern with this post is the potency of the tracking disruptor. It's currently already very popular because of how it can neuter turret ships. When it has the capacity to neuter everything, I can see it becoming a must-have mid-slot for solo and small gang roamers. |
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
567
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:51:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Page 85. Wow. Well hopefully CCP Fozzie is still reading this.
I'm concerned about Tracking Disruptors. Faction Warfare is frigate heavy. We've seen the use of alot of the new frigates there. And many if not most are using tracking disruptors. A condor with light missiles, long point, and two TD is common. An arty slasher set up the same way is too. Even Atrons and Executioners will fit a TD rather then a web.
Now I've held my peace as I can build destroyers that lock farther and shoot farther then these small, frail frigates. I also know in the background that missile boats were very capable against them as they were immune to TD. But if that's not the case I can guarantee you that everyone and their mom will be fitting a TD. Some ideas:
- Increase the fittings on the TD. Increase the fitting grid on specialized boats.
- Take the TD for missiles one step further and seperate them for use via race/weapon type. I.E. - create a TD for hybrids, projectiles, lasers, missiles, and a weak general purpose one.
- Nerf the TD and boost the specialized boats.
|
Lili Lu
449
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:55:00 -
[1702] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: reposting other's whines and stuff
You know, you are late to this. And the discussion has really moved past the "just delete Caldari" exagerated angry unthinking replies. You should read more and focus on the rational discussion that is starting to occur.
You may have something valuable to contribute to that. But your emotional reaction to the proposed (and subject to much tweeking in itself) change is not really helping the thread at this time. Commiserate with people on voice comms or something (assuming they will all think as you presently do). Then come back to post your valuable thoughts and suggestions concerning the mechanics and stats of this change, after you have cleared that from your system. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:55:00 -
[1703] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
the sig radius gained is grossly offset by the explosion velocity penalty of having a MWD....
Could have fooled me, why do you think that null alliances are flying AB Tengus? The sparking 615 (or less) DPS?
For reference http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/knof/eve_missiles.swf
You lose 9dps on a drake vs a hurricane going 1450ms....oh noes. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:01:00 -
[1704] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:DJCouGaR wrote:What is it with you guys and nerfing Caldari to be honest take missiles out of the game and make everyone use guns Caldari would be better of , and by the way can I have all the skills back i trained on missiles because they are useless now Yeah, entirely remove the Caldari race. No, i am not joking. One of the problem is that CCP is not giving us the entire picture. What will be done with all the cruiser sized ships ? BCs, BSs ..... Titans ? We have to decide if it's good with only a few pieces of the puzzle in place. If they nerf the ECM again. There will truly be nothing left....... So you missed the attack and support cruiser threads completely to come in here and say remove Caldari? Seriously? Nice empty posting, i will reply with a nice empty posting. empty posting.
Since you can't be bothered to check the threads STICKIED IN THIS FORUM
Don't let the door hit you in the ass. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
617
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:02:00 -
[1705] - Quote
Area51 wrote:I think the HM changes (nerf?)is necessary to make it on par with long range medium guns. But now, HAMs need more love! Yeah, cause everytime I login I think man this game would be so sweet if CCP would just nerf missiles. I mean if missiles sucked I wouldn't feel so fail in my brutix. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
312
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:03:00 -
[1706] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: [list]
The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters.
This quite simply isnt true. Its true if you only compare the HML drake to long range long range ammo against same size ships.
Artycanes with EMP outdamage drakes at point range. The same goes for rails and beams on the appropriate hulls.
Now against smaller, sig tanking things? Go ahead and tell me that a HML drake does more damage than a small railgun hurricane to a mwding stiletto. I have fraps footage of my stiletto taking sustained fire from around 90 drakes. Earlier in the same fight my taranis died to a single autocane. Guns and missiles arent the same, and you cant just compare eft damage numbers. |
Lili Lu
449
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:05:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Page 85. Wow. Well hopefully CCP Fozzie is still reading this. I'm concerned about Tracking Disruptors. Faction Warfare is frigate heavy. We've seen the use of alot of the new frigates there. And many if not most are using tracking disruptors. A condor with light missiles, long point, and two TD is common. An arty slasher set up the same way is too. Even Atrons and Executioners will fit a TD rather then a web. Now I've held my peace as I can build destroyers that lock farther and shoot farther then these small, frail frigates. I also know in the background that missile boats were very capable against them as they were immune to TD. But if that's not the case I can guarantee you that everyone and their mom will be fitting a TD. Some ideas:
- Increase the fittings on the TD. Increase the fitting grid on specialized boats.
- Take the TD for missiles one step further and seperate them for use via race/weapon type. I.E. - create a TD for hybrids, projectiles, lasers, missiles, and a weak general purpose one.
- Nerf the TD and boost the specialized boats.
Good post.
Except, I don't think it is reasonable to expect TDs for each gun and missile type. Amarr typically gets the fewest mids, even on the ewar boats. But certainly a turret TD mod and a missile TD mod appear to be being considered. The idea of a general purpose TD mod with an even weaker effect is a worthy concept to consider.
Also, I don't think the fittings on TD need to be messed with (and it would be cpu btw which again is usually lacking on amarr boats). It would be enough to weaken the base stats such that the use of two TDs on a Caldari frig would not be worth it's present value I think. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:06:00 -
[1708] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: [list]
The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. This quite simply isnt true. Its true if you only compare the HML drake to long range long range ammo against same size ships. Artycanes with EMP outdamage drakes at point range. The same goes for rails and beams on the appropriate hulls. Now against smaller, sig tanking things? Go ahead and tell me that a HML drake does more damage than a small railgun hurricane to a mwding stiletto. I have fraps footage of my stiletto taking sustained fire from around 90 drakes. Earlier in the same fight my taranis died to a single autocane. Guns and missiles arent the same, and you cant just compare eft damage numbers.
I highlighted the important part that is a close range weapon system with high tracking. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:08:00 -
[1709] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/m8Aw9.jpg is a screenshot of several hundred heavy missiles flying at my stiletto.
Also, Ive volleyed many an interceptor in my artycane. |
Marcus Harikari
Guitar Players of EVE
88
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:11:00 -
[1710] - Quote
patrick elektros wrote:this is about CCP making more money, by making people train other skills and this nerfs people making in game money, in effect making it harder for people to pay for plex with in game isk. in effect hoping that people will in turn have to pay real money to play the game. ccp has been about making money, ad not about working with the players on some level fora while now. and this is aNERF on tengus and drakes, the 2 biggest ratting boats in the game.
you got an issue with this, let ccp know, make them rollback the nerf, but keep in mind walmart only rolls back items it's raise prices on first.
the moderate change would have been 7.5% reduction in missile damage and 5% in range. this wasnt against goons or anybody else, it was against all of us to pay more to play (notice plex prices at an all time high) and since the plex sellers are lookin to sell higher price plex and the plex buyers wont be able to make the money, maybe plexes will drop, but i doubt it.
CCP keep in mind we will find better fits for better ships, no matter what you do you need to remember that nerfing pvp/pve ships and buffering industrials is the first step to being like wow, and your sandbox will get sludge in it. THIS |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:12:00 -
[1711] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:http://i.imgur.com/m8Aw9.jpg is a screenshot of several hundred heavy missiles flying at my stiletto.
Also, Ive volleyed many an interceptor in my artycane.
I am sure you have but were the intys moving did they have transversal up. Bad piloting should not be a stick to measure if a ship is op or not. Also I though the new speed of HM will now be around 9 km/s can you make your stiletto move that fast? |
Lili Lu
449
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:15:00 -
[1712] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:http://i.imgur.com/m8Aw9.jpg is a screenshot of several hundred heavy missiles flying at my stiletto.
Also, Ive volleyed many an interceptor in my artycane. We all know that tracking mechanics allow a turret to alpha a small ship at range. Conversely at some closer range depending on circumstances and ships/guns involved those turrets won't ever hit. You said it yourself. The weapons are different. Fozzie knows this.
But you apparently missed that precisions will be getting buffed. Also, balancing all this strictly based on medium weapon system v interceptor is not going to happen. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:17:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Marcus Harikari wrote:patrick elektros wrote:this is about CCP making more money, by making people train other skills and this nerfs people making in game money, in effect making it harder for people to pay for plex with in game isk. in effect hoping that people will in turn have to pay real money to play the game. ccp has been about making money, ad not about working with the players on some level fora while now. and this is aNERF on tengus and drakes, the 2 biggest ratting boats in the game.
you got an issue with this, let ccp know, make them rollback the nerf, but keep in mind walmart only rolls back items it's raise prices on first.
the moderate change would have been 7.5% reduction in missile damage and 5% in range. this wasnt against goons or anybody else, it was against all of us to pay more to play (notice plex prices at an all time high) and since the plex sellers are lookin to sell higher price plex and the plex buyers wont be able to make the money, maybe plexes will drop, but i doubt it.
CCP keep in mind we will find better fits for better ships, no matter what you do you need to remember that nerfing pvp/pve ships and buffering industrials is the first step to being like wow, and your sandbox will get sludge in it. THIS Did you even read the post you quoted? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:18:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: reposting other's whines and stuff You know, you are late to this. And the discussion has really moved past the "just delete Caldari" exagerated angry unthinking replies. You should read more and focus on the rational discussion that is starting to occur. You may have something valuable to contribute to that. But your emotional reaction to the proposed (and subject to much tweeking in itself) change is not really helping the thread at this time. Commiserate with people on voice comms or something (assuming they will all think as you presently do). Then come back to post your valuable thoughts and suggestions concerning the mechanics and stats of this change, after you have cleared that from your system. edit - nice post Zarnack
One more nice empty posting. Do you really think everyone reads everything everyday on the forums ?
I do not. This topic got my attention now.
Edit: And i never posted the quote on this tread. So, you are making stuff up. Or found it in some older treads, but i am sure i never said that. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
60
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:19:00 -
[1715] - Quote
CCP
read
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155540&find=unread
for a better balancing solution, or at least part of a better balancing solution. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:22:00 -
[1716] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:DJCouGaR wrote:What is it with you guys and nerfing Caldari to be honest take missiles out of the game and make everyone use guns Caldari would be better of , and by the way can I have all the skills back i trained on missiles because they are useless now Yeah, entirely remove the Caldari race. No, i am not joking. One of the problem is that CCP is not giving us the entire picture. What will be done with all the cruiser sized ships ? BCs, BSs ..... Titans ? We have to decide if it's good with only a few pieces of the puzzle in place. If they nerf the ECM again. There will truly be nothing left....... So you missed the attack and support cruiser threads completely to come in here and say remove Caldari? Seriously? Nice empty posting, i will reply with a nice empty posting. empty posting. Since you can't be bothered to check the threads STICKIED IN THIS FORUM Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
More empty posting. I hope some ISD is going to come around at some point. |
Grombutz
Treasures Collectors Solar Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:24:00 -
[1717] - Quote
Wow, it's actually true.
Nerfing HM - damage by 20% (WTF?) seems quite hard. I just hope someone will notice that caldari is officialy useless once this hits TQ :D
About the fury missiles in general - > Their damage application gets even worse? Anyone considered that it's quite hard to hit a BS - sized target for max damage with furys CM's/Rage torps allready? This will be even worse now... While the buff to precisions and the removal of drawbacks is good, making furys even more worse than they are now is quite, unnecessary. Drake is nerfed enough with plain 20% damage reduce, making it even worse through nerfing all fury missiles aswell is hilarious.
Is there really a need to nerf all missiles, just because HM's are OP?
In addition - with the TD changes, missiles will find even less use, especially because you can't really affect damage application like turrets can. Is this considered aswell?
If you are going to nerf missiles to 7th Hell, I would also like to see missile SP reimburse... |
Sycotic Deninard
Polaris Breach Corp
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:24:00 -
[1718] - Quote
Well, if the heavy missiles get a damage and a range nerf as well as become effected by TD's, it will be the end of that weapon platform and possibly a lot of Caldari ships that use it. Period. End of story. The biggest complaint in game is the travel time of the missiles to reach its target. I dont see any real improvements in that direction. I'm also unclear how the proposed changes will effect faction missiles. Are they getting nerfed as well? |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2246
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:27:00 -
[1719] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:http://i.imgur.com/m8Aw9.jpg is a screenshot of several hundred heavy missiles flying at my stiletto.
Also, Ive volleyed many an interceptor in my artycane.
Going 400m/s you better warp the **** out.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:28:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
More empty posting. I hope some ISD is going to come around at some point.
Amusing response, you haven't biomassed yet? |
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:28:00 -
[1721] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Michael Harari wrote:http://i.imgur.com/m8Aw9.jpg is a screenshot of several hundred heavy missiles flying at my stiletto.
Also, Ive volleyed many an interceptor in my artycane. Going 400m/s you better warp the **** out. -Liang
Clearly I fly an HML stiletto (screenshot was from a drake I think) |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2246
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:28:00 -
[1722] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Page 85. Wow. Well hopefully CCP Fozzie is still reading this. I'm concerned about Tracking Disruptors. Faction Warfare is frigate heavy. We've seen the use of alot of the new frigates there. And many if not most are using tracking disruptors. A condor with light missiles, long point, and two TD is common. An arty slasher set up the same way is too. Even Atrons and Executioners will fit a TD rather then a web. Now I've held my peace as I can build destroyers that lock farther and shoot farther then these small, frail frigates. I also know in the background that missile boats were very capable against them as they were immune to TD. But if that's not the case I can guarantee you that everyone and their mom will be fitting a TD. Some ideas:
- Increase the fittings on the TD. Increase the fitting grid on specialized boats.
- Take the TD for missiles one step further and seperate them for use via race/weapon type. I.E. - create a TD for hybrids, projectiles, lasers, missiles, and a weak general purpose one.
- Nerf the TD and boost the specialized boats.
Hee hee. I think Heretics pioneered that 2 TD Condor fit. We've moved on for the most part.
-Liang
Ed: Thanks Hahbs. :) Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:29:00 -
[1723] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:
More empty posting. I hope some ISD is going to come around at some point.
Amusing response, you haven't biomassed yet?
No. You ? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:33:00 -
[1724] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . .
oh wait . . .
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:35:00 -
[1725] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:http://i.imgur.com/m8Aw9.jpg is a screenshot of several hundred heavy missiles flying at my stiletto.
Also, Ive volleyed many an interceptor in my artycane.
Do I need to point out yellow boxes and no ranges?
Several hundred heavies at 20km, you would be on to something, at 65ish (assuming a lateral path and boosted properly) the missiles won't get there without a very specific build Drake.
That being said I could barely tank a SINGLE HAM II with a Dramiel in 1200m/s orbit and a 44m sig , four volleys pushed me to half shields, and a single..as in one....HAM launcher on a Loki, I was starting to get nervous when the cavalry got there.
Sigras wrote:
Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . .
While true, you can't "get under" a missile. |
Senarrius
Big Monkey Corp Final Admonition
35
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:36:00 -
[1726] - Quote
I would like to know how TD's are going to affect non tracking missiles, considering that they do not "track" in the same way normal missiles do.
It makes little sense to me. |
Comy 1
Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
122
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:38:00 -
[1727] - Quote
Are you people seriously complaining about TDs becomming overpowered?
I mean, sure they do affect turrets already and we do have the common rage about "BECAUSE OF CURSE"...or wait, it was Falcon...
Why would you after the change bring ships with TDs when you might aswell keep jamming everything like you always did. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:43:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . . oh wait . . . CCP Fozzie wrote:Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used. |
Monite Harajem
Crimson Bounty Hunters
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:46:00 -
[1729] - Quote
So then with those changes could the heavy bays then hold more ammo? I mean everyone wants to compair numbers of Damage per second. Why not expand the fight time and see that Every other weapon of the BC class hold more rounds and have more ammo space. Meaning less down time to reload and start firing again.
So crystals get off what? over 500shoots Arts over 100 rounds Rails over 100 round Heavys 40missiles...
So With that said, theres at least a 30second down time for heavies compared to other bays With this graph http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/1209/lrc.gif
When the drakes down reloading harbs get off 1870 more dmg brutix 1780 and so on...
Well seeing as theres going to be more down times for the drake, the damage levels out a bit. And Large fleet battles are not a few seconds long, they are a few minutes to hours long so, expand the blood combate graphs and do the real math on over all damage...
DPS is only good for a second :) 30seconds down time compared to the next weapon is a LARGE gap |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:49:00 -
[1730] - Quote
If tracking computers affect missiles now, what happens if I switch the scripts while the missile is mid-flight? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:50:00 -
[1731] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sigras wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . . oh wait . . . CCP Fozzie wrote:Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used.
Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:52:00 -
[1732] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:If tracking computers affect missiles now, what happens if I switch the scripts while the missile is mid-flight?
I'm guessing it only affects missiles fired after the switch. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:54:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly
[/quote] The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used.[/quote]
Those are all T2 numbers, and all you also have to understand that all of the T2 ammo comes with a tacking penalty.
Sure you can switch down, but a 250mm Railgun II (biggest medium) rail with anti matter is 16km+13km sans bonuses or tracking enhancers, and tracks pretty terribly at 0.0277rad/sec....with Motion prediction V. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:54:00 -
[1734] - Quote
Here's my own take on heavy missiles:
Reduce effective range by ~20% Reduce HM damage by ~10%, increase HAM damage by ~10% Swap the powergrid requirements of heavy launchers and heavy assault launchers. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:57:00 -
[1735] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.
This is the BIGGEST reason why HMLs shouldn't be nerfed as bad as the nerf proponents and CCP Fozzie seem to think they are.
Scatim Helicon has the right idea. 20% range nerf, 10% damage nerf, switch fitting requirements with HAMs, buff HAM damage slightly.
(Actually instead of buffing HAM damage I'd be for buffing HAM explosion velocity and radius, but other than that they're fine). http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Lili Lu
450
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 21:58:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote: Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944512#post1944512
already mentioned and addressed this. suffice to say it's not as "HUGE" as you would hope. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
667
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:06:00 -
[1737] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:If tracking computers affect missiles now, what happens if I switch the scripts while the missile is mid-flight?
**** gets real.
(Probably nothing, but testing will reveal all. Once the changes reach the test server, of course.) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:06:00 -
[1738] - Quote
Yes, but it's one of several things that aren't, in aggregate, taken into account. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2248
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:08:00 -
[1739] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Also all medium turrets have the option to load close range ammo for HUGE increases in tracking and damage.
This is the BIGGEST reason why HMLs shouldn't be nerfed as bad as the nerf proponents and CCP Fozzie seem to think they are. Scatim Helicon has the right idea. 20% range nerf, 10% damage nerf, switch fitting requirements with HAMs, buff HAM damage slightly. (Actually instead of buffing HAM damage I'd be for buffing HAM explosion velocity and radius, but other than that they're fine).
I feel like that's part of the trade off between not having close range damage and not being weak up close. Bring on the 20%! ;-)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:11:00 -
[1740] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used.
Those are all T2 numbers, and all you also have to understand that all of the T2 ammo comes with a tacking penalty. Sure you can switch down, but a 250mm Railgun II (biggest medium) rail with anti matter is 16km+13km sans bonuses or tracking enhancers, and tracks pretty terribly at 0.0277rad/sec....with Motion prediction V. My comment was in response to:
Sigras wrote:Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . . (list of T2 ammo changes)
Which I find to be an issue with the fact that while T1 ammo has the option for turrets, HML's do not. |
|
Misspi en Divalone
Exotic dancer training club Exotic Dancer Trainer Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:17:00 -
[1741] - Quote
Such a lot of angry comments...
I think a lot of the angry people focus too much on the lowering of range and dps on the heavy missile launcher. At the very same time you are handed tools to increase the effective dps and range with TE/TC use. And then you get an, as of yet unknown, increase in T2 fury missile damage. On top of that there is a good change incoming that so far the kinetic damage bonus on Caldari ships is changed in favor to an all round bonus allowing you to shoot at resistance holes much easier.
I think in the end the effective drop in dps against quite a lot of targets will not be 20% but a somewhat higher number. The range on HML is still excellent even without TE/TC boosting that. I for one welcome these changes. It was needed and they are good.
The only problem I really see is the TD becoming the go to e-war module. A new e-war module affecting missiles only I'd welcome but now it's a no brainer. Once you get enough points and webs and maybe one or two tp in a gang you fill the rest of the med slots with TD. There should always be hard choices and I think giving the TD more strength makes one choice simply too strong. Same for the TE/TC affecting both guns and missiles. Don't let split weapon system ships get too much of a bonus with them although it is a nice buff to some Minmatar ships and makes the choice missiles or neut more interesting. I could live with a change in TE/TC even if only to give missile users more options.
Then again in a shield tanked ship/gang you might just lack med slots to fit enough TD's so you might even call this a sneak buff to armor tanking who might just have more med slots for e-war.. Weren't some people waiting for a buff to armor tanking?
My vote:
[ ] Balancing team dies in a fire [X] Good job so far |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:18:00 -
[1742] - Quote
I've only read maybe 15 pages of the total thread so far (scattered bits) but I decided to investigate the Drake for myself.
To start with, I loaded up a Harbinger and a Drake with a full rack of long range weapons, and 3 damage mods:
Quote: [Harbinger, Beam1] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot]
[empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M [empty high slot]
Quote:[Drake, HML1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II [empty low slot]
[empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [empty high slot]
For now, I'm going to assume that fittings aren't an issue because CCP is going to adjust the grid usage of beams. We can also assume that T2 missiles will lose their penalties to be in line with other weapon systems.
I realize it's not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, but these ships ARE different so an equal comparison really is impossible. In the above fits, these ships each have the same number of remaining open slots. Neither has drones in their bay as we're looking at extreme range where drones aren't likely to be applied.
The Drake does 414dps at 84km with Navy Scourge
The Harbinger does 305dps at 54+10km with Aurora
Comparing raw dps, at extreme range, the Drake does 36% more DPS at 55% longer range than the Harb. With Fury missiles, this changes to 51% more damage at 41% more range. The Harbinger has options to extend its range, but so does the Drake (with rigs), and with both they're stacking penalized anyway. The Harbinger has tracking to deal with, while the Drake has velocity itself reducing damage due to missile mechanics. These two systems each have their own strengths and weaknesses. The Harb has to deal with a -17.2 cap/sec, and both are currently locked in their damage types.
Currently the Drake is not affected by tracking disruptors, while the Harbinger is. Both suffer equally from ECM and damps.
The Drake does not deal instant damage which makes it a poor alpha-sniper. However, if both sides are forced to stay on the field (tackle, bubbles, aggression timers, etc.), the Drake has a considerable range, damage, ewar immunity, and cap advantage (harb will require cap mods to fire indefinitely, especially if you plan to fit a MWD or shield hardeners). The Drake also has a tanking bonus on top of these other advantages.
Clearly in the extreme case, the Harbinger is completely outclassed.
If the fight moves to close range and both of these ships still have their racial long-range weapon systems fit, things change a bit. In my hypothetical fight, the Harbinger is using Navy Multi because the damage advantage of Gleam is insignificant, and Gleam has additional range penalty. I loaded up thermal drones to really show a best-case scenario for the Harb against the Drake.
With NMulti and a flight of hammerheads, the Harbi is putting out 684dps at 15+10km.
With Fury and a flight of hobgoblins, the Drake is at 561dps.
At extreme close range, the Harbinger out-dps's the Drake by 22%. The Drake has no choise of close-range ammo to switch to. The Harbinger is able to quickly switch between long- and short-range ammo, but still suffers the same weaknesses as in the long-range scenario. Effectively, the Drake is ewar immune at close-range while the Harb still has to deal with tracking disruption. The Harbinger also has to deal with -17.2cap/s and does not have a stronger capacitor than the Drake, and lacks a tanking bonus.
In this scenario, it doesn't look as bad for the Harb, but I'd say the Drake is still in a superior position. The Harbinger has superior potential peak damage output but suffers from ewar vulnerability, capacitor limitations, and lacks a tanking bonus.
Continued in my next post.... |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:18:00 -
[1743] - Quote
...Continued from my previous post.
I'd say the changes that CCP has proposed are not outrageous, but I disagree with letting them go live as-is. Effectively, CCP is promising to remove the kinetic-only focus of Caldari medium-sized ships and give them true damage flexibility. This can actually more than make up for the flat damage loss in PvE when fighting enemies not weak to kinetic damage. There is also the option of HAMs, which previously weren't even a consideration. The range penalty also seems reasonable, and CCP has promised to fix T2 missiles and additionally give Rage missiles a slight damage boost. In regards to the Drake itself, it makes sense that it will not beat the Harbinger at every range damage-wise because it will have a tanking bonus, damage flexibility, and zero cap use.
The problem lies in the fact that missiles and turrets are both going to be weak to tracking disruptors. Also, with the proposed changes, heavy missiles are still considerably easier to fit than beams are.
What I propose: 1. Swap HAM and Heavy fittings. This will bring missiles in-line with other weapon systems. Rockets are easier to fit than light missiles, blasters are easier to fit than rails, HAMs should be easier to fit than Heavys. I feel that this is reasonable because close-range ships need additional fitting room for tanking modules, and with medium-sized missiles it's currently bass-ackwards. Various adjustments may need to be made to the ships themselves such as grid or CPU tweaks, but I stand behind this change.
2. Missile disruptors - you already have these in game. If you're going to nerf the damage and range of heavy missiles, please consider the consequences of leaving defenders as they are in PvE. However in PvP, there is currently no real option for missile disruption as, frankly, defenders suck and need addressing. There have been several good proposals so far on this topic, but here's my take: Either fix defenders, or remove them and add in a new missile disruptor module. Give it to Gallente or Minmatar ewar ships. At the very least, if you're set on adding this effect to tracking disruptors, make them require a special script to effect missile ships, perhaps even separate range and explosion velocity scripts. I feel that adding this effect to TDs puts too much ewar power in Amarr ships though (which are already fantastic in their roles), and this is a wonderful opportunity to fix Gallente's weak ewar ships.
3. Look at the ships themselves! Obviously you already are, but consider how terrible all of the other ships in EVE that primarily have to use medium missiles are - ships such as the Caracal and Caldari faction cruisers, the Damnation and Nighthawk, and the Lachesis. Also, consider that there are a lot of ships that have missile hardpoints and spare highslots, and already don't generally opt to use missiles in them - ships like the Rupture, Cyclone, Stabber, Curse, Ferox (it got an extra turret though), Bellicose, Blackbird, Moa, Vagabond, Muninn, and perhaps others I've missed. Even ships like the Lachesis which have a bonus to both hybrids and missiles tend to ignore their missiles. I fear that these hardpoints, which are already overlooked, will become more than useless.
I've noticed (what is to me) a disturbing trend for CCP to tie weapon systems very closely to ships and take away fitting variation - things like giving the Ferox and Moa another hardpoint instead of making missiles actually valuable in its spare highslots. When Minmatar ships were not doing so well, CCP opted to boost autocannons rather than improve supplementary damage systems in their ships. This is obviously a perfectly valid way to improve these ships, but the result is that every cruiser has 5 turrets and every BC has 7 turrets and all of them fit only the weapon systems in their highslots that they're bonused for. Please consider at least trying to make missiles a valid supplementary weapon system. |
Kalla Vera Quiroga
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:19:00 -
[1744] - Quote
CCP needs to be really careful what they nerf next, from what I learned to heart from another game "a nerf to a class is a subtle buff to many other classes", and I'm going to wish they scrutinize this change very well before launching it live. Although some heavy nerfs to missiles are huge, this new combination with TEs/TCs/TDs seems to improve deeper choices among players. Not a fanatic missile user but when these changes come live I've be playing with them like new toys. |
Celebris Nexterra
Lowsec Static No Remorse.
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:20:00 -
[1745] - Quote
Honestly idk if the devs are even still reading at this point, but meh. I read a bunch of posts, certainly not 87 pages' worth, but a lot. I didn't see anyone mention a separate disruption module for missiles. I think it's an incredibly simple and elegant solution, and will keep the "disruption" modules in their current state of effectiveness; if you fit a TD now, you are banking on running into a turret ship, otherwise it's useless; if you fit an Explosion Disruptor (or whatever it might be called if implemented) you're banking on running into a missile ship, otherwise it's useless. Everything everyone said earlier where there would be literally no reason to not fit a TD with the proposed changes is right on, it really would be the new ECM.
I am hugely in favor of having some way to mitigate missile damage other than being a frigate or getting out of range, just like there is against turret ships, so I would really like to see some form of this go through. I want to see nullsec Drake blobs die in a terrible ******* fire. But straight-up adding missile disruption to current TD's is flat-out wrong. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:21:00 -
[1746] - Quote
So you dont think the ability to load gleam for 500% tracking over aurora is huge? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:22:00 -
[1747] - Quote
Missiles and turrets are different as it has been said countless of times. Though, that's not a reason for heavy missiles to do turret close range ammo dammage. Infact, that is the case right now : a Drake with HML can have the same dps as a long range turret ship with close range ammo. The difference is that the Drake don't lose dps over range. That is insanely overpowered.
Now, missiles are that way : they do the same dps at all range they can reach and changing this to be more turret like is silly, you would better have to get rid of missiles completely.
With these changes, missiles will still do 50% (FIFTY PERCENT !!!) more dps than turret at long range. Maybe we could consider that turret doing 30% more dps at close range (you know, the range were you are pretty doomed because of tracking and close range weapon dps and commitment) is a fair trade off. |
Gungankllr
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:26:00 -
[1748] - Quote
What I get from this is that putting a TD or 15 on a missile boat will affect the range of FOF missiles too, which are supposed to be a counter to EWAR right? So you can hit somebody that is jamming or dampening you? So if you get hit with a crapton of disrupters, which nerf your range into nothing, you can't fire back due to short flight time. Is that what is meant by effecting FOF as well as HM or am I missing something?
Also, I get everybody is whoo-hah ing about flight time not being a big deal (I.e. range) but its not instant damage. It takes 10-15 seconds to even get to max range, whereas guns are instant. Make lasers instant, and anything else have a time-to target. Slower than lasers but faster than missiles. By far. Just my two cents. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:26:00 -
[1749] - Quote
Gungankllr wrote:What I get from this is that putting a TD or 15 on a missile boat will affect the range of FOF missiles too, which are supposed to be a counter to EWAR right? So you can hit somebody that is jamming or dampening you? So if you get hit with a crapton of disrupters, which nerf your range into nothing, you can't fire back due to short flight time. Is that what is meant by effecting FOF as well as HM or am I missing something?
Also, I get everybody is whoo-hah ing about flight time not being a big deal (I.e. range) but its not instant damage. It takes 10-15 seconds to even get to max range, whereas guns are instant. Make lasers instant, and anything else have a time-to target. Slower than lasers but faster than missiles. By far. Just my two cents.
You arent meant to fight back, you are meant to get more people than they have. They are better at the game than you because they have more people. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:32:00 -
[1750] - Quote
Also, the hurricane nerf has minimal effect on blobbing with welpcanes (you lose little damage by downgrading a gun size), but make the cane so much worse for small gangs (you lose a little damage but a lot of range on autocanes and a lot of speed and agility on artycanes)
Yet another change that hurts small gangs with minimal effect on blobbing |
|
MisterArch
Pretenders Inc W-Space
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:37:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.
However, sevaral things are left out: - other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead (or what is there more distant, Iron?)? - other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical - missile damage can only go lower, then theretical
And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc. 20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK. |
Lili Lu
451
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:38:00 -
[1752] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:So you dont think the ability to load gleam for 500% tracking over aurora is huge? Not to mention, nobody uses beams on harbs because scorch does way more damage at non-blob (read: point) range. Artycanes are used because they outdamage autocannons at point range. Yeah, of course I was mostly addressing your characterization of the damage increase as huge, which it isn't. As for the "500%" tracking increase, that is a comparison from .01031 for Aurora and .05156 with Gleam. You tell me at 10km or less optimal just how much that is going to mean on a small fast target. So yeah, that increase is not huge.
As for noone using beams (except for pve in level 3s where they do get used) that's part of the point with the current Drake imbalance. You know you can't get heavy pulse on a Harby to hit at 70km (well with any reasonable fit and mods). Point range is often irrelevant in pvp because we have bubbles, Lachesises, and even gang buddies in trhowaway tech I frigs.
Arty get's used for it's over the top (imo) alpha.
Your reply does not support your original exageration concerning short range high damage ammo on long range medium guns.
If you read my post though, I do have concerns that while the current damage differentials "hugely" favor the Drake too much (and everyone collectively has come to that conclusion through usage stats), I also am not sure that the proposed damage nerf is set at the right level. Testing will help tell once the changes hit the test servers. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:39:00 -
[1753] - Quote
MisterArch wrote:Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.
However, sevaral things are left out: - other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead? - other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical - missile damage can only go lower, then theretical
And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc. 20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK.
They compared HMLs to tremor, spike, aurora, completely ignoring that 99% of the time artycanes have rf emp, fusion or pp loaded. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:44:00 -
[1754] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:MisterArch wrote:Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.
However, sevaral things are left out: - other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead? - other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical - missile damage can only go lower, then theretical
And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc. 20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK. They compared HMLs to tremor, spike, aurora, completely ignoring that 99% of the time artycanes have rf emp, fusion or pp loaded. And those artycanes will still have a much smaller engagement window that post nerf HML's. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
313
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:46:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Michael Harari wrote:MisterArch wrote:Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.
However, sevaral things are left out: - other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead? - other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical - missile damage can only go lower, then theretical
And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc. 20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK. They compared HMLs to tremor, spike, aurora, completely ignoring that 99% of the time artycanes have rf emp, fusion or pp loaded. And those artycanes will still have a much smaller engagement window that post nerf HML's.
At ranges people actually fight at in small gangs (point range) they outdamage prenerf HMLs, and vs targets smaller than bcs, they outdamage HMLs out to very silly ranges. |
Arec Bardwin
754
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:46:00 -
[1756] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps?The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes. Are there any plans to make
Rigor rigs Guided Missile Precision (rename it to Missile Precision?)
affect the 'unguided' missiles as well? With these changes it would make sense to remove the difference between guided and unguided missiles altogether. This way you can actually change from long range loadouts to short range without having one or more rigs being useless.
|
MisterArch
Pretenders Inc W-Space
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:47:00 -
[1757] - Quote
But they can change ammo, missile boats can't. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:50:00 -
[1758] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Missiles and turrets are different as it has been said countless of times. Though, that's not a reason for heavy missiles to do turret close range ammo dammage. Infact, that is the case right now : a Drake with HML can have the same dps as a long range turret ship with close range ammo. The difference is that the Drake don't lose dps over range. That is insanely overpowered.
Now, missiles are that way : they do the same dps at all range they can reach and changing this to be more turret like is silly, you would better have to get rid of missiles completely.
With these changes, missiles will still do 50% (FIFTY PERCENT !!!) more dps than turret at long range. Maybe we could consider that turret doing 30% more dps at close range (you know, the range were you are pretty doomed because of tracking and close range weapon dps and commitment) is a fair trade off.
You're numbers are way off. If fleet doctrines were updated to include afts instead of MWD's, you would cut down a drakes DPS to 188, and with the proposed changes, to 150 with a range of 56km....
which means a cane with 720's and tremor ammo would have 230 dps with a 62k range and 28k falloff....so even without these changes, that means an AB Cane is superior to a Drake aside from range, where a Drake is superior to a slowboat *not likely* or MWD Cane.
essentially meaning unless the drake has an MWD, it stands NO chance against a Cane AT ALL. *mind you, these numbers are without any tank fittings*....because with equal prop mods, the Cane will always be able to kite...and since the Cane will have BETTER range, it can stay out of missile damage range.
Honestly, the FC's that are NOT using Drakes, are morons in thinking it's better to have MWD's instead of AB's seeing as even if the Drake is in range, it can't hit you for ****. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 22:59:00 -
[1759] - Quote
With the changes proposed would giving all missiles a resist to there damage type not be in order? |
Lili Lu
451
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:00:00 -
[1760] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: talking about using afterburners Not using microwarpdrives is not such a simple thing. You need a hell of a tank and small sig to pull if off. Otherwise you will just die in bubbles or if in lowsec die to tackling frigs getting under your guns or Lachesis and Huginn tackle.
ABs work with armor hacs because of the tank and the fleet comp. On BCs it doesn't work. On BSs it's even worse to fit an ab because the speed boost is essentially meaningless.
Also, I think if the whole anti-drake blob solution was to fit ABs it would have become widespread seen by now, 3 years into Drake blobs. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:03:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Michael Harari wrote:MisterArch wrote:Most people, including Fozzie, bring attention to the fact, that HML do the same damage anywhere within the maximum range, but other long-range systems have such things as falloff. And thus missiles long-range damage should be nerfed.
However, sevaral things are left out: - other weapon systems can use close-range ammunition, thus getting higher damage for the targets closer - missiles have the same base damage and no ammo variants (almost) I wonder, when comparing HML with hybrids, did you compare them with Antimatter or Lead? - other weapon systems can have perfect hit, thus getting actual DSP higher then theoretical - missile damage can only go lower, then theretical
And all the rest obvious things already mentioned: delayed damage, firewalls etc. 20% damage decrease is too much. 10% should be OK. They compared HMLs to tremor, spike, aurora, completely ignoring that 99% of the time artycanes have rf emp, fusion or pp loaded. And those artycanes will still have a much smaller engagement window that post nerf HML's. At ranges people actually fight at in small gangs (point range) they outdamage prenerf HMLs, and vs targets smaller than bcs, they outdamage HMLs out to very silly ranges. For target sig HML's are getting help by the way of modules allowing them to use other slots than rigs to enhance their damage application. And while the difference at short ranges is being widened we have only really 2 choices here. Missiles retain damage but have shorter range leaving no true long range medium missile option and HAM's stay semi-obsolete, or have hams be the right choice for their role with some added flexibility and condemn HML's to long range/low damage and have a weakness in the middle. |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:04:00 -
[1762] - Quote
Well medium LR weapons are all now rather pointless.
Time to pull out Tier 3 BC and superior Large LR Guns.
Mega Pulse lasers with scorch is superior to every LR gun. -Napoc and Abaddon fleet is an example of this.
Screw T2 HAC's I got the cheaper Tier 3 Battlecruisers that makes a superior gank mobile. "Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth."
-áKahlil Gibran |
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny Pride Before Fall
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:09:00 -
[1763] - Quote
20% dmg nerf is a bit over kill imo. and the range nerf is hurting the smaller gangs big time. should lower to 10-15% nerf instead.
|
Synthetic Cultist
Church of The Crimson Saviour
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:11:00 -
[1764] - Quote
If there is to be a separate module type to disrupt missiles, it should be called a "missile dazzler". Dazzler is used nowadays for some anti-missile devices.
Tracking disruptor to counter guns, Missile dazzler to counter missiles. Yaay. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:15:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Oh, forgot 2 questions
Do y'all have any plans to fix missiles not hitting after your ship has been destroyed?
The next is,
Missiles are extremely annoying because you can have several volleys in the air at once, causing wasted ammo. If you try to measure how many volleys it takes to down specific ships,and somehow that calculation becomes wrong, then you waist volleys trying to take down the recharged shield/armor that wouldn't have been there had you fired one extra volley.
Do y'all plan on addressing this? |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:16:00 -
[1766] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote: talking about using afterburners Not using microwarpdrives is not such a simple thing. You need a hell of a tank and small sig to pull if off. Otherwise you will just die in bubbles or if in lowsec die to tackling frigs getting under your guns or Lachesis and Huginn tackle. ABs work with armor hacs because of the tank and the fleet comp. On BCs it doesn't work. On BSs it's even worse to fit an ab because the speed boost is essentially meaningless. Also, I think if the whole anti-drake blob solution was to fit ABs it would have become widespread seen by now, 3 years into Drake blobs.
but that's the thing, it doesn't require a hell of a tank and small sig to pull it off. I'm talking 1 vs 1, after these proposed changes, the drake will be rendered useless in PVP, and it's PVE applications will be greatly reduced as well. Against a harbinger and, yes, even the Brutix, the calculations are roughly the same. The problem isn't the mechanics of the HM's or even the Drakes dps. It's a problem with the tanking setups.
It's easier to fit a good shield tank than it is a good armor tank because of the difference in needing low slots *where your damage mods go* for armor tanking versus your mids *where shield tanking goes* as well as the fact that guns need tracking computers. Also, the fact that Shields have a passive recharge versus active recharge....armor tanking as active of buffer. THAT's the real problem. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
211
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:18:00 -
[1767] - Quote
It's not a problem - It's Eve... The only thing wrong with armor tanking is the penalty on velocity that was introduced with armor rigs |
Darklord Ky
Eclipse Navy Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:21:00 -
[1768] - Quote
I feel these changes are poorly thought out. do you plain on adding a delay for all weapon damage applied to bring them in line with missiles. dropping resistance bonuses on all ships. maybe you can give every ship weapon and race the same stats and slots, damage. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
359
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:24:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:but that's the thing, it doesn't require a hell of a tank and small sig to pull it off. I'm talking 1 vs 1, after these proposed changes, the drake will be rendered useless in PVP, and it's PVE applications will be greatly reduced as well.
Old school HAM Drake reliably beat all other BCs. Yawn. |
Spr09
East India Ore Trade Intrepid Crossing
51
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:24:00 -
[1770] - Quote
tgl3 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time Explosion radius and explosion velocity -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range script lowers flight time
My pilgrim approves of this.
Oh god. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:26:00 -
[1771] - Quote
Darklord Ky wrote:I feel these changes are poorly thought out. do you plain on adding a delay for all weapon damage applied to bring them in line with missiles. dropping resistance bonuses on all ships. maybe you can give every ship weapon and race the same stats and slots, damage.
My balancing suggestion represented here
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155540&find=unread
is actually a rather simple balance to missiles.
The drake and hurricane would be on par with each other and the individual ranges.
However, the drake would have the advantage of picking damage types.
Where as the hurricane would have the option of adding more dps with launchers in the two extra highs, or would be abe to fit more utility/ewar.
honestly, with simple swapping of the range of fury and precision missiles, they become much more balanced. |
Lucius Exitius
Protectors Holdings CORE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:30:00 -
[1772] - Quote
Nerfing HML? Why they are already ineffective in pvp. Way to make something that is useless outside of PVE even more useless. Tengus are now obsolete and all the work ive been doing for my command ship is now pointless... |
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
325
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:31:00 -
[1773] - Quote
Missiles have always needed to be looked at and now I feel that they have gotten the love that they deserve.
The TE/TC/TD Bloc has been needed in missile combat for a long time and many nay sayer's don't realize how much this will effect missile combat in general.
The hurricane has also needed to be backhanded like a redheaded stepchild for a very long time and I for one am glad that they are making it apart of the first iteration rather than waiting.
Powerbloc's and alliances will now have to think farther than where's the nearest drake to jump into a fleet with. I for one am very interested to see what the new fleets will be based on. It's good to know that CCP is interested in shaking things up, the stagnation right now is frustrating. I hardly log on anymore because all I see in low/nullsec are the same ships over and over, (not so much anymore, but still annoying that there are so many canes/drakes). I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly. This rebalance is a good thing and I know that I will be playing more often when Winter has come.
CCP Fozzie o7!!! |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
314
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:37:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Missiles have always needed to be looked at and now I feel that they have gotten the love that they deserve.
The TE/TC/TD Bloc has been needed in missile combat for a long time and many nay sayer's don't realize how much this will effect missile combat in general.
The hurricane has also needed to be backhanded like a redheaded stepchild for a very long time and I for one am glad that they are making it apart of the first iteration rather than waiting.
Powerbloc's and alliances will now have to think farther than where's the nearest drake to jump into a fleet with. I for one am very interested to see what the new fleets will be based on. It's good to know that CCP is interested in shaking things up, the stagnation right now is frustrating. I hardly log on anymore because all I see in low/nullsec are the same ships over and over, (not so much anymore, but still annoying that there are so many canes/drakes). I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly. This rebalance is a good thing and I know that I will be playing more often when Winter has come.
CCP Fozzie o7!!!
Oh yeah, this is totally a buff to missiles |
MeowMix1
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:40:00 -
[1775] - Quote
Does any at CCP even consider the effects of these game changes? Just in case no one in your offices thinks ahead, I suggest you try to answer these two questions.
1) Why would anyone use a missile ship after these nerfs?
2) What purpose would does the lower PG Hurricane fulfill?
I'll even supply you a "cheat sheet" like you used back in school, providing the proper answers: 1) No one 2) None |
Lucius Exitius
Protectors Holdings CORE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:42:00 -
[1776] - Quote
Do people not realize that missiles rarely do full damage and they take twice as long to shoot? You have too many ways to reduce the dps of missiles. A drake trying to hit a frigate even with the best skills and precision missiles is nearly impossible. |
Anhenka
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:45:00 -
[1777] - Quote
While missiles definitely needed a nerf, the way this is to be implemented gives something to be desired.
I mean, I have to help cut down blobs of the things on a semi-regular basis, but the thing with drakes was always their massive buffer, no the dps they put out. Oh maybe a 10-15% reduction in range on drake would be appropriate, maybe lose the resist or damage bonus, but this is a bit far.
Also, at this point, just as a rough popularity poll, this is post 1775, and the op has 48 likes.
Less than one in 30 for likes/post, closer to 1 in 40. Obviously unpopular.
Poor tengu is now mehtier for fleet. Now cant easily engage at the 100-120 km window outside the engagement range of most fleets. The new 80ish is well within most BS's and even a lot of longer range HAC's. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 23:57:00 -
[1778] - Quote
SERIOUSLY,
Simple balance change to missiles.
The issue is guided missiles.
Unlike any other weapon system, guided missiles allow higher damage weapons to go farther.
Simply change this.
Allow precision to go the distance, and fury to be shorter range.
This mean the drake has precision missiles up to 75km, and fury up to 42km.
I've done a comparison to a Hurricane as they both currently sit, the only difference being that precision heavy missiles would be longer range while fury were shorter.
Here is what I got
Drake(all skill lvl 5) (No other modules, only launchers)
Hams Rage - 349dps @ 18km Javelin - 246dps @ 30km
Hmls Fury - 224dps @ 42km Precision 189dps @ 75km
Hurricane (all skills lvl 5) (No other modules, only turrets)
425mm AC II Hail - 417 dps @ 1.5+9 Barrage - 298 dps @ 3+18
720mm Howitzer Artillery II Quake - 294 dps @ 7.5+22 Tremor - 168 dps @ 54+22
When pitting them against each other the differences are
68 more dps @ 7.5 km less comparing hail to rage 52 more dps @ 9 km less comparing Barrage to Javelin 70 more dps @ 12.5km less comparing Quake to my sugested fury 21 less dps @ 2km more when comparing Tremor to my suggested javelin
HOWEVER, the Hurricane is also capable of either fitting 2 launchers for increased dps, or having to utility highes. Also, the differences in range by comparison isn't entirely correct due to missiles having acceleration. So, there is actually 3-5kms less in difference, and tremor would actually be 3-5km greater in difference.
Now, if you do this for missiles, then you only individual balancing to the ships, and other ships could retain their balance. |
Dunmer Orion
Aggressive Intentions
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:08:00 -
[1779] - Quote
When I started playing this game everyone told me how the Drake and Tengu were only for "PVE"...now they're being "balanced" because they're too effective!? Train all the things! That's the only way to take advantage for the unexpected buff that is will most likey cause .
-DO |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:22:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sigras wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Well ok, those numbers seem pretty well balanced . . . but the problem is that the guns can switch to close range ammo to do more damage; they need to make shorter range higher damage missiles . . . oh wait . . . CCP Fozzie wrote:Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly The only issue there is the significant time investment needed to use those options and the limit to T2 versions where all medium turrets have that option as soon as they can be used.
This is true, but remember that we're also comparing the T1 missiles against the T2 long range ammo that the other ships only get after a whole ton of training.
The missiles get sniping ammo before T2 and the guns get short range ammo before T2
The only thing I still dont get is, if explosion radius and velocity are analogous to tracking, why do the short range missiles have worse "tracking"? shouldnt it get better at short ranges like all the other weapon systems do
IE Blaster tracking > Railgun tracking Pulse tracking > beam tracking autocannon tracking > arty tracking. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
92
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:25:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Fozzie, you say that the foundations of Heavy Missiles are broken, so therefore you must hammer on them..
Then you go on to state that only 2 ships are the problem, agreeing with us.
That literally makes no sense.
Drake:
Problems were too much tank, too much resistance, too much range
Tengu
Too much range, too much tank, too easy to fit, too much damage (LOL 7.5% ROF)
Notice how every other fricking ship in game that uses HMLs has no problems at all. Notice how the only damage concern between either of the OP ships was because of a stupid high ROF bonus.
Missiles were balanced, and have been for quite some time. There's already one counter to them in game using smart bombs to reduce damage. Drake with any other damage type has **** all dps, so if you don't like the fact that it does too much kinetic damage, nerf the ship. Most players think it's lol bad to be so heavily tied to one damage type.
If you remove the range from the drake/tengu by dropping missile range, those two ships look a hell of a lot less scary because they come inside higher damage range of enemy ships.
If you further hit the drake resist bonus and base shield, and look at the Power grid on the Tengu in addtion to LSEs, you'd find that 2 ships and a range debuff were all you needed. But hey, Let's **** over an entire weapon system instead, and open a can of worms with some 15 odd ships that use them.
We already know you made up your mind, so go ahead and cause another failed patch that will take 5 years to sort out. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:26:00 -
[1782] - Quote
Oops |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:27:00 -
[1783] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Also, at this point, just as a rough popularity poll, this is post 1775, and the op has 48 likes.
Less than one in 30 for likes/post, closer to 1 in 40. Obviously unpopular. I have two problems with this line of thinking
1. People dont always vote for whats best for the game, just whats best for them. 2. The number of posts is deceptive because one person could post multiple times. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
368
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:37:00 -
[1784] - Quote
this post summarizes several solutions to the drake/tengu problem that do not include breaking heavy missiles:
1. - reduce heavy missile flight time - switch CPU and power grid requirements of HMLs and HAMLs
2. - reduce heavy missile flight time - remove one launcher slot from the drake - make both drake and tengu's range bonuses apply only to HAMs
3. - reduce heavy missile flight time - switch rage and precision ranges
4. - reduce heavy missile flight time - change the way defender missiles work in a way that makes them useful without causing server lag (for example change the mechanic to be a hardcoded extra tank that only helps against missile damage while keeping the client side missile animation).
none of these require awkward tinkering with tracking enhancers and none of these of these will make tracking disruptors mandatory in small scale pvp.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2249
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:38:00 -
[1785] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Oh yeah, this is totally a buff to missiles
Heh, it is a massive buff to missiles and only your reliance on using a long range weapon as a close range weapon would make you not see it. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Elza Laduko
Shiva The Retirement Club
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:51:00 -
[1786] - Quote
Nerf everything plz!!!
Cant wait for the new bump dmg to leave eve |
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:51:00 -
[1787] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Except, I don't think it is reasonable to expect TDs for each gun and missile type. Amarr typically gets the fewest mids, even on the ewar boats. But certainly a turret TD mod and a missile TD mod appear to be being considered. The idea of a general purpose TD mod with an even weaker effect is a worthy concept to consider. I think is a pretty salient point, but I have two follow-ups:
1) It is true that Amarr, the TD specializing race, has fewer mid slots, which would serve to limit the amount of TDs useable, much as the same as Caldari need to use their mids for shields in addition to ECM (to a lesser degree, sure, with the BB's range, but consider 4 slots have to be used for rainbow ECM), but here is the question: why would TDs need separate modules for Missiles or guns? How would this be equitable to TDs, when damps work universally against all targets? How would it be "fair" to the other races who have all their systems disrupted when only one universal TD is used vs having to have special missile TDs just for missile carrying ships? In fact, having a roulette-wheel-style chance of whether the TD ship is carrying missile or non-missile would only push winmatar strategy farther ahead, since many of their dual-weapon ships would still be combat effective absent both TD varieties locking them down.
2) ECM has separate racial variants, I'd argue, because the effect of a "universal' ECM would be game-breakingly powerful. ECMs stop the jammed ship from doing almost literally anything. The ship is, in effect, completely out of commission for the battle. This reason alone justifies having various racial ECM variants. To separate TDs into missile and non-missile versions would just add undue burden to Amarr pilots (and everyone else, too, who fits TDs) to fit their already limited midslot space with one or the other variety of TD. This, combined with the fact that there's only one damp "model" and one, universal TP, shows that two varieties are unjustified and, more importantly, uncalled for. |
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
148
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:53:00 -
[1788] - Quote
Dante Lioncourt wrote:But seriously guys do you not think that CCP has got plan for the rest of the caldari missile boats that never get used that would balance this out ? For example the cerb which could be a awesome long range missile boat with wicked speed Or maby they have a suprise for the ferox ? This is EVE anything is possible , just be positive
Actually no, I do not think CCP has a plan for the other missile boats.
The POINT of this HM change is to reduce lag inducing missile spam in fleet engagements. That's fewer objects their servers need to track the happier things run. The point is to break missiles and replace them with some new non-missile FOTM.
For Caldari pilots, well, it pretty much sucks to be you. But this is nothing new. After this change you will have a couple decent frigates -- but of these even the already anemic damage rocket boats are going to get creamed once TD's become the new must-have tanking module.
You'll have the Caracal, but with these changes you will be pushing T1 frigate DPS against stationary non-TD fitted large targets -- less or much less against something smaller or moving. If the idea of an "attack cruiser" pushing 1 hundred DPS against a frigate sounds interesting, then this is the boat for you. If you go with light missiles you will have what looks on paper to be a decent frigate killer, until you realize that you have no drones, no neuts, and no DPS. You'll be able to tickle frigates from range and die to them if they get close. Few people fly these things today -- they certainly won't post nerf.
Everything I said above applies to the Navy Caracal as well, except in a much more expensive package. It'll be like buying a Fererri with a honda civic engine.
The Cerberus is currently something of a joke and this change will make it more so. The one neet (but generally useless) trick it can do is lobbing underpowered missiles across the galaxy. They wont kill anything of course, but they are annoying. After this change this will go away. Shorter range, lower damage, still no tank, expensive loss mail, and a company with no stated plans to address this.
The Nighthawk, under this change, goes from fail to epic fail. Fly this if you want people to laugh at you.
The Cruise Raven is obviously rarely used. It's a BS that does T1 cruiser DPS -- but only to large targets. The Torp Raven is, again, rarely used as there is basically no reason to do so. The same applies with the Navy Raven in either fitting -- it's just an expensive loss mail.
Like I said, if you are a Caldari missile pilot it sucks to be you (and if you are a Caldari Hybrid pilot what the hell are you thinking?). It's not like this is news. CCP has been F$%^ing Caldari PvP pilots for years. Train another race or cancel. |
Eternal Error
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
137
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:57:00 -
[1789] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Except, I don't think it is reasonable to expect TDs for each gun and missile type. Amarr typically gets the fewest mids, even on the ewar boats. But certainly a turret TD mod and a missile TD mod appear to be being considered. The idea of a general purpose TD mod with an even weaker effect is a worthy concept to consider. I think is a pretty salient point, but I have two follow-ups: 1) It is true that Amarr, the TD specializing race, has fewer mid slots, which would serve to limit the amount of TDs useable, much as the same as Caldari need to use their mids for shields in addition to ECM (to a lesser degree, sure, with the BB's range, but consider 4 slots have to be used for rainbow ECM), but here is the question: why would TDs need separate modules for Missiles or guns? How would this be equitable to TDs, when damps work universally against all targets? How would it be "fair" to the other races who have all their systems disrupted when only one universal TD is used vs having to have special missile TDs just for missile carrying ships? In fact, having a roulette-wheel-style chance of whether the TD ship is carrying missile or non-missile would only push winmatar strategy farther ahead, since many of their dual-weapon ships would still be combat effective absent both TD varieties locking them down. 2) ECM has separate racial variants, I'd argue, because the effect of a "universal' ECM would be game-breakingly powerful. ECMs stop the jammed ship from doing almost literally anything. The ship is, in effect, completely out of commission for the battle. This reason alone justifies having various racial ECM variants. To separate TDs into missile and non-missile versions would just add undue burden to Amarr pilots (and everyone else, too, who fits TDs) to fit their already limited midslot space with one or the other variety of TD. This, combined with the fact that there's only one damp "model" and one, universal TP, shows that two varieties are unjustified and, more importantly, uncalled for. The difference is that unbonused TDs are quite powerful, while the rest of the EWAR forms are either underwhelming in general or need bonuses/a specific target (i.e. racial ECMs) in order to really shine. I'm really not sold on the idea that TDs should affect missiles (although I suppose they have to if TCs/TEs will affect missiles), and if this change goes through, you can definitely expect a nerf to TDs to compensate. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 00:57:00 -
[1790] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Except, I don't think it is reasonable to expect TDs for each gun and missile type. Amarr typically gets the fewest mids, even on the ewar boats. But certainly a turret TD mod and a missile TD mod appear to be being considered. The idea of a general purpose TD mod with an even weaker effect is a worthy concept to consider. I think is a pretty salient point, but I have two follow-ups: 1) It is true that Amarr, the TD specializing race, has fewer mid slots, which would serve to limit the amount of TDs useable, much as the same as Caldari need to use their mids for shields in addition to ECM (to a lesser degree, sure, with the BB's range, but consider 4 slots have to be used for rainbow ECM), but here is the question: why would TDs need separate modules for Missiles or guns? How would this be equitable to TDs, when damps work universally against all targets? How would it be "fair" to the other races who have all their systems disrupted when only one universal TD is used vs having to have special missile TDs just for missile carrying ships? In fact, having a roulette-wheel-style chance of whether the TD ship is carrying missile or non-missile would only push winmatar strategy farther ahead, since many of their dual-weapon ships would still be combat effective absent both TD varieties locking them down. 2) ECM has separate racial variants, I'd argue, because the effect of a "universal' ECM would be game-breakingly powerful. ECMs stop the jammed ship from doing almost literally anything. The ship is, in effect, completely out of commission for the battle. This reason alone justifies having various racial ECM variants. To separate TDs into missile and non-missile versions would just add undue burden to Amarr pilots (and everyone else, too, who fits TDs) to fit their already limited midslot space with one or the other variety of TD. This, combined with the fact that there's only one damp "model" and one, universal TP, shows that two varieties are unjustified and, more importantly, uncalled for.
the dampener argument is flawed because damps won't do you any good if your target is fast enough or warps in close enough. all forms of ewar should have their drawbacks, the drawback of TDs is their impotence against missiles.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:05:00 -
[1791] - Quote
HorseEve wrote:When this patch is released, can we also get options to get our skillpoints back for the entirety of any training that went into the Caldari Race? You guys are removing the only reason people used heavy missiles. You are removing the only reason people flew drakes. You are removing the most useful ship for any new players that you are supposedly trying to get more of. You are reducing the crappy damage of an already crappy platform.
So, If I can get my Caldari skill points back I would lvoe to go fly other races that matter! Especially the new mid slot layout of the Thorax. On a bright note everyone, most of these new cruiser layouts can kill the new drake layout!
i guess youll have to wait until someone smarter than you posts a new FOTM fit on battleclinic for you to copy :) |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:08:00 -
[1792] - Quote
I'm fishing for comments, but would someone please rate my suggestion on missile changes..
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1945264#post1945264 |
M4NOS theGREEK
November 17th Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:09:00 -
[1793] - Quote
Shaalira D'arc wrote:For all the alarmism about the fate of the Caldari ship line:
Drakes and Tengus are not the only Caldari ships in the game, believe it or not.
you slap our drakes-tengus and all our HML ships in the face...and as an excuse you are telling us that there are more caldari ships to play with? oh come on...
|
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:12:00 -
[1794] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:this post summarizes several solutions to the drake/tengu problem that do not include breaking heavy missiles:
1. - reduce heavy missile flight time - switch CPU and power grid requirements of HMLs and HAMLs
2. - reduce heavy missile flight time - remove one launcher slot from the drake - make both drake and tengu's range bonuses apply only to HAMs
3. - reduce heavy missile flight time - switch rage and precision ranges
4. - reduce heavy missile flight time - change the way defender missiles work in a way that makes them useful without causing server lag (for example change the mechanic to be a hardcoded extra tank that only helps against missile damage while keeping the client side missile animation).
none of these require awkward tinkering with tracking enhancers and none of these of these will make tracking disruptors mandatory in small scale pvp. heavy missiles are already broken though |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:13:00 -
[1795] - Quote
M4NOS theGREEK wrote:Shaalira D'arc wrote:For all the alarmism about the fate of the Caldari ship line:
Drakes and Tengus are not the only Caldari ships in the game, believe it or not.
you slap our drakes-tengus and all our HML ships in the face...and as an excuse you are telling us that there are more caldari ships to play with? oh come on...
If there were a missile boat that was effective in pve apart from the drake and tengu, I wouldn't be too upset about people nerfing them and heavy missiles.
However, there isn't.
Maybe once they rebalance battleships I might get one, but until then I'll have a nerfed tengu that is in capable of lvl 4 missions anymore, which defeats the purpose for me even training for it. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
314
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:18:00 -
[1796] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote: The difference is that unbonused TDs are quite powerful, while the rest of the EWAR forms are either underwhelming in general or need bonuses/a specific target (i.e. racial ECMs) in order to really shine.
Believe me, Lillu knows this, seeing as he fits TDs to everything already |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:22:00 -
[1797] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:As some one else posted I have a feeling these changes will merely bring a new age of "Amarr supremacy". *Shrugs* It's CCP's game and they can make what ever changes they wish.
It seems that after this my armor canes will be rather borked, so I'll just have to trade them in for harby's when I can be arsed to do it. (though they are fugly in comparison to the cane even after the v3 nerf to their looks) I just find it funny that they are getting gutted due to a fit setup I never favored.
So I guess my feed back is this, I think the PG nerf on the cane for an armor tanker might be extreme, but if other fits are causing problems because of it so be it. You can't keep everyone happy all the time. And if my faded frown means 3 other people smile then that is what you should do.
As for the HML changes, by all means go full speed ahead. Misery loves company after all.
Yes CCP. Muck the game up more. "Try" to redefine the sandbox for all the noobs who don't understand that "sandbox" means YOU affect YOUR game not "I get my favorite Dev to affect the entire sandbox for me."
Sure.. Make Amarr and Gallente great. I got those skills too. The crybabies will still being crying no matter how you adjust the game.. Of course the greatness of this game will be tarnished until someone with sense fixes all of CCP Fozzies mistakes.
Hey! Another reason to patch! |
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co. Fatal Ascension
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:22:00 -
[1798] - Quote
This kind of action is typical of a cradle to grave society. Punish the successful rather than looking into how to make others perform better.
This will basically make Caldari ships useless in any fleet, except for EWAR boats which is probably in the pipe as everyone bitches about it as well.
There are already counters for both drakes and tengus. Stop being lazy people and figure out how to use the thousands of Mods to counter them yourselves.
Tinfoil hat ON: It is just a CCP counter to the CFC as they use these two ship doctrines with great success. And CCP sees the CFC as a threat to something? Not sure, but its out there...Tinfoil hat OFF. IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES: -á" I drank WHAT?!" |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:27:00 -
[1799] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:this post summarizes several solutions to the drake/tengu problem that do not include breaking heavy missiles:
1. - reduce heavy missile flight time - switch CPU and power grid requirements of HMLs and HAMLs This change I would probably go with in addition to the current changes, it makes no sense that HAMs which are short range are harder to fit.
That would be like making it easier to fit beam lasers than pulse.
at any rate, this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered
Daniel Plain wrote:2. - reduce heavy missile flight time - remove one launcher slot from the drake - make both drake and tengu's range bonuses apply only to HAMs The HAM bonus is an amaarian thing
Daniel Plain wrote:3. - reduce heavy missile flight time - switch rage and precision ranges this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered, most people dont use the T2 missiles anyway cause theyre utter crap
Daniel Plain wrote:4. - reduce heavy missile flight time - change the way defender missiles work in a way that makes them useful without causing server lag (for example change the mechanic to be a hardcoded extra tank that only helps against missile damage while keeping the client side missile animation). While this is a good work around, the problem is that it still only effects your ship. What defender missiles really need to do is defend your allies, you should just be able to keep the missile pods cycling and when a missile is launched against anyone youre blue to, and is in range, the defender should auto launch and attack the offending missile.
This would create point defense ships as another role in the fleet, the problem is that the number of calculations this would require would cook the servers. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:27:00 -
[1800] - Quote
Just had a thought.
Ok, so...
Use my proposed missile change
I.E. precision becomes long range, and fury becomes short range, which is the same as every other weapon system (greater range = reduced dps)
Then, reduce drake recharge rate so that it can't fit a passive shield tank. (will will reduce it's EHP)
Then, take the tengu and reduce its power and cpu so that it can't fit as much tank and/or a 100mn afterburner, and reduce the range bonus of the tengu.
This will either reduce tengu dps, or tengu tank depending on what you'd prefer to lose/gain.
Now, if you took my suggested change, then a tengu at all skill lvl 5 built with my pvp fit(max dps) I would still get the same dps out of it that I do now, only
I would have 465 dps at max range possible range with precision, and fury would become the range that precision is now with 687 dps.
So, 465 at we'll say 80 kms and 687 at, we'll say 56km. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:31:00 -
[1801] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:As some one else posted I have a feeling these changes will merely bring a new age of "Amarr supremacy". *Shrugs* It's CCP's game and they can make what ever changes they wish.
It seems that after this my armor canes will be rather borked, so I'll just have to trade them in for harby's when I can be arsed to do it. (though they are fugly in comparison to the cane even after the v3 nerf to their looks) I just find it funny that they are getting gutted due to a fit setup I never favored.
So I guess my feed back is this, I think the PG nerf on the cane for an armor tanker might be extreme, but if other fits are causing problems because of it so be it. You can't keep everyone happy all the time. And if my faded frown means 3 other people smile then that is what you should do.
As for the HML changes, by all means go full speed ahead. Misery loves company after all. Yes CCP. Muck the game up more. "Try" to redefine the sandbox for all the noobs who don't understand that "sandbox" means YOU affect YOUR game not "I get my favorite Dev to affect the entire sandbox for me." Sure.. Make Amarr and Gallente great. I got those skills too. The crybabies will still being crying no matter how you adjust the game.. Of course the greatness of this game will be tarnished until someone with sense fixes all of CCP Fozzies mistakes. Hey! Another reason to patch! Wait, Gallente are great now? Weren't people still harping about how point blank weapons and armor tanking don't mix well, the drawbacks of drones as primary DPS and the terrible tracking of rails? |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:31:00 -
[1802] - Quote
Synthetic Cultist wrote:If there is to be a separate module type to disrupt missiles, it should be called a "missile dazzler". Dazzler is used nowadays for some anti-missile devices.
Tracking disruptor to counter guns, Missile dazzler to counter missiles. Yaay.
I support this idea. 1 ewar module to counter all turrets/launchers is overpowered. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:47:00 -
[1803] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: You'll have the Caracal, but with these changes you will be pushing T1 frigate DPS against stationary non-TD fitted large targets -- less or much less against something smaller or moving. If the idea of an "attack cruiser" pushing 1 hundred DPS against a frigate sounds interesting, then this is the boat for you. If you go with light missiles you will have what looks on paper to be a decent frigate killer, until you realize that you have no drones, no neuts, and no DPS. You'll be able to tickle frigates from range and die to them if they get close. Few people fly these things today -- they certainly won't post nerf.
Caracal proposed changes give it 2 lows which can be used for damage mods or damage application, an ROF bonus instead of a single type damage bonus, a fitting/speed/HP buff and 2 drones at the same time this is happening. It will be an all around better ship than before. |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:49:00 -
[1804] - Quote
Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Missiles have always needed to be looked at and now I feel that they have gotten the love that they deserve.
The TE/TC/TD Bloc has been needed in missile combat for a long time and many nay sayer's don't realize how much this will effect missile combat in general.
The hurricane has also needed to be backhanded like a redheaded stepchild for a very long time and I for one am glad that they are making it apart of the first iteration rather than waiting.
Powerbloc's and alliances will now have to think farther than where's the nearest drake to jump into a fleet with. I for one am very interested to see what the new fleets will be based on. It's good to know that CCP is interested in shaking things up, the stagnation right now is frustrating. I hardly log on anymore because all I see in low/nullsec are the same ships over and over, (not so much anymore, but still annoying that there are so many canes/drakes). I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly. This rebalance is a good thing and I know that I will be playing more often when Winter has come.
CCP Fozzie o7!!!
So we should ruin a GREAT ship because YOU are bored? Instead of being proactive let's go backward and turn the bloody Hurricane into an Omen: Stupid.
Gerrick Palivorn wrote: I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly.
Hmmm... The problem with your game is you. Not the game. But hey... you "BLLLEEETT" loud enough like all the other sheep the devs will change the sandbox for you. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:54:00 -
[1805] - Quote
Sigras wrote: This change I would probably go with in addition to the current changes, it makes no sense that HAMs which are short range are harder to fit.
That would be like making it easier to fit beam lasers than pulse.
at any rate, this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered
how so? the tengu is already only ~50% in front of the loki on eve-kills. raising the PG reqs of HMLs should effectively kill 100mn fits as you cannot really use them with hams, and it would nerf the brick on regular tengus somewhat so that they should be well in line with the loki and proteus. as for the drake: its tank is already kaputt if the resistance bonus goes. making its powergrid even tighter wll get the EHP to reasonable levels considering its stupid sig and horrible velocity.
Quote: the HAM bonus is an amaarian thing
drone bonuses are a gallente thing and other races still have them.
Quote:Daniel Plain wrote:3. - reduce heavy missile flight time - switch rage and precision ranges this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered, most people dont use the T2 missiles anyway cause theyre utter crap if fury is crap then so is scorch and barrage. as for precisions, part of why they suck is their range. with a substantial nerf to HML base range, scourge/faction/precision could be made into the usual slope of DPS vs range that we knnow from turret ammo.
Quote:
While this is a good work around, the problem is that it still only effects your ship. What defender missiles really need to do is defend your allies, you should just be able to keep the missile pods cycling and when a missile is launched against anyone youre blue to, and is in range, the defender should auto launch and attack the offending missile.
This would create point defense ships as another role in the fleet, the problem is that the number of calculations this would require would cook the servers.
who said anything about protecting other ships? just imagine anybody could fit an ancillary shield booster into their HIGH slots, only that it would 'repair' missile damage only.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Errand Girl
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:55:00 -
[1806] - Quote
Fozzie, will you release the numbers you're using to determine that 20% is an appropriate damage nerf? Most of the numbers I've seen thrown about in this thread are frankly wrong. It's easy to compare blasters to ACs or Arty to Rails, but comparing guns to missiles is apples to oranges - simply looking at EFT DPS does not even come close to telling the whole story.
Most of the main differences between missiles and guns have been articulated pretty well, such as delayed damage, smartbombs, ability to control transversal via manual piloting, etc. However I think the difference that ammo makes has gotten short shrift. The ability to switch ammo to receive higher damage, longer range, or better tracking is huge and is unavailable to missiles. With T1, faction and T2 ammo guns have more versatility in how and at what ranges they deal damage. Most of the damage comparisons I've seen in this thread have been between HMLs and sniper ammo, where the DPS difference is quite drastic. However, when using long range weapons with short range, high damage ammo the DPS comparison is far from dramatic. I think that's an appropriate place for HML damage to be - lower than with short range ammo, higher than with sniper ammo. It's not overpowered - it's a middle ground.
I think the range nerf is fine, I see no issues with it. I would be more open to a HML damage nerf if it was well supported, but in my experience HML damage is not anywhere near 20% too high. A 5% or 10% reduction would be drawing a LOT less fire from people, but 20% is rather severe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I've not seen anything remotely resembling extraordinary evidence. Please provide the numbers that you've used to determine that a 20% damage nerf is appropriate.
Has splitting missiles into high damage/short range and long range/low damage ammo been considered? I'm not talking about HML vs HAMs, I'm talking about new ammo types for each. For example, both AC and Arty have high damage/short range and long(er) range/low damage ammo available. Multiple ammo range/damage profiles would make missiles much more similar to guns and would have a less dramatic effect on HML ships as a whole. I was thinking something along the lines of a sniper missile that kept the current HML range but reduced damage by 20%, and a shorter range missile that kept the current damage, but with a 30-40% range reduction. Similar ammo should be available for HAMs and other missile types too, IMO. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 01:56:00 -
[1807] - Quote
Sigras wrote: 1. This change I would probably go with in addition to the current changes, it makes no sense that HAMs which are short range are harder to fit.
That would be like making it easier to fit beam lasers than pulse.
at any rate, this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered
2. The HAM bonus is an amaarian thing
3. this still leaves the drake and tengu hopelessly overpowered, most people dont use the T2 missiles anyway cause theyre utter crap
4. While this is a good work around, the problem is that it still only effects your ship. What defender missiles really need to do is defend your allies, you should just be able to keep the missile pods cycling and when a missile is launched against anyone youre blue to, and is in range, the defender should auto launch and attack the offending missile.
This would create point defense ships as another role in the fleet, the problem is that the number of calculations this would require would cook the servers.
I don't think it's terribly important that "HAMs are an Amarrian thing", it's not too different from saying "Blasters are a Gallente thing" when blasters work quite well on Caldari ships. However I agree that change #2 probably isn't a good way of handling things.
I would be quite pleased if they fixed defenders but I'm open to other solutions.
Here's what I posted earlier:
Post #1: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944915#post1944915
Post #2: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1944918#post1944918
Summary:
Eckyy wrote:What I propose: 1. Swap HAM and Heavy fittings. This will bring missiles in-line with other weapon systems. Rockets are easier to fit than light missiles, blasters are easier to fit than rails, HAMs should be easier to fit than Heavies. I feel that this is reasonable because close-range ships need additional fitting room for tanking modules, and with medium-sized missiles it's currently bass-ackwards. Various adjustments may need to be made to the ships themselves such as grid or CPU tweaks, but I stand behind this change.
2. Missile disruptors - you already have these in game. If you're going to nerf the damage and range of heavy missiles, please consider the consequences of leaving defenders as they are in PvE. However in PvP, there is currently no real option for missile disruption as, frankly, defenders suck and need addressing. There have been several good proposals so far on this topic, but here's my take: Either fix defenders, or remove them and add in a new missile disruptor module. Give it to Gallente or Minmatar ewar ships. At the very least, if you're set on adding this effect to tracking disruptors, make them require a special script to effect missile ships, perhaps even separate range and explosion velocity scripts. I feel that adding this effect to TDs puts too much ewar power in Amarr ships though (which are already fantastic in their roles), and this is a wonderful opportunity to fix Gallente's weak ewar ships.
3. Look at the ships themselves! Obviously you already are, but consider how terrible all of the other ships in EVE that primarily have to use medium missiles are - ships such as the Caracal and Caldari faction cruisers, the Damnation and Nighthawk, and the Lachesis. Also, consider that there are a lot of ships that have missile hardpoints and spare highslots, and already don't generally opt to use missiles in them - ships like the Rupture, Cyclone, Stabber, Curse, Ferox (it got an extra turret though), Bellicose, Blackbird, Moa, Vagabond, Muninn, and perhaps others I've missed. Even ships like the Lachesis which have a bonus to both hybrids and missiles tend to ignore their missiles. I fear that these hardpoints, which are already overlooked, will become more than useless.
I've noticed (what is to me) a disturbing trend for CCP to tie weapon systems very closely to ships and take away fitting variation - things like giving the Ferox and Moa another hardpoint instead of making missiles actually valuable in its spare highslots. When Minmatar ships were not doing so well, CCP opted to boost autocannons rather than improve supplementary damage systems in their ships. This is obviously a perfectly valid way to improve these ships, but the result is that every cruiser has 5 turrets and every BC has 7 turrets and all of them fit only the weapon systems in their highslots that they're bonused for. Please consider at least trying to make missiles a valid supplementary weapon system.
^ I feel OK with the missile changes overall so long as every other ship that relies on these weapon systems is looked at. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:05:00 -
[1808] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:^ I feel OK with the missile changes overall so long as every other ship that relies on these weapon systems is looked at.
see this is the problem. why doctoring withthe weapon system AND ALL the hulls when you could instead just fix the obvious issues? aside from that, do you really think CCP will rework ALL caldari hulls just so they fit into their wacky new missile mechanics? no they won't and so the nighthawk&co get shafted even more until it is finally their turn in the tiericide.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:07:00 -
[1809] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Gerrick Palivorn wrote:Missiles have always needed to be looked at and now I feel that they have gotten the love that they deserve.
The TE/TC/TD Bloc has been needed in missile combat for a long time and many nay sayer's don't realize how much this will effect missile combat in general.
The hurricane has also needed to be backhanded like a redheaded stepchild for a very long time and I for one am glad that they are making it apart of the first iteration rather than waiting.
Powerbloc's and alliances will now have to think farther than where's the nearest drake to jump into a fleet with. I for one am very interested to see what the new fleets will be based on. It's good to know that CCP is interested in shaking things up, the stagnation right now is frustrating. I hardly log on anymore because all I see in low/nullsec are the same ships over and over, (not so much anymore, but still annoying that there are so many canes/drakes). I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly. This rebalance is a good thing and I know that I will be playing more often when Winter has come.
CCP Fozzie o7!!! So we should ruin a GREAT ship because YOU are bored? Instead of being proactive let's go backward and turn the bloody Hurricane into an Omen: Stupid. Gerrick Palivorn wrote: I long ago memorized all the popular fittings and gotten used to the more common tactics, this alone has made me apathetic to playing more regularly.
Hmmm... The problem with your game is you. Not the game. But hey... you "BLLLEEETT" loud enough like all the other sheep the devs will change the sandbox for you. as opposed to the sheep who think bleating laud enough will make the devs cancel beneficial changes to the game :) |
Agent Xena
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:08:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Bravo, Fozzie!! These changes are 100% home run!!!
Cane change is a no-brainer. There is no reason why it should be able to fit full tank, 425s, 2 med neuts, and have grid to spare.
And those who are saying HMLs should not get damage nerf are DEAD WRONG. Their damage is PRECISELY what's wrong with them.
There are a LOT of medium weapons that can shoot past 80k. The issue is that at those ranges, HMLs out damage all of them. Furthermore, even within point range, they usually outdamage all short range weapons as well, if they can stay outside of optimal (which they generally can).
Oh yes, and I do fly a 100mn Tengu so I'm not just a hater... |
|
Shanudar
The Suicide Kings Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:12:00 -
[1811] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
Quoted this one because I'm tired of looking for the original.
lasers, hybrids, and projectiles all share support skills where as missiles require a completely different set of skills, they should be better to a certain extent.
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:12:00 -
[1812] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:OT Smithers wrote: You'll have the Caracal, but with these changes you will be pushing T1 frigate DPS against stationary non-TD fitted large targets -- less or much less against something smaller or moving. If the idea of an "attack cruiser" pushing 1 hundred DPS against a frigate sounds interesting, then this is the boat for you. If you go with light missiles you will have what looks on paper to be a decent frigate killer, until you realize that you have no drones, no neuts, and no DPS. You'll be able to tickle frigates from range and die to them if they get close. Few people fly these things today -- they certainly won't post nerf.
Caracal proposed changes give it 2 lows which can be used for damage mods or damage application, an ROF bonus instead of a single type damage bonus, a fitting/speed/HP buff and 2 drones at the same time this is happening. It will be an all around better ship than before.
No, it WOULD have been a better ship than before (which is a good thing as almost no one uses them now) prior to this nerf.
The HML Caracal post patch, with perfect skills, is gonna be pushing something like 200 DPS against a large target sitting motionless. Or about half what a good AF pushes out today. Against a frigate, the improved Caracal will do far less. Add in a 20% damage nerf to HM's plus the unknown nerf from TD's (which are going to be everywhere) and you have what left?
People aren't flying the Caracal NOW. With this patch CCP is making every T1 Frigate and Cruiser in the game significantly better than they are today, and the Caracal's man weapon system is getting a nerf.
A Caracal fitting 5 T2 HMLs loaded with faction ammo and 2 T2 BCUs pushes out 210 DPS with all level 5 skills (248 heated) against a stationary large target. This damage is, of course, significantly reduced if the target is smaller, moving quickly, or both. In other words, you probably aren't killing anything with it -- which is why no one uses them. CCP plans to nerf this already pathetic DPS by 20% -- plus add in additional damage reduction in the form of TD's.
Now personally I don't fly Drakes or Caracals so this change doesn't really impact me all that much. But let's not pretend that Faildari pilots aren't once again getting screwed by CCP. Like I said in the previous post, they aught to be used to it by now. If you are a Caldari PvP pilot and you haven't gotten around to training something better, either do so or cancel.
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:22:00 -
[1813] - Quote
I think the simplest HM balance option is to simply reverse the fitting requirements of HMs and HAMs and nerf the range of HM's by a decent amount. That, and nerf the hell out of the Tengu.
But what I think doesn't matter. The point of all this isn't "balance" anyway, it is to remove HM spam from blob warfare, and the only way to make that happen is to castrate HMs.
I don't really have any problem with this (I fly Minmatar and have never done the alliance blob thing) but I am a bit tired of CCP screwing Caldari missile pilots. |
Travis117
APEX ARDENT COALITION Persona Non Gratis
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:31:00 -
[1814] - Quote
Ima wait and see most likely sell my tengus for a proteus ................................................................
|
Narcotics Dealer
G U N D A M
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:31:00 -
[1815] - Quote
fully support these changes damage and range reduction for HM is not too excessive, its appropriate drake and tengu shouldnt be what they are atm and this brings them inline anything that nerfs tengu is good RIP |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:37:00 -
[1816] - Quote
Narcotics Dealer wrote:anything that nerfs tengu is good Boy won't you be disappointed. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
XxRTEKxX
Fenrir's Dogs of War Union 0f Revolution
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:46:00 -
[1817] - Quote
Cheap tengu in missions with hml's is pushing 500dps+/- depending on fitting. Much more dps with hams. Problem with hams is range. Chasing targets in a mission to apply damage takes a long time. Instead of neutering hml's, why not buff other weapons and ammo to match? I've always wished a loki or legion or proteus performed like a tengu in missions.
If it comes down to chasing targets in a ham tengu, or **** hml dps in a tengu after nerf, ill just sell the tengu and go back to a rigorraven.
Nerfing for reasons of pvp balance affects pve as well. Nerf the tengu when you finally release a tech 3 battlecruiser or battleship. |
RAGE QU1T
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 02:52:00 -
[1818] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rommiee wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ? That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ? I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.
Opened mind?,I you mean roll out the changes and walk away and off the nerf another mechenic??? I can tell you based on your numbers the nerf is way too high to begin with, you are basing these changes because a large group of individuals are playing in a sandbox and can field the same doctrine and chew threw their target.
Now here's the progression i see moving forward, winter comes and the HM changes are implemented, a certain group individuals will just adapt and change their doctrine to something else, after bout 6 to 12 months some EMO ragin and tears will go on from some unkowns (You know who you are) crying to CCP begging for a nerf because flava of the month is SO called "Overpowered" and it''s killing "Emergent gameplay" or "small gang warfare", Again CCP follows direction and nerfs said mechenic and said individuals adapt to new doctrine again, It's an endless cycle you see......... My question How many nerfs to this game until you make this game unplayable.? discuss
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:01:00 -
[1819] - Quote
XxRTEKxX wrote:Cheap tengu in missions with hml's is pushing 500dps+/- depending on fitting. Much more dps with hams. Problem with hams is range. Chasing targets in a mission to apply damage takes a long time. Instead of neutering hml's, why not buff other weapons and ammo to match? I've always wished a loki or legion or proteus performed like a tengu in missions.
If it comes down to chasing targets in a ham tengu, or **** hml dps in a tengu after nerf, ill just sell the tengu and go back to a rigorraven.
Nerfing for reasons of pvp balance affects pve as well. Nerf the tengu when you finally release a tech 3 battlecruiser or battleship.
That's what I've been saying...alter the other weapons/guns to balance it out.....basically, just give them a little more range....switch the pg requirements of HM's and HAM's.....if you want switch fury to lower dps/ long range and precision to higher dps/shorter range, fine....but everyone is assuming that they hit for full damage everytime....at least with guns, you may not hit full every time, but you've got a chance....with missiles, good or bad, you're going to hit for the same amount everytime whether you're a peeping tom or dry humping their hull.
nerfing the range by 25% and damage by 20%...those numbers are just asinine.
Instead of bashing an entire weapon system making it utterly worthless, espcially considering the alternate weapon system, HAMs, are absolutely utterly worthless....try balancing it
I've got straight tank/dps fits for all 4 T3 cruisers....and honestly, the Tengu is near the bottom in head to head competition on the DPS graphs. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:08:00 -
[1820] - Quote
Quote:Actually, it's easier for them to read if it's all in one thread. And since there's already a missile thread up, please use that so we don't have an entire front page of just missiles. Feel free to repost what you're written here in that thread. Thank you.
Locked for redundancy.
Well, since they killed my thread that had a good suggest, I guess I'll spam my suggested change until it catches hold and someone notices.
So, with ALL PRECISION MISSILES swap their ranges so that precision becomes long range and fury becomes shorter range.
This is on par with every other weapon system in game.
So, with this change, then the drake and cane would be on par in range and dps when comparing them in a weapon and ammo comparison |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:25:00 -
[1821] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Quote:Actually, it's easier for them to read if it's all in one thread. And since there's already a missile thread up, please use that so we don't have an entire front page of just missiles. Feel free to repost what you're written here in that thread. Thank you.
Locked for redundancy. Well, since they killed my thread that had a good suggest, I guess I'll spam my suggested change until it catches hold and someone notices. So, with ALL PRECISION MISSILES swap their ranges so that precision becomes long range and fury becomes shorter range. This is on par with every other weapon system in game. So, with this change, then the drake and cane would be on par in range and dps when comparing them in a weapon and ammo comparison Even with this done it's only a tech 2 ammo change. The tech one ammo system on increasing ranges with decreasing DPS still doesn't exist for missiles. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:26:00 -
[1822] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:XxRTEKxX wrote:Cheap tengu in missions with hml's is pushing 500dps+/- depending on fitting. Much more dps with hams. Problem with hams is range. Chasing targets in a mission to apply damage takes a long time. Instead of neutering hml's, why not buff other weapons and ammo to match? I've always wished a loki or legion or proteus performed like a tengu in missions.
If it comes down to chasing targets in a ham tengu, or **** hml dps in a tengu after nerf, ill just sell the tengu and go back to a rigorraven.
Nerfing for reasons of pvp balance affects pve as well. Nerf the tengu when you finally release a tech 3 battlecruiser or battleship. That's what I've been saying...alter the other weapons/guns to balance it out.....basically, just give them a little more range....switch the pg requirements of HM's and HAM's.....if you want switch fury to lower dps/ long range and precision to higher dps/shorter range, fine....but everyone is assuming that they hit for full damage everytime....at least with guns, you may not hit full every time, but you've got a chance....with missiles, good or bad, you're going to hit for the same amount everytime whether you're a peeping tom or dry humping their hull. nerfing the range by 25% and damage by 20%...those numbers are just asinine. Instead of bashing an entire weapon system making it utterly worthless, espcially considering the alternate weapon system, HAMs, are absolutely utterly worthless....try balancing it I've got straight tank/dps fits for all 4 T3 cruisers....and honestly, the Tengu is near the bottom in head to head competition on the DPS graphs.
This is wrong.
Missiles do not always hit targets for the same damage.
I will hit a stationary target harder than a moving target and I'll hit an approaching target harder than I'll hit an orbiting target. Also, they'll hit a wmd battleship harder than a bs with no prop mod, and them less so than an afterburner bs. Now, they'll hit a frig, but less so a frig with an afterburner, and no chance of hitting a mwd frig in orbit.
So, anyone who says missiles always hit for the same damage has either never used missiles, has no clue what they're talking about, or are making things up just to ensure a missile nerf |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:30:00 -
[1823] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Quote:Actually, it's easier for them to read if it's all in one thread. And since there's already a missile thread up, please use that so we don't have an entire front page of just missiles. Feel free to repost what you're written here in that thread. Thank you.
Locked for redundancy. Well, since they killed my thread that had a good suggest, I guess I'll spam my suggested change until it catches hold and someone notices. So, with ALL PRECISION MISSILES swap their ranges so that precision becomes long range and fury becomes shorter range. This is on par with every other weapon system in game. So, with this change, then the drake and cane would be on par in range and dps when comparing them in a weapon and ammo comparison Even with this done it's only a tech 2 ammo change. The tech one ammo system on increasing ranges with decreasing DPS still doesn't exist for missiles.
This is a balancing issue that would obviously come with the change. Anyone could have guessed that t1 and faction would need to be balanced accordingly.
They too would be balanced in the same manner as every other weapon system.
I don't know why you had to make this comment really.
Hell, i left it out cause i thought it was obvious. |
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
95
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:38:00 -
[1824] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:[That's what I've been saying...alter the other weapons/guns to balance it out.....basically, just give them a little more range.
How do either railguns or beam lasers require "a little more range?"
|
Script66
Solus Ventures
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:41:00 -
[1825] - Quote
A question I have is where does this leave rockets? Their damage wasn't all that awesome to begin with and now you are now making the damage gap even smaller when compared with light missiles. I like the light missile changes, but I still think rockets could hit harder.
Heavy missiles...
Something has to be changed, but I think you are trying to nerf the tengu and drake by hitting heavy missile range/damage when it has been the same ever since the missile rebalance with little player complaint.
When I see these ships in space, I don't say "oh crap, they will have heavy missiles", I think "oh crap, they are going to be total hell death tanked :( " In the case of the drake, you have this stupid insane buffer tank for next to no isk investment. The range on heavy missiles I guess could be hit, but I never felt like their damage was too high.
I am not going to lie, I have a tengu mission runner. I don't pvp with it. My T3 super bad ass ship with level 4 supports and t2 heavy missiles is only doing 500 dps with three CNR ballistic controls and now you want to knock that down to 400? Seems excessive considering the isk investment to get to that. Much lower and they won't even be viable for L4 missions.
Also, you are boosting tracking disrupters. This seems to violate the golden rule of never nerfing something and boosting its counter at the same time. You could literally eliminate drakes/tengus from small gangs overnight. Maybe that is what you want?
In the mean time, I think I will look into building Curses. |
RAGE QU1T
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:43:00 -
[1826] - Quote
This is true i can confierm, Wut say the powers that be? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:46:00 -
[1827] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Quote:Actually, it's easier for them to read if it's all in one thread. And since there's already a missile thread up, please use that so we don't have an entire front page of just missiles. Feel free to repost what you're written here in that thread. Thank you.
Locked for redundancy. Well, since they killed my thread that had a good suggest, I guess I'll spam my suggested change until it catches hold and someone notices. So, with ALL PRECISION MISSILES swap their ranges so that precision becomes long range and fury becomes shorter range. This is on par with every other weapon system in game. So, with this change, then the drake and cane would be on par in range and dps when comparing them in a weapon and ammo comparison Even with this done it's only a tech 2 ammo change. The tech one ammo system on increasing ranges with decreasing DPS still doesn't exist for missiles. This is a balancing issue that would obviously come with the change. Anyone could have guessed that t1 and faction would need to be balanced accordingly. They too would be balanced in the same manner as every other weapon system. I don't know why you had to make this comment really. Hell, i left it out cause i thought it was obvious. I brought it up because people keep comparing precision and fury, T2 ammo, as a comparison to T1 ammo in turrets of the same size. If that isn't what you meant then I'm not sure how your suggestion addresses the issue of missiles being able to project over long ranges far better than same sized turrets. |
Spanish Aquisition
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:48:00 -
[1828] - Quote
The whole direct comparison of DPS between the various 'long range weapons' is silly. Missiles are fundamentally different and that helps keep the game interesting. We do NOT want all long range weapons to be exactly the same with different labels.
As others pointed out, missiles take time to travel...it is NOT just a lost amount of time/dps equal to the travel time of the first volley, as when primary blows up at range there are often 2 or even 3 other volleys in space that get wasted. Gunnery pilots who are just happy as **** to see others suffer have not stopped to take this into consideration.
Missiles can also be firewalled, only kinetic is even useful in many situations, etc, etc.
I have multiple friends who fly gun boats, and they are having a blast trolling the forums about how 'fair and overdue this is' while privately admitting they are just happy to see Caldari pilots (read: anyone but them) suffer. |
King Rothgar
Black Watch Guard Gl0rious Bastards
304
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:53:00 -
[1829] - Quote
The HM nerf has been much needed for a long time. For all those crying over it, let's put this in perspective:
1) A Harbinger with Heavy beam laser II's using IN MF does 318 dps at 15km + 10km falloff (25km total).
2) A Hurricane with 720mm Howitzer II's using RF PP does 290 dps at 15km + 22km falloff (27km total).
3) A Brutix with 250mm railgun II's using CN antimatter does 302 dps at 18km + 15km falloff (28km total).
4) A drake with HML II's using CN scourge does 250 dps at 84.4km.
Now tell me which one of these isn't even remotely like the rest. All of these numbers are at lvl5 skills without any other mods/drones fitted and without implants. This is just the base damage on a typical damage/RoF bonused ship. Toss in the fitting requirements of these various mods and things skew more heavily in favor of HM's than they do in the above example. The Troll is trolling. |
BrokenBC
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:58:00 -
[1830] - Quote
@ Hans Jagerblitzen, at least we know which csm not to vote for next election!!! this Nerf is way over the top. |
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:06:00 -
[1831] - Quote
Agent Xena wrote:Bravo, Fozzie!! These changes are 100% home run!!!
Cane change is a no-brainer. There is no reason why it should be able to fit full tank, 425s, 2 med neuts, and have grid to spare.
And those who are saying HMLs should not get damage nerf are DEAD WRONG. Their damage is PRECISELY what's wrong with them.
There are a LOT of medium weapons that can shoot past 80k. The issue is that at those ranges, HMLs out damage all of them. Furthermore, even within point range, they usually outdamage all short range weapons as well, if they can stay outside of optimal (which they generally can).
Oh yes, and I do fly a 100mn Tengu so I'm not just a hater...
It's not the damage that is wrong, it's the range. |
RAGE QU1T
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:08:00 -
[1832] - Quote
BrokenBC wrote:@ Hans Jagerblitzen, at least we know which csm not to vote for next election!!! this Nerf is way over the top.
Conferming i hear crickets on the CSM's skipe. |
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
291
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:10:00 -
[1833] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:The HM nerf has been much needed for a long time. For all those crying over it, let's put this in perspective:
1) A Harbinger with Heavy beam laser II's using IN MF does 318 dps at 15km + 10km falloff (25km total).
2) A Hurricane with 720mm Howitzer II's using RF PP does 290 dps at 15km + 22km falloff (27km total).
3) A Brutix with 250mm railgun II's using CN antimatter does 302 dps at 18km + 15km falloff (28km total).
4) A drake with HML II's using CN scourge does 250 dps at 84.4km.
Now tell me which one of these isn't even remotely like the rest. All of these numbers are at lvl5 skills without any other mods/drones fitted and without implants. This is just the base damage on a typical damage/RoF bonused ship. Toss in the fitting requirements of these various mods and things skew more heavily in favor of HM's than they do in the above example.
This is all paper numbers though. As a decently experienced frigate pilot, I can tell you that you can mitigate a Drake's DPS incredibly. I will and do buy X-instinct boosters to reduce my signature radius, and thus their damage. I do manually pilot in order to make sure I am moving perpendicular to the incoming missile, and I also make sure I am AB'ing above their explosion velocity. What does this all lead up to? A tackled Drake (which has NONE of the utility highs and mids for neuts and webs, like the Cane) and me ASB'ing to tank it. And then my fleet warps in and kills it. "But what if it is 84km away?". Then I can simply warp off. What? It's a Drake blob? I'll see those heavy missiles next year. The delay between launch and damage application really does matter.
By converse, if a Hurricane or Harbinger is at range and hits my little frigate, it is hit. Arty Cane literally wipes it away from the field.
Now, I've written all of this from the perspective of a frigate pilot. I'd imagine BC pilots could also simply warp away, but then why wouldn't a proper BC gang have frig tackle support to hold the Drake(s) down? I really am baffled. People are crying about how OP HMLs are because they're comparing a single BC to another BC. 1v1 is incredibly uncommon these days, so I see no reason to base a nerf or major game mechanics change off of one-to-one comparisons. I'm sorry if you want your Hurricane to be able to kill everything in a 1v1 scenario, but no ship in the game has the capability to always win against everything. They're not thinking of smallgang or fleet scenarios at all.
Don't nerf HMLs. Nerf the ships that are OP. And most of all people, stop thinking 1v1 only. It just doesn't happen much. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:14:00 -
[1834] - Quote
Will HAMS have their fitting requirements reduced? As it stands, a Tengu pilot. (without AWU to 5 or a PG implant) can't even fit a full rack of T2 HAMS and an AB. (which is then a requirement so you can move into range of your enemy to apply that DPS).
Or is the answer simply to.. Train AWU5.. because then I'd like to see how many other weapons systems requires that to be able to fit to the other t3s. |
King Rothgar
Black Watch Guard Gl0rious Bastards
304
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:48:00 -
[1835] - Quote
Rek Jaiga wrote:King Rothgar wrote:The HM nerf has been much needed for a long time. For all those crying over it, let's put this in perspective:
1) A Harbinger with Heavy beam laser II's using IN MF does 318 dps at 15km + 10km falloff (25km total).
2) A Hurricane with 720mm Howitzer II's using RF PP does 290 dps at 15km + 22km falloff (27km total).
3) A Brutix with 250mm railgun II's using CN antimatter does 302 dps at 18km + 15km falloff (28km total).
4) A drake with HML II's using CN scourge does 250 dps at 84.4km.
Now tell me which one of these isn't even remotely like the rest. All of these numbers are at lvl5 skills without any other mods/drones fitted and without implants. This is just the base damage on a typical damage/RoF bonused ship. Toss in the fitting requirements of these various mods and things skew more heavily in favor of HM's than they do in the above example. This is all paper numbers though. As a decently experienced frigate pilot, I can tell you that you can mitigate a Drake's DPS incredibly. I will and do buy X-instinct boosters to reduce my signature radius, and thus their damage. I do manually pilot in order to make sure I am moving perpendicular to the incoming missile, and I also make sure I am AB'ing above their explosion velocity. What does this all lead up to? A tackled Drake (which has NONE of the utility highs and mids for neuts and webs, like the Cane) and me ASB'ing to tank it. And then my fleet warps in and kills it. "But what if it is 84km away?". Then I can simply warp off. What? It's a Drake blob? I'll see those heavy missiles next year. The delay between launch and damage application really does matter. By converse, if a Hurricane or Harbinger is at range and hits my little frigate, it is hit. Arty Cane literally wipes it away from the field. Now, I've written all of this from the perspective of a frigate pilot. I'd imagine BC pilots could also simply warp away, but then why wouldn't a proper BC gang have frig tackle support to hold the Drake(s) down? I really am baffled. People are crying about how OP HMLs are because they're comparing a single BC to another BC. 1v1 is incredibly uncommon these days, so I see no reason to base a nerf or major game mechanics change off of one-to-one comparisons. I'm sorry if you want your Hurricane to be able to kill everything in a 1v1 scenario, but no ship in the game has the capability to always win against everything. They're not thinking of smallgang or fleet scenarios at all. Don't nerf HMLs. Nerf the ships that are OP. And most of all people, stop thinking 1v1 only. It just doesn't happen much.
The issue is simply the range, that's nearly 3x the range of the 2nd longest range medium weapon. Yes you can evade missiles easily in a frigate but the same is true of turrets too. There really isn't much of a difference there. The only legitimate issue here is that missiles do have flight time and so their real range is often much less than the theoretical range but it isn't 300% different. A balanced HM has a range of around 50km base with either current or moderately reduced damage compared to current HM's. I also agree that HAM's need to have their fittings reduced. It's silly that they use more PG/CPU than HML's, they should follow the model of other short ranged weapons and be far easier to fit.
A final note, I said nothing about 1v1 or even overall fittings. I simply pointed out the huge range inconsistency. The reality is you simply don't see heavy beam harbs or 250mm railgun brutix's. The fitting requirements of the guns are so high that it simply isn't practical. The 720mm hurricane does come up frequently but it requires ACR's to work and the thing has the tank of a wet tissue. On the other hand, the drake can cover itself in those HML's without making any fitting sacrifices, it has half its PG/CPU left over afterwards. Thus it has by far the longest range, average dps for a ranged ship and the toughest tank of any BC in any reasonable configuration (excluding bait ships). And you say this is fine? I think not. HML's should have been nerfed ages ago. The Troll is trolling. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
314
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:54:00 -
[1836] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:
A final note, I said nothing about 1v1 or even overall fittings. I simply pointed out the huge range inconsistency. The reality is you simply don't see heavy beam harbs or 250mm railgun brutix's. The fitting requirements of the guns are so high that it simply isn't practical. The 720mm hurricane does come up frequently but it requires ACR's to work and the thing has the tank of a wet tissue. On the other hand, the drake can cover itself in those HML's without making any fitting sacrifices, it has half its PG/CPU left over afterwards. Thus it has by far the longest range, average dps for a ranged ship and the toughest tank of any BC in any reasonable configuration (excluding bait ships). And you say this is fine? I think not. HML's should have been nerfed ages ago.
You dont see beam harbs and rail brutixes because
1) They are entirely superseded by tr3 bcs 2) Their range is very awkward - its more than point range and less than safe sniper range 3) HAMs are too short range to be useful for anything but brawling 4) Scorch makes pulse harbs amazing 5) I see rail brutixes all the time, mostly in the militia warzones
Also, a typical small gang/solo drake has slightly more tank than a cane, since you are fitting only a 2 slot tank + rigs. |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:55:00 -
[1837] - Quote
After reading CCP Fozzie's new comments (updated OP), I think I have to rescind my belief that 20% is too much. I think its pretty well in line. On the same token, though, In order to make a proper balance between HMLs and HAMs, I think HAMs need their fitting reduced. Cruisers should (with proper sacrifices) be able to make decent fits with HAMs, just like a thorax with neutrons.
I also want to reiterate that I think having a separate mod that increases missile range and exp. velocity/radius is important, rather than adding another effect to the tracking enancer/computer. I think it will add flavor, balance, and diversity. I don't think tracking enhancers should be such a "god" module.
On the other hand, I do think tracking disruptors should effect missiles. The argument against it seems to be that its overpowered if it effects all ships similarly. My defense is that both damps and target painters share this attribute, and are obviously not overused. |
Althasandria Shadegrown
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:57:00 -
[1838] - Quote
Sofia Wolf wrote:A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps.
IMHO for winter expansion it would be best if HML get range reduction of 25% as suggested, but only 10% damage reduction. Leave it like that for few months until you are ready to introduce full BC rebalancing and then based of feedback and changes of ship/launcher popularity decide if you want to introduce remaining 10% of the nerf.
Similarly for winter expansion cut cain's power grid for only 10%. Leave it like that until you are ready to introduce full rebalance for all BCs, and then based on changes in cane's popularity decide how much more power grid you want to cut, together with any other changes you want to make to that ship and other battlecruisers. If you cut 20% of hurricane power grid at once IGÇÖm afraid you might be making it suboptimal choice compared to other ships in it's class.
I'd like to remind you of danger of overbalancing too much at once, like it was done with buffing Dramiel and nerfing sensor dampeners. Rather do it in gradual iterations, much like you did when introducing tech alchemy. You cautiously decided first to go for 1 to 10 ratio and only later after you see what transpires you likely intend to introduce 1 to 5 reaction. You should take same multi step approach when introducing nerfs to HML and canes.
^ this
I agree with the Heavy Missiles being op as they are now, but those 25% range and 20% damage nerf might just be too severe. As said above, implement only half of the nerf now, and rest with the ship rebalance if still needed. I can see a drake getting 10% damage nerf and even 25% range nerf being enough to balance them down. Tengu would still be the most powerful of all the t3 but that is the ships fault, not the weapon systems. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
314
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:58:00 -
[1839] - Quote
Aaron Greil wrote: I also want to reiterate that I think having a separate mod that increases missile range and exp. velocity/radius is important, rather than adding another effect to the tracking enancer/computer. I think it will add flavor, balance, and diversity. I don't think tracking enhancers should be such a "god" module.
I cant really think of a missile ship that has an extra low slot to fit one of these. Phoons i guess? |
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
293
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 04:59:00 -
[1840] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:
The issue is simply the range, that's nearly 3x the range of the 2nd longest range medium weapon. Yes you can evade missiles easily in a frigate but the same is true of turrets too. There really isn't much of a difference there. The only legitimate issue here is that missiles do have flight time and so their real range is often much less than the theoretical range but it isn't 300% different. A balanced HM has a range of around 50km base with either current or moderately reduced damage compared to current HM's. I also agree that HAM's need to have their fittings reduced. It's silly that they use more PG/CPU than HML's, they should follow the model of other short ranged weapons and be far easier to fit.
A final note, I said nothing about 1v1 or even overall fittings. I simply pointed out the huge range inconsistency. The reality is you simply don't see heavy beam harbs or 250mm railgun brutix's. The fitting requirements of the guns are so high that it simply isn't practical. The 720mm hurricane does come up frequently but it requires ACR's to work and the thing has the tank of a wet tissue. On the other hand, the drake can cover itself in those HML's without making any fitting sacrifices, it has half its PG/CPU left over afterwards. Thus it has by far the longest range, average dps for a ranged ship and the toughest tank of any BC in any reasonable configuration (excluding bait ships). And you say this is fine? I think not. HML's should have been nerfed ages ago.
Caldari is the race that is supposed to be long range and moderately high volley damage, at the cost of very low base speed (and thus poor range dictation). I do agree that HAMs and turrets have very terribad fitting stats, but does that mean "nerf HMLs to be just as bad"? No! Just fix those turrets and HAMs to be equally competitive. That being said, I think 50km range is pretty reasonable for a Drake. Just leave the damage alone; in the time it takes missiles to fly, natural shield regen and local tank/RR can be applied, meaning HML net DPS is really lower than most turrets. |
|
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:00:00 -
[1841] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote: I really like the idea of splitting TD into a tracking disruptor and a missile disruptor module. We'd need to fit a mix of TD and MD modules on our Curse or Pilgrim, just like we fit a mix of jammers on our Falcon. This will resolve the imbalancedness almost on its own.
Or we can fly Celestis/Arazu/Latchesis hulls instead and use damps which not only lower range of missiles and guns, but also the ability to control drones, and with focused application can impact remote repairing, break tackles, and defend against neutralizers.
|
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:16:00 -
[1842] - Quote
As an aside, if you really want to balance the Drake you can just make it an all-out missile sniper. Strip the shield resist bonus off and give it a ROF bonus and missile flight time or velocity bonus. Maybe lower its base speed a bit. This would mean those mids go more towards unbonused EW (probably RSDs or TDs) as a form of survival than all-out shield tank. This would still be quite consistent with Caldari-style tactics of missiles, range, and EW.
So basically, in summary:
- Do nerf the range on HMLs so unbonused hulls aren't getting stupid range. Leave the damage alone.
- Rebalance the Drake into a missile sniper that is more frail. This forces the pilots to be more clever and rely on electronics, maneuvering, and cunning fleet composition/coordination for survival (as snipers should).
- Reduce fitting requirements for long-range turrets and HAMs.
- For the love of all that is good and sacred, buff medium rails.
|
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
323
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:17:00 -
[1843] - Quote
Althasandria Shadegrown wrote:Sofia Wolf wrote:A case for gradual implementation of HML and Hurricane nerf My primary problem with suggested changes is that they are gong to be implemented all at once. In my opinion changes of this magnitude to key weapon systems and popular hulls should be implemented more gradually. I would like to repeat my suggestion in earlier post that you introduce those changes in steps.
IMHO for winter expansion it would be best if HML get range reduction of 25% as suggested, but only 10% damage reduction. Leave it like that for few months until you are ready to introduce full BC rebalancing and then based of feedback and changes of ship/launcher popularity decide if you want to introduce remaining 10% of the nerf.
Similarly for winter expansion cut cain's power grid for only 10%. Leave it like that until you are ready to introduce full rebalance for all BCs, and then based on changes in cane's popularity decide how much more power grid you want to cut, together with any other changes you want to make to that ship and other battlecruisers. If you cut 20% of hurricane power grid at once IGÇÖm afraid you might be making it suboptimal choice compared to other ships in it's class.
I'd like to remind you of danger of overbalancing too much at once, like it was done with buffing Dramiel and nerfing sensor dampeners. Rather do it in gradual iterations, much like you did when introducing tech alchemy. You cautiously decided first to go for 1 to 10 ratio and only later after you see what transpires you likely intend to introduce 1 to 5 reaction. You should take same multi step approach when introducing nerfs to HML and canes. ^ this I agree with the Heavy Missiles being op as they are now, but those 25% range and 20% damage nerf might just be too severe. As said above, implement only half of the nerf now, and rest with the ship rebalance if still needed. I can see a drake getting 10% damage nerf and even 25% range nerf being enough to balance them down. Tengu would still be the most powerful of all the t3 but that is the ships fault, not the weapon systems.
Yeah, definitely this. CCP is well known for nerfing things too hard. Just...take it easy guys. We know you're eager to swing that nerfbat, but lets take it in steps.
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
150
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:19:00 -
[1844] - Quote
Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
NOTES: 1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly 2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another. 3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits" |
Absinthe Verte
Imperial Guardians Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:34:00 -
[1845] - Quote
Just adding my two cents as a new player since, as you say, "missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players."
To begin, I only heard about this change by chance when I glanced at my chat window and saw folks discussing it. If I didn't happen to notice this, I would have continued on my merry ignorant way. If there was a way to communicate big changes like this to the players without leaving it to chance, it would be great!
Being a new player, there is a LOT about EVE that I am still getting used to. There is just so much to learn here! One thing that I really appreciate is the fact that I have things like "recommendations" to let me know which direction I should be taking. Since it takes such a long investment in time (and actual real world money) to train up these skills, it's a boon to have a little help!
However, it is a bit disheartening to find that these recommendations have sent me down the wrong path for several months. As a new player, I don't appreciate being conned by the folks who actual develop the game. It does kinda feel that way...
I would recommend changing your recommendations on the ships that you will be nerfing so that folks don't waste their time (and again actual real world money) training skills that will be useless a year later.
Thanks for listening to my gripes! Cheers! |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
277
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:45:00 -
[1846] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
NOTES: 1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly 2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another. 3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits"
Looking at the numbers in this more realistic way it is clear that the problem with HMs -- if it exists at all -- is hardly as severe as some would suggest. The weapons, like the ships themselves, are relatively comparable to one another. They may be the most balanced class of ships (and weapons) in the game.
If we are going to compare the ships more completely we would need to look beyond HMs to do so. We would need to consider their resistances and tanks, fitting requirements, speed and agility, combat parameters, training time, ease of use, drone bays, utility slots, added capabilities such as EWAR, and what not.
When taken as a whole an argument could easily be made that ANY of these ships is superior to the others under the correct situation. The Drake excels in some areas and falls behind in others, and the same applies to all of them. The Drake does, however, offer a relatively inexpensive and easy to train for platform that makes fleet operations simple to control.
This is not the problem CCP wishes to correct. The problem is this:
A drake swarm of 100 ships encounters an enemy drake swarm of 100 ships. Combined the two fleets will begin spewing out an additional 1400 individual server tracked objects every 6 seconds, and often the second salvo will be in flight before the first hits. This is an incredible load on the servers, and one that the servers DO NOT HAVE when the ships are "firing" direct fire weapons.
Now imagine the same scenario, but up the ante to the blob sizes we see in some fleets today.
By shortening the range and increasing the speed CCP can reduce this server load by getting more missiles off the field faster. But better still (for them) is if they can essentially break the Drake and HMs and have them replaced by something less demanding. This is a win win for them, and in some respects for all of us.
This. ^^
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
152
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:47:00 -
[1847] - Quote
Absinthe Verte wrote:Just adding my two cents as a new player since, as you say, "missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players."
To begin, I only heard about this change by chance when I glanced at my chat window and saw folks discussing it. If I didn't happen to notice this, I would have continued on my merry ignorant way. If there was a way to communicate big changes like this to the players without leaving it to chance, it would be great!
Being a new player, there is a LOT about EVE that I am still getting used to. There is just so much to learn here! One thing that I really appreciate is the fact that I have things like "recommendations" to let me know which direction I should be taking. Since it takes such a large investment in time (and actual real world money) to train up these skills, it's a boon to have a little help!
However, it is a bit disheartening to find that these recommendations have sent me down the wrong path for several months. As a new player, I don't appreciate being conned by the folks who actual develop the game. It does kinda feel that way...
I would recommend changing your recommendations on the ships that you will be nerfing so that folks don't waste their time (and again actual real world money) training skills that will be useless a year later.
Thanks for listening to my gripes! Cheers!
Quick Comment:
I understand where you are coming from. It's frustrating. For what it's worth, the time you have invested is not wasted. It's understandable that you might feel that way after seeing the way these changes are described here, but in truth none of these things are really THAT important in the game world. There are so many other factors that influence combat that even significant changes to ships and weapons have very little to do with victory.
The battle is usually won or lost before the first shot was fired. Whatever CCP decides to do here, we will all adapt and get on with killing one another. Just train and fly whatever sounds fun to you and don't sweat the little ****.
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
134
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:56:00 -
[1848] - Quote
I personally never really use heavy missiles (only for PVE) but I think 20% reduction to damage is a bit excessive along with 25% range reduction AND affected by tracking disruptors.
It is fairly excessive in my option perhaps a lower 10% reduction would make sense.
There's another thing that bothers me is Tracking Disruptors being an all in one module that affects all types of ships with simply a switch of a script.
ECM have different racial jammers that make them fail often when pairing the wrong ship with the wrong jammer. Sensor damps are pointless for close range ships and ships that lock faster than you can lock.
I believe that Tracking Computers, Enhancers, Links, and Disruptors should have a separation.
One group of modules for Turrets and One group of modules for Missiles.
This will ensure that TD will not become all God module that is useful in all situations.
I personally think that rather than nerfing the PG on the hurricane, the other ships should have a PG buff so they can fit proper modules. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:59:00 -
[1849] - Quote
Any good reasoning behind making track ench / track dis work for missles? Bringing the weapon "in-line" is a bad reason, we dont want all weapons to be the same. Missles has always been a special case, let it remain so.
If the reason is to validate support / anti-support tactics for missle ships - that is a good one. But considering we still want missles to be special - make a separate set of modules that only affect missles. Besides, that is a solution of over-powering track dis.
I do acknowledge that a new set of modules is a bit more ambitious task, and would take more time and efforts. But imo, that is the right way and I urge to follow it. |
Acac Sunflyier
Burning Star L.L.C.
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:01:00 -
[1850] - Quote
Think you're overly nerfing the range and damage for the missile to kill the drake without overly hurting other ships like the cruisers that rely on them. I think cruisers should have their stats buffed a bit to lessen the nerf of missiles on them while letting the full effect hurt the drake as your intended goal There just isn't anything intresting on the front page of the GD anymore. Yawn! |
|
Meta Pyrr
TYTANIA Inc
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:05:00 -
[1851] - Quote
Interesting changes but a little confused the word "tracking" in the title. It is more associated with turrets. How about adding new modules or rename the current like some kind "weapon computer/enhancer/disruptor"? Next, if we compare the missiles and turrets and traced some injustice in the medium and large size. Missile weapons like HAM and Torpedoes consumes a lot of resources spaceship (CPU/PG) compared with turrets. This will be sometime changed? |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
134
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:12:00 -
[1852] - Quote
Meta Pyrr wrote:Interesting changes but a little confused the word "tracking" in the title. It is more associated with turrets. How about adding new modules or rename the current like some kind "weapon computer/enhancer/disruptor"? Next, if we compare the missiles and turrets and traced some injustice in the medium and large size. Missile weapons like HAM and Torpedoes consumes a lot of resources spaceship (CPU/PG) compared with turrets. This will be sometime changed?
I personally am against an all in one module.
There should be two group: Turret and Missile.
You have the tracking disruptor for Turrets
and
Missile disruptor for Missiles.
Having a single module group would make it into a God module that everyone will fit. |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:29:00 -
[1853] - Quote
If CCP is changing TD to have an effect against missiles; CCP MUST delete defender missiles. If they do not do this the most missions will be unplayable for Caldari Pilots!
In my opinion it is a more than daft idea to change TD so that they affect missiles. There is absolute no reason for this! If you kill missiles by -20% damage und -25% range it seems that CCP want that my NPC's intercept the rest of my missiles with defenders and disupt them with TD! They are unable to rework defenders for PvP so that they still change TD but leave the defenders in game. Bad idea. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
724
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:42:00 -
[1854] - Quote
Missiles now have the disadvantages of:
- Defender Missiles - Vulnerability to AOE damage like Smartbombs and Bombs - Tracking Disruptors - Difficulty dealing damage to small, fast-moving objects at all times
Whereas guns have disadvantages vs:
- Tracking Disruptors - Difficulty hitting small, fast-moving objects at all as long as transversal is above a certain threshold
---
Another note:
Absolution -- improved, all guns are significantly easier to fit Sleipnir -- nominally unchanged, artillery versions are now slightly improved Astarte -- unchanged Nighthawk -- nerfed to the point of uselessness, ignoring the fact that it was rarely used before
---
Just highlighting some things Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:43:00 -
[1855] - Quote
Shanudar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Quoted this one because I'm tired of looking for the original. lasers, hybrids, and projectiles all share support skills where as missiles require a completely different set of skills, they should be better to a certain extent.
Call me when you have to train 18 differnt turrets to T2 and you can't bypass the small Crap you don't need, and you need.
Even with support skills filled out, its 45 days to train a large T2 turret.
Takes two weeks for any missile system.....and you have one more supper skill. |
LAlpha
BLACK STUMP AU INC Conquerors of Coffee
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 06:55:00 -
[1856] - Quote
I can use almost all Med weapon systems and cruisers. But I have to strongly object against this HML nerf.
Currently, HMLs are the only viable weapon system for Solo and very small fleets doing Missions. Nerfing HMLs to oblivion without giving an alternative viable weapon system, is a clear punishment to a group of EVE players that are silent and invisible in the forums.
As it stands, Missions are repetitive and somewhat low in rewards. Currently suggested change will make a boring but doable activity into a boring and difficult activity.
I have nothing against Balancing but it should be an exercise using precision tools and not sledge hammers.
Also, CCP should stop touting Game Mechanic Balancing as an Expansion feature. Expansions should be about better Graphics (e.g. Update to Existing Ship Models) new Ships, new and improved Game assets and Infrastructure (e.g. POS rework), improved Missions and so on. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:23:00 -
[1857] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:Ima wait and see most likely sell my tengus for a proteus ................................................................
Dude, no one will buy your Tengu after this |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:27:00 -
[1858] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
NOTES: 1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly 2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another. 3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits"
Looking at the numbers in this more realistic way it is clear that the problem with HMs -- if it exists at all -- is hardly as severe as some would suggest. The weapons, like the ships themselves, are relatively comparable to one another. They may be the most balanced class of ships (and weapons) in the game.
If we are going to compare the ships more completely we would need to look beyond HMs to do so. We would need to consider their resistances and tanks, fitting requirements, speed and agility, combat parameters, training time, ease of use, drone bays, utility slots, added capabilities such as EWAR, and what not.
When taken as a whole an argument could easily be made that ANY of these ships is superior to the others under the correct situation. The Drake excels in some areas and falls behind in others, and the same applies to all of them. The Drake does, however, offer a relatively inexpensive and easy to train for platform that makes fleet operations simple to control.
This is not the problem CCP wishes to correct. The problem is this:
A drake swarm of 100 ships encounters an enemy drake swarm of 100 ships. Combined the two fleets will begin spewing out an additional 1400 individual server tracked objects every 6 seconds, and often the second salvo will be in flight before the first hits. This is an incredible load on the servers, and one that the servers DO NOT HAVE when the ships are "firing" direct fire weapons.
Now imagine the same scenario, but up the ante to the blob sizes we see in some fleets today.
By shortening the range and increasing the speed CCP can reduce this server load by getting more missiles off the field faster. But better still (for them) is if they can essentially break the Drake and HMs and have them replaced by something less demanding. This is a win win for them, and in some respects for all of us.
Although I agree with lag reasoning. Please don't compare weapons enhanced with 4 mods to weapons enhanced with 2 mods. Also 19 + 36 with fallo does only give half dps at 55 km
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:30:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:If CCP is changing TD to have an effect against missiles; CCP MUST delete defender missiles. If they do not do this the most missions will be unplayable for Caldari Pilots!
How so? Aren't Sansha the only rats that TD you in missions? That's about 6% of mission rats. 6% =/= most
Stop exaggerating. |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
44
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:32:00 -
[1860] - Quote
Maybe CCP Fonzie was actually joking, and just wanted to make the first 100+ page sticky |
|
Kubiq
Dark-Rising
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:32:00 -
[1861] - Quote
I just hope that you are serious about 20% for HM nerf and not just saying it, so you can say later 10% and ppl will be more happy. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:33:00 -
[1862] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
Well done.
Gun boats - 2x damage mods + 2xtracking mods == 4 mods Drake - 2x damage mod == 2 mods
4 mods >> 2 mods |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:36:00 -
[1863] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Katharina B wrote:If CCP is changing TD to have an effect against missiles; CCP MUST delete defender missiles. If they do not do this the most missions will be unplayable for Caldari Pilots!
How so? Aren't Sansha the only rats that TD you in missions? That's about 6% of mission rats. 6% =/= most Stop exaggerating. The fact that you do not know what I am doing and how am I doing it says everything. Abandon all mission against highsec and consider to fly in a space with mainly sanshas than come on with your 6%. |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:37:00 -
[1864] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:Travis117 wrote:Ima wait and see most likely sell my tengus for a proteus ................................................................
Dude, no one will buy your Tengu after this I'll buy it. Uh um 50m including subs? I'll keep it for exploration when I'm expecting absolutely no combat. Oh on second thought, nm, just not worth it... risking implants etc.
stupid nerf *grumbles* CCP (can't code properly) drop this excuse for bad coding skills unable to get the defender to work, fix the defender and dismiss the nerf. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:38:00 -
[1865] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
Well done. Gun boats - 2x damage mods + 2xtracking mods == 4 mods Drake - 2x damage mod == 2 mods 4 mods >> 2 mods He was comparing typical fits. It's common for the above ships to use two tracking mods. The reason it's not on the Drake is because, well, said tracking mods would be the rigs which are instead used for tank. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:42:00 -
[1866] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Katharina B wrote:If CCP is changing TD to have an effect against missiles; CCP MUST delete defender missiles. If they do not do this the most missions will be unplayable for Caldari Pilots!
How so? Aren't Sansha the only rats that TD you in missions? That's about 6% of mission rats. 6% =/= most Stop exaggerating. The fact that you do not know what I am doing and how am I doing it says everything. Abandon all mission against highsec and consider to fly in a space with mainly sanshas than come on with your 6%.
You said : "most missions will be unplayable for Caldari Pilots". Are you speaking for all Caldari pilots? |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:44:00 -
[1867] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: He was comparing typical fits. It's common for the above ships to use two tracking mods. The reason it's not on the Drake is because, well, said tracking mods would be the rigs which are instead used for tank.
What rigs would you have used in this comparison? |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:52:00 -
[1868] - Quote
BrokenBC wrote:@ Hans Jagerblitzen, at least we know which csm not to vote for next election!!! this Nerf is way over the top.
Or any of them tbh
This is looking like the most inept and ineffectual CSM for years. |
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
153
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:59:00 -
[1869] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Quoted this one because I'm tired of looking for the original.
lasers, hybrids, and projectiles all share support skills where as missiles require a completely different set of skills, they should be better to a certain extent.
Call me when you have to train 18 differnt turrets to T2 and you can't bypass the small Crap you don't need, and you need.
Even with support skills filled out, its 45 days to train a large T2 turret.
Takes two weeks for any missile system.....and you have one more support skill.
I understand your point but it's probably a different topic, but since you brought it up...
You mentioned 45 days training just the weapon itself to get large T2 turrets. The end result of that 45 days of training would be:
Small T2 Turrets of TWO types plus specializations (4 if I recall) Medium T2 Turrets of TWO types plus specializations (4 if I recall) Large T2 Turrets of TWO types
At the end of that 45 days you will then have T2 mastery of every primary weapon system -- both short and long range -- used by every turret ship (of any one race) from Frigates all the way through to Battleships. This obviously ignores the turret support skills. Let's assume you train those as well prior to this -- meaning, of course, that you can launch into any other direct fire weapon you like without needing to retrain support skills. This is obviously an advantage. Let's move on.
If you are flying Caldari and want both short and long range T2 weapons for every missile ship from Frigate to BS you will need to train:
Rockets 5 Light Missiles 5 Heavy Missiles 5 (Heavy Assault Missiles 5) Cruise Missiles 5 (Torpedoes 5)
Plus an additional support skill gun weapons do not have. The direct fire weapon user gets both the short and long range variants of his weapons at two for the price of one, where Caldari pilots must train each individually. Viewed in this way you can clearly see that not only does that Caldari player invest more time, he invests a LOT more training time into his weapons. And the end result is that if he wants to cross train into a new weapon, a direct fire weapon, he has to start over from zero, training his weapons support skills.
The difference is so drastic that a Minmatar player can train every direct fire weapon, from frigate to battleship, in both the AC and Arty versions all to level 5, THEN train every Hybrid weapon from frigate to battleship, every blaster and railgun, again all to level 5, and finish up before the Caldari player is done training his missiles alone. At which point that Caldari pilot has to start over training gun support skills if he wants to fly half his ships.
In other words: if someone deserves a "power bonus" based on training time invested and character committment, it's the poor bloke firing missiles. And I say this as someone who doesn't use missiles. I fly mostly Minmatar and Gallente ships.
However, in one respect you have a point. A newer player can go directly to heavy missiles, and he can be flying a typical blob issued T1 HM drake within a couple weeks. And for mega blob warfare it makes no difference whether the ship is armed with T1 weapons or not as they are relying on alpha.
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
153
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:02:00 -
[1870] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
Well done. Gun boats - 2x damage mods + 2xtracking mods == 4 mods Drake - 2x damage mod == 2 mods 4 mods >> 2 mods He was comparing typical fits. It's common for the above ships to use two tracking mods. The reason it's not on the Drake is because, well, said tracking mods would be the rigs which are instead used for tank.
Right. The typical HM nano Drake fit you normally encounter would run two BCUs and either two nanos or a DC and a Nano. It would not have any missile rigs. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
179
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:12:00 -
[1871] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Onictus wrote:
Quoted this one because I'm tired of looking for the original.
lasers, hybrids, and projectiles all share support skills where as missiles require a completely different set of skills, they should be better to a certain extent.
Call me when you have to train 18 differnt turrets to T2 and you can't bypass the small Crap you don't need, and you need.
Even with support skills filled out, its 45 days to train a large T2 turret.
Takes two weeks for any missile system.....and you have one more support skill.
I understand your point but it's probably a different topic, but since you brought it up... You mentioned 45 days training just the weapon itself to get large T2 turrets. The end result of that 45 days of training would be: Small T2 Turrets of TWO types plus specializations (4 if I recall) Medium T2 Turrets of TWO types plus specializations (4 if I recall) Large T2 Turrets of TWO types At the end of that 45 days you will then have T2 mastery of every primary weapon system -- both short and long range -- used by every turret ship (of any one race) from Frigates all the way through to Battleships. This obviously ignores the turret support skills. Let's assume you train those as well prior to this -- meaning, of course, that you can launch into any other direct fire weapon you like without needing to retrain support skills. This is obviously an advantage. Let's move on. If you are flying Caldari and want both short and long range T2 weapons for every missile ship from Frigate to BS you will need to train: Rockets 5 Light Missiles 5 Heavy Missiles 5 (Heavy Assault Missiles 5) Cruise Missiles 5 (Torpedoes 5) Plus an additional support skill gun weapons do not have. The direct fire weapon user gets both the short and long range variants of his weapons at two for the price of one, where Caldari pilots must train each individually. Viewed in this way you can clearly see that not only does that Caldari player invest more time, he invests a LOT more training time into his weapons. And the end result is that if he wants to cross train into a new weapon, a direct fire weapon, he has to start over from zero, training his weapons support skills. The difference is so drastic that a Minmatar player can train every direct fire weapon, from frigate to battleship, in both the AC and Arty versions all to level 5, THEN train every Hybrid weapon from frigate to battleship, every blaster and railgun, again all to level 5, and finish up before the Caldari player is done training his missiles alone. At which point that Caldari pilot has to start over training gun support skills if he wants to fly half his ships. In other words: if someone deserves a "power bonus" based on training time invested and character committment, it's the poor bloke firing missiles. And I say this as someone who doesn't use missiles. I fly mostly Minmatar and Gallente ships. However, in one respect you have a point. A newer player can go directly to heavy missiles, and he can be flying a typical blob issued T1 HM drake within a couple weeks. And for mega blob warfare it makes no difference whether the ship is armed with T1 weapons or not as they are relying on alpha.
You act as if caldari are the only race that uses missiles, guess again.
Fly recons ....any recon, better train missiles, like bombers? Torps. Sacrilage and Legion, HAMs Rifter Cyclone Tristan Typhoon Tempest Megathron
......all have missile slots
Everyone trains it, much like drones. |
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
153
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:13:00 -
[1872] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Well done.
Gun boats - 2x damage mods + 2xtracking mods == 4 mods Drake - 2x damage mod == 2 mods
4 mods >> 2 mods
Drakes only have 4 low slots. The typical HM nano Drake fits 2 BCUs (the only damage mod they have) and either a couple nanos or a DC and a nano. This is what you are facing in the field, so we might as well talk about the real EFT numbers rather than the deceptive stuff people have posted earlier in this thread. The same applies to the other ships. Since you are never going to encounter a ranged fit Cane (or whatever) without those mods there is no sense discussing them. If anything, I didn't put on all of the weapon enhancing mods that these other ships might run. That Cane, for example, might very well have 3 gyros and 2 TE's along with a DC.
Unlike some, I listed exactly what was used to generate those numbers and I tried to make them representative of what you might encounter. Some people might fit them differently, but it gives us something of a baseline.
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
153
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:20:00 -
[1873] - Quote
Onictus wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Onictus wrote:
Quoted this one because I'm tired of looking for the original.
lasers, hybrids, and projectiles all share support skills where as missiles require a completely different set of skills, they should be better to a certain extent.
Call me when you have to train 18 differnt turrets to T2 and you can't bypass the small Crap you don't need, and you need.
Even with support skills filled out, its 45 days to train a large T2 turret.
Takes two weeks for any missile system.....and you have one more support skill.
I understand your point but it's probably a different topic, but since you brought it up... You mentioned 45 days training just the weapon itself to get large T2 turrets. The end result of that 45 days of training would be: Small T2 Turrets of TWO types plus specializations (4 if I recall) Medium T2 Turrets of TWO types plus specializations (4 if I recall) Large T2 Turrets of TWO types At the end of that 45 days you will then have T2 mastery of every primary weapon system -- both short and long range -- used by every turret ship (of any one race) from Frigates all the way through to Battleships. This obviously ignores the turret support skills. Let's assume you train those as well prior to this -- meaning, of course, that you can launch into any other direct fire weapon you like without needing to retrain support skills. This is obviously an advantage. Let's move on. If you are flying Caldari and want both short and long range T2 weapons for every missile ship from Frigate to BS you will need to train: Rockets 5 Light Missiles 5 Heavy Missiles 5 (Heavy Assault Missiles 5) Cruise Missiles 5 (Torpedoes 5) Plus an additional support skill gun weapons do not have. The direct fire weapon user gets both the short and long range variants of his weapons at two for the price of one, where Caldari pilots must train each individually. Viewed in this way you can clearly see that not only does that Caldari player invest more time, he invests a LOT more training time into his weapons. And the end result is that if he wants to cross train into a new weapon, a direct fire weapon, he has to start over from zero, training his weapons support skills. The difference is so drastic that a Minmatar player can train every direct fire weapon, from frigate to battleship, in both the AC and Arty versions all to level 5, THEN train every Hybrid weapon from frigate to battleship, every blaster and railgun, again all to level 5, and finish up before the Caldari player is done training his missiles alone. At which point that Caldari pilot has to start over training gun support skills if he wants to fly half his ships. In other words: if someone deserves a "power bonus" based on training time invested and character committment, it's the poor bloke firing missiles. And I say this as someone who doesn't use missiles. I fly mostly Minmatar and Gallente ships. However, in one respect you have a point. A newer player can go directly to heavy missiles, and he can be flying a typical blob issued T1 HM drake within a couple weeks. And for mega blob warfare it makes no difference whether the ship is armed with T1 weapons or not as they are relying on alpha. You act as if caldari are the only race that uses missiles, guess again. Fly recons ....any recon, better train missiles, like bombers? Torps. Sacrilage and Legion, HAMs Rifter Cyclone Tristan Typhoon Tempest Megathron ......all have missile slots Everyone trains it, much like drones.
Yes. But no other race has missiles as their primary weapon. You can fly Minmatar forever, never fit missiles to anything, and likely never particularly notice the lack. You don't need a rocket on your Rifter and you are probably better off with something else there anyway. The Cyclone gets by just fine without missiles, and if that bothers you fly the Cane. The same applies to the Typhoon -- you can use Torps or your can use large guns, and I suspect most folks fill their secondary weapon / accessory high slots with heavy neuts anyway.
About half the ships in the Caldari combat lineup use missiles exclusively, and most of them were considered sub-par even prior to this nerf. Post nerf some of them are going to be laughably bad. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
359
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:29:00 -
[1874] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:[Post nerf some of them are going to be laughably bad.
Remarkably, missile systems other than HMs exist. They'll be fine, you just lack imagination and self-confidence. |
King Rothgar
Black Watch Guard Gl0rious Bastards
305
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:34:00 -
[1875] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
Well done. Gun boats - 2x damage mods + 2xtracking mods == 4 mods Drake - 2x damage mod == 2 mods 4 mods >> 2 mods He was comparing typical fits. It's common for the above ships to use two tracking mods. The reason it's not on the Drake is because, well, said tracking mods would be the rigs which are instead used for tank. Right. The typical HM nano Drake fit you normally encounter would run two BCUs and either two nanos or a DC and a Nano. It would not have any missile rigs.
It would also have 90k+ ehp compared to the 40-45k EHP the other 3 have. The Troll is trolling. |
MisterArch
Pretenders Inc W-Space
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:34:00 -
[1876] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
NOTES: 1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly 2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another. 3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits"
This! |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:35:00 -
[1877] - Quote
I think the new changes to missiles are okay. I have flown a drake for over 3 months withs heavy missiles and they really were tooooo good. BUT. What the devs maybe forgot: Hunting down a frig with large or medium turrets at long range isn-¦t that big problem. Heavy missiles dont-¦t have that advantage. They always suck when chasing down frigs and that is especially with the drake because it lacks a missile velocity bonus. Frigs with HM and caracal maybe doable but Drake had always probs with frigs and will get even more problems. 20%less damage maybe too much. To be realistic 15% would be okay. But heavy assault missiles REALLY need some love. With these changes Drake will be really frig fodder. What CCP may consider is maybe really nerf the damage down 15% and give heavy AND heavy assault mssiles something that has really a chance to kill a frigate. Drams and Daredevils actually really scare a Drake Pilot to hell. Also the range nerf: toooo much. Artillery is even better. Please buff HAMS a bit. Would like to see them more in eve. Nerfing Cane is also great. TBH it was even more overpowered than drake. So good job CCP. I really admit it. But 15% less damage and 15% less range plus something that can hit frigates for heavy missiles would be okay. HAMs would also need some 10% or 15% more range pus something that can hit a frig. The pwg and cpu requirements for HAMs are actually toooo high for that performance.
|
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:51:00 -
[1878] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:I think the new changes to missiles are okay. I have flown a drake for over 3 months withs heavy missiles and they really were tooooo good. BUT. What the devs maybe forgot: Hunting down a frig with large or medium turrets at long range isn-¦t that big problem. Heavy missiles dont-¦t have that advantage. They always suck when chasing down frigs and that is especially with the drake because it lacks a missile velocity bonus. Frigs with HM and caracal maybe doable but Drake had always probs with frigs and will get even more problems. 20%less damage maybe too much. To be realistic 15% would be okay. But heavy assault missiles REALLY need some love. With these changes Drake will be really frig fodder. What CCP may consider is maybe really nerf the damage down 15% and give heavy AND heavy assault mssiles something that has really a chance to kill a frigate. Drams and Daredevils actually really scare a Drake Pilot to hell. Also the range nerf: toooo much. Artillery is even better. Please buff HAMS a bit. Would like to see them more in eve. Nerfing Cane is also great. TBH it was even more overpowered than drake. So good job CCP. I really admit it. But 15% less damage and 15% less range plus something that can hit frigates for heavy missiles would be okay. HAMs would also need some 10% or 15% more range pus something that can hit a frig. The pwg and cpu requirements for HAMs are actually toooo high for that performance.
Even 15% are too much. CCP abandon the daft idea that TD affecting missiles! Fix defenders or let it be! You nerf a whole weapon system because you are unable to bring DEFENDERS in line! Good job CCP! You have an already existing option to destroy incoming missiles. Your problem if it causes lag or you are unable to do the right codings! |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
751
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:53:00 -
[1879] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:I think the new changes to missiles are okay. I have flown a drake for over 3 months withs heavy missiles and they really were tooooo good. BUT. What the devs maybe forgot: Hunting down a frig with large or medium turrets at long range isn-¦t that big problem. Heavy missiles dont-¦t have that advantage. They always suck when chasing down frigs and that is especially with the drake because it lacks a missile velocity bonus. Frigs with HM and caracal maybe doable but Drake had always probs with frigs and will get even more problems. 20%less damage maybe too much. To be realistic 15% would be okay. But heavy assault missiles REALLY need some love. With these changes Drake will be really frig fodder. What CCP may consider is maybe really nerf the damage down 15% and give heavy AND heavy assault mssiles something that has really a chance to kill a frigate. Drams and Daredevils actually really scare a Drake Pilot to hell. Also the range nerf: toooo much. Artillery is even better. Please buff HAMS a bit. Would like to see them more in eve. Nerfing Cane is also great. TBH it was even more overpowered than drake. So good job CCP. I really admit it. But 15% less damage and 15% less range plus something that can hit frigates for heavy missiles would be okay. HAMs would also need some 10% or 15% more range pus something that can hit a frig. The pwg and cpu requirements for HAMs are actually toooo high for that performance.
What you are missing though is the notion that the Drake is too good not the missles. Unless I'm in a blob missles are the last thing I would take into PVP.
Nerf the ships not the modules. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:55:00 -
[1880] - Quote
OK, I'm going to throw out some numbers.
This is going to be all skills lvl 5 and I'll use the 4 tier 2 bc's with their respective weapon systems, with boh t2 ammo types, and drones for the Myrmidon since that is it's specialty.
Now, one thing that will be different is I will use my proposed change to missiles.
That is,
PRECISION WILL BE LONG RANGE AND FURY WILL BE SHORT RANGE.
This is on par with how every other weapon system is balanced. Greater range means less dps.
Also, keep in mind that I'm not adding faction or t1 ammo because these will need to be balanced similar to unguided missiles, and I don't feel like doing that myself.
However, if you would like to do that, than just use unguided missiles as an example (i.e. the precentage difference between t1 and faction compared to t2 will be roughly equal)
Ok, here it goes (no other modules)
{ammo - dps @ range}
Drake Hams II Rage - 349 @ 18.1 Javelin - 197 @ 30.4
Hml II - (with my proposed swap in ranges) Fury - 224 @ 42.2 Precision - 189 @ 75.9
Hurricane 425mm AC II Hail - 417 @ 1.5+9 = 10.5 Barrage - 298 @ 3+18 = 21
720mm HA II Quake - 294 @ 7.5 + 22 = 29.5 Tremor - 168 @ 54 + 22 = 77
Harbinger Heavy Pulse II Conflagration - 406 @ 7.5 + 5 = 12.5 Scorch - 290 @ 23 + 5 = 28
Heavy Beam II Gleam - 323 @ 7.5 + 10 = 17.5 Aurora - 184 @ 54 + 10 = 64
Myrmidon Heavy Neutron Blaster II Void - 341 @ 3.4 + 3.1 = 6.5 Null - 244 @ 6.3 + 8.8 = 15.1
250mm Railgun II Javelin - 210 @ 9 + 15 = 24 Spike - 120 @ 65 + 15 = 80
With 5 x t2 medium drones each set gets plus 238 dps @ up to 60km with all skills lvl 5.
close range high damage The drake has the greatest range by 5.6km to 11.6km Has lowest dps by 230 to 57
high damage with range Drake has greatet range by 2.4km to 15.3km Lowest dps by 285 dps to 93 dps
(REMEMBER, THESE NEXT TWO ARE WITH MY PROPOSED SWAP TO GUIDED MISSILES) Long range high damage Drake has greatest range by 12.7km to 24.7km But lowest dps by 224dps to 70 dps
Max range Drake has 3rd greatest range being 4.1km from the top, and 11.9km from the bottom Drake has greatest dps by 69 to 5 dps (behind by 169 @ up to 60km from myrm drones & turrets)
Now, the myrmidon shines in dps up to 60 km and has the greatest possible range @ 80km, but lowest dps at max range
The drake has the highest range until max range, but the highest dps at max range, but by substationally less dps than it is overpowered by in other ranges.
Now, when you consider my suggested change of swapping fury and precision ranges for all guided missiles, these weapon systems actually seem fairly balanced apart from hybrids on a myrm, but it makes up for it with drones.
I think this would negate the need for a range AND dps nerf to heavy missiles.
Instead, then needed nerfs could be aimed directly at the tengu and drake themselves.
Perhaps drop the drake shield recharge rate so that it can't fit a passive tank as effectively as it does.
With the tengu, drop its range bonuses, and reduce cpu and pg so that it can't fit 100mn afterburners and so that it has tochoose between dps or tank.
BOOM!!! besides balancing faction and t1 guided missiles, the drake and tengu are balanced and guided missiles become balanced in the same manner as every other weapon system. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
181
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 08:55:00 -
[1881] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Onictus wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Onictus wrote:
Quoted this one because I'm tired of looking for the original.
lasers, hybrids, and projectiles all share support skills where as missiles require a completely different set of skills, they should be better to a certain extent.
Call me when you have to train 18 differnt turrets to T2 and you can't bypass the small Crap you don't need, and you need.
Even with support skills filled out, its 45 days to train a large T2 turret.
Takes two weeks for any missile system.....and you have one more support skill.
I understand your point but it's probably a different topic, but since you brought it up... You mentioned 45 days training just the weapon itself to get large T2 turrets. The end result of that 45 days of training would be: Small T2 Turrets of TWO types plus specializations (4 if I recall) Medium T2 Turrets of TWO types plus specializations (4 if I recall) Large T2 Turrets of TWO types At the end of that 45 days you will then have T2 mastery of every primary weapon system -- both short and long range -- used by every turret ship (of any one race) from Frigates all the way through to Battleships. This obviously ignores the turret support skills. Let's assume you train those as well prior to this -- meaning, of course, that you can launch into any other direct fire weapon you like without needing to retrain support skills. This is obviously an advantage. Let's move on. If you are flying Caldari and want both short and long range T2 weapons for every missile ship from Frigate to BS you will need to train: Rockets 5 Light Missiles 5 Heavy Missiles 5 (Heavy Assault Missiles 5) Cruise Missiles 5 (Torpedoes 5) Plus an additional support skill gun weapons do not have. The direct fire weapon user gets both the short and long range variants of his weapons at two for the price of one, where Caldari pilots must train each individually. Viewed in this way you can clearly see that not only does that Caldari player invest more time, he invests a LOT more training time into his weapons. And the end result is that if he wants to cross train into a new weapon, a direct fire weapon, he has to start over from zero, training his weapons support skills. The difference is so drastic that a Minmatar player can train every direct fire weapon, from frigate to battleship, in both the AC and Arty versions all to level 5, THEN train every Hybrid weapon from frigate to battleship, every blaster and railgun, again all to level 5, and finish up before the Caldari player is done training his missiles alone. At which point that Caldari pilot has to start over training gun support skills if he wants to fly half his ships. In other words: if someone deserves a "power bonus" based on training time invested and character committment, it's the poor bloke firing missiles. And I say this as someone who doesn't use missiles. I fly mostly Minmatar and Gallente ships. However, in one respect you have a point. A newer player can go directly to heavy missiles, and he can be flying a typical blob issued T1 HM drake within a couple weeks. And for mega blob warfare it makes no difference whether the ship is armed with T1 weapons or not as they are relying on alpha. You act as if caldari are the only race that uses missiles, guess again. Fly recons ....any recon, better train missiles, like bombers? Torps. Sacrilage and Legion, HAMs Rifter Cyclone Tristan Typhoon Tempest Megathron ......all have missile slots Everyone trains it, much like drones. Yes. But no other race has missiles as their primary weapon. You can fly Minmatar forever, never fit missiles to anything, and likely never particularly notice the lack. You don't need a rocket on your Rifter and you are probably better off with something else there anyway. The Cyclone gets by just fine without missiles, and if that bothers you fly the Cane. The same applies to the Typhoon -- you can use Torps or your can use large guns, and I suspect most folks fill their secondary weapon / accessory high slots with heavy neuts anyway. About half the ships in the Caldari combat lineup use missiles exclusively, and most of them were considered sub-par even prior to this nerf. Post nerf some of them are going to be laughably bad.
Do you missed the missile bonus on the Lachesis, Typhoon, and Sac? .....I'm sure there are others I'm missing.
.....and if by exclusively you are ignoring merlin, harpy, ferox, eagle, naga, and rokh. This is off the top of my head mind you, I cant remember the name of the T1 cruiser. |
Iyica de Tylmarand
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:00:00 -
[1882] - Quote
This is waaaaaaaay excessive IMO. Range nerf and damage nerf and TD buff to counter missiles? Really? How did you guys come up with these numbers? Seriously? I think it's far better to go with a smaller nerf to see how things go rather than go with a giant NERFHAMMERSMACKOFDOOM and see Caracals/Nighthawks/Tengus/Drake dissappear from space altogether. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:05:00 -
[1883] - Quote
I really hate comparing heavy missiles to other medium LR guns. The players definitely won't care about what stuff is supposed to do and will just use the most powerful or versatile thing at the time. In day-to-day gangs it's probably going to be short range guns on tier 3 battlecruisers and medium arty because of its high alpha.
Barely anyone is going to use beams or rails even with the changes. |
kalbrak Jr
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:12:00 -
[1884] - Quote
I would like to see new modules for missiles that increase flight time, explosion radius and explosion velocity. They should use the same missile skills the effect the same stats. There should also be two new scripts for tracking disruptors that disrupt missiles. These scripts should use a new skill.
|
Iyica de Tylmarand
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:30:00 -
[1885] - Quote
kalbrak Jr wrote:I would like to see new modules for missiles that increase flight time, explosion radius and explosion velocity. They should use the same missile skills the effect the same stats. There should also be two new scripts for tracking disruptors that disrupt missiles. These scripts should use a new skill.
Agree with both of these ideas. If I'm not mistaken the only way to increase missile explosion velocity is rigs. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:39:00 -
[1886] - Quote
kalbrak Jr wrote:I would like to see new modules for missiles that increase flight time, explosion radius and explosion velocity.
What's wrong with TEs and TCs affecting those stats?
kalbrak Jr wrote:They should use the same missile skills the effect the same stats. There should also be two new scripts for tracking disruptors that disrupt missiles. These scripts should use a new skill.
I would be ok with additional skill for missile disruption. Leave 'Weapon Disruption' skill as it is and add 'Missile Destabilization' ( equivalent of 'Turret Destabilization' skill ). |
King Rothgar
Black Watch Guard Gl0rious Bastards
305
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:39:00 -
[1887] - Quote
kalbrak Jr wrote:I would like to see new modules for missiles that increase flight time, explosion radius and explosion velocity. They should use the same missile skills the effect the same stats. There should also be two new scripts for tracking disruptors that disrupt missiles. These scripts should use a new skill.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
The Troll is trolling. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:42:00 -
[1888] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:CCP abandon the daft idea that TD affecting missiles! Fix defenders or let it be! You nerf a whole weapon system and race because you are unable to bring DEFENDERS and TWO SINGLE ships in line! Good job CCP! You have an already existing option to destroy incoming missiles. Your problem if it causes lag or you are unable to do the right codings! Why not to have 2 options for anti-missle defence? Like DPS could be brought by guns AND drones, same is here. The only problem is to avoid that uber-trackdis that everyone would fit. The solution could be to make a special module "missile-dis" or at least a special script. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:51:00 -
[1889] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:kalbrak Jr wrote:I would like to see new modules for missiles that increase flight time, explosion radius and explosion velocity.
What's wrong with TEs and TCs affecting those stats? Simple question - do TEs and TCs affect drones? Why? |
Iyica de Tylmarand
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 09:53:00 -
[1890] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Katharina B wrote:CCP abandon the daft idea that TD affecting missiles! Fix defenders or let it be! You nerf a whole weapon system and race because you are unable to bring DEFENDERS and TWO SINGLE ships in line! Good job CCP! You have an already existing option to destroy incoming missiles. Your problem if it causes lag or you are unable to do the right codings! Why not to have 2 options for anti-missle defence? Like DPS could be brought by guns AND drones, same is here. The only problem is to avoid that uber-trackdis that everyone would fit. The solution could be to make a special module "missile-dis" or at least a special script. Because turrets don't have a 2nd defence option. Or do you think it's a good idea to introduce ammo that shoots at incoming ammo
Turrets already have significant advantages over missiles. Missile projection was the main advantage which they are nerfing. I'm fine with that. TD affecting missiles I'm iffy about. Ever piloted a Drake with sensor damps on you? I think they already do a good enough job.
Range nerf is fine. TD affecting missiles is stupid. Fix defender missiles I agree. And reduce the damage nerf to Heavy Missiles to a 10% nerf. 20% nerf is excessive. Only way I would approve of a 20% nerf to Heavy Missiles is if HAMs get a 10% damage buff. |
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:19:00 -
[1891] - Quote
I'm fine with bringing HMLs in line with other medium size long range weapons, but to compensate I think HAMs need a buff. The following is what I think is a good idea.
5% damage increase for HAMs HAM velocity increase countered by a travel time nerf so that overall they maintain their current paper range but it reflects reality far more. A ship travelling 1100ms or so away from a HAM ship effectively cuts the HAM range by half. Turret ships deal with this by switching ammo to Scorch or Null. HAMs don't have this option which is another reasonw hy HMLs were used sooooo much more. The fact that TDs are being proposed to further decrease the range of HAMs just adds insult to injury and I think it's a factor that was ill-considered.
If this buff is implemented for HAMs, I think the curret HML nerfs and the TD buffs will be justified. I think people were so caught up in nerfing HMLs that the effect on HAMs got completely overlooked. |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch
254
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:19:00 -
[1892] - Quote
CCP should remove defender missiles totally and reimburse used skill points.
Now when tracking disruptor affects missiles there is 3 different ways to counter missiles compared to 1 for guns.
If you tracking disrupt , smart bomb and use defender missiles, i bet those missiles does not any damage at all.
Also ccp should change missiles invulnerable for smart bomb. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:29:00 -
[1893] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:I would like to point out that HM are only really used at long ranges like 80k in blobs because in small warfare, whatever is getting shot can usually just warp away. So let's talk about blobs. I virtually never fly in blobs and yet I still have 2x more kills in Drakes than in all other ships combined. And furhtermore, I've always leaned heavily towards HML as being superior to HAMs. Though a proper HAM Drake is certainly a monster. :) -Liang I would like to point out that Caldari are referred to as the kings of PvE by some people which causes some people to then choose Caldari for the Drake and Tengu. They then do their PvE for a while, get bored, want to do some PvP only to find that the only useful ship they can fly is the Drake. THAT'S why it gets used so often. Not because the Drake is some kind of mother-of-all godships. It's because the rest of the caldari ships are all useless for pvp. Hahahahahahahahahhaa, no. You are totally, completely, and utterly wrong. Caldari are the upcoming kings of small gang PVP for anyone who has a clue what they're doing. :) -Liang
your nothing but a troll Liang small gang and solo has always been Winmatar specialized and always will be. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:37:00 -
[1894] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:CCP should remove defender missiles totally and reimburse used skill points.
Now when tracking disruptor affects missiles there is 3 different ways to counter missiles compared to 1 for guns.
If you tracking disrupt , smart bomb and use defender missiles, i bet those missiles does not any damage at all.
Also ccp should change missiles invulnerable for smart bomb.
naw i think they need to not use TD for missles cause it would make TD a swiss army knife modual to "always" be fitted like prop+tackle in pvp.
Make a separate modual for disrupting missles so its a choise to disrupt guns OR missles not both.. and are we forgetting the target dampers gallente frequently use? even with like 100km range on HMs we can be damped down to just a couple kelomiters and forceing close quarters upon snipers/long rangers.
dont nerf dmg on missles. the other changes seem acceptable except TD which shouldnt effect missles (make a missle disruptor insted) buff target damps a little so people will actually USE them. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:41:00 -
[1895] - Quote
also notise how its nullsec gimps who are whineing about drake blobs and Heavy missles? |
Rataxas Immortal
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:49:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:hey ccp,can i get back all my caldari spaceshit and missile skills reimbursed into skillpoints so i can invest them in something usefull after the nerf.thanks :D
No you cant ... Now burn Caldarilover Burn !
Only true answer is a Minmatar ! Hail the RUST |
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds The Bloody Ronin Syndicate
146
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 10:54:00 -
[1897] - Quote
I like arbitrators .... I like them now .... can u imagine how I will love them after the TD change IBS recruiting >>> http://ingloriousbs.wordpress.com -á>>> questionable ethics >>> tears >>> happy snakes>>>frog cocktails free?>>>????-áPublic ch.: Basterds on vacation Hans resign from CSM! |
Glasgow Dunlop
Gigaverse The Imperial Senate
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:16:00 -
[1898] - Quote
I wonder if he's read most of this now, and the fact he's getting paid to read this aswell :)
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
289
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:19:00 -
[1899] - Quote
Holy page spam Batman!
Knew missiles to be a hot topic but this exceeds expectations .. hahahahaha.
Obligatory on topic remark: Focus TDs effectiveness onto the hulls designed to field them. |
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:19:00 -
[1900] - Quote
[Joke] Why you've removed my AWESOME 2T5 arcane blast bonus FFS ! [/Joke]
Quote:Why nerf things when you could buff things instead? CCP, your answer is the best answer i've heard in all MMO i played up to date. BRAVO !
It's too bad you're dropping Defender missiles. The thing i regret is defenders protect only incoming missiles to own ship. Not allies but i can understand for complexity purposes. So i will never see defender patforms roaming in fleet ever.
About the Nerf, i agree in general. Just remember that you're driving the Fury Cruise (and some Rage Torp) users to drop completely theses missiles. (aswell as Precision)
Reasons (I'll take some old names for fancy purposes)
DMG : Wrath Cruise = Wrath Precision Cruise < Wrath Fury Cruise ER/EV : Wrath Fury Cruise < Wrath Cruise < Wrath Precision.
1 st : Precision still not used. Regular variant already can wipe frigates with 1 PWNAGE (target painter) 2 nd : Fury dropped completely. Huge malus on BC/ Cruiser sized ships which ALREADY requires 2-3 TP + implants to equals the regular Missile Dmg Output. 3 rd : Adding some more malus with TD and Co. aswell as very effective Defender missiles used by NPC, and you're killing larges T2 missiles boats.
The few post i've read some time ago was usually prays to give cruise+ Furies some love. Right now you are designing Cruise Fury for POS bashing. But remember Citadel Missiles are already used in this task.
TL : DR : Nice But give love to ER/EV of Fury cruise instead of more DMG bonus. |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
495
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:27:00 -
[1901] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
This change will make Tracking Disruptors very overpowered!That is a very valid concern and one we will be continuing to look very closely at. Some options on the table include making TDs affect missiles at a lower severity to guns, dropping the base power of TDs and increasing the bonus from TD bonused ships, or splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers). One way or another we will be working with you all to make sure Ewar is as balanced as possible before release in Winter.
IMO, tracking disruptors are already OP and the only thing that has kept them somewhat in line was the chance of encountering a missile boat or two while roaming.
Suggestion (made by others) - Convert or create some other module into a missile disruptor. |
kalbrak Jr
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:32:00 -
[1902] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:kalbrak Jr wrote:I would like to see new modules for missiles that increase flight time, explosion radius and explosion velocity.
What's wrong with TEs and TCs affecting those stats? kalbrak Jr wrote:They should use the same missile skills the effect the same stats. There should also be two new scripts for tracking disruptors that disrupt missiles. These scripts should use a new skill.
I would be ok with additional skill for missile disruption. Leave 'Weapon Disruption' skill as it is and add 'Missile Destabilization' ( equivalent of 'Turret Destabilization' skill ).
Those are for turrets using gunnery skills. There should be ones for missiles using missile skills. |
Jon Marburg
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:38:00 -
[1903] - Quote
I'd like to suggest changing the PG tweak on the hurricane from -225 to -200 or at least -210. This change allows for decent fits for all the standard cane setup variations after the patch while still preventing the use of a second medium neut. Currently with the -225 you can't fit a complete fit for arty even with max skill without rigs or implants and the RCU II. Additionally the armor fit needs a little bit extra pg to possible use a warfare link or other potential highs such as missile launchers or cap booster in the mids. Then for shield fits this change allows for all the standard variations such as dual extender as well as extender/invul. |
Vegare
Stranger Things A Point In Space
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:45:00 -
[1904] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: [...] splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers) This please!
More options to specialise = good = more meaningful decisions to make
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:46:00 -
[1905] - Quote
kalbrak Jr wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:kalbrak Jr wrote:I would like to see new modules for missiles that increase flight time, explosion radius and explosion velocity.
What's wrong with TEs and TCs affecting those stats? kalbrak Jr wrote:They should use the same missile skills the effect the same stats. There should also be two new scripts for tracking disruptors that disrupt missiles. These scripts should use a new skill.
I would be ok with additional skill for missile disruption. Leave 'Weapon Disruption' skill as it is and add 'Missile Destabilization' ( equivalent of 'Turret Destabilization' skill ). Those are for turrets using gunnery skills. There should be ones for missiles using missile skills.
Actually TE requires only 'Weapon Upgrades' skill, which also affects missile launchers so it's not limited to guns.
There would be no point in splitting those mods between missiles and guns if you make TDs affect both. Either make two versions of TDs and TEs/TCs ( one for guns and one for missiles ) or stick to one.
|
kalbrak Jr
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:46:00 -
[1906] - Quote
I think the optimal range script for the tracking disruptor should be removed because it overshadows damps. It should have two scripts, one for turret tracking and one to disrupt explosion radius and explosion velocity. |
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds The Bloody Ronin Syndicate
146
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:49:00 -
[1907] - Quote
TDs will be really op ... imagine pilgrims/curses now tackling drakes or tengus.... because they cannot hit the drones applying damage and cannot turn on hardeners because of low cap
have to stockpile some of these :) IBS recruiting >>> http://ingloriousbs.wordpress.com -á>>> questionable ethics >>> tears >>> happy snakes>>>frog cocktails free?>>>????-áPublic ch.: Basterds on vacation Hans resign from CSM! |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 11:59:00 -
[1908] - Quote
Quote:
Call me when you have to train 18 differnt turrets to T2 and you can't bypass the small Crap you don't need, and you need.
Even with support skills filled out, its 45 days to train a large T2 turret.
Takes two weeks for any missile system.....and you have one more support skill.
Which is offset by your support skills being only usefully for missiles as opposed to all turrets. Plus you get less rof, damage, bonus and the support skills take longer to train.
|
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:10:00 -
[1909] - Quote
Grats sir. Just managed to remove the last usefull Caldari ship. Why not remove the entire missiles class? (Don't tell me pls that HAM's are untouched. ) Even remove Caldari as a Empire? Because just a fool can believe this will hit just the Drake. Most hit will be the Tengu. As usual, someone up there means that "annoying" equals "improving". (don't start telling me missiles were too "easy", because it's bullshit. too easy? go fly blasters). Was lmfao a bit about the goon blob thing. Winning about not being able to fleet enuf ppl and needing a exteriour win button against that? Guy, happy hour! CCP will give ya that button. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
361
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:13:00 -
[1910] - Quote
Vegare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: [...] splitting off a separate set of missile disruptor modules that use the same skill and get the same ship bonuses as tracking disruptors (in the same way that ECM ships have different racial jammers) This please! More options to specialise = good = more meaningful decisions to make
Yeah, in the same way that the current Hurricane is too good at too many things, future TDs, TCs, and TEs that affect both missiles and turrets will be too good at too many things. It's good to force compromises in ship fitting; you should have to think carefully about your fit when you undock.
Don't add a missile effect to TDs, TEs and TCs; create new modules instead. |
|
Miarss Onaplate
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:14:00 -
[1911] - Quote
The theory behind tracking disruption is based on the fact that it you apply it to the ship and it affects the weapon control system (aiming if you wish) causing the desired affect. Similarly with enhancing, you are affecting the ships ability to aim instant damaging weapons.
Non guided missiles feasibly could be affected, as you 'aim' the launcher and fire it like a gun, with a 'timer' to control detonation, hoping the missile is close enough to the target that when it explodes it is close enough to the intended target that the massive explosion causes the required damage. You never count on a direct hit.
With guided missiles however, you program its target and send it on it's merry way. It has an amount of fuel, an ammount of thrust and a warhead contained within, no longer tied to the launching vessel in any way.
Once it has left the ship how can it be affected by anything targetted at the launch vehicle? It cannot affect the amount of fuel or the engines rate of burn. It cannot affect the 'explosive type' in the warhead, ie the explosion velocity/radius. If the flight time is 10 seconds and I launch 5 seconds before I'm TD'd, how does/can that affect the missiles in flight. Same if I launch while under TD and the missile hits target after TD has been stopped/removed.
I could affect missiles in flight if I aimed my 'disruptor' at the missile itself, or it was aimed at my ship and I had an AoE defensive system activated, protective bubble as it were. But it would only take effect when the missile entered it, this would not feasibly stack well with my neighboring ship or fleet.
Similar with enhancements, the targetting of guided & none guided are completely different. One is the point & shoot whilst the other carries the intelligence within a self contained unit.
The missile rigs have the right feel, name and effect, but inclusion of missiles into Tracking systems seems to have spent too little time in the think tank.
A dog in a kennel barks at his fleas; a dog hunting does not notice them. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
68
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:16:00 -
[1912] - Quote
There's nothing wrong with heavy assault missiles and I've used them personally versus after burning frigates, with a stasis webifier applied (they hurt). Seriously though. When it comes to applying damage on everything cruiser and above, you're doing full damage with heavy assault missiles. The purposed changes won't effect this if anything heavy assault missiles will become better.
However, tracking disruptors effecting missiles is a bad idea.
Unlike many in 0.0; low security space and faction warfare produce SUPERIOR frigate pilots. Faction warfare has become alot more difficult than I remember. Mainly because of wide spread proliferation of frigates using tracking disruptors (alot more compotent pilots to, but it could just be the gallente). Anyway. I've literary near stopped flying cruisers and battlecruisers altogether because every other frigate has a f*cking tracking disruptor.
These missile ships are an effective counter to that proliferation: Drake, Caracal Navy Issue, Osprey Navy Issue and the Caracal. "drone boats" are also effective, but yeah... I have come to realize how lame Tracking disruption is and I must say it's almost as lame as ECM.
Missiles shouldn't be effected by tracking disruptors and it would also compound the divergence of ECM and tracking disruption from the other forms of electronic warfare. I rather limit the application of electronic warfare modules like ECM, remote sensor Dampners and tracking disruptors. That way of thinking may hurt those modules effectiveness but, I believe it would increase the fun factor and limit the amount of complaining in this game. Leads to a happier player base which is good for CCP's wallet. basically don't give players more reasons to complain... |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:18:00 -
[1913] - Quote
What I'm intrested in, is to see what happens when people stop making comparisations with Drakes and Ejection bay fitted Tengu's, every time I see the word OP. passing it's with a bonesed ship or configuration.
What is the difference with a Covert ops Fitted Tengu against a Loki or a Protheus.
And since it should be about bringing back ballence:
it should be both about short range ammo and long range ammo, it's all nice and well ccp wants to bring an HM in range with other Med longrange weapons, but does that leave a acceptable option on short range missiles?
Or do missile pilots end up with a long range that is mah and a short range that is all but unuasable do to fitting requirements?
I understand the need to look at the Drake and the Ejection Bay Tengu, I don't see the OP (Missiles damage wise) on any of the other configurations.
TD's seem to be still in consideration and every fear I have for the change has been said more than once.
Finaly what ever the dicision might be considering Missiles and HM specificly, could you guys wait untill the ships using them are reballanced?
Bit sour when you change the ammo specifications on ships that still need to wait a long time untill they are made ready for that specification, like the: Tengu, Drake, Cerberus, CN Caracal, Rook among others.
And finaly I'd ask if you guys will take the time to properly inform everyone, this change is going to hurt quite some casual players that you'll won't find on the forums, A side from that where possible I'd say CCP should make more use of the ingame mailing system, to anounce certain changes, but that's an other point. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
751
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:31:00 -
[1914] - Quote
^ Can't wait for the hordes to show up, after logging in and not getting exploded, but not really pwning as much as they expected to. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Zendon Taredi
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 12:37:00 -
[1915] - Quote
Busy buing up all the harbys and tracking disruptors. At least im going to make some money from this thing. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:06:00 -
[1916] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:There's nothing wrong with heavy assault missiles and I've used them personally versus after burning frigates, with a stasis webifier applied (they hurt). Seriously though. When it comes to applying damage on everything cruiser and above, you're doing full damage with heavy assault missiles. The purposed changes won't effect this if anything heavy assault missiles will become better. How will HAMs get better when they're not touching HAMs but giving medium turrets a buff to their fitting requirements and introducing TDs that affect missiles? HAMs can only get worse than they currently are, and currently, they're really not very good. The velocity change proposal is only affecting Heavy Missiles, perhaps you got confused.
If a frig is letting itself get webbed then it's already failed at kiting and has nothing to do with the quality of HAMs. HAMs have a paper range of about 20km with faction missiles. But if you're chasing something that's burning away from you at 1100+ ms you lose half that range due to missile travel. It's very easy to kite a HAM fit unless it's on a bonused ship like a Cerberus. This is why HMLs are used over HAMs even for most under 20km engagements. So I feel if they want to nerf the HML so that it falls in line with other long range medium weaponry, they need to buff the HAM a little so that it steps up to be competitive in the close range department. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:07:00 -
[1917] - Quote
Miarss Onaplate wrote:The theory behind tracking disruption is based on the fact that it you apply it to the ship and it affects the weapon control system (aiming if you wish) causing the desired affect. Similarly with enhancing, you are affecting the ships ability to aim instant damaging weapons.
Non guided missiles feasibly could be affected, as you 'aim' the launcher and fire it like a gun, with a 'timer' to control detonation, hoping the missile is close enough to the target that when it explodes it is close enough to the intended target that the massive explosion causes the required damage. You never count on a direct hit.
.
The ship is providing the missile with the parameters it uses to guide itself on target. Disrupt the ship, all the missiles it launches have slightly wrong information. There is an inconsistency with missiles already in flight but really its fairly feeble compared with some things in eve (ships shooting through each other?) Anyway your premise on what constitutes "guided missiles" appears to be based too much in rl, in eve it plays a bit different. In eve all missiles are "guided". Unguided missiles would be completely useless. Torps, rockets and hams have basic self guiding systems (they follow a target whatever it does), lights, hmls and cruise are guided to target by the capsuleer (hence why the skill effects them) with some sort of sci fi fly by wire. It might not be what the back story or descriptions imply but it is certainly what the game mechanics imply. In game the only difference between the two types of missiles is that the "guided" missiles are slightly more accurate and have a (pretty much coincidental) longer range.
Really the whole logic behind eves weapon systems are a bit of a mess (projectiles don't necessarily travel any faster than missiles so really only lasors should be (practically) instant hit). Projectiles should also be effected by smartbombs. Really if you look at it logically its all immersion breaking wrongness, so really you should just treat it like the game (and it is an mmo not a sim) it is.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:09:00 -
[1918] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Major Killz wrote:There's nothing wrong with heavy assault missiles and I've used them personally versus after burning frigates, with a stasis webifier applied (they hurt). Seriously though. When it comes to applying damage on everything cruiser and above, you're doing full damage with heavy assault missiles. The purposed changes won't effect this if anything heavy assault missiles will become better. How will HAMs get better when they're not touching HAMs but giving medium turrets a buff to their fitting requirements and introducing TDs that affect missiles? HAMs can only get worse than they currently are, and currently, they're really not very good. The velocity change proposal is only affecting Heavy Missiles, perhaps you got confused. If a frig is letting itself get webbed then it's already failed at kiting and has nothing to do with the quality of HAMs. HAMs have a paper range of about 20km with faction missiles. But if you're chasing something that's burning away from you at 1100+ ms you lose half that range due to missile travel. It's very easy to kite a HAM fit unless it's on a bonused ship like a Cerberus. This is why HMLs are used over HAMs even for most under 20km engagements. So I feel if they want to nerf the HML so that it falls in line with other long range medium weaponry, they need to buff the HAM a little so that it steps up to be competitive in the close range department.
Because you will now be able to improve your HAMs effective damage by fitting tes and countering thier natural drawbacks. Of course if averyone is fitting tds this wont matter ....
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:12:00 -
[1919] - Quote
Iyica de Tylmarand wrote:. Because turrets don't have a 2nd defence option. Or do you think it's a good idea to introduce bullets that deflect incoming bullets and lasers that nullify incoming lasers .[/quote]
I want a B5 style interceptor grid for my Bs please, ta.
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
618
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:13:00 -
[1920] - Quote
Hidden Snake wrote:TDs will be really op ... imagine pilgrims/curses now tackling drakes or tengus.... because they cannot hit the drones applying damage and cannot turn on hardeners because of low cap have to stockpile some of these :) Yeah thought everything was suppose to have a counter. Thought missiles were the TD counter. So what counters TD's now? Don't sayy TE's Because I always have 2 on my cane and they're not countering! Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
|
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:14:00 -
[1921] - Quote
just going to stick this in here http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l242/dgreene38/2012.09.19.21.44.04_zps12365923.jpg - Nulla Curas |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
68
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:16:00 -
[1922] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Major Killz wrote:There's nothing wrong with heavy assault missiles and I've used them personally versus after burning frigates, with a stasis webifier applied (they hurt). Seriously though. When it comes to applying damage on everything cruiser and above, you're doing full damage with heavy assault missiles. The purposed changes won't effect this if anything heavy assault missiles will become better. How will HAMs get better when they're not touching HAMs but giving medium turrets a buff to their fitting requirements and introducing TDs that affect missiles? HAMs can only get worse than they currently are, and currently, they're really not very good. The velocity change proposal is only affecting Heavy Missiles, perhaps you got confused. If a frig is letting itself get webbed then it's already failed at kiting and has nothing to do with the quality of HAMs. HAMs have a paper range of about 20km with faction missiles. But if you're chasing something that's burning away from you at 1100+ ms you lose half that range due to missile travel. It's very easy to kite a HAM fit unless it's on a bonused ship like a Cerberus. This is why HMLs are used over HAMs even for most under 20km engagements. So I feel if they want to nerf the HML so that it falls in line with other long range medium weaponry, they need to buff the HAM a little so that it steps up to be competitive in the close range department.
So much SILLY in your statement it's almost not worth responding to.
Anyway.
I'm not here to educate you and based on some of your comments you seem to lack some serious understand or are just throwing out words for the sake of doing so. Please figure the rest out on your own. Otherwise, have fun with your views.
Interesting stuff CCP |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:21:00 -
[1923] - Quote
If you are chasing frigates heavy missiles shouldn't be the primary weapon either - you should use light missiles in a rapid launcher... Talking about HAMs being bad at this is completely irrelevan and HAMs doesn't need a buff to enable it to perfom in this situation!! |
deart laves
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:26:00 -
[1924] - Quote
i disapprove of heavy missile damage nerf. Missions aren't really worth it as is and the best thing to my knowledge is using a missile boat for missions. So we decrease the damage coming out of a tengu and put it on par w/ running lvl 4's w/ a hawk?
and why is it when missile boats get a damage bonus it's only towards racial damage types but minmatar which can also switch damage types (though not as specific) get's a general damage bonus? |
Tiger Armani
Mialto Corp The Last Chancers.
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:28:00 -
[1925] - Quote
Hopefully CCP will take the time to look serious problems using Phoenix doing C5/C6 capital escalation sites. Basically Phoenix is the only dread that is totally useless against them.
|
Theo Ramone
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:30:00 -
[1926] - Quote
Lets see, the following are heard..
"We need a gank gang, grab the Drakes!" " I worked up my new solo ship. I went with a Drake for its awesome gank abilities" "Fit for maximum DPS, bring heavies!' "They have a Drake in fleet, flee you fools!"
never. Like.....NEVER.
20% damage reduction? On an already lackluster platform?
Yeah, great idea.
Now the range idea I can get behind. The reason the Drake is so prevalent is because of its range. It can project mediocre damage a long, long ways. Having said that, its also great at driving away that Scimitar thats repping his gang at 70k that no one else can hit. So maybe that range isnt such a bad thing..... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:56:00 -
[1927] - Quote
Posting this again because I feel it's a good suggest instead of the proposed nerfs and put ALL guided missiles in line with other weapons systems
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:OK, I'm going to throw out some numbers.
This is going to be all skills lvl 5 and I'll use the 4 tier 2 bc's with their respective weapon systems, with boh t2 ammo types, and drones for the Myrmidon since that is it's specialty.
Now, one thing that will be different is I will use my proposed change to missiles.
That is,
PRECISION WILL BE LONG RANGE AND FURY WILL BE SHORT RANGE.
This is on par with how every other weapon system is balanced. Greater range means less dps.
Also, keep in mind that I'm not adding faction or t1 ammo because these will need to be balanced similar to unguided missiles, and I don't feel like doing that myself.
However, if you would like to do that, than just use unguided missiles as an example (i.e. the precentage difference between t1 and faction compared to t2 will be roughly equal)
Ok, here it goes (no other modules)
{ammo - dps @ range}
Drake Hams II Rage - 349 @ 18.1 Javelin - 197 @ 30.4
Hml II - (with my proposed swap in ranges) Fury - 224 @ 42.2 Precision - 189 @ 75.9
Hurricane 425mm AC II Hail - 417 @ 1.5+9 = 10.5 Barrage - 298 @ 3+18 = 21
720mm HA II Quake - 294 @ 7.5 + 22 = 29.5 Tremor - 168 @ 54 + 22 = 77
Harbinger Heavy Pulse II Conflagration - 406 @ 7.5 + 5 = 12.5 Scorch - 290 @ 23 + 5 = 28
Heavy Beam II Gleam - 323 @ 7.5 + 10 = 17.5 Aurora - 184 @ 54 + 10 = 64
Myrmidon Heavy Neutron Blaster II Void - 341 @ 3.4 + 3.1 = 6.5 Null - 244 @ 6.3 + 8.8 = 15.1
250mm Railgun II Javelin - 210 @ 9 + 15 = 24 Spike - 120 @ 65 + 15 = 80
With 5 x t2 medium drones each set gets plus 238 dps @ up to 60km with all skills lvl 5.
close range high damage The drake has the greatest range by 5.6km to 11.6km Has lowest dps by 230 to 57
high damage with range Drake has greatet range by 2.4km to 15.3km Lowest dps by 285 dps to 93 dps
(REMEMBER, THESE NEXT TWO ARE WITH MY PROPOSED SWAP TO GUIDED MISSILES) Long range high damage Drake has greatest range by 12.7km to 24.7km But lowest dps by 224dps to 70 dps
Max range Drake has 3rd greatest range being 4.1km from the top, and 11.9km from the bottom Drake has greatest dps by 69 to 5 dps (behind by 169 @ up to 60km from myrm drones & turrets)
Now, the myrmidon shines in dps up to 60 km and has the greatest possible range @ 80km, but lowest dps at max range
The drake has the highest range until max range, but the highest dps at max range, but by substationally less dps than it is overpowered by in other ranges.
Now, when you consider my suggested change of swapping fury and precision ranges for all guided missiles, these weapon systems actually seem fairly balanced apart from hybrids on a myrm, but it makes up for it with drones.
I think this would negate the need for a range AND dps nerf to heavy missiles.
Instead, then needed nerfs could be aimed directly at the tengu and drake themselves.
Perhaps drop the drake shield recharge rate so that it can't fit a passive tank as effectively as it does.
With the tengu, drop its range bonuses, and reduce cpu and pg so that it can't fit 100mn afterburners and so that it has tochoose between dps or tank.
BOOM!!! besides balancing faction and t1 guided missiles, the drake and tengu are balanced and guided missiles become balanced in the same manner as every other weapon system.
To add to this, perhaps they could do the same with T.D.s that they do with jammers.
That is, make them racial. Develop a T.D. that is anti race.
So, if you're fitting TD against gravimetric, then you're going to be more effective at disrupting Caldari ships but unusable against everything else.
Or, you could fit multispectrum disruptors that are effective against all types, but much less effective as a racial on specific race.
Again, just like jammers.
This coupled with my suggested change to guided missiles is actually pretty fair.
Missiles become reasonable damage at long range, and TDs don't become an I win button. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:57:00 -
[1928] - Quote
deart laves wrote:Missions aren't really worth it as is
That's probably the reason why EvE suffers from mission runner shortage.
deart laves wrote:and the best thing to my knowledge is using a missile boat for missions.
Aren't the Machariel and Nightmare considered to be the best mission boats while missile boats are just easier?
deart laves wrote: and why is it when missile boats get a damage bonus it's only towards racial damage types
Kestrel getting 5% bonus to damage of all missiles Carcal getting 5% bonus to ROF
You should probably read more before posting.
deart laves wrote: but minmatar which can also switch damage types (though not as specific) get's a general damage bonus?
Because they are limited to one damage type on T2 ammo unlike missiles? |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:57:00 -
[1929] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:XxRTEKxX wrote:Cheap tengu in missions with hml's is pushing 500dps+/- depending on fitting. Much more dps with hams. Problem with hams is range. Chasing targets in a mission to apply damage takes a long time. Instead of neutering hml's, why not buff other weapons and ammo to match? I've always wished a loki or legion or proteus performed like a tengu in missions.
If it comes down to chasing targets in a ham tengu, or **** hml dps in a tengu after nerf, ill just sell the tengu and go back to a rigorraven.
Nerfing for reasons of pvp balance affects pve as well. Nerf the tengu when you finally release a tech 3 battlecruiser or battleship. That's what I've been saying...alter the other weapons/guns to balance it out.....basically, just give them a little more range....switch the pg requirements of HM's and HAM's.....if you want switch fury to lower dps/ long range and precision to higher dps/shorter range, fine....but everyone is assuming that they hit for full damage everytime....at least with guns, you may not hit full every time, but you've got a chance....with missiles, good or bad, you're going to hit for the same amount everytime whether you're a peeping tom or dry humping their hull. nerfing the range by 25% and damage by 20%...those numbers are just asinine. Instead of bashing an entire weapon system making it utterly worthless, espcially considering the alternate weapon system, HAMs, are absolutely utterly worthless....try balancing it I've got straight tank/dps fits for all 4 T3 cruisers....and honestly, the Tengu is near the bottom in head to head competition on the DPS graphs. This is wrong. Missiles do not always hit targets for the same damage. I will hit a stationary target harder than a moving target and I'll hit an approaching target harder than I'll hit an orbiting target. Also, they'll hit a wmd battleship harder than a bs with no prop mod, and them less so than an afterburner bs. Now, they'll hit a frig, but less so a frig with an afterburner, and no chance of hitting a mwd frig in orbit. So, anyone who says missiles always hit for the same damage has either never used missiles, has no clue what they're talking about, or are making things up just to ensure a missile nerf
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 13:58:00 -
[1930] - Quote
I find it funny that there's all this concern that a blob of drakes is an issue, but yet a blob of hurricane now able to successfully fit arty isn't going to be a poblem??? |
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:03:00 -
[1931] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:The HM nerf has been much needed for a long time. For all those crying over it, let's put this in perspective:
1) A Harbinger with Heavy beam laser II's using IN MF does 318 dps at 15km + 10km falloff (25km total).
2) A Hurricane with 720mm Howitzer II's using RF PP does 290 dps at 15km + 22km falloff (27km total).
3) A Brutix with 250mm railgun II's using CN antimatter does 302 dps at 18km + 15km falloff (28km total).
4) A drake with HML II's using CN scourge does 250 dps at 84.4km.
Now tell me which one of these isn't even remotely like the rest. All of these numbers are at lvl5 skills without any other mods/drones fitted and without implants. This is just the base damage on a typical damage/RoF bonused ship. Toss in the fitting requirements of these various mods and things skew more heavily in favor of HM's than they do in the above example.
Troll is trolling is correct...use the correct Ammo, as in tech two range ammo.....and redo the numbers....also be sure to take into consideration the speed of target, signature radius, neither of which have mods or rigs to affect those statistics, as well as using T2 ammo inflates the sig radius enough to make a battle ship laugh. Stop skewing the numbers to further your cause. CCP is wrong, especially with the values they intend to use, and you know it. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:07:00 -
[1932] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game.
I have been flying missile boats since '08. I have flown with heavy, torp, cruise, and have used t2 on all but rapid light.
I am well aware of their capabilities and have experienced it many times. Less so with heavy missiles but still occurs.
I flew a torp golem. Using javelin missiles I could 1 shot a cruiser and a frig approaching me using 2 target painters.
However, once they were in orbit it would take me at least 4 volleys to down a frig.
The reasoning for this is
If you fire at a target approaching you, the missile will explode in front of the target forcing it to fly into the explosion.
Now, when you fire at an orbitting target or a target moving away from you, then the missile will explode behind it, thus it's flying out of the explosion.
This has a direct impact on the damage you do to the target expecially with frigates and cruisers because their base speeds are equal to or faster than the explosion velocity of the missile fired at them.
So, it is you that should go test it.
I am 100% sure that you CANNOT hit an orbitting frig or cruiser for the same damage as an approaching frig/cruiser.
Also, mwd and afterburners have play as well, and with these modules, hitting them while aproaching is still going to be more effective than hitting them while they're running or orbitting.
TRUST ME... Go test it on some rats in the test server. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:07:00 -
[1933] - Quote
Everyone really needs to wait to see what they are going to change in the T2 missiles before everyone is up in arms over this.
They do need to switch the PG needs of HAMs and HM and give a slight damage increase to HAMS then they will be right on par with other ships.
Now if people want to argue for 2 more versions of each type of missile that is T1 shorter range more damage and a longer range less damage I am ok with this.
If people keep complaining about HM being so underpowered I am going to argue that HM, LM, and Cruise should have a arming period where if the target is under the range they don't get hit as the missile has not armed yet.
Please stop comparing HM with short ranged weapon systems. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
107
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:08:00 -
[1934] - Quote
Who dreams up these horrible ideas? Worst DPS BC gets a dps nerf?!? I thought the range was meant to balance the pathetic DPS
I bet it was the same guys who thought the inventory changes were a good idea too... The inventory UI is still worse than it was before. Will it ever be as functional as it was before. We're like 6 months past and still not there yet
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:10:00 -
[1935] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I find it funny that there's all this concern that a blob of drakes is an issue, but yet a blob of hurricane now able to successfully fit arty isn't going to be a poblem???
no it wont. see pg reduction of hurricanes.
and fyi, canes were able to fit arties successfully all the time ;) |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
618
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:18:00 -
[1936] - Quote
So yeah Canes, Drakes and Tengu will suck as bad Gallente ships. But we get a new Stabber and Tempest so we'll look sexy ship spinning. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
387
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:18:00 -
[1937] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game.
I have been flying missile boats since '08. I have flown with heavy, torp, cruise, and have used t2 on all but rapid light. I am well aware of their capabilities and have experienced it many times. Less so with heavy missiles but still occurs. I flew a torp golem. Using javelin missiles I could 1 shot a cruiser and a frig approaching me using 2 target painters. However, once they were in orbit it would take me at least 4 volleys to down a frig. The reasoning for this is If you fire at a target approaching you, the missile will explode in front of the target forcing it to fly into the explosion. Now, when you fire at an orbitting target or a target moving away from you, then the missile will explode behind it, thus it's flying out of the explosion. This has a direct impact on the damage you do to the target expecially with frigates and cruisers because their base speeds are equal to or faster than the explosion velocity of the missile fired at them. So, it is you that should go test it. I am 100% sure that you CANNOT hit an orbitting frig or cruiser for the same damage as an approaching frig/cruiser. Also, mwd and afterburners have play as well, and with these modules, hitting them while aproaching is still going to be more effective than hitting them while they're running or orbitting. TRUST ME... Go test it on some rats in the test server.
The reason you are hitting approaching frigs harders is because of the sig bloom from the mwd. Once they are in orbit their sig will go down and you will do less damage.
It does not matter in what direction they are traveling in relation to you.
Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:19:00 -
[1938] - Quote
So, even with the 20% nerf, these things are still well inline with other long ranged weapon systems. How the hell is that an issue? If anything this is just what it needs. Your failing to realize that the drake can still push out over 600DPS with HAM's, and hit out to about 18KM.
As for the hurricane, who gives a ****? It cant fit its 425's now on an armor fit, my harbi could never fit a full rack of heavies on its armor fit either. It's still quicker then most, I dought loosing a little power grid is going to hurt it.
The only thing I don't agree with is the tracking disruptor plan. It seems like way to much of a lazy mans feature to counter missiles. The idea behind a tracking disruptor simply does not work with how a missile does. So your shooting my ship with a tracking disruptor, that means my missiles all burn way more fuel? Even more so, half of the missile systems are "unguided", so it shouldn't even affect them.
IMO, if you want to have an actual counter that works on missiles (because defenders blow), implement a CIWS or CHAFF system in a med slot or utility high.
Edit - Oh, and its more like a 15% nerf, because on the flip side, you can now use fury missiles without having the sig radius of a small moon. |
Okarina
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:22:00 -
[1939] - Quote
I don't like the "tweak" of my favourite Hurricane, beacause compared to the Cyclone it already has: - smaller Dronebay/Bandwith 30(40) - smaller shield Capacity 4297(4395) - (passive tanking) - smaller CPU 400(425)
The stronger Armor and the Extra Low-Slot (you might need to use for Reactor control Unit after the tweak) don't make this ship a Tier 2 ship anymore compared to the Cyclone (my opinion).
It does make more damage, but I find the Powergrid decrease (to 1125) way under the Cyclone Powergrid (1210) to be badly thought over.
To replace a Heavy Missle Launcher (100 Powergrid) with An 720mm Artillery Cannon (250 Powergrid/225 Powergrid after the Tweak) requires around 125 Powergrid. That is Exactly the Powergrid the Hurrican has more than the Cyclone (at the moment). And, being a Armor Tanker, it might need to reduce it's Gunpower already to fit needed Armor repairers.
I'd be better (wanting to decrease it's gunpower) to take away the Projectil Damage+, increase the rate of fire+, and give it another bonus making it a unique Tier 2 Battlecruiser (which in my opinion, it already is).
+ 7,5% bonus to Medium Turret rate of fire per level
and something else like + 5% bonus max velocity per level (like the stabber) + 10% bonus Medium Turret ammo capacity per level + 10% bonus Medium Turret falloff range + 5% bonus Medium Turret tracking speed + 5% Missle launcher rate of fire (it does have 3 Launcher hardpoints) |
shandroki
Bent-Not-Broken
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:25:00 -
[1940] - Quote
Still have borken features from last patch.....................CHECK Gonna break the game even more by destroying ships people love.........................CHECK Gonna **** off the palyer base AGAIN...........................................Check
Good luck guys the way you keep going your gonna go out of business when people finally get tired of your ****. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:32:00 -
[1941] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:deart laves wrote: and why is it when missile boats get a damage bonus it's only towards racial damage types
Kestrel getting 5% bonus to damage of all missiles Carcal getting 5% bonus to ROF You should probably read more before posting.
There are actually quite a few missile boats limited one damage type. bombers of course with reason but also
Tengu - Tengu offensive "Accelerated Ejection Bay" - 5% bonus to kinetic missile damage (there are 3 other offensive subs that don't get a kinetic bonus, but also don't get as much dps)
(not including all damage buffs, just specifically where is shows a damage type making that damage type more dps) Drake - 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles per level
Caracal - 5% bonus Kinetic Missile Damage
Caracal Navy - 5% bonus Kinetic Missile Damage
Cerberus - 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage
Onyx - 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage
Nighthawk - 5% bonus to heavy missile Kinetic damage
Flycatcher - 5% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile kinetic damage per level
Condor - 5% bonus to light missile and rocket kinetic damage
Heron - 5% bonus kinetic missile damage per level
Kestrel - 10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage and 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage per level
Caldari Navy Hookbill - 20% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 10% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage per level
Hawk - 10% bonus to Missile Kinetic Damage per level
Buzzard - 5% bonus to Missile Kinetic Damage per level
Crow - 10% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage per level
Phoenix - 5% bonus to kinetic missile damage
Leviathan - 125% bonus to Citadel Missile kinetic damage per level
"These aren't the missile boats you're looking for" |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:33:00 -
[1942] - Quote
Okarina wrote:I don't like the "tweak" of my favourite Hurricane, beacause compared to the Cyclone it already has: - smaller Dronebay/Bandwith 30(40) - smaller shield Capacity 4297(4395) - (passive tanking) - smaller CPU 400(425)
The stronger Armor and the Extra Low-Slot (you might need to use for Reactor control Unit after the tweak) don't make this ship a Tier 2 ship anymore compared to the Cyclone (my opinion).
It does make more damage, but I find the Powergrid decrease (to 1125) way under the Cyclone Powergrid (1210) to be badly thought over.
To replace a Heavy Missle Launcher (100 Powergrid) with An 720mm Artillery Cannon (250 Powergrid/225 Powergrid after the Tweak) requires around 125 Powergrid. That is Exactly the Powergrid the Hurrican has more than the Cyclone (at the moment). And, being a Armor Tanker, it might need to reduce it's Gunpower already to fit needed Armor repairers.
I'd be better (wanting to decrease it's gunpower) to take away the Projectil Damage+, increase the rate of fire+, and give it another bonus making it a unique Tier 2 Battlecruiser (which in my opinion, it already is).
+ 7,5% bonus to Medium Turret rate of fire per level
and something else like + 5% bonus max velocity per level (like the stabber) + 10% bonus Medium Turret ammo capacity per level + 10% bonus Medium Turret falloff range + 5% bonus Medium Turret tracking speed + 5% Missle launcher rate of fire (it does have 3 Launcher hardpoints)
..............
For a moment I thought you were being serious. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:35:00 -
[1943] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:
The reason you are hitting approaching frigs harders is because of the sig bloom from the mwd. Once they are in orbit their sig will go down and you will do less damage.
It does not matter in what direction they are traveling in relation to you.
No, his is against frigs and cruisers with and without prop mods.
Just go test it and you'll see.
Use torps, it stands out more |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:36:00 -
[1944] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:deart laves wrote: and why is it when missile boats get a damage bonus it's only towards racial damage types
Kestrel getting 5% bonus to damage of all missiles Carcal getting 5% bonus to ROF You should probably read more before posting. There are actually quite a few missile boats limited one damage type. bombers of course with reason but also Tengu - Tengu offensive "Accelerated Ejection Bay" - 5% bonus to kinetic missile damage (there are 3 other offensive subs that don't get a kinetic bonus, but also don't get as much dps) (not including all damage buffs, just specifically where is shows a damage type making that damage type more dps) Drake - 5% bonus kinetic damage of heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles per level Caracal - 5% bonus Kinetic Missile Damage Caracal Navy - 5% bonus Kinetic Missile Damage Cerberus - 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage Onyx - 5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage Nighthawk - 5% bonus to heavy missile Kinetic damage Flycatcher - 5% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile kinetic damage per level Condor - 5% bonus to light missile and rocket kinetic damage Heron - 5% bonus kinetic missile damage per level Kestrel - 10% bonus to Kinetic missile damage and 5% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage per level Caldari Navy Hookbill - 20% bonus to Kinetic missile damage, 10% bonus to EM, Explosive, and Thermal missile damage per level Hawk - 10% bonus to Missile Kinetic Damage per level Buzzard - 5% bonus to Missile Kinetic Damage per level Crow - 10% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage per level Phoenix - 5% bonus to kinetic missile damage Leviathan - 125% bonus to Citadel Missile kinetic damage per level "These aren't the missile boats you're looking for"
:facepalm:
It's not about what bonuses those boats get now. It's about what bonuses will they get throughout rebalancing process.
Caldari are getting their kinetic-only bonus changed to rof or omni-damage bonus. Just like those two ships ( Kestrel and Carcal ). They currently have only kinetic damage bonus but it is being changed to rof or omni bonus. |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:36:00 -
[1945] - Quote
shandroki wrote:Still have borken features from last patch.....................CHECK Gonna break the game even more by destroying ships people love.........................CHECK Gonna **** off the palyer base AGAIN...........................................Check
Good luck guys the way you keep going your gonna go out of business when people finally get tired of your ****.
This type of post is completely unhelpful, and only serves to make your side of the argument sound like a bunch of whiny bitches. There are plenty of us who completely disagree with every one of those "statements." Now how about you contribute something useful? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:38:00 -
[1946] - Quote
Unit757 wrote:So, even with the 20% nerf, these things are still well inline with other long ranged weapon systems.
With a 20% damage nerf drakes will be doing much less dps than any other tier 2 bc.
With a 25% range nerf it will have way less range than all other bcs in general. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1187
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:39:00 -
[1947] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game.
I have been flying missile boats since '08. I have flown with heavy, torp, cruise, and have used t2 on all but rapid light. I am well aware of their capabilities and have experienced it many times. Less so with heavy missiles but still occurs. I flew a torp golem. Using javelin missiles I could 1 shot a cruiser and a frig approaching me using 2 target painters. However, once they were in orbit it would take me at least 4 volleys to down a frig. The reasoning for this is If you fire at a target approaching you, the missile will explode in front of the target forcing it to fly into the explosion. Now, when you fire at an orbitting target or a target moving away from you, then the missile will explode behind it, thus it's flying out of the explosion. This has a direct impact on the damage you do to the target expecially with frigates and cruisers because their base speeds are equal to or faster than the explosion velocity of the missile fired at them. So, it is you that should go test it. I am 100% sure that you CANNOT hit an orbitting frig or cruiser for the same damage as an approaching frig/cruiser. Also, mwd and afterburners have play as well, and with these modules, hitting them while aproaching is still going to be more effective than hitting them while they're running or orbitting. TRUST ME... Go test it on some rats in the test server. The reason you are hitting approaching frigs harders is because of the sig bloom from the mwd. Once they are in orbit their sig will go down and you will do less damage.It does not matter in what direction they are traveling in relation to you.
Quoting for truth. Missiles don't care about your vector. They explode on your ship center and you are always considered to be flying out of the explosion radius.
Test with two actual players instead of npcs.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch
257
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:40:00 -
[1948] - Quote
deart laves wrote:i disapprove of heavy missile damage nerf. Missions aren't really worth it as is and the best thing to my knowledge is using a missile boat for missions. So we decrease the damage coming out of a tengu and put it on par w/ running lvl 4's w/ a hawk?
and why is it when missile boats get a damage bonus it's only towards racial damage types but minmatar which can also switch damage types (though not as specific) get's a general damage bonus?
Try machariel for lvl4 missions and you will find that it is much better than tengu and even fitted price is almost same. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:41:00 -
[1949] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game.
I have been flying missile boats since '08. I have flown with heavy, torp, cruise, and have used t2 on all but rapid light. I am well aware of their capabilities and have experienced it many times. Less so with heavy missiles but still occurs. I flew a torp golem. Using javelin missiles I could 1 shot a cruiser and a frig approaching me using 2 target painters. However, once they were in orbit it would take me at least 4 volleys to down a frig. The reasoning for this is If you fire at a target approaching you, the missile will explode in front of the target forcing it to fly into the explosion. Now, when you fire at an orbitting target or a target moving away from you, then the missile will explode behind it, thus it's flying out of the explosion. This has a direct impact on the damage you do to the target expecially with frigates and cruisers because their base speeds are equal to or faster than the explosion velocity of the missile fired at them. So, it is you that should go test it. I am 100% sure that you CANNOT hit an orbitting frig or cruiser for the same damage as an approaching frig/cruiser. Also, mwd and afterburners have play as well, and with these modules, hitting them while aproaching is still going to be more effective than hitting them while they're running or orbitting. TRUST ME... Go test it on some rats in the test server. The reason you are hitting approaching frigs harders is because of the sig bloom from the mwd. Once they are in orbit their sig will go down and you will do less damage. It does not matter in what direction they are traveling in relation to you.
Thank you....don't test it on rats...test it on an alt and you'll see. |
Anabaric
Kadavr Black Guard Shadow Cartel
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:41:00 -
[1950] - Quote
Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers...
CCP must be doing something right. Site: http://pvp101.net Blog: http://imsdemons.pvp101.net-á Lowsec Ebil Piwate. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
249
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:42:00 -
[1951] - Quote
Anabaric wrote:Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers... CCP must be doing something right.
You must be reading a different thread than I am. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
278
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:48:00 -
[1952] - Quote
The more I think about it the more I begin to believe that all the heavy missile nerfs are justified. Except the 20% reduction in damage, which is frankly ridiculous.
Alot of people are saying that because missiles always hit they have an unfair advantage. These people don't recognise that just because they hit doesn't mean they do damage. I've seen drake volleys hit for 2 damage on afterburner frigs at full speed. You really might as well be doing no damage at all there. Its essentially the same as with turrets, except turrets only have their damage reduced when people are travelling in certain directions ( as opposed to missiles which get a -ve to their damage no matter which direction the person is traveling). On top of that, turrets can still hit for criticals. Something that never happens with missiles.
|
soullessbox
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:58:00 -
[1953] - Quote
Who cares about missiles, GALLENTE FOREVA!!! SUCK MY DRONE MODULES |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 14:59:00 -
[1954] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:The more I think about it the more I begin to believe that all the heavy missile nerfs are justified. Except the 20% reduction in damage, which is frankly ridiculous.
Alot of people are saying that because missiles always hit they have an unfair advantage. These people don't recognise that just because they hit doesn't mean they do damage. I've seen drake volleys hit for 2 damage on afterburner frigs at full speed. You really might as well be doing no damage at all there. Its essentially the same as with turrets, except turrets only have their damage reduced when people are travelling in certain directions ( as opposed to missiles which get a -ve to their damage no matter which direction the person is traveling). On top of that, turrets can still hit for criticals. Something that never happens with missiles.
People also forget that while the range on T2 heavies is 76k, effectively, it is around 70k because anymore than that and your missile could run out of fuel before it reaches the target that is orbiting, and if it turns and runs, most likely it will....with the proposed changes, that will knock it down to 56k, 50k effectively. On the flip side, in a PVP fight, the drake can't switch to HAM's for higher dps...they can switch to precision, but that really isn't going to increase it's DPS. And now you want to add TD to missiles, so instead of fitting a tank, rig for sig radius, increase my speed and fit a TD and laugh as I get blasted for 20 damage on volleys. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:00:00 -
[1955] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: Thank you....don't test it on rats...test it on an alt and you'll see.
Old thread, but still relevant to the topic.
http://www.eve-search.com/thread/107086/page/8 |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
753
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:01:00 -
[1956] - Quote
Anabaric wrote:Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers... CCP must be doing something right.
You wouldn't be a politician in real life would you?? The OP has got so far 58 likes in a thread that contains nearly 2000 posts.
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
752
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:01:00 -
[1957] - Quote
My Sentries will be moving faster then your missiles, soon enough. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:05:00 -
[1958] - Quote
My 2 cents:
On the HM changes: Currently, HMs are way overpowered, no doubt. In general, I do support the changes proposed by CCP Fozzie. But although Fozzie may be right and it really required a -25% range AND -20% dmg nerf to bring them in line with other weapon systems, I am a bit sceptical about these drastic changes.
Maybe he did the number crunching right, BUT there is a ton of additional factors that separate missiles from turrets and the way damage is applied in the end. With one dramatic change to these parameters, I see a risk of over-nerfing due to unforseeable sandbox side effects.
If you say range ist the biggest problem, why not give them -25% range, only -10% dmg and take some time to evaluate the changes? If after 3 months Drakes and Tengus still overshadow any other ship hull and continue to be seen in swarms of hundreds, then you just swing the nerf bat again for another -10% dmg... Evolution instead of revolution.
If you still want to stick with the -20% dmg, then at least switch the Drake/Tengu damage bonus to kinetic damage to a flat +5% to all damages. That would be good in 2 different ways: a) Drake pilots would have to start thinking even more :-D AND a clever choice of ammunition could in some cases make up for the loss of dps through the HM nerf. b) one could not simply assume that Drakes fire Scourge, which would make Drakes a bit less predictable and boring for opponents.
On Tracking/Tracking Disruption changes:
a) Missiles are affected - that is a good one imo. Now Drake / Tengu pilots need to consider whether they really need the range and sacrifice a slot or 2.
I do see the problem that TD is getting overpowered like some others. To cure this, I like Fozzies suggestion of different disruption mods best. Missile Disruptor + Tracking Disruptor. -more items are always nice -you have to take a meaningful decision when fitting the ship (am I expecting missile boats or turrets?)
b) The overall effectiveness of TD is another issue though. I am a great fan of E-War which is why I know by heart that with all proposed winter changes revealed so you could create TD monsters with near 95% Optimal Range Disruption. Yes this is very difficult, you would need Storyline TDs, Rigs, full ship boni, a booster Proteus with perfect skills & Mindlink... but I am pretty sure that I would see this everywhere after some time if it makes people win.
The problem here are not the missiles, but the proposed higher ship boni on E-War on cruisers an frigates of 7,5% per level. If on the other hand the base strength of TDs would be lowered, I think I would not like it.
Why, everyone is crying for specialized hulls with determined roles - I don't! I don't like it to be reduced to choose between only 2-3 hulls if I want a special effect. For E-War this is especially dramatic, because the effects are race-specific. Also I don't it if the complete tactics of a fleet can be seen on D-Scan already. Oh, there is an arbitrator, they CERTAINLY have tracking disruption.
Therefore I do support the idea to make the new E-War cruisers EW/combat hybrids, but I would rather like them to keep their old 5% bonus. Same for frigates.
I you want to buff tracking disruption, why not instead improve the effectiveness of the appropriate rig or the Information Warfare Gang Link? |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:06:00 -
[1959] - Quote
Just did it myself with a buddy....hit the same on each volley....him approaching, orbiting and going away. |
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:07:00 -
[1960] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Unit757 wrote:So, even with the 20% nerf, these things are still well inline with other long ranged weapon systems. With a 20% damage nerf drakes will be doing much less dps than any other tier 2 bc. With a 25% range nerf it will have way less range than all other bcs in general.
Yes, because 350ish DPS @ 50KM is "Way less" then any other long ranged BC. Use a HAM drake, it hits farther and harder then most other short ranged battlecruisers. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:09:00 -
[1961] - Quote
Posting this again because I feel it's a good suggest instead of the proposed nerfs and put ALL guided missiles in line with other weapons systems
(AND BECAUSE CCP WON'T LET ME MAKE MY OWN THREAD)
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:OK, I'm going to throw out some numbers.
This is going to be all skills lvl 5 and I'll use the 4 tier 2 bc's with their respective weapon systems, with boh t2 ammo types, and drones for the Myrmidon since that is it's specialty.
Now, one thing that will be different is I will use my proposed change to missiles.
That is,
PRECISION WILL BE LONG RANGE AND FURY WILL BE SHORT RANGE.
This is on par with how every other weapon system is balanced. Greater range means less dps.
Also, keep in mind that I'm not adding faction or t1 ammo because these will need to be balanced similar to unguided missiles, and I don't feel like doing that myself.
However, if you would like to do that, than just use unguided missiles as an example (i.e. the precentage difference between t1 and faction compared to t2 will be roughly equal)
Ok, here it goes (no other modules)
{ammo - dps @ range}
Drake Hams II Rage - 349 @ 18.1 Javelin - 197 @ 30.4
Hml II - (with my proposed swap in ranges) Fury - 224 @ 42.2 Precision - 189 @ 75.9
Hurricane 425mm AC II Hail - 417 @ 1.5+9 = 10.5 Barrage - 298 @ 3+18 = 21
720mm HA II Quake - 294 @ 7.5 + 22 = 29.5 Tremor - 168 @ 54 + 22 = 77
Harbinger Heavy Pulse II Conflagration - 406 @ 7.5 + 5 = 12.5 Scorch - 290 @ 23 + 5 = 28
Heavy Beam II Gleam - 323 @ 7.5 + 10 = 17.5 Aurora - 184 @ 54 + 10 = 64
Myrmidon Heavy Neutron Blaster II Void - 341 @ 3.4 + 3.1 = 6.5 Null - 244 @ 6.3 + 8.8 = 15.1
250mm Railgun II Javelin - 210 @ 9 + 15 = 24 Spike - 120 @ 65 + 15 = 80
With 5 x t2 medium drones each set gets plus 238 dps @ up to 60km with all skills lvl 5.
close range high damage The drake has the greatest range by 5.6km to 11.6km Has lowest dps by 230 to 57
high damage with range Drake has greatet range by 2.4km to 15.3km Lowest dps by 285 dps to 93 dps
(REMEMBER, THESE NEXT TWO ARE WITH MY PROPOSED SWAP TO GUIDED MISSILES) Long range high damage Drake has greatest range by 12.7km to 24.7km But lowest dps by 224dps to 70 dps
Max range Drake has 3rd greatest range being 4.1km from the top, and 11.9km from the bottom Drake has greatest dps by 69 to 5 dps (behind by 169 @ up to 60km from myrm drones & turrets)
Now, the myrmidon shines in dps up to 60 km and has the greatest possible range @ 80km, but lowest dps at max range
The drake has the highest range until max range, but the highest dps at max range, but by substationally less dps than it is overpowered by in other ranges.
Now, when you consider my suggested change of swapping fury and precision ranges for all guided missiles, these weapon systems actually seem fairly balanced apart from hybrids on a myrm, but it makes up for it with drones.
I think this would negate the need for a range AND dps nerf to heavy missiles.
Instead, then needed nerfs could be aimed directly at the tengu and drake themselves.
Perhaps drop the drake shield recharge rate so that it can't fit a passive tank as effectively as it does.
With the tengu, drop its range bonuses, and reduce cpu and pg so that it can't fit 100mn afterburners and so that it has tochoose between dps or tank.
BOOM!!! besides balancing faction and t1 guided missiles, the drake and tengu are balanced and guided missiles become balanced in the same manner as every other weapon system.
To add to this, perhaps they could do the same with T.D.s that they do with jammers.
That is, make them racial. Develop a T.D. that is anti race.
So, if you're fitting TD against gravimetric, then you're going to be more effective at disrupting Caldari ships but unusable against everything else.
Or, you could fit multispectrum disruptors that are effective against all types, but much less effective as a racial on specific race.
Again, just like jammers.
This coupled with my suggested change to guided missiles is actually pretty fair.
Missiles become reasonable damage at long range, and TDs don't become an I win button. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:10:00 -
[1962] - Quote
Unit757 wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Unit757 wrote:So, even with the 20% nerf, these things are still well inline with other long ranged weapon systems. With a 20% damage nerf drakes will be doing much less dps than any other tier 2 bc. With a 25% range nerf it will have way less range than all other bcs in general. Yes, because 350ish DPS @ 50KM is "Way less" then any other long ranged BC. Use a HAM drake, it hits farther and harder then most other short ranged battlecruisers.
Look at my balance suggestions in my quoted post above...
It makes more sense with those changes, and no range or dps nerf would be required. |
None ofthe Above
324
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:11:00 -
[1963] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:The HM nerf has been much needed for a long time. For all those crying over it, let's put this in perspective:
1) A Harbinger with Heavy beam laser II's using IN MF does 318 dps at 15km + 10km falloff (25km total).
2) A Hurricane with 720mm Howitzer II's using RF PP does 290 dps at 15km + 22km falloff (27km total).
3) A Brutix with 250mm railgun II's using CN antimatter does 302 dps at 18km + 15km falloff (28km total).
4) A drake with HML II's using CN scourge does 250 dps at 84.4km.
Now tell me which one of these isn't even remotely like the rest. All of these numbers are at lvl5 skills without any other mods/drones fitted and without implants. This is just the base damage on a typical damage/RoF bonused ship. Toss in the fitting requirements of these various mods and things skew more heavily in favor of HM's than they do in the above example.
They are not supposed to be "like the rest", missiles are a very different system, with advantages and disadvantages over the other types.
Assuming your numbers are correct (and they seem about right), lowest (and delayed) DPS for highest range and flexibility is what in most circles is called BALANCE.
I could perhaps understand an adjustment, but this proposed heavy triple-nerf seems over the top and I hope gets reconsidered and toned down, before they "balance" away an entire class of ships into obsolescence. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:17:00 -
[1964] - Quote
2004? Really? You *do* know that some mechanics have changed in those last 8 years.
Maybe try something more recent : http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Missiles
Quote:As missiles do not have tracking speeds, a missile launched at a target will do the same damage if the target's speed remains the same. In other words, the damage dealt to a target orbiting the launcher at 300m/s and a target flying directly at the launcher at 300m/s will be exactly the same. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:17:00 -
[1965] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:King Rothgar wrote:The HM nerf has been much needed for a long time. For all those crying over it, let's put this in perspective:
1) A Harbinger with Heavy beam laser II's using IN MF does 318 dps at 15km + 10km falloff (25km total).
2) A Hurricane with 720mm Howitzer II's using RF PP does 290 dps at 15km + 22km falloff (27km total).
3) A Brutix with 250mm railgun II's using CN antimatter does 302 dps at 18km + 15km falloff (28km total).
4) A drake with HML II's using CN scourge does 250 dps at 84.4km.
Now tell me which one of these isn't even remotely like the rest. All of these numbers are at lvl5 skills without any other mods/drones fitted and without implants. This is just the base damage on a typical damage/RoF bonused ship. Toss in the fitting requirements of these various mods and things skew more heavily in favor of HM's than they do in the above example. They are not supposed to be "like the rest", missiles are a very different system, with advantages and disadvantages over the other types. Assuming your numbers are correct (and they seem about right), lowest (and delayed) DPS for highest range and flexibility is what in most circles is called BALANCE. I could perhaps understand an adjustment, but this proposed heavy triple-nerf seems over the top and I hope gets reconsidered and toned down, before they "balance" away an entire class of ships into obsolescence.
I understand what you are saying here but If you look at the caracal with the new rebalance of that ship and with the changes proposed to HM it works out very well. I think they need to try and push up balancing BC this round if they want this to go through as It will really hamstring the Drake until it can be properly balanced.
Gypsio III wrote: Current dual-BCS Caracal: 263 DPS kinetic, 210 non-kinetic, with CN to 120 km, 8.4 km/s missiles. Future triple-BCS Caracal: 252 DPS all damage types with CN to 90 km, 9 km/s missiles.
I'm glad to see the Caracal surviving the deserved HML Drake/Tengu nerf fine.
See how this works out nicely with the changes.
Thats the way to go! |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:18:00 -
[1966] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game.
I have been flying missile boats since '08. I have flown with heavy, torp, cruise, and have used t2 on all but rapid light. I am well aware of their capabilities and have experienced it many times. Less so with heavy missiles but still occurs. I flew a torp golem. Using javelin missiles I could 1 shot a cruiser and a frig approaching me using 2 target painters. However, once they were in orbit it would take me at least 4 volleys to down a frig. The reasoning for this is If you fire at a target approaching you, the missile will explode in front of the target forcing it to fly into the explosion. Now, when you fire at an orbitting target or a target moving away from you, then the missile will explode behind it, thus it's flying out of the explosion. This has a direct impact on the damage you do to the target expecially with frigates and cruisers because their base speeds are equal to or faster than the explosion velocity of the missile fired at them. So, it is you that should go test it. I am 100% sure that you CANNOT hit an orbitting frig or cruiser for the same damage as an approaching frig/cruiser. Also, mwd and afterburners have play as well, and with these modules, hitting them while aproaching is still going to be more effective than hitting them while they're running or orbitting. TRUST ME... Go test it on some rats in the test server.
Sorry mate its all mwd bloom. Rats only use mwd on approach (or if they get one of those weird bugs where they mwd right out the belt) so rats moving away from you never have mwd on, hence why they can catch up with you but not get away from you (unless you are slower than thier non mwd speed). When they are in engagement range (and start orbiting) they turn mwd off same as a tackler would. Basically the only time an npc should have a mwd bloom is when they go into "chase" when they are out of range. Missile users don't get as much benefit from this as turret users who will usually hit a frig perfectly thanks to near 0 transversal during "chase" as well. The benefit missile users get from sig bloom is partially cancelled out by the fact the target is moving faster. At the same time missile users are hurt much less by the npc coming out of chase, in the case of frigs turrets can struggle to hit them at all.
If you look in the npc database you can find the points at which all npcs will enter chase or enter engagement, what the mwd speed is, how much sig bloom, etc. |
None ofthe Above
324
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:20:00 -
[1967] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Anabaric wrote:Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers... CCP must be doing something right. You must be reading a different thread than I am.
Half is trying to warn this is a bad idea; almost all the other half is pure schadenfreude at the prospect of others getting nerfed. Oh yeah, a clear indication CCP is doing it right. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:20:00 -
[1968] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:2004? Really? You *do* know that some mechanics have changed in those last 8 years. Maybe try something more recent : http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MissilesQuote:As missiles do not have tracking speeds, a missile launched at a target will do the same damage if the target's speed remains the same. In other words, the damage dealt to a target orbiting the launcher at 300m/s and a target flying directly at the launcher at 300m/s will be exactly the same.
Give up dude.....he's not going to agree with it. Because he doesn't realize the variables of testing on rats that obviously turn on a prop mod to get into range and then turn it off to orbit... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:25:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Doddy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game.
I have been flying missile boats since '08. I have flown with heavy, torp, cruise, and have used t2 on all but rapid light. I am well aware of their capabilities and have experienced it many times. Less so with heavy missiles but still occurs. I flew a torp golem. Using javelin missiles I could 1 shot a cruiser and a frig approaching me using 2 target painters. However, once they were in orbit it would take me at least 4 volleys to down a frig. The reasoning for this is If you fire at a target approaching you, the missile will explode in front of the target forcing it to fly into the explosion. Now, when you fire at an orbitting target or a target moving away from you, then the missile will explode behind it, thus it's flying out of the explosion. This has a direct impact on the damage you do to the target expecially with frigates and cruisers because their base speeds are equal to or faster than the explosion velocity of the missile fired at them. So, it is you that should go test it. I am 100% sure that you CANNOT hit an orbitting frig or cruiser for the same damage as an approaching frig/cruiser. Also, mwd and afterburners have play as well, and with these modules, hitting them while aproaching is still going to be more effective than hitting them while they're running or orbitting. TRUST ME... Go test it on some rats in the test server. Sorry mate its all mwd bloom. Rats only use mwd on approach (or if they get one of those weird bugs where they mwd right out the belt) so rats moving away from you never have mwd on, hence why they can catch up with you but not get away from you (unless you are slower than thier non mwd speed). When they are in engagement range (and start orbiting) they turn mwd off same as a tackler would. Basically the only time an npc should have a mwd bloom is when they go into "chase" when they are out of range. Missile users don't get as much benefit from this as turret users who will usually hit a frig perfectly thanks to near 0 transversal during "chase" as well. The benefit missile users get from sig bloom is partially cancelled out by the fact the target is moving faster. At the same time missile users are hurt much less by the npc coming out of chase, in the case of frigs turrets can struggle to hit them at all. If you look in the npc database you can find the points at which all npcs will enter chase or enter engagement, what the mwd speed is, how much sig bloom, etc.
Well, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, though I've seen it happen without prop mods on the npcs, but either I didn't notice or something else was going on.
However, I'd like to get back on topic and get a response to m proposed balance on guided missiles and TDs posted here
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535 |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:25:00 -
[1970] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:2004? Really? You *do* know that some mechanics have changed in those last 8 years. Maybe try something more recent : http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/MissilesQuote:As missiles do not have tracking speeds, a missile launched at a target will do the same damage if the target's speed remains the same. In other words, the damage dealt to a target orbiting the launcher at 300m/s and a target flying directly at the launcher at 300m/s will be exactly the same. Give up dude.....he's not going to agree with it. Because he doesn't realize the variables of testing on rats that obviously turn on a prop mod to get into range and then turn it off to orbit...
On the other hand he has reminded me about old school missiles that could catch a target but were not agile enough to hit them and did the crazy zig-zag pattern missing behind them until thier flight time elapsed (inty being chased by cruise for example). glory days. |
|
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:27:00 -
[1971] - Quote
DEVs: will the changes to missiles also take place for the NPC portion of the game (I realise some races use different kinds of missiles). Our corp and players enjoy the PVE side of things and funnily enough we have trained up Drakes and Tengu's to do just that...so, will PVE become that bit more challenging? |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:31:00 -
[1972] - Quote
Doddy wrote: On the other hand he has reminded me about old school missiles that could catch a target but were not agile enough to hit them and did the crazy zig-zag pattern missing behind them until thier flight time elapsed (inty being chased by cruise for example). glory days.
That must have been funny sight Sometimes I really regret unsubbing 8 years ago. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
278
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:31:00 -
[1973] - Quote
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:DEVs: will the changes to missiles also take place for the NPC portion of the game (I realise some races use different kinds of missiles). Our corp and players enjoy the PVE side of things and funnily enough we have trained up Drakes and Tengu's to do just that...so, will PVE become that bit more challenging?
Hopefully they'll throw out the idea, like they should. Then it wouldn't effect you. But yes, if those changes are made, they will affect you. |
Rek Jaiga
Teraa Matar White-Lotus
294
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:32:00 -
[1974] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: IMO, tracking disruptors are already OP and the only thing that has kept them somewhat in line was the chance of encountering a missile boat or two while roaming. Separate modules for disrupting turrets and missiles is the way to go here. Maybe even a different module altogether.
This, exactly. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1187
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:36:00 -
[1975] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Anabaric wrote:Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers... CCP must be doing something right. You wouldn't be a politician in real life would you?? The OP has got so far 58 likes in a thread that contains nearly 2000 posts.
Say what?
How on earth is a conversation with 2000 posts directly comparable to the number of likes on the original post?
Tell you what, I'll buy your house from you for 20 shiny nickels. After all, 20 is far more than 1 isn't it?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
216
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:38:00 -
[1976] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Signal11th wrote:Anabaric wrote:Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers... CCP must be doing something right. You wouldn't be a politician in real life would you?? The OP has got so far 58 likes in a thread that contains nearly 2000 posts. Say what? How on earth is a conversation with 2000 posts directly comparable to the number of likes on the original post? Tell you what, I'll buy your house from you for 20 shiny nickels. After all, 20 is far more than 1 isn't it?
Don't be so hard on him. He just sucks at math. |
Oleszka
Syntropia Of Avatara
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:41:00 -
[1977] - Quote
I have a quastion about the effect of skills.
If we learn gunnery skills like "Rapid Fireing", this skill effects all Turret kinds but if we skill only missiles "Rapid Launcher", this is only effecting missiles, but the collection of turrets is much bigger than the collection of launchers, so you punish the caldari characters and all players which are skilling missiles.
in my opinion you are damaging more with you rebalancing idea than you try to fix.
btw. we have two different typs of skill trees in weapons but gunnery skills are good for all factions and missiles are only effecting more caldari ships. That means player which are skilling caldari ships need much more time to fly other ships(like Amarr, Gallente and Minmatar).
... and if you apply the effect of TDs to missiles you have to apply the effect of the "Rapid Launcher" Skill on Turrets and cancel all missile skills beause there is no difference any more!
why in hell you dont make the defender missile more effectiv, dose you great statistic not say no one is using it?
EvE-Movie, take a look and enjoy it PushMe |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:41:00 -
[1978] - Quote
After further consideration, I feel that it's the bonuses on missile ships that is broken, rather than the damage output of missiles. Consider this: in the early days of the game, CCP rarely gave lasers any kind of damage or RoF bonus because the weapon system did a base damage way higher than the other weapon systems. Instead, they gave laser ships a bonus that would make them able to use lasers effectively - cap use.
Sure, you could stick a rack of Tachs on a Tempest, but you'd be cap-dead in 30 seconds.
Recently CCP has just throwing damage / RoF bonuses (or both!) on every ship, which has the disadvantage of homogenizing fittings. One way of looking at it is that the reason the Drake does out-of-line DPS is because it's bonuses are broken. If CCP changes the Drake's kinetic bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, or both, they'll have achieved the same end as reducing its DPS by 20%, without hurting every other ship that fits missiles as a secondary weapon system.
However, changing the bonuses on the Drake and Tengu to non-direct-damage bonuses would definitely bring those two ships in-line.
By doing the raw-dps nerf, CCP effectively kills heavy missiles as a secondary weapon system.
______________
As for the range nerf, I fell it isn't a bad move to cut the base range of missiles and then make a module that affects range. I don't personally like the idea of making tracking disruptors universal, but I feel that's a debatable topic.
Additionally, I support swapping the fitting requirements of heavies and HAMs, or at least adjusting them, so a Drake has to make some fitting concessions for its long range weapon system. It's obvious that missiles are no longer really an effective secondary weapon system so it might not be unreasonable to actually buff their damage slightly (especially HAMs) after changing the bonuses on missile ships. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
290
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:42:00 -
[1979] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Posting this again because I feel it's a good suggest instead of the proposed nerfs and put ALL guided missiles in line with other weapons systems HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:OK, I'm going to throw out some numbers.
This is going to be all skills lvl 5 and I'll use the 4 tier 2 bc's with their respective weapon systems, with boh t2 ammo types, and drones for the Myrmidon since that is it's specialty.
Now, one thing that will be different is I will use my proposed change to missiles.
That is,
PRECISION WILL BE LONG RANGE AND FURY WILL BE SHORT RANGE.
This is on par with how every other weapon system is balanced. Greater range means less dps.
Also, keep in mind that I'm not adding faction or t1 ammo because these will need to be balanced similar to unguided missiles, and I don't feel like doing that myself.
However, if you would like to do that, than just use unguided missiles as an example (i.e. the precentage difference between t1 and faction compared to t2 will be roughly equal)
Ok, here it goes (no other modules)
{ammo - dps @ range}
Drake Hams II Rage - 349 @ 18.1 Javelin - 197 @ 30.4
Hml II - (with my proposed swap in ranges) Fury - 224 @ 42.2 Precision - 189 @ 75.9
Hurricane 425mm AC II Hail - 417 @ 1.5+9 = 10.5 Barrage - 298 @ 3+18 = 21
720mm HA II Quake - 294 @ 7.5 + 22 = 29.5 Tremor - 168 @ 54 + 22 = 77
Harbinger Heavy Pulse II Conflagration - 406 @ 7.5 + 5 = 12.5 Scorch - 290 @ 23 + 5 = 28
Heavy Beam II Gleam - 323 @ 7.5 + 10 = 17.5 Aurora - 184 @ 54 + 10 = 64
Myrmidon Heavy Neutron Blaster II Void - 341 @ 3.4 + 3.1 = 6.5 Null - 244 @ 6.3 + 8.8 = 15.1
250mm Railgun II Javelin - 210 @ 9 + 15 = 24 Spike - 120 @ 65 + 15 = 80
With 5 x t2 medium drones each set gets plus 238 dps @ up to 60km with all skills lvl 5.
close range high damage The drake has the greatest range by 5.6km to 11.6km Has lowest dps by 230 to 57
high damage with range Drake has greatet range by 2.4km to 15.3km Lowest dps by 285 dps to 93 dps
(REMEMBER, THESE NEXT TWO ARE WITH MY PROPOSED SWAP TO GUIDED MISSILES) Long range high damage Drake has greatest range by 12.7km to 24.7km But lowest dps by 224dps to 70 dps
Max range Drake has 3rd greatest range being 4.1km from the top, and 11.9km from the bottom Drake has greatest dps by 69 to 5 dps (behind by 169 @ up to 60km from myrm drones & turrets)
Now, the myrmidon shines in dps up to 60 km and has the greatest possible range @ 80km, but lowest dps at max range
The drake has the highest range until max range, but the highest dps at max range, but by substationally less dps than it is overpowered by in other ranges.
Now, when you consider my suggested change of swapping fury and precision ranges for all guided missiles, these weapon systems actually seem fairly balanced apart from hybrids on a myrm, but it makes up for it with drones.
I think this would negate the need for a range AND dps nerf to heavy missiles.
Instead, then needed nerfs could be aimed directly at the tengu and drake themselves.
Perhaps drop the drake shield recharge rate so that it can't fit a passive tank as effectively as it does.
With the tengu, drop its range bonuses, and reduce cpu and pg so that it can't fit 100mn afterburners and so that it has tochoose between dps or tank.
BOOM!!! besides balancing faction and t1 guided missiles, the drake and tengu are balanced and guided missiles become balanced in the same manner as every other weapon system. To add to this, perhaps they could do the same with T.D.s that they do with jammers. That is, make them racial. Develop a T.D. that is anti race. So, if you're fitting TD against gravimetric, then you're going to be more effective at disrupting Caldari ships but unusable against everything else. Or, you could fit multispectrum disruptors that are effective against all types, but much less effective as a racial on specific race. Again, just like jammers. This coupled with my suggested change to guided missiles is actually pretty fair. Missiles become reasonable damage at long range, and TDs don't become an I win button.
I'm gonna go with ^this^
A dps at range nerf is better than a dps and range nerf. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:45:00 -
[1980] - Quote
Rek Jaiga wrote:
This is all paper numbers though. As a decently experienced frigate pilot, I can tell you that you can mitigate a Drake's DPS incredibly. I will and do buy X-instinct boosters to reduce my signature radius, and thus their damage. I do manually pilot in order to make sure I am moving perpendicular to the incoming missile, and I also make sure I am AB'ing above their explosion velocity. What does this all lead up to? A tackled Drake (which has NONE of the utility highs and mids for neuts and webs, like the Cane) and me ASB'ing to tank it. And then my fleet warps in and kills it. "But what if it is 84km away?". Then I can simply warp off. What? It's a Drake blob? I'll see those heavy missiles next year. The delay between launch and damage application really does matter.
By converse, if a Hurricane or Harbinger is at range and hits my little frigate, it is hit. Arty Cane literally wipes it away from the field.
Now, I've written all of this from the perspective of a frigate pilot. I'd imagine BC pilots could also simply warp away, but then why wouldn't a proper BC gang have frig tackle support to hold the Drake(s) down? I really am baffled. People are crying about how OP HMLs are because they're comparing a single BC to another BC. 1v1 is incredibly uncommon these days, so I see no reason to base a nerf or major game mechanics change off of one-to-one comparisons. I'm sorry if you want your Hurricane to be able to kill everything in a 1v1 scenario, but no ship in the game has the capability to always win against everything. They're not thinking of smallgang or fleet scenarios at all.
Don't nerf HMLs. Nerf the ships that are OP. And most of all people, stop thinking 1v1 only. It just doesn't happen much.
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:This is wrong.
Missiles do not always hit targets for the same damage.
I will hit a stationary target harder than a moving target and I'll hit an approaching target harder than I'll hit an orbiting target. Also, they'll hit a wmd battleship harder than a bs with no prop mod, and them less so than an afterburner bs. Now, they'll hit a frig, but less so a frig with an afterburner, and no chance of hitting a mwd frig in orbit.
So, anyone who says missiles always hit for the same damage has either never used missiles, has no clue what they're talking about, or are making things up just to ensure a missile nerf
I bold-italicized two bits that I have a question about - have missile mechanics changed since I left the game a few years ago that make it so you take more damage by flying into a missile than by flying perpendicular to it? Several people who've posted in this thread seem to be under that impression. |
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:45:00 -
[1981] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Doddy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game.
I have been flying missile boats since '08. I have flown with heavy, torp, cruise, and have used t2 on all but rapid light. I am well aware of their capabilities and have experienced it many times. Less so with heavy missiles but still occurs. I flew a torp golem. Using javelin missiles I could 1 shot a cruiser and a frig approaching me using 2 target painters. However, once they were in orbit it would take me at least 4 volleys to down a frig. The reasoning for this is If you fire at a target approaching you, the missile will explode in front of the target forcing it to fly into the explosion. Now, when you fire at an orbitting target or a target moving away from you, then the missile will explode behind it, thus it's flying out of the explosion. This has a direct impact on the damage you do to the target expecially with frigates and cruisers because their base speeds are equal to or faster than the explosion velocity of the missile fired at them. So, it is you that should go test it. I am 100% sure that you CANNOT hit an orbitting frig or cruiser for the same damage as an approaching frig/cruiser. Also, mwd and afterburners have play as well, and with these modules, hitting them while aproaching is still going to be more effective than hitting them while they're running or orbitting. TRUST ME... Go test it on some rats in the test server. Sorry mate its all mwd bloom. Rats only use mwd on approach (or if they get one of those weird bugs where they mwd right out the belt) so rats moving away from you never have mwd on, hence why they can catch up with you but not get away from you (unless you are slower than thier non mwd speed). When they are in engagement range (and start orbiting) they turn mwd off same as a tackler would. Basically the only time an npc should have a mwd bloom is when they go into "chase" when they are out of range. Missile users don't get as much benefit from this as turret users who will usually hit a frig perfectly thanks to near 0 transversal during "chase" as well. The benefit missile users get from sig bloom is partially cancelled out by the fact the target is moving faster. At the same time missile users are hurt much less by the npc coming out of chase, in the case of frigs turrets can struggle to hit them at all. If you look in the npc database you can find the points at which all npcs will enter chase or enter engagement, what the mwd speed is, how much sig bloom, etc. Well, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, though I've seen it happen without prop mods on the npcs, but either I didn't notice or something else was going on. However, I'd like to get back on topic and get a response to m proposed balance on guided missiles and TDs posted here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535
without completely revamping game mechanics, I think the damage and range equal out depending on the situation. Now, if they want to bump T2 missiles to have the same exact range as the T1 and faction equivalents...an d even still....it drops the range from 84k to 63k, which is effectively less than 60k.
Now, as far as your proposition, ok, add TD, but remove defender missiles and the ability to SB incoming missiles...and add mods to improve "tracking" of missiles...
Riddle me this... What does it tell you when I say that I can fit a Proteus with a better tracking and a better tank....as a shield tank....only losing a little agility? Now you tell me is the problem with Missiles...or is it a matter of shield tanking versus armor tanking...mind you....the prot doesn't have bonuses to shield tanking and DOES to armor tanking
Edit: Also, Faction Armor mods versus T2 shield mods |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:51:00 -
[1982] - Quote
lol 100 pages |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:54:00 -
[1983] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Doddy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
First, you are incorrect, direction has NO bearing on missile mechanics. Guns, yes, Missiles no. Non what-so-ever. If you don't believe me....go test it.
Second, you mis-understood my statement. My statement is such that...as long as you keep speed, my dps against said ship will not fluctuate. If my first volley against said ship is 1100.....then unless they change speeds or a target painter is used, every subsequent volley is going to be the same 1100.
I use missiles all the time, I don't want the nerf, and I've probably spent more time in EFT than I have in game.
I have been flying missile boats since '08. I have flown with heavy, torp, cruise, and have used t2 on all but rapid light. I am well aware of their capabilities and have experienced it many times. Less so with heavy missiles but still occurs. I flew a torp golem. Using javelin missiles I could 1 shot a cruiser and a frig approaching me using 2 target painters. However, once they were in orbit it would take me at least 4 volleys to down a frig. The reasoning for this is If you fire at a target approaching you, the missile will explode in front of the target forcing it to fly into the explosion. Now, when you fire at an orbitting target or a target moving away from you, then the missile will explode behind it, thus it's flying out of the explosion. This has a direct impact on the damage you do to the target expecially with frigates and cruisers because their base speeds are equal to or faster than the explosion velocity of the missile fired at them. So, it is you that should go test it. I am 100% sure that you CANNOT hit an orbitting frig or cruiser for the same damage as an approaching frig/cruiser. Also, mwd and afterburners have play as well, and with these modules, hitting them while aproaching is still going to be more effective than hitting them while they're running or orbitting. TRUST ME... Go test it on some rats in the test server. Sorry mate its all mwd bloom. Rats only use mwd on approach (or if they get one of those weird bugs where they mwd right out the belt) so rats moving away from you never have mwd on, hence why they can catch up with you but not get away from you (unless you are slower than thier non mwd speed). When they are in engagement range (and start orbiting) they turn mwd off same as a tackler would. Basically the only time an npc should have a mwd bloom is when they go into "chase" when they are out of range. Missile users don't get as much benefit from this as turret users who will usually hit a frig perfectly thanks to near 0 transversal during "chase" as well. The benefit missile users get from sig bloom is partially cancelled out by the fact the target is moving faster. At the same time missile users are hurt much less by the npc coming out of chase, in the case of frigs turrets can struggle to hit them at all. If you look in the npc database you can find the points at which all npcs will enter chase or enter engagement, what the mwd speed is, how much sig bloom, etc. Well, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, though I've seen it happen without prop mods on the npcs, but either I didn't notice or something else was going on. However, I'd like to get back on topic and get a response to m proposed balance on guided missiles and TDs posted here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535 without completely revamping game mechanics, I think the damage and range equal out depending on the situation. Now, if they want to bump T2 missiles to have the same exact range as the T1 and faction equivalents...an d even still....it drops the range from 84k to 63k, which is effectively less than 60k. Now, as far as your proposition, ok, add TD, but remove defender missiles and the ability to SB incoming missiles...and add mods to improve "tracking" of missiles... Riddle me this... What does it tell you when I say that I can fit a Proteus with a better tracking and a better tank....as a shield tank....only losing a little agility? Now you tell me is the problem with Missiles...or is it a matter of shield tanking versus armor tanking...mind you....the prot doesn't have bonuses to shield tanking and DOES to armor tanking
Well, I was able to build all skills lvl 5 fits for all strategic cruisers and they all had comperable dps and tank to my tengu pve fit, however, they were limited to close range. But, the could also easily fit an afterburner and get 600-700 m/s.
Now, I can agree that the tengu definitely needs nerfed to be more in line with the other t3's, however, this needs to happen AFTER the battleships are rebalanced so that I have something to use for pve. Right now the tengu is the most effective lvl 4 missile boat and while the tengu is OP, this also has a lot to do with how sub par the missile boat bs's are.
Now, as far as my proposed changes to guided missiles. This would make the drake and tengu more in line with other ships of their class without actually directly nerfing range and dps.
That said, the drake and tengu would still need individual nerfs, but that's a different thread. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1335
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 15:59:00 -
[1984] - Quote
100 pages of tears. Delicious.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
OlRotGut
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:04:00 -
[1985] - Quote
If server load is what they are trying to curb then they need to increase the velocity of the missiles more than 6.66%
Of course this would effect range, so change the ammo types of all missiles to fall in line with the turrets.
Change the fitting requirements for the HAMS and HML's (Swap them)
Remove the Fury and Precision T2 ammo ship penalties Increase damage on Fury Increase damage and ability to hit smaller targets on Precision
Fury's range should be reduced, Precisions range increased. Again making it more in line with up close and powerful, longer range and weaker.
Remove the stupid Kinetic buff on the ships.
With the above changes you shouldn't have to muck with the DPS or range, just changing the ammo types alone to fall in line with turrets would fix everything.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:04:00 -
[1986] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:100 pages of tears. Delicious.
Lets face it, once they nerf the drake/tengu some other ship/ fleet combo is gonna take over and there's gonna be tears about that.
Probably anoter battlecruiser to be honest.
Duel ASB cyclone gangs maybe? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:07:00 -
[1987] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:If server load is what they are trying to curb then they need to increase the velocity of the missiles more than 6.66%
Of course this would effect range, so change the ammo types of all missiles to fall in line with the turrets.
Change the fitting requirements for the HAMS and HML's (Swap them)
Remove the Fury and Precision T2 ammo ship penalties Increase damage on Fury Increase damage and ability to hit smaller targets on Precision
Fury's range should be reduced, Precisions range increased. Again making it more in line with up close and powerful, longer range and weaker.
Remove the stupid Kinetic buff on the ships.
With the above changes you shouldn't have to muck with the DPS or range, just changing the ammo types alone to fall in line with turrets would fix everything.
actually, increase missile velocity and reduce flight time just enough to give them the same range, but missile boats never have more than one volley in the air at a time, no more waisted volleys for missiles, and missiles don't take forever to reach a distant target anymore, but still longer than instant turrets. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:09:00 -
[1988] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:If server load is what they are trying to curb then they need to increase the velocity of the missiles more than 6.66%
Of course this would effect range, so change the ammo types of all missiles to fall in line with the turrets.
Change the fitting requirements for the HAMS and HML's (Swap them)
Remove the Fury and Precision T2 ammo ship penalties Increase damage on Fury Increase damage and ability to hit smaller targets on Precision
Fury's range should be reduced, Precisions range increased. Again making it more in line with up close and powerful, longer range and weaker.
Remove the stupid Kinetic buff on the ships.
With the above changes you shouldn't have to muck with the DPS or range, just changing the ammo types alone to fall in line with turrets would fix everything.
This is perfect. The only ships that are really broken are those with a kinetic bonus anyway.
I'm still on the fence about the range changes. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:10:00 -
[1989] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Well, I was able to build all skills lvl 5 fits for all strategic cruisers and they all had comperable dps and tank to my tengu pve fit, however, they were limited to close range. But, the could also easily fit an afterburner and get 600-700 m/s.
Now, I can agree that the tengu definitely needs nerfed to be more in line with the other t3's, however, this needs to happen AFTER the battleships are rebalanced so that I have something to use for pve. Right now the tengu is the most effective lvl 4 missile boat and while the tengu is OP, this also has a lot to do with how sub par the missile boat bs's are.
Now, as far as my proposed changes to guided missiles. This would make the drake and tengu more in line with other ships of their class without actually directly nerfing range and dps.
That said, the drake and tengu would still need individual nerfs, but that's a different thread.
I don't know if that's what I think should happen, though....
Why not bring the other T3's up to the par of the Tengu. It's obvious for mission running, that shield tanking is far superior to armor tanking. The problem I always run into when trying to armor tank anything is cap issues. You almost ALWAYS have to rig for cap, and/or have to use all your mids for it. But as you said, that is all for another thread
While your proposed changes do intrigue me, do you not think that considering sig radius and velocity are a factor in missile damage, does their raw DPS not need to be higher from the stand point that there is no way to counter that with mods or rigs, as opposed to tracking you can rig and mod for? |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
114
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:11:00 -
[1990] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:OlRotGut wrote:If server load is what they are trying to curb then they need to increase the velocity of the missiles more than 6.66%
Of course this would effect range, so change the ammo types of all missiles to fall in line with the turrets.
Change the fitting requirements for the HAMS and HML's (Swap them)
Remove the Fury and Precision T2 ammo ship penalties Increase damage on Fury Increase damage and ability to hit smaller targets on Precision
Fury's range should be reduced, Precisions range increased. Again making it more in line with up close and powerful, longer range and weaker.
Remove the stupid Kinetic buff on the ships.
With the above changes you shouldn't have to muck with the DPS or range, just changing the ammo types alone to fall in line with turrets would fix everything.
actually, increase missile velocity and reduce flight time just enough to give them the same range, but missile boats never have more than one volley in the air at a time, no more waisted volleys for missiles, and missiles don't take forever to reach a distant target anymore, but still longer than instant turrets.
I am in favor for this also let them go faster plus if you do this with HAMS and rockets also it will look more like unguided missiles as they are blazing through the air. |
|
Oleszka
Syntropia Of Avatara
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:20:00 -
[1991] - Quote
oh oh i have to say, you kick already the learing skills, now you go on to kick the missile skills, beause the characteristics of turrets and lauchers becoming the same and there is no need for two skilling trees. ..... then you remove the skilling books and continuie by giving SP by killing NPCs....
you do a misstake after the next...
.. ... .. how many player quit because you remove the "learning" skill? how many player quit because you remove the hangar.? how many player quit because you force the new invertory? before you change it..... with lot of bugs now ... ... ...
now you continue the Story and you lose more and more eve player and replacing it with world of warcraft zombies EvE-Movie, take a look and enjoy it PushMe |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:22:00 -
[1992] - Quote
Oleszka wrote:oh oh i have to say, you kick already the learing skills, now you go on to kick the missile skills, beause the characteristics of turrets and lauchers becoming the same and there is no need for two skilling trees. ..... then you remove the skilling books and continuie by giving SP by killing NPCs....
you do a misstake after the next...
.. ... .. how many player quit because you remove the "learning" skill? how many player quit because you remove the hangar.? how many player quit because you force the new invertory? before you change it..... with lot of bugs now ... ... ...
now you continue the Story and you lose more and more eve player and replacing it with world of warcraft zombies
Why would people quit over removed learning skills? They reimbursed all of the skillpoints.
Removed hangar?? |
Noisrevbus
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:22:00 -
[1993] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:The HM nerf has been much needed for a long time. For all those crying over it, let's put this in perspective:
1) A Harbinger with Heavy beam laser II's using IN MF does 318 dps at 15km + 10km falloff (25km total).
2) A Hurricane with 720mm Howitzer II's using RF PP does 290 dps at 15km + 22km falloff (27km total).
3) A Brutix with 250mm railgun II's using CN antimatter does 302 dps at 18km + 15km falloff (28km total).
4) A drake with HML II's using CN scourge does 250 dps at 84.4km.
Now tell me which one of these isn't even remotely like the rest. All of these numbers are at lvl5 skills without any other mods/drones fitted and without implants. This is just the base damage on a typical damage/RoF bonused ship. Toss in the fitting requirements of these various mods and things skew more heavily in favor of HM's than they do in the above example.
I like this summary, because it keeps the thread on the topic .
What it doesn't do though is factor in any other differences than damage at longest range. That's extra interesting because that perspective contain the same error half the people on these forums and CCP themselves do with this change.
An HBL Harby will put out 460 dps @ 60 and then gradually lose dps up to 82km. An HML Drake will put out 490 dps @ 60 and then maintain 410 dps up to 84km.
The Harby will also gradually raise it's dps at closer range up to 690 with Gleam. The Drake will raise it's dps down to 75km and stop around 550 dps with Fury.
The Harby will have a 58k unboosted tank. The Drake will have a 65k unboosted tank, assuming two midslot utility.
The Drake have the ability to fill up it's utility with tank mods, but then outsource accuracy control (webs, painters). The Harby have the accuracy control inherent through it's ability to manipulate transversal and the range mods.
The problem is that everyone, including CCP, look at the balance only from a large fleet projection-buffer perspective, and scenarios where larger groups can outsource layers of the necessary effects.
If CCP wanted to nerf the Drake, they should have adressed Tech I insurance and things like medium rigs on BC.
Tearing up the entire pre-existing balance and looking to replace it over the course of years of ship-design is a bad idea. Especially when it throws the balance of scales further. Small gang HML will hurt alot more than larger fleet HML. The same HML scale that already outsource effects, won't face effective application of TD and will either just remain or adapt other cost-effective options (like 252 dps Caracals or w/e someone mentioned here).
Goons "crying" in this thread are most likely just trolling you, because they already know the change won't be effectful at larger scale. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:26:00 -
[1994] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
I don't know if that's what I think should happen, though....
Why not bring the other T3's up to the par of the Tengu. It's obvious for mission running, that shield tanking is far superior to armor tanking. The problem I always run into when trying to armor tank anything is cap issues. You almost ALWAYS have to rig for cap, and/or have to use all your mids for it. But as you said, that is all for another thread
While your proposed changes do intrigue me, do you not think that considering sig radius and velocity are a factor in missile damage, does their raw DPS not need to be higher from the stand point that there is no way to counter that with mods or rigs, as opposed to tracking you can rig and mod for?
Actually, the fits I was able to get were comperable tank with equal to or higher cap remaining than the tengu.
However, the difference is the tengu has the dps at range, while the others are only close range. It also has those tank capabilities and was omni tanked, while all but the loki were damage specific.
Now, the tengu has significantly more dps at range, but with the proposed precision missle swap I've suggested and removing the buff t kinetic missile damage, then all the ships would be much more on par.
Now, the tengu would still have more dps and a greater range even after these changes, but that could be a simple small buff to the other 3 sc's to compensate, or given that the tengu has highly delayed dps at that range might be the balance. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:28:00 -
[1995] - Quote
HINT TO EVERYONE.
IF YOU LIKE AN IDEA POSTED BY SOMEONE, THE GIVE IT A THUMBS UP.
This way CCP knows what comments to look at.
They're not gonna read 100 pages of comments.. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
216
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:29:00 -
[1996] - Quote
Oleszka wrote:I have a quastion about the effect of skills.
If we learn gunnery skills like "Rapid Fireing", this skill effects all Turret kinds but if we skill only missiles "Rapid Launcher", this is only effecting missiles, but the collection of turrets is much bigger than the collection of launchers, so you punish the caldari characters and all players which are skilling missiles.
in my opinion you are damaging more with you rebalancing idea than you try to fix.
btw. we have two different typs of skill trees in weapons but gunnery skills are good for all factions and missiles are only effecting more caldari ships. That means player which are skilling caldari ships need much more time to fly other ships(like Amarr, Gallente and Minmatar).
... and if you apply the effect of TDs to missiles you have to apply the effect of the "Rapid Launcher" Skill on Turrets and cancel all missile skills beause there is no difference any more!
why in hell you dont make the defender missile more effectiv, dose you great statistic not say no one is using it?
1) You don't need to train level 5 in smaller missile launcher in order to get to the bigger. You can train directly to heavy/assault/cruise/torpedoes. Turrets are different. In order to get to the T2 medium turrets you need to train level 5 in small turret and specialization skill at level 4.
2) You get weapon system with fully selectable damage with both T1 and T2 ammo while turret systems don't ( only Minmatar get selectable damage with T1 ammo but it's not 100% one damage type like missiles ). That means you can get maximal effectiveness in pve ( you select type of damage that is most suitable to rats you are fighting ) and pvp. Other races have serious limitations in that area.
3) Other races need to train missiles too ( for bombers and several other ships ). Minmatar are quite heavy reliant on missiles. In addition all races but Caldari also need serious drone training ( including T2 heavy and sentry for some ships ) while your missile boats don't need them ( you are ok with T2 light/medium drones ).
Try to see bigger picture. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:31:00 -
[1997] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HINT TO EVERYONE.
IF YOU LIKE AN IDEA POSTED BY SOMEONE, THE GIVE IT A THUMBS UP.
This way CCP knows what comments to look at.
They're not gonna read 100 pages of comments..
Like "the like and get's like thread' ? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:33:00 -
[1998] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HINT TO EVERYONE.
IF YOU LIKE AN IDEA POSTED BY SOMEONE, THE GIVE IT A THUMBS UP.
This way CCP knows what comments to look at.
They're not gonna read 100 pages of comments.. Like "the like and get's like thread' ?
except only for the posts that you like, and not a bunch of people with too much time running around thumbs upping nothing |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:37:00 -
[1999] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HINT TO EVERYONE.
IF YOU LIKE AN IDEA POSTED BY SOMEONE, THE GIVE IT A THUMBS UP.
This way CCP knows what comments to look at.
They're not gonna read 100 pages of comments.. Like "the like and get's like thread' ? except only for the posts that you like, and not a bunch of people with too much time running around thumbs upping nothing
Are you saying that people who post on this forum represent the majority ? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:38:00 -
[2000] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HINT TO EVERYONE.
IF YOU LIKE AN IDEA POSTED BY SOMEONE, THE GIVE IT A THUMBS UP.
This way CCP knows what comments to look at.
They're not gonna read 100 pages of comments.. Like "the like and get's like thread' ? except only for the posts that you like, and not a bunch of people with too much time running around thumbs upping nothing Are you saying that people who post on this forum represent the majority ?
nope, but if our likes of other people's ideas draws the attention of CCP then we might be able to keep this crap tastic nerf from going through.
Edit... Or at least be a much better compromize to everyone that produces less rage.
example
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535 |
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
159
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:47:00 -
[2001] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
Because you will now be able to improve your HAMs effective damage by fitting tes and countering thier natural drawbacks. Of course if averyone is fitting tds this wont matter ....
Where would you fit them?
I don't fly (and have no fittings for) HAM Drakes, so the following fit is not battle tested. It is, however, something that's probably fairly reasonable and close to what people who fly these things do use. It requires all Level 5 skills of course.
HAM DRAKE
sm neut 7 - T2 HAM
10mm MWD 2 - T2 LSE T2 Disruptor 2 - T2 webs
T2 DCU 2 - T2 BCU T2 Reactor Control
Med Anti-EM Med Defense Field Extender Med Polycarbon
DPS: 468 (573 heat) Mobility: 185m/sec ( 1095m/sec MWD ON) (1550m/sec mwd heated) Align: 7.5 sec (all off) Resists: 54% em / 47% therm / 60% exp / 67% kin EHP: 56.413
So, again, where exactly are you going to put these TE's? You COULD replace one of the BCU's with a TE, but that would lower your Battlecruiser DPS down to 386. In other words, your point blank range Battlecruiser is going to be doing lower DPS than many assault frigates at the same range.
One of the problems I have seen in every thread discussing the Drake, is that people tend to post the best possible numbers from every stat and attribute, and then combine them as if such a thing were actually possible in game. So they will post the DPS of a scourge Rage HAM Drake, the speed of a twin nano kite drake, the missile range of a HM drake, and the tank of a L4 Mission fit, all liberally rounded up to the nearest 100, and as if this were all possible at the same time on the same boat. So you get comments like this: 'Dude! The Drake gets an 90K ehp tank, it does 800 dps, it goes 1900 m/sec, and it can shoot out to 190km! Can your battlecruiser do that!!!'
In the real game, the Drake as it is usually flown does about 350 dps against BC or larger targets, hits out to about 60km (farther if they are chasing you), moves at about a 1000 m/sec non-heated, and generally has a 40k -60k ehp tank. And that's pretty damn nice as is. It hits for modest damage at modest range, and it can take a beating.
An argument can easily be made that the Drake, thanks in large part to the weapon range and tank, is overpowered. But before we whip out the chainsaw and get busy, let us at least play with the Drake as it actually is rather than as we imagine it to be. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:49:00 -
[2002] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HINT TO EVERYONE.
IF YOU LIKE AN IDEA POSTED BY SOMEONE, THE GIVE IT A THUMBS UP.
This way CCP knows what comments to look at.
They're not gonna read 100 pages of comments.. Like "the like and get's like thread' ? except only for the posts that you like, and not a bunch of people with too much time running around thumbs upping nothing Are you saying that people who post on this forum represent the majority ? nope, but if our likes of other people's ideas draws the attention of CCP then we might be able to keep this crap tastic nerf from going through. Edit... Or at least be a much better compromize to everyone that produces less rage. example https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535
EEEK!!!!! I have lost fate in CCP a long time ago when it comes to "balancing" anything. I am a pessimist who thinks this.
Forum says i can only quote 5 times... Whatever. Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Means this. We are afraid to tell the truth because you might get angrier, so we are trying to use politically correct, low burning words to put you to sleep. This way we can do whatever we want for whatever underlying reasons that we will not tell you about.
Else, they are just stupid. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:49:00 -
[2003] - Quote
Oleszka wrote:oh oh i have to say, you kick already the learing skills, now you go on to kick the missile skills, beause the characteristics of turrets and lauchers becoming the same and there is no need for two skilling trees. ..... then you remove the skilling books and continuie by giving SP by killing NPCs....
you do a misstake after the next...
.. ... .. how many player quit because you remove the "learning" skill? how many player quit because you remove the hangar.? how many player quit because you force the new invertory? before you change it..... with lot of bugs now ... ... ...
now you continue the Story and you lose more and more eve player and replacing it with world of warcraft zombies
You do realize that eve grows every single year right? Any people that quit have been replaced and then some.. So in the end its a win. |
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:50:00 -
[2004] - Quote
[quote=CCP Fozzie]
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes?
So in that respect I'm going to lose :
106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures.
Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage?
Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse?
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:53:00 -
[2005] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Oleszka wrote:I have a quastion about the effect of skills.
If we learn gunnery skills like "Rapid Fireing", this skill effects all Turret kinds but if we skill only missiles "Rapid Launcher", this is only effecting missiles, but the collection of turrets is much bigger than the collection of launchers, so you punish the caldari characters and all players which are skilling missiles.
in my opinion you are damaging more with you rebalancing idea than you try to fix.
btw. we have two different typs of skill trees in weapons but gunnery skills are good for all factions and missiles are only effecting more caldari ships. That means player which are skilling caldari ships need much more time to fly other ships(like Amarr, Gallente and Minmatar).
... and if you apply the effect of TDs to missiles you have to apply the effect of the "Rapid Launcher" Skill on Turrets and cancel all missile skills beause there is no difference any more!
why in hell you dont make the defender missile more effectiv, dose you great statistic not say no one is using it?
1) You don't need to train level 5 in smaller missile launcher in order to get to the bigger. You can train directly to heavy/assault/cruise/torpedoes. Turrets are different. In order to get to the T2 medium turrets you need to train level 5 in small turret and specialization skill at level 4. 2) You get weapon system with fully selectable damage with both T1 and T2 ammo while turret systems don't ( only Minmatar get selectable damage with T1 ammo but it's not 100% one damage type like missiles ). That means you can get maximal effectiveness in pve ( you select type of damage that is most suitable to rats you are fighting ) and pvp. Other races have serious limitations in that area. 3) Other races need to train missiles too ( for bombers and several other ships ). Minmatar are quite heavy reliant on missiles. In addition all races but Caldari also need serious drone training ( including T2 heavy and sentry for some ships ) while your missile boats don't need them ( you are ok with T2 light/medium drones ). Try to see bigger picture.
But the Drake and the Tengu are still limited to kinetic considering the damage bonuses they currently have.
Bigger Picture for skill training: While yes, it is quicker to get into T2 Heavies.....HOWEVER:
To take a raw toon with with no implants and no remap, it would take 367 days to get HM, HAM, Cruise and Torps to lvl 5 specialization and all the support skills...no love to Light Missiles and Torps
To take a raw toon with no implants and no remap, it would take 349 days to get PERFECT Gun specializations of both types for Lasers or Hybrids, less for Projectiles as you don't need controlled burst |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 16:56:00 -
[2006] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes? So in that respect I'm going to lose : 106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures. Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage? Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse?
There i fixed that quote for you.
Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf.
l2p? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:00:00 -
[2007] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse?
You mean that battleship dps at battleship range? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1340
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:01:00 -
[2008] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:100 pages of tears. Delicious. Lets face it, once they nerf the drake/tengu some other ship/ fleet combo is gonna take over and there's gonna be tears about that. Probably anoter battlecruiser to be honest. Duel ASB cyclone gangs maybe? Duel ASB Cyclone is amazing, but let's be honest here. That kind of micromanagement is far beyond the ability of your average block member.
I have no doubt there are all kinds of people theory crafting in hopes to find the new FOTM fleet ship that does everything and all the pilot has to do is press F1 to be effective. There are those screaming that the Drake is now worthless, but the fact is it will still be a solid ship. It just will require some higher piloting skill to achieve that.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Oreb Wing
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:03:00 -
[2009] - Quote
Excellent tea, sir. Quite so, quite so. Why yes! A small one please. Ah, even the biscuit is delicious! What? Oh, the pinky. I forgot. Quite often actually; I'd forget my implants if they weren't in my head! Oh, this is my clone. Not very much. The faction warfare discounts are handy and I'm still fairly new. I must say, this tea, it's so...balanced! |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:04:00 -
[2010] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:TriadSte wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes? So in that respect I'm going to lose : 106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures. Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage? Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? There i fixed that quote for you. Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf. l2p?
but if long range guns switch to short range ammo, does their DPS NOT exceed that of the drake? Can the drake change to HAM's mid fight? |
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:07:00 -
[2011] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:TriadSte wrote:Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? You mean that battleship dps at battleship range?
How do you figure BS DPS at BS Range....the Raven can hit for 728 dps @ 227 km....not quite understanding that statement... |
Rose Honey
Small Holdings Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:10:00 -
[2012] - Quote
TriadSte wrote: You are having a late April fools joke yes?
So in that respect I'm going to lose :
106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures.
Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage?
Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse?
Because Heavy Missile are a Long Range low DPS system that do too much dps and make Hams pointless. Because you can regain all the range and some by using a Tracking Computer. Because heavy missile drakes and tengus do too many things too well at once. Because they can Because 101 pages of easy bake drake/tengu l4 pilots ***** is funny reading.
FYI Ham Tengu can already get 39km range with Rage Missiles and the right rigs, doing 734dps with the right implants and T2 fit. 544dps and 65km with Javs. All this before the change which will only increase hams to stupid levels on a tengu.
So instead of bemoaning your loss of dps in Heavy Missiles. Just get yourself T2 Hams and carry on orbiting at 70km doing 544dps. or orbit at 28km and do 734.
Just incase someone asks. [Tengu, New Setup 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II*
Medium Shield Booster II 10MN Afterburner II Target Painter II EM Ward Amplifier II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer II
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Tengu Electronics - CPU Efficiency Gate Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
*Ranges given were before the TE change take effect. So add 30% range I guess. Not entirely sure how much you'll get but it'll be stupid no doubt.
Also Inb4 duel TC Mantis. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:12:00 -
[2013] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:TriadSte wrote:Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? You mean that battleship dps at battleship range? How do you figure BS DPS at BS Range....the Raven can hit for 728 dps @ 227 km....not quite understanding that statement...
Tengu does 760 dps at 110k. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:20:00 -
[2014] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:TriadSte wrote:Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? You mean that battleship dps at battleship range? How do you figure BS DPS at BS Range....the Raven can hit for 728 dps @ 227 km....not quite understanding that statement... Tengu does 760 dps at 110k.
it's still not BS range, and he was discussing the Drake, not the Tengu.....Tech 3's are a different subject all together...
Also, stop using officer BCS and +6 implants to skew the numbers.....it's 631 with tech II BCS... |
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:28:00 -
[2015] - Quote
I think the ONLY way this will work on say a Tengu is if the missile bonus was applied to all damage types not just Scourge.
Tengu is a T3 ship, therefore I think a nerf to missiles should not apply equally throughout all the different ship classes.
Tier 1 ship classes biggest nerf; T2 smaller nerf; T3 smallest nerf.
Simply because it is T3, the most advanced technology in the New Eden. They should be able to eek more performance out of anything because of the advanced nature of the ship.
Let me end on this, I got my previous figures on my previous post from my Tengu flying alt who has all lvl5 skills in everything missile related [including ass/heavy spec]
For anyone without all lvl5 skills, this nerfs going to hurt......alot and maybe drive players away from missile boats. |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:29:00 -
[2016] - Quote
Again, I say HMLs are not OP compared to other LR platforms. Close up, other LR platforms will all have similar performance to the HML with short range ammo. At long range there are other factors to consider. You can't just say 'HML does x damage at x range, other medium guns do y damage at y range thus HMLs are overpowered'
On an unbonused ship, using short range ammo, the stats are as follows.
Heavy Beam Laser - 37dps, 159 alpha 250mm Railgun - 34dps, 161 alpha Heavy Missile Launcher - 31dps, 264 alpha 720mm Artillery Cannon - 28dps, 424 alpha
Those numbers look fairly balanced to me. Ah you say - but HML can shoot to much further range than these guns with that dps, and at long range it will trump them completely.
Not true. The only time HMLs are really going to be used past 40k is in gang fights, and in gang fights there are logis and travel time. The travel time will negatively affect the dps, and makes the alpha much less significant due to the extra time logistics pilots have to prepare.
At medium-long range, HML will have the best dps - but it can be affected by other factors which other medium guns will not be.
Firewalling only affects missiles.
At that kind of range, assuming the guns are in their optimal ranges, the guns will not really be affected by tracking much. Missiles are always affected by radius/velocity.
Guns can use tracking computers and tracking enhancers to mitigate range/tracking issues. Missiles cannot do the same for their radius/velocity.
Guns apply instant dps or big instant alpha strikes in the case of artillery. Missiles do not do the same.
Guns can switch between long range and short range ammo, and at short range, a long range gun with short range ammo will trump the dps of a HML. A HML cannot switch to another type of missile to get more dps.
Having typed all of this out, I get the impression that CCP have already made their mind up and nothing is going to change, so I probably wasted my time anyway. |
Losvar
The Tuskers
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:33:00 -
[2017] - Quote
What are you planning to do with the Nighthawk? It's the weakest command ship in the game now, and this will make it even more useless. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:33:00 -
[2018] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Also, stop using officer BCS and +6 implants to skew the numbers.....it's 631 with tech II BCS...
715 dps with T2. 761 is with CN BCSs.
And no implants needed unless you want to use them. |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:35:00 -
[2019] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Try again, optimal + falloff is 50% damage. and do tell, how many ships are over 1625m/s that aren't frigates?
and 76k meters for a 720 with Tremor, try it and tell me how that works out for you.
Notice that I'm not talking about DPS at all, but about the range that long range weapons are viable. And at 75km, 625m/s is basically a BC or less w/ MWD.
And in this context, doesn't matter how much Alpha 720mm output - a HML ship will do 0 damage. If you want to bring DPS into this.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:36:00 -
[2020] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Also, stop using officer BCS and +6 implants to skew the numbers.....it's 631 with tech II BCS... 715 dps with T2. 761 is with CN BCSs. And no implants needed unless you want to use them.
Dude...I've got it up on EFT right now....let's see the fit....Obviously then you are rigging for damage and sacrificing a lot of tank |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:40:00 -
[2021] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Dude...I've got it up on EFT right now....let's see the fit....Obviously then you are rigging for damage and sacrificing a lot of tank
Are you using 4 BCS and Skource Fury? All level 5? |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:43:00 -
[2022] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Dude...I've got it up on EFT right now....let's see the fit....Obviously then you are rigging for damage and sacrificing a lot of tank Are you using 4 BCS and Skource Fury? All level 5?
4 BCS, 6 Launchers with Scourge Fury....added a tech 1 loading accel rig and warhead cat rig, and turned of include reload time...still only getting 686....EFT v 2.16... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:44:00 -
[2023] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:4 BCS, 6 Launchers with Scourge Fury....added a tech 1 loading accel rig and warhead cat rig, and turned of include reload time...still only getting 686....EFT v 2.16...
[Tengu, Tengu fit]
Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Medium Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Capacitor Safeguard I
Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
|
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:50:00 -
[2024] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:4 BCS, 6 Launchers with Scourge Fury....added a tech 1 loading accel rig and warhead cat rig, and turned of include reload time...still only getting 686....EFT v 2.16... [Tengu, Tengu fit] Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Medium Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Capacitor Safeguard I Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
Odd:
Just did this also, same EFT version I get 761 DPS 2739 volley. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1553
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:51:00 -
[2025] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:Again, I say HMLs are not OP compared to other LR platforms. Close up, other LR platforms will all have similar performance to the HML with short range ammo. At long range there are other factors to consider. You can't just say 'HML does x damage at x range, other medium guns do y damage at y range thus HMLs are overpowered'
On an unbonused ship, using short range ammo, the stats are as follows.
Heavy Beam Laser - 37dps, 159 alpha 250mm Railgun - 34dps, 161 alpha Heavy Missile Launcher - 31dps, 264 alpha 720mm Artillery Cannon - 28dps, 424 alpha
Those numbers look fairly balanced to me. Ah you say - but HML can shoot to much further range than these guns with that dps, and at long range it will trump them completely.
Not true. The only time HMLs are really going to be used past 40k is in gang fights, and in gang fights there are logis and travel time. The travel time will negatively affect the dps, and makes the alpha much less significant due to the extra time logistics pilots have to prepare.
At medium-long range, HML will have the best dps - but it can be affected by other factors which other medium guns will not be.
Firewalling only affects missiles.
At that kind of range, assuming the guns are in their optimal ranges, the guns will not really be affected by tracking much. Missiles are always affected by radius/velocity.
Guns can use tracking computers and tracking enhancers to mitigate range/tracking issues. Missiles cannot do the same for their radius/velocity.
Guns apply instant dps or big instant alpha strikes in the case of artillery. Missiles do not do the same.
Guns can switch between long range and short range ammo, and at short range, a long range gun with short range ammo will trump the dps of a HML. A HML cannot switch to another type of missile to get more dps. QFT. Seeing some people seems to deliberately skipped these facts and go straight to "hell yeah! nerf dem HMLs!!!" for some reason. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:52:00 -
[2026] - Quote
There i fixed that quote for you.
Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf.
l2p?[/quote]
^this^
However, if you use my proposed idea for exchanging the ranges of fury and precision missiles to be more in line with other weapon systems then you get this.....
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535
Yeah, I do keep posting this but only because CCP won't let me start a new thread with my idea...They locked the last one. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:53:00 -
[2027] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:4 BCS, 6 Launchers with Scourge Fury....added a tech 1 loading accel rig and warhead cat rig, and turned of include reload time...still only getting 686....EFT v 2.16... [Tengu, Tengu fit] Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Medium Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Capacitor Safeguard I Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
So reload time doesn't account for anything? Also, your cap lasts just under 3 minutes and you need a 5 cpu rig for it to work.... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:55:00 -
[2028] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: Duel ASB Cyclone is amazing, but let's be honest here. That kind of micromanagement is far beyond the ability of your average block member.
I have no doubt there are all kinds of people theory crafting in hopes to find the new FOTM fleet ship that does everything and all the pilot has to do is press F1 to be effective. There are those screaming that the Drake is now worthless, but the fact is it will still be a solid ship. It just will require some higher piloting skill to achieve that.
The drake would still be a decent ship after the missile nerfs, however, they haven't gotten to the drake nerfs yet eiher.
I'm pretty sure it's going to see a pretty substantial EHP nerf... |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:59:00 -
[2029] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Unit757 wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Unit757 wrote:So, even with the 20% nerf, these things are still well inline with other long ranged weapon systems. With a 20% damage nerf drakes will be doing much less dps than any other tier 2 bc. With a 25% range nerf it will have way less range than all other bcs in general. Yes, because 350ish DPS @ 50KM is "Way less" then any other long ranged BC. Use a HAM drake, it hits farther and harder then most other short ranged battlecruisers. Look at my balance suggestions in my quoted post above... It makes more sense with those changes, and no range or dps nerf would be required.
You are comparing the most common fits before the change. A FMP harbi with scorch hits about at 20 km. So compare the dps of a HAM drake with a FMP harbi or a 425 cane. Compare a HML drake to a beam harbi.
Even if you did, including the nerf, the drake still outranges the harbi (shooting aurora) and out dps aurora. On the other hand, multifrequency out dps HMLs at 15 km (in a heavy beam). |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
218
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:02:00 -
[2030] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: But the Drake and the Tengu are still limited to kinetic considering the damage bonuses they currently have.
Which is apparently changing and Caldari boats are getting rof/omni damage bonus instead of kinetic only.
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: Bigger Picture for skill training: While yes, it is quicker to get into T2 Heavies.....HOWEVER:
To take a raw toon with with no implants and no remap, it would take 367 days to get HM, HAM, Cruise and Torps to lvl 5 specialization and all the support skills...no love to Light Missiles and Torps
To take a raw toon with no implants and no remap, it would take 349 days to get PERFECT Gun specializations of both types for Lasers or Hybrids, less for Projectiles as you don't need controlled burst
Maybe let's try something more realistic.
In order to get good cruise/hm/assault/torp Caldari missile skills level 4 spec + support you need 98days on typical toon ( +3 implants and proper remap )
In order to get small/medium/large turret skills for one racial turret level 4 spec + support and 2xsupport on level 5 ( rank 2 ) which are prerequisites for large turret specs you need 89days on the same toon
You want to get into drake with T2 missiles? You can do it much faster than any other race could with their battlecruisers and T2 guns.
You want to get into Raven/Navy Scorp? You don't need any turret training and you only need basic drone training because you mostly relay on missiles and light drones. Gallente needs both turrets and drones training for all battleships. Minmatar needs turrets+missiles or turrets+missiles+drones or turrets+drones on their battleships. Amarr needs turrets+drones to use Geddon ( other battleships are less demanding in terms weapons but that is one exception )
In the end you need more skill training than just turrets to make those races effective while Caldari can do that with missiles and T2 light drones. |
|
Lili Lu
455
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:10:00 -
[2031] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote: Today assuming 3x dmg mod / 6-slot tanks: An HBL Harby will put out 460 dps @ 60 and then gradually lose dps up to 82km. An HML Drake will put out 490 dps @ 60 and then maintain 410 dps up to 84km. The Harby will also gradually raise it's dps at closer range up to 690 with Gleam. The Drake will raise it's dps down to 75km and stop around 550 dps with Fury. The Harby will have a 55k unboosted tank. The Drake will have a 65k unboosted tank, assuming the 6-slot / two midslot utility. The Drake have the ability to fill up it's utility with tank mods, but then outsource accuracy control (webs, painters). The Harby have the accuracy control inherent through it's ability to manipulate transversal and the range/tracking mods. The problem is that everyone, including CCP, look at the balance only from a large fleet projection-buffer perspective, and scenarios where larger groups can outsource layers of the necessary effects and buffers can be volleyed. That is the same reason they want to apply TD to Missiles without realising what it does to the accuracy-component in the context of them not having transversal modifiers. Think about what effective application of TD at smaller scales will do in combination with sig-tanking (AB) concepts to Missiles - which it won't do to Turrets. Think 100mn setups with TD. If CCP wanted to nerf the Drake, they should have adressed Tech I insurance and things like medium rigs on BC. Tearing up the entire pre-existing balance . . . Your actions have continuously fed the "Drake" as you have tried to nerf it. I hope it's different this time, but your shallow perspective haven't changed. I had hoped Fozzie would be a bit of a spaceship-jesus in that regard, but direction remain. Noisr, I'm going to have fun with this post.
First, wtb 9 low slot Harby (3 damage mods and 6 slot tank) and 7 mid slot Drake (6 shield tanking mods and a mwd).
Moving on, I looked at your dps numbers and laughed. You included drones. Sure lets have everyone wait for slow assed Hammerheads and Hobgoblins to plod out 60km on each ship. In the real world (of eve) they don't. You could throw drone damage onto close range dps I suppose but that would still not be a pure comparison of the weapon systems, just the two ships. Stripping your drone dps from the figures, while keeping your 3 damage mod fits (although I think 2 damage mods on beam harby and hml drake is more realistic) the dps at 70 km (assuming that Harby is fitting two TC to hit 70km optimal) the Harby's aurora dps is 305. The Drakes 70km dps is 445 with scourge fury.
I don't know out of where you pulled your "unboosted" tank figures (oh wait I think I know ) and you call them 6-slot (please sell me your 9 low slot Harby ). Regardless, losing 3 low slots leaves 3 low slots for tank on the Harby and fitting a 1600, mwd, and 7 heavy beams requires 2 acr and a pdu or 3 acr. Sadly you will struggle to break 50k ehp on tank. Meanwhile that Drake has 5 mids to devote to tank, if it wants and will be in the 80-100k ehp or more range depending on how many slot and rigs it wants to devote to tank. Btw the Harby will need a sensor booster so it can lock at 70+km. So yes both of these are fleet fits, but that is the nature of 70km BCs. Both ships need to outsource their tackle.
Which brings up your false assertion that everyone looks at balance only from a large fleet perspective. No. You keep claiming this but where is your support. It is not enough to declare you know what everyone else is thinking, prove it. Anyway, I'll throw in your drone dps on the close range dps figures. Yep, 690 for the gleam Harb, 550 for the Drake. Guess what the range of that 690 is on the Harby even with two TCs for optimal. It's 9.7km. That Harby hits 550 dps at less than 20km. And if we are to erroneously accept your argument that tracking is so easy for the beam Harby to overcome I'll switch those TCs to tracking scripts. Optimal now 7km and dps drops to Drakes at 13km.
"They want to apply TD to Missiles without realising what it does to the accuracy-component in the context of them not having transversal modifiers" what does that even mean? Of course missiles don't have transversal modifiers. They do have explosion radiuses and explosion speeds. That is what TDs, TEs, TCs are proposed to affect (in addition to flight time or speed). What don't you understand about CCPs proposed changes? None of us know the exact numbers yet.
Sig tanking and ABs? Ok, AHACs do this, and guess what effect it has on turret ships? Other than that I don't know what you are moaning about. I really don't foresee everyone putting ABs on their frigs and Cruisers for roams anywhere soon because missiles can be disrupted. Noone is so cavalier about getting tackled or loves to plod through a bubble (unless they have a fleet comp and logis - AHACs). The ab wouldn't work without the logis and boosts. As for 100mn (presumably tech IIIs you are talking about because I don't know of any other and you aren't seriously talking about 100mn ab BSs?) they **** off everyone already irrespective of turret or missile.
Simply put, there is no pre-existing balance. People have not been flying Drakes and Tengus in such numbers simply because of your fecetious "popularity" argument. Read Fozzie's comments https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942484#post1942484 Drake usage is due to advantages which leads to popularity. Popularity does not lead to usage. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:14:00 -
[2032] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Dude...I've got it up on EFT right now....let's see the fit....Obviously then you are rigging for damage and sacrificing a lot of tank Are you using 4 BCS and Skource Fury? All level 5?
My mission fit
highs 6 x hml II (or 6 x ham II)
mid 2 x dread guristas em ward field Gist B-type explosive deflection Field Pithum c-type medium shield booster PWNAGE - target painter
Low 4 x BCU II
Rigs 3x CCC I subs dissolution sequencer amplication node augmented capacitor reservoir Accelerated ejection Bay gravitationl capacitor
dps(all kinetic dps) - range rage - 840 @27.2 Javelin - 590 @ 45.6
Precision - 455 @ 63.3 Fury - 672 @ 113.9
(remember to knock off about 5km from range)
So, that's the stats and fit |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
44
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:16:00 -
[2033] - Quote
So are my missiles now going to get critical hits like turrets do? Perfect and well-aimed strikes?? Or should we keep ignoring those in looking at DPS for medium range weapon systems? |
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
109
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:16:00 -
[2034] - Quote
I also think its wise that we look into the non PVP book here.
To get half decent HML dmg you need 4 BCUs, that is alot of dmg mods for medicore damage. I think CCP are crazy to adjust this.
I am all for balance but I don't see why HMLs need nerfing. They're not crazy damage at all.
Im unsure as to why the Drake has not been looked at really. Those things have BS sized tanks but CCP instead wants to heavily nerf a weapon type thats not huge on DPS.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
115
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:20:00 -
[2035] - Quote
CCP stick with these nerfs the more people keep talking about DPS it just shows they have no concept of DPS at range as they think every other ship can have 400+ DPS out past 50K.
I am beginning to think the louder the cries the better this is for the game. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
463
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:25:00 -
[2036] - Quote
I'm just going to repeat it once more:
HMLs are long range weapons.
HMLs are clearly out of balance in regards to dps and range when compared to long range turrets.
The compensation for the travel time of missiles are generous fitting requirements that allow for a substantial tank.
As the engagement range decreases, so does the travel time of missiles. Yet the tanking ability of the HML ship doesn't decrease. This is why the long range turrets have the ability to switch to close range higher damage ammo.
Long range turrets get to pop frigates at long ranges, HMLs get to pop frigates at close ranges (Precision missiles are getting buffed).
|
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:27:00 -
[2037] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:So are my missiles now going to get critical hits like turrets do? Perfect and well-aimed strikes?? Or should we keep ignoring those in looking at DPS for medium range weapon systems? ^This and also a speed increase to missile boats make up for loss of engagement range (25%?) |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:28:00 -
[2038] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:I'm just going to repeat it once more:
HMLs are long range weapons.
HMLs are clearly out of balance in regards to dps and range when compared to long range turrets.
The compensation for the travel time of missiles are generous fitting requirements that allow for a substantial tank.
As the engagement range decreases, so does the travel time of missiles. Yet the tanking ability of the HML ship doesn't decrease. This is why the long range turrets have the ability to switch to close range higher damage ammo.
Long range turrets get to pop frigates at long ranges, HMLs get to pop frigates at close ranges (Precision missiles are getting buffed).
again, dps at range can be better balanced if they swap the ranged of all fury and precision guided missiles.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535 |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:29:00 -
[2039] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:So are my missiles now going to get critical hits like turrets do? Perfect and well-aimed strikes?? Or should we keep ignoring those in looking at DPS for medium range weapon systems? ^This and also a speed increase to missile boats make up for loss of engagement range (25%?)
and an extra mid slot for the drake so it can fit a wmd/afterburner like the rest of them |
Oleszka
Syntropia Of Avatara
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:33:00 -
[2040] - Quote
@Eckyy Yes some people quit becasue they was mad of this learning change and told this would be only the beginning of skill changes. The Hangar was not available some time, so you could see only the usless Captains john.
@Graviel Tarrant yes i do, but most of them are low qualitiy player and many of the new player are also alts.
i dont like the Tengu, but i like the Nighhawk! why in hell the Tengu is a better CommandShip than the Nighhawk? and why is the Tengu a "better" mission boat than ohter ships? thats not the fault of the missiles, its the fault of the Tengu!!!
Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders? We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.
sems to me you doing something wrong....i think you try to shoot every missile with one other? did you try to use a flare to guid more than one missiles to it with some change of success?
Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps? The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
The plan is bad, because lunchers and turrets becoming the same with only the differenc missiles need x time to hit the Target. The conclusion is, we dont neet missiles anymore... right?
Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
EvE-Movie, take a look and enjoy it PushMe |
|
Lord Ryan
True Xero
618
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:35:00 -
[2041] - Quote
Caldari the new Gallente. Well not really Gallente has good caps atleast.
I think we'll see a new trend in 2012. A 50/50 split for new pilots Amarr/Minmatar.
Now a know why there's been so many Tengu pilots on the market the last couple months. Got to get rid of them before the rest of us find out about the nerf.
BTW WTS Tengu alt. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:42:00 -
[2042] - Quote
Oleszka wrote:
i dont like the Tengu, but i like the Nighhawk! why in hell the Tengu is a better CommandShip than the Nighhawk? and why is the Tengu a "better" mission boat than ohter ships? thats not the fault of the missiles, its the fault of the Tengu!!!
NO!!!!
Sure, the tengu may be OP, but it being OP is not why it's a better mission boat than other missile boats.
I've flown every missile dedicated boat above a tengu in the caldari line and the only ones that were decent at missions were the scorpion navy issue and the golem, however, they both were still quite lack luster in many ways.
SNI because it had lack luster dps Golem because it took a lot of damage, short range, high isk/sp investment weak to ewar, and while the tank looked good on paper, the incoming dps was so much that it couldn't keep up. This is because if your target is within range of you to hit it, then you're within its optimal.
The tengu is not the best pve missile boat because it's OP, it's the best pve missile boat because the rest are under P. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
115
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:52:00 -
[2043] - Quote
CCP Please don't balance ships or weapons around LVL 4 PVE There are other ships you can use just because this ship is the best at it atm doesn't mean it isn't unbalanced. All this means is you don't want to lose your high ISK/H. You have time before winter train up HAMS and go run your LVL 4's no one is stopping you. |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:53:00 -
[2044] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote:Caldari the new Gallente. Well not really Gallente has good caps atleast.
I think we'll see a new trend in 2012. A 50/50 split for new pilots Amarr/Minmatar.
Now a know why there's been so many Tengu pilots on the market the last couple months. Got to get rid of them before the rest of us find out about the nerf.
BTW WTS Tengu alt.
Will be more after OGB nerf hits. Maybe I'd consider Amarr if they let particle beams do kinetic damage but firing projectile weapons in space that hit with instantaneous damage, that's pure fantasy. If damage hit at the end of the cycle maybe that would be less immersion breaking. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1344
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:55:00 -
[2045] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:Again, I say HMLs are not OP compared to other LR platforms. Close up, other LR platforms will all have similar performance to the HML with short range ammo. At long range there are other factors to consider. You can't just say 'HML does x damage at x range, other medium guns do y damage at y range thus HMLs are overpowered'
On an unbonused ship, using short range ammo, the stats are as follows.
Heavy Beam Laser - 37dps, 159 alpha 250mm Railgun - 34dps, 161 alpha Heavy Missile Launcher - 31dps, 264 alpha 720mm Artillery Cannon - 28dps, 424 alpha
Those numbers look fairly balanced to me. Ah you say - but HML can shoot to much further range than these guns with that dps, and at long range it will trump them completely.
Not true. The only time HMLs are really going to be used past 40k is in gang fights, and in gang fights there are logis and travel time. The travel time will negatively affect the dps, and makes the alpha much less significant due to the extra time logistics pilots have to prepare.
At medium-long range, HML will have the best dps - but it can be affected by other factors which other medium guns will not be.
Firewalling only affects missiles.
At that kind of range, assuming the guns are in their optimal ranges, the guns will not really be affected by tracking much. Missiles are always affected by radius/velocity.
Guns can use tracking computers and tracking enhancers to mitigate range/tracking issues. Missiles cannot do the same for their radius/velocity.
Guns apply instant dps or big instant alpha strikes in the case of artillery. Missiles do not do the same.
Guns can switch between long range and short range ammo, and at short range, a long range gun with short range ammo will trump the dps of a HML. A HML cannot switch to another type of missile to get more dps. QFT. Seeing some people seems to deliberately skipped these facts and go straight to "hell yeah! nerf dem HMLs!!!" for some reason. They are removing T2 high damage heavy missiles?!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 18:57:00 -
[2046] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:TriadSte wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes? So in that respect I'm going to lose : 106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures. Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage? Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? There i fixed that quote for you. Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf. l2p? but if long range guns switch to short range ammo, does their DPS NOT exceed that of the drake? Can the drake change to HAM's mid fight?
No.. HML's still out damage them with the exception of the beams with close range ammo..... And they dont' have to worry about tracking like the long range weapons do.
Stop being bad. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
66
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:01:00 -
[2047] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:TriadSte wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes? So in that respect I'm going to lose : 106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures. Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage? Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? There i fixed that quote for you. Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf. l2p? but if long range guns switch to short range ammo, does their DPS NOT exceed that of the drake? Can the drake change to HAM's mid fight? No.. HML's still out damage them with the exception of the beams with close range ammo..... And they dont' have to worry about tracking like the long range weapons do. Stop being bad.
Actually
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535
Look at thse comparisons.
And heavy missiles still need target painters for everything but battleships if not using rigors |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:04:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:TriadSte wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes? So in that respect I'm going to lose : 106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures. Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage? Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? There i fixed that quote for you. Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf. l2p? but if long range guns switch to short range ammo, does their DPS NOT exceed that of the drake? Can the drake change to HAM's mid fight? No.. HML's still out damage them with the exception of the beams with close range ammo..... And they dont' have to worry about tracking like the long range weapons do. Stop being bad. So there's a frigate somewhere that can outrun turret weapons?
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:05:00 -
[2049] - Quote
Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates..
And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships..
|
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation Liandri Covenant
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:06:00 -
[2050] - Quote
Something here that I see is glaringly obvious is the majority of pilots commenting here are EFT Warriors, who have either never used Missiles in PvP or when they have it has been in those ******** Null-Sec Blob Fights.
Just because a Missile "on-paper" says it is capable of X DPS, there is frankly F*** ALL chance you will EVER actually achieve that magical theoretical number that is being told to you unless you're hitting a Structure. The majority of the time you're happy if your missiles average around 70% what they are 'suppose' to be doing.
Using the Tengu as an example of how Heavy Missiles are over-powered is just frankly ridiculous. It is a Tech Level 3 Ship, it is SUPPOSE to be OP... even still I would like to point out, that for a Battleship; the Raven actually outputs a monumentally pathetic amount of Damage.
You compare the Raven (which 750dps btw is still low as a well fit Raven should be breaking 850-900dps) to any other Battleship, aside from the Scorpion (which fills the ECM role so it is fine for the pathetic damage) every other Battleship is capable of 1,000+ DPS within 30KM.
So the entire argument about Battleship Damage output from a Battlecruiser (which I will point out technically the Tengu is a Cruiser) is complete bull**** pulled from your rear ends.
If anything it actually goes to point out the more glaringly obvious issue that Heavy Missiles are currently one of the only VIABLE Missile Systems.
You wonder why no one uses HAMS? Well try looking at the Caldari Ships, they're ridiculously slow unless you strip them of ALL of their Defensive capabilities. Realistically right now with the range of HAMs (and considerably more CPU required which again Caldari ships don't exactly have in abundance) you're choice is extra Damage or extra Defense... as a Caldari ship without shield is a Dead Ship, frankly 90% of the time this isn't even a decision.
Right now CCP seem to want to strip Caldari ships of their Defensive Capabilities and Offensive Capabilities. Simply because those who fly Caldari tend to stick to a handful of ships, rather than Nerfing everything thinking "Well this should get them using more ships" ... perhaps it might be a better idea to find out WHY we stick to a handful of ships, given the entire damn galaxy seems to want to fly the ridiculously over-powered Projectile-based ships that can change their damage type at will and out-run our damn missiles or out-range out gunships.
HMM, I wonder why we choose ships designed to take a beating long enough to run back to a gate. Not saying that Missiles don't need to be rebalanced, but you can Nerf or Buff them all you want; it won't change the fact that Short-Range are simply gimped Long-Range systems.
To me these systems need to have different gameplay mechanics from each other with the Missile variations rather than being specific damage types; they should do multiple damage types and be RANGE & DAMAGE based. This should then be echoed with the T2 Damage / Precision variations... as it stands this isn't the case so T2 frankly comes down to Anti-Ship (your own size) or Anti-Ship (smaller than you) |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
66
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:07:00 -
[2051] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates.. And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships..
They might be able to hit frigs but they don't **** them.
As a matter of fact, get higher velocity than a missile and they can't even hit you. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1344
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:08:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:So are my missiles now going to get critical hits like turrets do? Perfect and well-aimed strikes?? Or should we keep ignoring those in looking at DPS for medium range weapon systems? As long as they get the 'completely misses' at short range too, I'm ok with it.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:10:00 -
[2053] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates.. And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships.. Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote: So there's a frigate somewhere that can outrun turret weapons?
rofl Don't you start being bad too... I can't help myself, got to make use of the last month or so on this account, main was Caldari all missiles and no guns :) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:10:00 -
[2054] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates.. And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships.. They might be able to hit frigs but they don't **** them. As a matter of fact, get higher velocity than a missile and they can't even hit you.
Try to fight a poddla drake with a frig and tell me how that works out for you.
And yes you could theoretically make some lol dramiel going at 7k m/s benny hilling around..
but thats not really a realistic scenario and not nearly as relevant as how easy it is to get under other long range guns. Again, BAD
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
66
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:11:00 -
[2055] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:So are my missiles now going to get critical hits like turrets do? Perfect and well-aimed strikes?? Or should we keep ignoring those in looking at DPS for medium range weapon systems? As long as they get the 'completely misses' at short range too, I'm ok with it.
They do, it's called "you hit target for 0 damage"
Just becaue the game said you hit the target doesn't make 0 damage a hit. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
66
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:13:00 -
[2056] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates.. And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships.. They might be able to hit frigs but they don't **** them. As a matter of fact, get higher velocity than a missile and they can't even hit you. Try to fight a poddla drake with a frig and tell me how that works out for you. And yes you could theoretically make some lol dramiel going at 7k m/s benny hilling around.. but thats not really a realistic scenario and not nearly as relevant as how easy it is to get under other long range guns. Again, BAD
Ever heard of inteceptor?
Oh, and outrunning the explosion velocity of missiles is a hell of a lot easier than out running the missile themselves.
|
Lili Lu
456
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:16:00 -
[2057] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:Again, I say HMLs are not OP compared to other LR platforms. Close up, other LR platforms will all have similar performance to the HML with short range ammo. At long range there are other factors to consider. You can't just say 'HML does x damage at x range, other medium guns do y damage at y range thus HMLs are overpowered'
On an unbonused ship, using short range ammo, the stats are as follows.
Heavy Beam Laser - 37dps, 159 alpha 250mm Railgun - 34dps, 161 alpha Heavy Missile Launcher - 31dps, 264 alpha 720mm Artillery Cannon - 28dps, 424 alpha
Those numbers look fairly balanced to me. Ah you say - but HML can shoot to much further range than these guns with that dps, and at long range it will trump them completely.
Not true. The only time HMLs are really going to be used past 40k is in gang fights, and in gang fights there are logis and travel time. The travel time will negatively affect the dps, and makes the alpha much less significant due to the extra time logistics pilots have to prepare.
At medium-long range, HML will have the best dps - but it can be affected by other factors which other medium guns will not be.
Firewalling only affects missiles.
At that kind of range, assuming the guns are in their optimal ranges, the guns will not really be affected by tracking much. Missiles are always affected by radius/velocity.
Guns can use tracking computers and tracking enhancers to mitigate range/tracking issues. Missiles cannot do the same for their radius/velocity.
Guns apply instant dps or big instant alpha strikes in the case of artillery. Missiles do not do the same.
Guns can switch between long range and short range ammo, and at short range, a long range gun with short range ammo will trump the dps of a HML. A HML cannot switch to another type of missile to get more dps. QFT. Seeing some people seems to deliberately skipped these facts and go straight to "hell yeah! nerf dem HMLs!!!" for some reason. Some poeple maybe don't want to expend effort to debunk the flaws in the quoted post. Oh well, here goes,
What point is it to compare weapons without ship bonuses for those weapons. They simply don't get fit without the ship bonuses. An all level 5 skilled character, for ease of comparison only since we all know most people usually train spec skills to 4, tech II high damage ammo, and no damage mods (just the guns man) can do the following with a 7 x HBL II Gleam Harby - 323 dps (7.5 optimal) (1395 volley) 7 x 250mm Rail II Javelin Brutix - 298 dps (9.0 optimal) (1406 volley) 6 x 720mm Arty II Quake Hurricane - 281 dps (7.5 optimal) (3177 volley) 7 x HML II Fury Drake - 271dps (75.9 optimal -> realistic 72km range) (2310 volley)
Notice the big diference the guns less than 10km (not 40km) and the missiles 70+km. You are comparing very short range performance against a weapon system built for range and it still is competitive. BUT, then plug in the long range tech II ammo and Harby 184 dps, 54 optimal, 787 volley Brutix 170 dps, 65 optimal, 804 volley Cane 161 dps, 54 optimal, 1815 volley Drake 271 dps, 70+ optimal, 2310 volley still
And yes most people fight in gangs, small or large, with tackle distributed. Drakes often are shooting past 40km in those situations. Regardless, the turret ships have to be within scram and web range to apply their slight dps advantage with short range ammo. The Drake wins at anything over about 10-12km well within a boosted point range at around 25-30km. The travel time at those distances will mean squat. If those turret ships are fitting an armor tank they won't be catching the Drake, and if shield fit it is flimsy and probably around half the Drake's tank.
Now some of this ignores the use of TEs or TCs but those things compete with damage mods, tackle, or tank and other things a short range ship needs to do it's job. But it was your example.
Firewalling is only really ever used in blobs. It is not always effective, and even when it is it's not like some manuvering can't get the missile stream around the wall. Firewalling was a suboptimal strategy bourne of the lack of a dedicated anti-missile ewar in the game. It will quite possibly be gone once TDs start affecting missiles as well as turrets.
And in case you missed it it is not only TDs that will have a missile effect it will also be TEs and TDs. Welcome to the wonderful world of ftting choices. A world that has been heretofore only inhabited by turret boats.
Instant damage does not matter unless you are in a mixed gang and seeking killmail glory. And even there look at the drone boat. He's waiting longer for his weapons to reach the target (and don't mention sentries for pvp with a straight face for anything other than gate or station camping). In a fleet action travel time doesn't matter for a missile fleet because the bubbles or Lach/Hugi combo are your tackle. Everyone's missiles will be traveling.
And notice the volley on the Drake at 70km v the Cane at 70km.
I think you need to get some experience with guns. I've got experience with both weapons. Do you? Training specs on 3 types of guns at all sizes and missiles at all sizes is a *****, but once you are there you notice these things. It gives you more of a perspective on the game than just oh boo hoo they're nerfing the weapon system I use. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:20:00 -
[2058] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates.. And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships.. They might be able to hit frigs but they don't **** them. As a matter of fact, get higher velocity than a missile and they can't even hit you. Try to fight a poddla drake with a frig and tell me how that works out for you. And yes you could theoretically make some lol dramiel going at 7k m/s benny hilling around.. but thats not really a realistic scenario and not nearly as relevant as how easy it is to get under other long range guns. Again, BAD Ever heard of inteceptor? Oh, and outrunning the explosion velocity of missiles is a hell of a lot easier than out running the missile themselves.
You mean to tell me a Drake won't be able to shoot a ship no other long range weapon would hit either? /o\ Oh noes! |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:21:00 -
[2059] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:7 x HBL II Gleam Harby - 323 dps (7.5 optimal) (1395 volley) 7 x 250mm Rail II Javelin Brutix - 298 dps (9.0 optimal) (1406 volley) 6 x 720mm Arty II Quake Hurricane - 281 dps (7.5 optimal) (3177 volley) 7 x HML II Fury Drake - 271dps (75.9 optimal -> realistic 72km range) (2310 volley)
This is why I made this suggestion
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535 |
Lili Lu
456
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:22:00 -
[2060] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote: I can't help myself, got to make use of the last month or so on this account, main was Caldari all missiles and no guns :) And there's your problem. And further, evidence of your disqualification to comment on balancing. |
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:22:00 -
[2061] - Quote
Nuff said |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:22:00 -
[2062] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
You mean to tell me a Drake won't be able to shoot a ship no other long range weapon would hit either? /o\ Oh noes!
Except a drake wouldn't be able to hit it with ham javelin or rage as well as hml rage or precision.
/o\ Oh yes!!! |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:26:00 -
[2063] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote: I can't help myself, got to make use of the last month or so on this account, main was Caldari all missiles and no guns :) And there's your problem. And further, evidence of your disqualification to comment on balancing. LOL, yes my wife will appreciate it. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:31:00 -
[2064] - Quote
Rose Honey wrote:TriadSte wrote: You are having a late April fools joke yes?
So in that respect I'm going to lose :
106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures.
Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage?
Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse?
Because Heavy Missile are a Long Range low DPS system that do too much dps and make Hams pointless. Because you can regain all the range and some by using a Tracking Computer. Because heavy missile drakes and tengus do too many things too well at once. Because they can Because 101 pages of easy bake drake/tengu l4 pilots ***** is funny reading. FYI Ham Tengu can already get 39km range with Rage Missiles and the right rigs, doing 734dps with the right implants and T2 fit. 544dps and 65km with Javs. All this before the change which will only increase hams to stupid levels on a tengu. So instead of bemoaning your loss of dps in Heavy Missiles. Just get yourself T2 Hams and carry on orbiting at 70km doing 544dps. or orbit at 28km and do 734. Just incase someone asks. [Tengu, New Setup 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II*
Medium Shield Booster II 10MN Afterburner II Target Painter II EM Ward Amplifier II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer II
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
*Ranges given were before the TE change take effect. So add 30% range I guess. Not entirely sure how much you'll get but it'll be stupid no doubt. Also Inb4 duel TC Mantis.
Interesting.. Except plugging that into EFT and you get a range of 65.6k so orbiting at 70 will not hit a damn thing. Also your DPS is 458 not 544 like you said. It does go up to 650dps with rage at 39k. (still less than you claim) Oh and that's with an all 5 character.
Or are you saying that all the pilots should now have to spend another half a billion for the t2 rigs plus the new implants they will now need to be able to put out the DPS they used to before.. Cause in that case.. Feel free to send me the iskies. along with everyone else that's going to need them.
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:33:00 -
[2065] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:4 BCS, 6 Launchers with Scourge Fury....added a tech 1 loading accel rig and warhead cat rig, and turned of include reload time...still only getting 686....EFT v 2.16... [Tengu, Tengu fit] Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Medium Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Bay Loading Accelerator II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Capacitor Safeguard I Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Odd: Just did this also, same EFT version I get 761 DPS 2739 volley. Heat takes it upto 896 This is without implants...
ODD indeed.. My All level 5: gets 712dps but same volley.. |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:33:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
I think you need to get some experience with guns. I've got experience with both weapons. Do you? Training specs on 3 types of guns at all sizes and missiles at all sizes is a *****, but once you are there you notice these things. It gives you more of a perspective on the game than just oh boo hoo they're nerfing the weapon system I use.
But at range the effect of transversal is negligable, whereas as soon as your target moves it decreases the damage it takes from missiles. |
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:37:00 -
[2067] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I have no doubt there are all kinds of people theory crafting in hopes to find the new FOTM fleet ship that does everything and all the pilot has to do is press F1 to be effective. There are those screaming that the Drake is now worthless, but the fact is it will still be a solid ship. It just will require some higher piloting skill to achieve that. QFT. This is probably the single best summation of this entire thread. |
Glary Crazy
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:38:00 -
[2068] - Quote
"Hey guys, instead of buffing other ships to be in line with the two most flown ships, were going to nerf a weapon system on one which will inadvertently effect all its cousin ship and beat the **** out of the powergrid on the other as making other hulls as viable as these two would make too much sense.
KKthx guys" - CCP, fixing some stuff, literally beating the **** out the other things. |
Rose Honey
Small Holdings Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:38:00 -
[2069] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Rose Honey wrote:TriadSte wrote: You are having a late April fools joke yes?
So in that respect I'm going to lose :
106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures.
Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage?
Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse?
Because Heavy Missile are a Long Range low DPS system that do too much dps and make Hams pointless. Because you can regain all the range and some by using a Tracking Computer. Because heavy missile drakes and tengus do too many things too well at once. Because they can Because 101 pages of easy bake drake/tengu l4 pilots ***** is funny reading. FYI Ham Tengu can already get 39km range with Rage Missiles and the right rigs, doing 734dps with the right implants and T2 fit. 544dps and 65km with Javs. All this before the change which will only increase hams to stupid levels on a tengu. So instead of bemoaning your loss of dps in Heavy Missiles. Just get yourself T2 Hams and carry on orbiting at 70km doing 544dps. or orbit at 28km and do 734. Just incase someone asks. [Tengu, New Setup 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II*
Medium Shield Booster II 10MN Afterburner II Target Painter II EM Ward Amplifier II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer II
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
*Ranges given were before the TE change take effect. So add 30% range I guess. Not entirely sure how much you'll get but it'll be stupid no doubt. Also Inb4 duel TC Mantis. Interesting.. Except plugging that into EFT and you get a range of 65.6k so orbiting at 70 will not hit a damn thing. Also your DPS is 458 not 544 like you said. It does go up to 650dps with rage at 39k. (still less than you claim) Oh and that's with an all 5 character. Or are you saying that all the pilots should now have to spend another half a billion for the t2 rigs plus the new implants they will now need to be able to put out the DPS they used to before.. Cause in that case.. Feel free to send me the iskies. along with everyone else that's going to need them.
Ranges are before TE will add more on, Pretty sure I said that not once, BUT TWICE. And T2 Rigs are cheap and as for plus 5 implants. I guess you've never heard of Fw cash out dumps and low ball buy orders being filled at 60% normal value. Thats okay, You get what you pay for. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:43:00 -
[2070] - Quote
Rose Honey wrote:
FYI Ham Tengu can already get 39km range with Rage Missiles and the right rigs, doing 734dps with the right implants and T2 fit. 544dps and 65km with Javs. All this before the change which will only increase hams to stupid levels on a tengu.
Ranges are before TE will add more on, Pretty sure I said that not once, BUT TWICE. And T2 Rigs are cheap and as for plus 5 implants. I guess you've never heard of Fw cash out dumps and low ball buy orders being filled at 60% normal value. Thats okay, You get what you pay for.
The added range still doesn't explain your extra 100 DPS in both scenarios. Not to mention how many all level 5 characters are there..
|
|
Lili Lu
457
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:46:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Lili Lu wrote:
I think you need to get some experience with guns. I've got experience with both weapons. Do you? Training specs on 3 types of guns at all sizes and missiles at all sizes is a *****, but once you are there you notice these things. It gives you more of a perspective on the game than just oh boo hoo they're nerfing the weapon system I use.
But at range the effect of transversal is negligable, whereas as soon as your target moves it decreases the damage it takes from missiles. Vive la difference for that. But death to lack of forced fitting choices and ease with kiting
Btw, gave you your first like for your post about your wife's preference that you not post Will you remember your first like? Years from now |
Rose Honey
Small Holdings Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:47:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Rose Honey wrote:
FYI Ham Tengu can already get 39km range with Rage Missiles and the right rigs, doing 734dps with the right implants and T2 fit. 544dps and 65km with Javs. All this before the change which will only increase hams to stupid levels on a tengu.
Ranges are before TE will add more on, Pretty sure I said that not once, BUT TWICE. And T2 Rigs are cheap and as for plus 5 implants. I guess you've never heard of Fw cash out dumps and low ball buy orders being filled at 60% normal value. Thats okay, You get what you pay for.
The added range still doesn't explain your extra 100 DPS in both scenarios. Not to mention how many all level 5 characters are there..
Plus 5 Implants. Which if you don't wanna spend money on that's your choice. However given mission toon, why wouldn't you. Like a said, FW cashout days implant prices tank like ****.
Edit, my mission toons are all L5. Its the only thing they do. Why wouldn't they be. What else would I train on them? I mean really. |
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:49:00 -
[2073] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Sarah Schneider wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:Again, I say HMLs are not OP compared to other LR platforms. Close up, other LR platforms will all have similar performance to the HML with short range ammo. At long range there are other factors to consider. You can't just say 'HML does x damage at x range, other medium guns do y damage at y range thus HMLs are overpowered'
On an unbonused ship, using short range ammo, the stats are as follows.
Heavy Beam Laser - 37dps, 159 alpha 250mm Railgun - 34dps, 161 alpha Heavy Missile Launcher - 31dps, 264 alpha 720mm Artillery Cannon - 28dps, 424 alpha
Those numbers look fairly balanced to me. Ah you say - but HML can shoot to much further range than these guns with that dps, and at long range it will trump them completely.
Not true. The only time HMLs are really going to be used past 40k is in gang fights, and in gang fights there are logis and travel time. The travel time will negatively affect the dps, and makes the alpha much less significant due to the extra time logistics pilots have to prepare.
At medium-long range, HML will have the best dps - but it can be affected by other factors which other medium guns will not be.
Firewalling only affects missiles.
At that kind of range, assuming the guns are in their optimal ranges, the guns will not really be affected by tracking much. Missiles are always affected by radius/velocity.
Guns can use tracking computers and tracking enhancers to mitigate range/tracking issues. Missiles cannot do the same for their radius/velocity.
Guns apply instant dps or big instant alpha strikes in the case of artillery. Missiles do not do the same.
Guns can switch between long range and short range ammo, and at short range, a long range gun with short range ammo will trump the dps of a HML. A HML cannot switch to another type of missile to get more dps. QFT. Seeing some people seems to deliberately skipped these facts and go straight to "hell yeah! nerf dem HMLs!!!" for some reason. Some poeple maybe don't want to expend effort to debunk the flaws in the quoted post. Oh well, here goes, What point is it to compare weapons without ship bonuses for those weapons. They simply don't get fit without the ship bonuses. An all level 5 skilled character, for ease of comparison only since we all know most people usually train spec skills to 4, tech II high damage ammo, and no damage mods (just the guns man) can do the following with a 7 x HBL II Gleam Harby - 323 dps (7.5 optimal) (1395 volley) 7 x 250mm Rail II Javelin Brutix - 298 dps (9.0 optimal) (1406 volley) 6 x 720mm Arty II Quake Hurricane - 281 dps (7.5 optimal) (3177 volley) 7 x HML II Fury Drake - 271dps (75.9 optimal -> realistic 72km range) (2310 volley) Notice the big diference the guns less than 10km (not 40km) and the missiles 70+km. You are comparing very short range performance against a weapon system built for range and it still is competitive. BUT, then plug in the long range tech II ammo and Harby 184 dps, 54 optimal, 787 volley Brutix 170 dps, 65 optimal, 804 volley Cane 161 dps, 54 optimal, 1815 volley Drake 271 dps, 70+ optimal, 2310 volley still And yes most people fight in gangs, small or large, with tackle distributed. Drakes often are shooting past 40km in those situations. Regardless, the turret ships have to be within scram and web range to apply their slight dps advantage with short range ammo. The Drake wins at anything over about 10-12km well within a boosted point range at around 25-30km. The travel time at those distances will mean squat. If those turret ships are fitting an armor tank they won't be catching the Drake, and if shield fit it is flimsy and probably around half the Drake's tank. Now some of this ignores the use of TEs or TCs but those things compete with damage mods, tackle, or tank and other things a short range ship needs to do it's job. But it was your example. Firewalling is only really ever used in blobs. It is not always effective, and even when it is it's not like some manuvering can't get the missile stream around the wall. Firewalling was a suboptimal strategy bourne of the lack of a dedicated anti-missile ewar in the game. It will quite possibly be gone once TDs start affecting missiles as well as turrets. And in case you missed it it is not only TDs that will have a missile effect it will also be TEs and TCs. Welcome to the wonderful world of ftting choices. A world that has been heretofore only inhabited by turret boats. Instant damage does not matter unless you are in a mixed gang and seeking killmail glory. And even there look at the drone boat. He's waiting longer for his weapons to reach the target (and don't mention sentries for pvp with a straight face for anything other than gate or station camping). In a fleet action travel time doesn't matter for a missile fleet because the bubbles or Lach/Hugi combo are your tackle. Everyone's missiles will be traveling. And notice the volley on the Drake at 70km v the Cane at 70km. I think you need to get some experience with guns. I've got experience with both weapons. Do you? Training specs on 3 types of guns at all sizes and missiles at all sizes is a *****, but once you are there you notice these things. It gives you more of a perspective on the game than just oh boo hoo they're nerfing the weapon system I use.
Yes. This. I will marry you!
|
GordonO
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:51:00 -
[2074] - Quote
Wonder if fozzie has read all these comments?? Hell i didn't but will add my 2 isk
Is the aim of CCP to make all ships and weapons systems equal? Why I ask is that long range missiles are being brought in line with long range turrets, would this mean missiles will become instant damage?? not fair that a frig will get instantly by a turret at 60km but has the ability to warp off when a missile is inbound?? Will my defenders start working to mitigate turret damage?? Will my projectiles now get a FOF capability Will my lazors get selectable damage ?? Was drone bay sizes and bandwidth even considered when nerfing missiles?? ie drake can't field 5 medium drones like a harbinger?? Will this be changed when Battle cruisers get their "balancing" ??
If you plan on balancing\making all weapon systems equal you need to go all in.... I personally like that they are all different and need a different method to counter.. ie TD not working on launchers but defenders doing OK if you choose to use them...
. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 19:52:00 -
[2075] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote: Yes. This. I will marry you!
Hey I was first |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:02:00 -
[2076] - Quote
Rose Honey wrote:Soko99 wrote:Rose Honey wrote:
FYI Ham Tengu can already get 39km range with Rage Missiles and the right rigs, doing 734dps with the right implants and T2 fit. 544dps and 65km with Javs. All this before the change which will only increase hams to stupid levels on a tengu.
Ranges are before TE will add more on, Pretty sure I said that not once, BUT TWICE. And T2 Rigs are cheap and as for plus 5 implants. I guess you've never heard of Fw cash out dumps and low ball buy orders being filled at 60% normal value. Thats okay, You get what you pay for.
The added range still doesn't explain your extra 100 DPS in both scenarios. Not to mention how many all level 5 characters are there.. Plus 5 Implants. Which if you don't wanna spend money on that's your choice. However given mission toon, why wouldn't you. Like a said, FW cashout days implant prices tank like ****. Edit, my mission toons are all L5. Its the only thing they do. Why wouldn't they be. What else would I train on them? I mean really.
Some of us don't live in HS.. so running around with +5 implants isn't a very smart thing to do in null, where if you're killed you're also pretty much guaranteed to be podded too.. |
Lili Lu
458
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:09:00 -
[2077] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Ark Anhammar wrote: Yes. This. I will marry you!
Hey I was first But do you want me for my thinking and writing or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU&noredirect=1
Could this is a reason for wanting more beyond the door? |
Rose Honey
Small Holdings Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:11:00 -
[2078] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Rose Honey wrote:Soko99 wrote:Rose Honey wrote:
FYI Ham Tengu can already get 39km range with Rage Missiles and the right rigs, doing 734dps with the right implants and T2 fit. 544dps and 65km with Javs. All this before the change which will only increase hams to stupid levels on a tengu.
Ranges are before TE will add more on, Pretty sure I said that not once, BUT TWICE. And T2 Rigs are cheap and as for plus 5 implants. I guess you've never heard of Fw cash out dumps and low ball buy orders being filled at 60% normal value. Thats okay, You get what you pay for.
The added range still doesn't explain your extra 100 DPS in both scenarios. Not to mention how many all level 5 characters are there.. Plus 5 Implants. Which if you don't wanna spend money on that's your choice. However given mission toon, why wouldn't you. Like a said, FW cashout days implant prices tank like ****. Edit, my mission toons are all L5. Its the only thing they do. Why wouldn't they be. What else would I train on them? I mean really. Some of us don't live in HS.. so running around with +5 implants isn't a very smart thing to do in null, where if you're killed you're also pretty much guaranteed to be podded too..
Can always pimp the lows to Faction, eve choices you always have them. I also happen to know of a number of people that often fly into Null and Live in null with a full set of plus 5s and slaves. That however is a personally choice they get for being stupidly isk rich. (No, they are not titan ratters just lazy about clone jumping before cta's)
Personally I always use a clean clone in null, but Given I was talking about L4s from the start. I assumed anyone replying would also be talking about L4s. High sec ones, cause well its were most of them are. |
Mograine Gastoves
Wir sind unwichtig Crematoria.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:17:00 -
[2079] - Quote
... die in fire, L4 PVE Tengu is useless now! |
Lili Lu
458
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:19:00 -
[2080] - Quote
I think this thread needs some more derail at this point, and since I'm gonna go in-game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMrN3Rh55uM&NR=1&feature=endscreen |
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:26:00 -
[2081] - Quote
Here is a more detailed long range fit comparison to demonstrate the concepts outlined earlier:
[Harbinger, beam] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Internal Force Field Array I Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Heavy Beam Laser II, Gleam M Heavy Beam Laser II, Gleam M Heavy Beam Laser II, Gleam M Heavy Beam Laser II, Gleam M Heavy Beam Laser II, Gleam M Heavy Beam Laser II, Gleam M Heavy Beam Laser II, Gleam M [empty high slot]
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
70km optimal (Aurora), 10k optimal (Gleam), 16km falloff 305 dps (Aurora), 534 dps (Gleam) 45k hitpoints Cap lasts 7m of shooting or 2m 28s of shooting+mwd
[Drake, long range] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
88k range 414 dps (CN Scourge), 462 dps (Fury) 85k hitpoints
Many people have claimed that I'm cherry picking data and accused me of not mentioning the fact that turrets can switch to higher damage ammo at close ranges. They claimed that when this is factored in, the Drake is at a significant disadvantage.According to them, this is what justifies the long range dominance of HMLs.
As you can see this is completely false. Drakes don't need to do higher dps at close ranges because in that scenario they lose the travel time disadvantage while retaining their massive tank. |
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:32:00 -
[2082] - Quote
CCP your not seeing right. Let me show u, realistic. I used EFT for cruiser, BC and BS with 2 damage mods (BC II, HS II,...) and max turrets or launcher as possible. All lvl 5 skils. Without drones.
omen --------------------------------------caracal 5 x Heavy beam t2 won't fit--------- 5xHM t2 PG: 1239 / 912,5 (135,8%) ------- PG:472,5/662,5 (71%) CPU: 198,75 / 312,5 (63%) --- CPU:206,25/437,5 (47%)
gleam: 7,5 + 10 ------------------- range: 113,9 dps: 362 ------------------------- dps:294 Volley: 953 ------------------------- volley: 1973
aurora: 54 + 10 dps: 207 Volley:544
Rupture ------------------------------------- Moa 4x720s t2--------------------------------------5x250s t2 PG:992/1075 (92,3%) ------------- PG:938/975 (96,2%) CPU: 156/406,25 (38,4%) -----------CPU: 217,5/450 (48,3%)
quake: 7,5+22 ------------------------------ javelin: 9+15 dps: 165 -------------------------------------- dps:257 Volley: 1447 ------------------------------------ hit:961
tremor: 54+22 ------------------------ spike: 97+15 dps: 288 ---------------------------------dps:147 volley: 2532 -------------------------------volley: 549
Harbinger -------------------------------- Drake 7 x heavy beam t2 ----------------------7xHM t2 PG:1734,5/1875 (92,5%) --------PG:663,5/1062,5 (62,4%) CPU:254,25/468,75 (54,2%) ---CPU:368,75/656,25 (56,2%)
gleam: 7,5+10 ------------------------ range: 75,9 dps:475 -------------------------------dps: 411 volley:1667 ---------------------------- volleyt: 2762
aurora: 54+10 dps: 271 volley: 953
hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox 6 x720s t2 -----------------------------------6x250s t2 PG:1487/1687,5 (88,1%) ------PG:1125,2/1343,75 (83,7%) CPU: 204/500 (40,8%) -------- CPU: 249/593,75 (41,9%)
Quake: 7,5+22 ------------------------ javelin: 14+15 dps: 432 --------------------------------dps:309 volley: 3798 ---------------------------volley:1153
Tremor: 54+22 ---------------------- spike: 97+15 dps: 247 --------------------------------- dps:176 volley: 2170 -------------------------------volleyt:659
Now let us assume that the large ships are in good balance.
abaddon ---------------------------- raven 7xtachyon beam t2 won't fit ------6x cruise t2 PG:29700/26250 (113%) ----PG:7092,2/11875 (59,7%) CPU:438/700 (62,6%) ------ CPU:377/875 (43,1%)
gleam: 17+25 ------------ range: 227,8 dps: 781 --------------------------- dps:512 volley: 5717 --------------------volley: 3788
aurora: 119+25 dps: 446 volley: 3267
maelstrom -----------------------------------rokh 8x1400s t2 ------------------------------------8x450s t2 PG:25742/26250 (98,1%) --------PG:16634/18750 (88,8%) CPU: 342/800 (42,8%)------------CPU: 504/904 (51,7%)
quake: 15+44-------------------------- javelin: 27+30 dps: 615 ---------------------------------- dps: 549 volley: 10847 -------------------------volley: 3074
tremor: 108+44 ---------------------- spike: 194+30 dps: 351 ----------------------------- dps:314 volley: 6198 ------------------------ volley:1757
1- HM and cruise are to easy on PG 60% x 90 %. With that balanced drake will have to reduce the tank. 2- HM have the highest volley but ok dps. Reduce de volley and speed up the round. DPS 390~410 is balanced. 3- Use HM as Cruise. Lower the speed of the missile and add flight time, keep the range. The delay will enable reps before the volley. 4- Heavy beam sucks. That really need some love, please. 5- Ferox need one more turret bay.
With hard cold fact it is easy to see the RIGHT CHANGE.
About TD, please if you are treating missile as gunnery do it fully. Mods that boost range, sig ex and sig res (as tracking). It is hard to counter TD in missile with rigs (and just the range). |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
221
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:36:00 -
[2083] - Quote
I think I'll go with the latter for now |
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:38:00 -
[2084] - Quote
Wpolo wrote:CCP your not seeing right. Let me show u, realistic. I used EFT for cruiser, BC and BS with 2 damage mods (BC II, HS II,...) and max turrets or launcher as possible. All lvl 5 skils. Without drones.
omen --------------------------------------caracal 5 x Heavy beam t2 won't fit--------- 5xHM t2 PG: 1239 / 912,5 (135,8%) ------- PG:472,5/662,5 (71%) CPU: 198,75 / 312,5 (63%) --- CPU:206,25/437,5 (47%)
gleam: 7,5 + 10 ------------------- range: 113,9 dps: 362 ------------------------- dps:294 Volley: 953 ------------------------- volley: 1973
aurora: 54 + 10 dps: 207 Volley:544
Rupture ------------------------------------- Moa 4x720s t2--------------------------------------5x250s t2 PG:992/1075 (92,3%) ------------- PG:938/975 (96,2%) CPU: 156/406,25 (38,4%) -----------CPU: 217,5/450 (48,3%)
quake: 7,5+22 ------------------------------ javelin: 9+15 dps: 165 -------------------------------------- dps:257 Volley: 1447 ------------------------------------ hit:961
tremor: 54+22 ------------------------ spike: 97+15 dps: 288 ---------------------------------dps:147 volley: 2532 -------------------------------volley: 549
Harbinger -------------------------------- Drake 7 x heavy beam t2 ----------------------7xHM t2 PG:1734,5/1875 (92,5%) --------PG:663,5/1062,5 (62,4%) CPU:254,25/468,75 (54,2%) ---CPU:368,75/656,25 (56,2%)
gleam: 7,5+10 ------------------------ range: 75,9 dps:475 -------------------------------dps: 411 volley:1667 ---------------------------- volleyt: 2762
aurora: 54+10 dps: 271 volley: 953
hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox 6 x720s t2 -----------------------------------6x250s t2 PG:1487/1687,5 (88,1%) ------PG:1125,2/1343,75 (83,7%) CPU: 204/500 (40,8%) -------- CPU: 249/593,75 (41,9%)
Quake: 7,5+22 ------------------------ javelin: 14+15 dps: 432 --------------------------------dps:309 volley: 3798 ---------------------------volley:1153
Tremor: 54+22 ---------------------- spike: 97+15 dps: 247 --------------------------------- dps:176 volley: 2170 -------------------------------volleyt:659
Now let us assume that the large ships are in good balance.
abaddon ---------------------------- raven 7xtachyon beam t2 won't fit ------6x cruise t2 PG:29700/26250 (113%) ----PG:7092,2/11875 (59,7%) CPU:438/700 (62,6%) ------ CPU:377/875 (43,1%)
gleam: 17+25 ------------ range: 227,8 dps: 781 --------------------------- dps:512 volley: 5717 --------------------volley: 3788
aurora: 119+25 dps: 446 volley: 3267
maelstrom -----------------------------------rokh 8x1400s t2 ------------------------------------8x450s t2 PG:25742/26250 (98,1%) --------PG:16634/18750 (88,8%) CPU: 342/800 (42,8%)------------CPU: 504/904 (51,7%)
quake: 15+44-------------------------- javelin: 27+30 dps: 615 ---------------------------------- dps: 549 volley: 10847 -------------------------volley: 3074
tremor: 108+44 ---------------------- spike: 194+30 dps: 351 ----------------------------- dps:314 volley: 6198 ------------------------ volley:1757
1- HM and cruise are to easy on PG 60% x 90 %. With that balanced drake will have to reduce the tank. 2- HM have the highest volley but ok dps. Reduce de volley and speed up the round. DPS 390~410 is balanced. 3- Use HM as Cruise. Lower the speed of the missile and add flight time, keep the range. The delay will enable reps before the volley. 4- Heavy beam sucks. That really need some love, please. 5- Ferox need one more turret bay. 6- HM disntace are in balance (acording with the large weapons). Don't change.
With hard cold fact it is easy to see the RIGHT CHANGE.
About TD, please if you are treating missile as gunnery do it fully. Mods that boost range, sig ex and sig res (as tracking). It is hard to counter TD in missile with rigs (and just the range).
Just making visible on the next page |
Shrrrg
Friends Of Harassment
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:41:00 -
[2085] - Quote
Wpolo wrote:[...] 1- HM and cruise are to easy on PG 60% x 90 %. With that balanced drake will have to reduce the tank. 2- HM have the highest volley but ok dps. Reduce de volley and speed up the round. DPS 390~410 is balanced. 3- Use HM as Cruise. Lower the speed of the missile and add flight time, keep the range. The delay will enable reps before the volley. 4- Heavy beam sucks. That really need some love, please. 5- Ferox need one more turret bay.
With hard cold fact it is easy to see the RIGHT CHANGE.
About TD, please if you are treating missile as gunnery do it fully. Mods that boost range, sig ex and sig res (as tracking). It is hard to counter TD in missile with rigs (and just the range). 1 Missiles cant downgrade a gun or something to make something fit. So if you make them harder to fit you are simple killing every cruiser and he has to take Hams(worse powergrid at the moment) or take frigsize missiles. I dont think that that is the goal of a Hm rebalance. 4 heavy beams can really use some love (and railguns and medium arties) 5 Ferox is okay. Ever flown a rr Ferox gang? It's fun and easy underestimated.
And have you read the end? if the TD is coming then the TE and TC will affect missile a sdirect counterparts |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:41:00 -
[2086] - Quote
Wpolo wrote:Wpolo wrote:CCP your not seeing right. Let me show u, realistic. I used EFT for cruiser, BC and BS with 2 damage mods (BC II, HS II,...) and max turrets or launcher as possible. All lvl 5 skils. Without drones.
omen --------------------------------------caracal 5 x Heavy beam t2 won't fit--------- 5xHM t2 PG: 1239 / 912,5 (135,8%) ------- PG:472,5/662,5 (71%) CPU: 198,75 / 312,5 (63%) --- CPU:206,25/437,5 (47%)
gleam: 7,5 + 10 ------------------- range: 113,9 dps: 362 ------------------------- dps:294 Volley: 953 ------------------------- volley: 1973
aurora: 54 + 10 dps: 207 Volley:544
Rupture ------------------------------------- Moa 4x720s t2--------------------------------------5x250s t2 PG:992/1075 (92,3%) ------------- PG:938/975 (96,2%) CPU: 156/406,25 (38,4%) -----------CPU: 217,5/450 (48,3%)
quake: 7,5+22 ------------------------------ javelin: 9+15 dps: 165 -------------------------------------- dps:257 Volley: 1447 ------------------------------------ hit:961
tremor: 54+22 ------------------------ spike: 97+15 dps: 288 ---------------------------------dps:147 volley: 2532 -------------------------------volley: 549
Harbinger -------------------------------- Drake 7 x heavy beam t2 ----------------------7xHM t2 PG:1734,5/1875 (92,5%) --------PG:663,5/1062,5 (62,4%) CPU:254,25/468,75 (54,2%) ---CPU:368,75/656,25 (56,2%)
gleam: 7,5+10 ------------------------ range: 75,9 dps:475 -------------------------------dps: 411 volley:1667 ---------------------------- volleyt: 2762
aurora: 54+10 dps: 271 volley: 953
hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox 6 x720s t2 -----------------------------------6x250s t2 PG:1487/1687,5 (88,1%) ------PG:1125,2/1343,75 (83,7%) CPU: 204/500 (40,8%) -------- CPU: 249/593,75 (41,9%)
Quake: 7,5+22 ------------------------ javelin: 14+15 dps: 432 --------------------------------dps:309 volley: 3798 ---------------------------volley:1153
Tremor: 54+22 ---------------------- spike: 97+15 dps: 247 --------------------------------- dps:176 volley: 2170 -------------------------------volleyt:659
Now let us assume that the large ships are in good balance.
abaddon ---------------------------- raven 7xtachyon beam t2 won't fit ------6x cruise t2 PG:29700/26250 (113%) ----PG:7092,2/11875 (59,7%) CPU:438/700 (62,6%) ------ CPU:377/875 (43,1%)
gleam: 17+25 ------------ range: 227,8 dps: 781 --------------------------- dps:512 volley: 5717 --------------------volley: 3788
aurora: 119+25 dps: 446 volley: 3267
maelstrom -----------------------------------rokh 8x1400s t2 ------------------------------------8x450s t2 PG:25742/26250 (98,1%) --------PG:16634/18750 (88,8%) CPU: 342/800 (42,8%)------------CPU: 504/904 (51,7%)
quake: 15+44-------------------------- javelin: 27+30 dps: 615 ---------------------------------- dps: 549 volley: 10847 -------------------------volley: 3074
tremor: 108+44 ---------------------- spike: 194+30 dps: 351 ----------------------------- dps:314 volley: 6198 ------------------------ volley:1757
1- HM and cruise are to easy on PG 60% x 90 %. With that balanced drake will have to reduce the tank. 2- HM have the highest volley but ok dps. Reduce de volley and speed up the round. DPS 390~410 is balanced. 3- Use HM as Cruise. Lower the speed of the missile and add flight time, keep the range. The delay will enable reps before the volley. 4- Heavy beam sucks. That really need some love, please. 5- Ferox need one more turret bay. 6- HM disntace are in balance (acording with the large weapons). Don't change.
With hard cold fact it is easy to see the RIGHT CHANGE.
About TD, please if you are treating missile as gunnery do it fully. Mods that boost range, sig ex and sig res (as tracking). It is hard to counter TD in missile with rigs (and just the range). Just making visible on the next page
Why bother? he clearly didn't read the op. i mean just look at his last sentance.
|
Luca Bound
The Dancer. A Point In Space
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:44:00 -
[2087] - Quote
I'm honest, I did not read most of this threadnout but what I read was ratehr interesting.
I'm am mostly suing missles but I think that tehse changes will be balancing HM quite good, though the 20% dmg reduce might be a little bit over the edge.
But what I would rather have implemented for missiles is a real explosion radius like a smartbomb has. I think that would make missles realy unike and would balance the new nerfs to them a little bit.
The explosion radius should/could be the same they allready have, though the system for it might have to be adapted a little bit as currently it's best to have a small explosion radius. With these changes that might be a bad thing. But on the other hand, taht coudl be a good moment to introduce some more missiles with different explosion radiuses, some for large AOE dmg and some more concentrated for single targets.
So what do you think ? |
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:47:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Wpolo wrote:Wpolo wrote:CCP your not seeing right. Let me show u, realistic. I used EFT for cruiser, BC and BS with 2 damage mods (BC II, HS II,...) and max turrets or launcher as possible. All lvl 5 skils. Without drones.
omen --------------------------------------caracal 5 x Heavy beam t2 won't fit--------- 5xHM t2 PG: 1239 / 912,5 (135,8%) ------- PG:472,5/662,5 (71%) CPU: 198,75 / 312,5 (63%) --- CPU:206,25/437,5 (47%)
gleam: 7,5 + 10 ------------------- range: 113,9 dps: 362 ------------------------- dps:294 Volley: 953 ------------------------- volley: 1973
aurora: 54 + 10 dps: 207 Volley:544
Rupture ------------------------------------- Moa 4x720s t2--------------------------------------5x250s t2 PG:992/1075 (92,3%) ------------- PG:938/975 (96,2%) CPU: 156/406,25 (38,4%) -----------CPU: 217,5/450 (48,3%)
quake: 7,5+22 ------------------------------ javelin: 9+15 dps: 165 -------------------------------------- dps:257 Volley: 1447 ------------------------------------ hit:961
tremor: 54+22 ------------------------ spike: 97+15 dps: 288 ---------------------------------dps:147 volley: 2532 -------------------------------volley: 549
Harbinger -------------------------------- Drake 7 x heavy beam t2 ----------------------7xHM t2 PG:1734,5/1875 (92,5%) --------PG:663,5/1062,5 (62,4%) CPU:254,25/468,75 (54,2%) ---CPU:368,75/656,25 (56,2%)
gleam: 7,5+10 ------------------------ range: 75,9 dps:475 -------------------------------dps: 411 volley:1667 ---------------------------- volleyt: 2762
aurora: 54+10 dps: 271 volley: 953
hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox 6 x720s t2 -----------------------------------6x250s t2 PG:1487/1687,5 (88,1%) ------PG:1125,2/1343,75 (83,7%) CPU: 204/500 (40,8%) -------- CPU: 249/593,75 (41,9%)
Quake: 7,5+22 ------------------------ javelin: 14+15 dps: 432 --------------------------------dps:309 volley: 3798 ---------------------------volley:1153
Tremor: 54+22 ---------------------- spike: 97+15 dps: 247 --------------------------------- dps:176 volley: 2170 -------------------------------volleyt:659
Now let us assume that the large ships are in good balance.
abaddon ---------------------------- raven 7xtachyon beam t2 won't fit ------6x cruise t2 PG:29700/26250 (113%) ----PG:7092,2/11875 (59,7%) CPU:438/700 (62,6%) ------ CPU:377/875 (43,1%)
gleam: 17+25 ------------ range: 227,8 dps: 781 --------------------------- dps:512 volley: 5717 --------------------volley: 3788
aurora: 119+25 dps: 446 volley: 3267
maelstrom -----------------------------------rokh 8x1400s t2 ------------------------------------8x450s t2 PG:25742/26250 (98,1%) --------PG:16634/18750 (88,8%) CPU: 342/800 (42,8%)------------CPU: 504/904 (51,7%)
quake: 15+44-------------------------- javelin: 27+30 dps: 615 ---------------------------------- dps: 549 volley: 10847 -------------------------volley: 3074
tremor: 108+44 ---------------------- spike: 194+30 dps: 351 ----------------------------- dps:314 volley: 6198 ------------------------ volley:1757
1- HM and cruise are to easy on PG 60% x 90 %. With that balanced drake will have to reduce the tank. 2- HM have the highest volley but ok dps. Reduce de volley and speed up the round. DPS 390~410 is balanced. 3- Use HM as Cruise. Lower the speed of the missile and add flight time, keep the range. The delay will enable reps before the volley. 4- Heavy beam sucks. That really need some love, please. 5- Ferox need one more turret bay. 6- HM disntace are in balance (acording with the large weapons). Don't change.
With hard cold fact it is easy to see the RIGHT CHANGE.
About TD, please if you are treating missile as gunnery do it fully. Mods that boost range, sig ex and sig res (as tracking). It is hard to counter TD in missile with rigs (and just the range). Just making visible on the next page Why bother? he clearly didn't read the op. i mean just look at his last sentance.
Now i readed. I missed this one last night....
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
221
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:47:00 -
[2089] - Quote
Wpolo wrote:...realistic....I used EFT
Wpolo wrote: hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox
Tier 1 vs Tier 2?
Wpolo wrote: 5- Ferox need one more turret bay. 6- HM disntace are in balance (acording with the large weapons). Don't change.
5 - no 6- comparing medium weapon with large weapon ?
Wpolo wrote: About TD, please if you are treating missile as gunnery do it fully. Mods that boost range, sig ex and sig res (as tracking). It is hard to counter TD in missile with rigs (and just the range).
Maybe read the OP before posting. |
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:49:00 -
[2090] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Wpolo wrote:...realistic....I used EFT Wpolo wrote: hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox
Tier 1 vs Tier 2? Wpolo wrote: 5- Ferox need one more turret bay. 6- HM disntace are in balance (acording with the large weapons). Don't change.
5 - no 6- comparing medium weapon with large weapon ? Wpolo wrote: About TD, please if you are treating missile as gunnery do it fully. Mods that boost range, sig ex and sig res (as tracking). It is hard to counter TD in missile with rigs (and just the range).
Maybe read the OP before posting. Not comparing. That is the only way of display that works.... read LR cruiser and so on |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
992
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 20:50:00 -
[2091] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
- The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?
I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
So if there is a move to nerf long range, are there plans to buff Caldari mobility so that they can operate at short-range?
Caldari ships tend to be the slowest and least agile, which is okay when you are a sniping platform, but not when you have to be in closer. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:12:00 -
[2092] - Quote
I would also like to suggest, I'm sure it already has been, that tracking disrupters affect NPC structures. Specifically the one that shoots the big badda boom missile that only a dedicated tank can bounce back from. That way you don't have to revamp/remove that complex.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:13:00 -
[2093] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
- The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?
I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
So if there is a move to nerf long range, are there plans to buff Caldari mobility so that they can operate at shorter ranges? Caldari ships tend to be the slowest and least agile, which is okay when you are a sniping platform, but not when you have to be in closer.
You don't have to, fit a TE |
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:15:00 -
[2094] - Quote
homogenization = bad
It ruined WoW it will ruin this game. You are dumbing the game down pure and simple. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1345
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:16:00 -
[2095] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Wpolo wrote: [quote=Wpolo] hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox
Tier 1 vs Tier 2? Taking the tier system out back and shooting it is part of the big plan. What will your argument be then?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Shrrrg
Friends Of Harassment
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:19:00 -
[2096] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Wpolo wrote: [quote=Wpolo] hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox
Tier 1 vs Tier 2? Taking the tier system out back and shooting it is part of the big plan. What will your argument be then? waiting for the rebalance of the ships and not for the rebalance of the weapons? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:21:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Boy am I going to be smug when we're still not going to see an increase in use of medium beams, arty, or rails.
Whatever logic apparently dictates to you that people will somehow magically start using these more is flawed. They're bad weapons systems and they need to be buffed. Part of the reason HMLs look so ******* amazing is, yes they're OP, but that's in combination with the fact that the medium LR turrets are just so terrible.
What needs to be done is this: A gentler nerf to HMs (same range nerf plus 5-10% damage reduction) plus a slight to moderate buff of medium LRs (say, increased ROF on all three plus decreased cap use on rails and beams to compensate). At the same time, switch the fitting requirements of HMs and HAMs. HAMs should be easier to fit than HMs. Also buff HAM explosion velocity and radius slightly. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:26:00 -
[2098] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Wpolo wrote: [quote=Wpolo] hurricane ---------------------------------- Ferox
Tier 1 vs Tier 2? Taking the tier system out back and shooting it is part of the big plan. What will your argument be then? Until those changes are made it's pointless to speculate as this argument may not even be worth making at that point |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:38:00 -
[2099] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:TriadSte wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes? So in that respect I'm going to lose : 106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures. Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage? Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? There i fixed that quote for you. Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf. l2p? but if long range guns switch to short range ammo, does their DPS NOT exceed that of the drake? Can the drake change to HAM's mid fight? No.. HML's still out damage them with the exception of the beams with close range ammo..... And they dont' have to worry about tracking like the long range weapons do. Stop being bad.
REALLY? You're telling me that med arty's DPS with Quake ammo on a Cane is lower than Scourge Fury on a Drake? Did you eat paint chips as a child? Live under powerlines? I know the game of eve attracts dishonest people incapable of telling the truth, but that is just ludicrous. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:39:00 -
[2100] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates.. And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships.. Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote: So there's a frigate somewhere that can outrun turret weapons?
rofl Don't you start being bad too...
You have to be the dumbest Eve player in the history of the game! Go Rat an elite frigate with a drake....and when you've fired off more volleys to kill that then it takes to kill a BS, then come back and say that. Another Caldari hater with no basis for their arguments. |
|
Asmodes Reynolds
Rayn Enterprises
77
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:41:00 -
[2101] - Quote
I came up, with half functional alternative to this missile Nerf, it is not perfect, nor did I expect it to be. Located here (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155484&find=unread) If you would like to participate in developing the please post, also if you like the idea please like it. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:41:00 -
[2102] - Quote
Rose Honey wrote:
Personally I always use a clean clone in null, but Given I was talking about L4s from the start. I assumed anyone replying would also be talking about L4s. High sec ones, cause well its were most of them are.
Makes sense.. except the nerf will not just effect HS missioning tengus.. |
Max Devious
EPSYLON FORCE AAA Citizens
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:42:00 -
[2103] - Quote
I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max. |
Cage Man
Evil Guinea Pigs
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:45:00 -
[2104] - Quote
Mograine Gastoves wrote:... die in fire, L4 PVE Tengu is useless now!
No its not.. just means an extra volley to kill things and can still hit out at over 90km with the right subs. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
318
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:52:00 -
[2105] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
- The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?
I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
So if there is a move to nerf long range, are there plans to buff Caldari mobility so that they can operate at shorter ranges? Caldari ships tend to be the slowest and least agile, which is okay when you are a sniping platform, but not when you have to be in closer. You don't have to, fit a TE
Which reduces the caldari mobility even more, since you are dropping nanofibers to fit it. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:52:00 -
[2106] - Quote
Link to OP : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155029
Because a lot of people here really need to read it before posting.
Infact, these changes are a BUFF to short range missiles, grace to TE/TC. TD will certainly become more common, but you can counter then with TC/TE, and with TP in some way, all modules much more useful in any situation than ECCM. Eventually, TD will be nerfed if they need to.
HML are nerfed, but they really needed to : they are currently better than cruise missiles ! They are better than any medium long range weapon and the drake even compete with close range brawlers ! And yet, with the TE/TC buff, dammage application will be greater : dps nerf, considering this, is not always 20%.
And I don't even talk about the insane T2 ammo buff missiles needed. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:56:00 -
[2107] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:TD will certainly become more common, but you can counter then with TC/TE Scripted TD overpowers TC/TE. Everyone and their uncle are going to start fitting TD.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Boy am I going to be smug when we're still not going to see an increase in use of medium beams, arty, or rails.
Whatever logic apparently dictates to you that people will somehow magically start using these more is flawed. They're bad weapons systems and they need to be buffed. Part of the reason HMLs look so ******* amazing is, yes they're OP, but that's in combination with the fact that the medium LR turrets are just so terrible.
What needs to be done is this: A gentler nerf to HMs (same range nerf plus 5-10% damage reduction) plus a slight to moderate buff of medium LRs (say, increased ROF on all three plus decreased cap use on rails and beams to compensate). At the same time, switch the fitting requirements of HMs and HAMs. HAMs should be easier to fit than HMs. Also buff HAM explosion velocity and radius slightly. For next page visibility.
I forgot to mention: split missile and turret disruption into two separate modules. Having one tracking disruptor work on both turrets and missiles is extremely overpowered. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
None ofthe Above
325
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 21:58:00 -
[2108] - Quote
MIrple wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:King Rothgar wrote:The HM nerf has been much needed for a long time. For all those crying over it, let's put this in perspective:
1) A Harbinger with Heavy beam laser II's using IN MF does 318 dps at 15km + 10km falloff (25km total).
2) A Hurricane with 720mm Howitzer II's using RF PP does 290 dps at 15km + 22km falloff (27km total).
3) A Brutix with 250mm railgun II's using CN antimatter does 302 dps at 18km + 15km falloff (28km total).
4) A drake with HML II's using CN scourge does 250 dps at 84.4km.
Now tell me which one of these isn't even remotely like the rest. All of these numbers are at lvl5 skills without any other mods/drones fitted and without implants. This is just the base damage on a typical damage/RoF bonused ship. Toss in the fitting requirements of these various mods and things skew more heavily in favor of HM's than they do in the above example. They are not supposed to be "like the rest", missiles are a very different system, with advantages and disadvantages over the other types. Assuming your numbers are correct (and they seem about right), lowest (and delayed) DPS for highest range and flexibility is what in most circles is called BALANCE. I could perhaps understand an adjustment, but this proposed heavy triple-nerf seems over the top and I hope gets reconsidered and toned down, before they "balance" away an entire class of ships into obsolescence. I understand what you are saying here but If you look at the caracal with the new rebalance of that ship and with the changes proposed to HM it works out very well. I think they need to try and push up balancing BC this round if they want this to go through as It will really hamstring the Drake until it can be properly balanced. Gypsio III wrote: Current dual-BCS Caracal: 263 DPS kinetic, 210 non-kinetic, with CN to 120 km, 8.4 km/s missiles. Future triple-BCS Caracal: 252 DPS all damage types with CN to 90 km, 9 km/s missiles. I'm glad to see the Caracal surviving the deserved HML Drake/Tengu nerf fine. See how this works out nicely with the changes. Thats the way to go!
Oh... yay.
Already anemic Caracal gets almost as much DPS by using one more damage mod.
...the Caldari are saved.
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:07:00 -
[2109] - Quote
People are still forgetting...it's not the DPS that draws everyone to these two ships....it's the fact that you can get a better tank....I know several pilots cross-trained and they all say the same thing....the DPS on the drake blows, but I can get a good tank out of it. Proteus pilots, especially, I've heard several times of just getting out by the skin of their teeth in lvl 4's because the tank mechanics are more difficult.
But let's disregard this....let's nerf the HM's...then they'll nerf the tanks on the tengu and the drake....then they'll finally fix the warfare link bonus on T3's so that T2 command ships are more beneficial again....
And then you won't see a single Tengu out there.... |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:10:00 -
[2110] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Link to OP : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155029Because a lot of people here really need to read it before posting. Infact, these changes are a BUFF to short range missiles, grace to TE/TC. TD will certainly become more common, but you can counter then with TC/TE, and with TP in some way, all modules much more useful in any situation than ECCM. Eventually, TD will be nerfed if they need to. HML are nerfed, but they really needed to : they are currently better than cruise missiles ! They are better than any medium long range weapon and the drake even compete with close range brawlers ! And yet, with the TE/TC buff, dammage application will be greater : dps nerf, considering this, is not always 20%. And I don't even talk about the insane T2 ammo buff missiles needed. PS : TC are MED slot, not competing with damage or speed modules but with tank modules for shield tankers. Think to this.
You can only call something a buff if it doesn't require you to give up things to be able to get the it. So youre choices will be give up the BCU's for the TEs or give up tank or mobility for TCs and the script. Not exactly helpful for caldari ships that are pretty slow. |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1346
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:11:00 -
[2111] - Quote
You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:12:00 -
[2112] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake.
ROFL. NIce troll.. |
Cage Man
Evil Guinea Pigs
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:13:00 -
[2113] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Link to OP : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155029Because a lot of people here really need to read it before posting. Infact, these changes are a BUFF to short range missiles, grace to TE/TC. TD will certainly become more common, but you can counter then with TC/TE, and with TP in some way, all modules much more useful in any situation than ECCM. Eventually, TD will be nerfed if they need to. HML are nerfed, but they really needed to : they are currently better than cruise missiles ! They are better than any medium long range weapon and the drake even compete with close range brawlers ! And yet, with the TE/TC buff, dammage application will be greater : dps nerf, considering this, is not always 20%. And I don't even talk about the insane T2 ammo buff missiles needed. PS : TC are MED slot, not competing with damage or speed modules but with tank modules for shield tankers. Think to this.
You comparing a medium weapon to a large weapon system, which clearly you haven't tried. Cruise missiles will pop BS MUCH faster than HML. The only time the HML is doing better than the cruise missile is for frigs and faster cruisers. But guess what... mega pulse have the same comparison to heavy pulses.. except of course if you hit the frig at range with a turret sip not matter what size it will POP.. missiles are not going to do that.. but that is a different discussion
|
None ofthe Above
325
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:15:00 -
[2114] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:People are still forgetting...it's not the DPS that draws everyone to these two ships....it's the fact that you can get a better tank....I know several pilots cross-trained and they all say the same thing....the DPS on the drake blows, but I can get a good tank out of it. Proteus pilots, especially, I've heard several times of just getting out by the skin of their teeth in lvl 4's because the tank mechanics are more difficult.
But let's disregard this....let's nerf the HM's...then they'll nerf the tanks on the tengu and the drake....then they'll finally fix the warfare link bonus on T3's so that T2 command ships are more beneficial again....
And then you won't see a single Tengu out there....
The DPS on the Drake is just barely good enough. I've rarely heard anyone brag about the DPS of a drake, and when I have it's in relationship to other Drakes.
With the tank, the range flexibility and copious mid-slots (although I always seem to want more) it balances out to a nice enough ship to use. Nerf the DPS and then I am not so sure. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
None ofthe Above
326
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:17:00 -
[2115] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake.
Show me on the Thorax where the Drake touched you...
EDIT: Its really more about the do SOMETHING Drake (and Tengu). One of the few Caldari ships worthy of respect. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
729
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:17:00 -
[2116] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake. "I've given up trying to argue substance. Nerf all the things!" http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:24:00 -
[2117] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:People are still forgetting...it's not the DPS that draws everyone to these two ships....it's the fact that you can get a better tank....I know several pilots cross-trained and they all say the same thing....the DPS on the drake blows, but I can get a good tank out of it. Proteus pilots, especially, I've heard several times of just getting out by the skin of their teeth in lvl 4's because the tank mechanics are more difficult.
But let's disregard this....let's nerf the HM's...then they'll nerf the tanks on the tengu and the drake....then they'll finally fix the warfare link bonus on T3's so that T2 command ships are more beneficial again....
And then you won't see a single Tengu out there.... The DPS on the Drake is just barely good enough. I've rarely heard anyone brag about the DPS of a drake, and when I have it's in relationship to other Drakes. With the tank, the range flexibility and copious mid-slots (although I always seem to want more), it balances out to a nice enough ship to use. Nerf the DPS and then I am not so sure.
Well, that was kind of my point....was tongue in cheek. I just don't understand the logic behind the nerf. Now if they do this, AND remove the close range/higher dps ammo from the long range guns....then fine. As well as remove the ability to firewall. Basically if they do this, they need to rework the entire mechanics of missiles to bring them in line with turrets. Add complete tracking to missiles, remove sig rad and speed drawbacks, make them instant damage, remove the ability to destroy missiles and add a fall off and i think we're good. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
370
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:25:00 -
[2118] - Quote
ergherhdfgh wrote:homogenization = bad
It ruined WoW it will ruin this game. You are dumbing the game down pure and simple. this. please CCP listen to this. i don't want to move to guild wars.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:26:00 -
[2119] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake. Show me on the Thorax where the Drake touched you... EDIT: Its really more about the do SOMETHING Drake (and Tengu). One of the few Caldari ships worthy of respect.
Ah, a faction fit SNI gets close...can't hit a frig to save your life, but if you have tech II drones, you do ok. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:29:00 -
[2120] - Quote
Cage Man wrote:You comparing a medium weapon to a large weapon system, which clearly you haven't tried. Cruise missiles will pop BS MUCH faster than HML. The only time the HML is doing better than the cruise missile is for frigs and faster cruisers. But guess what... mega pulse have the same comparison to heavy pulses.. except of course if you hit an immobile frig at range with a turret ship not matter what size it will POP.. missiles are not going to do that.. but that is a different discussion Corrected you. Even at 70km, 200m/s transverale is more than enough to make the large gun miss a non MWDing frigate. Tracking on large turret is that bad. But that's a whole different discussion, we agree on this.
For the medium turret though, you are partly wrong : medium LR turret will have a very hard time hitting a frigate inside point range, if they ever can.
PS : and the ones complaining about their only viable ship to be nerfed should really do some pvp outside of drake blob. Militia killboards are full of merlin, condors, hawks, hookbills and the likes, and I just flown with a caracal and 3 ECM ships today... And the tiericide is making all their ships amazing BTW. |
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
319
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:29:00 -
[2121] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:] Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates..
Lol wut. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:32:00 -
[2122] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:] Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates..
Lol wut.
Pretty much what I said lol |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:44:00 -
[2123] - Quote
Max Devious wrote:I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max.
Seems like a good thing tbh, whs are not meant to be solo paradises .... |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:47:00 -
[2124] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Max Devious wrote:I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max. Seems like a good thing tbh, whs are not meant to be solo paradises ....
It's not.. but just like you can run an L4 solo.. You should be able to run certain sites in a WH solo.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:48:00 -
[2125] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Doddy wrote:Max Devious wrote:I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max. Seems like a good thing tbh, whs are not meant to be solo paradises .... It's not.. but just like you can run an L4 solo.. You should be able to run certain sites in a WH solo.
WH sites aren't that profitable unless you run them solo....and even then it's iffy because it depends on the drops. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
750
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:54:00 -
[2126] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, some thoughts:
Cut HM's flight time from 14 to 12sec would probably be enough if in current ships rebalancing bonus will also affect this nonsense of HM's hitting stuff for 130km with right subs and skills. Take those speed bonus away and HM's will now with 12sec hit for about 70Km only with top skills and probably implant. This would bring it on line with other LR medium class weapon systems.
DPS on missiles, well this is a dam huge nerf stick on "THA" face if you add:
TD changes Flight time changes Ships bonus changes
Then you add a -25% dmg on missiles that clearly don't have the best alpha/dps and only work almost properly in very specific hulls. Think about trying a first step by reducing flight time and see what happens before changing dmg, it's just an opinion OC. This will not make players choose HAM's over HM's, HAM's are bad and only work on some hulls because either huge tank or huge ROF, they don't have enough alpha and a mediocre dps giving nasty smiles when looking at EFT numbers.
These changes announcement without a clear list of also ships changes using them has nasty effects. You have "OLOLOLZ BLOBZ WILL DIE": please create some wiki page to explain some people the "THING" will only be replaced by another "THING" but doesn't change anything about numbers game.
Changes to Hurricane, I rather look like this when I read those changes, this will not make Brutixes better because their LR weapon system is clearly awful and that awesome active armor bonus makes peanuts effect when you fit lows of MFS highs of T2 blasters to gank freighters and mining barges. -Will not make it a desirable ship in fleets -will not make it valid choice vs next "thing" (still canes and drakes imho) -will not get the "stacking" interest you WILL search for your cost/effective fleets/gangs other than gank freighters/barges -will probably make Harby more desirable but then armor speed penalties are so awesome :suicide:
Not sure where this is going but I'm about to think the next interesting "THING" will be cruisers. As it stands I'm not unhappy I've trained BC 5, unlocked Command ships but can't see a very good future for those too. brb |
Lili Lu
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:54:00 -
[2127] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Max Devious wrote:I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max. Seems like a good thing tbh, whs are not meant to be solo paradises .... Also tells you something is either wrong with the Tengu or the wormhole design or both. If only one ship allows you to run a pve site that is bad design. I don't like Tengus, but thanks for bringing up the wormholes. Because the AI is heavily selecting one type of ship and one weapon system. This surely can't be "intended," can it?
So while we're all focused on the ship and weapons systems CCP might also want to revisit that entire pve environment and think about how it could be made more open to other weapon systems and types of ships. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:54:00 -
[2128] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates.. And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships.. Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote: So there's a frigate somewhere that can outrun turret weapons?
rofl Don't you start being bad too... You have to be the dumbest Eve player in the history of the game! Go Rat an elite frigate with a drake....and when you've fired off more volleys to kill that then it takes to kill a BS, then come back and say that. Another Caldari hater with no basis for their arguments.
Then you try to rat an elite frig with med artys and come back and ask for the hmls back.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:59:00 -
[2129] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Uhm, HML drakes **** frigates.. And i'm pretty sure frigates are smaller than battleships.. Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote: So there's a frigate somewhere that can outrun turret weapons?
rofl Don't you start being bad too... You have to be the dumbest Eve player in the history of the game! Go Rat an elite frigate with a drake....and when you've fired off more volleys to kill that then it takes to kill a BS, then come back and say that. Another Caldari hater with no basis for their arguments. Then you try to rat an elite frig with med artys and come back and ask for the hmls back.
I've done both...they have about the same effect. my tech II light drones *with just enough training to fly them* will kill an elite frig faster than either of them. But with the projectiles, I can get lucky with a couple critical hits and take one out quickly....that doesn't happen with missiles
I've got an amarr, minnie and gallante pilot *trained into caldari as hybrids blow nuts* |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 22:59:00 -
[2130] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Doddy wrote:Max Devious wrote:I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max. Seems like a good thing tbh, whs are not meant to be solo paradises .... It's not.. but just like you can run an L4 solo.. You should be able to run certain sites in a WH solo.
You mean in C3 plus that ccp designed to be multiplayer like lvl 5s? cos C1 and C2 you sure don't need a tengu for.
|
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:09:00 -
[2131] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Doddy wrote:[quote=Terik Deatharbingr]
Then you try to rat an elite frig with med artys and come back and ask for the hmls back.
I've done both...they have about the same effect. my tech II light drones *with just enough training to fly them* will kill an elite frig faster than either of them. But with the projectiles, I can get lucky with a couple critical hits and take one out quickly....that doesn't happen with missiles
The missile will do damage constantly while the turrets will miss entirely. Unless you have terrible missile skills you will always be better off with the drip of damage than relying on getting lucky. Of course rats are dumb you can manage the transversal a bit, but if the rat(s) is webing you it won't have much effect. This helplessness is compensated for by the fact the turret ship will wtfpwn frigs closing much faster than the missile ship (who will only get a small bonus from the mwd bloom), transversal giveth, transversal taketh away.
|
Wpolo
Irmandade Vera Cruz Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:17:00 -
[2132] - Quote
The only thing good about a HAM drake is the tank/dps. Drake isnt fast or agile. Sig res isnt good. Now i see a nerf coming on a drake tank, so.... |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:20:00 -
[2133] - Quote
Wpolo wrote:The only thing good about a HAM drake is the tank/dps. Drake isnt fast or agile. Sig res isnt good. Now i see a nerf coming on a drake tank, so....
Its no less fast or agile than a armour buffered bc ......
|
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation Liandri Covenant
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:26:00 -
[2134] - Quote
Several more pages of EFT Warrioring with Damage Ammo used as a basis... wonder if anyone will actually start up EVE and use these weapon systems, ya know like most of us engaged in PvP tend to.
On the whole the Weapon Systems DO need to be sat down and rebalanced. The funny thing is if you just look at pure numbers, Heavy Missiles do seem a little inbalanced ... but the problem here is the mechanics of HOW the Missiles work is considerably different to Turrets.
I will make this clear now... TRACKING DISRUPTORS SHOULD NEVER AFFECT MISSILES. Don't put in some bull**** stop-gap measure because you can't get Defender Missiles working how you want them to, frankly they're a lost cause and the entire system should be completely replaced.
What should be in their place are Chaff and Flare Defensive Systems. Chaff should be used for UnGuided Missiles (Rocket, Assault, Torpedo) causing premature detonation. Flare should be used for Guided Missiles (Missile, Heavy, Cruise) to provide a temporary "alternative" target they lock on to.
In both cases they should be activated systems that have passive effects, rather than the ******** "Suicide Drone" effect Defender Missiles have.
I would also focus here on how they are intended to work... Sure the Assault Launchers were added specifically so Missiles also had a "Close" and "Long" range option like the Turrets, but look at how they work or rather how they're suppose to work.
To me each of the weapon Systems shouldn't really be defined by "Is this a Long-Range or Short-Range Weapon" but rather the Role they are intended to play / playstyle they cater to. I mean they should be more unqiuely defined and specialised.
As this is a thread for Missiles, I will quickly rundown how I think the Missiles should be handled.
UnGuided GÇó Rocket, Assault, Torpedo The Role of UnGuided Warheads should be primarily be to create a Firestorm, as such that is how they should work. This would mean that they would create Area-of-Effect Explosions that the more UnGuided Warheads used, the stronger it becomes; or they could be used in a more informal capacity a bit like an explosive machine gun.
Guided GÇó Missile, Heavy, Cruise The Role of Guided Warheads should be that of a well focused precision attack. As such they would rely heavily on their Alpha Strike ability, to do considerable amounts of damage in a single hit as opposed large numbers focused on a target.
In this sense both of these would then gain Tech 2 Payloads based upon their given roles. UnGuided would be Barrage (Hydra Multi-Warhead, Increased Size) and Bombardment (Hellfire Multi-Stage Warhead, Increased Size) Guided would be Fury (Heavy Payload, Reduced Flight Time) or Ballistic (Light Payload, Faster Speed)
The UnGuided might need a little explaination here, but basically their power comes from being able to put down as many rounds as possible on to a target. The Increased size of the Tech 2 would reduce the number you can load (and carry) before reloading, this is offset by the Hydra creating a larger AoE Explosion; while the Hellfire creates a quicker succession of warheads prior to the next round fired thus focusing the damage more.
I mean basically what it boils down to for the Tech 2 is Fury/Hydra are for a Larger Target(s), while Ballistic/Hellfire are for a Smaller Target.
The difference in the missile types, shouldn't be Damage either; but rather follow the same SKU that the Projectiles and Hybrids follow; where-by there are multiple warheads types that have Multi-Resist Damage Variations;
e.g. Mjolnir - GÇó 75 GÇó 05 GÇó 15 GÇó 05 - 35 GÇó 65 (EM GÇó TM GÇó KN GÇó EX - Armour GÇó Shield) Nova --- GÇó 05 GÇó 15 GÇó 05 GÇó 75 - 65 GÇó 35 Inferno - GÇó 05 GÇó 75 GÇó 05 GÇó 15 - 50 GÇó 50 Scourge GÇó 15 GÇó 05 GÇó 75 GÇó 05 - 50 GÇó 50
As a base they would have Damage and Range Balanced... then they would be Skued towards a 35% - 65% balance for either Damage or Range to create the 2 sets. Providing 8 Missiles in Total consisting of Short and Long Range variants.
This would allow UnGuided Short > Medium Range and Guided Medium > Long Range capabilities. Extending this focus on the ranges would be how they achieve their speed (i.e. the propulsion systems)
With UnGuided being designed with Fast Burning Microwarp Drives and Guided using Slow Burning Afterburners. While they would both achieve similar overall speeds (let's suggest around 4.5km/second) but their ability to reach their top speed would be considerably different.
Until a Missile reaches it's top speed the Explosion Velocity should be reduce accordingly (thus reducing the damage), in this way you could technically be "under the guns" of Long-Range Missiles. |
Frac Tal
FOXH0UND Outer Heaven
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:28:00 -
[2135] - Quote
I don't usually post, so don't expect a reply, but I just had to comment....
CCP Fozzie wrote:
missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players..
Excuse me while I indulge in an enjoyable recollection of past events when Tomb was a dev an when I was a new player.
"The Heavy Launcher: also shoots faster than before, increasing the DPS against cruisers / battleships from currently on Tranquility. Heavy Missiles: Like all other guided missiles they have maximum velocity, are able to cross long distances in xl-greatly shortened time, significantly increased range and very high velocity is needed to affect their damage - the reason for all guided missiles to have the same velocity is because the velocity of the missiles are not considered a factor for being able of catching a ship or not, they all have to cross long distances and need the highest possible velocity.
# The DPS for Heavy Missiles against cruisers has been increased with Launcher improvements (listed below), but only deal average damage to frigates.
# Velocity has been increased from 1600m/s to 3750m/s base, capable of 5625m/s with skills and 8438m/s with a single ship bonus.
# Distance that these can cross has been increased by a big number, capable of 84km with skills and 127km with a single velocity or flight time ship bonus.
# Increased missile velocity - this is to make them more friendly & feared at long distanced combat engagements
# Increasing the missile skill group advancement - players that want to become ultra violent with missiles will be able to get skills to improve their missiles in various ways.
# Missile Navigation - Increased missile velocity.
# Warhead Upgrades - Increased missile damage"
Forgive me Fozzie dear boy but I for one is tired and bored of missile changes/nurfs with pinky extended whilst sipping Quafe may I add, but credit where credit is due though... the graphic improvements to missiles is a no brainer over the tactical display for new players to look at.
Missile Nurf: http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=197955&page=1#3 Missile Nurf: http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=920962 And now Fozzie's Winter (seasonal now?) Missile Nurf/Balance as previously mensioned quite a few pages back.
To me it's seems quite simple, there are those that wish to PVE and those that PVP that are old and new, the balancing always has been lead (scuse the pun and spelling mistake intended) to shutting up the PVP moaners and hence balancing.
Your the game developers, **** missiles as you wish but perhaps provide a module for PVE players that like to solo, unless there is a financial thing involved here in that players just might be making too much Isk and not paying real money for there gametime?
Now speaking of great ideas, that was a fantastic idea by some bright spark there at CCP to return the useless training skills learned that could be banked and used elsewhere, nice touch...
But unless I can get all my SP in missile skills banked and let me put them to into gunnery, i disappointingly with respect have to say to blow it up your ass with a potential 30% less DPS which should soften the blow.
|
Errand Girl
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:30:00 -
[2136] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
NOTES: 1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly 2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another. 3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits"
This.
HML DPS is already in the middle of close range/high damage ammo and long range/low damage ammo when compared against other medium LR weapons. Guns have the flexibility to switch between ammo types to control damage and range in a way that missiles do not. I think a nerf to HML makes sense, to bring their range to a midpoint as well. HML damage is clearly not radically high, it's their damage projection that's unbalanced. A 25-30% nerf of range alone would balance HMLs pretty well IMO. An argument could be made to nerf the damage slightly, by 5-10%. I'm not sure I agree it's necessary, but an argument could be made. 20% is clearly out of line based on the numbers that I see. Further balancing issues with the drake and tengu ships in particular should be handled on the ships, not to HMLs as a whole.
Fozzie, please share the numbers you used to determine that 20% is an appropriate HML damage nerf so that we can better understand your reasoning. Based on what I've seen and my experience as a Caldari pilot, I just don't see the rationale for such a large nerf.
Also, will you comment on the claim I've seen made several times that lag from HML spam in large sov blobs is causing performance issues and is a motivating factor in the HML nerf?
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:45:00 -
[2137] - Quote
Torpedoes have the same range as HAMs, increase the range of Torpedoes.
Oh and don't say that TE and TC will fix that problem because Large Blasters shouldn't have the same range as medium blasters.
Infact I think all unguided missiles should be looked at.
They have short range than guided long range missiles, yet they have worse "tracking".
Rigs and Guided Missile Precision(should be changed) skill does not affect Rockets, HAMs, or Torpedoes.
This makes short range missile inferior than guided missiles even within short range, due to poor effective dps.
A Heavy missile will do more applied dps to a cruiser than a Heavy Assault Missile does.
Heavy missile vs Heavy Assault:
Heavy missile: 125m exp radius 81ms exp velocity
Heavy Assault: 125m exp radius 101 exp velocity
You can see here that it may seem that Heavy Assault Missiles are better, but look at the results once we factor Guided Missile Precision:
Heavy Missile: 94m exp radius 81ms exp velocity
Heavy Assault: 125m exp radius 101 exp velocity
What do these numbers mean?
Heavy Missiles have a much lower exp radius that Heavy Assaults. In the missile damage formula, the Explosion Radius has a MUCH more significant affect on damage application compared to Explosion Velocity.
Missile Damage Formula:
Damage = D * MIN(1, Sr/Er, (Ev/V * Sr/Er)^(log(DRF) / log(5.5)) )
where D = base damage of the missile, Sr = signature radius of the target, Er = Explosion radius of the missile, Ev = Explosion Velocity of the missile, V = velocity of the target ship, DRF = damage reduction factor of the missile. MIN being a function that chooses the lower of two given vaules, and log being the natural logarithm of the given value.
TL:DR:
HAMs, Rockets, and Torpedoes should receive exp radius reduction from guided missile precision and rigs, in order to be better at close range applied dps than their long range variants.
Torpedoes need an increase in range, it has the same range as its medium range counterpart HAM's. |
Frac Tal
FOXH0UND Outer Heaven
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 23:49:00 -
[2138] - Quote
Errand Girl wrote:
Also, will you comment on the claim I've seen made several times that lag from HML spam in large sov blobs is causing performance issues and is a motivating factor in the HML nerf?
Bookmarked this and ears for the reply...
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:01:00 -
[2139] - Quote
Frac Tal wrote:Errand Girl wrote:
Also, will you comment on the claim I've seen made several times that lag from HML spam in large sov blobs is causing performance issues and is a motivating factor in the HML nerf?
Bookmarked this and ears for the reply...
+1
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:08:00 -
[2140] - Quote
I'll say it again...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947535#post1947535 |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1347
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:11:00 -
[2141] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake. "I've given up trying to argue substance. Nerf all the things!" When you provide some, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:22:00 -
[2142] - Quote
CCP need to either reduce exp radius of HAM's or allow GMP skill to affect all unguided missiles as well.
Because currently HAM's have shorter range than HML and worse "tracking" because there is no possible way to reduce its exp radius that guided missiles can.
Rigs that reduce exp radius and the skill the reduce exp radius do not apply to Unguided Missiles. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:25:00 -
[2143] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake. "I've given up trying to argue substance. Nerf all the things!" When you provide some, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
I personally don't care about the drake, I do howeve care about heavy missiles.
If they nerf range by 25% then the drake will have a max of 56km.
This sucks and without factoring missile acceleration.
It's 8km less than a harbinger, which is the shortest possible max range of the tier 2 bc's.
Now, with a 20% dps nerf as well, it will lose 52 dps without dps modules.
Honestly, if they just swapped the range of precision and fury missiles for all guided missiles then it would be much more balanced without any direct missile nerfs. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:25:00 -
[2144] - Quote
Speed: What can kite what ?
DPS: If you mean that there is only exactly 2 amo per gun type, ok. If the drake is still stuck with 2 amo but all others have choices. no. But i will add that you make more sense then CCP.
Range: Depends what can kite what. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
731
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:25:00 -
[2145] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake. "I've given up trying to argue substance. Nerf all the things!" When you provide some, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I have in several places, but you've conveniently ignored it. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
56
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:33:00 -
[2146] - Quote
Defender missiles currently don't work. Making TDs affect missiles makes TDs overpowered. So why not just take the mechanics from the TD and apply them to the Defender Missile system? Problem solved. Just make a new module for Defender missiles - either a midslot or a utility highslot (or hell, let it use both - that would be interesting). No cap, just uses ammo. Could even give some otherwise crappy shipclass a role bonus for them. |
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:36:00 -
[2147] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Why bother? he clearly didn't read the op. i mean just look at his last sentance. HE reposted it. As if anyone wanted to read through all that.
|
Kikusama
Kruxwaffe
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:42:00 -
[2148] - Quote
Now this is why CCP should NOT hire players as game designers.
This type of rebalancing - the HML one in particular - is obvious proof of incompetence at its finest.
Eagerly waiting for the inevitable CCP_Fozzie sackbat. Frigate balance - great. Cruiser balance - great. HML balance ideas?
Let me put it clearly why a HML nerf is bad: - there are only 2 overpowered ships - i.e. Drake and Tengu; - there are several other ships that sport HML and are mediocre to say the best at the moment (e.g. Nighthawk, Cerberus). They'll be a LOT worse after the HML nerf.
Easy fixes: - Drake nerf - off with the resist bonus, different damage bonus instead; - Tengu Accelerated Ejection Bay nerf; - leave HML alone, they're mediocre as they are now, the 2 above mentioned ships make them look overpowered.
Fit-cube-into-round-slot type of fixes that should be avoided: - leave TD/TC/TEs to GUNNERY only. Missiles should be affected by different modules, should anyone feel that is necessary.
Or just make everything the same. Falls in line with the recent (i.e. last 6-12 months) changes that seem to make the game as uniform as possible and as easy to understand without any real effort involved.
Kudos CCP, keep it up! |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:43:00 -
[2149] - Quote
Errand Girl wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Hurricane: 720mm 2 TEs, 2 Gyros
RF PP = 426 dps (19 + 36km total: 55km) instant alpha: 3744 Tremor 247dps (70+36km total: 106km) instant alpha: 2170
Harbinger: HB Laser II, 2 TE, 2 Heats Sinks IN MF = 468dps (19+16km total: 35km) instant alpha: 1664 Aurora = 271dps (70+16km) instant alpha: 953
Brutix: 250mm Rails, 2 MFS, 2 TEs CN Antimatter = 444 dps (23km + 25km, total: 48km) instant alpha: 1657 Spike = 257dps (84+25km total: 109km) instant alpha: 961
Drake: HMs, 2 BCU CN Scourge = 368 dps, 84km missile travel distance, Delayed Volley: 2474
NOTES: 1. The Drake damage is delayed while the others hit instantly 2. While the total maximum missile travel distance is theorestically 84km, this is NOT the range at which the missile will strike as it does not take into account either acceleration or the motions of the two ships relative to one another. 3. All damage numbers are ideal. HM damage is reduced by target size and velocity. Missiles are also incapable of "critical hits"
This. HML DPS is already in the middle of close range/high damage ammo and long range/low damage ammo when compared against other medium LR weapons. Guns have the flexibility to switch between ammo types to control damage and range in a way that missiles do not. I think a nerf to HML makes sense, to bring their range to a midpoint as well. HML damage is clearly not radically high, it's their damage projection that's unbalanced. A 25-30% nerf of range alone would balance HMLs pretty well IMO. An argument could be made to nerf the damage slightly, by 5-10%. I'm not sure I agree it's necessary, but an argument could be made. 20% is clearly out of line based on the numbers that I see. Further balancing issues with the drake and tengu ships in particular should be handled on the ships, not to HMLs as a whole. Fozzie, please share the numbers you used to determine that 20% is an appropriate HML damage nerf so that we can better understand your reasoning. Based on what I've seen and my experience as a Caldari pilot, I just don't see the rationale for such a large nerf. Also, will you comment on the claim I've seen made several times that lag from HML spam in large sov blobs is causing performance issues and is a motivating factor in the HML nerf?
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1347
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:45:00 -
[2150] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake. "I've given up trying to argue substance. Nerf all the things!" When you provide some, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I have in several places, but you've conveniently ignored it. And people have done the same for you and you ignored or danced around it. So you did it to yourself.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
Lili Lu
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:48:00 -
[2151] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: If they nerf range by 25% then the drake will have a max of 56km.
This sucks and without factoring missile acceleration.
It's 8km less than a harbinger, which is the shortest possible max range of the tier 2 bc's.
Now, with a 20% dps nerf as well, it will lose 52 dps without dps modules.
Honestly, if they just swapped the range of precision and fury missiles for all guided missiles then it would be much more balanced without any direct missile nerfs. Underlined the parts where you are wrong.
A Harbinger with heavy beams, all level 5 skills, and Aurora M has an optimal of 54 and a fallof of 10, not an optimal of 64. As for the range you state for heavy missiles I think you overstate the reduction. True a reduction on range if fury continues to have it's current stats would be 56.9km, but faction ammo (which does not have as much range or damage on a turret) will have a range of 63.3km. And, if you read the op the acceleration range penalty with missiles is being addressed with coding changes apparently.
Secondly, if you swapped the fury and precision ranges there would be no frigate or destroyer that would be safe. Currently those ships have a reason to fear turrets at range. But if they get close they can enjoy a light show because the turrets will not hit them at all. With missiles they can essentially shrug off HM damage unless they get close and the HM ship switches to precision (which will be getting a buff). If precision, especially a buffed precision, heavy missile had long range a frig would be never safe against a HML.
This picture is complex. People need to read more and slow down. In the end, the usage stats on Drakes and Tengus had to end. Noone was chosing these ships for aestetic reasons. They were and are getting used so much more than other ships because they are and have been better than the alternatives in their classes and even other classes of ships. Read this post again https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942484#post1942484 |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:50:00 -
[2152] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: HMLs are clearly out of balance in regards to dps and range when compared to long range turrets.
Disagree.
1) Missiles don't get critical hits..
2) Most of the mentions you're seeing of any ship that is producing more than 400 dps is based on filling its low slots with BCUs, which means shield tanking, which means few, if any, mid-slot utilities or EWAR.
3) Medium rails suck. They are a bad comparison and should be buffed.
4) Missiles are the only weapon platform capable of being firewalled and speed tanked in a direct line towards the firing ship (meaning it's much easier to close on a missile ship than a gunboat.... this is very valuable if you're option for blasters or autocannons).
5) Gun damage is immediate. There is no wasted dps that occurs such as when you have missiles that are still in flight and the target is destroyed.
There are so many practical aspects that people are ignoring when they robotically spit out the raw damage comparisons between missiles and guns.
I'm all for reducing the range of HMLs - I agree it's a little ridiculous that you can hit with HMLs out to 100k+. But the damage is fine. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:50:00 -
[2153] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Speed: What can kite what ? DPS: If you mean that there is only exactly 2 amo per gun type, ok. If the drake is still stuck with 2 amo but all others have choices. no. But i will add that you make more sense then CCP. Range: Depends what can kite what.
Like I've stated before, t1 and faction ammo would balanced around this structure as well.
So, it would be like looking at unguided missiles, on better range and less dps. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1347
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:53:00 -
[2154] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake. "I've given up trying to argue substance. Nerf all the things!" When you provide some, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I personally don't care about the drake, I do howeve care about heavy missiles. If they nerf range by 25% then the drake will have a max of 56km. This sucks and without factoring missile acceleration. It's 8km less than a harbinger, which is the shortest possible max range of the tier 2 bc's. Now, with a 20% dps nerf as well, it will lose 52 dps without dps modules. Honestly, if they just swapped the range of precision and fury missiles for all guided missiles then it would be much more balanced without any direct missile nerfs. Stop looking at just base stats alone and look at how the weapons are applied in game. I could say boasters are the way to go, but there is a reason we don't see the Brutix and Heavy Neutron Blasters in the top 20 most used ships and weapons isn't there? Looks good on paper, completely terrible in practice. There is simply far too many other things that get the job done better.
Just like people going on about base damage of a Drake being like 300 dps when everyone knows there will be at least two ballistic controls used on it pushing the dps to over 450 dps. It's like someone complaining about the dps of artillery when everyone knows artillery is all about the alpha damage.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
733
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:53:00 -
[2155] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake. "I've given up trying to argue substance. Nerf all the things!" When you provide some, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. I have in several places, but you've conveniently ignored it. And people have done the same for you and you ignored or danced around it. So you did it to yourself. You mean where I pointed out that nobody uses medium LR weapons, and when prompted on it nobody gives justification as to why they'll magically start doing so once HMs are nerfed?
Yeah, I do kind of ignore points that don't really address my questions. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Kikusama
Kruxwaffe
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:54:00 -
[2156] - Quote
By the way, I've seen mentioned power creep. Any plans for Ti3 BCs any time soon? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 00:59:00 -
[2157] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: but faction ammo (which does not have as much range or damage on a turret) will have a range of 63.3km. And, if you read the op the acceleration range penalty with missiles is being addressed with coding changes apparently.
So, you're telling to just use faction ammo? This is kinda a problem with guided missiles as is.
Now, with my suggested changes, this is fixed
Quote:Secondly, if you swapped the fury and precision ranges there would be no frigate or destroyer that would be safe.
A frig @ over 42 km away from a targetted drake, is essentially useless at attacking the drake anyway.
Now, when it comes to missiles, frigs a cruisers can use their sig and a prop mod to their advantage and speed tank them quite well.
Like I said, all you need to do is outrun the explosion velocity.
|
Lili Lu
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:01:00 -
[2158] - Quote
Kikusama wrote:By the way, I've seen mentioned power creep. Any plans for Ti3 BCs any time soon? Can't remember where it is, but yeah, the one of the devs stated they are reexamining tier 3 stats (mainly agility and fittings/tankability afaik) and ASBs. Lot is going on. After so many years of slumber it seems they are waking up to fixing in-game imbalances (even ones they recently introduced, like ASBs and angel ships). |
Sycotic Deninard
Polaris Breach Corp
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:06:00 -
[2159] - Quote
Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread knowing that it was going to be a hot topic. His mind is already made up and he will not be persuaded until he makes the changes he proposed. This will be the second and probably the final nerf to missiles as this will cause most people to come to the conclusion that the flight time and the applied damage to targets will be sub-par with this weapon system.
It is interesting to note that a lot of EVE users have trained into missiles and when this nerf does come to fruition, many will be frustrated with all the time they invested into that weapon system only to see it broken.
For those players that use missiles as thier only weapon system, they will have to sink another 2-3 months into another weapon platform and possibly longer to train into a different ship to be viable again. For that person, that 2-3 months will seem like an eternity and they just might say forget it, I'm done.
I've seen this behavior with game developers before with many MMO's that eventually lost its player base due to its inabilty to listen to its players or correct its changes fast enough. Sadly by the time the game company realizes it, its always too late as they will never get those players back. Ever. I foresee some fallout from this as we all know from history that once CCP goes through with its intended plan, it never goes back. Only time will tell how big or how much of an impact this will have. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1347
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:09:00 -
[2160] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yeah, I do kind of ignore points that don't really address my questions. You mean like medium artillery and medium beams? Seen those used on Cynabals, Hurricanes, Munnins and Zealots. Also know I have said mediums rails need serious love since the beginning of this thread and have been for years now.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
Lili Lu
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:11:00 -
[2161] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Lili Lu wrote: but faction ammo (which does not have as much range or damage on a turret) will have a range of 63.3km. And, if you read the op the acceleration range penalty with missiles is being addressed with coding changes apparently. So, you're telling to just use faction ammo? This is kinda a problem with guided missiles as is. You can do either that or fit TCs or TEs like turret ships have to to get more range. Btw, want to swap Caldari Navy Scourge for navy radio, iron, or nuclear ammos? You might want to swap for navy Multifreak, Antimatter, or Fusion, but then oh well no range. Faction ammo is a mixed bag for turrets. Faction ammo is pretty much always worth it with missiles.
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: A frig @ over 42 km away from a targetted drake, is essentially useless at attacking the drake anyway.
Now, when it comes to missiles, frigs a cruisers can use their sig and a prop mod to their advantage and speed tank them quite well.
Like I said, all you need to do is outrun the explosion velocity. What part of buff to precision are you not reading? But I suppose you want them to splat frigs in one volley at anty range. Sorry that's never going to happen. Missiles always hit. They will have to live with some damage reduction even after a buff. It is the exchange for not having tracking. It is a difference in the weapons that will be retained. We all have to decide on which to use from the tradeoffs. |
Lili Lu
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:15:00 -
[2162] - Quote
Sycotic Deninard wrote:Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread knowing that it was going to be a hot topic. His mind is already made up and he will not be persuaded until he makes the changes he proposed. This will be the second and probably the final nerf to missiles as this will cause most people to come to the conclusion that the flight time and the applied damage to targets will be sub-par with this weapon system.
It is interesting to note that a lot of EVE users have trained into missiles and when this nerf does come to fruition, many will be frustrated with all the time they invested into that weapon system only to see it broken.
For those players that use missiles as thier only weapon system, they will have to sink another 2-3 months into another weapon platform and possibly longer to train into a different ship to be viable again. For that person, that 2-3 months will seem like an eternity and they just might say forget it, I'm done.
I've seen this behavior with game developers before with many MMO's that eventually lost its player base due to its inabilty to listen to its players or correct its changes fast enough. Sadly by the time the game company realizes it, its always too late as they will never get those players back. Ever. I foresee some fallout from this as we all know from history that once CCP goes through with its intended plan, it never goes back. Only time will tell how big or how much of an impact this will have. What a cynical load of crying crap and rumor mongering. You don't know anything of the kind. Fozzie is new at CCP and doing a lot of responding on the forums, and keeping what appear to be long hours as well <3
And you are overstating the effects that the nerf at whatever percentages it ends up at will have. You simply don't know that these changes will make HMLs worthless.
So you should stfu before you get banned. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:18:00 -
[2163] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Sycotic Deninard wrote:Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread knowing that it was going to be a hot topic. His mind is already made up and he will not be persuaded until he makes the changes he proposed. This will be the second and probably the final nerf to missiles as this will cause most people to come to the conclusion that the flight time and the applied damage to targets will be sub-par with this weapon system.
It is interesting to note that a lot of EVE users have trained into missiles and when this nerf does come to fruition, many will be frustrated with all the time they invested into that weapon system only to see it broken.
For those players that use missiles as thier only weapon system, they will have to sink another 2-3 months into another weapon platform and possibly longer to train into a different ship to be viable again. For that person, that 2-3 months will seem like an eternity and they just might say forget it, I'm done.
I've seen this behavior with game developers before with many MMO's that eventually lost its player base due to its inabilty to listen to its players or correct its changes fast enough. Sadly by the time the game company realizes it, its always too late as they will never get those players back. Ever. I foresee some fallout from this as we all know from history that once CCP goes through with its intended plan, it never goes back. Only time will tell how big or how much of an impact this will have. What a cynical load of crying crap and rumor mongering. You don't know anything of the kind. Fozzie is new at CCP and doing a lot of responding on the forums, and keeping what appear to be long hours as well <3 And you are overstating the effects that the nerf at whatever percentages it ends up at will have. You simply don't know that these changes will make HMLs worthless. So you should stfu before you get banned.
He can't get banned for what he said...and he's probably going to be right....I've already stopped missile training on my missile toon....problem is I'm gallente and caldari on him....so i might have to cross train into minmatar on him. At least this guy was only cross training caldari for leadership purposes. |
Lili Lu
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:30:00 -
[2164] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: He can't get banned for what he said...and he's probably going to be right....I've already stopped missile training on my missile toon....problem is I'm gallente and caldari on him....so i might have to cross train into minmatar on him. At least this guy was only cross training caldari for leadership purposes. Oh, a tech III off-grid booster? That doesn't sound like much fun. Especially since that is going to get nerfed as well.
FOTM chasing will get you every time.
As for the fellow's quote,
"Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread knowing that it was going to be a hot topic. His mind is already made up and he will not be persuaded until he makes the changes he proposed."
I don't see any subjuctive or conditional use in those sentences. He can suspect it. And he'll likely be proven wrong. But that seems like a straightforward declarative statement made without any knowledge of the fact. Gotta be careful about that. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:30:00 -
[2165] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Sycotic Deninard wrote:Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread knowing that it was going to be a hot topic. His mind is already made up and he will not be persuaded until he makes the changes he proposed. This will be the second and probably the final nerf to missiles as this will cause most people to come to the conclusion that the flight time and the applied damage to targets will be sub-par with this weapon system.
It is interesting to note that a lot of EVE users have trained into missiles and when this nerf does come to fruition, many will be frustrated with all the time they invested into that weapon system only to see it broken.
For those players that use missiles as thier only weapon system, they will have to sink another 2-3 months into another weapon platform and possibly longer to train into a different ship to be viable again. For that person, that 2-3 months will seem like an eternity and they just might say forget it, I'm done.
I've seen this behavior with game developers before with many MMO's that eventually lost its player base due to its inabilty to listen to its players or correct its changes fast enough. Sadly by the time the game company realizes it, its always too late as they will never get those players back. Ever. I foresee some fallout from this as we all know from history that once CCP goes through with its intended plan, it never goes back. Only time will tell how big or how much of an impact this will have. What a cynical load of crying crap and rumor mongering. You don't know anything of the kind. Fozzie is new at CCP and doing a lot of responding on the forums, and keeping what appear to be long hours as well <3 Maybe all you are reading is this thread because your so butthurt that your only weapon system (the only one you've probably ever needed) is getting nerfed. But Fozzie is responding in lots of threads. For someone who has only been playing the game 13 months you sure seem to think you know a lot. And you are overstating the effects that the nerf at whatever percentages it ends up at will have. You simply don't know that these changes will make HMLs worthless. So you should stfu before you get banned. Read this https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942484#post1942484 and don't post crap like you just did.
Threatening somebody with a ban like you're an ISD is more likely to get you banned than what he posted. |
Lili Lu
460
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:32:00 -
[2166] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote: Threatening somebody with a ban like you're an ISD is more likely to get you banned than what he posted. Did I say I would ban him? |
Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
163
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:44:00 -
[2167] - Quote
OMG going to page 110! Did someone got an chivement (or in game medal?) for publishing something so polemic? [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
137
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 01:52:00 -
[2168] - Quote
Unless TD is broken into two groups like missiles and turrets modules. TD will become the new ECM. And Unlike ECM, TD is single module that affects all ships with just a change of a script. ECM requires the use of racials and fitting beforehand to be truly effective, otherwise you'll be betting on luck to get your jams off using weak or wrong jammers.
TD however is a 100% guaranteed crippling on every conceivable type of dps ship in the game(except lulz drones)
Anyone can clearly see that TD will become a new God module, and this is coming for a Curse Pilot.
TD needs to have two different types. One for Missiles and one for Turrets. Therefore the pilot will have to choose between either missiles or turrets, rather than just fit one and win. |
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 02:05:00 -
[2169] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Soko99 wrote:Doddy wrote:Max Devious wrote:I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max. Seems like a good thing tbh, whs are not meant to be solo paradises .... It's not.. but just like you can run an L4 solo.. You should be able to run certain sites in a WH solo. You mean in C3 plus that ccp designed to be multiplayer like lvl 5s? cos C1 and C2 you sure don't need a tengu for.
Sure.. if you want to spend 4 times longer doing them with no guarantee of a payout. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
734
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 02:08:00 -
[2170] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yeah, I do kind of ignore points that don't really address my questions. You mean like medium artillery and medium beams? Seen those used on Cynabals, Hurricanes, Munnins and Zealots. Two tech two ships and one tech one ship using medium arties? Considering they're the best of the M-LR turrets and even throwing in the arty Sleipnir (which I didn't even know anybody used until this thread), that's still hardly more than a niche use. And I've never, ever seen anybody use Zealots with beams.
Marlona Sky wrote:Also know I have said mediums rails need serious love since the beginning of this thread and have been for years now. Well good, we agree on something. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 02:11:00 -
[2171] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: TD needs to have two different types. One for Missiles and one for Turrets. Therefore the pilot will have to choose between either missiles or turrets, rather than just fit one and win.
Which is a solution CCP Fozzie has already stated they are considering. Here's hoping the answer is yes. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 02:18:00 -
[2172] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yeah, I do kind of ignore points that don't really address my questions. You mean like medium artillery and medium beams? Seen those used on Cynabals, Hurricanes, Munnins and Zealots. Two tech two ships and one tech one ship using medium arties? Considering they're the best of the M-LR turrets and even throwing in the arty Sleipnir (which I didn't even know anybody used until this thread), that's still hardly more than a niche use. And I've never, ever seen anybody use Zealots with beams. Marlona Sky wrote:Also know I have said mediums rails need serious love since the beginning of this thread and have been for years now. Well good, we agree on something.
People not using medium LR turrets is less to do with thier suckiness and more to do with how eve combat has evolved. Sniper hacs using medium LR turrets were default win mode for a long time. now with instant on grid warp ins, buffer fits and mass logis sniper tactics have gone the way of the dodo with the sole exception of 1400 artys using alpha. other than that the iting side of warfare moved entirely into heavy missiles (drakes then tengus) which could do far more dps and fit more tank at the now ironically safer mid range (too cose fo rthe enemy to warp on you).
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
204
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 02:21:00 -
[2173] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Doddy wrote:Soko99 wrote:Doddy wrote:Max Devious wrote:I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max. Seems like a good thing tbh, whs are not meant to be solo paradises .... It's not.. but just like you can run an L4 solo.. You should be able to run certain sites in a WH solo. You mean in C3 plus that ccp designed to be multiplayer like lvl 5s? cos C1 and C2 you sure don't need a tengu for. Sure.. if you want to spend 4 times longer doing them with no guarantee of a payout.
How can you even think that is an argument? They shouldn't be nerfed because they make way more isk than anything else?
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 02:37:00 -
[2174] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Soko99 wrote: Sure.. if you want to spend 4 times longer doing them with no guarantee of a payout.
How can you even think that is an argument? They shouldn't be nerfed because they make way more isk than anything else? I'm quite sure machs running incursions make way more. And the argument was a counter saying they aren't needed for c2s. And I'm saying they are if you don't want to spend crazy long time running them while vulnerable to anything since you have know warning other than dscan.
|
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 02:54:00 -
[2175] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Soon Shin wrote: TD needs to have two different types. One for Missiles and one for Turrets. Therefore the pilot will have to choose between either missiles or turrets, rather than just fit one and win.
Which is a solution CCP Fozzie has already stated they are considering. Here's hoping the answer is yes. I still can't understand why anyone would hope to argue that missile ships still need to be special snowflakes and have a separate TD module. Do I cry when my gang solely consisting of turret users gets TD'd because there's not special TD modules for laser, hybrid, projectile?! Everyone needs to drop this guise that missile systems need to be kept in a walled garden where no one can go. There's no substantive reason why TDs need a separate module, especially considering TEs and TCs are going to affect positive bonuses on missile systems.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
735
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:04:00 -
[2176] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Soon Shin wrote: TD needs to have two different types. One for Missiles and one for Turrets. Therefore the pilot will have to choose between either missiles or turrets, rather than just fit one and win.
Which is a solution CCP Fozzie has already stated they are considering. Here's hoping the answer is yes. I still can't understand why anyone would hope to argue that missile ships still need to be special snowflakes and have a separate TD module. Do I cry when my gang solely consisting of turret users gets TD'd because there's not special TD modules for laser, hybrid, projectile?! Everyone needs to drop this guise that missile systems need to be kept in a walled garden where no one can go. There's no substantive reason why TDs need a separate module, especially considering TEs and TCs are going to affect positive bonuses on missile systems. Yes there is a substantive reason. It's called "balance". http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
296
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:13:00 -
[2177] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Soon Shin wrote: TD needs to have two different types. One for Missiles and one for Turrets. Therefore the pilot will have to choose between either missiles or turrets, rather than just fit one and win.
Which is a solution CCP Fozzie has already stated they are considering. Here's hoping the answer is yes. I still can't understand why anyone would hope to argue that missile ships still need to be special snowflakes and have a separate TD module. Do I cry when my gang solely consisting of turret users gets TD'd because there's not special TD modules for laser, hybrid, projectile?! Everyone needs to drop this guise that missile systems need to be kept in a walled garden where no one can go. There's no substantive reason why TDs need a separate module, especially considering TEs and TCs are going to affect positive bonuses on missile systems. Missile systems, so long as they retain their current mechanics are a walled garden all their own. I'm not sure why you are pretending this isn't the case. And we have a module that already has a similar mechanic for selective effectiveness in ECM. This isn't as much a special snowflake situation as you are painting it to be. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:19:00 -
[2178] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote: He can't get banned for what he said...and he's probably going to be right....I've already stopped missile training on my missile toon....problem is I'm gallente and caldari on him....so i might have to cross train into minmatar on him. At least this guy was only cross training caldari for leadership purposes. Oh, a tech III off-grid booster? That doesn't sound like much fun. Especially since that is going to get nerfed as well. FOTM chasing will get you every time. As for the fellow's quote, "Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread knowing that it was going to be a hot topic. His mind is already made up and he will not be persuaded until he makes the changes he proposed." I don't see any subjuctive or conditional use in those sentences. He can suspect it. And he'll likely be proven wrong. But that seems like a straightforward declarative statement made without any knowledge of the fact. Gotta be careful about that.
lol....you can use any declarative statement you like within reason.....to even say that his statement could possibly get him banned means either a) you are just a troll or b) english is not your first language and you don't understand what he said...
Either way, if he got banned for THAT, psh....you'll see the Eve population thin out very quickly....how about the uproar of people calling the dev's selfish morons over the UI change? |
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:21:00 -
[2179] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes there is a substantive reason. It's called "balance". "Balance" as in my friends who fly Legions and Loki in gangs have to put up with the same TD as a Proteus does? Or is it "balance" in that "I need special modules made *juuuuust* for my missile ship"? That kind of balance? Yeah, that's really balanced.
And everyone saying that TDs "need to be balanced" by having different modules: TDs are currently NOT balanced in that they don't affect missiles at all. Having them affect missile launchers, and giving missile launchers a way to combat TDs with allowing TCs and TEs to affect them *IS* balancing them. Get over yourselves and learn to deal with the same problems the rest of us have had to deal with since we started playing.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:26:00 -
[2180] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes there is a substantive reason. It's called "balance". "Balance" as in my friends who fly Legions and Loki in gangs have to put up with the same TD as a Proteus does? Or is it "balance" in that "I need special modules made *juuuuust* for my missile ship"? That kind of balance? Yeah, that's really balanced. And everyone saying that TDs "need to be balanced" by having different modules: TDs are currently NOT balanced in that they don't affect missiles at all. Having them affect missile launchers, and giving missile launchers a way to combat TDs with allowing TCs and TEs to affect them *IS* balancing them. Get over yourselves and learn to deal with the same problems the rest of us have had to deal with since we started playing.
Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
736
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:36:00 -
[2181] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes there is a substantive reason. It's called "balance". "Balance" as in my friends who fly Legions and Loki in gangs have to put up with the same TD as a Proteus does? Or is it "balance" in that "I need special modules made *juuuuust* for my missile ship"? That kind of balance? Yeah, that's really balanced. And everyone saying that TDs "need to be balanced" by having different modules: TDs are currently NOT balanced in that they don't affect missiles at all. Having them affect missile launchers, and giving missile launchers a way to combat TDs with allowing TCs and TEs to affect them *IS* balancing them. Get over yourselves and learn to deal with the same problems the rest of us have had to deal with since we started playing. So in other words, you want a single module that works on disrupting the weapons systems of every single ship. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:40:00 -
[2182] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ark Anhammar wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes there is a substantive reason. It's called "balance". "Balance" as in my friends who fly Legions and Loki in gangs have to put up with the same TD as a Proteus does? Or is it "balance" in that "I need special modules made *juuuuust* for my missile ship"? That kind of balance? Yeah, that's really balanced. And everyone saying that TDs "need to be balanced" by having different modules: TDs are currently NOT balanced in that they don't affect missiles at all. Having them affect missile launchers, and giving missile launchers a way to combat TDs with allowing TCs and TEs to affect them *IS* balancing them. Get over yourselves and learn to deal with the same problems the rest of us have had to deal with since we started playing. So in other words, you want a single module that works on disrupting the weapons systems of every single ship.
That's probably what he wants. As I pilot that flies a curse and uses TD, having such a thing would be overpowered for a single module. It needs to be like how ECM have racial types and the weakass multispec.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
737
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 03:45:00 -
[2183] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ark Anhammar wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes there is a substantive reason. It's called "balance". "Balance" as in my friends who fly Legions and Loki in gangs have to put up with the same TD as a Proteus does? Or is it "balance" in that "I need special modules made *juuuuust* for my missile ship"? That kind of balance? Yeah, that's really balanced. And everyone saying that TDs "need to be balanced" by having different modules: TDs are currently NOT balanced in that they don't affect missiles at all. Having them affect missile launchers, and giving missile launchers a way to combat TDs with allowing TCs and TEs to affect them *IS* balancing them. Get over yourselves and learn to deal with the same problems the rest of us have had to deal with since we started playing. So in other words, you want a single module that works on disrupting the weapons systems of every single ship. That's probably what he wants. As I pilot that flies a curse and uses TD, having such a thing would be overpowered for a single module. It needs to be like how ECM have racial types and the weakass multispec. Exactly. The balancing factor against TD becoming too prolific is the fact that it doesn't work against missile ships. If it did, you would see a hell of a lot more ships fitting TD, and so your friends who fly Legions and Lokis and Proteuses in gangs will have even more problems with TD than they do now, because everybody they encounter will fit it. Those fitting TD have things easier for them - they don't have to make fitting choices depending upon the enemies they think they're likely to encounter.
Putting missile and turret TD into a single module dumbs down PVP. It's the same as if you take out racial ECM and just gave multispec the same stats as race-specific ECM all across the board. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:08:00 -
[2184] - Quote
TD's effect might be to force everything within scram range, well, not everything... Tier3.....
Would TD also work on remote rep range ? ECM range ? Everything including trowing the kitchen sink range ? |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
118
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:13:00 -
[2185] - Quote
I will probaly get flamed for this but here goes... how about making the disruptor require scripts. IE, no effect unscripted then break the scripts into 4 tracking script range script missile guidance script (flight time) anti precision script (explosion velocity/radius)
That would give amarr good verity, but not an i win button Ideas for drone improvement |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:33:00 -
[2186] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:TD's effect might be to force everything within scram range, well, not everything... Tier3.....
Would TD also work on remote rep range ? ECM range ? Everything including trowing the kitchen sink range ?
No but a damp damn sure does.
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:35:00 -
[2187] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will probaly get flamed for this but here goes... how about making the disruptor require scripts. IE, no effect unscripted then break the scripts into 4 tracking script range script missile guidance script (flight time) anti precision script (explosion velocity/radius)
That would give amarr good verity, but not an i win button
No flame. I like this idea as an alternative to making an entirely new module for missile disruption. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:37:00 -
[2188] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will probaly get flamed for this but here goes... how about making the disruptor require scripts. IE, no effect unscripted then break the scripts into 4 tracking script range script missile guidance script (flight time) anti precision script (explosion velocity/radius)
That would give amarr good verity, but not an i win button No flame. I like this idea as an alternative to making an entirely new module for missile disruption.
Seconding, good balancing factor against TD. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
737
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:55:00 -
[2189] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Eckyy wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will probaly get flamed for this but here goes... how about making the disruptor require scripts. IE, no effect unscripted then break the scripts into 4 tracking script range script missile guidance script (flight time) anti precision script (explosion velocity/radius)
That would give amarr good verity, but not an i win button No flame. I like this idea as an alternative to making an entirely new module for missile disruption. Seconding, good balancing factor against TD. I fail to see how that makes any difference. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 04:56:00 -
[2190] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Eckyy wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will probaly get flamed for this but here goes... how about making the disruptor require scripts. IE, no effect unscripted then break the scripts into 4 tracking script range script missile guidance script (flight time) anti precision script (explosion velocity/radius)
That would give amarr good verity, but not an i win button No flame. I like this idea as an alternative to making an entirely new module for missile disruption. Seconding, good balancing factor against TD.
Agreed. Although a TD ship would still be able to disrupt any target just by changing a script, it would protect split weapon systems and force script changes between target changes. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 05:33:00 -
[2191] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything.
You mean like that missile will "teleport" next to target ship after launch and explodes. Yeah, if you can find the way to explain how it is possible...
... But of course 100+ km range on instantly hitting missiles... No thanks. |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 05:44:00 -
[2192] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything. You mean like that missile will "teleport" next to target ship after launch and explodes. Yeah, if you can find the way to explain how it is possible... ... But of course 100+ km range on instantly hitting missiles... No thanks.
not that i want that, but your point about the teleporting thingy...
Ask the projectils or hybrid charges how they do it all day long in EVE
The only "nearly" instant-hit weaponsystem, from that point of view, would be the lazors
cu |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 05:48:00 -
[2193] - Quote
Rita May wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything. You mean like that missile will "teleport" next to target ship after launch and explodes. Yeah, if you can find the way to explain how it is possible... ... But of course 100+ km range on instantly hitting missiles... No thanks. not that i want that, but your point about the teleporting thingy... Ask the projectils or hybrid charges how they do it all day long in EVE The only "nearly" instant-hit weaponsystem, from that point of view, would be the lazors cu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:18:00 -
[2194] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:Who dreams up these horrible ideas? The inventory UI is still worse than it was before. Will it ever be as functional as it was before. We're like 6 months past and still not there yet
Never going to happen.
They made a few chages when the shitstorm happened to calm people down and pretend that they were going to fix it.
Now they have moved on to the next piece of crap that they will break and not fix.
And the next....and the next..... |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:23:00 -
[2195] - Quote
Anabaric wrote:Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers... CCP must be doing something right.
:double facepalm |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:32:00 -
[2196] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Dato Koppla wrote:Eckyy wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will probaly get flamed for this but here goes... how about making the disruptor require scripts. IE, no effect unscripted then break the scripts into 4 tracking script range script missile guidance script (flight time) anti precision script (explosion velocity/radius)
That would give amarr good verity, but not an i win button No flame. I like this idea as an alternative to making an entirely new module for missile disruption. Seconding, good balancing factor against TD. Agreed. Although a TD ship would still be able to disrupt any target just by changing a script, it would protect split weapon systems and force script changes between target changes.
Here's an idea to balance this suggestion.
How about swapping scripts is given a long exchange time of say... 30 seconds?
While this may still give that one module full functionality, having to swap scripts would require planning ahead or being vulnerable for a moderate amount of time.
As well, with more future ship balancing CCP could give certain ships a bonus to the exchange time of scripts. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:35:00 -
[2197] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:TriadSte wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes? So in that respect I'm going to lose : 106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures. Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage? Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? There i fixed that quote for you. Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf. l2p? but if long range guns switch to short range ammo, does their DPS NOT exceed that of the drake? Can the drake change to HAM's mid fight?
Exactly the point
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:56:00 -
[2198] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake.
And all you care about is stopping the Drake blobs that are currently kicking your ass |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:57:00 -
[2199] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dato Koppla wrote:Eckyy wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:I will probaly get flamed for this but here goes... how about making the disruptor require scripts. IE, no effect unscripted then break the scripts into 4 tracking script range script missile guidance script (flight time) anti precision script (explosion velocity/radius)
That would give amarr good verity, but not an i win button No flame. I like this idea as an alternative to making an entirely new module for missile disruption. Seconding, good balancing factor against TD. I fail to see how that makes any difference.
Exactly, it changes nothing. You have an all in one god module that disrupts every dps ship with a switch of a script.
ECM is balanced in a way that it requires fitting the correct racials to be effective. RSD is pointless against fast locking close range ships which lock faster than you can. Target painters is useful for locking faster and hitting targets harder, but does not have an overpowering effect.
The New tracking disruptors however will. Imagine a significant reduction in range or tracking reduction against missiles and turrets. All you need is a single module and can change scripts on the fly to affect all dps ships in the game.
Having it divided between Turrets and Missiles will force the pilot to choose turrets or missiles and prevent it from becoming overpowered. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:12:00 -
[2200] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:The New tracking disruptors however will. Imagine a significant reduction in range or tracking reduction against missiles and turrets. All you need is a single module and can change scripts on the fly to affect all dps ships in the game.
How about this: - Two scripts for every weapons system in game (8 scripts in total) and for example projectile range disruption script doesn't have any effect on lasers, hybrids or missiles. - Switching script takes 30-60 seconds - When switching scripts you can't activate any other module or move |
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:12:00 -
[2201] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Rita May wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything. You mean like that missile will "teleport" next to target ship after launch and explodes. Yeah, if you can find the way to explain how it is possible... ... But of course 100+ km range on instantly hitting missiles... No thanks. not that i want that, but your point about the teleporting thingy... Ask the projectils or hybrid charges how they do it all day long in EVE The only "nearly" instant-hit weaponsystem, from that point of view, would be the lazors cu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgunhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun
Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:18:00 -
[2202] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun.
Is 7 times the speed of sound fast enough?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-video_n_1311251.html |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:20:00 -
[2203] - Quote
So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! |
Dante KamiyaX
Blood RaiderZ.
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:21:00 -
[2204] - Quote
There is a problem with your logic When you nerf ship A and B Ship C and D will be used more until a amazing inventive fit blows all others away just like drakes and hurricanes have always been fitted
Then you see ship c and d being flown more and more then the ships A and B you just nerfed
Then you nerf some more ships and others use them less and fly the hell out of ships E F G H I J and so forth until they are nerfed
There is a pattern you see its more about the fitting and the perfect fit and about strategy and experience
Not really about how powerful a ship class is
If there is a way to perfectly fly a ship somebody is going to find a way to fit it that blows every other ship away
Ships don't need to be nerfed because there is nothing wrong with the ships
They just seem overpowered because they are so popular and over used
That can happen with ANY SHIP IN THE GAME
At this rate T1 frigates will be better then battlecruisers
My point is no matter what ships you nerf other ships will just be overused more and more and those ships become popular instead of the drake and hurricane
Hurricane and drake just collect dust in a hanger while another ship overshadows and replaces it because somebody FINDS a way to make if effective that's how a sandbox works and can be done with any ship |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:22:00 -
[2205] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Soon Shin wrote: TD needs to have two different types. One for Missiles and one for Turrets. Therefore the pilot will have to choose between either missiles or turrets, rather than just fit one and win.
Which is a solution CCP Fozzie has already stated they are considering. Here's hoping the answer is yes. I still can't understand why anyone would hope to argue that missile ships still need to be special snowflakes and have a separate TD module.
Well... thatGÇÖs because you canGÇÖt track disrupt a weapon system that doesnGÇÖt track.... DOH !
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:23:00 -
[2206] - Quote
No. The speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second so 7x(Speed of Sound) is 2402,4 metres per second or 2.4km. Even 70x speed of sound would mean 8.3 seconds delay before hitting at 200km. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1348
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:27:00 -
[2207] - Quote
I'm currently attempting to fit up a battlecruiser to match the following on a Drake:
- EHP
- DPS
- Alpha
- Speed
- Cap stability for a decent length of time
- Agility
- Fitting costs
- Lock Range
Trying the Harbinger first, so far I can't get anything on that list without all of the others being completely LOL. Looking at the Brutix and Myrmidon with Railguns next...
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:28:00 -
[2208] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Ark Anhammar wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes there is a substantive reason. It's called "balance". "Balance" as in my friends who fly Legions and Loki in gangs have to put up with the same TD as a Proteus does? Or is it "balance" in that "I need special modules made *juuuuust* for my missile ship"? That kind of balance? Yeah, that's really balanced. And everyone saying that TDs "need to be balanced" by having different modules: TDs are currently NOT balanced in that they don't affect missiles at all. Having them affect missile launchers, and giving missile launchers a way to combat TDs with allowing TCs and TEs to affect them *IS* balancing them. Get over yourselves and learn to deal with the same problems the rest of us have had to deal with since we started playing. Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything. It's not about balance. It's about diversity. We dont want all guns to be the same, only having diffirent names. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:29:00 -
[2209] - Quote
Maybe let's try something like this :
Tracking Disruptor stays the same. New Missile Tracking Disruptor ( Ballistics Disruptor ) to affect missiles ( no need for new scripts, the ones used in TD will do ). New Weapon Tracking Disruptor to affect both but just like multi-spec ECM it will be weaker than TD is now ( no need for new scripts ).
Tracking Enhancer/Computer stays the same. New Missile Tracking Enhancer/Computer ( Ballistic Control Enhancer/Computer ) to affect missiles ( scripts stay the same ). New Weapon Tracking Enhancer/Computer, which will affect both but it will be weaker ( used on split weapon boats, same scripts ).
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:31:00 -
[2210] - Quote
Dante KamiyaX wrote:There is a problem with your logic When you nerf ship A and B Ship C and D will be used more until a amazing inventive fit blows all others away just like drakes and hurricanes have always been fitted
Then you see ship c and d being flown more and more then the ships A and B you just nerfed
Can we also see that 400 dps @ 80km Brutix?
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:No. The speed of sound is 343.2 metres per second so 7x(Speed of Sound) is 2402,4 metres per second or 2.4km. Even 70x speed of sound would mean 8.3 seconds delay before hitting at 200km.
Do you even know how missiles work?
What makes you think that missiles can fly at speed of light? |
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:33:00 -
[2211] - Quote
Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too!
he already did. post #1318 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942484#post1942484 it just drowed in all the whining of grunts and people who complain because there ships wont be uber anymore.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:36:00 -
[2212] - Quote
Ok so here's my suggestion
Tracking disruptors -
Give them a script for each aspect like another player suggested
tracking script optimal script flight time/ velocity script (preferably flight time because velocity would effect both range and ability to catch small targets) explosion velocity/explosion radius script
Now, as far as heavy missiles
Don't do CCP's nerfs.
Instead,
Swap guided missiles so that precision is long range and fury is close range. This puts guided missiles in line with every other weapon system in game.
Then, REINTRODUCE MISSILE AGILITY. (Stick with me on this one)
Ok, This will help balance missiles across the board. Short range missile systems will have high aglity and high dps. This is similar to how turrets work, but with a missile twist.
Now, long range missiles would have less agility, but greater ranges, similar to ranged turrets with tracking.
HOWEVER, there needs to be compensations made as well.
Missiles will need to have their velocity increased. 1) so that there is never more than one volley in the air from the same ship.(i.e. at max range in a ship with no velocity bonus the volley will hit before the next is fired)
2) This will help to bring missiles closer to on par with alpha of turrets and help compensate for my proposed reintroduction of agility
Perhaps a skill could be added/reintroduced that would increase missile agility as well.
I know missile agility was taken out of the game, but with greater advancements perhaps it could be brought back and maintain balance.
The reason I suggest this is that unless we bring missiles more on par with turrets, then there's gonna be rage over missile effectiveness and dps at range, and once a nerf is presented, then there's gonna be rage over that.
This thread is case in point. |
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:36:00 -
[2213] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! he already did. post #1318 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942484#post1942484it just drowed in all the whining of grunts and people who complain because there ships wont be uber anymore.
Oh thanks for that, yes I missed it in all the posts!
So erm yeah... the result is... we're gonna nerf anyway? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:39:00 -
[2214] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I'm currently attempting to fit up a battlecruiser to match the following on a Drake:
- EHP
- DPS
- Alpha
- Speed
- Cap stability for a decent length of time
- Agility
- Fitting costs
- Lock Range
Trying the Harbinger first, so far I can't get anything on that list without all of the others being completely LOL. Looking at the Brutix and Myrmidon with Railguns next...
while you're at it, try building a drake with all the stat capabilities of a hurricane at close range.
Pretty sure the hurricane will win. (don't forget the hurricane has utility highs) |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
753
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:40:00 -
[2215] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Doddy wrote:Max Devious wrote:I just have one small comment here. This change in missile range may see it's most profound effect on small Wormhole corps. Many sites that can now be completed by a solo Tengu will become impossible to complete solo due to the inablilty to kite the neuts at range. The solution is to spyder tank with energy transfers, but many small corps don't have enough people online at the same time to do much of this, and some of these corps will be forced out of Wspace.
Max. Seems like a good thing tbh, whs are not meant to be solo paradises .... Also tells you something is either wrong with the Tengu or the wormhole design or both. If only one ship allows you to run a pve site that is bad design. I don't like Tengus, but thanks for bringing up the wormholes. Because the AI is heavily selecting one type of ship and one weapon system. This surely can't be "intended," can it? So while we're all focused on the ship and weapons systems CCP might also want to revisit that entire pve environment and think about how it could be made more open to other weapon systems and types of ships.
The sad thing is that there will always be something better at one thing than another, Take the nighthawk for example pretty much crap for most things you really wouldn't want to run lvl 4's in it but it can run lvl 5's solo,
Now was this intended? ..obviously not! but can you nerf a ship that is already severely underpowered for most things because it can do one thing that it shouldn't be able to do , you could do but what would happen?
You may as well just remove the ship from the game.
Now I've been reading this thread pretty much since day one and the overriding consensus on here by looking at the posts or should I say the content of the posts the same two things are always mentioned...Tengu and Drake.
Now I fly both and have done for ages, well primarily the Tengu now and the problem is with both ships is Tank, The tengu if you have halfway decent skills can fit 3 shield mods leaving depending on config 2 or 3 mids left and still pretty much tank most PVE stuff. The drake is somewhat similar and again when in pvp or solo if I see a drake I'll just leave it alone, not because I'm scared of it because I'm not, anything fast will tank HML pretty much but because of the tank it's going to take forever to kill it.
Nerfing a whole line of missles because when you put 200 of them together they are overpowered isn;t really a well thought out answer, deal with the ships that cause the inbalance not the weapons that on some ships or ok/normal but on others overpowered.
You remove anomolies in the game and then whole thing just then becomes about who's got more, Take the Titan issue people were complaining that you field 20 titans and you're 300 man blob doesn;t automatically win, well to me it shouldn't have.
So if you half sized but well equipped alliance doesn;t have a counter to the raging horde all that happens is that it just boils down to numbers, no individuality nothing,.
What happens when the next "go to" ship becomes over popular and then we have 300 man blobs of those... again the same thing.
Range nerf I can understand but not the damage, if something has the ability to outrange you and apply dps the answer isn't just to moan and get the thing nerfed it's to change your tactics and think of something else to counter that. I've been in drake fleets that have been absolutely fecked over because the FC on the other side came up with tactics that were better.
It's an ever decreasing circle of meh. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:41:00 -
[2216] - Quote
Hazen Koraka wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! he already did. post #1318 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942484#post1942484it just drowed in all the whining of grunts and people who complain because there ships wont be uber anymore. Oh thanks for that, yes I missed it in all the posts! So erm yeah... the result is... we're gonna nerf anyway?
Pretty much, yes |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:44:00 -
[2217] - Quote
Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too!
Here is MY PERSONAL feedback: Two accounts cancelled - You lost a more than 4 years paying customer!
In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Good job CCP.
As Caldari pilot I end my career in New Eden. From a RP point I could say I grab my ISK buy me a planet or at least a little moon somewhere and can live like a god for the rest of my life. From a RL point I MUST SAY, that CCP do never think about changes and their consequences. And ever ask the wrong people who do not have skilled what they intent to nerf next.
Bye folks. It was a pleasure for me to be part of this community for 4.5 years. But now it is time to travel on. O7
P.S.: No! You can not have my stuff. Remember? I want to buy me a planet or a little moon. |
Astriela
Tax Cheaters
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:48:00 -
[2218] - Quote
my 5 cents from former drake and now mainly tengu pilot: - do HMs need nerf? well, they do combine impressive damage projection with good dps, however, let's put it into perspective: - I believe main problem with them is that HMs are pretty much all in one missile system caldary has - battleship class missiles suck, don't even feel I have to elaborate on that and in medium class, HAMs look good on paper, but unfortunately they are plagued by whole lot of problems in practice - fitting requirements are bad enough to make them problematic to fit properly (combined with short ranged system which begs for more tank they should have lower fitting them HMs, not other way around), paper damage is good, but applied damage is not nearly as good and fact that most people seem to miss is that HAMs suffer from lack of ammo in magazine - I tend to spend far too much time for comfort reloading when using them. - proposed changes: - HMs: cut range, they definitely need it, perhaps compensate by introducing long range missiles with lower dps; damage nerf of 20% is imo over the top, 5-10% seems far more reasonably; perhaps increase fitting requirements to make fitting full tank and dps slightly less convenient - HAMs: cut fitting a bit (not much, but even few points off will make them more useful), increase ammo space - they really need it, dps? not really sure, as t2 ammo seems to be getting a buff,
other notes: - if drake is problem, nerf it, don't nerf entire missile system for it (looking at you poor Cerberus); same with tengu - ejection bay is simply too good, cutting it down a bit to put it in line with rest of dps offensive systems is likely needed
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
753
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:49:00 -
[2219] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! Here is MY PERSONAL feedback: Two accounts cancelled - You lost a more than 4 years paying customer! In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Good job CCP. As Caldari pilot I end my career in New Eden. From a RP point I could say I grab my ISK buy me a planet or at least a little moon somewhere and can live like a god for the rest of my life. From a RL point I MUST SAY, that CCP do never think about changes and their consequences. And ever ask the wrong people who do not have skilled what they intent to nerf next. Bye folks. It was a pleasure for me to be part of this community for 4.5 years. But now it is time to travel on. O7 P.S.: No! You can not have my stuff. Remember? I want to buy me a planet or a little moon.
See you in 3 months! :-) Ufortunately although I admire your sentiment people always say "I'm off" and don't actually go through with it. I'll be staying because I like EVE and will just buy the ship that hasn't been nerfed and that will still do the same job.
It doesn't change the fact that I think it's run by people who really don't understand their user base even after so many cockups and apologies and their little lapdogs with their holier than thou attitudes. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:53:00 -
[2220] - Quote
I lol'd
You can't do stop the thief without heavy missiles?
Try it with a domi, that is easy easy with sentries unless you really hose the triggers, plus you don't care if you get scrammed, because you aren't moving anyway. |
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
776
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:54:00 -
[2221] - Quote
Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly angry mob against these changes.
|
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:54:00 -
[2222] - Quote
Signal11th wrote: See you in 3 months! :-)
No. I will not come back. Because I have skilled Caldari for 4.5 years. I must skill further 4 years to reach the same level with another race than I have learned now. I am not willed to do that. There are also other events which let me hate EVE. But this second missile nerf AND AI boost is uneccaptable for me. Therefore: you will see me for a litle amount of time in the forum because I have some game time. But If I am gone.. I AM GONE! |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:55:00 -
[2223] - Quote
Onictus wrote:I lol'd
You can't do stop the thief without heavy missiles?
Try it with a domi, that is easy easy with sentries unless you really hose the triggers, plus you don't care if you get scrammed, because you aren't moving anyway.
I want to see your sh!t domi when the NPC's switch the targets. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
776
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:55:00 -
[2224] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! Here is MY PERSONAL feedback: Two accounts cancelled - You lost a more than 4 years paying customer! In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Good job CCP. As Caldari pilot I end my career in New Eden. From a RP point I could say I grab my ISK buy me a planet or at least a little moon somewhere and can live like a god for the rest of my life. From a RL point I MUST SAY, that CCP do never think about changes and their consequences. And ever ask the wrong people who do not have skilled what they intent to nerf next. Bye folks. It was a pleasure for me to be part of this community for 4.5 years. But now it is time to travel on. O7 P.S.: No! You can not have my stuff. Remember? I want to buy me a planet or a little moon.
Rage quit best quit |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:59:00 -
[2225] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Rage quit best quit
It is not a rage quit. It is a well considerated step. So please stop trolling dude. Eve has lost its glamour for me. You do not know me. So do not arrogate to knwo that this is a rage quit! |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:04:00 -
[2226] - Quote
My most important comment to make on the subject is.
CCP...
PLEASE, for the love of Marauders!!!
Wait until you've buffed the rest of the missile boats before you go nerfing the only two effective ships we have!!!
(DISCLAIMER: I don't care about the troll posts of other players who claim that many other missile boats are effective in pvp when we all know they're little more than bait, extra dps, or just there to drop a bomb and then become a bonus if they stay alive because we all know, this doesn't make them effective) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1348
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:17:00 -
[2227] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:My most important comment to make on the subject is.
CCP...
PLEASE, for the love of Marauders!!!
Wait until you've buffed the rest of the missile boats before you go nerfing the only two effective ships we have!!!
(DISCLAIMER: I don't care about the troll posts of other players who claim that many other missile boats are effective in pvp when we all know they're little more than bait, extra dps, or just there to drop a bomb and then become a bonus if they stay alive because this doesn't make them effective) The Drake and Tengu will still be good, maybe still holding onto the "Go Drake/Tengu or go home!" title they have now after the change. Just remember. Things could be worse for the Drake and Tengu. They could be Gallente.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:20:00 -
[2228] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:My most important comment to make on the subject is.
CCP...
PLEASE, for the love of Marauders!!!
Wait until you've buffed the rest of the missile boats before you go nerfing the only two effective ships we have!!!
(DISCLAIMER: I don't care about the troll posts of other players who claim that many other missile boats are effective in pvp when we all know they're little more than bait, extra dps, or just there to drop a bomb and then become a bonus if they stay alive because this doesn't make them effective) The Drake and Tengu will still be good, maybe even holding onto the "Go Drake/Tengu or go home!" title they have now. It could be worse, it could be Gallente.
Yeah, but my concern is pve really.
Right now the tengu is the most efficient missile boat in pve.
This IS in part due to the OP nature of the tengu, however, the tengu is outperformed by t1 and t2 bs' of other weapon types in pve.
So, this is to say that the rest of the missile boats capable of lvl 4 missions are quite lack luster.
I'm willing to lose my tengu as my mission boat, however, I'd like to get a missile boat bs that is as capable as the current tengu before this nerf bat hits. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:31:00 -
[2229] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:My most important comment to make on the subject is.
CCP...
PLEASE, for the love of Marauders!!!
Wait until you've buffed the rest of the missile boats before you go nerfing the only two effective ships we have!!!
(DISCLAIMER: I don't care about the troll posts of other players who claim that many other missile boats are effective in pvp when we all know they're little more than bait, extra dps, or just there to drop a bomb and then become a bonus if they stay alive because this doesn't make them effective) The Drake and Tengu will still be good, maybe even holding onto the "Go Drake/Tengu or go home!" title they have now. It could be worse, it could be Gallente. Yeah, but my concern is pve really. Right now the tengu is the most efficient missile boat in pve. This IS in part due to the OP nature of the tengu, however, the tengu is outperformed by t1 and t2 bs' without missile specialization in pve. So, this is to say that the rest of the missile boats capable of lvl 4 missions are quite lack luster. I'm willing to lose my tengu as my mission boat, however, I'd like to get a missile boat bs that is as capable as the current tengu before this nerf bat hits.
CNR/Golem? Used both and the Tengu, Both are better at certain missions than the other. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:33:00 -
[2230] - Quote
Signal11th wrote: Ufortunately although I admire your sentiment people always say "I'm off" and don't actually go through with it. I'll be staying because I like EVE and will just buy the ship that hasn't been nerfed and that will still do the same job.
It doesn't change the fact that I think it's run by people who really don't understand their user base even after so many cockups and apologies and their little lapdogs with their holier than thou attitudes.
Spot on dude |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:38:00 -
[2231] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Good job CCP.
65+ km is quite nice distance for my Apoc...
And yes, you can do Stop the Thief with turret ship. |
Mira Luhtanen
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:39:00 -
[2232] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
oh god why |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:46:00 -
[2233] - Quote
Ok, first of all let me set something straight that has been bugging me for a few pages of reading now:
Beam Harby pilots do exist! I use both Harby and Drake as long range ships and i know of there strengths and weaknesses.
http://kb.fleetofthedamned.net/index.php/pilot_detail/1582977350/ships_weapons/
(Drake 2nd most used ship) (99% of the time HML setup) (Harbinger 3rd most used ship) (99% of the time Beam setup (Heavy or Focused)
If you want to truelly compare Drakes and harbingers you should take everything in account. In skirmish warfare the armor Beam Harbinger is superior too the drake in almost every way. In my setups the harby has more dps, the same effective hp, aproximatly the same speed instant damage and a lot faster locking time. I've flown both the Harbinger and drake hundreds of times, and gotten 186 (harby) vs 211 (drake) kills with it. And still i always prefere the harbinger. The fact that the drake has more kills, is not because of HML - Beam weapon difference, its not because of inherent design flaws of either ship or weapon system because of 2 reasons.
1) Shield fleets go out more often then armor fleets so you get more use of them 2) Blob warfare uses drakes because there easier to skill for, cheap and nearly everyone can use them
I've had my share of skirmish and blob warfare and the ONLY reason that blob warfare uses drakes is the combined Effective HP, easyness to train, and cost effectiveness. In true blob warfare where you have multiple fleets on each side you'll see the following, People with more ship options join there respective fleets eg armor hac Alpha mael and then everyone thats left is told to get into a drake. This is not a design flaw of the HML but of the drake.
Now haveing said that there are a few things i do want to point out towards the HML proposed changes:
Rebalancing the HML is a good thing. I favor the range decrease, especially since the announced TC, TE will allow you to customize your range to a degree that the gun users currently can.
What i fear however is that the HML damage balance is only looked on at its max range to balance it there. As said by myself in previous posts, as well as many others, missile launcher users currently don't have the option to switch to short range damage missiles that have the same range, damage and tracking (read explosion radius/velocity) bonuses, nor do they have the option to change to longer range versions. If you look at a damage graph of a gun, and would theoreticly cycle at each independant range to a ammo thats best suited for that range you get a nice curve of damage gradually decreasing in damage over range. With Missiles you have a straigth line.
While practicly its impossible to switch to ammo for ever range if you look at this curve and the current missiles the damage output is switched from lower to higher somewhere nearly in the middle. This Straigth line of dps is then further amplified by the fact that you can get good and perfect hits vs always the same damage of missiles. In that sense the theoretical missile is balanced.
A comparison to the practical weapon effectiveness is a little difficult to see without calculating in all those factors; different ammo's from short to long range, its tracking bonuses wich indirectly also affect the chance of good and perfect hits, vs the missile always the same damage from 0 to max range without able to crit.
If you want the missiles to behave with guns, fine, but then let them behave like guns. Give us the High damage, high exlosive velocity, small explosive radius Fury missile, the standard faction missiles and the long range Precision missiles. Give the missiles a comparable damage output at every range instead of one range. Or if you don't like that idea, (wich i don't) check out a few other options to balance the HML missile:
Switch (and or adjust) the power need for Heavy Assault Missile Launchers and Heavy missile launchers Adjust the power amount of the drake the same as you did with the Hurricane, EG: allow just enough power for 7 HML launchers, a TII link, and a Medium shield extender or 7 HAM a TII link and a Large shield extender
Buff the HAM launcher damage so that ships bonused for the HAM (like sacrilege) don't want to use a different system, and those with bonuses for both want to use the ranges the rest of the fleet is useing instead of one range fits all.
Buff the speed and explosion radius/velocities of the HAM missile so there in line with the short range gun counterparts. High velocity, extreme short flight time of the unguided missiles (read UNGUIDED) shouldn't be a engine or lore problem. In the redesigned caracal i can see the strange scenario that the ship is faster then its HAM missiles.
But most importantly: If you have the time please redesign the drake at the same time as all the other Medium missile useing ships and release them simultaneously
Also note, that the missile redesign heavily threads on the Medium variant. This suggests that the ratio's for small and large missile delivery systems are more in line. With the 6.66% velocity change of Heavy missiles, you have a different missile velocity for one type of missile that look really odd. Have you realized that the heavy missiles will be faster then the light missiles (wich in my eyes should be designed to shoot the relative faster moveing frigate sized ships) Wouldn't it be more logical, to keep the velocity the same but reduce the flight time? In that sense wouldn't it be more logical that the light missile is faster then and the cruise missile slower then the heavy missile?
PS: it would be a great help to try to determine the missile rebalance changes if there would be values to the TE, TC, TD, Fury Rage Javelin and Precision missile changes. Currently we have to make guesses of there influence wich tends to lead to unfounded conclusions
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:48:00 -
[2234] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Soon Shin wrote:The New tracking disruptors however will. Imagine a significant reduction in range or tracking reduction against missiles and turrets. All you need is a single module and can change scripts on the fly to affect all dps ships in the game. How about this: - Two scripts for every weapons system in game (8 scripts in total) and for example projectile range disruption script doesn't have any effect on lasers, hybrids or missiles. - Switching script takes 30-60 seconds - When switching scripts you can't activate any other module or move
Still doesn't make a difference you don't get it.
Why make such ridiculous limitations that overall changes nothing.
Just make a missile disruptor and leave td as it currently is.
You will have to choose between fitting one OR the other not both. |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:51:00 -
[2235] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Katharina B wrote:In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Good job CCP. 65+ km is quite nice distance for my Apoc... And yes, you can do Stop the Thief with turret ship.
... which I have to train from beginning with 0 SP. Too much work and especially TIME/MONEY to reach the exact same goal with another race what I have compared now with caldari. Does someone even read ALL of the posted text? It seems that a few people just read "Missile.. Stop The Thief.. Quit" and than present another worthless option to compensate a nerf of 4.5 years of skillset. |
Lord Balrog DUAN
Light of the moon Pangu Coalition
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:51:00 -
[2236] - Quote
Heavy missile, farewell! BTW,ecm is the next to balance? Or weaken? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:58:00 -
[2237] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:... which I have to train from beginning with 0 SP. Too much work and especially TIME/MONEY to reach the exact same goal with another race what I have compared now with caldari. Does someone even read ALL of the posted text? It seems that a few people just read "Missile.. Stop The Thief.. Quit" and than present another worthless option to compensate a nerf of 4.5 years of skillset.
That's like someone saying "use Drake" to me and I say "but my dps is horrible with just minimum amount of SP in missiles".
But that's the fact that I have to deal with until I can start training missiles after I finish with guns.
But 4,5 years to train Caldari and heavy missiles... |
Ghazu
198
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:59:00 -
[2238] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Katharina B wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! Here is MY PERSONAL feedback: Two accounts cancelled - You lost a more than 4 years paying customer! In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Good job CCP. As Caldari pilot I end my career in New Eden. From a RP point I could say I grab my ISK buy me a planet or at least a little moon somewhere and can live like a god for the rest of my life. From a RL point I MUST SAY, that CCP do never think about changes and their consequences. And ever ask the wrong people who do not have skilled what they intent to nerf next. Bye folks. It was a pleasure for me to be part of this community for 4.5 years. But now it is time to travel on. O7 P.S.: No! You can not have my stuff. Remember? I want to buy me a planet or a little moon. Rage quit best quit
christ can you post something that is a sentence and not an emote or a meme.
|
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:09:00 -
[2239] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
But 4,5 years to train Caldari and heavy missiles...
Perhaps I have misunderstood this part of your post or you just want to troll me. It is not so that I have learned 4.5 years just for Heavy missile and Drake. It is that I have learned to fly my caldari ships with all Level 5. But with TD-crap and missile nerf + boosted AI in missions, it seems to be a hard job if I do my missionrunning after thnis winter. 100% caldari, nearly 80 Mill SP total and a lot of free unallocated SP. But I do NOT use this to learn a second race, because of one brain fart from CCP. I just quit eve. Should CCP find another customer. Whatever! Thats not my business anymore. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:15:00 -
[2240] - Quote
Raven, CNR, Navy Scorp and Golem will become much better for PvE than now, so you can continue to run missions as pure Caldari. |
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:20:00 -
[2241] - Quote
I will guarantee that the majority of ships you will encounter will fit a TD, if allowed to affect all weapons with a change of a script.
TD were not overly prevalent due to being useless against missile ships. You fitted one on expectations of fighting a turret ship, if you guessed wrong you had a module that was useless for the situation and just wasted a midslot.
But if these changes happen you remove the stragedy and thinking of fitting a TD or not. You now just fit one and pretty much win if your opponent doesn't have a TD of their own.
This will become a must have module to fit in order to be competitive and will become a severe issue in the game. Even Fozzie acknowledges that such a problem could happen.
But this can all be avoided if ccp makes a separate module for missile disruption. |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:20:00 -
[2242] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Raven, CNR, Navy Scorp and Golem will become much better for PvE than now, so you can continue to run missions as pure Caldari. With TD and defenders in my missions? With a switching NPC's who kills my drones and leave my ship scrambled allone? To compensate this TD-crap I have to weaken my tank to use TC or TE. No thanks. Why do you think that the rest of the caldari ships will get a boost? TD will affect ALL missiles. And to counter against this crap I have to reduce my tank massively.
So please explain.. WHY will the "Raven, CNR, Navy Scorp and Golem will become much better for PvE than now"? Not just claiming.. deliver facts please. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:24:00 -
[2243] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! Here is MY PERSONAL feedback: Two accounts cancelled - You lost a more than 4 years paying customer! In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Good job CCP. As Caldari pilot I end my career in New Eden. From a RP point I could say I grab my ISK buy me a planet or at least a little moon somewhere and can live like a god for the rest of my life. From a RL point I MUST SAY, that CCP do never think about changes and their consequences. And ever ask the wrong people who do not have skilled what they intent to nerf next. Bye folks. It was a pleasure for me to be part of this community for 4.5 years. But now it is time to travel on. O7 P.S.: No! You can not have my stuff. Remember? I want to buy me a planet or a little moon.
What I'M reading is: 4.5 years player cannot deal with elite frigs in two missions and quits the game..... ....although you said no.... ....can I still haz your stuff??? |
Kharagor
Voidhawk Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:24:00 -
[2244] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders?We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause. Fixing defenders don't necessarily mean, to leave them in the realm of "missiles" in their function. It can also be possible, to rename then to "chaff&flares", that produce a AE-Effect of maybe 1.5km radius who let maybe 30% of all missiles in range die. In this way, the game-mechanic is a "only missiles hitting smartbomb", and smartbombs already exits. For balancing-issues, it can be possible to have 4 different sorts of "defenders". Kinetic, EM, and so on. And each sort of "defenders" can only kill their damage-pendant...
At the last: I don't like the idea to equal everything. Putting missiles in the same mechanic-realm with the turrets is not good in my eyes. Missiles should have nothing to do with tracking-stuff.
The rest of the ideas (making NPCs a little capricious, giving the long-range Missiles noticeable less damage than their shortrange types) is ok for me. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:31:00 -
[2245] - Quote
Katharina B wrote: So please explain.. WHY will the "Raven, CNR, Navy Scorp and Golem will become much better for PvE than now"? Not just claiming.. deliver facts please.
Noone can bring facts at this stage, it's just a F&I Discussions and no changes are made yet. Those ships will become better because you will be able to fit torps with TE/TC and have actually good damage projection. You will be able to make Cruise hit small targets. T2 missiles will stop being a joke. TD are bad for every ship beside drone boats so nothing so special for Caldari here, just learn which ships use ewar and counter it just like you kill damp or neut rats. Drone changes are affecting everyone and Caldari actually take it easier than other because they never relied on drones in a first place. As was said before you can loose a couple of drones per 5-10 missions, that's not a big deal. |
Misspi en Divalone
Exotic dancer training club Exotic Dancer Trainer Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:32:00 -
[2246] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I'm currently attempting to fit up a battlecruiser to match the following on a Drake:
- EHP
- DPS
- Alpha
- Speed
- Cap stability for a decent length of time
- Agility
- Fitting costs
- Lock Range
Trying the Harbinger first, so far I can't get anything on that list without all of the others being completely LOL. Looking at the Brutix and Myrmidon with Railguns next... while you're at it, try building a drake with all the stat capabilities of a hurricane at close range. Pretty sure the hurricane will win. (don't forget the hurricane has utility highs)
That's easy that would be the ham drake which in no way is a clear cut win in a 1 v 1 for either depending on fit, pilot skill and if that cane pilot actually dares to enter scram range. Do compare them you might be pleasantly surprised by it's stat capabilities. |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:39:00 -
[2247] - Quote
Deerin wrote:Katharina B wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! Here is MY PERSONAL feedback: Two accounts cancelled - You lost a more than 4 years paying customer! In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Good job CCP. As Caldari pilot I end my career in New Eden. From a RP point I could say I grab my ISK buy me a planet or at least a little moon somewhere and can live like a god for the rest of my life. From a RL point I MUST SAY, that CCP do never think about changes and their consequences. And ever ask the wrong people who do not have skilled what they intent to nerf next. Bye folks. It was a pleasure for me to be part of this community for 4.5 years. But now it is time to travel on. O7 P.S.: No! You can not have my stuff. Remember? I want to buy me a planet or a little moon. What I'M reading is: 4.5 years player cannot deal with elite frigs in two missions and quits the game..... ....although you said no.... ....can I still haz your stuff???
*giggle I want to repeat on of my previous posts: Does someone even read ALL of the posted text? It seems that a few people just read "Missile.. Stop The Thief.. Quit" and than present another worthless option to compensate a nerf of 4.5 years of skillset. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
289
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:46:00 -
[2248] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:So please explain.. WHY will the "Raven, CNR, Navy Scorp and Golem will become much better for PvE than now"? Not just claiming.. deliver facts please. With TE's and TC's being able to adjust missile performance (in TC's case "on the fly") Torps and Cruise will be godly in PvE where you don't have to worry about PvP specific modules like tackle. Defender missiles will be less of a problem as the EHP of the big dogs is high enough to survive a hit or two (last I heard).
- Unless you run missions for Amarr you have 0.00001% chance of running into a TD in a mission, they are as far as I know exclusively used by Sansha. - AI improvement will have zero impact on your day to day operations unless you, contrary to the norm, have a wingman with you on site. Actually, scratch that, it will have an impact: Loot/Salvage ninjas will now have a chance to get shot by NPCs even if they are all focused on you when they enter .. where are the ninja whiners at, don't they realise that CCP is about to nerf their playstyle?
PS: Stop the Thief is the mercs where spawn begins after nuking the nearby BS, right?
5-6 minutes in a Beam Paladin .. never had issues with scrambling frigs, by all means let them come, I have a 90% web waiting for them as well as a light drone flight.
Don't be afraid to have them actually scramble you, once they are close your drones will be as safe as can be, besides CCP has stated that it is not sleeper AI so drones are not priority targets. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:56:00 -
[2249] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Raven, CNR, Navy Scorp and Golem will become much better for PvE than now, so you can continue to run missions as pure Caldari. With TD and defenders in my missions? With a switching NPC's who kills my drones and leave my ship scrambled allone? To compensate this TD-crap I have to weaken my tank to use TC or TE. No thanks. Why do you think that the rest of the caldari ships will get a boost? TD will affect ALL missiles. And to counter against this crap I have to reduce my tank massively. So please explain.. WHY will the "Raven, CNR, Navy Scorp and Golem will become much better for PvE than now"? Not just claiming.. deliver facts please.
There's only one mission where you encounter a lot of TD'ing Sanshas: The Blockade. And if you think it will be difficult with missile boat go and try Pulse Apoc. Your 70+ km optimal will be around 8 km and your tracking speed is somewhere close to capital turrets. There's still way to kill 1st wave without any trouble: autocannons. Yep, Sansha TD doesn't affect falloff range in any way. |
Shade Millith
Fortis Defensor.
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 09:56:00 -
[2250] - Quote
Ok, my thoughts on the issue, not that anyone cares.
Range nerf? Yes.
Damage nerf? Too far.
Bump the range nerf up to 60%-70%, remove Precision HML's and add Javelin HML's that increase the range back to 60-70kms.
Keep the decent damage to 40km's, with reduced damage out to 80km's.
Your changes will just make the HML worthless for PVP. Add to that the Drake changes you've hinted at, and I think your sending the Drake back to what it used to be. The 'LOLDrake'. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 10:02:00 -
[2251] - Quote
Did anyone stop for a second to think that MAYBE they kept the 8th visual hardpoint on the new Drake model because it would get 8 launchers in the rebalancing? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 10:19:00 -
[2252] - Quote
Dear CPP Fozzie
Feedback on the proposed changes
HML range and dps nerf -
The numbers speak for themselves and show this brings HMLs in line with the other top-tier med long range weapons, and therefore is surely correct. I note that on the caldari missle ships rebalanced so far, in each case the kinetic-only bonus has been replaced with an all damage bonus. I would be surprised if this wasnt done for the larger ships too, in time. This coupled with the introduction of missle-affecting TEs/TCs means missles (especially HAMs, precision HMLs, rockets and (precision) cruise missles) may still be overpowered and need their base explosion velocity and sig radius decreased otherwise they may become too brutal at killing small ships. Time will tell but I'm happy for now.
Medium long range weapons There is a wider issue that I hope CCP will also address here - none of the long range guns are really viable enough on a medium platform (other than tier3 BCs). I think this needs to be addressed in ship balancing. The basic issue is that its very hard to give a ship bonuses that make it an excellent long range ship without making it even better as a short-medium range ship. Currently its not worth the huge tradeoffs of long range medium sized guns (who uses Heavy Beams, seriously) and this is not simply a factor of their fitting cost (though those changes will help). I think a possible solution is embracing the idea of ship bonuses that look something like this: Bonus 1 - whatever Bonus 2 - +15-20% range per level of X Malus 1 - -10% tracking (or explosion velocity) per level of X i.e. a very overpowered bonus that is targetted at long range platforms, together with a malus which makes it less useful on a short range platform. This could also be applied to the new HMLs.
Caldari Missle Ships that use HMLs I'm confident that with HMLs adjusted, Cerberus, Nighthawk etc will be boosted in due course when their classes get reviewed. The caracal looks fine on paper. Drake and Tengu will still be good, especially with interesting TE/TC fits designed to snipe small ships.
Tracking Disruptors I'm amarr-only with 120m skillpoints and obviously maxed out in TDs. I love the curse and pilgrim and sentinal. That said, the changes have a strong potential to be overpowered. CCP should resist this, and also the urge to nerf them to uselessness. I think the best solution is to lower the base values of the TD maluses, and increase the bonus on the specialised ships to compensate. Theres nothing wrong with a curse being a thing of fear on the smallgang battlefield - a falcon already is and gallente and minmatar recons are a guarantee you are not going to escape. This could be coupled with seperate scripts for each of the effects, which would encourage player skill to switch at the right time and prepare for each target.
What I would be against is different modules for missles vs guns. None of the TD ships have enough midslots to take advantage of this and its not needed with the changes listed above
On the the discussion in this thread
110 pages of very, very few people actually engaging with what CCP Fozzie actually said in a constructive way. Many people don't even seem to have noticed the very detailed reply he gave around page 70. Either that or they don't care about logic or balancing.
Some of us have been playing Eve long enough to remember the last lot of missle changes (in that case, slight damage,range etc nerf and the introduction of all the missle skills which brought all such factors, at level 5, above where they started) , which, like these, were also a mixed bag of nerfs and bonuses. Hundreds or even thousands of players threatened to quit then too.
Then, as now, the issue is not that the changes are rushed, that they are too strong, or that they are unfair. The issue is that there is a section of the gaming populace who fly one ship with one setup, day in day out, to run missions, or fight sleepers, or some other form of PvE, who will not under any circumstances accept a nerf to their ship, playstyle or income. They wont even accept a neutral change. Its not surprise at all that the people in this thread who are so adamantly agains the changes are not willing to discuss the numbers, or do so only falliciously (comparing HMLs to short range weapons for example). Threatening to quit over logically justified and AS YET UNFINALISED changes is the act of a small child tossing his toys from the pram.
This has happened so many times now in the history of eve. I hope, and am confident, that CCP will ignore the whiners, ride out the small number of sub cancellations (if any, its usually idle threats), and go on with some form of changes, taking into account the real feedback. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 10:26:00 -
[2253] - Quote
Infact, we still need to see the fury missiles buff to even be able to say it's a nerf. With damage buff of fury missiles and damage application, I bet the nerf will not be more than 10% at close range. But I guess it's too complicated to see it for an HML user...
HML will be on line with turrets, and other missiles received an amazing buff. Can't you realize this ? And HML will still be very good, and I bet even better in some situation.
BTW, those claiming that *caldari* are hit should reprocess themselves or learn hybrid turret, and then go back to their "nerfed" heavy missiles.
And some should go to look at the "balance" definition. It's pathetic to see so many people saying that HML are fine and then that's there will be nothing for pve if they are nerfed. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 10:30:00 -
[2254] - Quote
Shade Millith wrote:Ok, my thoughts on the issue, not that anyone cares.
Range nerf? Yes.
Damage nerf? Too far.
Bump the range nerf up to 60%-70%, remove Precision HML's and add Javelin HML's that increase the range back to 60-70kms.
Keep the decent damage to 40km's, with reduced damage out to 80km's.
Your changes will just make the HML worthless for PVP. Add to that the Drake changes you've hinted at, and I think your sending the Drake back to what it used to be. The 'LOLDrake'.
No, they make HML worthless for short range PvP where it cant dictate range. As a long range platform should be.
Please can you engage with the figures, which have been posted many times in this thread, that show that post nerf HMLs are still BY FAR the highest DPS of the long range medium weapons.
The changes you suggest take HMLs completely out of the light-heavy-cruise line and make them a sort of "super HML". You need to remember that HMLs are NOT supposed to be a short range weapon. In theory HMLs should be lower dmg than long range guns because nothing can "get under their tracking" through pilotting but I accept this wouldnt go down well with the very vocal drake/tengu hoardes. |
LePaJ
Fake Empire. DarkSide.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 10:32:00 -
[2255] - Quote
After changes in FW, far exceeding the number of LP + boost consumption T2 missiles significantly reduce output LP Caldari Navy. Any parallel plan is developed to stabilize the situation? |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
371
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 10:52:00 -
[2256] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Shade Millith wrote:Ok, my thoughts on the issue, not that anyone cares.
Range nerf? Yes.
Damage nerf? Too far.
Bump the range nerf up to 60%-70%, remove Precision HML's and add Javelin HML's that increase the range back to 60-70kms.
Keep the decent damage to 40km's, with reduced damage out to 80km's.
Your changes will just make the HML worthless for PVP. Add to that the Drake changes you've hinted at, and I think your sending the Drake back to what it used to be. The 'LOLDrake'. No, they make HML worthless for short range PvP where it cant dictate range. As a long range platform should be. Please can you engage with the figures, which have been posted many times in this thread, that show that post nerf HMLs are still BY FAR the highest DPS of the long range medium weapons. The changes you suggest take HMLs completely out of the light-heavy-cruise line and make them a sort of "super HML". You need to remember that HMLs are NOT supposed to be a short range weapon. In theory HMLs should be lower dmg than long range guns because nothing can "get under their tracking" through pilotting but I accept this wouldnt go down well with the very vocal drake/tengu hoardes.
you are missing a few things: 1. long range medium turrets are not exactly popular to begin with. if you nerf HMLs down to their level, they will just become equally useless. that's like killing your neighbor's wife because your own wife is an ugly *****. 2. you don't need piloting skills to mitigate missile damage. just be small and fast, that's it. 3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever. 4. arguing paper dps is stupid. it's applied dps that matters and the average applied dps of heavy missiles is arguably worse than at least beams and arty and will be even more so after the frigate and cruiser buffs.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 10:56:00 -
[2257] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Did anyone stop for a second to think that MAYBE they kept the 8th visual hardpoint on the new Drake model because it would get 8 launchers in the rebalancing? Actually I thought that at work today. Bit of an extreme nerf on the other missile boats to justify that though. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:04:00 -
[2258] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:Deerin wrote:Katharina B wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! Here is MY PERSONAL feedback: Two accounts cancelled - You lost a more than 4 years paying customer! In addition to the missile nerf CCP will also bring an AI boost for NPC's in missions. These NPC's will switch targets. At the first look it seems to be a good idea. At the second look it is a typical darft idea from CCP. Mission "Buzz Kill" and "Stop The Thief" are just two of more missions where every pilot will have problems with his drones. (ELITE) Frigs are at 65km+ at the beginning, you start your drones but they will be destroyed before they reach the enemy frigate. If you call back your drones they are to far away to reach your ship befor they are destroyed. What have we than? A scrambled ship without drones and less damage with missiles or more damage with the stupid TE+TC but horrible less tank. Goo d job CCP. As Caldari pilot I end my career in New Eden. From a RP point I could say I grab my ISK buy me a planet or at least a little moon somewhere and can live like a god for the rest of my life. From a RL point I MUST SAY, that CCP do never think about changes and their consequences. And ever ask the wrong people who do not have skilled what they intent to nerf next. Bye folks. It was a pleasure for me to be part of this community for 4.5 years. But now it is time to travel on. O7 P.S.: No! You can not have my stuff. Remember? I want to buy me a planet or a little moon. What I'M reading is: 4.5 years player cannot deal with elite frigs in two missions and quits the game..... ....although you said no.... ....can I still haz your stuff??? *giggle I want to repeat on of my previous posts: Does someone even read ALL of the posted text? It seems that a few people just read "Missile.. Stop The Thief.. Quit" and than present another worthless option to compensate a nerf of 4.5 years of skillset.
You are quitting over a 4 month skillset.
In 4.5 years and TWO accounts you never trained anything beyond a Drake?
So the gist of you post is missions, must think, quit......over level 4s....lol
|
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:08:00 -
[2259] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Shade Millith wrote:Ok, my thoughts on the issue, not that anyone cares.
Range nerf? Yes.
Damage nerf? Too far.
Bump the range nerf up to 60%-70%, remove Precision HML's and add Javelin HML's that increase the range back to 60-70kms.
Keep the decent damage to 40km's, with reduced damage out to 80km's.
Your changes will just make the HML worthless for PVP. Add to that the Drake changes you've hinted at, and I think your sending the Drake back to what it used to be. The 'LOLDrake'. No, they make HML worthless for short range PvP where it cant dictate range. As a long range platform should be. Please can you engage with the figures, which have been posted many times in this thread, that show that post nerf HMLs are still BY FAR the highest DPS of the long range medium weapons. The changes you suggest take HMLs completely out of the light-heavy-cruise line and make them a sort of "super HML". You need to remember that HMLs are NOT supposed to be a short range weapon. In theory HMLs should be lower dmg than long range guns because nothing can "get under their tracking" through pilotting but I accept this wouldnt go down well with the very vocal drake/tengu hoardes. A drake is fast enough to dictate range? Really?
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
63
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:09:00 -
[2260] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:
you are missing a few things: 1. long range medium turrets are not exactly popular to begin with. if you nerf HMLs down to their level, they will just become equally useless. that's like killing your neighbor's wife because your own wife is an ugly *****.
Yes and no. Yes, the medium guns are not popular, but this is a problem with the platforms NOT the guns themselves. The DPS output, range and tracking is balances as against short range guns. The issue is the long range platforms are completely outclassed by tier3 BCs. Boosting the long range cruisers is the correct balancing step - and one I'm sure CCP will take when they get to tech2 cruisers.
Quote: 2. you don't need piloting skills to mitigate missile damage. just be small and fast, that's it.
Exactly. With guns you can be "small and fast" OR use pilotting skill. Missles have a big advantage AND don't fully "miss" so can still force (for example) a tackling inty off the field even with anemic damage.
Quote: 3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever.
Yes they have. MWD Drake blobs kite all the time. They cant 'absolutely' dictate range against a focussed, faster opponent but they dont need to - they sit at 100km and noone approaches them. "Dictating Range" in a fleet fight IS NOT the same as dictating it in a 1v1. In a fleet fight warping and warping back in is a form of dictating range. IF a drake blob engages MWD on mass and moves away, theres not many short range platforms (if any) that can both keep in range of the majority of the blob (they might web and pick off one or two), and keep enough Cap to have a reasonable chance of actually beating the drakes.
Quote: 4. arguing paper dps is stupid. it's applied dps that matters and the average applied dps of heavy missiles is arguably worse than at least beams and arty and will be even more so after the frigate and cruiser buffs.
"Arguing on paper is stupid, therefore I'll just shoot my mouth off based on my gut feeling (and did I mention I only fly drakes and Tengus so I'm not at all biased) and not produce ANY evidence"
If HMLs are arguably worse than beams and arty, howecome drakes and tengus are the most popular ships? Both the usage statistics AND the paper figures back up the belief that HMLs are OP. Cerbs and Nighthawks are underpowered, but will be addressed when CCP gets to tech 2 ships next year. barely anyone flies them atm so its hardly a disaster to have to wait.
You are also wrong about applied dps. In current fleet warfare, the 10 second (max) delay before missle dps is applied is meaningless, and there is no damage mitigation against the equal sized targets you normally see in fleets. |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
205
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:09:00 -
[2261] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun. Is 7 times the speed of sound fast enough? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-video_n_1311251.htmlLooks more like you don't understand differences between missiles and railguns/coilguns.
No where near fast enough lol.
That is half the speed of current eve missiles. Mach 7 is 2.4k m/s, so it would take the rail gun projectile well over a minute to reach 200k. It could a bit faster in a vacuum and with more advanced tech but is a million miles away from being instant it. Modern missiles can reach not far off that speed even if you don't use the same to tech to launch them as you do to fire the rail gun (which you could do and one assumes that is how eve missiles are launched). Really there should be very little difference in missile and hybrid speeds and projectiles should be slower than either. lasers should be the only practically instant hit. |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:17:00 -
[2262] - Quote
Lallante wrote:[quote=Daniel Plain]
3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever. Yes they have. MWD Drake blobs kite all the time. They cant 'absolutely' dictate range against a focussed, faster opponent but they dont need to - they sit at 100km and noone approaches them. "Dictating Range" in a fleet fight IS NOT the same as dictating it in a 1v1. In a fleet fight warping and warping back in is a form of dictating range. IF a drake blob engages MWD on mass and moves away, theres not many short range platforms (if any) that can both keep in range of the majority of the blob (they might web and pick off one or two), and keep enough Cap to have a reasonable chance of actually beating the drakes.
lol, how much damage do they do to a target at 100k? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
64
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:20:00 -
[2263] - Quote
what? |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:23:00 -
[2264] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun. Is 7 times the speed of sound fast enough? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-video_n_1311251.htmlLooks more like you don't understand differences between missiles and railguns/coilguns. No where near fast enough lol. That is half the speed of current eve missiles. Mach 7 is 2.4k m/s, so it would take the rail gun projectile well over a minute to reach 200k. It could a bit faster in a vacuum and with more advanced tech but is a million miles away from being instant it. Modern missiles can reach not far off that speed even if you don't use the same to tech to launch them as you do to fire the rail gun (which you could do and one assumes that is how eve missiles are launched). Really there should be very little difference in missile and hybrid speeds and projectiles should be slower than either. lasers should be the only practically instant hit.
well also you know they started using missiles on jets because they kept shooting themselves down with their own guns when they ran into their projectiles, lol. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:33:00 -
[2265] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:you are missing a few things: 1. long range medium turrets are not exactly popular to begin with. if you nerf HMLs down to their level, they will just become equally useless. that's like killing your neighbor's wife because your own wife is an ugly *****. HAC sniping got killed by on grid probing, and the tier 3 battlecruisers, before those, you used to see fleets of 100 km beam zealots, heck you even still see 80 km muninns for their alpha, theyve just been overshadowed by something better, this doesnt make them bad necessarily, just that those other things need perhaps a slight adjustment downward.
Daniel Plain wrote:2. you don't need piloting skills to mitigate missile damage. just be small and fast, that's it. small and fast works against guns too . . . a dramiel orbiting at 250km can basically never be hit by a sniper apoc, even running an MWD at that extreme of a range. being small gets under guns just as well for guns, perhaps even better because missiles always do at least some damage.
Daniel Plain wrote:3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever. thats really a sweeping generalization as you are not stating what ships youre trying to get range from. can you keep range from interceptors? no, but youre more than able to keep range from battleships . . . and though most cruisers are faster than you are, it doesnt matter because your fleet usually warps in at 100 km anyway and leaves when the enemy crosses the 50 km line.
Daniel Plain wrote:4. arguing paper dps is stupid. it's applied dps that matters True, but right now all we have are the numbers. And besides as a statistician, I can tell you that the number are more than adequate, you just have to account for all the variables. |
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:39:00 -
[2266] - Quote
I agree that heavy missiles should be nerfed in some way but TD affecting missiles is ridiculous.
1) it's not logical because missiles don't have tracking 2) it will make TD overpowered so I expect every ship in game to have at least one fitted 3) you already have defender missiles - just make them act as other ewar: you lock ship, activate module on it and it kills some missiles fired by that ship. Can't be simpler than that. 4) unlike turret fire missiles can be killed by smartbombs which gives too much counter to missile ships compared to turret ones
I understand your solution is much simpler and straightforward to implement but you shouldn't make everything in this game the same. Variety is what's interesting about it. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:43:00 -
[2267] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Doddy wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun. Is 7 times the speed of sound fast enough? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-video_n_1311251.htmlLooks more like you don't understand differences between missiles and railguns/coilguns. No where near fast enough lol. That is half the speed of current eve missiles. Mach 7 is 2.4k m/s, so it would take the rail gun projectile well over a minute to reach 200k. It could a bit faster in a vacuum and with more advanced tech but is a million miles away from being instant it. Modern missiles can reach not far off that speed even if you don't use the same to tech to launch them as you do to fire the rail gun (which you could do and one assumes that is how eve missiles are launched). Really there should be very little difference in missile and hybrid speeds and projectiles should be slower than either. lasers should be the only practically instant hit.
While that is true, I will point out that the article stated the railgun used was a "32-megajoule prototype railgun" by comparison, 425mm Raingun IIs take 21 GJ to fire thats 656.25 times the energy used to accelerate the projectile. |
Renegade 41
Gigaverse The Imperial Senate
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:45:00 -
[2268] - Quote
NO TD mod for Missiles, and a damage nerf of 10-15% would be fine.
That is all.
Missiles can be dodged already, why put an even bigger chance to miss in? HM's dont have alpha, they have late beta. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
66
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:46:00 -
[2269] - Quote
Alexander the Great wrote:I agree that heavy missiles should be nerfed in some way but TD affecting missiles is ridiculous.
1) it's not logical because missiles don't have tracking 2) it will make TD overpowered so I expect every ship in game to have at least one fitted 3) you already have defender missiles - just make them act as other ewar: you lock ship, activate module on it and it kills some missiles fired by that ship. Can't be simpler than that. 4) unlike turret fire missiles can be killed by smartbombs which gives too much counter to missile ships compared to turret ones
I understand your solution is much simpler and straightforward to implement but you shouldn't make everything in this game the same. Variety is what's interesting about it.
1) Using RL logic is a terrible arguement - we have fluid dynamics for space movement and max range on projectiles in a vacuum! 2) Entirely depends on the details. Are Multispecs overpowered? Are damps? Both work on all ships. 3) Defenders dont work. They have been broken for years. To get them working is too CPU intensive (read Fozzies response around page 70). 4) Since various missle changes smartbombs are no longer effective against most missles as they have more HP than a single bomb blast. Its not a realistic disadvantage. Turrets have the added disadvantage of being COMPLETELY unable to hit any small target that gets <500m from the ship. Missles hit at all of their ranges. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
371
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 11:59:00 -
[2270] - Quote
Lallante wrote: Yes and no. Yes, the medium guns are not popular, but this is a problem with the platforms NOT the guns themselves. The DPS output, range and tracking is balances as against short range guns. The issue is the long range platforms are completely outclassed by tier3 BCs. Boosting the long range cruisers is the correct balancing step - and one I'm sure CCP will take when they get to tech2 cruisers.
i disagree. even without T3 BCs, the long range turrets (especially rails) have huge trouble dealing with most opponents. basically, anything that isn't fast enough to get under your tracking is either a battleship and outranges you anyway or is outside of tackling range and can just warp out unless it gets alpha'ed(that's why arties are stille good). then of course the T3 BCs are here to stay and if medium long range guns can't compete with them, that is clearly a problem with the weapons (unless you argue to remove/nerf the T3s).
Quote: Exactly. With guns you can be "small and fast" OR use pilotting skill. Missles have a big advantage AND don't fully "miss" so can still force (for example) a tackling inty off the field even with anemic damage.
if you are small and fast, you are likely fragile which means you are vulnerable until you get under the guns. with missiles, you do always get a portion of the damage but you do not need to get into scram range to avoid part of it. to me this seems pretty balanced overall.
Quote: Yes they have. MWD Drake blobs kite all the time. They cant 'absolutely' dictate range against a focussed, faster opponent but they dont need to - they sit at 100km and noone approaches them. "Dictating Range" in a fleet fight IS NOT the same as dictating it in a 1v1. In a fleet fight warping and warping back in is a form of dictating range. IF a drake blob engages MWD on mass and moves away, theres not many short range platforms (if any) that can both keep in range of the majority of the blob (they might web and pick off one or two), and keep enough Cap to have a reasonable chance of actually beating the drakes.
blob warfare is one specific aspect of the game. if one hull or another performs exceptionally well in it, you should probably take a look at the hull and not the weapon system it shares with a dozen other ships. int his context, i will admit that the range on hevies is probably too long across the board and should be nerfed to less than the optimal of rails at least.
Quote: "Arguing on paper is stupid, therefore I'll just shoot my mouth off based on my gut feeling (and did I mention I only fly drakes and Tengus so I'm not at all biased) and not produce ANY evidence"
actually, i mostly fly nightmare and hurricane. please don't jump to conclusions. as for evidence: posting random numbers is not evidence either; it just skewes the picture away from a ship's actual real-world performance. to give you an example: on paper, the cerberus would be an awesome boat. smae DPS as a drake but 190km lolrange. yet somehow it is not so effective on the grid, to find out why is your homework.
Quote: If HMLs are arguably worse than beams and arty, howecome drakes and tengus are the most popular ships? Both the usage statistics AND the paper figures back up the belief that HMLs are OP. Cerbs and Nighthawks are underpowered, but will be addressed when CCP gets to tech 2 ships next year. barely anyone flies them atm so its hardly a disaster to have to wait.
drakes and tengus are overpowered because in addition to the HML range (which i won't deny needs a nerf), the one of them can easily fit a battleship sized buffer tank and the other one can fit a 100mn afterburner without losing too much of anything. if you adressed these two issues and also did something with hml range, everything would be fine (minmatar would reign supreme again).
[fakequote] You are also wrong about applied dps. In current fleet warfare, the 10 second (max) delay before missle dps is applied is meaningless, and there is no damage mitigation against the equal sized targets you normally see in fleets.[/fakequote] again, fleet warfare is not everything and the reason drakes are so good in fleet warfare is only partly due to HML's supposed OPness.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
Hazen Koraka
HK Enterprises
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:05:00 -
[2271] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly angry mob against these changes.
Please don't quote people and edit their quotes... I didn't say angry mob, but its netequitte not to edit what ppl say... |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:05:00 -
[2272] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
Perfect .... for stationary targets. Now calculate DPS and Alpha for firing from optimal range at target moving at 200km/s |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:10:00 -
[2273] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Lallante wrote:[quote=Daniel Plain]
3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever. Yes they have. MWD Drake blobs kite all the time. They cant 'absolutely' dictate range against a focussed, faster opponent but they dont need to - they sit at 100km and noone approaches them. "Dictating Range" in a fleet fight IS NOT the same as dictating it in a 1v1. In a fleet fight warping and warping back in is a form of dictating range. IF a drake blob engages MWD on mass and moves away, theres not many short range platforms (if any) that can both keep in range of the majority of the blob (they might web and pick off one or two), and keep enough Cap to have a reasonable chance of actually beating the drakes. lol, how much damage do they do to a target at 100k?
Right about 400 dps, you can still get 2 BCSs with that build.
|
Soko99
Repercussus RAZOR Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:13:00 -
[2274] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:My most important comment to make on the subject is.
CCP...
PLEASE, for the love of Marauders!!!
Wait until you've buffed the rest of the missile boats before you go nerfing the only two effective ships we have!!!
(DISCLAIMER: I don't care about the troll posts of other players who claim that many other missile boats are effective in pvp when we all know they're little more than bait, extra dps, or just there to drop a bomb and then become a bonus if they stay alive because this doesn't make them effective) The Drake and Tengu will still be good, maybe even holding onto the "Go Drake/Tengu or go home!" title they have now. It could be worse, it could be Gallente. Yeah, but my concern is pve really. Right now the tengu is the most efficient missile boat in pve. This IS in part due to the OP nature of the tengu, however, the tengu is outperformed by t1 and t2 bs' without missile specialization in pve. So, this is to say that the rest of the missile boats capable of lvl 4 missions are quite lack luster. I'm willing to lose my tengu as my mission boat, however, I'd like to get a missile boat bs that is as capable as the current tengu before this nerf bat hits. CNR/Golem? Used both and the Tengu, Both are better at certain missions than the other. Not sure about the golem but cnr tank is crap compared to tengu, you are screwed if your drones are dead and your speed is so slow that you'll spend more time moving from gate to gate than shooting stuff. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1615
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:14:00 -
[2275] - Quote
Sycotic Deninard wrote:Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread Wanna bet?
Hi again everyone. I said before that I would read every post in this thread and I'm not backing down from that. (Well if someone necros it in a year or something I may miss it but you know what I mean) Thanks once again to everyone who is providing constructive feedback.
I wanted to address a few more concerns:
- Is it true that this change is being made to reduce lag?
Nope. Those of you who experience large fleet warfare on a regular basis know that the lag production from missile has been vastly reduced thanks to Team Gridlock's efforts behind the scenes. Although it would be possible for us to make missiles a problem again through design (If I were to increase the ROF of heavy missiles 10 times over CCP Veritas would probably poison my coffee), the game design department has received no pressure at all to nerf heavy missiles for any server performance reasons. Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games. . .. ... Hmmm
- What about NPCs that use TDs and Defenders?
This is an excellent question and I really should have been more clear about it in the OP. We won't be changing NPC TD effects in this pass. Any adjustments to how NPC ewar works would require a more comprehensive balance pass on NPCs themselves to ensure it doesn't break anything. So even if we go forward with the TD change, Sansha TDs would not touch your missiles.
- Why aren't you considering Delayed Damage/Firewalls/Defenders?
Another excellent question and the answer is that we have not forgotten them at all. Missiles are very different from turrets in a lot of ways and that's both a big part of their appeal and part of the reason that the arguments in this thread seems to be going in circles. Aspects like the delay on damage, vulnerability to firewalls, defenders, using their own formula instead of tracking and selectable damage types are all hard to put on paper since their importance changes greatly based on the specific ingame situation. "Bringing in line" may not have been the best choice of words since it can be misunderstood to mean that everything will be the same. Missiles will still have certain advantages and disadvantages inherent to their mechanics, and part of the compensation for those differences is the fact that even after this proposal heavy missiles would continue to be by far the best cruiser weapon for damage projection at mid to long range. I am not proposing making heavy missiles match guns in damage or range, I'm proposing reducing the advantage they have over guns slightly. That being said this is a tricky balance area since so much of their performance is dependent on all these other factors. We're not taking the challenges here lightly and that's one of the reasons we're reaching out to you all for your feedback on the proposal.
- Are you trying to make all weapons the same to make the game more simple?
No, far from it. TE/TC/TD effects are the least of the differences between missiles and guns, and we are committed to providing players with interesting and distinct choices thorough our designs. The goal here isn't to trivialize the choice of missiles or guns, it's to make those choices matter more. We would be failing if after our changes guns are the obvious choice to train for, we would be failing if after our changes missiles are the obvious choice to train for, and we would be failing just as much if after our changes the choice between missiles and guns does not matter. It's a delicate balance but we're going to keep working with you all until we get it right.
- Are the notes from the CSM 6 winter summit minutes a good guide for what will be done with Drakes long-term?
Nope. CSM minutes tend to be full of spitballing and random brainstorming that never makes it past an early design review. The idea to give the drake more range in exchange for its resist bonus is another one of those ideas that never made it past the brainstorming stage.
- Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?
Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Frac Tal
FOXH0UND Outer Heaven
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:17:00 -
[2276] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Then just need to revamp missile mechanics to be in line with guns. That will solve everything. You mean like that missile will "teleport" next to target ship after launch and explodes. Yeah, if you can find the way to explain how it is possible... ... But of course 100+ km range on instantly hitting missiles... No thanks.
Just spat coffee everywhere laughing reading that :D |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:19:00 -
[2277] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sycotic Deninard wrote:Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread Wanna bet? Hi again everyone. I said before that I would read every post in this thread and I'm not backing down from that. (Well if someone necros it in a year or something I may miss it but you know what I mean) Thanks once again to everyone who is providing constructive feedback. I wanted to address a few more concerns:
- Is it true that this change is being made to reduce lag?
Nope. Those of you who experience large fleet warfare on a regular basis know that the lag production from missile has been vastly reduced thanks to Team Gridlock's efforts behind the scenes. Although it would be possible for us to make missiles a problem again through design (If I were to increase the ROF of heavy missiles 10 times over CCP Veritas would probably poison my coffee), the game design department has received no pressure at all to nerf heavy missiles for any server performance reasons. Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games. . .. ... Hmmm
- What about NPCs that use TDs and Defenders?
This is an excellent question and I really should have been more clear about it in the OP. We won't be changing NPC TD effects in this pass. Any adjustments to how NPC ewar works would require a more comprehensive balance pass on NPCs themselves to ensure it doesn't break anything. So even if we go forward with the TD change, Sansha TDs would not touch your missiles.
- Why aren't you considering Delayed Damage/Firewalls/Defenders?
Another excellent question and the answer is that we have not forgotten them at all. Missiles are very different from turrets in a lot of ways and that's both a big part of their appeal and part of the reason that the arguments in this thread seems to be going in circles. Aspects like the delay on damage, vulnerability to firewalls, defenders, using their own formula instead of tracking and selectable damage types are all hard to put on paper since their importance changes greatly based on the specific ingame situation. "Bringing in line" may not have been the best choice of words since it can be misunderstood to mean that everything will be the same. Missiles will still have certain advantages and disadvantages inherent to their mechanics, and part of the compensation for those differences is the fact that even after this proposal heavy missiles would continue to be by far the best cruiser weapon for damage projection at mid to long range. I am not proposing making heavy missiles match guns in damage or range, I'm proposing reducing the advantage they have over guns slightly. That being said this is a tricky balance area since so much of their performance is dependent on all these other factors. We're not taking the challenges here lightly and that's one of the reasons we're reaching out to you all for your feedback on the proposal.
- Are you trying to make all weapons the same to make the game more simple?
No, far from it. TE/TC/TD effects are the least of the differences between missiles and guns, and we are committed to providing players with interesting and distinct choices thorough our designs. The goal here isn't to trivialize the choice of missiles or guns, it's to make those choices matter more. We would be failing if after our changes guns are the obvious choice to train for, we would be failing if after our changes missiles are the obvious choice to train for, and we would be failing just as much if after our changes the choice between missiles and guns does not matter. It's a delicate balance but we're going to keep working with you all until we get it right.
- Are the notes from the CSM 6 winter summit minutes a good guide for what will be done with Drakes long-term?
Nope. CSM minutes tend to be full of spitballing and random brainstorming that never makes it past an early design review. The idea to give the drake more range in exchange for its resist bonus is another one of those ideas that never made it past the brainstorming stage.
- Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?
Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control.
Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.
I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:24:00 -
[2278] - Quote
Soko99 wrote:Signal11th wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:My most important comment to make on the subject is.
CCP...
PLEASE, for the love of Marauders!!!
Wait until you've buffed the rest of the missile boats before you go nerfing the only two effective ships we have!!!
(DISCLAIMER: I don't care about the troll posts of other players who claim that many other missile boats are effective in pvp when we all know they're little more than bait, extra dps, or just there to drop a bomb and then become a bonus if they stay alive because this doesn't make them effective) The Drake and Tengu will still be good, maybe even holding onto the "Go Drake/Tengu or go home!" title they have now. It could be worse, it could be Gallente. Yeah, but my concern is pve really. Right now the tengu is the most efficient missile boat in pve. This IS in part due to the OP nature of the tengu, however, the tengu is outperformed by t1 and t2 bs' without missile specialization in pve. So, this is to say that the rest of the missile boats capable of lvl 4 missions are quite lack luster. I'm willing to lose my tengu as my mission boat, however, I'd like to get a missile boat bs that is as capable as the current tengu before this nerf bat hits. CNR/Golem? Used both and the Tengu, Both are better at certain missions than the other. Not sure about the golem but cnr tank is crap compared to tengu, you are screwed if your drones are dead and your speed is so slow that you'll spend more time moving from gate to gate than shooting stuff.
Yep but really thats the pilots fault for getting in that situation isn't it? CNR tank is worse than Tengu but I can still do any lvl'4 in it. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1616
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:34:00 -
[2279] - Quote
Signal11th wrote: Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.
I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.
I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.
So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Shade Millith
Fortis Defensor.
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:37:00 -
[2280] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Shade Millith wrote:Ok, my thoughts on the issue, not that anyone cares.
Range nerf? Yes.
Damage nerf? Too far.
Bump the range nerf up to 60%-70%, remove Precision HML's and add Javelin HML's that increase the range back to 60-70kms.
Keep the decent damage to 40km's, with reduced damage out to 80km's.
Your changes will just make the HML worthless for PVP. Add to that the Drake changes you've hinted at, and I think your sending the Drake back to what it used to be. The 'LOLDrake'. No, they make HML worthless for short range PvP where it cant dictate range. As a long range platform should be. Please can you engage with the figures, which have been posted many times in this thread, that show that post nerf HMLs are still BY FAR the highest DPS of the long range medium weapons. The changes you suggest take HMLs completely out of the light-heavy-cruise line and make them a sort of "super HML". You need to remember that HMLs are NOT supposed to be a short range weapon. In theory HMLs should be lower dmg than long range guns because nothing can "get under their tracking" through pilotting but I accept this wouldnt go down well with the very vocal drake/tengu hoardes.
They kind of are both our short and long range weapons. HAM's lack the tracking ability HML's do. If HAM's were just that, our true short range weapon, they'd have better tracking ability than HML's.
Since they don't, this nerf is, in my mind, nerfing both our hybrid short/long range weapon, and making the problems of our 'short' range weapon even worse (Rage HAM ammo even WORSE at tracking than it already is). |
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:41:00 -
[2281] - Quote
" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1616
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:44:00 -
[2282] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350
The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:51:00 -
[2283] - Quote
Quote: I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.
So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.
Okay you guys realized that HM were to good. When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption.
|
backtrace
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:53:00 -
[2284] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. Kinda tells you where the problem lies. As you might know not all Caldari ships are missile boats. Omitting T1 cruisers and special purpose ships (Onyx, Vulture, etc) there are just 6. And all of them are heavily used. |
Willie Horton
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:53:00 -
[2285] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Quote: I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.
So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.
Okay you guys realized that HM were to good. When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption.
I think CCP didnt realize any ,this is more like CCP Fozzie did.They were waiting to long for this changes.
We can say we have now dev that played this game. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:54:00 -
[2286] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control. [/list] What about Tops and Cruisers? The problem here is with BS missiles so unappealing there are no progrssion like with any other systems. Small AC ==> Medium AC ==> Large - that's a progression for both PvP and PvE ... HML = X => Cruise launchers and HAML = X => Torps just because BS-sized missiles are not a viable choice for PvP. This mean that missile path for a PvP player starts and ends on HML (probably HAML after Winter, but not sure about that because of fitting, ammo capacity and close-range slowboats). Seems that you just forgot about existance of those systems. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:55:00 -
[2287] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control. [/list] 1) Does this mean that HAM have to be subpar because HML are better than medium rails that nobody use? 2) What about Tops and Cruisers? The problem here is with BS missiles so unappealing there are no progrssion like with any other systems. Small AC ==> Medium AC ==> Large - that's a progression for both PvP and PvE ... HML = X => Cruise launchers and HAML = X => Torps just because BS-sized missiles are not a viable choice for PvP. This mean that missile path for a PvP player starts and ends on HML (probably HAML after Winter, but not sure about that because of fitting, ammo capacity and close-range slowboats). Seems that you just forgot about existance of those systems.
|
Noisrevbus
237
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:55:00 -
[2288] - Quote
Instead of making a new post, i replaced and hooked on a third section of more general concerns to my first post.
It might be worth a second view if you enjoyed the initial draft, but the end is very abstract and game-design specific.
I think it's important that we don't just talk about the missile change but also what motivated it and in what general direction they are taking the game by doing these changes. |
bornaa
GRiD.
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:57:00 -
[2289] - Quote
Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow.
Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.
Have you thought about making other gunnery weapons not the same as all other... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
And, how can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid???
And please make new Ewar for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use...
Third and... please think about all things that affect missiles (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius) before nerfing them!!! Yes, I'm an Amateur |
bornaa
GRiD.
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:58:00 -
[2290] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350 The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.
Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow.
Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.
Have you thought about making other gunnery weapons not the same as all other... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
And, how can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid???
And please make new Ewar for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use...
Third and... please think about all things that affect missiles (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius) before nerfing them!!! Yes, I'm an Amateur |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
772
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:00:00 -
[2291] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350 The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.
CCP Greyscale wrote: NH balance - is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?
LOL
You both could make up a great team - both of you express views covering the opposite poles, neither being correct. Such phrasing (died the day...) forces us to suspect you're still loyal to CCPs former sladgehammer approach to balancing, all or nothing. NH surely could use some help, but by all means, you shouldn't turn it into crappy no-brainy choice like Tengu has been for years. 14 |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:01:00 -
[2292] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Quote: I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.
So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.
Okay you guys realized that HM were to good. When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption. Agree on this point, t's very selective to see advantage of HML and not to see same for medium AC. And that's also a problem not only with HML and Medium AC, but with small AC (bleeding Punisher anyone?) and large artillery (1400mm Abaddon says hello). |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:02:00 -
[2293] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:
CNR/Golem? Used both and the Tengu, Both are better at certain missions than the other.
No.
The problem with the CNR/Golem is the need of at least 2 target painters minimum even with cruise missiles.
This means the cnr has pretty much not tank if you don't spend a lot of isk on the tank.
and while the golem might have good tank on paper, it's rediculous sig radius counters that, and the crap sensor strength and requirement that you have both rig slots fitted with t2 rigs makes a huge difference. |
bornaa
GRiD.
236
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:05:00 -
[2294] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Signal11th wrote: Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.
I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.
I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases. So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.
And whats with cruise missiles and torps??? they are ****** you know? Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next class of weapons... Yes, I'm an Amateur |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:06:00 -
[2295] - Quote
Kharagor wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders?We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause. Fixing defenders don't necessarily mean, to leave them in the realm of "missiles" in their function. It can also be possible, to rename then to "chaff&flares", that produce a AE-Effect of maybe 1.5km radius who let maybe 30% of all missiles in range die. In this way, the game-mechanic is a "only missiles hitting smartbomb", and smartbombs already exits. For balancing-issues, it can be possible to have 4 different sorts of "defenders". Kinetic, EM, and so on. And each sort of "defenders" can only kill their damage-pendant... At the last: I don't like the idea to equal everything. Putting missiles in the same mechanic-realm with the turrets is not good in my eyes. Missiles should have nothing to do with tracking-stuff. The rest of the ideas (making NPCs a little capricious, giving the long-range Missiles noticeable less damage than their shortrange types) is ok for me.
I prefer the idea of calling them Point defense turrets.
If anyone has ever played command and conquer generals then they know what I'm talking about.
(laser general...Tanks has turrets that could shoot missiles out of the air) |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
306
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:06:00 -
[2296] - Quote
bornaa wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Signal11th wrote: Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.
I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.
I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases. So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships. And whats with cruise missiles and torps??? they are ****** you know? Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next class of weapons...
They fix a lot of their issues with the new TCs and TEs. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:07:00 -
[2297] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
The problem with the CNR/Golem is the need of at least 2 target painters minimum even with cruise missiles.
This means the cnr has pretty much not tank if you don't spend a lot of isk on the tank.
and while the golem might have good tank on paper, it's rediculous sig radius counters that, and the crap sensor strength and requirement that you have both rig slots fitted with t2 rigs makes a huge difference.
1) Not anymore! You can replace painters with TE/TC or combine for more efficiency. 2) Most BS need to be pimped in order to be good for PvE. Try to make a good tank and DPS on Machariel without wasting at least twice hull price for fit.
Nalha Saldana wrote:They fix a lot of their issues with the new TCs and TEs.
Torps and Cruise will be fixed only when they be used as often as Large AC or Large Artillery nowadays in PvP. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:13:00 -
[2298] - Quote
Page after page its the same, people are not compareing appropiate data and keep referring to the drake (wich still needs to be redesigned and the tengu (same argument) then to look at these changes.
Lets check announced changes to the Thorax and the Caracal and calculate, there in the same ship line, and thus should preform the same to a resonable degree. In this case were going to only look to the ships at varius ranges, not calculating in different possible fits, speeds etc, full set of weapons, full set of drones, and 2 damage mods
Caracal HML 91.5km range 203 dps (242 dps up to 60km includeing drones) Thorax 250J 24.0km range 311 dps (470 dps up to 24km includeing drones) Thorax 250S 79.9km range 178 dps (336 dps up to 60km includeing drones)
Up to 60 km on paper the caracal should have no chance against a thorax, and between 60 and 80 km its dps difference is marginally (25 dps difference) only in rougly the last 12 km of its on paper fighting range will it outshine the thorax.
Within standard point range the thorax greatly out performs the caracal on guns (50% more dps) and guns and drones (nearly 100% more dps)
If you do a weapons only graph for the first 80 km the average dps in that range for the caracal is: 203 the average dps of the thorax is 217 dps. Only if you extend the range to 90 km the average dps (190) of the thorax drops below that of the caracal
But since were compareing ships like everyone else seems to do lets do a ship to ship comparison from ranges 0 to 100 Caracal 60km 242 dps Caracal 91km 203 dps Caracal 100 km 0 dps Average dps 208 dps
Thorax 24 km 470 dps Thorax 60 km 336 dps Thorax 80 km 178 dps Thorax 100 km 0 dps Average dps 269 dps
On paper the thorax is a sure win, but people don't fit there ships how they would on paper. In reality the caracal would probably never use its drones, the thorax would probably be blaster fitted and the fight is determined by whoever is able to dictate there tactics. If the thorax is able to get into range he wins, if the caracal is able to stay out of it, the caracal wins.
That is what the majority of people are talking about and that is what makes the drake and tengu an unprecedented obstackle in modern day pvp. The drake and Tengu are the least affected by the other sides Tactics. As long as there in range the'll do some amount of damage, if there not in range anymore they can warp away. They also have the buffer to withstand this.
Nerf the HML to death, as well as the drake and Tengu? Blobs will go to Armor Typhoons with Precision Cruise missiles, with 3 Tracking comps and 3 Ballistic control units with even more range, more damage and more utility with drones and spare highs or something else that will then be screamed about as overpowered.
Eve keeps changeing. Thats why i like the game, its still is and hopefully will always be one of the most tactical games i've seen and its possiblities are endless. Eventually people will adjust to whatever change theres made, and new tactics will evolve around them. (But that doesn't mean that very change is a good one, or a balancing one, or that you as a person should like the change, it doesn't mean that ccp could lose some customers over it, or gain customers because of it)
I can understand why in order to balance the ships you first need to rebalance a weapon system, and i agree on the range but i'm not confident about the damage part.
A few Summarizes:
People don't post often about the Hurricane: Those who do post about it, don't like the change but in general they understand that the Hurricane is a verry dangerous ship and that this nerf might be balanced.
People are afraid the TD are going to become a "must fit" ewar module. Several pleas for makeing multiple forms of weapons disruption, like the ECM variant have been brought forward, as well as some defender missile options.
People haven't said one bad thing about the missile changes for Light missiles, Rockets A few posts have raised the concern for Rage and Fury Cruise missile and Torpedo effectiveness (Primarily in PVE content) Most accept the Range nerf for HML Damage modification on HML is highly debated
Nearly everyone dislikes the drake and tengu ;) |
Ripperljohn
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:22:00 -
[2299] - Quote
******* finally
took them long enough to nerf that ****. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
443
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:27:00 -
[2300] - Quote
CCP Fozzie
Wouldn't it be smarter to make the Tracking enhancers and computers increase the missiles speed instead og flight time?
It's been known for a long time that many missiles in space is lag induceing, so a higher missile velocity would basicly = fewer missiles in space or missiles in space for a shorter time. Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
|
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:27:00 -
[2301] - Quote
Lots of discussion but going nowhere, it's been a couple days, it'd be nice if we got some additional information on what Fozzie plans to do next with this. |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:27:00 -
[2302] - Quote
Hurricane nerf is great. It was even more overpowered than Drake. But buffing artillery..... oh oh. Artillery has an alpha that is really too awesome. Maybe fix that and give it a little bit more damage. Only some days ago I saw an omen alphaed by some arty canes and also some days ago a faction fitted daredevil alphaed by a Tornado. Only minnie arty ships can do THIS. Arty canes are actually getting really popular. Maybe even that powergrid nerf isnt enough nerf. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:29:00 -
[2303] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:CCP Fozzie
Wouldn't it be smarter to make the Tracking enhancers and computers increase the missiles speed instead og flight time?
It's been known for a long time that many missiles in space is lag induceing, so a higher missile velocity would basicly = fewer missiles in space or missiles in space for a shorter time.
I think this would be a better solution as well. Here is my only concern with that idea path. Some ships like interceptors would get hit more often by missiles as they fly faster where as flight time does not change the damage or chance of catching said ships. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:29:00 -
[2304] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.
So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.
I understand that fury heavy missile may be a bit OP, but why the nerf to precision range and dps?
I dont' feel that precision is a problem.
I mean, precision will have a range of 31.7km even if y'all manage to balance velocity to give us listed range, and that's all skills lvl 5.
The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
This is only 1km more in range than javelin torps.
I can see where this could be problematic. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:32:00 -
[2305] - Quote
backtrace wrote:Signal11th wrote:I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. Kinda tells you where the problem lies. As you might know not all Caldari ships are missile boats. Omitting T1 cruisers and special purpose ships (Onyx, Vulture, etc) there are just 6. And all of them are heavily used.
Yes, lets omit over half the missile boats in game and then we can say that missile boats are heavily used.
Seriously??? |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:33:00 -
[2306] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
What about NPCs that use TDs and Defenders?This is an excellent question and I really should have been more clear about it in the OP. We won't be changing NPC TD effects in this pass. Any adjustments to how NPC ewar works would require a more comprehensive balance pass on NPCs themselves to ensure it doesn't break anything. So even if we go forward with the TD change, Sansha TDs would not touch your missiles.
Can you give an ultimate statement that TD from NPC's NEVER will affect my missiles in my normal missions? Or ist it just so that CCP is unable to bring such changes within the next patch but work on it till it is ready? I am an 100% PvE player with Cruise missiles. I will NOT accept any changes concerning TD disturbing my missiles in my missions! Can you answer to my question and dispel my concerns? Subscription pending!
You should also bring the answer in your original post in order to be found in this wall of pages. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:35:00 -
[2307] - Quote
I think people need to understand that the ships will be balanced with HM after the patch you just need to look at the new Caracal to see that they did a great job of balancing the ship around the HM nerf. With the other additions you will have more choices of Cal ships to fly. Lets keep an open mind about this. I think if CCP could get to BCs this patch and show that the Drake will come out ok people wouldn't be as up in arms about this.
CCP the new Caracal looks great cant wait to fly it. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
116
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:36:00 -
[2308] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids? |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
480
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:37:00 -
[2309] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350 The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses. CCP Greyscale wrote: NH balance - is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?
LOL, priceless |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:38:00 -
[2310] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids?
A Drake also has 4 low slots. |
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:38:00 -
[2311] - Quote
dear CCP.
make a missle disruptor modual. dont lower HM dmg (if you HAVE to just 10% max)
FIX defeders. make defenders like a turret thing insted of missle intercepter missles.
PS NH is completly underpowered compaired to other COmbat-command ships. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:41:00 -
[2312] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
The problem with the CNR/Golem is the need of at least 2 target painters minimum even with cruise missiles.
This means the cnr has pretty much not tank if you don't spend a lot of isk on the tank.
and while the golem might have good tank on paper, it's rediculous sig radius counters that, and the crap sensor strength and requirement that you have both rig slots fitted with t2 rigs makes a huge difference.
1) Not anymore! You can replace painters with TE/TC or combine for more efficiency. 2) Most BS need to be pimped in order to be good for PvE. Try to make a good tank and DPS on Machariel without wasting at least twice hull price for fit. Nalha Saldana wrote:They fix a lot of their issues with the new TCs and TEs. Torps and Cruise will be fixed only when they be used as often as Large AC or Large Artillery nowadays in PvP.
most armor boats don't need pimp fits to be effective in pve.
They can rock t2 fits and be just as capable as a pimped out shied boat.
A domi can fit t2 and out perform a raven in pve even if the raven is pimp fitted. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:43:00 -
[2313] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
The problem with the CNR/Golem is the need of at least 2 target painters minimum even with cruise missiles.
This means the cnr has pretty much not tank if you don't spend a lot of isk on the tank.
and while the golem might have good tank on paper, it's rediculous sig radius counters that, and the crap sensor strength and requirement that you have both rig slots fitted with t2 rigs makes a huge difference.
1) Not anymore! You can replace painters with TE/TC or combine for more efficiency. 2) Most BS need to be pimped in order to be good for PvE. Try to make a good tank and DPS on Machariel without wasting at least twice hull price for fit. Nalha Saldana wrote:They fix a lot of their issues with the new TCs and TEs. Torps and Cruise will be fixed only when they be used as often as Large AC or Large Artillery nowadays in PvP. most armor boats don't need pimp fits to be effective in pve. They can rock t2 fits and be just as capable as a pimped out shied boat. A domi can fit t2 and out perform a raven in pve even if the raven is pimp fitted.
sad but true. t2 domi (normal not navy) with sentrys and 4/5 rails can easly get like 950 dps with t1 guns. while raven gets barley 700ish to 800ish iirc |
Fade Toblack
Per.ly The 20 Minuters
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:44:00 -
[2314] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:Can you give an ultimate statement...
No - you'll never get an ultimate statement on anything.
But to help you get to that unsub quicker...
NPC e-war doesn't work the same as player e-war. The end result is the same, but the way it operates is completely different. In the devblog yesterday though it was stated that CCP want NPCs to steadily become more like players in the way they fly - so I can see standardisation in the future - and lots of changes in the way your game currently works.
Personally I'm quite looking forward to the new challenges and playing through some different PvE experiences. Sounds like you hate change though - so maybe you should just unsub now?
|
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:44:00 -
[2315] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids?
3 mids usually 2x cap recharger and 1 prop or web scram MWD for pvp. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:46:00 -
[2316] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Those systems don't bring speed even remotely close to insta-hitting target from 200km. If you assume that they are SO advanced to achieve speed like 1000km/s that I can assume that Caldari missiles are SO advanced that can do magic things too. Also artillery is not based on Railgun/Coilgun. Is 7 times the speed of sound fast enough? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-video_n_1311251.htmlLooks more like you don't understand differences between missiles and railguns/coilguns.
Looks like you don't understand that if you can make a railgun/coil go 7 times the speed of sound, or roughly 2.4km per SECOND!!!! Yet they hit instantly....then why can't they do it with missiles?
So basically, in answer to your question is the speed of sound, which is 343 m/s, times 7 fast enough....no, it's not |
Savira Terrant
Valhollr
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:51:00 -
[2317] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.
Hey CCP Fozzy,
I am not sure at all if the proposal is any good at all. Might be good, might be bad. Who knows?
The reason why I can't have an opinion - and basicly no one can, at least not, if it is not the general whine or people who hate caldari or missiles screaming hooray - about all of the missile changes yet, is because I can not fathom anything without knowing what is going to happen to all the missile platforms out there - balancing wise.
What I want to say is: You guys speak about babysteps when balancing, but with the missile proposal you leap forward changing a system, that cannot be balanced, without changing and balancing every single platform that uses this system.
Now I don't have any experience or knowlage on balancing processes, but from my perspective you can only upset people by doing things the way you are doing now.
I propose you put the missile change aside for now, until you guys have time to have a look at the big picture of missile platforms. Please let me make clear that I am against missile changes per se! Just sometimes babysteps are counter productive.
I mean, make babysteps in things you consider in need to balance. That's good. But please change the whole apparatus at once, if you consider it broken - as you said you do with the missile system.
See, I rather have you hammer me with a big change "missiles and missile platforms", than have you change missiles now and leave missile platforms broken for months - considering battlecruisers, let alone T2 cruisers and T2 battlecruisers won't make it into [Winter Expansion's name here].
As I can see it, you want to get away from the whole 'Caldari - best PVE race' thing. I don't mind. But as it stands Caldari is apart from Ewar, Logistics (not really) and Drake-blobs, the race that only really excells in PVE. Please don't take that away from them, without 'bringing them in line' , which you would do, if you don't balance the system together with it's platforms. ( I like to use Caldari at least for something, before all the missile platforms get a look at.) Of course I do exaggerate and be biased here, I am human after all.
So in short, please take a step back, balance everything else - and when you are happy with that, feel free to thresh the missile apparatus (again system and ships together) with the 'nerf hammer' as some might call it. I wouldn't, because how would I know?
Regards,
Savira Terrant |
bornaa
GRiD.
237
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:51:00 -
[2318] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie:
Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line? Like making projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
Please think about it and give me an answer... Yes, I'm an Amateur |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:58:00 -
[2319] - Quote
Why is almost no one adding the ship speed to balancing ?
Why is the nerfing of other ships abilities, like shield resist, not included in the overall math ?
Why is the question : After all is done, would anyone still use it ? asked ? |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
320
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:00:00 -
[2320] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:Can you give an ultimate statement that TD from NPC's NEVER will affect my missiles in my normal missions? Or ist it just so that CCP is unable to bring such changes within the next patch but work on it till it is ready? I am an 100% PvE player with Cruise missiles. I will NOT accept any changes concerning TD disturbing my missiles in my missions! Can you answer to my question and dispel my concerns? Subscription pending! Is this a joke? |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:03:00 -
[2321] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
The problem with the CNR/Golem is the need of at least 2 target painters minimum even with cruise missiles.
This means the cnr has pretty much not tank if you don't spend a lot of isk on the tank.
and while the golem might have good tank on paper, it's rediculous sig radius counters that, and the crap sensor strength and requirement that you have both rig slots fitted with t2 rigs makes a huge difference.
1) Not anymore! You can replace painters with TE/TC or combine for more efficiency. 2) Most BS need to be pimped in order to be good for PvE. Try to make a good tank and DPS on Machariel without wasting at least twice hull price for fit. Nalha Saldana wrote:They fix a lot of their issues with the new TCs and TEs. Torps and Cruise will be fixed only when they be used as often as Large AC or Large Artillery nowadays in PvP. most armor boats don't need pimp fits to be effective in pve. They can rock t2 fits and be just as capable as a pimped out shied boat. A domi can fit t2 and out perform a raven in pve even if the raven is pimp fitted. sad but true. t2 domi (normal not navy) with sentrys and 4/5 rails can easly get like 950 dps with t1 guns. while raven gets barley 700ish to 800ish iirc
With a shield tank and cap issues sure, Ndomi does that way better with the extra mid.
|
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:05:00 -
[2322] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Why is almost no one adding the ship speed to balancing ?
Why is the nerfing of other ships abilities, like shield resist, not included in the overall math ?
Why is the question : After all is done, would anyone still use it ? asked ?
Sure they do (see Caracal rework) but battlecruisers or any other hulls are not yet done.
How about you press the little "DEV POSTS" button on the very top of the forum and look for CCP Fozzie's statements. Read them carefuly and if that isn't helping do it a 2nd time but don't waste our time anymore. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:05:00 -
[2323] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids?
No, but here's a fun build you'll like
Hurricane (all skills lvl 5)
highs 6 x 425mm AC II 2 x small energy neut II
mids warp scrambler II stasis Webifier II 2 x Tracking disruptor II (exp velocity/exp radius script)
lows 2x gyrostabilizer II Damage control II Medium armor rep II explosive Hardener II Kinetic hardener II
rigs anti-thermic pump I 2 x trimark armor pump I
stats
Capacitor 2m 20sec With armor rep off - 9m 54s (stable by turning off one neut)
Dps Hail - 593 @ 1.5+9km Barrage - 423 @ 3+18km
Velocity - 182m/s
EHP - 42,284
With tracking disruptors, this fit will pwn drakes, and it will fit the reduced PG nerf coming to the hurricane |
bornaa
GRiD.
237
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:06:00 -
[2324] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie
-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!!
-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.
-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect???
-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!!
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range. Yes, I'm an Amateur |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:07:00 -
[2325] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids? A Drake also has 4 low slots. Which can all be used for damage mods. Imagine you had 20 km range and had to use lowslots for tank, dps and range mods. People who use Drakes are spoiled and are now brought in line with the rest of us. Welcome to the world of mortals |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:10:00 -
[2326] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:
you are missing a few things: 1. long range medium turrets are not exactly popular to begin with. if you nerf HMLs down to their level, they will just become equally useless. that's like killing your neighbor's wife because your own wife is an ugly *****.
Yes and no. Yes, the medium guns are not popular, but this is a problem with the platforms NOT the guns themselves. The DPS output, range and tracking is balances as against short range guns. The issue is the long range platforms are completely outclassed by tier3 BCs. Boosting the long range cruisers is the correct balancing step - and one I'm sure CCP will take when they get to tech2 cruisers. Quote: 2. you don't need piloting skills to mitigate missile damage. just be small and fast, that's it.
Exactly. With guns you can be "small and fast" OR use pilotting skill. Missles have a big advantage AND don't fully "miss" so can still force (for example) a tackling inty off the field even with anemic damage. Quote: 3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever.
Yes they have. MWD Drake blobs kite all the time. They cant 'absolutely' dictate range against a focussed, faster opponent but they dont need to - they sit at 100km and noone approaches them. "Dictating Range" in a fleet fight IS NOT the same as dictating it in a 1v1. In a fleet fight warping and warping back in is a form of dictating range. IF a drake blob engages MWD on mass and moves away, theres not many short range platforms (if any) that can both keep in range of the majority of the blob (they might web and pick off one or two), and keep enough Cap to have a reasonable chance of actually beating the drakes. Quote: 4. arguing paper dps is stupid. it's applied dps that matters and the average applied dps of heavy missiles is arguably worse than at least beams and arty and will be even more so after the frigate and cruiser buffs.
"Arguing on paper is stupid, therefore I'll just shoot my mouth off based on my gut feeling (and did I mention I only fly drakes and Tengus so I'm not at all biased) and not produce ANY evidence" If HMLs are arguably worse than beams and arty, howecome drakes and tengus are the most popular ships? Both the usage statistics AND the paper figures back up the belief that HMLs are OP. Cerbs and Nighthawks are underpowered, but will be addressed when CCP gets to tech 2 ships next year. barely anyone flies them atm so its hardly a disaster to have to wait. You are also wrong about applied dps. In current fleet warfare, the 10 second (max) delay before missle dps is applied is meaningless, and there is no damage mitigation against the equal sized targets you normally see in fleets.
You obviously don't understand usage statistics...it's not about their DPS, esp with the drake....it's about the balance of tank and with enough DPS to get by.
You obviously don't do fleet battle as I watch as it takes just as long to kill a zealot as it does for them to kill a drake...why damage mitigation and having reps on the target before the first volley even hits.
You want to help your argument...then Change from Damage and Precision ammo to close range and long range ammo....give us, like guns a higher close range missile and a lower longe range and make the TE and TC affect exp radius and exp velocity as well as range...then it won't be the nerf everyone sees that it's going to be.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:10:00 -
[2327] - Quote
Lev Arturis wrote:Bloutok wrote:Why is almost no one adding the ship speed to balancing ?
Why is the nerfing of other ships abilities, like shield resist, not included in the overall math ?
Why is the question : After all is done, would anyone still use it ? asked ? Sure they do (see Caracal rework) but battlecruisers or any other hulls are not yet done. How about you press the little "DEV POSTS" button on the very top of the forum and look for CCP Fozzie's statements. Read them carefuly and if that isn't helping do it a 2nd time but don't waste our time anymore.
I love empty posts..... Seriously. Go away. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:11:00 -
[2328] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:MIrple wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids? A Drake also has 4 low slots. Which can all be used for damage mods. Imagine you had 20 km range and had to use lowslots for tank, dps and range mods. People who use Drakes are spoiled and are now brought in line with the rest of us. Welcome to the world of mortals
Except they can't be all used for damage mods.
You'll lose a lot of ehp just by dropping the tank mods out of the low slots.
Now, imagine that and the fact that your mids are dedicated to prop foulers and tank so you can't fit mods to increase effective dps, velocity, or other ewar. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:13:00 -
[2329] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids? No, but here's a fun build you'll like Hurricane (all skills lvl 5) highs 6 x 425mm AC II 2 x small energy neut II mids warp scrambler II stasis Webifier II 2 x Tracking disruptor II (exp velocity/exp radius script) lows 2x gyrostabilizer II Damage control II Medium armor rep II explosive Hardener II Kinetic hardener II rigs anti-thermic pump I 2 x trimark armor pump I stats Capacitor 2m 20sec With armor rep off - 9m 54s (stable by turning off one neut) Dps Hail - 593 @ 1.5+9km Barrage - 423 @ 3+18km Velocity - 182m/s EHP - 42,284 With tracking disruptors, this fit will pwn drakes, and it will fit the reduced PG nerf coming to the hurricane
Lol
No prop mod, are hoping that the are afk?
Not to mention you can't hit to point range....... |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
117
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:14:00 -
[2330] - Quote
bornaa wrote:
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
Yeah I bet they NEVER thought of that |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:17:00 -
[2331] - Quote
Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids? No, but here's a fun build you'll like Hurricane (all skills lvl 5) highs 6 x 425mm AC II 2 x small energy neut II mids warp scrambler II stasis Webifier II 2 x Tracking disruptor II (exp velocity/exp radius script) lows 2x gyrostabilizer II Damage control II Medium armor rep II explosive Hardener II Kinetic hardener II rigs anti-thermic pump I 2 x trimark armor pump I stats Capacitor 2m 20sec With armor rep off - 9m 54s (stable by turning off one neut) Dps Hail - 593 @ 1.5+9km Barrage - 423 @ 3+18km Velocity - 182m/s EHP - 42,284 With tracking disruptors, this fit will pwn drakes, and it will fit the reduced PG nerf coming to the hurricane Lol No prop mod, are hoping that the are afk? Not to mention you can't hit to point range.......
Why do you need a prop mod when you can get right on top of them with 2 neuts and 2 disruptor to kills their exposion radius/velocity and neut away whatever cap mods they might be using.
|
Shadalana
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:18:00 -
[2332] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.
Maybe im blind, but i did the same in eft and i got really different values... o.O
all numbers with AllV, without shipbonuses. also I compared only t2 missiles... ('cos no one uses faction-hm ammo in PvE)
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65km Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Scourge Precision: DPS: 21 Alpha: 179 Reichweite: <42km Time to hit: 10 seconds
720mm Howitzer Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 16 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant
why I do not see any inbalance? |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:18:00 -
[2333] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:bornaa wrote:
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
Yeah I bet they NEVER thought of that
I wonder...... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:18:00 -
[2334] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:bornaa wrote:
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
Yeah I bet they NEVER thought of that
Honestly, I wouldn't have put it past them to have missed this....
Kinda like missing that a super carrier would pwn everything if allowed to use all drone types.
Oops, that happened.
/fixed a while after the blobs hit. |
Luther Anneto
Crimson Collective
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:22:00 -
[2335] - Quote
You Know I quit Playing MMO's like WoW because of their constant "rebalancing". And to be these proposed changes sound very familiar with the "Omg that class needs a nerf" I started playing eve because from what I had heard and read about There wasn't much of that here. From everything I have read Caldari has always been the Best PVE platform, but if your going to change that because Some PvP'ers got butt hurt. Than this game is no better than any other MMO I have ever played and My respect and interest in this game is going to be on the same level as all the Past MMO's I have played and quit. Like Most Eve players I have multiple accounts and one of my accounts is a industry account When you did the rebalance to the mining barges it was beneficial and what what i have seen created more interest in MIning, But this proposed "rebalance" as I said previously in this post sounds no different than "Nerf that Class because they are better than I am". I know my opinion is only one of so very very many, But i really feel that if these proposed changes are carried through I will have no other option than to once again find yet another game to hold my interest. I really enjoy playing EVE, but I started playing EVE because it WASN'T your typical MMO and if it is going to go that route than as much as I would hate to do My interest would have to go else where. Please re-think these changes. Subscription(s) pending. |
Cadesc
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:23:00 -
[2336] - Quote
about the TD:
have you considered this idea?
Quote:flare launcher idea: Flares seems to be the logical defence mechanism against missiles. The goal is to reduce missile damage to small ships, by reducing their signatur radius or increasing the missiles explosion radius. It should be an area of effect (aoe?) module (stacking vs not stacking?). So every ship inside of the area would have a smaller signatur radius or every missile hitting a ship inside of the area would have an increasing explosion radius. Maybe you could switch between explosion radius increase and signatur radius decrease by switching scripts (ammunition). -- Mid slot (maybe high slot? maybe just new ammonistion for missile launcher?) grafics: Just look at this pictures! I'm sure CCP would do a good Job on this task. :P flares!!!more flares!and one more!Why would it be awsome? -new tactical possibilities (small ships -> agile -> formate to get more advantage from a single module) -awsome look -countermeasure to target painters -new mechanism -new skill -missiles would still have their big advantage to always deal damage -...but you could reduce the damage effectively
about missile: Missiles have their very own disadvantages. You should not give them all the disadvantages of turrets as well, otherwise they become useless in pvp.
Advantage missile compared to turrets: -you canGÇÖt and you donGÇÖt need to fit tracking modules -missile damage is difficult to avoid -they deliver their GÇÿfullGÇÖ (depending on speed and signature radius) damage at maximum range
Disadvantage missile compared to turrets: -you canGÇÖt snipe with missiles (flight time) -range varies with targets speed and alignment (flight time) -you canGÇÖt increase your damage by maneuvering well -you can approach a missile boat directly -missile damage does not increase if a target comes closer -no lucky shots |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:23:00 -
[2337] - Quote
Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:25:00 -
[2338] - Quote
Shadalana wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Maybe im blind, but i did the same in eft and i got really different values... o.O all numbers with AllV, without shipbonuses. also I compared only t2 missiles... ('cos no one uses faction-hm ammo in PvE) 250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65km Time to hit: instant Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant Heavy Missile Launcher II with Scourge Precision: DPS: 21 Alpha: 179 Reichweite: <42km Time to hit: 10 seconds 720mm Howitzer Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 16 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant why I do not see any inbalance?
Try it with lead on the hybrid, depleted uranium on the arty and radio on the beam.
Bet you see a difference when you stack T1 ammo to T1 ammo. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:30:00 -
[2339] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway.
This is a case where going FOTM may be a bad idea, you may note the cane getting nerfed as well. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
580
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:33:00 -
[2340] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.
just increase the base PG and give it an extra mid slot plus increase the cpu...
there fixed...
now that was not hard was it? Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
|
Allandri
Liandri Industrial Liandri Covenant
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:33:00 -
[2341] - Quote
+1 to all proposed changes |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:34:00 -
[2342] - Quote
Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway. This is a case where going FOTM may be a bad idea, you may note the cane getting nerfed as well.
Cane nerf ?
It's still faster and whatever you put on it, it's stil gonna DPS you to death or GTFO... because it's faster.......
Speed anyone ? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:36:00 -
[2343] - Quote
Just add "fix HAM PG usage" to the list, plz |
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:36:00 -
[2344] - Quote
Shadalana wrote:Maybe im blind, but i did the same in eft and i got really different values... o.O
all numbers with AllV, without shipbonuses. also I compared only t2 missiles... ('cos no one uses faction-hm ammo in PvE)
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65km Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Scourge Precision: DPS: 21 Alpha: 179 Reichweite: <42km Time to hit: 10 seconds
720mm Howitzer Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 16 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant
why I do not see any inbalance? Next time don't use the short range, low damage T2 missile, with a fury missile unmodified DPS is 31, with a CN missile it's 28 and a max range that's 10km longer than optimal + fall-off on any of the other weapon systems. I think I found your missing imbalance...
...Nice try thogh Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Mate. |
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:38:00 -
[2345] - Quote
My main flies a Cane and I feel the change to the hurricane is fine.
Missiles should be ok, too, my main concern is that the T2 ammo.
Short range ammo should have considerably more damage than the long range counterpart. I also feel that the damage application when tackled should be higher as well.
My second concern is with HAM's powergrid needs. I believe that they should be in between HML and RLML in powergrid need.
My last thought on this is that I believe while you are at missiles Torps should get a buff to velocity (range).
My missile alt is itching for a pocket bellicose......
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
184
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:38:00 -
[2346] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway. This is a case where going FOTM may be a bad idea, you may note the cane getting nerfed as well. Cane nerf ? It's still faster and whatever you put on it, it's stil gonna DPS you to death or GTFO... because it's faster....... Speed anyone ?
Ecm drones anyone? Or just kill it, a cane with a point barely pushes 35k ehp, y u no nano drake? Mine has a web, and those neuts only have a 5km range.
Canes only do big damage in close. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:38:00 -
[2347] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Shadalana wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Maybe im blind, but i did the same in eft and i got really different values... o.O all numbers with AllV, without shipbonuses. also I compared only t2 missiles... ('cos no one uses faction-hm ammo in PvE) 250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65km Time to hit: instant Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant Heavy Missile Launcher II with Scourge Precision: DPS: 21 Alpha: 179 Reichweite: <42km Time to hit: 10 seconds 720mm Howitzer Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 16 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant why I do not see any inbalance? Try it with lead on the hybrid, depleted uranium on the arty and radio on the beam. Bet you see a difference when you stack T1 ammo to T1 ammo.
Seems to me it's more a problem with T/Faction ammo. But in the same regard, it's so people can only use one type of ammo for their specified race.
Amarr - EM/Thermal Caldari - Kinetic missile Bonus Gallente - Thermal/Kinetic Minmatar - Explosive/Kinetic
If you use any other type of ammo for the guns, you lose DPS, but gain range
If you use any other type of missile for Caldari *yes, depending on ship* you lose dps.... So I agree with removing Kinetic missile damage bonus.... |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:41:00 -
[2348] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway. This is a case where going FOTM may be a bad idea, you may note the cane getting nerfed as well. Cane nerf ? It's still faster and whatever you put on it, it's stil gonna DPS you to death or GTFO... because it's faster....... Speed anyone ? Ecm drones anyone? Or just kill it, a cane with a point barely pushes 35k ehp, y u no nano drake? Mine has a web, and those neuts only have a 5km range. Canes only do big damage in close.
The shield cane is the one that decides if there is a fight at all. What is that worth in the balance thing ? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:43:00 -
[2349] - Quote
Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway. This is a case where going FOTM may be a bad idea, you may note the cane getting nerfed as well.
Yeah, but the nerfed cane is still more effective than most other bcs. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
256
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:43:00 -
[2350] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why aren't you considering Delayed Damage/Firewalls/Defenders?Another excellent question and the answer is that we have not forgotten them at all. Missiles are very different from turrets in a lot of ways and that's both a big part of their appeal and part of the reason that the arguments in this thread seems to be going in circles. Aspects like the delay on damage, vulnerability to firewalls, defenders, using their own formula instead of tracking and selectable damage types are all hard to put on paper since their importance changes greatly based on the specific ingame situation. "Bringing in line" may not have been the best choice of words since it can be misunderstood to mean that everything will be the same. Missiles will still have certain advantages and disadvantages inherent to their mechanics, and part of the compensation for those differences is the fact that even after this proposal heavy missiles would continue to be by far the best cruiser weapon for damage projection at mid to long range. I am not proposing making heavy missiles match guns in damage or range, I'm proposing reducing the advantage they have over guns slightly. That being said this is a tricky balance area since so much of their performance is dependent on all these other factors. We're not taking the challenges here lightly and that's one of the reasons we're reaching out to you all for your feedback on the proposal.
This, especially the part I underlined is the big factor in my concerns, and why I urge caution. i'm not big huge lover of heavy misses per se, I just hate the "flavor of the month swapping" that happens (ie do this to HMLs and watch HAMs and light missles take their place).
Still think the combination of nerfs to HMLs + TDs affecting missles + the future revamps of the drake and tengu = a bit to much change all at once and invites unintended consequences. The risk is lowering HML usefulness below a threshold acceptable to player who use them, thus making yet another eve weapon useless.
I am however glad you are paying attention to the issues we've raised. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
185
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:47:00 -
[2351] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway. This is a case where going FOTM may be a bad idea, you may note the cane getting nerfed as well. Cane nerf ? It's still faster and whatever you put on it, it's stil gonna DPS you to death or GTFO... because it's faster....... Speed anyone ? Ecm drones anyone? Or just kill it, a cane with a point barely pushes 35k ehp, y u no nano drake? Mine has a web, and those neuts only have a 5km range. Canes only do big damage in close. The shield cane is the one that decides if there is a fight at all. What is that worth in the balance thing ?
What? Why? You've never landed on anyone? Sure a nanocane is faster than a dual nano- drake, but no if he's webbed, is he has a scram you kill him in a DPS race, if he doesn't you web him and keep him in fall off.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:47:00 -
[2352] - Quote
Grey Azorria wrote:Shadalana wrote:Maybe im blind, but i did the same in eft and i got really different values... o.O
all numbers with AllV, without shipbonuses. also I compared only t2 missiles... ('cos no one uses faction-hm ammo in PvE)
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65km Time to hit: instant
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Scourge Precision: DPS: 21 Alpha: 179 Reichweite: <42km Time to hit: 10 seconds
720mm Howitzer Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 16 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant
why I do not see any inbalance? Next time don't use the short range, low damage T2 missile, with a fury missile unmodified DPS is 31, with a CN missile it's 28 and a max range that's 10km longer than optimal + fall-off on any of the other weapon systems. I think I found your missing imbalance... ...Nice try thogh
It's ok, your numbers failed as well. Not accounting for cycle time. Everyone seems to forget that if my range on a Fury is 75k....it doesn't mean I can me at 75k...i need to be at 65k....maybe 70, but that's pushing it because of they turn and run at all, i'll never hit them...at least guns have a falloff.....with a 28k falloff on hybrids, technically they could sit outside missile range and continue to snip...maybe not for much...but considering caldari is the slowest of all ships, it's not like they are going to catch you.
People against Missiles need to think about all the different factors when comparing apples to oranges which is what missiles are to guns. All the gun users need to pull up EFT and a Drake versus a Harby, Brutix and a Cane just using 2 damage mods for each and a prop mod...make sure they are going full speed....see what kind of numbers you get using T2 ammo... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:49:00 -
[2353] - Quote
@ CCP
Why not nerf fury missiles by 15% range and 10% damage and leave precision heavies alone?
I've never heard anyone crying about how effective a drake is in close range.
It's all about their effectiveness at a distance. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
873
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:51:00 -
[2354] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
With tracking disruptors, this fit will pwn drakes, and it will fit the reduced PG nerf coming to the hurricane
You don't PVP much, admit it.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Kikusama
Kruxwaffe
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:51:00 -
[2355] - Quote
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote:Short range ammo should have considerably more damage than the long range counterpart.
Am I the only one that thinks it's an unthinkable fallacy to compare missiles to guns from such a simplistic point of view?
Guns make the news. Science doesn't. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:54:00 -
[2356] - Quote
and...unsubscribe to thread cause this is going no where and CCP will not take the advice of anyone on this thread.
Hell, it's too long for them to even keep up with reading it.
I'm out...
I supposed I could train for a Machariel... Do we armor or shield tank those? |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
873
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:54:00 -
[2357] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Yeah, but the nerfed cane is still more effective than most other bcs.
You sure about that?
You can't even fit a hurricane properly. I hate to see how you butcher a Myrmidon and Harbinger.
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:and...unsubscribe to thread cause this is going no where and CCP will not take the advice of anyone on this thread.
Hell, it's too long for them to even keep up with reading it.
I'm out...
I supposed I could train for a Machariel... Do we armor or shield tank those?
Whew, thanks. i thought you'd never leave you. *insert series of offensive remarks that will be censored*
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:55:00 -
[2358] - Quote
This is a quote of quotes and i cant quote more then 5 times says the forum. Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway.
This is a case where going FOTM may be a bad idea, you may note the cane getting nerfed as well.
Cane nerf ?
It's still faster and whatever you put on it, it's stil gonna DPS you to death or GTFO... because it's faster.......
Speed anyone ?
Ecm drones anyone? Or just kill it, a cane with a point barely pushes 35k ehp, y u no nano drake? Mine has a web, and those neuts only have a 5km range.
Canes only do big damage in close.
The shield cane is the one that decides if there is a fight at all. What is that worth in the balance thing ?
What? Why? You've never landed on anyone? Sure a nanocane is faster than a dual nano- drake, but no if he's webbed, is he has a scram you kill him in a DPS race, if he doesn't you web him and keep him in fall off.
END QUOTE. So, you agree that speed is part of the balance thing ? It depends on the setup of the fight ? :) It depends on how many on each sides ? And whatever other things there are to think about ?
Just ask this question : After all is done, would this or that ship still be used ? Well, used, in my mind means being more then a niche thing that you take out once per month because the exact setup is flashing in your face.
With the way things are going right now, i say the drake is not nerfed, it's nuked. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
873
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 14:59:00 -
[2359] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:This is a quote of quotes and i cant quote more then 5 times says the forum. Well.
Please, let him leave. Don't poke at him anymore so he'll leave us alone!
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:01:00 -
[2360] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:MIrple wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids? A Drake also has 4 low slots. Which can all be used for damage mods. Imagine you had 20 km range and had to use lowslots for tank, dps and range mods. People who use Drakes are spoiled and are now brought in line with the rest of us. Welcome to the world of mortals
Sorry my point was the person above was complaining about not being able to fit a TC to a Drake I was pointing out that you can fit a suitcase 2 BCU and TE in the lows. I know how to fit ships sadly so I am not upset about these changes at all I welcome them with open arms. |
|
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:03:00 -
[2361] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Just add "fix HAM PG usage" to the list, plz
+1 |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:04:00 -
[2362] - Quote
Here's a riddle for you...
A Drake, a Harby, a Cane and a Brutix *yes, a brutix* all land on top of each other....who has the least DPS? Before you gun babies start, yes, I said close range...doesn't matter if they are LR guns or SR guns.....short range gun ammo out does HMLs and they can't switch to HAMLs without docking.
If I were to ask you close range, guns or missiles?
If I were to ask you long range sniping, guns or missiles?
If I were to ask you mid to long range or PVE, guns or missiles?
So basically, Fozzie doesn't like the fact that Drakes and Tengu's pwn the PVE market. You watch....the Gallante Domi w/ Sentries will now pwn the PVE market....esp with the AI changes to make it hate drones less when switching targets. Only problem is all those statistics of Drake is the lower training times because you have to train drones for the Domi as well as ship/fitting/guns...but in all actuality the Domi is currently a better PVP boat as it's all AFK....let the sentries do the work while you watch a movie...at least with the drake, you have to switch targets |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:04:00 -
[2363] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Bloutok wrote:This is a quote of quotes and i cant quote more then 5 times says the forum. Well. Please, let him leave. Don't poke at him anymore so he'll leave us alone!
Not a chance. i am sticking to his thread like glue. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:04:00 -
[2364] - Quote
Shadalana wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. Maybe im blind, but i did the same in eft and i got really different values... o.O all numbers with AllV, without shipbonuses. also I compared only t2 missiles... ('cos no one uses faction-hm ammo in PvE) 250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65km Time to hit: instant Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant Heavy Missile Launcher II with Scourge Precision: DPS: 21 Alpha: 179 Reichweite: <42km Time to hit: 10 seconds 720mm Howitzer Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 16 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54km Time to hit: instant why I do not see any inbalance?
Is this a troll or are you a little slow today put in Fury or Faction ammo. Your using the shortest ranged missile in there. |
Dersen Lowery
Knavery Inc. StructureDamage
102
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:08:00 -
[2365] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Okay you guys realized that HM were to good. When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption.
Is that because medium ACs are too good, or because active armor tanking is so broken that the Myrm needs to devote all its capacitor to running three armor repairers, or because medium rails struggle to scuff the paint on their targets? |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:08:00 -
[2366] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:MIrple wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids? A Drake also has 4 low slots. Which can all be used for damage mods. Imagine you had 20 km range and had to use lowslots for tank, dps and range mods. People who use Drakes are spoiled and are now brought in line with the rest of us. Welcome to the world of mortals Sorry my point was the person above was complaining about not being able to fit a TC to a Drake I was pointing out that you can fit a suitcase 2 BCU and TE in the lows. I know how to fit ships sadly so I am not upset about these changes at all I welcome them with open arms.
I can't say that I've EVER seen a drake with 4 damage mods in the lows....3 at best....on a PVP drake, only 2...on a PVE drake only 2, sometimes three....but in PVE it's usually 2 shield power relays and in PVP it's a DCU and usually a powergrid or cap relay |
Ponder Yonder
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
38
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:15:00 -
[2367] - Quote
Kesthely wrote: ... But since were compareing ships like everyone else seems to do lets do a ship to ship comparison from ranges 0 to 100
Caracal 60km 242 dps Caracal 91km 203 dps Caracal 100 km 0 dps Average dps 208 dps
Thorax 24 km 470 dps Thorax 60 km 336 dps Thorax 80 km 178 dps Thorax 100 km 0 dps Average dps 269 dps
On paper the thorax is a sure win, but people don't fit there ships how they would on paper. In reality the caracal would probably never use its drones, the thorax would probably be blaster fitted and the fight is determined by whoever is able to dictate there tactics. If the thorax is able to get into range he wins, if the caracal is able to stay out of it, the caracal wins.
...
I agree with all your points, but I want to point out that your calculations for the Thorax assumes that all shots hit, and they hit for max damage each time.
In real (Eve) life, shots generally hit for less than max damage. If you apply that logic to the Thorax, say assume 70% of max damage, on average, the Thorax is not pure win anymore. In fact, the two ships would be pretty evenly matched.
- Ponder
|
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
214
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:16:00 -
[2368] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:It's ok, your numbers failed as well. Not accounting for cycle time. Everyone seems to forget that if my range on a Fury is 75k....it doesn't mean I can me at 75k...i need to be at 65k....maybe 70, but that's pushing it because of they turn and run at all, i'll never hit them...at least guns have a falloff.....with a 28k falloff on hybrids, technically they could sit outside missile range and continue to snip...maybe not for much...but considering caldari is the slowest of all ships, it's not like they are going to catch you.
People against Missiles need to think about all the different factors when comparing apples to oranges which is what missiles are to guns. All the gun users need to pull up EFT and a Drake versus a Harby, Brutix and a Cane just using 2 damage mods for each and a prop mod...make sure they are going full speed....see what kind of numbers you get using T2 ammo... I know that in a real situation the actual max range of missiles will be a fair chunk less that than EFT numbers, but the fact remains that at ranges comparable to those of other weapons missiles will often do much higher damage, and combined with the fact that you can't fly 'under the guns' of a missile boat (meaning they are also viable at close range), heavy missiles are the logical go to for a medium sized long range weapon platform - or in other words, over powered. Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Mate. |
Severian Carnifex
193
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:21:00 -
[2369] - Quote
bornaa wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!!
-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.
-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect???
-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!!
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range.
I hope that Cruise and Torps will get the love when they balance BSs. But the rest of points written here are hitting the target. +1
There is a reason that caldari have the longest range of weapons and i dont know how CCP don't see that (and please dont tell me that hybrids are caldari weapon too).
And missiles have too many maluses I dont see the point of adding more of it with TP affecting it and ruining its range - only if CCP wants to virtually remove missiles and caldari from battlefields.
p.s. interesting thought on changing turret weapons so they dont do instant damage. It have so much more logic in it then instant dmg - only lasers could have instant dmg, all other weapons have flight time and it could be easily solved by making the fire cycle the referent timer. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
185
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:23:00 -
[2370] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
With tracking disruptors, this fit will pwn drakes, and it will fit the reduced PG nerf coming to the hurricane
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Why do you need a prop mod when you can get right on top of them with 2 neuts and 2 disruptor to kills their exposion radius/velocity and neut away whatever cap mods they might be using.
You don't PVP much, admit it.
Like ever. |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1348
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:24:00 -
[2371] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350 The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses. While you're at it; could you resurrect Gallente please?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:26:00 -
[2372] - Quote
Grey Azorria wrote: I know that in a real situation the actual max range of missiles will be a fair chunk less that than EFT numbers, but the fact remains that at ranges comparable to those of other weapons missiles will often do much higher damage, and combined with the fact that you can't fly 'under the guns' of a missile boat (meaning they are also viable at close range), heavy missiles are the logical go to for a medium sized long range weapon platform - or in other words, over powered.
Yes they do higher damage and longer ranges....but if you get within the close range ammo of guns, you're argument drops big time. If a drake is within, say 10k of any LR gun, you switch to short range ammo and vastly improve your DPS.
Even at longer ranges, simply by fitting a 10 aft to each ship, the DPS of all those gun ships will be about 50 dps higher than that of the drake. Now if you take into account for tracking, therefore that real situation DPS, it should equal out. Now if you drop the drake by 20% damage reduction...then you're looking at 80-90 dps higher...with your weaker, long range ammo....since the Drake is the slowest...you can close the gap and switch to short range ammo and just obliterate the drake. Bottom line is that in solo PVP....the drake's only chance is to warp off. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
187
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:27:00 -
[2373] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well.
I guess I'm going to start ignoring this thread because the conversation is going in CCP's left ear and out the right.
These nerfs will not change by release.
So, I guess I'lll just start training WINMATAR. Seems to be the best route at this rate anyway. This is a case where going FOTM may be a bad idea, you may note the cane getting nerfed as well. Cane nerf ? It's still faster and whatever you put on it, it's stil gonna DPS you to death or GTFO... because it's faster....... Speed anyone ?
Lets see shall we. 1) I try to break your point. That is going to be easy considering I'm three times as fast as you....while webbed. 2) I notice you don't light a MWD and chase me down 3) Laugh histerically 4) Set range to 20km, keep at range and giggle because I've got all day, while you aren't going fast enough to take a notch off a TORP and kill you. 5) Look wreck and link killmail in Alliance, and maybe make the shitfits post on the forums.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
187
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:30:00 -
[2374] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Okay you guys realized that HM were to good. When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption.
Is that because medium ACs are too good, or because active armor tanking is so broken that the Myrm needs to devote all its capacitor to running three armor repairers, or because medium rails struggle to scuff the paint on their targets?
Cap cap cap.
On a multi-repper myrm you cap boosters are your life, since there is NO turret bonus regardless you use ACs generally. You can easily use electrons, but it gets dicey on weather or not you have the cap duration to survive to kill a drake, you can tank it, but you don't have all day to break his shields. |
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:33:00 -
[2375] - Quote
I'm still not convinced on how a tracking disruptor can affect an unguided missile.
Or how a tracking enhancer can make a missile suddenly have more fuel inside it.
If this was a temporary change, then I'd understand, but honestly, when you guys hit the module rebalanced, missiles should get their own modules/counter-modules for this, chaffs, point defense, larger fuel tanks. Just not a radar that shoots a beam at a ship and causes a missile to say "**** it" halfway through its flight time. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
187
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:33:00 -
[2376] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
I supposed I could train for a Machariel... Do we armor or shield tank those?
Either or.
...and there is nothing in this game more fun then an AC mach hotdrop. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1348
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:36:00 -
[2377] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Okay you guys realized that HM were to good. When you then start to realize that Minmatar medium turrets are too good? Example: Myrmidon. AC Myrmidon makes more sense than Blaster Myrmidon due to damage type choosing and capacitor consumption.
Is that because medium ACs are too good, or because active armor tanking is so broken that the Myrm needs to devote all its capacitor to running three armor repairers, or because medium rails struggle to scuff the paint on their targets? Also please note that the Myrmidon does not have any bonuses to hybrid turrets, or any turrets or missile launchers at all. But yes, due to the low fitting costs and no cap usage of auto cannons, it normally goes with auto cannons.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:41:00 -
[2378] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1948211#post1948211 This post is wise and mostly true, and definitly worth the time to read it, though I don't think the HML changes are driven by your point 2 ou 3 (player perception or game direction). The drake is not only seen in blobs, but everywhere, from solo pvp to large scale, as is the tengu.
So yes, these changes won't change the HML proficiency to large scale combat and shouldn't, nor they should affect the caldari proficiency to large scale combat in your so called projection-buffer perspective, though there is evidence of HML having a balance issue IMO and some of the numbers shown in this thread are one of them.
There is also the problem of all the rebalance pass in the history of the game and the game mecanics which evolved with expansions. So there clearly is some balance issues.
But indeed, there is also the problem of incentive to fly in small gang, though factional warfare seem pretty good for this. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1348
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:43:00 -
[2379] - Quote
Also I would like people to realize the Hurricane has two high slots that are unbonused, with the ability to fit missile launchers. It is just the fact that it has so much power grid that fitting neuts instead of missile launchers is a no brainer. So before you chime in with the close range damage of a Hurricane being sub par, how about you drop the neuts and put on some launchers. Also people keep ignoring the fact that the Drake has a utility high slot. Although it can not put on a turret, it does gain the benefit of putting on a neut without having to worry about capacitor due to an amazing buffer tank and cap less weapons.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:43:00 -
[2380] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Grey Azorria wrote: I know that in a real situation the actual max range of missiles will be a fair chunk less that than EFT numbers, but the fact remains that at ranges comparable to those of other weapons missiles will often do much higher damage, and combined with the fact that you can't fly 'under the guns' of a missile boat (meaning they are also viable at close range), heavy missiles are the logical go to for a medium sized long range weapon platform - or in other words, over powered.
Yes they do higher damage and longer ranges....but if you get within the close range ammo of guns, you're argument drops big time. If a drake is within, say 10k of any LR gun, you switch to short range ammo and vastly improve your DPS. Even at longer ranges, simply by fitting a 10 aft to each ship, the DPS of all those gun ships will be about 50 dps higher than that of the drake. Now if you take into account for tracking, therefore that real situation DPS, it should equal out. Now if you drop the drake by 20% damage reduction...then you're looking at 80-90 dps higher...with your weaker, long range ammo....since the Drake is the slowest...you can close the gap and switch to short range ammo and just obliterate the drake. Bottom line is that in solo PVP....the drake's only chance is to warp off.
Not only solo. Like go with 1 vs 1 picture. Most Caldari missile boats i flew had to warp off upon having the enemy close in, else die. Otherwise, my dual nano was faster... :)
Then, let's say, 5 vs 5. I am 110% sure speed still is a big factor.
20 vs 20...... Well, i do not know for sure. I'd take a ham drake and try to be close i guess. |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1348
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:44:00 -
[2381] - Quote
Unit757 wrote:I'm still not convinced on how a tracking disruptor can affect an unguided missile.
Or how a tracking enhancer can make a missile suddenly have more fuel inside it.
If this was a temporary change, then I'd understand, but honestly, when you guys hit the module rebalanced, missiles should get their own modules/counter-modules for this, chaffs, point defense, larger fuel tanks. Just not a radar that shoots a beam at a ship and causes a missile to say "**** it" halfway through its flight time. I would much rather them work on balancing stuff and be concerned about the lolore later.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Syzygium
Friends Of Harassment
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:47:00 -
[2382] - Quote
I can only repeat what I have written on the german forums (eveger.de) already:
Switch Explosion Velocity and Explosion Signature for HMs and HAMs and you will automatically buff HAMs slightly while nerfing HMs slightly.
All short-range weapon systems are better at hitting smaller and faster targets than their long-range counterparts. That is also logical, since ships that have a lower combat range, often have to deal with smaller opponents coming close to them while ships with long range weapons can often destroy opponents before they are close or at least force them to withdraw. Just for HMs and HAMs (and CMs / Torps... Hint to the Devs: that is one reason nobody who can do the math uses CMs any more) its quite the opposite: HMs hit at long range and with a crash booster and a rig they hit everything from battleship to frigate quite hard. If you have seen PvP movies of some drake/tengu kiting-gangs, they shred assault frigs and even ceptors in seconds.
Almost noone uses HAM-Drakes atm, because HMs are just better at *everything*, considered the fact that they can keep firing and firing and firing even while burning away, they deal - over time - a LOT more damage than any HAM setup which is only better on paper. Making HAMs the short-range system that has more punch and deals better with tacklers and HMs the long-range system against slower and bigger targets is the way to go. You have gone that way for turret based systems and it works well. Just repeat success instead of trying to doctor around with bandaid solutions. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1348
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:47:00 -
[2383] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Not only solo. Like go with 1 vs 1 picture. Most Caldari missile boats i flew had to warp off upon having the enemy close in, else die. Otherwise, my dual nano was faster... :)
Then, let's say, 5 vs 5. I am 110% sure speed still is a big factor.
20 vs 20...... Well, i do not know for sure. I'd take a ham drake and try to be close i guess. I find it funny you think 1v1's, 5v5's and 20v20's happen in this game or something.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Lord Cath
Red Mercury Pyrotechnics Ayn Sof Aur
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:53:00 -
[2384] - Quote
I have to admit this is a whole lot of "solution looking for a problem" tbh... |
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:54:00 -
[2385] - Quote
Id like to know just what they smoke over in Iceland because of all the stuff they need to fix...they choose to mess about with this stuff.
That PI CCP fixed - still broken The Hybrid buff - was ok but railguns are still poor Wardec mechanic - big corps/alliances are almost impossible to wardec.
Morale of this rant is this:
CCP stop trying to fix things, your like a normal man who tries to fix everything but fails then his wife rings a professional to get it done properly..
Your priorities are just.......1000AU away from what they should be..
You are doing it wrong and its guaranteed that you will lose subs by doing this nerf because its so dumb and uncalled for.
I'd bet 20 plex on it.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:58:00 -
[2386] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Bloutok wrote:Not only solo. Like go with 1 vs 1 picture. Most Caldari missile boats i flew had to warp off upon having the enemy close in, else die. Otherwise, my dual nano was faster... :)
Then, let's say, 5 vs 5. I am 110% sure speed still is a big factor.
20 vs 20...... Well, i do not know for sure. I'd take a ham drake and try to be close i guess. I find it funny you think 1v1's, 5v5's and 20v20's happen in this game or something.
I am in FW, it happens :)
I will agree that it's mostly the exception. But if it's about balance, how else can you go at it ? Or are you suggesting that some BC's should be able to take on 2 other BCs ? |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 15:58:00 -
[2387] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Grey Azorria wrote: I know that in a real situation the actual max range of missiles will be a fair chunk less that than EFT numbers, but the fact remains that at ranges comparable to those of other weapons missiles will often do much higher damage, and combined with the fact that you can't fly 'under the guns' of a missile boat (meaning they are also viable at close range), heavy missiles are the logical go to for a medium sized long range weapon platform - or in other words, over powered.
Yes they do higher damage and longer ranges....but if you get within the close range ammo of guns, you're argument drops big time. If a drake is within, say 10k of any LR gun, you switch to short range ammo and vastly improve your DPS. Even at longer ranges, simply by fitting a 10 aft to each ship, the DPS of all those gun ships will be about 50 dps higher than that of the drake. Now if you take into account for tracking, therefore that real situation DPS, it should equal out. Now if you drop the drake by 20% damage reduction...then you're looking at 80-90 dps higher...with your weaker, long range ammo....since the Drake is the slowest...you can close the gap and switch to short range ammo and just obliterate the drake. Bottom line is that in solo PVP....the drake's only chance is to warp off. Not only solo. Like go with 1 vs 1 picture. Most Caldari missile boats i flew had to warp off upon having the enemy close in, else die. Otherwise, my dual nano was faster... :) Then, let's say, 5 vs 5. I am 110% sure speed still is a big factor. 20 vs 20...... Well, i do not know for sure. I'd take a ham drake and try to be close i guess.
Well, it also doesn't help that a certain coalition has a drake fleet doctrine, but if you look at their numbers, they are losing the ship vs ship battles....but winning on pure size of fleets. Now, they are smart in the fact that it makes a logical choice as I can get bigger blobs because many people fly the drake for their mission runners. Which in turn just further grows the popularity. But if the main fleets don't include drakes or missile boats for that matter....most are actually gun fleets
as far as that other dude's response....I've seen a buffer Cane pop a vexor and almost get a drake that were on it....but missiles are over-powered?? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:03:00 -
[2388] - Quote
Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
I supposed I could train for a Machariel... Do we armor or shield tank those?
Either or. ...and there is nothing in this game more fun then an AC mach hotdrop. I suppose its armor tank if you want more tank but shield if you want more gank?
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
371
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:10:00 -
[2389] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Signal11th wrote: Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.
I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.
I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases. So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships.
frankly, i do not agree with you there fozzie. not only do most 'unbonused' ships have no launcher hardpoints in the first place, there is also hardly any reason to go for heavies, unless you explicitly need to project damage to stupid ranges. I agree that the range of HMLs is over the top but the applied damage in any situation aside from 0.0 blobbing is just about where it should be to make them viable but not overpowered. many people keep comparing HMLs to medium rails but why would you use this argument to nerf HMLs when clearly, after the nerf both weapon systems would be equally outclassed by their close combat counterparts as well as larger guns (T3 BCs in particular).
I also understand the broader picture; you want a solid base balance of weapon systems so you can THEN balance the ships around them. The idea is good; the execution not so much imho and here is why: - turret and missile ships have different fitting philosophies right now: for turrets the damage application mods go either in low or mid slots (depending on the tank) and for missile ships they are either mid slots or rig slots. this is a very important distinction between missiles and guns and has deep implications on ship roles, fleet comps etc. removing it would take away game depth and make the distinction between missiles and projectiles more cosmetic than functional. - the whole balancing process is long and convoluted and while i understand that it has to be this way to produce decent results, it is still pretty unfair to those players who prefer caldari ships that they get their missile nerf several months (years?) before they get the corresponding ship hull changes (i'm talking nighthawk mostly, the poor poor thing).
please think about the proposed changes such as staggering the missile ranges similarly to turret ammo and switching fitting requirements before you punish caldari with a flat 20% dps nerf and a tracking homogenization.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2260
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:10:00 -
[2390] - Quote
Syzygium wrote: Switch Explosion Velocity and Explosion Signature for HMs and HAMs and you will automatically buff HAMs slightly while nerfing HMs slightly.
This operates on the assumption that HML needs only a slight nerf. This is false. Furthermore, HAMs are getting a buff by way of the TE/TC changes.
There's been 60 pages posted since last time I perused this thread. Are there any specifics released about that BTW?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
93
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:21:00 -
[2391] - Quote
Quote:stable platform for missiles...
You mean like damage rection with sig reduction, damage reduction with speed increase, damage reduction with firewalling, delayed damage, very specific damage bonus, etc.
man, all those sound like great ideas... oh wait, they're already being used.
nerf the range, leave the damage. |
Karmu Ivanostrov
4U Services Inc. Talocan United
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:23:00 -
[2392] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Syzygium wrote: Switch Explosion Velocity and Explosion Signature for HMs and HAMs and you will automatically buff HAMs slightly while nerfing HMs slightly.
This operates on the assumption that HML needs only a slight nerf. This is false. Furthermore, HAMs are getting a buff by way of the TE/TC changes. There's been 60 pages posted since last time I perused this thread. Are there any specifics released about that BTW? -Liang
I think the same, however if explosion velocity and radius are mechanics intended to hamper damage application (such as tracking does) then its odd the longest ranged ordinance has a better damage application than the short ranged one. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
187
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:23:00 -
[2393] - Quote
Syzygium wrote:
Switch Explosion Velocity and Explosion Signature for HMs and HAMs and you will automatically buff HAMs slightly while nerfing HMs slightly. .
That I'd be down with.
whoosh pew
|
Avila Cracko
378
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:24:00 -
[2394] - Quote
bornaa wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!!
-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.
-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect???
-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!!
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range.
@ CCP Listen to this man and many many more that are writing here before you kill one more system in EVE!!! What we see is that you don't even consider to change something. Missiles need buff and or balancing, depending what class of missiles you look at the moment, and not nerf. Balance it, don't nerf it!!!
Look at the big picture and not only numbers of paper, look at real usage cases and real values that are only seen in usage and they are lower then that numbers of paper.
Its like you are trying to produce next gen of engines in labs, and they are superior in labs and you put it on the street and they are like any other engine in real usage... and then you decide to decrease its performance because its too good on paper. You should tweak it, not ruin it.
And look at other weapons systems too, give it a little diversity, don't try to make missiles more like all others, make others less like all others!!! Make EVE so that its feel real!!! truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Beckie DeLey
Living From Scraps
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:27:00 -
[2395] - Quote
Just popping in to say that this thread is hilarious. I follow the forums for quite some time now and i haven't seen such amounts of whining and tears yet :) This is even more entertaining than the titan nerf.
Thanks guys :) It's The Legendary Extraordinary Me |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:29:00 -
[2396] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Syzygium wrote: Switch Explosion Velocity and Explosion Signature for HMs and HAMs and you will automatically buff HAMs slightly while nerfing HMs slightly.
This operates on the assumption that HML needs only a slight nerf. This is false. Furthermore, HAMs are getting a buff by way of the TE/TC changes. There's been 60 pages posted since last time I perused this thread. Are there any specifics released about that BTW? -Liang
I guess I don't understand why gun people believe that HML's are in need of a HUGE nerf because of their longer range capabilities.....if you nerf HM damage for longer range and then ADD a higher damage short range missile, then you've got a valid argument...but as the DPS of guns increase as you get closer and dwarfs that of HML's, I fail to see your logic as anything but flawed in the worst possible way.
And in response to Fozzie's "unbalanced ships using HM's because they are so premier....then why do ships like the Myrm go with AC's or Arty's...oh, because
a) don't use cap b) most unbonused ships DON'T HAVE LAUNCHER SLOTS....
It all boils down to PVE applications....the drake is superior to most because of their higher damage *notice higher, not high* at range....but I would argue that a Domi with drones is a much better option because of the substantially higher DPS as well as the ability to switch out drone sizes for smaller targets, or just leavig out sentries and watching a movie as you don't need to switch targets. The downside is the training time....which is what CCP fails to realize as the reason for the popular usage of ships....quicker training time for noobies. So yet again...screw PVE and screw the noobies.... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
187
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:31:00 -
[2397] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Syzygium wrote: Switch Explosion Velocity and Explosion Signature for HMs and HAMs and you will automatically buff HAMs slightly while nerfing HMs slightly.
This operates on the assumption that HML needs only a slight nerf. This is false. Furthermore, HAMs are getting a buff by way of the TE/TC changes. There's been 60 pages posted since last time I perused this thread. Are there any specifics released about that BTW? -Liang
LOL no, a whole lot of butthurt and 3+ year old characters that never progressed past a drake it seems
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:40:00 -
[2398] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Syzygium wrote: Switch Explosion Velocity and Explosion Signature for HMs and HAMs and you will automatically buff HAMs slightly while nerfing HMs slightly.
This operates on the assumption that HML needs only a slight nerf. This is false. Furthermore, HAMs are getting a buff by way of the TE/TC changes. There's been 60 pages posted since last time I perused this thread. Are there any specifics released about that BTW? -Liang LOL no, a whole lot of butthurt and 3+ year old characters that never progressed past a drake it seems
No, it's more like a whole lot of people ticked that their mission runner that they use to make the money they need to PVP in other ships is getting smacked down. which, in turn....will make people PVP less.
Riddle me this, all you elitest, intelligent people who are quick to say people are bad.
If someone is struggling to make money, are they not likely to hoard it and be more risk averse, aka...not PVP?
If someone has funds coming out of their butt, are they not more likely to hop in a ship to go on a PVP roam looking for a fight.
so what does this nerf really translate to? People buying plex to fund the way they want to play. Can't make the money, so I have to buy it now....think CCP isn't interested in RMT's? Try again.
Nerf Drone goo..... Nerf Tech 1 drops.... Nerf Techtanium.... Nerf Mission Runners.... Boost mining ships to drive mineral prices down.... |
Drako Fontain
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:48:00 -
[2399] - Quote
Here is a point I would like to make.
Do not let the age of my account fool you I have only like 3 months worth of training and play time (it was kind of hard for me to get into this game I love it now).
I have 3.5 mill sp 1 mill of it in missiles. If the proposed changes GÇ£breakGÇ¥ missiles I am screwed. So I ask for smaller changes or implementation of changes in steps to ensure that these changes do not break missiles. Furthermore I have read many threads when deciding what weapons system I wanted to train first that said the Missiles are not great but they are good for newbs. If this is really the case why nerf missiles when lots of people in the community think they suck already?
I am a newbe so I know that I have little knowledge about the game in general so I could be just way wrong but please be careful when making changes. A 20% damage reduction = 4 levels of skill training, that is a lot of training time that is used just to overcome a nerf. So with that line of thinking would a tech 1 launcher and missile setup at level 5 before the nerf do the same about of damage as the same setup with a level 1 version of this skill after the nerf? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1349
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:49:00 -
[2400] - Quote
Well yeah but,... three years of ratting and they still don't have enough ISK to get that pvp ship? lol
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
Severian Carnifex
193
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:50:00 -
[2401] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:bornaa wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!!
-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.
-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect???
-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!!
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range. @ CCP Listen to this man and many many more that are writing here before you kill one more system in EVE!!! What we see is that you don't even consider to change something. Missiles need buff and or balancing, depending what class of missiles you look at the moment, and not nerf. Balance it, don't nerf it!!! Look at the big picture and not only numbers of paper, look at real usage cases and real values that are only seen in usage and they are lower then that numbers of paper. Its like you are trying to produce next gen of engines in labs, and they are superior in labs and you put it on the street and they are like any other engine in real usage... and then you decide to decrease its performance because its too good on paper. You should tweak it, not ruin it. And look at other weapons systems too, give it a little diversity, don't try to make missiles more like all others, make others less like all others!!! Make EVE so that its feel real!!!
+1 |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1349
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:51:00 -
[2402] - Quote
Drako Fontain wrote:Here is a point I would like to make.
Do not let the age of my account fool you I have only like 3 months worth of training and play time (it was kind of hard for me to get into this game I love it now).
I have 3.5 mill sp 1 mill of it in missiles. If the proposed changes GÇ£breakGÇ¥ missiles I am screwed. So I ask for smaller changes or implementation of changes in steps to ensure that these changes do not break missiles. Furthermore I have read many threads when deciding what weapons system I wanted to train first that said the Missiles are not great but they are good for newbs. If this is really the case why nerf missiles when lots of people in the community think they suck already?
I am a newbe so I know that I have little knowledge about the game in general so I could be just way wrong but please be careful when making changes. A 20% damage reduction = 4 levels of skill training, that is a lot of training time that is used just to overcome a nerf. So with that line of thinking would a tech 1 launcher and missile setup at level 5 before the nerf do the same about of damage as the same setup with a level 1 version of this skill after the nerf? Fear not. The proposed changes do not brak missiles.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
163
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:52:00 -
[2403] - Quote
MIrple wrote:I think people need to understand that the ships will be balanced with HM after the patch you just need to look at the new Caracal to see that they did a great job of balancing the ship around the HM nerf. With the other additions you will have more choices of Cal ships to fly. Lets keep an open mind about this. I think if CCP could get to BCs this patch and show that the Drake will come out ok people wouldn't be as up in arms about this.
CCP the new Caracal looks great cant wait to fly it.
I think it is possible that you are overestimating how good this Caracal change actually is. People rarely fly the Caracal today. They have no reason to do so as it is significantly outclassed by the cruisers of other races. The Caracal, in it's current form, is a one trick pony, and it's not a very good trick: it can deliver T1 frigate DPS from range. This is, unsurprisingly, something that very few people are interested in.
This doesn't change with this update -- it actually get's worse. Not only will the Caracal do less DPS thanks to this nerf (even with the addition of new low slots), every other T1 Frigate and Cruiser in the game will get better. It trails now, and will trail even more post-patch. If people aren't using it now, why would they do so after nerf?
The other possibility of course, is the Caracal as an anit-frigate tool. However, once again the Caracal gains nothing from this update in that regard. It will actually be doing lower dps than it does today. And while the changes to light missiles are welcome and will make some difference, the Caracal will continue to lack the elements necessary to effective anti-frigate combat:
* It's slow * it has no utility high slots so it cannot fit neuts * Even with light missiles it will have a difficult time applying significant damage to AB Frigates * It lacks drones.
In other words, this is a role that it is not terribly good at now, and it will only get worse when this patch goes live. |
bornaa
GRiD.
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:53:00 -
[2404] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:bornaa wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!!
-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.
-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect???
-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!!
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range. @ CCP Listen to this man and many many more that are writing here before you kill one more system in EVE!!! What we see is that you don't even consider to change something. Missiles need buff and or balancing, depending what class of missiles you look at the moment, and not nerf. Balance it, don't nerf it!!! Look at the big picture and not only numbers of paper, look at real usage cases and real values that are only seen in usage and they are lower then that numbers of paper. Its like you are trying to produce next gen of engines in labs, and they are superior in labs and you put it on the street and they are like any other engine in real usage... and then you decide to decrease its performance because its too good on paper. You should tweak it, not ruin it. And look at other weapons systems too, give it a little diversity, don't try to make missiles more like all others, make others less like all others!!! Make EVE so that its feel real!!!
Thnx...
and CCP... listen to her, listen to us all!!! Yes, I'm an Amateur |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:54:00 -
[2405] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Drako Fontain wrote:Here is a point I would like to make.
Do not let the age of my account fool you I have only like 3 months worth of training and play time (it was kind of hard for me to get into this game I love it now).
I have 3.5 mill sp 1 mill of it in missiles. If the proposed changes GÇ£breakGÇ¥ missiles I am screwed. So I ask for smaller changes or implementation of changes in steps to ensure that these changes do not break missiles. Furthermore I have read many threads when deciding what weapons system I wanted to train first that said the Missiles are not great but they are good for newbs. If this is really the case why nerf missiles when lots of people in the community think they suck already?
I am a newbe so I know that I have little knowledge about the game in general so I could be just way wrong but please be careful when making changes. A 20% damage reduction = 4 levels of skill training, that is a lot of training time that is used just to overcome a nerf. So with that line of thinking would a tech 1 launcher and missile setup at level 5 before the nerf do the same about of damage as the same setup with a level 1 version of this skill after the nerf? Fear not. The proposed changes do not break missiles.
You are right, it does not break missiles, it nukes them to oblivion. Heavy missiles to be precise. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 16:55:00 -
[2406] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Well yeah but,... three years of ratting and they still don't have enough ISK to get that pvp ship? lol
So you want them to grind longer to get their next pvp ship, that's the point....PVP is expensive....a tech II fit BC is going to run you around 80 mil....although...you will definitely see less T3 pvping as it will create more risk aversion.
It's like the people arguing that a 100 mil sp character can make more money than a focused 20 mil sp character, which is completely inaccurate. While the 100 mil might be able to make bonuses on some afk research, indy or PI, they don't clear that asteroid or ratting site any quicker than a focused pilot with 1/4 the skills.... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:00:00 -
[2407] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Onictus wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Syzygium wrote: Switch Explosion Velocity and Explosion Signature for HMs and HAMs and you will automatically buff HAMs slightly while nerfing HMs slightly.
This operates on the assumption that HML needs only a slight nerf. This is false. Furthermore, HAMs are getting a buff by way of the TE/TC changes. There's been 60 pages posted since last time I perused this thread. Are there any specifics released about that BTW? -Liang LOL no, a whole lot of butthurt and 3+ year old characters that never progressed past a drake it seems No, it's more like a whole lot of people ticked that their mission runner that they use to make the money they need to PVP in other ships is getting smacked down. which, in turn....will make people PVP less. Riddle me this, all you elitest, intelligent people who are quick to say people are bad. If someone is struggling to make money, are they not likely to hoard it and be more risk averse, aka...not PVP? If someone has funds coming out of their butt, are they not more likely to hop in a ship to go on a PVP roam looking for a fight. so what does this nerf really translate to? People buying plex to fund the way they want to play. Can't make the money, so I have to buy it now....think CCP isn't interested in RMT's? Try again. Nerf Drone goo..... Nerf Tech 1 drops.... Nerf Techtanium.... Nerf Mission Runners.... Boost mining ships to drive mineral prices down.... Since armor tanking uses mid slot cap rechargers...why isn't there a viable faction one...why can I get better cap return off a low slot cap relay when armor tanking uses lows...
This toon is just under two years old I fly all race battleship and down with T2 weapons, so tell me again, why can't you PvP?
Granted I tend to rat with my Visa, but eitherway, its not that hard to stay in ship, and a break a TON of them. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:03:00 -
[2408] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Well yeah but,... three years of ratting and they still don't have enough ISK to get that pvp ship? lol So you want them to grind longer to get their next pvp ship, that's the point.......
Let me clue you in on a little secret, as a Tengu and Drake pilot, if you think you are maxing your isk with either hull you are dead wrong.
Try a Machariel, damn near twice the DPS with T1 ammo, as fast as a Tengu with about the same sig.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:10:00 -
[2409] - Quote
For everyone whining about how this will break missiles. You do know that there are more then 1 type of missile in the game currently correct. If your in a Drake or Tengue switch to HAMS. You have more then enough time to train this to V by Dec so you can use the T2 variety then. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:11:00 -
[2410] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Well yeah but,... three years of ratting and they still don't have enough ISK to get that pvp ship? lol So you want them to grind longer to get their next pvp ship, that's the point....... Let me clue you in on a little secret, as a Tengu and Drake pilot, if you think you are maxing your isk with either hull you are dead wrong. Try a Machariel, damn near twice the DPS with T1 ammo, as fast as a Tengu with about the same sig. Oh and it doesn't need pith A gear to work quickly, realatively cheap deadspace works fine.
But skill wise for noobies, it's easier to get into a drake. For older players, may not be maximizing isk with Drake, but as most have already trained as their first ship, they already have the skills and everything else are their fun ships
And also, you enforce the point that HM's are NOT as OP as everyone says they are. The people crying that the nerf is necessary, for the most part, don't believe that HML's are op...they don't like the missioning/ratting advantage that drakes have over most ships. |
|
OlRotGut
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:13:00 -
[2411] - Quote
Fozzie, can you enlighten us with any more reflection? Has any of these posts in this thread influenced your thinking by chance? Have we brought any good ideas to the table? |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:21:00 -
[2412] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Lallante wrote:[quote=Daniel Plain]
3. drakes have not been able to dictate range since... well... ever. Yes they have. MWD Drake blobs kite all the time. They cant 'absolutely' dictate range against a focussed, faster opponent but they dont need to - they sit at 100km and noone approaches them. "Dictating Range" in a fleet fight IS NOT the same as dictating it in a 1v1. In a fleet fight warping and warping back in is a form of dictating range. IF a drake blob engages MWD on mass and moves away, theres not many short range platforms (if any) that can both keep in range of the majority of the blob (they might web and pick off one or two), and keep enough Cap to have a reasonable chance of actually beating the drakes. lol, how much damage do they do to a target at 100k? Right about 400 dps, you can still get 2 BCSs with that build. What build lets a Drake hit at 100k? I missed that one somewhere. |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:28:00 -
[2413] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Sarah Schneider wrote:The Bazzalisk wrote:Again, I say HMLs are not OP compared to other LR platforms. Close up, other LR platforms will all have similar performance to the HML with short range ammo. At long range there are other factors to consider. You can't just say 'HML does x damage at x range, other medium guns do y damage at y range thus HMLs are overpowered'
On an unbonused ship, using short range ammo, the stats are as follows.
Heavy Beam Laser - 37dps, 159 alpha 250mm Railgun - 34dps, 161 alpha Heavy Missile Launcher - 31dps, 264 alpha 720mm Artillery Cannon - 28dps, 424 alpha
Those numbers look fairly balanced to me. Ah you say - but HML can shoot to much further range than these guns with that dps, and at long range it will trump them completely.
Not true. The only time HMLs are really going to be used past 40k is in gang fights, and in gang fights there are logis and travel time. The travel time will negatively affect the dps, and makes the alpha much less significant due to the extra time logistics pilots have to prepare.
At medium-long range, HML will have the best dps - but it can be affected by other factors which other medium guns will not be.
Firewalling only affects missiles.
At that kind of range, assuming the guns are in their optimal ranges, the guns will not really be affected by tracking much. Missiles are always affected by radius/velocity.
Guns can use tracking computers and tracking enhancers to mitigate range/tracking issues. Missiles cannot do the same for their radius/velocity.
Guns apply instant dps or big instant alpha strikes in the case of artillery. Missiles do not do the same.
Guns can switch between long range and short range ammo, and at short range, a long range gun with short range ammo will trump the dps of a HML. A HML cannot switch to another type of missile to get more dps. QFT. Seeing some people seems to deliberately skipped these facts and go straight to "hell yeah! nerf dem HMLs!!!" for some reason. Some poeple maybe don't want to expend effort to debunk the flaws in the quoted post. Oh well, here goes, What point is it to compare weapons without ship bonuses for those weapons. They simply don't get fit without the ship bonuses. An all level 5 skilled character, for ease of comparison only since we all know most people usually train spec skills to 4, tech II high damage ammo, and no damage mods (just the guns man) can do the following with a 7 x HBL II Gleam Harby - 323 dps (7.5 optimal) (1395 volley) 7 x 250mm Rail II Javelin Brutix - 298 dps (9.0 optimal) (1406 volley) 6 x 720mm Arty II Quake Hurricane - 281 dps (7.5 optimal) (3177 volley) 7 x HML II Fury Drake - 271dps (75.9 optimal -> realistic 72km range) (2310 volley) Notice the big diference the guns less than 10km (not 40km) and the missiles 70+km. You are comparing very short range performance against a weapon system built for range and it still is competitive. BUT, then plug in the long range tech II ammo and Harby 184 dps, 54 optimal, 787 volley Brutix 170 dps, 65 optimal, 804 volley Cane 161 dps, 54 optimal, 1815 volley Drake 271 dps, 70+ optimal, 2310 volley still And yes most people fight in gangs, small or large, with tackle distributed. Drakes often are shooting past 40km in those situations. Regardless, the turret ships have to be within scram and web range to apply their slight dps advantage with short range ammo. The Drake wins at anything over about 10-12km well within a boosted point range at around 25-30km. The travel time at those distances will mean squat. If those turret ships are fitting an armor tank they won't be catching the Drake, and if shield fit it is flimsy and probably around half the Drake's tank. Now some of this ignores the use of TEs or TCs but those things compete with damage mods, tackle, or tank and other things a short range ship needs to do it's job. But it was your example. Firewalling is only really ever used in blobs. It is not always effective, and even when it is it's not like some manuvering can't get the missile stream around the wall. Firewalling was a suboptimal strategy bourne of the lack of a dedicated anti-missile ewar in the game. It will quite possibly be gone once TDs start affecting missiles as well as turrets. And in case you missed it it is not only TDs that will have a missile effect it will also be TEs and TCs. Welcome to the wonderful world of ftting choices. A world that has been heretofore only inhabited by turret boats. Instant damage does not matter unless you are in a mixed gang and seeking killmail glory. And even there look at the drone boat. He's waiting longer for his weapons to reach the target (and don't mention sentries for pvp with a straight face for anything other than gate or station camping). In a fleet action travel time doesn't matter for a missile fleet because the bubbles or Lach/Hugi combo are your tackle. Everyone's missiles will be traveling. And notice the volley on the Drake at 70km v the Cane at 70km. I think you need to get some experience with guns. I've got experience with both weapons. Do you? Training specs on 3 types of guns at all sizes and missiles at all sizes is a *****, but once you are there you notice these things. It gives you more of a perspective on the game than just oh boo hoo they're nerfing the weapon system I use. I use both missiles and projectiles on a daily basis.
|
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:29:00 -
[2414] - Quote
MIrple wrote:For everyone whining about how this will break missiles. You do know that there are more then 1 type of missile in the game currently correct. If your in a Drake or Tengue switch to HAMS. You have more then enough time to train this to V by Dec so you can use the T2 variety then.
LOL HAMS maybe if they let guided missile precision work on unguided missiles they would be useful. I remember my main being ripped a new one by a Ninja (Rifter) while flying a heavy fit Caracal. When they have a skill that gives you the chance to do more damage with one weapon system over nix on another which weapon system would you use? |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:31:00 -
[2415] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Onictus wrote:[quote=Miss Le NerfSxBye][quote=Lallante][quote=Daniel Plain]
Right about 400 dps, you can still get 2 BCSs with that build.
What build lets a Drake hit at 100k? I missed that one somewhere.
Put a rig on it and you can do this
[Drake, 100K Drake]
Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Capacitor Power Relay II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction EM Ward Field II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
hits out to 108 and can target to 120
~360 Dps 75k tank |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:32:00 -
[2416] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:MIrple wrote:For everyone whining about how this will break missiles. You do know that there are more then 1 type of missile in the game currently correct. If your in a Drake or Tengue switch to HAMS. You have more then enough time to train this to V by Dec so you can use the T2 variety then. LOL HAMS maybe if they let guided missile precision work on unguided missiles they would be useful. I remember my main being ripped a new one by a Ninja (Rifter) while flying a heavy fit Caracal. When they have a skill that gives you the chance to do more damage with one weapon system over nix on another which weapon system would you use?
This will be where TE or TC come into play. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:33:00 -
[2417] - Quote
[Drake, Drake 2 copy 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Warp Disruptor II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
109.7 km with my skills. I am pretty much maxed out when it comes to range. EFT. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:55:00 -
[2418] - Quote
The idea for missile TD: "Launcher sequence disruptor". When applied on a ship, induces some probability that a missile would not activate on launch - i.e. it just disappears, without hurting anyone. That way, missile ships still can dictate the range - but now they could be countered. Should be more interesting than just copy-pasting trackdis and naming it "missile-dis". And at least it sounds like it has something to do with the real world. |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 17:57:00 -
[2419] - Quote
@ Bluotok and @Mirple.
Thanks for that fit, I seem to be having some issues quoting here. I'd never considered rigs other than extenders or em/therm (brainwashed into more tank, more tank). I could see how these would be annoying.
@Mirple But my point is I've always preferred HML over HAM because of the guided missile precision skill. HAM's being not that good against frigs etc I'd assume other people would have this perception as well and would this not be adding to the imbalance between HAM and HML use? |
James1122
Aperture Harmonics K162
51
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:03:00 -
[2420] - Quote
Hi CCP Fozzie
Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.
However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
James Two Step for CSM |
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:04:00 -
[2421] - Quote
You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever. |
Errand Girl
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:05:00 -
[2422] - Quote
Fozzie, I'm kind of impressed you're still reading this monster. To be honest, I'm fairly surprised that I'm still reading it....
Can you let us know if your position on the HML changes has moved at all after 120+ pages and counting, or is the current plan still to implement what is shown in the OP?
Pretty much every useful point on each side of each argument has been stated by now and this thread is going in circles. Part of the reason for that is that there isn't actually a lot of information for people to look at. The data on existing weapon systems has been analyzed pretty thoroughly, but that only tells us what the current state is not what these changes will mean. For example, depending on how big the missiles bonuses are for TC/TE and TD, this could be an improvement for missiles or it could be even worse than some of the biggest haters fear.
Will you share with us your specific thought processes and the data you looked at to determine that both a 25% range nerf and a 20% damage nerf is appropriate? If CCP is serious about player feedback, this seems like an obvious step. Without this data, an awful lot of this feels like a gotcha. "I know why I'm making these changes, and you have to guess why".
Will you share with us specific bonuses that are being considered for TC/TE as well as TD? Without a better idea of numbers here, we're all pretty much guessing what the end impact will be. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:09:00 -
[2423] - Quote
James1122 wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie
Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.
However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
James
Caracal: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s
Stabber: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2)
Balance ? Really ?
I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
119
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:10:00 -
[2424] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:@ Bluotok and @Mirple.
Thanks for that fit, I seem to be having some issues quoting here. I'd never considered rigs other than extenders or em/therm (brainwashed into more tank, more tank). I could see how these would be annoying.
@Mirple But my point is I've always preferred HML over HAM because of the guided missile precision skill. HAM's being not that good against frigs etc I'd assume other people would have this perception as well and would this not be adding to the imbalance between HAM and HML use?
Yes, I agree that the close ranged weapon system should be better at hitting smaller faster targets. I hope with all the posts the DEVS take a look at this and adjust as needed either by changing the missiles themselves or allowing the skills and rigs to effect both types of missile systems. You also do realize that after these changes that the TE and TC will also give you a bonus to your explosion radius/explosion velocity so this will help the unguided missile greatly.
I have said this before until we can get actual numbers on the other changes that will also go along with the HML nerf we cannot give solid accurate feedback on the entire idea.
I do feel that there should be a change to the fitting of HAMS and HML so it goes more in line with the rest of the weapon systems and there should also be a change in how Rage and Precision Missiles work. Also a slight buff to HAM damage would also not be that far out of line.
With these small changes I think that after people get out of the brainwashed mindset of HML are the only launches I can fit to a Drake or Tengue. This will be a great balancing undertaking. If you want to see proof of this just look at the new Caracal and see how well it works with the changes. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:10:00 -
[2425] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
I supposed I could train for a Machariel... Do we armor or shield tank those?
Either or. ...and there is nothing in this game more fun then an AC mach hotdrop. I suppose its armor tank if you want more tank but shield if you want more gank?
Shield means you have a 1000dps hurricane with an 85k tank. You think canes and Drakes are OP, ne glad macks cost a fortune. |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:11:00 -
[2426] - Quote
Aprudena Gist wrote:You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever. You could hit a tower it aint moving |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:13:00 -
[2427] - Quote
Aprudena Gist wrote:You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever.
The reason why i would not hit is because the target would warp out........ Yes, i would not hit at 109, but near enough, maybe 100 ?
And then, it depends. if the target is moving toward me or away or no change ......... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
189
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:16:00 -
[2428] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Onictus wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Well yeah but,... three years of ratting and they still don't have enough ISK to get that pvp ship? lol So you want them to grind longer to get their next pvp ship, that's the point....... Let me clue you in on a little secret, as a Tengu and Drake pilot, if you think you are maxing your isk with either hull you are dead wrong. Try a Machariel, damn near twice the DPS with T1 ammo, as fast as a Tengu with about the same sig. Oh and it doesn't need pith A gear to work quickly, realatively cheap deadspace works fine. But skill wise for noobies, it's easier to get into a drake. For older players, may not be maximizing isk with Drake, but as most have already trained as their first ship, they already have the skills and everything else are their fun ships And also, you enforce the point that HM's are NOT as OP as everyone says they are. The people crying that the nerf is necessary, for the most part, don't believe that HML's are op...they don't like the missioning/ratting advantage that drakes have over most ships. And you're right....they tend to have pimp fits in order to solo all the sites. Most are slow boats since they do have the range...now they will not only need to sacrifice a tank slot for a prop mod to get in range, but also a take or damage mod for te's....I'd love to see this on sisi and have people fly it...but as sisi is worthless because people can't test what they can't fly, it's pointless.
I don't care about noobies, I was running level 4s in a myrm at 5 months old. Noobies cam ski up like everyone else, because even at my 45mil SP (I think) I would rather PvP in my Dram, or Ceptor, or any of the 8 AFs I can fly.
None of which are more than a couple month train.
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:17:00 -
[2429] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Aprudena Gist wrote:You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever. You could hit a tower it aint moving Not even talking about targets moving even standing still targets. You do not get the range listed out of the missiles period.
But yea there is a reason missles have way wacky numbers from guns its because your lose a ton of dps from moving targets, defenders, smartbombs etc etc etc. |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:19:00 -
[2430] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:@ Bluotok and @Mirple.
Thanks for that fit, I seem to be having some issues quoting here. I'd never considered rigs other than extenders or em/therm (brainwashed into more tank, more tank). I could see how these would be annoying.
@Mirple But my point is I've always preferred HML over HAM because of the guided missile precision skill. HAM's being not that good against frigs etc I'd assume other people would have this perception as well and would this not be adding to the imbalance between HAM and HML use? Yes, I agree that the close ranged weapon system should be better at hitting smaller faster targets. I hope with all the posts the DEVS take a look at this and adjust as needed either by changing the missiles themselves or allowing the skills and rigs to effect both types of missile systems. You also do realize that after these changes that the TE and TC will also give you a bonus to your explosion radius/explosion velocity so this will help the unguided missile greatly. I have said this before until we can get actual numbers on the other changes that will also go along with the HML nerf we cannot give solid accurate feedback on the entire idea. I do feel that there should be a change to the fitting of HAMS and HML so it goes more in line with the rest of the weapon systems and there should also be a change in how Rage and Precision Missiles work. Also a slight buff to HAM damage would also not be that far out of line. With these small changes I think that after people get out of the brainwashed mindset of HML are the only launches I can fit to a Drake or Tengue. This will be a great balancing undertaking. If you want to see proof of this just look at the new Caracal and see how well it works with the changes. yah, waiting to see what happens, me, I must admit am slightly pissed as I had two characters completing HML V yesterday. I'm guessing in the future it would pay to always watch the forums. Only came here recently as someone mentioned the proposed rebalancing, always preferred playing the game rather than discussing it.
|
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
139
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:19:00 -
[2431] - Quote
Regardless of the TD/TE/TC changes you refuse to ignore the fact that HAM's have worse damage application therefore worse effective dps than Heavy Missiles.
All the guided missiles receive a better damage application bonus through the Guided missile precision skill that lowers their explosion radius by 25%.
Non of the guided missile get this bonus nor do they get any bonus from rigors.
Heavy Missiles and HAM's have the same Base explosive range, but once your apply GMP skill the Heavy Missile has a much lower explosion radius than HAM's. Giving it better "tracking" than HAMs.
This is as broken as having beaming having more absolute tracking that pulse lasers.
I don't care if the TE/TC changes makes it better the fact remains is that Unguided missiles have less damage application and effective dps than Guided missiles, TE and TC will NOT fix this issue. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:20:00 -
[2432] - Quote
I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.
Small - Rockets (unguided) Medium - Heavy Large - Cruise XL - Torps (unguided)
When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).
However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.
With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.
In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.
In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.
Some other info (approximated):
Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU
HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU
Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU
Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:21:00 -
[2433] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:MIrple wrote:Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:@ Bluotok and @Mirple.
Thanks for that fit, I seem to be having some issues quoting here. I'd never considered rigs other than extenders or em/therm (brainwashed into more tank, more tank). I could see how these would be annoying.
@Mirple But my point is I've always preferred HML over HAM because of the guided missile precision skill. HAM's being not that good against frigs etc I'd assume other people would have this perception as well and would this not be adding to the imbalance between HAM and HML use? Yes, I agree that the close ranged weapon system should be better at hitting smaller faster targets. I hope with all the posts the DEVS take a look at this and adjust as needed either by changing the missiles themselves or allowing the skills and rigs to effect both types of missile systems. You also do realize that after these changes that the TE and TC will also give you a bonus to your explosion radius/explosion velocity so this will help the unguided missile greatly. I have said this before until we can get actual numbers on the other changes that will also go along with the HML nerf we cannot give solid accurate feedback on the entire idea. I do feel that there should be a change to the fitting of HAMS and HML so it goes more in line with the rest of the weapon systems and there should also be a change in how Rage and Precision Missiles work. Also a slight buff to HAM damage would also not be that far out of line. With these small changes I think that after people get out of the brainwashed mindset of HML are the only launches I can fit to a Drake or Tengue. This will be a great balancing undertaking. If you want to see proof of this just look at the new Caracal and see how well it works with the changes. yah, waiting to see what happens, me, I must admit am slightly pissed as I had two characters completing HML V yesterday. I'm guessing in the future it would pay to always watch the forums. Only came here recently as someone mentioned the proposed rebalancing, always preferred playing the game rather than discussing it.
+1 |
Eva Haiki
The Return of the Unskilled Eternal Evocations
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:23:00 -
[2434] - Quote
Argh DPS decrease on my Drake Nooooooooooo plzzzz not :( , The other changes are good :) |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:24:00 -
[2435] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Onictus wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Well yeah but,... three years of ratting and they still don't have enough ISK to get that pvp ship? lol So you want them to grind longer to get their next pvp ship, that's the point....... Let me clue you in on a little secret, as a Tengu and Drake pilot, if you think you are maxing your isk with either hull you are dead wrong. Try a Machariel, damn near twice the DPS with T1 ammo, as fast as a Tengu with about the same sig. Oh and it doesn't need pith A gear to work quickly, realatively cheap deadspace works fine. But skill wise for noobies, it's easier to get into a drake. For older players, may not be maximizing isk with Drake, but as most have already trained as their first ship, they already have the skills and everything else are their fun ships And also, you enforce the point that HM's are NOT as OP as everyone says they are. The people crying that the nerf is necessary, for the most part, don't believe that HML's are op...they don't like the missioning/ratting advantage that drakes have over most ships. And you're right....they tend to have pimp fits in order to solo all the sites. Most are slow boats since they do have the range...now they will not only need to sacrifice a tank slot for a prop mod to get in range, but also a take or damage mod for te's....I'd love to see this on sisi and have people fly it...but as sisi is worthless because people can't test what they can't fly, it's pointless. I don't care about noobies, I was running level 4s in a myrm at 5 months old. Noobies cam ski up like everyone else, because even at my 45mil SP (I think) I would rather PvP in my Dram, or Ceptor, or any of the 8 AFs I can fly. None of which are more than a couple month train.
Ahhh, the elitest mentality...screw the noobies....even though noobies keep the game going. Just like the people that say, "SCREW THE CAREBEARS" yet, NONE of you understand what "cause and effect" are. If you remove all the carebears *which really, are mainly alts looking to make isk to support their pvp activities*, then the prices of minerals in HS go up, hence why the banning of bots made HS min prices skyrocket to the point it's more profitable to mine HS than LS or null *calculating risk into those figures*. Get rid of more carebears, production goes down, prices go up....even more reason to be a carebear as it will be even MORE PROFITABLE.
Screw the noobies, less noobies join...eventually Eve dies because there will always be people quitting the game for various reasons....eventually there won't be enough people left to keep the game going. Drop your "I'm the greatest" thought process and see THE BIGGER PICTURE. How many players that started back in 2004 still play the game? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
190
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:27:00 -
[2436] - Quote
Aprudena Gist wrote:You idiots talking about 100k drakes understand you only get about 70-80% of the "range" on a missle ship right? go try and hit sometimes in game with those fits you wont ever.
I can, and I have, that is a kiting fit you use against short range battle ships, it WILL hit at 100.
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
140
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:34:00 -
[2437] - Quote
Also we must make two different modules for weapon disruptors.
One for Turrets.
Another for Missiles.
This will ensure that players will have to think and choose.
Akin to having Racial ECM.
This will ensure that TD will not become overpowered and a module that everyone uses as a GOD module that affects all dps ships with a change of a script. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1131
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:34:00 -
[2438] - Quote
I've got one last question. Why not promote damps as the counter to long range missiles instead of TD? Or at least make damps better at locking people out of range? With turrets you can still deal full damage if your range is reduced you just have a smaller % change to hit. Becuase your range or tracking goes down.
With missiles if you push someone under the range it's over 0 damage will be dealt. So how is that fair? To have TD have such an effect on missiles? You might want to make that reduce Explosion velocity and explosion radius instead of range if you don't want to ruin missiles forever... http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
bornaa
GRiD.
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:35:00 -
[2439] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.
Small - Rockets (unguided) Medium - Heavy Large - Cruise XL - Torps (unguided)
When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).
However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.
With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.
In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.
In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.
Some other info (approximated):
Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU
HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU
Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU
Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage.
+1
Missiles need complete overhaul and not just quick fix for one sub-type of missiles!!! Yes, I'm an Amateur |
bornaa
GRiD.
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:37:00 -
[2440] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:James1122 wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie
Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.
However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
James Caracal: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Stabber: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2) Balance ? Really ? I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture.
Noone looks at stats of ships and then balance weapons... and thats so sad... Like noone understands this game at all... CCP? Yes, I'm an Amateur |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
120
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:39:00 -
[2441] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Also we must make two different modules for weapon disruptors.
One for Turrets.
Another for Missiles.
This will ensure that players will have to think and choose.
Akin to having Racial ECM.
This will ensure that TD will not become overpowered and a module that everyone uses as a GOD module that affects all dps ships with a change of a script.
Could we take this further and say make 4 TD they would essentially be tracking, optimal, falloff, flight time and then have an omni one that does all of this at a reduced amount. This would make it more like ECM and this could be a good thing as more thought is always better in a game. |
Komen
Capital Enrichment Services Transmission Lost
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:39:00 -
[2442] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Regardless of the TD/TE/TC changes you refuse to ignore the fact that HAM's have worse damage application therefore worse effective dps than Heavy Missiles.
All the guided missiles receive a better damage application bonus through the Guided missile precision skill that lowers their explosion radius by 25%.
None of the unguided missiles get this bonus nor do they get any bonus from rigors.
Heavy Missiles and HAM's have the same Base explosive range, but once your apply GMP skill the Heavy Missile has a much lower explosion radius than HAM's. Giving it better "tracking" than HAMs.
This is as broken as having beaming having more absolute tracking that pulse lasers.
I don't care if the TE/TC changes makes it better the fact remains is that Unguided missiles have less damage application and effective dps than Guided missiles, TE and TC will NOT fix this issue.
This right here is the heart of the issue. We won't let a HAM ship in our gangs, and we have to demonstrate to new recruits how bad those ships are at DPS application, by live fire exercise. In fact I feel another such exercise oncoming.
The short of it is, HAMs only work against hulls BC and up. Since they are ridiculously referred to as 'unguided' weapons, certain skills don't apply. This is broken. With turret systems, ALL of your support skills affect both the short and long range versions. Gunnery tracking affects pulse and beams both.
If you're going to redo missile balance (again), how about you start from the ground up, and build the skill group properly.
I'm not even going to comment on TC/TD/TE affecting missiles. That's a whole OTHER can. |
OlRotGut
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:40:00 -
[2443] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.
Small - Rockets (unguided) Medium - Heavy Large - Cruise XL - Torps (unguided)
When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).
However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.
With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.
In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.
In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.
Some other info (approximated):
Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU
HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU
Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU
Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage.
I am thinking that they just need to redo the whole entire missile tree if they are going to rework HML's and change HAM fitting requirements.
for instance, who would ever take cruise missiles into PVP?
|
Avila Cracko
378
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:43:00 -
[2444] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Regardless of the TD/TE/TC changes you refuse to ignore the fact that HAM's have worse damage application therefore worse effective dps than Heavy Missiles.
All the guided missiles receive a better damage application bonus through the Guided missile precision skill that lowers their explosion radius by 25%.
None of the unguided missiles get this bonus nor do they get any bonus from rigors.
Heavy Missiles and HAM's have the same Base explosive range, but once your apply GMP skill the Heavy Missile has a much lower explosion radius than HAM's. Giving it better "tracking" than HAMs.
This is as broken as having beaming having more absolute tracking that pulse lasers.
I don't care if the TE/TC changes makes it better the fact remains is that Unguided missiles have less damage application and effective dps than Guided missiles, TE and TC will NOT fix this issue.
Eckyy wrote:I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.
Small - Rockets (unguided) Medium - Heavy Large - Cruise XL - Torps (unguided)
When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).
However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.
With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.
In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.
In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.
Some other info (approximated):
Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU
HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU
Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU
Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage.
Here are some more problems CCP!!! Give some time to missiles and solve this problem, dont just push your head into the ground!!!
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:47:00 -
[2445] - Quote
CCP fozzie
You state and restate in your replies to these posts that your trying to essentially build a base to go forward from with the Heavy missile platform.
Massive restructuring is wrong, and has proved wrong everytime CCP implement this into the game. I am quite worried that you are with respect are going at this like a horse with blinkers on. Look straight ahead and not watching for danger from the sides.
Heavy missiles as stated previously by many are only used in a small amount of operations, they are used minimally so why the drastic change?
You stated that they're so powerful that you can use them on unbonused ships. That is far from true and I think you must have not thought about that properly before posting.
Heavy missiles without bonuses are very poor DPS.
Lastly, you stated the nighthawk died when the Drake was born, why not spend your time more thoughtfully and rebalance that ship division?
As they are right now HMLs and HAMs are fine on paper, OK so the PG usage on HAMs is stupid but thats about it.
You cannot build as base from missile stats, especially picking on HMLs which are infrequently used. Fix the ships themselves. That is the logical thing to do.
|
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:49:00 -
[2446] - Quote
Komen wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Regardless of the TD/TE/TC changes you refuse to ignore the fact that HAM's have worse damage application therefore worse effective dps than Heavy Missiles.
All the guided missiles receive a better damage application bonus through the Guided missile precision skill that lowers their explosion radius by 25%.
None of the unguided missiles get this bonus nor do they get any bonus from rigors.
Heavy Missiles and HAM's have the same Base explosive range, but once your apply GMP skill the Heavy Missile has a much lower explosion radius than HAM's. Giving it better "tracking" than HAMs.
This is as broken as having beaming having more absolute tracking that pulse lasers.
I don't care if the TE/TC changes makes it better the fact remains is that Unguided missiles have less damage application and effective dps than Guided missiles, TE and TC will NOT fix this issue. This right here is the heart of the issue. We won't let a HAM ship in our gangs, and we have to demonstrate to new recruits how bad those ships are at DPS application, by live fire exercise. In fact I feel another such exercise oncoming. The short of it is, HAMs only work against hulls BC and up. Since they are ridiculously referred to as 'unguided' weapons, certain skills don't apply. This is broken. With turret systems, ALL of your support skills affect both the short and long range versions. Gunnery tracking affects pulse and beams both. If you're going to redo missile balance (again), how about you start from the ground up, and build the skill group properly. I'm not even going to comment on TC/TD/TE affecting missiles. That's a whole OTHER can. Yep the only thing I ever killed with HAM's was a AFK Hulk during a wardec dropped right on top him . He dropped from his corp and changed his sig after that (he started the war by smack talking my CEO in local).
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
115
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:50:00 -
[2447] - Quote
Fozzie - can you provide more precise information on the proposed changes to T2 missiles? Specifically, for rage/fury, how big will the increases to damage and explosion radius/decreases to range and explosion velocity be?
Also, the change seems to make rapid light launchers strictly superior to HMLs as long as they're in range. Is this intentional given the very low fitting requirements of the former? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1651
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:52:00 -
[2448] - Quote
James1122 wrote: However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
The problem here is a deeper issue around armor tanking. Ideally you would choose shield tanking for speed and damage and you would choose armor tanking for better HP and better utility through midslots. 1600mm plates requiring more PG than LSEs isn't inherently bad, but we need to make other changes to ensure that armor is a more viable option.
Errand Girl wrote:Fozzie, I'm kind of impressed you're still reading this monster. To be honest, I'm fairly surprised that I'm still reading it....
Can you let us know if your position on the HML changes has moved at all after 120+ pages and counting, or is the current plan still to implement what is shown in the OP?
I have a few changes to the proposal we're considering and testing internally. Once we get past that stage I'll take them to the CSM, then to you all. We have plenty of time before the winter expansion, so we're not going to rush anything. I plan to do this right. Accordingly, this dialogue between us here at CCP and you all in the playerbase on this issue will be measured in weeks or months, not days. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:52:00 -
[2449] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:[quote=Eckyy]I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.
for instance, who would ever take cruise missiles into PVP?
LOL, I run two cruise fit navy ravens (and a HML drake) to do L4's at a reasonable rate, wouldn't even think about em for PvP.
|
bornaa
GRiD.
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:53:00 -
[2450] - Quote
Ill repost few of mine questions:
@ CCP Fozzie
-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!!
-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it.
-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time...
-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect???
-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!!
-> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!!
-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range.
There are many many more questions asked on just last 10 pages... Please give us answers! Yes, I'm an Amateur |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
191
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:53:00 -
[2451] - Quote
bornaa wrote:Bloutok wrote:James1122 wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie
Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.
However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
James Caracal: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Stabber: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2) Balance ? Really ? I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture. Noone looks at stats of ships and then balance weapons... and thats so sad... Like noone understands this game at all... CCP?
So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:53:00 -
[2452] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Komen wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Regardless of the TD/TE/TC changes you refuse to ignore the fact that HAM's have worse damage application therefore worse effective dps than Heavy Missiles.
All the guided missiles receive a better damage application bonus through the Guided missile precision skill that lowers their explosion radius by 25%.
None of the unguided missiles get this bonus nor do they get any bonus from rigors.
Heavy Missiles and HAM's have the same Base explosive range, but once your apply GMP skill the Heavy Missile has a much lower explosion radius than HAM's. Giving it better "tracking" than HAMs.
This is as broken as having beaming having more absolute tracking that pulse lasers.
I don't care if the TE/TC changes makes it better the fact remains is that Unguided missiles have less damage application and effective dps than Guided missiles, TE and TC will NOT fix this issue. This right here is the heart of the issue. We won't let a HAM ship in our gangs, and we have to demonstrate to new recruits how bad those ships are at DPS application, by live fire exercise. In fact I feel another such exercise oncoming. The short of it is, HAMs only work against hulls BC and up. Since they are ridiculously referred to as 'unguided' weapons, certain skills don't apply. This is broken. With turret systems, ALL of your support skills affect both the short and long range versions. Gunnery tracking affects pulse and beams both. If you're going to redo missile balance (again), how about you start from the ground up, and build the skill group properly. I'm not even going to comment on TC/TD/TE affecting missiles. That's a whole OTHER can. Yep the only thing I ever killed with HAM's was a AFK Hulk during a wardec dropped right on top him . He dropped from his corp and changed his sig after that (he started the war by smack talking my CEO in local).
What they need to do is revamp the entire missile system. You want to minimize drake use....make people train light missiles to lvl 4 specialization before they train heavies and then cruises....THAT would minimize the drake population. |
bornaa
GRiD.
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:58:00 -
[2453] - Quote
Onictus wrote:bornaa wrote:Bloutok wrote:James1122 wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie
Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.
However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
James Caracal: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Stabber: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2) Balance ? Really ? I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture. Noone looks at stats of ships and then balance weapons... and thats so sad... Like noone understands this game at all... CCP? So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too.
I thought that range of (some) missiles is long to negate low speed of the caldari ships... but now CCP is removing that so i dont know what will compensate that??? In my logic: slower ship -> longer range weapon.
edit: And you see in changes that they are not making caldari ships faster then the rest. Yes, I'm an Amateur |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
191
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:01:00 -
[2454] - Quote
bornaa wrote:Onictus wrote:bornaa wrote:Bloutok wrote:James1122 wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie
Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.
However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
James Caracal: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Stabber: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2) Balance ? Really ? I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture. Noone looks at stats of ships and then balance weapons... and thats so sad... Like noone understands this game at all... CCP? So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too. I thought that range of (some) missiles is long to negate low speed of the caldari ships... but now CCP is removing that so i dont know what will compensate that??? In my logic: slower ship -> longer range weapon.
So Amarr and Gallente should be king **** then....ever put armor rigs on anything?
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:01:00 -
[2455] - Quote
Onictus wrote:bornaa wrote:Bloutok wrote:James1122 wrote:Hi CCP Fozzie
Overall I have to say I really like the missile changes. It definitely brings them much more in-line with the other long range weapon systems. This confidence in what you've done is also boosted by what I've seen you propose as changes to the Caracal as it shows that you aren't doing this as a blanket nerf but you are actually looking at each of the individual ships. I have faith that you will equally balance the remaining missile ships as and when you get around to them.
However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
James Caracal: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s Stabber: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2) Balance ? Really ? I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture. Noone looks at stats of ships and then balance weapons... and thats so sad... Like noone understands this game at all... CCP? So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too.
People like you make threads like this longer to read for no reason.
Empty posting number .... hmm. well number something.
|
bornaa
GRiD.
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:03:00 -
[2456] - Quote
Onictus wrote:bornaa wrote:Onictus wrote:bornaa wrote:Bloutok wrote:
Caracal: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 225(+47) / 0.425 / 12910000 / 5.1s
Stabber: Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 285(+54) / 0.5(+0.02) / 11400000 / 5.3s (+0.2)
Balance ? Really ?
I still think not many people add speed to the overall picture.
Noone looks at stats of ships and then balance weapons... and thats so sad... Like noone understands this game at all... CCP? So you missed the statement where CCP said that HMLs were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls.....and the hulls are changing too. I thought that range of (some) missiles is long to negate low speed of the caldari ships... but now CCP is removing that so i dont know what will compensate that??? In my logic: slower ship -> longer range weapon. So Amarr and Gallente should be king **** then....ever put armor rigs on anything?
I dont talk about speed after fittings... that you can change, ship in your race you can not. Yes, I'm an Amateur |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1651
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:03:00 -
[2457] - Quote
bornaa wrote:-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!! Good point, and we are keeping that in mind. Heavy missiles will still have much better damage projection at long range than turrets, and with TE/TDs their max range will be even higher than they are currently (with a tradeoff of lows or mids). Also keep in mind that the speed disadvantage of Caldari ships is often less than it appears on paper since they usually shield tank and armor tanking incurs speed and mass penalties.
bornaa wrote:I dont talk about speed after fittings... that you can change, ship in your race you can not. After fittings is all that ever matters.
bornaa wrote:-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it. Yes indeed. It would be on a missile by missile basis instead of a blanket change, but this proposal for instance does include an increase to HM speed. Increasing that speed more is still on the table as an option.
bornaa wrote:-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time... Interesting idea but it is beyond the scope of what we're working on here. Maybe someday.
bornaa wrote:-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect??? Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff
bornaa wrote:-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!! The danger of making TDs OP is something we're very aware of. Many people have shown their concern here in this thread on that issue and we are not taking anything regarding ewar for granted.
bornaa wrote:-> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!! Yup. It's something we are definitely taking into account, and will continue to do so as we refine the proposal.
bornaa wrote:-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range. They need a lot of work, but to keep things manageable we're going to wait until we're closer to the BS rebalance before messing directly with them. We can only do so much so quickly. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
191
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:05:00 -
[2458] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:CCP fozzie
You state and restate in your replies to these posts that your trying to essentially build a base to go forward from with the Heavy missile platform.
Massive restructuring is wrong, and has proved wrong everytime CCP implement this into the game. I am quite worried that you are with respect are going at this like a horse with blinkers on. Look straight ahead and not watching for danger from the sides.
Heavy missiles as stated previously by many are only used in a small amount of operations, they are used minimally so why the drastic change?
You stated that they're so powerful that you can use them on unbonused ships. That is far from true and I think you must have not thought about that properly before posting.
Heavy missiles without bonuses are very poor DPS.
Lastly, you stated the nighthawk died when the Drake was born, why not spend your time more thoughtfully and rebalance that ship division?
As they are right now HMLs and HAMs are fine on paper, OK so the PG usage on HAMs is stupid but thats about it.
You cannot build as base from missile stats, especially picking on HMLs which are infrequently used. Fix the ships themselves. That is the logical thing to do.
I was reading up to heavies are infrequently used.
......lol what? |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:06:00 -
[2459] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:
What they need to do is revamp the entire missile system. You want to minimize drake use....make people train light missiles to lvl 4 specialization before they train heavies and then cruises....THAT would minimize the drake population....
OR......better yet... If I want to be a BS pilot with tech II lasers....why do I need tech II smalls and mediums before I use tech II larges...it makes no sense. That in and of itself is what drives people to caldari. not the "elite" *laughable* dps of the drake and tengu. it's with everything else needed to train, people take the shortcut and since it's more difficult to cross train into guns, they stick with it.
Call me weird if you will, I went for the Drake as a noob, cause it looked so god-damn cool, didn't give a damn about stats etc.
I'd not be opposed to "equalisation" in training weapons systems, one reason that's put me off training for T2 guns relative to the ease of missile training, is that level IV specialisation requirement for turrets.
|
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:07:00 -
[2460] - Quote
CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles? |
|
Severian Carnifex
193
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:10:00 -
[2461] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:Eckyy wrote:I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.
Small - Rockets (unguided) Medium - Heavy Large - Cruise XL - Torps (unguided)
When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).
However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.
With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.
In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.
In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.
Some other info (approximated):
Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU
HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU
Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU
Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage. I am thinking that they just need to redo the whole entire missile tree if they are going to rework HML's and change HAM fitting requirements. for instance, who would ever take cruise missiles into PVP?
THIS, THIS, THIS... soooo this!!! CCP... start from the start... from rockets... and end on torps... and then look at capital missile weapons!!! You cant fix something thats soooo broken. You must re-do it from the start. Make some pattern between types and classes and stick with it!!! Give us weapon class that work and that we know what to expect from it!!! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
580
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:10:00 -
[2462] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:bornaa wrote:-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!! Good point, and we are keeping that in mind. Heavy missiles will still have much better damage projection at long range than turrets, and with TE/ TCs their max range will be even higher than they are currently (with a tradeoff of lows or mids). Also keep in mind that the speed disadvantage of Caldari ships is often less than it appears on paper since they usually shield tank and armor tanking incurs speed and mass penalties. .
fyp... td's dont extend range... bub...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:12:00 -
[2463] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie Kudos to you sir, still participating in the discussion with us scrubs on a Friday night, restoring my faith in CCP. |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
620
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:13:00 -
[2464] - Quote
Response to another thread, locked by useless Goon alt. No offense to Goons, you can't control all your member's alts.
Quote:I don't see HMLs as OP, I see HMLs as the only missiles that has a chance to compete with guns. You can use post all the EFT warrior stats you want, I've faught and flown enough of them enough to know the reality. Destroying HMLs will not make the other Caldari ships any better. Destroying HMLs will not make Gallenete worth flying.
This is how I see the races. I'm trained to fly and fit all 4, minus titans. I've killed hundreds of Drakes and Tengus, and lost hundreds of Canes.
Gallente sexiest ship. Worst ships! Ranis tackles. Comet, Ishkur can do small and medium plex with the abilty to PVP some other ships within that size restrictions.
Amarr second best looking ships. Most useful in fleets and blobs. Works well in PVE.
Minmatar pretty damn ugly minus a few. Cane worked well in solo organgs prenerf. Few other good fleet ships. Some good PVE ships.
Caldari generally ugly and useless outside of a couple PVE ships.The only OP ship in the game Falcon. Drake and tengu were useful prenerf. Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Avila Cracko
378
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:16:00 -
[2465] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:OlRotGut wrote:Eckyy wrote:I made note of this in another thread - I think the entire missile system needs a rework.
Small - Rockets (unguided) Medium - Heavy Large - Cruise XL - Torps (unguided)
When the game was released, there was no such thing as short- and long-range missiles. The largest and smallest missiles (rockets and torps) were considered "unguided" and not all skills and modules applied to them. In the early days, it seems CCP went out of its way to make sure there was no symmetry in any aspect of the game (including ship aesthetics).
However, somewhere along the line CCP decided to introduce some symmetry and made torpedos a hard to fit, close range weapon system for battleships (and improved their DPS), which left cruise an easier to fit, long range weapon system. They also introduced HAMs which follow a similar pattern - long range weapons are easier to fit, and short range are harder to fit.
With frigate-sized weapons, this is still backward. Rockets are more like turrets, in that they are close-range weapons that do more damage and are easier to fit, which allows "brawling" ships to fit the extra tank they need to survive. Ships like the Drake received a tanking bonus perhaps in compensation for the general backwardness of missile fitting requirements.
In the early days, missiles tended to have higher base damage than other weapon systems. Ships that used them as a primary weapon system tended to either have fewer launchers than turret ships and a damage bonus to compensate, OR had the same number of turrets and no damage bonus. This allowed missiles to function as a secondary weapon system and not totally useless as supplementary DPS. Recently CCP has started giving missile ships a full rack of missiles and damage bonuses, and is now concerned with their DPS. By hitting missile DPS directly, CCP stands to damage them as a secondary weapon system.
In short, the whole missile tree is a mess.
Some other info (approximated):
Rockets do 33% more DPS than light missiles, and have 1/4 the range Rockets require 55% less grid and 39% less CPU
HAMs do 25% more DPS than heavy missiles, and have 1/4 the range HAMs require 20% more PG and 10% less CPU
Torpedos do 83% more DPS than cruise, and have 1/8 the range Torpedos require 40% more PG and 33% more CPU
Guided missile precision only applies to long-range missiles and allows them to hit smaller targets for higher damage. I am thinking that they just need to redo the whole entire missile tree if they are going to rework HML's and change HAM fitting requirements. for instance, who would ever take cruise missiles into PVP? THIS, THIS, THIS... soooo this!!! CCP... start from the start... from rockets... and end on torps... and then look at capital missile weapons!!! You cant fix something thats soooo broken. You must re-do it from the start. Make some pattern between types and classes and stick with it!!!Give us weapon class that work and that we know what to expect from it!!!
Signed. Make logical pattern in missile stats through missile tree progression. truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:18:00 -
[2466] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:bornaa wrote:-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!! Good point, and we are keeping that in mind. Heavy missiles will still have much better damage projection at long range than turrets, and with TE/TDs their max range will be even higher than they are currently (with a tradeoff of lows or mids). Also keep in mind that the speed disadvantage of Caldari ships is often less than it appears on paper since they usually shield tank and armor tanking incurs speed and mass penalties.
Better long range damage. The question i ask is, will that damage be enough so that real people will use the ship or is it another nice " Hey guy! On paper ... It works " thing ?
When you test, or try to balance. Do you try to balance for all size of engagements ? 1 vs 1 . 10 vs 10 ? Alot VS 1 ? |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:19:00 -
[2467] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:@ CCP Fozzie Kudos to you sir, still participating in the discussion with us scrubs on a Friday night, restoring my faith in CCP.
I will go with a +1 on this :)
+1 |
Col Callahan
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:20:00 -
[2468] - Quote
I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.
Sad really. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:21:00 -
[2469] - Quote
bornaa wrote:-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it. Yes indeed. It would be on a missile by missile basis instead of a blanket change, but this proposal for instance does include an increase to HM speed. Increasing that speed more is still on the table as an option.
bornaa wrote:-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect??? Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff
bornaa wrote:-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!! The danger of making TDs OP is something we're very aware of. Many people have shown their concern here in this thread on that issue and we are not taking anything regarding ewar for granted.
bornaa wrote:-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range. They need a lot of work, but to keep things manageable we're going to wait until we're closer to the BS rebalance before messing directly with them. We can only do so much so quickly.
Actually looking at a T2 cruise Fury raven it can do over 700 dps which seems fine to me the only issue is the long flight time HAMS definitely have too long a range at least the Rage/T1 ammo anyway. But please keep the TD option defenders dont work cos you sacrifice turret slots IF you even have one and they arent very good anyway. |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
93
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:22:00 -
[2470] - Quote
I think this is all overblown. Just like with radiation, most often the fear is more harmful than the actual effects.
In their current form Drakes are pretty OP. Just sitting in place and targeting, launching, targeting, launching, targeting launching is almost like being a miner. I am surprised the goons and griefers are not all over the change. Where are all those antisocials with their "risk v reward" nonsense. In a T2 fitted Drake the risk is managed so well as to be all but nonexistant.
I am not worried at all. Although if CCP abandoned this whole design by numbers concept there would not be mass whining every 6 months. Can you imagine if a god said to humans every 6 months something like:
- gravity's effect has been reduced by 5% so that space exploration is easier. - The electron has had its voltage increased to make solar power more competitive with petroleum - Addiction to crack is now impossible when malnourished
It makes more sense to just adapt around fixed rules than to change the rules all the time. |
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:24:00 -
[2471] - Quote
i just wanted to stop by one more time to express my gratitude for the fact that you CCP guys actually maintain a dialog with us. affinity and you have done a lot to calm peoples minds than any other drama-ridden MMOs dev team i ever heard of.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:25:00 -
[2472] - Quote
Fozzie, I challenge you:
If you were to poll all the haters of the drake:
A choice between this nerf you propose
or:
removing the training requirements of smaller turrents before you can train the larger T2 variants."
aside from those that would be upset that already trained it, I believe you'd be hard pressed for those that would choose the former....and the new people starting Eve wouldn't be told "well, you can get tech II version of missiles with less training time" then you'd see an increase in noobies flying other ships as opposed to drakes....
On the flip side....everyone here knows Minmatar would be the new FOTM. Projectiles are the preferred weapon of PVP's....no cap, high volley....gankers delight. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:26:00 -
[2473] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:I think this is all overblown. Just like with radiation, most often the fear is more harmful than the actual effects.
In their current form Drakes are pretty OP. Just sitting in place and targeting, launching, targeting, launching, targeting launching is almost like being a miner. I am surprised the goons and griefers are not all over the change. Where are all those antisocials with their "risk v reward" nonsense. In a T2 fitted Drake the risk is managed so well as to be all but nonexistant.
I am not worried at all. Although if CCP abandoned this whole design by numbers concept there would not be mass whining every 6 months. Can you imagine if a god said to humans every 6 months something like:
- gravity's effect has been reduced by 5% so that space exploration is easier. - The electron has had its voltage increased to make solar power more competitive with petroleum - Addiction to crack is now impossible when malnourished
It makes more sense to just adapt around fixed rules than to change the rules all the time.
Not in a game where the bottleneck is SP and SP only come with lots of time.
edit: Or did i get your comment wrong ? I have a doubt now hahahaha. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
580
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:35:00 -
[2474] - Quote
Col Callahan wrote:I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.
Sad really.
huh?
two years ago was 2010... and yes you saw lots of missiles back then...htfu
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Senarrius
Big Monkey Corp Final Admonition
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:48:00 -
[2475] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[ bornaa wrote:-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect??? Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff
This response must be a joke at best.
It makes no sense, it just nerfs assault missiles even more, they're already barely used as it is. |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:03:00 -
[2476] - Quote
Ok so Ill admit I'm a drake pilot skilling toward a tengu so I feel strongly about this.
After reading this very long thread I agree with a lot of the points already made e.g.;
the dps nerf is too much. I would rather not see dps dropped at all
the range nerf is acceptable and understandable
if HML dps is dropped I would like to see new bonuses on the ships that use them to compensate
If TD are to work on missiles it should be a new mod or script similar to the way racial ECM works
HAMs need to be better and easier to fit . Making all missiles guided would be a good start.
If HML dps is nerfed HAMs should be bosted with a similar dps ratio to cruise/torps
TDs will need careful nerfing on non bonused ships to stop them being the win button like ECM was before their change
on a more whiny note please keep the drake as an excellent mission running ship. Not for myself as I'm skilling to bigger and better things, but for the sake of new players. The reason its so common is not because its the best pvp ship but because it's relatively cheap in terms of both isk and skill points and it how most players will start doing lvl4 missions.
Please keep the tengu's dps ability but yes cut its range I dont think its dps is op given how much it costs to hit 800dps in that ship but being able to do that damage at over 100km+ is op.
|
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:05:00 -
[2477] - Quote
Senarrius wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[ bornaa wrote:-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect??? Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff This response must be a joke at best. It makes no sense, it just nerfs assault missiles even more, they're already barely used as it is.
Explain me the exact way how you jump from one star system into the next or how the clone system works.
If you manage that you might ask your question again.
|
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:15:00 -
[2478] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:i just wanted to stop by one more time to express my gratitude for the fact that you CCP guys actually maintain a dialog with us. affinity and you have done a lot more to calm peoples minds than any other drama-ridden MMOs dev team i ever heard of.
Seriously? Have you checked the 'socket closed' problem forum thread at all? |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
206
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:16:00 -
[2479] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Doddy wrote:
No where near fast enough lol.
That is half the speed of current eve missiles. Mach 7 is 2.4k m/s, so it would take the rail gun projectile well over a minute to reach 200k. It could a bit faster in a vacuum and with more advanced tech but is a million miles away from being instant it. Modern missiles can reach not far off that speed even if you don't use the same to tech to launch them as you do to fire the rail gun (which you could do and one assumes that is how eve missiles are launched). Really there should be very little difference in missile and hybrid speeds and projectiles should be slower than either. lasers should be the only practically instant hit.
While that is true, I will point out that the article stated the railgun used was a "32-megajoule prototype railgun" by comparison, 425mm Raingun IIs take 21 GJ to fire thats 656.25 times the energy used to accelerate the projectile.
Using eves game stats to try to calculate real physics is a bit lol, what with 425mm projectiles having the same mass as smaller caliber projectiles and such like. Still its a good point. Also launchers do not use cap so one assumes they are entirely unpowered, but then that would be stupid, having the tech and not using it.
A missile that was launched by the same tech (hence "accelerated" ejection bays for example) would have more mass so its launch speed will be less but it will immediately fire its own motors and start accelerating unlike the hybrid charge that gets all its acceleration from launch. The missiles will continue accelerating till out of fuel. So the missile will happily overtake a rail gun projectile fired at the same time at longer ranges. The rail gun projectile cannot use fins to adjust its trajectory like it would on earth so would be way less accurate than the missile who can thrust vector or use rear fins powered by its own exhaust gasses. Both could carry thrusters but the missile being bigger would have more room for them. So for any remotely long range combat missiles would both strike quicker and much more accurately. Projectiles would be so slow and inaccurate that thier only real role would be in a sort of scatter gun effect probably mainly to take out incoming missiles (like modern day goalkeepers), or to seed areas of space you think an enemy might fly into with debris (projectiles not needing power means you could get an awful lot of them on a ship, the warhead or calibre wouldn't matter too much as most of the destructive force would come from the target flying into them).
But like i have said before in this thread eve is an mmo not a sim. Quibling over weapon physics when the ships are "flying through liquid" is faintly ridiculous. Turrets all act like lasers even when they aren't, missiles all act like guided missiles even when they aren't, spaceships act like submarines, deal with it. |
bornaa
GRiD.
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:24:00 -
[2480] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:bornaa wrote:-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!! Good point, and we are keeping that in mind. Heavy missiles will still have much better damage projection at long range than turrets, and with TE/TDs their max range will be even higher than they are currently (with a tradeoff of lows or mids). Also keep in mind that the speed disadvantage of Caldari ships is often less than it appears on paper since they usually shield tank and armor tanking incurs speed and mass penalties. bornaa wrote:I dont talk about speed after fittings... that you can change, ship in your race you can not. After fittings is all that ever matters. bornaa wrote:-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it. Yes indeed. It would be on a missile by missile basis instead of a blanket change, but this proposal for instance does include an increase to HM speed. Increasing that speed more is still on the table as an option. bornaa wrote:-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time... Interesting idea but it is beyond the scope of what we're working on here. Maybe someday.
Thnx for answering... But if about that speed part... you cant answer then minmatar paradox (shields and best speed)... Again... don't kill the first born child of missiles in PvP because you are afraid of invasion from that one child... You must give missiles some advantage to counter their disadvantages. Yes, I'm an Amateur |
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:26:00 -
[2481] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:James1122 wrote: However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
The problem here is a deeper issue around armor tanking. Ideally you would choose shield tanking for speed and damage and you would choose armor tanking for better HP and better utility through midslots. 1600mm plates requiring more PG than LSEs isn't inherently bad, but we need to make other changes to ensure that armor is a more viable option.
Fozzie, I appreciate your hard work so far.
One of my concerns is that midslot utility modules have been nerfed a little too hard on unbonused ships. Tracking disruptors are still decent options for a spare mid, but how many people say, "well, I'd love to fit a web but I just can't resist that unbonused ECM module", or damps, or even a painter? These are modules people look at when there is absolutely nothing else to fit in a slot.
My suggestion to improve armor tanking is to slightly buff ewar modules' base stats, and then reduce the bonus on ships. IE +10% to base effectiveness of damps/ecm/painters, and change dedicated ships to +5% per level (+25%) from +7.5% per level (+37.5%).
Just a thought. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
206
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:27:00 -
[2482] - Quote
Col Callahan wrote:I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.
Sad really.
You mean like when they had to nerf missiles in thier entirity? Anyway 2 years ago drake was number 1 pvp ship used just like now, nothing has change in that time. Turret fads have changed constantly over that time but the only missile change has been some rich people use tengus with hmls instead of drakes with hmls.
Missiles stopped being automatically bad in pvp the day sniper bs went out of fashion, which was pretty much when AoE doomsdays were nerfed.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
290
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:31:00 -
[2483] - Quote
Doddy wrote:.. Missiles stopped being automatically bad in pvp the day sniper bs went out of fashion, which was pretty much when AoE doomsdays were nerfed. Naah, was when probing was changed from being a semi random long duration thing to being near instant
|
Senarrius
Big Monkey Corp Final Admonition
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:37:00 -
[2484] - Quote
Lev Arturis wrote:Senarrius wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[ bornaa wrote:-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect??? Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff This response must be a joke at best. It makes no sense, it just nerfs assault missiles even more, they're already barely used as it is. Explain me the exact way how you jump from one star system into the next or how the clone system works. If you manage that you might ask your question again.
Here's some extremely light reading for you.
Cloning: Straight from the eve wiki http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Cloning
Man made wormholes
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/nov/09/wormholes-could-be-made-from-exotic-materials
Considering warp drive is already theoretically possible, and so is creating wormholes in the future; it's only a matter of time for that.
Cloning on the other hand is already done, brain scans as well. The main difference being we're not able to link into the brain and copy/download material, and create a synthetic brain which is able to absorb that data yet. Thanks to medical research we can already reproduce new human organs.
All these things can and will arrive in the future. Weather or not we're alive or not by then.
Now on the basis of tracking disruptors affecting non guided/tracking missiles is far more silly. The best way to affect them would be to change their trajectory or slow them down, which would mean it's not a tracking disruptor computer in the sense it already works in the game. Where reduces the tracking speed of the targeted ship's turrets.
Now I can see how they affect normal guided missiles, but non-guided/tracking?
Considering they are still non-guided/tracking, how would that stop from from tracking, when they do not track to begin with. |
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:38:00 -
[2485] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: People like you make threads like this longer to read for no reason.
Empty posting number .... hmm. well number something.
No u. Maybe now that you can't persist with a sob storyline of CCP is not reading this thread you'll stop your useless quoting followed by your one or two line whine 9000 on the same issue. Also, Fozzie has already told you these issues are not up for a vote and repaeating the same flawed arguments gains you nothing.
Katharina B wrote:CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles? Probably slim and none. Maybe you could really focus on what it means for missiles. It means now you could extend range without using a rig. Or, you may want a TC or TE now because just like a turret user you could well face someone fubarring your weapon. The numbers on these are what is going to matter. Forget viewing it as a nerf, it could if done wrong end up as a huge buff for missiles. I'm trusting that the balancing team and Fozzie are not going to derp and do either a bad nerf or buff. And if they do I have hope they won't wait 4 years to fix it.
Bloutok wrote: Better long range damage. The question i ask is, will that damage be enough so that real people will use the ship or is it another nice " Hey guy! On paper ... It works " thing ?
When you test, or try to balance. Do you try to balance for all size of engagements ? 1 vs 1 . 10 vs 10 ? Alot VS 1 ? You obviously are unaware of who Fozzie is. Here's a clue watch the last few years of the alliance tournament. Anyway, if eve-kill weren't offline I'd pull you up. I'm guessing I'd get a "chron job". Regardless someone has already told you why your "size of engagement" argument is sorta funny. But yes, they aren't just viewing the changes through the prism of 0.0 blob fests.
Col Callahan wrote:I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.
Sad really. What is sad is that you may actually beleive what you wrote. Drake fleets were quite established by 2010. They and Tengus were running all the pve content.
And with that can you guys complaining about the proposals stop re-posting the same flawed posts over and over and maybe post something new. We're on page what, 123, already and we haven't even seen any numbers yet on the mods. Seriously before going to post, please read back through the previous 122 pages. Damage numbers and comparisons are already in the thread. Much has already been posted. Posting the same stuff like mashing an f button only makes Fozzie's job slower.
We can discuss whether there should be two mods that are weapon disrupters, or whether new scripts should handle the alteration. And turret users are right there with missile users on concerns about the base strength of unbonused TDs. Have been, but missile users didn't care about them (unless they were using them to defang a turret ship) til now that they will be affecting missiles.
This stuff is happening folks, finally, for those of us that have been shouting for years that the Emperor has too many clothes. And, it is not just this. Ships are being altered directly. It will take time to get to ships like the Nighthawk. But at least the glaring problem is getting an interim fix. Noone should be crying for the Drake and Tengu. They've had a very long, too long, run at overuse because they were better. Read Fozzie's explanation as to why the weapon system is getting this treatment before the BCs are.
Things will be OK, in fact better than it has been, because we won't be stuck with a stale game with obvious easy choices. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 20:48:00 -
[2486] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: People like you make threads like this longer to read for no reason.
Empty posting number .... hmm. well number something.
No u. Maybe now that you can't persist with a sob storyline of CCP is not reading this thread you'll stop your useless quoting followed by your one or two line whine 9000 on the same issue. Also, Fozzie has already told you these issues are not up for a vote and repaeating the same flawed arguments gains you nothing. Katharina B wrote:CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles? Probably slim and none. Maybe you could really focus on what it means for missiles. It means now you could extend range without using a rig. Or, you may want a TC or TE now because just like a turret user you could well face someone fubarring your weapon. The numbers on these are what is going to matter. Forget viewing it as a nerf, it could if done wrong end up as a huge buff for missiles. I'm trusting that the balancing team and Fozzie are not going to derp and do either a bad nerf or buff. And if they do I have hope they won't wait 4 years to fix it. Bloutok wrote: Better long range damage. The question i ask is, will that damage be enough so that real people will use the ship or is it another nice " Hey guy! On paper ... It works " thing ?
When you test, or try to balance. Do you try to balance for all size of engagements ? 1 vs 1 . 10 vs 10 ? Alot VS 1 ? You obviously are unaware of who Fozzie is. Here's a clue watch the last few years of the alliance tournament. Anyway, if eve-kill weren't offline I'd pull you up. I'm guessing I'd get a "chron job". Regardless someone has already told you why your "size of engagement" argument is sorta funny. But yes, they aren't just viewing the changes through the prism of 0.0 blob fests. Col Callahan wrote:I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.
Sad really. What is sad is that you may actually beleive what you wrote. Drake fleets were quite established by 2010. They and Tengus were running all the pve content. And with that can you guys complaining about the proposals stop re-posting the same flawed posts over and over and maybe post something new. We're on page what, 123, already and we haven't even seen any numbers yet on the mods. Seriously before going to post, please read back through the previous 122 pages. Damage numbers and comparisons are already in the thread. Much has already been posted. Posting the same stuff like mashing an f button only makes Fozzie's job slower. We can discuss whether there should be two mods that are weapon disrupters, or whether new scripts should handle the alteration. And turret users are right there with missile users on concerns about the base strength of unbonused TDs. Have been, but missile users didn't care about them (unless they were using them to defang a turret ship) til now that they will be affecting missiles. This stuff is happening folks, finally, for those of us that have been shouting for years that the Emperor has too many clothes. And, it is not just this. Ships are being altered directly. It will take time to get to ships like the Nighthawk. But at least the glaring problem is getting an interim fix. Noone should be crying for the Drake and Tengu. They've had a very long, too long, run at overuse because they were better. Read Fozzie's explanation as to why the weapon system is getting this treatment before the BCs are. Things will be OK, in fact better than it has been, because we won't be stuck with a stale game with obvious easy choices.
They aren't better....the bottom line is I can use a T2 HM launcher WAAAY before I can use a T2 medium turret. Switching THAT alone will change the constant flock of noobies to caldari ships, and the numbers will fall dramatically. As stated before, why do I need to be speced in tech II smalls just to use tech II larges?? it's asinine....and the reason there are so many drake pilots.....NO ONE brags about how great the drake dps is!
Say all you like about how this won't kill the drake and it will still be formidable...my guess is after the rebalancing is done, they will eventually either reverse this nerf, lessen it a little, or watch as many a drakes are sold or collect dust. |
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9 Quantum Cafe
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:00:00 -
[2487] - Quote
Quote:"It seems obvious that these changes are biased in favour of the Goons! Is that true? Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.
It seems obvious that these changes are biased against the Goons! Is that true? Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game."
Why the FRAK do you even acknowledge this? Fu@k Goons, im tired of them getting mentioned all the time. Stop pandering to silly fears, you are just building them up by mentioning them.
Who the fu@k are Goons anyway? Been around 9 years and this is the first year I hear so much talk about them.
Are they like Hobbits? What do they do? Excuse my ignorance, been focusing quite a bit on RL drama the past 9 years... Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite |
Aiifa
My Little Pony - Friendship Force
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:00:00 -
[2488] - Quote
Karah Serrigan wrote:Tyrus Tenebros wrote:I virtually never post to eve-o forums but the missile changes are way to excessive.
While I generally never join the whines of "don't make everything the same" I have to agree that the move to make missiles "more inline" with other weapon types is misguided. Missiles have always done low-ish to moderate dps in exchange for being reliable and difficult to stop barring outranging them. Shoving them in to the TE/TD paradigm dramatically affects the character of missiles.
While I understand the desire to increase the use of HAMs and promote the LR/CR dichotomy, I also don't think needing HMLs in ti the ground is the way to go with that either. 1) DPS reduction is too high. 10% would be a better start. 2) Range reduction is slightly too significant. 15-20% base might be better... missiles don't have falloff and are subject to chase distance against fast targets 3) TE/TD paradigm will likely reduce DPS further as some lows are swapped to TEs. While I "get" how the reduced dps is supposed to be compensated for slightly by increased applied damage to small targets, I don't think it will play out very well. 4) TDs themselves become extremely powerful. I suggest dropping the TE/TD change entirely, there's no reason for it. As they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.. and the balance of missile damage actually applied is fine as is, even if tweaks need to be applied there'sno need for a wholesale shift.
The 10% damage nerf should be sufficient to promote the use of HAMs. Slightly increasing damage applied by HAMs would also promote their use. Have to agree with this guy. The whole TE/TD/TC change is way too much homogenization and there is simply no need for that. There is also the difference, that a pilot can undo the penalties done by TDs to a degree, by going into range or by flying parallel and recuding the transversal. There is no way to undo a worse explosion radius/speed and it is significantly harder to get into range with somethign that is running away from you at decent speed, because it could mean that even if youre 1km away from him, given enough speed he will outrun your missiles. The damage reduction to HMLs is beyond all good and holy of course. With faction missiles, a 3 bcs tengu does ~470 dps on a target that is standing still. A 2bcs drake does 407. A thrasher does 350 and an enyo can reach 450. But were talking about medium sized guns. Reducing the range of missiles is ok as i agree that HMLs had way too much range, especially combined with range bonuses on hulls like caracal and tengu.
Best post in this entire subforum. CCP is and homogenising nerfing the different piloting tactics needed for missiles as opposed turrets by having tracking mods affect,t them. Features are effectively being removed from the game, features relevant to core faceplate. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1554
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:01:00 -
[2489] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:And with that can you guys complaining about the proposals stop re-posting the same flawed posts over and over and maybe post something new. We're on page what, 123, already and we haven't even seen any numbers yet on the mods. Seriously before going to post, please read back through the previous 122 pages. Damage numbers and comparisons are already in the thread. Much has already been posted. Posting the same stuff like mashing an f button only makes Fozzie's job slower.
We can discuss whether there should be two mods that are weapon disrupters, or whether new scripts should handle the alteration. And turret users are right there with missile users on concerns about the base strength of unbonused TDs. Have been, but missile users didn't care about them (unless they were using them to defang a turret ship) til now that they will be affecting missiles.
This stuff is happening folks, finally, for those of us that have been shouting for years that the Emperor has too many clothes. And, it is not just this. Ships are being altered directly. It will take time to get to ships like the Nighthawk. But at least the glaring problem is getting an interim fix. Noone should be crying for the Drake and Tengu. They've had a very long, too long, run at overuse because they were better. Read Fozzie's explanation as to why the weapon system is getting this treatment before the BCs are.
Things will be OK, in fact better than it has been, because we won't be stuck with a stale game with obvious easy choices. Clearly you don't read the past 120+ pages nor Fozzie's post. The problem is not the nerf itself, but the details of the nerf, the extent of the nerf and what are the consequences and what Fozzie's and other dev's might have missed or may have forgotten to put them into consideration.
For instance, while I agree with the nerf in general, I'm almost against the damage nerf, at least with the 20%, for several reasons I've posted before. So you see, people do and will want to share what their opinions are. Devs are human too you know. Hence no matter how "dumb" people's posts are, the concerns are valid, and devs, regardless of what their intention, are responsible and required to read the posts. Even Fozzie himself clearly stated that the details of the nerf are open to changes. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:01:00 -
[2490] - Quote
Senarrius wrote:Lev Arturis wrote:Senarrius wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[ bornaa wrote:-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect??? Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff This response must be a joke at best. It makes no sense, it just nerfs assault missiles even more, they're already barely used as it is. Explain me the exact way how you jump from one star system into the next or how the clone system works. If you manage that you might ask your question again. Here's some extremely light reading for you. Cloning: Straight from the eve wiki http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/CloningMan made wormholes http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/nov/09/wormholes-could-be-made-from-exotic-materialsConsidering warp drive is already theoretically possible, and so is creating wormholes in the future; it's only a matter of time for that. Cloning on the other hand is already done, brain scans as well. The main difference being we're not able to link into the brain and copy/download material, and create a synthetic brain which is able to absorb that data yet. Thanks to medical research we can already reproduce new human organs. All these things can and will arrive in the future. Weather or not we're alive or not by then. Now on the basis of tracking disruptors affecting non guided/tracking missiles is far more silly. The best way to affect them would be to change their trajectory or slow them down, which would mean it's not a tracking disruptor computer in the sense it already works in the game. Where reduces the tracking speed of the targeted ship's turrets. Now I can see how they affect normal guided missiles, but non-guided/tracking? Considering they are still non-guided/tracking, how would that stop from from tracking, when they do not track to begin with.
So you have never seen these unguided missiles following your ship around? "unguided" missiles in eve all track. All information in the missiles (like where they are in the universe) comes from the ship. Effect the ships computer, effect the missiles. If they were not being controlled from the ship a) why would the capsuleers skills effect them and b) why would the ship leaving the field (or losing lock) stop them hitting thier target.
Though tbh if they are rejigging missiles they should just let GMP effect the clearly not at all unguided unguided missiles.
|
|
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:08:00 -
[2491] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The problem here is a deeper issue around armor tanking. Ideally you would choose shield tanking for speed and damage and you would choose armor tanking for better HP and better utility through midslots. 1600mm plates requiring more PG than LSEs isn't inherently bad, but we need to make other changes to ensure that armor is a more viable option.
Perhaps you could look at instead of Meta 1-4 plates being successively "Better" have them named after the T2 manufacturing and have them adopt a racial flair?
EG the Minmatar one: Fernite composite gives a modest boost to armor HP but has very light weight to it, and has more CPU used but a much lighter usage of PG for more of a "Nano" feel to it.
Gallente one: Crystalline carbonate gives a solid boost to armor along with a % given to increase amount of armor repaired
Caldari one: Titanium carbide, perportionally smaller HP gain, has "Stealthy" applications and gives a tiny decrease in sig radius
Amarr one: Rolled Tungstun, Most HP gained, low on CPU, high on powergrid, most mass, tiny bonus to armor resist Etc.
Just throwing it out there, I think there is a nice opporunity to make armor tanks far more varied. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:15:00 -
[2492] - Quote
Aiifa wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote:[ The damage reduction to HMLs is beyond all good and holy of course. With faction missiles, a 3 bcs tengu does ~470 dps on a target that is standing still. A 2bcs drake does 407. A thrasher does 350 and an enyo can reach 450. But were talking about medium sized guns. Reducing the range of missiles is ok as i agree that HMLs had way too much range, especially combined with range bonuses on hulls like caracal and tengu. Best post in this entire subforum. CCP is nerfing and homogenising the different piloting tactics needed for missiles as opposed to turrets by having tracking mods affect them. Features are effectively being removed from the game, features relevant to core gameplay.
You think a post compairing the dps of a 1k range weapon with that of an 80k weapon is the best in the subforum? There is no hope for you. If enyos did 450 dps at 80k or hell even 10k, then there would be an issue, other than that its just dumb.
|
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:23:00 -
[2493] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: They aren't better....the bottom line is I can use a T2 HM launcher WAAAY before I can use a T2 medium turret. Switching THAT alone will change the constant flock of noobies to caldari ships, and the numbers will fall dramatically. As stated before, why do I need to be speced in tech II smalls just to use tech II larges?? it's asinine....and the reason there are so many drake pilots.....NO ONE brags about how great the drake dps is!
Say all you like about how this won't kill the drake and it will still be formidable...my guess is after the rebalancing is done, they will eventually either reverse this nerf, lessen it a little, or watch as many a drakes are sold or collect dust. It seems you are somewhat new to the game. You apparently looked at things rationally and saw you would have to train a whole gunnery tree a longer time to get to tech II weapons or a shorter time with heavy missile spec. Changing the skill tree is something I can't beleive they would want to tackle tbh. What a mess it will be for ship command skills. I wouldn't think they want to add weapon skills to the workload any time soon.
But most people do not make this calculation. It does not account for the majority of Drake proliferation. Drake proliferation comes from word of mouth about how easy pve can be with a Drake -> Tengu path. It also comes from a natural human risk averse response and wanting an op tank.
As for the damage, it has been pointed out many times that while nothing great compared to theoretical other BC or BS "paper" damage it is still way more than any other long range medium weapon can get at anything beyond about10-20km. And it of course outdamages the short range turret weapons beyond 20-30km because that is about the extent of those weapon's range. Range is important for various reasons, tackle, probing, tanking and speed mechanics.
As for continual tweeking, yeah I sure hope so. It has been somewhat lacking over the years. But this is a new team that has been dedicated specifically to this process. That is something new for CCP, or at least to my knowledge of CCP.
You bemoan the possible fate of hangared Drakes. But why do you not bemoan the present fact of so many ship colleagues to the Drake that are as we speak hangared because of the strength of the Drake? Buffs alone are not how a game gets balanced. Some things have to be clipped back, others allowed to grow. The Drake is taking over the place. It's first trim is coming from a shearing on HMLs which stat wise are too good (despite all the argumentation against that fact). People do not choose heavy missiles in such numbers because they like the concept. They choose them because they perform better than the alternatives. Soon they won't, but that is not to say that they will underperform. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:24:00 -
[2494] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Aiifa wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote:[ The damage reduction to HMLs is beyond all good and holy of course. With faction missiles, a 3 bcs tengu does ~470 dps on a target that is standing still. A 2bcs drake does 407. A thrasher does 350 and an enyo can reach 450. But were talking about medium sized guns. Reducing the range of missiles is ok as i agree that HMLs had way too much range, especially combined with range bonuses on hulls like caracal and tengu. Best post in this entire subforum. CCP is nerfing and homogenising the different piloting tactics needed for missiles as opposed to turrets by having tracking mods affect them. Features are effectively being removed from the game, features relevant to core gameplay. You think a post compairing the dps of a 1k range weapon with that of an 80k weapon is the best in the subforum? There is no hope for you. If enyos did 450 dps at 80k or hell even 10k, then there would be an issue, other than that its just dumb.
And yet what you failed to realize is while they are only 1-10k range weapons...they are small turrets....versus a medium launcher.....should a destroyer be able to out dps a battlecruiser even as an eft warrior? |
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:28:00 -
[2495] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote: Clearly you don't read the past 120+ pages nor Fozzie's post. The problem is not the nerf itself, but the details of the nerf, the extent of the nerf and what are the consequences and what Fozzie's and other dev's might have missed or may have forgotten to put them into consideration.
For instance, while I agree with the nerf in general, I'm almost against the damage nerf, at least with the 20%, for several reasons I've posted before. So you see, people do and will want to share what their opinions are. Devs are human too you know. Hence no matter how "dumb" people's posts are, the concerns are valid, and devs, regardless of what their intention, are responsible and required to read the posts. Even Fozzie himself clearly stated that the details of the nerf are open to changes. No disagreement that numbers (as they become more clear and can get tested on the test server) are worth discussing. What isn't worth seeing in this thread is constant re-posting of some guys post from page xx that you happen to agree with. Fozzie has already shown he's reading. He shouldn't have to wade through constant re-postings as if somehow quantity of posting will outweigh quality of posting. |
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:34:00 -
[2496] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: And yet what you failed to realize is while they are only 1-10k range weapons...they are small turrets....versus a medium launcher.....should a destroyer be able to out dps a battlecruiser even as an eft warrior? Apparently you are discounting the Drake's 5 light drones from the dps comparison at 1-10km. You are ignoring the sp investment entialed in a tech II fit tech II ship. You are ignoring the disparites in ehp. And, you are ignoring the differing roles and circumstances for those ships to do what they are doing.
Notice also I haven't included the entire tree of quotes on this exchange with this post. Repetition of what has already been posted is not increasing the value of anything previously said. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:35:00 -
[2497] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:You bemoan the possible fate of hangared Drakes. But why do you not bemoan the present fact of so many ship colleagues to the Drake that are as we speak hangared because of the strength of the Drake? Buffs alone are not how a game gets balanced. Some things have to be clipped back, others allowed to grow. The Drake is taking over the place. It's first trim is coming from a shearing on HMLs which stat wise are too good (despite all the argumentation against that fact). People do not choose heavy missiles in such numbers because they like the concept. They choose them because they perform better than the alternatives. Soon they won't, but that is not to say that they will underperform.
HMLs could use a trim but my current opinion is that you need to be careful about trimming them to the point that they're not useful without a ship's damage bonus - remember, many ships rely on missiles as supplementary damage, and at this point they're almost not worth fitting in utility slots anyway.
I'm more inclined toward clipping range a bit and stripping a launcher off the Drake and Tengu, or changing their bonus, than neutering missile damage itself. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
740
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:37:00 -
[2498] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Sarah Schneider wrote: Clearly you don't read the past 120+ pages nor Fozzie's post. The problem is not the nerf itself, but the details of the nerf, the extent of the nerf and what are the consequences and what Fozzie's and other dev's might have missed or may have forgotten to put them into consideration.
For instance, while I agree with the nerf in general, I'm almost against the damage nerf, at least with the 20%, for several reasons I've posted before. So you see, people do and will want to share what their opinions are. Devs are human too you know. Hence no matter how "dumb" people's posts are, the concerns are valid, and devs, regardless of what their intention, are responsible and required to read the posts. Even Fozzie himself clearly stated that the details of the nerf are open to changes. No disagreement that numbers (as they become more clear and can get tested on the test server) are worth discussing. What isn't worth seeing in this thread is constant re-posting of some guys post from page xx that you happen to agree with. Fozzie has already shown he's reading. He shouldn't have to wade through constant re-postings as if somehow quantity of posting will outweigh quality of posting. I think the point of doing that is to promote discussion on the points presented, rather than simply making sure Fozzie sees it. This thread is for everybody's benefit and intercommunication, not just Players <-> CCP Fozzie. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:43:00 -
[2499] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote: They aren't better....the bottom line is I can use a T2 HM launcher WAAAY before I can use a T2 medium turret. Switching THAT alone will change the constant flock of noobies to caldari ships, and the numbers will fall dramatically. As stated before, why do I need to be speced in tech II smalls just to use tech II larges?? it's asinine....and the reason there are so many drake pilots.....NO ONE brags about how great the drake dps is!
Say all you like about how this won't kill the drake and it will still be formidable...my guess is after the rebalancing is done, they will eventually either reverse this nerf, lessen it a little, or watch as many a drakes are sold or collect dust. It seems you are somewhat new to the game. You apparently looked at things rationally and saw you would have to train a whole gunnery tree a longer time to get to tech II weapons or a shorter time with heavy missile spec. Changing the skill tree is something I can't beleive they would want to tackle tbh. What a mess it will be for ship command skills. I wouldn't think they want to add weapon skills to the workload any time soon. But most people do not make this calculation. It does not account for the majority of Drake proliferation. Drake proliferation comes from word of mouth about how easy pve can be with a Drake -> Tengu path. It also comes from a natural human risk averse response and wanting an op tank. As for the damage, it has been pointed out many times that while nothing great compared to theoretical other BC or BS "paper" damage it is still way more than any other long range medium weapon can get at anything beyond about10-20km. And it of course outdamages the short range turret weapons beyond 20-30km because that is about the extent of those weapon's range. Range is important for various reasons, tackle, probing, tanking and speed mechanics. As for continual tweeking, yeah I sure hope so. It has been somewhat lacking over the years. But this is a new team that has been dedicated specifically to this process. That is something new for CCP, or at least to my knowledge of CCP. You bemoan the possible fate of hangared Drakes. But why do you not bemoan the present fact of so many ship colleagues to the Drake that are as we speak hangared because of the strength of the Drake? Buffs alone are not how a game gets balanced. Some things have to be clipped back, others allowed to grow. The Drake is taking over the place. It's first trim is coming from a shearing on HMLs which stat wise are too good (despite all the argumentation against that fact). People do not choose heavy missiles in such numbers because they like the concept. They choose them because they perform better than the alternatives. Soon they won't, but that is not to say that they will underperform.
Being new or old to matters not. From a new perspective, yes, I can get into tech II's quicker, but the support skills for said tech II take longer.
Flying a Domi with Sentries is a much more effective way to run lvl 4's, even with Shield tanking being more effective than armor tanking in missions. Watching a drake blob versus a zealot blob and knowing had it not been for sheer numbers, the drake blob would've lost....they achieved their objective, but were in the red as far as numbers were concerned. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:45:00 -
[2500] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote: And yet what you failed to realize is while they are only 1-10k range weapons...they are small turrets....versus a medium launcher.....should a destroyer be able to out dps a battlecruiser even as an eft warrior? Apparently you are discounting the Drake's 5 light drones from the dps comparison at 1-10km. You are ignoring the sp investment entialed in a tech II fit tech II ship. You are ignoring the disparites in ehp. And, you are ignoring the differing roles and circumstances for those ships to do what they are doing. Notice also I haven't included the entire tree of quotes on this exchange with this post. Repetition of what has already been posted is not increasing the value of anything previously said.
how is a thrasher a tech II ship? |
|
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:50:00 -
[2501] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: how is a thrasher a tech II ship? The first post said "an enyo can reach 450" and the repsonse to all that was "If enyos did 450 dps at 80k or hell even 10k, then there would be an issue" . . . |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 21:51:00 -
[2502] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Doddy wrote:Aiifa wrote:Karah Serrigan wrote:[ The damage reduction to HMLs is beyond all good and holy of course. With faction missiles, a 3 bcs tengu does ~470 dps on a target that is standing still. A 2bcs drake does 407. A thrasher does 350 and an enyo can reach 450. But were talking about medium sized guns. Reducing the range of missiles is ok as i agree that HMLs had way too much range, especially combined with range bonuses on hulls like caracal and tengu. Best post in this entire subforum. CCP is nerfing and homogenising the different piloting tactics needed for missiles as opposed to turrets by having tracking mods affect them. Features are effectively being removed from the game, features relevant to core gameplay. You think a post compairing the dps of a 1k range weapon with that of an 80k weapon is the best in the subforum? There is no hope for you. If enyos did 450 dps at 80k or hell even 10k, then there would be an issue, other than that its just dumb. And yet what you failed to realize is while they are only 1-10k range weapons...they are small turrets....versus a medium launcher.....should a destroyer be able to out dps a battlecruiser even as an eft warrior?
At 1k range sure, the clue is in the name. If you think larger ships should automatically be better everything you are playing the wrong game. They don't anyway as the figures quoted actually show. Its a bit like saying should a grenade do as much damage as a sniper rifle in any case. Though i am pretty sure a battlecruiser using the high damage weapon system (hams) will do more dps in any case, and at 10 times the range..
|
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1132
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:03:00 -
[2503] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles? it can effects missles, it just can't effect the range of the missles. TD kinda makes sense that it could target the missile and cuase it's explosion radius or explosion velocity to change.
missles losing range is allready the job for damps. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1132
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:06:00 -
[2504] - Quote
hey does this mean remote tracking enchaners will buff missle ships? wait what about any tracking mod... Will tracking computers now buff my range so I can counter having a TD used on me?
Or will you keep missiles unaffected by equipment created to counter TDs....
If you aren't bringing tracking computers in line to support missiles then I no longer support this proposal... http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:07:00 -
[2505] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Katharina B wrote:CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles? it can effects missles, it just can't effect the range of the missles. TD kinda makes sense that it could target the missile and cuase it's explosion radius or explosion velocity to change. missles losing range is allready the job for damps.
Well a missile having difficulty finding its target burns more fuel as it keeps adjusting so it does kinda work too. I am dubious of the whole td thing though tbh, it looks a mess. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:09:00 -
[2506] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:hey does this mean remote tracking enchaners will buff missle ships? wait what about any tracking mod... Will tracking computers now buff my range so I can counter having a TD used on me?
Or will you keep missiles unaffected by equipment created to counter TDs....
If you aren't bringing tracking computers in line to support missiles then I no longer support this proposal...
He clearly says that tracking enhancers and computers will effect launchers. Tracking links i think he has issues with but they probably will too.
|
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:09:00 -
[2507] - Quote
Too bad 97% of you are only concerned by Heavies.
If you really skilled yourselves into caldari, you should be concerned in Cruise / Torp more likely. The fact is you know what 1400mm howitzer and 800mm Auto-cannon are, but completely ignorant on Cruise /Torp firepower. Because it requires condition you never meet in Eve.
a 1600 DPS AutoCanon / Blaster is possible and doable. a 1600 DPS Torp is possible on datasheets only. Even Citadel missiles are the worst XL weapon available. Leviathan the worst Titan... And the Day i'll see any BS+ caldari missiles ships in any roam, i'll bet i could see a chinese flag on Mars.
But your cheap PVP mind cry for this nerf because you know the Drake awaits its mega Nerf soon enough. And when this time comes, you will simply switch pewpew boat gently. Fortunately, you have Minmatar BS V already...
Now tell me how the hell Gallenteans hasn't re-conquered and re-educated this pathethic Caldari race by now?
Btw i know this is too long to read, sorry.
in few words : the Drake is programmed to die. The Tengu is just here because you have invested by chance some SP in caldari cruiser. Raven will need 4 TP +skills/implants if you hope to aim 700 DPS. No tank, no survivability, no utility.
Edit : TE will effect "slightly" missile. you know the nerf, you don't know the buff. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
298
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:15:00 -
[2508] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Katharina B wrote:CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles? it can effects missles, it just can't effect the range of the missles. TD kinda makes sense that it could target the missile and cuase it's explosion radius or explosion velocity to change. missles losing range is allready the job for damps. Damps wouldn't help with FOF's. Also the same argument would mean TD's are useless against turreted ships because of damps.
As far as range they stated they would most likely affect missile flight time. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:19:00 -
[2509] - Quote
Meolyne wrote:Too bad 97% of you are only concerned by Heavies.
If you really skilled yourselves into caldari, you should be concerned in Cruise / Torp more likely. The fact is you know what 1400mm howitzer and 800mm Auto-cannon are, but completely ignorant on Cruise /Torp firepower. Because it requires condition you never meet in Eve.
a 1600 DPS AutoCanon / Blaster is possible and doable. a 1600 DPS Torp is possible on datasheets only. Even Citadel missiles are the worst XL weapon available. Leviathan the worst Titan... And the Day i'll see any BS+ caldari missiles ships in any roam, i'll bet i could see a chinese flag on Mars.
But your cheap PVP mind cry for this nerf because you know the Drake awaits its mega Nerf soon enough. And when this time comes, you will simply switch pewpew boat gently. Fortunately, you have Minmatar BS V already...
Now tell me how the hell Gallenteans hasn't re-conquered and re-educated this pathethic Caldari race by now?
Btw i know this is too long to read, sorry.
in few words : the Drake is programmed to die. The Tengu is just here because you have invested by chance some SP in caldari cruiser. Raven will need 4 TP +skills/implants if you hope to aim 700 DPS. No tank, no survivability, no utility.
Edit : TE will effect "slightly" missile. you know the nerf, you don't know the buff.
Torp raven isn't really any worse off than several other bs tbh. See quite alot of torp phons being effective too and they don't even get any range bonus. And the torp navy scorp makes a nice mess of stuff. Torps are not nearly as broken as cruise.
|
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:21:00 -
[2510] - Quote
Doddy wrote:MotherMoon wrote: it can effects missles, it just can't effect the range of the missles. TD kinda makes sense that it could target the missile and cuase it's explosion radius or explosion velocity to change.
missles losing range is allready the job for damps. Well a missile having difficulty finding its target burns more fuel as it keeps adjusting so it does kinda work too. I am dubious of the whole td thing though tbh, it looks a mess. Alternately, just view the TD effect on the missile as a missile specific web field. It really doesn't matter. The whole game is magic anyway
Damps are not missile specific. Damps are operating on a different part of the ships in the game. Damps affect the ability to lock, like ecm does as well. TDs are affecting the weapons or weapon systems, not the sensor systems. No logical inconsistency in it. Because again it's all magic anyway. |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
66
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:30:00 -
[2511] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
Torp raven isn't really any worse off than several other bs tbh. See quite alot of torp phons being effective too and they don't even get any range bonus. And the torp navy scorp makes a nice mess of stuff. Torps are not nearly as broken as cruise.
Phoons can mount a 200k armor tank, whereas ravens can barely passive tank at 90k. Phoons are probably the best ship hull that use torps (other than the golem or SNI, but i'm discounting those cause they're faction/T2)
Problem with the raven is that it is just so damn slow, horrible cap, not enough mids to mount a tank and mount TPs along with MWD and point, and nothing good to use in the lows cept a DC and BCUs. With the TEs and the incoming buff to the raven, it will for sure be more useable (considering it will most likely be an "attack" boat)
One thing I really want to see however is a combat boat that is a missile ship...like the drake. Caldari can't have every single one of their combat boats be a hybrid platform (merlin, moa, ferox, etc.) |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
144
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:31:00 -
[2512] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Doddy wrote:MotherMoon wrote: it can effects missles, it just can't effect the range of the missles. TD kinda makes sense that it could target the missile and cuase it's explosion radius or explosion velocity to change.
missles losing range is allready the job for damps. Well a missile having difficulty finding its target burns more fuel as it keeps adjusting so it does kinda work too. I am dubious of the whole td thing though tbh, it looks a mess. Alternately, just view the TD effect on the missile as a missile specific web field. It really doesn't matter. The whole game is magic anyway Damps are not missile specific. Damps are operating on a different part of the ships in the game. Damps affect the ability to lock, like ecm does as well. TDs are affecting the weapons or weapon systems, not the sensor systems. No logical inconsistency in it. Because again it's all magic anyway. Edit - I'm sure Fozzie could come up with some creative backstory reason as well https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1932514#post1932514
You completely ignore that fact that having TD affect both Missiles and Turrets will make it a GOD module.
Missile needs a separate module to affect missiles, so it requires thinking and planning of whether to fit a missile disruptor or turret disruptor. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:32:00 -
[2513] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: People like you make threads like this longer to read for no reason.
Empty posting number .... hmm. well number something.
No u. Maybe now that you can't persist with a sob storyline of CCP is not reading this thread you'll stop your useless quoting followed by your one or two line whine 9000 on the same issue. Also, Fozzie has already told you these issues are not up for a vote and repaeating the same flawed arguments gains you nothing. Katharina B wrote:CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles? Probably slim and none. Maybe you could really focus on what it means for missiles. It means now you could extend range without using a rig. Or, you may want a TC or TE now because just like a turret user you could well face someone fubarring your weapon. The numbers on these are what is going to matter. Forget viewing it as a nerf, it could if done wrong end up as a huge buff for missiles. I'm trusting that the balancing team and Fozzie are not going to derp and do either a bad nerf or buff. And if they do I have hope they won't wait 4 years to fix it. Bloutok wrote: Better long range damage. The question i ask is, will that damage be enough so that real people will use the ship or is it another nice " Hey guy! On paper ... It works " thing ?
When you test, or try to balance. Do you try to balance for all size of engagements ? 1 vs 1 . 10 vs 10 ? Alot VS 1 ? You obviously are unaware of who Fozzie is. Here's a clue watch the last few years of the alliance tournament. Anyway, if eve-kill weren't offline I'd pull you up. I'm guessing I'd get a "chron job". Edit- just looked at your age and corp history. I think now I could be wrong in that guess. Which brings up another conundrum, that is how you could have years into the game and possibly a decent pvp history but still be such a bad poster. Regardless someone has already told you why your "size of engagement" argument is sorta funny. But yes, they aren't just viewing the changes through the prism of 0.0 blob fests. Col Callahan wrote:I can only say what has already been said. This seems way to heavy handed of a rebalancing for heavy missiles. 2 years ago you never saw any missiles used in PVP and now that they are starting to get there footing as a good starting point for beginning PVP'ers they get completely destroyed for both PVP and PVE.
Sad really. What is sad is that you may actually beleive what you wrote. Drake fleets were quite established by 2010. They and Tengus were running all the pve content. And with that can you guys complaining about the proposals stop re-posting the same flawed posts over and over and maybe post something new. We're on page what, 123, already and we haven't even seen any numbers yet on the mods. Seriously before going to post, please read back through the previous 122 pages. Damage numbers and comparisons are already in the thread. Much has already been posted. Posting the same stuff like mashing an f button only makes Fozzie's job slower. We can discuss whether there should be two mods that are weapon disrupters, or whether new scripts should handle the alteration. And turret users are right there with missile users on concerns about the base strength of unbonused TDs. Have been, but missile users didn't care about them (unless they were using them to defang a turret ship) til now that they will be affecting missiles. This stuff is happening folks, finally, for those of us that have been shouting for years that the Emperor has too many clothes. And, it is not just this. Ships are being altered directly. It will take time to get to ships like the Nighthawk. But at least the glaring problem is getting an interim fix. Noone should be crying for the Drake and Tengu. They've had a very long, too long, run at overuse because they were better. Read Fozzie's explanation as to why the weapon system is getting this treatment before the BCs are. Things will be OK, in fact better than it has been, because we won't be stuck with a stale game with obvious easy choices.
Troll ....... :)
Troll and more troll. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:50:00 -
[2514] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Doddy wrote:
Torp raven isn't really any worse off than several other bs tbh. See quite alot of torp phons being effective too and they don't even get any range bonus. And the torp navy scorp makes a nice mess of stuff. Torps are not nearly as broken as cruise.
Phoons can mount a 200k armor tank, whereas ravens can barely passive tank at 90k. Phoons are probably the best ship hull that use torps (other than the golem or SNI, but i'm discounting those cause they're faction/T2) Problem with the raven is that it is just so damn slow, horrible cap, not enough mids to mount a tank and mount TPs along with MWD and point, and nothing good to use in the lows cept a DC and BCUs. With the TEs and the incoming buff to the raven, it will for sure be more useable (considering it will most likely be an "attack" boat) One thing I really want to see however is a combat boat that is a missile ship...like the drake. Caldari can't have every single one of their combat boats be a hybrid platform (merlin, moa, ferox, etc.)
I threw up a couple of fits just out of curiosity, and it's not as bad as you say. A 2 plate, 3 trimark Typhoon (all V) does 989m/s & 17.3s align with MWD on, 11.8 with it off. A pretty standard buffer fit Raven is 855m/s, 17.8s align, 11.9 with MWD off. So it's really not significantly slower than a Phoon. Throw a nano in the last lowslot instead of a 4th BCU or whatever, and the Raven is now more agile and a hair slower than the Phoon.
A 2 plate Phoon with trimarks comes up to around 113k EHP, while a 2x LSE 2x Invul Raven with extender rigs comes to 109k EHP with the ability to overheat.
The Raven puts out 1107 paper dps, while the Typhoon puts out 1139, with Hammerheads and Ogres respectively, and faction ammo. The Raven doesn't have to deal with split weapons, has more range, and relies on drones less for its damage.
The Typhoon has 2 more utility mids, and the Raven has 2 more utility highs (unless you want to pull guns off the Phoon). In which case, the Phoon gets 3 utility highs in exchange for about 200dps, but does its remaining dps with less range and more reliance on drones.
I think the mistake you're making here is picking every extreme number the Typhoon can obtain and assuming it can do all of those at once. The Raven isn't a bad ship. |
Talon Karrade
L and E Research Division Integrity Respect Selflessness
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:54:00 -
[2515] - Quote
I have to disagree with dev on the missle rework caldari is known for missles and when the BC ie the drake came out its so mission was to be a missle boat so nerfing the drakes ability to use missiles effectively is way wrong. If you want to nef and misssles then the ships the use them need to be be balanced at the same time not wait until you nerf something then later fix it and guns apparently do more dame then missles by far and nerfing missles whetehr is heavy or assault or light makes it seem you disk caldari race and there missiles now you want reduce range fine but you bettr beef up the rig allocation point by 25% so we compensate for the nerf. also another thing when you nerf something you telling us what we can fly and cant fly in space. so you talk about balancing then make sure balance every thing for a ship at the same time dont nick pick at it. And also dont be nerfing the resistance on the drake it was bad enough you nerf the cruise missles and caldari battle ship shield resist too several expnsion ago. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 22:55:00 -
[2516] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Bloutok wrote:Not only solo. Like go with 1 vs 1 picture. Most Caldari missile boats i flew had to warp off upon having the enemy close in, else die. Otherwise, my dual nano was faster... :)
Then, let's say, 5 vs 5. I am 110% sure speed still is a big factor.
20 vs 20...... Well, i do not know for sure. I'd take a ham drake and try to be close i guess. I find it funny you think 1v1's, 5v5's and 20v20's happen in this game or something.
that's no different than what ccp is doing.
They're assuming 20 man drake fleet are beating other 20 man fleets when the truth is people are using 20 man drake fleet to take on 10, and 50 man drake fleet to take on 20.
They're fairly easy to fit with low sp requirement and are relatively effective with lvl 1 turrets.
CCP istaking the assumption that it's missiles that make the drake and tengu powerful, yet their missiles aren't the problem.
With the drake it's the tank.
With the tengu, it's the bonus to kinetic damage and its fitting capabilities.
I'm almost certain these factors are getting nerfed when we get to these ships, so why the hell are we trying to balance them now?
This is like when I used to be in high school my mom would want us to clean up the house before the maid came to clean the house. It defeats the purpose. |
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 23:00:00 -
[2517] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: Troll ....... :)
Troll and more troll. Pfft, you don't know the meaning of the word.
I've posted some real sarcastic stuff in my day. That post was hardly worthy.
But I suppose if you can't refute what was written. Calling the poster a name is the best you can do. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 23:02:00 -
[2518] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: Troll ....... :)
Troll and more troll. Pfft, you don't know the meaning of the word. I've posted some real sarcastic stuff in my day. That post was hardly worthy. But I suppose if you can't refute what was written. Calling the poster a name is the best you can do.
All you said is CCP Fozzie is god, he knows what he does, so, he is right and i will say he is right because he is right.
Troll. |
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 23:06:00 -
[2519] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote: You completely ignore that fact that having TD affect both Missiles and Turrets will make it a GOD module.
Missile needs a separate module to affect missiles, so it requires thinking and planning of whether to fit a missile disruptor or turret disruptor. You completely ignore the responses of Fozzie in this thread saying they are not going to allow TDs to become a god module. And anyway, whether there are two "weapon disruption" modules that get bonused by amarr recons, or one unified module with 4 scripts, it is fine either way. I wasn't arguing that it should be one unified module.
Btw, they already are being used to emasculate turret ships. I don't see how they won't get a base strength nerf. So tbh, don't worry. |
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 23:07:00 -
[2520] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: All you said is CCP Fozzie is god, he knows what he does, so, he is right and i will say he is right because he is right.
Troll. Lol, if you think that, I think the word you are looking for is Fanboi. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 23:13:00 -
[2521] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:MotherMoon wrote:Katharina B wrote:CCP Fozzie: How big is the chance that you abandon the TD-thing affecting missiles? it can effects missles, it just can't effect the range of the missles. TD kinda makes sense that it could target the missile and cuase it's explosion radius or explosion velocity to change. missles losing range is allready the job for damps. Damps wouldn't help with FOF's. Also the same argument would mean TD's are useless against turreted ships because of damps. As far as range they stated they would most likely affect missile flight time.
yeah....
If fof's didn't suck, then they wouldn't help with fof's, but as it sits now, I don't even know anyone who uses fof in missions. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
298
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 23:21:00 -
[2522] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: yeah....
If fof's didn't suck, then they wouldn't help with fof's, but as it sits now, I don't even know anyone who uses fof in missions.
Not saying FOF's are great or that a flight of drones on a drone bonused hull wouldn't be better for PvE when jammed (for now), but some do use them. The main point was that damps wouldn't make TD's redundant for missiles just as they don't now for turrets. |
Rose Honey
Small Holdings Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:05:00 -
[2523] - Quote
*Post assumes I can do maths in my head at 1am.
I have a a thing,
Has anyone done the math of how the TE and TC will effect other missiles?
Are the ranges going to be improved by 30% from a TE(*TE gives 15% opts 30% Fall Off) Same from a TC(30% with range script). I'm unsure if they stack together or not, but assume they don't. That's 60% more range from torps.
With a T1 Range rig, a Raven gets 55km with Javelins, and 743DPS 60% of that is 33km making that 88km minus the weird EFT getting the math some 5ishkm over what TQ actually does. Sure its Torps but still. 80KM on a short range weapons system seems kinda broken. Remove the rig and its still 72km. Navy's around 45km and Rage 43km.
Of course its assuming missiles get the same 30% range as guns, and that the TC and TE don't stack together. Its still only torps so your 743dps on a moving target is more 200 but still.
It half reminds me of the Short range Blaster Shield Talos, which happily blaps frigs from 45km away. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:06:00 -
[2524] - Quote
Tracking disruptors should be chance based too. Might even throw sensor dampners in with the aforementioned... |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:13:00 -
[2525] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Tracking disruptors should be chance based too. Might even throw sensor dampners in with the aforementioned...
I once asked why damps and disrupt do not have longer range like ecm, someone pointed to me that they are not chance based.
I would like chance based damps and disrupt, like 150 km Tornado range. Yes ....... |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1349
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:17:00 -
[2526] - Quote
Would be interesting if short range weapon systems increased your agility and top speed while long range weapon systems decreased your agility and top speed. Not my a lot, but maybe a 5-10% variation.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
212
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:20:00 -
[2527] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Major Killz wrote:Tracking disruptors should be chance based too. Might even throw sensor dampners in with the aforementioned... I once asked why damps and disrupt do not have longer range like ecm, someone pointed to me that they are not chance based. I would like chance based damps and disrupt, like 150 km Tornado range. Yes .......
Disruptors have a longer range than ecm, damps have only slightly less than racial ecm and is more than multispecs. So what are you on about? The range bonus on the scorp? |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:29:00 -
[2528] - Quote
Am I the only one who's kind of feeling let down by these missile changes? Most nerfs don't bother me - not even nerfs to ships I fly. I can just switch to other ships or deal with it. But for some reason these proposed missile changes have really dampened my interest in Eve.. can't explain it. Not rational.. I just feel like there's some misunderstandings of #s and killboards that are being relied upon to make poor changes to the game and that they're going way too far. Just leaves me feeling kinda meh, like certain people at CCP got it in their minds and they're going to push this through no matter what.. so why even bother to argue... |
Leslie Hero
Cerberus Operations
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:32:00 -
[2529] - Quote
I'm ruined. Iv only skilled Caldary ships and missiles nothing else... how should i play after this patch? |
Gavin Anthar
The Bloodied Clover
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:35:00 -
[2530] - Quote
So ... really the issue is that Drakes and Tengus need nerfs ... not HML. I think we've cleared that up. My suggestion:
1) Nerf HML range per current plan, maybe 10-15% 2) Reduce drake dmg bonus to ~2.5-3.5% 3) Nerf the Tengu bonus on the Accelerated Ejection Bay by reducing the ROF (to ~3.5-5.5%/lvl) and the range bonuses (to ~5-7%/lvl) 4) Buff HML dmg by ~2-3.5% 5) Buff HAM dmg by ~3.5-5%
This will buff other caldari ships (which need it) but will nerf the 2 ships which everyone knows need it. We can then tweek those numbers as needed in further iterations but it addresses the overpowered tengu/drake and the underpowered remaining caldari fleet. Also please keep in mind ... drakes are terrible solo so we don't want to nerf them too much.
Also ... Torps are crap. Please think about how underpowered the Marauders are in PVE compared to the more PVP focused Faction BSs. The Golem, imho, should be the premeir L4 mish ship .... it's not .... we need to buff the Golem (and Marauders in general ... for PVE only) . Please keep this in mind.
Lastly, CAP missiles suck .... lets not nerf those either, eh? |
|
Lili Lu
464
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:39:00 -
[2531] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: I once asked why damps and disrupt do not have longer range like ecm, someone pointed to me that they are not chance based. I would like chance based damps and disrupt, like 150 km Tornado range. Yes ....... Max skills on tech II Damps gives you 45km optimal and 90km falloff. No ship bonus, mod, or rig to range exist yet on non-ecm ewar. Ecm does have ship bonuses and mods to increase range. There is a gang link to increase all ewar range.
TDs ditto as per damps. and the range on tech II TD is 72 optimal and 36 falloff.
All the non chance based (non ecm) ewars should be skeewed toward falloff imo because they are not chance based. Falloff introduces a chance mechanic. Ecm has a long optimal in exchange for the chance based mechanic.
I would have no problem with putting all the non-ecm ewar into an even shorter optimal but a longer falloff. Say 30km optimal and 120km falloff. |
Guillaume Conquerant
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 00:45:00 -
[2532] - Quote
Gavin Anthar wrote:We can then tweek those numbers as needed in further iterations but it addresses the overpowered tengu/drake and the underpowered remaining caldari fleet.
^^ this!
|
T Baggens
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 01:06:00 -
[2533] - Quote
Really more nurffs
Manybe it's time for me to Tweek my game play with no accounts. Really tired of the game being screwed up over and over again. From speed to missle damage to this STupid New interface..
Have a good one.
There are better game comming out soon and it's not dust. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 01:07:00 -
[2534] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: I once asked why damps and disrupt do not have longer range like ecm, someone pointed to me that they are not chance based. I would like chance based damps and disrupt, like 150 km Tornado range. Yes ....... Max skills on tech II Damps gives you 45km optimal and 90km falloff. No ship bonus, mod, or rig to range exist yet on non-ecm ewar. Ecm does have ship bonuses and mods to increase range. There is a gang link to increase all ewar range. TDs ditto as per damps. and the range on tech II TD is 72 optimal and 36 falloff. All the non chance based (non ecm) ewars should be skeewed toward falloff imo because they are not chance based. Falloff introduces a chance mechanic. Ecm has a long optimal in exchange for the chance based mechanic. I would have no problem with putting all the non-ecm ewar into an even shorter optimal but a longer falloff. Say 30km optimal and 120km falloff.
My immediate thought is. Arazu / Lachesis for the win, and i like it
I will add a gratuitous comment in saying that it hurts a lot to agree with you..... |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1132
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 01:39:00 -
[2535] - Quote
I still want to know if TDs effect missiles where are our missile medium slot mods to increase missle range like turrets get huh? http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
740
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 01:40:00 -
[2536] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:I still want to know if TDs effect missiles where are our missile medium slot mods to increase missle range like turrets get huh? Please reread the first post of the thread more carefully. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 01:42:00 -
[2537] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
A) The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower? I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
B) Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.
Let's break this down real simple for you:
A) We aren't comparing HML's to autocannon's and blasters. We are comparing them to Arty's, Hybrids and Beams, albet with short range ammo...but the fact of the matter remains, HML's don't have a short range ammo.....HAM's are worthless....ask the eve population....Do the math...close range, people want volley damage, and frankly, that's what the hams are.
B) it has more to do with skill requirements and the and the fact that I can fit a better tank while maximizing DPS as damage mods go in lows, shield mods go in mediums.....versus armor mods go in close as well as needing tracking. If I could've trained Large Arty Specialization without all the ridiculous requirements necessary to get there....it's not rocket science, it's common sense....every corp/alliance/coalition member I talk to all says the same thing....it's the ability to maximize tank while having ok dps and the fact you don't have to do all the extra training to use T2 weapons that makes them hate the drake. It's easier to get a fleet cross-trained into a drake with T2 weapons then any other. |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
113
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 01:48:00 -
[2538] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships? It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350 The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses.
I would ask that you please don't forget the 'other' missile ships when you are playing with balance numbers (khanid Amarrs, etc). |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 02:09:00 -
[2539] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: Let's break this down real simple for you:
A) We aren't comparing HML's to autocannon's and blasters. We are comparing them to Arty's, Hybrids and Beams, albet with short range ammo...but the fact of the matter remains, HML's don't have a short range ammo.....HAM's are worthless....ask the eve population....Do the math...close range, people want volley damage, and frankly, that's what the hams are.
B) it has more to do with skill requirements and the and the fact that I can fit a better tank while maximizing DPS as damage mods go in lows, shield mods go in mediums.....versus armor mods go in close as well as needing tracking. If I could've trained Large Arty Specialization without all the ridiculous requirements necessary to get there....it's not rocket science, it's common sense....every corp/alliance/coalition member I talk to all says the same thing....it's the ability to maximize tank while having ok dps and the fact you don't have to do all the extra training to use T2 weapons that makes them hate the drake. It's easier to get a fleet cross-trained into a drake with T2 weapons then any other.
First its late so i'm prolly going to be making minor errors, over all point still stands. A) First you're ignoring the fact that HML's are quite good at dealing with small fast moving targets unlike the other long range weapons, a HML drake with webs generally has a very easy time taking down tackle. Thats a huge plus.
Lets do a slight comparison as things are now
Heavy beam laser: PG: 275 CPU: 37 cap use -3.61 Using Gleam 36.9 dps (gleam is terrible though) Aurora (Shockingly bad ammo) 21 dps at 54km (due to HORRIBLE tracking final dps will be way worse (a frig moving at 800 m/s with a 90-¦ transversal will be getting hit for about .0002dps.. That is epicly bad tracking)
250mm rails: PG 208 CPU 42 cap use -1.1 using javelin 35 dps. With spike 20 dps at around 70km with even WORSE tracking than aurora.
720mm Howitzer artillery PG 275 CPU 32 cap use naught. Using quake 29,4 dps. With Tremor 16,8 dps with the worst tracking yet.
HML PG 105!! CPU 55 using any faction ammo 28.6 dps at 81km
And lets not forget that those numbers above from the long range weapons are ON paper numbers, The real numbers in a fight would be significantly worse due to those ammo types being really ******* bad at everything else than dps numbers.
In a fight at 0 on paper the HML's have a slight disadvantage to the other long range weapons but in practice it outdpses them easily. And even if it didn't it so highly outdpses those weapon types at long range that it isn't even a comparison. After a 20% dps nerf this weapon system will still be one of the HIGHEST damaging ones at any range in terms of applied dps.
If anything HML's should be further nerfed because they are still WAY to good at killing frigates. And now if you add TE's into the mix? a frig orbiting at 0 will go down in flames in moments, something the other long range weapons can't do AT THEIR MAXIMUM range
B) is stupid so i won't bother replying to it.
This is a long range weapon with the damage output of a short range weapon, now its being brought in line. Now is it to much to ask for people to just stop being bad in here? |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 02:29:00 -
[2540] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote: Let's break this down real simple for you:
A) We aren't comparing HML's to autocannon's and blasters. We are comparing them to Arty's, Hybrids and Beams, albet with short range ammo...but the fact of the matter remains, HML's don't have a short range ammo.....HAM's are worthless....ask the eve population....Do the math...close range, people want volley damage, and frankly, that's what the hams are.
B) it has more to do with skill requirements and the and the fact that I can fit a better tank while maximizing DPS as damage mods go in lows, shield mods go in mediums.....versus armor mods go in close as well as needing tracking. If I could've trained Large Arty Specialization without all the ridiculous requirements necessary to get there....it's not rocket science, it's common sense....every corp/alliance/coalition member I talk to all says the same thing....it's the ability to maximize tank while having ok dps and the fact you don't have to do all the extra training to use T2 weapons that makes them hate the drake. It's easier to get a fleet cross-trained into a drake with T2 weapons then any other.
First its late so i'm prolly going to be making minor errors, over all point still stands.A) First you're ignoring the fact that HML's are quite good at dealing with small fast moving targets unlike the other long range weapons, a HML drake with webs generally has a very easy time taking down tackle. Thats a huge plus. Lets do a slight comparison as things are now Heavy beam laser: PG: 275 CPU: 37 cap use -3.61 Using Gleam 36.9 dps (gleam is terrible though) Aurora (Shockingly bad ammo) 21 dps at 54km (due to HORRIBLE tracking final dps will be way worse (a frig moving at 800 m/s with a 90-¦ transversal will be getting hit for about .0002dps.. That is epicly bad tracking) 250mm rails: PG 208 CPU 42 cap use -1.1 using javelin 35 dps. With spike 20 dps at around 70km with even WORSE tracking than aurora. 720mm Howitzer artillery PG 275 CPU 32 cap use naught. Using quake 29,4 dps. With Tremor 16,8 dps with the worst tracking yet. HML PG 105!! CPU 55 using any faction ammo 28.6 dps at 81km And lets not forget that those numbers above from the long range weapons are ON paper numbers, The real numbers in a fight would be significantly worse due to those ammo types being really ******* bad at everything else than dps numbers. In a fight at 0 on paper the HML's have a slight disadvantage to the other long range weapons but in practice it outdpses them easily. And even if it didn't it so highly outdpses those weapon types at long range that it isn't even a comparison. After a 20% dps nerf this weapon system will still be one of the HIGHEST damaging ones at any range in terms of applied dps. If anything HML's should be further nerfed because they are still WAY to good at killing frigates. And now if you add TE's into the mix? a frig orbiting at 0 will go down in flames in moments, something the other long range weapons can't do AT THEIR MAXIMUM range B) is stupid so i won't bother replying to it. This is a long range weapon with the damage output of a short range weapon, now its being brought in line. Now is it to much to ask for people to just stop being bad in here?
A) first you point out the PG usage where the base PG of a drake is 500 less than a cane, 650 less than a harby...of course a missile boat has a lower PG, therefore their weapons would not use as much PG.
you still aren't accounting for the fact that HM can't change to short range ammo....if he proposes to nerf the fury damage, and change the precision into a higher dps short range missile, then FINE.
I challenge you to get on sisi with a perfect drake pilot versus a perfect Cane pilot....with just 2 damage mods and add a tracking mod if you wish....orbit each other at 60k and see who wins
B) it's only stupid because it's accurate and at this point useless because obviously, it means you already did the training and would be upset that future people wouldn't have to. I know tons of people that would cross train into other races if that wasn't such an issue.
For people to stop being bad, they have to actually see real situations to know that the numbers they throw out are inaccurate. therefore, if you stop replying, then the number of bad will be reduced. |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1349
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 02:37:00 -
[2541] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games. . .. ... Hmmm
Oh and in case you are wondering. You have our permission to nerf the ever living **** out of dock games.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Kikusama
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 02:49:00 -
[2542] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Would be interesting if short range weapon systems increased your agility and top speed while long range weapon systems decreased your agility and top speed. Not my a lot, but maybe a 5-10% variation.
And if you undock a Drake or a Cane your ship should automatically explode
Guns make the news. Science doesn't. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
93
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 03:08:00 -
[2543] - Quote
Fozzie, what you dont' get about heavy missiles is that unlike any other long range weapon system, they aren't particularly amazing at anything. Missiles are a jack of all trades, but have limitations for everything. At range, they're heavily delayed, in close, their damage doesn't match any other turret class, and still, delayed damage.
You say their damage "at range".. and then you go nerf range and say oh wait, it's still not good enough.
You don't even get that you can always iterate further if the range nerf isn't enough... but players know that it's harder to get you to put something back in. Players are all screaming at you that range nerf is enough on it's own.
Then you say, compared to other long range weapons....
What the **** are you on about.
Artillery are great at range on medium sized ships.
The problem then lies strictly with beams and rails. Rails have no role whatsoever in this game, something we hammered you guys on last year when you finally "fixed rails" with more damage rather than actually put effort into finding a role for them. Beyond that, rails are not a platform you can damage buff your way out of.
Beams have the issue of fittings, and the fact that pulses range is so ******* good on certain ship classes that players have no use for beams. That's mainly an issue with the ungodly high damage scorch does at all sizes of guns.
Then you ***** and moan about other ships not having roles in this game like a drake... Let me break down that problem for you:
MOTHER ******* TRACKING MECHANICS
Outside of the drake, there are hardly any ships smaller than a BS other than Tech 3s that can stand up to guns on Battleships because you have a Stupidly ******** tracking formula made worse by Webs affecting speed down to virtually null. The only reason the drake escapes this is because it can tank at similar levels to a battleship for low cost. Cruisers, Frigs, Tech 2, et all have little to no role in this game because you have ****** over tracking so badly for years and never understood how awful webs have made the game for small ship pilots.
The game is supposed to be centered around balance between classes of ships, but you have removed that role. Go into 0.0 fleet battles and you see the worst of it when you see 100s of battleships and MOTHER ******* CAPITALS trump any other fleet doctrines other than a few isolated tech 3 incidents because tracking is so horribly fubared.
How can you even begin to try to balance ships when you don't balance the primary cause of why most ships are out of whack in the first place is beyond me. But your lack of comprehension as to why this game is continuing to spiral downward patch after patch is why your sub numbers keep falling and why you see a 130 page rage fest about how ******** your initial post was. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 03:09:00 -
[2544] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote: Let's break this down real simple for you:
A) We aren't comparing HML's to autocannon's and blasters. We are comparing them to Arty's, Hybrids and Beams, albet with short range ammo...but the fact of the matter remains, HML's don't have a short range ammo.....HAM's are worthless....ask the eve population....Do the math...close range, people want volley damage, and frankly, that's what the hams are.
B) it has more to do with skill requirements and the and the fact that I can fit a better tank while maximizing DPS as damage mods go in lows, shield mods go in mediums.....versus armor mods go in close as well as needing tracking. If I could've trained Large Arty Specialization without all the ridiculous requirements necessary to get there....it's not rocket science, it's common sense....every corp/alliance/coalition member I talk to all says the same thing....it's the ability to maximize tank while having ok dps and the fact you don't have to do all the extra training to use T2 weapons that makes them hate the drake. It's easier to get a fleet cross-trained into a drake with T2 weapons then any other.
First its late so i'm prolly going to be making minor errors, over all point still stands.A) First you're ignoring the fact that HML's are quite good at dealing with small fast moving targets unlike the other long range weapons, a HML drake with webs generally has a very easy time taking down tackle. Thats a huge plus. Lets do a slight comparison as things are now Heavy beam laser: PG: 275 CPU: 37 cap use -3.61 Using Gleam 36.9 dps (gleam is terrible though) Aurora (Shockingly bad ammo) 21 dps at 54km (due to HORRIBLE tracking final dps will be way worse (a frig moving at 800 m/s with a 90-¦ transversal will be getting hit for about .0002dps.. That is epicly bad tracking) 250mm rails: PG 208 CPU 42 cap use -1.1 using javelin 35 dps. With spike 20 dps at around 70km with even WORSE tracking than aurora. 720mm Howitzer artillery PG 275 CPU 32 cap use naught. Using quake 29,4 dps. With Tremor 16,8 dps with the worst tracking yet. HML PG 105!! CPU 55 using any faction ammo 28.6 dps at 81km And lets not forget that those numbers above from the long range weapons are ON paper numbers, The real numbers in a fight would be significantly worse due to those ammo types being really ******* bad at everything else than dps numbers. In a fight at 0 on paper the HML's have a slight disadvantage to the other long range weapons but in practice it outdpses them easily. And even if it didn't it so highly outdpses those weapon types at long range that it isn't even a comparison. After a 20% dps nerf this weapon system will still be one of the HIGHEST damaging ones at any range in terms of applied dps. If anything HML's should be further nerfed because they are still WAY to good at killing frigates. And now if you add TE's into the mix? a frig orbiting at 0 will go down in flames in moments, something the other long range weapons can't do AT THEIR MAXIMUM range B) is stupid so i won't bother replying to it. This is a long range weapon with the damage output of a short range weapon, now its being brought in line. Now is it to much to ask for people to just stop being bad in here? A) first you point out the PG usage where the base PG of a drake is 500 less than a cane, 650 less than a harby...of course a missile boat has a lower PG, therefore their weapons would not use as much PG. you still aren't accounting for the fact that HM can't change to short range ammo....if he proposes to nerf the fury damage, and change the precision into a higher dps short range missile, then FINE. I challenge you to get on sisi with a perfect drake pilot versus a perfect Cane pilot....with just 2 damage mods and add a tracking mod if you wish....orbit each other at 60k and see who wins B) it's only stupid because it's accurate and at this point useless because obviously, it means you already did the training and would be upset that future people wouldn't have to. I know tons of people that would cross train into other races if that wasn't such an issue. For people to stop being bad, they have to actually see real situations to know that the numbers they throw out are inaccurate. therefore, if you stop replying, then the number of bad will be reduced.
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
|
BlueMajere
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 03:59:00 -
[2545] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Fozzie, what you dont' get about heavy missiles is that unlike any other long range weapon system, they aren't particularly amazing at anything. Missiles are a jack of all trades, but have limitations for everything. At range, they're heavily delayed, in close, their damage doesn't match any other turret class, and still, delayed damage.
You say their damage "at range".. and then you go nerf range and say oh wait, it's still not good enough.
You don't even get that you can always iterate further if the range nerf isn't enough... but players know that it's harder to get you to put something back in. Players are all screaming at you that range nerf is enough on it's own.
Then you say, compared to other long range weapons....
What the **** are you on about.
Artillery are great at range on medium sized ships.
The problem then lies strictly with beams and rails. Rails have no role whatsoever in this game, something we hammered you guys on last year when you finally "fixed rails" with more damage rather than actually put effort into finding a role for them. Beyond that, rails are not a platform you can damage buff your way out of.
Beams have the issue of fittings, and the fact that pulses range is so ******* good on certain ship classes that players have no use for beams. That's mainly an issue with the ungodly high damage scorch does at all sizes of guns.
Then you ***** and moan about other ships not having roles in this game like a drake... Let me break down that problem for you:
MOTHER ******* TRACKING MECHANICS
Outside of the drake, there are hardly any ships smaller than a BS other than Tech 3s that can stand up to guns on Battleships because you have a Stupidly ******** tracking formula made worse by Webs affecting speed down to virtually null. The only reason the drake escapes this is because it can tank at similar levels to a battleship for low cost. Cruisers, Frigs, Tech 2, et all have little to no role in this game because you have ****** over tracking so badly for years and never understood how awful webs have made the game for small ship pilots.
The game is supposed to be centered around balance between classes of ships, but you have removed that role. Go into 0.0 fleet battles and you see the worst of it when you see 100s of battleships and MOTHER ******* CAPITALS trump any other fleet doctrines other than a few isolated tech 3 incidents because tracking is so horribly fubared.
How can you even begin to try to balance ships when you don't balance the primary cause of why most ships are out of whack in the first place is beyond me. But your lack of comprehension as to why this game is continuing to spiral downward patch after patch is why your sub numbers keep falling and why you see a 130 page rage fest about how ******** your initial post was.
Please stop being rude and inconsiderate to a CCP developer, I am offended by it and have reported you multiple times. I hope you get banned forever. Just because he is changing the game in a way that makes your coalition's primary (terrible) fleet concept nerfed does not mean that you have to come cry on the forums. This is why you didn't last in PL, because you can't handle the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about. Please stop crying (and posting) forever. Thank you and have a nice day. |
Tertiacero
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 04:07:00 -
[2546] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Fozzie, what you dont' get about heavy missiles is that unlike any other long range weapon system, they aren't particularly amazing at anything. Missiles are a jack of all trades, but have limitations for everything. At range, they're heavily delayed, in close, their damage doesn't match any other turret class, and still, delayed damage.
You say their damage "at range".. and then you go nerf range and say oh wait, it's still not good enough.
You don't even get that you can always iterate further if the range nerf isn't enough... but players know that it's harder to get you to put something back in. Players are all screaming at you that range nerf is enough on it's own.
Then you say, compared to other long range weapons....
What the **** are you on about.
Artillery are great at range on medium sized ships.
The problem then lies strictly with beams and rails. Rails have no role whatsoever in this game, something we hammered you guys on last year when you finally "fixed rails" with more damage rather than actually put effort into finding a role for them. Beyond that, rails are not a platform you can damage buff your way out of.
Beams have the issue of fittings, and the fact that pulses range is so ******* good on certain ship classes that players have no use for beams. That's mainly an issue with the ungodly high damage scorch does at all sizes of guns.
Then you ***** and moan about other ships not having roles in this game like a drake... Let me break down that problem for you:
MOTHER ******* TRACKING MECHANICS
Outside of the drake, there are hardly any ships smaller than a BS other than Tech 3s that can stand up to guns on Battleships because you have a Stupidly ******** tracking formula made worse by Webs affecting speed down to virtually null. The only reason the drake escapes this is because it can tank at similar levels to a battleship for low cost. Cruisers, Frigs, Tech 2, et all have little to no role in this game because you have ****** over tracking so badly for years and never understood how awful webs have made the game for small ship pilots.
The game is supposed to be centered around balance between classes of ships, but you have removed that role. Go into 0.0 fleet battles and you see the worst of it when you see 100s of battleships and MOTHER ******* CAPITALS trump any other fleet doctrines other than a few isolated tech 3 incidents because tracking is so horribly fubared.
How can you even begin to try to balance ships when you don't balance the primary cause of why most ships are out of whack in the first place is beyond me. But your lack of comprehension as to why this game is continuing to spiral downward patch after patch is why your sub numbers keep falling and why you see a 130 page rage fest about how ******** your initial post was.
Yeah but what you're failing to take into account is you're awful at this game and should stop posting forever.
Seriously |
4IN1
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 04:16:00 -
[2547] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.
Fair point, yet I would like to point out that while fixing one thing at a time sounds good enough, some thing are better fix together as a package, right now we have a "fix" of sort that breaks everything other then the fix itself, and god knows when will the other more broken thing be eventually fix given the Valve time that you guys are working with.
CCP: Ambition but rubbish
|
Rose Honey
Small Holdings Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 05:23:00 -
[2548] - Quote
Okay can we stop with the delayed crap, cause that's a weak ass argument for not nerfing them. Sure missiles take some time to get there, but there next volley is there in cycle time, again and again. All the way up to 110km of the Cerb and Tengu(249 of a cruise raven). A range I guess I again need to say, WILL BE THE SAME AFTER THE CHANGE(actually more but whatever, you're clearly not reading that fact anyway. It was said by Fozzie in one of his post but ignore it anyway). If you choose to add a TC or TE to your set up.
What is it about that people aren't getting. The range is being moved from a god given gift to an option in exchange for.... Blank.(Tank or DPS in Caldari ships.)
Its like people read range reduced and miss the entire piece were the dev pointed out the mod that not only returned it, but actually INCREASE it.
I guess you can't stop the emo in some people.
Range isn't nerfed, its an option. Dps is nerfed, but it needed it.
What they actually did, was make missile ships have to make a choice like armor ships. Armor ships are slow as **** and have to pick a tank/dps option.
Caldari ships are also slow(bad example damn Caldari), and have to pick between dps and range or Tank and Range. So instead of getting all three, you have to pick, only you get to pick which two out of three you get.
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
163
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 05:29:00 -
[2549] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I have a few changes to the proposal we're considering and testing internally. Once we get past that stage I'll take them to the CSM, then to you all. We have plenty of time before the winter expansion, so we're not going to rush anything. I plan to do this right. Accordingly, this dialogue between us here at CCP and you all in the playerbase on this issue will be measured in weeks or months, not days.
I am impressed (but not surprised) to find you awake and reading this at this time.
Obviousoy you guys are going to do whatever you think is best for your game -- that's your job and I assume you are good at it. I would remind you of this:
Many Eve players have little faith in CCPs ability to react quickly to flawed game mechanics. My opinion, and I suspect it is shared by many Caldari players, is that if you break Heavy Missiles now, then they will remain broken for the forseeable future.
Further, there is some concern that Caldari missile pilots are now about to be left with nothing at all other than Frigates and Tengus. For years we didn't even have that. As a Caldari pilot you either flew an HM Drake or you trained a different race. Heavy Missiles were the only weapon we had that even worked. Given CCPs track record, there is a damn good reason for Caldari players to be skeptical today: we don't currently have a lot, half of our ships are broken, and you are talking about finishing the job.
The new Caracal might have been fine enough, but this proposed HM change leaves this currently broken ship worse off than it is today. What exactly do you expect it to do? The same applies to the other Caldari missile boats. The worst assault and command ships in the game are getting nerfed, Caldari Battleships are still hangar queens, and there have been no announced plans or time frames offered for when this will be corrected.
We understand that you want to wreck the Drake. we understand the load missile spam causes on your servers, and we know that your job wont be done until the Drake is no longer the go-to ship for blob warfare. But where does that leave the missile pilot?
That's the REAL question. And it is a question that I suggest you need to have a good answer to.
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 06:00:00 -
[2550] - Quote
I assume that when heavy missiles become effected by tracking enhancers, it'll be something like +velocity -explosion radius. On the bright side, split weapon system ships that fit TE's will gain benefit on both of their weapon systems.
Why not go through with the missile nerf and then make them affected by all damage mods? Heat sinks, gyrostabs, tracking enhancers, etc., which would keep them viable as a secondary weapon, but also hurt the ships that use them primarily?
^^^ Not a serious suggestion, but fact is, missiles are too poor on most ships and too good on a few. There's more than one way to slug a bug, and I'm personally more in favor of stripping the damage bonus off of the offending Caldari ships and giving them another non-damage bonus, because missiles aren't a (good)broken weapon system on other ships. The damage nerf to the missiles themselves will probably cause more problems than it solves. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 06:25:00 -
[2551] - Quote
- Drake will be "fixed" when they get to balance battlecruisers - Your max range will drop from 110km to ~80km. You can increase that with modules. - Just think what those modules can do to Raven/CNR for PVE...
"Why I have choose between tank and range/utility/damage mods?" - We turret users have to do that everyday. It's one of those choices you have to make when you choose modules for your ship. |
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
92
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 06:41:00 -
[2552] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: I have a few changes to the proposal we're considering and testing internally. Once we get past that stage I'll take them to the CSM, then to you all. We have plenty of time before the winter expansion, so we're not going to rush anything. I plan to do this right. Accordingly, this dialogue between us here at CCP and you all in the playerbase on this issue will be measured in weeks or months, not days.
I am impressed (but not surprised) to find you awake and reading this at this time. Obviousoy you guys are going to do whatever you think is best for your game -- that's your job and I assume you are good at it. I would remind you of this: Many Eve players have little faith in CCPs ability to react quickly to flawed game mechanics. My opinion, and I suspect it is shared by many Caldari players, is that if you break Heavy Missiles now, then they will remain broken for the forseeable future. Further, there is some concern that Caldari missile pilots are now about to be left with nothing at all other than Frigates and Tengus. For years we didn't even have that. As a Caldari pilot you either flew an HM Drake or you trained a different race. Heavy Missiles were the only weapon we had that even worked. Given CCPs track record, there is a damn good reason for Caldari players to be skeptical today: we don't currently have a lot, half of our ships are broken, and you are talking about finishing the job. The new Caracal might have been fine enough, but this proposed HM change leaves this currently broken ship worse off than it is today. What exactly do you expect it to do? The same applies to the other Caldari missile boats. The worst assault and command ships in the game are getting nerfed, Caldari Battleships are still hangar queens, and there have been no announced plans or time frames offered for when this will be corrected. We understand that you want to wreck the Drake. we understand the load missile spam causes on your servers, and we know that your job wont be done until the Drake is no longer the go-to ship for blob warfare. But where does that leave the missile pilot? That's the REAL question. And it is a question that I suggest you need to have a good answer to.
If rail Proteus cant do 400 DPS at 65km, why the Drake should? If rail Proteus cant do 750 DPS at 100Km, like Machariel, why the Tengu should? |
Col Baxter
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 06:48:00 -
[2553] - Quote
This thread is the embodiment of why Yaay is terrible and should not be taken seriously. |
4IN1
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 06:51:00 -
[2554] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:- Drake will be "fixed" when they get to balance battlecruisers - Your max range will drop from 110km to ~80km. You can increase that with modules. - Just think what those modules can do to Raven/CNR for PVE...
"Why I have choose between tank and range/utility/damage mods?" - We turret users have to do that everyday. It's one of those choices you have to make when you choose modules for your ship.
And that is why I don't really like the change where TC/TE should affect missile as a hold: it gives yet another reason to nerf all other missile class.
And on a common sense side, why should it be affecting range at all? If anything that these mods should affect it should be things like explosion velocity or explosion radius. Range, by every account, should always and only should be affect by the amount of fuel it carries, fuel consumption rate and amount of thrust to weight radio of its rocket engines, in fact we have a saying in rocket science: Its all about delta V.
CCP: Ambition but rubbish
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
239
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 06:55:00 -
[2555] - Quote
Sleipnir 300 mill Damnation 180 mill Nighthawk 220 mill Eos 225 mill
T2 Nova on that Damnation with no damage mods (tank and e-war) has 118.2 dps in the launchers. It only has 62.5 km target ability so it won't make any difference to me if you nerf range but you really need to nerf the damage? If you force the Drakes to match optimals with their opposition you won't need to nerf damage on heavy missile. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 07:02:00 -
[2556] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Fozzie, what you dont' get about heavy missiles is that unlike any other long range weapon system, they aren't particularly amazing at anything. Missiles are a jack of all trades, but have limitations for everything. At range, they're heavily delayed, in close, their damage doesn't match any other turret class, and still, delayed damage.
You say their damage "at range".. and then you go nerf range and say oh wait, it's still not good enough.
You don't even get that you can always iterate further if the range nerf isn't enough... but players know that it's harder to get you to put something back in. Players are all screaming at you that range nerf is enough on it's own.
Then you say, compared to other long range weapons....
What the **** are you on about.
Artillery are great at range on medium sized ships.
The problem then lies strictly with beams and rails. Rails have no role whatsoever in this game, something we hammered you guys on last year when you finally "fixed rails" with more damage rather than actually put effort into finding a role for them. Beyond that, rails are not a platform you can damage buff your way out of.
Beams have the issue of fittings, and the fact that pulses range is so ******* good on certain ship classes that players have no use for beams. That's mainly an issue with the ungodly high damage scorch does at all sizes of guns.
Then you ***** and moan about other ships not having roles in this game like a drake... Let me break down that problem for you:
MOTHER ******* TRACKING MECHANICS
Outside of the drake, there are hardly any ships smaller than a BS other than Tech 3s that can stand up to guns on Battleships because you have a Stupidly ******** tracking formula made worse by Webs affecting speed down to virtually null. The only reason the drake escapes this is because it can tank at similar levels to a battleship for low cost. Cruisers, Frigs, Tech 2, et all have little to no role in this game because you have ****** over tracking so badly for years and never understood how awful webs have made the game for small ship pilots.
The game is supposed to be centered around balance between classes of ships, but you have removed that role. Go into 0.0 fleet battles and you see the worst of it when you see 100s of battleships and MOTHER ******* CAPITALS trump any other fleet doctrines other than a few isolated tech 3 incidents because tracking is so horribly fubared.
How can you even begin to try to balance ships when you don't balance the primary cause of why most ships are out of whack in the first place is beyond me. But your lack of comprehension as to why this game is continuing to spiral downward patch after patch is why your sub numbers keep falling and why you see a 130 page rage fest about how ******** your initial post was.
You sir need to actually look at what is happening in eve outside of the dream world in your head. I for one fly almost exclusively projectile weapon platforms when I solo PvP or are just messing around. Furthermore, you must never look at battle reports anywhere, since tons of large alliances use rail fit ships (go look at a killboards, it's not difficult, I will just list both the Rokh and the Naga since you apparently lack the mental capability to look things up with out some form of hand holding). Next, apparently you have never hear of an Oracle so your argument on beam lasers is irrelevant as well. You need to step back into reality and lay off the drugs. Remember kids, drugs are bad and being strung out isn't a game. |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 07:06:00 -
[2557] - Quote
4IN1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:- Drake will be "fixed" when they get to balance battlecruisers - Your max range will drop from 110km to ~80km. You can increase that with modules. - Just think what those modules can do to Raven/CNR for PVE...
"Why I have choose between tank and range/utility/damage mods?" - We turret users have to do that everyday. It's one of those choices you have to make when you choose modules for your ship. And that is why I don't really like the change where TC/TE should affect missile as a hold: it gives yet another reason to nerf all other missile class. And on a common sense side, why should those be affecting range at all? If anything that these mods should affect it should be things like explosion velocity or explosion radius. Range, by every account, should always and only should be affect by the amount of fuel it carries, fuel consumption rate and amount of thrust to weight radio of its rocket engines, You can think up some way to make the burn more efficient but skills and ship bonus already cover that. In fact we have a saying in rocket science: Its all about delta V.
The whole point of all of this is to make missile platforms and turret platforms on par with each other, which you apparently missed, hence why no one really cares (including CCP) if you or anyone else dislikes the TE/TD change. |
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 07:07:00 -
[2558] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Sleipnir 300 mill Damnation 180 mill Nighthawk 220 mill Eos 225 mill
T2 Nova on that Damnation with no damage mods (tank and e-war) has 118.2 dps in the launchers. It only has 62.5 km target ability so it won't make any difference to me if you nerf range but you really need to nerf the damage? If you force the Drakes to match optimals with their opposition you won't need to nerf damage on heavy missile.
Why are comparing Field and Fleet Command ships? (you know apples & oranges...).
Also a Damnation has a bonus to HAM and not to HM |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
145
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 07:10:00 -
[2559] - Quote
Lev Arturis wrote:Ocih wrote:Sleipnir 300 mill Damnation 180 mill Nighthawk 220 mill Eos 225 mill
T2 Nova on that Damnation with no damage mods (tank and e-war) has 118.2 dps in the launchers. It only has 62.5 km target ability so it won't make any difference to me if you nerf range but you really need to nerf the damage? If you force the Drakes to match optimals with their opposition you won't need to nerf damage on heavy missile. Why are comparing Field and Fleet Command ships? (you know apples & oranges...). Also a Damnation has a bonus to HAM and not to HM
Fleet Command ships shouldn't even be considered, their role is to boost the fleet and have huge tank, dps is the least of their concern.
Infact I would exchange the weapon bonus for even more tank. |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
941
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 07:11:00 -
[2560] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Fozzie, what you dont' get about heavy missiles is that unlike any other long range weapon system, they aren't particularly amazing at anything. Missiles are a jack of all trades, but have limitations for everything. At range, they're heavily delayed, in close, their damage doesn't match any other turret class, and still, delayed damage.
Counterpoint: they're capless, always hit, can shoot when jammed, can do any damage type, have the most range of any medium weapon, have the most DPS of any ranged medium weapon, and have the highest alpha of any ranged medium weapon. So I'm not sure how you can play the card that they're not "particularly amazing an anything" when, in fact, they lead basically every category by a large margin. Oh yea, compared to other long-range medium weapon systems they're also super easy to fit. ~ |
|
4IN1
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 07:48:00 -
[2561] - Quote
Allison A'vani wrote: The whole point of all of this is to make missile platforms and turret platforms on par with each other, which you apparently missed, hence why no one really cares (including CCP) if you or anyone else dislikes the TE/TD change.
Sorry, but you might want to read DEV reply, because they already stated that its not quite as to bring everything on par, but to reduce the idiotic advantage of HML on that 2 ships in question (which I totally agree, even through I am more a missile guy then a gun guy), with that said the only thing that leaves for you gun guys is the fact that "missile are not guns". Or, really, do you gun guys really want to start crying for love again when trops suddenly can do huge damage pass 80KM?
CCP: Ambition but rubbish
|
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 07:51:00 -
[2562] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Counterpoint: they're capless, always hit, can shoot when jammed, can do any damage type, have the most range of any medium weapon, have the most DPS of any ranged medium weapon, and have the highest alpha of any ranged medium weapon. So I'm not sure how you can play the card that they're not "particularly amazing an anything" when, in fact, they lead basically every category by a large margin. Oh yea, compared to other long-range medium weapon systems they're also super easy to fit.
May I please number your points?
1. They're capless
All missiles are that way by design
2. Always hit
All missiles are that way by design
3. Can shoot when jammed
...
4. Can do any damage type
All missiles are that way by design
5. They have the most range of any medium weapon.
Agreed, although why is that a problem?
6. They have the highest Alpha of any medium weapon.
Is that right? Lets take my alts Tengu [all lvl5 missile skills inc spec] it has 4 T2 BCUs to get 537 DPS 2059 Alpha [no implants Mjol fury] When I place that against my proteus with 4 magstabs and 6 Heavy Neutrons which pumps 1032 DPS with void 2466 Alpha
Got an answer for that? didn't think so, TIP get your facts right before you post.
|
Jock Johnson
Blue Wings of Independancy
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 08:11:00 -
[2563] - Quote
Those HML changes are all welcomed. Please consider taking a look at HAM.
Also, the changes to Rage missiles seems nice, but I wonder if it's sufficient for people to switch from arbalest bombers to T2. |
Ranamar
Cerulean Eagles Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 08:26:00 -
[2564] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:Counterpoint: they're capless, always hit, can shoot when jammed, can do any damage type, have the most range of any medium weapon, have the most DPS of any ranged medium weapon, and have the highest alpha of any ranged medium weapon. So I'm not sure how you can play the card that they're not "particularly amazing an anything" when, in fact, they lead basically every category by a large margin. Oh yea, compared to other long-range medium weapon systems they're also super easy to fit. May I please number your points CMS Elise Randolph? 1. They're capless All missiles are that way by design - Dont nerf HMLs 2. Always hit All missiles are that way by design - Dont nerf HMLs 3. Can shoot when jammed If im jammed I cannot shoot so I have no decent retort. 4. Can do any damage type All missiles are that way by design - Dont nerf HMLs 5. They have the most range of any medium weapon. Agreed, although why is that a problem? 6. They have the highest Alpha of any medium weapon. Is that right? Lets take my alts Tengu [all lvl5 missile skills inc spec] it has 4 T2 BCUs to get 537 DPS 2059 Alpha [no implants Mjol fury] When I place that against my proteus with 4 magstabs and 6 Heavy Neutrons which pumps 1032 DPS with void 2466 Alpha Now I know that yes if I changed to Scourge Id get more DPS and Alpha but I don't hit live in a region needing Scourge. Got an answer for that? didn't think so, TIP get your facts right before you post.
I'd like to point out that you just compared it to a blaster fit, which is a lot of what people are commenting on here. I just threw the beginnings of that fit into EFT and it looks like you'd be lucky to get that damage out to 5km. By 10km, you're probably in falloff. Blasters aren't a medium range weapon, especially when loaded with close-range ammo.
How far out can your Tengu apply that? (Is it even limited by flight time, or does your targeting range cut it off first?) How much damage can you get out of your Proteus if you try to meet half that for optimal on whatever guns it fits?
Your arguments are an excellent example of what a lot of us find unconvincing due to intellectual dishonesty. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 08:29:00 -
[2565] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:I'm Down wrote:Fozzie, what you dont' get about heavy missiles is that unlike any other long range weapon system, they aren't particularly amazing at anything. Missiles are a jack of all trades, but have limitations for everything. At range, they're heavily delayed, in close, their damage doesn't match any other turret class, and still, delayed damage.
Counterpoint: always hit - not true. 1) I suppose you can consider it "hitting" a frigate even if it does 4 dmg. 2) ships can outrun the damage envelope. 3) defender missiles (ok nobody uses but if you're going to go here.... 4) firewalls can shoot when jammed - sure, if you're carrying AT missiles. But those do much worse damage than other missiles. can do any damage type - true, although 10 seconds to switch to a better weapon type is an eternity in most PVP and you're rarely better off spent that 10 seconds doing so. have the most range of any medium weapon - true. Agree this could be nerfed and folks would still survive. have the most DPS of any ranged medium weapon - Paper DPS, sure, on most ships. Not all. There are projectile and lazer ranged medium weapon ships that do more DPS than ships other than drake/tengu. And Actual dps? Depends on the situation. How many volleys miss or are wasted in transit? A haphazard missile ship can do 0 DPS for an entire fight if he's at long range and all his missiles arrive at destroyed ships. If it's PVE, how is the DPS impacted by defender missiles? If it's PVP, how well does that damage apply against frigates and cruisers being flown by the enemy?? and have the highest alpha of any ranged medium weapon - Uhhhh. What? Artillery? So I'm not sure how you can play the card that they're not "particularly amazing an anything" when, in fact, they lead basically every category by a large margin - hyperbole does nobody any favors. Oh yea, compared to other long-range medium weapon systems they're also super easy to fit. - True
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 08:31:00 -
[2566] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Counterpoint: they're capless, always hit, can shoot when jammed, can do any damage type, have the most range of any medium weapon, have the most DPS of any ranged medium weapon, and have the highest alpha of any ranged medium weapon. So I'm not sure how you can play the card that they're not "particularly amazing an anything" when, in fact, they lead basically every category by a large margin. Oh yea, compared to other long-range medium weapon systems they're also super easy to fit.
1. They're capless
Yes, and so are projectiles.. Does this mean nerf??
2. Always hit
"Your missiles hit the target for 0 damage" Hell, getting that remark with any number less than 100 is devistating, but it happens all the time
3. Can shoot when jammed
If you're refering to fof, then find me someone who uses fof in pvp and I'll find you someone who has probably shot many friendlies in his day fof missiles are broken even in pve. They shoot structures for crying out loud.
4. Can do any damage type
Again, find me someone who takes the time in pvp to swap around ammo types in order to find out which damage does the best, and I'll show you someone who gets blown up a lot. When you're a missile pilot whatever missiles you have loaded when the action starts is what you use unless they're just doing terribad. Also, on live most of our missile boats have kinetic bonus damage. (though this will change for cruisers in winter expac)
5. They have the most range of any medium weapon.
With Navy ammo, yes. However, 250mm rail II's with spike ammo is right there next to it. Now, the tengu does make the rane insane and damn good dps at that range, but we all know the tengu is OP. Now, with a 25% range nerf, the tengu will be fairly well balanced as far as range, but the drake will have less range than any other tier 2 bc with med LR turrets and ammo even with navy missiles.
6. They have the highest Alpha of any medium weapon. What good does alpha do if it's gonna take your volley more time to reach the target than it will take concord to reach you? At least a turret boat can use that alpha to its advantage. They may have less alpha, but with all skills lvl 5 it will take navy missiles fired from a drake 15 seconds to reach max range. Do you know how much can happen in 15 seconds. Hell, my target can simply move away at 10 meters a second and be out of danger by the tie the navys hit 84km, which they wouldn't because of acceleration. |
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 08:57:00 -
[2567] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:TriadSte wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:Counterpoint: they're capless, always hit, can shoot when jammed, can do any damage type, have the most range of any medium weapon, have the most DPS of any ranged medium weapon, and have the highest alpha of any ranged medium weapon. So I'm not sure how you can play the card that they're not "particularly amazing an anything" when, in fact, they lead basically every category by a large margin. Oh yea, compared to other long-range medium weapon systems they're also super easy to fit. May I please number your points CMS Elise Randolph? 1. They're capless All missiles are that way by design - Dont nerf HMLs 2. Always hit All missiles are that way by design - Dont nerf HMLs 3. Can shoot when jammed If im jammed I cannot shoot so I have no decent retort. 4. Can do any damage type All missiles are that way by design - Dont nerf HMLs 5. They have the most range of any medium weapon. Agreed, although why is that a problem? 6. They have the highest Alpha of any medium weapon. Is that right? Lets take my alts Tengu [all lvl5 missile skills inc spec] it has 4 T2 BCUs to get 537 DPS 2059 Alpha [no implants Mjol fury] When I place that against my proteus with 4 magstabs and 6 Heavy Neutrons which pumps 1032 DPS with void 2466 Alpha Now I know that yes if I changed to Scourge Id get more DPS and Alpha but I don't hit live in a region needing Scourge. Got an answer for that? didn't think so, TIP get your facts right before you post. I'd like to point out that you just compared it to a blaster fit, which is a lot of what people are commenting on here. I just threw the beginnings of that fit into EFT and it looks like you'd be lucky to get that damage out to 5km. By 10km, you're probably in falloff. Blasters aren't a medium range weapon, especially when loaded with close-range ammo. How far out can your Tengu apply that? (Is it even limited by flight time, or does your targeting range cut it off first?) How much damage can you get out of your Proteus if you try to meet half that for optimal on whatever guns it fits? Your arguments are an excellent example of what a lot of us find unconvincing due to intellectual dishonesty.
Maybe so but heavy Neutrons are a medium weapon....perhaps not ranged although it can indeed have decent range with Null ammo and a few TEs.
The HML argument sucks, CCP is going about this like a horse with blinkers on. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 09:18:00 -
[2568] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:5. They have the most range of any medium weapon.
With Navy ammo, yes. However, 250mm rail II's with spike ammo is right there next to it. Now, the tengu does make the rane insane and damn good dps at that range, but we all know the tengu is OP. Now, with a 25% range nerf, the tengu will be fairly well balanced as far as range, but the drake will have less range than any other tier 2 bc with med LR turrets and ammo even with navy missiles.
You mean like this epic 80km Harbinger?
[Harbinger, 80km epicness]
800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Adaptive Nano Plating II Damage Control II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M [Empty High slot]
Medium Energy Locus Coordinator II Medium Ancillary Current Router II Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603
I'm not even expert on this but I can tell you it's really bad... |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
751
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 09:20:00 -
[2569] - Quote
TriadSte wrote: May I please number your points CMS Elise Randolph?
1. They're capless
2. Always hit
3. Can shoot when jammed
4. Can do any damage type
5. They have the most range of any medium weapon.
Agreed, although why is that a problem?
6. They have the highest Alpha of any medium weapon.
Is that right? Lets take my alts Tengu [all lvl5 missile skills inc spec] it has 4 T2 BCUs to get 537 DPS 2059 Alpha [no implants Mjol fury] When I place that against my proteus with 4 magstabs and 6 Heavy Neutrons which pumps 1032 DPS with void 2466 Alpha
Now I know that yes if I changed to Scourge Id get more DPS and Alpha but I don't hit live in a region needing Scourge.
Got an answer for that? didn't think so, TIP get your facts right before you post.
1st of all with all lvl5 skills and you can't get over 537 DPS you're doing it wrong.
Tengu cookie cutter fit without billions of mods, T2 fitted one when correctly fitted deals 750dps without +5dmg implant. Around 900 when OH, the problem? -100% dmg projection up to 120/130km
The amount of dps you can get out of said Tengu is only possible because of ROF witch in it self it's not a problem, the real problem is when this is possible at such extreme ranges for a medium weapon system. HM's need a slight nerf in flight time for sure, the dps nerf imho is a bit too strong and will not solve the problems other ships and weapon systems have. brb |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 10:20:00 -
[2570] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: The drake doesn't have much capabilty to fit TCs if it wants to maintain EHP and still have web and scram.
I can see where this could be problematic.
Ever used turrets and ships with 3 mids? No, but here's a fun build you'll like Hurricane (all skills lvl 5) highs 6 x 425mm AC II 2 x small energy neut II mids warp scrambler II stasis Webifier II 2 x Tracking disruptor II (exp velocity/exp radius script) lows 2x gyrostabilizer II Damage control II Medium armor rep II explosive Hardener II Kinetic hardener II rigs anti-thermic pump I 2 x trimark armor pump I stats Capacitor 2m 20sec With armor rep off - 9m 54s (stable by turning off one neut) Dps Hail - 593 @ 1.5+9km Barrage - 423 @ 3+18km Velocity - 182m/s EHP - 42,284 With tracking disruptors, this fit will pwn drakes, and it will fit the reduced PG nerf coming to the hurricane
no propmod = fail
|
|
Col Baxter
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 10:34:00 -
[2571] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:
Maybe so but heavy Neutrons are a medium weapon....perhaps not ranged although it can indeed have decent range with Null ammo and a few TEs.
The HML argument sucks, CCP is going about this like a horse with blinkers on.
No. Elise explicitly stated that HML's have the highest alpha of medium RANGED weapons to which you herped on about some irrelevant diatribe for a ranged weapon vs a close range weapon. You cannot hope to compare the two so please don't even try.
The fact that you are attempting to say that medium neutron blasters with null ammo loaded are even close to being similar to HML launchers shows just how small a grasp you have on any actual game fitting mechanics and simply wish to save your jew boat.
To quote you from the last page: Got an answer for that? Didn't think so, TIP get your **** right before you post. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 11:05:00 -
[2572] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:Counterpoint: they're capless, always hit, can shoot when jammed, can do any damage type, have the most range of any medium weapon, have the most DPS of any ranged medium weapon, and have the highest alpha of any ranged medium weapon. So I'm not sure how you can play the card that they're not "particularly amazing an anything" when, in fact, they lead basically every category by a large margin. Oh yea, compared to other long-range medium weapon systems they're also super easy to fit. 1. They're capless Yes, and so are projectiles.. Does this mean nerf?? 2. Always hit "Your missiles hit the target for 0 damage" Hell, getting that remark with any number less than 100 is devistating, but it happens all the time 3. Can shoot when jammed If you're refering to fof, then find me someone who uses fof in pvp and I'll find you someone who has probably shot many friendlies in his day fof missiles are broken even in pve. They shoot structures for crying out loud. 4. Can do any damage type Again, find me someone who takes the time in pvp to swap around ammo types in order to find out which damage does the best, and I'll show you someone who gets blown up a lot. When you're a missile pilot whatever missiles you have loaded when the action starts is what you use unless they're just doing terribad. Also, on live most of our missile boats have kinetic bonus damage. (though this will change for cruisers in winter expac) 5. They have the most range of any medium weapon. With Navy ammo, yes. However, 250mm rail II's with spike ammo is right there next to it. Now, the tengu does make the rane insane and damn good dps at that range, but we all know the tengu is OP. Now, with a 25% range nerf, the tengu will be fairly well balanced as far as range, but the drake will have less range than any other tier 2 bc with med LR turrets and ammo even with navy missiles. 6. They have the highest Alpha of any medium weapon. What good does alpha do if it's gonna take your volley more time to reach the target than it will take concord to reach you? At least a turret boat can use that alpha to its advantage. They may have less alpha, but with all skills lvl 5 it will take navy missiles fired from a drake 15 seconds to reach max range. Do you know how much can happen in 15 seconds. Hell, my target can simply move away at 10 meters a second and be out of danger by the tie the navys hit 84km, which they wouldn't because of acceleration.
The fact you think alpha only matters in suicide ganking says everything really. Current 0.0 missile combat goes something like target is tackled by lachesis/huginn at 60k, 12 secs later target is volleyed by hml blob. Alpha ftw. The fact you think fof still go after friendlies years after they were fixed is pretty lol too. And you really think its ok that hybrids using spike can just about match hml range when the dps is half as much?
The damage type issue is a bit of a red herring for pvp for sure, most ships are omni tanked and the current kin bonuses make it usually worth while to just use kin anyway unless facing gal t2s (how many deimos gangs do you see these days?) Still damage types are changed before fights not during in these days of fleet doctrines and assuming the kin bonus goes omni it will make a difference. Projectile damage type choices are far more limited than missiles also as both t2 ammo types are exp/kin only and there is no em based type for the mid range high tracking ammo, so its not really the same at all.
The paper dps is not real dps argument is really dumb when you constantly pretend tracking doesn't exist for turrets. It is all very well saying a pilot can mitigate tracking but a) if the enemy is faster and not an idiot you wont make much difference and b) most importantly of all tracking works both ways so to reduce transversal yourself you must let an enemy turret do more damage to you in return, which is a massive drawback depending what you are flying. But we will just pretend that sort of thing doesn't exist so we can pretend heavy missiles are not really op...... |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 11:55:00 -
[2573] - Quote
Much as I think hmls do need nerfed i do think this nerf is going the wrong way. Missiles SHOULD be long range. I have no problem with heavy missiles being the longest ranged medium weapon. Missiles SHOULD have high alpha, even highest, they are a great big warhead after all. A missile ship using long range missiles should be able to whack out a big volley of damage at long range, with the balancing factor being that you can gtfo before they get there (or use defenders if they weren't broken, or a smartbomb if you happen to have one). It is the dps that is out of kilter. HMLs should get a rof nerf to tone the dps down, probably doesn't even need to be as much as 20%.. All missile bonuses should be rof bonuses, and to that sized launchers in general (no more kin only bonuses, no more hml or ham only bonuses). Hams (and rockets/torps) are more basic missiles that don't carry as much fuel or as fancy guidance systems so they have a far higher rof and this is how they do more damage. GMP difference seems dumb to me and an unnecessary nerf to short range missiles since all missiles are really guided anyway.
A rof rather than damage nerf has added benefits in server performance too
I bet a 15% rof nerf to hmls (maybe changed to 10% or 20% after testing) coupled with the missile velocity increases and more general bonuses on hulls would be a win win situation tbh.
Same goes for the tracking disruptor thing, make it 2 different mods with the same sort of effects and you would get rid of most of the issues. Guidance scrambler, guidance computer, guidance enhancer, guidance link. Launcher skills instead of gunnery for the buffing ones (though weapon upgrades is a special case that effects both anyway). Guidance scrambler uses weapon disruption but gets a new buffing skill instead of turret destabilization (launcher destabilisation?). Tracking disruptor bonus become weapon disruption bonus and are applied to both. 1 ship still can't fit one mod to own all, amarr ewar is no longer useless against missiles spammers, missile users can buff thier missiles. |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1052
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 12:23:00 -
[2574] - Quote
I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.
This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.
These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 12:30:00 -
[2575] - Quote
one thing i could not see till now (I know, hard to believe after 128 pages ): TC will affect missles, but need a gunnery skill (TA) to operate. So, is this going to be changed like it is possible to use TCs with GMP too instead of TA only or will we HAVE to skill a "useless" gunnery skill on a missle toon? Or should i say make it like that all those gunnery folks need to skill GMP to use their TC again?
cu |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:09:00 -
[2576] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money.
Now do the same thing at 10k....if you say anything but the cane, then you are lost. Drakes use missiles....missiles are a better long range platform. How can you argue that a drake is better at close range when you can load gleam ammo into a beam laser and have better dps than the HM's. If you have an issue with the flawed tracking systems....or the even greater flawed armor tanking system that uses your dps/tracking slots...that's not an issue with the drake....it's a problem with the lack of intelligent design by the developers, not the drake
Not asking the HML's to be better at everything...but unless the TE/TC's are going to adjust explosion radius and explosion velocity, then this combination of nerfs WILL push the drake off the shelf entirely for PVP. Because at that point, ANY BC with LR guns w/ LR ammo, a 10MN Aft and a TD will be able to tank a drake at full range of his guns and laugh. While I know that's what all you caldari haters want *And don't lie, you really do....I hear it all the time. Jealousy is an ugly color* I'm to the point that I actually hope he does implement these changes. Then when all of us that have been trying to give him possible solutions laugh at being right...and all those of you in support of the change are laughing because you love the fact that the drake is out of commission...then what? Bunch of people saying screw it, quitting the game |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:10:00 -
[2577] - Quote
Rita May wrote:one thing i could not see till now (I know, hard to believe after 128 pages ): TC will affect missles, but need a gunnery skill (TA) to operate. So, is this going to be changed like it is possible to use TCs with GMP too instead of TA only or will we HAVE to skill a "useless" gunnery skill on a missle toon? Or should i say make it like that all those gunnery folks need to skill GMP to use their TC again? *edit* one more thing CCP seems to like to change DMG bonuses to RoF bonuses, which on paper looks like nothing changes, but: Is this not a stealth ISK sink like "buff"? like, if i need x% more volleys to kill stuff i seems to me that all missle generated income is nerved? cu
Good catch!
But useless? Hardly! Think of it as further encouragement (and a headstart) training out of missiles. |
TradingTooth
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:14:00 -
[2578] - Quote
To be honest, this feels like a missile buff, not nerf:
the sacrilege might finally be useful because of tracking comps enhancing missile range, glass cannon caracals (are there any other) might become really REALLY long range t1 low skill sniper ships, rocket interceptors of all kinds will benefit from this,
hams will probably see a WHOLE lot of use now as they'll become something like scorch, a high dps short range weapon which when fitted to do it on a bonused ship could hit quite far out indeed with javelin.
Torpedo mission golem just became awesome,
Old school sniping stealth bombers?
Basically, up until these changes, your ship either had the range, or it didn't, the little tweaking power that the rigs provided didn't let you wriggle far out of the hull and mod limitations, this opens up new possibilities,
but two most boring to fly and overused ships in the game get nerfed a little (1 slot tank nerf and some dps or range nerf and dps boost, depending if you keep fitting hml or switch to haml) and crying will be had.. boohooo hoo
Good news,
Brb,
buying lotsa sacrileges |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:15:00 -
[2579] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Much as I think hmls do need nerfed i do think this nerf is going the wrong way. Missiles SHOULD be long range. I have no problem with heavy missiles being the longest ranged medium weapon. Missiles SHOULD have high alpha, even highest, they are a great big warhead after all. A missile ship using long range missiles should be able to whack out a big volley of damage at long range, with the balancing factor being that you can gtfo before they get there (or use defenders if they weren't broken, or a smartbomb if you happen to have one). It is the dps that is out of kilter. HMLs should get a rof nerf to tone the dps down, probably doesn't even need to be as much as 20%.. All missile bonuses should be rof bonuses, and to that sized launchers in general (no more kin only bonuses, no more hml or ham only bonuses). Hams (and rockets/torps) are more basic missiles that don't carry as much fuel or as fancy guidance systems so they have a far higher rof and this is how they do more damage. GMP difference seems dumb to me and an unnecessary nerf to short range missiles since all missiles are really guided anyway. A rof rather than damage nerf has added benefits in server performance too I bet a 15% rof nerf to hmls (maybe changed to 10% or 20% after testing) coupled with the missile velocity increases and more general bonuses on hulls would be a win win situation tbh. Bear in mind that increased velocity and nerfed rof means many less wasted volleys as well. Same goes for the tracking disruptor thing, make it 2 different mods with the same sort of effects and you would get rid of most of the issues. Guidance scrambler, guidance computer, guidance enhancer, guidance link. Launcher skills instead of gunnery for the buffing ones (though weapon upgrades is a special case that effects both anyway). Guidance scrambler uses weapon disruption but gets a new buffing skill instead of turret destabilization (launcher destabilisation?). Tracking disruptor bonus become weapon disruption bonus and are applied to both. 1 ship still can't fit one mod to own all, amarr ewar is no longer useless against missiles spammers, missile users can buff thier missiles.
I could accept that....maybe up the cycle time slightly to 10ish seconds
I'm ok with the TD's as long as TE/TC up explosion velocity and explosion radius....otherwise, it's going to be an I win button for non-drakes.... |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:19:00 -
[2580] - Quote
In regards to the hurricane nerf, have you considered removing a utility high? I really think 225 pg loss is a bit much. it shouldn't take more than 1 t2 RC to fit the largest long range weapons to any bc with 1 LSE.
Having TD's affect missiles seems ok, I'll finally be able to kill drakes with my curse, though perhaps general td effectiveness really needs nerfing and bonused ships buffing.
TEs affecting missiles is quite frankly, stupid. It makes absolutely no sense at all. Making everything the same is not a good idea, you just make ship fits and play styles generic. |
|
TradingTooth
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:21:00 -
[2581] - Quote
On a second note, it would be nice to see more implants and boosters influencing missiles |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:24:00 -
[2582] - Quote
The day small gang FC's are laughing at people for bringing Canes, Merms, Harbis then you will know that Drakes are objectively significantly overpowered. The only time I have ever seen an FC in any corp ask people to grab a Drake is when it is an actual Drake fleet, and even then half the pirates wont even own one.
This is the reality I have experienced in game, not only in my own corps, but in the ships I see people grabbing for themselves. No one needs to order people to fly overpowered ships -- they do that on their own.
I don't really have an opinion on the HM nerf one way or the other. I don't really use them and have never had any particular problem with what they can do when I am fighting against them. They are deadly and effective when used correctly -- the same can be said for every other BC in the game.
My concern is for Caldari missile pilots. When it comes to cruiser and up combat ships they have only one weapon choice (HMs) and one ship worth fitting it on (Drake). Take this away and they will have nothing. Caldari missile pilots don't have a working Cruiser (nor will they after this), they don't have HACs, they don't have BS's... they have Drakes. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:50:00 -
[2583] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:The day small gang FC's are laughing at people for bringing Canes, Merms, Harbis then you will know that Drakes are objectively significantly overpowered. The only time I have ever seen an FC in any corp ask people to grab a Drake is when it is an actual Drake fleet, and even then half the pirates wont even own one.
This is the reality I have experienced in game, not only in my own corps, but in the ships I see people grabbing for themselves. No one needs to order people to fly overpowered ships -- they do that on their own.
I don't really have an opinion on the HM nerf one way or the other. I don't really use them and have never had any particular problem with what they can do when I am fighting against them. They are deadly and effective when used correctly -- the same can be said for every other BC in the game.
My concern is for Caldari missile pilots. When it comes to cruiser and up combat ships they have only one weapon choice (HMs) and one ship worth fitting it on (Drake). Take this away and they will have nothing. Caldari missile pilots don't have a working Cruiser (nor will they after this), they don't have HACs, they don't have BS's... they have Drakes.
Perhaps they should just nerf goons. Then maybe drake blobs won't exist. |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 13:51:00 -
[2584] - Quote
Rita May wrote:one thing i could not see till now (I know, hard to believe after 128 pages ): TC will affect missles, but need a gunnery skill (TA) to operate. So, is this going to be changed like it is possible to use TCs with GMP too instead of TA only or will we HAVE to skill a "useless" gunnery skill on a missle toon? Or should i say make it like that all those gunnery folks need to skill GMP to use their TC again? *edit* one more thing CCP seems to like to change DMG bonuses to RoF bonuses, which on paper looks like nothing changes, but: Is this not a stealth ISK sink like "buff"? like, if i need x% more volleys to kill stuff i seems to me that all missle generated income is nerved? On your first point-
Trajectory Analysis is indeed a gunnery skill. However, so is Weapons Upgrades (needed for TE). Now one could argue that WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). Which would make TEs whether split missile and gun modules or remaining a unified module an easy and backstory consistent module to train for. Trajectory Analysis would probably have to stay in the Gunnery skill group.
This might be a good reason for there to be a separate modules for missiles akin to TC, that could build off of Target Navigation Prediction 4 (which to my mind is the rough analogue of Trajectory Anaysis) and/or Guided Missile Precision. The trouble with keying any new mTC solely on TNP skill is that it is only a 2x skill while for turret users TA skill is a 5x skill. This would create yet another slight sp advantage for missile use (a la missile skill type ease v gunnery tree sp slogs). I suppose one could key the mod off of GMP 4 but then it would seem odd to have the then also boost "unguided" missiles. One could maybe do some hybrid skill requirement between the two missile skills that would roughly equate to having to train TA4, say like (without running the numbers and only for example purposes) TNP3 and GMP2 as a requirement for a mTC.
This of course brings up the sp investment disparity between TCs and TEs whether for missiles or gunnery and the advantage it could present due to racail slot and fitting propensities. But then there are always choices to be made. You fit a TE or mTE you lose a slot for a damage mod (or a tank mod on an armor tank), you fit a TC or mTC you lose a tackle slot (or a tanking slot on a shield tank). My guess is that shield tankers (being used to their drake tank risk aversion) will sacrifice a low slot damage mod before they sacrifice a mid tanking slot. That the damage nerf on HM is as proposed it may be some inducement to rethink it. It would be a no brainer to use a mTE over a mTC if there was no damage nerf on HM as so many are complaining about. And when talking about Drakes one cannot ignore the tanking advantage they have over other BCs.
On your second point -
I'm not sure to what you are referring when you say that CCP balancing is favoring a rof bonus over a damage bonus. Some examples might be needed to discuss that. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
216
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:13:00 -
[2585] - Quote
TradingTooth wrote:On a second note, it would be nice to see more implants and boosters influencing missiles
Implants wise all the attributes already have implants. Booster wise there could be more. Both implants and boosters use the skill system though so i think ccp thought a GMP booster would be too confuzzling (as it wouldn't effect half the missiles), just one more reason to let GMP effect all missiles. That really only leaves missile velocity and flight time, and no one would use fligh time when they could use velocity instead. So +1 missile velocity booster, which seems a good idea.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
216
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:15:00 -
[2586] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it).
It wouldn't actually necessatize any such thing, there are plenty of skills in the same branch with different attributes. Wups is allready needed for bcus for missile pilots in any case. It should really be an electronics skill.
|
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:19:00 -
[2587] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Lili Lu wrote:WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). It wouldn't actually necessatize any such thing, there are plenty of skills in the same branch with different attributes. Wups is allready needed for bcus for missile pilots in any case. It should really be an electronics skill. Or one could say an engineering skill. Definitely multiple possibilities. However, off the top of my head I'm not coming up with any different attibrute skills within a skill group (other than the flipping of perception and willpower in the ship command skills when looking at tech I v tech II ship skills). Do you have any examples?
Edit - and the more I think about it TEs may have been too easy to train into all along since they use the same skill prereqs as a damage mod. (?) Of course changing the reqs for TEs might present the old problem of what about pilots that have TE IIs fit and use them presently but have not trained TA4 (if the prereq was made to conform to TCs). |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
217
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:30:00 -
[2588] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money.
No it won't, because hurricane dps is terrible at that range and wont break a drake tank, this in spite of a cane being double bonussed for damage as its supposed to be ganky. Apart from anything else the cane has to use a terrible damage type (for against drakes) at that range as projectile damage choice is not what everyone pretends it is. At close range a buffer ham drake will usually beat an auto-cane as well simply because its so much more tanky and because hams are actually very good vs bcs. The canes only real advantage is the cookie cutter 2 med neuts to shut off the drakes hardeners, and ccps grid nerf is going to make that harder.
Comparing ships in a 1v1 situation is dumb anyway, it is not how ships are balanced. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:37:00 -
[2589] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money. Comparing ships in a 1v1 situation is dumb anyway, it is not how ships are balanced.
Are you implying that the way to balance is to see what ship is used a lot and nerf it ?
Edit : Nice empty post by the way, but it does ask the question. What are the criteria for balance ? |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
218
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:37:00 -
[2590] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Doddy wrote:Lili Lu wrote:WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). It wouldn't actually necessatize any such thing, there are plenty of skills in the same branch with different attributes. Wups is allready needed for bcus for missile pilots in any case. It should really be an electronics skill. Or one could say an engineering skill. Definitely multiple possibilities. However, off the top of my head I'm not coming up with any different attibrute skills within a skill group (other than the flipping of perception and willpower in the ship command skills when looking at tech I v tech II ship skills). Do you have any examples? .
Much of the trade tree has different attributes, planetary management, possibly social and a few science. It is indeed mostly non ship related stuff though. I say electronics because it is to do with computers/sensors and it reduces cpu need, hard to see how it would be an engineering or mechanic skill...
I checked and none of the social ones are different, some science are though in things like doomsday operation. |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
218
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:44:00 -
[2591] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Doddy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money. Comparing ships in a 1v1 situation is dumb anyway, it is not how ships are balanced. Are you implying that the way to balance is to see what ship is used a lot and nerf it ? Edit : Nice empty post by the way, but it does ask the question. What are the criteria for balance ?
Um no, and what do you mean empty post? The way to test ships is to compare them in several different situations, be that 1v1, 1v5, 5v5, 5v5, 100v100, 100v50 or even 100v structure. 1v1 will show the drake as being better than it really is as drake is pretty good in 1v1 situations, especially ones with an escape route (docking games ftl), thanks to its passive regens which become irrelevant in larger fights. Similarly anything with a local rep bonus is going to seem alot better 1v1 while anything long range is gonna seem fail as it needs tackling suppoort.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 14:54:00 -
[2592] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Bloutok wrote:Doddy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I AM accounting for that. HML's can't do everything as well as turrets can do but it does other things better..
Surely you're not saying the HAVE to be better at everything?
And a perfect cane pilot vs a perfect drake pilot orbiting each other at 60? I really don't need to go on Sisi to know that the drake would easily win hands down...
No, actually it doesn't win hands down....which further shows how you are WRONG...make sure it's a 10MN aft...and the cane will win....while the drake will win with a MWD because of the signature bloom....the cane will give it a run for it's money. Comparing ships in a 1v1 situation is dumb anyway, it is not how ships are balanced. Are you implying that the way to balance is to see what ship is used a lot and nerf it ? Edit : Nice empty post by the way, but it does ask the question. What are the criteria for balance ? Um no, and what do you mean empty post? The way to test ships is to compare them in several different situations, be that 1v1, 1v5, 5v5, 5v5, 100v100, 100v50 or even 100v structure.
You left the 1vs1 and also say that to compare in 1vs1 is dumb......
The drake is also going to lose it's resist bonus, so when you say a cane loses, first, i desagree and after nerfs, i desagree even more. Otherwise, yes, all scenarios count. And in my point of view, the current proposition makes the drake an obsolete ship.
Make amo for different distances. Then we can compare.
|
Kaikka Carel
White syndicate Wormhole Holders
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:00:00 -
[2593] - Quote
All right how about skills and rigs affecting close range missiles' explosion radius now?
An HML Tengu clears C3 sites way much faster than the HAM Tengu with 100 more DPS and it is not about the range. It is about the applied damage. |
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive Blue Nation
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:11:00 -
[2594] - Quote
Im happy with the 25% HM range nerf, and Im happy that TDs now affect missiles. But the 20% damage nerf to HMs is stupid and wil wreck the entire medium missile platform range (HAMs are already terrible). |
JusticeForJake Auduin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:13:00 -
[2595] - Quote
Alua Oresson wrote:Time to stock up on some Pilgrims and curses and go hunting Drakes.
NICE :D |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
218
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:14:00 -
[2596] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
You left the 1vs1 and also say that to compare in 1vs1 is dumb......
The drake is also going to lose it's resist bonus, so when you say a cane loses, first, i desagree and after nerfs, i desagree even more. Otherwise, yes, all scenarios count. And in my point of view, the current proposition makes the drake an obsolete ship.
Make amo for different distances. Then we can compare.
i should have said comparing "only" 1v1 is dumb which is what pretty much every poster in here does, my mistake.
Afaik Ccp has not confirmed drake is losing its resist bonuses at any point, in fact from the number of times they say "the csm minutes are just brainstorming" i think they are back pedalling a bit and certainly wouldn't do anything till after they see what these missile changes do. If no one drops tank mods for tes/tcs then they might still do the velocity bonus for resist bonus thing, idk.
There is pretty much no situation a current arty cane will beat a current hml drake if the pilots are similar sp and the drake pilot understands transversal. A current ham drake has an even chance against an autocane unless the autocane has neuts. Though all this is pointless discussion as what you or I or joe bloggs has fit on them is gonna be different and everyone has different experiences on tq. Certainly if i met a solo autocane in my hamdrake i would feel i had a good chance, especially if i saw launchers in the 7th and 8th highs. |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:14:00 -
[2597] - Quote
Kaikka Carel wrote:All right how about skills and rigs affecting close range missiles' explosion radius now?
An HML Tengu clears C3 sites way much faster than the HAM Tengu with 100 more DPS and it is not about the range. It is about the applied damage. Yes, good to bring up wormholes, C3 sites, and the whole pve advantages Tengus have over other Tech III ships except for incursions and Legions. Further reason for the HM changes. And/or changes to wormhole sleeper AI and ewar, etc. It was almost like wormhole pve was created specifically for Drakes and Tengus. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:27:00 -
[2598] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Kaikka Carel wrote:All right how about skills and rigs affecting close range missiles' explosion radius now?
An HML Tengu clears C3 sites way much faster than the HAM Tengu with 100 more DPS and it is not about the range. It is about the applied damage. Yes, good to bring up wormholes, C3 sites, and the whole pve advantages Tengus have over other Tech III ships except for incursions and Legions. Further reason for the HM changes. And/or changes to wormhole sleeper AI and ewar, etc. It was almost like wormhole pve was created specifically for Drakes and Tengus.
I think they actually said at the time that t3s would be good in wormholes, think they just forgot after they did the tengu. Really alot of the hate for hmls comes from 1 tengu sub that combines a bit too easily with 2 other tengu subs. To my mind this is why they want the range nerf on hmls which is a bit harsh on ships not bonused for range. |
Riku Klayton
Pew. Pew. Jokers Wild.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:33:00 -
[2599] - Quote
TDs WIN! |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:44:00 -
[2600] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote:I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.
This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.
These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40.
I agree, posting about flawed patch designs and horrible mechanics really attacks the devs... Keep up the good censorship mate. |
|
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 15:45:00 -
[2601] - Quote
Doddy wrote: I think they actually said at the time that t3s would be good in wormholes, think they just forgot after they did the tengu. Really alot of the hate for hmls comes from 1 tengu sub that combines a bit too easily with 2 other tengu subs. To my mind this is why they want the range nerf on hmls which is a bit harsh on ships not bonused for range. Certainly tech III rebalancing when they get there will have to selectively look at subsytems. Some of which should actually get buffs and not nerfs. However, the range nerf on HMs had to come if a tech I launcher could get an effective range of 70-80km while the competitor tech II guns and tech II ammo were either stuck at 54-63km or had to fit multiple mods to even get a 70km optimal and for quite a bit less damage as well. But the numbers on that have already been posted multiple times itt, both in the op and followup posts and player posts. Thought we were beyond that discusion. |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:01:00 -
[2602] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: On your first point-
Trajectory Analysis is indeed a gunnery skill. However, so is Weapons Upgrades (needed for TE). Now one could argue that WU and AWU could be moved into Mechanics (which would necessitate a change to intel and mem as attributes for it). Which would make TEs whether split missile and gun modules or remaining a unified module an easy and backstory consistent module to train for. Trajectory Analysis would probably have to stay in the Gunnery skill group.
This might be a good reason for there to be a separate modules for missiles akin to TC II, that could build off of Target Navigation Prediction 4 (which to my mind is the rough analogue of Trajectory Anaysis) and/or Guided Missile Precision. The trouble with keying any new mTC solely on TNP skill is that it is only a 2x skill while for turret users TA skill is a 5x skill. This would create yet another slight sp advantage for missile use (a la missile skill type ease v gunnery tree sp slogs). I suppose one could key the mod off of GMP 4 but then it would seem odd to have the then also boost "unguided" missiles. One could maybe do some hybrid skill requirement between the two missile skills that would roughly equate to having to train TA4, say like (without running the numbers and only for example purposes) TNP3 and GMP2 as a requirement for a mTC.
This of course brings up the sp investment disparity between TCs and TEs whether for missiles or gunnery and the advantage it could present due to racail slot and fitting propensities. But then there are always choices to be made. You fit a TE or mTE you lose a slot for a damage mod (or a tank mod on an armor tank), you fit a TC or mTC you lose a tackle slot (or a tanking slot on a shield tank). My guess is that shield tankers (being used to their drake tank risk aversion) will sacrifice a low slot damage mod before they sacrifice a mid tanking slot. That the damage nerf on HM is as proposed it may be some inducement to rethink it. It would be a no brainer to use a mTE over a mTC if there was no damage nerf on HM as so many are complaining about. And when talking about Drakes one cannot ignore the tanking advantage they have over other BCs.
That is why i didn't mention WU and AWU, those already affect all modules and have no bonus affecting guns only, it doesn't bother me that they are in the "gunnery" group as long as they affect all moduls and i don't need to train a similar skill for missles too. TA doesn't work this way as even if it would affect all moduls it has no inherent bonus for missles but does have one for guns, therefor not needed on missle toons, that is why i'm asking if there will be an adjustment made. I would be totally fine if for example GMP is removed and TA covers that bonus for missles, or if we get a mixed skill prerequesit like you mentioned.
Lili Lu wrote: On your second point -
I'm not sure to what you are referring when you say that CCP balancing is favoring a rof bonus over a damage bonus. Some examples might be needed to discuss that.
Edit - and thanks Rita. This is the kind of discusion that should be occuring itt, by page 128, and not the hyperbolic sky is falling that OT Smithers is still posting.
uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect. so the question if this is intended income nerv or ISK sink, if even a small one, still stands.
cu |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:07:00 -
[2603] - Quote
Rita May wrote:uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect.
5% ROF per level is better than 5% dmg per level. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:22:00 -
[2604] - Quote
I'll stop trolling the thread, stop enjoying the tears and give a serious feedback.
I don't know if any one has done this graph before, but here it is:
all medium size long range weapons with best ammo selected for specified range and 3 damage mods, assuming a big-non-moving target
[img]http://i.imgur.com/xAlKi.jpg[/img]
The graph has all the weapons in their non bonused state. Note that I assumed fury missiles are getting a slight buff (5%)
First of all: Do not be fooled by the appearent low performance of 720's on this graph. Minmatar ships usually come with 2 damage bonuses instead of 1 for other races, albeit for less turrets. All in all assume its performance as 15% higher puts it actually in line with other turrets.
Second: The current state of HML's actually outrageous. First 10-15km of this graph is actually not as good as it looks for the turrets....as they'll have big problems tracking stuff below 10k. HML's will keep functioning at that region without any problems. 10-20k is the only niche where long range medium guns perform slightly better than HML's. Though that range is actually dominated by short range guns in todays pvp. Post 25k it is HML's have a crazy superiority.
Third: With the new changes the HML's are still dominant beyond 25k, but not as much as today. Additionaly you get the chance to increase your range and your exp velocity throughuse of TC's TE's....but you sacrifice your immunity to TD's for that.
The nerf is crazy.....yes.....but the real crazy thing was how good the heavy missiles were up until now. It is no coincidence that they are the most used weapons system in the game. They were too good. This patch fixes it.
Oh and fozzie....if any amarrian loyalist comes and says a 10% optimal bonus on HBL's would just put it in line with other medium long rane turrets......punch him/her repeatedly in the face.....as I hate amarrians most when they make sense.+
[img]http://i.imgur.com/9tBED.png[/img] *720's normalized by +15%, HBL optimal increasd by 10%
Edit: How do I put images in my post? [img] didn't work |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:24:00 -
[2605] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Rita May wrote:uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect. 5% ROF per level is better than 5% dmg per level.
This, the overall small increase in isk/hr from bounties due to better bonus and better damage types would most likely cancel out the cost of more ammo used.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:29:00 -
[2606] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.
This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.
These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40. I agree, posting about flawed patch designs and horrible mechanics really attacks the devs... Keep up the good censorship mate.
You just can't be a **** about it. |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:31:00 -
[2607] - Quote
Deerin wrote: some good points and examples . . . Edit: How do I put images in my post? [img] didn't work I beleive you just copy past the web address into the text. It will hypertext it on it's own when you click the post button.
|
Javius Rong
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:40:00 -
[2608] - Quote
This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:51:00 -
[2609] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote: This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Well, Add ECM :)
But for DPS ships, and i am not saying they have great DPS, they are sending Caldari into the stone age. |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 16:51:00 -
[2610] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote: This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Alternately you could be solely focused on Gallente, and have what BC or BS for fleets?
Also, have you not been following the other threads in this subforum and noticing the frigate and cruiser rebalancing. BCs and BSs are going to be addressed once those are done. Prior to the OP announcement most of the complaint over the step by step approach was coming from those of us identifying the Drake as the biggest balancing problem. Welcome to the club of wishing they could move faster on all the rebalancing now.
Long and short of it is every pilot should have two races of ships it can fly. It insulates you from real or perceived over-nerf. It gives you options when your FC calls for different fleet comps. And it gives you experience with more than one weapon or tanking or ewar system, which gives you a better perspective on the game as a whole, which makes you a better poster on the forums. |
|
Skydell
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
293
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 17:11:00 -
[2611] - Quote
Lev Arturis wrote:Ocih wrote:Sleipnir 300 mill Damnation 180 mill Nighthawk 220 mill Eos 225 mill
T2 Nova on that Damnation with no damage mods (tank and e-war) has 118.2 dps in the launchers. It only has 62.5 km target ability so it won't make any difference to me if you nerf range but you really need to nerf the damage? If you force the Drakes to match optimals with their opposition you won't need to nerf damage on heavy missile. Why are comparing Field and Fleet Command ships? (you know apples & oranges...). Also a Damnation has a bonus to HAM and not to HM
Damnation has a HAM and HM bonus, the same as the Drake, the same as the Nighthawk. Those ships have a medium missile platform as their primary weapons platform. Nerfing the platform is a nerf to those ships as well as the drake, as well as the Tengu.
Ignore that though and go back to your tunnel vision perspective. It won't matter, they will nerf them anyway. |
Romvex
Universal Freelance CONSORTIUM UNIVERSALIS
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 17:25:00 -
[2612] - Quote
oooohh that TD buff. if god flew a ship it would be a pilgrim Gÿ+/ /Gûî /n++ \ This is Bob, post him into your forum sig and help him conquer the forums. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 17:27:00 -
[2613] - Quote
Skydell wrote:Lev Arturis wrote:Ocih wrote:Sleipnir 300 mill Damnation 180 mill Nighthawk 220 mill Eos 225 mill
T2 Nova on that Damnation with no damage mods (tank and e-war) has 118.2 dps in the launchers. It only has 62.5 km target ability so it won't make any difference to me if you nerf range but you really need to nerf the damage? If you force the Drakes to match optimals with their opposition you won't need to nerf damage on heavy missile. Why are comparing Field and Fleet Command ships? (you know apples & oranges...). Also a Damnation has a bonus to HAM and not to HM Damnation has a HAM and HM bonus, the same as the Drake, the same as the Nighthawk. Those ships have a medium missile platform as their primary weapons platform. Nerfing the platform is a nerf to those ships as well as the drake, as well as the Tengu. Ignore that though and go back to your tunnel vision perspective. It won't matter, they will nerf them anyway.
No, the nighthawk has 2 hml only blonuses, its getting way more of a hard time. Damnation is a fleet command ship, it isn't supposed to do damage anyway or they would have given it a damage bonus tbh (not that it would do any harm). Still all the t2 ships are still to be balanced anyway, its a moot point.
|
TradingTooth
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 17:28:00 -
[2614] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote: This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Actually... The Naga is a bit too good when compared to the Talos, probably not too good for it's own good when compared to other t3 bcs, but it feels wrong to have a sniping boat with the damage bonus of a blaster platform. All-round, caldari gun platforms are probably the best gun platforms in game atm
also: PLEASE PLEASE CCP DON'T LET THE ROOK BECOME A COLLATERAL VICTIM OF THIS NERF
The poor ship suffered enough through the years, it needs to keep the missile range and the tanking ability
SAVE THE ROOK |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 17:36:00 -
[2615] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote: This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Basi, rokh, scorp, falcon, rook, naga. Thats more worthwhile fleet ships than gallente have (arazu, lachesis, oneiros, proteus) and as many as amarr (zealot, abaddon, guardian, geddon, curse, oracle). So even assuming the change broke drake (it won't) and tengu (it def wont) even ignoring the fact they are still to rebalance bcs, bs and all t2/t3 ships you are only really worse off than winmatar (lol all of them). |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 17:38:00 -
[2616] - Quote
Seriously will there be a bad minmatar ship once the bellicose gets buffed? Hyena? |
TradingTooth
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 17:49:00 -
[2617] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Seriously will there be a bad minmatar ship once the bellicose gets buffed? Hyena?
Naglfar, Nidhoggur (ok, it has a very specific niche but is still ****), Hel, Ragnarok,
also, typhoon is probably the most useless battleship of all atm
Hyena is kind of broken like all eafs, it's the concept of a high priority role / target in a frigate hull that is the problem, they should be survivable in a similar way interceptors and faction frigs are survivable, but that is a whole different story |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 18:00:00 -
[2618] - Quote
TradingTooth wrote:[quote=Doddy] also, typhoon is probably the most useless battleship of all atm
can't follow you there. it may be very skill intensive as you need good skills in 3 different weapon systems but it isn't useless. actually its quite a beast.
|
Havoc Lamperouge
Scarlet...Widow
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 18:25:00 -
[2619] - Quote
All I have to say is here: http://overdrivetherevolution.blogspot.com.br/2012/09/the-capsuleer-essence-in-debate-or-give.html
Read if you will. Know its important. |
Havoc Lamperouge
Scarlet...Widow
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 18:26:00 -
[2620] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:TradingTooth wrote: also, typhoon is probably the most useless battleship of all atm
can't follow you there. it may be very skill intensive as you need good skills in 3 different weapon systems but it isn't useless. actually its quite a beast.
One must fully agree or risk to be considered an ignorant. |
|
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 18:35:00 -
[2621] - Quote
No ships or mods need nerfed, just a lazy way to CCP to handle people whinning. No ship is that much over tanks to any other. This is getting old. Improve frigates so assault frigatees aren't so over powered to the rest, fix the ASB, and then leave the rest alone and make some new ships, ont nerfing. Sad, just sad.... |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 18:40:00 -
[2622] - Quote
Deerin wrote:I'll stop trolling the thread, stop enjoying the tears and give a serious feedback. I don't know if any one has done this graph before, but here it is: all medium size long range weapons with best ammo selected for specified range and 3 damage mods, assuming a big-non-moving target http://i.imgur.com/xAlKi.jpgThe graph has all the weapons in their non bonused state. Note that I assumed fury missiles are getting a slight buff (5%) First of all: Do not be fooled by the appearent low performance of 720's on this graph. Minmatar ships usually come with 2 damage bonuses instead of 1 for other races, albeit for less turrets. All in all assume its performance as 15% higher puts it actually in line with other turrets. Second: The current state of HML's actually outrageous. First 10-15km of this graph is actually not as good as it looks for the turrets....as they'll have big problems tracking stuff below 10k. HML's will keep functioning at that region without any problems. 10-20k is the only niche where long range medium guns perform slightly better than HML's. Though that range is actually dominated by short range guns in todays pvp. Post 25k it is HML's have a crazy superiority. Third: With the new changes the HML's are still dominant beyond 25k, but not as much as today. Additionaly you get the chance to increase your range and your exp velocity throughuse of TC's TE's....but you sacrifice your immunity to TD's for that. The nerf is crazy.....yes.....but the real crazy thing was how good the heavy missiles were up until now. It is no coincidence that they are the most used weapons system in the game. They were too good. This patch fixes it. Oh and fozzie....if any amarrian loyalist comes and says a 10% optimal bonus on HBL's would just put it in line with other medium long rane turrets......punch him/her repeatedly in the face.....as I hate amarrians most when they make sense.+ http://i.imgur.com/9tBED.png*720's normalized by +15%, HBL optimal increasd by 10% Edit: How do I put images in my post? [img] didn't work
Apologies for the block quote, but please consider that heavy missiles are commonly used as a secondary weapon system or supplementary damage. A lot of ships have spare highslots with missile hardpoints, and nerfing the base damage of heavy missiles makes them into a poor secondary weapon system indeed. Although heavy missiles ARE out of line with other weapon systems, I feel a more appropriate solution is to not give them damage bonuses on ships that use them primarily (or only a single damage bonus).
An analog to this is the way lasers work - lasers have better base damage and range than other weapon systems, so you're going to see +cap instead of +damage on ships that use them. In the case of battlecruisers, the Harbinger has a single damage bonus where the Hurricane has a double bonus.
EDIT: It's akin to saying "The Myrmidon and Dominix do too much damage, let's cut base drone damage by 20% across the board" rather than fixing the bonuses on the offending ships. Too much collateral damage. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 18:48:00 -
[2623] - Quote
That has to be the most obnoxious, elitist and frankly bad blog post i have EVER seen.
You want complexity for the sake of complexity to keep the unworthy out and so that you can feel proud of your ability to remember stupid names. The worth of a player is really not measured in his ability to jump through a bunch of stupid hoops in order to learn something that could be way simpler without affecting the core gameplay. Eve will never be a simple game, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with making it as easy to learn as possible.
You don't want anything to change, you want imbalance for the sake of imbalance as well..
I really can't believe i wasted my time looking over that terrible excuse for a blog, i really really hope you don't have a large following
PS: you could have fixed the first graph with switching the X with the Y instead of making a new really bad one ^^ |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
222
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 19:05:00 -
[2624] - Quote
TradingTooth wrote:Doddy wrote:Seriously will there be a bad minmatar ship once the bellicose gets buffed? Hyena? Naglfar, Nidhoggur (ok, it has a very specific niche but is still ****), Hel, Ragnarok, also, typhoon is probably the most useless battleship of all atm Hyena is kind of broken like all eafs, it's the concept of a high priority role / target in a frigate hull that is the problem, they should be survivable in a similar way interceptors and faction frigs are survivable, but that is a whole different story
typhoon is kinda amazing tbh. I'll give you the caps though, forgot about them since my minmatar char never bothered training caps, which says it all really. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 19:21:00 -
[2625] - Quote
Doddy wrote:TradingTooth wrote:Doddy wrote:Seriously will there be a bad minmatar ship once the bellicose gets buffed? Hyena? Naglfar, Nidhoggur (ok, it has a very specific niche but is still ****), Hel, Ragnarok, also, typhoon is probably the most useless battleship of all atm Hyena is kind of broken like all eafs, it's the concept of a high priority role / target in a frigate hull that is the problem, they should be survivable in a similar way interceptors and faction frigs are survivable, but that is a whole different story typhoon is kinda amazing tbh. I'll give you the caps though, forgot about them since my minmatar char never bothered training caps, which says it all really.
The Naglfar was actually very good for a brief time a few years back. CCP gave it extra CPU and a midslot, and changed its bonuses, but they changed it again shortly afterward and it became terrible again. |
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 19:31:00 -
[2626] - Quote
My biggest concern in all of this is that the viability of solo exploration in low / null will be seriously affected. While I agree that heavy missiles are currently overpowered, the fact that post patch I won't be able to get past 560 DPS with CN faction missiles, CN faction launchers and 4 CN faction launchers on Tengu is for me a rather serious problem. I live by exploring, and I've found the current breakpoint for efficiency is around 600 DPS. Below that I end up getting probed out and killed before I'm done with whatever it is I'm doing. |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 19:39:00 -
[2627] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Rita May wrote:uh, sorry, i'm not sure which thread i read this, but if i recall correctly there is the idea of changing the kin bonuses on caldari ships to a rof bonus - which i see as a good thing because it allows them to use all their availiable missle types - but still, it could have been replaced with a dmg bonus instead to the same effect. 5% ROF per level is better than 5% dmg per level. This, the overall small increase in isk/hr from bounties due to better bonus and better damage types would most likely cancel out the cost of more ammo used. ok, didn't take that in account, you're probably right there
cu |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
469
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 20:02:00 -
[2628] - Quote
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:My biggest concern in all of this is that the viability of solo exploration in low / null will be seriously affected. While I agree that heavy missiles are currently overpowered, the fact that post patch I won't be able to get past 560 DPS with CN faction missiles, CN faction launchers and 4 CN faction launchers on Tengu is for me a rather serious problem. I live by exploring, and I've found the current breakpoint for efficiency is around 600 DPS. Below that I end up getting probed out and killed before I'm done with whatever it is I'm doing.
That's still better than what the other T3 are capable of at HML ranges. The Tengu will either be adjusted downwards (it currently gets a +100% dps bonus, the others get between +50% and +66% ) or the other T3 will be brought up to the same level. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 20:09:00 -
[2629] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Deerin wrote:I'll stop trolling the thread, stop enjoying the tears and give a serious feedback. I don't know if any one has done this graph before, but here it is: all medium size long range weapons with best ammo selected for specified range and 3 damage mods, assuming a big-non-moving target http://i.imgur.com/xAlKi.jpgThe graph has all the weapons in their non bonused state. Note that I assumed fury missiles are getting a slight buff (5%) First of all: Do not be fooled by the appearent low performance of 720's on this graph. Minmatar ships usually come with 2 damage bonuses instead of 1 for other races, albeit for less turrets. All in all assume its performance as 15% higher puts it actually in line with other turrets. Second: The current state of HML's actually outrageous. First 10-15km of this graph is actually not as good as it looks for the turrets....as they'll have big problems tracking stuff below 10k. HML's will keep functioning at that region without any problems. 10-20k is the only niche where long range medium guns perform slightly better than HML's. Though that range is actually dominated by short range guns in todays pvp. Post 25k it is HML's have a crazy superiority. Third: With the new changes the HML's are still dominant beyond 25k, but not as much as today. Additionaly you get the chance to increase your range and your exp velocity throughuse of TC's TE's....but you sacrifice your immunity to TD's for that. The nerf is crazy.....yes.....but the real crazy thing was how good the heavy missiles were up until now. It is no coincidence that they are the most used weapons system in the game. They were too good. This patch fixes it. Oh and fozzie....if any amarrian loyalist comes and says a 10% optimal bonus on HBL's would just put it in line with other medium long rane turrets......punch him/her repeatedly in the face.....as I hate amarrians most when they make sense.+ http://i.imgur.com/9tBED.png*720's normalized by +15%, HBL optimal increasd by 10% Edit: How do I put images in my post? [img] didn't work Apologies for the block quote, but please consider that heavy missiles are commonly used as a secondary weapon system or supplementary damage. A lot of ships have spare highslots with missile hardpoints, and nerfing the base damage of heavy missiles makes them into a poor secondary weapon system indeed. Although heavy missiles ARE out of line with other weapon systems, I feel a more appropriate solution is to not give them damage bonuses on ships that use them primarily (or only a single damage bonus). An analog to this is the way lasers work - lasers have better base damage and range than other weapon systems, so you're going to see +cap instead of +damage on ships that use them. In the case of battlecruisers, the Harbinger has a single damage bonus where the Hurricane has a double bonus. EDIT: It's akin to saying "The Myrmidon and Dominix do too much damage, let's cut base drone damage by 20% across the board" rather than fixing the bonuses on the offending ships. Too much collateral damage. I disagree. Fozzie makes a good point, you cant balance around an unbalanced weapon platform.
Think back to the days of 90% webs, and before the matari buff. Blasters were incredibly overpowered. they would catch up to you, hold on to you and beat you until you died, but the only ones that were really ever used were the thorax and the megathron because they were SO much better than any of the other ships.
What if they decided "instead of nerfing blasters, lets just nerf the megathron and the thorax"? That wouldnt have changed the fact that blasters would have been totally overpowered, and everyone would have just moved to the next best blaster ship (probably the dominix and the myrm)
The only problem with what they did to blasters was that they over-nerfed the blasters and forgot to buff all the other ships to compensate. |
Javius Rong
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 21:10:00 -
[2630] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Javius Rong wrote: This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Basi, rokh, scorp, falcon, rook, naga. Thats more worthwhile fleet ships than gallente have (arazu, lachesis, oneiros, proteus) and as many as amarr (zealot, abaddon, guardian, geddon, curse, oracle). So even assuming the change broke drake (it won't) and tengu (it def wont) even ignoring the fact they are still to rebalance bcs, bs and all t2/t3 ships you are only really worse off than winmatar (lol all of them).
I am not against rebalancing. The issue I have is they are rebalancing a major weapons platforms before addressing any of the effected ship platforms. This is out of order!! the HM changes effects Drakes, Tengus and Rooks is major ways and essentially diminishing their value to the player while those ships will not be addressed for 1 to 2 to 3 patches at least later.
I would rather see the HM changes delayed till they deal with the ships that are effected and rebalance medium hybrids (blaster and rails) way before this as that would make both Gallente and Caldair gun boats viable vs. Minmatar (winmatar as it is now).
As for viable ships... Caldari have E-war... would be really nice to be able to kill something in a Scorpion or Falcon. Their DPS sucks. Naga are ok for sniping, but IMO Tornados with their speeds, maneuverabilty and alpha out shine them, the the Blaster Talos and Pulse Oracle do WTFBBQ damage compare to the Naga at close range.
Where is the associate change to HAMs to help out close range missile boats?
|
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 21:40:00 -
[2631] - Quote
How about this, instead of nerfing heavy missiles, we instead nerf the drake and tengu.
Ok, so,
Remove the kinetic bonuses from the drake and tengu - accelerated ejection bay.
This is a 25% damage nerf to the drake, and the tengu module.
With all skill lvl 5(no other modules but 2 hmls), this takes the drake from 271 dps to 217 dps with fury ammo, and brings back damage selection instead of one damage fits all.
Now, a tengu fitted with 6 launchers(no other modules) and an accelerated ejection bay at all skills lvl 5 with go from 366dps with fury to 293. This will also implement damage selection as well instead of pure kinetic. By the way, this would be the highest possible missile dps on a tengu without fitting dps mods.
Now, take the drake and reduce its max targetting range to 55km. This means the drake will still be capable of those long ranges, but in order to be able to fit for range, it would have to sacrifice tank, utility, or velocity mods.
With the tengu you can reduce the targetting range of the electronics sub systems to reduce its targetting range.
With both ships that means that in order to get long range they have to sacrifice something.
I feel this may be a better balancing design than just straight up nerfing the hell out of heavy missiles.
Now, I have a question.
Quote:Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity
Does this apply to cruise missiles as well?
Currently cruise missiles have enough problems hitting small targets. They don't have the damage of torps or but have almost the same exp radius of torps.
Currently it takes 2 P.W.N.A.G.E. target painters in order for fury cruise missiles to out dps precision cruise missiles against a battleship. However, you'll need at least one more target painter if you want fury to apply max potential against a battleship. Granted, that's without rigor rigs, but not many of the missile boats can fit those because they need to dedicate rigs to something else.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
222
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 21:56:00 -
[2632] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote:Doddy wrote:Javius Rong wrote: This is a really bad nerf to Caldari with out addressing the Drake and Tengu and the lack of other ships for Caldari pilots to fly. There are no other suitable ships right now other than the Rokh for fleets. This IMO is a really bad choice of in order of rebalance and essentially will kill missile boats. HML need a tweak if you going to nerf HM and BCs, HaCs and Recons and Hybrids need adjustments. Right now you just made the Drake obsolete and Caldair pilots have two ships of use, Basi and Rokhs.
Basi, rokh, scorp, falcon, rook, naga. Thats more worthwhile fleet ships than gallente have (arazu, lachesis, oneiros, proteus) and as many as amarr (zealot, abaddon, guardian, geddon, curse, oracle). So even assuming the change broke drake (it won't) and tengu (it def wont) even ignoring the fact they are still to rebalance bcs, bs and all t2/t3 ships you are only really worse off than winmatar (lol all of them). I am not against rebalancing. The issue I have is they are rebalancing a major weapons platforms before addressing any of the effected ship platforms. This is out of order!! the HM changes effects Drakes, Tengus and Rooks is major ways and essentially diminishing their value to the player while those ships will not be addressed for 1 to 2 to 3 patches at least later. I would rather see the HM changes delayed till they deal with the ships that are effected and rebalance medium hybrids (blaster and rails) way before this as that would make both Gallente and Caldair gun boats viable vs. Minmatar (winmatar as it is now). As for viable ships... Caldari have E-war... would be really nice to be able to kill something in a Scorpion or Falcon. Their DPS sucks. Naga are ok for sniping, but IMO Tornados with their speeds, maneuverabilty and alpha out shine them, the the Blaster Talos and Pulse Oracle do WTFBBQ damage compare to the Naga at close range. Where is the associate change to HAMs to help out close range missile boats?
Naga does the same dps as talos minus 5 light drones, oracle does considerably less. Naga isn't that mush slower/less agile than a tornado either and has way more dps sniping, the only real advantage nado has is akpha.
Close range missile boats are already powerful, just nobody uses them because you can do 90% the damage and have full range coverage taking hmls. As it is giving them faster flight and removing t2 missile drawbacks and increasing rage damage and allowing them to be buffed by tracking mods is actually quite a big buff.....how much you want? |
Lili Lu
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 22:03:00 -
[2633] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote: I am not against rebalancing. The issue I have is they are rebalancing a major weapons platforms before addressing any of the effected ship platforms. This is out of order!! the HM changes effects Drakes, Tengus and Rooks is major ways and essentially diminishing their value to the player while those ships will not be addressed for 1 to 2 to 3 patches at least later.
I would rather see the HM changes delayed till they deal with the ships that are effected and rebalance medium hybrids (blaster and rails) way before this as that would make both Gallente and Caldair gun boats viable vs. Minmatar (winmatar as it is now).
As for viable ships... Caldari have E-war... would be really nice to be able to kill something in a Scorpion or Falcon. Their DPS sucks. Naga are ok for sniping, but IMO Tornados with their speeds, maneuverabilty and alpha out shine them, the the Blaster Talos and Pulse Oracle do WTFBBQ damage compare to the Naga at close range.
Where is the associate change to HAMs to help out close range missile boats? From the OP
"Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly"
Javelin HAMs are no longer penalized, and Rage is getting a buff. So you see there is already some buff to HAMs that will be entering the game. We just don't know yet the numbers. If they weren't reducing the range on Rage they would possibly become op with increased damage plus TE and TC range effects. One will have to see how a TE'd or TC'd HAM boat's range with faction HAMs will affect combat.
As for killing something in an ecm boat. None of the other races presently have an ewar BS. That could change when BSs are rebalanced, who knows. But regardless, the role of an ewar ship is ewar. If it was a powerful combat ship as well why would anyone fly anything else.
The only ewar ships that really have a good combat bonus is the Amarr recons imo. Presently Curses are not proliferating so there does not seem to be a problem there. The Pilgrim is hampered by lack of a range bonus on Neuts. It used to be borderline op when nosferatu would not only suck dry another ship's cap but also keep adding to pilgrim's as well. It was a real brown underpants moment if a Pilgrim decloaked right next to you. Both are limited to 5 medium bonused tech two drones for damage. Good, but hardly op. And if your prey is fitting a cap booster, a rather common mod on pvp ships for other reasons not just to combat neuts, it will not be instantly cap disabled.
CCP has stated repeatedly it doesn't want solo pwnmobiles in the game. To instantly disable your prey's ability to lock, when almost any combat action in this game requires a lock, is very powerful. So, anyway I doubt the Falcon and Rook will be getting any damage buffs.
And, the tech I ewar ships are basically going to be using any offensive capability to try to shake a tackling frig or kill drones. The role is ewar, not combat. So focusing on providing ewar support and self-defensive capability is what the ships are there for. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4811
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 22:19:00 -
[2634] - Quote
TradingTooth wrote:also, typhoon is probably the most useless battleship of all atm
it's not, that's the Hyperion
the Typhoon owns please leave |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1350
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 22:22:00 -
[2635] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Perhaps they should just nerf goons. Then maybe drake blobs won't exist. I have been from one side of this galaxy to the other. And everywhere I go the one ship that gives the best bang for you money is the Drake. It is capable of fitting to almost anything you need. Swiss army knife of ships. The fact that Goons use it is irrelevant. The Drake is used everywhere.
Once CCP get around to balancing battlecruisers I am sure the Drake will be nerfed and other battlecruisers buffed. There simply should not be a ship that does it all. Just because the Drake uses heavy missiles exclusivly does not me the nerf to heavy missiles was only intended to nerf the Drake.
The key thing we all can do is help CCP with testing and testing and feedback and more feedback. Yes I know things have happened in the past where CCP ignored the feedback and still pushed it through to TQ *cough* inventory system *cough*, but we can't just dwell on the forever.
Every ship shoudl have a reason to get in it over another and it should never EVER be a do all ship. It should have strengths and it should have weaknesses. Same thing goes for the weapon systems we use. The heavy missile launcher (after being on a ship fully fit) is simply too good. It has to be brought down a few notches and other medium range weapon systems might need to be brought up a few notches (/waves at medium railguns) to provide a dynamic system of choices with pros and cons for various applications. Want that good damage at long range? Well something must suffer. Will it be tank, speed or something else?
I know some of you define a ship or weapon system as 'fun' because it can do almost anything. If all the other ships were buffed so much that they fall into that category then where is the adventure in deciding what ship to fly?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 22:48:00 -
[2636] - Quote
Deerin wrote:I'll stop trolling the thread, stop enjoying the tears and give a serious feedback.
I don't know if any one has done this graph before, but here it is:
Shouldn't the HML damage be a straight line? I'm not getting why you get the dip at the end. SO to be the race "specialising" in long range combat Caldari need to go to rails? yuck
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 22:54:00 -
[2637] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Deerin wrote:I'll stop trolling the thread, stop enjoying the tears and give a serious feedback.
I don't know if any one has done this graph before, but here it is:
Shouldn't the HML damage be a straight line? I'm not getting why you get the dip at the end. SO to be the race "specialising" in long range combat Caldari need to go to rails? yuck
Can't say for certain...but probably taking into account that while being at max range, some of the missiles will probably run out of gas before it hits if target is transversing. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
51
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 23:03:00 -
[2638] - Quote
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:My biggest concern in all of this is that the viability of solo exploration in low / null will be seriously affected. While I agree that heavy missiles are currently overpowered, the fact that post patch I won't be able to get past 560 DPS with CN faction missiles, CN faction launchers and 4 CN faction launchers on Tengu is for me a rather serious problem. I live by exploring, and I've found the current breakpoint for efficiency is around 600 DPS. Below that I end up getting probed out and killed before I'm done with whatever it is I'm doing.
try to build a t3 from the other 3 races which can do exactly the same as your tengu, considering tank, damage (dps, range and projection) before and after the proposed changes. you will notice that until now you lived in a land where milk and honey flow freely. these are cruisers.... at some point one really needs to step back a bit and gain some perspective.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 23:10:00 -
[2639] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Gabrielle Lamb wrote:My biggest concern in all of this is that the viability of solo exploration in low / null will be seriously affected. While I agree that heavy missiles are currently overpowered, the fact that post patch I won't be able to get past 560 DPS with CN faction missiles, CN faction launchers and 4 CN faction launchers on Tengu is for me a rather serious problem. I live by exploring, and I've found the current breakpoint for efficiency is around 600 DPS. Below that I end up getting probed out and killed before I'm done with whatever it is I'm doing. try to build a t3 from the other 3 races which can do exactly the same as your tengu, considering tank, damage (dps, range and projection) before and after the proposed changes. you will notice that until now you lived in a land where milk and honey flow freely. these are cruisers.... at some point one really needs to step back a bit and gain some perspective.
You could make that argument...or make the argument that I can get a better shield tank on a proteus with better tracking than I can armor tanking it....then you tell me what the real problem is. |
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
131
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 23:38:00 -
[2640] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:Fowler wrote:I'm curious what will happen to the Nighthawk and Cerberus after theese changes to missiles and especially heavy missiles.
Seems the Nighthawk gets a smack in the face it doesn't deserve. Rook, Cal Navy Caracal, Nighthawk, Cerberus, all basically screwed. why is it guns get damage bonuses, and missiles get rate of fire?guns deal isntant damage, missiles have flight time delay to get to target, now there is no longer any compensation for that, and the ROF as opposed to the damage bonuses make it even less likey the bonused DPS for missiles has an actual effect on thre engagement.They basicall took an entire race and made in non viable. Noone ever uses ravens, cause cruise missiles are ****, now heavies are ****, i mean, other than the frigates, what caldari ships are worth a damn anymore? it's going to become a dea line, a dead race. The supposed "buff" to rails never did result in their re-emergence on the battlefield. EvE is becoming a 3 race game, Caldari is officially dead. Whats the actual DPS , maxed out, per cruiser? Caracal is on the bottom, as always.Add in drones and it's a total joke.I'm real close to being done with this... Have you looked at the new stats before posting this or is this just another the sky if falling comment. Fit a Caracal with HAMS and see where it fit in with the damage stack. If you want to argue that HAMS and HM need to have there PG/CPU swapped I would agree completely. how is ,making missile boats use HAMS, which brings them within everyone else gun range, not screwing them?Guns deal instant damage, missiles do not. They not longer get anything to compensate for that.They now have all the same drawbacks as guns, and more...
|
|
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 00:01:00 -
[2641] - Quote
HAMs could need some attention too
While I don't mind the nerf to HMs. I am not so sure that HAMs are balanced enough to take over as a working hard hitting option. To explain this I had to use some math, it was the only way I could give a good enough argument. (Hopefully I haven't done any calculation errors, or errors with the formulas, I have triple checked everything, but mistakes can still happen).
Firstly. HAMs are a cruiser sized weapon platform, assumingly balanced to be used by cruisers to kill cruisers. Cruisers tend to be fairly fast moving ships, the new Caracal will have 225m/s base speed, which becomes 281m/s with all skills at 5. Cruiser weapons must be able to cope with at least moderate target speeds to be effective.
Currently, with all skills at V, HAM T1 and Navy missiles have: Explosion radius = 125m, Explosion velocity = 151.5m/s and Drf 4.5 (values from EFT).
To figure out the targets required velocity to begin speed tanking missiles this formula will be used: Vstartspeedtanking = max (Ve * (S/E)^( (k-1)/k ), Ve * S/E) k=ln(drf)/ln(5.5) Ve = missile explosion velocity E = missile explosion radius S = target signature radius This formula calculates two values and then picks the largest. The first value is where speed becomes more important for damage reduction than the target size. The second value is where the speed is high enough to drop the damage below the max possible damage. For small targets the first value will be highest, for large targets the second value will be highest.
To find the targets speed where the missile damage is down to half, the following formula will be used: Vhalfdmg = Vstartspeedtanking * 2^k And to find the speed where the missile damage is down to one quarter, this one: Vquarterdmg = Vstartspeedtanking * 4^k
Against a target of 125m sig radius size (typical cruiser size, turrets use this value too, the target is big enough to take maximum damage if it is moving slow) the values become as follows: Vstartspeedtanking = 151,5m/s Vhalfdmg = 332,4m/s Vquarterdmg = 729,1m/s I was very surprised by this. 332 m/s is not far from the base speed of a cruiser (without speed modules or AB, MWD speed boosts don't normally help when tanking missiles due to the sig bloom). Just the base speed of a cruiser can almost cut the damage in half. That is just horrible.
Just as a point of reference I will show the values for Heavy Missiles too. Again, the target is 125m big and all skills are at 5, then T1/Navy missile attributes are: Explosion radius = 93.75m, Explosion velocity = 121.5m/s, Drf = 3.2. Vstartspeedtanking = 162m/s Vhalfdmg = 447,4m/s Vquarterdmg = 1235,7m/s It's easy to see that HMs are better at handling "fast" targets.
Based on these numbers, assuming they are correct, HAMs will have serious issues against the speeds of cruiser sized targets. |
Soldarius
TreadStone Standard Tribal Band
286
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 00:05:00 -
[2642] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium, you compared Auto-cannons to heavy missiles to get your point of comparison. The problem is not that heavies are so good (not saying they aren't), but that all missiles do flat dps no matter the range. You can't fix this by nerfing heavy missile range.
The range on heavies is fine. It matches the locking range of the intended ships.
The dps on heavy missiles on a Drake w/all level 5 skills and Scourge Fury is 491 dps. This is in line with other comparable systems. The same pilot flying a HAM Drake will get 658 dps. This is actually a bit higher than a 425mm AC Hurricane, or a Vagabond.
Also, if you reduce the range on heavies, you will be hurting every heavy missile platform in the game, not just the Drake. God knows, the Cerberus and Caracal don't need a nerf.
I have been flying nothing but missile boats since I started. If you want to fix missiles, increase the range on HAMs. Make defenders do something useful. Boost FoF missile dps and fix their targeting, because they are useless.
HML range on a Drake using T2 Fury ammo is almost exactly its max locking range. I don't see the problem. There are lots of ships out there that can compete with the Drake. Pilots and FCs just need to know how to pvp and move about the battlefield.
If your real intention is to nerf the drake missile range capabilities, reduce its locking range. If pilots want that extra range, they will have to sacrifice for a sebo.
And I have never heard someone compare HMLs to any other close range weapon system. The reason HAMs don't see much use is their range sucks balls.
Only the Tengu needs a range nerf. 120km range makes it better than any other HML ship out there except the Cerberus, which is made of cardboard and twine.
Oh, and here is the obligatory DON'T TOUCH MAH MISSAILES! rage "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Lili Lu
466
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 00:42:00 -
[2643] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:stuff already posted many times in this thread It appears you have not read Fozzie's OP or his followup posts thoroughly. Otherwise you would recognize that you are making the very error he was exposing in any comparison of HML drakes with other BCs. Also, there have been mulitple posts addressing the more relevant comparison between HMs and long range medium turrets.
Please recognize that a 130 page thread is likely to have a lot of information and viewpoints in it. It helps everyone if you at least read the OP and comprehend it, and try to read the rest of the thread. I've read every post in this thread over the last few days, and can tell you your post has been stated almost verbatim in many ways already, and it has been refuted many times as well. |
Possum's Awesome
Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 00:52:00 -
[2644] - Quote
wait... why exactly did the 'cane need to be nerfed? |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 00:58:00 -
[2645] - Quote
Possum's Awesome wrote:wait... why exactly did the 'cane need to be nerfed?
My guess is that since they buff cruisers and nerf some BCs, they are closing the gap. They did not like that the cane could fit medium neuts because that could hurt cruisers.
Else, i dont know..... |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 01:02:00 -
[2646] - Quote
Cane had ridiculous fitting, try to even fit a medium neut and highest tier guns on another battlecruiser, let alone have two at once with grid to spare. |
Lili Lu
467
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 01:06:00 -
[2647] - Quote
Possum's Awesome wrote:wait... why exactly did the 'cane need to be nerfed? Maybe because in a close fight 425 ac II and dual medium neuts are crowding out the field in a similar manner to Drakes at pretty much all ranges over 20km.
Also, possibly, because any prior player created thread pointing out Drake over-use and calling for a nerf, would invariably be met not just with vociferous denials of Drake advantages, but also with deflecting calls for a nerf on Hurricanes. Canes were also for many months ranking second or third on the eve-kill usage stats and medium autocannons as well (of course behind the far and away champions of usage, the Drake and HMLs).
Actually, there has not been much discussion of the Cane use itt thread for many pages. Another indication of the extent of Drake affliction and addiction in the game atm. But yes, one who heavily uses the ship subject to the nerf could just as easily be shocked at the extent of the Cane nerf (a nerf directly to the ship) as to the nerf coming to HMs and indirectly to the Drake. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 01:19:00 -
[2648] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: The dps on heavy missiles on a Drake w/all level 5 skills and Scourge Fury is 491 dps. This is in line with other comparable systems. The same pilot flying a HAM Drake will get 658 dps. This is actually a bit higher than a 425mm AC Hurricane, or a Vagabond.
Most HAM drakes i fly against have 592dps and a range of ~15km all level 5. The 220mm armour cane (soon to be nerfed) has 677dps and an optimal of 1.4km (~10km with falloff) all level 5
HM drake with same BCS has 495dps and a range ~70km all level 5 . An arti cane has 376dps and an optimal of 55km (~90 with falloff)
The DPS of heavies at such long range is a bit much. appreciating that other races arent meant to be able to compete at such extreme ranges, the cane example suggests it will only be doing something like 300dps at the same range. its a big gap, a massive gap compared to the differences in DPS for short range weaponry.
Also, the artie cane here has less than half the tank of the drake because long range turrets use far more CPU and grid compared to short range turrets. Something that is much less of an issue between HM's and HAMs.
Its a similar story for railguns.
The proposed changes will bring heavy missiles more in line with other long range weapons rather than having them completely dominate the field.
or they could make HM's require almost twice the grid of HAMs. that might also work :P |
Soldarius
TreadStone Standard Tribal Band
286
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 01:22:00 -
[2649] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Soldarius wrote:stuff already posted many times in this thread It appears you have not read Fozzie's OP or his followup posts thoroughly. Otherwise you would recognize that you are making the very error he was exposing in any comparison of HML drakes with other BCs. Also, there have been mulitple posts addressing the more relevant comparison between HMs and long range medium turrets. Please recognize that a 130 page thread is likely to have a lot of information and viewpoints in it. It helps everyone if you at least read the OP and comprehend it, and try to read the rest of the thread. I've read every post in this thread over the last few days, and can tell you your post has been stated almost verbatim in many ways already, and it has been refuted many times as well.
I only found this thread about an hour ago, and I'm at work. So I am very sorry if this offends your finer sensibilities.
Back under your bridge, troll. "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Lili Lu
467
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 01:37:00 -
[2650] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: I only found this thread about an hour ago, and I'm at work. So I am very sorry if this offends your finer sensibilities.
Back under your bridge, troll. You double posted btw. And you, like so many people on these forums, don't know what a troll is. Basically they, like you, use that name calling as a retort for any response they don't like.
But thank you for admitting you have not read the op carefully nor anough of the thread which follows it. |
|
m3talc0re X
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 01:38:00 -
[2651] - Quote
I admit first off that I quit reading at the end of page one...
That said, I think this is bulls***... So TE's and TC's are going to affect missiles now, how so? Will they assume the role of what rigors/flares are doing or are missile ships (specifically cruise using ships) going to have to fit even more **** on them now to "fix" their missiles?
Guns you need to dedicate one or two mids or lows for damage application (te's/tc's). With missiles as of right now for cruise missiles, you have to dedicate a mid for a tp, and 2 or all of your rig slots for damage application (rigors/flares). Torps? Lols. On a Golem, if you're not using 3 tp's, gtfo here, and your rigs are dedicated to damage applicate still (for range). Could use cruise missiles on a Golem, but, what's that? Oh, Golem doesn't get the rof bonus from the Raven hull so they're pretty sh***y. Imo, Golem has to be the worst marauder of the bunch simply because of this. It's a good ship for Angel Extravaganza, but that's about it.
On a side note that pisses me off: (don't care if it belongs here or not) Golem being forced into using Torps Vargur being forced into using AC's (good luck fitting arties) |
Soldarius
TreadStone Standard Tribal Band
286
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 01:45:00 -
[2652] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Soldarius wrote:stuff already posted many times in this thread It appears you have not read Fozzie's OP or his followup posts thoroughly. Otherwise you would recognize that you are making the very error he was exposing in any comparison of HML drakes with other BCs. Also, there have been mulitple posts addressing the more relevant comparison between HMs and long range medium turrets. Please recognize that a 130 page thread is likely to have a lot of information and viewpoints in it. It helps everyone if you at least read the OP and comprehend it, and try to read the rest of the thread. I've read every post in this thread over the last few days, and can tell you your post has been stated almost verbatim in many ways already, and it has been refuted many times as well.
I am entitled to post my opinion in this thread because a CCP dev asked for it. So go about telling people they can't post here. The more folsk that give their opinion the better. If I didn't post simply because someone else already said it, then CCP would not give as much weight to the position as it might otherwise deserve. My comparisons are perfectly relevant. So back under your bridge, troll. "How do you kill that which has no life?" |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 02:04:00 -
[2653] - Quote
I'm not sure if this idea has been brought up, at least I don't remember reading it.
Would an alternative be to have two missile types for heavy launchers? Similar to the alternative ammunition in turrets. Then you could have a low damage long range missile, and a shorter range higher damage missile. Maybe keep the same range as now but with the 20% damage reduction, the short range missile with half the range of current heavies but damage at current damage? Maybe give HAMs a bit of work to differentiate them from heavies.
Just throwing it out there. |
Ked Yatzs
The Chodak Void Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 02:08:00 -
[2654] - Quote
Missiles were already nerf-bats relative to turrets, I don't see how this changes that. Think about a mission for a sec. Raise your hand if you have given an elite NPC frigate a head-shot with T2 large guns? Now raise your hands if you've given a head-shot to to an elite NPC frigate with a cruise missile or torpedo volley?
More hands raised on the guns?
The game mechanics already favor the ability of guns to apply damage better than missiles, so what's really going on here?
|
Lili Lu
468
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 02:10:00 -
[2655] - Quote
m3talc0re X,
Wow, yeah, you haven't read enough to make a useful post. And, much of what you post is not relevant to this thread. And, the OP has already stated that this is not an issue subject to a vote. It is subject to reasoned feedback. Maybe you can contribute some of that at a later time.
Although even in some reflexive emotional replies sometimes there is something I can agree with. For me that is your upset with certain ships being straightjacketed into only fitting a single weapon system out of the multiple alternatives they might otherwise be able to use. Your ac - only vargur example being valid. For me a similar peeve is forcing most/all Gallente ships to be blaster boats and not have decent rail options (see new catalyst). I don't think however, that the proposed changes are forcing any particular fit on the Drake or Tengu.
Anyway, it seems the game was already affecting your blood pressure prior to this thread. Maybe you need to reevaluate your recreational activiities.
edit - and Soldarius, I'm camping this thread firmly on the surface to call out emo posters like you without living under it. That is not a troll. You can call me names, but it does not make your post any more helpful to the discussion. Call me a frustrated moderator wanabe, which may be more accurate. That's been done already, and I lived through it. But, you are doing exactly what was asked of you not to do in the OP, i.e. not reading closely, not reading extensively, and not to treat this thread as some kind of a vote, but instead just angry posting. |
Lili Lu
469
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 02:26:00 -
[2656] - Quote
Ked Yatzs wrote: Think about a mission for a sec. Raise your hand if you have given an elite NPC frigate a head-shot with T2 large guns? Now raise your hands if you've given a head-shot to to an elite NPC frigate with a cruise missile or torpedo volley?
The game mechanics already favor the ability of guns to apply damage better than missiles, so what's really going on here? And yet far and away most pve activity is and always has been run with missile boats. When I first started this game it was Ravens. That shifted over time to Drakes and Tengus, especially when wormholes were introduced. A whole pve environment it seems constructed specially for long range missile use and definitely not drone use or closer range active armor tanking.
I've run missions in missile boats, gun boats, and drone boats. True with gun and drone boats one prefers to blap frigs at range and progress up the ship sizes. WIth missile boats I often worked progressively down in ship size (avoiding triggers). And really for either ship type the eventual solution to any frigs you can't kill with your main weapon is often tech II light drones of the appropriate damage type.
However, I think you missed the following from the OP that does relate directly to your concern:
"-Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly"
Will that not make your precision missiles more useful against npc frigs? You see this is why people need to read the op more carefully and recognize that there are somewhat less obvious buffs in there amid the immediately noticeable nerfs. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 02:34:00 -
[2657] - Quote
Quote:certain ships being straightjacketed into only fitting a single weapon system out of the multiple alternatives they might otherwise be able to use.
This is the thing. I keep hearing about bringing heavies down to the level of beams or rails. But who uses beams or rails, really? You would need to buff the LR medium guns to be competitive with tier 3 battlecruisers using short range guns. As it stands now people will just switch over to tornados/talos or arty canes if they want some range and mobility - at least in smaller gangs.
I'm also a bit worried that the drake will become fairly mediocre in smaller gangs, but still really strong in fleets. I'm not sure how much of an effect the tracking mods will have on drakes against ahacs, for example. |
Gungankllr
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 02:47:00 -
[2658] - Quote
Everybody keeps talking about missiles doing their full DPS at max range- the problem is that there is the "X" factor of flight time, which isn't something that is easy to toss into a straight across the board comparison of different DPS platforms.
The whole missile system needs to get scrapped and redone. The idea of small ships getting less damage done to them is both ridiculous and flies in the face of common sense and basic physics from the start.
Sure, it's a game, but it's a game that has quite a base of science and fact, in addition to the science fiction fluff added.
The explosive velocity of TNT on earth, in an atmosphere is 6,900 meters a second. It's about 15,000 miles per hour.
The explosion velocity of a standard Scourge Heavy Missile is 81 meters a second, or about 178 miles per hour.
The fastest pitcher in baseball had a fastball that was clocked at 108 MPH, which is about 48 m/s.
China just made a TRAIN that can travel at 574 miles per hour, which equates to about 258 m/s.
The missile travels at 3750 m/s before skills, which means that the missile itself travels roughly 46 times faster than the explosive charge it is carrying when it explodes.
The math and science don't add up whatsoever, unless explosives in the far, far future (some of which are titled as being nuclear) are like throwing oatmeal against a wall.
I completely understand that the designers were trying to keep Torpedos from one shotting frigates and whatnot, but I think that honestly- that's kind of the point?
If you drop a 2000 pound JDAM on a bicycle it tends to turn very quickly into things you would see on the periodic table.
The whole missile system itself was overhauled to make absolutely zero sense, and is now being considered to be changed to something which makes even less sense.
I really wish somebody would sit down in a group and brainstorm a way to make missiles viable without making them make sense in the realm of physics |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
741
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 02:54:00 -
[2659] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Quote:certain ships being straightjacketed into only fitting a single weapon system out of the multiple alternatives they might otherwise be able to use. This is the thing. I keep hearing about bringing heavies down to the level of beams or rails. But who uses beams or rails, really? You would need to buff the LR medium guns to be competitive with tier 3 battlecruisers using short range guns. As it stands now people will just switch over to tornados/talos or arty canes if they want some range and mobility - at least in smaller gangs. I'm also a bit worried that the drake will become fairly mediocre in smaller gangs, but still really strong in fleets. I'm not sure how much of an effect the tracking mods will have on drakes against ahacs, for example. But magically, somehow, when HMs are nerfed suddenly people will magically think medium beams or rails are worth using! Don't you see, we can't buff medium beams or rails to the point where they're worth using because clearly making modules useful where they weren't before falls contributes to dreaded power creep! We just can't be happy with beams and rails that are actually worth using, so let's just nerf the only M-LR weapons system that has any decent level of popularity. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 04:37:00 -
[2660] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Smabs wrote:Quote:certain ships being straightjacketed into only fitting a single weapon system out of the multiple alternatives they might otherwise be able to use. This is the thing. I keep hearing about bringing heavies down to the level of beams or rails. But who uses beams or rails, really? You would need to buff the LR medium guns to be competitive with tier 3 battlecruisers using short range guns. As it stands now people will just switch over to tornados/talos or arty canes if they want some range and mobility - at least in smaller gangs. I'm also a bit worried that the drake will become fairly mediocre in smaller gangs, but still really strong in fleets. I'm not sure how much of an effect the tracking mods will have on drakes against ahacs, for example. But magically, somehow, when HMs are nerfed suddenly people will magically think medium beams or rails are worth using! Don't you see, we can't buff medium beams or rails to the point where they're worth using because clearly making modules useful where they weren't before falls contributes to dreaded power creep! We just can't be happy with beams and rails that are actually worth using, so let's just nerf the only M-LR weapons system that has any decent level of popularity.
Before the tier 3 BCs, medium long range weapons were used regularly. Perhaps CCP should never have released those ships?
Just think out loud here, how about removing explosion velocity from missiles entirely, or halving its effect? It makes sense from a "sense" perspective, when a missile impacts a target, how fast that target is moving is irrelevant in the real world. Consider, if a bomb goes off in a moving train, will the train not take any damage because it's moving relative to the earth? Of course not, because it's not moving relative to the bomb.
Go ahead with the nerf if missiles lose explosion velocity, I think that would make EVE a bit more interesting and diverse.
EDIT: Drakes and Tengus will still need to be looked at, because even if nerfing missiles brings them in-line with their classes, they are not in-line with other missile ships. |
|
4IN1
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 04:50:00 -
[2661] - Quote
To be honest, come to think of it, I am not at all as worry about the range nerf, after all, missile range only works as far out as your targeting range goes, so under normal condition it just a nerf of range where most people won't be touching, the range only starts to produce problem once targeting range bonus (in fleet play or if you fit you ship as such) comes to play, which is where the nerf actually affecting.
CCP: Ambition but rubbish
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
742
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 05:16:00 -
[2662] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Before the tier 3 BCs, medium long range weapons were used regularly. Perhaps CCP should never have released those ships? Or maybe they shouldn't have been made as powerful. Either less mobility and less damage, or less damage and less range. I don't think the ability to fit 8 large turrets on a battlecruiser hull should have had an added skill bonus that causes them to match or even surpass their battleship counterparts for damage and damage projection.
Eckyy wrote:Just think out loud here, how about removing explosion velocity from missiles entirely, or halving its effect? It makes sense from a "sense" perspective, when a missile impacts a target, how fast that target is moving is irrelevant in the real world. Consider, if a bomb goes off in a moving train, will the train not take any damage because it's moving relative to the earth? Of course not, because it's not moving relative to the bomb.
Go ahead with the nerf if missiles lose explosion velocity, I think that would make EVE a bit more interesting and diverse. Whatever makes sense in the real world doesn't help us to balance combat in a video game. We've immersed (lol space) ourselves into a science fiction world where we've agreed to suspend our disbelief on things like warp drive, jump drive, transfer of consciousness upon death, cloaking devices, ships the size of large cities, and infinitely powerful policemen that appear out of nowhere within 30 seconds of a crime being committed. It unfortunately means that we also have to contend with things that otherwise don't make sense for simplification. The planets don't move, turret shots hit the target instantly, and missiles magically do less damage to things just because they're smaller.
We can't do away with explosion velocity because missiles do need some factor whereby the target can minimize damage taken with piloting. Increasing velocity is, apart from tactics that don't work like smartbombs and defender missiles, the only way to do this. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 06:41:00 -
[2663] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Deerin wrote:I'll stop trolling the thread, stop enjoying the tears and give a serious feedback.
I don't know if any one has done this graph before, but here it is:
Shouldn't the HML damage be a straight line? I'm not getting why you get the dip at the end. SO to be the race "specialising" in long range combat Caldari need to go to rails? yuck
It's furies up to a certain range and faction ones after that. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 07:23:00 -
[2664] - Quote
I want to start out by saying that it has long been my position that the Drake as a ship is fine as it is, it was always the weapon system that made it such a common and strong pick not the hull per se. In my early days I was a Drake pilot myself and what I very quickly noticed was that in a Drake my damage with HML was not as spectacular as close range turret ships but was very reliable and substantially better than long ranged turret ships.
So with the ability to deal damage falling somewhere between facemelt and snipe at a range equalling or exceeding the range of the long range variants and thus able to deal good, while not exceptional, damage safe from heavy return fire all while having a solid tank, it was impossible to say no. This has never changed and is still the case. HML damage is simply being brought into line with other systems that hit at a similar range. HMLs are not close range weapons there is little justification I can see for having them deal so much more damage than other long range weapons.
You can smartbomb/defender missiles.
I'm fine with taking away the ability to smartbomb missiles. I've been a small gang pvper my entire EVE career and in the thousands of kills I've seen how many times did I see either gang's missiles being smartbombed...ZERO, it has never happened. Of all the Drake fleet videos I've watched only the one linked early in this thread "firewalled".
Defenders are the same deal, never once were mine or anyone else's missiles shot down. How many Hurricanes have you seen opt for two or even one launcher for the sake of being able to launch defenders in pvp? If you're willing to answer me honestly on that I think you'll be able to see how ridiculous you're bing here.
Travel time.
To assume that this plays extremely heavily into your actual dps in a fight is silly. Yes your initial damage lands later and thus there is a slight drop from the dps listed but the longer the fight goes on the less of an impact this has as the influx of missiles is fairly constant after the beginning. To assume otherwise would be to assume the ships are ALWAYS moving apart. It seems obvious to me that combat (point) range or even lock range is impossible to maintain if that were true. This means that at some point the ships MUST move closer together or the combat MUST end.
Tracking disruptors affecting missiles is another big stumbling block but I feel it is overstated. It's not as if every ship in the game is going to be fitting a TD in case they run into missile ships and try not to act as if TDs do not affect turrets.
Take this as an extremely plausible scenario.
I'm flying my Condor with a couple friends. My Condor currently fits a TD, not because of this patch but because of what happens to the Harb in the following.
I tackle a Harbinger, orbit it at ~20km and tracking disrupt it for optimal range. Harb uses Scorch to return fire. Harb misses as I'm too far out of optimal. Harb sets self-destruct.
I tackle a Drake, set orbit etc etc. Drake shoots HML, they are still in range and thus apply damage. I switch to tracking speed as with optimal range you can still reach me. Damage drops but you are still dealing damage.
Now the fact that my Condor can outrun the missiles is irrelevant in this instance as that applies with or without the TD. The TD only makes you worse on paper in this case. But even in the event you can hit the target, even if it is for less damage you are still dealing some damage. If guns can't track or can't reach their damage is not crap, IT'S ZERO.
Using the above Harbinger example again but this time assume it's beam fit. Very surprising to me as I have yet to see one in legit pvp. Harb shoots and I realize I'm not out of his range when he hits. I swap scripts to tracking speed and dive under his guns, sub 5km orbit. Harb now misses completely. Harb sets self-destruct again.
It is sufficiently unlikely that a Harb fit with beams would also be fit with scram and web as, what is really the point of fitting for range if you need to get to sub 10km anyway, that such an instance does not warrant serious consideration. At this point it needs to be pointed out that I could not ever get under the missiles of a Drake in the same way, TD or no.
I do not forsee everyone fitting TDs after this as some people have posted and one of the most striking reasons I see for that is people have posted that their Drakes do not have enough mids for tank, tackle, E-war and TCs. But who's magical, faction, 8 mid-slot Drake are you fighting that does then? They have exactly the same problem you do, this is simply trying to have it both ways. With ASBs and shield tanking as popular as they are who IS going to have so many mids to spare exactly?
What I forsee is the ships that currently fit TDs will continue to do so. Ships like a Drake will probably go from fitting 3 BCUs to 2 BCUs and a TE. Cry me a river. With the bonus that would give you to range/explosion velocity I just can't see the source of the tears. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 07:37:00 -
[2665] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.
But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)
Drakes will be even more op than now...
/me is sad
20% dps cut from all missiles.. yeah thats a buff....
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
744
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 07:43:00 -
[2666] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Using the above Harbinger example again but this time assume it's beam fit. Very surprising to me as I have yet to see one in legit pvp. So why not buff medium beams? Again, why is it that HMs need to be nerfed so hard that they come to the level the medium long range weapons are now?
Here's the question I pose to anyone willing to give it serious consideration: Why can't HMs and the long range medium turrets MEET HALFWAY?
Someone said earlier in this thread that people will start using the turrets once HMs get buffed. No reasoning given for that besides "they look bad because of HMs". Someone else said that it was because they were completely overshadowed by the tier 3 BCs. That's entirely possible, but the turrets were still not all that popular before the tier 3s were introduced. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 07:49:00 -
[2667] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Using the above Harbinger example again but this time assume it's beam fit. Very surprising to me as I have yet to see one in legit pvp. So why not buff medium beams? Again, why is it that HMs need to be nerfed so hard that they come to the level the medium long range weapons are now? Here's the question I pose to anyone willing to give it serious consideration: Why can't HMs and the long range medium turrets MEET HALFWAY? Someone said earlier in this thread that people will start using the turrets once HMs get buffed. No reasoning given for that besides "they look bad because of HMs". Someone else said that it was because they were completely overshadowed by the tier 3 BCs. That's entirely possible, but the turrets were still not all that popular before the tier 3s were introduced.
Before tier 3 BCs, I feel that a buff to long range medium turrets would have been a terrible idea, but mostly because I am resisting the trend to move combat ranges farther and farther away. In my mind, I see people no longer fitting blasters and autocannons and instead opting for rails and artillery 9 times out of 10, as close range weapons would offer less of an advantage.
Now, I'm not so sure. Going to sleep on it. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 07:57:00 -
[2668] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Using the above Harbinger example again but this time assume it's beam fit. Very surprising to me as I have yet to see one in legit pvp. So why not buff medium beams? Again, why is it that HMs need to be nerfed so hard that they come to the level the medium long range weapons are now? Here's the question I pose to anyone willing to give it serious consideration: Why can't HMs and the long range medium turrets MEET HALFWAY? Someone said earlier in this thread that people will start using the turrets once HMs get buffed. No reasoning given for that besides "they look bad because of HMs". Someone else said that it was because they were completely overshadowed by the tier 3 BCs. That's entirely possible, but the turrets were still not all that popular before the tier 3s were introduced.
You seem to have read in something I didn't say and that is that I never said medium beams were crap. They simply do not fit well with how pvp works most of the time, especially on smaller scales.
Point range is only 24km without bonuses at best unless you are crazy rich enough to faction point every BC you fly, not to mention it would also seem to necessitate a faction web and good overheating if you want to maintain your correct range. Heavy Pulses in this instance can reach that with scorch so there is little to no motivation to go to the worse tracking, lower damage weapon, especially given that in that harb it is likely that something on field is faster than you, will get under your guns and you will never be able to shake it off of you without help and in small scale the help available is limited. It is a lot harder to stay under the guns of a Harb with pulses and Multifrequency.
I have used medium beams before on a zealot in order to kite and snipe targets out of a much larger fleet while a super pro Ares pilot with a faction point held them on field and the beams were wonderful. There is nothing wrong with them so much as the situations where they are best rarely arise. In short there is no need for a halfway at which to meet. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:10:00 -
[2669] - Quote
Quote:I have used medium beams before on a zealot in order to kite and snipe targets out of a much larger fleet while a super pro Ares pilot with a faction point held them on field and the beams were wonderful. There is nothing wrong with them so much as the situations where they are best rarely arise. In short there is no need for a halfway at which to meet.
Was this before tier 3 battlecruisers? I'm thinking that these days you could do a better job with an oracle using megapulse+scorch.
Medium beams have a very limited use in zealot ahac fleets, but otherwise I can't really think of where any medium beam platform would be desirable. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:15:00 -
[2670] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Using the above Harbinger example again but this time assume it's beam fit. Very surprising to me as I have yet to see one in legit pvp. So why not buff medium beams? Again, why is it that HMs need to be nerfed so hard that they come to the level the medium long range weapons are now? Here's the question I pose to anyone willing to give it serious consideration: Why can't HMs and the long range medium turrets MEET HALFWAY? Someone said earlier in this thread that people will start using the turrets once HMs get buffed. No reasoning given for that besides "they look bad because of HMs". Someone else said that it was because they were completely overshadowed by the tier 3 BCs. That's entirely possible, but the turrets were still not all that popular before the tier 3s were introduced. You seem to have read in something I didn't say and that is that I never said medium beams were crap. They simply do not fit well with how pvp works most of the time, especially on smaller scales. Point range is only 24km without bonuses at best unless you are crazy rich enough to faction point every BC you fly, not to mention it would also seem to necessitate a faction web and good overheating if you want to maintain your correct range. Heavy Pulses in this instance can reach that with scorch so there is little to no motivation to go to the worse tracking, lower damage weapon, especially given that in that harb it is likely that something on field is faster than you, will get under your guns and you will never be able to shake it off of you without help and in small scale the help available is limited. It is a lot harder to stay under the guns of a Harb with pulses and Multifrequency. I have used medium beams before on a zealot in order to kite and snipe targets out of a much larger fleet while a super pro Ares pilot with a faction point held them on field and the beams were wonderful. There is nothing wrong with them so much as the situations where they are best rarely arise. In short there is no need for a halfway at which to meet.
I guess what I'm really getting at is heavy pulses with scorch should be more analogous to Javelin HAMs than faction HMs. |
|
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:19:00 -
[2671] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Quote:I have used medium beams before on a zealot in order to kite and snipe targets out of a much larger fleet while a super pro Ares pilot with a faction point held them on field and the beams were wonderful. There is nothing wrong with them so much as the situations where they are best rarely arise. In short there is no need for a halfway at which to meet. Was this before tier 3 battlecruisers? I'm thinking that these days you could do a better job with an oracle using megapulse+scorch. Medium beams have a very limited use in zealot ahac fleets, but otherwise I can't really think of where any medium beam platform would be desirable.
Yes it was prior to Tier 3 BCs and yes, the oracle probably trumps it at this point assuming your enemy is not able to reach you at all.
Otherwise you seem to be reaffirming what I said, it's not so much that medium beams are bad so much as the opportunity to use them in a real pvp scenario is limited. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:27:00 -
[2672] - Quote
Beams are a weapon that's so niche that it can only be used in one specific fleet (and even then pulse is more standard on ahac zealots). It's outclassed in every other scenario by an oracle or pulse harbinger. That sounds pretty bad to me. Saying that, medium beams are still better than medium rails, which have pretty much zero use. |
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:37:00 -
[2673] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Quote:certain ships being straightjacketed into only fitting a single weapon system out of the multiple alternatives they might otherwise be able to use. This is the thing. I keep hearing about bringing heavies down to the level of beams or rails. But who uses beams or rails, really? You would need to buff the LR medium guns to be competitive with tier 3 battlecruisers using short range guns. As it stands now people will just switch over to tornados/talos or arty canes if they want some range and mobility - at least in smaller gangs. I'm also a bit worried that the drake will become fairly mediocre in smaller gangs, but still really strong in fleets. I'm not sure how much of an effect the tracking mods will have on drakes against ahacs, for example.
Agreed, we need more damage on the LR weapons (+10-15%) and -10% on Heavy Missiles IMO. Current LR weapons have too low DPS to be viable weapon systems in PVE heavies got just a little too much but not 20% too much. |
Valleria Darkmoon
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:43:00 -
[2674] - Quote
Smabs wrote:Beams are a weapon that's so niche that it can only be used in one specific fleet (and even then pulse is more standard on ahac zealots). It's outclassed in every other scenario by an oracle or pulse harbinger. That sounds pretty bad to me. Saying that, medium beams are still better than medium rails, which have pretty much zero use.
So real quick if the deficiency is so obvious what stat most needs to be buffed to make medium beams good?
I'm not saying I have a solution because I don't and the fact that I don't use beams on my Zealot anymore speaks volumes to that. The gun itself has not gotten any worse it's just that since the introduction of the Oracle it's just been superceeded. There's not anything wrong with the weapon per se, so much as there are better options (beam Zealot does still work but the scorch Oracle is still better) and rails do have the similar issues, it's similar to the blaster buff we got more recently, blasters didn't get worse, it's just that other nerfs and buffs made them obsolete and it's quite similar with beams at least (fitting and tracking are among the biggest offenders on rails and are still horrible).
If CCP decides to look at these weapons in the future and I hope they do, any changes they make should keep HMLs in line with them, but for now we're getting off topic and in any case as things are currently HMLs still vastly outperform all of the above. |
Smabs
Higher Than Everest BricK sQuAD.
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 08:52:00 -
[2675] - Quote
Quote:If CCP decides to look at these weapons in the future and I hope they do, any changes they make should keep HMLs in line with them, but for now we're getting off topic and in any case as things are currently HMLs still vastly outperform all of the above.
Medium beams would either need tracking or damage.
The problem I have with the HML nerf is that people treat them as if they exist in some sort of a vacuum, where only medium guns exist. Nerfing them won't have the desired effect of increasing the number of ships used. Instead it'll just remove one more option.
I don't actually think balance is too bad right now. You see all kinds of viable ships from all races being used. I'd really prefer that they give medium LR guns a small buff and HML's maybe a 5-10% damage nerf and see how things go, instead of slamming a weapon system with a massive hammer. |
Cornette
Solar Revenue Service TAXU
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 09:00:00 -
[2676] - Quote
I approve of these missile changes (nerfs). Without them I fear the comming buffs to Tech 1 cruisers will be for nuffing. Don't listen to the whiners, people will adapt and move on. I do miss one nerf, the Drake's 5% resistance boni, does it stay or does it go?
I also approve of the powergrid nerf to the Cane. Right now I can choose 425MM AC's + shield tank + dual medium neuts + Gyros/TE's in low, and that makes it stupidly OP. After I will have to choose 2 out of 3. That will be good for making people fit more diverse setups.
After the T1 line of cruisers had its buffs, the Tech 2 line may need some adjustments. Within reason of course. Cerberus should have its current ROF of 5% upped to 7,5%, if the Caracal gets it, and maybe, just maybe, one more launcher.
The Eagle, yeah what about it... I really don't know, because it's not working in its niche as a sniper...
Im sure there is more that could be said but I leave it at there for now. Overall, I feel there is great changes to the ships comming this winter. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 09:14:00 -
[2677] - Quote
I'm slightly worried about the HML damage drop, but from a different standpoint to most (and one which I concede, no-one is going to care about). PVE damage application in missions, I did angel Ex (level 3) for fun last night and realised even now it took a LONG time to drop the BS at the end.
I'm talking about people without perfect skills just progressing naturally along the race line. As I say I don't expect many people to bother but it should be mentioned.
In related news, unless I misread/misinterpreted this ... the SNI is going to become a beast. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 09:31:00 -
[2678] - Quote
Gungankllr wrote:Everybody keeps talking about missiles doing their full DPS at max range- the problem is that there is the "X" factor of flight time, which isn't something that is easy to toss into a straight across the board comparison of different DPS platforms.
The whole missile system needs to get scrapped and redone. The idea of small ships getting less damage done to them is both ridiculous and flies in the face of common sense and basic physics from the start.
Sure, it's a game, but it's a game that has quite a base of science and fact, in addition to the science fiction fluff added.
The explosive velocity of TNT on earth, in an atmosphere is 6,900 meters a second. It's about 15,000 miles per hour.
The explosion velocity of a standard Scourge Heavy Missile is 81 meters a second, or about 178 miles per hour.
The fastest pitcher in baseball had a fastball that was clocked at 108 MPH, which is about 48 m/s.
China just made a TRAIN that can travel at 574 miles per hour, which equates to about 258 m/s.
The missile travels at 3750 m/s before skills, which means that the missile itself travels roughly 46 times faster than the explosive charge it is carrying when it explodes.
The math and science don't add up whatsoever, unless explosives in the far, far future (some of which are titled as being nuclear) are like throwing oatmeal against a wall.
I completely understand that the designers were trying to keep Torpedos from one shotting frigates and whatnot, but I think that honestly- that's kind of the point?
If you drop a 2000 pound JDAM on a bicycle it tends to turn very quickly into things you would see on the periodic table.
The whole missile system itself was overhauled to make absolutely zero sense, and is now being considered to be changed to something which makes even less sense.
I really wish somebody would sit down in a group and brainstorm a way to make missiles viable without making them make sense in the realm of physics
its meant to represent the smaller ships ability to evade incoming missiles. try hitting a speed boat with an un guided torpedo, or a fighter with a cruise missile (considering some missiles used in the opening of the aghan war missed their stationary target buildings by up to 100metres :S)
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 09:56:00 -
[2679] - Quote
Javius Rong wrote:I am not against rebalancing. The issue I have is they are rebalancing a major weapons platforms before addressing any of the effected ship platforms. This is out of order!! the HM changes effects Drakes, Tengus and Rooks is major ways and essentially diminishing their value to the player while those ships will not be addressed for 1 to 2 to 3 patches at least later.
I would rather see the HM changes delayed till they deal with the ships that are effected and rebalance medium hybrids (blaster and rails) way before this as that would make both Gallente and Caldair gun boats viable vs. Minmatar (winmatar as it is now). The problem is that either way you do it, someone is left out in the cold for a while.
If they nerf the missiles now, and balance the ships later people will be left out because theyre waiting on all the ships to get adjusted to the new missile stats
if they nerf the ships now and adjust the missiles later, people will be left out because now theyre waiting on the missiles to get adjusted to the new lowered ship stats
if they change both at the same time, theyre simultaneously changing two variables in a function simultaneously . . . this is how horrific changes and unexpected interactions happen.
TL;DR Any way you do it, someone gets screwed. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 10:09:00 -
[2680] - Quote
Sigras wrote:if they change both at the same time, theyre simultaneously changing two variables in a function simultaneously . . . this is how horrific changes and unexpected interactions happen.
TL;DR Any way you do it, someone gets screwed.
Agreed, however there might be an argument in (I hate the term but...) hotfixing the two problem hulls with the intent to revisit it later once missiles can be sorted out properly. This mitigates the issue temporarily without knackering everything other than the two problem hulls in the process and would allow more granular testing/iterations.
Also, Fozzie said defenders are a) crap and b) heavy on the [host?] CPU. Why not change it, as has been suggested before, to a phalanx type system? No extra objects like little missiles, less calculations and (if tuned properly) a cool anti missile system that works. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 10:30:00 -
[2681] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Gungankllr wrote:Everybody keeps talking about missiles doing their full DPS at max range- the problem is that there is the "X" factor of flight time, which isn't something that is easy to toss into a straight across the board comparison of different DPS platforms.
The whole missile system needs to get scrapped and redone. The idea of small ships getting less damage done to them is both ridiculous and flies in the face of common sense and basic physics from the start.
Sure, it's a game, but it's a game that has quite a base of science and fact, in addition to the science fiction fluff added.
The explosive velocity of TNT on earth, in an atmosphere is 6,900 meters a second. It's about 15,000 miles per hour.
The explosion velocity of a standard Scourge Heavy Missile is 81 meters a second, or about 178 miles per hour.
The fastest pitcher in baseball had a fastball that was clocked at 108 MPH, which is about 48 m/s.
China just made a TRAIN that can travel at 574 miles per hour, which equates to about 258 m/s.
The missile travels at 3750 m/s before skills, which means that the missile itself travels roughly 46 times faster than the explosive charge it is carrying when it explodes.
The math and science don't add up whatsoever, unless explosives in the far, far future (some of which are titled as being nuclear) are like throwing oatmeal against a wall.
I completely understand that the designers were trying to keep Torpedos from one shotting frigates and whatnot, but I think that honestly- that's kind of the point?
If you drop a 2000 pound JDAM on a bicycle it tends to turn very quickly into things you would see on the periodic table.
The whole missile system itself was overhauled to make absolutely zero sense, and is now being considered to be changed to something which makes even less sense.
I really wish somebody would sit down in a group and brainstorm a way to make missiles viable without making them make sense in the realm of physics its meant to represent the smaller ships ability to evade incoming missiles. try hitting a speed boat with an un guided torpedo, or a fighter with a cruise missile (considering some missiles used in the opening of the aghan war missed their stationary target buildings by up to 100metres :S) Basically this ^
Explosion velocity doesnt make any sense because a larger explosion like a torpedo should go faster than a small explosion like a rocket.
That being said, what would be ideal would be for missiles to act like drones and chase the target as it bobs and weaves. Giving large missiles like torpedoes a turning radius so that frigates could avoid them while small rockets could turn on a dime. This idea while great in concept would cause even a small battle to quickly go into TiDi and large battles would be completely unplayable . . . explosion velocity is one of those things that doesnt make sense but is put in the game to make the mechanics work with limited processing power.
If that bugs you, consider that in outer space you: Shouldnt have a top speed Shouldnt have to bank to turn Shouldnt be able to see lasers Shouldnt be able to hear anything Shouldnt experience "explosion" damage Shouldnt have a maximum range
I could go on and on and on |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 10:44:00 -
[2682] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Also, Fozzie said defenders are a) crap and b) heavy on the [host?] CPU. Why not change it, as has been suggested before, to a phalanx type system? No extra objects like little missiles, less calculations and (if tuned properly) a cool anti missile system that works. the problem comes with figuring out just whos missiles to hit . . .
Defenders suck because they #1 have to be manually activated when a missile is in flight, and #2 only work against missiles aimed at you.
The ideal situation would be for 1 or 2 ships spamming defender missiles to defend the whole fleet against missile attacks, but how does the server determine whos missiles to attack?
The most reliable way would be to use your blue standings, but picture this. Every tick, the server has to figure out who each missile on the grid belongs to, determine its distance from each person with a ray trace, and then cross reference all of the missiles in that ships range with that pilots personal blue list to determine whether or not to activate the phalanx gun system.
You could change it back to only having it work against missiles targeted at you, but that would relegate them back to the useless bin.
I think the best way to add e-war to missiles would be to make a seperate missile script for the tracking disruptors or maybe even a seperate module because the curse might be a bit overpowered in small gang warfare now.
Another interesting idea i just had regarding defender missiles would be to target a ship with them then the defenders go after any missiles launched from that ship. That would be pretty cool and the server would have to do less work; it would still be quite a bit of load to the server but not as much as figuring out on its own who the defender missiles have to shoot. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 10:55:00 -
[2683] - Quote
Can someone please explain to me why HAMs do worse damage to small targets than HMLs? it makes no sense to have missiles of the same size have different explosion velocities and explosion radii Why should they be different?
Guns track better at shorter range to compensate for the comparatively increased transversal of their targets, missiles dont have to deal with that, so their shorter ranged versions shouldnt have any better or worse factors.
Also why are the shorter ranged HAMs harder on PG?? rockets arent that way vs standard missiles . . . for all the other weapon systems the shorter ranged weapon gets easier fitting to compensate for having to actually get in range, why are HAMs different?
I think this is all a throw back to when HAMs didnt exist and needs to be looked at again. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 10:55:00 -
[2684] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Also, Fozzie said defenders are a) crap and b) heavy on the [host?] CPU. Why not change it, as has been suggested before, to a phalanx type system? No extra objects like little missiles, less calculations and (if tuned properly) a cool anti missile system that works. the problem comes with figuring out just whos missiles to hit . . . Defenders suck because they #1 have to be manually activated when a missile is in flight, and #2 only work against missiles aimed at you. The ideal situation would be for 1 or 2 ships spamming defender missiles to defend the whole fleet against missile attacks, but how does the server determine whos missiles to attack? The most reliable way would be to use your blue standings, but picture this. Every tick, the server has to figure out who each missile on the grid belongs to, determine its distance from each person with a ray trace, and then cross reference all of the missiles in that ships range with that pilots personal blue list to determine whether or not to activate the phalanx gun system. You could change it back to only having it work against missiles targeted at you, but that would relegate them back to the useless bin. I think the best way to add e-war to missiles would be to make a seperate missile script for the tracking disruptors or maybe even a seperate module because the curse might be a bit overpowered in small gang warfare now. Another interesting idea i just had regarding defender missiles would be to target a ship with them then the defenders go after any missiles launched from that ship. That would be pretty cool and the server would have to do less work; it would still be quite a bit of load to the server but not as much as figuring out on its own who the defender missiles have to shoot.
Yup I imagined, as you say, one could 'target' the ship who has fired the missiles you want to interdict.
Don't want a one-slot-fits-all (with-'ammo') system out there. |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 11:20:00 -
[2685] - Quote
Please remember one and only area that Caldari really excel in is in pve as selecting damage type is useful the dps drop of 20% will will destroy that. Its only recently Caldari have been more accepted into pvp. Yes the kiting drake and tengu are a problem and should be looked at. A massive dps drop is not the way to do it |
Rumpelstilski
Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 11:20:00 -
[2686] - Quote
I agree with the intention of the patch notes completely, although there's a few points the OP missed
Damage reduction stats (explosion velocity and radius)
1) hams, torpedoes and citadel torpedoes are pretty much oversized weapons, the damage reduction on the target of the same class is significant and their ability to hit smaller targets is VERY bad, this has traditionally made hams an inferior choice to hmls for close range missile boats
2) IF you wish to bring missiles in sync with other weapon platforms you need to switch damage reduction stats (explosion radius and velocity) between close range and long range missiles and maybe then tweak them around a little to bring their applied dps against smaller targets in range with short range guns, e.g.:
- give hams damage reduction stats of hmls and vice versa
- give torpedoes damage reduction stats of cruise missiles and vice versa
- give citadel torpedoes damage reduction stats of citadel cruise missiles and vice versa
- not sure how the situation with rockets and light missiles is
3) after you switched damage reduction stats between close range and long range missiles, you might find that the damage nerf isn't even necessary due to reduced damage output
Fitting requirements
1) short range missiles have higher fitting requirements on caldari boats then long range missiles (caldari traditionally have no problem with cpu, but lots of issues with grid), this too made short range missiles an inferior choice for close range ships, close range ships tend to eat more damage then long range ships, it is usually not acceptable to reduce tank as you move in closer to your target
For this reason alone, you will still see ship comps fielding long range weapons for close range brawls, dps nerf or no won't fix this, buffer tank is pretty much God atm and Drake gangs which are for most part a close-medium range platform will happily accept the damage nerf and continue using hmls so they don't have to sacrifice tank
2) after you switch grid requirements between close range and long range missiles, you might find that indirect nerf of tengu/drake tank isn't necessary, fitting requirements will do it
In short,
CCP you have the right idea, but you missed the ballpark, if you address the bizarr relationship between short range and long range missiles, the "damage at range" and "tank at range" issues will sort out themselves with very few tweaks |
Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 11:30:00 -
[2687] - Quote
I'm not in favor of the missile changes.
Within their nominal weapon system category they have long range and solid dps, but they are very very seldom being used to fight cruiser sized ships. They are used to fight battlships, and that changes the complexion of things by a fairly substantial margin.
When I was in AAA we flew a LOT of 100mn tenugs, sometimes to great effect, sometimes to almost no effect. The criticism that we always heard both from allies and enemies was that 100mn tengus do **** all damage. And while thats not quite true (battleship damage at 100km is comparable) flight time makes a MASSIVE difference.
Missile flight time still remains an absolutely huge downside to missiles, and the only place that it is even vaguely relevant is in drake-train or tengu-train fleets fighting big gangs with lots of logistics. In the time it takes a volley of HMLs to reach its target (say 90km away so a little over ten seconds) there is ALREADY logistics action on it. A scimmi can lock a rapier in under 3 seconds, a battleship in less than two. Unless you have enough damage to bulldoze through the entire enemy logistics wing, then you don't get to kill anyone unless they are dual boxing or otherwise have taken their eye off the ball for the whole time you're shooting them.
Heavy missiles at long range cannot target switch to try and spoof logis, because the time between redboxing and damage arriving is so huge. Assuming adequate logistics on the enemy side, they should never EVER lose a ship to HML firing ships.
And thats why HML don't need to be changed.
Change the ships if you must, certainly change HAMs, maybe change the other medium long range guns (do people actually still use sniper HACs since the tier 3 BCs came out ?) but for the love of god don't make HML ships terrible just because they look better on a graph, or because they look to be getting a lot of use on the field.
The reason why 100mn tengus (and drake trains before them) were and are successful was that they forced battleships to have to fight in much tank-lighter fits, with long range guns and ammo.
Essentially, they keep battleships honest. If you take out a 100man BS gang, it HAS to have a plan to deal with 100mn tengus. If it doesn't, then it dies, or at least the tengus run humiliating rings around them.
The changes, as currently proposed, will mean that fleet combat will exclusively be battleships. There will simply not be a fleet type that can use their lack of mobility to mitigate their huge damage advantage. We'll return to the age of all BS slugging it out, and whoever brings the most wins. And those days sucked hard.
|
Rumpelstilski
Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 11:47:00 -
[2688] - Quote
Valea Silpha wrote:And thats why HML don't need to be changed.
Change the ships if you must, certainly change HAMs, maybe change the other medium long range guns (do people actually still use sniper HACs since the tier 3 BCs came out ?) but for the love of god don't make HML ships terrible just because they look better on a graph, or because they look to be getting a lot of use on the field.
The reason why 100mn tengus (and drake trains before them) were and are successful was that they forced battleships to have to fight in much tank-lighter fits, with long range guns and ammo.
Essentially, they keep battleships honest. If you take out a 100man BS gang, it HAS to have a plan to deal with 100mn tengus. If it doesn't, then it dies, or at least the tengus run humiliating rings around them.
See how little you know,
I bolded a part of the reason why this nerf is happening. Also, no long range battleship except the nightmare has the tracking necessary to hit the gazillion ehp tengus kiting at 100km with more then 30-40 dps with bonused republic fleet painters on the target, which is kind of why HBC switched to a close range gun setup. Also, HML setups are far too effective in breaking (typically sig tanked) logis at range, while close range missile setups can do no such thing, which is ridiculous
Also, long range missile boats get to have more tank then close range missile boats, which is also ridiculous, switching grid requirements and damage reduction stats between close range and long range missiles fixes all of this without significantly nerfing the pve abilities or the ability of the cowardcat doctrine to plink at range at battleships if you really want to, lol
however, breaking logis and light tackle with long range weapons should not be so easy, deffo shouldn't be easier then with close range weapons of same class |
Rumpelstilski
Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 11:57:00 -
[2689] - Quote
Also,
delayed damage arguments are ******** for the most part of the previous discussion.
The closer you get (fixed!), the more missile velocity you have (buffed!) the more ******** delayed damage arguments get |
Rumpelstilski
Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 11:58:00 -
[2690] - Quote
Fml,
"intellectually challenged" appears to be a dirty word on this forum, how can one express himself?! |
|
Rumpelstilski
Blood Covenant Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 12:42:00 -
[2691] - Quote
Also, just a thought,
not necessarily in line with, or related to any of the stuff I proposed earlier,
add minimal activation range for some long range missiles |
Master Dumi
Gladius Veritatis Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 15:13:00 -
[2692] - Quote
"Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF."
So, the Drake will be useless for PvE and has not enough powergrid for 7HAM and a good defense for PvP. Even now the DPS of the Drake is LOW, lower than other races BC.
Nerfing Heavy Missiles will hit Caldari Characters too Hard, after the Gallente major Buff, Caldari will be useless.
Is the Tengu DPS too high ? What about Vindicators ???
This nerf will destroy Caldari Pilots !!
Dumi.
|
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 15:41:00 -
[2693] - Quote
Quote:Is the Tengu DPS too high ? What about Vindicators ???
see.... here's the thing.... how far can a vidicator shoot its blasters? compare that to how far a tengu shoots heavy missiles.
the constant comparisons between the long range option (heavy missiles) and in this case the SHORTEST BASE RANGE WEAPON IN THE GAME are getting a little tiresome...
heavy missiles shouldn't be attempting to compete with auto cannons, blasters or pulse lasers as a primary weapon platform. they are the LONG range platform. they are supposed to be an alternative to artillery, railguns and beam lasers; unfortunately they outclass all of them so much its rediculous.
heavy missiles practically do 75% of the damage of Hams on most fits but yet have 4 times the range, a better hit rate and are easier to fit... people we need to stop lamenting the loss of a significantly overpowered weapons platform and ensure that CCP buff the alternative weapon accordingly, specifically HAMS.
heavy missiles DON'T need saved, heavy assault missiles quite clearly DO and its up to us to help convince the balancing team that this is so. Fozzie, if you're still reading this I call you a hero but as mentioned previously I would like to humbly suggest that:
- Fury missiles get polarised a bit more into a high damage/short range T2 weapon, with an explosion radius comparable to current HAMS to act as "anti-battlecruiser" defense much in the same way that other T2 long range weapons have a "short range" defense ammo such as javelin or quake which, as we know, improve tracking to help "defend" the long range weapon ship.
- Standard HAMs receive a slight explosion radius reduction, preferably down to 100-110m rather than the current 125 so Hams are a reasonable platform against cruisers, particularly so the Caracal can engage other cruisers without having to depend on target painters and TE's/TC's to apply any damage. A slight flight speed increase would also be most welcome as to allow the now "shorter ranged" drakes and tengus to still apply damage to a reasonable range rather than being forced to spend all their time chasing down minmatar kite platforms to no success, in turn this would increase the viability of the minmatar "split" weapon layouts which are so often shunned in favour of fitting a pair of neuts and T2 amarrian Khanid ships which often find themselves completely outmatched by all possible opponents.
- ballistic control systems could have fitting reduced to be more in line with comparable weapon systems such as gyrostabilisers, heatsinks and magnetic field stabilisers now that missile platforms will no doubt require TE's/TC's for combating opponents.
I'd also like to suggest that the fitting on hams be altered to make them more friendly for the hulls intended to fit them, with an extra 20% powergrid required compared to heavy missiles while only costing 10% more cpu (126 vs 105 and 50 vs 55 respectively) it poses a significant problem for the typically powergrid weak caldari vessels to fit HAMs and though while this may be adressed in future rebalancing (such as evidenced by the caracal) I don't think it'd be unreasonable to provide a slight reduction as, at the very least, an interm measure much like the proposed changes to the hurricane until other caldari missile platforms (particularly battlecruisers and higher) can be corrected in later releases. Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Archa4 Badasaz
Viziam Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 16:12:00 -
[2694] - Quote
I'm sorry but I see no point to argument or argue about these changes. How I see it: most people that actively post on these forums are those who hate PVE'ers and will, of-course, support nerfs to the PVE'ers preferred weapon - missiles. Please, don't forget, missiles already have some disadvantages - explosion radius, explosion velocity and flight time. When you use missiles you never do the damage that you can see on paper. Ok, maybe heavy missiles are a bit OP but 20% damage decrease? Are you serious? Range nerf - that i can kinda understand. What about cruise missile ranges? CNR lock on range 95km. Cruise missiles can fly 240km. I mean what is that? Tracking disruptors - just no. There are already plenty things that affect missiles. I can understand switching them out, like, disruptors can affect missiles, but then remove something else. Like explosion radius. But this will require many other changes, so just no. |
Kheeria
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 16:12:00 -
[2695] - Quote
Apparently it's not International Stupid Day as I thought earlier, it's International Stupid Month... I'm glad X-COM: EU is out soon so I can get my scifi kick from something else than eve. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 17:49:00 -
[2696] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote: It's easy to see that HMs are better at handling "fast" targets.
Based on these numbers, assuming they are correct, HAMs will have serious issues against the speeds of cruiser sized targets.
Yep, exactly how ccp designed it. its dumb and a really old throwback. Even just letting GMP effect short range missiles would help, its currently just an unnecessary nerf. HAM damage itself is perftecty fine, ham drake will murder just about anything similar sized or smaller if it can get a web on it. It just not very practical getting webs on things in a slow caldari shield tanker and in any case to be in web range you lose half the range advantage your hams have over equivelant turret systems. In small gang set ups it works fine as you will almost always have a fast tackler or long webber to web the target for you. Larger gangs range is much more important so people go for hmls anyway. Of course allowing tes and tcs to effect launchers will improve things but that improvement will be wiped out if everyone now fits a default td.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 18:16:00 -
[2697] - Quote
Sigras wrote: If that bugs you, consider that in outer space you: Shouldnt have a top speed Shouldnt have to bank to turn Shouldnt be able to see lasers Shouldnt be able to hear anything Shouldnt experience "explosion" damage Shouldnt have a maximum range
I could go on and on and on
Liquid space man, liquid space. Also missiles did used to have agility which was fun. and splash damage. servers didn't like it much .....
|
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 18:33:00 -
[2698] - Quote
Master Dumi wrote: Even now the DPS of the Drake is LOW, lower than other races BC.
Master Dumi wrote: after the Gallente major Buff,
Master Dumi wrote: Caldari will be useless.
Master Dumi wrote: This nerf will destroy Caldari Pilots !!
You should rename your character to "Master Dumbi". It will be more in line with your posting and reasoning skills. |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 18:47:00 -
[2699] - Quote
The proposed changes are interesting but I'm not sure they are the best way to go. I agree something needs to be done about HMLs but I think changing them without looking at the rest of the missile line is a mistake. HMLs are widely used because they are effective and just about the best choice for missile options. Fixing the other missiles has to be done at the same time as any nerf to the primary missile system. That said I want to toss out some numbers to help show where I think changes should be made.
First I want to propose that all missiles have their velocity doubled and their flight time halved. Same range, but it helps reduce the flight lag.
Next I want to look at a comparison between missiles and some of the gun options. These numbers come from an all five character using an Osprey since it has no weapon bonus.
HML standard ammo- Range 84,000 ----- DPS 25 after change 68,000 --- DPS 20 Hi dmg ammo- Range 76,000 ----- DPS 32 after change 61,000 --- DPS 25.6 Precision ammo- Range 42,000 ----- DPS 21 (not used for further calculation)
Average range- 80,000 after change 64,500 Average DPS- 28.5 after change 22.8
Rails (250) Lead ammo- Range 36,000 (O) + 15,000 (F)= 51,000 --- DPS 20 Javelin ammo- Range 9,000 (O) + 15,000 (F)= 24,000 --- DPS 35 Spike ammo- Range 64,800 (O) + 15,000 (F)= 79,800 --- DPS 20
Average range- 51,600 Average DPS- 25
Artillery (720) Phased Plasma- Range 15,000 (O) + 22,000 (F)= 37,000 --- DPS 25 Quake ammo- Range 7,500 (O) + 22,000 (F) = 29,500 --- DPS 29 Tremor ammo- Range 54,000 (O) + 22,000 (F)= 76,000 --- DPS 17
Average range- 47,500 Average DPS- 23.6
HAM standard ammo- Range 20,000 ---- DPS 31 Hi dmg ammo- Range 18,000 ---- DPS 39 Range ammo- Range 30,000 ---- DPS 28
Average range- 22,600 Average DPS - 32.6
Blasters (Neutron) Lead ammo- Range 4.5 (O) + 6.2 (F)= 10,700 --- DPS 29.5 Null ammo- Range 6.3 (O) + 8.75 (F)= 15,050 --- DPS 40.5 Void ammo- Range 3375 (O) + 3125 (F)= 6,500 -- DPS 56
Average range- 10,750 Average DPS - 42
Auto-Cannon (425) Phased Plasma- Range 1,500 (O) + 12,000 (F) = 13,500 --- DPS 32.5 Barrage ammo- Range 3,000 (O) + 18,000 (F)= 21,000 --- DPS 30 Hail ammo- Range 1,500 (O) + 9,000 (F)= 10,500 --- DPS 41
Average range- 15,000 Average DPS- 34.5
The problem with my numbers is they do not take into account falloff dmg reduction, tracking, explosion radius, or explosion velocity. So while we can see on paper the DPS numbers when applying full damage the reality of EVE is most of the time we rarely get the chance to apply full damage at max range.
In theory once HMLs receive a 20% reduction to damage and to range they will be somewhat balanced. Best range but lowest DPS by a little. The change to Precision missiles will pull the DPS up some but drop the range even more. While I'm not a fan of nerfs I can see how this will make HMLs fit with the other weapon options.
What has to be considered though is what size ships HMLs and HAMs are supposed to be effective against. With the current explosion velocity and explosion radius the cruiser sized missiles are better against Battleships instead of Cruisers or Frigates. I think the explosion velocity needs to be increased and the explosion radius decreased to make the heavy missiles better able to engage cruisers and frigates.
The final point I would like to bring up is the balance of CPU, PG, and effective targets of the missile lines.
Rockets 4pg 17cpu Light missiles 9 pg 28 cpu
Rapid light 53pg 39 cpu HML 105pg 55 cpu HAM 126pg 50 cpu
Cruise 1313pg 66 cpu Torpedo 1838pg 88 cpu
So the frigate launchers have the close range being the easier to fit. Then you get to cruisers and have the short range cost more PG but less CPU. Finally there is the BS lineup with the short range using both more PG and more CPU. I think the close range launchers should be like the frigates and have both lower PG and lower CPU. I would change things up like the following.
HAM 75pg 40cpu
Torp 800 pg 50 cpu
Next take a look at the explosion velocities and radius of HAMs and Torps. Make Torps effective against another battleship without having to use any TPs. Change their stats to match current HAM numbers. Then cut HAMs numbers by about half.
Finally I would change the ROF on the rapid light missile launcher to a base speed of 6 seconds to make it something worth fitting.
This would go a long way to making the HML nerfs much more accepted because it's fixing some glaring problems with missiles while bringing the weapon system more in line with the capabilities of turrets.
Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 19:04:00 -
[2700] - Quote
I just find it odd that a cruiser can fit RML's with frigate ammo. Guns don't do this surely it should get a cruiser sized missile maybe smaller than heavy assault say light assault missile that does less damage than HAMS but easier fitting and has better exp velocity/radius so in essence better tracking for smaller sized cruisers. As HAMS are seemingly more geared towards bc's which is fine but even TE's/TC's wont boost it enough to be effective against smaller cruisers. After all guns have the option of fitting better tracking guns for less damage and fitting. And cruisers shouldn't be anti frig killers we have destroyers for that.
|
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 19:49:00 -
[2701] - Quote
Ok, remove the drake and tengu love whining.
Would a simpler solution be to remove all long range weapons?
projectiles only get AC's hybrids only get blasters lasers only get pulse missles only get unguided
or an alternative.... nerf projectile damage and increase rof? You still get the same dps but less alpha? |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 20:15:00 -
[2702] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Ok, remove the drake and tengu love whining.
Would a simpler solution be to remove all long range weapons?
projectiles only get AC's hybrids only get blasters lasers only get pulse missles only get unguided
or an alternative.... nerf projectile damage and increase rof? You still get the same dps but less alpha? Because by comparison, even with the duration of firing, the alpha of projectiles completely dwarfs rails and beams...and will include the alpha of HM's once this change takes place.
Why?
|
m3talc0re X
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 20:25:00 -
[2703] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:m3talc0re X, Wow, yeah, you haven't read enough to make a useful post. And, much of what you post is not relevant to this thread. And, the OP has already stated that this is not an issue subject to a vote. It is subject to reasoned feedback. Maybe you can contribute some of that at a later time. Although even in some reflexive emotional replies sometimes there is something I can agree with. For me that is your upset with certain ships being straightjacketed into only fitting a single weapon system out of the multiple alternatives they might otherwise be able to use. Your ac - only vargur example being valid. For me a similar peeve is forcing most/all Gallente ships to be blaster boats and not have decent rail options (see new catalyst). I don't think however, that the proposed changes are forcing any particular fit on the Drake or Tengu. Anyway, it seems the game was already affecting your blood pressure prior to this thread. Maybe you need to reevaluate your recreational activiities. edit - and Soldarius, I'm camping this thread firmly on the surface to call out emo posters like you without living under it. That is not a troll. You can call me names, but it does not make your post any more helpful to the discussion. Call me a frustrated moderator wanabe, which may be more accurate. That's been done already, and I lived through it. But, you are doing exactly what was asked of you not to do in the OP, i.e. not reading closely, not reading extensively, and not to treat this thread as some kind of a vote, but instead just angry posting.
And you think YOUR opinions matter more than anyone else's. My blood pressure isn't now and wasn't raised in the slightest either, you assume to much. And you know what they say about assuming ;)
Drake and Tengu have both been very useful with hams and heavies, so no problems there. As for my post, what they're doing to missiles is going to have more effects than what they're realizing, which is basically plenty of what I pointed out.
Troll elsewhere please. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 20:45:00 -
[2704] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Ok, remove the drake and tengu love whining.
Would a simpler solution be to remove all long range weapons?
projectiles only get AC's hybrids only get blasters lasers only get pulse missles only get unguided
or an alternative.... nerf projectile damage and increase rof? You still get the same dps but less alpha? Because by comparison, even with the duration of firing, the alpha of projectiles completely dwarfs rails and beams...and will include the alpha of HM's once this change takes place. Why?
Well, if everyone agrees that long range guns are worthless, and that HM's need to be nerfed to that of the LR guns, won't removing all long range weapons equal it out?
Take a look at BS's.....if you're looking to alpha something, esp from long range...correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't the way to go alpha maelstrom, or to a lesser extent, alpha tornado? |
Valea Silpha
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 20:58:00 -
[2705] - Quote
Rumpelstilski wrote:snipped
You have it backwards. The BS doctrines existed before the drake was in the game. They came back into fashion when drake-trains started being the norm.
Armor hacs was the way things were done for a long time (once the use of logistics ships became wide spread) because they WRECKED battleships. And then drakes showed up and were good against HACs. They are good against armor hacs because drakes were faster than 1600mm toting HACs and all the HACs had short range guns. IIRC the original FIST armor HACs didn't even twin prop, it was all AB all the time.
Missiles are only better against sig tanked targets at close range, and thats because tracking and missile damage reduction aren't the same exact thing. The missiles always do something, even if its only a little bit. At range, missiles are EXACTLY as good the equivalent amount of turrets are, except you get a 10 second timer to let your friends know you've been primaried.
I've been in 150man tengu fleets and watched our missiles achieve NOTHING against logistics, against rapiers, even against dictors. They all had the logi team ready to run before our birds were half way there. I saw this happen a LOT.
Heavy missiles are reasonably good at taking out like rifters and ceptors that burn towards your fleet, better than HAMs for sure, but its pure quantity of missiles that is doing the job. You send 700+ heavy missiles at something with 5000ehp and it should just be fine ? Just shrugs it off ? Try flying a frig straight at tornadoes or maelstroms or anything with BS guns and it will die just the same. You can't beat all the tracking all the time. You never could. BS guns will do the exact same thing, and they track worse.
Thing is, I do actually agree with you at least your principal.
Quote:If you switch grid requirements and explosion velocity/radius stats between close range and long range missiles you will see more cruiser-hull comps being used in the game.
Also, if you tweak gang bonused recon faction point range to be in line with t3 point range you will see a lot more diversity in pvp setups and fleet comps because setups of all ranges will be useful for different scenarios and this means we'll probably see more armor comps mixed among primarily shield-based fleet comps of today
I don't think that switching the 'tracking' stats of the two weapons is exactly the way to go, but yes, that would be a good place to start any balancing from. Heavies shouldn't be as bad as HAMs are atm at hitting sig tankers (they are still medium guns) but a reduction to that would be fine, at least in principle. Not because they are good at popping logis, just because it makes sense for their sig stuff to match similar guns. Just remember that 720mm arty fitted lokis spent a while wrecking every single cruiser size target they could omnomnom. And that titan guns did too. Sig tanking is never perfect.
The stuff about mixed gangs, I don't see happening (eve is all about specializing then using your strong suit again the opponents weak one, being generalized means every specialized fleet beats you) but pulling down the maximum web range and point ranges would be a nice start to making battlefields of different sizes more frequent. I don't think CCP ever seriously expected large numbers of people to have faction webs and points, and max gang boosters, but that is the norm now.
|
Havoc Lamperouge
Scarlet...Widow
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 21:07:00 -
[2706] - Quote
Double post. |
Lili Lu
483
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 21:08:00 -
[2707] - Quote
m3talc0re X wrote: And you think YOUR opinions matter more than anyone else's. My blood pressure isn't now and wasn't raised in the slightest either, you assume to much. And you know what they say about assuming ;)
Drake and Tengu have both been very useful with hams and heavies, so no problems there. As for my post, what they're doing to missiles is going to have more effects than what they're realizing, which is basically plenty of what I pointed out.
Troll elsewhere please. You still don't get it. Just because someone disagrees with you, calls you out on being emo, or uses sarcasm, does not equate to troll posting. Here, read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Now call me other names such as "you you mean person that won't support my despairing posts . . . terrible person I disagree with . . . agh . . . ****** . . . " ~
but know what troll posting is and what is a troll.
As to your latest post, no I never said my opinion matters more. It does matter though how you present your thoughts. And in a lengthy thread, whether you have even read the OP carefully and any of the pages that followed, and bothered to engage your pre-frontal cortex as opposed to just your amygdala.
edit - lol eve forum won't include the (Internet) part in the link. Must be a Scandinavian preference for the old version. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 22:09:00 -
[2708] - Quote
See, what I find coincidental is that an arty cane can be effective if used correctly. They can take out frigs incoming with much more effect than heavy missiles, even precision.
Now, I do realize the missiles will be more effective up close, but the goal is not to let them get close.
Now, the upcoming missile nerfs and the changes to arty cannons to allow a cane to better fit them.
Well, The arty cane already has almost the same range(falloff) as navy heavies launched from a drake. (all skills 5) The cane having 77km and the drake having 84.4km before you factor acceleration, so closer to 80km.
Now, with a 25% range nerf the drake will reach 63.3km assuming they balance velocty changes to reach full listed range. So, this means the arty cane which is soon to be a much more viable option will out range the drake at its best by 13.7km.
However, even with the changes to tracking enhancers and computers, the drake loses a lot of tank/utility/velocity/dps in order to fit them, while the cane can fit T.D.s with optimal range script and make the drake even weaker.
I'm afraid that between the missile nerf and the arty changes, then arty canes will go unchecked for a while.
However, once the drake gets its official nerf (probably a hard ehp nerf) then the cane will become he powerhouse of close range and long range if not held in check.
Basically, what I'm getting at is these heavy missile nerfs are overboard.
I might understand eiter a range nerf or a damage nerf, but a range and damage nerf is too far.
When it comes to heavy missiles being imbalanced, this is only a problem for the drake and tengu.
Rarely do you ever see another ship besides a drake and tengu even fitting heavy missiles in pvp.
Hell, rarely do you ever see a missile boat besides a tengu or drake in pvp combat.
All these nerfs need to be focused specifically on the ships themselves.
Drake Kill the drake targetting range. This will force them to choose between more targetting range or tank/dps/utility/props.
Odds are the drake will get a pretty big EHP nerf, so we have that coming as well.
Take away the kinetic missile bonus.
Tengu Take away kinetic missile bonus from accelerated ejection bay. Reduce targetting range of dissolution sequencer. Reduce cpu/pg in order to take away the ability to fit 100mn afterburners, even if it's a small amount. Remove range bonus from accelerated ejection bay. (plus possible others)
I honestly have never seen a ship using hml in pvp that felt OP apart from the drake and tengu. (though the drake not as much)
So, why are we going to nerf the hell out of a weapon system that (though it may be OP) has never been a problem at all apart from these two ships.
Just nerf the ships and leave the missiles alone |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.23 23:58:00 -
[2709] - Quote
Hellbound, I appreciate your analysis.
Those two ships are definitely a problem, but why they are a problem is somewhat complex.
Consider this: (skills @ 5)
The Drake has a 75km targeting range. The Hurricane has a 56km targeting range.
720mm artillery needs 2 tracking enhancers to roughly reach the range of missiles. The Hurricane needs a sensor booster/signal amp/rig to target as far as the Drake. For the sake of argument let's make it a rig.
Throw a suitcase and MWD on both, The Drake has 5 mids and 3 rig slots free, a tanking bonus, and almost 250pg to spare. The Hurricane has 3 mids and 2 rig slots free, and approximately 46pg to spare.
At this range, the Drake has a paper DPS almost 50% higher than the Hurricane (navy scourge), and it can typically apply it fairly well to BC hulls and up.
_____________
Part of CCP's plan (with the range nerf) is to force said Drake to fill some slots with modules to extend range, and this I have no issue with. Let them nerf the range and give the Drake a range extender module and make it a choice. It has too many free slots compared with its competitors.
The Drake does 50% more DPS than a Tremor 'Cane, and Rage missiles roughly match DPS of a 720mm Hurricane with EMP loaded.
The Drake does have a lot of issues applying its DPS which are inherent to missiles though, but I still don't think it's unreasonable that it receives some kind of damage nerf. HOWEVER, Fozzie's post indicates that CCP is considering nerfing the base damage of the missiles themselves, and then perhaps changing the Drake's kinetic bonus to a RoF bonus.
The net effect of a 20% base damage reduction combined with changing the kinetic bonus to a RoF bonus on the Drake results in an approximate 15% loss in DPS while giving the Drake true damage selection - this doesn't sound bad to me. In PvE, the Drake is actually going to be even better in places where it can't use kinetic missiles, and the HAM Drake will benefit similarly. Remember that the Drake still has a tanking bonus which the Hurricane and Harbinger do not, and it's a much better one than what the Myrmidon (and Brutix) have.
Everything looks good so far, except that (and this is the really important part) these changes break heavy missiles on every other ship in the game. They effectively makes heavy missiles useless on any ship without a RoF or damage bonus to them.
^ That's why I'm against these changes.
CCP can go through with these changes as long as ships like the Stabber, Rupture, Bellicose, Lachesis, Curse, etc. etc., all get additional bonuses to missile RoF or damage. |
Lucious Shazih
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 00:38:00 -
[2710] - Quote
I am completely astonished.... and here's why:
There's so many issues that the game has.... and suddenly out of nowhere, they wanna basically kill a heavy missile Drake, with a whopping 20% damage reduction, and also incredible reduction of Range. This will make HM Drakes chose between damage mods or range mods in their low slots... or it may also make everyone just reprocess their Heavy Missile Launchers. Why use them? You won't be able to kill anything with them that has any resistance and logistics... I personally think that this will make the Heavy Missile modules completely unfeasible. You're going to discover the hard way this is a severe over-correction. of a problem that is debate-ably noticeable only on large scale engagements.
The Hurricane after this update... i just dont know what to say other than now it might actually be a flying piece of rust that no one will chose over any battlecruiser for any reason.
To CCP... if you actually have a vision for the future, i hope you can implement the upgrades quickly enough so that your changes don't leave the game in shambles while you figure out how to proceed. I don't think the Test Server will help that much in determining the reality of things... but you will notice the seriousness of it in the real game.
|
|
GordonO
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 00:53:00 -
[2711] - Quote
Just curious if all the above numbers have taken into account that your missile will never hit full theoretical range as it looses a percentage due to acceleration and the movement of the target. So lets say the theoretical range on a HML is 65km, a ship orbiting at 60ish km's is not likely to be hit by the missile as it fly's in an arc and looses range due to acceleration. . |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 01:07:00 -
[2712] - Quote
I have numbered each of your statements I want to comment to.
Eckyy wrote:Hellbound, I appreciate your analysis.
1) Consider this: (skills @ 5)
The Drake has a 75km targeting range. The Hurricane has a 56km targeting range.
2) 720mm artillery needs 2 tracking enhancers to roughly reach the range of missiles. The Hurricane needs a sensor booster/signal amp/rig to target as far as the Drake. For the sake of argument let's make it a rig.
3) Throw a suitcase and MWD on both, The Drake has 5 mids and 3 rig slots free, a tanking bonus, and almost 250pg to spare. The Hurricane has 3 mids and 2 rig slots free, and approximately 46pg to spare.
4) At this range, the Drake has a paper DPS almost 50% higher than the Hurricane (navy scourge), and it can typically apply it fairly well to BC hulls and up.
_____________
5) Part of CCP's plan (with the range nerf) is to force said Drake to fill some slots with modules to extend range, and this I have no issue with. Let them nerf the range and give the Drake a range extender module and make it a choice. It has too many free slots compared with its competitors.
The Drake does 50% more DPS than a Tremor 'Cane, and Rage missiles roughly match DPS of a 720mm Hurricane with EMP loaded.
6) The Drake does have a lot of issues applying its DPS which are inherent to missiles though, but I still don't think it's unreasonable that it receives some kind of damage nerf. HOWEVER, Fozzie's post indicates that CCP is considering nerfing the base damage of the missiles themselves, and then perhaps changing the Drake's kinetic bonus to a RoF bonus.
1) Targetting range is an easy thing to resolve
2) 720mm arty II with tremor rounds reaches 77km. That's without any modules. A drake can hit 84.4km with navy without factoring acceleration, which puts it around 79km.
3) Drake would lose a good amount of ehp by fitting a mwd, or would lose a web or scram. The hurricane essentially loses nothing. Also, since 720mm arty II's can reach missile range without any modules, then they hurricane needs one sensor booster II with a targetting range script in order to hit @ 77km.
4) actually, it's only 82 dps, but yeah, it's higher. However, it will be losing 20% of that
5) They simply could have reduced the targetting range of the drake itself like I suggested and force it to require a sensor booster like I suggested with the hurricane fit.
6) See, the only thing the drake has going for it over the hurricane is range and ehp. The hurricane has more utility capability, more speed, and higher dps at close range. So, it's a matter of which ship gets the upper hand in this fight. If the hurricane warps in on the drake with close range guns, then he'll have much higher dps and be able to dictate the fight. The drake on the other hand would warp in at long range in order to dictate the fight.
The major difference here is that the drake will lose close range, however, the only way the drake can win is close range because of warp scram/disrupt. This means for a drake to come in at range on anything requires that they have support to tackle whatever their target is.
So, we'll have a missile range and damage nerf. An increase to fury missile explosion radius (sucks) Plus more upcoming drake nerfs where it will probably lose its ehp.
The drake on its isn't good for pvp unless facing a crappy cruiser/frig
I don't feel heavy missiles need to be nerfed over two ships, one that's only strong in pvp blobs, and one that is OP outright.
Like I've stated, heavy missiles are rarely used for anything but drakes and tengus. Even when they are used on a different ship, they're not as effective.
Fix the ships, cause the missiles aren't the problem. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 01:14:00 -
[2713] - Quote
Lucious Shazih wrote:I am completely astonished.... and here's why:
There's so many issues that the game has.... and suddenly out of nowhere, they wanna basically kill a heavy missile Drake, with a whopping 20% damage reduction, and also incredible reduction of Range. This will make HM Drakes chose between damage mods or range mods in their low slots... or it may also make everyone just reprocess their Heavy Missile Launchers. Why use them? You won't be able to kill anything with them that has any resistance and logistics... I personally think that this will make the Heavy Missile modules completely unfeasible. You're going to discover the hard way this is a severe over-correction. of a problem that is debate-ably noticeable only on large scale engagements.
The Hurricane after this update... i just dont know what to say other than now it might actually be a flying piece of rust that no one will chose over any battlecruiser for any reason.
To CCP... if you actually have a vision for the future, i hope you can implement the upgrades quickly enough so that your changes don't leave the game in shambles while you figure out how to proceed. I don't think the Test Server will help that much in determining the reality of things... but you will notice the seriousness of it in the real game.
I'm sure once they get around to balancing the drake that it'll get a bonus to range.
So, it kinda seems that they're nerfing heavy missiles to nerf the tengu and when time comes around to rebalance the drake they'll buff its range and give all damage types the same dps as kinetic. However, what probably will change for the drake is the ehp. It may lose its resist bonus, but i'm thinking they'll take it out of the drake in the form of shield recharge so that it can't fit a passive tank, thus making it more vulnerable to cap warfare.
So, they're nerfing missiles to nerf the tengu, and they'll buff the drake later when they nerf its EHP.
Basically, they're making the drake nothing but a tank until they rebalance it with bc rebalance.
Honestly, if you lose at it explained that way it makes total sense why they did the missile nerf.
However, though it makes sense, it's completely idiotic. |
Zetheral
Pelican. Cascade Imminent
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 01:40:00 -
[2714] - Quote
Here at some of my thoughts about the missile changes.
http://importantbomber.blogspot.com/2012/09/progression-new-eve.html
No it is not just nonsensical raging either. I know I am sad about it also
Zeth |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 01:43:00 -
[2715] - Quote
You know, implement this. It's pointless to argue. They are going to go through with it. So the drake and the cane will go on the shelf with the rest of the BC's. Just please make sure the TE/TC adjust explosion velocity and explosion radius....also remove the trajectory analysis requirements of TC's as the support skills for missiles already dwarfs that of gunnery and since TA will have no other affects towards missiles, kind of further supports any ideas that you might be attempting to kill missiles all together. |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
65
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 01:51:00 -
[2716] - Quote
Good analysis, and I concur with most things in your post, except that I'd just swap torp and cruise fitting requirements around; no battleship weapon should have a base pg under 1000. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 01:51:00 -
[2717] - Quote
Very nice article...well articulated and thought out....and I think you're right. They basically want everyone in BS's for ratting/mission running. Which would be fine if the missile boats didn't blow nuts at it. I've got a Navy Issue Scorpion and the problem is elite frigates take FOREVER to kill with Cruise missiles....and the range on torpedo's blow *not like those would be better anyway* and I'm not going to alpha any frigate like a mach would simply because the ship is burning towards me. But, as they say...it's not our game...it's theirs....we just pay to play it their way.... |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 02:13:00 -
[2718] - Quote
Galphii wrote:Good analysis, and I concur with most things in your post, except that I'd just swap torp and cruise fitting requirements around; no battleship weapon should have a base pg under 1000.
You make a good point. I was basing the torp changes on the % difference of the smaller weapons. I just took a look at blasters and AC's and I see what you mean about the 1000pg threshold. Swapping torp and cruise fitting requirements does make sense.
I think the biggest problem is the way explosion velocity and radius work and how it's more difficult to calculate than tracking. If CCP is truly sincere about bringing some balance to missiles they can not overlook the fitting imbalances and the applied damage problems of the entire missile line. Pointing at HMLs and saying they are the only thing needing to be addressed is like reading a portion of a report the defends your point and ignoring the rest of the pages talking about inconvenient truths which need to be addressed as well. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 03:06:00 -
[2719] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I have numbered each of your statements I want to comment to.
1) Targetting range is an easy thing to resolve
2) 720mm arty II with tremor rounds reaches 77km. That's without any modules. A drake can hit 84.4km with navy without factoring acceleration, which puts it around 79km.
3) Drake would lose a good amount of ehp by fitting a mwd, or would lose a web or scram. The hurricane essentially loses nothing. Also, since 720mm arty II's can reach missile range without any modules, then they hurricane needs one sensor booster II with a targetting range script in order to hit @ 77km.
4) actually, it's only 82 dps, but yeah, it's higher. However, it will be losing 20% of that
5) They simply could have reduced the targetting range of the drake itself like I suggested and force it to require a sensor booster like I suggested with the hurricane fit.
6) See, the only thing the drake has going for it over the hurricane is range and ehp. The hurricane has more utility capability, more speed, and higher dps at close range. So, it's a matter of which ship gets the upper hand in this fight. If the hurricane warps in on the drake with close range guns, then he'll have much higher dps and be able to dictate the fight. The drake on the other hand would warp in at long range in order to dictate the fight.
The major difference here is that the drake will lose close range, however, the only way the drake can win is close range because of warp scram/disrupt. This means for a drake to come in at range on anything requires that they have support to tackle whatever their target is.
So, we'll have a missile range and damage nerf. An increase to fury missile explosion radius (sucks) Plus more upcoming drake nerfs where it will probably lose its ehp.
The drake on its isn't good for pvp unless facing a crappy cruiser/frig
I don't feel heavy missiles need to be nerfed over two ships, one that's only strong in pvp blobs, and one that is OP outright.
Like I've stated, heavy missiles are rarely used for anything but drakes and tengus. Even when they are used on a different ship, they're not as effective.
Fix the ships, cause the missiles aren't the problem.
I agree generally in fixing the ships but it's more complex than just that. I'll respond to your points with numbers as well:
1. Targeting range is easy to resolve, but it requires a slot. The Drake has 3 additional slots (if you count rig slots as a slot, otherwise it's 2 + Drake still has a tanking bonus) in a fit with the same range. The Hurricane loses a slot getting out to the Drake's targeting range.
2. Sure it reaches 77km, but do you know how much DPS you do at optimal + falloff? Hint: it's less than 50% of what EFT shows your DPS to be in optimal. A rule of thumb I use with projectiles is I consider their range to be approximately optimal + 1/2 falloff because damage drops off sharply beyond that point. At 77km, without TE's, your Hurricane is doing something like 115 DPS.
3. How do you figure a Hurricane loses nothing? Is it perhaps because it can't even fit a tank with 720mm's? The Drake can fit a healthy shield tank and still hit out to ~80km, while the Hurricane is basically going to be nothing but gun mods and a sensor booster. Add to that the Drake's resist bonus. I really want you to open EFT and try and fit a Hurricane out with 720mm's and come back with a number for its EHP.
4. A Hurricane with 3x gyro and a rack of 720's does 278 DPS at optimal with tremor - which is 54km + 22km falloff. A Drake with 3x BCUs and Navy Scourge does 414 paper DPS at beyond its lock range of 75km. 414 - 278 = 136 DPS difference. I'm not counting Fury here because its DPS is harder to apply.
5. They could. That is one way to force the Drake to give up one of its extra slots. It would be equally effective to give heavy missiles a range nerf and force the drake to fit one "tracking computer". As an aside, one of the balance factors CCP uses is targeting range vs scan resolution, and the Hurricane DOES lock a lot faster than the Drake. It's definitely an important point though.
6. "See, the only thing the drake has going for it over the hurricane is range and ehp." -> The only thing the Drake has going for it is 50% higher DPS at its max range and DOUBLE the tank, because you need to spend slots in the Hurricane to get its targeting and optimal range up. It's not a matter of what ship gets the upper hand, if a HML Drake meets a 720mm Hurricane (and both of them happen to be tackled), the 'Cane is dead any day of the week. Heck, the Drake can probably fit tackle and still have a better DPS:tank ratio than an artillery Hurricane without. Remember, Hurricanes don't fly around sporting both autocannons and artillery at the same time... and the debate here is at longer ranges. It's a more equal fight when in HAM range, and CCP isn't talking about a HAM nerf.
Again, CCPs changes WOULD fix the Drake, but unfortunately they break every other missile ship in the game, and that's why I'm opposed to them - not because there isn't something seriously wrong with the Drake in the 30-75km range bracket.
The Drake could lose its resist bonus and would still be out of line with the other battlecruisers at 30km+ because heavy missiles coupled with the Drake's damage bonus are quite potent, and require the Drake to sacrifice zero slots of its tank.
There's a reason heavy missiles are rarely used on anything but Drakes and Tengus, but I feel that a base range nerf + adding missiles to the effect of tracking modules wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, especially if they gave tracking enhancers a bonus to explosion velocity as well. |
Lili Lu
484
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 03:46:00 -
[2720] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: I've got a Navy Issue Scorpion and the problem is elite frigates take FOREVER to kill with Cruise missiles..... And that's what you are doing wrong. Even with those wonderful turret boats, which you appear to have no experience with, some frigs will get on you. Yes you can blap sometimes at range with your guns. But they can get under the tracking on your guns.
And guess what, when they get under your guns you will never hit them. It won't even be but but it takes "forever" to kill them, because you won't hit them, you won't do any damage to them, you won't kill them, period
What do you do? What does any sane player do? YOU USE YOUR TECH II LIGHT DRONES. Ding ding. Seriously, have you really been wasting standard, precision, even faction cruises on elite frigates? |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 03:55:00 -
[2721] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:You know, implement this. It's pointless to argue. They are going to go through with it. So the drake and the cane will go on the shelf with the rest of the BC's. Just please make sure the TE/TC adjust explosion velocity and explosion radius....also remove the trajectory analysis requirements of TC's as the support skills for missiles already dwarfs that of gunnery and since TA will have no other affects towards missiles, kind of further supports any ideas that you might be attempting to kill missiles all together.
it's not a matter of the drake and tengu going on the shelf for me. I don't care about that.
However, as a mission runner the tengu is the be all end all of missile boats.
So, when my tengu goes up on the shelf, it's going to be how long before I get a missile boat battleship that can compete with the tengu?
Or am I just gonna have the dps of a cruise launcher raven (maybe less) in a billion dollar package?
That's my only concern is how long I'm going to have to wait for them to rebalance a missile boat that I can use effectively for missioning, and when I say effectively, I'm not talking about a 500 dps battleship. I'm talking the quality ship of a machariel or vindicator. (p.s. the golem sucks)
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 04:04:00 -
[2722] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote: I've got a Navy Issue Scorpion and the problem is elite frigates take FOREVER to kill with Cruise missiles..... And that's what you are doing wrong. Even with those wonderful turret boats, which you appear to have no experience with, some frigs will get on you. Yes you can blap sometimes at range with your guns. But they can get under the tracking on your guns. And guess what, when they get under your guns you will never hit them. It won't even be but but it takes "forever" to kill them, because you won't hit them, you won't do any damage to them, you won't kill them, period What do you do? What does any sane player do? YOU USE YOUR TECH II LIGHT DRONES. Ding ding. Seriously, have you really been wasting standard, precision, even faction cruises on elite frigates?
Yes, I use my drones on my missile boat toon. And I do the same with this toon as well...however, unless it's a trigger, that elite frigate is the first thing targeted because there is a good chance that I'll alpha that thing on it's way into me. With missiles, it doesn't matter. In fact, with my missile toon, I don't use t2 fury ammo because I can actually hit a frigate for MORE damage with T1 ammo. Tell me there isn't something wrong with that picture? And he plans on making the penalty even BIGGER for T2 ammo, if anyone missed that??
btw, I would rather see them just drop a high slot on the cane than reduce the PG. it minimizes their neuting ability...but at least leaves and alpha ability with 720's....I think across the board it's difficult on most ships to fit the larger LR turrets, which I really don't agree with....why should I have to choose between 650's w/ tank versus 720 alpha. I agree the tengu could use some nerfing...however I think the real issue boils down to armor tanking versus shield.....I agree that it's wrong that in armor tanking, I have to choose between tank or dps/tracking....versus shield, not so much. |
Lili Lu
484
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 04:20:00 -
[2723] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: In fact, with my missile toon, I don't use t2 fury ammo because I can actually hit a frigate for MORE damage with T1 ammo. Tell me there isn't something wrong with that picture? And he plans on making the penalty even BIGGER for T2 ammo, if anyone missed that?? . . . You know what happens when you ASSume? But you keep stepping in it, I don't need to assume. There isn't anything wrong with the picture.
Fury against frigates? of course it will do less damage. Fury is specifically for large targets that you want to nuke. Precision is what you should be shooting at small targets. But a cruise missile, even a precision cruise missile is not made for frigates, it's made for cruisers.
A drake has a drone bay. A Nighthawk has a drone bay. You can shoot precision heavys at frigates and it will take a while. But better to combine that with your 5 tech II light drones. Btw, it appears precisions are getting some small buffs.
I am officially shocked by your use of fury cruises against frigates |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 04:35:00 -
[2724] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:
I agree generally in fixing the ships but it's more complex than just that. I'll respond to your points with numbers as well:
1. Targeting range is easy to resolve, but it requires a slot. The Drake has 3 additional slots (if you count rig slots as a slot, otherwise it's 2 + Drake still has a tanking bonus) in a fit with the same range. The Hurricane loses a slot getting out to the Drake's targeting range.
2. Sure it reaches 77km, but do you know how much DPS you do at optimal + falloff? Hint: it's less than 50% of what EFT shows your DPS to be in optimal. A rule of thumb I use with projectiles is I consider their range to be approximately optimal + 1/2 falloff because damage drops off sharply beyond that point. At 77km, without TE's, your Hurricane is doing something like 115 DPS.
3. How do you figure a Hurricane loses nothing? Is it perhaps because it can't even fit a tank with 720mm's? The Drake can fit a healthy shield tank and still hit out to ~80km, while the Hurricane is basically going to be nothing but gun mods and a sensor booster. Add to that the Drake's resist bonus. I really want you to open EFT and try and fit a Hurricane out with 720mm's and come back with a number for its EHP.
4. A Hurricane with 3x gyro and a rack of 720's does 278 DPS at optimal with tremor - which is 54km + 22km falloff. A Drake with 3x BCUs and Navy Scourge does 414 paper DPS at beyond its lock range of 75km. 414 - 278 = 136 DPS difference. I'm not counting Fury here because its DPS is harder to apply.
5. They could. That is one way to force the Drake to give up one of its extra slots. It would be equally effective to give heavy missiles a range nerf and force the drake to fit one "tracking computer". As an aside, one of the balance factors CCP uses is targeting range vs scan resolution, and the Hurricane DOES lock a lot faster than the Drake. It's definitely an important point though.
6. "See, the only thing the drake has going for it over the hurricane is range and ehp." -> The only thing the Drake has going for it is 50% higher DPS at its max range and DOUBLE the tank, because you need to spend slots in the Hurricane to get its targeting and optimal range up. It's not a matter of what ship gets the upper hand, if a HML Drake meets a 720mm Hurricane (and both of them happen to be tackled), the 'Cane is dead any day of the week. Heck, the Drake can probably fit tackle and still have a better DPS:tank ratio than an artillery Hurricane without. Remember, Hurricanes don't fly around sporting both autocannons and artillery at the same time... and the debate here is at longer ranges. It's a more equal fight when in HAM range, and CCP isn't talking about a HAM nerf.
Again, CCPs changes WOULD fix the Drake, but unfortunately they break every other missile ship in the game, and that's why I'm opposed to them - not because there isn't something seriously wrong with the Drake in the 30-75km range bracket.
The Drake could lose its resist bonus and would still be out of line with the other battlecruisers at 30km+ because heavy missiles coupled with the Drake's damage bonus are quite potent, and require the Drake to sacrifice zero slots of its tank.
There's a reason heavy missiles are rarely used on anything but Drakes and Tengus, but I feel that a base range nerf + adding missiles to the effect of tracking modules wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, especially if they gave tracking enhancers a bonus to explosion velocity as well.
1) with a standard drake fit, the rigs, 2 low, and 3-4 mids are dedicated to tank. That means you have 2 low slots for added dps, 2-3 mids depending on if you want propultion or more tank, and a high.
This basically means you have two utility mids and 1 high. The hurricane has 3-4 mids depending on propultion, 3 rigs, and 2 highs.
2) Yes, it may be only half dps at 77km, but you WILL hit a target at 77km reguardless of movement. Also, while you may only have 84 dps @ 77km (all skill 5 with no other modules) they hurricane will have superior dps at close range even if the drake is fitted with assault launchers.
3) With the upcoming changes to arty, they'll be able to fit them with a tank probably.
4) Again, if your target is at 75km and moving, the missiles will probably not hit them due to the added range by the movement of the ship. Now, using your fit at close range with auto cannons and hams, the hurricane has 689 dps with hail while the drake has 578... So 689 - 578 = 111. However, since I've rarely seen a drake fitted with 3 x bcu, then with 2 x bcu the drake has 514 dps, for a difference of 175. Also, the added midslot utility and high slot utility of the hurricane makes a huge difference. So while the drake is superior at long range, the hurricane is superior at short range
5) I figured the loss of targetting range was enough to make a difference. At close range drakes have to choose between propultion, effective dps, tank, and other utility. Reducing the targetting range means that they would have to make similar decisions at long range.
6) This is the trade off. The hurricane has way more utility at close range and a pretty good amount more dps. This is the trade off. The drake has more effective long range, while the hurricane slightly better mid range, and a lot better close range. Perhaps the drake could get a bit of a ehp nerf, but missiles themselves don't need a nerf like this... |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 04:36:00 -
[2725] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:But you keep stepping in it, I don't need to assume. There isn't anything wrong with the picture. Fury against frigates? of course it will do less damage. Fury is specifically for large targets that you want to nuke. Precision is what you should be shooting at small targets. But a cruise missile, even a precision cruise missile is not made for frigates, it's made for cruisers. A drake has a drone bay. A Nighthawk has a drone bay. You can shoot precision heavys at frigates and it will take a while. But better to combine that with your 5 tech II light drones. Btw, it appears precisions are getting some small buffs. I am officially shocked by your use of fury cruises against frigates
Didn't say I used them primarily. I've tested it out of curiousity....even explained it to many people that were clueless about the difference. To be honest, I don't even carry fury ammo for ratting anymore...just T1 and precision of all damage types and 3 different sets of T2 light drones. Again, you're assuming that I don't know what I'm doing. The point I'm attempting to make is the popularity of HML's isn't their "INSANE" dps....
quicker training time than T2 medium guns decent dps with good range while not great against frigates or BS's, it's a good balance of the 2.
but now if you factor the drawbacks of T2 versus faction, which is less damage to smaller/quicker targets *which is about to be even more* and less range....stock up on your faction missiles and sell off all your T2 as the difference in prices is going to increase even more. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 05:50:00 -
[2726] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I have numbered each of your statements I want to comment to.
2) 720mm arty II with tremor rounds reaches 77km. That's without any modules. A drake can hit 84.4km with navy without factoring acceleration, which puts it around 79km.
I don't know what math you are using when coming up with these numbers and I see similar arguments from missile users.
Let me fix you:
54km optimal = %100 damage 54km optimal + 22km falloff= %50 damage at 77km
I see many people putting optimal + falloff and stating it as effective range:
It is not.
I'll put this here again just so you guys can have an idea on how things are atm and how things are going to be:
http://imgur.com/xAlKi |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 06:03:00 -
[2727] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Javius Rong wrote:I am not against rebalancing. The issue I have is they are rebalancing a major weapons platforms before addressing any of the effected ship platforms. This is out of order!! the HM changes effects Drakes, Tengus and Rooks is major ways and essentially diminishing their value to the player while those ships will not be addressed for 1 to 2 to 3 patches at least later.
I would rather see the HM changes delayed till they deal with the ships that are effected and rebalance medium hybrids (blaster and rails) way before this as that would make both Gallente and Caldair gun boats viable vs. Minmatar (winmatar as it is now). The problem is that either way you do it, someone is left out in the cold for a while. If they nerf the missiles now, and balance the ships later people will be left out because theyre waiting on all the ships to get adjusted to the new missile stats if they nerf the ships now and adjust the missiles later, people will be left out because now theyre waiting on the missiles to get adjusted to the new lowered ship stats if they change both at the same time, theyre simultaneously changing two variables in a function simultaneously . . . this is how horrific changes and unexpected interactions happen. TL;DR Any way you do it, someone gets screwed.
True enough. The problem, however, is that Caldari Missile pilots are already largely screwed in that the Drake is really pretty much the only viable ship they have. Yes, they have the Tengu, but a billion isk ship is not something you use for casual PvP. They don't have a working Command Ship, they don't have working HACs, they don't have working Battleships. They have the Drake, which works, but not so well that small gang FCs are ordering their pilots to grab one.
I think that this is pretty much the one critical component of this debate. If CCP breaks the Drake, Caldari Missile pilots will have literally nothing left to fly. And let's be honest here: there is absolutely NO reason to believe that CCP will do anything quickly to fix these other broken ships. It might be years before these are looked at. And a missile pilot doesn't even have the fallback the general gunnery support skills provides. It's a big deal.
And I say this as someone who is unaffected by this change. Like everyone in Eve, I can fly a Drake, I just don't. The so-called overpowered Drake is nice enough, but I prefer speed, range control, and instant damage.
|
Neomaro
Ragnarok Elite
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 06:05:00 -
[2728] - Quote
If it feels like CCP nerfs you a lot that's just a sign that you're doing it right and getting good at staying on top of the best trends so pat yourself on the back.
As a person who stays on top of trends, just finished being able to fit nano drake was heading towards tengu... pushing that off desk into trash can and going different road, Caldari is now not trendy in anything. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 06:06:00 -
[2729] - Quote
Deerin wrote:I don't know what math you are using when coming up with these numbers and I see similar arguments from missile users. Let me fix you: 54km optimal = %100 damage 54km optimal + 22km falloff= %50 damage at 77km I see many people putting optimal + falloff and stating it as effective range: It is not. I'll put this here again just so you guys can have an idea on how things are atm and how things are going to be: http://imgur.com/xAlKi
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I have numbered each of your statements I want to comment to.
2) 720mm arty II with tremor rounds ****REACHES**** 77km. That's without any modules. A drake can hit 84.4km with navy without factoring acceleration, which puts it around 79km.
No where in there did I say it did max damage at 77km, nor did I even say it was effective.
I mearly stated that it reaches 77km. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
167
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 06:26:00 -
[2730] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:
of course in turn before we get the endless cries of "CALDARI WON'T HAVE A WEAPON!" I should probably remind people that there is MORE TO CALDARI THAT HEAVY BLOODY MISSILES. it might be the only thing you fit but crying like a lost sheep won't change the fact that while caldari hybrid platforms are currently not all that good they are ALSO being rebalanced, Moas, Ferox, Nagas, Rokhs and cormorants all actually exist in eve and some of us like flying these ships and in accordance with the Rebalancing of all ships these other hulls will be brought back up into line with their counter parts.
just look at the merlin, arguably the most powerful and dangerous of the T1 "combat" frigates. Caldari are being fixed, quit whining about what you'll lose and realise how much we're actually gaining :D
It's a little disengenuous to criticize Caldari pilots for training their race's signature weapon system while ignoring the (up unil very recently) broken secondary weapons. Missiles are the Caldari signature weapon. Further, do you REALLY think it reasonable or balanced that Caldari pilots are forced to train both gunnery support and missile support skills in order to be effective as a race? That's as silly as CCP announcing they are nerfing lasers into oblivion, but that's okay because Amarr pilots should have maxed their missile skills anyway.
Finally, let's cut through CCPs spin:
The problem is NOT that the Drake does too much damage at range, nor is that CCPs concern. The Drake is not even CLOSE to being the highest damage BC or the highest damage at range BC. There are four other BC's that leave it in the dust. CCP's latest BC additions significantly outdamage the drake at any range, they can hit much further (and instantly), and they are far more agile. CCP has no problem with these.... only the Drake. The reasosn, of course, is that HMs add significantly to server load.
I don't have a problem with CCP nerfing the Drake or HMs -- I dn't use them anyway. But I do have a problem if CCP leave Caldari missile pilots high and dry. They've done that long enough. Caldari pilots have been waiting YEARS for their ships to work, and instead all they have been offered is nerfs.
Before CCP breaks the only non-frigate combat ship Caldari pilots have left, they need to actually FIX their other boats. In my opinion.
|
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 06:26:00 -
[2731] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:No where in there did I say it did max damage at 77km, nor did I even say it was effective.
I mearly stated that it reaches 77km.
The thing is: HM's DO max damage at that range....and you were comparing arties to HM's. Also accordingto that logic 720's *reach* to 99k.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 06:40:00 -
[2732] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote: I've got a Navy Issue Scorpion and the problem is elite frigates take FOREVER to kill with Cruise missiles....
TP's & rigor rigs ;) |
Texty
State War Academy Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 06:50:00 -
[2733] - Quote
Where did the cruise missile buff go ... ? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 07:03:00 -
[2734] - Quote
Texty wrote:Where did the cruise missile buff go ... ?
actually, while fury cruise got a slight damage buff, they also got a exp radius nerf. This sucks since cruise missile damage application is their bad part.
Precision are getting buffed pretty nicely which is good, but at a loss of range I think. |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage Peregrine Nation
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 07:04:00 -
[2735] - Quote
I have spent alot of time training for a max skilled Nighthawk, perhaps not the best ship in the game but my favorite nonetheless. I have both an active and passive tanked one for various things. The dps on them have always been low compared to the other ships I fly (Amarr-Minmatar-Caldari cross trained). I think its a slap in the face to Caldari pilots to nerf the weapons system without balancing the ship at the same time. So now I am stuck with a ship that is skill point intensive that won't be able to fight its way out of a paper bag. This ship has always needed more dps, not less, why is it so hard to balance all the ships effected by the missile change at the same time? |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 07:31:00 -
[2736] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
When it comes to heavy missiles being imbalanced, this is only a problem for the drake and tengu.
Rarely do you ever see another ship besides a drake and tengu even fitting heavy missiles in pvp.
Hell, rarely do you ever see a missile boat besides a tengu or drake in pvp combat.
All these nerfs need to be focused specifically on the ships themselves.
Drake Kill the drake targetting range. This will force them to choose between more targetting range or tank/dps/utility/props.
Odds are the drake will get a pretty big EHP nerf, so we have that coming as well.
Take away the kinetic missile bonus.
Tengu Reduce targetting range of dissolution sequencer. Reduce cpu/pg in order to take away the ability to fit 100mn afterburners, even if it's a small amount. Remove range bonus from accelerated ejection bay. (plus possible others)
I honestly have never seen a ship using hml in pvp that felt OP apart from the drake and tengu. (though the drake not as much)
So, why are we going to nerf the hell out of a weapon system that (though it may be OP) has never been a problem at all apart from these two ships.
Just nerf the ships and leave the missiles alone
This !
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
760
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 07:44:00 -
[2737] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:I have spent alot of time training for a max skilled Nighthawk, perhaps not the best ship in the game but my favorite nonetheless. I have both an active and passive tanked one for various things. The dps on them have always been low compared to the other ships I fly (Amarr-Minmatar-Caldari cross trained). I think its a slap in the face to Caldari pilots to nerf the weapons system without balancing the ship at the same time. So now I am stuck with a ship that is skill point intensive that won't be able to fight its way out of a paper bag. This ship has always needed more dps, not less, why is it so hard to balance all the ships effected by the missile change at the same time?
A point I have made at the start of this threadnaught.
The problem we can see is the Drake and the Tengu, and even then I'm a little loathe to blame the Tengu, The drake is cheap, newguy friendly and when you have a 100 or so alot of dps for very little outlay in isk.
Now the Tengu is great everyone knows this but in order for it to shine you have to spend around 1bil isk, I'm not talking T2 PVE fits here (although they aren't cheap) plus you lose SP's if you get killed (I can attest like in real life don't drink and fly)
Now both of these ships have good bonuses when used with HML's so what happens when something is good,cheap or just plain useful, well of course eveyone will start using it.
Now take the poor old Nighthawk, I love that ship and spent a long time training up for it and what happens on that sunny day when you finally get your hands on it, well it stinksand you realise you've wasted a shed load of time and a fair amount of isk 0on what is basically a crate, good tank but no real dps especially when you consider the training time and money you spend on it. Why use a Nighthawk when you can get similar specs from a ship that costs 160mil less???
This just really smells of taking the easy route of tweaking a weapon system instead of looking at the causes of the problem which is the ships themselves.
When you are looking for a ship to pvp in unless you're blobbing what do you look at first, well I'm never looking at the drake for a start or in fact any missle boat but then again I prefer the up close and personal approach. How many of you do the same?
Tweak the range yes, no problem with that, but the damage? Most of the people on here are either trying to get more DPS or more tank and I've have a serious bet the majority are thinking of how can I get more DPS out of this crate. If it is just a problem with server load (not my idea but I have seen it banded around) just buff the damage but nerf the ROF, same dps but less server load. I'd hope CCP would just tell us this is the problem not mask it under some "needed" gameplay tweaks.
To myself it again does seem to be aimed at trying to cut the flow of isk, it's seems everytime I get the chance to use something to make money it gets nerfed, especially when you have a limited time to play like some of us you really don't want to spending all your time earning isk (which is godforsakenly boring, e.g stop fecking around with modules and give us more content!!)
Obviously CCP knew the shitstorm that this was going to create so the very fact they went ahead and posted it lends me to believe this is going ahead reagrdless of what this threadnaught says.
Anyway enough of the soapboxing I'll just flog my Caldari stuff and move on to another race whihc I'm lucky as I have any of the other three to choose from that I have trained and I can't imagine either the CSM or CCP have managed to nerf all three of them at the same time but then again I'd better go check and see what other harebrained schemes they have come up with this week. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
395
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 07:54:00 -
[2738] - Quote
Drake and tengu needed a nerf.
Don't start complaining about other ships untill you have seen the new stats. Yes the nighthawk will be hit hard by this change, but it is also in the queue for rebalancing.
I'm confident CCP will adress these issues in the future. For now it means that you will have to live with it. Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
760
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:01:00 -
[2739] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Drake and tengu needed a nerf.
I'm confident CCP will adress these issues in the future. For now it means that you will have to live with it.
CCP alt detected, I bet politicans love you. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:03:00 -
[2740] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Drake and tengu needed a nerf.
Don't start complaining about other ships untill you have seen the new stats. Yes the nighthawk will be hit hard by this change, but it is also in the queue for rebalancing.
I'm confident CCP will adress these issues in the future. For now it means that you will have to live with it.
The new stats on the caracal are worse than before combined with the HML change and they were hardly tearing the place up before ;) |
|
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage Peregrine Nation
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:19:00 -
[2741] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Drake and tengu needed a nerf.
Don't start complaining about other ships untill you have seen the new stats. Yes the nighthawk will be hit hard by this change, but it is also in the queue for rebalancing.
I'm confident CCP will adress these issues in the future. For now it means that you will have to live with it.
show us the new stats and make the adjustment to the ships at the same time as the missiles, thats not asking alot. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:24:00 -
[2742] - Quote
Deerin wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I have numbered each of your statements I want to comment to.
2) 720mm arty II with tremor rounds reaches 77km. That's without any modules. A drake can hit 84.4km with navy without factoring acceleration, which puts it around 79km.
I don't know what math you are using when coming up with these numbers and I see similar arguments from missile users. Let me fix you: 54km optimal = %100 damage 54km optimal + 22km falloff= %50 damage at 77km I see many people putting optimal + falloff and stating it as effective range: It is not. I'll put this here again just so you guys can have an idea on how things are atm and how things are going to be: http://imgur.com/xAlKi
You have to be careful before casually accepting someone elses numbers in this thread.
The 720 arty cane, with 2 gyros and 2 TEs in the lows, will do 291 dps (heated) with a 70km optimal (+ 36km falloff) firing Tremor. The reason his numbers are different is that he accidentally left off the TEs. You see these same accidents with a lot of the numbers people are throwing around.
|
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
395
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:32:00 -
[2743] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Drake and tengu needed a nerf.
Don't start complaining about other ships untill you have seen the new stats. Yes the nighthawk will be hit hard by this change, but it is also in the queue for rebalancing.
I'm confident CCP will adress these issues in the future. For now it means that you will have to live with it. The new stats on the caracal are worse than before combined with the HML change and they were hardly tearing the place up before ;)
The current proposed cruiser changes are not even live yet and a lot of you guys keep on bitching about ships that aren't even balanced in the winter expansion.
About the caracal: yes it is worse than before, but remember, the changes are not set in stone. This topic exists to give feedback to CCP, so let's try to keep it to the ships that are being balanced this winter.
Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:43:00 -
[2744] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Drake and tengu needed a nerf.
Don't start complaining about other ships untill you have seen the new stats. Yes the nighthawk will be hit hard by this change, but it is also in the queue for rebalancing.
I'm confident CCP will adress these issues in the future. For now it means that you will have to live with it.
The Caracal, Navy Caracal, Nighthawk, Cerberus, and even potentially the Navy Osprey and Gila, all get hammered by this nerf. In other words, a bunch of ships few use because they are already gimped are getting nerfed even more than they are today. And let us not forget that Caldari missile BS's are in the same boat, equally broken, equally unused, and also facing a nerf once CCP adds in the TD as a counter to missiles.
You are casually suggesting nerfing the ONLY (sub-billion isk) combat ships that Caldari missile pilots have left. And while it is reasonable to assume that CCP will do something to fix these ships eventually, the key here is that last word. Eventually. If CCP wants to break the Drake then they damn well aught to fix these other ships at the same time. And if they cannot then they need to put this on hold until they can do so.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:43:00 -
[2745] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Deerin wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I have numbered each of your statements I want to comment to.
2) 720mm arty II with tremor rounds reaches 77km. That's without any modules. A drake can hit 84.4km with navy without factoring acceleration, which puts it around 79km.
I don't know what math you are using when coming up with these numbers and I see similar arguments from missile users. Let me fix you: 54km optimal = %100 damage 54km optimal + 22km falloff= %50 damage at 77km I see many people putting optimal + falloff and stating it as effective range: It is not. I'll put this here again just so you guys can have an idea on how things are atm and how things are going to be: http://imgur.com/xAlKi You have to be careful before casually accepting someone elses numbers in this thread. The 720 arty cane, with 2 gyros and 2 TEs in the lows, will do 291 dps (heated) with a 70km optimal (+ 36km falloff) firing Tremor. The reason his numbers are different is that he accidentally left off the TEs. You see these same accidents with a lot of the numbers people are throwing around.
You have to remember aswell that tremor has such TERRIBLE tracking that you would have to match transversal even at 70km to hit anything.
|
Optimo Sebiestor
The Society Calyxes
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:57:00 -
[2746] - Quote
Please don't nerf heavy missile dmg properties! Thats all :) |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 08:58:00 -
[2747] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Drake and tengu needed a nerf.
Don't start complaining about other ships untill you have seen the new stats. Yes the nighthawk will be hit hard by this change, but it is also in the queue for rebalancing.
I'm confident CCP will adress these issues in the future. For now it means that you will have to live with it. The new stats on the caracal are worse than before combined with the HML change and they were hardly tearing the place up before ;) The current proposed cruiser changes are not even live yet and a lot of you guys keep on bitching about ships that aren't even balanced in the winter expansion. About the caracal: yes it is worse than before, but remember, the changes are not set in stone. This topic exists to give feedback to CCP, so let's try to keep it to the ships that are being balanced this winter.
The Caracal TODAY is pretty much junk. It's not like you see people flying it. CCP is talking about making it worse than it is now...
plus adding a second nerf in the form of TDs...
plus making every other frigate and cruiser in the game better than they are today.
The worst get nerfed, the best get better.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 09:14:00 -
[2748] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:DeBingJos wrote:Drake and tengu needed a nerf.
Don't start complaining about other ships untill you have seen the new stats. Yes the nighthawk will be hit hard by this change, but it is also in the queue for rebalancing.
I'm confident CCP will adress these issues in the future. For now it means that you will have to live with it. The new stats on the caracal are worse than before combined with the HML change and they were hardly tearing the place up before ;) The current proposed cruiser changes are not even live yet and a lot of you guys keep on bitching about ships that aren't even balanced in the winter expansion. About the caracal: yes it is worse than before, but remember, the changes are not set in stone. This topic exists to give feedback to CCP, so let's try to keep it to the ships that are being balanced this winter.
I don't think altering an ENTIRE weapon system is how you balance TWO HULLS is all.
Imagine if instead of changing the Canes fitting, they just ramped up the fitting requirements of the projectiles across the board? Because that's analogous to this.
If heavy missiles are as overpowered as is to be believed (and don't mistake me, they could well be) the fact that they're only workable on two (thoroughly dubious for other reasons) hulls tells you just how poor all the other hulls available are. Not even a 'massively overpowered' weapon system is enough to pull the other ships up to par.
Balance is good, but do it properly! |
ugh zug
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 09:15:00 -
[2749] - Quote
**** and i just bought a heavy missile 5% implant and plugged it into my tengu pilot >_<. Want me to shut up?-á Send me ISK and i'll stop giving suggestions to CCP that make sense. Remove content from my post, 15 bil. Remove my content from a thread I have started 30bil. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 09:21:00 -
[2750] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Like I have said, I really don't care if they nerf the Drake. I don't care if they delete it from the game altogether -- I don't fly it. And the Tengu, well, that thing with the 100mn AB is downright ridiculous. But CCP needs to leave Caldari missile pilots something. If CCP decided to obliterate the Cane, I would be annoyed, but I have fifty other great ships I can fly. If they break the Drake missile pilots will have basically nothing. In my opinion that's a bad idea. Indeed, leaving no caldari pilots with no viable ship is a mistake. I suppose the revamp should be made step-by-step. First, reduce damage on HML and buff HAML. Then, rebalance missle ships. After that - reduce base range of HML, introduce TE/TC and TD. |
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 09:33:00 -
[2751] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Imagine if instead of changing the Canes fitting, they just ramped up the fitting requirements of the projectiles across the board? Because that's analogous to this. In fact they do ;-) PG fitting requirements are reduced for arty. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 09:44:00 -
[2752] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
You have to be careful before casually accepting someone elses numbers in this thread.
The 720 arty cane, with 2 gyros and 2 TEs in the lows, will do 291 dps (heated) with a 70km optimal (+ 36km falloff) firing Tremor. The reason his numbers are different is that he accidentally left off the TEs. You see these same accidents with a lot of the numbers people are throwing around.
720 arty cane with 2gyros and 2 te's has 4 mods for enhanching the weapon.....and even then you ONLY get 291 dps....heated at that....so you waste some slots only to try to get close to drake performance....and still fail at that. Drake gets 484 with furies at that range.
|
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 10:43:00 -
[2753] - Quote
Quote:720 arty cane with 2gyros and 2 te's has 4 mods for enhanching the weapon.....and even then you ONLY get 291 dps....heated at that....so you waste some slots only to try to get close to drake performance....and still fail at that. Drake gets 484 with furies at that range.
You forget that alpha is very important especially for fleet fights. Only some days ago I saw some arty Canes alpha an Omen cruiser. And what you forget: How helpless drakes are against frigs. I doubt there is another bc with exception of a rail ferox that is so helpless against frigs. AC Cane has so good tracking that it eats frigs alive, Arty Cane has only little bigger drone bay but arty alpha strike (which alphas probably more than 50% of most frigs and even destroyers) plus mostly neuts or light missiles to get frigs down. Drake is really helpless against faster frigs when drones are eaten. Almost no other bc has these problems. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
293
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 10:56:00 -
[2754] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I don't think altering an ENTIRE weapon system is how you balance TWO HULLS is all.... But it is how one balances a weapon system.
How people got into their heads that the HML changes are part of a plot to neuter the Tengu and Drake is beyond me, they will get what is coming to them but that discussion hasn't even begun yet Look over the changes being worked on for the winter patch (hint: Tiericide threads) and ask yourself if you'd like HML's to remain as they are in a state where it is really the only medium missile system used as it performs exceptionally at both short and long range.
Two most glaring examples and YtterbiumGÖÑFozzie are not done yet: I for one would hate to have the new Caracal running around with a RoF bonus (ie. Kinetic is dropped!!!!!) and range bonus. I for one would hate to have the new Bellicose running around with a RoF and TP bonus. Now add potential changes to the BCs, HACs, Recons et al.
PS: If you want an idea of what a an actual Drake nerf will look like then take a gander at what is happening to the Hurricane. Pilot is being given a very real, even harsh, choice to make when fitting it. No longer shall it be able to tick all the relevant boxes (dps/tank/ewar/capwar) without severe compromises (at least that is my hope, not sure proposed grid redux is enough ).
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 10:56:00 -
[2755] - Quote
People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
Tank/dps are not the only caracteristics of a ship... |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
373
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 11:06:00 -
[2756] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:I have spent alot of time training for a max skilled Nighthawk, perhaps not the best ship in the game but my favorite nonetheless. I have both an active and passive tanked one for various things. The dps on them have always been low compared to the other ships I fly (Amarr-Minmatar-Caldari cross trained). I think its a slap in the face to Caldari pilots to nerf the weapons system without balancing the ship at the same time. So now I am stuck with a ship that is skill point intensive that won't be able to fight its way out of a paper bag. This ship has always needed more dps, not less, why is it so hard to balance all the ships effected by the missile change at the same time? that is actually a pretty good idea. if you really have to tinker with heavy missiles, at least take a look at the half-dozen ships that use them as main weapon system so that those who are flying them don't get shafted for half a year or more.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 11:19:00 -
[2757] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:How people got into their heads that the HML changes are part of a plot to neuter the Tengu and Drake is beyond me, they will get what is coming to them but that discussion hasn't even begun yet
Probably because they're the only ships to fit them on pilots >= 3 months old ;)
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Two most glaring examples and YtterbiumGÖÑFozzie are not done yet: I for one would hate to have the new Caracal running around with a RoF bonus (ie. Kinetic is dropped!!!!!) and range bonus. I for one would hate to have the new Bellicose running around with a RoF and TP bonus. Now add potential changes to the BCs, HACs, Recons et al. PS: If you want an idea of what a an actual Drake nerf will look like then take a gander at what is happening to the Hurricane. Pilot is being given a very real, even harsh, choice to make when fitting it. No longer shall it be able to tick all the relevant boxes (dps/tank/ewar/capwar) without severe compromises (at least that is my hope, not sure proposed grid redux is enough ).
Indeed, and maybe they are not done...however they asked for feedback and we can only feedback based on current info and that currently shows whilst this change reigns in the drake/tengu it leaves most of the other (heavy) missile boats flapping in the breeze.
As many have pointed out - if the weapon system is that good, why are the only two contenders drakes/tengu? That doesnt add up in isolation, suggesting there is more to this equation.
Not every hull that uses heavies sucks completely either, Rooks are pretty serviceable but again, there's no mass proliferation of them.
And for balance/objectivity....my HML skill is....3 :D |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
480
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 11:30:00 -
[2758] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I have a few changes to the proposal we're considering and testing internally. Once we get past that stage I'll take them to the CSM, then to you all.
LOL...... This CSM will just agree with anything CCP says, so skip that part and save yourself a bit of time.
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 11:38:00 -
[2759] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Quote:720 arty cane with 2gyros and 2 te's has 4 mods for enhanching the weapon.....and even then you ONLY get 291 dps....heated at that....so you waste some slots only to try to get close to drake performance....and still fail at that. Drake gets 484 with furies at that range. You forget that alpha is very important especially for fleet fights. Only some days ago I saw some arty Canes alpha an Omen cruiser. And what you forget: How helpless drakes are against frigs. I doubt there is another bc with exception of a rail ferox that is so helpless against frigs. AC Cane has so good tracking that it eats frigs alive, Arty Cane has only little bigger drone bay but arty alpha strike (which alphas probably more than 50% of most frigs and even destroyers) plus mostly neuts or light missiles to get frigs down. Drake is really helpless against faster frigs when drones are eaten. Almost no other bc has these problems.
I had my suspicions but now I'm sure you are trolling. Drake actually keeps damaging the frigs while no arty cane can actually track a frig under its guns.
Still my beloved arty cane is getting nerfed and I'm still happy because I know that it was too good to have 720's AND a decent tank without any sacrifices. What HM users can't realize is this fact. Heavy missiles were already too good. Time to get in line with other weapons. |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 11:48:00 -
[2760] - Quote
Quote:I had my suspicions but now I'm sure you are trolling. Drake actually keeps damaging the frigs while no arty cane can actually track a frig under its guns.
Still my beloved arty cane is getting nerfed and I'm still happy because I know that it was too good to have 720's AND a decent tank without any sacrifices. What HM users can't realize is this fact. Heavy missiles were already too good. Time to get in line with other weapons.
Rofl. I have flown drake almost 4 months with another char. HM against faster frigs is almost useless. Even precision missiles. And it was a relatively high skilled char. Sorry but if someone trolls then it is you. Ever tried to get under a canes guns? Well try it. Slicers are blown mostly with one alpha. Something a Drake can only dream of. And inbetween: Drake vs Cane was always the same: At higher ranges cane simply gets away because of higher speed. And at close range I died because I hadn-¦t any invu fields any more because of neuts. |
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 11:59:00 -
[2761] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Quote:I had my suspicions but now I'm sure you are trolling. Drake actually keeps damaging the frigs while no arty cane can actually track a frig under its guns.
Still my beloved arty cane is getting nerfed and I'm still happy because I know that it was too good to have 720's AND a decent tank without any sacrifices. What HM users can't realize is this fact. Heavy missiles were already too good. Time to get in line with other weapons. Rofl. I have flown drake almost 4 months with another char. HM against faster frigs is almost useless. Even precision missiles. And it was a relatively high skilled char. Sorry but if someone trolls then it is you. Ever tried to get under a canes guns? Well try it. Slicers are blown mostly with one alpha. Something a Drake can only dream of. And inbetween: Drake vs Cane was always the same: At higher ranges cane simply gets away because of higher speed. And at close range I died because I hadn-¦t any invu fields any more because of neuts.
...yet you keep comparing the drake with an AC cane, which has NO relevance to this discussion....also using the precissions in their current state shows clearly why you've failed. But rejoice!!!! Precissions are getting buffed too!!!
|
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 12:03:00 -
[2762] - Quote
Quote:..yet you keep comparing the drake with an AC cane, which has NO relevance to this discussion....also using the precissions in their current state shows clearly why you've failed. But rejoice!!!! Precissions are getting buffed too!!!
Already corrected it to arty. Because I remember when we tried to tackle an wt arty cane at a station with some frigs until the bigger ships came. Don-¦t remember how many slicers we lost but it were some.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
293
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 12:24:00 -
[2763] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Not every hull that uses heavies sucks completely either, Rooks are pretty serviceable but again, there's no mass proliferation of them..... WHAT!?! HML on the Rook .. a travesty I say, TRAVESTY!
HAM Brawler Rook every day of the week.
Feedback is all well and good but one must include all available data, ie. everything included in this balance pass so far. Threads should not be looked at as isolated from each other, the reasons (I suspect) that they are split up to begin with is probably due to being thrown up as preliminary work is completed and to make sifting feedback a bit easier .. imagine if all eleven winter threads and counting were all under one roof
Even so, why is it that most of the complaints about Tengu/Drake being nerfed, in the guise of feedback, does not include the other biggies in this thread: The ability to modify launcher performance with generic weapon upgrade mods and TD's ability to affect same performance? Gun users have had years (naturally) to get used to thinking of dps application (range/tracking) rather than pure dps, especially when it comes to medium range weaponry, now missile users get to experience the same joy and furrowed brows as everyone else
On a completely different note: How big is the current SiSi client install? |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 12:34:00 -
[2764] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Not every hull that uses heavies sucks completely either, Rooks are pretty serviceable but again, there's no mass proliferation of them..... WHAT!?! HML on the Rook .. a travesty I say, TRAVESTY! HAM Brawler Rook every day of the week.
But...but....HML is super overpowered....right? It's just the rook jocks are gentlemen/ladies who wont use the OP weapon system
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Even so, why is it that most of the complaints about Tengu/Drake being nerfed, in the guise of feedback, does not include the other biggies in this thread: The ability to modify launcher performance with generic weapon upgrade mods and TD's ability to affect same performance?
I already called the SNI will become a (PvE) monster with these changes
'Phoon has a lot of potential nastiness too. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 13:06:00 -
[2765] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I already called the SNI will become a (PvE) monster with these changes
I doubt about SNI. It has good tank, but don't have nor range bonuses for torps neither enough launcher slots to make bearable dps with Cruieses. CNR and Golem on the other hand have potential for it. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 13:47:00 -
[2766] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
Tank/dps are not the only caracteristics of a ship...
This man gets it.
New HAM Caracal: +2 lows + fitting + drone bay (?) + RoF bonus (much better than +kin) +HP +speed/agility +effect of TC/TE
How is it worse?
I still believe heavies will be useless on unbonused ships though. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 13:53:00 -
[2767] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:I already called the SNI will become a (PvE) monster with these changes I doubt about SNI. It has good tank, but don't have nor range bonuses for torps neither enough launcher slots to make bearable dps with Cruieses. CNR and Golem on the other hand have potential for it.
It's got spare mid slots though, and we're getting a mid mounted set of missile DPS increasing mods. Damage application should lift significantly. |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
118
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 14:17:00 -
[2768] - Quote
The HML caracal will be mediocre. The HAM caracal has very nice dps but looks too flimsy for my liking. The RLML caracal is going to be pretty awesome, not just for killing unwary frigates but as a general purpose combat cruiser. |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 14:19:00 -
[2769] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
Tank/dps are not the only caracteristics of a ship... This man gets it. New HAM Caracal: +2 lows + fitting + drone bay (?) + RoF bonus (much better than +kin) +HP +speed/agility +effect of TC/TE How is it worse? I still believe heavies will be useless on unbonused ships though.
5 T2 hams PG 630, thats the entire pg of a caracal.
sure skills can lower that.
then again you need to it propulsion mods to dictate range T2 10mn MWD 165 pg
Large shield extender II 165 PG
so unbonesed fit having a pg gap of 330 PG, with 1 Large extender and a MDW.
Drone bay is the same as before the reballance
All cruisers got extra hp and speed/agillaty.
use TC/TE canceled out with TD.
So Ham caracal still fitting horror, HML Drake hardly any change as to what it was. valuable option Rapid light missile launcher, good nice frigate killer with little use outside FW |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 14:23:00 -
[2770] - Quote
Quote:If heavy missiles are as overpowered as is to be believed (and don't mistake me, they could well be) the fact that they're only workable on two (thoroughly dubious for other reasons) hulls tells you just how poor all the other hulls available are. Not even a 'massively overpowered' weapon system is enough to pull the other ships up to par.
Balance is good, but do it properly! |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 14:29:00 -
[2771] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
Tank/dps are not the only caracteristics of a ship...
actually, the changes willbe good for precision cruise missiles cause they'll have higher damage. smaller exp radius, and faster exp velocity, but a slight range nerf.
Now, while fury is getting a damage buff, it's also getting a exp radius nerf, which is bad for cruise missiles cause they already suck even against bs's. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
295
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 14:29:00 -
[2772] - Quote
There is a very good chance that HAMs and HMLs swap fitting requirements or that HAMs in the very least get some much needed lube love in that department. Think it and torps are the only short range systems that has higher requirements than their long range counterparts.
Dust hasn't settled, not by a long shot, and YtterbiumGÖÑFozzie are busy, busy, busy crunching numbers and reading forum drivel |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 14:57:00 -
[2773] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:5 T2 hams PG 630, thats the entire pg of a caracal.
sure skills can lower that.
then again you need to it propulsion mods to dictate range T2 10mn MWD 165 pg
Large shield extender II 165 PG
so unbonesed fit having a pg gap of 330 PG, with 1 Large extender and a MDW.
Drone bay is the same as before the reballance
All cruisers got extra hp and speed/agillaty.
use TC/TE canceled out with TD.
So Ham caracal still fitting horror, HML Drake hardly any change as to what it was. valuable option Rapid light missile launcher, good nice frigate killer with little use outside FW
Skills are important yo. It fits. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 14:59:00 -
[2774] - Quote
Deerin wrote:OT Smithers wrote:
You have to be careful before casually accepting someone elses numbers in this thread.
The 720 arty cane, with 2 gyros and 2 TEs in the lows, will do 291 dps (heated) with a 70km optimal (+ 36km falloff) firing Tremor. The reason his numbers are different is that he accidentally left off the TEs. You see these same accidents with a lot of the numbers people are throwing around.
720 arty cane with 2gyros and 2 te's has 4 mods for enhanching the weapon.....and even then you ONLY get 291 dps....heated at that....so you waste some slots only to try to get close to drake performance....and still fail at that. Drake gets 484 with furies at that range.
Yes, but you need to include those mods as that is what the ship is going to have. The arty cane is my preferred BC (though I generally use 650's). Amazingly, despite all the things I hear people saying in this thread, I don't feel like I am gimped when flying against Drakes. If I did I would grab a Drake. I am aware that a Drake, at RANGE, is something I simply cannot run down and kill.
Versus the typical dual nano / dual web "crappy" Drake, my cane:
* Has about 5K fewer ehp * Does about 1/3 less dps at range * Moves about 300 m/sec fast * Applies damage instantly, anywhere on the field * Aligns and accelerates much faster * Can disengage from the battle at will * Has dual neuts * Has a clear advantage applying damage to smaller targets
You are arguing that my Cane is somehow disadvantaged. You are indirectly fighting to give me a buff. While I appreciate this, it's unnecessary. I don't think my chosen ship needs to be superior in every situation. And as I said, if I believed that the Drake was anything more than what it is: a nice, balanced ship with a situational advantage, not only would I fly it, but everyone else would fly it by default as well. And finally, on the question of damage at range, as I mentioned in a previous post neither the Drake nor the Cane lead the pack in this regard.
Neither are even close. The new BC's blow them out of the water.
Yet here we are talking about nerfing the only heavy missile ship Caldari pilots have left. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:08:00 -
[2775] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:Quote:I had my suspicions but now I'm sure you are trolling. Drake actually keeps damaging the frigs while no arty cane can actually track a frig under its guns.
Still my beloved arty cane is getting nerfed and I'm still happy because I know that it was too good to have 720's AND a decent tank without any sacrifices. What HM users can't realize is this fact. Heavy missiles were already too good. Time to get in line with other weapons. Rofl. I have flown drake almost 4 months with another char. HM against faster frigs is almost useless. Even precision missiles. And it was a relatively high skilled char. Sorry but if someone trolls then it is you. Ever tried to get under an arty canes guns? Well try it. Slicers are blown mostly with one alpha. Something a Drake can only dream of. And inbetween: Drake vs Cane was always the same: At higher ranges cane simply gets away because of higher speed. And at close range I died because I hadn-¦t any invu fields any more because of neuts.
Someone doesn't know how to maintain transversal..... They also didn't notice that prescision missiles are getting a big buff (comparitively, they are broken atm) and will no longer be useless. Artycane alpha has only ever been useful against frigs when the frig is at low speed, such as when first landing or decloaking after jumping through a gate. This necessatises fitting all meds and often rigs for scan res (the instacane) so you can get a shot off before the frig gets up to speed (or warps of in case of bomber runs) leaving the ship completely tankless. So yes an arty cane can instakill frigs in a specific situation when it sacrifices all of its tank to the point it can easily be solo'd by said frig if it gets under its guns.
And why would anyone be fighting at higher ranges without tackling support? Its idiotic. No-one should be using long range weapon systems for solo stuff as they have to waste their range advantage to get an enemy tackled (there are exceptions like bubble traps).
All long range weapons and sometime close range weapons are generally useless against a tackler who is on position and up to speed, this is how the game works. The fact the missile user will be able to add a little (ok very little vs intys) dps to help is drones is in fact an advantage. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:17:00 -
[2776] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
* A slight nerf? This is a game in which people train months for a few percent improvement. CCP isn't using a scalpel here, they are using a chainsaw.
* This is only true if we assume that they will also be balanced at shorter ranges. That's not what CCP has proposed.
* All other missiles are going to get a buff (though we have to see what CCP actually does before this is worth discussing) but at the same time we also know that all other missiles are going to get a nerf with this TD thing.
* The Caracal, even with the added low slots, will do LESS dps than it does today. If I recall from the other thread, it will be doing somewhere around 250 dps, minus whatever TDs take away. In other words, it's a cruiser that has trouble actually hitting frigates or other cruisers, and pushing out T1 frigate DPS.
Quote:Tank/dps are not the only caracteristics of a ship...
I agree. Why is it that you seem to forget this when comparing the HM Drake to other BC's? |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:24:00 -
[2777] - Quote
This whole thread would be way more productive if we knew numbers on how TD/TE/TC/TL would affect missiles. Whithout numbers it's just a wild guesses, we all know that CCP can do such extremes like +5% range per TE and +30% range per TE. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:30:00 -
[2778] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:The HML caracal will be mediocre. The HAM caracal has very nice dps but looks too flimsy for my liking. The RLML caracal is going to be pretty awesome, not just for killing unwary frigates but as a general purpose combat cruiser.
The AML Caracal, with all level 5 skills, will do something under 200 dps heated, and about 160 dps normally. In other words, it will do less DPS than virtually any AF -- in some cases half as much. It is even out damaged by long range frigate fits like the rail Enyo. And this ignored the proposed TD nerf.
It has no utility high slots so it cannot fit neuts, and it has only two drones, thus eliminating two of the best anti-frigate defenses in the game.
In short, the AML Caracal is probably not going to become a frigate killing machine. And against other combat cruisers, well, it's gonna get chewed up and spit out. It's role is DPS from range; it has the range, it just doesn't have the dps. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
375
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:37:00 -
[2779] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:This whole thread would be way more productive if we knew numbers on how TD/TE/TC/TL would affect missiles. Whithout numbers it's just a wild guesses, we all know that CCP can do such extremes like +5% range per TE and +30% range per TE.
no amount of range will offset a 20% damage nerf. imagine your employer decides to cut your salary by 20% and only gives you free coffee in exchange.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
DeadNite
Focused Annihilation Detrimental Imperative
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:37:00 -
[2780] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:bornaa wrote:-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect??? Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff
Though I can understand that unguided missiles are good lore-type elements, this is not very true to the nature of game mechanics. All missiles are guided and the only exception to this rule are bombs. Good lore doesn't necessarily translate into good gameplay mechanics as stated by various game developers throughout history. |
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
171
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:39:00 -
[2781] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:This whole thread would be way more productive if we knew numbers on how TD/TE/TC/TL would affect missiles. Whithout numbers it's just a wild guesses, we all know that CCP can do such extremes like +5% range per TE and +30% range per TE.
True, but this is hardly useful on ships that lack the low slots to fit them -- a situation that applies to most missile boats.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:44:00 -
[2782] - Quote
Doddy wrote: All long range weapons and sometime close range weapons are generally useless against a tackler who is on position and up to speed, this is how the game works. The fact the missile user will be able to add a little (ok very little vs intys) dps to help is drones is in fact an advantage.
It's insanely powerful infact. Even now, HML do some damage to frigates, and even to interceptors. Ever tryed to tackle a tengu ? It took him almost as many time to kill me than to kill a BC, but it finaly had killed me if I hadn't warped off. Now, HML will be even more deadly to frigates.
Infact, this so called nerf will make HML boat almost immune to frigates, and any pilote who fled a long range turret ship know what this mean. This is godly. And still, HML will remain the best weapon system at range.
Range is cut indeed, but TC/TE will expand it to something even bigger than before !
And no, TD won't be an IWIN module. Remember, with TC/TE, and I bet a lot of missiles users will use it, or at least the smart ones, your range will be equivalent or higher than before, and your damage application will be hell of a lot better. TD will just put the missiles to their base stats.
BTW, sacrificing a mid slot for EWAR SHOULD give you an advantage. It's the only strength of armor tanking ! Why does everyone want to nerf EWAR to oblivion ? |
Texty
State War Academy Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:47:00 -
[2783] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Texty wrote:Where did the cruise missile buff go ... ? actually, while fury cruise got a slight damage buff, they also got a exp radius nerf. This sucks since cruise missile damage application is their bad part. Precision are getting buffed pretty nicely which is good, but at a loss of range I think. Yeah, Fury cruise looks like they have pretty good damage on paper, but when you actually shoot stuff in missions, where they are mainly used, the damage application is so bad (even with 3 rigor / flare rigs, 2 meta 4 TPs, and explosion velocity & radius implants) that you can actually run most of the missions faster with T1 ammo + CN launchers.
And now they say that they are planning to increase the explosion velocity and explosion radius of T2 high-damage ammo. This makes the now rarely used T2 damage ammo (except with the Tengu) even more useless. Seriously, where do you expect us to use Fury cruise? What are we supposed to shoot with it?
Yes, I know no one here cares about missions or cruise missiles. I feel like I'm posting something very off-topic but after all the title says this is a "missile rebalance" thread so ... |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:51:00 -
[2784] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:This whole thread would be way more productive if we knew numbers on how TD/TE/TC/TL would affect missiles. Whithout numbers it's just a wild guesses, we all know that CCP can do such extremes like +5% range per TE and +30% range per TE. no amount of range will offset a 20% damage nerf. imagine your employer decides to cut your salary by 20% and only gives you free coffee in exchange.
If they had been giving you inflation busting pay rises for years a sthe company spiralled into debt you would probably think it was fair enough. Especially if they left you the option of another job with the same or even better pay but without the free coffee.
Bad analogies are bad.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 15:54:00 -
[2785] - Quote
Texty wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Texty wrote:Where did the cruise missile buff go ... ? actually, while fury cruise got a slight damage buff, they also got a exp radius nerf. This sucks since cruise missile damage application is their bad part. Precision are getting buffed pretty nicely which is good, but at a loss of range I think. Yeah, Fury cruise looks like they have pretty good damage on paper, but when you actually shoot stuff in missions, where they are mainly used, the damage application is so bad (even with 3 rigor / flare rigs, 2 meta 4 TPs, and explosion velocity & radius implants) that you can actually run most of the missions faster with T1 ammo + CN launchers. And now they say that they are planning to increase the explosion velocity and explosion radius of T2 high-damage ammo. This makes the now rarely used T2 damage ammo (except with the Tengu) even more useless. Seriously, where do you expect us to use Fury cruise? What are we supposed to shoot with it? Yes, I know no one here cares about missions or cruise missiles. I feel like I'm posting something very off-topic but after all the title says this is a "missile rebalance" thread so ...
They must be buffing cruise, its the most obviously broken thing in the game (even more obvious than op hmls ). I would imagine they will buff them when they buff bs though otherwise it would be kinda hard to balance the raven.
It would also obviously calm down alot of angry mission runners if thier ravens were worth using again like the old days.
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 16:02:00 -
[2786] - Quote
Sadly Cruise and Torps won't be touched until at least next Summer Expansion. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 16:25:00 -
[2787] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:I already called the SNI will become a (PvE) monster with these changes I doubt about SNI. It has good tank, but don't have nor range bonuses for torps neither enough launcher slots to make bearable dps with Cruieses. CNR and Golem on the other hand have potential for it.
Now, if only the CNR had much tanking capability, and if only the golem wasn't the most expensive pile of crap in the game.
With both ships you lose a LOT of tank to target painters and still aren't that effective.
The SNI has 8 mid slots which is perfect for a decent tank and 2 target painters.
However, it can't use torps due to no range buff and it sucks terribly bad with cruise missiles because cruise missiles suck terribly bad.
Look, with these nerfs to heavy missiles I can see exactly where they're going. They're nerfing the range of heavies to nerf the tengu.
Once they rebalance the drake it will probably lose a good amount of EHP, but will probably get a range buff to heavy missiles.
Now, as far as this goes, it's too soon.
Heavy missiles don't need to be nerfed now, they need to be nerfed when they do battle cruiser rebalancing. The reason I say this is cause the tengu will still fair well with the nerf, but the drake will not.
Nerfing heavy missiles now leaves missile boat pilots with nothing but the tengu until bc rebalance. However, if the drake and tengu rebalancing comes before battleship rebalancing, the missile boat pilots will have absolutely nothing that has high efficiency in pve.(and don't try to use the golem as an example because if you've ever flown it you'd know how bad it actually is.)
So, with the projection of how things are going with ship rebalancing (we're working uphill) then the next in line will be the drake and the tengu to get nerfed (and they will be nerfed more than just heavy missile nerfs).
So, until they rebalance battleships, I'm up battlship creek slow boating with no damage... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 16:35:00 -
[2788] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
slight nerf? This nerf negates have trained any missile boat that can fit heavy missiles with damage bonus past lvl 1. Everyone of them has a 25% bonus to damage at lvl 5. We're losing 4 lvls of dps from every ship we've trained for. slight nerf...hmm
What they're doing to the hurricane is a slight nerf.
What they're doing to heavy missiles is neutering them.
And lets face it, there's no such thing as a slightly neutered animal.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 16:36:00 -
[2789] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:deerin wrote:I'll put this here again just so you guys can have an idea on how things are atm and how things are going to be: http://imgur.com/xAlKi The way I feel it should be(changes from the graph are underlined) Beam lasers - best close range, worst mid range(nerf), moderate long range (buff) Rails - worst short range(nerf), moderate mid range, best long range(good, but with some buff) Arty - moderate short range(slight buff), best mid range(buff), worst long range(nerf, but not out of range) heavy missiles - moderate short range(buff), moderate mid range(nerf), moderate long range(actually present/buff) This means every weapon system has a range at which they are the king, but also a range at which they are the worst. While missiles would never be the worst at any range, they'd never be the best at any range either. Building each weapon system in this manner (including close range weapon systems) this would actually help to keep a check on combat so that no single weapon system would be the trump card. This would also help to suggest a mixed fleet doctrine. This puts all systems in check because if someone ever makes a pure fleet again, well then a mixed, or possibly pure fleet of another weapon type will be able to determine the range of combat, thus defeating the enemy by putting themselves at optimal, but not their target. Now, it suggests to them mixed fleets because you'll be prepared for any type of fleet reguardless of what range they come in at, and you'll still be able to determine the range of battle when you attack someone else. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 16:42:00 -
[2790] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER. * A slight nerf? This is a game in which people train months for a few percent improvement. CCP isn't using a scalpel here, they are using a chainsaw. * This is only true if we assume that they will also be balanced at shorter ranges. That's not what CCP has proposed. * All other missiles are going to get a buff (though we have to see what CCP actually does before this is worth discussing) but at the same time we also know that all other missiles are going to get a nerf with this TD thing. * The Caracal, even with the added low slots, will do LESS dps than it does today. If I recall from the other thread, it will be doing somewhere around 250 dps, minus whatever TDs take away. In other words, it's a cruiser that has trouble actually hitting frigates or other cruisers, and pushing out T1 frigate DPS. Quote:Tank/dps are not the only caracteristics of a ship... I agree. Why is it that you seem to forget this when comparing the HM Drake to other BC's?
What if i told you there are Other missiles systems? |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 16:44:00 -
[2791] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: What if i told you there are Other missiles systems?
What if I told you the other missile systems suck? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1022
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 16:57:00 -
[2792] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: What if i told you there are Other missiles systems?
What if I told you the other missile systems suck?
Cry more about your wasted skill points. Let me show you my wasted titan skill points, or my wasted skill points when I was a nano pilot back in the day.
Things change, get over it and move on, in EVE you'l learn that if you want to be nerf proof, you'll train for everything, and if you dont train for everything AND you're not an innovator (you're not) then you simply shut up and deal with it while the actual innovators work out the new fits that function in a given weapons systems.
Also your quoted post about how 'weapons should be' is dumb, hth.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:14:00 -
[2793] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: What if i told you there are Other missiles systems?
What if I told you the other missile systems suck?
Then i would laugh at you.
|
PI Maker
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:14:00 -
[2794] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: What if i told you there are Other missiles systems?
What if I told you the other missile systems suck? Cry more about your wasted skill points. Let me show you my wasted titan skill points, or my wasted skill points when I was a nano pilot back in the day. Things change, get over it and move on, in EVE you'l learn that if you want to be nerf proof, you'll train for everything, and if you dont train for everything AND you're not an innovator (you're not) then you simply shut up and deal with it while the actual innovators work out the new fits that function in a given weapons systems. Also your quoted post about how 'weapons should be' is dumb, hth. congratulations, you just validated his main gripe. CCP keeps screwing up things people have invested a lot of time and ISK in. it isn't strictly about nerfs or this weapon or that ship, its about ruining long term decisions. if they want to constantly tweak things and change fundamentals, they need to have a game that doesn't force you to make decisions a year or more in advance. |
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:19:00 -
[2795] - Quote
All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:23:00 -
[2796] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
Good Job at trying to make this look as bad as possible with the numbers you have given. Also it is 20% nerf not 25%. Next point HML are long range attack weapons. If you want to post how about putting hams on there and fight close range like the rest of the races have to or are you like the rest of the people and think that only HML can be fit to medium sized ships.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:29:00 -
[2797] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: What if i told you there are Other missiles systems?
What if I told you the other missile systems suck? Cry more about your wasted skill points. Let me show you my wasted titan skill points, or my wasted skill points when I was a nano pilot back in the day.
Your sitting here crying about SP you spent on ships that are still relevant and usable. just because you don't use those ships/fits anymore doesn't mean you couldn't.
So, if you want to coach me on my missile SP, then perhaps you should sit down and look at the fact that no SP into weapon systems should ever be a waist of SP. Why should I consider an entire group of weapon systems waisted SP? Because you say so?
Quote:Things change, get over it and move on, in EVE you'l learn that if you want to be nerf proof, you'll train for everything, and if you dont train for everything AND you're not an innovator (you're not) then you simply shut up and deal with it while the actual innovators work out the new fits that function in a given weapons systems.
Also your quoted post about how 'weapons should be' is dumb, hth.
And you're an innovator?
Look, you may not agree with my proposed weapons balancing design, but at least I'm providing options.
You are doing nothing but harping on people. You're nagging me about missile skills being waisted SP, though a weapon system should never be waisted SP, and you're knocking on my proposed weapons balancing without providing any suggestions of your own, OR any reasoning why my design idea wouldn't work and/or shouldn't be implemented.
By definition you are nothing more than a troll getting your jollies off by telling other's to HTFU and that their ideas are dumb.
Move along troll |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:30:00 -
[2798] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:deerin wrote:I'll put this here again just so you guys can have an idea on how things are atm and how things are going to be: http://imgur.com/xAlKi The way I feel it should be(changes from the graph are underlined) Beam lasers - best close range, worst mid range(nerf), moderate long range (buff) Rails - worst short range(nerf), moderate mid range, best long range(good, but with some buff) Arty - moderate short range(slight buff), best mid range(buff), worst long range(nerf, but not out of range) heavy missiles - moderate short range(buff), moderate mid range(nerf), moderate long range(actually present/buff) This means every weapon system has a range at which they are the king, but also a range at which they are the worst. While missiles would never be the worst at any range, they'd never be the best at any range either. Building each weapon system in this manner (including close range weapon systems) this would actually help to keep a check on combat so that no single weapon system would be the trump card. This would also help to suggest a mixed fleet doctrine. This puts all systems in check because if someone ever makes a pure fleet again, well then a mixed, or possibly pure fleet of another weapon type will be able to determine the range of combat, thus defeating the enemy by putting themselves at optimal, but not their target. Now, it suggests to them mixed fleets because you'll be prepared for any type of fleet reguardless of what range they come in at, and you'll still be able to determine the range of battle when you attack someone else.
Dude, the whole point of fleet doctrines is for everyone to fight at the same range. Making specific weapons best at specific ranges just makes a mixed fleet even less likely.
If you want to kite you put every guy in the ship best at medium range. If you want to snipe you put everyone in the best long range set up. If you want to brawl you put every guy in the best ship at short range. If you are not sure what you want or if you will be able to dictate you put everyone in the set up with the best range variance.
The problem with medium weaponry at the moment is that the weapon system best for sniping (long range) and kiting (medium range) is also the one with the best range variance and its not half bad at brawling either (thanks to the resilience of the ships that use them). Missiles currently have best damage at medium and long range, so you would need to nerf them heavily, at least as heavily as the current nerf .
|
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:32:00 -
[2799] - Quote
MIrple wrote:TriadSte wrote:All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
Good Job at trying to make this look as bad as possible with the numbers you have given. Also it is 20% nerf not 25%. Next point HML are long range attack weapons. If you want to post how about putting hams on there and fight close range like the rest of the races have to or are you like the rest of the people and think that only HML can be fit to medium sized ships.
No I am quite simply taking what CCP du*ba*s said and ripping it to shreds.
The argument is that the nerf is to bring HMLs in line with all other long range weapons.
That argument is flawed and utter BS because an Oracle can get 650 DPS easily at 75km
A Tornado can easily get 650 DPS at 75km
Yes I realise I'm using BS weapons but its valid because these ships are the same ship class as a Drake. The argument is for long range weapons so again I'm quite valid to argue the HML nerf will be a large death knoll for many players.
Numbers do not lie and even if it is a 20% nerf and not the 25% I thought in my previous post another 5% isnt going to make HMLs a valid weapon for ANYBODY. alot of players don't have lvl5 skills so those numbers are going to be even worse.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:40:00 -
[2800] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:MIrple wrote:TriadSte wrote:All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
Good Job at trying to make this look as bad as possible with the numbers you have given. Also it is 20% nerf not 25%. Next point HML are long range attack weapons. If you want to post how about putting hams on there and fight close range like the rest of the races have to or are you like the rest of the people and think that only HML can be fit to medium sized ships.
No I am quite simply taking what CCP du*ba*s said and ripping it to shreds. The argument is that the nerf is to bring HMLs in line with all other long range weapons. That argument is flawed and utter BS because an Oracle can get 650 DPS easily at 75km A Tornado can easily get 650 DPS at 75km Yes I realise I'm using BS weapons but its valid because these ships are the same ship class as a Drake. The argument is for long range weapons so again I'm quite valid to argue the HML nerf will be a large death knoll for many players. Numbers do not lie and even if it is a 20% nerf and not the 25% I thought in my previous post another 5% isnt going to make HMLs a valid weapon for ANYBODY. alot of players don't have lvl5 skills so those numbers are going to be even worse.
And the Naga can get 750 at 86k so should we nerf it cause it gets 100 more dps at 10k longer? |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:45:00 -
[2801] - Quote
MIrple wrote:And the Naga can get 750 at 86k so should we nerf it cause it gets 100 more dps at 10k longer?
Or should we say 400 dps at 240km? 400 dps is around where Drake's dps is now, right? |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
578
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:46:00 -
[2802] - Quote
If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well? |
TriadSte
IronPig Sev3rance
111
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:49:00 -
[2803] - Quote
MIrple wrote:TriadSte wrote:MIrple wrote:TriadSte wrote:All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
Good Job at trying to make this look as bad as possible with the numbers you have given. Also it is 20% nerf not 25%. Next point HML are long range attack weapons. If you want to post how about putting hams on there and fight close range like the rest of the races have to or are you like the rest of the people and think that only HML can be fit to medium sized ships.
No I am quite simply taking what CCP du*ba*s said and ripping it to shreds. The argument is that the nerf is to bring HMLs in line with all other long range weapons. That argument is flawed and utter BS because an Oracle can get 650 DPS easily at 75km A Tornado can easily get 650 DPS at 75km Yes I realise I'm using BS weapons but its valid because these ships are the same ship class as a Drake. The argument is for long range weapons so again I'm quite valid to argue the HML nerf will be a large death knoll for many players. Numbers do not lie and even if it is a 20% nerf and not the 25% I thought in my previous post another 5% isnt going to make HMLs a valid weapon for ANYBODY. alot of players don't have lvl5 skills so those numbers are going to be even worse. And the Naga can get 750 at 86k so should we nerf it cause it gets 100 more dps at 10k longer?
Dont tempt fate...CCP might be reading this and think its a good idea
CCPs entire idea here is flawed, flawed isn't even the word its just complete and epic fail.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:49:00 -
[2804] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well?
I think this will happen when they change the precision and fury missiles. If you are asking for T1 I would be ok with that also. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:50:00 -
[2805] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
For comparsion lets take say a..........Tornado
800mm Repeating artillery 2 x T2 Gyro 2X T2 Tracking Enhancer
All lvl5 skills - barrage ammo [same range as HMLs and there we have 622 DPS
How is that balanced?
An Oracle can easily get into the 650 DPS range and more...
How is this balanced?
CCP your making the biggest F**K up in the history of this game, do NOT allow it to happen.
While I am agreeing with you on the nerfed drake being laughably bad, you're making a terrible comparison.
You're comparing the drake's dps against 2 battlecruisers that are designed to fit large guns and have massive dps, though they're glass cannons.
However, the drake is so different from other tier 2 battlecruisers that I don't feel it should be compared to them in any manner.
Honestly though, it is a bit OP when compared to bcs as a whole, but this can be fixed with a simple EHP nerf. There's no need for the heavy missile nerf, unless they're just trying to make them less powerful on cruisers and will compensate when the rebalance the drake.
But, like I said, heavy missiles shouldn't have been balanced until battlecruiser rebalance |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:52:00 -
[2806] - Quote
MIrple wrote:TriadSte wrote:All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
Good Job at trying to make this look as bad as possible with the numbers you have given. Also it is 20% nerf not 25%. Next point HML are long range attack weapons. If you want to post how about putting hams on there and fight close range like the rest of the races have to or are you like the rest of the people and think that only HML can be fit to medium sized ships.
yeah people don't use kinetic misisle on drakes wut?
Anyway that dps figure is around what a single bonus bc gets with any other long range weapon system using ammo with comparable range.
Ferox - 210 dps for greater optimal, can add a luancher for a little more dps.
Brutix - 307dps, needs to use spike to get the range
Cyclone - 196 dps, will need to add tracking mods to match the range, can add 3 launchers so not as bad is it looks.
Harbinger - 323 dps, needs tracking mods to match range. Has secondary weapon bonus so unlike the other single damage bonus bcs has no tanking bonus. Its really a gank bc like the cane.
Myrmiddon is hard to fit in because its a droneboat.
That leaves hurricane, which everyone wants to compare with drake. Thing is cane is a dual damage bonus ship and doesn't get a tanking bonus so its not really a good comparison in the first place.
Hurricane - 294 dps (coincidental?) - need tracking mods to match range, can add launchers but doesn't have the grid really.
So the double damage bonused gank bc needs tracking or fitting mods just to match the damage of the tank bc at comparable range AFTER the nerf.
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
118
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 17:59:00 -
[2807] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:The AML Caracal, with all level 5 skills, will do something under 200 dps heated, and about 160 dps normally. It'll do around 300 dps (before heat) post patch, out to 50+ km with essentially perfect damage application against destroyers and up when using fury, and the option to switch down to faction ammo to hit frigates for full damage right in their resist hole. You don't *need* neuts for frigate defence when you can smack them down with your primary weapon system. |
Lili Lu
488
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:02:00 -
[2808] - Quote
TriadSte wrote: Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills...
For comparsion lets take say a..........Tornado
800mm Repeating artillery 2 x T2 Gyro 2X T2 Tracking Enhancer
All lvl5 skills - barrage ammo [same range as HMLs and there we have 622 DPS
How is that balanced? . . .
CCP your making the biggest F**K up in the history of this game, do NOT allow it to happen. No it's u. You are the biggest F**K up poster in the history of the game. Noone uses scourge fury? You've got no evidence for that statement.
Oh, and yeah I know the Harby does more damage with explo . .grlgrgl . . oh well I guess it'll HAVE TO USE ITS BONUSED DAMAGE TYPE for any comparison. And you obviously are ignoring the apparent trend in rebalancing where CCP is (unwisely imo) getting rid of the kinetic bonuses on Caldari missile boats and replacing them with a damage or rof bonus. So just wait a year til the BC rebalancing and don't worry about your distaste for kinetic as a damage type.
And then you compare this to a Tornado with its LARGE SHORT RANGE HIGH DAMAGE weapon system. And you compound your erroneous presentation with figures by totally ignoring the 7KM OPTIMAL and include falloff in your comparison of dps at range! You clearly have no experience with those turrets and I dare say with turrets in general. ******* amazing
And you repeat this bullshit comparison in your followup post simply tossing aside your dawning realization that there is something wrong with comparing these two ships.
Stop posting and think more. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:04:00 -
[2809] - Quote
Oh, and as far as nerfing kinetic damage in order to buff RoF.
I HATE THAT!!!!
Unless they buff missile velocity ( A LOT) then we'll be waisting a whole lot more volleys. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:05:00 -
[2810] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:MIrple wrote:TriadSte wrote:All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
Good Job at trying to make this look as bad as possible with the numbers you have given. Also it is 20% nerf not 25%. Next point HML are long range attack weapons. If you want to post how about putting hams on there and fight close range like the rest of the races have to or are you like the rest of the people and think that only HML can be fit to medium sized ships.
No I am quite simply taking what CCP du*ba*s said and ripping it to shreds. The argument is that the nerf is to bring HMLs in line with all other long range weapons. That argument is flawed and utter BS because an Oracle can get 650 DPS easily at 75km A Tornado can easily get 650 DPS at 75km Yes I realise I'm using BS weapons but its valid because these ships are the same ship class as a Drake. The argument is for long range weapons so again I'm quite valid to argue the HML nerf will be a large death knoll for many players. Numbers do not lie and even if it is a 20% nerf and not the 25% I thought in my previous post another 5% isnt going to make HMLs a valid weapon for ANYBODY. alot of players don't have lvl5 skills so those numbers are going to be even worse.
Your argument is valid when tornados and oracle have the same tank as drakes...... And to get even close to heavy missiles damage at range med turret users MUST have t2 guns trained so the sp argument is against you as well. You are not ripping anything to shreds you are just looking silly. Not even those most against the change think comparing hml damage to tier 3 damage is a good idea.
|
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
205
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:07:00 -
[2811] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:5 T2 hams PG 630, thats the entire pg of a caracal.
sure skills can lower that.
then again you need to it propulsion mods to dictate range T2 10mn MWD 165 pg
Large shield extender II 165 PG
so unbonesed fit having a pg gap of 330 PG, with 1 Large extender and a MDW.
Drone bay is the same as before the reballance
All cruisers got extra hp and speed/agillaty.
use TC/TE canceled out with TD.
So Ham caracal still fitting horror, HML Drake hardly any change as to what it was. valuable option Rapid light missile launcher, good nice frigate killer with little use outside FW with the new stats: +100 PG and +80 CPU my math says theyll have an end total of 787.5 PG and 537.5 CPU
Each launcher takes 113.4 PG and 37.5 CPU for a total of 567 PG and 187.5 CPU leaving you with 220.5 PG and 350 CPU . . . I dont see the problem . . . |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
223
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:08:00 -
[2812] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Oh, and as far as nerfing kinetic damage in order to buff RoF.
I HATE THAT!!!!
Unless they buff missile velocity ( A LOT) then we'll be waisting a whole lot more volleys.
They are buffing missile velocity but the wasted volleys thing is true. I personally think the nerf should be to rof rather than damage in the first place as missiles should clearly have high alpha. This has the added bonus off reducing lost volleys.
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:26:00 -
[2813] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Doddy wrote: All long range weapons and sometime close range weapons are generally useless against a tackler who is on position and up to speed, this is how the game works. The fact the missile user will be able to add a little (ok very little vs intys) dps to help is drones is in fact an advantage.
It's insanely powerful infact. Even now, HML do some damage to frigates, and even to interceptors. Ever tryed to tackle a tengu ? It took him almost as many time to kill me than to kill a BC, but it finaly had killed me if I hadn't warped off. Now, HML will be even more deadly to frigates. Infact, this so called nerf will make HML boat almost immune to frigates, and any pilote who fled a long range turret ship know what this mean. This is godly. And still, HML will remain the best weapon system at range. Range is cut indeed, but TC/TE will expand it to something even bigger than before ! And no, TD won't be an IWIN module. Remember, with TC/TE, and I bet a lot of missiles users will use it, or at least the smart ones, your range will be equivalent or higher than before, and your damage application will be hell of a lot better. TD will just put the missiles to their base stats. BTW, sacrificing a mid slot for EWAR SHOULD give you an advantage. It's the only strength of armor tanking ! Why does everyone want to nerf EWAR to oblivion ?
Are you trying to convince us or are you trying to convince CCP?
CCP is NOT buffing missiles. They are not making them "insanely powerful." They are, by their own statements, nerfing them. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
205
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:27:00 -
[2814] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
slight nerf? This nerf negates have trained any missile boat that can fit heavy missiles with damage bonus past lvl 1. Everyone of them has a 25% bonus to damage at lvl 5. We're losing 4 lvls of dps from every ship we've trained for. slight nerf...hmm What they're doing to the hurricane is a slight nerf. What they're doing to heavy missiles is neutering them. And lets face it, there's no such thing as a slightly neutered animal. ok, check out the numbers.
The a drake with HML 2s and 3 BCS and no other mods does 398 DPS using caldari navy scourge at 80 km or so The hurricane with 720 arty and 3 gyrostabs and no other mods does 262 DPS using tremor at 54 + 22 km The harbinger with Heavy beam 2s, 3 heat sinks and no other mods does 305 DPS using Aurora at 54 + 10 km The brutix with 250 mm Rails, 3 mag stabs and no other mods does 279 DPS using spike at 65 + 15
The drake out ranges everything except for the brutix basically, and it out damages the next best weapon by 30%
The best thing about this comparison is that they all get a 5% damage bonus except for the cane because most matari ships get two damage bonuses.
Stop comparing HMLs to autocannons, they are long range weapons.
Oh and the stats about the drake after the change will be around 318 DPS using caldari navy scourge at 60 km or so |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
224
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:34:00 -
[2815] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Doddy wrote: All long range weapons and sometime close range weapons are generally useless against a tackler who is on position and up to speed, this is how the game works. The fact the missile user will be able to add a little (ok very little vs intys) dps to help is drones is in fact an advantage.
It's insanely powerful infact. Even now, HML do some damage to frigates, and even to interceptors. Ever tryed to tackle a tengu ? It took him almost as many time to kill me than to kill a BC, but it finaly had killed me if I hadn't warped off. Now, HML will be even more deadly to frigates. Infact, this so called nerf will make HML boat almost immune to frigates, and any pilote who fled a long range turret ship know what this mean. This is godly. And still, HML will remain the best weapon system at range. Range is cut indeed, but TC/TE will expand it to something even bigger than before ! And no, TD won't be an IWIN module. Remember, with TC/TE, and I bet a lot of missiles users will use it, or at least the smart ones, your range will be equivalent or higher than before, and your damage application will be hell of a lot better. TD will just put the missiles to their base stats. BTW, sacrificing a mid slot for EWAR SHOULD give you an advantage. It's the only strength of armor tanking ! Why does everyone want to nerf EWAR to oblivion ? Are you trying to convince us or are you trying to convince CCP? CCP is NOT buffing missiles. They are not making them "insanely powerful." They are, by their own statements, nerfing them.
Except in the specific situation referred to (vs a frigate tackling) where the newly buffed precision missiles coupled with the ability to add tracking enhancement and the increase missile velocity will in fact be better than the situation now. So you are wrong, again.
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:43:00 -
[2816] - Quote
Doddy wrote:They must be buffing cruise, its the most obviously broken thing in the game (even more obvious than op hmls ). I would imagine they will buff them when they buff bs though otherwise it would be kinda hard to balance the raven. It would also obviously calm down alot of angry mission runners if thier ravens were worth using again like the old days.
The entire point of this nerf is to significantly reduce server loads by eliminating missile spam in fleet battles. They are not goiong to turn around and make cruise missiles the new lag weapons. Hell, they are so opposed to long range missile combat that they changed the Naga from missiles to hybrids -- and they did so knowing that they were pissing in the faces of every Caldari missile pilot. Caldari Missile pilots who were excited that they would FINALLY have something other than the Drake to fly got screwed as usual, and Gallente hybrid pilots got their choice between two new BC's.
So no, I think you would be foolish to look for some fix for cruise missiles. Torpedoes maybe, as they time out basically immediately, but Cruise Missiles I think you can write off.
CCP is (probably) trying to find some "sweet spot" at which long range missile fire isn't totally worthless, but is a poor choice for fleet combat. They could probably accomplish this without screwing Missile pilots completely, but that would require a complete rewrite of the missile combat system, and there is no way they want to tackle that. They want fleets using direct fire weapons, and I think they will continue these nerfs until they achieve this. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 18:51:00 -
[2817] - Quote
TriadSte wrote:All im gonna say is this:
Agreeing with an above poster when he states you should rebalance battlecruisers before you rebalance missiles.
If you rebalance HMLs BEFORE battlecruisers, the Drake will be capable of about 200 DPS..Lets open EFT
490 DPS Drake [all lvl5 skills no implants]
4xT2 BCU 7xT2 HML launcher w/Scourge Fury
If we take off the proposed 25% DPS we go down to 367.5 DPS; Bear in mind this is with Scourge Fury, it's BONUSED for this damage type missile. Yeah nobody uses kinetic missiles really, I would guess that EM are used most? So lets bang some T2 Mjol Fury and see the DPS..
As it is now it would pump 392 DPS minus the proposed 25% DPS nerf and that gives us a staggering 294 DPS will all lvl5 skills..
ALL LVL5 SKILLS WITH 7 PERFECTLY SKILLED HML LAUNCHERS ----- 294 DPS
CCP - seriously? your going to do this?
For comparsion lets take say a..........Tornado
800mm Repeating artillery 2 x T2 Gyro 2X T2 Tracking Enhancer
All lvl5 skills - barrage ammo [same range as HMLs and there we have 622 DPS
How is that balanced?
An Oracle can easily get into the 650 DPS range and more...
How is this balanced?
CCP your making the biggest F**K up in the history of this game, do NOT allow it to happen.
It's not about damage at range, as you correctly point out there are already four other BCs that signifi9cantly outdamage and outrange the Drake, and they are all faster and more agile to boot. This whole damage discussion was never more than a smokescreen. Nor is the Drake any better than the other BCs, or if so it is so marginal that it's irrelevant. They aren't risking pissing off fifty thousand missile pilots over something as insignificant as that. And in any case, we know the Drake isn't particularly overpowered, we know this simply by looking at what small gangs and individual pilots choose to fly for themselves.
The POINT is to reduce server loads, and if they have to screw Caldari pilots (once again) to do it, so be it.
And that's fine I suppose, but if so then CCP needs to come up with some use for these things and they need to fix the other currently broken missile boats before they F$#@ up the only heavy combat ship Caldari pilots have left.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
224
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:03:00 -
[2818] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Doddy wrote:They must be buffing cruise, its the most obviously broken thing in the game (even more obvious than op hmls ). I would imagine they will buff them when they buff bs though otherwise it would be kinda hard to balance the raven. It would also obviously calm down alot of angry mission runners if thier ravens were worth using again like the old days. The entire point of this nerf is to significantly reduce server loads by eliminating missile spam in fleet battles. They are not goiong to turn around and make cruise missiles the new lag weapons. Hell, they are so opposed to long range missile combat that they changed the Naga from missiles to hybrids -- and they did so knowing that they were pissing in the faces of every Caldari missile pilot. Caldari Missile pilots who were excited that they would FINALLY have something other than the Drake to fly got screwed as usual, and Gallente hybrid pilots got their choice between two new BC's. So no, I think you would be foolish to look for some fix for cruise missiles. Torpedoes maybe, as they time out basically immediately, but Cruise Missiles I think you can write off. CCP is (probably) trying to find some "sweet spot" at which long range missile fire isn't totally worthless, but is a poor choice for fleet combat. They could probably accomplish this without screwing Missile pilots completely, but that would require a complete rewrite of the missile combat system, and there is no way they want to tackle that. They want fleets using direct fire weapons, and I think they will continue these nerfs until they achieve this.
If you were remotely right they would be nerfing mssile dps through rof rather than alpha and changing rof bonuses to damage. But oh look they are doing completely the opposite so you are wrong, yet again.
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:04:00 -
[2819] - Quote
Sigras wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
slight nerf? This nerf negates have trained any missile boat that can fit heavy missiles with damage bonus past lvl 1. Everyone of them has a 25% bonus to damage at lvl 5. We're losing 4 lvls of dps from every ship we've trained for. slight nerf...hmm What they're doing to the hurricane is a slight nerf. What they're doing to heavy missiles is neutering them. And lets face it, there's no such thing as a slightly neutered animal. ok, check out the numbers. The a drake with HML 2s and 3 BCS and no other mods does 398 DPS using caldari navy scourge at 80 km or so The hurricane with 720 arty and 3 gyrostabs and no other mods does 262 DPS using tremor at 54 + 22 km The harbinger with Heavy beam 2s, 3 heat sinks and no other mods does 305 DPS using Aurora at 54 + 10 km The brutix with 250 mm Rails, 3 mag stabs and no other mods does 279 DPS using spike at 65 + 15 The drake out ranges everything except for the brutix basically, and it out damages the next best weapon by 30% The best thing about this comparison is that they all get a 5% damage bonus except for the cane because most matari ships get two damage bonuses. Stop comparing HMLs to autocannons, they are long range weapons. Oh and the stats about the drake after the change will be around 318 DPS using caldari navy scourge at 60 km or so
You continue to post bull$#@ numbers. The cane is not running around without TE's. Neither are these other ships. That's why they have all these low slots that the Drake lacks. It's like posting a drake without LSEs, comparing it to a Myrm with two LSEs and an Invul, and then saying the Drake lacks a tank.
With 2 TE's and 720's, the Cane's OPTIMAL with Tremor is 70km. And yes, it is going to hit a MWD Drake (about the size of a small planet) with every shot for full damage.
I fly arty canes by choice. I didn't choose it because I felt the need to handicap myself. Amazingly, I don't feel disadvantaged at all, and if I did I would fly the Drake. For me personally, as an arty cane pilot, this Drake nerf is fantastic -- my ship becomes even better in comparison to the soon-to-be-nerfed Drake.
Yet I am here saying that I don't need the help. I don't need to see CCP break the only non-frigate combat ship Caldari missile pilots have left. If the Drake is situationally better, what of it? That's the point of the game. It's SUPPOSED to be situationally better. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
224
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:15:00 -
[2820] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Sigras wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
slight nerf? This nerf negates have trained any missile boat that can fit heavy missiles with damage bonus past lvl 1. Everyone of them has a 25% bonus to damage at lvl 5. We're losing 4 lvls of dps from every ship we've trained for. slight nerf...hmm What they're doing to the hurricane is a slight nerf. What they're doing to heavy missiles is neutering them. And lets face it, there's no such thing as a slightly neutered animal. ok, check out the numbers. The a drake with HML 2s and 3 BCS and no other mods does 398 DPS using caldari navy scourge at 80 km or so The hurricane with 720 arty and 3 gyrostabs and no other mods does 262 DPS using tremor at 54 + 22 km The harbinger with Heavy beam 2s, 3 heat sinks and no other mods does 305 DPS using Aurora at 54 + 10 km The brutix with 250 mm Rails, 3 mag stabs and no other mods does 279 DPS using spike at 65 + 15 The drake out ranges everything except for the brutix basically, and it out damages the next best weapon by 30% The best thing about this comparison is that they all get a 5% damage bonus except for the cane because most matari ships get two damage bonuses. Stop comparing HMLs to autocannons, they are long range weapons. Oh and the stats about the drake after the change will be around 318 DPS using caldari navy scourge at 60 km or so You continue to post bull$#@ numbers. The cane is not running around without TE's. Neither are these other ships. That's why they have all these low slots that the Drake lacks. It's like posting a drake without LSEs, comparing it to a Myrm with two LSEs and an Invul, and then saying the Drake lacks a tank. With 2 TE's and 720's, the Cane's OPTIMAL with Tremor is 70km. And yes, it is going to hit a MWD Drake (about the size of a small planet) with every shot for full damage. I fly arty canes by choice. I didn't choose it because I felt the need to handicap myself. Amazingly, I don't feel disadvantaged at all, and if I did I would fly the Drake. For me personally, as an arty cane pilot, this Drake nerf is fantastic -- my ship becomes even better in comparison to the soon-to-be-nerfed Drake. Yet I am here saying that I don't need the help. I don't need to see CCP break the only non-frigate combat ship Caldari missile pilots have left. If the Drake is situationally better, what of it? That's the point of the game. It's SUPPOSED to be situationally better.
Right so you are saying everything is fine because a cane using 2 low slots (for tes) and a med slot (for an invul to get back the drakes resist bonus) does ALMOST (but not really) the same damage at that range? We will just pretend drakes don't have those 3 slots to do something else with right.
|
|
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:20:00 -
[2821] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well?
^This, why not have tech 1 short range high damage and long range low damage versions of missiles?
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:23:00 -
[2822] - Quote
Doddy wrote: If you were remotely right they would be nerfing mssile dps through rof rather than alpha and changing rof bonuses to damage. But oh look they are doing completely the opposite so you are wrong, yet again.
Yeah, except I am basing the statement on what CCP said just last year in their previous "nerf the drake" trial balloon. THEY were the ones who initially named server load as their motivation for nerfing the Drake. And it makes sense if you look at the numbers.
Two-Hundred HM Drakes engaging two-hundred HM Drakes adds 2,800 additional server tracked objects every six seconds or so, and over longer ranges it is entirely possible to have multiple volleys of missiles in flight at the same time. So yeah, server load from missile spam is HUGE. Instead of tracking 400 ships and some drones, the servers have to keep track of an additional FIVE to TEN THOUSAND individual missiles crawling across the field.
An ROF nerf helps here, but it doesn't address the reason blob fleets like Drakes in the first place -- Alpha damage. It helps lag a bit, but unless the reduction is large enough to eliminate a second salo, it would have minimal effect on server load and no effect on fleet doctrine.
The missile velocity bonus, however, does reduce lag. It gets missiles off the servers faster. And reducing missile range gets them off the server faster still. In that 200 on 200 fight, even removing one additional volley from the servers saves them from tracking an additional 2,800 objects. That's a huge savings right there.
But even that's not enough. CCP doesn't want every blob to be a Drake blob. So they added the new long range direct fire BCs to see if that would do the trick. Apparently it didn't do enough. So we are back here again. And it seems this time CCP plans to do the job correctly and just nerf the crap out of them. I'm sure they would love to find some sweet spot where HMs work fine for small gangs but suck for blobs, but that's probably impossible without a major rewrite.
CCP is free to step in here and clear this up if they like. But until then I'll go with what they said previously and what my own objective reason tells me.
|
Grey Azorria
Federation Industries
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:25:00 -
[2823] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well? ^This, why not have tech 1 short range high damage and long range low damage versions of missiles? Because missiles are not turrets. Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Mate. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
122
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:25:00 -
[2824] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well? ^This, why not have tech 1 short range high damage and long range low damage versions of missiles?
The only thing I can see why this wouldn't work is because you don't have windows where your missiles will not hit. If you are using long range ammo in a gun you can get under there tracking and not take any damage. With missiles you can not do this. I really think people just need to be patient for the changes to be updated or for solid numbers to be giving on all the changes that are going to happen with missiles. We are still 2 months out and they already got cruisers into the mix. Maybe they will get battle cruisers in as well as they are seeing that they cannot properly fix the weapon systems without changing the hulls. Lets wait and see I am fully behind the ideas 100% and cant wait to see what all comes about from this. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:30:00 -
[2825] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:You continue to post bull$#@ numbers. The cane is not running around without TE's. Neither are these other ships.
EXACTLY!!!!!
Now you are beginning to understand.
Cane and other ships HAVE TO waste 2 more slots to be able to compete with drake in range....where as Drake is usually using his 2 slots for additional tank. (Hence the brick reputation). There are some creative setups that utilize webs and painters too....I especially love the dual web setup.
Now please stop discussing about battle cruisers and go back to weapons. Here is their non bonused damage with their best ammo for given range:
http://i.imgur.com/xAlKi.jpg
Matari ships usually get an additional dmg bonus with reduced turret amount. Which roughly results in 15% performance increase, which puts them slightly below rails.
Please compare weapons. Not the ships....and please FFS stop comparing BS size weapons with medium weapons. That's not contributing at all. |
OlRotGut
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:35:00 -
[2826] - Quote
Grey Azorria wrote:Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well? ^This, why not have tech 1 short range high damage and long range low damage versions of missiles? Because missiles are not turrets.
So why are we bringing them more in line with Turrets then?
Look, he's got a point. The missile ammunition is what needs to be mainly focused on for change here. Not the launchers themselves. (Albeit, I think the fitting requirements should be changed with HAMS).
The ammo needs to be tweaked to be LIKE turrets (exchange tracking w/Explosion velocity) or something.
Remove damage types and focus on Short-range powerful, long-range weaker mentality and don't overly nerf the launcher.
TLDR Focus on the ordinance, and the fittings; not the launchers.
|
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:39:00 -
[2827] - Quote
I love the people who are trying to justify not nerfing HMLs by comparing it to oracles and tornados Yeah, no **** it does more damage, they use LARGE weapon system. HMLs are medium, and the nerf brings them inline with the other medium LR systems. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:40:00 -
[2828] - Quote
OT Smithers in terrible posts shocker. FYI, missiles other than Heavies exist. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:40:00 -
[2829] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Doddy wrote: If you were remotely right they would be nerfing mssile dps through rof rather than alpha and changing rof bonuses to damage. But oh look they are doing completely the opposite so you are wrong, yet again.
Yeah, except I am basing the statement on what CCP said just last year in their previous "nerf the drake" trial balloon. THEY were the ones who initially named server load as their motivation for nerfing the Drake. And it makes sense if you look at the numbers. Two-Hundred HM Drakes engaging two-hundred HM Drakes adds 2,800 additional server tracked objects every six seconds or so, and over longer ranges it is entirely possible to have multiple volleys of missiles in flight at the same time. So yeah, server load from missile spam is HUGE. Instead of tracking 400 ships and some drones, the servers have to keep track of an additional FIVE to TEN THOUSAND individual missiles crawling across the field. An ROF nerf helps here, but it doesn't address the reason blob fleets like Drakes in the first place -- Alpha damage. It helps lag a bit, but unless the reduction is large enough to eliminate a second salo, it would have minimal effect on server load and no effect on fleet doctrine. The missile velocity bonus, however, does reduce lag. It gets missiles off the servers faster. And reducing missile range gets them off the server faster still. In that 200 on 200 fight, even removing one additional volley from the servers saves them from tracking an additional 2,800 objects. That's a huge savings right there. But even that's not enough. CCP doesn't want every blob to be a Drake blob. So they added the new long range direct fire BCs to see if that would do the trick. Apparently it didn't do enough. So we are back here again. And it seems this time CCP plans to do the job correctly and just nerf the crap out of them. I'm sure they would love to find some sweet spot where HMs work fine for small gangs but suck for blobs, but that's probably impossible without a major rewrite. CCP is free to step in here and clear this up if they like. But until then I'll go with what they said previously and what my own objective reason tells me.
Except that ccp introduced weapon grouping so unless players are deliberatly not grouping them its actually 400 objects not 2800 (the whole point of weapon grouping was this) from each volley and a missile group has far less calculations than a ship or even a drone (as the only things effecting a missile after launch are its targets position and whether it has been smartbombed). Sure it effects server performance but you are massively exagerrating it in comparison with what else goes on. Its not like server performance is particularly bad in this age of drake blobs.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1692
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:41:00 -
[2830] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: CCP is free to step in here and clear this up if they like. But until then I'll go with what they said previously and what my own objective reason tells me.
If only I had already answered that question we could have avoided this whole debate.
CCP Fozzie wrote:- Is it true that this change is being made to reduce lag?
Nope. Those of you who experience large fleet warfare on a regular basis know that the lag production from missile has been vastly reduced thanks to Team Gridlock's efforts behind the scenes. Although it would be possible for us to make missiles a problem again through design (If I were to increase the ROF of heavy missiles 10 times over CCP Veritas would probably poison my coffee), the game design department has received no pressure at all to nerf heavy missiles for any server performance reasons. Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games. . .. ... Hmmm
I also wanted to once again let people know that I'm still reading, and that since I got back from the weekend I've been continuing to work on an adjusted proposal to pass to the CSM then on you all. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:48:00 -
[2831] - Quote
CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:52:00 -
[2832] - Quote
MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop.
This to be honest, i know you guys are going as fast as you can but i think balancing cruisers and not bcs would be a mistake, especially if you are touching weapon systems. Probably better to hold the cruisers back till the bcs are ready than that.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1693
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:52:00 -
[2833] - Quote
MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop.
I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1694
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:58:00 -
[2834] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. What about with a mini-release like inferno 1.2 and the attack frigs, etc.
Will depend on the actual release schedule but it's possible. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
300
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:02:00 -
[2835] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:Grey Azorria wrote:Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well? ^This, why not have tech 1 short range high damage and long range low damage versions of missiles? Because missiles are not turrets. So why are we bringing them more in line with Turrets then? Look, he's got a point. The missile ammunition is what needs to be mainly focused on for change here. Not the launchers themselves. (Albeit, I think the fitting requirements should be changed with HAMS). The ammo needs to be tweaked to be LIKE turrets (exchange tracking w/Explosion velocity) or something. Remove damage types and focus on Short-range powerful, long-range weaker mentality and don't overly nerf the launcher. TLDR Focus on the ordinance, and the fittings; not the launchers. Damage and range are determined by the ordinance. The launcher has no range or damage mod, only capacity and ROF which look as if they are not being altered. Additionally your suggestion would be a big step to fully homogenizing weapons systems. In this case why not save effort and drop the whole skill tree? |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:04:00 -
[2836] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
A Drake with eight launchers, begs. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:07:00 -
[2837] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
Right so you are saying everything is fine because a cane using 2 low slots (for tes) and a med slot (for an invul to get back the drakes resist bonus) does ALMOST (but not really) the same damage at that range? We will just pretend drakes don't have those 3 slots to do something else with right.
A fairly typical nano arty cane:
MWD Disruptor LSE x2
DCU TE x2 Gyro x2 Nano
A fairly typical nano HM drake:
MWD Disruptor Web x2 LSE x2
Nano x2 BCU x2
Obviously people mix and match to taste. Comparing these two, and assuming both are rigged for tank, the Drake has about a 5k ehp advantage in tank, about a 30% advantage in dps at range, and loses about 300m/sec. I have NEVER said that the Drake does not do more damage at range. What I have said, repreatedly, is that it probably SHOULD do more damage at range as this is it's job. If the Drake lands at range there is no way an unsupported Cane can close the range and kill it before it dies in a fire. That's okay because the Drake has no way to stop that cane from leaving.
Knowing this, why then do you suppose that you can go into virtually any low sec system in the game and see PvP pilots who can choose to fly anything they like, choosing the Cane over the Drake?
The answer for most is probably SPEED, AGILITY, and instant damage application. In Eve, speed is LIFE. You cannot overestimate it's importance. Speed alone might not save your butt, but the lack of it ensures that your enemy has control over your fate. And when you start adding in things like implants and T3 boosts, the difference between the cane and the drake becomes pretty significant.
I would argue that the BC class is perhaps the most balanced class of ships in the game. It's not perfect, but nothing is. I don't have a problem with CCP deciding that HMs and Drakes do not fit their vision for how the game should be played. That's their call, I don't fly Drakes anyway, so for me personally it doesn't much matter. BUT, when I think about how screwed Caldari Missile pilots have been for years, and now CCP is talking about screwing them some more, I get irritated -- particularly when the reasons they are offering are complete BS.
I am the arty cane pilot that is supposedly getting picked on by those big mean Drake bullies. I am the guy that is supposedly at some mythical disadvantage. Yet I can fly either ship, I have T2 HMs and T2 arties, and I thing the Cane is the better boat most of the time. The Drake has it's uses, it's perfect for some things and sub-optimal for others. And in my opinion that's just how it should be. |
OlRotGut
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:11:00 -
[2838] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:OlRotGut wrote:Grey Azorria wrote:Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well? ^This, why not have tech 1 short range high damage and long range low damage versions of missiles? Because missiles are not turrets. So why are we bringing them more in line with Turrets then? Look, he's got a point. The missile ammunition is what needs to be mainly focused on for change here. Not the launchers themselves. (Albeit, I think the fitting requirements should be changed with HAMS). The ammo needs to be tweaked to be LIKE turrets (exchange tracking w/Explosion velocity) or something. Remove damage types and focus on Short-range powerful, long-range weaker mentality and don't overly nerf the launcher. TLDR Focus on the ordinance, and the fittings; not the launchers. Damage and range are determined by the ordinance. The launcher has no range or damage mod, only capacity and ROF which look as if they are not being altered. Additionally your suggestion would be a big step to fully homogenizing weapons systems. In this case why not save effort and drop the whole skill tree?
Making missile ordinance more in line with charges doesn't quantify the need to drop the whole skill tree. Come on now...
It moves to make the ordinances easier to balance because everyone and their mom screams stuff is OP, or whatever.
Missiles could use a nice tweak in terms of fittings, and also a change in the way the ordinance is setup. Doing so will give missile users MORE choices instead of just Kinetic..... I'd say that would give us much more diverse setups.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
375
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:11:00 -
[2839] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well? ^This, why not have tech 1 short range high damage and long range low damage versions of missiles? we should also remove flight time and add falloff while we're at it.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
585
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:15:00 -
[2840] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:OT Smithers wrote: CCP is free to step in here and clear this up if they like. But until then I'll go with what they said previously and what my own objective reason tells me.
If only I had already answered that question we could have avoided this whole debate. CCP Fozzie wrote:- Is it true that this change is being made to reduce lag?
Nope. Those of you who experience large fleet warfare on a regular basis know that the lag production from missile has been vastly reduced thanks to Team Gridlock's efforts behind the scenes. Although it would be possible for us to make missiles a problem again through design (If I were to increase the ROF of heavy missiles 10 times over CCP Veritas would probably poison my coffee), the game design department has received no pressure at all to nerf heavy missiles for any server performance reasons. Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games. . .. ... Hmmm
I also wanted to once again let people know that I'm still reading, and that since I got back from the weekend I've been continuing to work on an adjusted proposal to pass to the CSM then on you all.
umm how about if you are agressed you cannot dock...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
585
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:17:00 -
[2841] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
for the drake i would scrap the kin missile damage and do a 5% per lev to all missile damage... that way peeps wont compain about loosing too much damage from the nerf...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:19:00 -
[2842] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:If you're going to have TE and TC affect missiles ala turrets then why not go Full Monty and have short range ammo and long range ammo like the turrets as well? ^This, why not have tech 1 short range high damage and long range low damage versions of missiles? we should also remove flight time and add falloff while we're at it.
LOL. I think it may be easier to balance the systems this way, you could up the speed on the long-range low DPS version, lower the speed on the short range High DPS version, for instance. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:20:00 -
[2843] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
The way i see it the bcs are out of kilter in terms of abilities. Bcs come in two flavours - dual damage bonus (well harby has special snowflake amarr bonus) and 1 damage bonus 1 rep bonus. Currently minmatar and amarr have 1 of each while gallente and caldari have 2 tank bonused ones. For the gallente the brutix is never really fitted defensively in any case so that really leaves the caldari. I would expect the brutix to go pure gank (maybe tracking bonus in place of rep) and one of the caldari bcs to go the same way. To have synergy with the frigs, cruisers and bs that would be the drake, hence the velocity bonus everyone expected. Or a damage bonus that would bring it back to current damage levels but without the resists.
kestrel -> Caracal -> drake -> Raven (Damage + velocity) Merlin -> Moa -> Ferox -> Rokh (Damage + resist) tormentor -> Omen -> harbinger -> Geddon (Damage and cap) punisher -> Maller -> prophecy -> abaddon (Damage and resist - you are giving proph damage bonus right?) Tristan ->Thorax -> Brutix -> megathron (Damage OR drones for tristan + Tracking) rifter ->Rupture -> Hurricane -> Tempest (damage and more damage)
Active rep analog is more complicated as the cruisers don't have them atm but
incursus ->Vexor -> Myrm -> Hyperion (drones OR damage + rep ) breacher ->Stabber -> Cyclone -> Maelstrom (damage + booster - stabber takes place of booster cruiser, is cool).
Third BS = quirky racial bs - apoc, scorpion, domi, typhoon. Wouldn't surprise me if you made apoc a drone boat and typhoon more missile orientated.
If Caldari keep 2 tanky bcs they are alwasy going to have less dps. Thus people will always complain thier tanks are op/thier dps is terrible even once you bring it in line.
But hey thats just guessing, youare the one who knows. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
369
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:20:00 -
[2844] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically.
It's still rather tricky to judge your proposal when we don't know what the bonuses to missiles from TCs and TEs, or their missile counterpart, will be. Another source of uncertainty is the absence of comments on fitting requirements and damage application of HAMs.
I know you don't have time to get a vast amount done, but I also think that some of these missile pilots would appreciate a few comments on the likely nature of future changes to torps (an excellent anti-BS weapon but a bit too inflexible in a game full of kiting BCs and T3s), Cruise (utterly useless) and ships such as the Cerberus, Nighthawk and Navy cruisers. What of the Worm too? There needs to be a reason to use Citadel missiles too, right now they offer no strong advantage over capital turrets but have serious drawbacks. Okay, the TE/TC changes might counteract this... but we don't know what the TC/TE changes will be, so people are naturally assuming the worst. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:22:00 -
[2845] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
Knowing this, why then do you suppose that you can go into virtually any low sec system in the game and see PvP pilots who can choose to fly anything they like, choosing the Cane over the Drake? .
You know fine its for killmail whorage |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
301
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:26:00 -
[2846] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote: Making missile ordinance more in line with charges doesn't quantify the need to drop the whole skill tree. Come on now...
It moves to make the ordinances easier to balance because everyone and their mom screams stuff is OP, or whatever.
Missiles could use a nice tweak in terms of fittings, and also a change in the way the ordinance is setup. Doing so will give missile users MORE choices instead of just Kinetic..... I'd say that would give us much more diverse setups.
Kinetic is a gripe I'd give you if it weren't for what we are seeing in the balancing passes. Missile bonuses are changing at the levels we've seen from kinetic damage to ROF, so this is becoming a non issue and hopefully will continue to do so. Additionally this won't make setups more diverse, it will make missile setups mirror turret setups. The mechanic will be the same of maximizing the reach of higher damage ammo through the use of TE/TC's. In the end the only real difference would be the drawbacks of missile mechanics over turrets thus making them truly useless or buffing their damage over equivalent turrets to make up for it which makes them obsolete turrets in many of the same situations as now.
This suggestion only deepens the balance nightmare without solving anything. In the end dropping the system and skills would likely be more effective and require less effort then trying to shoehorn missiles even deeper into turret mechanics. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:27:00 -
[2847] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
Make the cerb a HAM boat and the Nighthawk too maybe the muninn too :) tornado makes it obsolete so.. |
OlRotGut
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:34:00 -
[2848] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:OlRotGut wrote: Making missile ordinance more in line with charges doesn't quantify the need to drop the whole skill tree. Come on now...
It moves to make the ordinances easier to balance because everyone and their mom screams stuff is OP, or whatever.
Missiles could use a nice tweak in terms of fittings, and also a change in the way the ordinance is setup. Doing so will give missile users MORE choices instead of just Kinetic..... I'd say that would give us much more diverse setups.
Kinetic is a gripe I'd give you if it weren't for what we are seeing in the balancing passes. Missile bonuses are changing at the levels we've seen from kinetic damage to ROF, so this is becoming a non issue and hopefully will continue to do so. Additionally this won't make setups more diverse, it will make missile setups mirror turret setups. The mechanic will be the same of maximizing the reach of higher damage ammo through the use of TE/TC's. In the end the only real difference would be the drawbacks of missile mechanics over turrets thus making them truly useless or buffing their damage over equivalent turrets to make up for it which makes them obsolete turrets in many of the same situations as now. This suggestion only deepens the balance nightmare without solving anything. In the end dropping the system and skills would likely be more effective and require less effort then trying to shoehorn missiles even deeper into turret mechanics.
|
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
579
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:35:00 -
[2849] - Quote
It should be obvious to a certain extent how BC will be modified. The tier one with the exception of the Cyclone only have 16 slots. The Cyclone has 17 but it's highs are in a weird 5/3 configuration. The devs have hinted that the tier ones will get an extra slot and some serious focus makeovers. The Tier 2 BC all have 18 slots. Snip snip. The tier 3 BC all have 17 slots. They may get slowed down a bit but are otherwise fine. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:36:00 -
[2850] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Doddy wrote:
Right so you are saying everything is fine because a cane using 2 low slots (for tes) and a med slot (for an invul to get back the drakes resist bonus) does ALMOST (but not really) the same damage at that range? We will just pretend drakes don't have those 3 slots to do something else with right.
A fairly typical nano arty cane: MWD Disruptor LSE x2 DCU TE x2 Gyro x2 Nano A fairly typical nano HM drake: MWD Disruptor Web x2 LSE x2 Nano x2 BCU x2 Obviously people mix and match to taste. Comparing these two, and assuming both are rigged for tank, the Drake has about a 5k ehp advantage in tank, about a 30% advantage in dps at range, and loses about 300m/sec. I have NEVER said that the Drake does not do more damage at range. What I have said, repreatedly, is that it probably SHOULD do more damage at range as this is it's job. If the Drake lands at range there is no way an unsupported Cane can close the range and kill it before it dies in a fire. That's okay because the Drake has no way to stop that cane from leaving. Knowing this, why then do you suppose that you can go into virtually any low sec system in the game and see PvP pilots who can choose to fly anything they like, choosing the Cane over the Drake? The answer for most is probably SPEED, AGILITY, and instant damage application. In Eve, speed is LIFE. You cannot overestimate it's importance. Speed alone might not save your butt, but the lack of it ensures that your enemy has control over your fate. And when you start adding in things like implants and T3 boosts, the difference between the cane and the drake becomes pretty significant. I would argue that the BC class is perhaps the most balanced class of ships in the game. It's not perfect, but nothing is. I don't have a problem with CCP deciding that HMs and Drakes do not fit their vision for how the game should be played. That's their call, I don't fly Drakes anyway, so for me personally it doesn't much matter. BUT, when I think about how screwed Caldari Missile pilots have been for years, and now CCP is talking about screwing them some more, I get irritated -- particularly when the reasons they are offering are complete BS. I am the arty cane pilot that is supposedly getting picked on by those big mean Drake bullies. I am the guy that is supposedly at some mythical disadvantage. Yet I can fly either ship, I have T2 HMs and T2 arties, and I thing the Cane is the better boat most of the time. The Drake has it's uses, it's perfect for some things and sub-optimal for others. And in my opinion that's just how it should be.
You are putting 2 webs there and completely ignoring their effect on speed. Dual Webs are such a huge advantage but you are completely ignoring them..... .....even then you are missing the whole point of the thread. You can put all these arguments back when it is time to tiercide battlecruisers. This thread is about heavy missiles and cane nerf, which even adresses the point you are raising and necessary nerf in my opinion. |
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:37:00 -
[2851] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
In my opinion...
Before you guys charge ahead nerfing HMs and the Drake, you seriously need to have any answer to this question:
Once we nerf the Drake, what are Caldari Missile PvP pilots supposed to fly?
All one need do to see how Drakes REALLY stack up is to head into any low sec system and look at what people are flying. Amazingly, and despite the suggestion that Drakes are uber pwn-mobiles, the answer isn't Drakes. You see some of course, but they are by no means dominating the numbers. And you are proposing making them worse. The same applies to the Caracal. People aren't using it now, what makes you believe that a new lower DPS version, flying against buffed T1 frigates and cruisers (likely fitted with missile and gun wrecking TD's), will suddenly become popular? Why would it?
I mean this respectfully, but it doesn't make sense. The Caldari missile fleet looks like a junk yard filled with broken scrap. Missiles are the Caldari signature weapon, and yet every (sub-billion isk) missile boat in the game except the Drake is currently broken and parked. Fix them, then look at whether or not the Drake needs an adjustment. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:37:00 -
[2852] - Quote
I think all the bc's should have a 17 slot setup 18 is too many |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
226
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:38:00 -
[2853] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Doddy wrote:
Right so you are saying everything is fine because a cane using 2 low slots (for tes) and a med slot (for an invul to get back the drakes resist bonus) does ALMOST (but not really) the same damage at that range? We will just pretend drakes don't have those 3 slots to do something else with right.
A fairly typical nano arty cane: MWD Disruptor LSE x2 DCU TE x2 Gyro x2 Nano A fairly typical nano HM drake: MWD Disruptor Web x2 LSE x2 Nano x2 BCU x2 Obviously people mix and match to taste. Comparing these two, and assuming both are rigged for tank, the Drake has about a 5k ehp advantage in tank, about a 30% advantage in dps at range, and loses about 300m/sec. I have NEVER said that the Drake does not do more damage at range. What I have said, repreatedly, is that it probably SHOULD do more damage at range as this is it's job. If the Drake lands at range there is no way an unsupported Cane can close the range and kill it before it dies in a fire. That's okay because the Drake has no way to stop that cane from leaving. Knowing this, why then do you suppose that you can go into virtually any low sec system in the game and see PvP pilots who can choose to fly anything they like, choosing the Cane over the Drake? The answer for most is probably SPEED, AGILITY, and instant damage application. In Eve, speed is LIFE. You cannot overestimate it's importance. Speed alone might not save your butt, but the lack of it ensures that your enemy has control over your fate. And when you start adding in things like implants and T3 boosts, the difference between the cane and the drake becomes pretty significant. I would argue that the BC class is perhaps the most balanced class of ships in the game. It's not perfect, but nothing is. I don't have a problem with CCP deciding that HMs and Drakes do not fit their vision for how the game should be played. That's their call, I don't fly Drakes anyway, so for me personally it doesn't much matter. BUT, when I think about how screwed Caldari Missile pilots have been for years, and now CCP is talking about screwing them some more, I get irritated -- particularly when the reasons they are offering are complete BS. I am the arty cane pilot that is supposedly getting picked on by those big mean Drake bullies. I am the guy that is supposedly at some mythical disadvantage. Yet I can fly either ship, I have T2 HMs and T2 arties, and I thing the Cane is the better boat most of the time. The Drake has it's uses, it's perfect for some things and sub-optimal for others. And in my opinion that's just how it should be.
First off most drakes are not nano drakes, even solo/small gang and definately not in fleets. They will all have far more tank than that wtf no resist kiting fit. i can think of only two groups that use fits like that (hi TL). Even allowing for that the drake has a massive advantage over the cane in that its own speed has no impact on its own damage projection while the same cannot be said for the cane. To do decent damage on anything sub bc you are either a) hoping he is an idiot who doesn't get transversal or b) going to have to slow down. The faster a cane goes the less its effective damage will be most of the time. Same isn't true for the drake, hence the perma mwd drake doctrine which is basically built around that fact.
Also the thing about gang boosts etc is pretty lol, exactly the same can be said for the drakes ehp advantage.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:48:00 -
[2854] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
I agree that if you find time those should be fixed ahead of the drake. I think changing the Kin bonus to a ROF bonus or Damage bonus would be better for the drake. As this seams to be the line of thinking with the changes to the Caldari line.
Another thing that has been brought up is the fact that HAMS are harder to fit then HML has there been any talk about swapping this or reducing the PG/CPU of the HAMS? |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:49:00 -
[2855] - Quote
CCP Foozie, can you provide any details concerning the thoughts about what the changes to the e.g. the drake may when you get to that. I know there are other missile ships as well, but here I will focus on the drake.
I think (rightly or wrongly) that a lot of the discussion in this thread is based on the fact that it is not clear what the end effect on e.g. the drake will be, i.e. missile changes + drake changes.
Since the drake is so widely used it is clear that a lot of people will be affected and that they have an opinion about the proposed change.
Speaking strictly from a PVE perspective (I do not have any PVP experience to make a judgment here) the drake is a good ship for missions as a missile ship because it has adequate firepower (not great) to destroy the NPCs while tanking the incoming damage. For me the ship and heavy missiles were also convenient because it had a nice range so I did not have to move too much around since the drake is rather slow, at least for the fit I used (my focus was on tank rather than damage, but I guess this is a matter of playing style). For new players it is also nice ship because it is easy to get into so you can start running level 3 missions and earning isk.
Since I guess the overall issue with the drake is its firepower combined with its tanking ability I guess you have to take both into account in order to estimate the overall effect.
In general, I feel that the suggested changes affect missile ships too harshly, especially the damage reduction (I can somewhat understand the range reduction), but without knowing the changes to the ships it is difficult to estimate the end effect on the ships (not just the drake).
Getting back to the drake, will there be ways to offset the damage reduction, e.g. by adding an 8th launcher thereby sacrificing some grid and cpu which may have been used for e.g. tank. What is the likelihood that the resistance bonus will be removed, again forcing the player to make tradeoffs in terms of tank and damage?
I think that knowing the direction of the changes to the ships could provide a clearer picture of the heavy missile changes, and ideally since the heavy missiles are so widely used on drake I think the changes to the heavy missiles should be used at the same time as the changes to the bcs, including the drake.
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:54:00 -
[2856] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
First off most drakes are not nano drakes, even solo/small gang and definately not in fleets. They will all have far more tank than that wtf no resist kiting fit. i can think of only two groups that use fits like that (hi TL). Even allowing for that the drake has a massive advantage over the cane in that its own speed has no impact on its own damage projection while the same cannot be said for the cane. To do decent damage on anything sub bc you are either a) hoping he is an idiot who doesn't get transversal or b) going to have to slow down. The faster a cane goes the less its effective damage will be most of the time. Same isn't true for the drake, hence the perma mwd drake doctrine which is basically built around that fact.
Also the thing about gang boosts etc is pretty lol, exactly the same can be said for the drakes ehp advantage.
I don't really disagree with any of this. The reason for posting the fits is to show that it is pointless and irrelevant to discuss weapons in a vacuum. You have to consider them with the mods that will modify their effects, and how they will potentially be used.
As I have said many times, I don't have a problem seeing the Drake nerfed, and I would LOVE to see the Tengu nerfed HARD. But I believe CCP needs to be realistic about the situation. If Drakes were uber wtfpwnzor boats in need of such a massive castration, every other ship in low sec would be a Drake -- after all, it's not like Caldari missile pilots have anything else they can use. But somehow that's not what you see in game.
I would love to see CCP step back, discuss with the players exactly what role they see missiles (and missile boats) fulfilling, then after feedback move forward with fixing all of them in a single pass. Give missile pilots something other than the Drake to use, and then see how things look then. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
375
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 20:57:00 -
[2857] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake. i approve this message.
as for the drake: if you really go through with the changes, you may want to look at its speed and agility. a HAM drake that goes 300 with afterburner will suffer from the same problems gallente ships have (being kited by everyone and their mother). personally i prefer the drake to stay a slow, majestic brick... i mean creature. but if you nerf heavies to the palce where medium rails are now, people will have to rely on HAMs to be effective and a 300m/s battlecruiser won't do much in that regard.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 21:03:00 -
[2858] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal?
I'd say make prophecy a HAM boat....but you seem to have discarded the khanid idea. I expect you guys to turn it into a dmg resist mod ship (aka mini abaddon) with an additional high for utility.....though what this will mean for maller is....I dunno.
Give Ferox 1 more high and one more turret. Change optimal to damage bonus
Same treatment to brutix
Make cyclone a ham boat (bigger breacher)
Apply cyclone and brutix rep bonuses to remote reps.
I would deny all tier 2 BC's the bonus to field links. Those should be their smaler cousins job. I wouldn't touch harb or cane. both are decent IMO. Drake change kin to rof. Myrm 100mbit BW 200m3 drone bay but less fittings.
Tier 3's are ok. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 21:18:00 -
[2859] - Quote
@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?
Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
Here's hoping for a reply from you guys............... |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 21:39:00 -
[2860] - Quote
Just playing with some fits for the new Caracal post-Heavy missile nerf and I came up with this:
[Caracal, 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Named Suitcase of your choice
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Warp Disruptor Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
This obviously isn't anywhere near close to the best fit but I'd like to illustrate that all is not lost for the Caracal. This takes into account is the change in bonus and the additional fittings.
You can much more easily fit best named HAMs on and then you have room for a 3rd BCU or can swap the painter for a 2nd invul or something. Anyhow, this fit has around 23,000 EHP and throws 352dps out to 30km (391dps at 27km with Rage). It has the lowest align time of the new cruisers at 5.1 seconds and post-buff will be improved from 1387m/s with MWD to 1753m/s. Signature radius is being reduced from 145 to 135. The Caracal is also no longer locked into dealing kinetic damage, it can do any damage type equally well.
Additionally,
Quote:All Missiles Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Quote:Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Improve bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase the severity of penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range, increase damage slightly
^ Rage HAMs are not getting increased penalty to explosion radius and velocity. They are getting less range for more damage, exact numbers haven't been decided yet. The 2-BCU HAM Caracal will deal at least 400DPS with Rage, not 200 like some people were throwing around fallaciously.
Quote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
^ It is implied that tracking enhancers will improve the explosion radius and explosion velocity of missiles.
TBH the HAM Caracal looks pretty good to me. |
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 21:44:00 -
[2861] - Quote
For the winter patch, I could live with the missile changes if the Drake moves from a kinetic bonus to a RoF bonus. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
78
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 21:47:00 -
[2862] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
Make all BC's slower and then make it worse at killing frigates.
Te's are going to make the Drake a frigate killing machine. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 21:48:00 -
[2863] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Sigras wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: People here either don't know a crap about what they are talking about or are completely dishonnest.
Some things to know : - HML will only be hit by a SLIGHT nerf for their intended purpose ; - HML are LONG RANGE weapons, they should be balanced around LONG RANGE weapons ; - ALL other missiles will get a BUFF due to TE/TC and T2 missiles buff. - Caracal will be BETTER.
slight nerf? This nerf negates have trained any missile boat that can fit heavy missiles with damage bonus past lvl 1. Everyone of them has a 25% bonus to damage at lvl 5. We're losing 4 lvls of dps from every ship we've trained for. slight nerf...hmm What they're doing to the hurricane is a slight nerf. What they're doing to heavy missiles is neutering them. And lets face it, there's no such thing as a slightly neutered animal. ok, check out the numbers. The a drake with HML 2s and 3 BCS and no other mods does 398 DPS using caldari navy scourge at 80 km or so The hurricane with 720 arty and 3 gyrostabs and no other mods does 262 DPS using tremor at 54 + 22 km The harbinger with Heavy beam 2s, 3 heat sinks and no other mods does 305 DPS using Aurora at 54 + 10 km The brutix with 250 mm Rails, 3 mag stabs and no other mods does 279 DPS using spike at 65 + 15 The drake out ranges everything except for the brutix basically, and it out damages the next best weapon by 30% The best thing about this comparison is that they all get a 5% damage bonus except for the cane because most matari ships get two damage bonuses. Stop comparing HMLs to autocannons, they are long range weapons. Oh and the stats about the drake after the change will be around 318 DPS using caldari navy scourge at 60 km or so You continue to post bull$#@ numbers. The cane is not running around without TE's. Neither are these other ships. That's why they have all these low slots that the Drake lacks. It's like posting a drake without LSEs, comparing it to a Myrm with two LSEs and an Invul, and then saying the Drake lacks a tank. With 2 TE's and 720's, the Cane's OPTIMAL with Tremor is 70km. And yes, it is going to hit a MWD Drake (about the size of a small planet) with every shot for full damage. I fly arty canes by choice. I didn't choose it because I felt the need to handicap myself. Amazingly, I don't feel disadvantaged at all, and if I did I would fly the Drake. For me personally, as an arty cane pilot, this Drake nerf is fantastic -- my ship becomes even better in comparison to the soon-to-be-nerfed Drake. Yet I am here saying that I don't need the help. I don't need to see CCP break the only non-frigate combat ship Caldari missile pilots have left. If the Drake is situationally better, what of it? That's the point of the game. It's SUPPOSED to be situationally better. The reason I didnt use TEs or TCs is because we dont yet know their effect on missiles.
Yeah, the arty cane uses 2 TEs but guess what? after the change, the drake will be able to use 2 TCs and assuming they affect missiles equally, then the range change should be a wash.
and with that proposed fit, the drake still has more EHP than the arty cane, and it will be able to beat the pants off of frigates with 2 tracking computers + tracking scripts + buffed precision missiles.
TL;DR comparing a 720 cane with two TEs against a drake with no TCs is moronic, and considering that we dont know the effects of the TCs on missiles then we cant use either. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 21:54:00 -
[2864] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. What about with a mini-release like inferno 1.2 and the attack frigs, etc. Will depend on the actual release schedule but it's possible.
Good to know, thanks |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:00:00 -
[2865] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Just playing with some fits for the new Caracal post-Heavy missile nerf and I came up with this:
[Caracal, 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Co-Processor II Named Suitcase of your choice
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Warp Disruptor Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
This obviously isn't anywhere near close to the best fit but I'd like to illustrate that all is not lost for the Caracal. This takes into account is the change in bonus and the additional fittings.
You can much more easily fit best named HAMs on and then you have room for a 3rd BCU or can swap the painter for a 2nd invul or something. Anyhow, this fit has around 23,000 EHP and throws 352dps out to 30km (391dps at 27km with Rage). It has the lowest align time of the new cruisers at 5.1 seconds and post-buff will be improved from 1387m/s with MWD to 1753m/s. Signature radius is being reduced from 145 to 135. The Caracal is also no longer locked into dealing kinetic damage, it can do any damage type equally well.
This is all well and good, but the issue what never hams.
We're discussing heavy missiles and how their nerf will effect ships. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
207
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:02:00 -
[2866] - Quote
as a side note, can we have a different module other than a tracking enhancer, tracking computer, and tracking disruptor affect missiles?
maybe its just my OCD, but none of those modules should have anything to do with missiles.
Also this might make the curse / pilgrim a bit too versatile IMHO
Can we at least get a name change? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:09:00 -
[2867] - Quote
Sigras wrote:as a side note, can we have a different module other than a tracking enhancer, tracking computer, and tracking disruptor affect missiles?
maybe its just my OCD, but none of those modules should have anything to do with missiles.
Also this might make the curse / pilgrim a bit too versatile IMHO
Can we at least get a name change?
I think one module will work fine as long as you have 4 different scripts. anti tracking anti optimal anti flight time anti exp velocity/radius
However, if order for it not to be OP, there needs to be a duration on exchanging scripts.
Perhaps 30 seconds?
Then, ships like the pilgrim and curse can get a bonus that reduces the exchange time of swapping scripts.
However, reguardless of whether a ship has an exchange bonus or not, the window provided during a script swap could be devistating to the ship using the module.
So, if you don't plan ahead, then you might get boned |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:11:00 -
[2868] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:This is all well and good, but the issue what never hams.
We're discussing heavy missiles and how their nerf will effect ships.
How often do you use a T1 cruiser outside of 30km?
CCP has stated that tracking enhancers will affect flight time - we can assume 15%. 2x TEs bring HAMs up to almost 40km. Two hydraulic bay thrusters boost it additionally to over 50km. Additionally, HAMs will probably get a 69% improvement to explosion velocity and explosion radius by fitting 2 tracking enhancers as well, assuming they get the same 30% bonus that turret ships get to tracking. Even if it's only 15%, 2 modules stack to a total of ~32%.
What other T1 cruiser can hit at 50km with close range weapons?
I'm honestly not sure why you would want to fit heavies over HAMs if they have that kind of range, and missile ships are being gradually rebalanced which seems to be taking into account the increased fitting requirements of HAMs. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:32:00 -
[2869] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:If Drakes were uber wtfpwnzor boats in need of such a massive castration, every other ship in low sec would be a Drake -- after all, it's not like Caldari missile pilots have anything else they can use. But somehow that's not what you see in game.
Indeed drake are not the most used BC in low sec, but you see it rather often enough, and the conditions are against them : very small gang everywhere. As soon as the gang size reach a dozen, you see them a lot more often. In pve, they are king, and that is when you don't see a tengu.
And saying caldari don't have anything else is completely wrong, and if you were in low sec, you would see it : there is as many of them as there is minmatar or gallente ships (I'm in gallente FW), and they are very effective : merlin, hookbill, condor, hawk, and many more, even caracals, and I don't even talk about ECM boats...
In nullsec, Naga are pretty common, and there is an alliance fleet doctrine based on the rokh.
Please, stop saying caldari don't have any ship beside the drake to pvp, that's completely wrong, and a proof of either ignorance or dishonnesty.
And some tips about future missiles : - with TE/TC/TL, you will have the same range as before, and you will *murder* frigates ; - TD will affect missiles, but : - not every ship will use one because that require a med slot ; - you *will* have at least one TE/TC to murder frigates ; - you will still hit frigates and ennything ; - if at long range, you are in a fleet, and very few fleet use EWAR, because it's hard to use effectively, or you are a point range and you don't care about range ; - HAM, just go to the market and buy som ; "close" range combat is cool too, just do like everyone else ; - HML will still be the best medium weapon system for long range. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:36:00 -
[2870] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: This is all well and good, but the issue what never hams.
We're discussing heavy missiles and how their nerf will effect ships.
Oh god nooo ! I can only use HML !!
Or, you mean, we can put something else than HML in these slot on the drake ?!
HML are a long range weapon system, why should they be used more than long range turrets ? |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:56:00 -
[2871] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: This is all well and good, but the issue what never hams.
We're discussing heavy missiles and how their nerf will effect ships.
Oh god nooo ! I can only use HML !! Or, you mean, we can put something else than HML in these slot on the drake ?! HML are a long range weapon system, why should they be used more than long range turrets ?
No one said they should be used more, but with this nerf they wont be used at all except on a tengu, which are not very common in pvp due to the cost.
@bouh..
here are many ships out flying around that use missiles.
However, theyre not used because they use missiles.
There are generally other reasons someone is fly a particular ship and the reason is generally never missiles.
Hell, the drake and tengu arent even used cause they have missiles.
They'd probably be used a whole lot more if they were turret boats.
Now, there is nothing above a tengu that is commonly used in pvp as far as missiles centric boats. Granted all that is generally left is the raven, navy raven, and navy scorpion. But still
Now, in pve nothing is more effective in missiles than the tengu, not even the golem.
Now, while this may be in part because the tengu is potentially OP, a lot of this has more to due with how inneffective missile boat battleships are.
Sure, they might be able to run lvl 4 missions, but they either suffer in dps, effective dps, or tank. In the case of the raven, it is pretty much all 3. |
Lili Lu
493
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 22:58:00 -
[2872] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:This is all well and good, but the issue what never hams.
We're discussing heavy missiles and how their nerf will effect ships. How often do you use a T1 cruiser outside of 30km? CCP has stated that tracking enhancers will affect flight time - we can assume 15%. 2x TEs bring HAMs up to almost 40km. Two hydraulic bay thrusters boost it additionally to over 50km. Additionally, HAMs will probably get a 69% improvement to explosion velocity and explosion radius by fitting 2 tracking enhancers as well, assuming they get the same 30% bonus that turret ships get to tracking. Even if it's only 15%, 2 modules stack to a total of ~32%. What other T1 cruiser can hit at 50km with close range weapons? I'm honestly not sure why you would want to fit heavies over HAMs if they have that kind of range, and missile ships are being gradually rebalanced which seems to be taking into account the increased fitting requirements of HAMs. The weapons are different. You can't assume anything with the TE and TC numbers. The deve team already appears well aware of not killing off frigs with overdone new module effects on missiles.
Guns have had TE and TC effects since the modules have been in the game. It has not led to frigate extinction with the current values. But applying those values unthinkingly to the new effects on missile effects very well could.
So, we shall have to wait for a post from them on what the new modules (whether they be the same 2 newly scripted "now with more power", or a new special missile set of 2 modules and scripts) will be, and what the values will be for their explosion effects. Then that will have to get tested on the test server. Ditto for range effects. Remember that the current modules add optimal and falloff. With missiles of course there is no falloff.
Someone mentioned the amarr recons again. They are not exactly blessed with mids compared to a Rook/Falcon. And they are not currently used the same way, Caldari pilots so unacustomed to using them in a 40km or less tackling type role. A Pilgrim will still have a prop mod, point, cap injector, and just 2 more mids. If the mods become sister mods it will eat two more just to have one of each. And a Curse in a gang/fleet situation will be no more pita than an ecm boat currently is, especially if he eschews a flimsy shield tank in favor of a flimsy armor tank to load up on tracking disruptors.
I have mentioned this mutltiple times, but I would have no problem with nerfing the base strength %s on tTDs and mTDs to be weak enough that they can't be, as they are currently being, abused by unbonused ships with spare mids to **** over either a turret or a missile boat. Then boosting the new TD boat bonuses to something like the current ecm boat %s (15-30% per level). Additionally, TDs have enjoyed a long optimal. They really didn't get used much on the bonused ships which focused on their neuting power and those ships use them at close range anyway so noone has cared about the long optimal.
Those usage and fittings patterns may change. And CCP should think about altering the TDs to the short optimal and long falloff of TPs and Damps in order to introduce the chance component that those modules have from operating usually in falloff. I would favor something like max skilled 30km optimals and 110 - 120 km falloffs (currently 45, and 90) on tech II versions. All these changes would keep both these modules from becoming the new old-style multispecs of death and their specialized boats the new old-style Falcons, or still persisting Falcon alts. |
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:04:00 -
[2873] - Quote
Lol....this has to be the funniest thread I've ever written. People crying over not nerfing HML's....people crying over tengu and drake need a good nerfing . Both EFT warrioring to justify their cause....especially using fits that aren't justifiable....but hey, everyone twists the truths to fit themselves. Being a gallente pilot in NS, I had a choice....cross train minmatar and join the tornado fleets, or cross-train drake and join the drake blobs against either Zealots or Naga *still not sure I understand that doctrine*
For all those opposed....this isn't about nerfing the drake.....it, like the other already useless caldari missile boats is about the Tengu and all the rest are just a casualty. The drake might not be so bad as while missioning in my drake before I got my domi, I hated sticking with kinetic missiles....so long term, it might be beneficial considering all T2 gun ammo is 2 damage types at once. It might be a step back, but not a whole lot...might have to fly a little more, crap happens, can't change it. My domi is still sitting pretty as I watch youtube and let my sentries take stuff out. Drake was more fun, but hey, can't have everything.
For all those in favor....stop using crap numbers to justify your cause. Mission drakes do not run 4 BCS's....most dont even run 3 because they are a beotch to fit. So while yes, guns can sacrifice tank for more damage....you're putting out numbers that are the ABSOLUTE MAX....which no one ever does on a drake. Fleet battles...I've yet to see a fleet doctrine with more than 2 BCS's. If you say otherwise, you are lying.
For those saying that this is a buff.....while they might benefit from the ability to use any damage type....you argue that they'll be right back to their normal range with a TE or TC. Well, To fit a TE, they are going to have to drop their second BCS as the other two are normally passive shield recharges in order to keep up with dps on harder lvl 4's....This WILL effectively put this as the shortest long range weapon.
The problem with comparing the BC's against one another, is each *ok, well maybe only a couple, but hey* has it's own advantage. Personally I look forward to teiricide....I like the brutix and would like to see it more viable. How about some Hybrid love??? Why should Arty's be the only Alpha monster?? If I could do it all over again, I'd be minnie like most pirates are....you want an honest opinion on ships...befriend one and pick their brain because they have to survive on their own. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:05:00 -
[2874] - Quote
I'm chiming in to say that TEs falloff bonus is wayy too much and contributes to the Winmatar factor, 30% bonus for one of their most important stats, for a module that takes no cap and has very low fitting requirements is abit much. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:10:00 -
[2875] - Quote
I see a few issues with this planned nerf to missiles generally and to HML specifically.
First of all, the idea to make tracking disruption efficient vs missiles is not making sense to me. Why do you give missiles an existing weakspot of the gunnery tree without giving strongpoints too like falloff, instant damage and wrecking hits? Apart from the fact this will be a tremendous boost for TD-bonused ships, which is definitely not a good idea (I didnt hear complaints about them being too UP!). Right now its like that: turrets have certain attributes (good ones and bad ones), missiles have other ones. To get everything in line its not enough to share just 1 or 2 of those attributes while completely ignoring the others.
Second question: what exactly makes HMLs an overpowered weapon system in your opinion? What I see is this: HML work fine in small scale PvP (in fact I never heard someone saying HMLs are OP! I remember those times when everyone said Drakes suck at PvP because they have no DPS .. and there was no buff for HML/HAM since then!), they may be a problem in fleets, but thats more according to lag issues than to the actual weapon platform performance. I agree they do solid DPS on a long range (0-max range, which is pretty nice). But: they dont outperform their gunnery-cousins on every range, in fact on optimal range guns will normally beat missiles. This means for me - you have pros and cons, for both. If you are able to engage in your preferred range you may have the edge, but thats the same vice versa. Sounds like balance to me ...
So what I do see atm is this: there is an existing problem (large fleets AKA Drake blob in nul), and to solve it a balanced system gets messed up without really doing it til the end. If you feel like putting missiles in line with turrets - fine. Give the missile users insta damage, wreckings and everything else, and I am pretty sure no one would complain in their CNRs, Ravens, Nighthawks and the like ;) but in fact EVE would not need a 4th system then .. it would be far better to just give projectiles and bonuses for it to all 4 races, there you will have your balance :)
/irony Maybe thats how this issue should be solved: give the bonus to of each ship just to a "ships class sized weapon platform" and let everyone decide how he wants to fit his ship: Drake with 7 t2 Pulse, Cane with Rails, whatever you like ... and not make every system the very same ;) /irony off
About the balance: PvE is maybe another thing, as there is atm no BC able to beat a Drake at mission efficiency and also no other t3 as good for missions as a well fitted Tengu. Then again, a Machariel is better than any other ship in high end PvE, and there is nothing Caldari in it. And as far as I know EVE is NOT balanced around PvE, else you would need to nerf the Machariel (and also Vargur) a LO
Btw, I am not really helpless - can fly all 4 races with similar skills, and also have every sub cap weapon system skilled to spec 4. So for me its just hop into another ship. But I dont see the point of this nerf at all, it really makes no sense, it just raises more questions than it gives answers.
Best regards. |
Lili Lu
493
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:28:00 -
[2876] - Quote
To Drumar Rotineque - Decent post, although I think you overstate your both-sided ascription of "crap numbers" being posted on the "in favor" side. Afterall noone on that side is comparing a Drake to a Tornado, , or the short range gun dps to long range missile dps, as the "against" side has multiple times even after the OP was very clear about the flaw in that comparison. However, the following paragraph stood out to me for comment -
Drumar Rotineque wrote: ....you argue that they'll be right back to their normal range with a TE or TC. Well, To fit a TE, they are going to have to drop their second BCS as the other two are normally passive shield recharges in order to keep up with dps on harder lvl 4's....This WILL effectively put this as the shortest long range weapon. And with a 20% reduction in damage, it would effectively be even MORE if they want to get their range back.
I think it was always an unintended feature of the game that Caldari players had such an easy path to first entry into level 4s with the op pve regen Drake tanking (op possibly more due to the very faulty and skewed shield regen stat on BCs in general than due to the resist bonus). BC passive shield fits really should not be tankning what they do. No Harby or Cane is going to walse into any level 4 and tank it while still putting out enough damage or with enough range the way the Drake (and to a lesser extent the Myrm) currently can. That Drakes lose their easy level 4 ability is only leveling the playing field.
Prior to the introduction of the Tengu any Drake pilot with a brain trained into a Raven-kind and it was king of pve. It could be again. Regardless, every other race was having to train BS and BS weapon skills just to get into the level 4 income game. When Drakes lose their current over-easy tanking ability for level 4s (or their over easy sufficient ranged damage dealing abilities) there will be balance in this regard.
I think it's already been hinted at by Fozzie that with this HML nerf (and I suspect possible general overall BC hp and shield regen alterations when the comprehensive BC rebalancing comes) the Drake may end up retaining its resist bonus. That frankly would be more than Drake addicts could have expected going into what we all knew was coming (well at least those of us in the game that didn't have blinders on concerning pve and pvp Drake overuse statistics). |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1025
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:41:00 -
[2877] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Your sitting here crying about SP you spent on ships that are still relevant and usable. just because you don't use those ships/fits anymore doesn't mean you couldn't.
You put this in print and didn't even care to think that it applies to your missile ships as well, its like you understood the point i was making without understanding that you understood it.
The implications there are mind boggling.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:53:00 -
[2878] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
I think it was always an unintended feature of the game that Caldari players had such an easy path to first entry into level 4s with the op pve regen Drake tanking (op possibly more due to the very faulty and skewed shield regen stat on BCs in general than due to the resist bonus). BC passive shield fits really should not be tankning what they do. No Harby or Cane is going to walse into any level 4 and tank it while still putting out enough damage or with enough range the way the Drake (and to a lesser extent the Myrm) currently can. That Drakes lose their easy level 4 ability is only leveling the playing field.
Prior to the introduction of the Tengu any Drake pilot with a brain trained into a Raven-kind and it was king of pve. It could be again. Regardless, every other race was having to train BS and BS weapon skills just to get into the level 4 income game. When Drakes lose their current over-easy tanking ability for level 4s (or their over easy sufficient ranged damage dealing abilities) there will be balance in this regard.
Can you explain to me how a Drake with a nerf to missiles will still be able to compete with a Cane, Myrm or Harbinger in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..) when right now no one with their brains set right would claim the Drake to be OP in small scale compared to those 3? General consensus is tier 2 BCs are pretty balanced atm, but with a significant nerf in range AND damage the Drake will clearly fall behind those other 3.
I dont deny the fact the Drake is OP in PvE, but even if it is, there are other ships even more OP in PvE and they dont get adressed ... basically caldari missile users are screwed, and the only reason is CCP is not able to fix missile server load issues. So please remove missiles like they are and replace them with a turret system. Or leave em like they are. But nerfing the hell out of them without giving them some buffs too is just ridiculous.
|
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:54:00 -
[2879] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:To Drumar Rotineque - Decent post, although I think you overstate your both-sided ascription of "crap numbers" being posted on the "in favor" side. Afterall noone on that side is comparing a Drake to a Tornado, , or the short range gun dps to long range missile dps, as the "against" side has multiple times even after the OP was very clear about the flaw in that comparison. However, the following paragraph stood out to me for comment - Drumar Rotineque wrote: ....you argue that they'll be right back to their normal range with a TE or TC. Well, To fit a TE, they are going to have to drop their second BCS as the other two are normally passive shield recharges in order to keep up with dps on harder lvl 4's....This WILL effectively put this as the shortest long range weapon. And with a 20% reduction in damage, it would effectively be even MORE if they want to get their range back. I think it was always an unintended feature of the game that Caldari players had such an easy path to first entry into level 4s with the op pve regen Drake tanking (op possibly more due to the very faulty and skewed shield regen stat on BCs in general than due to the resist bonus). BC passive shield fits really should not be tankning what they do. No Harby or Cane is going to walse into any level 4 and tank it while still putting out enough damage or with enough range the way the Drake (and to a lesser extent the Myrm) currently can. That Drakes lose their easy level 4 ability is only leveling the playing field. Prior to the introduction of the Tengu any Drake pilot with a brain trained into a Raven-kind and it was king of pve. It could be again. Regardless, every other race was having to train BS and BS weapon skills just to get into the level 4 income game. When Drakes lose their current over-easy tanking ability for level 4s (or their over easy sufficient ranged damage dealing abilities) there will be balance in this regard. I think it's already been hinted at by Fozzie that with this HML nerf (and I suspect possible general overall BC hp and shield regen alterations when the comprehensive BC rebalancing comes) the Drake may end up retaining its resist bonus. That frankly would be more than Drake addicts could have expected going into what we all knew was coming (well at least those of us in the game that didn't have blinders on concerning pve and pvp Drake overuse statistics).
I've read several of your posts, often belittling and what not..and i hope that you weren't saying I was comparing a drake to a tornado. I was merely stating our fleet doctrine choices. We also have an alpha maelstrom....again...not trained in projectiles and already in a drake, for missioning, when I first started.
You absolutely did hit it on the head as the direction....make everyone get in BS's for lvl 4's....more skill intensive, more isk investment...push people to buy plex! My question is...why shouldn't i be able to run lvl 4's in a BC? Just like why is my myrm worthless in a wh since it can't really pvp and even still...can't even run C2 sites because of the AI. pain in the ass pulling drones in and out. I want these teir changes hoping the brutix is more viable. Nerf the drake and cane.....contrary to CCP believe...it's not going to make the other BC's more prevelant.....aside from the T3's that serve their purpose as glass cannon's....they are across the board...weak sauce! It's why they are altering the training to you HAVE to train destroyers and bc's...because my guess is once they are done nerfing the cane and the drake....people will just skip it but whatever...no skin off my back....All I'm saying is I'm for a buff of all BC's, not a nerf of the effective ones....aside from T2 and T3...dps cruisers are pretty worthless. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:04:00 -
[2880] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Your sitting here crying about SP you spent on ships that are still relevant and usable. just because you don't use those ships/fits anymore doesn't mean you couldn't.
You put this in print and didn't even care to think that it applies to your missile ships as well, its like you understood the point i was making without understanding that you understood it. The implications there are mind boggling.
Yes, now go back and find the rest of my quote where i stated that nerfing heavy missiles would essentially kill the only good missile boats in game, thus making my missile sp worthless.
The difference is you waisted sp because you no longer use those ships, while my waisted sp will be forced upon me due to the fact that i will no longer have a missile boat with high efficiency in pve.
I dont mind at all that the drake and tengu are being nerfed.
Hell, I dont too much mind that heavy missiles are being nerfed long before these two ships get balanced themselves.
What i do mind is that doing so before battleship balancing leaves me up crap creek without a ship to mission in.
I've flown every sub cap missile boat above a tengu, including a golem. None of them have the efficiency of a tengu in lvl 4 missions.
So, now I have 1 billion isk in a ship that no one will buy, no other missile boat with even equal efficiency, and 8 million sp into weapon systems that are essentially obsolete by design in pve.
So, you can continue to say I have waisted sp in missiles, but the rest of us realize that unused sp is a lot different than unusable sp. |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:06:00 -
[2881] - Quote
^ You can use BC in a lvl 4, you can use cruisers and frigates too.
I read your post, and it seemed, you don't want to do any work, just sit there and get ISK handed to you.
Of course a BC would make less ISK then a BS in a lvl 4. And with what you want from the game, why is that bad?
You said you don't want to do anything important at all, just have easy to train for ships, and do stuff to whittle away the time. So go ahead and use BCs in a lvl 4. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
756
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:11:00 -
[2882] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: to compete in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..)
Awesome and no.
Also you are ********, even if that was a good idea.
Why are you ********? Cause you only focused on the BC lvl and tried to balance them. Where are the BS, and other ships. Maybe other ships would fail on 1v1 but be really good at 2v2. Also, pvp enforces, smaller ships or just really huge ones. (BC and supers are popular) Why is that a good thing to balance the game on?
Besided brutix sucks, True, it hits stationary close things better, or perhaps lucky on a gatecamp. I don't know why you are worried about him. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:15:00 -
[2883] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ You can use BC in a lvl 4, you can use cruisers and frigates too.
I read your post, and it seemed, you don't want to do any work, just sit there and get ISK handed to you.
Of course a BC would make less ISK then a BS in a lvl 4. And with what you want from the game, why is that bad?
You said you don't want to do anything important at all, just have easy to train for ships, and do stuff to whittle away the time. So go ahead and use BCs in a lvl 4.
Oh boy....another guy that just doesn't get it. I don't want to PVE all day....and it takes a drake forever to clear a lvl 4....my buddy in a tengu blows through it in half the time. Legion does comparable...poor little proteus does it...but I skate out by the skin of my teeth many a times. It's why I use a domi. I prefer to PVP....but as it's expensive....forcing people to take even longer isn't creating a sandbox.....but I don't pvp in my myrm. I don't pvp in my brutix either.
ah, I give up....once again the elitest "you should have to grind for days to do what you want" mentality. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:19:00 -
[2884] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
No one said they should be used more, but with this nerf they wont be used at all except on a tengu, which are not very common in pvp due to the cost.
....
Hell, the drake and tengu arent even used cause they have missiles.
They'd probably be used a whole lot more if they were turret boats.
HM's would still provide more firepower and range than long range turrets. i dnt think ppl are goin to suddenly stop using them.
The pros of the drake are its ranged dps and its huge tank. If it became a turret boat it would not only lose a significant portion of its ranged dps, but it also wouldn't have the grid to fit its tank either. any turreted drakes would just be fit with AC's or blasters like the ferox. I dnt think ive ever seen a rail or artie ferox.
as for the tengu, it has a subsystem devoted to turrets that can be used without gimping other subsystems, but how many times do u see that subsystem used?
The most successful pvp fit of the tengu is the 100mn AB tengu, in which HM's are second in importance only to the AB that gives the fit its name.
as for the cerberus and nighthawk not getting much use; i think its because they dnt add as much over the drake that the HACs and command ships do of other races. if u took away heavy missiles from drakes then u'd see them used a lot more
TL;DR
ppl will still use HML's. dnt u worry yes those ships are about the heavy missiles.
|
Lili Lu
494
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:20:00 -
[2885] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Can you explain to me how a Drake with a nerf to missiles will still be able to compete with a Cane, Myrm or Harbinger in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..) when right now no one with their brains set right would claim the Drake to be OP in small scale compared to those 3? General consensus is tier 2 BCs are pretty balanced atm, but with a significant nerf in range AND damage the Drake will clearly fall behind those other 3.
I dont deny the fact the Drake is OP in PvE, but even if it is, there are other ships even more OP in PvE and they dont get adressed ... basically caldari missile users are screwed, and the only reason is CCP is not able to fix missile server load issues. So please remove missiles like they are and replace them with a turret system. Or leave em like they are. But nerfing the hell out of them without giving them some buffs too is just ridiculous. It will be fine in pvp. It will either be doing similar damage (actually probably still more damage and alpha at max range) HML compared to beams, arty, and rails. Or, it will be doing similar damage if HAM fit for close range combat as the other BCs. As for your assertion that Drakes are not op in small scale compared to the others I'm not really in agreement.
I've fought in 0.0 blobs and lowsec small gangs up to 30 or so. Drakes thrive in latter, not just the former. Although true, it is more even in the low sec smaller engagments simply due to HMLs (a long range weapon system) having near enough current dps numbers to compete with other BC close range dps. Also they thrive because of their resist bonus. Any mixed gang that goes out will contain Drake pilots that will have a better chance of coming home in that ship than the dual neut 425 autocannon Cane or HPL Harby because of the slightly lesser dps and resist bonus on the Drake (assuming you run up against a smart target caller on the other side ).
Also, in comparison to Myrms (again in mixed fleets with lower skilled fw characters, which is the pvp environment I'm currently enjoying in game) the Drakes will be outdamaging them. Travel time on drones is more of a pita that it is on HMs. Lastly even in that theatre the Drakes often are near the top on the killmail for damage because not every Cane will be in range to apply its damage on every target the way the Drake will be with HMLs.
As for your pve statment you won't get any argument from me that things like the Machariel are op. Not sure if the current stats or way they can be fit was really "intended" by CCP, but BS balancing will have to wait. In the meantime I think you are wrong that Caldari have no other options than the Tengu. The Raven kind have always been strong with pve. The Navy Scorp is a decent ship. Rattlesnake ditto (while not strictly a missile boat). Even the Rokh can be put to good effect in some missions (e.g. level 4 gone berserk).
These missile changes are probably not done. Read the OP again. Other missile types are and may be later getting slight buffs. And none of these changes have to do with server load on missiles from what the devs have said. If they did they'd probably be converting every missile system to an alpha weapon to cut down on the server calculations. It appears the kinetic bonuses are being done away with in favor of a rof bonus for Caldari missile boats in general (which does not exactly thrill me but hey it's their game). I think many of you are emotionally over-reacting to these changes. Step back a bit and analyse it all more is my advice. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:35:00 -
[2886] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Can you explain to me how a Drake with a nerf to missiles will still be able to compete with a Cane, Myrm or Harbinger in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..) when right now no one with their brains set right would claim the Drake to be OP in small scale compared to those 3? General consensus is tier 2 BCs are pretty balanced atm, but with a significant nerf in range AND damage the Drake will clearly fall behind those other 3.
HAM Drake with a RoF bonus and range boost will compete quite nicely in small skirmishes. its still going to have the toughest tank (with something like 87k ehp and a 150dps passive recharge) and will do over 600dps of any damage type to long point range. whats not to like?
HML drake will still dominate over artie canes, beam harbies and rail-whatevers cause rails are terrible. |
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:36:00 -
[2887] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Can you explain to me how a Drake with a nerf to missiles will still be able to compete with a Cane, Myrm or Harbinger in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..) when right now no one with their brains set right would claim the Drake to be OP in small scale compared to those 3? General consensus is tier 2 BCs are pretty balanced atm, but with a significant nerf in range AND damage the Drake will clearly fall behind those other 3.
HAM Drake with a RoF bonus and range boost will compete quite nicely in small skirmishes. its still going to have the toughest tank (with something like 87k ehp and a 150dps passive recharge) and will do over 600dps of any damage type to long point range. whats not to like? HML drake will still dominate over artie canes, beam harbies and rail-whatevers cause rails are terrible.
Can you really consider rails a real weapon system? lol |
Lili Lu
494
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:41:00 -
[2888] - Quote
Drumar Rotineque wrote:ToLili Lu
I've read several of your posts, often belittling and what not..and i hope that you weren't saying I was comparing a drake to a tornado. . . .
You absolutely did hit it on the head as the direction....make everyone get in BS's for lvl 4's....more skill intensive, more isk investment...push people to buy plex! My question is...why shouldn't i be able to run lvl 4's in a BC? Just like why is my myrm worthless in a wh since it can't really pvp and even still...can't even run C2 sites because of the AI. pain in the ass pulling drones in and out. I want these teir changes hoping the brutix is more viable. Nerf the drake and cane.....contrary to CCP believe...it's not going to make the other BC's more prevelant.....aside from the Teir 3's that serve their purpose as glass cannon's....they are across the board...weak sauce! . . .
....All I'm saying is I'm for a buff of all BC's, not a nerf of the effective ones....aside from T2 and T3...dps cruisers are pretty worthless. Wow, a lot to respond to:
One, I paid you a complement at the beginning of my post. Beleive me if I was going to belittle you you wouldn't have to guess. The comparison of a drake to a tornado was an example I was using from some other guy, who was posting reflexive drivel because he couldn't step out from his emotional reaction to the proposed changes. The reason I mentioned it was you were trying to equate the posting quality of both camps as you characterized this discussion. That is simply not true. That is why I brought up the flawed drake v tornado comparison.
As for plex sales, how does this change push plex sales. Whether that person is going to fly a BC or a BS in level 4s he's still going to be playing the game either way. And sure if every BC was level 4 capable there might not be a problem. But that is the point of all this, balance.
You won't get any argument from me that wormholes have been ****** from their introduction as far as balancing is concerned. I'd love to take Lili there, but the AI and environment design contain too much drone hate, capacitor and active armor hate, close range hate, etc. It's like someone derped and said gee who's been having the easiest time with pve in this game, oh yeah let's create a whole new vast pve environment and npc that will select heavily for those ship types as well.
Lastly, as for your statment that they should just buff up the rest of the BCs, it can't happen. Because it would result in power creep and just moot all the work the are currently doing buffing frigs and cruisers. This entire set of alterations in the OP are part of a process as Fozzie explained. In order to continue that process they couldn't not trim the current strengths of HMLs and HMs. As he said, the current imbalance was touching everything they are currenlty and will be working on. Bringing the weapon system back into line will allow them to get to their grand plan of rebalancing.
I'm not thrilled with some of the changes already put in game and being proposed for frigates and cruisers. And I have so posted. But I don't think I've posted as badly when I did have fears about those changes as so many of those reacting with pain in this thread. It may because I am not so dependent on one set of advantaged ships as so many have been with Drakes and Tengus. Fozzie said congrats to those that use them so heavily. They were smart enough to gravitate toward their real advatages. But this game, any game, continues to change, if it sees itself devolving into a pattern of overused and worthless categories of mods, ships, classes, or skills. |
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 00:54:00 -
[2889] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: Wow, a lot to respond to:
One, I paid you a complement at the beginning of my post.
Just checking! lol ;)
Lili Lu wrote:
As for plex sales, how does this change push plex sales. Whether that person is going to fly a BC or a BS in level 4s he's still going to be playing the game either way. And sure if every BC was level 4 capable there might not be a problem. But that is the point of all this, balance
Sure, you or I or any other other player that has already had the time to train BS's, we'll be fine. My concern is mostly for new players...it's tough when you start out. So, yes it will push for plex sales unless they are lucky enough to get into a corp with great corp mates that will send them some isk to start out.
Lili Lu wrote:You won't get any argument from me that wormholes have been ****** from their introduction as far as balancing is concerned. I'd love to take Lili there, but the AI and environment design contain too much drone hate, capacitor and active armor hate, close range hate, etc. It's like someone derped and said gee who's been having the easiest time with pve in this game, oh yeah let's create a whole new vast pve environment and npc that will select heavily for those ship types as well.
At this point, I'd rather spend my time ratting in NS or mission farming versus living in a WH. They've nerfed the drops so much and the fact that from a PVP aspect, it favors the ganker WAAAAY too much. I'm not against PVP, but in a WH, you're not even caught with your pants unbuttoned....you're always caught with your pants down. However, on the plus side, I did read they are altering the AI to not hate drones so much so they can implement that AI into regular missions. So that should be fun.
Lili Lu wrote:
Lastly, as for your statment that they should just buff up the rest of the BCs, it can't happen. Because it would result in power creep and just moot all the work the are currently doing buffing frigs and cruisers. This entire set of alterations in the OP are part of a process as Fozzie explained. In order to continue that process they couldn't not trim the current strengths of HMLs and HMs. As he said, the current imbalance was touching everything they are currenlty and will be working on. Bringing the weapon system back into line will allow them to get to their grand plan of rebalancing.
I'm not thrilled with some of the changes already put in game and being proposed for frigates and cruisers. And I have so posted. But I don't think I've posted as badly when I did have fears about those changes as so many of those reacting with pain in this thread. It may because I am not so dependent on one set of advantaged ships as so many have been with Drakes and Tengus. Fozzie said congrats to those that use them so heavily. They were smart enough to gravitate toward their real advatages. But this game, any game, continues to change, if it sees itself devolving into a pattern of overused and worthless categories of mods, ships, classes, or skills.
[quote]
while I agree some nerfing is in order, I do believe that after this is implemented, it will be too much. Now, if they give an increase to HAM dps...then I can see it balancing it out...but when I was trying to decide on continuing missile training or go back to Gallente....looking at the numbers and abilities, from a PVE perspective figured the Domi and the Rattlesnake *when I finally decide to stop hording isk for PVP* were better alternatives. PVP wise...Proteus for the win. :) |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 01:01:00 -
[2890] - Quote
CCP Fozzie.
Since you and your team are the only one who may have an idea of the complete picture once everything would be done.
Do you think that Caldari missile cruisers / BCs would see use in the next Alliance tournament besides ECM, i mean, on par with, let's say, Minmatar ? |
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 01:18:00 -
[2891] - Quote
Drumar Rotineque wrote:
Can you really consider rails a real weapon system? lol
ive only ever used rails on pve catalysts and domis...so no lol |
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 01:28:00 -
[2892] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Drumar Rotineque wrote:
Can you really consider rails a real weapon system? lol
ive only ever used rails on pve catalysts and domis...so no lol
You know it's a faulty system when on a Myrm with no gun bonuses, people fit ac's or arty's instead of rails, and not just because of the cap. lol Or on Talos fleet doctrines they are blasters as a meat shield *more like a paper towel* where they prefer Tornados for sniping. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
301
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 01:35:00 -
[2893] - Quote
Drumar Rotineque wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Drumar Rotineque wrote:
Can you really consider rails a real weapon system? lol
ive only ever used rails on pve catalysts and domis...so no lol You know it's a faulty system when on a Myrm with no gun bonuses, people fit ac's or arty's instead of rails, and not just because of the cap. lol Or on Talos fleet doctrines they are blasters as a meat shield *more like a paper towel* where they prefer Tornados for sniping. Naga tends to make a better rail sniper than the Talos and if EVE-Kill is to be believed is at least somewhat effective (being ranked 7th with 425mm rails at 14th). Also doesn't PL have a Rokh doctrine? |
Hirimatsu Yamamoto
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 01:54:00 -
[2894] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs outputs 477 DPS.
Remind you : that is 477 DPS for the cane at what optimal? 5km? And that 321 drake dps is at what range?
Agreed. I would have assumed the concept is similar in rails vs blasters; meaning, the shorter range weapons will typically do more damage.
Now, with that said, I agree that the damage difference between HMs and HAMs is negligible. I agree with the earlier statement that HAMs should be buffed, and HMs get nerfed, but I do not agree with a 20% nerf on one to compensate for the two. This is too much of a gank in the wrong direction. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 02:37:00 -
[2895] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Indeed drake are not the most used BC in low sec, but you see it rather often enough, and the conditions are against them : very small gang everywhere. As soon as the gang size reach a dozen, you see them a lot more often. In pve, they are king, and that is when you don't see a tengu.
Kinda misses the point. If the Drake were actually as overpowered as some are trying to claim you would absolutely see more of them than any other BC. It would be the default BC of choice. Only it's not even close. It is, if anything, pretty close to balanced.
Quote:And saying caldari don't have anything else is completely wrong, and if you were in low sec, you would see it : there is as many of them as there is minmatar or gallente ships (I'm in gallente FW), and they are very effective : merlin, hookbill, condor, hawk, and many more, even caracals, and I don't even talk about ECM boats...
Yeah, I got tired of typing "except frigates" since I assume that is clear to everyone. Is your argument that Caldari Missile pilots should be content to fly rocket armed frigates while CCP figures this out?
Quote:In nullsec, Naga are pretty common, and there is an alliance fleet doctrine based on the rokh.
Neither are MISSILE boats. Missiles: the Caldari signature weapon. We all know hybrids are decent now.
Please, stop saying caldari don't have any ship beside the drake to pvp, that's completely wrong, and a proof of either ignorance or dishonnesty.
Quote:And some tips about future missiles : - with TE/TC/TL, you will have the same range as before, and you will *murder* frigates ; - TD will affect missiles, but : - not every ship will use one because that require a med slot ; - you *will* have at least one TE/TC to murder frigates ; - you will still hit frigates and ennything ; - if at long range, you are in a fleet, and very few fleet use EWAR, because it's hard to use effectively, or you are a point range and you don't care about range ; - HAM, just go to the market and buy som ; "close" range combat is cool too, just do like everyone else ; - HML will still be the best medium weapon system for long range.
You are making a lot of assumptions here that seen to be a bit of a stretch. Most Caldari Missle boats dont have extra low slots for fitting TE's, and few have spare mids for TCs (or any other ewar). They have to share their mids with prop, point, and tank. Further, when you talk about "murdering" frigates let's at least be somewhat realistic here. Even ASSUMING the missile hit for full damage every time, we are not exactly talking about amazing dps here. The AML Caracal will be kicking out less than 200 dps heated with all level 5 skills and perfect hits -- or about as much as the rail Enyo gets today at its 20km optimal. Dangerous, yes, but certainly not a frig shredder. It has no neuts, 2 light drones, and basically T1 frigate DPS. The T1 Merlin would probably kick it's ass.
Why would you prefer this Caracal to, say, a nano Rupture? The Rppie is faster, it does twice the direct fire DPS, and with 180's it will hit frigates and cruisers just fine, and if that's not enough it packs twin medium neuts and a full flight of drones.
|
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 02:46:00 -
[2896] - Quote
You know, I do have to recant my earlier statement about taking longer to train guns than missiles. While yes, it takes less time to fit T2 heavies....by comparison, on a naked toon with no remap, here are the training times:
Perfect Med Artys - 151d, 6h Perfect Med Rail/Beam - 162, 22h Perfect HM - 172d, 5 h
I was wrong But it would make sense that if the are going to nerf the damage, would it not make sense to bring the training times more in line with it's counterparts? And maybe make an adjustment to controlled bursts to do something for projectiles and drop, say missile bombardment to a lvl or 2? |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 02:46:00 -
[2897] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Can you explain to me how a Drake with a nerf to missiles will still be able to compete with a Cane, Myrm or Harbinger in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..) when right now no one with their brains set right would claim the Drake to be OP in small scale compared to those 3? General consensus is tier 2 BCs are pretty balanced atm, but with a significant nerf in range AND damage the Drake will clearly fall behind those other 3.
HAM Drake with a RoF bonus and range boost will compete quite nicely in small skirmishes. its still going to have the toughest tank (with something like 87k ehp and a 150dps passive recharge) and will do over 600dps of any damage type to long point range. whats not to like? HML drake will still dominate over artie canes, beam harbies and rail-whatevers cause rails are terrible.
Post the HAM Drake fit with 87K ehp, a 150dps passive recharge, and 600 dps damage. Because by god I will build and fly that sucker TONIGHT. |
Hirimatsu Yamamoto
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:00:00 -
[2898] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Can you explain to me how a Drake with a nerf to missiles will still be able to compete with a Cane, Myrm or Harbinger in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..) when right now no one with their brains set right would claim the Drake to be OP in small scale compared to those 3? General consensus is tier 2 BCs are pretty balanced atm, but with a significant nerf in range AND damage the Drake will clearly fall behind those other 3.
HAM Drake with a RoF bonus and range boost will compete quite nicely in small skirmishes. its still going to have the toughest tank (with something like 87k ehp and a 150dps passive recharge) and will do over 600dps of any damage type to long point range. whats not to like? HML drake will still dominate over artie canes, beam harbies and rail-whatevers cause rails are terrible. Post the HAM Drake fit with 87K ehp, a 150dps passive recharge, and 600 dps damage. Because by god I will build and fly that sucker TONIGHT.
I can post mine when I get home. :P
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:33:00 -
[2899] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Can you explain to me how a Drake with a nerf to missiles will still be able to compete with a Cane, Myrm or Harbinger in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..) when right now no one with their brains set right would claim the Drake to be OP in small scale compared to those 3? General consensus is tier 2 BCs are pretty balanced atm, but with a significant nerf in range AND damage the Drake will clearly fall behind those other 3.
HAM Drake with a RoF bonus and range boost will compete quite nicely in small skirmishes. its still going to have the toughest tank (with something like 87k ehp and a 150dps passive recharge) and will do over 600dps of any damage type to long point range. whats not to like? HML drake will still dominate over artie canes, beam harbies and rail-whatevers cause rails are terrible. Post the HAM Drake fit with 87K ehp, a 150dps passive recharge, and 600 dps damage. Because by god I will build and fly that sucker TONIGHT.
[Drake, HAM1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II [empty med slot] -> Warp Disruptor or Painter (or whatever else)
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
613dps, 703dps overheated 96,300 EHP 197 HP/s passive recharge
Needs a 1% CPU implant to fit the small neut in the last high with a warp disruptor. It fits anyway with a painter. Does 561dps with Navy Scourge.
These numbers will go up if the Drake gets a RoF bonus instead of kinetic, and it will have full damage type selection. |
Hirimatsu Yamamoto
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:37:00 -
[2900] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Can you explain to me how a Drake with a nerf to missiles will still be able to compete with a Cane, Myrm or Harbinger in PvP (which is what this game should be balanced around, after all ..) when right now no one with their brains set right would claim the Drake to be OP in small scale compared to those 3? General consensus is tier 2 BCs are pretty balanced atm, but with a significant nerf in range AND damage the Drake will clearly fall behind those other 3.
HAM Drake with a RoF bonus and range boost will compete quite nicely in small skirmishes. its still going to have the toughest tank (with something like 87k ehp and a 150dps passive recharge) and will do over 600dps of any damage type to long point range. whats not to like? HML drake will still dominate over artie canes, beam harbies and rail-whatevers cause rails are terrible. Post the HAM Drake fit with 87K ehp, a 150dps passive recharge, and 600 dps damage. Because by god I will build and fly that sucker TONIGHT. [Drake, HAM1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II [empty med slot] -> Warp Disruptor or Painter (or whatever else) Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot] Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x5 613dps, 703dps overheated 96,300 EHP 197 HP/s passive recharge With a CPU implant you can fit a small neut in the last high with a warp disruptor. It fits anyway with a painter. Does 561dps with Navy Scourge. These numbers will go up if the Drake gets a RoF bonus instead of kinetic, and it will have full damage type selection.
Yup. That would be similar enough to my fit.
I am guessing someone else doesn't use EFT..... or not enough. :P
|
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:47:00 -
[2901] - Quote
Hirimatsu Yamamoto wrote:Yup. That would be similar enough to my fit.
I am guessing someone else doesn't use EFT..... or not enough. :P
I used to fly that fit (in another life) back in 2008 and it was as wicked then as it is now. I eventually had 70mil SP in Minmatar and Amarr ships, yet the HAM Drake was still one of my favorite ships to fly. |
Ellente Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 03:47:00 -
[2902] - Quote
Fozzie, you mention in the first post you'd be boosting the fury damage while increasing its penalties (exp vel, exp rad). Where does this leave heavy missile fury damage on a target your hitting perfectly? Thinking shooting heavy furies at a target painted BS, 10% down, 5%? or is it the full 20% your talking about in the first post? Just curious 'cause you talked about a buff and a nerf and I would like an idea of what they add up to.
Also the short range missile systems as a concept they are ok....but a bit uninspired.
As they stand this is nice, current missile effects 25s
But this is awesome, MRLS in Wargame: European Escalation
Any chance of giving the short range missiles burst damage? Was thinking boost RoF, shrink capacity and up reload. Just seems a bit silly when I zoom in on a torpedo launcher especially and see the two other torps just sitting there. This is definitely something I'd be happy to take a damage nerf on :)
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 04:04:00 -
[2903] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:
[Drake, HAM1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II [empty med slot] -> Warp Disruptor or Painter (or whatever else)
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
613dps, 703dps overheated 96,300 EHP 197 HP/s passive recharge
Needs a 1% CPU implant to fit the small neut in the last high with a warp disruptor. It fits anyway with a painter. Does 561dps with Navy Scourge.
These numbers will go up if the Drake gets a RoF bonus instead of kinetic, and it will have full damage type selection.
Swap the DCII for an IFFA and it fits fine with a disruptor II and no implants.
My EFT version is giving me slightly different numbers, but still bloody insane. I will be honest, I had absolutely no IDEA you could do that with a HAM drake. That's freaking nuts. |
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 04:39:00 -
[2904] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:
[Drake, HAM1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II [empty med slot] -> Warp Disruptor or Painter (or whatever else)
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
613dps, 703dps overheated 96,300 EHP 197 HP/s passive recharge
Needs a 1% CPU implant to fit the small neut in the last high with a warp disruptor. It fits anyway with a painter. Does 561dps with Navy Scourge.
These numbers will go up if the Drake gets a RoF bonus instead of kinetic, and it will have full damage type selection.
Curious as to what this fit is for? For solo PVP, most people use either ECM drones or Warrior II's.... |
Hirimatsu Yamamoto
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 04:46:00 -
[2905] - Quote
Drumar Rotineque wrote:Eckyy wrote:
[Drake, HAM1]
Hobgoblin II x5
613dps, 703dps overheated 96,300 EHP 197 HP/s passive recharge
Needs a 1% CPU implant to fit the small neut in the last high with a warp disruptor. It fits anyway with a painter. Does 561dps with Navy Scourge.
These numbers will go up if the Drake gets a RoF bonus instead of kinetic, and it will have full damage type selection.
Curious as to what this fit is for? For solo PVP, most people use either ECM drones or Warrior II's....
Agreed. I would personally use the Warrior II's myself. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 05:02:00 -
[2906] - Quote
@Echyy's ham drake fit
OK, few issues.
1) You would need a 6% CPU implant with all skills lvl 5 in order to build this fit.
2) The dps of this fit all skills 5 without implants is 592 - 675 overheated.
3) That fit has a EM hole, though it still has a 78k em EHP
ON top of all that, what a lot of people don't realize about the drake is while it has a massive EHP, it doesn't recover that very quickly. So, it's a really big block of cold butter. In other words, there's a lot of it, and it's kinda tough, but it'll go down either way.
Ok, so this section is in hopes that people will understand my concern.
My concern is not the drake. My concern is not heavy missiles. While my concern does involve the tengu, it's not the tengu itself.
My concern is that nerfing heavy missiles will reduce the effectiveness of the tengu (as well it should) but in doing so will leave a massive cap in pve as far as missile boat efficiency is concerned.
Like I've stated before, I am well aware the tengu needs to be nerfed, but nerfing its pve effectiveness before buffng missile boat bs's wil leave me and other missile boat pilots with nothing but lack luster ships in pve.
Given the current rate of ship rebalancing I presume it will be at least a year before battleships are rebalanced.
Meaning I'll either need to spend half that time (at least) cross training to another race in order to get high efficiency pve capability, or I'll have to boat around in an under efficient ship just for the sake of using my 8+ mil sp in missiles.
So, this nerf coming before battleship rebalance is very damaging to us missile boaters...
Now, as far as the nerfs directly, while I do feel they're a bit premature, I don't feel that they're too much after putting some thought into it.
Being that they can be fit on cruisers, they're extremely powerful on that class of ship.
On the drake, they're not that powerful, but combined with its massive EHP, it has a lot of capability.
Now, I also can't help feel that this has a lot more to do with the tengu than anything else.
I'm pretty sure that when drake rebalance comes around it will probably receive all of the lost dps back, and some of the range. However, it will probably lose a good chunk of ehp. It will probably retain its resist bonuses, but will lose its high shield recharge rate. Thus the drake will become more of an active/buffer tank ship, which would make it more vulnerable in pvp via no longer being almost immune to cap warfare.
Back to the tengu So, again, we all know the tengu needs nerfed. This missile nerf is just the stepping stone. It's dps with a good pve fit will be reduced to between 500-550 depending on isk investment. This is not bad, but low compared to many other effective pve capable ships. However, this is higher effective dps than a cruie raven, cruise scorpion navy, or even cruise raven navy. This is pretty sad when you consider it.
Now, if the tengu gets a direct ship nerf before battleships (as I fear it probably will) then it will no longer be viable in lvl 4 missions. Either way missile boats are losing the only high efficiency lvl 4 mission runner they have. Someone will probably argue in favor of the golem, however, it's not very effective by any means.
Others may argue for a torp raven or navy raven. If you've ever tried to fly one of these then you know this is just a bad idea with a lot of damage that isn't effective.
Point being, wht am I supposed to do for pve after this heavy missile nerf? Obviously use my tengu as a billion isk paper weight, but other than that, i guess I have no chice but to either sit out for a while or spend a pretty long time cross training... |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 05:10:00 -
[2907] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:@Echyy's ham drake fit
OK, few issues.
1) You would need a 6% CPU implant with all skills lvl 5 in order to build this fit.
2) The dps of this fit all skills 5 without implants is 592 - 675 overheated.
3) That fit has a EM hole, though it still has a 78k em EHP
ON top of all that, what a lot of people don't realize about the drake is while it has a massive EHP, it doesn't recover that very quickly. So, it's a really big block of cold butter. In other words, there's a lot of it, and it's kinda tough, but it'll go down either way.
Not sure what version of EFT you're using.
http://imageshack.us/a/img811/646/drake1.png
Fits fine for me. Also, I know exactly how fast it recovers, it's about 50 real shield HP per second at peak, which is approximately 50 HP/s faster than armor recovers.
Anyway I bet a 50km HAM fit would function pretty well in PvE too, especially with TE's benefiting explosion radius and explosion velocity.
You're right about collateral damage though. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 05:21:00 -
[2908] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I also wanted to once again let people know that I'm still reading
That's great that you are paying so many attention to feedback.
Can you consider allowing Guided Missile Precision and Rigors affecting Unguided missiles? It's just incosistent with TE/TC/TL/TD and turrets. It would be fine if you nerf a bit explosion radius on them and then allow Guided Missile Precision bonus to apply to make it roughly the same. |
Drumar Rotineque
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
11
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:04:00 -
[2909] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: I also wanted to once again let people know that I'm still reading
That's great that you are paying so many attention to feedback. Can you consider allowing Guided Missile Precision and Rigors affecting Unguided missiles? It's just incosistent with TE/TC/TL/TD and turrets. It would be fine if you nerf a bit explosion radius on them and then allow Guided Missile Precision bonus to apply to make it roughly the same.
you know....they better not use the current numbers for the TD's in regards to missiles....Imagine, if you will....3 tracking mods with optimal range would drop the range from 59.3k for T2 down to a whopping 17.79 if they don't use an TE's....or drop it to 23k and then use a tracking speed to spike the exp radius and reduce exp velocity....I'm trying to comprehend how this wouldn't make TD's OP against missiles as it then pulls them into short range...at which point precision would be it's only effective....if you can call it that. And then guns can switch to short range ammo and just pwn. Basically...it will allow the other 3 races to control a fight against a drake now not only by their speed, but by watching as their missiles stop short. you could orbit the drake at 18k, have him pointed and laugh as he sends out his drones. He can't catch you and he can't hit you. Better got get a TD BPO and research it up :) |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:11:00 -
[2910] - Quote
I asked for numbers before and ofcourse have not recieved answer. My last post was that Guided missile precission should affect all missiles. CCP can nerf their values and change skill name to make things the same, it's just the inconsistance that I dislike. BTW skill that only affects LM, HM and Cruise falls dangerously close to Defender's, FOF's and Shield Resist Compenstation's skills territory. |
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
295
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:33:00 -
[2911] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:...ON top of all that, what a lot of people don't realize about the drake is while it has a massive EHP, it doesn't recover that very quickly. So, it's a really big block of cold butter.... Still a whole lot better off than armour alternatives (tier 2's) that has less EHP but don't recover at all .. if the Drake is cold butter what does that make the rest?
By the by, wouldn't the HAM Drake benefit from abusing the ASB's, as in replacing one of the LSE with a LASB?
CCP Fozzie wrote:...Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically.... Would be nice to know what the devious plan for links is beforehand, but 'meh'. Tier 1: Link fitting and effectiveness role bonuses. Tier 2: Link fitting role bonus Basically make same split that exists for CC's, have one preferred link hull and another aimed at doing damage.
Prophecy: Expand on what you are trying to do with the other beaked hull (Omen). Add mid (assuming tier1's get a slot and tier2's lose one), give it Arbitrator drone bay (50/150) .. or just plain old Abaddonification. Ferox: Speed it up, a lot. Add mid. Make it a true hybrid boat with a damage bonus instead of range, Drake and Naga have the fire-support niche covered. Brutix: No idea until I know what is going through your head with regards to active tanking. Cop-out would be to make it a bigger, badder Thorax but then what happens to the Ass-tart? Cyclone: Pretty good where it is only one with the target slot count for some reason, make it a 5/5 gun/missile (is it possible to have a dual bonus, gun+missile?). Or make it a bigger Bellicose with all missile spammage and TP ..
Cane: Will need to see if grid redux is enough, otherwise a good ship. Take of a high. Myrm: Bandwidth to 100Mb/s, keep bay, maybe take off or move a mid. As with Brutix, depends on what happens with active tanking. Drake: No comment. There is no asbestos strong enough to resist the flames were I to comment. Harb: Take of a high. Increase agility (don't touch speed/mass), replace cap bonus with tracking + 8-9% more base cap. Fine ship really.
Tier 3s were in my opinion a bad idea to begin with so no comment.
NB: Deliberately sidestepped the idea of having active tank bonuses apply for remote .. with logistics frigs and T1 logistics cruisers coming, RR will be omni-present making such a change stupidly strong .. best not. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:34:00 -
[2912] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:OT Smithers wrote:The AML Caracal, with all level 5 skills, will do something under 200 dps heated, and about 160 dps normally. It'll do around 300 dps (before heat) post patch, out to 50+ km with essentially perfect damage application against destroyers and up when using fury, and the option to switch down to faction ammo to hit frigates for full damage right in their resist hole. You don't *need* neuts for frigate defence when you can smack them down with your primary weapon system.
How slow are you flying your dessies |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
395
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:40:00 -
[2913] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: Tier 3s were in my opinion a bad idea to begin with so no comment.
I love you. Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:49:00 -
[2914] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:5 T2 hams PG 630, thats the entire pg of a caracal.
sure skills can lower that.
then again you need to it propulsion mods to dictate range T2 10mn MWD 165 pg
Large shield extender II 165 PG
so unbonesed fit having a pg gap of 330 PG, with 1 Large extender and a MDW.
Drone bay is the same as before the reballance
All cruisers got extra hp and speed/agillaty.
use TC/TE canceled out with TD.
So Ham caracal still fitting horror, HML Drake hardly any change as to what it was. valuable option Rapid light missile launcher, good nice frigate killer with little use outside FW with the new stats: +100 PG and +80 CPU my math says theyll have an end total of 787.5 PG and 537.5 CPU Each launcher takes 113.4 PG and 37.5 CPU for a total of 567 PG and 187.5 CPU leaving you with 220.5 PG and 350 CPU . . . I dont see the problem . . .
The 680 PG is after the patch, yes when fully skilled you can fit it and that is exactly what the problem is.
So we have a t1 missile cruiser that needs to be trained to end to compete with all other t1 cruisers.
Long range will be nerfed to shreds and to it short range you need to be trained top end. In short to long to train beore it gets usefull, form the eyes of a starting player.
Switch of long range/short range PG needs on launchers would bring it more in to par with those other systems.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 06:51:00 -
[2915] - Quote
my long posting has been completely destroyed .. *sigh*
will no longer put effort here to argue. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1555
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:12:00 -
[2916] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Back to the tengu So, again, we all know the tengu needs nerfed. This missile nerf is just the stepping stone. It's dps with a good pve fit will be reduced to between 500-550 depending on isk investment. This is not bad, but low compared to many other effective pve capable ships. However, this is higher effective dps than a cruie raven, cruise scorpion navy, or even cruise raven navy. This is pretty sad when you consider it.
Now, if the tengu gets a direct ship nerf before battleships (as I fear it probably will) then it will no longer be viable in lvl 4 missions. Either way missile boats are losing the only high efficiency lvl 4 mission runner they have. Someone will probably argue in favor of the golem, however, it's not very effective by any means. Where did you get the "we all" assumption from? The T3 line is probably the most balanced one atm (with the exception of the crappy legion, which I hope will be reviewed somehow by CCP). Just because one ship on that line is the most used for one or two aspect of the game, doesn't necessarily mean it is overpowered. Especially when you're only looking at it from the PvE, specifically missioning aspect of the game.
Tengu does it job really fine, it does what a T3 does best, especially in PvE environment. A loki also does it's job just fine, in some ways (like the interchangeable tank for example) it completely outshines the Tengu, the Loki can switch between armor and shield tanking and be pretty damn good at both. Same as the proteus, it's similar to a Tengu, but leaning more heavily towards armor. Those three have their own piece of the cake.
"I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:13:00 -
[2917] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal?
First of all removing links from tier 2 BC. They are not used anyway and just confuse new players. As one of previous posters said, I'd like to see one one tier for bonuses and another for combat.
Ferox: Shield Resists and Shield links bonuses (weaker than Command). Brutix: Hybrid Damage and Information links binuses (weaker than Command). Cyclone: Projectile Damage and Skirmish links bonuses (weaker than Command). Prophecy: Armor Resists and Armor links bonuses (weaker than Command).
With weaker bonuses, lower EHP and no covert/nullifier those ships would not replace T2 or T3 booster ships but will allow new players to start with something while training leadership. Also they could be used in small roaming fleets and would be much more accessible and killable than cloaked bubble-nullified T3, encouraging more PvP overall. No more "we can't fight them or start roam because noone here have Loki" or "we can't afford bonuses to T1 cruiser-size fleet.
Drake: RoF bonus instead of kinetic, velocity for HAML would be welcomed too. If you ease fittings HAMLs it can survive without resist bonus. Remove link. Myrmidon: More bandwith and useful bonus instead of +rep, like hybrid damage/rof or armor resists. Repair bonuses are just bad. Remove link. Hurricane: We'll see how it will work with 220. How about moving one high to med? 2 utility slots are a bit too much and this will give Cane a proper Shield tank (can make it OP though). Remove link. Harbinger: Replace cap bonus with armor or range and buff basic capacitor. make sure that it can be fitted as easy as other BC. Remove link.
This will make tier 2 BC more balanced with each other, all of them will be good. |
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:17:00 -
[2918] - Quote
*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 5Tornado36558 6Naga34228 7Maelstrom33398 8Loki31593 9Oracle30786 10Thrasher21259 11Hound19516 12Cynabal19432 13Sabre18746 14Talos17529 15Rifter17297 16Proteus17240 17Huginn17202 18Scimitar16779 19Stabber Fleet Issue16659 20Apocalypse Navy Issue
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:22:00 -
[2919] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal?
First of all removing links from tier 2 BC. They are not used anyway and just confuse new players. As one of previous posters said, I'd like to see one one tier for bonuses and another for combat. Ferox: Shield Resists and Shield links bonuses (weaker than Command). Brutix: Hybrid Damage and Information links binuses (weaker than Command). Cyclone: Projectile Damage and Skirmish links bonuses (weaker than Command). Prophecy: Armor Resists and Armor links bonuses (weaker than Command). With weaker bonuses, lower EHP and no covert/nullifier those ships would not replace T2 or T3 booster ships but will allow new players to start with something while training leadership. Also they could be used in small roaming fleets and would be much more accessible and killable than cloaked bubble-nullified T3, encouraging more PvP overall. No more "we can't fight them or start roam because noone here have Loki" or "we can't afford bonuses to T1 cruiser-size fleet. Drake: RoF bonus instead of kinetic, velocity for HAML would be welcomed too. If you ease fittings HAMLs it can survive without resist bonus. Remove link. Myrmidon: More bandwith and useful bonus instead of +rep, like hybrid damage/rof or armor resists. Repair bonuses are just bad. Remove link. Hurricane: We'll see how it will work with 220. How about moving one high to med? 2 utility slots are a bit too much and this will give Cane a proper Shield tank (can make it OP though). Remove link. Harbinger: Replace cap bonus with armor or range and buff basic capacitor. make sure that it can be fitted as easy as other BC. Remove link. This will make tier 2 BC more balanced with each other, all of them will be good.
Interesting ideas for the tier 1's, but I disagree with your changes to tier 2's.
Your Drake changes are ok.
Myrmidon rep bonus is broken because active armor tanking is nonexistent outside of PvE, I think something else needs to be done about that. Otherwise I think the Myrm's damage is fine, though 75m3 of bandwidth is a very awkward number.
Hurricane is fine, don't touch slots, it's different and I like that.
Lasers are based around having great stats built into the guns but excessive cap use. CCP has been homogenizing all weapon systems and I'd rather not see the Harb lose its cap use bonus. If it actually were to need changing (and I don't think it does, it's a fine ship already) I'd rather see it come in the form of a change to the base damage/tracking/range of lasers and maybe even an INCREASE in cap use. Make them have great strengths and great weaknesses. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:28:00 -
[2920] - Quote
DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 5Tornado36558 6Naga34228 7Maelstrom33398 8Loki31593 9Oracle30786 10Thrasher21259 11Hound19516 12Cynabal19432 13Sabre18746 14Talos17529 15Rifter17297 16Proteus17240 17Huginn17202 18Scimitar16779 19Stabber Fleet Issue16659 20Apocalypse Navy Issue
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf.
I'd still say it's more appropriate to nerf that hull, than the entire weapon system. How many others in the list rely on HML (aside from #4) ? And how many others will be put in a place we'll call "awaiting rebalance in the wake of the nerf"? |
|
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1555
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:30:00 -
[2921] - Quote
DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 5Tornado36558 6Naga34228 7Maelstrom33398 8Loki31593 ...
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf.
After the nerf : 1Zealot117887 2Tornado36558 3Naga34228 4Maelstrom33398 5Loki31593 6Oracle30786
Yeah! let us prepare for the laser nerf!
protip: there is always a ship that's gonna be #1 on the statistics m8. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Katharina B
Covenant Trading Agency
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:30:00 -
[2922] - Quote
DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 [...]
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf.
Good argument. Because of the fact that the Drake ist the most KILLED or DESTROYED ship we need a nerf of this ship. |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:36:00 -
[2923] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically.
If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
Now I'm puzzled.
As most people on this thread could agree on the fact the Drake and the Tengu (with Ejector bay) where in need of looking at and as some argued, not the HML's, now the Drake is considered about fine after the HML nerf?
woundn't it just be easer to nerf the range and damge of the drake and the Ejector bay, or adjust the drake bonuses to Ham instead of HML.
Now every other ship firering heavy missiles needs to be brought on par again.
Aside of the Drake and the Tengu no HML firering ship ever showed it self as a top killer in the last years.
Aside from that.
I'd like to see the Battlecruiser Ballance to bring the following, missile wise, since that is the main discussion at the moment.
Drake, should be ballanced more to one role, either long ranged, slower lower tank, or higher tank, short range brawler.
Secondly I'd like the BC class to gain a second Caldari Missile ship, that will fill the role the Drake isn't taking.
Minmatar and Anmar could do with a dedicated missile BC as well, Gallente might have need o something else.
I'd like to see Ballancing means that missile pilots get a little more choice in what they fly, aside of that 1 t1 battlecruiser of 12 T1 BC's.
Secondly I'd like to see the changes that are discused now to be implanted in a slower pace, not destroying certain T2 cruisers, Battlecruisers and to my opinion certain T3 configurations completly, before they are looked at.
wait untill the ship ballancing is done before bringing the TD plans in game, they are such a game changer I think no one here can predicts it's efects and you guys have a very hard time to predict it's effects.
I hope you can work with that.
And thums up for the time you take to hear us try to explain, whine and growl. |
DR BiCarbonate
Basgerin Pirate SCUM.
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:41:00 -
[2924] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 [...]
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf. Good argument. Because of the fact that the Drake ist the most KILLED or DESTROYED ship we need a hard nerf of this ship. Sure.. a lot of people fly this ship.. but there are a lot of players without any knowledge of how to do this. I really need a Dislike button in this forum. Dyslexic much? Reread my post, then get back to me. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1133
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:45:00 -
[2925] - Quote
Miss Le NerfSxBye wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake. A Drake with eight launchers, begs.
Seriously, reowrk it however else, gimp it's speed I don't care, something, but the model, you made the art to fit 8 launcher. it looks so bad in game. SO bad. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:45:00 -
[2926] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 [...]
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf. Good argument. Because of the fact that the Drake ist the most KILLED or DESTROYED ship we need a hard nerf of this ship. Sure.. a lot of people fly this ship.. but there are a lot of players without any knowledge of how to do this. I really need a Dislike button in this forum.
well to be fair, that is because the ship is used so much in Blobs - cheap to replace, working as intended. So yes, there are many Drakes involved in PvP, and maybe more than there should be (this applies only for null sec, as in low you will *not* see too many Drakes, just a fair ammount and for sure no one with their brains set right thinks they are OP there).
The point is, null sec fights have different mechanics - AFAIK perma MWD due to lag is an issue here, and lag helps missiles to work better than turrets too because of the instant damage being not of so much use then. So basically its this: Missiles/Drakes are a problem in *ONE* part of EVE, and thats why they will be nerfed. There is no other reason, and there will never be another one. So please buff Caldaris battleships to be viable in PvP like the ones of other races too, and buff the Nighthawk so it can compete with a Sleipnir or Absolution ... I dont want more than just a few working ships, but killing the one which actually *can* compete with others without giving something in return is just ********. And no, we dont get anything in return with those planned changes - we already have a strong DPS on paper close range ship (torp CNR/ torp Raven) which is of next to no practical use apart from arena 1on1.
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
370
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:47:00 -
[2927] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Eckyy wrote:
[Drake, HAM1]
613dps, 703dps overheated 96,300 EHP 197 HP/s passive recharge
Needs a 1% CPU implant to fit the small neut in the last high with a warp disruptor. It fits anyway with a painter. Does 561dps with Navy Scourge.
These numbers will go up if the Drake gets a RoF bonus instead of kinetic, and it will have full damage type selection.
Swap the DCII for an IFFA and it fits fine with a disruptor II and no implants. My EFT version is giving me slightly different numbers, but still bloody insane. I will be honest, I had absolutely no IDEA you could do that with a HAM drake. That's freaking nuts.
HAM Drakes like that were first flown in 2007.. well I flew then them, someone else probably got there first in 2006. This si why HAM Drake reliably beats most other BCs in a straight slugging match. I can't believe you didn't know this. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1133
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 07:52:00 -
[2928] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal?
well... I would like the see the cyclone get a boost to be as useful as the hurricane.... Please? Pretty please? Also the ship might be need of a remodel some day soon. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Martin0
Maximum-Overload
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 08:15:00 -
[2929] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:I'm chiming in to say that TEs falloff bonus is wayy too much and contributes to the Winmatar factor, 30% bonus for one of their most important stats, for a module that takes no cap and has very low fitting requirements is abit much.
Nerf the tracking enacher to 20% fallof bounus. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
191
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 08:40:00 -
[2930] - Quote
Martin0 wrote:Dato Koppla wrote:I'm chiming in to say that TEs falloff bonus is wayy too much and contributes to the Winmatar factor, 30% bonus for one of their most important stats, for a module that takes no cap and has very low fitting requirements is abit much. Nerf the tracking enacher to 20% fallof bounus.
Yeah, that would hit blasters and rails as well, you DO understand how falloff works right? |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
191
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 08:47:00 -
[2931] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Katharina B wrote:DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 [...]
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf. Good argument. Because of the fact that the Drake ist the most KILLED or DESTROYED ship we need a hard nerf of this ship. Sure.. a lot of people fly this ship.. but there are a lot of players without any knowledge of how to do this. I really need a Dislike button in this forum. well to be fair, that is because the ship is used so much in Blobs - cheap to replace, working as intended. So yes, there are many Drakes involved in PvP, and maybe more than there should be (this applies only for null sec, as in low you will *not* see too many Drakes, just a fair ammount and for sure no one with their brains set right thinks they are OP there). The point is, null sec fights have different mechanics - AFAIK perma MWD due to lag is an issue here, and lag helps missiles to work better than turrets too because of the instant damage being not of so much use then. So basically its this: Missiles/Drakes are a problem in *ONE* part of EVE, and thats why they will be nerfed. There is no other reason, and there will never be another one. So please buff Caldaris battleships to be viable in PvP like the ones of other races too, and buff the Nighthawk so it can compete with a Sleipnir or Absolution ... I dont want more than just a few working ships, but killing the one which actually *can* compete with others without giving something in return is just ********. And no, we dont get anything in return with those planned changes - we already have a strong DPS on paper close range ship (torp CNR/ torp Raven) which is of next to no practical use apart from arena 1on1.
Where is this magic no drake low sec? Damn sure isn't between Otou and Old Man Star, because were always Drakes around, solo ham, webby nanos etc etc.
Rokhs are also perfectly viable PvP battleships, maybe not small stuff, but they are. Great against Tengus and short range BS...oh and Drakes.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 09:21:00 -
[2932] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Where is this magic no drake low sec? Damn sure isn't between Otou and Old Man Star, because were always Drakes around, solo ham, webby nanos etc etc.
Rokhs are also perfectly viable PvP battleships, maybe not small stuff, but they are. Great against Tengus and short range BS...oh and Drakes.
Maybe you learn to read: I didnt say there are NO Drakes, I said there are not too many Drakes in low, but just normal numbers. For sure not more Drakes than Canes ... and yes, the Drake is a viable small gang and solo ship, but doesnt Caldari deserve to have one??
Rokhs are viable (as are Scorps) but not in small gangs or solo (and Scorps are not combat but support). So, tell me which Caldari ship is viable for small scale, roaming or 1on1 above frig size when the Drake gets nerfed to oblivion by crippling its most versatile weapon platform and making the other weak against a pretty regularly fitted ewar-module (TD) ?
Like I said before - make the Raven/CNR/SNI viable in PvP, buff the NH so it can go toe to toe with a Sleipnir or Absolution (and you wont deny the fact that at the moment it CANT do that - why????) and it wouldnt hurt so bad to lose the Drake as a viable platform. But without this its just plain BS, and I dont mean battleship with that one ....
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 09:41:00 -
[2933] - Quote
Katharina B wrote:DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 [...]
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf. Good argument. Because of the fact that the Drake ist the most KILLED or DESTROYED ship we need a hard nerf of this ship. Sure.. a lot of people fly this ship.. but there are a lot of players without any knowledge of how to do this. I really need a Dislike button in this forum.
I don't know if this poster is a troll or not but I'll bite it anyway.
These stats are kills. Not ships died. There are 209852 ship kills that have drakes in them.
Meaning this ship is used a LOT. Infact 2 times more than nearest contender...and almost 4 times more than the cane.
Yes it is used a LOT. Even in low sec it is used a lot. It is used everywhere.
...and it is used for a good reason. It is that good. The stats of the ship itself are not that impressive. It is the weapon system.
It is even used in this forum thread where the discussion should be about heavy missiles in general. I expect a 300+ pages ranting when the time for BC rebalancing comes. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
68
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 09:41:00 -
[2934] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:
The 680 PG is after the patch, yes when fully skilled you can fit it and that is exactly what the problem is.
So we have a t1 missile cruiser that needs to be trained to end to compete with all other t1 cruisers.
Long range will be nerfed to shreds and to it short range you need to be trained top end. In short to long to train beore it gets usefull, form the eyes of a starting player.
Switch of long range/short range PG needs on launchers would bring it more in to par with those other systems.
Are you serious?
You are complaining that you can't fit a full rack of tech 2 weapons, a tech 2 propulsion mod and a tech 2 shield extender without maxed fitting skills?
You trained for tech 2 missles (~2,5m - 5m + skillpoints to be properly effective) before maxing out engineering and electronics (total 512k skillpoints)?
You lost the arguement when he posted the numbers, just accept it and move on. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
68
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 09:54:00 -
[2935] - Quote
Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 10:09:00 -
[2936] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically.
The missile changes are fine tbh. People are just used to HML's having the same damage as short range guns, they are way too good.
While I kinda hate active armor tanking, it would be fun to see how a Myrm would work with the following bonuses:
10% bonus to armor repairer repair amount and capacitor use. 10% bonus to drone hp and damage.
The cap use bonus would let us run 2 or maybe even 3 repairers on one cap booster.
Inb4 OP tank, 2 xl-asb on a Myrmidon today are better than 3 repairers, and use no cap. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 10:22:00 -
[2937] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.
One thing at a time is not an appropriate approach when it leaves a swathe of collateral damage in the form of all HML boats but the two problem children.
As as previously linked by someone, the top 20 kill hulls for this month - apart from Drake/Tengu - how many other boats there use HML? How many other boats there use medium weapons at all?
By all means, fix a busted weapon, but you really should fix boats it is barely carrying at the same time, rather than kicking the crutch out from under them for 6-12 months. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 10:26:00 -
[2938] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.
That is simply not true. As shown in this graph you can see HML are not better than most of their turret counterparts on their turret counterparts *optimal* range, and just begin to shine at a longer range. Which is where they also suffer more from delay between fired shot and incoming damage. Range/Damage Graph As a matter of fact the Drake as a whole is not so bad (and in fact a good match for any other tier 2 BC in PvP), but it is also the *only* viable Caldari combat PvP ship in tech 1 (and also tech 2 ...) above frig level and except Rokh in certain fleet doctrines. So I dont wonder too much everyone who can just fly caldari will use a Drake - do you? And still: the Drake deals its "good" DPS only with pure kinetic, if it would be so damn OP, why is there no run for Gallente t2/1 kin hardener in most setups?
HAMs are not strong enough in comparison to HML in some scenarios, and in others they are fine. If it was me, HAMs should be much faster flying and keep their short range, but should be usable on ships like the NH (which atm CANT fit a viable HAM setup for PvP!). There is no need to change HML to make HAMs viable where they are right now not.
The only thing where HMLs are OP is PvE, and thats by definition NOT what EVE is balanced about .... and still, HMLs are by far not as OP as Winmatar/Projectiles and esp. Angels.
Too many things would need to be changed, if those OPs ideas would be set, and I do still wait for a reasonable answer to my concerns. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
371
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:08:00 -
[2939] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:So, tell me which Caldari ship is viable for small scale, roaming or 1on1 above frig size when the Drake gets nerfed to oblivion by crippling its most versatile weapon platform and making the other weak against a pretty regularly fitted ewar-module (TD) ?
Well, there'll be the Drake, for one... |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:08:00 -
[2940] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time. One thing at a time is not an appropriate approach when it leaves a swathe of collateral damage in the form of all HML boats but the two problem children. This is completely incorrect. Currently there are three types of HML using ships. OP, broken hulls, reasonably balanced hulls, and underpowered, broken hulls.
The drake and tengu are OP and broken The caracal is balanced The Nighthawk and Cerb are underpowered and broken.
Given 4 broken hulls out of 5 total users, nerfing HMLs goes a long way to fixing the drake and tengu while having no real effect on the Nighthawk and Cerb (they are still ****). The caracal will also be fixed as part of the balance changes and remains balanced post HML changes (see various fits and stats posted already in this thread).
This means the HML changes don't break any additional ships. The Nighthawk and Cerb needed fixing before the changes, they still need fixing after the changes. Very few pilots fly them atm and this wont change. CCP will UNDOUBTABLY look at them next year and at least now they will have a reasonably balanced weapon system as a starting point for such balance.
In otherwords - What collateral damage?
Quote:As as previously linked by someone, the top 20 kill hulls for this month - apart from Drake/Tengu - how many other boats there use HML? How many other boats there use medium weapons at all?
There are 5 real HML platforms. As noted, Cerb and Nighthawk are broken but this has nothing to do with HMLs and everything to do with their bonuses. A t1 cruiser wont ever make the top 20.
Of the top 20 kill hulls, 9 use medium weapons. This seems about right.
Quote: By all means, fix a busted weapon, but you really should fix boats it is barely carrying at the same time, rather than kicking the only crutch out from under them for 6-12 months.
Almost noone flies the two hulls that will be unbalanced by these changes. Another 6 - 12 months of them still not being used is a FAR lesser evil than another 6-12 month of drake/tengu(/hurricane) ubiquity. |
|
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:17:00 -
[2941] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:
The 680 PG is after the patch, yes when fully skilled you can fit it and that is exactly what the problem is.
So we have a t1 missile cruiser that needs to be trained to end to compete with all other t1 cruisers.
Long range will be nerfed to shreds and to it short range you need to be trained top end. In short to long to train beore it gets usefull, form the eyes of a starting player.
Switch of long range/short range PG needs on launchers would bring it more in to par with those other systems.
Are you serious? You are complaining that you can't fit a full rack of tech 2 weapons, a tech 2 propulsion mod and a tech 2 shield extender without maxed fitting skills? You trained for tech 2 missles (~2,5m - 5m + skillpoints to be properly effective) before maxing out engineering and electronics (total 512k skillpoints)? You lost the arguement when he posted the numbers, just accept it and move on.
Yes I'm serious all the arguments that de caracal does great damage are with fits that use max skills and therefor it should be justified.
So it-¦s nice you can fit a Caracal with engenering electronics ----> weapon upgreades, advanced weapon upgrades and a couple of shield and propulsion upgrades, little more than 512 k skill points.
Numbers are nice and well, but it would be nice if someone tells how to they get them and what the diference is with those ships they are compared to.
But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.
Personaly I have little trouble making that fit nom, but I know how frustrating it was to make a HAM fit on the old Caracal when I started this game, in the end I gave up and bought a Drake.
But as all comparisations are made, on how nasty a lvl 5 skill fit is, everybody seem to forget the effects for younger pilots.
|
Renegade 41
Gigaverse The Imperial Senate
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:21:00 -
[2942] - Quote
why does everybody keep refering to paper numbers, the only way to truly get a proper handle of numbers on the situation is to get into some ships on a test server and study the results, at the moment its like looking at a fourm guide for horseracing, and as every gambler knows, fourm on paper dont mean its going to win on the day. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:21:00 -
[2943] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time. That is simply not true. As shown in this graph you can see HML are not better than most of their turret counterparts on their turret counterparts *optimal* range, and just begin to shine at a longer range. Which is where they also suffer more from delay between fired shot and incoming damage. Range/Damage Graph As a matter of fact the Drake as a whole is not so bad (and in fact a good match for any other tier 2 BC in PvP), but it is also the *only* viable Caldari combat PvP ship in tech 1 (and also tech 2 ...) above frig level and except Rokh in certain fleet doctrines. So I dont wonder too much everyone who can just fly caldari will use a Drake - do you? And still: the Drake deals its "good" DPS only with pure kinetic, if it would be so damn OP, why is there no run for Gallente t2/1 kin hardener in most setups? HAMs are not strong enough in comparison to HML in some scenarios, and in others they are fine. If it was me, HAMs should be much faster flying and keep their short range, but should be usable on ships like the NH (which atm CANT fit a viable HAM setup for PvP!). There is no need to change HML to make HAMs viable where they are right now not. The only thing where HMLs are OP is PvE, and thats by definition NOT what EVE is balanced about .... and still, HMLs are by far not as OP as Winmatar/Projectiles and esp. Angels. Too many things would need to be changed, if those OPs ideas would be set, and I do still wait for a reasonable answer to my concerns.
HMLs have short range weapon DPS at ranges longer than long range turrets. I've seen the graphs. IF you are fitting long range weapons, you care about range. Saying "but long range turrets are better at "specific short range envelope" is disingenuous - if you are using those weapons at such ranges in a balanced fight, you messed up.
Caladari viable combat PvP ships (pre-balancing changes. Post balancing that have been announced, add in the rest of the t1 frigs and cruisers): Merlin Caracal Crow Cormorant Flycatcher Blackbird Drake Ferox (but so overwhelmed by drake theres no point using it) Tengu Basalisk Falcon Rokh Scorpion (dual/triple ASB setup rocks) Widow
HMLs are a no brainer for anyone fighting at medium-long range in a ship that needs staying power |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:24:00 -
[2944] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote: But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.
This is simply a lie. To get t2 guns on a gunnery ship alone takes 500k more SP than t2 HMLs.
Post numbers for comparable fits for pilots with level 4 skills if you want to make this argument. Prove your claim. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
192
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:31:00 -
[2945] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Mike Whiite wrote: But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.
This is simply a lie. To get t2 guns on a gunnery ship alone takes 500k more SP than t2 HMLs. Post numbers for comparable fits for pilots with level 4 skills if you want to make this argument. Prove your claim.
Try fitting a rupture or thorax without AWU V and near every other fitting skill.
This is not a unique condition. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:55:00 -
[2946] - Quote
Even after the 'fix', the HM will still be unique in one aspect:
It is a long range weapon that has no malus whatsoever on short range targets. This has 2 consequences: - the Tengu is the only general purpose long range ship without the hassle of using a secondary weapon system (usually light drones) for dealing with small, close targets, making it the favored ship of hordes of PVE players - HAM's are rarely used, as the HM serves the same purpose, maybe a bit weaker vs SOME targets but is more generalistic in nature
The only way to truly fix HM use would be to give the HAM a real purpose as a higher damage weapon system AND a weapon system vs. small, close targets, while the HM stays a good long range weapon system and loses some of its usefulness against those same targets.
Possible solution:
Make explosion radius and velocity depend on the actual missile flight time (i.e. the on-board computer uses the time to adjust to the target's signature and velocity). Therefore HM's would start with a very large explosion radius that decreases during flight. Similarly the explosion velocity would start low and increase over time. The result would be similar to turrets insofar as big, slow targets on close range would still get full damage, slow and fast targets would only get full damage while they are at range. Dissimilar to turrets the movement direction would still be mostly irrelevant.
HAM's, being unguided missiles (right?), would simply have to have a smaller explo radius and higher explo velocity than HM's and not be subject to modification during flight, to make them used. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 11:59:00 -
[2947] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:Mike Whiite wrote: But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.
This is simply a lie. To get t2 guns on a gunnery ship alone takes 500k more SP than t2 HMLs. Post numbers for comparable fits for pilots with level 4 skills if you want to make this argument. Prove your claim. Try fitting a rupture or thorax without AWU V and near every other fitting skill. This is not a unique condition.
Having to have maxed out skills in order to fit a maxed out fitting is not a balance problem. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 12:05:00 -
[2948] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Even after the 'fix', the HM will still be unique in one aspect:
It is a long range weapon that has no malus whatsoever on short range targets. This has 2 consequences: - the Tengu is the only general purpose long range ship without the hassle of using a secondary weapon system (usually light drones) for dealing with small, close targets, making it the favored ship of hordes of PVE players - HAM's are rarely used, as the HM serves the same purpose, maybe a bit weaker vs SOME targets but is more generalistic in nature
The only way to truly fix HM use would be to give the HAM a real purpose as a higher damage weapon system AND a weapon system vs. small, close targets, while the HM stays a good long range weapon system and loses some of its usefulness against those same targets.
Possible solution:
Make explosion radius and velocity depend on the actual missile flight time (i.e. the on-board computer uses the time to adjust to the target's signature and velocity). Therefore HM's would start with a very large explosion radius that decreases during flight. Similarly the explosion velocity would start low and increase over time. The result would be similar to turrets insofar as big, slow targets on close range would still get full damage, slow and fast targets would only get full damage while they are at range. Dissimilar to turrets the movement direction would still be mostly irrelevant.
HAM's, being unguided missiles (right?), would simply have to have a smaller explo radius and higher explo velocity than HM's and not be subject to modification during flight, to make them used.
I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of TE/TCs working on HAMs. Being able to extend HAM range and effectiveness vs small targets 30 - 60% may well prove to be the new FOTM. I think we should wait and see before buffing HAMs (except maybe fittings, to bring them in line with other close range weapon systems) |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 12:12:00 -
[2949] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time. One thing at a time is not an appropriate approach when it leaves a swathe of collateral damage in the form of all HML boats but the two problem children. This is completely incorrect. Currently there are three types of HML using ships. OP, broken hulls, reasonably balanced hulls, and underpowered, broken hulls. The drake and tengu are OP and broken The caracal is balanced The Nighthawk and Cerb are underpowered and broken. Given 4 broken hulls out of 5 total users, nerfing HMLs goes a long way to fixing the drake and tengu while having no real effect on the Nighthawk and Cerb (they are still ****). The caracal will also be fixed as part of the balance changes and remains balanced post HML changes (see various fits and stats posted already in this thread). This means the HML changes don't break any additional ships. The Nighthawk and Cerb needed fixing before the changes, they still need fixing after the changes. Very few pilots fly them atm and this wont change. CCP will UNDOUBTABLY look at them next year and at least now they will have a reasonably balanced weapon system as a starting point for such balance. In otherwords - What collateral damage?Quote:As as previously linked by someone, the top 20 kill hulls for this month - apart from Drake/Tengu - how many other boats there use HML? How many other boats there use medium weapons at all? There are 5 real HML platforms. As noted, Cerb and Nighthawk are broken but this has nothing to do with HMLs and everything to do with their bonuses. A t1 cruiser wont ever make the top 20. Of the top 20 kill hulls, 9 use medium weapons. This seems about right. Quote: By all means, fix a busted weapon, but you really should fix boats it is barely carrying at the same time, rather than kicking the only crutch out from under them for 6-12 months.
Almost noone flies the two hulls that will be unbalanced by these changes. Another 6 - 12 months of them still not being used is a FAR lesser evil than another 6-12 month of drake/tengu(/hurricane) ubiquity.
I am not convinced the caracal is fine under the new world. And if T1 cruiser wont make the list it is strange then, that dessies and frigs make it.
As I've said before, fix the problem hulls (a plethora of suggestions on how to do this) and revisit the boats properly alongside the weapon system. There's nothing wrong with wanting a balanced foundation to change from, but there's equally nothing wrong with implementing both at once.
Again: If the weapon system itself is THAT good; why are only two hulls (ab)using it to any success? To me that says it's a lot more than the weapon system. I suspect it wouldn't matter what you put on a drake and it'll still chew you out (otherwise, the beast that is the HAM drake wouldn't exist). A drake is, by and large, weapon system agnostic (ultra short range stuff like blasters may be the exception).
HML could well need putting down a rung or three, but I think the hulls which have the insane synergies of other things needs fixing first and then the situation assessed. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 12:21:00 -
[2950] - Quote
Lallante wrote: I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of TE/TCs working on HAMs. Being able to extend HAM range and effectiveness vs small targets 30 - 60% may well prove to be the new FOTM. I think we should wait and see before buffing HAMs (except maybe fittings, to bring them in line with other close range weapon systems)
Where have you got those numbers? Just pulled out of your cargo? |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 12:41:00 -
[2951] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: Again: If the weapon system itself is THAT good; why are only two hulls (ab)using it to any success? To me that says it's a lot more than the weapon system. I suspect it wouldn't matter what you put on a drake and it'll still chew you out (otherwise, the beast that is the HAM drake wouldn't exist). A drake is, by and large, weapon system agnostic (ultra short range stuff like blasters may be the exception).
Because those ships are OP, thus overshadowing the one ship using it that is balanced, and the 2 remaining are broken underpowered. So, they revamp the missiles to be in line with other weapons at the same time they are rebalancing the Caracal which is the one ship that is already semi balanced, and then they will rebalance the OP and underpowered ships to fit in line with the new missiles. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
763
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 12:42:00 -
[2952] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time.
Range only. The problem is missles are not the same as guns so you can't attribute the same things to them. The problems aren;t the missles but the ships that are fitting them. It's just a lazy fix instead of actually looking at the ships causing the problems with the missles. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 12:48:00 -
[2953] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time. Range only. The problem is missles are not the same as guns so you can't attribute the same things to them. The problems aren;t the missles but the ships that are fitting them. It's just a lazy fix instead of actually looking at the ships causing the problems with the missles. Oh, so you can quote CCP on that they are not going to rebalance the missile ships? |
Cardinal Harvest
BALKAN EXPRESS
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 12:58:00 -
[2954] - Quote
Can Cerberus get a new look other than recolored Caracal? Something like Vagabond is being redrawn. Please? |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 13:08:00 -
[2955] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Mike Whiite wrote: But that Caracal fit one needs way more SP to make an on par with a simular gunnery fit.
This is simply a lie. To get t2 guns on a gunnery ship alone takes 500k more SP than t2 HMLs. Post numbers for comparable fits for pilots with level 4 skills if you want to make this argument. Prove your claim.
You're a strange one, all this time you are telling to everyone that wants and don't wants to hear that HML damage is on par with short range weapons and therefor should be nerfed, but when someone makes a point about short range missiles, you are the one that starts comparing with long range weapons.
I didn't make a claim about HML's I made a claim that HAM launcher has the fitting stats of a long range turret.
So that makes a brawling missile ship with short range heavy asault missiles a crime to fit, where as shortrange turrets are rather easy to fit.
Now it's fine that HML's are 500sp earlier to fit than a t2 turret, but it has nothing to do with the problem at hand. (as well as the fact that that t2 turret can be short and long range a few minuts extra training,hat doesn't get you anywhere near a T2 HAM launcher) We where talking about a HAM launcher and that one is quite hard to fit.
Onictus, I'm aware that there are more ships that are hard to fit, that doesn't make it less a problem.
|
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 13:09:00 -
[2956] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Even after the 'fix', the HM will still be unique in one aspect:
It is a long range weapon that has no malus whatsoever on short range targets. This has 2 consequences: - the Tengu is the only general purpose long range ship without the hassle of using a secondary weapon system (usually light drones) for dealing with small, close targets, making it the favored ship of hordes of PVE players - HAM's are rarely used, as the HM serves the same purpose, maybe a bit weaker vs SOME targets but is more generalistic in nature
The only way to truly fix HM use would be to give the HAM a real purpose as a higher damage weapon system AND a weapon system vs. small, close targets, while the HM stays a good long range weapon system and loses some of its usefulness against those same targets.
Possible solution:
Make explosion radius and velocity depend on the actual missile flight time (i.e. the on-board computer uses the time to adjust to the target's signature and velocity). Therefore HM's would start with a very large explosion radius that decreases during flight. Similarly the explosion velocity would start low and increase over time. The result would be similar to turrets insofar as big, slow targets on close range would still get full damage, slow and fast targets would only get full damage while they are at range. Dissimilar to turrets the movement direction would still be mostly irrelevant.
HAM's, being unguided missiles (right?), would simply have to have a smaller explo radius and higher explo velocity than HM's and not be subject to modification during flight, to make them used. I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of TE/TCs working on HAMs. Being able to extend HAM range and effectiveness vs small targets 30 - 60% may well prove to be the new FOTM. I think we should wait and see before buffing HAMs (except maybe fittings, to bring them in line with other close range weapon systems)
I agree that this fix might bring HAMs some love. It doesn't change the fact that HMs are the only long range weapon system without short range malus, though. And that they are currently better suited to smaller targets than their short range counterpart.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
194
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 13:17:00 -
[2957] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time. Range only. The problem is missles are not the same as guns so you can't attribute the same things to them. The problems aren;t the missles but the ships that are fitting them. It's just a lazy fix instead of actually looking at the ships causing the problems with the missles.
Oh really?
The Drake has the weakest weapon bonus in the game you would have them apply a negative bonus to it?
Nighthawks issues are more fitting related than bonus related (Its not alone, Eos/Astarte? ever see one in space? Yeah, thought not.) Cerberus suffers from the drakes tank, its not a big enough advantage to add raw range with a weak tank, so you get the "Yeah, its a 200 million isk Drake" comments and they are generally frowned upon. Because of of the drakes weapon bonuses? LOL No.
Tengu is just an extension, a powerful bonus on an unbalanced weapon system SURPRISE, its more then a little out of line.
CCP already said straight out that heavy missiles were so far out of line they couldn't balance the hulls, it doesn't take a doctorate in math to figure out why.
Mike Whiite wrote: Onictus, I'm aware that there are more ships that are hard to fit, that doesn't make it less a problem.
I started the game as Gallente, Caldari are by and large very easy to fit. You STILL can't fit a rack of 425s on a Megathron without using a adaptive plate or a meta 5+ resist module. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 13:19:00 -
[2958] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
HMLs have short range weapon DPS at ranges longer than long range turrets.
They simply dont. Any short range weapon system cruiser class or above out DPSes HML grand time. To claim the opposite is a lie.
What is true is: HML have very good range (like CMs, for that matter) and decent damage application (unlike CMs). They have also flight time (esp. on the second half of their range). All in all they are strong, but not OP like scorch in Pulselasers or falloff-ownage of BS-sized Autocannons. If you want them fixed, fine for me, but fix those other 2 first.
Lallante wrote:
I've seen the graphs. IF you are fitting long range weapons, you care about range. Saying "but long range turrets are better at "specific short range envelope" is disingenuous - if you are using those weapons at such ranges in a balanced fight, you messed up.
Thats what I say all the time - choose your fighting range according to your weapon system. If you face a HML-Drake get close enough to it so you can deal MORE damage to him than he can do to you OR disengage - you might have noticed, that point range is not the same like HML range ...
Lallante wrote: Caladari viable combat PvP ships (pre-balancing changes. Post balancing that have been announced, add in the rest of the t1 frigs and cruisers): Merlin Caracal Crow Cormorant Flycatcher Blackbird Drake Ferox (but so overwhelmed by drake theres no point using it) Tengu Basalisk Falcon Rokh Scorpion (dual/triple ASB setup rocks) Widow
HMLs are a no brainer for anyone fighting at medium-long range in a ship that needs staying power
Your list is so dumb it really makes me cry .. first of all I said "above frig class", so there goes Merlin, Crow, Cormorant (which sucks in comparison to other dessies btw!), Flycatcher. Caracal is by no means on par with a Rupture, Thorax or Vexor, seriously! BB is support and not combat. Same goes to Falcon, Basi, Widow and Scorpion. Duh.
Rokh is a fleet ship, we are left with the Tengu, Ferox and Drake. By NO MEANS (!!!) the Ferox is a match for a Harbinger, Cane or Myrmidon, and the tier 1s will mop the floor with it too if not flown by complete retards. Tengu is t3 and decent, but will be hit by HML nerf the same like Drake. So where exactly is your small gang combat caldari ship above frig class?
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
194
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 13:22:00 -
[2959] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
Having to have maxed out skills in order to fit a maxed out fitting is not a balance problem and if anything your post reinforces my point.
Theres nothing wrong with it being hard to fit a full t2 weapon rack and tank on a t1 ship without maxed skills. What would be the point of the final level of skills if this wasnt the case?
For reference I was agreeing with you.
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
371
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 13:36:00 -
[2960] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:So where exactly is your small gang combat caldari ship above frig class?
Drake. Yawn. |
|
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 14:00:00 -
[2961] - Quote
Onictus wrote:[ Mike Whiite wrote: Onictus, I'm aware that there are more ships that are hard to fit, that doesn't make it less a problem.
I started the game as Gallente, Caldari are by and large very easy to fit. You STILL can't fit a rack of 425s on a Megathron without using a adaptive plate or a meta 5+ resist module.
As I don't fly Gallente Battleships, my knowlage is limited, but why is it, that now the diference between long range fittings and short range fittings isn't a problem.
damage wise it is a problem that a long range weapon system does damage like a short range wise
But fitting wise it isn't a problem that the short range weapon system fits like a long range weapon system?
Wouldn't it be on par that that short range system to be equal itting wise to the other short range systems? and o course the long range system on par fitting wise with the other long range systems.
That doesn't seem like a rather outragious request or does it. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 14:32:00 -
[2962] - Quote
CCP Foozie,
You had asked about Ideas for changes I think for the NH if you give it a 7th launcher and the PG to fit it. With the numbers I just came up with it would do 438 DPS at 55K plus what ever the TE give it with HML. I would change the kinetic bonus to a 5% damage bonus and 5% bonus to heavy missile and heavy assault missile explosion velocity per level. With this fitting you lose 32 DPS over the old fitting but when you change to HAMS and this is where this ship should shine as it would do 616 DPS at about 24k with TE I think this would bring it inline with other command ships although this thing can have a godly tank EFT ~118k. Below is the fitting for you to look at.
[Nighthawk, Fleet NH]
Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II Reactor Control Unit II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Warp Disruptor II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Warrior II x5
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 14:34:00 -
[2963] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:
HMLs have short range weapon DPS at ranges longer than long range turrets.
They simply dont. Any short range weapon system cruiser class or above out DPSes HML grand time. To claim the opposite is a lie. What is true is: HML have very good range (like CMs, for that matter) and decent damage application (unlike CMs). They have also flight time (esp. on the second half of their range). All in all they are strong, but not OP like scorch in Pulselasers or falloff-ownage of BS-sized Autocannons. If you want them fixed, fine for me, but fix those other 2 first. Lallante wrote:
I've seen the graphs. IF you are fitting long range weapons, you care about range. Saying "but long range turrets are better at "specific short range envelope" is disingenuous - if you are using those weapons at such ranges in a balanced fight, you messed up.
Thats what I say all the time - choose your fighting range according to your weapon system. If you face a HML-Drake get close enough to it so you can deal MORE damage to him than he can do to you OR disengage - you might have noticed, that point range is not the same like HML range ... Lallante wrote: Caladari viable combat PvP ships (pre-balancing changes. Post balancing that have been announced, add in the rest of the t1 frigs and cruisers): Merlin Caracal Crow Cormorant Flycatcher Blackbird Drake Ferox (but so overwhelmed by drake theres no point using it) Tengu Basalisk Falcon Rokh Scorpion (dual/triple ASB setup rocks) Widow
HMLs are a no brainer for anyone fighting at medium-long range in a ship that needs staying power
Your list is so dumb it really makes me cry .. first of all I said "above frig class", so there goes Merlin, Crow, Cormorant (which sucks in comparison to other dessies btw!), Flycatcher. Caracal is by no means on par with a Rupture, Thorax or Vexor, seriously! BB is support and not combat. Same goes to Falcon, Basi, Widow and Scorpion. Duh. Rokh is a fleet ship, we are left with the Tengu, Ferox and Drake. By NO MEANS (!!!) the Ferox is a match for a Harbinger, Cane or Myrmidon, and the tier 1s will mop the floor with it too if not flown by complete retards. Tengu is t3 and decent, but will be hit by HML nerf the same like Drake. So where exactly is your small gang combat caldari ship above frig class?
Right, so falcons and basis are not combat ships now. Thats good, wont see any more of either paired with another ship then will I ....
Rokh is an awesome solo boat btw, and blaster ferox for that matter. Caracal is decent even now if you know how to use it. I remeber snigwaffe humiliating CFC gangs with ultra long range sniper caras, which only worked becasue hmls have such great damage projection. Can't imagine them doing the same thing with a turret cruiser, all of which have terrible dps at range. So really the suckiness is the corm (getting buffed), Moa (getting buffed), the hacs (cerb is being looked at), nighthawk (being looked at) and the raven, the raven mainly due to cruise being fail (hopefully being looked at). That leaves the eagle, may it rest in peace.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 14:42:00 -
[2964] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Lallante wrote:Its a provable fact that HMLs are significantly more powerful than their long range turret counterparts.
Its a proveable fact that the relationship between HMLs and HAMs stats is out of kilter with the relationship between short and long range turrets, to HAM's detriment.
Given the above the HML changes are clearly necessary, regardless of your view of drakes, tengus etc. One thing at a time. Range only. The problem is missles are not the same as guns so you can't attribute the same things to them. The problems aren;t the missles but the ships that are fitting them. It's just a lazy fix instead of actually looking at the ships causing the problems with the missles.
This is a very illogical statement. How can you possibly balance the ships without balancing the system? And simply sticking the systems on an unbonused hull will show you how unbalanced they are.
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 14:52:00 -
[2965] - Quote
DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 5Tornado36558 6Naga34228 7Maelstrom33398 8Loki31593 9Oracle30786 10Thrasher21259 11Hound19516 12Cynabal19432 13Sabre18746 14Talos17529 15Rifter17297 16Proteus17240 17Huginn17202 18Scimitar16779 19Stabber Fleet Issue16659 20Apocalypse Navy Issue
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf.
Pirate - 1 Caldari - 3 Amarr - 3 Gallente - 2
Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 14:59:00 -
[2966] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:[quote=DR BiCarbonate]*looks at eve-kill stats*
Pirate - 1 Caldari - 3 Amarr - 3 Gallente - 2
Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
Its a good think nothing on the drake has changed only the HML has changed so not sure how you are saying the drake has changed in any way. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:09:00 -
[2967] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:[quote=DR BiCarbonate]*looks at eve-kill stats*
Pirate - 1 Caldari - 3 Amarr - 3 Gallente - 2
Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
Its a good think nothing on the drake has changed only the HML has changed so not sure how you are saying the drake has changed in any way.
Oh wow....let's grab your hand....The HML will affect 2 ships more than anything....the Drake and the Tengu, 66% of caldari PVP ships in this list here....If you were to alter projectile turrets...are you not changing the ships that fit them?
Here's why I don't understand...if, in fact, the drake is so OP, why, as an Amarr/Caldari pilot, am I wishing I was minmatar instead?? Why don't these guys crying it's so OP fly drakes instead?? Why is the HML, drake and tengu so op, when 11 of the top 20 ships on this kill board are, in fact, Minmatar?
To truly "balance" this....would a nerf to the Volley of arty's and increasing it's RoF be just as much a work toward's the "balance" they so desire? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:22:00 -
[2968] - Quote
I really can't believe noone is noticing the phantom buff thats in TE's...
Its going to change entirely how missile boats are fitted.. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
773
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:26:00 -
[2969] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically.
Remove excessive slots to bring Drake and other tier2 BCs back to proper level, in line with tier1s.
Its 6th med slot is not really required, so is the 7th launcher. Then treat the rest of the lineup in the same way. 14 |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:29:00 -
[2970] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:DR BiCarbonate wrote:*looks at eve-kill stats* RankShipsKills 1Drake209852 2Zealot117887 3Hurricane55016 4Tengu41806 5Tornado36558 6Naga34228 7Maelstrom33398 8Loki31593 9Oracle30786 10Thrasher21259 11Hound19516 12Cynabal19432 13Sabre18746 14Talos17529 15Rifter17297 16Proteus17240 17Huginn17202 18Scimitar16779 19Stabber Fleet Issue16659 20Apocalypse Navy Issue
September Stats.
Yep. Good Nerf. Pirate - 1 Caldari - 3 Amarr - 3 Gallente - 2 Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
Total Caldari 285886
Total Minmatar 284023
Total Amarr 180913
Total others. I did not do the math........
So, should the entire Minmatar race be nerfed ? I vote for a 20% reduction in base speed for all Minmatar ships. |
|
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:31:00 -
[2971] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:I really can't believe noone is noticing the phantom buff thats in TE's...
Its going to change entirely how missile boats are fitted..
while you are right...from a PVE aspect, this actually would balance out the Tengu as your 4th BCS isn't giving you that much of a bonus to DPS anyway. But it will hinder the drake as most are only fitted with 2 BCS's it MIGHT balance out.
From a PVP perspective, though...IDK, I think it might be more detrimental.
From a skill perspective, are they looking at changing the skill requirements for TC's so that missiles don't have yet another support skill to train. While I think it's stupid requirements to fit T2 guns, as someone posted earlier...it does take 10 days longer to be perfect med HM's than it does to be perfect med pulse/blasters...and 10 days less than that for med ac's *or their long range counter parts. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 15:34:00 -
[2972] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:
Total Caldari 285886
Total Minmatar 284023
Total Amarr 180913
Total others. I did not do the math........
So, should the entire Minmatar race be nerfed ? I vote for a 20% reduction in base speed for all Minmatar ships.
Go back to June and tell me if the numbers are the same....from everything I'm reading, those numbers are from a war going on in the North with some Drake blobs...but I do agree...20% reduction in base speed for minmatar seeing as the minmatar ship almost always dictates whether the fight happens or not. |
Ian Wolf
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry State Section 9
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:08:00 -
[2973] - Quote
Tyrus Tenebros wrote:I virtually never post to eve-o forums but the missile changes are way to excessive. While I generally never join the whines of "don't make everything the same" I have to agree that the move to make missiles "more inline" with other weapon types is misguided. Missiles have always done low-ish to moderate dps in exchange for being reliable and difficult to stop barring outranging them. Shoving them in to the TE/TD paradigm dramatically affects the character of missiles. While I understand the desire to increase the use of HAMs and promote the LR/CR dichotomy, I also don't think needing HMLs in ti the ground is the way to go with that either. 1) DPS reduction is too high. 10% would be a better start. 2) Range reduction is slightly too significant. 15-20% base might be better... missiles don't have falloff and are subject to chase distance against fast targets 3) TE/TD paradigm will likely reduce DPS further as some lows are swapped to TEs. While I "get" how the reduced dps is supposed to be compensated for slightly by increased applied damage to small targets, I don't think it will play out very well. 4) TDs themselves become extremely powerful. I suggest dropping the TE/TD change entirely, there's no reason for it. As they say, if it ain't broke don't fix it.. and the balance of missile damage actually applied is fine as is, even if tweaks need to be applied there'sno need for a wholesale shift. The 10% damage nerf should be sufficient to promote the use of HAMs. Slightly increasing damage applied by HAMs would also promote their use. Edit: well played dropping the cane nerf in front of the overboard missile changes to derail the thread from that discussion.
I couldn't agree with this more TE/TD effecting missiles? What is the negative effect of using them? Atleast with ECM you have the chance they miss jams, TE/TD just became the most overpowered Electronic Warfare mods in game. PASS |
Aliventi
Southern Cross Trilogy Flying Dangerous
7
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:12:00 -
[2974] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=MIrple] Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically.
If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake. I would live a mini release balancing the BCs/HACs/Commands ships. Cause Caldari HACs well.... suck. The only thing I think the drake could do with is a ROF bonus instead of a Kinetic damage bonus. Yeah cool and all. But I want more damage types that deal DPS than kinetic. If you do that then the drake should carry around more than just 1 type of ammo like all the other ships in the game. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:25:00 -
[2975] - Quote
Aliventi wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically.
If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
I would live a mini release balancing the BCs/HACs/Commands ships. Cause Caldari HACs well.... suck. The only thing I think the drake could do with is a ROF bonus instead of a Kinetic damage bonus. Yeah cool and all. But I want more damage types that deal DPS than kinetic. If you do that then the drake should carry around more than just 1 type of ammo like all the other ships in the game.
yes please buff the drake instead of nerfing it, as if we aren't already solving imaginary problems in this thread...
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Luscius Uta
Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:39:00 -
[2976] - Quote
At last, CCP no longer wants us to play Drakes & Tengus Online :)
But the question remains, should Autocannons be nerfed as well? They are not such all-round weapons like HMLs, but they still have four strong points:
-very easy to fit due to low CPU/PG requirements -consume no cap -have great faloff -can do any type of damage
Now, I don't say we should change any of the above (that would be quick and dirty, but silly way to fix the problem), but we could make some more subtle, unique changes (just so we don't end up with Hurricanes Online instead of Drakes Online). For example, since they are (from science's perspective) the most primitive, 20th century-like weapons in EVE, let's make them overheat faster than other weapons - this could be just enough to stop them being so prevalent in PvP and still won't change them drastically or make them sucky. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:49:00 -
[2977] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:MIrple wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:[quote=DR BiCarbonate]*looks at eve-kill stats*
Pirate - 1 Caldari - 3 Amarr - 3 Gallente - 2
Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
Its a good think nothing on the drake has changed only the HML has changed so not sure how you are saying the drake has changed in any way. Oh wow....let's grab your hand....The HML will affect 2 ships more than anything....the Drake and the Tengu, 66% of caldari PVP ships in this list here....If you were to alter projectile turrets...are you not changing the ships that fit them? Here's why I don't understand...if, in fact, the drake is so OP, why, as an Amarr/Caldari pilot, am I wishing I was minmatar instead?? Why don't these guys crying it's so OP fly drakes instead?? Why is the HML, drake and tengu so op, when 11 of the top 20 ships on this kill board are, in fact, Minmatar? To truly "balance" this....would a nerf to the Volley of arty's and increasing it's RoF be just as much a work toward's the "balance" they so desire?
Guess what I fly Drakes and I am for this change. If you cant figure out that HAMS are the short ranged versions I cant help you either. If you want to argue that HAMS need to have there fitting requirements changed to make them easier to fit to be more in line with other weapon systems I am for that. To say that a ship is now worthless because of a change to HML is just silly. Yes more people are flying Matari at the moment but there can be more factors into this then just there guns. It comes more down to the fact that they are to easier to fit then other races. Cane is getting a change. Hound and Huginn are missile ships also Scimi doesn't shoot anything. So while yes there are a few missile ships its not Projectiles that are the issue. |
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 16:49:00 -
[2978] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
I think you are seriously underestimating the effect of TE/TCs working on HAMs. Being able to extend HAM range and effectiveness vs small targets 30 - 60% may well prove to be the new FOTM. I think we should wait and see before buffing HAMs (except maybe fittings, to bring them in line with other close range weapon systems)
Obviously.
The issue then becomes how to fit TE's into the limited low slots of Caldari missile ships. The same applies to TC's -- though the Drake has enough mid slots to at least make this a possibility.
Missiles are the Caldari signature weapon system, yet looking at the situation today we see that once we move beyond rocket frigates, Caldari pilots have only one generally useful T1/T2 missile platform: the Drake. Nor will this improve with this patch, and the concern is that CCP will essentially break the only missile ship Caldari pilots have left.
I don't object to nerfing the Drake but in my opinion CCP needs to hold off on this until they are ready to fix the Caldari ships that are currently broken. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:05:00 -
[2979] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. Battlecruisers: - projectiles: 3 - lasers: 3 - drones: 1 and 1/2 (Harbinger) - hybrids: 4 - missiles: 1 (one!)
At least 1 more missile BC is desperately needed. I think it could be... Cyclone! Just switch it to 5/5 layout for turrets and missiles, and give it the following bonuses: 7.5% shield boost, 5% projectiles damage, 5% missiles ROF; and make it possible to fit 5 HAML + 3 autocannons with decent tank.
This way we'll have Drake for long range, being best with HML, and Cyclone for close range brawl. Gladly, "battlecruisers" is not race-specific skill, so caldari players can easily start flying it (ironically, CCP wants to change it, which I disagree - but who cares). Well it looks very much the same as Typhoon - but it's only at first glance. Typhoon is much more versatile as it is now, and mostly armor-tanked, with all the consequences. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
248
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:12:00 -
[2980] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:MIrple wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:[quote=DR BiCarbonate]*looks at eve-kill stats*
Pirate - 1 Caldari - 3 Amarr - 3 Gallente - 2
Hurricane, Tornado, Maelstrom, Loki, Thrasher, Hound, Rifter, Huginn, Scimitar, Stabber Fleet Issue, Sabre....yeah...Drakes need a nerf. Lol
Its a good think nothing on the drake has changed only the HML has changed so not sure how you are saying the drake has changed in any way. Oh wow....let's grab your hand....The HML will affect 2 ships more than anything....the Drake and the Tengu, 66% of caldari PVP ships in this list here....If you were to alter projectile turrets...are you not changing the ships that fit them? Here's why I don't understand...if, in fact, the drake is so OP, why, as an Amarr/Caldari pilot, am I wishing I was minmatar instead?? Why don't these guys crying it's so OP fly drakes instead?? Why is the HML, drake and tengu so op, when 11 of the top 20 ships on this kill board are, in fact, Minmatar? To truly "balance" this....would a nerf to the Volley of arty's and increasing it's RoF be just as much a work toward's the "balance" they so desire? Guess what I fly Drakes and I am for this change. If you cant figure out that HAMS are the short ranged versions I cant help you either. If you want to argue that HAMS need to have there fitting requirements changed to make them easier to fit to be more in line with other weapon systems I am for that. To say that a ship is now worthless because of a change to HML is just silly. Yes more people are flying Matari at the moment but there can be more factors into this then just there guns. It comes more down to the fact that they are to easier to fit then other races. Cane is getting a change. Hound and Huginn are missile ships also Scimi doesn't shoot anything. So while yes there are a few missile ships its not Projectiles that are the issue.
Did I mention anywhere anything about HAM's or short range guns....no. Yes, I do think they need to adjust fitting requirements of both HAM's and Torps.
And while you can argue it's not just the guns....bottom line is when you're a sniper fit, you look for alpha...now you show me any weapon system that rivals that of the Arty? Maelstrom, Tornado Fleets? Beams and Hybrids MAY be able to keep up on dps, but it's because of a faster firing rate....their alpha blows...and have you EVER seen a Cruise alpha ship? lmao |
|
OT Smithers
Perkone Caldari State
174
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:29:00 -
[2981] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:I really can't believe noone is noticing the phantom buff thats in TE's...
Its going to change entirely how missile boats are fitted..
We noticed. Caldari Missile boats don't have the low slots to make this matter. For mixed weapon ships like the Cyclone it will be insane, but for Caldari? Not so much.
Here's a better one: What effect do you suppose the TD's affecting missiles change will have on Caldari rocket frigates that are only doing a hundred or so DPS today? |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:38:00 -
[2982] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:I really can't believe noone is noticing the phantom buff thats in TE's...
Its going to change entirely how missile boats are fitted.. We noticed. Caldari Missile boats don't have the low slots to make this matter. For mixed weapon ships like the Cyclone it will be insane, but for Caldari? Not so much. How come? Drake = 4 low slots, Cyclone = 4 low slots. As for Typhoon - yes, "insane" could be the right word ;-)
|
Dhuras
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation Moist.
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 17:43:00 -
[2983] - Quote
AS is the drake bonuses are fine, it makes it a good noob ship, survivable, but not damagey enough for them to wreck everything in sight. I can see that heavy missiles needed a bit of a debuff but this is over the top. way less range, way less damage, and vulnerable to TD's. heavy missiles will be practically useless except as an ancilliary weapon system as used on cyclones. These nerfs would be okay if they were reduced in severity. make the damage nerf 10% instead of 20 and the range nerf 15-20%. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 18:29:00 -
[2984] - Quote
Yayyy! Let's make sure every weapon is "balanced" (aka works the same, is affected by the same modules, has the same range and damage outputs)! Down with diversity and using different strategies! |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 18:52:00 -
[2985] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Down with diversity and using different strategies!
But when that diversity and different strategies mean everyone using Drakes and Tengus... |
LtauSTinpoWErs
Mafia Redux
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 19:21:00 -
[2986] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
Can you also adjust the fitting requirements for Torpedo Launchers compared to Cruise Missile Launchers?
As I showed for Heavy Assault Missile Launcher IIs, they are the only close range weapon for cruiser sized ships that have a greater demand on fitting requirements compared to their long range counterpart, the Heavy Missile Launcher II.
It is the same story for battleship sized weapons: All long range weapons (projectile, hybrid, and laser) require greater power grid and CPU compared to their close range sisters. However, Torpedo Launchers require 1838 PG and 88 CPU where Cruise Missile Launchers only need 1313 PG and 66 CPU. Hopefully you will consider fixing this as well. Thank you. |
Hirimatsu Yamamoto
Bunnie Slayers Redrum Fleet
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:03:00 -
[2987] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote: Tier 3s were in my opinion a bad idea to begin with so no comment.
I love you.
Ditto. ^_^ |
Athina Alarei
SHUN THE NON BELIEVER JINN.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:12:00 -
[2988] - Quote
Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability) |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:28:00 -
[2989] - Quote
Athina Alarei wrote:Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability)
Train now for HAMS and you will be probably better then you were before. |
Athina Alarei
SHUN THE NON BELIEVER JINN.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:30:00 -
[2990] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Athina Alarei wrote:Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability) Train now for HAMS and you will be probably better then you were before.
I literally JUST finished HM spec lvl 3 :( lol |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:30:00 -
[2991] - Quote
Athina Alarei wrote:Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability)
You will do a bit less dps at a bit less range but you will be able to fit tracking enhancers/computers if you want to boost effectiveness against smaller stuff and precisions will no longer suck. oh and you will loose less volleys thanks to velocity. basically you wont be as good against bs (extra volley?) but will be better against frigs. there will be a few missions where the range nerf might hurt you but not many tbh. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:41:00 -
[2992] - Quote
Athina Alarei wrote:MIrple wrote:Athina Alarei wrote:Are you saying my newly acquired Tengu mission beasting machine is no longer going to be a mission beasting machine? (Legitimate question, I'm wondering how hard this is going to hit the Tengu lvl 4 mission capability) Train now for HAMS and you will be probably better then you were before. I literally JUST finished HM spec lvl 3 :( lol
This will not come out till Mid December so you have plenty of time to train for HAMS if/when you need to. Think it is only 15 day train for level 5. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:43:00 -
[2993] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:At last, CCP no longer wants us to play Drakes & Tengus Online :)
But the question remains, should Autocannons be nerfed as well? They are not such all-round weapons like HMLs, but they still have four strong points:
-very easy to fit due to low CPU/PG requirements -consume no cap -have great faloff -can do any type of damage
Now, I don't say we should change any of the above (that would be quick and dirty, but silly way to fix the problem), but we could make some more subtle, unique changes (just so we don't end up with Hurricanes Online instead of Drakes Online). For example, since they are (from science's perspective) the most primitive, 20th century-like weapons in EVE, let's make them overheat faster than other weapons - this could be just enough to stop them being so prevalent in PvP and still won't change them drastically or make them sucky.
To be honest two of those or not that important. Thier great fall off comes at the expense of great optimal. The damage type thing is a red herring, its far less useful than missile damage as its not pure (you are always doing some dps in the wrong damage type) and limited by range. T2 close range and long range only do exp/kin, medium range/high trackng has no em. Sure will never get caught out with totally the wrong damage types like amarr, but its not great.
Consuming no cap is an advantage, but one shared with all missiles.
So really its the fitting and the thing you didn't mention - the tracking, which seems excessively good at times.
|
OlRotGut
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 20:52:00 -
[2994] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
I think the kinetic bonus is very lame, it should be 10% ROF or 5% damage increase to all missile types. Specially if you go ahead and nerf the missiles to hell and back.
I implore you to not think "what would change our opinion of your balance proposal" and instead take some of our ideas to heart and create something of a new proposal. Something a little deeper than what you've initially thought of. No offense, but the current balance proposal is like shooting from the hip.
If you're going to do Lights & HML's; take the time to do it right and do ALL the missiles and ordinance. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:01:00 -
[2995] - Quote
How about instead of going the very boring route of making everything the same...
I like the idea of a mid or low-slot "Point Defense Gatling Gun" system. Has a % chance of destroying each incoming missile - and has a better chance of destroying a larger missile than a small missile. Perhaps a better chance of destroying either guided or unguided missiles as well for game balance reasons, although I'm not sure that would make much logical sense.
There - now you have a better version of the defender missile with a chance based result that ships can equip. The PDS would need to apply only to the missiles targeting that ship so you couldn't just sit 50 ships on top of each of other and make sure no missiles get through (e.g. a firewall).
Alternatively, maybe you create a similar module that goes in the mid or low slot that any ship (or maybe even just a capital ship?) can equip and that has a 5km or so range for taking out missiles, but has a reload time and can only shoot down 1 missile at a time. Then, even if you have a fleet doctrine with 200 ships carrying 2 of the modules, you can wipe out 400 missiles per salvo. Say the salvo is 5 seconds, if the enemy is firing a ton of HMLs at you, you can only neuter the dps of about 80 drakes with those 200 ships.
Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:04:00 -
[2996] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Down with diversity and using different strategies! But when that diversity and different strategies mean everyone using Drakes and Tengus...
Really? I don't see everybody using Drakes and Tengus. I see all kinds of different ships being used out there. And when I go on PVP roams, nobody seems to get upset if I don't show up in a drake or tengu.
In fact, I use neither for either PVP or PVE. I use a domi/ishtar for PVE and all sorts of ships for PVP. Haven't flown a drake in a long time. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
252
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:13:00 -
[2997] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:How about instead of going the very boring route of making everything the same...
I like the idea of a mid or low-slot "Point Defense Gatling Gun" system. Has a % chance of destroying each incoming missile - and has a better chance of destroying a larger missile than a small missile. Perhaps a better chance of destroying either guided or unguided missiles as well for game balance reasons, although I'm not sure that would make much logical sense.
There - now you have a better version of the defender missile with a chance based result that ships can equip. The PDS would need to apply only to the missiles targeting that ship so you couldn't just sit 50 ships on top of each of other and make sure no missiles get through (e.g. a firewall).
Alternatively, maybe you create a similar module that goes in the mid or low slot that any ship (or maybe even just a capital ship?) can equip and that has a 5km or so range for taking out missiles, but has a reload time and can only shoot down 1 missile at a time. Then, even if you have a fleet doctrine with 200 ships carrying 2 of the modules, you can wipe out 400 missiles per salvo. Say the salvo is 5 seconds, if the enemy is firing a ton of HMLs at you, you can only neuter the dps of about 80 drakes with those 200 ships.
Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage.
As cool as that last part sounds, my fear is a) it would increase lag time due to calculations of several volleys in the air and b) now instead of any dps....it now negates it entirely. Say what you will arty people...you still have those volleys that do hit.
I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how to balance it out a little more, but short of must making missiles hit like guns and therefore negating all weapons systems down to a turret *which would then favor turret/missile combo ships* it's really difficult to find a viable solution, even if some people who EFT warrior everything and fail to see actual missile damage. and how it's rare do you ever see a full volley on anything other than a PoS with no resists....
As far as the cane...I would rather see them remove a high slot and make it a low or mid rather than nerf the PG as it severely hampers those that are shooting for a decent tank on it |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:31:00 -
[2998] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage. As cool as that last part sounds, my fear is a) it would increase lag time due to calculations of several volleys in the air and b) now instead of any dps....it now negates it entirely. Say what you will arty people...you still have those volleys that do hit.....also, c) it would negate any effectiveness of precisions *unless those aren't included* however....and finally d) since only T2 can load those, what would you do about people with T1 only? Believe it or not, there are some people out there without the training to fit T2 on all their missiles and it's not like they would have close range ammo.....? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how to balance it out a little more, but short of just making missiles hit like guns and therefore negating all weapons systems down to a turret *which would then favor turret/missile combo ships* it's really difficult to find a viable solution, even if some people who EFT warrior everything and fail to see actual missile damage. and how it's rare do you ever see a full volley on anything other than a PoS with no resists.... As far as the cane...I would rather see them remove a high slot and make it a low or mid rather than nerf the PG as it severely hampers those that are shooting for a decent tank on it
I feel the Hurricane changes are fine. Artillery are receiving a PG reduction across the board so long-range fits will probably be even easier than they are now. Remember that the Harbinger has no chance in hell of fitting a 1600mm plate tank, a rack of largest tier guns, and a medium neut (much less two), and the Myrmidon... well, it's special. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 21:32:00 -
[2999] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake. I think the kinetic bonus is very lame, it should be 10% ROF or 5% damage increase to all missile types. Specially if you go ahead and nerf the missiles to hell and back. I implore you to not think "what would change our opinion of your balance proposal" and instead take some of our ideas to heart and create something of a new proposal. Something a little deeper than what you've initially thought of. No offense, but the current balance proposal is like shooting from the hip. If you're going to do Lights & HML's; take the time to do it right and do ALL the missiles and ordinance.
They're not going to nerf missiles to hell and back, they're going to nerf heavy missiles to hell and boost the rest of them. After thinking on this for a while I'm fine with it. |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
252
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:02:00 -
[3000] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage. As cool as that last part sounds, my fear is a) it would increase lag time due to calculations of several volleys in the air and b) now instead of any dps....it now negates it entirely. Say what you will arty people...you still have those volleys that do hit.....also, c) it would negate any effectiveness of precisions *unless those aren't included* however....and finally d) since only T2 can load those, what would you do about people with T1 only? Believe it or not, there are some people out there without the training to fit T2 on all their missiles and it's not like they would have close range ammo.....? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how to balance it out a little more, but short of just making missiles hit like guns and therefore negating all weapons systems down to a turret *which would then favor turret/missile combo ships* it's really difficult to find a viable solution, even if some people who EFT warrior everything and fail to see actual missile damage. and how it's rare do you ever see a full volley on anything other than a PoS with no resists.... As far as the cane...I would rather see them remove a high slot and make it a low or mid rather than nerf the PG as it severely hampers those that are shooting for a decent tank on it I feel the Hurricane changes are fine. Artillery are receiving a PG reduction across the board so long-range fits will probably be even easier than they are now. Remember that the Harbinger has no chance in hell of fitting a 1600mm plate tank, a rack of largest tier guns, and a medium neut (much less two), and the Myrmidon... well, it's special.
Lol....I can't say I've ever seen a myrm fleet! So yeah, it's special and it doesn't even get a helmet. I think it's sad that most ships can't fit the largest teir guns....my poor little harby that I was I so geeked to get into....collecting dust after just a few mission attempts before going to a BS..... :( |
|
Nariyama Tonkatsu
Old Timers Guild Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:05:00 -
[3001] - Quote
First post in a forum for EVE... but don't feel I can stay silent on this.
First, I totally recognize the need for some sort of rebalance on the Tengu, as it is way too suited to RR sleeper fleets as it is. That being said...
TL:DR version: reduce range slightly, leave damage where it's at, no opinion on the EWAR stuff.
20% reduction in HM damage: way too much! 5% - 10% if you must, but should not be necessary (see further discussion below) 25% reduction in HM range: a bit high, but I understand the need just from running sleepers in a Tengu (perhaps the better approach would be to reduce the range bonus on the accerlerated ejection bay) Introducing EWAR to affect missiles: I'm not sure how much this will affect things. Most small PvP fleets include a Falcon or two from what I have seen already, or other EWAR ship. This may simply change the FOTM for dedicated EWAR pilots. If we start seeing tracking disruptors on every ship out there, then obviously it is too useful.
When choosing weapon types in EVE, you basically have to consider the tradeoffs.
Missiles: -- Very little variation on damage output, but generally lower damage output than similar size turret platforms ----- No variation on damage due to range, effectively "all" or "nothing" ----- Large variation on damage due to speed of target ----- predictable variation on damage due to size class of target -- No player skill involvement other than choosing appropriate targets to shoot at (ie shooting the light tackler with cruise missiles is not going to get you anywhere) -- Usually longer maximum range than guns of same size class
Guns: -- Somewhat higher damage output for same class, but with much larger variation in that damage ----- Damage falloff for range outside optimal ----- Can have very significantly higher damage than normal based upon random chance ----- Large variation on damage due to relative motion of target ----- No built-in variation on damage due to size class of target -- Much higher player skill involvement when using guns. Have to make sure you try and keep target with as low a transverse velocity as possible. Pick targets near the limit of optimal range if you can, so that transverse is reduced, etc. -- Usually much lower optimal range than missile range, and lower maximum range
The important thing to consider here is what to expect when you see either a missile boat or a gun boat that is about to fire on you. When you see a missile boat, you can expect a fairly consistent amount of damage every X seconds, and that damage will be the same based upon resists every time it hits you. This is not the case for gun boats! If I see a Hurricane lining up on me, their alpha strike could do WAY more damage than their "normal" output if they get lucky. Let's face it, most gun boat pilots live for that "golden salvo" that gets the "wrecking" hit or two, reducing their poor victim to goo in very short order.
The last few PvP engagements I have been in, I have seen 0 Drakes or Tengus on the opposing side. I've seen plenty of Minmatar BC's and HAC's, and Caldari ECM ships, but no HML ships. I tell folks that are just starting to get their feet wet in PvP to bring a Drake because of the buffer, not because of the missiles.
In my opinion, missiles and guns are two very different playable styles, and lend themselves to different aspects of the game. Trying to make missiles into guns is not the way to go! Part of what makes the game interesting is the different play styles and techniques.
What I never want to see in chat is the following conversation:
Newbie-of-the-week: What skills should I work on next? Heavy missiles or medium guns? Random-veteran: It doesn't matter, they both work effectively the same now. Newbie-of-the-week: What do you mean? Random-veteran: Since the start of 2013, missile launchers are just turrets with more expensive ammo that do less damage...
There should be a place for a statistically consistent, slightly lower damage output weapon like heavies are now. I'll concede that the range on them is somewhat out of balance, and really only broken in the case of the Tengu, but that's an issue with a specific ship, not the weapon as a whole. But when you consider that gun-boats do higher average damage, and have the potential to do MUCH higher damage than a missile ship, that seems to me to be well in line with where the damage output should be.
Suggestion: post a survey for Drake pilots and ask them WHY they fly a Drake. I'd be willing to bet that for a very large majority, the answer will be, "Passive drake shield tank = awesomesauce for mission running...."
-- Nariyama |
Terik Deatharbingr
AirHogs Zulu People
252
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:15:00 -
[3002] - Quote
Nariyama Tonkatsu wrote:Suggestion: post a survey for Drake pilots and ask them WHY they fly a Drake. I'd be willing to bet that for a very large majority, the answer will be, "Passive drake shield tank = awesomesauce for mission running...."
-- Nariyama
Great post...makes a ton of sense about why missiles were built with the stats the were originally given. Drake euals a great ship in half the time....however long term perfect drake takes longer than your gun boats....it's a great noobie ship....after a while though...those pilots eventually move onto another ship....in any case...
Queue the pro-nerf whining! lol |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:19:00 -
[3003] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Eckyy wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Also, I really like the idea of the minimum arming range for guided missiles.. not for unguided missiles.. which gives unguided missiles another advantage. As cool as that last part sounds, my fear is a) it would increase lag time due to calculations of several volleys in the air and b) now instead of any dps....it now negates it entirely. Say what you will arty people...you still have those volleys that do hit.....also, c) it would negate any effectiveness of precisions *unless those aren't included* however....and finally d) since only T2 can load those, what would you do about people with T1 only? Believe it or not, there are some people out there without the training to fit T2 on all their missiles and it's not like they would have close range ammo.....? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out how to balance it out a little more, but short of just making missiles hit like guns and therefore negating all weapons systems down to a turret *which would then favor turret/missile combo ships* it's really difficult to find a viable solution, even if some people who EFT warrior everything and fail to see actual missile damage. and how it's rare do you ever see a full volley on anything other than a PoS with no resists.... As far as the cane...I would rather see them remove a high slot and make it a low or mid rather than nerf the PG as it severely hampers those that are shooting for a decent tank on it I feel the Hurricane changes are fine. Artillery are receiving a PG reduction across the board so long-range fits will probably be even easier than they are now. Remember that the Harbinger has no chance in hell of fitting a 1600mm plate tank, a rack of largest tier guns, and a medium neut (much less two), and the Myrmidon... well, it's special. Lol....I can't say I've ever seen a myrm fleet! So yeah, it's special and it doesn't even get a helmet. I think it's sad that most ships can't fit the largest teir guns....my poor little harby that I was I so geeked to get into....collecting dust after just a few mission attempts before going to a BS..... :(
Fun fact - I used to fly a Pulse and Beam laser shield tanked Myrm in 0.0 roams. The damage projection of lasers is great and the Myrm has plentiful mid- and low-slots. Mostly it was for the lulz, but on paper it looks to perform about as well as a Harbinger or Hurricane filling the same role, sans the flight time of drones.
It's not a bad ship, it's just often overlooked because nobody wants an armor rep bonus and midslots utility mods are very weak right now. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:31:00 -
[3004] - Quote
I agree so much with what you said Nariyama Tonkatsu , except one thing: I dont think any ship or weapon platform should be balanced around PvE, it would be just so much easier to change the PvE content so no weapon platform is completely out of line.
As an addition I can say a 800+ kinetic DPS Tengu (all l5 + imps) with prop, decent tank (enough for all missions in highsec) is a good ship, and a slight nerf in DPS would make sense, maybe also with range (still, being able to fight on 115km which is also around your locking range is a nice thing and I would miss it a lot .. ;) ) . But NHs, Caras and other HML users will get kicked hard (and they are not FOTM by now) by those changes. So I still vote for - keep stuff like it is and solve lag issues in null sec instead. Btw, when have missiles been buffed/nerfed in your opinion? Drake is the same for ages, and I cant remember there was a recent buff to HML, not so long ago everyone said "HML Drake sucks for PvP, its no match for any turret BC" - and now it should be so OP that it needs a hard nerf, without *any* changes in the meantime .. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
197
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:32:00 -
[3005] - Quote
Nariyama Tonkatsu wrote:
Missiles: -- Very little variation on damage output, but generally lower damage output than similar size turret platforms ----- No variation on damage due to range, effectively "all" or "nothing" ----- Large variation on damage due to speed of target ss
Guns: -- Somewhat higher damage output for same class, but with much larger variation in that damage ----- Damage falloff for range outside optimal
As a both turret and drake pilot I'm going to go head and call bullshit right here.
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:36:00 -
[3006] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I agree so much with what you said Nariyama Tonkatsu , except one thing: I dont think any ship or weapon platform should be balanced around PvE, it would be just so much easier to change the PvE content so no weapon platform is completely out of line.
As an addition I can say a 800+ kinetic DPS Tengu (all l5 + imps) with prop, decent tank (enough for all missions in highsec) is a good ship, and a slight nerf in DPS would make sense, maybe also with range (still, being able to fight on 115km which is also around your locking range is a nice thing and I would miss it a lot .. ;) ) . But NHs, Caras and other HML users will get kicked hard (and they are not FOTM by now) by those changes. So I still vote for - keep stuff like it is and solve lag issues in null sec instead. Btw, when have missiles been buffed/nerfed in your opinion? Drake is the same for ages, and I cant remember there was a recent buff to HML, not so long ago everyone said "HML Drake sucks for PvP, its no match for any turret BC" - and now it should be so OP that it needs a hard nerf, without *any* changes in the meantime ..
Mostly it's perception. People didn't realize projectiles were any good until months or years after CCP buffed them - and those changes were small. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:42:00 -
[3007] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
Right, so falcons and basis are not combat ships now. Thats good, wont see any more of either paired with another ship then will I ....
Are you not understanding the meaning of "combat" in combat ship? If I want to do Ewar or Logi I dont complain, but I want to shoot stuff. Tell me how you deal substantial DPS in Basis and Falcons and you win EVE.
Doddy wrote: Rokh is an awesome solo boat btw, and blaster ferox for that matter. Caracal is decent even now if you know how to use it.
I know of a lot of tests where ppl claimed the Rokh is great or the blaster Ferox rocks, and they all got their asses whooped hard with Megas in case of the Rokh or any BC with a pilot who doesnt completely suck vs the Ferox. Caracal is good for some niche things (which are nice, anti-frig for example, or sniping), but not really handy in many other situations when for example Vexors, Arbitrators, Thorax or Stabber and Rupture shine. By no means the Caracal has a good chance in comparison to those, if its not far outside their range. And - HML should get nerfed, remember??
Doddy wrote: I remeber snigwaffe humiliating CFC gangs with ultra long range sniper caras, which only worked becasue hmls have such great damage projection. Can't imagine them doing the same thing with a turret cruiser, all of which have terrible dps at range. So really the suckiness is the corm (getting buffed), Moa (getting buffed), the hacs (cerb is being looked at), nighthawk (being looked at) and the raven, the raven mainly due to cruise being fail (hopefully being looked at). That leaves the eagle, may it rest in peace.
When will the NH being looked at? 2016? Cruise is not even on a list so far, so that might actually never happen (I am sure they dont want another missile platform spamming the server with load). Like I said before - I really would appreciate if NH would be buffed to be on par with Abso and Sleip (which it absolutely is NOT, heck, I could even kill a friends NH in 1on1 with my Drake quite easily because the NH fails so much at PvP atm), and if the Raven/CNR would have their role in PvP and be viable ships again. And I want a ship with the versatility, speed and power of the Machariel, but using missiles. Give us that or nerf the Mach and maybe generally large ACs (which really have too much falloff).
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 22:57:00 -
[3008] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Doddy wrote:
Right, so falcons and basis are not combat ships now. Thats good, wont see any more of either paired with another ship then will I ....
Are you not understanding the meaning of "combat" in combat ship? If I want to do Ewar or Logi I dont complain, but I want to shoot stuff. Tell me how you deal substantial DPS in Basis and Falcons and you win EVE. Doddy wrote: Rokh is an awesome solo boat btw, and blaster ferox for that matter. Caracal is decent even now if you know how to use it.
I know of a lot of tests where ppl claimed the Rokh is great or the blaster Ferox rocks, and they all got their asses whooped hard with Megas in case of the Rokh or any BC with a pilot who doesnt completely suck vs the Ferox. Caracal is good for some niche things (which are nice, anti-frig for example, or sniping), but not really handy in many other situations when for example Vexors, Arbitrators, Thorax or Stabber and Rupture shine. By no means the Caracal has a good chance in comparison to those, if its not far outside their range. And - HML should get nerfed, remember?? Doddy wrote: I remeber snigwaffe humiliating CFC gangs with ultra long range sniper caras, which only worked becasue hmls have such great damage projection. Can't imagine them doing the same thing with a turret cruiser, all of which have terrible dps at range. So really the suckiness is the corm (getting buffed), Moa (getting buffed), the hacs (cerb is being looked at), nighthawk (being looked at) and the raven, the raven mainly due to cruise being fail (hopefully being looked at). That leaves the eagle, may it rest in peace.
When will the NH being looked at? 2016? Cruise is not even on a list so far, so that might actually never happen (I am sure they dont want another missile platform spamming the server with load). Like I said before - I really would appreciate if NH would be buffed to be on par with Abso and Sleip (which it absolutely is NOT, heck, I could even kill a friends NH in 1on1 with my Drake quite easily because the NH fails so much at PvP atm), and if the Raven/CNR would have their role in PvP and be viable ships again. And I want a ship with the versatility, speed and power of the Machariel, but using missiles. Give us that or nerf the Mach and maybe generally large ACs (which really have too much falloff).
I think you have a very strange idea of what "combat" is. The idea a mega has any chance whatsoever against a rokh just shows how out of touch you are. The idea the drake is better than the NH is also ludicrous, they do the same thing but the Nh does it slightly better (just not 200 mil better so no one uses it), so your friends must be terrible. It is for sure a fleet ship while sleip and to a lesser extent abso are small gang/solo though, not that anyone uses abso either, cs in general are underpowered. As for nh being looked at fozzie said before drake, and drake would be due in the summer expansion, so that makes it either with the winter expansion or failing that a later add on
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.25 23:44:00 -
[3009] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
Post the HAM Drake fit with 87K ehp, a 150dps passive recharge, and 600 dps damage. Because by god I will build and fly that sucker TONIGHT.
Its been sort of covered by others, but here was what i was talking about:
2x BCS II DC Reactor Control Unit II
2x LSE's 2x Invuln fields Exp 10mn MWD T2 point
7x T2 HAML's w/ rage scourge
5x hobs
3x shield extender rigs
103k ehp (197 dps recharge) and 576dps. a good brawler for baiting, breaking RR and general station games, and it doesn't require any implants. but this is with the current drake bonuses. If the bonuses were to change to match the raven's and caracals, this same fit would do over 600dps to long point range and still have 87k ehp. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 00:04:00 -
[3010] - Quote
Ok, being serious. If you do the -20% to heavy missile damage, all heavy missile boats will become unless. I mean look at the DPS on a drake, on my main I have heavy missiles to 5, heavy missile spec to 5, BC to 5, and perfect missile skills and I still get just 437.7 DPS, for a BC that is terrible, the Cerberus isn't much better, the Onyx is even worse, and even a well fitted Tengi isn't much over 700 DPS usually. So if you take away it's damage, which really there is no reason to, because HAMs do better DPS on any of those ships fitted with HAMs, then you will completely make heavy missiles and half of the Caldari ships worthless. Also taking away the range doesn't make a whole lot of since either. Heavy Missiles are the range missiles of medium missiles, hints why they shoot slower. So why take their range away? On the Drake it only goes 86Km, standard missiles in a Hawk fire out to 65Km, so you are going to make small missiles able to shoot out further than medium missiles, again that makes no sense. Tengu can shoot to around 117km, and they are T3s and I believe should be able to shoot further because they are T3s and cost an arm and leg to buy and make. I really hope you rethink the heavy missile nerf, or you will have a lot of upset EVE players, so many people have put so much in Tengus and other missiles boats. I personally don't believe any nerfs are needed anymore. Maybe just a bit of a faction frig bonus, and T3 frigs be cool to see haha.
Thadd |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 00:06:00 -
[3011] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:If you do the -20% to heavy missile damage, all heavy missile boats will become unless. I mean look at the DPS on a drake, on my main I have heavy missiles to 5, heavy missile spec to 5, BC to 5, and perfect missile skills and I still get just 437.7 DPS While I think 20% is a bit strong of a nerf, what other ships using medium weapons get that much damage at anywhere close to heavy missile max ranges? |
Talon Karrade
L and E Research Division Integrity Respect Selflessness
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 00:18:00 -
[3012] - Quote
i agree with the post by thad, nerfing is going way too far on heavy missles . the guns like on the canes and cyclones do even more dps than heavy missles on the drake as well. Also if you nerf missles like you plan might well kill off the caldari race all together and destroy all there missles ships as well most of the ships are missle boats. Also Calari ships are shields and missles minmatar are known for speed and ammar armor tanking and galente drones ships. now stick the premise and stop nerfing because people complain about this ship too power or this ship isnt. stick with race ship design and stop wasting time with this winter nerf expansion |
Talon Karrade
L and E Research Division Integrity Respect Selflessness
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 00:22:00 -
[3013] - Quote
Also the drake is fine the way it is does average dps for a bc and got good defense where as cane does excellent dps fair to average defense. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 00:33:00 -
[3014] - Quote
Talon Karrade wrote:Also the drake is fine the way it is does average dps for a bc and got good defense where as cane does excellent dps fair to average defense.
You're not looking at the combination of DPS, range and tank the Drake has.
Look at it this way:
A Harbinger with a full rack of heavy pulse and 3x Heat Sinks deals 479dps with Scorch at 23km+5 (guns only). Cap is tight if you don't fit an injector. It can fit a shield tank of around 53,000 EHP and still fit a point and MWD.
A Drake with Rage heavy missiles deals 462dps out to 76km (missiles only). It can, at the same time, sport a shield tank of almost 100,000 EHP and still fit a point and MWD.
It even has similar damage to a 3x Gyro Hurricane with a full rack of 425's and barrage.
You might be wondering, why not armor tank the Harbinger then? Unfortunately, it has even less EHP (or damage) then and doesn't even have enough CPU to fill its mids.
The heavy missile Drake does the DPS of close range guns at almost 80km. The Drake has tons of fitting room and can easily fill its slots, and has no cap issues. It has a tanking bonus on top of this. Other BCs have to give up slots to have anywhere near the Drake's range which gives them pathetic paper tanks, and even then they won't have anywhere near the Drake's damage. |
Lili Lu
496
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 00:51:00 -
[3015] - Quote
Eckyy,
It's not worth responding to someone like Talon. He clearly decided to post on page 150 of a thread without reading the OP, and not bothering to read any of the posts in the previous 149 pages. Seriously, he posts some generalizations and doesn't even attempt to present any evidence, as if everything he is saying has not already been said hundreds of times.
The last dozen pages or so of this thread is filled with folks that don't want to examine numbers honestly. They often have no experience with any other ships because all they have ever needed in their usually short eve careers is Drake and Tengu. They simply cannot comprehend how any other ships have functioned and do function at this time. All they know is their HMs and the Drake. All they see is that those are being altered for the worse. They cannot even spot countervaling buffs. And they still just run to eft and go look at that autocannon dps, etc.
This thread has indisputably become a waste of time for reflexive whining. And it won't change until we have a new thread once the changes and exact numbers on these changes are put on the test server. Keep trying to reason with some of these folks if you want. But I predict you will just be wasting your time. Good luck to you if you choose to stay itt.
Regards,
LiLu |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 01:17:00 -
[3016] - Quote
You're right of course, but the more I think about the proposed changes, the more I understand them, so responding to people actually helps me better grasp the situation. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 01:25:00 -
[3017] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:[quote=Thaddeus Eggeras]If you do the -20% to heavy missile damage, all heavy missile boats will become unless. I mean look at the DPS on a drake, on my main I have heavy missiles to 5, heavy missile spec to 5, BC to 5, and perfect missile skills and I still get just 437.7 DPS While I think 20% is a bit strong of a nerf, what other ships using medium weapons get that much damage at anywhere close to heavy missile max ranges?[/
Proj Weapons do better DPS close to or as far as missiles, plus you get more than one damage type, and don't have to wait for your weapon to impacted, sounds good to me. Hybrids on the right ships hit MUCH further out and do good DPS also. Lasers do pretty good DPS also, and don't need reloaded. Missiles also NEVER get criticial hits, and NEVER ALPHA. Missiles rarely do as good or better then their gun counter parts. That's why you ONLY see Drakes, and Tengus using heavy Missiles usually, and if you nerf them then no ships will anymore. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 01:38:00 -
[3018] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote: Proj Weapons do better DPS close to or as far as missiles, plus you get more than one damage type, and don't have to wait for your weapon to impacted, sounds good to me. Hybrids on the right ships hit MUCH further out and do good DPS also. Lasers do pretty good DPS also, and don't need reloaded. Missiles also NEVER get criticial hits, and NEVER ALPHA. Missiles rarely do as good or better then their gun counter parts. That's why you ONLY see Drakes, and Tengus using heavy Missiles usually, and if you nerf them then no ships will anymore.
If this is true you should have no issues posting a fit that does 400+ DPS at 70KM using medium projectiles. Keep in mind the paper DPS number will have to account for damage loss in falloff and posting the complete fit will nullify any arguments as to it being a comedy fit. Same with lasers. Alpha is volley damage which missiles have and it's not the best but not the worst by far.
You already point out that most completely discount using HAM's. And why do so if it's even semi reasonable to compare HML's with close range weapons while having a much larger engagement window then HAM's and still retaining most of the damage?
Your argument about doing more than one damage type is flawed. The more damage you apply to the single weakest resist the better, which is something that multi damage ammo cannot completely do and caldari missile ships will be able to do well if the trend of trading kinetic damage bonuses for ROF bonuses continues. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 01:40:00 -
[3019] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:[quote=Thaddeus Eggeras]If you do the -20% to heavy missile damage, all heavy missile boats will become unless. I mean look at the DPS on a drake, on my main I have heavy missiles to 5, heavy missile spec to 5, BC to 5, and perfect missile skills and I still get just 437.7 DPS While I think 20% is a bit strong of a nerf, what other ships using medium weapons get that much damage at anywhere close to heavy missile max ranges?[/ Proj Weapons do better DPS close to or as far as missiles, plus you get more than one damage type, and don't have to wait for your weapon to impacted, sounds good to me. Hybrids on the right ships hit MUCH further out and do good DPS also. Lasers do pretty good DPS also, and don't need reloaded. Missiles also NEVER get criticial hits, and NEVER ALPHA. Missiles rarely do as good or better then their gun counter parts. That's why you ONLY see Drakes, and Tengus using heavy Missiles usually, and if you nerf them then no ships will anymore.
HML Drake: 414dps @ 84km HML Drake w/Fury: 462dps @ 76km
Beam Harbinger w/Aurora: 305dps @ 54km + 10 falloff 720mm Hurricane w/Tremor: 278dps @ 52km + 22 falloff
278dps is not close to 462dps. 54km is not close to 84km. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 01:45:00 -
[3020] - Quote
Also I don't fly just Tengus or Drakes, I can and do FLY all T2 BCs and down and all races T1 BSs. The point is that if you pvp enough you will see Drakes get taken out by Canes and such ALL the time. Tengus are tough but ALL T3s are, Lokis and Legions are no joke either if fit right. -20% to Heavy Missiles, is just out of control. They also ARE the long range missiles so taking range away doesn't make any sense either. I mean a Cane easily does over 700DPS, a Brutix Does even more, and a Myrmidon does good DPS and is VERY hard to take out if fit right. The other thing is Caldari ships are slow, REAL slow, Gal, and most Amarr are faster then Caldari ships now, so getting to a drake isn't hard at all, and once you do in a Cane or such, you usually will win. Seems to me that people who just don't like Caldari or missiles, or don't want to train them want them nerfed. Learn to fight Caldari and you will 9 times out of 10 beat a Drake in a Cane or Brutix or such. I just want the nerfing to stop all together, it's getting out of hand. No ship is that much better then any other ship anymore. Every class of ship has it's race that it's best with. Interceptors have the Taranis, can do close to 300 DPS and is tough. Assault Ships well all the races now. destroyers the Thrasher, Interdictors the Sabre, HAS the Vaga, Sacrilege, Heavy Interdictors all I'd say, Logi Scimitar, guardian, Recon all, Battlecruisers Drake and Cane, Command Ships Damnation and claymore/Sleipnir. So please stop complaining about ships and just leave everything alone, and make new ships, new classes and etc. And 9 out 10 PvP battles are within 5km to 15km and again to complain about heavy Missiles is just crazy. If you REALLY think -20% is ok, you are crazy, and I think if you see that done you will see a lot of VERY upset pilots like the patch with Jita being attacked and many leaving the game. I will be VERY disappointed if CCP allows such a harsh nerf to happen, but I'll keep playing like before, I'll just have to put my Caldari ships in the closet to get dusky :^(
Thadd |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 01:53:00 -
[3021] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote: Also I don't fly just Tengus or Drakes, I can and do FLY all T2 BCs and down and all races T1 BSs. The point is that if you pvp enough you will see Drakes get taken out by Canes and such ALL the time. Tengus are tough but ALL T3s are, Lokis and Legions are no joke either if fit right. -20% to Heavy Missiles, is just out of control. They also ARE the long range missiles so taking range away doesn't make any sense either. I mean a Cane easily does over 700DPS, a Brutix Does even more, and a Myrmidon does good DPS and is VERY hard to take out if fit right. The other thing is Caldari ships are slow, REAL slow, Gal, and most Amarr are faster then Caldari ships now, so getting to a drake isn't hard at all, and once you do in a Cane or such, you usually will win. Seems to me that people who just don't like Caldari or missiles, or don't want to train them want them nerfed. Learn to fight Caldari and you will 9 times out of 10 beat a Drake in a Cane or Brutix or such. I just want the nerfing to stop all together, it's getting out of hand. No ship is that much better then any other ship anymore. Every class of ship has it's race that it's best with. Interceptors have the Taranis, can do close to 300 DPS and is tough. Assault Ships well all the races now. destroyers the Thrasher, Interdictors the Sabre, HAS the Vaga, Sacrilege, Heavy Interdictors all I'd say, Logi Scimitar, guardian, Recon all, Battlecruisers Drake and Cane, Command Ships Damnation and claymore/Sleipnir. So please stop complaining about ships and just leave everything alone, and make new ships, new classes and etc.
Thadd You've posted alot of generalizations but nothing to prove your point. Start posting usable fits that improve your position and stop comparing long range HML damage to short range turret output and we can have a discussion. I can say that as someone who has T2 heavy missiles trained and owns a tengu and a drake I hope no one is swayed by your baseless talk of Caldari hate when posted without the slightest shred of evidence or numbers. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 01:54:00 -
[3022] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:I mean a Cane easily does over 700DPS, a Brutix Does even more, and a Myrmidon does good DPS and is VERY hard to take out if fit right.
The Drake also does this kind of DPS with HAMs. We're not talking about close range weapons though, and heavy missiles are not close range weapons.
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:The other thing is Caldari ships are slow, REAL slow, Gal, and most Amarr are faster then Caldari ships now, so getting to a drake isn't hard at all, and once you do in a Cane or such, you usually will win.
Ships are fit with named 10mn MWD: Drake - 1038m/s, 11.2s align time Hurricane - 1311m/s, 11.5s align time Harbinger - 1138m/s, 12.2 align time
^ Interestingly, the Drake is actually the most agile battlecruiser. A difference of 1-200m/s means next to nothing. Remember that if these ships fit armor tanks they will be both slower AND less agile than a Drake.
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Learn to fight Caldari and you will 9 times out of 10 beat a Drake in a Cane or Brutix or such. I just want the nerfing to stop all together, it's getting out of hand. No ship is that much better then any other ship anymore. Every class of ship has it's race that it's best with. Interceptors have the Taranis, can do close to 300 DPS and is tough. Assault Ships well all the races now. destroyers the Thrasher, Interdictors the Sabre, HAS the Vaga, Sacrilege, Heavy Interdictors all I'd say, Logi Scimitar, guardian, Recon all, Battlecruisers Drake and Cane, Command Ships Damnation and claymore/Sleipnir. So please stop complaining about ships and just leave everything alone, and make new ships, new classes and etc.
Fit HAMs on your Drake and you'll do just fine. In fact, you should already be fitting HAMs. Any ship fit with long range weapons will die if it gets tackled by a ship in its same class fit with close range weapons. A Drake with HAMs is on par with its peers when they fit close range guns. A heavy missile Drake is unquestionably superior in most metrics to its peers when they fit log range guns. |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 01:56:00 -
[3023] - Quote
The problem is that all those ships have competent close-range versions. The Drake gets to use the same 400 dps (furies are really useless against most targets) when fit for brawling.
If you're going to nerf heavy missiles (and you probably should), you need to buff HAMs to the point of general usability. Tengus will still be overpowered, but that's a separate issue related to the ship itself. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:01:00 -
[3024] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:The problem is that all those ships have competent close-range versions. The Drake gets to use the same 400 dps (furies are really useless against most targets) when fit for brawling.
If you're going to nerf heavy missiles (and you probably should), you need to buff HAMs to the point of general usability. Tengus will still be overpowered, but that's a separate issue related to the ship itself.
My 600+DPS (700+ overheated) HAM Drake with almost 100,000 EHP begs to differ. It even has MWD + point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with HAMs on a Drake. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:02:00 -
[3025] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Thaddeus Eggeras wrote: Also I don't fly just Tengus or Drakes, I can and do FLY all T2 BCs and down and all races T1 BSs. The point is that if you pvp enough you will see Drakes get taken out by Canes and such ALL the time. Tengus are tough but ALL T3s are, Lokis and Legions are no joke either if fit right. -20% to Heavy Missiles, is just out of control. They also ARE the long range missiles so taking range away doesn't make any sense either. I mean a Cane easily does over 700DPS, a Brutix Does even more, and a Myrmidon does good DPS and is VERY hard to take out if fit right. The other thing is Caldari ships are slow, REAL slow, Gal, and most Amarr are faster then Caldari ships now, so getting to a drake isn't hard at all, and once you do in a Cane or such, you usually will win. Seems to me that people who just don't like Caldari or missiles, or don't want to train them want them nerfed. Learn to fight Caldari and you will 9 times out of 10 beat a Drake in a Cane or Brutix or such. I just want the nerfing to stop all together, it's getting out of hand. No ship is that much better then any other ship anymore. Every class of ship has it's race that it's best with. Interceptors have the Taranis, can do close to 300 DPS and is tough. Assault Ships well all the races now. destroyers the Thrasher, Interdictors the Sabre, HAS the Vaga, Sacrilege, Heavy Interdictors all I'd say, Logi Scimitar, guardian, Recon all, Battlecruisers Drake and Cane, Command Ships Damnation and claymore/Sleipnir. So please stop complaining about ships and just leave everything alone, and make new ships, new classes and etc.
Thadd You've posted alot of generalizations but nothing to prove your point. Start posting usable fits that improve your position and stop comparing long range HML damage to short range turret output and we can have a discussion. I can say that as someone who has T2 heavy missiles trained and owns a tengu and a drake I hope no one is swayed by your baseless talk of Caldari hate when posted without the slightest shred of evidence or numbers.
PvPing is all the evidence you need. Drake never fight 40km out, and Guns and Missiles aren't the same thing, hints two completely different training groups. Thats something that makes EVE so great and different, not everything works just the same. If you wanna get into evidence missiles can be out ran, guns can not. If you shoot long range guns 150KM or 200KM they hit right away, if you shoot missiles 100km it takes around 10secs to hit, and the target could have warped by then. A Cane with 6 425s does over 600DPS, Opt is 1,949km and 22 falloff, pretty impressive. A Drake with 7 launchers does less DPS and doesn't get 120rds before reload, it gets gets 40. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:03:00 -
[3026] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:The problem is that all those ships have competent close-range versions. The Drake gets to use the same 400 dps (furies are really useless against most targets) when fit for brawling.
If you're going to nerf heavy missiles (and you probably should), you need to buff HAMs to the point of general usability. Tengus will still be overpowered, but that's a separate issue related to the ship itself. Underwhelming performance from HAM's isn't necessarily a good reason not to address issues with HML's. That stated this will give HAM's help with explosion radius/velocity for better damage application as well as being able to use mods and not just rigs for enhancing range. Additionally HAM's have the same benefit of no diminishing damage due to falloff. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:05:00 -
[3027] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:PvP and all the evidence is there. Drake never right 40km out, and Guns and Missiles aren't thesame thingd, hints two completely different training groups. Thats something that makes EVE so great and different, not everything works just the same. If you wanna get into evidence missiles can be out ran, guns can not. If you shootlong range guns to 150KM or 200KM then hit right away, if you shoot missiles 100km it takes 10secs to 15secs to hit, and the target could have warped by then. A Cane with 6 425s does over 600DPS Opt is 1,949km and 22 falloff, pretty impressive. A Drake with 7 launchers does less DPS and doesn't get 120rds before reload, gets 40.
A HAM Drake does within 1% of the paper DPS of an RF EMP Hurricane, and it has an optimal of about the Hurricane's optimal + falloff.
I agree HAMs don't easily apply full damage, but they also don't miss like guns. ADDITIONALLY, the Drake has a tanking bonus. CCP is addressing HAMs explosion radius and velocity anyway. They're fine. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:10:00 -
[3028] - Quote
Just stop nerfing and make people learn to be clever. EVE is unforgiving, nerfing everything because people complain is just BS and that's the truth. NOTHING needs nerfed, nothing. Just buff the faction frigs a little so Assault Frigates don't rock them so easily and "tweak" the ASBs and let EVE be EVE. Some new ship types and classses be sweet though. You all can same they need nerfed or whatever but that is BS and that's just life. but keep complaining till everything is the same and EVE looses the factor that not ALL ships are the same and it becomes like every other MMO. That would be a sad sad day. LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!!! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:11:00 -
[3029] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: You've posted alot of generalizations but nothing to prove your point. Start posting usable fits that improve your position and stop comparing long range HML damage to short range turret output and we can have a discussion. I can say that as someone who has T2 heavy missiles trained and owns a tengu and a drake I hope no one is swayed by your baseless talk of Caldari hate when posted without the slightest shred of evidence or numbers.
PvP and all the evidence is there. Drake never right 40km out, and Guns and Missiles aren't thesame thingd, hints two completely different training groups. Thats something that makes EVE so great and different, not everything works just the same. If you wanna get into evidence missiles can be out ran, guns can not. If you shootlong range guns to 150KM or 200KM then hit right away, if you shoot missiles 100km it takes 10secs to 15secs to hit, and the target could have warped by then. A Cane with 6 425s does over 600DPS Opt is 1,949km and 22 falloff, pretty impressive. A Drake with 7 launchers does less DPS and doesn't get 120rds before reload, gets 40. Guns and missiles not being the same is not an excuse for HML's outclassing medium turrets. Drakes can and do fight at range, and when they don't they shouldn't be using HML's. HAM's should be the choice there. At range they should be paired with tackle so their DPS advantage can still shine. And while you think 600DPS at 2KM in impressive (which becomes closer to 300 at the 22km+2optimal falloff point) it even more points out the issue as a drake does 66% of the damage at 60KM that a cane does at 2KM before it starts loosing DPS to falloff. |
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:14:00 -
[3030] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: You've posted alot of generalizations but nothing to prove your point. Start posting usable fits that improve your position and stop comparing long range HML damage to short range turret output and we can have a discussion. I can say that as someone who has T2 heavy missiles trained and owns a tengu and a drake I hope no one is swayed by your baseless talk of Caldari hate when posted without the slightest shred of evidence or numbers.
PvP and all the evidence is there. Drake never right 40km out, and Guns and Missiles aren't thesame thingd, hints two completely different training groups. Thats something that makes EVE so great and different, not everything works just the same. If you wanna get into evidence missiles can be out ran, guns can not. If you shootlong range guns to 150KM or 200KM then hit right away, if you shoot missiles 100km it takes 10secs to 15secs to hit, and the target could have warped by then. A Cane with 6 425s does over 600DPS Opt is 1,949km and 22 falloff, pretty impressive. A Drake with 7 launchers does less DPS and doesn't get 120rds before reload, gets 40. Guns and missiles not being the same is not an excuse for HML's outclassing medium turrets. Drakes can and do fight at range, and when they don't they shouldn't be using HML's. HAM's should be the choice there. At range they should be paired with tackle so their DPS advantage can still shine. And while you think 600DPS at 2KM in impressive (which becomes closer to 300 at the 22km+2optimal falloff point) it even more points out the issue as a drake does 66% of the damage at 60KM that a cane does at 2KM before it starts loosing DPS to falloff.
Whatever allow CCP to nerf everything, and allow EVE to turn into all other MMOs, enjoy guys, tell me how fun it is then. -20% is too much plus taking it's range away from it so standard missiles will out shoot it. If you think that's ok, then I hope you enjoy your nerfs. I'd rather see new ships, and EVE being EVE, but whatever. I highly doubt what I say or others will make a differance. o/ |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
302
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:15:00 -
[3031] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Just stop nerfing and make people learn to be clever. EVE is unforgiving, nerfing everything because people complain is just BS and that's the truth. NOTHING needs nerfed, nothing. Just buff the faction frigs a little so Assault Frigates don't rock them so easily and "tweak" the ASBs and let EVE be EVE. Some new ship types and classses be sweet though. You all can same they need nerfed or whatever but that is BS and that's just life. but keep complaining till everything is the same and EVE looses the factor that not ALL ships are the same and it becomes like every other MMO. That would be a sad sad day. LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!!! People DO have to be clever. They can't just sit in optimum fits. They will have to adapt and change strategies, figure out new fits and methodologies.
And sometimes things do need nerfed. If one thing is more powerful than intended you address that rather than adjust the entire rest of the game upward, which is still effectively a nerf to the item not adjusted, and risk breaking things in hilarious new ways. This doesn't make things the same, just balanced. This way a wider array of ships and fits become viable.
Edit: To the above post, how are you upset with equating balancing to "being like every other MMO?" Why would we not expect CCP, like every other MMO maker, to maintain their game? How is it NOT good for them to ensure all races have viable ships in all size classes for the roles they ate to fulfill? And what makes you think we aren't getting new ships (we are) or that getting them in any way fixes issues with existing ships and weapons? |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 02:18:00 -
[3032] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:PvP and all the evidence is there. Drake never right 40km out, and Guns and Missiles aren't thesame thingd, hints two completely different training groups. Thats something that makes EVE so great and different, not everything works just the same. If you wanna get into evidence missiles can be out ran, guns can not. If you shootlong range guns to 150KM or 200KM then hit right away, if you shoot missiles 100km it takes 10secs to 15secs to hit, and the target could have warped by then. A Cane with 6 425s does over 600DPS Opt is 1,949km and 22 falloff, pretty impressive. A Drake with 7 launchers does less DPS and doesn't get 120rds before reload, gets 40. A HAM Drake does within 1% of the paper DPS of an RF EMP Hurricane, and it has an optimal of about the Hurricane's optimal + falloff. I agree HAMs don't easily apply full damage, but they also don't miss like guns. ADDITIONALLY, the Drake has a tanking bonus. CCP is addressing HAMs explosion radius and velocity anyway. They're fine. I'm getting 550 dps from a two-gyro armor 'cane with faction ammo and 460 dps from a HAM Drake with two BCUs. Maybe you should show some fits?
I'm going to laugh pretty hard if it turns out all your numbers are based on rage HAMs. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 03:07:00 -
[3033] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:Eckyy wrote:Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:PvP and all the evidence is there. Drake never right 40km out, and Guns and Missiles aren't thesame thingd, hints two completely different training groups. Thats something that makes EVE so great and different, not everything works just the same. If you wanna get into evidence missiles can be out ran, guns can not. If you shootlong range guns to 150KM or 200KM then hit right away, if you shoot missiles 100km it takes 10secs to 15secs to hit, and the target could have warped by then. A Cane with 6 425s does over 600DPS Opt is 1,949km and 22 falloff, pretty impressive. A Drake with 7 launchers does less DPS and doesn't get 120rds before reload, gets 40. A HAM Drake does within 1% of the paper DPS of an RF EMP Hurricane, and it has an optimal of about the Hurricane's optimal + falloff. I agree HAMs don't easily apply full damage, but they also don't miss like guns. ADDITIONALLY, the Drake has a tanking bonus. CCP is addressing HAMs explosion radius and velocity anyway. They're fine. I'm getting 550 dps from a two-gyro armor 'cane with faction ammo and 460 dps from a HAM Drake with two BCUs. Maybe you should show some fits? I'm going to laugh pretty hard if it turns out all your numbers are based on rage HAMs.
Looking at EFT, I made the mistake of forgetting to take drones off of my HAM Drake fit. My apologies. A 425mm Hurricane with RF EMP actually does about 20% more DPS than a HAM Drake (with Rage).
I'll correct my previous post. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 03:23:00 -
[3034] - Quote
I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.
As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 05:06:00 -
[3035] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Ok, being serious. If you do the -20% to heavy missile damage, all heavy missile boats will become unless. I mean look at the DPS on a drake, on my main I have heavy missiles to 5, heavy missile spec to 5, BC to 5, and perfect missile skills and I still get just 437.7 DPS, for a BC that is terrible, the Cerberus isn't much better, the Onyx is even worse, and even a well fitted Tengi isn't much over 700 DPS usually. So if you take away it's damage, which really there is no reason to, because HAMs do better DPS on any of those ships fitted with HAMs, then you will completely make heavy missiles and half of the Caldari ships worthless. Also taking away the range doesn't make a whole lot of since either. Heavy Missiles are the range missiles of medium missiles, hints why they shoot slower. So why take their range away? On the Drake it only goes 86Km, standard missiles in a Hawk fire out to 65Km, so you are going to make small missiles able to shoot out further than medium missiles, again that makes no sense. Tengu can shoot to around 117km, and they are T3s and I believe should be able to shoot further because they are T3s and cost an arm and leg to buy and make. I really hope you rethink the heavy missile nerf, or you will have a lot of upset EVE players, so many people have put so much in Tengus and other missiles boats. I personally don't believe any nerfs are needed anymore. Maybe just a bit of a faction frig bonus, and T3 frigs be cool to see haha. So, Drake = 438 DPS @ 86 km, Tengu = 700 DPS @ 117 km. Nuff said. And the words like "it's just", "it's only", "that's terrible" show us how spoiled people could be. Cant blame them though, it's hard to fight the temptation which was posed by CCP for so damn long. What can I say to cheer you up? Well - real man HAML Drake! |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 05:32:00 -
[3036] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.
As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine. And unlike short-range guns, short-range missiles are still incompetent against close-range targets.
I'm all for a HML nerf of some kind; I just think it's important to realize why people fit them--in fleet situations it's damage projection (obviously) but most small gang or solo combat doesn't occur at that range--HMLs are used there because HAMs have such large disadvantages in fitting and damage projection against small/fast targets in exchange for mediocre dps. I've flown HAM Drakes and they're a fun gimmick, but you're chiefly riding on the strength of the Drake itself. HAMs are pretty terrible on anything besides a Drake/Tengu and they're only mediocre on those two. You almost never see a Sacrilege rolling around.
If you go through with this HML nerf without changing HAMs, the net effect will be to have fewer medium missile platforms flying around in general, and those that are left will be chiefly Tengus/Drakes. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
210
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 06:06:00 -
[3037] - Quote
oh i agree completely, it's always been my opinion that HAMs and HMLs should have the same explosion velocity, radius and damage reduction factor and that HAMs should be easier to fit than HMLs
If you change that, then the HML nerf should go on full steam ahead |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 06:13:00 -
[3038] - Quote
HAMs are bad now. Compare amount of Zealots to Sacrilieges. Or amount of Pulse Legions to HAML legions in PvP. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 06:24:00 -
[3039] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:HAMs are bad now. Compare amount of Zealots to Sacrilieges. Or amount of Pulse Legions to HAML legions in PvP. Btw everyone forgets that spme Recons are supposed to use missiles too, and, due to inadequate fitting requirements on HAMLs they can't use them.
I think that's true in part. HAMs do ride on the strengths of the Drake/Tengu, to me it wouldn't be unreasonable to swap the fittings of heavies and HAMs, or at least modify them. Either that, or we'll have to wait for CCP's rebalancing to get to those ships - their fittings and layouts are generally older than HAMs themselves.
I feel like HAMs are ever so slightly range deficient for their damage, and then they have the issues of explosion radius and explosion velocity, but that's all basically being addressed with TEs and TCs.
Remember that ships like the Caracal are getting a much more powerful RoF bonus and additional fittings (and in the Caracal's case, 2 more lowslots too). It will be a fine HAM boat. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 07:05:00 -
[3040] - Quote
I am pretty tired of all thoser Harbinger postings neglecting the drone bay. If you dont use your bigger drone bay to have an advantage over the smaller bay of the Drake in your Harbinger (and Cane), then you are doing it wrong. Thats why I said before - its utter BS to compare just the weapon systems, you have to compare *every* aspect of their environment and how they actually perform. Taking out one single aspect and nerfing it is just not balancing the game how it is actually played.
Many people here say there is *no* medium gunnery platform dealing the same DPS like HML on HMLs max range. Thats maybe true. But then ask yourself those questions (I am keeping it to Drake for now):
1) how much DPS deal HML Drakes at the max range of those long range turret systems? Answer - 0. We have no falloff.Our missiles just run out, and its for sure not at that range maximum which appears in EFT or in discussions. If our enemy is moving fast and on the edge of range we dont hit him at all most often ...
2) how much DPS deal HML Drakes at the optimal range of those long range turret systems? Anwer - normally less than they do. We have steady DPS from 0-max range (which is way below the numbers posted here, go and try it yourself if you dont believe!), and this window is were we can work well. Counter Drakes by not using their window!
3) how often will they hit your Drake with their turrets before your first salvo lands? remember the flight time please! Missiles DONT do instant damage. And since our prefered engagement range due to point 1 and 2 is not too close normally, you have an advantage there.
4) how many wrecking hits will a Drake score? None ... there simply are no wreckings for missiles.
5) how does sig size and target speed work against your applied damage? People tend to forget there alread *is* a kind of tracking mechanic applied to missiles ..
6) If TDs will affect missiles, as will TEs/TCs, how does that work out for ships which had to use them already before, and how will it work out for those which didnt? TEs and TCs boost a number which missiles dont have at all - falloff, and which is the main reason for Winmatar to be so strong ...
7) if I compare a Drake to another ship, shouldnt I better check not only DPS without drones and EHP, but also things like speed, ability to fit tank breakers (=neuts), drone bay size & bandwith to get a better picure of what *actually* happens in PvP? Drakes are normally not able to dictate the range of engagement. Remember that before you cry "OP" .. you can simply run.
8) which damage type can a Drake deal, and how much of those EFT numbers will stay if you actually prepare to fight Drakes? Kinetic resistances buffed and the enemy Drake fleet loses a lot of their DPS.
What I can say from my personal experience (I have done *lots* of small gang PvP in lowsec, and flew most often a Drake, but sometimes also a Cane or Cyclone, and Recons) is this: a Cane is a formidable adversary if flown right. The fact it can use Slave Imps to improve its armortank is a really big plus over a Drake. And its so much more versatile - there is not just *one* legit Cane fitting, you can do many things with it. The Drake on the other hand is a one trick pony - it can do good DPS with either HML or very good DPS with HAM (only kinetic though, because with everything else it gets WAY behind), and still have good EHP. But there are really no other useful fittings. There is no chance to deal damage (7 bonused launchers) and put a medium neut to use like you can do in a Cane without crippling your ship completely. There is no way to put Sebo & web & prop & point without *ruining* your tank. If you want to stay t2, you will have serious CPU issues, and HAMs need a fitting mod.
Still the Drake is a viable ship. But is it overpowered? For sure *NOT* in small gangs and low sec PvP, else everyone would use it. It is strong, yes - but its also the only tech 1 missile based caldari ship above frig size which is able to compete with the other races counterparts. So I dont wonder to see so many of them - dont forget, dedication to missiles means you will not have the chance to just change to FOTM like you can do as a gunnery pilot - they need to train other races ships, like we do. And the racial weapons, but they already have *all* support skills normally, and thats what many Caldari pilots dont have.
So if you feel like there is a need to fix Drakes, go on - but in the same time give us a new tech 1 missile based *workhorse* which is working for us like the Drake does right now - strong enough to take on the other races counterparts, without being OP, but just viable. The Raven for sure is not.
|
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 07:21:00 -
[3041] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Wall of text.
Good post, I agree on those points. Most people here prefer to ignore things like Harbinger's ability have both flight of light drones and flight of ECM drones or Hurricane's 2 utility slots and just stick to EHP/DPS/Range. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
211
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 07:33:00 -
[3042] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I am pretty tired of all thoser Harbinger postings neglecting the drone bay. If you dont use your bigger drone bay to have an advantage over the smaller bay of the Drake in your Harbinger (and Cane), then you are doing it wrong. Thats why I said before - its utter BS to compare just the weapon systems, you have to compare *every* aspect of their environment and how they actually perform. Taking out one single aspect and nerfing it is just not balancing the game how it is actually played. That would be true if drones had any effect on a battle happening at 60 km
When comparing sniper fits, the drones are ignored intentionally . . . now you have a point with comparing HAMs to pulse lasers/blasters/autocannons
And as has already been admitted, HAMs need a buff.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Many people here say there is *no* medium gunnery platform dealing the same DPS like HML on HMLs max range. Thats maybe true. But then ask yourself those questions (I am keeping it to Drake for now):
1) how much DPS deal HML Drakes at the max range of those long range turret systems? Answer - 0. We have no falloff.Our missiles just run out, and its for sure not at that range maximum which appears in EFT or in discussions. If our enemy is moving fast and on the edge of range we dont hit him at all most often ... This is true, but as has been stated, the effective range of HMLs is still far better even considering falloff.
Noemi Nagano wrote:2) how much DPS deal HML Drakes at the optimal range of those long range turret systems? Anwer - normally less than they do. We have steady DPS from 0-max range (which is way below the numbers posted here, go and try it yourself if you dont believe!), and this window is were we can work well. Counter Drakes by not using their window! Im not sure what you're getting at here. The drake deals more DPS at the range of every long range weapon platform with the exception of rails which nobody uses because in spite of their long range, they do no DPS.
Noemi Nagano wrote:3) how often will they hit your Drake with their turrets before your first salvo lands? remember the flight time please! Missiles DONT do instant damage. And since our prefered engagement range due to point 1 and 2 is not too close normally, you have an advantage there. This is a valid point. drakes do have missile flight time to deal with, but this is compensated for by their versatility (assuming they fix percisions) and ability to do consistent damage at all ranges. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
198
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 07:39:00 -
[3043] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Gorn Arming wrote:Eckyy wrote:Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:PvP and all the evidence is there. Drake never right 40km out, and Guns and Missiles aren't thesame thingd, hints two completely different training groups. Thats something that makes EVE so great and different, not everything works just the same. If you wanna get into evidence missiles can be out ran, guns can not. If you shootlong range guns to 150KM or 200KM then hit right away, if you shoot missiles 100km it takes 10secs to 15secs to hit, and the target could have warped by then. A Cane with 6 425s does over 600DPS Opt is 1,949km and 22 falloff, pretty impressive. A Drake with 7 launchers does less DPS and doesn't get 120rds before reload, gets 40. A HAM Drake does within 1% of the paper DPS of an RF EMP Hurricane, and it has an optimal of about the Hurricane's optimal + falloff. I agree HAMs don't easily apply full damage, but they also don't miss like guns. ADDITIONALLY, the Drake has a tanking bonus. CCP is addressing HAMs explosion radius and velocity anyway. They're fine. I'm getting 550 dps from a two-gyro armor 'cane with faction ammo and 460 dps from a HAM Drake with two BCUs. Maybe you should show some fits? I'm going to laugh pretty hard if it turns out all your numbers are based on rage HAMs. Looking at EFT, I made the mistake of forgetting to take drones off of my HAM Drake fit. My apologies. A 425mm Hurricane with RF EMP actually does about 20% more DPS than a HAM Drake (with Rage). I'll correct my previous post.
You forgot that cane has a 20% advantage for all of 3 km. Blasters actually have a longer optimal.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
211
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 07:56:00 -
[3044] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:4) how many wrecking hits will a Drake score? None ... there simply are no wreckings for missiles. True, but remember there are also no glancing blows and no misses either. As a function the differences are null
Noemi Nagano wrote:5) how does sig size and target speed work against your applied damage? People tend to forget there alread *is* a kind of tracking mechanic applied to missiles .. That is true, but this is much nicer than the turret tracking mechanic as it is consistent not random. neither of these systems is better or worse, so there is no disadvantage to missiles here.
Noemi Nagano wrote:6) If TDs will affect missiles, as will TEs/TCs, how does that work out for ships which had to use them already before, and how will it work out for those which didnt? TEs and TCs boost a number which missiles dont have at all - falloff, and which is the main reason for Winmatar to be so strong ... Without knowing how CCP plans to make missiles work with TEs and TCs we cant give anyone an advantage here. IMHO it should be about +30% range (optimal plus half falloff) for missiles.
Noemi Nagano wrote:7) if I compare a Drake to another ship, shouldnt I better check not only DPS without drones and EHP, but also things like speed, ability to fit tank breakers (=neuts), drone bay size & bandwith to get a better picure of what *actually* happens in PvP? Drakes are normally not able to dictate the range of engagement. Remember that before you cry "OP" .. you can simply run. Remember HMLs are long range weapons, and as such need to be compared with other long range weapons, and when doing so, remember at long range weapon optimals, neuts and drones are not able to be used. Now again, I agree HAMs need a buff to be able to stand with other short range weapon systems, but that isnt what youre talking about here. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
211
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 07:56:00 -
[3045] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:8) which damage type can a Drake deal, and how much of those EFT numbers will stay if you actually prepare to fight Drakes? Kinetic resistances buffed and the enemy Drake fleet loses a lot of their DPS. Three arguments here, 1. The drake CAN switch damage types even though it loses DPS, the harbinger and brutix are stuck with what they got. 2. CCP seems to be changing the kinetic missile damage bonus to a ROF bonus, so this probably wont be an argument for long. 3. This could be said with basically any weapon system at long range not just the drake, no disadvantage here.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Still the Drake is a viable ship. But is it overpowered? For sure *NOT* in small gangs and low sec PvP, else everyone would use it. It is strong, yes - but its also the only tech 1 missile based caldari ship above frig size which is able to compete with the other races counterparts. So I dont wonder to see so many of them - dont forget, dedication to missiles means you will not have the chance to just change to FOTM like you can do as a gunnery pilot - they need to train other races ships, like we do. And the racial weapons, but they already have *all* support skills normally, and thats what many Caldari pilots dont have.
So if you feel like there is a need to fix Drakes, go on - but in the same time give us a new tech 1 missile based *workhorse* which is working for us like the Drake does right now - strong enough to take on the other races counterparts, without being OP, but just viable. The Raven for sure is not. 1. Just because its the only viable ship for a particular race is not a good argument for keeping something OP; what if we nerfed all the gallente ships, and then gave the thorax 10x the EHP and 2x the speed and 30x the damage. Would that be balanced because its the "Only good gallente ship"? Of course not! the individual ships need to be balanced as well as the races as a whole.
2. The additional cross train time is also not a balancing factor. I understand that you dont want your missile skills to become useless on all ships, but that is definitely not the case here, HMLs with still be quite viable after the nerf.
3. Youre claiming that the drake is not OP in small gangs, but youre also talking about neut range and drone damage, so i assume you operate without dedicated tackle and within disruptor range. What if they changed HAMs to have the same explosion radius/velocity and damage reduction factor. Would this be better? because right now HAMs dont do much more damage than HMLs shooting at anything smaller than a battleship. If HAMs were better would the HML nerf mean less to you? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 08:04:00 -
[3046] - Quote
And please repeat it again - those Drake numbers are just true with kinetic damage. If Drakes were OP, everyone would fit kin resists like mad OR just fly a Drake. In lowsec Drakes are common, but not the only ship. Taking into account they are the only tech 1 missile ship viable for PvP for an entire race they are still pretty rare!
AC/Arti users can switch damage type from EM to Therm to Exp without losing DPS (although they dont deal only one type but always have a mix with others). And turrets have wreckings. Missiles dont. Missiles have issues with sig size and speed of target, turrets have them with tracking. Please stop picking single aspects but try to see the whole picture - and figure: if HMLs would be so OP like ACs are, wouldnt people start using them on unbonused ships like it actually *is* done with ACs? And even more so wouldnt other HML ships not also shine? There are just 2 which are doing well, and I still stand for it: those numbers come from null sec blobs, not from smaller scale stuff, where in fact many things are fine and balanced. Caldari missile PvP ships (above frig ....) except Drake and Tengu are not fine. *Thats* something CCP should change, and we will see more than just Drakes and Tengus for sure. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 08:11:00 -
[3047] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Wall of text.
Good post, I agree on those points. Most people here prefer to ignore things like Harbinger's ability have both flight of light drones and flight of ECM drones or Hurricane's 2 utility slots and just stick to EHP/DPS/Range.
Well the cane DID just get hit with a slight nerf.. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 08:16:00 -
[3048] - Quote
Sigras wrote: 1. Just because its the only viable ship for a particular race is not a good argument for keeping something OP; what if we nerfed all the gallente ships, and then gave the thorax 10x the EHP and 2x the speed and 30x the damage. Would that be balanced because its the "Only good gallente ship"? Of course not! the individual ships need to be balanced as well as the races as a whole.
2. The additional cross train time is also not a balancing factor. I understand that you dont want your missile skills to become useless on all ships, but that is definitely not the case here, HMLs with still be quite viable after the nerf.
3. Youre claiming that the drake is not OP in small gangs, but youre also talking about neut range and drone damage, so i assume you operate without dedicated tackle and within disruptor range. What if they changed HAMs to have the same explosion radius/velocity and damage reduction factor. Would this be better? because right now HAMs dont do much more damage than HMLs shooting at anything smaller than a battleship. If HAMs were better would the HML nerf mean less to you?
to your points
1) the Drake is not OP in most parts of PvP. It may be OP in null sec fleets, but it is for sure not OP in standard lowsec fights! Do you state it is OP in current low sec fights compared to a Cane? Seriously?
2) HMLs are viable now to a degree on 2 (!!!) ships, on all others they are not really competitive which may be because they are not overpowered, and just the 2 ships are good enough to make em work ... after a nerf they will not be viable anymore on those 2 ships like they are now (its not Drakes are ROFLstomping lowsec, you know ..), and will absolutely crap on all other HML platforms, if they dont get severly buffed (which they will need to do anyway!).
3) I feel HAMs have big issues atm, but thats not the main reason for me to dislike that HML nerf - HMLs perform good, no question. I had many nice fights with my HML Drake. But in my gangs and in enemy teams were also Canes, Prophecies, Harbis, Cyclones, Myrms, Brutix and other Drakes. It seemed to me that on smaller scale everything worked out well. My concern is: if HML wont work anymore, which long range missile platform will Caldari have? Give us options (viable options!) and you will see more variation. To just kill one system without giving something in return is not balanced.
and as a last point - Drakes cant dictate range normally. If you choose to fight them on *their* preferred range you are doing it wrong. Get in their face (where they have less DPS than you) or GTFO (which they cant keep you from), and if you lose, maybe blame yourself and not the OP enemy ship .... with 100MN AB Tengu this might be all a bit different.
|
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 08:25:00 -
[3049] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.
As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine.
By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship.
And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
54
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 08:30:00 -
[3050] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I am pretty tired of all thoser Harbinger postings neglecting the drone bay. If you dont use your bigger drone bay to have an advantage over the smaller bay of the Drake in your Harbinger (and Cane), then you are doing it wrong. Thats why I said before - its utter BS to compare just the weapon systems, you have to compare *every* aspect of their environment and how they actually perform. Taking out one single aspect and nerfing it is just not balancing the game how it is actually played. That would be true if drones had any effect on a battle happening at 60 km .
It doesn't take EC-300 drones long at all to cover 60 km. Especially if you've upgraded your drone navigation skill. Drake can't hit you if it can't target you.
Or drop light webbing drones on it. Or, if the TD change goes through, TD light drones on it. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 08:43:00 -
[3051] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: People DO have to be clever. They can't just sit in optimum fits. They will have to adapt and change strategies, figure out new fits and methodologies.
And sometimes things do need nerfed. If one thing is more powerful than intended you address that rather than adjust the entire rest of the game upward, which is still effectively a nerf to the item not adjusted, and risk breaking things in hilarious new ways. This doesn't make things the same, just balanced. This way a wider array of ships and fits become viable.
Edit: To the above post, how are you upset with equating balancing to "being like every other MMO?" Why would we not expect CCP, like every other MMO maker, to maintain their game? How is it NOT good for them to ensure all races have viable ships in all size classes for the roles they ate to fulfill? And what makes you think we aren't getting new ships (we are) or that getting them in any way fixes issues with existing ships and weapons?
I agree with you. It would indeed be sweet if all races had viable ships in all classes for different roles. Speaking about sub capital level, right now this is only true for one race: Winmatar. To a lesser degree Amarr have viable ships in all classes. Gallente seem to be a bit niche in most classes, but can still compete. Caldari have 2 good missile based combat ships, a t3 and a BC. The whole rest of those missile using combat ships above frig size is unusable if you want to have a chance to win. That exactly should be adressed. And if its obvious afterwards, there is still too much use of a certain weapon system, then it could be changed/nerfed because people will *have* other options ... right now they dont. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 08:51:00 -
[3052] - Quote
Please stop comparing Drake and Brutix. Tier 1 BCs are just weaker, the fact that Myrmidon have no gun bonuses doesn't automatically put Brutix in same group as Drake/Harbinger/Hurricane. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 09:15:00 -
[3053] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Three arguments here, 1. The drake CAN switch damage types even though it loses DPS, the harbinger and brutix are stuck with what they got. 2. CCP seems to be changing the kinetic missile damage bonus to a ROF bonus, so this probably wont be an argument for long. 3. This could be said with basically any weapon system at long range not just the drake, no disadvantage here.
1) the Harbinger deals EM/Therm with its lasers, and up to 129 DPS Exp damage (Valk II) or 144 DPS Kin damage (Vespa II). I agree the Harbinger is maybe a bit behind the Drake and Cane, but is it as far behind as for example a Raven is behind any Amarr BS? For sure not ..
Brutix is, as others said, a tier 1, but still can play in the big league if conditions work for it. Stuck to Kin/Therm with its bonused weapons, yes, but also with a decent dronebay.
The Drake has half the dronebay, and it loses 25% of its DPS if not using kinetic ammo.
2) I have yet to see this, and if it will be we can see how this will impact in battle.
3) For the Drake its true on any range, thats the difference to especially Winmatar.
For the records: I never said the Myrm and Brutix are OP (they are not, but still they can beat the sh*t our of a Drake if the fight is taking place under their rules), and I also didnt say that about the Cane (although its the king of BC PvP with all those options, and esp. Slave sets for armor if you really want to go for EHP - nothing like that there for shield tanks!!). But I object to that stupid statement the Drake is OP. It may be in null sec, but its NOT in small scale/med scale PvP like you will find in lowsec.
I have yet to find someone here to claim the Drake is OP in lowsec, and bring solid facts for that statement.
|
Dani Lizardov
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 09:19:00 -
[3054] - Quote
Short Range : Heavy Assault Missile Luncher II - PG: 126 CPU: 50 Heavy Pulse Laser II - PG: 231 CPU: 35 425mm Auto Cannon II - PG: 154 CPU: 25 Heavy Neutron Blaster II - PG: 187 CPU: 33
Long Range: Heavy Missile Luncher II - PG: 105 CPU: 55 Heavy Beam Laser II - PG: 275 CPU: 37 720 mm II - PG: 275 CPU: 32 250 mm Rail Gun II - PG: 208 CPU: 42
So lets compare Long Range vs Short Range.
CCP here is a question: Why the Short Range Medium Missile Platform is the only one in the game, that has more fiting reqiermets, then the Long Range one?
Scourge Assault Missile I Ex.V : 101 m/s Ex.R: 125 m Scourge Heavy Missile I Ex.V: 81 m/s Ex. R: 125m
So CCP... Why the Sort Range Medium Missile is wors at hitting smaller targets then the Long range one? For all the turrests, we have better tracking for the short range wepons!
I find that the argument that HM made other missiles unusable, to be invalide. CCP you made the other Missile types unusable.... And to anwser the question, why People compare Short range turrents with the HM platform, that suppose to be Long range. Well Read above!
I support the Nerf on HM, but I also want Buff on the HAMs. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 09:38:00 -
[3055] - Quote
Fozzie, quoting you here.
CCP Fozzie wrote: I'm going to cover a few of the themes I'm seeing in the feedback so far in a Q&A format. I don't have any adjustments to the proposal to announce at this time, but there are a few tweaks I'm mulling over at the moment.
[list]
The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
HMLs are compared to short range turrets mainly because HAMs suck in damage projection. And yes, HML deal solid DPS, but if actual fittings of ships for gangs in low sec (example) are compared, a HML Drake will not deal more DPS than the counterparts on *every* range. There will be ranges where the Drake is in front, and others where the other ships are in front, and after max range (which is in reality much shorter than on paper) there is no damage at all for a Drake.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.
Its just wrong what you say here :) there are no other HML ships of importance atm, just because HML are not overpowered in itself, the problem is null sec blob mechanics. If HMLs would be overpowered, they would be used by other ships too in real combat, but they are not. Unlike Autocannons, which are fitted on ships with no bonus for them or even on ships with a bonus for other weapons! And the main reason for those many Drakes is not that they are OP - its there is no tech 1 alternative for Caldari missile users! Fix the Raven, and we gladly fly BS instead. But right now the Raven just sucks for PvP, so no other choice for missile users in Caldari ships, than fly the Drake. Btw, the NH needs to be adressed too - its not on par with a Sleipnir or Absolution. Why do you first plan to nerf one of its 2 weapon systems, and the only one which can actually be fitted due to stupid tight grid on NH - nerf the NH even more, then buff a bit so its as bad as it was before and claim you "done something"?
How about fixing an entire race first (I know, Gallente need also some help ...), and *then* nerf the things which would still seem to be OP?
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps?The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
Missiles already HAVE a tracking mechanic. And viable fittings so far had no room for TCs/TEs, unlike their turret cousins. So how is it balanced to just give a potential weakpoint of turrets to missile-users without giving also benefits like instant damage, falloff and wrecking hits?
And as a last question to you Fozzie, in which environment do you consider the Drake to be overpowered? Which conditions, null sec fights or small scale, 1on1 or what exactly? From my experience I can assure you there are many Myrm pilots, Brutix pilots, Harbinger pilots and ofc also Cane pilots who 1on1d vs Drakes and won. And a fair number too who lost. Same in small gangs. Consensus is that BC class is pretty balanced as it is, in small and medium scale. So, when you nerf the Drake, this will obviously no longer be true, right?
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
198
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 09:53:00 -
[3056] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Sigras wrote:I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.
As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine. By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship. And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't.
Lol no, only in optimal, you do 50% at optimal+ falloff.
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
371
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 10:06:00 -
[3057] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Sigras wrote:I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.
As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine. By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship. And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't. Lol no, only in optimal, you do 50% at optimal+ falloff.
38%-ish isn't it? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
199
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 10:18:00 -
[3058] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Onictus wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Sigras wrote:I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.
As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine. By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship. And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't. Lol no, only in optimal, you do 50% at optimal+ falloff. 38%-ish isn't it?
Varies with Sig differences last I looked, BS turret vs a 300m Sig certainly. 50% is everything that can go right being right. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 10:27:00 -
[3059] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Just stop nerfing and make people learn to be clever. EVE is unforgiving, nerfing everything because people complain is just BS and that's the truth. NOTHING needs nerfed, nothing. Just buff the faction frigs a little so Assault Frigates don't rock them so easily and "tweak" the ASBs and let EVE be EVE. Some new ship types and classses be sweet though. You all can same they need nerfed or whatever but that is BS and that's just life. but keep complaining till everything is the same and EVE looses the factor that not ALL ships are the same and it becomes like every other MMO. That would be a sad sad day. LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE!!!
This is so stupid it actually hurts my head. Have you heard of "power creep"? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 10:35:00 -
[3060] - Quote
Something I found a few pages before.. and which shows perfectly what I meant with this "look at this stats, its so broken!!" ...
Eli Green wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
The range for HMLs is wrong here, thats just the theoretical range which is never reached in game, for sure not vs a moving target. As you can see HML deal more damage at their maximum range, and beyond they deal 0 (unlike other platforms) - a fact which is not standing in this posting. Interesting would be to also use other Ammotypes (RF EMP/PP/Fusion for Arti and so on) for the turrets to for closer range, to see how *much* the turrets outperform HML there. And like he said, its not taking into account the bonuses of ships, and the rest of all fittings. Thats how you create statistics - pick something which seems to proove your theory and ignore the rest ...
|
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 10:41:00 -
[3061] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Fozzie, quoting you here.
HMLs are compared to short range turrets mainly because HAMs suck in damage projection. And yes, HML deal solid DPS, but if actual fittings of ships for gangs in low sec (example) are compared, a HML Drake will not deal more DPS than the counterparts on *every* range. There will be ranges where the Drake is in front, and others where the other ships are in front, and after max range (which is in reality much shorter than on paper) there is no damage at all for a Drake.
This is no longer correct post changes - The introduction of TEs and TCs for missles means HAMs will project damage much more effectively (in fact, my prediction is they will be heavily OP as they will project to longpoint range and hit HACs for full dmg with a single TE).
HMLs should only be compared to other long range medium weapons, ie its counterparts. Primary balancing should then consider how they perform in the situation for which they are designed, e.g. long range. comparing long range weapons at short range is extemely disingenuous.
Quote: Its just wrong what you say here :) there are no other HML ships of importance atm, just because HML are not overpowered in itself, the problem is null sec blob mechanics. If HMLs would be overpowered, they would be used by other ships too in real combat, but they are not. Unlike Autocannons, which are fitted on ships with no bonus for them or even on ships with a bonus for other weapons! And the main reason for those many Drakes is not that they are OP - its there is no tech 1 alternative for Caldari missile users! Fix the Raven, and we gladly fly BS instead. But right now the Raven just sucks for PvP, so no other choice for missile users in Caldari ships, than fly the Drake. Btw, the NH needs to be adressed too - its not on par with a Sleipnir or Absolution. Why do you first plan to nerf one of its 2 weapon systems, and the only one which can actually be fitted due to stupid tight grid on NH - nerf the NH even more, then buff a bit so its as bad as it was before and claim you "done something"?
This is incorrect. HMLs are overpowered in both range and damage - this is proveable from the DPS numbers (unbonused HMLs are ~30% greater DPS and ~50% greater range than any long range turret, and the situation looks even worse when factoring in ship bonuses and actual setups).
The reason they are not used by "other ships" is that there are no other good ships that can fit HMLs. The "other ships" that -could- fit HMLs dont get used at all, because the actual hulls are bad. Case in point Cerb, Nighthawk etc. Fozzie has already said these ships will be rebalanced next, so there is no problem there. Almost noone currently flies the Nighthawk or Cerb - that the HML changes makes them even worse is fairly irrelevant.
The "no alternative" line is also false. There are no real t1 alternatives to a Myrm for drone carriers, so why are there less than 1/6 of the number of Myrms used than Drakes?
Quote: How about fixing an entire race first (I know, Gallente need also some help ...), and *then* nerf the things which would still seem to be OP?
No. Currently the entire game revolves around Tengus and Drakes. This is one of the most important balance issues to fix.
Quote:
Missiles already HAVE a tracking mechanic. And viable fittings so far had no room for TCs/TEs, unlike their turret cousins. So how is it balanced to just give a potential weakpoint of turrets to missile-users without giving also benefits like instant damage, falloff and wrecking hits?
This is again, nonsense. You just refuse to adapt. We have dozens of pretty amazing TE/TC fits planned internally already (including HAMdrake TE fits we are pretty sure will be the next FOTM because they are so damn good). TEs are pretty easy to fit. Missles have many of their own advantages that turrets do not have. The most significant two (which entirely counteract the points you raise) are - you can't get "under" missles as there is no minimum effective range (unlike turrets) AND missles have complete damage type selection (NOTE: all the balance changes to ships with kinetic bonuses so far have changed these to all damage type bonuses - it stands to reason this will also be done to the drake etc) . Not to mention advantages like no cap use, etc.
Quote: And as a last question to you Fozzie, in which environment do you consider the Drake to be overpowered? Which conditions, null sec fights or small scale, 1on1 or what exactly? From my experience I can assure you there are many Myrm pilots, Brutix pilots, Harbinger pilots and ofc also Cane pilots who 1on1d vs Drakes and won. And a fair number too who lost. Same in small gangs. Consensus is that BC class is pretty balanced as it is, in small and medium scale. So, when you nerf the Drake, this will obviously no longer be true, right?
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
199
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 10:43:00 -
[3062] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Something I found a few pages before.. and which shows perfectly what I meant with this "look at this stats, its so broken!!" ... Eli Green wrote:baltec1 wrote:Aliventi wrote:
For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 23 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3
This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems. do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though? The range for HMLs is wrong here, thats just the theoretical range which is never reached in game, for sure not vs a moving target. As you can see HML deal more damage at their maximum range, and beyond they deal 0 (unlike other platforms) - a fact which is not standing in this posting. There is nothing about sigsize/speed interaction with applied HML damage, still its in game .. wrecking hits are ignored too. Interesting would be to also use other Ammotypes (RF EMP/PP/Fusion for Arti and so on) for the turrets to for closer range, to see how *much* the turrets outperform HML there. And like he said, its not taking into account the bonuses of ships, and the rest of all fittings. Thats how you create statistics - pick something which seems to proove your theory and ignore the rest ... *sigh*
And turrets never miss, or fight in fallofff.
Oh and those T2 ammos listed all cone with a tracking penalty.
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 10:56:00 -
[3063] - Quote
People only tend to rail against the numbers when they have no real argument except "DONT NERF MY BACKYARD!" |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:05:00 -
[3064] - Quote
Lallante wrote: Drake is overpowered as a PvE ship, and both in large and small scale PvP. Bascially all conditions other than 1v1. Drakes can sit at long range and do close range damage, while mounting a full tank.
If BCs were balanced you wouldnt see approximately 6 times more drakes flown than Harbs
Just picking one aspect here, because I lack a bit the time to answer them all - how many more Drakes are there than Canes in your book? I agreed already on the Harbinger not being exactly on par with Drake and Cane, but there is no need to nerf the Drake to get the Harbinger in line.
Drake is OP as PvE ship, yes, and maybe there are nul sec things where it is OP at. But in small scale its for sure not, and I still demand solid proof for this utter BS argument - there would be MUCH more Drakes in lowsec if it was OP, and there are not. Btw, a weakness of the Harbinger is its EM-damage dealing, and now think of which races tech 2 hulls have awesome EM-resis ... then you see what is *really* OP in EVE!
|
Yuna Yee
The Volition Project
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:10:00 -
[3065] - Quote
- |
Yuna Yee
The Volition Project
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:11:00 -
[3066] - Quote
not that a post on the forum would make an actualy change or even be read by ccp but hey at least i can get my 5 cents off:
its always the same:
You look for a powerful ship, a niche that makes good isk and train for it, invest your time and skillpoints in it to be able to fly the ship or do the job and what happens is:
every time you trained for that stuff and find it cool and rewarding its gets nerfed!
be it incursions, the dramiel, the tengu - you name it
Its makes you tired and wondering whats next (factional warfare maybe) - you look for the next niche and hope ccp takes long enough to nerf it for it to be at least fun for a while .. well then
I must say I enjoyed flying incursions, i loved the dramiel and my tengu as well ...
I just wonder why all this nerfing is necessary - who cares if a ship or profession is somewhat better than another one - everyone is free to choose those so why this endless try to make everything average ??? |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:16:00 -
[3067] - Quote
Yuna Yee wrote:not that a post on the forum would make an actualy change or even be read by ccp but hey at least i can get my 5 cents off:
its always the same:
You look for a powerful ship, a niche that makes good isk and train for it, invest your time and skillpoints in it to be able to fly the ship or do the job and what happens is:
every time you trained for that stuff and find it cool and rewarding its gets nerfed!
be it incursions, the dramiel, the tengu - you name it
Its makes you tired and wondering whats next (factional warfare maybe) - you look for the next niche and hope ccp takes long enough to nerf it for it to be at least fun for a while .. well then
I must say I enjoyed flying incursions, i loved the dramiel and my tengu as well ...
I just wonder why all this nerfing is necessary - who cares if a ship or profession is somewhat better than another one - everyone is free to choose those so why this endless try to make everything average ???
Because having to choose between either flying a dramiel or losing to dramiels every single time gets pretty damn dull. the issue here isn't things which are a bit better than other things, its things which are better than ALL the things ^_^ Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Zindale
M S Not at WAR
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:24:00 -
[3068] - Quote
In my honest opinion what this nerf will result in is instead of only two teir2 BC's being viable ship for PVP you will end up with ALL 4 teir2 BC's stored in stations and ignored by the null sec alliances, and CCP will end up having to 're-balance' them again as they are doing with cruisers cause no-one will use them.
It's not just this change but every change CCP seem to do reduces and so called overpowered ship to an obsolete ship.
Now i am not saying that HM did not need something doing to them, but to nerf HM's and the main ship that uses them at the same time is reactionary at best and just plain stupid at worse.
Now this may work but it is a big gamble on CCP part when the simplest thing to do, if they wanted 'balance' in teir 2 BC's would of been to change the the harbie and the myrm in some way to make them more viable. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:32:00 -
[3069] - Quote
Lallante wrote:(in fact, my prediction is they will be heavily OP as they will project to longpoint range and hit HACs for full dmg with a single TE). Once again you don't know numbers. Sigle TE may give 5% of range, it's CCP after all. They don't want to give us numbers nut you already make claims just like you know them. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:42:00 -
[3070] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote: Drake is overpowered as a PvE ship, and both in large and small scale PvP. Bascially all conditions other than 1v1. Drakes can sit at long range and do close range damage, while mounting a full tank.
If BCs were balanced you wouldnt see approximately 6 times more drakes flown than Harbs
Just picking one aspect here, because I lack a bit the time to answer them all - how many more Drakes are there than Canes in your book? I agreed already on the Harbinger not being exactly on par with Drake and Cane, but there is no need to nerf the Drake to get the Harbinger completely in line. Its not so weak ppl say it sucks, its just maybe a bit weaker than the two others mentioned. And Amarr have many viable other ships, speaking of excellent BS-hulls ... so why do Caldari chose the Drake again? There is no missile BS which works!
Canes are being nerfed too (PG nerf), didn't you hear?
The Harb is a great ship. The problem is not the harb its that the drake is overpowered in combination with very overpowered HMLs and the Hurricane is far too easy to fit a full rack of 425s, a tank AND 2 neuts.
Ravens need a look, no doubt, but balancing hasnt got to them yet. I'm -absolutely certain- the Raven will be changed early next year. You cant make an argument against balancing one ship just because another, yet to be looked at, is also unbalanced.
Quote: Drake is a bit OP as a PvE ship, yes, and maybe there are nul sec things where it is OP at. But in small scale its for sure not, and I still demand solid proof for this utter BS argument - there would be MUCH more Drakes in lowsec if it was OP, and there are not. Btw, a weakness of the Harbinger is its EM-damage dealing, and now think of which races tech 2 hulls have awesome EM-resis ... then you see what is *really* OP in EVE!
Extensive statistics have been already posted in this thread. A drake has better tank and more DPS at longer range than anything else its size. In a small gang a drake can sit at 50km+, out of the range of most other small gang-fit ships and just hurl high dps into the fight with little risk in conjunction with some close range tackle ships or a bubble. In addition it has a huge tank without sacrificing DPS.
The only reason there are less drakes in low sec (though there are still LOADS) is that they sit at range, and therefore need tackle support, and bubbles dont work in lowsec and small tackle ships tend to get popped by sentry guns.
As I mentioned, the Cane is also overpowered. I dont think the PG nerf goes far enough but lets wait and see what happens at the BC rebalance next year. |
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:46:00 -
[3071] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Lallante wrote:(in fact, my prediction is they will be heavily OP as they will project to longpoint range and hit HACs for full dmg with a single TE). Once again you don't know numbers. Sigle TE may give 5% of range, it's CCP after all. They don't want to give us numbers but you already make claims just like you know them. Most missile ships don't have free PG and slots to fits HAMLs with TE/TC and not gimping some stats. Lallante wrote: The "no alternative" line is also false. There are no real t1 alternatives to a Myrm for drone carriers, so why are there less than 1/6 of the number of Myrms used than Drakes?
Ignorance. T1 alternatives for drone carriers are Vexor (which is much better than caracal) and Dominix (which is good and used pretty often). It's just the fact that drone boats don't work for 0.0 fleets.
Even if it's true, it doesn't address the fact that everyone and their shuttle will be packing TDs |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:46:00 -
[3072] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Lallante wrote:(in fact, my prediction is they will be heavily OP as they will project to longpoint range and hit HACs for full dmg with a single TE). Once again you don't know numbers. Sigle TE may give 5% of range, it's CCP after all. They don't want to give us numbers but you already make claims just like you know them. Most missile ships don't have free PG and slots to fits HAMLs with TE/TC and not gimping some stats.
I'm making an educated guess that it will be 10 or more. 5% would be pointless and would never be fit. As I said I have Drake HAM setups that work fine, and likewise for the new caracal. Tengu HAML fits already are popular. What ships dont have PG for HAMLs? Please tell me you arent referencing ships that have yet to be balanced (and that noone flies at present).
Quote:Lallante wrote: The "no alternative" line is also false. There are no real t1 alternatives to a Myrm for drone carriers, so why are there less than 1/6 of the number of Myrms used than Drakes?
Ignorance. T1 alternatives for drone carriers are Vexor (which is much better than caracal) and Dominix (which is good and used pretty often). It's just the fact that drone boats don't work for 0.0 fleets.
By the same token (and used just as much), I note Caracal and Typhoon.
The reason Drakes and Tengus "work" for 0.0 fleets is that they are overpowered - they can fit tank and gank AND range all at the same time with no compromises. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:49:00 -
[3073] - Quote
Yuna Yee wrote:not that a post on the forum would make an actualy change or even be read by ccp but hey at least i can get my 5 cents off:
its always the same:
You look for a powerful ship, a niche that makes good isk and train for it, invest your time and skillpoints in it to be able to fly the ship or do the job and what happens is:
every time you trained for that stuff and find it cool and rewarding its gets nerfed!
be it incursions, the dramiel, the tengu - you name it
Its makes you tired and wondering whats next (factional warfare maybe) - you look for the next niche and hope ccp takes long enough to nerf it for it to be at least fun for a while .. well then
I must say I enjoyed flying incursions, i loved the dramiel and my tengu as well ...
I just wonder why all this nerfing is necessary - who cares if a ship or profession is somewhat better than another one - everyone is free to choose those so why this endless try to make everything average ???
Maybe you should aim for something that isnt completely overpowered so it wont get nerfed?
This "NEVER NERF ANYTHING" attitude is so childish and pathetic.
A good game needs balance. If you dont agree with this please **** off.
|
Drew Li
Space Exploitation Inc Get Off My Lawn
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 11:56:00 -
[3074] - Quote
If the missile boats gain an additional low slot I think this nerf makes a lot of sense. You can choose between roughly the same DPS or same range and ability to hit faster/smaller targets. HAMs were useless because there were no effective ways to increase their range. If you didn't need to load up on reactor controls to fit them and instead add a TE for added range and more explosion velocity/radius they would be really powerful. The only way to get the added range now is to change rigs or ships which generally compromises your tank significantly.
This also brings up torpedoes and how effective they might be. A bomber with a TE and TCs would probably put out a ton of damage on most targets. It might actually make a raven usable as well. Now if only the rats couldn't outrun my citadel torpedoes. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
29
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 12:06:00 -
[3075] - Quote
It's funny seeing people comparing hml dps to long range turrets with t2 sniper ammo. That isn't proper ammo. Do you drake noobs even know what tracking is? You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages. |
Frac Tal
FOXH0UND Outer Heaven
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 12:10:00 -
[3076] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Yuna Yee wrote:not that a post on the forum would make an actualy change or even be read by ccp but hey at least i can get my 5 cents off:
its always the same:
You look for a powerful ship, a niche that makes good isk and train for it, invest your time and skillpoints in it to be able to fly the ship or do the job and what happens is:
every time you trained for that stuff and find it cool and rewarding its gets nerfed!
be it incursions, the dramiel, the tengu - you name it
Its makes you tired and wondering whats next (factional warfare maybe) - you look for the next niche and hope ccp takes long enough to nerf it for it to be at least fun for a while .. well then
I must say I enjoyed flying incursions, i loved the dramiel and my tengu as well ...
I just wonder why all this nerfing is necessary - who cares if a ship or profession is somewhat better than another one - everyone is free to choose those so why this endless try to make everything average ??? If you dont agree with this please **** off. I wonder how many that would apply to in this thread???
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 12:41:00 -
[3077] - Quote
Lallante wrote: By the same token (and used just as much), I note Caracal and Typhoon.
No you can't. Caracal is terrible and used much less than Vexor. Typhoon is not a Caldari ship so there are still no alternatives to Drake in terms of T1 Caldari missile ships above frigs for PvP. Though I've never seen Typhoon in active PvP (unlike Dominix) and in PvE (unlike Dominix). And typhoon are usually Smartbomb/Neut/RR. If you want to add another empires there are also Arbitrator for drone/armor users. Just because you see Caracals in RvB they won't become close to Vexor in usefullness. |
Rel'k Bloodlor
Mecha Enterprises Fleet Villore Accords
198
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 12:45:00 -
[3078] - Quote
Well I think the nerf to HML damage is to high, because it then leaves the other med weapons in line with it one the're for the most part bad. HML down 10% and rails, arty, and beams up 10% would be better. And well your at it have a look at hams I like them but it already takes a scram and two webs to make them work (this being the other thing that makes as is HML the favored) I would like to use them more but most ships don't have enuff slots to make them work(well and have any tank at all)
As for TD's it will have to be 2 mods or it will be busted, like if ECM was just a script for type weapon busted. Come on it's only fair, ECM is typed, warp disruption is typed, cap war is typed, the only ones that are not are TP's and webb's the the two that stack on each other to nerf defense. I am in Factional Warfare. Have been from day one.-á-áI will never work for a mega corp in null-sec. Do not make FW like null-sec. Were is the FW exclusive frigate sized ship? I see the cruiser and battle ship.......... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 12:53:00 -
[3079] - Quote
Please, read the thread, all the things have been debated two or three times already. Fozzy himself answered most of these questions. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 12:58:00 -
[3080] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Lallante wrote: By the same token (and used just as much), I note Caracal and Typhoon.
No you can't. Caracal is terrible and used much less than Vexor. Typhoon is not a Caldari ship so there are still no alternatives to Drake in terms of T1 Caldari missile ships above frigs for PvP. Though I've never seen Typhoon in active PvP (unlike Dominix) and in PvE (unlike Dominix). And typhoon are usually Smartbomb/Neut/RR. If you want to add another empires there are also Arbitrator for drone/armor users. Just because you see Caracals in RvB they won't become close to Vexor in usefullness. This is just your opinion. Caracals are statistically one of the most flown t1 cruisers, behind only Rupture and BB.
When you get to the point of "there are no good t1, non-frig, non-capital, missle ships, that are caldari, other than a drake" you are talking so incredibly specialised set of limits that your comments loses all force.
There are also no t1 amarr tracking disruptor non-frig platforms other than an Arbitrator. So what? |
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
79
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 13:04:00 -
[3081] - Quote
Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Well I think the nerf to HML damage is to high, because it then leaves the other med weapons in line with it one the're for the most part bad. HML down 10% and rails, arty, and beams up 10% would be better. This is a good point. Lets see what the changes to the various rail/arty/beam platforms do and then consider raising all med long range weapons across the board however. Its not obvious that a drake with 20% less dps will be a bad ship, especially if it uses tracking enhancers to get range back and hit smaller ships harder.
Quote: And well your at it have a look at hams I like them but it already takes a scram and two webs to make them work (this being the other thing that makes as is HML the favored) I would like to use them more but most ships don't have enuff slots to make them work(well and have any tank at all)
Same answer - Tracking Enhancers will be a MASSIVE HAM boost. Lets see how big before we call for more boost. There is a reasonable argument for a reduction in HAM powergrid however.
Quote: As for TD's it will have to be 2 mods or it will be busted, like if ECM was just a script for type weapon busted. Come on it's only fair, ECM is typed, warp disruption is typed, cap war is typed, the only ones that are not are TP's and webb's the the two that stack on each other to nerf defense.
Possibly a reasonable argument, but only if the specialised TD platforms get an extra midslot because at the moment its hard to fit more than 1 TD, let alone also another mod.
|
Luscius Uta
Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 13:19:00 -
[3082] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
To be honest two of those or not that important. Thier great fall off comes at the expense of great optimal. The damage type thing is a red herring, its far less useful than missile damage as its not pure (you are always doing some dps in the wrong damage type) and limited by range. T2 close range and long range only do exp/kin, medium range/high trackng has no em. Sure will never get caught out with totally the wrong damage types like amarr, but its not great.
Consuming no cap is an advantage, but one shared with all missiles.
So really its the fitting and the thing you didn't mention - the tracking, which seems excessively good at times.
You're missing my point by comparing ACs with missiles which will be nerfed soon, and forgetting about hybrids and lasers, which both consume cap and are restricted to two damage types. If Autocannons (who are already prevalent in most PvP engagaments) will still have the upper hand compared to those two, then the missile nerf will turn Drakes Online into Autocannons Online .
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
123
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 13:31:00 -
[3083] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Rel'k Bloodlor wrote:Well I think the nerf to HML damage is to high, because it then leaves the other med weapons in line with it one the're for the most part bad. HML down 10% and rails, arty, and beams up 10% would be better. This is a good point. Lets see what the changes to the various rail/arty/beam platforms do and then consider raising all med long range weapons across the board however. Its not obvious that a drake with 20% less dps will be a bad ship, especially if it uses tracking enhancers to get range back and hit smaller ships harder. Quote: And well your at it have a look at hams I like them but it already takes a scram and two webs to make them work (this being the other thing that makes as is HML the favored) I would like to use them more but most ships don't have enuff slots to make them work(well and have any tank at all)
Same answer - Tracking Enhancers will be a MASSIVE HAM boost. Lets see how big before we call for more boost. There is a reasonable argument for a reduction in HAM powergrid however. Quote: As for TD's it will have to be 2 mods or it will be busted, like if ECM was just a script for type weapon busted. Come on it's only fair, ECM is typed, warp disruption is typed, cap war is typed, the only ones that are not are TP's and webb's the the two that stack on each other to nerf defense.
Possibly a reasonable argument, but only if the specialised TD platforms get an extra midslot because at the moment its hard to fit more than 1 TD, let alone also another mod.
In my opinion adding an extra mid is a bad idea. As this would make the Curse or Pilgram a nasty shield tanked ship. I would be more in favor of moving ECM, TD, SD and TP to High slots. But I am not sure this would work either. |
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 13:35:00 -
[3084] - Quote
Two remarks directly related to the OP:
- I dislike the changes to missiles and to TD/TC/TE. I feel it does make all weapon systems the same.
As an avid TD user now already, I feel it will make the module an absolute must even more so than it is already. It is good that right now a frig with TD is useless against a missile boat, however uncomfortable it may be to have to reship. This is what encourages people to fly different hulls.
- The reduction of PG requirements of medium artillery is not a bad change. I can see how in the future that will make minmatar ships easier to balance. Also the PG nerf for the hurricane in response is ok, although I believe tier 2 BC need to be rebalanced differently (see below also).
Instead of focusing on (heavy) missiles, I would focus on...
- Removing off-grid links as they exist now. How? (1) running gang links inside a POS = no longer possible (2) maximum amount of command processors fitted = 1. (3) virtually no command link cap use and heavily reduced cpu/grid requirements.
- Making actively tanked or lightly plated armor ships faster. (Get rid of the speed penalty, maybe add a shield HP penalty if you absolutely must have a penalty.)
- Reducing Tier2 battlecruiser effectiveness against frigates (less utility highs, less drones).
I believe these relatively simple changes will make the eve battlefield more diverse instead of different hulls just doing the same. Iteration of course remains necessary. |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 13:36:00 -
[3085] - Quote
Drew Li wrote:If the missile boats gain an additional low slot I think this nerf makes a lot of sense. You can choose between roughly the same DPS or same range and ability to hit faster/smaller targets. HAMs were useless because there were no effective ways to increase their range. If you didn't need to load up on reactor controls to fit them and instead add a TE for added range and more explosion velocity/radius they would be really powerful. The only way to get the added range now is to change rigs or ships which generally compromises your tank significantly.
This also brings up torpedoes and how effective they might be. A bomber with a TE and TCs would probably put out a ton of damage on most targets. It might actually make a raven usable as well. Now if only the rats couldn't outrun my citadel torpedoes.
I wholeheartedly agree with this if you do go ahead and nerf HMLs this severely a low slot would give the ships some more options while not letting it have ALL the options at once which is, I believe the aim of the nerf.
Aslo please look at HAMs and Torps, making them guided would help as would having TE/TC work on them. It would give the Golem some needed love too..
see this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=65340
As is HAMs and Torps with out using a lot of tp (3 in the case of Torps) can't hit the same sized class of ship for full damage but do ok hitting one class bigger. A problem in pvp but not so bad. As for pve (the main role of a golem) there is no class bigger.
For clarification im asking for better Torps and HAMs not npc capital ships. though that would be cool maybe in another expansion eh?
|
Thaddeus Eggeras
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 14:19:00 -
[3086] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Yuna Yee wrote:not that a post on the forum would make an actualy change or even be read by ccp but hey at least i can get my 5 cents off:
its always the same:
You look for a powerful ship, a niche that makes good isk and train for it, invest your time and skillpoints in it to be able to fly the ship or do the job and what happens is:
every time you trained for that stuff and find it cool and rewarding its gets nerfed!
be it incursions, the dramiel, the tengu - you name it
Its makes you tired and wondering whats next (factional warfare maybe) - you look for the next niche and hope ccp takes long enough to nerf it for it to be at least fun for a while .. well then
I must say I enjoyed flying incursions, i loved the dramiel and my tengu as well ...
I just wonder why all this nerfing is necessary - who cares if a ship or profession is somewhat better than another one - everyone is free to choose those so why this endless try to make everything average ??? Maybe you should aim for something that isnt completely overpowered so it wont get nerfed? This "NEVER NERF ANYTHING" attitude is so childish and pathetic. A good game needs balance. If you dont agree with this please **** off.
This nerf thing is childish and pathetic, the game is balanced. you just need to know how to play and what to fly against what. Nothing in EVE needs nerfed anymore. And all you whiner and complains need to learn how to do better intel in PvP and learn how to fight what ship with what ship and you wouldn't complian and think everything needs nerfed. nothing in EVE needs a nerf, NO ship is just unbeatable in EVE. Drakes get taken out easy by all types of BCs. grow up and just enjoy a game unlike all the others and stop trying to make it like other MMOs, it's getting sad at this point. Leave it be and bring in new ship types like CCP use to. Enjoy turning EVE into every other game out there |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
376
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 14:38:00 -
[3087] - Quote
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Enjoy turning EVE into every other game out there
Not to sound like a hipster but this is a major concern for me. The reason i play EVE is that frankly, all other MMOs feel the same. you played one, you played all (and i did play some). Now with the watering down of item names, homogenizing ship hulls, power creep and rash nerfs to FotM ship hulls and weapon systems, i feel dreadfully reminded of WoW...
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
99
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 14:59:00 -
[3088] - Quote
The hilarious nature of every post about why the damage nuke was needed is astounding.
Lets recap years of eve history for the devs/players:
Range projection counts as a damage modifier - it's true, just look at the Rokh / Apoc / ferox and every other non "damage" bonused ship in game. I gaurentee you can find hundreds if not thousands of thread explain just how range projection is the exact same thing as damage buffing.
Cut to more recent years:
Everyone agrees HMLs have way to much range, but nobody is concerned with their raw damage. Everyone ask that the DRAKE gets a tank reduction and shorter range with HMLs, and that the Tengu Bonuses get brought in line with any other t3 instead of obsurd 7.5% ROF bonus.... and then, hammer on T3's as a whole.
So the Devs give us range reduction... GREAT there goes the damage projection which balances out the disparities between turrets and HMLs. Turrets can now use closer range ammos to match HMLs and still get instant damage. HMLs will have slightly higher base damage tied to one and only one damage type, and lower damage on any other damage type of choice.
I think most players said 50-55 max range was fair, i'd go so far as to say 47.5km max range was better.
But then something silly happens, Fozzie says, oh no, range reduction isn't the old damage projection reduction we always said it was, so we need to nerf harder... A LOT harder. Ignore the fact that only 2 ships are out of whack. Ignore the fact that the drake steals any reason to use the ferox for resist tanking in game. Ignore the fact that the drake tank is the number one listed problem with the ship itself. Ignore the fact that the Drake is the only missile boat in that particular line that doesn't match the missile velocity bonus and replaces it with Resistance. Ignore the fact that resistance bonus is considered one of the most highly prized in game.
All you had to do was change the drake bonuses, nuke the missile range, and fix t3s as a whole, and so much work and grief can/could have been saved.
You guys continue to soil this game with stale balance proceedures that completely remove the identity it was built upon. Drones on every ship, screw gallente. Missiles on every race.... screw Caldari. EWAR so brokenly OP b/c the Caldari Jammers alone weren't supidly OP enough for 1 race... screw everybody. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:04:00 -
[3089] - Quote
Yuna Yee wrote:not that a post on the forum would make an actualy change or even be read by ccp but hey at least i can get my 5 cents off:
its always the same:
You look for a powerful ship, a niche that makes good isk and train for it, invest your time and skillpoints in it to be able to fly the ship or do the job and what happens is:
every time you trained for that stuff and find it cool and rewarding its gets nerfed!
be it incursions, the dramiel, the tengu - you name it
Its makes you tired and wondering whats next (factional warfare maybe) - you look for the next niche and hope ccp takes long enough to nerf it for it to be at least fun for a while .. well then
I must say I enjoyed flying incursions, i loved the dramiel and my tengu as well ...
I just wonder why all this nerfing is necessary - who cares if a ship or profession is somewhat better than another one - everyone is free to choose those so why this endless try to make everything average ??? So that people who don't know about the 2 ships that own eve get to have fun too after spending 20 mill SP in Gallente? |
Reticle
Sight Picture
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:54:00 -
[3090] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Please, read the thread, all the things have been debated two or three times already. Fozzy himself answered most of these questions. you must be joking. read 150+ pages looking for tiny nuggest of info? no thanks. |
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:54:00 -
[3091] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:Enjoy turning EVE into every other game out there Not to sound like a hipster but this is a major concern for me. The reason i play EVE is that frankly, all other MMOs feel the same. you played one, you played all (and i did play some). Now with the watering down of item names, homogenizing ship hulls, power creep and rash nerfs to FotM ship hulls and weapon systems, i feel dreadfully reminded of WoW...
So wait, you are complaining about both Power Creep, and Nerfs to OP hulls?
Make up your mind!
Having **** item names that even I, a 10yr+ player, sometimes struggle with (dont even get me started on old hardwiring names...), isnt a "feature" its a fuckup.
There have been people like you calling each and every change since release the end of the world. You have and always will be wrong. If you cant adapt or cant deal with having an overpowered setup changed then please go play a softcore MMO with all the other cry babies.
Balance is an ongoing process. Balancing should be done frequently. all the time. It keeps things interesting and rewards early adopters and strategic thinkers |
Reticle
Sight Picture
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:55:00 -
[3092] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:It's funny seeing people comparing hml dps to long range turrets with t2 sniper ammo. That isn't proper ammo. Do you drake noobs even know what tracking is? You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages. missiles can be destroyed. projectile ammo can't. deal with that first, then we can have this conversation |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 15:59:00 -
[3093] - Quote
Lallante wrote: When you get to the point of "there are no good t1, non-frig, non-capital, missle ships, that are caldari, other than a drake" you are talking so incredibly specialised set of limits that your comments loses all force.
There are also no t1 amarr tracking disruptor non-frig platforms other than an Arbitrator. So what?
Except that Arbitrator is tracking disruptors is specialized EWAR and missiles are supposed to be Caldari replacement for guns. How about viable T1 non-frig Winmatari Projectile ships? |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 16:10:00 -
[3094] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The hilarious nature of every post about why the damage nuke was needed is astounding.
Lets recap years of eve history for the devs/players:
Range projection counts as a damage modifier - it's true, just look at the Rokh / Apoc / ferox and every other non "damage" bonused ship in game. I gaurentee you can find hundreds if not thousands of thread explain just how range projection is the exact same thing as damage buffing.
Cut to more recent years:
Everyone agrees HMLs have way to much range, but nobody is concerned with their raw damage. Everyone ask that the DRAKE gets a tank reduction and shorter range with HMLs, and that the Tengu Bonuses get brought in line with any other t3 instead of obsurd 7.5% ROF bonus.... and then, hammer on T3's as a whole.
So the Devs give us range reduction... GREAT there goes the damage projection which balances out the disparities between turrets and HMLs. Turrets can now use closer range ammos to match HMLs and still get instant damage. HMLs will have slightly higher base damage tied to one and only one damage type, and lower damage on any other damage type of choice.
I think most players said 50-55 max range was fair, i'd go so far as to say 47.5km max range was better.
But then something silly happens, Fozzie says, oh no, range reduction isn't the old damage projection reduction we always said it was, so we need to nerf harder... A LOT harder. Ignore the fact that only 2 ships are out of whack. Ignore the fact that the drake steals any reason to use the ferox for resist tanking in game. Ignore the fact that the drake tank is the number one listed problem with the ship itself. Ignore the fact that the Drake is the only missile boat in that particular line that doesn't match the missile velocity bonus and replaces it with Resistance. Ignore the fact that resistance bonus is considered one of the most highly prized in game.
All you had to do was change the drake bonuses, nuke the missile range, and fix t3s as a whole, and so much work and grief can/could have been saved.
You guys continue to soil this game with stale balance proceedures that completely remove the identity it was built upon. Drones on every ship, screw gallente. Missiles on every race.... screw Caldari. EWAR so brokenly OP b/c the Caldari Jammers alone weren't supidly OP enough for 1 race... screw everybody.
Not empty quoting. I don't agree with all of your points but overall I think we agree on the problem. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
81
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 16:13:00 -
[3095] - Quote
Reticle wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:It's funny seeing people comparing hml dps to long range turrets with t2 sniper ammo. That isn't proper ammo. Do you drake noobs even know what tracking is? You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages. missiles can be destroyed. projectile ammo can't. deal with that first, then we can have this conversation
That has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
Yes missiles can be destroyed with a relatively ineffective smart bomb firewall that is a really gimpy way to use pilots...
Don't be so bad. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 16:21:00 -
[3096] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:The hilarious nature of every post about why the damage nuke was needed is astounding.
Lets recap years of eve history for the devs/players:
Range projection counts as a damage modifier - it's true, just look at the Rokh / Apoc / ferox and every other non "damage" bonused ship in game. I gaurentee you can find hundreds if not thousands of thread explain just how range projection is the exact same thing as damage buffing.
Cut to more recent years:
Everyone agrees HMLs have way to much range, but nobody is concerned with their raw damage. Everyone ask that the DRAKE gets a tank reduction and shorter range with HMLs, and that the Tengu Bonuses get brought in line with any other t3 instead of obsurd 7.5% ROF bonus.... and then, hammer on T3's as a whole.
So the Devs give us range reduction... GREAT there goes the damage projection which balances out the disparities between turrets and HMLs. Turrets can now use closer range ammos to match HMLs and still get instant damage. HMLs will have slightly higher base damage tied to one and only one damage type, and lower damage on any other damage type of choice.
I think most players said 50-55 max range was fair, i'd go so far as to say 47.5km max range was better.
But then something silly happens, Fozzie says, oh no, range reduction isn't the old damage projection reduction we always said it was, so we need to nerf harder... A LOT harder. Ignore the fact that only 2 ships are out of whack. Ignore the fact that the drake steals any reason to use the ferox for resist tanking in game. Ignore the fact that the drake tank is the number one listed problem with the ship itself. Ignore the fact that the Drake is the only missile boat in that particular line that doesn't match the missile velocity bonus and replaces it with Resistance. Ignore the fact that resistance bonus is considered one of the most highly prized in game.
All you had to do was change the drake bonuses, nuke the missile range, and fix t3s as a whole, and so much work and grief can/could have been saved.
You guys continue to soil this game with stale balance proceedures that completely remove the identity it was built upon. Drones on every ship, screw gallente. Missiles on every race.... screw Caldari. EWAR so brokenly OP b/c the Caldari Jammers alone weren't supidly OP enough for 1 race... screw everybody.
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 16:48:00 -
[3097] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Lallante wrote: When you get to the point of "there are no good t1, non-frig, non-capital, missle ships, that are caldari, other than a drake" you are talking so incredibly specialised set of limits that your comments loses all force.
There are also no t1 amarr tracking disruptor non-frig platforms other than an Arbitrator. So what?
Except that Arbitrator is tracking disruptors is specialized EWAR and missiles are supposed to be Caldari replacement for guns. How about viable T1 non-frig Winmatari Projectile ships?
There are 7 Non frig Winmatar projectile ships: Thrasher Stabber Rupture Cyclone Hurricane Tempest Mael
Of this list all ships are good.
Compared to 5 Non-frig Caldari missile platforms: Blackbird Caracal Drake Scorpion Raven
Of the latter list only the Raven is not viable for PVP (maybe the scorp a bit) and we know BSs are to receive rebalancing love next year and likely so is Ewar.
Its also wrong to comment on BCs and BSs before they have been balanced given that we know that is coming in the first half of next year. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 16:49:00 -
[3098] - Quote
Reticle wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:It's funny seeing people comparing hml dps to long range turrets with t2 sniper ammo. That isn't proper ammo. Do you drake noobs even know what tracking is? You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages. missiles can be destroyed. projectile ammo can't. deal with that first, then we can have this conversation
How often does that happen in practice? Defenders dont work, smartbombs are rare and take a LOT of luck or timing to even hit. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
99
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 16:54:00 -
[3099] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
The drake is not OP because of its resist bonus. Its op because it is cheap and has close range dps at very long range, and huge EHP. With 25% less EHP it is still the crowned king of fleet warfare. TEs will allow it to maintain its existing range for minimal tradeoffs.
I'm just going to start there:
Harbinger CR pulse damage with 2 HS 596 c / 426 s
Myrm counting it's drones as a primary damage and with blasters: 959 void / 798 null
Hurricane just with autos and 2 gyro: 689 h / 492 b
DRAKE WITH HML, SCOURGE FURY, AND 2 BALISTICS: 411 IN 1 FRICKING DAMAGE TYPE.
Not even close to the CR damage you claim... and by softening up it's projection range, the disparity on projection at range falls sharply. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 17:12:00 -
[3100] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:
I'm just going to start there:
Harbinger CR pulse damage with 2 HS 596 c / 426 s
Myrm counting it's drones as a primary damage and with blasters: 959 void / 798 null
Hurricane just with autos and 2 gyro: 689 h / 492 b
DRAKE WITH HML, SCOURGE FURY, AND 2 BALISTICS: 411 IN 1 FRICKING DAMAGE TYPE.
1. It wont be just one damage type post balancing - look at the caldari missle frigs/cruisers - they have had their kinetic bonus replaced.
2. You are including drones on the Myrm but not on the other ships?
3. You are missing the point that the short range turrets will rarely be in their optimal getting 100% damage (and the Myrm will almost never be). The HML is ALWAYS in its optimal and will usually get 100% damage against same sized or larger targets.
4. Even the numbers you posted are comparable (except your cheating myrm example). Harb 426, Can 492 and Drake 411! Good luck using close range ammo on your close range weapons in a BC...
Quote: Not even close to the CR damage you claim... and by softening up it's projection range, the disparity on projection at range falls sharply.
What? a 25% decrease in range means HMLs are still 2 to 4 times the range of the close range weapons, and it can recover MORE than that 25% due to the TE/TC changes.
Quote: Yes, the curse was in no way shape or form ever designed based on the principles of the old Gallente nos/neut boats. And Ishtars never fit their mids with Ewar. Albeit that you chose 2 completely different platforms, one attack based, one ewar based to show the only possible difference being damage projection and actual ewar amount.
[/quote] It was designed on those principles yes, BUT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO FLY. You can have two similar ships with many shared features that are still completely diverse. That's my whole point. Introducing drones to a previously bereft amarr cruiser wont suddenly make it fly like a vexor.
Show me two ships (post-balance changes) of different races that are so similar theres no point flying one of them! You can't. Your whole claim that they are "making everything the same" is bollocks. |
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
469
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 17:21:00 -
[3101] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:
I'm just going to start there:
Harbinger CR pulse damage with 2 HS 596 c / 426 s
Myrm counting it's drones as a primary damage and with blasters: 959 void / 798 null
Hurricane just with autos and 2 gyro: 689 h / 492 b
DRAKE WITH HML, SCOURGE FURY, AND 2 BALISTICS: 411 IN 1 FRICKING DAMAGE TYPE.
You're literally comparing apples with oranges, or rather close range turrets with long range missiles.
Try making the comparison with long range turrets. Then look at the hitpoints these ships can get when fit in this manner. You'll find that the Drake is massively advantaged at range and above average even at close range. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 17:37:00 -
[3102] - Quote
If I included drones, your argument would look even worse since the drake has the smallest bandwidth of all the Teir 2s. Your whole notion was CR damage at long range... and it's trash. There's innumerable factors that even go into making missiles decent, and making trash statements like that don't do the debate justice.
Do you even realize that between a range reduction, a tank reduction, and the need to use mids and/or train skills that apply to only 1 weapon system compared to 3 to get maximum range all affect how well the drake would perform vs other BC platforms and beyond.
People who are so anti missile always toss out bullshit arguments like skill training, yet they will never concede the fact that Once all the core gunnery skills are trained, they apply to 3 types of turret platforms, where as missile skills have no such effect. Sure it takes longer to train that first weapon system for gunnery... but after that, you got a fricking breeze training a new one.
They toss out bullshit arguments like cr damage at long range... yet everyone saying to nerf the ******* range and pull that balance back towards the center. They totally neglect that it's 1 fricking damage type to, and how drastically that can be exploited as a weakness by the other side by tanking choices.
Takeshi Yamato wrote:I'm Down wrote:
I'm just going to start there:
Harbinger CR pulse damage with 2 HS 596 c / 426 s
Myrm counting it's drones as a primary damage and with blasters: 959 void / 798 null
Hurricane just with autos and 2 gyro: 689 h / 492 b
DRAKE WITH HML, SCOURGE FURY, AND 2 BALISTICS: 411 IN 1 FRICKING DAMAGE TYPE.
You're literally comparing apples with oranges, or rather close range turrets with long range missiles. Try making the comparison with long range turrets. Then look at the hitpoints these ships can get when fit in this manner. You'll find that the Drake is massively advantaged at range and above average even at close range.
Did you literally skip over 99% of that thread... b/c you look like you missed most of the point there homes.... maybe go back and read it and make your 6 grade ELA teacher proud. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
82
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 17:41:00 -
[3103] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:If I included drones, your argument would look even worse since the drake has the smallest bandwidth of all the Teir 2s. Your whole notion was CR damage at long range... and it's trash. There's innumerable factors that even go into making missiles decent, and making trash statements like that don't do the debate justice. Do you even realize that between a range reduction, a tank reduction, and the need to use mids and/or train skills that apply to only 1 weapon system compared to 3 to get maximum range all affect how well the drake would perform vs other BC platforms and beyond. People who are so anti missile always toss out bullshit arguments like skill training, yet they will never concede the fact that Once all the core gunnery skills are trained, they apply to 3 types of turret platforms, where as missile skills have no such effect. Sure it takes longer to train that first weapon system for gunnery... but after that, you got a fricking breeze training a new one. They toss out bullshit arguments like cr damage at long range... yet everyone saying to nerf the ******* range and pull that balance back towards the center. They totally neglect that it's 1 fricking damage type to, and how drastically that can be exploited as a weakness by the other side by tanking choices. Takeshi Yamato wrote:I'm Down wrote:
I'm just going to start there:
Harbinger CR pulse damage with 2 HS 596 c / 426 s
Myrm counting it's drones as a primary damage and with blasters: 959 void / 798 null
Hurricane just with autos and 2 gyro: 689 h / 492 b
DRAKE WITH HML, SCOURGE FURY, AND 2 BALISTICS: 411 IN 1 FRICKING DAMAGE TYPE.
You're literally comparing apples with oranges, or rather close range turrets with long range missiles. Try making the comparison with long range turrets. Then look at the hitpoints these ships can get when fit in this manner. You'll find that the Drake is massively advantaged at range and above average even at close range. Did you literally skip over 99% of that thread... b/c you look like you missed most of the point there homes.... maybe go back and read it and make your 6 grade ELA teacher proud.
HML's are a long range weapon.. Stop comparing them to short range weapon and stop being so bad.
Compare them to arties/beams if you want a comparison (Also have fun fitting beams on a non gimpy ship)
|
Frac Tal
FOXH0UND Outer Heaven
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 17:59:00 -
[3104] - Quote
Lallante wrote: "diversity" is a small handfull of seriously overpowered ships
Nope, i think you will find "Diversity" is a British street dance troupe based in London, look it up on Wiki.
They can stand on each others shoulders takes some balancing to do that, they are awesome!!!
When I grow up I want to be in a dance troupe and have hair like side show Bob.
|
Kaikka Carel
White syndicate Wormhole Holders
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:01:00 -
[3105] - Quote
I don't agree with the fact that rockets, HAM and Torpedoes don't recieve the blast radius reduction bonus from the respective skills and riggs because it directly relates to their applie damage potential. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:01:00 -
[3106] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:If I included drones, your argument would look even worse since the drake has the smallest bandwidth of all the Teir 2s. Your whole notion was CR damage at long range... and it's trash. There's innumerable factors that even go into making missiles decent, and making trash statements like that don't do the debate justice.
Do you even realize that between a range reduction, a tank reduction, and the need to use mids and/or train skills that apply to only 1 weapon system compared to 3 to get maximum range all affect how well the drake would perform vs other BC platforms and beyond.
People who are so anti missile always toss out bullshit arguments like skill training, yet they will never concede the fact that Once all the core gunnery skills are trained, they apply to 3 types of turret platforms, where as missile skills have no such effect. Sure it takes longer to train that first weapon system for gunnery... but after that, you got a fricking breeze training a new one.
They toss out bullshit arguments like cr damage at long range... yet everyone saying to nerf the ******* range and pull that balance back towards the center. They totally neglect that it's 1 fricking damage type to, and how drastically that can be exploited as a weakness by the other side by tanking choices.
I dont hate missles in the slightest, they are one of my specialities. I fly a Tengu, and am hoping for viable Damnation and Sacrilege and a competative HAM Legion post-balancing. So I actually love medium missle platforms.
I'm not advocating a direct tank reduction for the drake. I'm advocating the planned range and dps nerf to HMLs combined with a switch to a all-dmg bonus in place of the kinetic one on the drake and a slight reduction in its fitting. "skills that only apply to one weapon system" is a bollocks arguement - to fly a Myrm you need to train two full weapon systems! Missile skills only apply to missiles, but to get fairly maxed out missile skills is around 1/3 of the SP of maxed out gunnery so its completely balanced.
It IS close range damage at long range. You showed that yourself with the numbers. At long point range the numbers are all pretty close and that ASSUMES that the guns are able to apply 100% dmg which is a big assumption even for a same-sized platform.
The long range turret DPS is laughable at long range (where it is actually used) in comparison. HMLs are similar to the close range turrets using long range ammo, but 2-4x the range.
The numbers dont lie, HMLs themselves are 20-30% more DPS than any long range turret at range.
Saying "everyone agrees" when actually the majority of people posting in this thread coherently at least disagree is just lol.
Stop saying its one dmg type. It wont be. Look at the changes made so far - every Kinetic only bonus has been changed to all damage types.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:03:00 -
[3107] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
HML's are a long range weapon.. Stop comparing them to short range weapon and stop being so bad.
Compare them to arties/beams if you want a comparison (Also have fun fitting beams on a non gimpy ship)
I'll use small words
I was responding to Lallente who claims they do CR weapon damage. Read and get your facts straight. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:03:00 -
[3108] - Quote
Kaikka Carel wrote:I don't agree with the fact that rockets, HAM and Torpedoes don't recieve the blast radius reduction bonus from the respective skills and riggs because it directly relates to their applie damage potential.
I agree but would urge caution if they get to apply once TE/TCs are in - could make them OP against small targets pretty fast. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:04:00 -
[3109] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
HML's are a long range weapon.. Stop comparing them to short range weapon and stop being so bad.
Compare them to arties/beams if you want a comparison (Also have fun fitting beams on a non gimpy ship)
I'll use small words I was responding to Lallente who claims they do CR weapon damage. Read and get your facts straight.
Yes and you proved me right. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:17:00 -
[3110] - Quote
Lallante wrote:[No. Currently the entire game revolves around Tengus and Drakes. This is one of the most important balance issues to fix.
Oh please. It's hard to take anything else you say seriously when you post grossly inaccurate generalizations like this.
Even worse is if you actually belief it. I went on a roam last night and saw ONE drake the entire time in low sec. And not a single Tengu. Saw TONS of other ships, including Lokis. |
|
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
55
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:21:00 -
[3111] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages.
Do you know what explosion velocity is? Or explosion radius?
Looking forward to more of your posts. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:29:00 -
[3112] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages. Do you know what explosion velocity is? Or explosion radius? Looking forward to more of your posts.
You loose 9 DPS against a mwd hurricane, whaaaaaaaa.
I linked the calculator about 100 pages back. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1555
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:30:00 -
[3113] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Reticle wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:It's funny seeing people comparing hml dps to long range turrets with t2 sniper ammo. That isn't proper ammo. Do you drake noobs even know what tracking is? You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages. missiles can be destroyed. projectile ammo can't. deal with that first, then we can have this conversation How often does that happen in practice? Defenders dont work, smartbombs are rare and take a LOT of luck or timing to even hit. Quite often. Actually a lot of our engagements vs tengus involves firewalls. Also, surprise! we're not the only one who use them... "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:34:00 -
[3114] - Quote
I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ?
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:46:00 -
[3115] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ?
The Naga was originally going to be a torp/cruise boat.
However, due to the massive engagement time, and the lack of pretty much any EHP, it was a sitting duck and would die before a single volley even hit..
How's that for weapons balancing?
They had to turn a missile boat into a turret boat just so it could even compete. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:48:00 -
[3116] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ? The Naga was originally going to be a torp/cruise boat. However, due to the massive engagement time, and the lack of pretty much any EHP, it was a sitting duck and would die before a single volley even hit.. How's that for weapons balancing? They had to turn a missile boat into a turret boat just so it could even compete.
So, maybe it could have been a 70km very hard hitter... ? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:49:00 -
[3117] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?
Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
Here's hoping for a reply from you guys...............
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:49:00 -
[3118] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:Lallante wrote:Reticle wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:It's funny seeing people comparing hml dps to long range turrets with t2 sniper ammo. That isn't proper ammo. Do you drake noobs even know what tracking is? You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages. missiles can be destroyed. projectile ammo can't. deal with that first, then we can have this conversation How often does that happen in practice? Defenders dont work, smartbombs are rare and take a LOT of luck or timing to even hit. Quite often. Actually a lot of our engagements vs tengus involves firewalls. Also, surprise! we're not the only one who use them... Just because you don't know how to do it, doesn't mean other people don't know how to do it as well.
They only exist as a tactic due to the ubiquity of drakes and tengus. With HMLs and tengu nerfed it simply wont be worth bringing a firewall. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:50:00 -
[3119] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ? The Naga was originally going to be a torp/cruise boat. However, due to the massive engagement time, and the lack of pretty much any EHP, it was a sitting duck and would die before a single volley even hit.. How's that for weapons balancing? They had to turn a missile boat into a turret boat just so it could even compete. So, maybe it could have been a 70km very hard hitter... ?
Yes, it would have been.
However, being pitted against any other teir 3 bc, it would have been dead before it could hit very hard. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:51:00 -
[3120] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?
Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
Here's hoping for a reply from you guys...............
All those questions have been answered when asked previously. Read the various devposts in this thread |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:51:00 -
[3121] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
They only exist as a tactic due to the ubiquity of drakes and tengus. With HMLs and tengu nerfed it simply wont be worth bringing a firewall.
except for the fact that the reduced range means less time you have to spend getting into your optimal, therefore firewalls will become more popular. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:52:00 -
[3122] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ? The Naga was originally going to be a torp/cruise boat. However, due to the massive engagement time, and the lack of pretty much any EHP, it was a sitting duck and would die before a single volley even hit.. How's that for weapons balancing? They had to turn a missile boat into a turret boat just so it could even compete. to finish your sentence: ... to compete at a role that required instant dmg application. Well obviously. Perhaps I should complain that the gallente stealth bomber doesnt use drones/hybrids? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:53:00 -
[3123] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Lallante wrote:
They only exist as a tactic due to the ubiquity of drakes and tengus. With HMLs and tengu nerfed it simply wont be worth bringing a firewall.
except for the fact that the reduced range means less time you have to spend getting into your optimal, therefore firewalls will become more popular.
There wont (hopefully) be as many Tengu and Drake blobs, so firewalls will be pointless |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:53:00 -
[3124] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ? The Naga was originally going to be a torp/cruise boat. However, due to the massive engagement time, and the lack of pretty much any EHP, it was a sitting duck and would die before a single volley even hit.. How's that for weapons balancing? They had to turn a missile boat into a turret boat just so it could even compete. So, maybe it could have been a 70km very hard hitter... ? Yes, it would have been. However, being pitted against any other teir 3 bc, it would have been dead before it could hit very hard.
So, it would have needed a drake tank ? :) |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:53:00 -
[3125] - Quote
Lallante wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?
Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
Here's hoping for a reply from you guys............... All those questions have been answered when asked previously. Read the various devposts in this thread
except for the fact that none of my particular questions have been answered on this thread |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:54:00 -
[3126] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Lallante wrote: When you get to the point of "there are no good t1, non-frig, non-capital, missle ships, that are caldari, other than a drake" you are talking so incredibly specialised set of limits that your comments loses all force.
There are also no t1 amarr tracking disruptor non-frig platforms other than an Arbitrator. So what?
Except that Arbitrator is tracking disruptors is specialized EWAR and missiles are supposed to be Caldari replacement for guns. How about viable T1 non-frig Winmatari Projectile ships?
Exactly. Lallante got it so completely wrong, its next to pointless to quote him/her anymore, seriously ... we are talking of the CALDARI weapon system, not of some specialised logi/ewar stuff here! Break every projectile ship in t1 for winmatar, break every laser-ship t1 for Amarr, just leave the Frigs alone. Then you see what you want us to accept.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:55:00 -
[3127] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ? The Naga was originally going to be a torp/cruise boat. However, due to the massive engagement time, and the lack of pretty much any EHP, it was a sitting duck and would die before a single volley even hit.. How's that for weapons balancing? They had to turn a missile boat into a turret boat just so it could even compete. So, maybe it could have been a 70km very hard hitter... ? Yes, it would have been. However, being pitted against any other teir 3 bc, it would have been dead before it could hit very hard. So, it would have needed a drake tank ? :)
Nope, but due to the inferior nature of a missile boat compared to a turret boat, it would have needed significantly more EHP than turret tier 3 bcs.
So, instead of turning a glass cannon into a plastic cannon, they opted to get rid of missiles on it and instead went with turrets. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:56:00 -
[3128] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Lallante wrote:[No. Currently the entire game revolves around Tengus and Drakes. This is one of the most important balance issues to fix.
Oh please. It's hard to take anything else you say seriously when you post grossly inaccurate generalizations like this. Even worse is if you actually belief it. I went on a roam last night and saw ONE drake the entire time in low sec. And not a single Tengu. Saw TONS of other ships, including Lokis.
Quote: Rank Weapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 98813 2 425mm AutoCannon II 28425 3 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21575
Rank Platform Kills 1 Drake 215572 2 Zealot 120980 3 Hurricane 57661 4 Tengu 44304
Sorry nop. Statistically proven facts. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 18:57:00 -
[3129] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Lallante wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?
Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
Here's hoping for a reply from you guys............... All those questions have been answered when asked previously. Read the various devposts in this thread except for the fact that none of my particular questions have been answered on this thread
Yes, they have. For example its been said that CCP will look at increasing some missiles speed but that this will probably not happen for HMLs as they feel they are fast enough. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:00:00 -
[3130] - Quote
Lallante wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ? The Naga was originally going to be a torp/cruise boat. However, due to the massive engagement time, and the lack of pretty much any EHP, it was a sitting duck and would die before a single volley even hit.. How's that for weapons balancing? They had to turn a missile boat into a turret boat just so it could even compete. to finish your sentence: ... to compete at a role that required instant dmg application. Well obviously. Perhaps I should complain that the gallente stealth bomber doesnt use drones/hybrids?
all bombers are comberable to other bombers.
Your comparison is also way off base. However, had they designed each of the stealth bombers to use the weapons of their race than odds are the manticore would be a turret boat just to compete.
What I'm stating is that the Naga was originally designed to be a torp/cruise boat.
However, since missiles are inferior to turrets when it comes to setting up a class cannon style build, then it was either buff naga EHP, or make it a turret boat. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:02:00 -
[3131] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
Yes, they have. For example its been said that CCP will look at increasing some missiles speed but that this will probably not happen for HMLs as they feel they are fast enough.
They are increasing missile velocities in order to bring actual range more in line with what is on paper.
That said, they haven't specified any type of compensation or anything the answered the questions I asked. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
88
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:02:00 -
[3132] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Exactly. Lallante got it so completely wrong, its next to pointless to quote him/her anymore, seriously ... we are talking of the CALDARI weapon system, not of some specialised logi/ewar stuff here! Break every projectile ship in t1 for winmatar, break every laser-ship t1 for Amarr, just leave the Frigs alone. Then you see what you want us to accept.
What? There are only 5 medium missile platforms for Caldari including t2 and t3. Of these 2 are OP, 1 is fine (caracal) and 2 are never used. Caracal is rebalanced around the new HMLs and we have been promised the 2 never used ones will be addressed in turn.
What exactly is being broken? Name a currently working ship that will be broken post changes? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:08:00 -
[3133] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
There are 7 Non frig Winmatar projectile ships: Thrasher Stabber Rupture Cyclone Hurricane Tempest Mael
Of this list all ships are good.
Yes, I know.
Lallante wrote: Compared to 5 Non-frig Caldari missile platforms: Blackbird Caracal Drake Scorpion Raven
Of the latter list only the Raven is not viable for PVP (maybe the scorp a bit) and we know BSs are to receive rebalancing love next year and likely so is Ewar.
The Blackbird and the Scorp are no damage dealers, and you know that very well. Both are completely different in their role in comparison to any of the Winmatar ships you named, and also in comparison to Drake, Caracal and Raven. So yes, Caldari have only 3 combat missile tech 1 hulls above frig size. 1 of them is the Raven which is broken (even you seem to see that ..) another one is the Caracal. By no means the Cara is comparable to its adversaries. It shines only in a niche or two - anti-frig warfare and long range damage. Everything which does not include that leaves it way behind Winmatar, Gallente or Amarr-cruisers. So no, its not viable for PvP apart from niche stuff.
Your list goes down to one single ship. Maybe you understand now why there are so many Drakes on kills, be it giving or receiving, and why HML are prime weapon system? Its the only thing an ENTIRE race has, if they want to pewpew AND be competitive.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
85
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:12:00 -
[3134] - Quote
Posting to new page
@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?
Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
Here's hoping for a reply from you guys...............
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:17:00 -
[3135] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
The Blackbird and the Scorp are no damage dealers, and you know that very well. Both are completely different in their role in comparison to any of the Winmatar ships you named, and also in comparison to Drake, Caracal and Raven. So yes, Caldari have only 3 combat missile tech 1 hulls above frig size. 1 of them is the Raven which is broken (even you seem to see that ..) another one is the Caracal. By no means the Cara is comparable to its adversaries. It shines only in a niche or two - anti-frig warfare and long range damage. Everything which does not include that leaves it way behind Winmatar, Gallente or Amarr-cruisers. So no, its not viable for PvP apart from niche stuff.
As someone who flies caracals in a corp that flies and kills more caracals than any other corporation in game, I'm calling bullshit on this. Caracals are at least as viable as any other same tier or lower cruiser of any race. They are the t1 cruiser of choice other than ruptures for small-medium gang PvP. After the balance changes this is even more true as they can sit at range with TCs in mids and plow smaller ships into the dust (or provide decent DPS support on larget targets). They will also make a reasonable HAM platform with vigil TP support.
Quote: Your list goes down to one single ship. Maybe you understand now why there are so many Drakes on kills, be it giving or receiving, and why HML are prime weapon system? Its the only thing an ENTIRE race has, if they want to pewpew AND be competitive.
So you are saying keep the drake as overpowered because Caldari has nothing else worth flying? You are an idiot if you think that is true let alone an effective balancing arguement.
What is the problem with changing HMLs if, as you claim, it only effects one ship which you must accept is OP? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1356
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:23:00 -
[3136] - Quote
I'm still waiting for someone to show me a fit on another battle cruiser that has the range, dps, alpha, selectable damage type, EHP and utility high slot that the Drake has in one fit.
Anyone? Show me a fit that is close to it.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:26:00 -
[3137] - Quote
Its all been answered, why would they bother replying to you specifically just because you are too lazy to read their replies. Just for you ill do it for them.
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Posting to new page
@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked? Its deliberate and no.
Quote: Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
They said they would consider it, but not for HMLs as they are happy with their current flight time.
Quote: Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
They said lag wasnt a major issue for missiles anymore and they have no desire to make missiles any more like turrets than they already have.
Quote: Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
For this one just read the 5 or 6 devposts littered through this thread, and the CSM minutes. T
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:27:00 -
[3138] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
HML's are a long range weapon.. Stop comparing them to short range weapon and stop being so bad.
Compare them to arties/beams if you want a comparison (Also have fun fitting beams on a non gimpy ship)
I am sorry to disagree here, but he was right to compare them with each other - it was Lallante who claimed HML were so OP they even would beat a short range weapon system. This utter BS had to be shown to those who maybe dont know it better. Lallante is beyond any hope, but still there have to be people who show how false all that stuff is he posts here.
Apart from that I agree with you about arties and beams having ranges where they have a fair bit less DPS than HML. But I hope you do see also, that there are ranges where they DONT have less DPS, but in fact more, do you?
And in a Drake damage is pure kinetic. If its not, its 25% less (and thats a LOT). Some can be mitigated (and no, using an MWD is not the best bet to do so ... at least not when your timing sucks ;) ), and you dont even need to keep transversal high, its just speed you need. If you cant adapt to that, then you are doing it wrong. There are tons of skilled BC-pilots who CAN adapt, and kill Drakes out there, in fair and square fights.
Those ridiculous high numbers of Drakes in killmails just come from null sec fleet stuff, and everyone with their brains sorted right knows that (and admits that fact ...). |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:31:00 -
[3139] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
HML's are a long range weapon.. Stop comparing them to short range weapon and stop being so bad.
Compare them to arties/beams if you want a comparison (Also have fun fitting beams on a non gimpy ship)
I am sorry to disagree here, but he was right to compare them with each other - it was Lallante who claimed HML were so OP they even would beat a short range weapon system. This utter BS had to be shown to those who maybe dont know it better. Lallante is beyond any hope, but still there have to be people who show how false all that stuff is he posts here. Apart from that I agree with you about arties and beams having ranges where they have a fair bit less DPS than HML. But I hope you do see also, that there are ranges where they DONT have less DPS, but in fact more, do you? And in a Drake damage is pure kinetic. If its not, its 25% less (and thats a LOT). Some can be mitigated (and no, using an MWD is not the best bet to do so ... at least not when your timing sucks ;) ), and you dont even need to keep transversal high, its just speed you need. If you cant adapt to that, then you are doing it wrong. There are tons of skilled BC-pilots who CAN adapt, and kill Drakes out there, in fair and square fights. Those ridiculous high numbers of Drakes in killmails just come from null sec fleet stuff, and everyone with their brains sorted right knows that (and admits that fact ...).
No, I was proved right. HMLs do almost the same damage (within 10 - 20% as close range turrets using their long range t2 ammo (i.e. the ammo they use most of the time and certainly when fighting a tengu or drake).
In comparison the long range turrets are 30%+ lower dps at long range.
As has been stated a dozen times, Long range turrets using short range ammo means you ****** up or are ganking someone. You should ALWAYS be at long range when using a long range turret if you can help it. If you are going in at short range you should be using short range turrets.
The correct comparison is therefore using long range ammo, and here the HML is 30 - 40% higher DPS and higher range.
Again you ginfore the fact that the drake damage bonus to kinetic is VERY likely to be changed to a RoF or all damage bonus just like all the other caldari missile ships balanced so far.
If Drakes were balanced they wouldn't be used 6 x more often than Harbingers. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:33:00 -
[3140] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
So you are saying keep the drake as overpowered because Caldari has nothing else worth flying? You are an idiot if you think that is true let alone an effective balancing arguement.
What is the problem with changing HMLs if, as you claim, it only effects one ship which you must accept is OP?
You always do repeat the same old story "the Drake is OP", but you fail to prove that claim. With every post I ask you for facts, and you say "look at those numbers" (even when you do know *exactly* where the numbers come from, and thats not small scale / med size gangs in low, but just null sec!) or repeat the story of "best tank and best DPS" which has been proven wrong by me and others ... the Drake is OP in PvE in comparison to other BCs, yes. And it may be OP in blobs in null. Its NOT OP in low sec or high sec PvP at all, never was, and never will be. Its fine as it is there, its a good ship, and the only option for missile using Caldari *COMBAT* pilots above frig size. So no, I dont want it nerfed, and both reasons are given: first it is NOT OP, and second its the only thing Caldari can use. Give Caldari other choices, check if Drake is still so "overused" (dont forget there are many Caldari pilots .. just because carebears have been told Caldari are good for PvE for ages, and some carebears grow a pair over time ..) and THEN react.
And again, cant say it often enough - no, I dont accept your lies here. |
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:37:00 -
[3141] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:
So you are saying keep the drake as overpowered because Caldari has nothing else worth flying? You are an idiot if you think that is true let alone an effective balancing arguement.
What is the problem with changing HMLs if, as you claim, it only effects one ship which you must accept is OP?
You always do repeat the same old story "the Drake is OP", but you fail to prove that claim. With every post I ask you for facts, and you say "look at those numbers" (even when you do know *exactly* where the numbers come from, and thats not small scale / med size gangs in low, but just null sec!) or repeat the story of "best tank and best DPS" which has been proven wrong by me and others ... the Drake is OP in PvE in comparison to other BCs, yes. And it may be OP in blobs in null. Its NOT OP in low sec or high sec PvP at all, never was, and never will be. Its fine as it is there, its a good ship, and the only option for missile using Caldari *COMBAT* pilots above frig size. So no, I dont want it nerfed, and both reasons are given: first it is NOT OP, and second its the only thing Caldari can use. Give Caldari other choices, check if Drake is still so "overused" (dont forget there are many Caldari pilots .. just because carebears have been told Caldari are good for PvE for ages, and some carebears grow a pair over time ..) and THEN react. And again, cant say it often enough - no, I dont accept your lies here.
The actual numbers, i.e. DPS, EHP and effective range, have been posted literally a dozen times in this thread and prove you are wrong. I'm done arguing with you when you have no numbers to back up what you are saying except drawing false comparisons (e.g. using close range ammo on long range guns, or comparing HMLs to short range turrets and saying they are even so are balanced).
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:41:00 -
[3142] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
No, I was proved right. HMLs do almost the same damage (within 10 - 20% as close range turrets using their long range t2 ammo (i.e. the ammo they use most of the time and certainly when fighting a tengu or drake)..
No, you were not. You cant claim short range turrets have to be checked with long range ammo to compare their *actual* performance vs a Drake when you say the complete opposite about ammo-choice just 4 sentences later!
Lallante wrote: In comparison the long range turrets are 30%+ lower dps at long range.
As has been stated a dozen times, Long range turrets using short range ammo means you ****** up or are ganking someone. You should ALWAYS be at long range when using a long range turret if you can help it. If you are going in at short range you should be using short range turrets..
.... 1:0 for me and you are the only one who scored, go on :)
Lallante wrote: The correct comparison is therefore using long range ammo, and here the HML is 30 - 40% higher DPS and higher range..
apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont.
Lallante wrote:
Again you ginfore the fact that the drake damage bonus to kinetic is VERY likely to be changed to a RoF or all damage bonus just like all the other caldari missile ships balanced so far.
If Drakes were balanced they wouldn't be used 6 x more often than Harbingers.
That repetition of the Harbinger argument .. lol. The Harbinger is indeed not exactly as strong as Drake and Cane. Its very common in lowsec though, and due to its dronebay far from being weak. Apart from that, Amarr have plenty of other ships they can use, which are just better performing, esp. in comparison to their Caldari counterparts. There are not more Drakes in lowsec than Canes, and there are next to no Ravens in lowsec, but tons of Amarr, Winmatar and Gallente BS. So figure, why do people use the Drake? Because they have to. Not because its OP, because it is NOT.
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:45:00 -
[3143] - Quote
I really hope caldari can get some combat type missile ships, instead of all the missile ships being attack type.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
86
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:47:00 -
[3144] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Its all been answered, why would they bother replying to you specifically just because you are too lazy to read their replies. Just for you ill do it for them. HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Posting to new page
@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked? 1) Its deliberate and no. Quote: Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
2) They said they would consider it, but not for HMLs as they are happy with their current flight time. Quote: Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
3) They said lag wasnt a major issue for missiles anymore and they have no desire to make missiles any more like turrets than they already have. Quote: Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
4) For this one just read the 5 or 6 devposts littered through this thread, and the CSM minutes. T .......
Ok, quit answering the questions you want to answer them.
Last time I checked they were addressed to CCP.
Also.
1) The ammo capacity WAS deliberate. With changes to missile boats increasing damage through RoF as compared to what used to be a damage modifier, the capacity of ham launchers and up are not compensated for this.
2) They were considering an increase in velocity, HOWEVER, I stated a SUBSTANTIAL increase, and not a small one. What I'm suggesting is actually a redesign of missiles as opposed to a simple buff. They would still go the same range, only get there much faster.
3) Lag is always a factor. Secondly, I'm not suggesting to bring missiles in line with turrets, I'm suggesting that significantly increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time would reduce the engagment time advantage turrets have over missiles by a significant amount. So, a turret at 80km will still hit instant, but a missile will hit in 4 seconds (rough number). This means turrets would still have engagement time advantage, but missiles wouldn't be so far behind, thus allowing them to be a bit easier to balance.
4) No where in this thread has CCP Fozzie given any information on what has changed since the OP was created, nor has he specified what suggestions they have taken from this or any other source, and are actively discussing/testing/whatever.
So, either understand the question before you answer, or don't answer a question that isn't addressed to you. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:49:00 -
[3145] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
The actual numbers, i.e. DPS, EHP and effective range, have been posted literally a dozen times in this thread and prove you are wrong. I'm done arguing with you when you have no numbers to back up what you are saying except drawing false comparisons (e.g. using close range ammo on long range guns, or comparing HMLs to short range turrets and saying they are even so are balanced).
You just pick numbers without a meaning, and I made more than one posting to show how wrong you are. For a very last time.
EHP and DPS, and range are important. What you neglect is: Drone bay, ability to fit more than one viable fitting, utility slots (and no, the Drake has none - because there is simply no room to fit anything reasonable except a small neut which wont help against ANY BC), speed, signature, damage application, even the difference between instant dps and flight time delayed DPS ... agility and last but not least you neglect also the fact there is no slave set for shieldtanks, so all those EHP numbers for armor tanks can be changed a LOT without a booster alt.
As a matter of fact - the Drake is NOT OP in low sec and high sec PvP. The problem is in null sec, and should be solved in another way then destroying something which is working AND which is the only thing an entire race can do if they want to use a tech 1 hull AND their races signature weapon system.
And if you say "they will change that, it will be no problem" then yes, I am not having the same faith. Usually they screw up even more than we expect them to do. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:57:00 -
[3146] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:No, you were not. You cant claim short range turrets have to be checked with long range ammo to compare their *actual* performance vs a Drake when you say the complete opposite about ammo-choice just 4 sentences later!
Do you actually PvP, or are you disputing that both short and long range turrets in anything larger than 1v1 usually will use long range ammo?
Quote: .... 1:0 for me and you are the only one who scored, go on :)
Do you actually PvP, or are you disputing that both short and long range turrets in anything larger than 1v1 usually will use long range ammo?
Quote: apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont.
At the edge of HML range, which is 84km, none of the LR turrets deal damage at all. :roll:
Quote: That repetition of the Harbinger argument .. lol. The Harbinger is indeed not exactly as strong as Drake and Cane. Its very common in lowsec though, and due to its dronebay far from being weak. Apart from that, Amarr have plenty of other ships they can use, which are just better performing, esp. in comparison to their Caldari counterparts. There are not more Drakes in lowsec than Canes, and there are next to no Ravens in lowsec, but tons of Amarr, Winmatar and Gallente BS. So figure, why do people use the Drake? Because they have to. Not because its OP, because it is NOT.
Apart from the Drake and Hurricane (which is ALSO being nerfed), a few people use Harbs and Myrms and noone uses the other tier 1 or 2 BCs. Compare the Drake to the Ferox or the Prophecy or the Brutix or Myrm you like - I picked the Harb because its the third most used!
The Harb and Myrm are balanced, many of the other BCs need a boost and both the Drake and Hurricane are OP.
The Drake is used 7x more than the most used BS, the Maelstrom. Your argument fails. Even adding ALL the t1 gallente (83543) or t1 amarr ships (109,392) together and its less than half as many as drakes alone (215572)! The only reason the same isnt true of minmatar is the overpowered hurricane and highly favoured Mael and Tornado. You can extract all these stats easily from Eve-Kill. This completely invalidates your argument that people only fly Drakes because there are no other caldari options - people are crosstraining to drakes from Gallente and Amarr because they are so OP!
Try defending your argument with some figures rather than baseless claims. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 19:58:00 -
[3147] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:bllllleuuuurgh.
Nice. I'm sure you will soon be banned for spammign the same post over and over. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:00:00 -
[3148] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:
The actual numbers, i.e. DPS, EHP and effective range, have been posted literally a dozen times in this thread and prove you are wrong. I'm done arguing with you when you have no numbers to back up what you are saying except drawing false comparisons (e.g. using close range ammo on long range guns, or comparing HMLs to short range turrets and saying they are even so are balanced).
You just pick numbers without a meaning, and I made more than one posting to show how wrong you are. For a very last time. EHP and DPS, and range are important. What you neglect is: Drone bay, ability to fit more than one viable fitting, utility slots (and no, the Drake has none - because there is simply no room to fit anything reasonable except a small neut which wont help against ANY BC), speed, signature, damage application, even the difference between instant dps and flight time delayed DPS ... agility and last but not least you neglect also the fact there is no slave set for shieldtanks, so all those EHP numbers for armor tanks can be changed a LOT without a booster alt. As a matter of fact - the Drake is NOT OP in low sec and high sec PvP. The problem is in null sec, and should be solved in another way then destroying something which is working AND which is the only thing an entire race can do if they want to use a tech 1 hull AND their races signature weapon system. And if you say "they will change that, it will be no problem" then yes, I am not having the same faith. Usually they screw up even more than we expect them to do.
Try posting some facts/figures/statistics/setups to support your arguments. So far I've supported everything I've claimed and you just launch into your own personal opinions. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:01:00 -
[3149] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont.
I would like to see Cane doing 400 dps @ 70 km.
Bonus points if you can hit moving cruiser @ 10 km with same fit. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:10:00 -
[3150] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont. I would like to see Cane doing 400 dps @ 70 km. Bonus points if you can hit moving cruiser @ 10 km with same fit. How many remote tracking link/Sebo alts am I allowed to use?
None. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:12:00 -
[3151] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont. I would like to see Cane doing 400 dps @ 70 km. Bonus points if you can hit moving cruiser @ 10 km with same fit.
I would like to see my Drake can fit an armor tank like a Cane, be still pretty fast, have a full rack of weapons and 2 medium neuts, and a much bigger dronebay. Your "argument" completely misses the point.
Ships are different, and its good they are.
I will not say the Drake is bad. Heck, I remember when I was nearly the only one who said its not a bad BC for PvP, some 4 years ago most ppl said it sucks for PvP. Nothing (!) has been changed since then on the Drake, and the only big changes were a buff for Projectiles and the nerf of Nano. But it is by no means OP. OP are large ACs (due to far too much falloff), OP is the Machariel, and OP is Winmatar as a whole.
Ofc its nice to be able to do kinetic DPS in that numbers on that range. A bit later you deal none, and all those sniper turret ships can still deal some (which is not much, but infinitely more than the zero you deal as a Drake). Apart from that Drakes can normally not dictate the range. If you feel unhappy with your engagement range, leave.
The Drake is the only thing caldari have. And its overused in null sec (cheap to replace, Starcraft Zergling style.). But it is NOT OP in anything else than that abuse in null. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:12:00 -
[3152] - Quote
Here are the stats for people too lazy to look back
(before dmg mods, but dmg mods make no difference comparatively, just add the same % to all)
720mm cane - 168dps (54+22km) Beam harbinger - 184dps (54+10km) 250mm ferox - 120dps (97+15km) Rail Brutix - 175dps (65+15km) ... all with rather ****** tracking VS Drake - 250dps across 84km
Thats 35% better than the next best, the Harb, at a range longer than anything other than the ferox which does less than half the damage |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:16:00 -
[3153] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Lallante wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bloutok wrote:I wonder if the Caldari tier 3 had been a missile boat if we would have been having such a long thread about nuking the drake to oblivion ? The Naga was originally going to be a torp/cruise boat. However, due to the massive engagement time, and the lack of pretty much any EHP, it was a sitting duck and would die before a single volley even hit.. How's that for weapons balancing? They had to turn a missile boat into a turret boat just so it could even compete. to finish your sentence: ... to compete at a role that required instant dmg application. Well obviously. Perhaps I should complain that the gallente stealth bomber doesnt use drones/hybrids? all bombers are comberable to other bombers. Your comparison is also way off base. However, had they designed each of the stealth bombers to use the weapons of their race than odds are the manticore would be a turret boat just to compete. What I'm stating is that the Naga was originally designed to be a torp/cruise boat. However, since missiles are inferior to turrets when it comes to setting up a class cannon style build, then it was either buff naga EHP, or make it a turret boat.
Close it actually had a split hybrid/missile bonus, and it sucked terribly at both.
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:17:00 -
[3154] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont. I would like to see Cane doing 400 dps @ 70 km. Bonus points if you can hit moving cruiser @ 10 km with same fit. I would like to see my Drake can fit an armor tank like a Cane, be still pretty fast, have a full rack of weapons and 2 medium neuts, and a much bigger dronebay. Your "argument" completely misses the point.
A Cane cant do this after the balancing changes, it has to drop the neuts or downgrade some guns or the tank. The Drake's tank is better than the canes before the balancing, let alone after it.
Quote:Ships are different, and its good they are.
I will not say the Drake is bad. Heck, I remember when I was nearly the only one who said its not a bad BC for PvP, some 4 years ago most ppl said it sucks for PvP. Nothing (!) has been changed since then on the Drake, and the only big changes were a buff for Projectiles and the nerf of Nano. But it is by no means OP. OP are large ACs (due to far too much falloff), OP is the Machariel, and OP is Winmatar as a whole.
Ofc its nice to be able to do kinetic DPS in that numbers on that range. A bit later you deal none, and all those sniper turret ships can still deal some (which is not much, but infinitely more than the zero you deal as a Drake). Apart from that Drakes can normally not dictate the range. If you feel unhappy with your engagement range, leave.
If drakes are not op why do more people fly it than all amarr t1 plus all gallente t1 put together?
Quote: The Drake is the only thing caldari have. And its overused in null sec (cheap to replace, Starcraft Zergling style.). But it is NOT OP in anything else than that abuse in null.
Apart from all the other ships that caldari have you mean. Caldari HACs and Command ships need work. Ravens need work, the Ferox needs work. The rest are great. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:19:00 -
[3155] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I would like to see my Drake can fit an armor tank like a Cane, be still pretty fast, have a full rack of weapons and 2 medium neuts, and a much bigger dronebay. Your "argument" completely misses the point.
Then don't claim 720mm Cane does more dps at HML range and can hit everything at close range too (with what tracking exactly?).
Drake drone bay: 25 m3 Cane drone bay: 30 m3
"much bigger dronebay"? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:19:00 -
[3156] - Quote
Posting these figures for comparison too:
Rank Ships Kills 1 Drake 217253 2 Zealot 121388 3 Hurricane 58161 4 Tengu 44448 5 Tornado 38660 6 Naga 36019 7 Loki 35523 8 Maelstrom 35348 9 Oracle 32099 10 Thrasher 22526 11 Hound 21321 12 Cynabal 20629 13 Sabre 19995 14 Huginn 18623 15 Abaddon 18573 16 Talos 18475 17 Proteus 18350 18 Rifter 18023 19 Scimitar 17679 20 Stabber Fleet Issue 17342
Rank Weapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 99650 2 425mm AutoCannon II 28726 3 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21778 4 200mm AutoCannon II 20231 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 19476 6 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 17836 7 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 15880 8 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 15266 9 150mm Light AutoCannon II 13958 10 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 13857 11 Light Neutron Blaster II 11073 12 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 10000 13 425mm Railgun II 9628 14 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 8692 15 Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I 8415 16 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7397 17 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 7380 18 Light Ion Blaster II 7208 19 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I 7070 20 Heavy Beam Laser II 6015
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:19:00 -
[3157] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont. I would like to see Cane doing 400 dps @ 70 km. Bonus points if you can hit moving cruiser @ 10 km with same fit. How many remote tracking link/Sebo alts am I allowed to use? None. Btw, it goes only to 382 dps at 74 km with 6% implants and four Tobias' gyros.
......so you need Super Pilot clone and a good portion of his fit.
I LOVE 6billion Hurricanes. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:21:00 -
[3158] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Posting these figures for comparison too:
Rank Ships Kills 1 Drake 217253 2 Zealot 121388 3 Hurricane 58161 4 Tengu 44448 5 Tornado 38660 6 Naga 36019 7 Loki 35523 8 Maelstrom 35348 9 Oracle 32099 10 Thrasher 22526 11 Hound 21321 12 Cynabal 20629 13 Sabre 19995 14 Huginn 18623 15 Abaddon 18573 16 Talos 18475 17 Proteus 18350 18 Rifter 18023 19 Scimitar 17679 20 Stabber Fleet Issue 17342
Rank Weapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 99650 2 425mm AutoCannon II 28726 3 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21778 4 200mm AutoCannon II 20231 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 19476 6 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 17836 7 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 15880 8 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 15266 9 150mm Light AutoCannon II 13958 10 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 13857 11 Light Neutron Blaster II 11073 12 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 10000 13 425mm Railgun II 9628 14 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 8692 15 Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I 8415 16 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7397 17 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 7380 18 Light Ion Blaster II 7208 19 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I 7070 20 Heavy Beam Laser II 6015
To be fair those are nigh on useless.
You kill one battleship with a 100 people that launched ....not hit mind you....just launched and you generated 100 kills. This is why Zealot is on there NC. are using them against GSF and co. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:22:00 -
[3159] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:Posting these figures for comparison too:
Rank Ships Kills 1 Drake 217253 2 Zealot 121388 3 Hurricane 58161 4 Tengu 44448 5 Tornado 38660 6 Naga 36019 7 Loki 35523 8 Maelstrom 35348 9 Oracle 32099 10 Thrasher 22526 11 Hound 21321 12 Cynabal 20629 13 Sabre 19995 14 Huginn 18623 15 Abaddon 18573 16 Talos 18475 17 Proteus 18350 18 Rifter 18023 19 Scimitar 17679 20 Stabber Fleet Issue 17342
Rank Weapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 99650 2 425mm AutoCannon II 28726 3 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21778 4 200mm AutoCannon II 20231 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 19476 6 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 17836 7 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 15880 8 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 15266 9 150mm Light AutoCannon II 13958 10 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 13857 11 Light Neutron Blaster II 11073 12 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 10000 13 425mm Railgun II 9628 14 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 8692 15 Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I 8415 16 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7397 17 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 7380 18 Light Ion Blaster II 7208 19 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I 7070 20 Heavy Beam Laser II 6015
To be fair those are nigh on useless. You kill one battleship with a 100 people that launched ....not hit mind you....just launched and you generated 100 kills. This is why Zealot is on there NC. are using them against GSF and co.
Think about it, that shows they are useless for seeing HOW GOOD the ships are, sure, but they are still completely accurate for telling you HOW MANY get flown.
Zealots are on there because sniper zealots were FOTM for years. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:27:00 -
[3160] - Quote
Onictus wrote:To be fair those are nigh on useless.
You kill one battleship with a 100 people that launched ....not hit mind you....just launched and you generated 100 kills. This is why Zealot is on there NC. are using them against GSF and co.
It's killing blow, not all in KM. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:27:00 -
[3161] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:Posting these figures for comparison too:
Rank Ships Kills 1 Drake 217253 2 Zealot 121388 3 Hurricane 58161 4 Tengu 44448 5 Tornado 38660 6 Naga 36019 7 Loki 35523 8 Maelstrom 35348 9 Oracle 32099 10 Thrasher 22526 11 Hound 21321 12 Cynabal 20629 13 Sabre 19995 14 Huginn 18623 15 Abaddon 18573 16 Talos 18475 17 Proteus 18350 18 Rifter 18023 19 Scimitar 17679 20 Stabber Fleet Issue 17342
Rank Weapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 99650 2 425mm AutoCannon II 28726 3 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21778 4 200mm AutoCannon II 20231 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 19476 6 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 17836 7 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 15880 8 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 15266 9 150mm Light AutoCannon II 13958 10 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 13857 11 Light Neutron Blaster II 11073 12 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 10000 13 425mm Railgun II 9628 14 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 8692 15 Advanced 'Limos' Heavy Missile Bay I 8415 16 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7397 17 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 7380 18 Light Ion Blaster II 7208 19 'Malkuth' Heavy Missile Launcher I 7070 20 Heavy Beam Laser II 6015
To be fair those are nigh on useless. You kill one battleship with a 100 people that launched ....not hit mind you....just launched and you generated 100 kills. This is why Zealot is on there NC. are using them against GSF and co. Think about it, that shows they are useless for seeing HOW GOOD the ships are, sure, but they are still completely accurate for telling you HOW MANY get flown. Zealots are on there because sniper zealots were FOTM for years.
It tells you who is blobbing with them, say GSF kills 100ships in a fight with a 1200 drake fleet, at 70 "hits" per kill you just generated 7000 kills on that list.
.....and that list is month by month, zealot's past performance has NOTHING to do with it. Zealot is on there because NC. is using them to bust drake blobs, period. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:30:00 -
[3162] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Here are the stats for people too lazy to look back
(before dmg mods, but dmg mods make no difference comparatively, just add the same % to all)
720mm cane - 168dps (54+22km) Beam harbinger - 184dps (54+10km) 250mm ferox - 120dps (97+15km) Rail Brutix - 175dps (65+15km) ... all with rather ****** tracking VS Drake - 250dps across 84km
Thats 35% better than the next best, the Harb, at a range longer than anything other than the ferox which does less than half the damage
And its so wrong, again. You neglect how falloff works, you neglect how instant damage works, and you neglect how those 84km are not a real number. Further more you neglect the fact TCs and TEs will change those ranges and are PART of valid PvP fittings right now, same with remote stuff.
Just an example:
720mm cane - 290dps (17+28km) with RF high damage /EMP/PP/Fusion, 1 TC II fitted. So is that more than the Drake or not?
Beam harbinger - 318 dps (17+13km) with faction Multi and 1 TC II too.
That Cane with one TC will hit with 130-140 DPS where the Drake has no DPS at all anymore btw ..
So, I showed you where those ships are stronger in DPS than a Drake, and where the Drake is stronger. We didnt even come to Drones yet, or speed, or utility slots, or whatever ... and all of those points will NOT make the Drake stronger!
Seriously, like I said 2 pages ago - its complete pointless to argue with you as a person, but I will not leave you alone as long as you spread lies over lies here. Btw, if your concern is really the *range* of medium sized long range turrets, then why dont you try to buff them? Apart from, they are in fact not the real problem ... null sec is, and you know it.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:30:00 -
[3163] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Onictus wrote:To be fair those are nigh on useless.
You kill one battleship with a 100 people that launched ....not hit mind you....just launched and you generated 100 kills. This is why Zealot is on there NC. are using them against GSF and co. It's killing blow, not all in KM.
Not sure I'd bet on that.
Look at the kill tallies, the entire top 20 only has 120,000 some odd kills, and you are telling me that 60% of that number came from drakes?
......and that Zealot is number #2?
Yeah right. |
Lloyd Roses
Big Johnson's Ascendance.
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:32:00 -
[3164] - Quote
Please CCP delay it a bit, I'm just getting into missiles and whoa, having no tracking issues and high volley damage no matter the range... srsly, hmls from a drake are hitting harder at 10k than a armorcane with rf muni.
Also less drakes = faster paced fights! (Because you don't have two 160k EHP bricks floating around in that pulsar) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:35:00 -
[3165] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
It tells you who is blobbing with them, say GSF kills 100ships in a fight with a 1200 drake fleet, at 70 "hits" per kill you just generated 7000 kills on that list.
.....and that list is month by month, zealot's past performance has NOTHING to do with it. Zealot is on there because NC. is using them to bust drake blobs, period.
Exactly my point. Those numbers come from nothing else but null sec blobs. Still some people here try to tell us they actually show something else.... and even when they know their lies are lies they continue to spread them :) |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:36:00 -
[3166] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:
Think about it, that shows they are useless for seeing HOW GOOD the ships are, sure, but they are still completely accurate for telling you HOW MANY get flown.
Zealots are on there because sniper zealots were FOTM for years.
It tells you who is blobbing with them, say GSF kills 100ships in a fight with a 1200 drake fleet, at 70 "hits" per kill you just generated 7000 kills on that list. .....and that list is month by month, zealot's past performance has NOTHING to do with it. Zealot is on there because NC. is using them to bust drake blobs, period.
Sorry mate you aren't thinking the maths through (though you may be right on the second point).
Lets say GSF did as above, killed 100 with 70 drakes per kill and score 7000 kills for drakes Imagine a 120 man thorax gang (or whatever) gang getting 100 kills themselves with an average of 7 ships on each kill - this scores 700 kills for thoraxes.
There are exactly 10 times more drakes being flown than thoraxes, and they get exactly 10 times the score - the score still perfectly represents their relative use in PvP. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:39:00 -
[3167] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:Here are the stats for people too lazy to look back
(before dmg mods, but dmg mods make no difference comparatively, just add the same % to all)
720mm cane - 168dps (54+22km) Beam harbinger - 184dps (54+10km) 250mm ferox - 120dps (97+15km) Rail Brutix - 175dps (65+15km) ... all with rather ****** tracking VS Drake - 250dps across 84km
Thats 35% better than the next best, the Harb, at a range longer than anything other than the ferox which does less than half the damage And its so wrong, again. You neglect how falloff works, you neglect how instant damage works, and you neglect how those 84km are not a real number. Further more you neglect the fact TCs and TEs will change those ranges and are PART of valid PvP fittings right now, same with remote stuff. Just an example: 720mm cane - 290dps (17+28km) with RF high damage /EMP/PP/Fusion, 1 TC II fitted. So is that more than the Drake or not? Beam harbinger - 318 dps (17+13km) with faction Multi and 1 TC II too. That Cane with one TC will hit with 130-140 DPS where the Drake has no DPS at all anymore btw .. So, I showed you where those ships are stronger in DPS than a Drake, and where the Drake is stronger. We didnt even come to Drones yet, or speed, or utility slots, or whatever ... and all of those points will NOT make the Drake stronger! Seriously, like I said 2 pages ago - its complete pointless to argue with you as a person, but I will not leave you alone as long as you spread lies over lies here. Btw, if your concern is really the *range* of medium sized long range turrets, then why dont you try to buff them? Apart from, they are in fact not the real problem ... null sec is, and you know it.
Really? You do know you need Sebo(s) to get a cane to hit 100km, two of them, plus a tracking computer and a MWD...where does the tank go on? Because you can't armor tank and fit a rack of 720s, you need an ACR with a shield tank just to get them to fit.
Congrats, you just built a Cane that would lose a fight to a nub ship.
Same with a bringer, ever try to fit a rack of heavy beams on one? Yeah, what tank. So you just traded 30k ehp to do 300dps, you now have a real real real slow and real real real real long ranged assault frigate.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:40:00 -
[3168] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
There are exactly 10 times more drakes being flown than thoraxes, and they get exactly 10 times the score - the score still perfectly represents their relative use in PvP.
They are used excessively in null sec. No one denied that fact. Nice you seem to at least see you cant keep up with that lie about the Drake being OP anywhere else than in null sec.
Still the "overuse" of the Drake would be reduced IMO if there were other platforms for caldari missile users. As long as there are none you will see more Drakes than for example Harbingers, where Amarr pilots have many ships to choose from. Simple as that ...
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:45:00 -
[3169] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:Here are the stats for people too lazy to look back
(before dmg mods, but dmg mods make no difference comparatively, just add the same % to all)
720mm cane - 168dps (54+22km) Beam harbinger - 184dps (54+10km) 250mm ferox - 120dps (97+15km) Rail Brutix - 175dps (65+15km) ... all with rather ****** tracking VS Drake - 250dps across 84km
Thats 35% better than the next best, the Harb, at a range longer than anything other than the ferox which does less than half the damage And its so wrong, again. You neglect how falloff works, you neglect how instant damage works, and you neglect how those 84km are not a real number. Further more you neglect the fact TCs and TEs will change those ranges and are PART of valid PvP fittings right now, same with remote stuff. Just an example: 720mm cane - 290dps (17+28km) with RF high damage /EMP/PP/Fusion, 1 TC II fitted. So is that more than the Drake or not? Beam harbinger - 318 dps (17+13km) with faction Multi and 1 TC II too. That Cane with one TC will hit with 130-140 DPS where the Drake has no DPS at all anymore btw .. So, I showed you where those ships are stronger in DPS than a Drake, and where the Drake is stronger. We didnt even come to Drones yet, or speed, or utility slots, or whatever ... and all of those points will NOT make the Drake stronger! Seriously, like I said 2 pages ago - its complete pointless to argue with you as a person, but I will not leave you alone as long as you spread lies over lies here. Btw, if your concern is really the *range* of medium sized long range turrets, then why dont you try to buff them? Apart from, they are in fact not the real problem ... null sec is, and you know it.
This is ridiculous, you are comparing apples with oranges (including tracking computers for the turret ships? Guess what, a drake can use them too after the changes). You dont use short range ammo on long range turrets unless you ****** up or are ganking This is undisputable. If you were at short range and had the choice you would use short range turrets. When would you EVER use a 720 cane or Beam Harb at 17km? Literally Never by choice.
To compare balance you have to look at how the ships are ACTUALLY USED in PVP. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:45:00 -
[3170] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
Lets say GSF did as above, killed 100 with 70 drakes per kill and score 7000 kills for drakes Imagine a 120 man thorax gang (or whatever) gang getting 100 kills themselves with an average of 7 ships on each kill - this scores 700 kills for thoraxes.
There are exactly 10 times more drakes being flown than thoraxes, and they get exactly 10 times the score - the score still perfectly represents their relative use in PvP.
No not really It means you have no idea what the number actually represents.
Look at the rest of the top 20.
Now why where there be such a precipitous drop. Zealots? GTFO you are telling me there are better then TWO TIMES as many people running around in Zealots as there are in Hurricanes?
.....and I'm not thinking it through? |
|
Lloyd Roses
Big Johnson's Ascendance.
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:46:00 -
[3171] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:
There are exactly 10 times more drakes being flown than thoraxes, and they get exactly 10 times the score - the score still perfectly represents their relative use in PvP.
They are used excessively in null sec. No one denied that fact. Nice you seem to at least see you cant keep up with that lie about the Drake being OP anywhere else than in null sec. Still the "overuse" of the Drake would be reduced IMO if there were other platforms for caldari missile users. As long as there are none you will see more Drakes than for example Harbingers, where Amarr pilots have many ships to choose from. Simple as that ...
Wtf. Drake not overused everywhere. Drake is no go-to-pvp-ship? drake is not a decent mission running ship? srsly, when each and every wh-corp got 20 corp-DRAKES as pve-pvp-universal-vessel... it's not OP?
even worse, there are two fits used, one for everything pve/pvp and another one for baiting (or C3 sites). both carry HMLs. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:47:00 -
[3172] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Really? You do know you need Sebo(s) to get a cane to hit 100km, two of them, plus a tracking computer and a MWD...where does the tank go on? Because you can't armor tank and fit a rack of 720s, you need an ACR with a shield tank just to get them to fit.
There is no need for 100km range, coz first the Drake will need a Sebo too to hit on more than 75 km, but wont go that much further anyway coz missiles run out way before the 84km mark. For 90km locking the Cane needs only 1 Sebo too. So I dont see how there is no tank at all ..
Onictus wrote: Congrats, you just built a Cane that would lose a fight to a nub ship.
Same with a bringer, ever try to fit a rack of heavy beams on one? Yeah, what tank. So you just traded 30k ehp to do 300dps, you now have a real real real slow and real real real real long ranged assault frigate.
I didnt say those fittings are viable per se, but I said the numbers which this other guy posted say nothing at all. You will most probably agree with me that in turret ships its quite often possible to fit in a TC and/or TE in viable fittings. And I hope you agree with me too, that a PvP Cane is not by default worse than a PvP Drake ... do you? :-) |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:47:00 -
[3173] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Still the "overuse" of the Drake would be reduced IMO if there were other platforms for caldari missile users. As long as there are none you will see more Drakes than for example Harbingers, where Amarr pilots have many ships to choose from. Simple as that ...
So you keep saying. This isnt an argument against balancing the drake, its an argument for balancing the other platforms! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:48:00 -
[3174] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:
Lets say GSF did as above, killed 100 with 70 drakes per kill and score 7000 kills for drakes Imagine a 120 man thorax gang (or whatever) gang getting 100 kills themselves with an average of 7 ships on each kill - this scores 700 kills for thoraxes.
There are exactly 10 times more drakes being flown than thoraxes, and they get exactly 10 times the score - the score still perfectly represents their relative use in PvP.
No not really It means you have no idea what the number actually represents. Look at the rest of the top 20. Now why where there be such a precipitous drop. Zealots? GTFO you are telling me there are better then TWO TIMES as many people running around in Zealots as there are in Hurricanes? .....and I'm not thinking it through?
No I'm saying there are two times as many zealots involved in PVP this month than hurricanes. Thats what the figures mean. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:48:00 -
[3175] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
This is ridiculous, you are comparing apples with oranges (including tracking computers for the turret ships? Guess what, a drake can use them too after the changes). You dont use short range ammo on long range turrets unless you ****** up or are ganking This is undisputable. If you were at short range and had the choice you would use short range turrets. When would you EVER use a 720 cane or Beam Harb at 17km? Literally Never by choice.
To compare balance you have to look at how the weapon systems are ACTUALLY USED in PVP. Long range turrets are used at (surprise) LONG range, if they are used at all
You do actually, this is the strenght of the Rokh and Naga, when Antimatter out ranges scortch baddons you have a pretty good DPS advantage.
There is no need to fit for max range in that case, past 150 they just warp in on your head and then you DO have issues, most fleet fights happen below 100km for that reason. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:49:00 -
[3176] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:
This is ridiculous, you are comparing apples with oranges (including tracking computers for the turret ships? Guess what, a drake can use them too after the changes). You dont use short range ammo on long range turrets unless you ****** up or are ganking This is undisputable. If you were at short range and had the choice you would use short range turrets. When would you EVER use a 720 cane or Beam Harb at 17km? Literally Never by choice.
To compare balance you have to look at how the weapon systems are ACTUALLY USED in PVP. Long range turrets are used at (surprise) LONG range, if they are used at all
You do actually, this is the strenght of the Rokh and Naga, when Antimatter outrages scortch baddons you have a pretty good DPS advantage.
We are talking about medium long range guns. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:52:00 -
[3177] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:
This is ridiculous, you are comparing apples with oranges (including tracking computers for the turret ships? Guess what, a drake can use them too after the changes). You dont use short range ammo on long range turrets unless you ****** up or are ganking This is undisputable. If you were at short range and had the choice you would use short range turrets. When would you EVER use a 720 cane or Beam Harb at 17km? Literally Never by choice.
To compare balance you have to look at how the weapon systems are ACTUALLY USED in PVP. Long range turrets are used at (surprise) LONG range, if they are used at all
You do actually, this is the strenght of the Rokh and Naga, when Antimatter outrages scortch baddons you have a pretty good DPS advantage. We are talking about medium long range guns.
Ahh yes, the blastions of overpoweredness they are.
Other than the arty cane, I can't say I've ever mounted one, and I have had all three for a long time.
Lallante wrote:[
No I'm saying there are two times as many zealots involved in PVP this month than hurricanes. Thats what the figures mean.
Yeah, gtfo, please be real. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:56:00 -
[3178] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
So you keep saying. This isnt an argument against balancing the drake, its an argument for balancing the other platforms!
I never said the other platforms should not be adressed! I said the contrary - I demand them to be adressed ASAP and way before any other changes should be planned, because then we will have a much more complete picture of issues or non-issues.
About your other posting just one last note - you claim long range fittings should be used long range, which is per definition smart. But even smarter is, to use a fitting in a range where it works. If you can out-DPS the Drake in a window from 15-35 km or in a window from 75km (non sebod) or 79km (sebod Drake, whos missiles run out due to movement of target and flighttime) til the end of your locking range (for example 90 km in a sebo Cane) , where would you let the fight take place? Exactly, in one of those 2 windows. If you cant, then you will have to disengage or you will lose. Same goes for the Drake - it can either try to run (good luck) or will die when its caught in the wrong window. Seriously, you have two nice windows of choice, you can dictate range, use it! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:56:00 -
[3179] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:[ We are talking about medium long range guns. Ahh yes, the blastions of overpoweredness they are. Other than the arty cane, I can't say I've ever mounted one, and I have had all three for a long time. That's always been my argument too. But the main problem is the platforms not the guns themselves.
Quote:Lallante wrote:
No I'm saying there are two times as many zealots involved in PVP this month than hurricanes. Thats what the figures mean.
Yeah, gtfo, please be real.
Explain what the numbers mean then. |
Snape Dieboldmotor
Imperial Outlaws
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:58:00 -
[3180] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
You're nerfing a beloved ship - the Drake. Buffing the Nighthawk or Cerberus might give Caldari something to be excited about.
You preach "balance", but a nerf without a buff just makes people mad.
Fozzie, I appreciate your patience with us. We have an significant investment in this game. Thanks! |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:58:00 -
[3181] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I didnt say those fittings are viable per se, but I said the numbers which this other guy posted say nothing at all. You will most probably agree with me that in turret ships its quite often possible to fit in a TC and/or TE in viable fittings. And I hope you agree with me too, that a PvP Cane is not by default worse than a PvP Drake ... do you? :-)
Depends on application.
If the fight starts close, I'd rather be in a cane, if I'm doing the warp in give me a drake every time, because by the time they get to us they are pretty much already wrecked.
......and sure the fittings aren't viable, but everyone is comparing them TO A STANDARD FIT DRAKE.
I have a drake in my hangar right now that hits 114km and does 400DPS to probably 105KM of it and still has a 40k ehp tank....oh and did I mention its cap stable. Tech2/meta IV fit I may add.
There is no other medium weapon that even gets in the ballpark, particularly not with a tank and any sort of cap endurance. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 20:59:00 -
[3182] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:
So you keep saying. This isnt an argument against balancing the drake, its an argument for balancing the other platforms!
I never said the other platforms should not be adressed! I said the contrary - I demand them to be adressed ASAP and way before any other changes should be planned, because then we will have a much more complete picture of issues or non-issues. About your other posting just one last note - you claim long range fittings should be used long range, which is per definition smart. But even smarter is, to use a fitting in a range where it works. If you can out-DPS the Drake in a window from 15-35 km or in a window from 75km (non sebod) or 79km (sebod Drake, whos missiles run out due to movement of target and flighttime) til the end of your locking range (for example 90 km in a sebo Cane) , where would you let the fight take place? Exactly, in one of those 2 windows. If you cant, then you will have to disengage or you will lose. Same goes for the Drake - it can either try to run (good luck) or will die when its caught in the wrong window. Seriously, you have two nice windows of choice, you can dictate range, use it!
In the 15 - 35km window you mentioned, why wouldnt you use short range guns (with long range ammo) which would have more DPS and VASTLY higher tracking?
As I've mentioned, if you are using TCs on the gun platforms you need to do so on the Drake too, so there is no long range window where the turrets beat the Drake. Also 84km is the correct range since the changes to Missile acceleration now on the test server, not 79km. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:00:00 -
[3183] - Quote
Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
You're nerfing a beloved ship - the Drake. Buffing the Nighthawk or Cerberus might give Caldari something to be excited about. You preach "balance", but a nerf without a buff just makes people mad. Fozzie, I appreciate your patience with us. We have an significant investment in this game. Thanks!
Have you ignored the huge buff to HAMs in the form of Tracking Enhancers? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:05:00 -
[3184] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: I didnt say those fittings are viable per se, but I said the numbers which this other guy posted say nothing at all. You will most probably agree with me that in turret ships its quite often possible to fit in a TC and/or TE in viable fittings. And I hope you agree with me too, that a PvP Cane is not by default worse than a PvP Drake ... do you? :-)
Depends on application. If the fight starts close, I'd rather be in a cane, if I'm doing the warp in give me a drake every time, because by the time they get to us they are pretty much already wrecked. .
Thats what I meant with balance - in one situation one ship is in favor, and in the other situation another ship is. I have no problems at all with bringing other BCs a bit more in line with Drake and Cane, but I object to nerfing the Drake like it is planned as a HML platform. I have no idea how the actual changes will be, but I think Caldari should have a viable tech 1 hull for long range missile fights. And apart from the Drake I dont see one ...
Apart from that, a Myrm, Brutix and Harbinger can be fitted for close range in your face DPS fights which no Drake would win, and Cyclone should be able to get the edge in 1on1. Still, overall BCs seem ok balanced to me, esp. in comparison to other classes. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:07:00 -
[3185] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
Have you ignored the huge buff to HAMs in the form of Tracking Enhancers?
TEs will not make HAMs a long range platform (and ofc, they shouldnt!). People dont like the idea there is no long range missile system working anymore for Caldari. Apart from that, how those TEs will really work in the next release is a topic of not so many facts but just much speculation. I personally have to see yet how they will buff HAMs in a way they are really viable, but time will tell.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:08:00 -
[3186] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
Explain what the numbers mean then.
I did twice.
All those numbers tell you is that the X hull is being used in fleet fights. Period that is all. Because you don't know how many people are on each kill, it only parses the killmails.
Because I have a hard time believing that Zealots are used in PvP twice as many times as a hurricane.....ever its a niche hull. Like I said NC. is using them, but there aren't that many, NC. isn't terribly big compared to most null alliances. Previous NC. picking up that doctrine I had only EVER seen Zealots in space as anti-tackle with HAC gangs. Ever.
You are telling me that ONE alliance is has more kills with Zealots that the REST OF EVE does with hurricanes?
Odd,I've heard the game called Drakes and Canes online, never Drakes and Zealots online.
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
196
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:08:00 -
[3187] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Snape Dieboldmotor wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
You're nerfing a beloved ship - the Drake. Buffing the Nighthawk or Cerberus might give Caldari something to be excited about. You preach "balance", but a nerf without a buff just makes people mad. Fozzie, I appreciate your patience with us. We have an significant investment in this game. Thanks! Have you ignored the huge buff to HAMs in the form of Tracking Enhancers?
And you ingored we are talking about long range weapons? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:14:00 -
[3188] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: I didnt say those fittings are viable per se, but I said the numbers which this other guy posted say nothing at all. You will most probably agree with me that in turret ships its quite often possible to fit in a TC and/or TE in viable fittings. And I hope you agree with me too, that a PvP Cane is not by default worse than a PvP Drake ... do you? :-)
Depends on application. If the fight starts close, I'd rather be in a cane, if I'm doing the warp in give me a drake every time, because by the time they get to us they are pretty much already wrecked. . Thats what I meant with balance - in one situation one ship is in favor, and in the other situation another ship is. I have no problems at all with bringing other BCs a bit more in line with Drake and Cane, but I object to nerfing the Drake like it is planned as a HML platform. I have no idea how the actual changes will be, but I think Caldari should have a viable tech 1 hull for long range missile fights. And apart from the Drake I dont see one ... Apart from that, a Myrm, Brutix and Harbinger can be fitted for close range in your face DPS fights which no Drake would win, and Cyclone should be able to get the edge in 1on1. Still, overall BCs seem ok balanced to me, esp. in comparison to other classes.
In what sense is the Drake NOT viable after the changes? Lets assume (as is sensible) that its Kin bonus will become RoF like it did on the other 2 balanced caldari missile ships.
A HAM drake would have a good chance in a close range fight, and vastly more so after the tracking enhancer changes. You can kite pretty well at 23km. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:15:00 -
[3189] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
In the 15 - 35km window you mentioned, why wouldnt you use short range guns (with long range ammo) which would have more DPS and VASTLY higher tracking?
As I've mentioned, if you are using TCs on the gun platforms you need to do so on the Drake too, so there is no long range window where the turrets beat the Drake. Also 84km is the correct range since the changes to Missile acceleration now on the test server, not 79km.
Sorry, no. The correct range is the one on the live server, not the one on test server. Do you agree on the fact a Drake can atm shoot on longer ranges only by using rigs for this? So TCs for now DONT work on a Drake. Please stop mixing facts about how it is NOW and WHY the changes have to be done with completely unsure speculation of what might be coming with exactly those changes.... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:15:00 -
[3190] - Quote
Lallante wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:bllllleuuuurgh. Nice. I'm sure you will soon be banned for spammign the same post over and over.
If there wasn't 100 some odd pages of "blah blah blah, NERF POWER!!"
Then I wouldn't have had to post it more than once.
That said, It's highly unlikely that CCP is reading every single post.
So, I have to keep it up within the last few pages in order for it to get noticed.
Just in case you missed it though..
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Posting to new page
@CCP
With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?
Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?
Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing. Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps. So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.
Ok, that wasn't the last thing. Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject? I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject. So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.
Here's hoping for a reply from you guys...............
|
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:19:00 -
[3191] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lallante wrote:
Explain what the numbers mean then.
I did twice. All those numbers tell you is that the X hull is being used in fleet fights. Period that is all. Because you don't know how many people are on each kill, it only parses the killmails.
Explain what a figure of 10000 in that list means. Does it mean for that month: a) 10000 zealots were used in fleet fights (obviously not) b) zealots appeared on killmails 10,000 times? (this is what I am claiming - it will be directly proportional to the number flown in PvP) c) zealots got 10000 final blows (what someone else claimed) d) something else (you explain?)
Quote:
Because I have a hard time believing that Zealots are used in PvP twice as many times as a hurricane.....ever its a niche hull. Like I said NC. is using them, but there aren't that many, NC. isn't terribly big compared to most null alliances. Previous NC. picking up that doctrine I had only EVER seen Zealots in space as anti-tackle with HAC gangs. Ever.
You are telling me that ONE alliance is has more kills with Zealots that the REST OF EVE does with hurricanes?
Odd,I've heard the game called Drakes and Canes online, never Drakes and Zealots online.
These are all your claims not mine. I dont think zealots only appear on there due to NCDot, thats something you've claimed.
An arguement from personal incredulity is a fallacy. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:22:00 -
[3192] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:[more bleeeuaurgh
You obviously aren't reading the dev responses in this thead as they a) answer most of your questions and b) have repeatedly stated they WILL read every post in this thread (and this promise has been repeated twice). |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:25:00 -
[3193] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:
In the 15 - 35km window you mentioned, why wouldnt you use short range guns (with long range ammo) which would have more DPS and VASTLY higher tracking?
As I've mentioned, if you are using TCs on the gun platforms you need to do so on the Drake too, so there is no long range window where the turrets beat the Drake. Also 84km is the correct range since the changes to Missile acceleration now on the test server, not 79km.
Sorry, no. The correct range is the one on the live server, not the one on test server. Do you agree on the fact a Drake can atm shoot on longer ranges only by using rigs for this? So TCs for now DONT work on a Drake. Please stop mixing facts about how it is NOW and WHY the changes have to be done with completely unsure speculation of what might be coming with exactly those changes....
...we are debating the balancing changes, which include the change to missile acceleration and TEs/TCs. How can we debate whether the changes are good or bad if you insist on ignoring (more than) half of them?
Seriously you are either a terrible troll or an idiot.
Right now, people dont fly Beam Harbs or 720 Cane with TC fitted and yet you insist on including one. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:25:00 -
[3194] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
In what sense is the Drake NOT viable after the changes? Lets assume (as is sensible) that its Kin bonus will become RoF like it did on the other 2 balanced caldari missile ships.
A HAM drake would have a good chance in a close range fight, and vastly more so after the tracking enhancer changes. You can kite pretty well at 23km.
Like someone else said - I dont say the Drake will not be viable as a HAM platform at all. It is now to a certain degree, and may be (or may not be, no one knows for sure) the same or better after the patch. But it will suck as an HML platform with those planned changes. Lets apply them to your (not even very viable, as shown before ..) numbers from 2 pages before:
Lallante wrote: 720mm cane - 168dps (54+22km) Beam harbinger - 184dps (54+10km) 250mm ferox - 120dps (97+15km) Rail Brutix - 175dps (65+15km) ... all with rather ****** tracking VS Drake - 250dps across 84km Drake after patch: 200 DPS across less than 58 km .
Drake will be 200 DPS at 58 km, and as we pointed out before, other ships can deal way more in certain windows. Apart from that, the Drake will not have room to fit TEs and TCs unlike the other ships which are able to do that right now, and if it does, it will lose in other areas. Cane out-DPSes a Drake at 58 km then, and not only in 79 km like now, so it would not even need a Sebo to do so ... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:31:00 -
[3195] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
There is no need for 100km range, coz first the Drake will need a Sebo too to hit on more than 75 km, but wont go that much further anyway coz missiles run out way before the 84km mark. For 90km locking the Cane needs only 1 Sebo too. So I dont see how there is no tank at all ..
[Drake, snipe]
7x Heavy Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile)
Sensor Booster II (Targeting Range Script) 2x Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Kinetic Deflection Field II
2x Ballistic Control System II 2x Capacitor Power Relay II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I
stats?
DPS: 368 (sorry, it had been a while) Tank: 54,351 Targeting Range 120km Missile range 115km Cap: Stable 42.21%
You understand that is about 14k more EHP then a standard 720mm cane, about 25k more than a cane that can hit it back. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:34:00 -
[3196] - Quote
Lallante wrote: Seriously you are either a terrible troll or an idiot.
Right now, people dont fly Beam Harbs or 720 Cane with TC fitted and yet you insist on including one.
Are you claiming long range Canes and Harbs dont use tracking modules? I used the TC to simplify things, I could have worked with remote stuff or TEs as well ... now, who is the terrible troll here?
You ignore the facts about null sec stuff.
You ignore how HAMs are *not* a solution for long range Caldari missile PvP.
You ignore the fact HMLs are not OP at all, but just work in some ships well (and, maybe under certain conditions too well).
You ignore how ACs (esp. large ones) and their Falloff is a much bigger issue than anything Caldari ever had, including the Falcon.
You ignore ideas of balancing medium long range turrets instead of nerfing something which works on just 2 ships, and sucks on all others (and speaking of ships here which would still need HML a lot, if they finally WILL be fixed).
You ignore how you can not give balance by applying a certain mechanic to a system and ignoring other mechanics like falloff, wreckings and instant damage in the same time.
You ignore how ships work as a WHOLE and not as a collection of some numbers (EHP, DPS, range) but as a complex equation of ALL factors.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
83
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:34:00 -
[3197] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:You've got it very easy vs small targets and will continue to.
Looking forward to another 50 pages. Do you know what explosion velocity is? Or explosion radius? Looking forward to more of your posts.
You really don't know what you're talking about do you? Try killing a HML pvp drake with a frig, just try it. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:37:00 -
[3198] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
You really don't know what you're talking about do you? Try killing a HML pvp drake with a frig, just try it.
You can you need a bleed tanking AB frig to do it, a la Ishkur or Wolf, they are the only two that do enough DPS and tank the damage.
Maybe the new Executioner, but I haven't really putzed with it.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:39:00 -
[3199] - Quote
Lallante wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:[more bleeeuaurgh You obviously aren't reading the dev responses in this thead as they a) answer most of your questions and b) have repeatedly stated they WILL read every post in this thread (and this promise has been repeated twice).
A) neither of my questions have been directly answered in the manner of how my question is phrased.
I have asked if they had thought and were considering large velocity increases in exchange for flight time. They have stated that missiles will be getting a slight buff to velocity in order to better reach their range on paper. They have also stated that they may increase velocity of everything but heavy missiles.
These are a matter of slightly increasing velocity to reach max on paper range, and they've responded to increasing the velocity of slower missiles so they're not outrun.
Neither of the responses come close to answering my question.
The same can be said for any question they have answered. Their answers are no where near related to my questions.
Besides, wtf are you trying to stop here?
It seems to me that you want nothing more than to see all damage focused missile boats taken off the field.
Well, congratulations, it's happening, and it will stay this way until CCP balances bc's and bs's.
Missile boats have had 2 damage focused ships that were viable, (nay) even capable of pvp.
The tengu might still be capable but with a 20% damage reduction and a 25% range reduction, I'm sure that most people that fly them in pvp will not be willing to risk over 1 billion isk anymore.
Same goes for the drake. It may still be capable of pvp, but why am I doing to fly a ship that does 20% less damage at 25% less range?
Answer, I'm not. I'm going to hop into a ship like the hurricane that not only isn't getting a damage nerf, but has always been a more viable and versatile pvp ship with plenty of build options.
I've seen many O drake melt to a hurricane up close. Lot of good those heavy missiles and EHP did.
Oh, and ASB fitted hurricanes are mean as hell. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:40:00 -
[3200] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:
In what sense is the Drake NOT viable after the changes? Lets assume (as is sensible) that its Kin bonus will become RoF like it did on the other 2 balanced caldari missile ships.
A HAM drake would have a good chance in a close range fight, and vastly more so after the tracking enhancer changes. You can kite pretty well at 23km.
Like someone else said - I dont say the Drake will not be viable as a HAM platform at all. It is now to a certain degree, and may be (or may not be, no one knows for sure) the same or better after the patch. But it will suck as an HML platform with those planned changes. Lets apply them to your (not even very viable, as shown before ..) numbers from 2 pages before: Lallante wrote: 720mm cane - 168dps (54+22km) Beam harbinger - 184dps (54+10km) 250mm ferox - 120dps (97+15km) Rail Brutix - 175dps (65+15km) ... all with rather ****** tracking VS Drake - 250dps across 84km Drake after patch: 200 DPS across less than 58 km .
Drake will be 200 DPS at 58 km, and as we pointed out before, other ships can deal way more in certain windows. Apart from that, the Drake will not have room to fit TEs and TCs unlike the other ships which are able to do that right now, and if it does, it will lose in other areas. Cane out-DPSes a Drake at 58 km then, and not only in 79 km like now, so it would not even need a Sebo to do so ...
Drake will be 200 at 63km actually, and that assuming it DOESNT get the RoF bonus it almost certainly will (RoF bonus = slightly better DPS than a dmg bonus).
720mm DPS at 63 km is 89% of 168, or ~150dps. Drake still dominates. Drake is just as able to use either a TC or TE as other ships.
Dont you understand that at long range some of the turret setups SHOULD out dps or out range the drake. Its called balance!
|
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:41:00 -
[3201] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Lallante wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:[more bleeeuaurgh You obviously aren't reading the dev responses in this thead as they a) answer most of your questions and b) have repeatedly stated they WILL read every post in this thread (and this promise has been repeated twice). A) neither of my questions have been directly answered in the manner of how my question is phrased. I have asked if they had thought and were considering large velocity increases in exchange for flight time. They have stated that missiles will be getting a slight buff to velocity in order to better reach their range on paper. They have also stated that they may increase velocity of everything but heavy missiles. These are a matter of slightly increasing velocity to reach max on paper range, and they've responded to increasing the velocity of slower missiles so they're not outrun. Neither of the responses come close to answering my question. The same can be said for any question they have answered. Their answers are no where near related to my questions. Besides, wtf are you trying to stop here? It seems to me that you want nothing more than to see all damage focused missile boats taken off the field. Well, congratulations, it's happening, and it will stay this way until CCP balances bc's and bs's. Missile boats have had 2 damage focused ships that were viable, (nay) even capable of pvp. The tengu might still be capable but with a 20% damage reduction and a 25% range reduction, I'm sure that most people that fly them in pvp will not be willing to risk over 1 billion isk anymore. Same goes for the drake. It may still be capable of pvp, but why am I doing to fly a ship that does 20% less damage at 25% less range? Answer, I'm not. I'm going to hop into a ship like the hurricane that not only isn't getting a damage nerf, but has always been a more viable and versatile pvp ship with plenty of build options. I've seen many O drake melt to a hurricane up close. Lot of good those heavy missiles and EHP did. Oh, and ASB fitted hurricanes are mean as hell.
You know hurricanes and ASBs are both being nerfed right? Or do you live in a bubble? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
87
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:44:00 -
[3202] - Quote
Lallante wrote: 720mm cane - 168dps (54+22km) Beam harbinger - 184dps (54+10km) 250mm ferox - 120dps (97+15km) Rail Brutix - 175dps (65+15km) ... all with rather ****** tracking VS Drake - 250dps across 84km Drake after patch: 200 DPS across less than 58 km .
Wait wait wait....
So, you didn't just say:
Quote:...we are debating the balancing changes, which include the change to missile acceleration and TEs/TCs. How can we debate whether the changes are good or bad if you insist on ignoring (more than) half of them?
Seriously you are either a terrible troll or an idiot.
Right now, people dont fly Beam Harbs or 720 Cane with TC fitted and yet you insist on including one.
So, why are you giving numbers pre-patch, and then when someone mentions how things are in live, you then turn around speaking of how we're having a discussion on post-patch.
Hmm.... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:45:00 -
[3203] - Quote
[quote=Onictus]
[Drake, snipe]
7x Heavy Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile)
Sensor Booster II (Targeting Range Script) 2x Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Kinetic Deflection Field II
2x Ballistic Control System II 2x Capacitor Power Relay II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I
stats?
DPS: 368 (sorry, it had been a while) Tank: 54,351 Targeting Range 120km Missile range 115km Cap: Stable 42.21%
You understand that is about 14k more EHP then a standard 720mm cane, about 25k more than a cane that can hit it back.
I admit, I didnt see how far a Sebo II would boost the Drakes Targetting range. So maybe this is something which should be adressed? Changing the targetting range in a way such boosted missile ranges (with rigs) will only work with even more dedicated sniperfittings. With less EHP.
But to be fair, this Drake here can hit back fine from range, but if it will get visitors in close range its just as dead as any other sniper ship. And in ranges closer to the optimal of its rivals it will also not shine at all - and it has no ability to dictate range, right?
And please be honest - do you really feel Drakes like this one are what ruins EVE? What I felt is, people are more concerned about "standard" PvP fitted roaming gang Drakes, which use HML just because HAMs are so poor in range and application. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:53:00 -
[3204] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
And please be honest - do you really feel Drakes like this one are what ruins EVE? What I felt is, people are more concerned about "standard" PvP fitted roaming gang Drakes, which use HML just because HAMs are so poor in range and application.
No I don't feel it breaks Eve, however, after flying all four races, it IS bar none the best battlecruiser out of the herd.
Do you take ANY of the other tier1/tier2 battle cruisers against battleships? Ever? Would you even think about it? **** NO, you would get slaughtered.
So why does the Drake pop up all over the place? Because it does BS damage at BS ranges. You have fit for long range to do the same DPS with a BATTLESHIP TURRET at 70km. AC's can't do it, Blasters damn sure can't, pulses die at about 60km.
.....to compete with a MEDIUM weapon, its not the drake, the drake has arguably the crappiest damage bonus in the game.
Its the system. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 21:55:00 -
[3205] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
Drake will be 200 at 63km actually, and that assuming it DOESNT get the RoF bonus it almost certainly will (RoF bonus = slightly better DPS than a dmg bonus).
720mm DPS at 63 km is 89% of 168, or ~150dps. Drake still dominates. Drake is just as able to use either a TC or TE as other ships.
Dont you understand that at long range some of the turret setups SHOULD out dps or out range the drake. Its called balance!
The Drake will have ZERO at 63 Dude, coz its missiles vanish in space. And no, I dont see why they should out-DPS the Drake there, why shouldnt it be the other way round? :) The Drake gets out dpsd in shorter ranges already, and also in longe ranges, why? :)
Btw, this is both true already now - and still you call it OP now, and balance then. Troll?
And no, viable Drake fittings dont include TE/TCs, viable Cane fittings do. Will you deny the fact Cane and Drake are balanced against each other, or not?
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:01:00 -
[3206] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Onictus wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
You really don't know what you're talking about do you? Try killing a HML pvp drake with a frig, just try it.
You can you need a bleed tanking AB frig to do it, a la Ishkur or Wolf, they are the only two that do enough DPS and tank the damage. Maybe the new Executioner, but I haven't really putzed with it. An AF will take a HML mission drake easy It will NOT take a poddla drake.
That is true.
You do still find those that refuse to add a web because "more tank is better".
|
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
124
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:01:00 -
[3207] - Quote
Hi,
Please don't keep posting the same thing over and over again as it derails the thread and will be considered as spam and dealt with appropriately.
Thanks and fly safe.
ISD Suvetar Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:05:00 -
[3208] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Thats a fair answer. Now one last question to this - do you think Caldari does have any other long range option in tech 1 hulls apart from the Drake? And will you agree the Drake does to a certain degree what maybe the Raven should in fact do?
As an addition - in my opinion a Drake gets slaughtered if it fights BS. It may shine under certain conditions, but if you want to engage a BS, better bring a BS. Or something completely different ;)
Drake is fine against short range BSs (well hellcates are an issue for them), against long range BSs, yeah its a massacre.
...and for reference you use Drakes against BS's so when you get dropped you can GTFO, because if you are in BS's still with Dreads and Titans on the field you are going to get your ass handed to you, and it doesn't matter how well you play.
Drakes can burn out of the bubbles a hell of a lot faster than brick tanked battleships. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:06:00 -
[3209] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Oh, and I've seen way more canes solo bs's than I have drakes.
Yeah, so?
|
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:07:00 -
[3210] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
nighthawk and cerberus eh? well personally i wouldn't mind the cerberus being brought up to scratch as a "mainline" HAC. one of the larger problems i personally see with the caldari hac line is that both hulls are build specifically for long range sniping combat. based on its description the cerberus is certainly intended to act as a missile launching monstrosity and currently that's represented by huge range and fairly reasonable damage. perhaps the solution then is to gear this a little more towards damage dealing rather than damage projection?
its a fanciful image of course but the idea of a cerberus litterally spewing endless waves of missiles into targets gives me a nice warm feeling and anything we can do to encourage that is a good thing. perhaps rather than a pair of missile range bonuses the cerberus could be more focused towards messing things up? the 2nd range bonus (flight time I believe) could be altered to give the cerberus an explosion radius bonus, something the nighthawk admittedly already has. while 3 "damage" bonuses might be a little... much... it would more than certainly lock the cerberus in as an anti "fast stuff" platform using hams or heavy missiles to pursue and engage particularly fast opponents and provide meaningful dps support to a gang its a part of.
its not a perfect suggestion of course, another idea would be to outright change the "hac" bonus to a huge ass 10% RoF bonus and have it REALLY churn out the fwoosh, range comparable to a caracal but with the advanced systems needed to coordinate more missiles in flight and reload its launchers? sounds fun to me.
in turn, much like the caracal, I believe the cerberus could use some fitting love to help push it a bit more towards the combat role while the eagle can most certainly remain as a huge ass range sniper (though in turn that needs some love to give it some reason to exist as opposed to the naga, probably tracking love ^_^ ).
as for the nighthawk.... thats a lot harder to say. the biggest issue I can kind of see with the nighthawk is that the drake is just as good... in pretty much every way. the nighthawk's bonuses are kind of made redundant as generally speaking the drake has just as much tank, speed and ability to hit smaller targets at only a marginal loss in performance. a lot of it i think has to do with the drake's sheer tanking ability compared to the nighthawk; which only gets an edge over the drake in passive tanking. something not all that useful in pvp due to the consumption of critical lowslots for shield power relays.
while the nighthawk can most certainly sling more ordinance than a drake the overall advantage isn't that great, while the nighthawk has a 2 extra damage application bonuses (RoF and explosion radius) the drake has an additional turret and more freedom of fitting bringing it a lot closer than is ideal.
what i'd like to see to bring the nighthawk up to scratch? TANK.While the sleipnir might be a lean mean dakka machine (though again of limmited use in the grand scheme of things due to cost) the caldari strike me as the kinds who'd want to protect their command assets at all costs. improved fitting, natural shield amount and some juggled slots (5th low up to a mid perhaps?) with the intention of permitting the nighthawk to simply survive harder and longer than its peers would in my mind make it a good deal more useful as a member of a gang, an active tanking bonus "might" work but it doesn't strike me as very "Kaalakiota", perhaps a shield hitpoint amount bonus in place of the missile explosion radius bonus and enough powergrid to sport ham launchers and a strong extender based tank would suffice to bring it up to spec.
just idle thoughts of course but i think but seeing as T2 ships are ment to be "specialised" having a specialised missile damage boat and a specialised tanking command vessel seem like fair suggestions in my mind. Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:31:00 -
[3211] - Quote
Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Oh, and I've seen way more canes solo bs's than I have drakes.
Yeah, so?
You stated that no other bc would be taken up against battleships.
I stated that in fact I have seen way more hurricanes to this than drakes.
You now have nothing to say but "yeah, so?"
So I counter your argument and in defense we get a "Yeah, so?"
Wow |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:42:00 -
[3212] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: Exactly. Lallante got it so completely wrong, its next to pointless to quote him/her anymore, seriously ... we are talking of the CALDARI weapon system, not of some specialised logi/ewar stuff here! Break every projectile ship in t1 for winmatar, break every laser-ship t1 for Amarr, just leave the Frigs alone. Then you see what you want us to accept.
What? There are only 5 medium missile platforms for Caldari including t2 and t3. Of these 2 are OP, 1 is fine (caracal) and 2 are never used. Caracal is rebalanced around the new HMLs and we have been promised the 2 never used ones will be addressed in turn. What exactly is being broken? Name a currently working ship that will be broken post changes?
I'm pro-nerf, but not in its current form, because the ships that will be hurt are those that use missiles as a secondary weapon system. Nobody fit missiles in a Stabber's other 2 highslots already, and they're even less likely to after this takes effect.
Missile ships will be fine, ships that have missile hardpoints but no bonuses to them will basically have wasted hardpoints. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:58:00 -
[3213] - Quote
For those who haven't looked at a graph of HML Drake vs Harbinger, here's one:
http://imageshack.us/a/img411/4537/59105125.png
In this picture, all ships have 3 damage mods. The Drake is using faction ammo, with Fury the numbers would look even worse. The Harbinger manages a 53,000 EHP tank and a point with its remaining slots. The Drake has a 99,000 EHP tank and a point. The Harbinger needs 2 fitting mods to make this work, the Drake needs none.
The Drake beats a beam Harbinger from 20km to infinity, and it does so with twice the tank.
A pulse Harbinger with scorch only does 15% more DPS and only does it out to ~23+5km with max skills. The Drake maintains twice the tank.
^ The Drake beats the beam harbinger by such an incredible margin in terms of range and DPS alone, it's insult to injury that it has twice the tank too. I just worry that a heavy missile nerf will hurt ships that don't have bonuses to them, such as the Muninn and Vaga, Curse, and Gallente recons. |
Adam Lyon
Lonetrek Blacksoul Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:58:00 -
[3214] - Quote
Even though no one will read this, I'd like to bring it to your attention (if it isn't already) that missiles are the only weapon system in which the short-range version has more restricting fitting requirements than the long range version. Not only this, but some of the rigs for the weapon system (for some balance reason that I have yet to comprehend) do not apply to the short range version.
A 650mm artillery cannon (the smallest long range cruiser class projectile) uses 200/27 A 425mm autocannon (the largest short range cruiser class projectile) uses 140/24 >0.700/0.889
250mm rail (long range) is 198/38 Heavy neutron blaster (short range) is 179/29 >0.904/0.763
Heavy beam laser (long range) is 250/35 Heavy pulse laser (short range) is 210/33 >0.840/0.943
A HML (long range) uses 100/50 A HAM (short range) uses 120/45 >1.200/0.900 (the only one with a value >1)
I agree with all of the missile changes, but not the the extent the changes are made. A 20% nerf is clearly just balancing them in the opposite direction. Instead of 70% of cruiser class weapons being missiles, 7% will be. That's not balance. Missiles could use a nerf but that deep of a nerf is just plain silly. I can't honestly see HMs being a viable option after this patch for PVE or PVP compared to other weapons systems.
tl;dr Pulling missiles back in line with other weapon systems is good. Pulling them behind other weapon systems is bad. Doing so incompletely is even worse. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 23:01:00 -
[3215] - Quote
Thanks Adam. I've posted this multiple times but it's lost to most readers in the 150 pages of rant. Remember that Torpedos are the same, but rockets are easier to fit than light missiles. It's a mess. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 23:20:00 -
[3216] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
The Drake will have ZERO at 63 Dude, coz its missiles vanish in space. And no, I dont see why they should out-DPS the Drake there, why shouldnt it be the other way round? :) The Drake gets out dpsd in shorter ranges already, and also in longe ranges, why? :)
Btw, this is both true already now - and still you call it OP now, and balance then. Troll?
And no, viable Drake fittings dont include TE/TCs, viable Cane fittings do. Will you deny the fact Cane and Drake are balanced against each other, or not?
can u show me a fit from a turret BC that does 500dps from 50km+ (not a tier 3 of course) that can also reach 80k ehp?
bearing in mind the drake hits out to 80km and tanks 100kehp |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 23:44:00 -
[3217] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Sigras wrote:I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.
As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine. By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship. I vehemently disagree. Lets give a scenario, a Dramiel 50km away MWDing toward you at 5,537 m/s to tackle you, and lets say hes almost coming straight at you, say 15 degrees off of straight at you with a MSE, his sig radius is 222 m
Scenario 1, youre in a harbinger, so we have to know his transversal velocity which math tells us is 1,433.081 m/s (if you want me to show my work I will) Plugging those numbers into the tracking formula, you get an 18.3% chance to hit, and your hits will never do more than 18.3% of your max damage. This means your applied damage is around 3.34% of your max damage or around 10 DPS for a 3 heat sink harbinger Remember this can still be dropped further if they were to increase their angle of attack and thereby raise their transversal
Scenario 2, youre in a drake, we dont have to calculate anything but the formula which makes this easy. you do around 55 DPS Remember this is a minimum, if he slows down, the missiles will do considerably more damage and there is no amount of piloting skill that can reduce that damage further.
Again, if you want me to show my work i will indeed.
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't. Guns also miss and have damage variation, this is all averaged into the damage calculations, which is why it is an average. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 23:47:00 -
[3218] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:4) how many wrecking hits will a Drake score? None ... there simply are no wreckings for missiles. True, but remember there are also no glancing blows and no misses either. As a function the differences are null in many cases every hit on Drake is a glancing blow. In some cases it's effectively a miss (fast-moving frigs). That is true, but in most of those cases (unless youre fighting an idiot who is coming straight at you) every ship that mitigates 90% of the drake damage mitigates 100% of the gun damage because guns just cant hit them. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 23:51:00 -
[3219] - Quote
Eckyy wrote: Nobody fit missiles in a Stabber's other 2 highslots already, and they're even less likely to after this takes effect.
nobody fits them now...even less ppl will fit them after. is that even possible? its not because missiles are weak that ppl aren't fitting them as a secondary weapon system, its that the split weapon system is unsupported on most ships. u could even buff heavy missiles a bit and i'd bet they still wouldnt be used on stabbers.
does the stabber even have grid to fit arties and heavies at the same time? far better off asking CCP to make TP's a high slot and use them to fill ranged utility highs. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 00:07:00 -
[3220] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Eckyy wrote: Nobody fit missiles in a Stabber's other 2 highslots already, and they're even less likely to after this takes effect.
nobody fits them now...even less ppl will fit them after. is that even possible? its not because missiles are weak that ppl aren't fitting them as a secondary weapon system, its that the split weapon system is unsupported on most ships. u could even buff heavy missiles a bit and i'd bet they still wouldnt be used on stabbers. does the stabber even have grid to fit arties and heavies at the same time? far better off asking CCP to make TP's a high slot and use them to fill ranged utility highs.
So, heavy missiles are total crap if the ship does not allow for any kind of bonus ? Really ? We are nerfing a crappy crap weapon system ? |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 00:54:00 -
[3221] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Eckyy wrote: Nobody fit missiles in a Stabber's other 2 highslots already, and they're even less likely to after this takes effect.
nobody fits them now...even less ppl will fit them after. is that even possible? its not because missiles are weak that ppl aren't fitting them as a secondary weapon system, its that the split weapon system is unsupported on most ships. u could even buff heavy missiles a bit and i'd bet they still wouldnt be used on stabbers. does the stabber even have grid to fit arties and heavies at the same time? far better off asking CCP to make TP's a high slot and use them to fill ranged utility highs. So, heavy missiles are total crap if the ship does not allow for any kind of bonus ? Really ? We are nerfing a crappy crap weapon system ?
We nerf a system which is not OP per se. It works well in 2 ships, and it does somehow ok in some others. But it doesnt pwn all like ACs which get fitted to ships with a completely different weapon bonus too ... so basically, yes. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 00:58:00 -
[3222] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:So, heavy missiles are total crap if the ship does not allow for any kind of bonus ? Really ? We are nerfing a crappy crap weapon system ?
The problem with split weapons is that damage mods don't apply to all modules (as in the case of the Typhoon). The additional problem with split-un-bonused-weapons is that you're basically doing zero real damage with your missiles, as in the case of the Stabber.
Missiles are often an option as an unbonused suppliment to damage that you can put in your spare highslots. This once worked because missiles had great base stats. Ships that used missiles primarily tended to have weaker bonuses so as not to make missiles overpowered on them.
This nerf, though it fixes heavy missiles on all missile ships, removes them as a secondary weapon system. Most people probably won't miss them as they were marginally effective at best before, but I feel it's taking away diversity in fitting. I'd rather see missiles receive a buff and have missile ships stripped of their damage bonuses in favor of explosion velocity/radius, range, or perhaps even other bonuses like tanking or ewar.
Choice is good. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 01:00:00 -
[3223] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:We nerf a system which is not OP per se. It works well in 2 ships, and it does somehow ok in some others. But it doesnt pwn all like ACs which get fitted to ships with a completely different weapon bonus too ... so basically, yes.
Autocannons don't pwn on ships like the Myrmidon, these ships are strong ships even without guns fit. Autocannons do **** poor dps without a double bonus like on the Hurricane or Vagabond but they're better than leaving the highslots empty and they don't consume cap. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 01:12:00 -
[3224] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Bloutok wrote:So, heavy missiles are total crap if the ship does not allow for any kind of bonus ? Really ? We are nerfing a crappy crap weapon system ? The problem with split weapons is that damage mods don't apply to all modules (as in the case of the Typhoon). The additional problem with split-un-bonused-weapons is that you're basically doing zero real damage with your missiles, as in the case of the Stabber. Missiles are often an option as an unbonused suppliment to damage that you can put in your spare highslots. This once worked because missiles had great base stats. Ships that used missiles primarily tended to have weaker bonuses so as not to make missiles overpowered on them. This nerf, though it fixes heavy missiles on all missile ships, removes them as a secondary weapon system. Most people probably won't miss them as they were marginally effective at best before, but I feel it's taking away diversity in fitting. I'd rather see missiles receive a buff and have missile ships stripped of their damage bonuses in favor of explosion velocity/radius, range, or perhaps even other bonuses like tanking or ewar. Choice is good.
Wait a sec .... Did you say that the heavy missile weapon is a bad weapon without bonus and then made the logical decision that the nerf should be on the bad weapon instead of the ships that allow bonuses ???? Really ? |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 01:37:00 -
[3225] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Eckyy wrote:Bloutok wrote:So, heavy missiles are total crap if the ship does not allow for any kind of bonus ? Really ? We are nerfing a crappy crap weapon system ? The problem with split weapons is that damage mods don't apply to all modules (as in the case of the Typhoon). The additional problem with split-un-bonused-weapons is that you're basically doing zero real damage with your missiles, as in the case of the Stabber. Missiles are often an option as an unbonused suppliment to damage that you can put in your spare highslots. This once worked because missiles had great base stats. Ships that used missiles primarily tended to have weaker bonuses so as not to make missiles overpowered on them. This nerf, though it fixes heavy missiles on all missile ships, removes them as a secondary weapon system. Most people probably won't miss them as they were marginally effective at best before, but I feel it's taking away diversity in fitting. I'd rather see missiles receive a buff and have missile ships stripped of their damage bonuses in favor of explosion velocity/radius, range, or perhaps even other bonuses like tanking or ewar. Choice is good. Wait a sec .... Did you say that the heavy missile weapon is a bad weapon without bonus and then made the logical decision that the nerf should be on the bad weapon instead of the ships that allow bonuses ???? Really ?
If you read some of my prior posts I advocate doing SOMETHING about heavy missiles, but I think cutting heavy missile damage via some other method than a direct damage reduction on the missile itself - such as changing ship bonuses - is a more appropriate way to go about it. |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 01:55:00 -
[3226] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lallante wrote:
If Drakes were balanced they wouldn't be used 6 x more often than Harbingers.
That repetition of the Harbinger argument .. lol. The Harbinger is indeed not exactly as strong as Drake and Cane. Its very common in lowsec though, and due to its dronebay far from being weak. Apart from that, Amarr have plenty of other ships they can use, which are just better performing, esp. in comparison to their Caldari counterparts. There are not more Drakes in lowsec than Canes, and there are next to no Ravens in lowsec, but tons of Amarr, Winmatar and Gallente BS. So figure, why do people use the Drake? Because they have to. Not because its OP, because it is NOT.
This is very true the drake is so ubiquitous as it's only real option for caldari kill mails other than the tengu which is very expensive how many raven kill mails do you see?
|
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 03:25:00 -
[3227] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Sigras wrote:I think what we're all forgetting is that, unlike long range guns, long range missiles are still competent against close range targets which is a huge advantage.
As far as the HAM vs short range gun argument goes, i would say that the HAMs could use the same explosion velocity, explosion radius and damage reduction factor (almost said DRF lol) as heavys, and then they would be just fine. By the same token, a fast moving target at maximum or near maximum gun range is going to take far more damage from the long range gun than from a missile. Especially if it's a smaller ship. I vehemently disagree. Lets give a scenario, a Dramiel 50km away MWDing toward you at 5,537 m/s to tackle you, and lets say hes almost coming straight at you, say 15 degrees off of straight at you with a MSE, his sig radius is 222 m Scenario 1, youre in a harbinger, so we have to know his transversal velocity which math tells us is 1,433.081 m/s (if you want me to show my work I will) Plugging those numbers into the tracking formula, you get an 18.3% chance to hit, and your hits will never do more than 18.3% of your max damage. This means your applied damage is around 3.34% of your max damage or around 10 DPS for a 3 heat sink harbinger Remember this can still be dropped further if they were to increase their angle of attack and thereby raise their transversal Scenario 2, youre in a drake, we dont have to calculate anything but the formula which makes this easy. you do around 55 DPS Remember this is a minimum, if he slows down, the missiles will do considerably more damage and there is no amount of piloting skill that can reduce that damage further. Again, if you want me to show my work i will indeed. Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:And guns have criticals that aren't calculated into the dps for those EFT warriors. Missiles don't. Guns also miss and have damage variation, this is all averaged into the damage calculations, which is why it is an average. Your math is bad somewhere, because I get almost full dps (over 230) under those circumstances in a beam Harbinger. Even without the tracking computers (i.e. not a pure fleet antisupport fit) I still get around 200 dps. Hell, a dram at that range moving totally perpendicular to a vector drawn from my BC to him still ends up taking 60 dps, and with the comps on that's 135. A dram approaching at a 20% angle at a 50km distance is hosed against any antisupport BC. That's why AS fits exist for turret BCs and not for Drakes.
Drake damage projection clearly needs a nerf, but it's its damage projection against large targets that is the reason. Making up numbers doesn't make our case any stronger. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 03:53:00 -
[3228] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:1) the Harbinger deals EM/Therm with its lasers, and up to 129 DPS Exp damage (Valk II) or 144 DPS Kin damage (Vespa II). I agree the Harbinger is maybe a bit behind the Drake and Cane, but is it as far behind as for example a Raven is behind any Amarr BS? For sure not ..
Again, when dealing with long range fights which happen at 60+ km, drones are a non factor, but at close range you definately have a point and the rebalance of HAMs should reflect this information.
Also, the fact that the raven may be a bit underpowered isnt a reason to allow the drake to be overpowered.
Noemi Nagano wrote:2) I have yet to see this, and if it will be we can see how this will impact in battle. Look at the changes to the Caracal and the Kestral, theyre both ROF bonuses.
Noemi Nagano wrote:3) For the Drake its true on any range, thats the difference to especially Winmatar. Matari long range weapons are just as locked to explosive-kinetic damage as you are to kinetic missiles. In fact the matari guns lose a bit more than 25% of their damage if they switch off of tremor at long range
Noemi Nagano wrote:For the records: I never said the Myrm and Brutix are OP (they are not, but still they can beat the sh*t our of a Drake if the fight is taking place under their rules) I completely agree, if the fight starts at 0, the brutix will make you cry, but then again the brutix is worse than useless if the fight doesnt start at 0. Youre absolutely correct that the brutix is king of its domain. Its just too bad that nobody ever enters its domain, because nobody ever has to.
It reminds me of Jack Sparrow and Will Turner's conversation in Pirates 1 "in a fair fight i'd beat you" "that isnt much incentive for me to fight fair is it?"
The brutix says, "at 0 km ill kill you" everyone else says "ok, then we'll just never get that close"
Noemi Nagano wrote:I object to that stupid statement the Drake is OP. It may be in null sec, but its NOT in small scale/med scale PvP like you will find in lowsec.
I have yet to find someone here to claim the Drake is OP in lowsec, and bring solid facts for that statement. That is not relevant. The fact that it is totally balanced in some situations does not change the fact that it is totally unbalanced in other situations.
That's like saying that supercarriers before the nerf were totally ok because they were fine solo, its only when they got in huge groups that they got unbalanced (which is true) but guess how everyone used them? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 04:00:00 -
[3229] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:Your math is bad somewhere, because I get almost full dps (over 230) under those circumstances in a beam Harbinger. Even without the tracking computers (i.e. not a pure fleet antisupport fit) I still get around 200 dps. Hell, a dram at that range moving totally perpendicular to a vector drawn from my BC to him still ends up taking 60 dps, and with the comps on that's 135. A dram approaching at a 20% angle at a 50km distance is hosed against any antisupport BC. That's why AS fits exist for turret BCs and not for Drakes.
Drake damage projection clearly needs a nerf, but it's its damage projection against large targets that is the reason. Making up numbers doesn't make our case any stronger. ok, where did your numbers start disagreeing with mine? do you agree that at 15 degrees off of heading straight toward you at 5,537 m/s is 1,433.08 m/s transversal?
because the sin(15) = x / 5,537 == sin(15) * 5,537 = x == 1,433.08
yes?
And yes, i was using a Harbinger with heavy beam laser II, aurora ammo and 3 heat sinks. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 04:49:00 -
[3230] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Gorn Arming wrote:Your math is bad somewhere, because I get almost full dps (over 230) under those circumstances in a beam Harbinger. Even without the tracking computers (i.e. not a pure fleet antisupport fit) I still get around 200 dps. Hell, a dram at that range moving totally perpendicular to a vector drawn from my BC to him still ends up taking 60 dps, and with the comps on that's 135. A dram approaching at a 20% angle at a 50km distance is hosed against any antisupport BC. That's why AS fits exist for turret BCs and not for Drakes.
Drake damage projection clearly needs a nerf, but it's its damage projection against large targets that is the reason. Making up numbers doesn't make our case any stronger. ok, where did your numbers start disagreeing with mine? do you agree that at 15 degrees off of heading straight toward you at 5,537 m/s is 1,433.08 m/s transversal? because the sin(15) = x / 5,537 == sin(15) * 5,537 = x == 1,433.08 yes? And yes, i was using a Harbinger with heavy beam laser II, aurora ammo and 3 heat sinks.
Transversal is a useless measurement. Transversal is just linear velocity * angular velocity, and the linear velocity component is irrelevant to your tracking. Do yourself a favor and replace transversal with angular velocity in your overview.
Angular velocity is the unit which your guns' tracking is measured in to begin with. If you see 0.05 rad/sec angular in your overview, and you know your tracking is 0.06, you know they are within your tracking, regardless of how fast they're moving or in what direction.
This doesn't account for signature radius and resolution of course, but even so it's still a more useful stat.
You can develop rules of thumb to take care of those cases where you're sitting at a ship class smaller than your guns, such as "if they're using a MWD, your tracking numbers are accurate and if not, divide by 5. |
|
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 06:04:00 -
[3231] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Gorn Arming wrote:Your math is bad somewhere, because I get almost full dps (over 230) under those circumstances in a beam Harbinger. Even without the tracking computers (i.e. not a pure fleet antisupport fit) I still get around 200 dps. Hell, a dram at that range moving totally perpendicular to a vector drawn from my BC to him still ends up taking 60 dps, and with the comps on that's 135. A dram approaching at a 20% angle at a 50km distance is hosed against any antisupport BC. That's why AS fits exist for turret BCs and not for Drakes.
Drake damage projection clearly needs a nerf, but it's its damage projection against large targets that is the reason. Making up numbers doesn't make our case any stronger. ok, where did your numbers start disagreeing with mine? do you agree that at 15 degrees off of heading straight toward you at 5,537 m/s is 1,433.08 m/s transversal? because the sin(15) = x / 5,537 == sin(15) * 5,537 = x == 1,433.08 yes? And yes, i was using a Harbinger with heavy beam laser II, aurora ammo and 3 heat sinks. Well, to start with, 50km is faction microwave range, not Aurora range. You're gimping your tracking by a factor of four by using the wrong ammo for your choice of range. A Harbinger can switch instantly, so you might as well.
I pulled up my standard AS beam Harbinger in EFT and drew up some plots. I turned of the TCs but there was one TE on there and a locus rig, which is probably pretty representative of any kind of beam fit.
Anyway, what numbers are you using for tracking? I end up with 0.071 rad/s before implants and boosters (less with the TCs turned off--although you really have no reason not to use them in an antisupport setup). If I had to guess I'd say this is probably where we differ. |
None ofthe Above
330
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 06:24:00 -
[3232] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Out of curiosity what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal? The Drake has a fine set of bonuses so once heavy missiles are balanced I don't expect I'd want to change it very drastically. If I was to find the time by some miracle to skip ahead and fix another few ships along with this pass it would be the Nighthawk and Cerb, not the Drake.
I think the main thing people expect out of the BC is to be nerfed again, even after the Heavy Missile triple-nerf.
CCP rarely hits lightly once with the nerfbat and puts it down, and your proposal is no different.
So I guess not being nerfed again on the Drake hull would be a good start as far as "what exactly are you guys hoping you'd see from a BC balance pass that would change your opinion of this missile proposal". A slight buff maybe even to slightly counteract some of the missile nerf maybe even. Let us keep at least close to our barely adequate DPS (yes, yes drake haters -- I know that at many ranges it is fairly superior, but that is the balance of the weapon system). Also agree that the other missile based hulls need a look at. Nighthawk is actually a good ship, but needs help on the PG/CPU side. Its not true that its dead, just enfeebled by bad balance. People still make good use of them anyway. Caracal, sure.
Honest to god, I really don't remember any sizable commentary about the OPed heavy missile before this proposal. They were mostly known as the only missile system that didn't suck. What little I did hear was solely focused on the maximum range (and true, that damage was still useful there). Missiles were so much the second fiddle to the winmatar artillery, but with better range flexibility. So this proposal was quite the shock to myself and I think many others. News to us Caldari that we had been the elite all this time while thinking it was the Minnies.
You are quite right that the other Missile systems needed some work. I like what is proposed for the other systems. I can only presume we are holding off on the Cruise and Torps until we get into the BS range.
I guess maybe we, myself definitely, had begun to believe that CCP had developed the philosophy of fixing the broken things and leaving the working things more or less alone. But I guess that may have been wishful thinking.
The rest of the rebalancing has been truly superior work, with very few exceptions. Some tweaks needed here and there perhaps, but very happy with it. Which makes it harder to come to grips with the seemingly vindictive and incomprehensible heavy handed nerf proposed here. I do hope you keep your commitment to stay open minded and look at the feedback (threadnaughts of unhappy campers and schadenfreude) and hopefully we'll get some good data from future tests.
Please do stay open to dialing this back, before this becomes your Waterloo (or perhaps a better analogy would be Unified Inventory to your CCP Arrow).
The forums are crying out in warning, will you blindly walk off the cliff like many of your CCP brethen before you?
Sorry if my prose gets a little purple. I am trying to stay calm and constructive, avoiding rants. This all just seems so wrong and it is frustrating, and even depressing, to see it drag on without a positive resolution. I know it has cast a pall over gameplay to the missile slinging native squids in Caldari space.
So I'll try to close on a positive note: Cheers to you CCP Fozzie for at least continuing to read this monstrous thread, and even keep posting from time to time. I respect that. I do know you have a good head on your shoulders and I usually agree with you, or at least see good value and insight to your point of view. I do hope you can pick out the several gems of posts in here to help you make EVE an even better game.
o/ EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 06:29:00 -
[3233] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Sigras wrote:Gorn Arming wrote:Your math is bad somewhere, because I get almost full dps (over 230) under those circumstances in a beam Harbinger. Even without the tracking computers (i.e. not a pure fleet antisupport fit) I still get around 200 dps. Hell, a dram at that range moving totally perpendicular to a vector drawn from my BC to him still ends up taking 60 dps, and with the comps on that's 135. A dram approaching at a 20% angle at a 50km distance is hosed against any antisupport BC. That's why AS fits exist for turret BCs and not for Drakes.
Drake damage projection clearly needs a nerf, but it's its damage projection against large targets that is the reason. Making up numbers doesn't make our case any stronger. ok, where did your numbers start disagreeing with mine? do you agree that at 15 degrees off of heading straight toward you at 5,537 m/s is 1,433.08 m/s transversal? because the sin(15) = x / 5,537 == sin(15) * 5,537 = x == 1,433.08 yes? And yes, i was using a Harbinger with heavy beam laser II, aurora ammo and 3 heat sinks. Transversal is a useless measurement. Transversal is just linear velocity * angular velocity, and the linear velocity component is irrelevant to your tracking. Do yourself a favor and replace transversal with angular velocity in your overview. Angular velocity is the unit which your guns' tracking is measured in to begin with. If you see 0.05 rad/sec angular in your overview, and you know your tracking is 0.06, you know they are within your tracking, regardless of how fast they're moving or in what direction. This doesn't account for signature radius and resolution of course, but even so it's still a more useful stat. You can develop rules of thumb to take care of those cases where you're sitting at a ship class smaller than your guns, such as "if they're using a MWD, your tracking numbers are accurate and if not, divide by 5. I understand the difference between transversal and angular velocity, but transverse velocity is what the use in the tracking formula which is why i used it in my calculations |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
213
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 06:37:00 -
[3234] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:Well, to start with, 50km is faction microwave range, not Aurora range. You're gimping your tracking by a factor of four by using the wrong ammo for your choice of range. A Harbinger can switch instantly, so you might as well.
I pulled up my standard AS beam Harbinger in EFT and drew up some plots. I turned of the TCs but there was one TE on there and a locus rig, which is probably pretty representative of any kind of beam fit.
Anyway, what numbers are you using for tracking? I end up with 0.071 rad/s before implants and boosters (less with the TCs turned off--although you really have no reason not to use them in an antisupport setup). If I had to guess I'd say this is probably where we differ. See the reason I avoided using any TEs or TCs is because I dont know how CCP is going to have them affect missiles, so for an apples to apples comparison, im not using them on the gun ships either.
This is operating under the assumption that it helps explosion radius/velocity as much as it helps tracking and thus 2 TEs on the harb = 2 TEs on the drake
so to get my numbers, i was using a tracking of .01031
I can see with faction microwave your chance to hit is far better however i was of course not using TEs / TCs to be fair for not being able to use TEs TCs on missiles, but i believe my point still stands, guns can do less damage against a really good opponent, but with missiles, the best pilot in the world cant mitigate any extra damage. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 06:47:00 -
[3235] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:3) For the Drake its true on any range, thats the difference to especially Winmatar. Matari long range weapons are just as locked to explosive-kinetic damage as you are to kinetic missiles. In fact the matari guns lose a bit more than 25% of their damage if they switch off of tremor at long range
Now thats a bit like what you said in the Brutix discussion - Brutix says "I win at zero" and no one just comes to zero. Long range Matar weapons med size will have the edge above missile range for a Drake (which is, if its a standard PvP Drake and not a dedicated sniper which has completely other issues! at about 75km without sebo and about 78-79 km with sebo), the Drake deals zero there. Or they have to be closer to their optimal, will also deal more than the Drake there (and much more that is, in case of Matar even with choice of damage type and not only kin bonused - atm, may be a subject of change later, but I personally dont want to mix real stats with speculations ;) ), and Matar have the ability to dictate range. Why should they play to the Drakes rules most of the time?
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I object to that stupid statement the Drake is OP. It may be in null sec, but its NOT in small scale/med scale PvP like you will find in lowsec.
I have yet to find someone here to claim the Drake is OP in lowsec, and bring solid facts for that statement. That is not relevant. The fact that it is totally balanced in some situations does not change the fact that it is totally unbalanced in other situations. That's like saying that supercarriers before the nerf were totally ok because they were fine solo, its only when they got in huge groups that they got unbalanced (which is true) but guess how everyone used them?
But its not that everyone uses lag abusing Drake blobs. They are an issue in null sec, due to those facts: in this environment a Drake can perform pretty ok on long ranges, its unability to dictate range which is true in BC-fights doesnt exist versus bigger stuff (naturally), its cheap to replace and you get many people into them. Its a bit like World War II - we dont have Tigers, but we just swarm them with tons of cheaper stuff, coz we have the crew to man those cheaper tanks, and in the end we win (m4 Sherman with the US or T-34 on russian side). If there has to be something done about that, how about fixing Cruise Missiles? If they were working, I *bet* a Raven fleet would be a nice counter to a Drake fleet .. and things would change there eventually.
In low sec small/medium gang and in highsec the Drake is no problem, and to nerf its main weapon system is a nerf for all those who use it there, and who *have* to use it there if they want t1 hull missile based combat as Caldari. I dont feel like this is a justified nerf under those conditions.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 07:00:00 -
[3236] - Quote
Rokh fleet whomps all over Drakes, you don't even need long range ammo, antimatter does fine. Tengus require mid/long range ammo, but Rokhs still do well there. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 08:53:00 -
[3237] - Quote
Eckyy wrote: Angular velocity is the unit which your guns' tracking is measured in to begin with. If you see 0.05 rad/sec angular in your overview, and you know your tracking is 0.06, you know they are within your tracking, regardless of how fast they're moving or in what direction.
'Within your tracking' is not very precise, though.
With your numbers you would be at roughly 50% hit chance (a bit better, 50% would be at .06 angular) given same sig target and optimal range.
Sigras wrote:I understand the difference between transversal and angular velocity, but transverse velocity is what the use in the tracking formula which is why i used it in my calculations
'Transverse' in that formula is angular (the value displayed in your overview, if you enable it), unless the 'tracking' in that formula is something other than the tracking value given for turrets right now.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 10:10:00 -
[3238] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:And please be honest - do you really feel Drakes like this one are what ruins EVE? What I felt is, people are more concerned about "standard" PvP fitted roaming gang Drakes, which use HML just because HAMs are so poor in range and application.
HAM Drake wins 1vs1 against 425mm Cane if you stay as far as you can. Remember that Cane only does that 700+ dps at AC optimal range (which is whopping 3 km). Force Cane pilot to use Barrage and you are safe. |
Darshan Nabali
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 10:33:00 -
[3239] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote: It's still rather tricky to judge your proposal when we don't know what the bonuses to missiles from TCs and TEs, or their missile counterpart, will be.
This will still not help HMLs, for reasons why look no further than the Cerberus. The reasons for why it's not so useful, will be the same reasons why even longer ranger lower dps HMLs on a drake will not be so useful. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 11:04:00 -
[3240] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:For the records: I never said the Myrm and Brutix are OP (they are not, but still they can beat the sh*t our of a Drake if the fight is taking place under their rules)
You'd be surprised. Equally-skilled Drake should beat both Brutix and Myrm in shield gank configurations even if the fight starts at Void optimal.
Active-rigged dual MAR fits are much harder to model, but the Myrm can certainly win and the Brutix can very likely win too. But these aren't particularly common fits these days. |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 11:14:00 -
[3241] - Quote
Darshan Nabali wrote:Gypsio III wrote: It's still rather tricky to judge your proposal when we don't know what the bonuses to missiles from TCs and TEs, or their missile counterpart, will be.
This will still not help HMLs, for reasons why look no further than the Cerberus. The reasons for why it's not so useful, will be the same reasons why even longer ranger lower dps HMLs on a drake will not be so useful.
The Cerb was obsoleted by t3 BCs in the mobile DPS projection role, and by the Tengu and the Drake as HML platforms. Judging the benefits of future TE/TC by using the Cerb will not give you useful information. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 11:17:00 -
[3242] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:And please be honest - do you really feel Drakes like this one are what ruins EVE? What I felt is, people are more concerned about "standard" PvP fitted roaming gang Drakes, which use HML just because HAMs are so poor in range and application. HAM Drake wins 1vs1 against 425mm Cane if you stay as far as you can. Remember that Cane only does that 700+ dps at AC optimal range (which is whopping 3 km). Force Cane pilot to use Barrage and you are safe.
Isn't a cane significantly quicker?
Also - who was right in the harby vs dramiel argument? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 11:34:00 -
[3243] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:And please be honest - do you really feel Drakes like this one are what ruins EVE? What I felt is, people are more concerned about "standard" PvP fitted roaming gang Drakes, which use HML just because HAMs are so poor in range and application. HAM Drake wins 1vs1 against 425mm Cane if you stay as far as you can. Remember that Cane only does that 700+ dps at AC optimal range (which is whopping 3 km). Force Cane pilot to use Barrage and you are safe. Isn't a cane significantly quicker? Also - who was right in the harby vs dramiel argument?
Not after you web him the cane isn't.
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 11:39:00 -
[3244] - Quote
Saying a long range fit Drake will lose if it begins within close range of a close range fit BC is hardly staggering. The fact that it even has a change shows there is a problem. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 12:42:00 -
[3245] - Quote
Lallante wrote:The numbers have been posted and end the debate. The HML is overpowered.
That's disingenuous, paper numbers do not tell the whole story in an environment like EVE.
You may have made up your mind, of course, but the debate is pretty far from over (obviously, going by thread longevity). |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 13:02:00 -
[3246] - Quote
Its all the same people posting again and again though, and its degenerated into discussions of pretty much every possible situation. Alot of it very situational though and not really realistic either. I mean why would a dram orbit you at 50k. how many volleys would you get before he got inside tracking where the missiles do more damage again. If a dram lands 50k off you is up to speed and on you before you get him locked and more a couple of shots off unless you are insta fit. And if you ae insta fit and you don't kill him he gonna embarass youpretty bad ...
So yeah a specially fit turret bc is better against frigs at certain ranges, but the same could be said for specially fit drakes at all ranges (especially if the fix precisions). Run the numbers for precision drake with a tp andr igs and its not at all bad at any range. |
Celin Karr
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 13:05:00 -
[3247] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Darshan Nabali wrote:Gypsio III wrote: It's still rather tricky to judge your proposal when we don't know what the bonuses to missiles from TCs and TEs, or their missile counterpart, will be.
This will still not help HMLs, for reasons why look no further than the Cerberus. The reasons for why it's not so useful, will be the same reasons why even longer ranger lower dps HMLs on a drake will not be so useful. The Cerb was obsoleted by t3 BCs in the mobile DPS projection role, and by the Tengu and the Drake as HML platforms. Judging the benefits of future TE/TC by using the HML Cerb as a host platform will not give you useful information.
tbh the cerb was obsoleted by its extremly terrible capacitor |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
121
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 13:11:00 -
[3248] - Quote
EFT is a big reason for all this arguing. People take the DPS of a Hurricane straight out of EFT and yells "IT HAS OVER 9000 (600) DPS OMGOMG!" Yeah, guess what it has 600 dps all the way out to 3km. The Brutix has twice that dps at the same range, yet the Brutix does not get brought up here like the cane does. The Hurricane is loved for it's great projection of damage. It has around 300? dps out to point range? At least not very impressive. The point is that the Brutix does 0 damage at that range, and the Drake still does 100% dps to 3-4 times that range.
As said 100 times before, HML is a long range weapon, not a short ranged one |
Smite Mueller
DUNE-TECHNOLOGIE Die Graue Legion
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 13:33:00 -
[3249] - Quote
LOL CCP!! You call that BALANCING!!!!
You nerf the missiles to crap!
I can only hope that there will be protest actions in Jita!!
Balancing is, when you finetune some stats, here you finetune with mj+¦lnir, Thor's Hammer!!!
Nerf the stats at least by half of what you hav planned and we will see.
Remember that Caldari missile skills have a major disadvantage:
a caldari has to skill rockets AND light missiles while another weapon system can use blaster or railguns, beam or pulse lasers, acs or arty
So caldari pilots have to skill twice as much!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damage output is ALWAYS below the output of other races like minmatar or gallente!
Tengus will be worthless in PVE. What is next on the list?? Nerfing Machariels???
Should have nerfed FW a long time ago, but no, let some special people exploit this mechanic!!
If u really feel the need to nerf missiles, at least redo the skill tree, so that caldari can use both missile types with only one skill instea of two!!
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
122
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 13:48:00 -
[3250] - Quote
Smite Mueller wrote: Damage output is ALWAYS below the output of other races like minmatar or gallente!
Yeah I know! I just loooove hitting for 1200 dps out to 110 km with my Brutix |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
122
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 13:53:00 -
[3251] - Quote
Smite Mueller wrote: So caldari pilots have to skill twice as much!!!!!!!!!!!!
You mean the way you have to skill rocket spec to lvl 4 to get light missiles, and that you have to skill light missile spec 4 to train HAM, which you have to spec to lvl 4 to get HM's? Because that's the way you have to train to get bigger turrets. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
122
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 14:09:00 -
[3252] - Quote
Actually, I'm just gonna tear this apart...
Smite Mueller wrote:LOL CCP!! You call that BALANCING!!!!
You nerf the missiles to crap!
- No, they are brought in line with other long range platforms. Who dont you go out and do lvl 4's in a Beam Prophecy?
Smite Mueller wrote: I can only hope that there will be protest actions in Jita!!
- Yeah those are fun :)
Smite Mueller wrote: Balancing is, when you finetune some stats, here you finetune with mj+¦lnir, Thor's Hammer!!!
- Or when something is so OP it's just not funny, you have to hit it hard.
Smite Mueller wrote: Nerf the stats at least by half of what you hav planned and we will see.
- You bring no numbers, you just don't want to lose your wtfOP pwnmobile. This is no argument.
Smite Mueller wrote: Remember that Caldari missile skills have a major disadvantage:
a caldari has to skill rockets AND light missiles while another weapon system can use blaster or railguns, beam or pulse lasers, acs or arty
- Wrong, see above post.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
122
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 14:09:00 -
[3253] - Quote
Smite Mueller wrote: So caldari pilots have to skill twice as much!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Wrong, see above post.
Smite Mueller wrote: Damage output is ALWAYS below the output of other races like minmatar or gallente!
- Wrong, see above post.
Smite Mueller wrote: Tengus will be worthless in PVE. What is next on the list?? Nerfing Machariels???
- T3 will be rebalanced in time. This is no argument against the rebalance.
Smite Mueller wrote: Should have nerfed FW a long time ago, but no, let some special people exploit this mechanic!!
- They fixed the entire FW incredibly fast. Update yourself on the facts please.
Smite Mueller wrote: If u really feel the need to nerf missiles, at least redo the skill tree, so that caldari can use both missile types with only one skill instea of two!!
- Then I assume users of turrets can use short and close range weapons by training one skill, and not having to train lvl 4 spec in the smaller type of guns. You can't have all the benefits and none of the drawbacks. Update yourself on facts please. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 14:15:00 -
[3254] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I responded to some of the questions raised in this post and copied the responses to the end of this post as well, And another post responding to more concerns can be found here.:Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread. [/list]
That sounds very bad idea. And it will make tengu and drake totally useless. Kinda makes me sad to here these kinda plans. Biggest issue for me is dmg decrease. I will sell my 2 tengus and 5 drake as soon as this confirms. Maybe i just buy machariel its cheaper than my tengu anyways.
Missiles already have their cons. You cant instapop with missiles like you can with projectiles. You cant snipe with missiles like with projectiles. Heck your target might even warp out while your missiles still on their way..
Currently 2 billion tengu with all skills at V and +3 implants gives 600ish dps. Or even 700ish with t2 scourge. Which doesnt help with sansha rats for example. Why does it need nerf? Whats the point of 400dps tengu with all skills V while using implants and for the price of 2 billion? Why not nerf medium lasors aswell then? Legions are dominating too much in incursions with their uber dps.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
124
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 14:16:00 -
[3255] - Quote
Man I thought miners were bad when they were calling for a buff to Exhumers. Then I thought the gankers were bad when they were all up in arms about the buff the mining ships were getting.
If you mess with HML the people come out of the wood work to proclaim the end of an entire race. This is good stuff.
Sorry I just had to say it. :)
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
175
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 14:30:00 -
[3256] - Quote
What it comes down to is this:
Caldari pilots would actually like to be able to fly Caldari ships using their race's signature weapon. They would like to have the same choices every other race in the game enjoys.
Caldari missile pilots don't get to fly Caldari destroyers. They don't get to fly Caldari cruisers, navy cruisers, or pirate cruisers. They don't get to fly Caldari HACs. Their recons are almost universally hated, and in any case they are the only non-combat recons in the game. They don't get to fly Caldari command ships. They don't get to fly Caldari Battleships in T1 or T2 or Pirate varieties.
If a Caldari PvP pilot using his race's signature weapon wants to fly ANY of these ships types he cannot use Caldari. His own ships are ALL broken. Which is why you see this refrain repeated throughout this thread:
BEFORE you do anything to the Drake, fix our other ships. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
91
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 14:52:00 -
[3257] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Lallante wrote:The numbers have been posted and end the debate. The HML is overpowered. That's disingenuous, paper numbers do not tell the whole story in an environment like EVE. You may have made up your mind, of course, but the debate is pretty far from over (obviously, going by thread longevity).
This is correct. Normally you need to look at paper numbers and how it performs in practice.
This just makes the case worse for the HML as Drake and tengu HML setups are used as one-size-fits-all strategies to fight everything. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
91
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 15:03:00 -
[3258] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
Caldari missile pilots don't get to fly Caldari destroyers. They don't get to fly Caldari cruisers, navy cruisers, or pirate cruisers.
New Destroyers are incoming this next expansion. Caracal and BB are two of the top 5 most used t1 cruisers.
Quote: They don't get to fly Caldari HACs.
Eagle needs better fitting and Cerb needs better Cap and stronger bonuses. They are surely to be rebalanced when HACs get their turn.
Quote: Their recons are almost universally hated, and no one wants them to fly them anyway. They are hated because they are too good. Falcon is by far the most flown recon.
Quote:They don't get to fly Caldari command ships. They don't get to fly Caldari Battleships in T1 or T2 or Pirate varieties. Vulture is as frequently used as Damnation, its direct counterpart. All fleet command ships need the current t3 level bonus which we know is likely to come in due course when t3s get balanced. Nighthawk CCP have said they will balance in turn.
Rokh is one of the most used t1 BS for PvP. Raven and Navy Raven are both the most used t1 BS and Faction BS for PvE. Raven needs a PvP rework, admittedly, and will get it next expansion.
Quote: If a Caldari PvP pilot using his race's signature weapon wants to fly ANY of these ships types he cannot use Caldari. His own ships are ALL broken. Which is why you see this refrain repeated throughout this thread
BEFORE you do anything to the Drake, fix our other ships.
Wrong as shown above.
Balancing is proceeding one ship class at a time, starting at the smallest t1 ships and working up. BCs and BSs will be next. All the t1 caldari ships that have been through this balancing process will be decent that we have seen stats of so far (Merlin and Caracal are particularly good). |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 17:36:00 -
[3259] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Saying a long range fit Drake will lose if it begins within close range of a close range fit BC is hardly staggering. The fact that it even has a chance shows there is a problem.
The numbers have been posted and end the debate. The HML is overpowered.
Thats what she says all the time. Please dont fall for those lies :)
best regards, and keep your minds open!
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 17:46:00 -
[3260] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:What it comes down to is this:
Caldari pilots would actually like to be able to fly Caldari ships using their race's signature weapon. They would like to have the same choices every other race in the game enjoys.
Caldari missile pilots don't get to fly Caldari destroyers. They don't get to fly Caldari cruisers, navy cruisers, or pirate cruisers. They don't get to fly Caldari HACs. Their recons are almost universally hated, and no one wants them to fly them anyway. They don't get to fly Caldari command ships. They don't get to fly Caldari Battleships in T1 or T2 or Pirate varieties.
If a Caldari PvP pilot using his race's signature weapon wants to fly ANY of these ships types he cannot use Caldari. His own ships are ALL broken. Which is why you see this refrain repeated throughout this thread:
BEFORE you do anything to the Drake, fix our other ships.
Quoted for truth. And all those no-brainers who still say fly Rokh/Blackbird/Scorpion/Basilisk should maybe read the words "race-¦s signature weapon" again and try to understand. We dont want to be the "just jamming you and do some shield transfer to my friends"-only guys. We want to use missiles in PvP with success, and gladly with another ship than the Drake, Raven for example. Even NH would be ok, but its not. It just sucks as it is now for PvP, and this even when its using HML! |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 18:25:00 -
[3261] - Quote
tgl3 wrote:Noo, my Sleeper "kite outside of their 80km neut range" Tengu! But I seriously look forward to the change. Just have to adjust!
tengu wont be much above 80k with this 90 max maybe witch aint the prob with them the heavy missle dmg lowering and the increased explosive radius will pritty much bugger over eveything useing heavy missles. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 18:28:00 -
[3262] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:OT Smithers wrote:What it comes down to is this:
Caldari pilots would actually like to be able to fly Caldari ships using their race's signature weapon. They would like to have the same choices every other race in the game enjoys.
Caldari missile pilots don't get to fly Caldari destroyers. They don't get to fly Caldari cruisers, navy cruisers, or pirate cruisers. They don't get to fly Caldari HACs. Their recons are almost universally hated, and no one wants them to fly them anyway. They don't get to fly Caldari command ships. They don't get to fly Caldari Battleships in T1 or T2 or Pirate varieties.
If a Caldari PvP pilot using his race's signature weapon wants to fly ANY of these ships types he cannot use Caldari. His own ships are ALL broken. Which is why you see this refrain repeated throughout this thread:
BEFORE you do anything to the Drake, fix our other ships. Quoted for truth. And all those no-brainers who still say fly Rokh/Blackbird/Scorpion/Basilisk should maybe read the words "race-¦s signature weapon" again and try to understand. We dont want to be the "just jamming you and do some shield transfer to my friends"-only guys. We want to use missiles in PvP with success, and gladly with another ship than the Drake, Raven for example. Even NH would be ok, but its not. It just sucks as it is now for PvP, and this even when its using HML!
Missiles aren't the only weapon system in game. It's not even the only weapon system for pure Caldari pilots.
Around 50% of Caldari ships use hybrid turrets. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 18:35:00 -
[3263] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Missiles aren't the only weapon system in game. It's not even the only weapon system for pure Caldari pilots.
Around 50% of Caldari ships use hybrid turrets.
And of all those ships only good combat ones are Merlin, Harpy, Rokh and Naga, latter 2 unsuble in PvE and work only in specific formats in 0.0 blobs.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 18:49:00 -
[3264] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Missiles aren't the only weapon system in game. It's not even the only weapon system for pure Caldari pilots.
Around 50% of Caldari ships use hybrid turrets.
And of all those ships only good combat ones are Merlin, Harpy, Rokh and Naga, latter 2 unsuble in PvE and work only in specific formats in 0.0 blobs.
My PVE Naga would like to have a word about being unusable. Just because you cant use it doesn't mean it can not be used. I dont use it but I would be the Rohk would be a pretty good lvl 4 boat with the hybrid buff esp when it is able to project null out to ~60k. Here let me EFT a quick fit that would work in missions. Now no it is not cap stable but I never run cap stable in shield fits as I can pulse the booster.
[Rokh, lvl 4 mission]
Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II
Thermic Dissipation Field II Thermic Dissipation Field II Kinetic Deflection Field II X-Large Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Large Capacitor Control Circuit I Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:10:00 -
[3265] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:[quote=MIrple][quote=Sinigr Shadowsong][quote=Jorma Morkkis]
A mission fit with 25km optimal with longest range ammo and no prop mod? I see what you did there ..
I never fit a prop mod on my lvl 4 runners
And yet 25k optimal 28k fall off ask Mimitar pilots if they ever fight in optimal or always in fall off. Hell even the Kronos always fights in fall off its not at bad as you think. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:12:00 -
[3266] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Saying a long range fit Drake will lose if it begins within close range of a close range fit BC is hardly staggering. The fact that it even has a chance shows there is a problem.
The numbers have been posted and end the debate. The HML is overpowered.
Only a Sith speaks in absolutes!
Oh wait, wrong sci-fi. My bad. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:16:00 -
[3267] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:A mission fit with 25km optimal with longest range ammo and no prop mod? I see what you did there ..
Mach has 4,23km optimal but it is one of the best L4 mission ships... |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:19:00 -
[3268] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:A mission fit with 25km optimal with longest range ammo and no prop mod? I see what you did there ..
Mach has 4,23km optimal but it is one of the best L4 mission ships...
I think because it disproves their point it does not work or isn't relevant. Caldari have 2 weapon systems just like the other races Missiles and Hybrids. Because people chose not to train for one side they believe that Caldari are only a missile based race. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:22:00 -
[3269] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:A mission fit with 25km optimal with longest range ammo and no prop mod? I see what you did there ..
Mach has 4,23km optimal but it is one of the best L4 mission ships... And 70km faloff, almost always fited with prop module and has best movement speed/agility in class. Oh and selectable damage type. Which proves that speed and range are actually important in L4. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:27:00 -
[3270] - Quote
Ok, so I'll say this again.
As a pve pilot I enjoy grinding out lvl 4 missions to no end, then coming back to salvage in my noctis.
I've done lvl 4 missions in a drake, tengu, golem, raven, scorpion navy, and raven navy.
These are the only missile boats capable of running lvl 4 missions.
Now, other races have t1 battleships that are actually quite efficient at lvl 4 missions.
However, the raven is a terrible, terrible ship for pve in tank, dps, and effective dps. Hell, a drake gets more effective dps than a cruise raven, and while a torp raven my have awesome dps, it has almost nothing in the way of tank.
Gun boats also have the availability of pirate faction ships that are amazing at lvl 4 missions, and even are superior to Marauders. However, the turret Marauders are by far more superior in pve than a golem.
Now, we then have the tengu. Even though it doesn't have the potential dps of pirate turret boats, turret Marauders, or even some turret t1 bs's, it has pretty good effective dps.
Now, once this missile nerf hits the tengu will lose a good amount of range, but that's not really a problem. The dps loss however is a problem. That said, the tengu will still have more effective dps than a cruise raven.
So, you're probably wondering why I mention this. Well, I've been playing Eve long enough to have built up a substantial amount of skills in order to fly lvl 4 missions with high efficiency. I've got over 8 mil skill points in missiles alone.
So, how do you think I feel that knowing the only ship missile boat pilots have with high efficiency in lvl 4's is getting a large range AND damage nerf long before we receive any type of missile boat capable of replacing it?
Not very good. It's kinda like if they came to drone boat lovers and told them they were nerfing the dominix to be able to only field 100bw of drones. Sure, that's just one less sentry but that makes a huge different. However, those pilots would still have the dominix navy, ishtar, rattlesnake, and even the Mega and navy mega can field a full fleet of sentries, as well as the vindicator. Sure, those last 3 ships drone get drone bonuses, but 5 sentries are pretty effective without bonuses.
That said, what do we missile boat pilots have? I've already expressed that all of our battleships including the golem are subpar. The ratttlesnake is more of a drone boat, the drake has very low dps..
So, I guess I'm just stuck now doing lvl 4's in a subpar tengu the will have future nerfs coming until I finish cross training turrets and ships until I am able to get the high efficiency I've enjoyed from the tengu.
However, due to the tengu being limited to one damage type, it wasn't even all that effective. I had tried swapping to mission specific ammo before, but they didn't work any better than kinetic. Now, my kinetic damage is getting nerfed down to the damage of other damage types, and they're getting nerfed down to below current standard drake dps.
So, not only will I be stuck using a damage type that is sub par in a lot of missions, but I'll also be stuck having sub par dps all together.
I do understand that the drake and tengu need nerfing.
However, I also understand that when bc rebalance comes around the drake will probably be compensated with bonuses to counter what it lost. It will probably get the full damage back, lose EHP, and get at least 15% of its range back.
So, it almost seems that this nerf was done so that cruisers themselves didn't have such long range/powerful weapons, and then they're going to rebalance the drake for this loss.
I'm ok with this.
I am just not happy with being stuck waiting for battleship rebalance in order to effectively use my missile skills in pve again.
Based of the current rate of balance, I'm betting it'll be a good year before they get to rebalancing battleships, and I have no idea when they'll even consider Marauders....
Like I said, this is my only problem with the nerf. Nerf heavy missiles now, and leave missile boat mission running with sub par ships until battleship rebalance. This does not sound fun |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:28:00 -
[3271] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:And 70km faloff, almost always fited with prop module and has best movement speed/agility in class. Oh and selectable damage type. Which proves that speed and range are actually important in L4.
Yeah?
Mixed damage type with every ammo. T2 projectile ammo is almost completely explosive. Only small amount of kinetic in mix.
As a "pure" Amarr pilot I don't move when I shoot so speed isn't important for me. But I don't say no to 70+ km optimal though. |
King Rothgar
Black Watch Guard Gl0rious Bastards
306
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:38:00 -
[3272] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Ok, so I'll say this again.
As a pve pilot I enjoy grinding out lvl 4 missions to no end, then coming back to salvage in my noctis.
I've done lvl 4 missions in a drake, tengu, golem, raven, scorpion navy, and raven navy.
These are the only missile boats capable of running lvl 4 missions.
Now, other races have t1 battleships that are actually quite efficient at lvl 4 missions.
However, the raven is a terrible, terrible ship for pve in tank, dps, and effective dps. Hell, a drake gets more effective dps than a cruise raven, and while a torp raven my have awesome dps, it has almost nothing in the way of tank.
Gun boats also have the availability of pirate faction ships that are amazing at lvl 4 missions, and even are superior to Marauders. However, the turret Marauders are by far more superior in pve than a golem.
Now, we then have the tengu. Even though it doesn't have the potential dps of pirate turret boats, turret Marauders, or even some turret t1 bs's, it has pretty good effective dps.
Now, once this missile nerf hits the tengu will lose a good amount of range, but that's not really a problem. The dps loss however is a problem. That said, the tengu will still have more effective dps than a cruise raven.
So, you're probably wondering why I mention this. Well, I've been playing Eve long enough to have built up a substantial amount of skills in order to fly lvl 4 missions with high efficiency. I've got over 8 mil skill points in missiles alone.
So, how do you think I feel that knowing the only ship missile boat pilots have with high efficiency in lvl 4's is getting a large range AND damage nerf long before we receive any type of missile boat capable of replacing it?
Not very good. It's kinda like if they came to drone boat lovers and told them they were nerfing the dominix to be able to only field 100bw of drones. Sure, that's just one less sentry but that makes a huge different. However, those pilots would still have the dominix navy, ishtar, rattlesnake, and even the Mega and navy mega can field a full fleet of sentries, as well as the vindicator. Sure, those last 3 ships drone get drone bonuses, but 5 sentries are pretty effective without bonuses.
That said, what do we missile boat pilots have? I've already expressed that all of our battleships including the golem are subpar. The ratttlesnake is more of a drone boat, the drake has very low dps..
So, I guess I'm just stuck now doing lvl 4's in a subpar tengu the will have future nerfs coming until I finish cross training turrets and ships until I am able to get the high efficiency I've enjoyed from the tengu.
However, due to the tengu being limited to one damage type, it wasn't even all that effective. I had tried swapping to mission specific ammo before, but they didn't work any better than kinetic. Now, my kinetic damage is getting nerfed down to the damage of other damage types, and they're getting nerfed down to below current standard drake dps.
So, not only will I be stuck using a damage type that is sub par in a lot of missions, but I'll also be stuck having sub par dps all together.
I do understand that the drake and tengu need nerfing.
However, I also understand that when bc rebalance comes around the drake will probably be compensated with bonuses to counter what it lost. It will probably get the full damage back, lose EHP, and get at least 15% of its range back.
So, it almost seems that this nerf was done so that cruisers themselves didn't have such long range/powerful weapons, and then they're going to rebalance the drake for this loss.
I'm ok with this.
I am just not happy with being stuck waiting for battleship rebalance in order to effectively use my missile skills in pve again.
Based of the current rate of balance, I'm betting it'll be a good year before they get to rebalancing battleships, and I have no idea when they'll even consider Marauders....
Like I said, this is my only problem with the nerf. Nerf heavy missiles now, and leave missile boat mission running with sub par ships until battleship rebalance. This does not sound fun
Sounds like you need to work on your missile skills then. The Golem, Rattlesnake, Navy Scorp, Navy Raven and normal Raven are all perfectly viable right now without any changes. The Troll is trolling. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:47:00 -
[3273] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:And 70km faloff, almost always fited with prop module and has best movement speed/agility in class. Oh and selectable damage type. Which proves that speed and range are actually important in L4. Yeah? Mixed damage type with every ammo. T2 projectile ammo is almost completely explosive. Only small amount of kinetic in mix. As a "pure" Amarr pilot I don't move when I shoot so speed isn't important for me. But I don't say no to 70+ km optimal though.
Don't be so hypocrite. T2 projectile ammo are not used because it cuts falloff, so it's usually a RF ammo. Mixed damage is more a trait of blasters/lasers, projectile ammo are more pure than those. Pure kinetic is not that important because of Phased Plasma which is actually better against kinetic-weak targets than Hybrid ammo. L4 are more often blitzed than not so speed is of a key importance. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:53:00 -
[3274] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:A mission fit with 25km optimal with longest range ammo and no prop mod? I see what you did there ..
Mach has 4,23km optimal but it is one of the best L4 mission ships... And 70km faloff, almost always fited with prop module and has best movement speed/agility in class. Oh and selectable damage type. Which proves that speed and range are actually important in L4.
70km falloff with Gal BS V, only in a shield config with barrage, which is explosive/kinetic.
Which is a tad redundant when the thing only locks for like 80km. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 19:56:00 -
[3275] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Ok, so I'll say this again.
As a pve pilot I enjoy grinding out lvl 4 missions to no end, then coming back to salvage in my noctis.
I've done lvl 4 missions in a drake, tengu, golem, raven, scorpion navy, and raven navy.
These are the only missile boats capable of running lvl 4 missions.
Now, other races have t1 battleships that are actually quite efficient at lvl 4 missions.
However, the raven is a terrible, terrible ship for pve in tank, dps, and effective dps. Hell, a drake gets more effective dps than a cruise raven, and while a torp raven my have awesome dps, it has almost nothing in the way of tank.
Gun boats also have the availability of pirate faction ships that are amazing at lvl 4 missions, and even are superior to Marauders. However, the turret Marauders are by far more superior in pve than a golem.
Now, we then have the tengu. Even though it doesn't have the potential dps of pirate turret boats, turret Marauders, or even some turret t1 bs's, it has pretty good effective dps.
Now, once this missile nerf hits the tengu will lose a good amount of range, but that's not really a problem. The dps loss however is a problem. That said, the tengu will still have more effective dps than a cruise raven.
So, you're probably wondering why I mention this. Well, I've been playing Eve long enough to have built up a substantial amount of skills in order to fly lvl 4 missions with high efficiency. I've got over 8 mil skill points in missiles alone.
So, how do you think I feel that knowing the only ship missile boat pilots have with high efficiency in lvl 4's is getting a large range AND damage nerf long before we receive any type of missile boat capable of replacing it?
Not very good. It's kinda like if they came to drone boat lovers and told them they were nerfing the dominix to be able to only field 100bw of drones. Sure, that's just one less sentry but that makes a huge different. However, those pilots would still have the dominix navy, ishtar, rattlesnake, and even the Mega and navy mega can field a full fleet of sentries, as well as the vindicator. Sure, those last 3 ships drone get drone bonuses, but 5 sentries are pretty effective without bonuses.
That said, what do we missile boat pilots have? I've already expressed that all of our battleships including the golem are subpar. The ratttlesnake is more of a drone boat, the drake has very low dps..
So, I guess I'm just stuck now doing lvl 4's in a subpar tengu the will have future nerfs coming until I finish cross training turrets and ships until I am able to get the high efficiency I've enjoyed from the tengu.
However, due to the tengu being limited to one damage type, it wasn't even all that effective. I had tried swapping to mission specific ammo before, but they didn't work any better than kinetic. Now, my kinetic damage is getting nerfed down to the damage of other damage types, and they're getting nerfed down to below current standard drake dps.
So, not only will I be stuck using a damage type that is sub par in a lot of missions, but I'll also be stuck having sub par dps all together.
I do understand that the drake and tengu need nerfing.
However, I also understand that when bc rebalance comes around the drake will probably be compensated with bonuses to counter what it lost. It will probably get the full damage back, lose EHP, and get at least 15% of its range back.
So, it almost seems that this nerf was done so that cruisers themselves didn't have such long range/powerful weapons, and then they're going to rebalance the drake for this loss.
I'm ok with this.
I am just not happy with being stuck waiting for battleship rebalance in order to effectively use my missile skills in pve again.
Based of the current rate of balance, I'm betting it'll be a good year before they get to rebalancing battleships, and I have no idea when they'll even consider Marauders....
Like I said, this is my only problem with the nerf. Nerf heavy missiles now, and leave missile boat mission running with sub par ships until battleship rebalance. This does not sound fun Sounds like you need to work on your missile skills then. The Golem, Rattlesnake, Navy Scorp, Navy Raven and normal Raven are all perfectly viable right now without any changes.
seriously raven and navy raven being viable ? even with 2 bill of ship and navy/DED mods the cnr or raven is nowere near good enough for lvl 4's even with a full rack of med drones and t1 ammo due to explosive radius the raven is barely over 700 dps (with implants)
on top of that if you deploy drones on certian maps you will get full room agrro you need mission specific tank and now tds will also bugger missle ships on top of any jams that can an generaly do cripple ships in missions.
the attle snake is a hybrid ship and is drone bassed not missles seriously cal missle users are getting buggerd yet again. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 20:01:00 -
[3276] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:And 70km faloff, almost always fited with prop module and has best movement speed/agility in class. Oh and selectable damage type. Which proves that speed and range are actually important in L4. Yeah? Mixed damage type with every ammo. T2 projectile ammo is almost completely explosive. Only small amount of kinetic in mix. As a "pure" Amarr pilot I don't move when I shoot so speed isn't important for me. But I don't say no to 70+ km optimal though. Don't be so hypocrite. T2 projectile ammo are not used because it cuts falloff, so it's usually a RF ammo. Mixed damage is more a trait of blasters/lasers, projectile ammo are more pure than those. Pure kinetic is not that important because of Phased Plasma which is actually better against kinetic-weak targets than Hybrid ammo. L4 are more often blitzed than not so speed is of a key importance.
err.. have you seen barrage? 55-45% exp-kin and boosts falloff alot how do you think vagas work? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 20:12:00 -
[3277] - Quote
serras bang wrote:seriously raven and navy raven being viable ? even with 2 bill of ship and navy/DED mods the cnr or raven is nowere near good enough for lvl 4's even with a full rack of med drones and t1 ammo due to explosive radius the raven is barely over 700 dps (with implants)
700 dps is around minimum for level 4s, true. But for example my NApoc does 700+ dps with Scorch and I don't really have problems in missions.
serras bang wrote:on top of that if you deploy drones on certian maps you will get full room agrro you need mission specific tank and now tds will also bugger missle ships on top of any jams that can an generaly do cripple ships in missions.
In my Apoc I can easily take full room aggro in most BR/Sansha missions. Mostly because most of rats are dead before they get through my shields... Only missions where I don't want to do that are Worlds Collide last room and Sansha version of Vengeance.
If you think turret ships have easier time with Sansha TD: do The Blockade with Pulse Apoc and then tell us how easy we turret users have it. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 20:22:00 -
[3278] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote: Sounds like you need to work on your missile skills then. The Golem, Rattlesnake, Navy Scorp, Navy Raven and normal Raven are all perfectly viable right now without any changes.
I have every support skill to 5 and specialization 4 in heavy, torp, and cruise.
Every ship you just listed is viable in lvl 4 missions.
However, the Rattlesnake is not a missile boat. Just because it can fit missiles doesn't make it so. It's a drone boat. If anyone ever jumped into a rattlesnake assuming they could rely on the missiles, they needed speciall classes.
As far as the rest of them, while they are perfectly viable, ALL of them are sub par.
The Raven is outclassed by just about every turret t1 bs. The Navy Raven can get better torp damage than a golem, but if you want effective dps you're gonna lose a LOT of tank. The Navy scorpion isn't a bad ship by any means, but since it's a dedicated cruise boat (no bonuses to range of torps) then it is sub par.
The golem.....Oh they Golem.
I had a Golem once.... I traded it straight up for a tengu.
Wasn't a bad ship on paper.
The problem was you needed all missile range skills to 5, t2 range rigs in both slots, and STILL could barely reach targets in missions. Not to mention you needed 2 target painters for them to be effective and 3 for them to be optimal.
Even then you still had good tank.... On paper... However, you take that ship and throw it in a mission and it has the sig radius of a sun. On top of that its range put enemy ships in their optimal range, which meant by the time you were shooting them they were hammering the crap out of you with their full potential damage because you were soo large. You couldn't hit frigs for crap and drones chewed through them like ants on a pepper mint (not very effective.)
However, this was all in the event you were even able to fight the mission. If you went against guristas, you stayed perma jammed. Serpentis, dampened to about a 15km targetting range at best. Angels, they made you even bigger to the point where npcs could hit you like a wall hitting a tennis ball from over 100km away. Blood raiders NOS the crap out of you, and you couldn't even have an effective cap stable tank to begin with. AND NOW, with tracking disruptors working for missiles, It'll even get smacked around by Sansha.
So, while the ships may be able to fly missions, using them is about like bring a grapefruit to a gun fight. You might hit something, but it'll eventually get ugly for you |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 20:33:00 -
[3279] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:seriously raven and navy raven being viable ? even with 2 bill of ship and navy/DED mods the cnr or raven is nowere near good enough for lvl 4's even with a full rack of med drones and t1 ammo due to explosive radius the raven is barely over 700 dps (with implants) 700 dps is around minimum for level 4s, true. But for example my NApoc does 700+ dps with Scorch and I don't really have problems in missions. A cruise raven, navy raven, or navy scorpion are really looking at less than 700 dps with furies if you want to still leave room for tank. However, due to the fact that cruise missiles are terrible, you need at least 2 target painters for fury to be more effective against a bs than precision. 3 if you want max potential. This means you either get tank and do about half of on paper damage against a bs, or you hope to god you can kill everything before it eats you alive when you try to fit target painters.
Quote:serras bang wrote:on top of that if you deploy drones on certian maps you will get full room agrro you need mission specific tank and now tds will also bugger missle ships on top of any jams that can an generaly do cripple ships in missions. In my Apoc I can easily take full room aggro in most BR/Sansha missions. Mostly because most of rats are dead before they get through my shields... Only missions where I don't want to do that are Worlds Collide last room and Sansha version of Vengeance. If you think turret ships have easier time with Sansha TD: do The Blockade with Pulse Apoc and then tell us how easy we turret users have it.
Neither of the missile boats listed can pull full aggro in just about any mission. Hell, sometimes they struggle staying alive just aggroing a single blob. None of them can come anywhere close to tanking the last room of worlds collide.
The Golem and scorpion navy are probably the closest missile boats come to being on par with the tengu.
The Golem because of dps and tank bonus, thus allowing a couple TPs, and the SNI because it has 8 mid slots thus allowing the tank and dps of a raven, but with target painters.
however, they both have major issues such as the SNI not be able to torp fit with good range, and the golem being so massive with extreme weakness to any type of warfare, including simple dps. |
King Rothgar
Black Watch Guard Gl0rious Bastards
307
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 20:44:00 -
[3280] - Quote
Confirming TD's, ECM, damps, TP's and neuts have no impact on anything not armed with missiles. The Troll is trolling. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 20:45:00 -
[3281] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:[quote=MIrple][quote=Sinigr Shadowsong][quote=Jorma Morkkis]
A mission fit with 25km optimal with longest range ammo and no prop mod? I see what you did there ..
I never fit a prop mod on my lvl 4 runners And yet 25k optimal 28k fall off ask Mimitar pilots if they ever fight in optimal or always in fall off. Hell even the Kronos always fights in fall off its not at bad as you think.
You really have no clue, sorry. Minmatar and esp. Machariel work completely different from a Rokh like you gave us here, and Mach HAS a prop mod normally. If you want to do something efficient regarding ISK/h then your fitting is not viable.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 20:47:00 -
[3282] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:Confirming TD's, ECM, damps, TP's and neuts have no impact on anything not armed with missiles.
attaway to derail the conversation.
No one said that turrets weren't effected by this.
However, I was speaking directly about Marauders.
Which all suck against ewar more so than any other ship.
At least turret boats don't have to worry about defender missiles, cause it appears they're not being taken out of missions... |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 22:57:00 -
[3283] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:So, heavy missiles are total crap if the ship does not allow for any kind of bonus ? Really ? We are nerfing a crappy crap weapon system ?
nah, ur not understanding what ppl are saying
heavies are generally OP in range, requirements and dps to other long range weapon systems. only ppl who use heavy missiles all the time dnt seem to see this.
however, heavy missiles rarely make suitable secondary weapons on things like a stabber because 1) there is no bonus to missile damage like there is turrets 2) lows are used for gyros and there is no space for BCS as well 3) the launchers still take up precious grid and CPU. with the lack of advantages to using them and the restrictions they place on ur fit its no wonder they (and HAMs) are so rarely used as secondary weapons. with the drone bay, u cant really swap it for something more appropriate, so ull always be using them as secondary systems.
to whoever said that nerfing heavy missiles would be like taking 25mb bandwidth from the domi, u are a nit wit? are u even remotely suggesting that drones are overpowered? and no one is taking launcher slots away from any missile boats are they? surely a less ignorant argument would be to suggest how drone pilots would react if drones had their RoF increased from 4 secs to 5 secs. even if that did happen, i doubt they'd react like this and start comparing sentry damage to AC's and blasters.
dear lord |
Guillame Herschel
Quantum Cats Syndicate
44
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 23:10:00 -
[3284] - Quote
Why do missiles have to be made more like guns? Why not just get rid of missiles and turn them into a new type of gun, if you want gun-like performance from them?
This nerf makes no sense.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 23:23:00 -
[3285] - Quote
Ok one thing
How good HML's are and how **** other caldari ships are, are completely different topics.
Even if every ******* ship in the caldari line was **** other than the drake, That still does not mean HML's shouldn't be nerfed. Ships being **** does not justify a weapon system being OP. It just means that the other ships need to be looked at and re-balanced..
Now if only there was some plan in motion to re-balance ships......... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 23:33:00 -
[3286] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: to whoever said that nerfing heavy missiles would be like taking 25mb bandwidth from the domi, u are a nit wit? are u even remotely suggesting that drones are overpowered? and no one is taking launcher slots away from any missile boats are they? surely a less ignorant argument would be to suggest how drone pilots would react if drones had their RoF increased from 4 secs to 5 secs. even if that did happen, i doubt they'd react like this and start comparing sentry damage to AC's and blasters.
dear lord
P.S. when was the last time u saw a missile ship use turrets as a secondary weapon system. gotta love those caracals and ravens fit with rails eh?...oh
You took that comment completely out of context. If you know you did, then thats crap. If you didnt realize u did, then read better.
I was not speaking of how are drones are overpowered. I was instead using it as an example. Basically I was stating that if drones were taken away from the Dominix, and there was no other drone boat in game capable of running level 4 missions with the same effectiveness as the dominix, then there would be a lot of upset drone pilots.
This is the way i feel about losing the tengu's effectiveness without having anything to replace it. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.27 23:39:00 -
[3287] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ok one thing
How good HML's are and how **** other caldari ships are, are completely different topics.
Even if every ******* ship in the caldari line was **** other than the drake, That still does not mean HML's shouldn't be nerfed. Ships being **** does not justify a weapon system being OP. It just means that the other ships need to be looked at and re-balanced..
Now if only there was some plan in motion to re-balance ships.........
We understand this. However, with this nerf we're losing all effectiveness before we get anything back especially in pve.
I'm not trying to stop the nerf, but simply have it postponed until I can have something fill that void of efficiency in pve. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 00:22:00 -
[3288] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Sigras wrote:I understand the difference between transversal and angular velocity, but transverse velocity is what the use in the tracking formula which is why i used it in my calculations 'Transverse' in that formula is angular (the value displayed in your overview, if you enable it), unless the 'tracking' in that formula is something other than the tracking value given for turrets right now. Sorry, this is the formula i used, and from that page
"Transversal speed" is the absolute speed (in meters/second) at which you and your target are moving away from eachother in a plane perpendicular on the line joining your ship center to the center of the target. Two ships chasing eachother in a straight line or heading straigth at eachother would have this number be zero. The smaller this number, the better your chance to hit will be.
so picture a right triangle with vectors, your direction of travel is the hypotenuse, a line straight from your ship to the enemy ship is one leg, and a line perpendicular to that line connecting with the hypotenuse is the other leg.
Since we know the angle between angle between the hypotenuse and the leg pointing at the enemy ship, we can use sine which is the opposite leg over the hypotenuse
since the sine is of 15 is 0.258819 then we know that .258819 * Hyoptenuse = TransverseVelocity
Since we know the Hypotenuse is your speed (5,537 m/s) we can calculate the transverse velocity.
.258819 * 5,537 = 1,433.081 m/s |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 00:27:00 -
[3289] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ok one thing
How good HML's are and how **** other caldari ships are, are completely different topics.
Even if every ******* ship in the caldari line was **** other than the drake, That still does not mean HML's shouldn't be nerfed. Ships being **** does not justify a weapon system being OP. It just means that the other ships need to be looked at and re-balanced..
Now if only there was some plan in motion to re-balance ships......... We understand this. However, with this nerf we're losing all effectiveness before we get anything back especially in pve. I'm not trying to stop the nerf, but simply have it postponed until I can have something fill that void of efficiency in pve. Ive already explained why that is impractical
The problem is that either way you do it, someone is left out in the cold for a while.
If they nerf the missiles now, and balance the ships later people will be left out because theyre waiting on all the ships to get adjusted to the new missile stats
if they nerf the ships now and adjust the missiles later, people will be left out because now theyre waiting on the missiles to get adjusted to the new lowered ship stats
if they change both at the same time, theyre simultaneously changing two variables in a function simultaneously . . . this is how horrific changes and unexpected interactions happen.
TL;DR Any way you do it, someone gets screwed. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 00:36:00 -
[3290] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: We understand this. However, with this nerf we're losing all effectiveness before we get anything back especially in pve.
I'm not trying to stop the nerf, but simply have it postponed until I can have something fill that void of efficiency in pve.
So why didn't you read all the OP ? These changes to missiles are an unbelievable buff ! Your cruise/torp will now have a great damage application ! You will be able to fly a very effective missile BS for pve ! Infact, Golem might become one of the best pve ship ever... |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 00:57:00 -
[3291] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: We understand this. However, with this nerf we're losing all effectiveness before we get anything back especially in pve.
I'm not trying to stop the nerf, but simply have it postponed until I can have something fill that void of efficiency in pve.
So why didn't you read all the OP ? These changes to missiles are an unbelievable buff ! Your cruise/torp will now have a great damage application ! You will be able to fly a very effective missile BS for pve ! Infact, Golem might become one of the best pve ship ever...
Uhh... last time I checked it showed that fury/rage would be getting a slight damage buff, however they're also getting an increase in explosion radius. Basically the nerf to exp radius negates any benefit you would get from added damage.
So, cruise/torp are either in the same boat, or they're worse off.
Oh, and increased damage doesn't help the effectiveness of the ships themselves. The raven will still suck |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 01:03:00 -
[3292] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: We understand this. However, with this nerf we're losing all effectiveness before we get anything back especially in pve.
I'm not trying to stop the nerf, but simply have it postponed until I can have something fill that void of efficiency in pve.
So why didn't you read all the OP ? These changes to missiles are an unbelievable buff ! Your cruise/torp will now have a great damage application ! You will be able to fly a very effective missile BS for pve ! Infact, Golem might become one of the best pve ship ever... Uhh... last time I checked it showed that fury/rage would be getting a slight damage buff, however they're also getting an increase in explosion radius. Basically the nerf to exp radius negates any benefit you would get from added damage. So, cruise/torp are either in the same boat, or they're worse off.
Tracking mods. In pvp they will most likely be countered by everyone having tds but in pve they will be a very nice help for torps. They will at least counter the exp radius change, probably more, and increase range at the same time.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
231
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 01:06:00 -
[3293] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: We understand this. However, with this nerf we're losing all effectiveness before we get anything back especially in pve.
I'm not trying to stop the nerf, but simply have it postponed until I can have something fill that void of efficiency in pve.
So why didn't you read all the OP ? These changes to missiles are an unbelievable buff ! Your cruise/torp will now have a great damage application ! You will be able to fly a very effective missile BS for pve ! Infact, Golem might become one of the best pve ship ever... Uhh... last time I checked it showed that fury/rage would be getting a slight damage buff, however they're also getting an increase in explosion radius. Basically the nerf to exp radius negates any benefit you would get from added damage. So, cruise/torp are either in the same boat, or they're worse off. Oh, and increased damage doesn't help the effectiveness of the ships themselves. The raven will still suck
Its funny that everyone used ravens before the tengu was released,
|
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 01:53:00 -
[3294] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: We understand this. However, with this nerf we're losing all effectiveness before we get anything back especially in pve.
I'm not trying to stop the nerf, but simply have it postponed until I can have something fill that void of efficiency in pve.
So why didn't you read all the OP ? These changes to missiles are an unbelievable buff ! Your cruise/torp will now have a great damage application ! You will be able to fly a very effective missile BS for pve ! Infact, Golem might become one of the best pve ship ever... Uhh... last time I checked it showed that fury/rage would be getting a slight damage buff, however they're also getting an increase in explosion radius. Basically the nerf to exp radius negates any benefit you would get from added damage. So, cruise/torp are either in the same boat, or they're worse off. Oh, and increased damage doesn't help the effectiveness of the ships themselves. The raven will still suck
Over 160 pages, and you still don't get it? They are bringing a medium sized long range weapon back in line with other medium long ranged weapons. Frozzie gave you the reason why they were the way they were, and why its changing.
And seriously? Losing all effectiveness? Your acting like HML's are the ONLY weapon system in the game. HAM's do better DPS, AND have more range then pretty much EVERY short ranged cruiser weapon. Hurricanes fight in falloff, were they lose way more then 25% of their on paper DPS, do you see them complaining? Not about that, nope.
And pve? Are you dense? NPC's die if something sneezes on them.
A 20% loss on HML damage (NOT DPS) isn't going to be that bad. Im losing 50 or so DPS off my drake. 50 DPS. Big. *******. Deal. |
Enslaved Mistress
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 02:09:00 -
[3295] - Quote
I thought I remembered reading something about HAMs, or dumb missiles getting a buff for smaller ships, or fast ships or something. did I see that or am I loosing it? haha |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 02:25:00 -
[3296] - Quote
Doddy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: We understand this. However, with this nerf we're losing all effectiveness before we get anything back especially in pve.
I'm not trying to stop the nerf, but simply have it postponed until I can have something fill that void of efficiency in pve.
So why didn't you read all the OP ? These changes to missiles are an unbelievable buff ! Your cruise/torp will now have a great damage application ! You will be able to fly a very effective missile BS for pve ! Infact, Golem might become one of the best pve ship ever... Uhh... last time I checked it showed that fury/rage would be getting a slight damage buff, however they're also getting an increase in explosion radius. Basically the nerf to exp radius negates any benefit you would get from added damage. So, cruise/torp are either in the same boat, or they're worse off. Oh, and increased damage doesn't help the effectiveness of the ships themselves. The raven will still suck Its funny that everyone used ravens before the tengu was released,
We did, but at least in my case that was because I didn't realize how bad it sucked until I flew the scorpion navy, which wasn't that grand either. |
Enslaved Mistress
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 02:26:00 -
[3297] - Quote
And the DPS I kinda understand, -20% is a bit much though I think. -25% range though, that doesn't make since, if it's a long range weapon. The Tracking disr doesn't make since either. If you fire missiles and get ECMed or blown up before your missiles hit they will still hit, so tracking disr shouldn't work on missiles. And kinda funny you'd change that but not have it work on the other weapon type drones. Just please stop trying to make all the weapon types the same please. Thank you :^) |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 02:35:00 -
[3298] - Quote
Sigras wrote: "Transversal speed" is the absolute speed (in meters/second) at which you and your target are moving away from eachother in a plane perpendicular on the line joining your ship center to the center of the target. Two ships chasing eachother in a straight line or heading straigth at eachother would have this number be zero. The smaller this number, the better your chance to hit will be.
While I'm sure you understand this, I'm posting it for the benefit of others reading the thread.
Transversal does not take into account distance, it's simply perpendicular velocity. In order to have any kind of meaningful understanding of a situation using transversal, you must also take into account a target's distance.
Angular velocity is what you get when you take transversal and combine it with distance. A target at 10km moving at 400m/s will have the same angular velocity as a target at 100km moving at 4000m/s in the same relative direction. Using transversal, all you would see is "Target B's transversal is 10x as high!" while in reality they're both equally difficult to track. Angular velocity on the other hand would show them as both being equally difficult to track.
|
Enslaved Mistress
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 02:41:00 -
[3299] - Quote
HAMs anyone, I could have swore, hmmm |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 02:46:00 -
[3300] - Quote
I was doing some further thinking on the topic, and am pondering now that maybe the heavy missile nerf has little to do with the Tengu and Drake. What if CCP feels that, in order to get a T1 cruiser such as a Caracal to perform sufficiently well with HAMs, they would make said cruiser too powerful with heavies? Consider the sheer awesomeness of a Caracal with 4 lowslots and a RoF bonus instead of kinetic, with heavy missiles unchanged. You have a T1 Cruiser that can lob 350+DPS (without implants) out to to a theoretical maximum distance of over 300km (with T1 rigs) - and actually lock out to 250km with fleet bonuses!
Giving missiles a range-increasing module is incredibly powerful. The problem lies in the 50% bonus to velocity, and the fact that you can increase missile range both by flight time and velocity without stacking on each other. |
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 02:55:00 -
[3301] - Quote
Lol-fit Caracal you can do post-patch:
[Caracal, 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
352dps (405dps overheated) 250km lock range with fleet bonuses 328km theoretical max range
^ This takes into account stacking penalties, and assumes TC's will give a 30% range bonus. Even if it's 15% you can still do ridiculous things with the Caracal.
Additionally, if CCP goes through with giving Fury higher DPS and less range, the DPS number will be even higher and you can probably still hit past 250km. |
Enslaved Mistress
TwoTenX LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 02:59:00 -
[3302] - Quote
One issue there, if you are shooting 250km, it will take over 20secs for your missiles to hit target, that is more then enough time for your target to warp. Better to use a rail boat or something. Cerbs were already able to do that, it isn't really the best idea, a lot of the time your target has warped off is already dead before your first missiles make contact haha. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 03:31:00 -
[3303] - Quote
Enslaved Mistress wrote:One issue there, if you are shooting 250km, it will take over 20secs for your missiles to hit target, that is more then enough time for your target to warp. Better to use a rail boat or something. Cerbs were already able to do that, it isn't really the best idea, a lot of the time your target has warped off is already dead before your first missiles make contact haha.
How many seconds does it take an Omen or Thorax to hit for 350dps at 250km? |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 04:37:00 -
[3304] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:[Caracal, 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
352dps (405dps overheated) with full damage type selection 250km lock range with fleet bonuses 328km theoretical max range
In answer to my own question, these are two competitors to the New Caracal without the heavy missile nerf:
[Thorax, 1] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M
Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II
207dps (243dps overheated) 105+29km 250km lock range w/fleet bonuses
^ It's basically impossible to stretch the range of the Thorax any further, every mod on the ship is stacking penalized to hell and back. Adding a 4th magstab only adds 12dps. The Caracal does 70% more dps at more than twice the range. Another way of looking at it is, the Thorax can only manage 59% of the Caracal's DPS with only 40% of the range (and I'm counting optimal + falloff).
This is the current Moa:
[Moa, 1] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M [empty high slot]
Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II Medium Ancillary Current Router I
175dps (195dps overheated) 157+29km 250km lock range w/fleet bonuses
Undoubtedly the Moa will get some kind of buff, but as it stands, the new Caracal can do 101% more dps (that's 2.01x) the Moa's DPS at 82% more range. Even if the Moa gets a 25% damage buff (giving it 5 turrets with +50% optimal and +25% damage), the new Caracal still does 60% more DPS at 82% more range. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 05:57:00 -
[3305] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:seriously raven and navy raven being viable ? even with 2 bill of ship and navy/DED mods the cnr or raven is nowere near good enough for lvl 4's even with a full rack of med drones and t1 ammo due to explosive radius the raven is barely over 700 dps (with implants) 700 dps is around minimum for level 4s, true. But for example my NApoc does 700+ dps with Scorch and I don't really have problems in missions. .
You cannot compare lasors to cruise missiles. You just cant. Because lasors are 10 times better.Try to shoot low sig faction cruiser with cruise missiles and you know why.
For example lvl4 buzzkill mission with cnr. And you know why. But guess its easy to talk when you never tried to use cruise raven yourself.
|
Rokokoko
STEEL CITY.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:16:00 -
[3306] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Lol-fit Caracal you can do post-patch:
[Caracal, 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
352dps (405dps overheated) with full damage type selection 250km lock range with fleet bonuses 328km theoretical max range
^ This takes into account stacking penalties, and assumes TC's will give a 30% range bonus. Even if it's 15% you can still do ridiculous things with the Caracal.
Additionally, if CCP goes through with giving Fury higher DPS and less range, the DPS number will be even higher and you can probably still hit past 250km.
Eckyy I think you forgot to include the 20% damage nerf, The number I have for 3 BCU and 5 launchers 281. Unless i really screwed up in evehq configuring the ship. Its still alot better then any other medium long range weapon though.
I just want to pi |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:21:00 -
[3307] - Quote
Tover Chris wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
Hello Drake, this is Pilgrim. It's about time we met.
No sry were not gonna meet cause i allready sold all my drakes. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:23:00 -
[3308] - Quote
Rokokoko wrote:Eckyy wrote:Lol-fit Caracal you can do post-patch:
[Caracal, 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
352dps (405dps overheated) with full damage type selection 250km lock range with fleet bonuses 328km theoretical max range
^ This takes into account stacking penalties, and assumes TC's will give a 30% range bonus. Even if it's 15% you can still do ridiculous things with the Caracal.
Additionally, if CCP goes through with giving Fury higher DPS and less range, the DPS number will be even higher and you can probably still hit past 250km. Eckyy I think you forgot to include the 20% damage nerf, The number I have for 3 BCU and 5 launchers 281. Unless i really screwed up in evehq configuring the ship. Its still alot better then any other medium long range weapon though. I just want to pi
I did so intentionally, it illustrates why SOMETHING needs to be done about HML's.
Eckyy wrote:In answer to my own question, these are two competitors to the New Caracal without the heavy missile nerf:
^ Granted, it was in the following post. |
Rokokoko
STEEL CITY.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:35:00 -
[3309] - Quote
You did elude to that in post before the Fit but i just missed that anyways.
I need to say I am quite doubtful that TEs and TCs will give a full 30% bonus to range. Either way you can easily shoot out to 150km+ since just rigs and ship bonuses get you to 130 ( I do not know how to configure Evehq modules). |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:37:00 -
[3310] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. With 7x T2 HAM launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing Scourge outputs 401 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 720mm Artys and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 371 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 477 DPS. The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range or 320 DPS with HAMs. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? So let me get this straight. Missiles will loose some of their range, will have the lowest DPS among weapons, they have flight time and they will also be tracking disrupted? And their only advantage will remain the ability to choose damage types? (which no one does because of the kinetic bonus on Caldari hulls) Did I mention that missiles can be smartbombed or taken out with defenders? Goodbye solo missile platforms! CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other high tier battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho. TDs will be the new and improved ECM. At least with ECM you're taking the risk of bringing the wrong jammer. If TD effects will apply to everything there's absolutely no reason to not bring one.
Is it fair that AC cane does 600dps while HAM drake does only around 450dps.. Why not nerf AC dmg by 20%. Also medium lasors should be nerfed as legion dominates NCO's too much.
And btw HAM drake can only fit 2 bcu because it will run out of cpu. Not to mention if you fit 1 TE its going to be only 1 bcu which lowers dps even more. While cane can easily fit 4 gyros and use barrage. |
|
Rokokoko
STEEL CITY.
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:43:00 -
[3311] - Quote
Ham drakes actually do around 500 dps using Faction ammo. The dps for the two (using 3 gyros 2 tes on the Hurricane 3 BCUs on the drake) equals out at around 10km. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:54:00 -
[3312] - Quote
If you want to just fit one LSE + 2 Invul on a HAM Drake you can actually get 3 BCUs on it with room to spare. This brings the missile-only paper DPS with faction ammo up to 519, and Rage DPS up to 578dps. Overheating brings it up to 680. Factor in a flight of light drones and you're at 779 (paper) DPS burst, though your tank drops to a measly 75,000 EHP (with MWD + point + painter). That's around 50% higher than the Hurricane's.
578DPS to the Hurricane's 617, with 50% more tank. The Drake has a painter, the 'Cane has a 2nd neut. The Hurricane will have an easier time applying its full damage to cruiser and smaller targets. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:57:00 -
[3313] - Quote
Rokokoko wrote:Ham drakes actually do around 500 dps using Faction ammo. The dps for the two (using 3 gyros 2 tes on the Hurricane 3 BCUs on the drake) equals out at around 10km.
You cannot use 3 bcus in HAM drake. It will run out of cpu. As i said its either 2 bcus or 1 bcu and 1 TE for HAM drake. And again cane can use 4 gyro and 1 TE. I know because thats how my cane is fitted. Also i know because i got HAM drake with lvl5 fitting skills.
Actually you might need PDS aswell to fit LSE with HAM's and MWD.. So it will take 1 low slots away. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 06:59:00 -
[3314] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Rokokoko wrote:Ham drakes actually do around 500 dps using Faction ammo. The dps for the two (using 3 gyros 2 tes on the Hurricane 3 BCUs on the drake) equals out at around 10km. You cannot use 3 bcus in HAM drake. It will run out of cpu. As i said its either 2 bcus or 1 bcu and 1 TE for HAM drake. And again cane can use 4 gyro and 1 TE. I know because thats how my cane is fitted. Also i know because i got HAM drake with lvl5 fitting skills.
[Drake, HAM2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Faint Warp Disruptor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Fits without implants. Use a named suitcase if you want a T2 point.
EDIT: Personally I'd go with 3/2 on the Hurricane as I think it would put out more real-world DPS. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:01:00 -
[3315] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Rokokoko wrote:Ham drakes actually do around 500 dps using Faction ammo. The dps for the two (using 3 gyros 2 tes on the Hurricane 3 BCUs on the drake) equals out at around 10km. You cannot use 3 bcus in HAM drake. It will run out of cpu. As i said its either 2 bcus or 1 bcu and 1 TE for HAM drake. And again cane can use 4 gyro and 1 TE. I know because thats how my cane is fitted. Also i know because i got HAM drake with lvl5 fitting skills. [Drake, HAM2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Faint Warp Disruptor I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Fits without fitting mods. Use a named suitcase if you want a T2 point.
Oh yea you can with ancillary current router but its cheating. Does cane have to fit ancillary current router to fit AC's?
And T1 DCU or T1 point is no option. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:05:00 -
[3316] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Oh yea you can with ancillary current router but its cheating. Does cane have to fit ancillary current router to fit AC's?
And T1 DCU or T1 point is no option.
I edited my post to say "Implants", it's what I intended to say. Why is a T1 suitcase not an option? You absolutely can't bear to trade 800 EHP for 64 DPS?
How about this:
[Drake, HAM2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
It has 63,000 EHP to the Hurricane's 50,800 (25% higher), has a T2 point, dual painters and a T2 suitcase. Additionally you can overheat your tank. The difference in paper DPS between the two is 6.7%.
EDIT: If the Hurricane drops to 220mm autocannons (due to grid nerf) it loses around 6% of its DPS. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:15:00 -
[3317] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Oh yea you can with ancillary current router but its cheating. Does cane have to fit ancillary current router to fit AC's?
And T1 DCU or T1 point is no option. I edited my post to say "Implants", it's what I intended to say. Why is a T1 suitcase not an option? You absolutely can't bear to trade 800 EHP for 64 DPS? How about this: [Drake, HAM2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I It has 63,000 EHP to the Hurricane's 50,800 (25% higher), has a T2 point, dual painters and a T2 suitcase. Additionally you can overheat your tank. The difference in paper DPS between the two is 6.7%. EDIT: If the Hurricane drops to 220mm autocannons (due to grid nerf) it loses around 6% of its DPS.
But cane doesnt need 220's if cane fits small neuts instead mediums. Just like that drake has small neut. I wonder how you would fit that drake with medium neut...
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:16:00 -
[3318] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:But cane doesnt need 220's if cane fits small neuts instead mediums. Just like that drake has small neut. I wonder how you would fit that drake with medium neut...
I wonder how you would fit a 'Cane with dual painters and 25% more tank without dropping below the Drake's DPS...
So to keep its 6% DPS advantage, it has to use 2 small neuts vs the Drake's 1 small neut, has 20% less tank and lacks the 2 ewar mods the Drake can fit. Excellent. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:20:00 -
[3319] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:But cane doesnt need 220's if cane fits small neuts instead mediums. Just like that drake has small neut. I wonder how you would fit that drake with medium neut...
I wonder how you would fir a 'Cane with dual painters and 25% more tank without dropping below the Drake's DPS... So to keep its 6% DPS advantage, it has to use 2 small neuts vs the Drake's 1 small neut, has 20% less tank and lacks the 2 ewar mods the Drake can fit. Excellent.
Eh why would cane need painters? i dont see any reason for that. But missile boats really need painter not dual tho id rather put web and scram.
I added this part to my last post.
Also your talking about EHP without mentiniong that cane is much more faster ship. Like if you would compare armor hac to vagabond... |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:25:00 -
[3320] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:
Eh why would cane need painters? i dont see any reason for that. But missile boats really need painter not dual tho id rather put web and scram.
I added this part to my last post.
Also your talking about EHP without mentiniong that cane is much more faster ship. Like if you would compare raven to vagabond...
Woohoo, the Hurricane can do 1300m/s and the Drake can only do 1040! That's really going to change the game.
The Drake is more agile.
As for the painters, what if it's not a 1v1 scenario? What if these ships are actually in a fleet? The Drake brings more utility in that case. You could easily swap out one or both painters for tracking disruptors or extra points.
____
I'm not trying to make a case for the HAM Drake's absolute superiority, but it's AT LEAST competitive. There's nothing at all wrong with it. |
|
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:33:00 -
[3321] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:
Eh why would cane need painters? i dont see any reason for that. But missile boats really need painter not dual tho id rather put web and scram.
I added this part to my last post.
Also your talking about EHP without mentiniong that cane is much more faster ship. Like if you would compare raven to vagabond...
Woohoo, the Hurricane can do 1300m/s and the Drake can only do 1040! That's really going to change the game. The Drake is more agile. As for the painters, what if it's not a 1v1 scenario? What if these ships are actually in a fleet? The Drake brings more utility in that case. You could easily swap out one or both painters for tracking disruptors or extra points. ____ I'm not trying to make a case for the HAM Drake's absolute superiority, but it's AT LEAST competitive. There's nothing at all wrong with it.
Well i think cane is OP compared to HAM drake. See the difference yourself fit HAM drake with 2 BCU and T2 missiles then fit AC cane with 4 gyros and hail. Thats the difference. Yes drake has bit more tank but cane has speed.
I am minnie/caldari pilot btw. so i fly canes and drakes.. So would i want cane to get nerfed even more. No i wouldnt but in means of balancing cane needs to be nerfed more. Maybe by dropping its cpu so it cant fit so many gyros... |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:37:00 -
[3322] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:seriously raven and navy raven being viable ? even with 2 bill of ship and navy/DED mods the cnr or raven is nowere near good enough for lvl 4's even with a full rack of med drones and t1 ammo due to explosive radius the raven is barely over 700 dps (with implants) 700 dps is around minimum for level 4s, true.
lolwut? L4 are plenty doable with <700 DPS.
It's hardly an entry level requirement.
However, I'm not convinced that many who cite fury cruises in DPS specs have actually ever tried to apply that damage. Perhaps if shooting a glacier/small moon; or the bird has so many target painters it looks like a light show and only the SNI can manage that without sacrificing its tank.
With all level V and 2x rigor I and 1x flare I (couldnt be bothered swapping out, sue me) a fury cruise has a radius of 300 and a speed of 100.
What confuses me is why Heavy fury has a higher explosion speed than regular....why is that? |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 07:51:00 -
[3323] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Well i think cane is OP compared to HAM drake. See the difference yourself fit HAM drake with 2 BCU and T2 missiles then fit AC cane with 4 gyros and hail. Thats the difference. Yes drake has bit more tank but cane has speed.
I am minnie/caldari pilot btw. so i fly canes and drakes.. So would i want cane to get nerfed even more. No i wouldnt but in means of balancing cane needs to be nerfed more. Maybe by dropping its cpu so it cant fit so many gyros...
Why not just compare to a Drake with 0 BCUs and no tank?
Summary:
The Drake CAN in fact fit 3 BCUs (without expensive meta4 mods!), which means...
The Drake does approximately 6% less DPS than the Hurricane and it can do it while sporting 25% more tank than a Hurricane.
The Drake can fit 2 additional midslot ewar mods over the Hurricane, at the expense of one small neut (post-nerf).
The Drake is slower, but is more agile and harder to jam.
The Drake can overheat its tank.
Why do you suggest an unreasonably poor fitting to compare with a 4 gyro (lol) Hurricane? I fail to see how the Hurricane is "OP" compared to the Drake. Should the Drake have higher DPS than the Hurricane while also sporting all of its current advantages? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:00:00 -
[3324] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:You cannot compare lasors to cruise missiles. You just cant. Because lasors are 10 times better.Try to shoot low sig faction cruiser with cruise missiles and you know why.
For example lvl4 buzzkill mission with cnr. And you know why. But guess its easy to talk when you never tried to use cruise raven yourself.
True, I don't have skills to fly torp/cruise Raven but that's only because I thought I finish my failure before I start training better weapons (meaning I will finish gunnery training first for all sub-cap turrets).
But here's video of Raven, Drake, Myrm doing that mission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD4GFjLYdP8 |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:06:00 -
[3325] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:You cannot compare lasors to cruise missiles. You just cant. Because lasors are 10 times better.Try to shoot low sig faction cruiser with cruise missiles and you know why.
For example lvl4 buzzkill mission with cnr. And you know why. But guess its easy to talk when you never tried to use cruise raven yourself. True, I don't have skills to fly torp/cruise Raven but that's only because I thought I finish my failure before I start training better weapons (meaning I will finish gunnery training first for all sub-cap turrets). But here's video of Raven, Drake, Myrm doing that mission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD4GFjLYdP8
You totally missed the point here. Sure its easy when raven doesnt need to deal with smaller stuff himself.
Now find a video where cruise raven solos that mission. It will be long vid btw hour or so.
Description from YT video.
"We have 1 bro who is passive tanking in his Drake, me DPSing in my Raven, and a couple frigs/cruisers who are tearing apart enemy frigs." |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:12:00 -
[3326] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote: Is it fair that AC cane does 600dps while HAM drake does only around 450dps.. Why not nerf AC dmg by 20%. Also medium lasors should be nerfed as legion dominates NCO's too much.
And btw HAM drake can only fit 2 bcu because it will run out of cpu. Not to mention if you fit 1 TE its going to be only 1 bcu which lowers dps even more. While cane can easily fit 4 gyros and use barrage.
Like I said, EFT messes with people here.
How far is the Cane optimal range? about 3 kilometers? What do you think happens at 20km? Dps is around 300. Guess what happens at 40 km. Dps is 0. Your argument is invalid. Uninstall EFT or learn to dps graph |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:15:00 -
[3327] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Well i think cane is OP compared to HAM drake. See the difference yourself fit HAM drake with 2 BCU and T2 missiles then fit AC cane with 4 gyros and hail. Thats the difference. Yes drake has bit more tank but cane has speed.
I am minnie/caldari pilot btw. so i fly canes and drakes.. So would i want cane to get nerfed even more. No i wouldnt but in means of balancing cane needs to be nerfed more. Maybe by dropping its cpu so it cant fit so many gyros... Why not just compare to a Drake with 0 BCUs and no tank? Summary: The Drake CAN in fact fit 3 BCUs (without expensive meta4 mods!), which means... The Drake does approximately 6% less DPS than the Hurricane and it can do it while sporting 25% more tank than a Hurricane. The Drake can fit 2 additional midslot ewar mods over the Hurricane, at the expense of one small neut (post-nerf). The Drake is slower, but is more agile and harder to jam. The Drake can overheat its tank. Why do you suggest an unreasonably poor fitting to compare with a 4 gyro (lol) Hurricane? I fail to see how the Hurricane is "OP" compared to the Drake. Should the Drake have higher DPS than the Hurricane while also sporting all of its current advantages?
Im tired of arguing with you. I see your opinion and you see mine. Btw you saying thats poor drake fit but in matter of fact your drake fit pathetic. Short range BC without web n scram and with 2 painters. I think thats just stupid fit. How are you going to stop that cane who is burning away from you with its speed? And wth your doing with 2 TP's in close range boat. HAM drake doesnt even need painters. And if its fleet 1 or 2 painters in fleet is enough and can be done by minmatar TP bonused boat.
Anyways point remains you cant fit 3 bcu in HAM drake unless you make some stupid fit that doesnt make sense. So whatever unista.
|
Ivian Khorn
PROSPERO Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:22:00 -
[3328] - Quote
I`v read topic. Someone maybe forgot about rocket specific. They LOSE they damage, if target moving. And you wanna nerf it? Autocannon can deal full they damage about frigs, (and 425 mm too), since rocket dealt 10-15% at they speed. I`v agree if nerf only range (20-25% maximum). About artillery - they can shot-out frig BY ONE ALPHA if it flies by line to ship, or it nearly. (With low altitude, but HIGHT speed) |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:25:00 -
[3329] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Eckyy wrote:[quote=Retardo Khaan]Well i think cane is OP compared to HAM drake. See the difference yourself fit HAM drake with 2 BCU and T2 missiles then fit AC cane with 4 gyros and hail. Thats the difference. Yes drake has bit more tank but cane has speed.
I am minnie/caldari pilot btw. so i fly canes and drakes.. So would i want cane to get nerfed even more. No i wouldnt but in means of balancing cane needs to be nerfed more. Maybe by dropping its cpu so it cant fit so many gyros... Why not just compare to a Drake with 0 BCUs and no tank? Summary: The Drake CAN in fact fit 3 BCUs (without expensive meta4 mods!), which means... The Drake does approximately 6% less DPS than the Hurricane and it can do it while sporting 25% more tank than a Hurricane. The Drake can fit 2 additional midslot ewar mods over the Hurricane, at the expense of one small neut (post-nerf). The Drake is slower, but is more agile and harder to jam. The Drake can overheat its tank. Why do you suggest an unreasonably poor fitting to compare with a 4 gyro (lol) Hurricane? I fail to see how the Hurricane is "OP" compared to the Drake. Should the Drake have higher DPS than the Hurricane while also sporting all of its current advantages?
Im tired of arguing with you. I see your opinion and you see mine. Btw you saying thats poor drake fit but in matter of fact your drake fit pathetic. Short range BC without web n scram and with 2 painters and no LSE. Or some lame t1 modules but still without web n scram. I think thats just stupid fit. How are you going to stop that cane who is burning away from you with its speed? And wth your doing with 2 TP's in close range boat. HAM drake doesnt even need painters. And if its fleet few painters in fleet is enough and can be done by minmatar TP bonused boat. Which can offer web aswell tho unless its T1.
Anyways point remains you cant fit 3 bcu in HAM drake unless you make some stupid fit that doesnt make sense. So whatever unista. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:27:00 -
[3330] - Quote
Uh double quote |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:28:00 -
[3331] - Quote
Guys, seriously stop this discussion about BC 1on1 - there is no question asked about HAM Drake vs those others. It had been tested plenty of times, and with equal skills the HAM Drake loses 1on1 vs Pulse Harbinger and also vs AC Cane, same as it will lose vs AC Myrm. Its not a big loss, but it comes home 4th of 4. Thats just because there is more than DPS/EHP and range, and drone bay is playing a big role there too, where the Drake is clearly worst.
Still thats ok for me, one has to be the best in a competition, and one will be last. If you dont want to be all races the same thats what happens. Balance is, when this ship which has been 4th place of 4 now will be better in another competition, and when it comes to long range the Drake is the winner normally (although there are also range windows where the others could beat it).
So basically its about that - people call the Drake OP because they dont like to lose vs one in PvP. They deny to see that in other conditions they would have been the winners. Maybe they should rather think of how to pick their fights, or they could try to counter the one trick pony the Drake is. Instead they choose to QQ. This normally comes from Winmatar and Amarr pilots who have so many combat vessels to choose from in PvP and could simply do something else, unlike Caldari Missile Pilots.
Apart from that - if the Drake was OP, we would see nothing else than Drakes in lowsec. We simply dont, because its NOT OP. The Drake gets used, and it gets used by more than just some, right. But comparing lowsec and highsec war numbers in regards of total ships used the Drake is a neglectable factor. Its there, it can be annoying, but its far from game breaking or OP. The Drake as it is may be a problem in null sec. But there are different possible solutions than just nerf it there ...
And about that argument taking away drones from a Domi - I-¦d go much more for this example:
"Pilots! With the next patch we take away 25% range and 20% DPS from every working Projectile Turret, and from every working laser system as a nerf, because we could see in our stats how Amarr and Minmatar are so much stronger than Caldari and Gallente in most PvP situations. Ship numbers for Ravens and Hyperions in PvP clearly indicate something hast to be done. Dont worry, we will bring everything back in line with a later coming patch, but first we need to tone down the stats for Projectile/Laser, so we have a solid base to work from. As an addition, defender missiles will now affect also gunnery systems in an attempt to bring weapon types also more in line with each other. But you could use implants and rigs for explosion velocity for missiles, which will help your guns to hit smaller targets better, so its not really that bad! Stay tuned for more news."
Why did I write every working system? Well, becaue basically thats it - HML is the only really working system for missile PvP above frig size. And for Amarr and Matarr all systems except medium long range work, now which do you like better? Having 1 out of 4 options, or 3 out of 4? With plenty of ships to fit them on, or with just 1 working missile-platform *at all*?
Best regards. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:29:00 -
[3332] - Quote
Does no-one remember how to fit a HAM Drake? This is like 2007 again. The HAM Drake has PG problems more than it has CPU problems. This is because HAMLs take more PG but less CPU than HMLs. Here's the classic but it requires a 3% PG implant:
[Drake, HAM (implant)] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
677 DPS, 83k EHP (94k EHP overloaded). With Rage getting more damage that should go beyond 700 DPS. This will beat a full-gank Brutix in a straight slugging match at Void optimal, let alone a Hurricane or Harbinger. Noemi Nagano, you are terrible at fitting ships and judging their qualities and should stop posting. And playing.
If you want a T2 disruptor instead you'll have to drop down to a IFFA suitcase, fortunately they're cheap now. Don't fit painters on solo HAM Drakes, and in gang you should have at least 2 webs (think ABing frigates) before a painter is worthwhile. If you don't want to use a 3% PG implant, then you can drop a CDFE for an ACR, but a better solution is to drop a HAML for a HML. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:29:00 -
[3333] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:
The Drake is slower, but is more agile and harder to jam.
The Drake can overheat its tank.
The drake is more agile by .3 seconds which is nothing in game. That's literally .03 seconds faster than the blink of an eye.
Trying to compare their agility is like trying to compare the lengths of hair on a freshly buzzed head. Besides, minimal warp out time is 12 seconds.
Also, it has 3 points more in sensor strength, which again, equates to almost nothing.
It would take an all skills lvl 5 rook 2 racial jammers to cover either ship.
Now, when it comes to overheating the tanks.
This is almost meaningless because both ships can overheat their tank.
However, you can't overheat rigs, shield power relays/fux coils, or shield extenders. Only resistance modules.
However, the Hurricane using an active repper/booster will be able to get more tank boost through overheating than a drake will get.
Granted, the drake will still have more EHP, but the point still stands. Overheating a drake's tank is redundant. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:30:00 -
[3334] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: Is it fair that AC cane does 600dps while HAM drake does only around 450dps.. Why not nerf AC dmg by 20%. Also medium lasors should be nerfed as legion dominates NCO's too much.
And btw HAM drake can only fit 2 bcu because it will run out of cpu. Not to mention if you fit 1 TE its going to be only 1 bcu which lowers dps even more. While cane can easily fit 4 gyros and use barrage.
Like I said, EFT messes with people here. How far is the Cane optimal range? about 3 kilometers? What do you think happens at 20km? Dps is around 300. Guess what happens at 40 km. Dps is 0. Your argument is invalid. Uninstall EFT or learn to dps graph
What is the range of the HAM-Drake again? ;) And remember, no falloff, and it will always be way shorter than what EFT says. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:35:00 -
[3335] - Quote
My question still is
Since they're nerfing the tengu before the give me any missile boat with the same effeciveness is pve that the tengu has, then what am I supposed to do for the next 6-12 months or longer?
I realize that the tengu needs nerfed.
I'm all for it. No problems...
Same with the drake... Go for it...
However, at least wait, do bc and bs buffs at the same time, then you'll be able to drop all the missile buffs as well.
The drake and tengu get rebalanced/nerfed and I will perhaps be able to fly the raven in missions with the effectiveness of other t1 battleships until Marauder rebalance comes around and I'm able to get into a Golem.
I just really hope they do something to make Marauders the kings of pve they're supposed to be.
Edit...
Oh, and to those that keep saying why wait, someone is getting screwed either way.
Consider this. Nothing will change in game about the drake or the tengu. Sure, they'll still be hard to kill, but it's been this way for so long already.
So, how about taking on for the team?
Instead of preaching for us to get the nerf now leaving us with nothing to fly, how about you just realize that they're getting nerfed either way and be patient?
This way, you still get the nerf your'e screaming for, and I'll have something to fly until rebalance where that ship is taken away and I get something different... |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:38:00 -
[3336] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Well i think cane is OP compared to HAM drake. See the difference yourself fit HAM drake with 2 BCU and T2 missiles then fit AC cane with 4 gyros and hail. Thats the difference. Yes drake has bit more tank but cane has speed.
I am minnie/caldari pilot btw. so i fly canes and drakes.. So would i want cane to get nerfed even more. No i wouldnt but in means of balancing cane needs to be nerfed more. Maybe by dropping its cpu so it cant fit so many gyros... Why not just compare to a Drake with 0 BCUs and no tank? Summary: The Drake CAN in fact fit 3 BCUs (without expensive meta4 mods!), which means... The Drake does approximately 6% less DPS than the Hurricane and it can do it while sporting 25% more tank than a Hurricane. The Drake can fit 2 additional midslot ewar mods over the Hurricane, at the expense of one small neut (post-nerf). The Drake is slower, but is more agile and harder to jam. The Drake can overheat its tank. Why do you suggest an unreasonably poor fitting to compare with a 4 gyro (lol) Hurricane? I fail to see how the Hurricane is "OP" compared to the Drake. Should the Drake have higher DPS than the Hurricane while also sporting all of its current advantages? Im tired of arguing with you. I see your opinion and you see mine. Btw you saying thats poor drake fit but in matter of fact your drake fit pathetic. Short range BC without web n scram and with 2 painters and no LSE. Or some lame t1 modules. I think thats just stupid fit. How are you going to stop that cane who is burning away from you with its speed? And wth your doing with 2 TP's in close range boat. HAM drake doesnt even need painters. And if its fleet few painters in fleet is enough and can be done by minmatar TP bonused boat. Which can offer web aswell tho unless its T1. Anyways point remains you cant fit 3 bcu in HAM drake unless you make some stupid fit that doesnt make sense. So whatever unista. lol you clearly dont know what youre talking about . . . put his drake against your hurricane, i guarentee you'll lose, especially if those two TPs were TDs
the drake has more EHP, the hurricane has more damage, we call this incomperable balance
Also, you said earlier that the use of an ACR is "cheating" that is ridiculous . . . it does make you lose a slot, but a smart person will tell you to do whatever you can to make your fit better . . .
Saying that is cheating is as moronic as saying using meta 4 modules to make your fit work is "cheating" . . . its idiotic because, if that makes your fit better, why not do it? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:40:00 -
[3337] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:What is the range of the HAM-Drake again? ;) And remember, no falloff, and it will always be way shorter than what EFT says.
About 25 km, more with fancy flying that forces an opponent to chase you, increasing the relative velocity of the missiles. Now you tell me the turret DPS of a dual-TE Hurricane at 25 km, using RF EMP. You may being to see a problem at this point. Of course, you could use Barrage... but you may want to inspect its damage type.
Of course, you know all this, being an experienced Drake pilot. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:42:00 -
[3338] - Quote
Serious question though.
Are the TCs and TEs replacing target painters?
Will I be getting sp back?
Not sure it's much, but hey, I need every bit I can get for cross training toward a mach. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:46:00 -
[3339] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:What is the range of the HAM-Drake again? ;) And remember, no falloff, and it will always be way shorter than what EFT says. About 25 km, more with fancy flying that forces an opponent to chase you, increasing the relative velocity of the missiles. Now you tell me the turret DPS of a dual-TE Hurricane at 25 km, using RF EMP. You may being to see a problem at this point. Of course, you could use Barrage... but you may want to inspect its damage type. Of course, you know all this, being an experienced Drake pilot.
How will you be able to dictate range like you said you will? You are slower, not more agile and the other pilot can keep you pointed well outside your theoretical fighting range. So what I see is, you will do zero and lose the fight. In your face he will kill you too. So he will either do the first or the second, thats why HAM Drakes die 1on1. Seriously, there have been so many tests. If you want to prove me wrong I can gladly give you contact details for guys who will show you how your Drake gets blown up, personally I lack a bit ingame time atm, else I would do it myself. Comparing EFT stats is not Eve, simple as that. Btw, I like the Drake a lot, and I did the same what you did before, EFT-warrior with it and argue with everyone how OP it is (in those times when everyone said Drakes suck completely for PvP) .. you know what changed since then? One thing, which made the Drake so common in nullsec, and that was the change of DDD from aoe to how it is now. Funny, eh? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:47:00 -
[3340] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:My question still is
Since they're nerfing the tengu before the give me any missile boat with the same effeciveness is pve that the tengu has, then what am I supposed to do for the next 6-12 months or longer?
I realize that the tengu needs nerfed.
I'm all for it. No problems...
Same with the drake... Go for it...
However, at least wait, do bc and bs buffs at the same time, then you'll be able to drop all the missile buffs as well.
The drake and tengu get rebalanced/nerfed and I will perhaps be able to fly the raven in missions with the effectiveness of other t1 battleships until Marauder rebalance comes around and I'm able to get into a Golem.
I just really hope they do something to make Marauders the kings of pve they're supposed to be.
Edit...
Oh, and to those that keep saying why wait, someone is getting screwed either way.
Consider this. Nothing will change in game about the drake or the tengu. Sure, they'll still be hard to kill, but it's been this way for so long already.
So, how about taking on for the team?
Instead of preaching for us to get the nerf now leaving us with nothing to fly, how about you just realize that they're getting nerfed either way and be patient?
This way, you still get the nerf your'e screaming for, and I'll have something to fly until rebalance where that ship is taken away and I get something different... wait, you want them to change two variables in the same equasion at once? isnt that how we got Technetium? CCP changing two related things at the same time (moon goo output and component cost for T2 ships) and not fully understanding the implications of either.
No, they need to change one thing at a time very thoughtfully and observe the implications of each change before making another one to the same system or we'll end up in another craptastic deal like Technetium. |
|
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:47:00 -
[3341] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Does no-one remember how to fit a HAM Drake? This is like 2007 again. The HAM Drake has PG problems more than it has CPU problems. This is because HAMLs take more PG but less CPU than HMLs. Here's the classic but it requires a 3% PG implant:
[Drake, HAM (implant)] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
677 DPS, 83k EHP (94k EHP overloaded). With Rage getting more damage that should go beyond 700 DPS. This will beat a full-gank Brutix in a straight slugging match at Void optimal, let alone a Hurricane or Harbinger. Noemi Nagano, you are terrible at fitting ships and judging their qualities and should stop posting. And playing.
If you want a T2 disruptor instead you'll have to drop down to a IFFA suitcase, fortunately they're cheap now. Don't fit painters on solo HAM Drakes, and in gang you should have at least 2 webs (think ABing frigates) before a painter is worthwhile. If you don't want to use a 3% PG implant, then you can drop a CDFE for an ACR, but a better solution is to drop a HAML for a HML.
By buying expensive fitting implant and using T1 modules is only way to fit that. Cane doesnt need fitting implants or T1 modules.
But i do like that fit tho. Makes much more sense than these fits unista linked. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
765
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:52:00 -
[3342] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:What is the range of the HAM-Drake again? ;) And remember, no falloff, and it will always be way shorter than what EFT says. About 25 km, more with fancy flying that forces an opponent to chase you, increasing the relative velocity of the missiles. Now you tell me the turret DPS of a dual-TE Hurricane at 25 km, using RF EMP. You may being to see a problem at this point. Of course, you could use Barrage... but you may want to inspect its damage type. Of course, you know all this, being an experienced Drake pilot.
No offence but I'm pretty much maxed out on skills for both drakes and canes and I'll take a cane over a drake any day of the week for pvp. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:53:00 -
[3343] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: Is it fair that AC cane does 600dps while HAM drake does only around 450dps.. Why not nerf AC dmg by 20%. Also medium lasors should be nerfed as legion dominates NCO's too much.
And btw HAM drake can only fit 2 bcu because it will run out of cpu. Not to mention if you fit 1 TE its going to be only 1 bcu which lowers dps even more. While cane can easily fit 4 gyros and use barrage.
Like I said, EFT messes with people here. How far is the Cane optimal range? about 3 kilometers? What do you think happens at 20km? Dps is around 300. Guess what happens at 40 km. Dps is 0. Your argument is invalid. Uninstall EFT or learn to dps graph
EFT warrior. Have you ever heard of falloff or barrage? Do you know that missiles doesnt have falloff? And do you know that cane can pop rifter with barrage from 40k before rifter alings to warp out... Also do you know what happens when HAM drake trying to shoot at 20k? Nothing will happen because my HAM drake has 18k range.
So your argument is invalid. Pls unistall eve and stay in your EFT. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:54:00 -
[3344] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:What is the range of the HAM-Drake again? ;) And remember, no falloff, and it will always be way shorter than what EFT says. About 25 km, more with fancy flying that forces an opponent to chase you, increasing the relative velocity of the missiles. Now you tell me the turret DPS of a dual-TE Hurricane at 25 km, using RF EMP. You may being to see a problem at this point. Of course, you could use Barrage... but you may want to inspect its damage type. Of course, you know all this, being an experienced Drake pilot. How will you be able to dictate range like you said you will? You are slower, not more agile and the other pilot can keep you pointed well outside your theoretical fighting range. So what I see is, you will do zero and lose the fight. In your face he will kill you too. So he will either do the first or the second, thats why HAM Drakes die 1on1. Seriously, there have been so many tests. If you want to prove me wrong I can gladly give you contact details for guys who will show you how your Drake gets blown up, personally I lack a bit ingame time atm, else I would do it myself. Comparing EFT stats is not Eve, simple as that. right now, the HAM drake with javelin scourge does damage out to 30.4 km, call it 25 km because this is the real world after all, and that range will go up with a tracking enhancer (if its a 15% buff the new range is 34.95 km so say 30) so . . . maybe with a faction point and heat you'll get out more than 30 km
The best chance the cane has is to close to 0 and use hail + neuts or to run away. |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
399
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:56:00 -
[3345] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: Is it fair that AC cane does 600dps while HAM drake does only around 450dps.. Why not nerf AC dmg by 20%. Also medium lasors should be nerfed as legion dominates NCO's too much.
And btw HAM drake can only fit 2 bcu because it will run out of cpu. Not to mention if you fit 1 TE its going to be only 1 bcu which lowers dps even more. While cane can easily fit 4 gyros and use barrage.
Like I said, EFT messes with people here. How far is the Cane optimal range? about 3 kilometers? What do you think happens at 20km? Dps is around 300. Guess what happens at 40 km. Dps is 0. Your argument is invalid. Uninstall EFT or learn to dps graph EFT warrior. Have you ever heard of falloff or barrage? Do you know that missiles doesnt have falloff? And do you know that cane can pop rifter with barrage from 40k before rifter alings to warp out... Also do you know what happens when HAM drake trying to shoot at 20k? Nothing will happen because my HAM drake has 18k range. So your argument is invalid. Pls unistall eve and stay in your EFT.
What he tried to say was that the drake will do its full dps at 18k range and that the dps of the cane will go down as the target is farther away.
Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:56:00 -
[3346] - Quote
Uh another double quote |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 08:58:00 -
[3347] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: Is it fair that AC cane does 600dps while HAM drake does only around 450dps.. Why not nerf AC dmg by 20%. Also medium lasors should be nerfed as legion dominates NCO's too much.
And btw HAM drake can only fit 2 bcu because it will run out of cpu. Not to mention if you fit 1 TE its going to be only 1 bcu which lowers dps even more. While cane can easily fit 4 gyros and use barrage.
Like I said, EFT messes with people here. How far is the Cane optimal range? about 3 kilometers? What do you think happens at 20km? Dps is around 300. Guess what happens at 40 km. Dps is 0. Your argument is invalid. Uninstall EFT or learn to dps graph EFT warrior. Have you ever heard of falloff or barrage? Do you know that missiles doesnt have falloff? And do you know that cane can pop rifter with barrage from 40k before rifter alings to warp out... Also do you know what happens when HAM drake trying to shoot at 20k? Nothing will happen because my HAM drake has 18k range. So your argument is invalid. Pls unistall eve and stay in your EFT. Hey Slowbrow:
have you ever heard of javalin ammo? did you hear that theyre adding TCs and TEs to missiles?
this pushes the HAM drakes range to 30 km or so (assuming TEs and TCs give a 15% range bonus to missiles)
oh, and with 2 BCUs and a TE, javelin ammo does 347 DPS at 30 km where barrage ammo does around 200 DPS
learn to think outside the box. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:00:00 -
[3348] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:What is the range of the HAM-Drake again? ;) And remember, no falloff, and it will always be way shorter than what EFT says. About 25 km, more with fancy flying that forces an opponent to chase you, increasing the relative velocity of the missiles. Now you tell me the turret DPS of a dual-TE Hurricane at 25 km, using RF EMP. You may being to see a problem at this point. Of course, you could use Barrage... but you may want to inspect its damage type. Of course, you know all this, being an experienced Drake pilot. How will you be able to dictate range like you said you will? You are slower, not more agile and the other pilot can keep you pointed well outside your theoretical fighting range. So what I see is, you will do zero and lose the fight. In your face he will kill you too. So he will either do the first or the second, thats why HAM Drakes die 1on1. Seriously, there have been so many tests. If you want to prove me wrong I can gladly give you contact details for guys who will show you how your Drake gets blown up, personally I lack a bit ingame time atm, else I would do it myself. Comparing EFT stats is not Eve, simple as that. right now, the HAM drake with javelin scourge does damage out to 30.4 km, call it 25 km because this is the real world after all, and that range will go up with a tracking enhancer (if its a 15% buff the new range is 34.95 km so say 30) so . . . maybe with a faction point and heat you'll get out more than 30 km The best chance the cane has is to close to 0 and use hail + neuts or to run away.
Please stop mixing up things - in this specific argument "Drake vs Cane close range" we are discussing Eve at it is *now* not, Eve as it could be after the patch. Its clearly true there is a window of opportunity for a Cane where it can kite all damage from that Drake, and an even bigger window where it can kite high damage ammo from that Drake. Apart from that it can also just go close in and become your personal dual neut friend. The Cane will win either way, if someone disagrees, test it out and test it not in EFT pls.
Apart from that - no one with their brains set right will claim the Drake is OP as a HAM ship. It clearly is NOT AT ALL. It loses to all other tier 2s in 1on1, although not by a big margin. The Drake is 4th of 4 there, simple as that. It is however best in some ranges atm if it comes to long range comparison with HMLs vs med turrets. My point is, thats not because HML are broken (as they are not), but because long range medium turrets dont project so far as they should to be long range. Base DPS are not bad at all (using highest DPS ammo, ofc), but range sucks too much then, and the medium DPS ammo types (which are completely comparable to Drakes DPS btw, but are instant!) lack range too. This should be adressed, and could be adressed. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:05:00 -
[3349] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: Is it fair that AC cane does 600dps while HAM drake does only around 450dps.. Why not nerf AC dmg by 20%. Also medium lasors should be nerfed as legion dominates NCO's too much.
And btw HAM drake can only fit 2 bcu because it will run out of cpu. Not to mention if you fit 1 TE its going to be only 1 bcu which lowers dps even more. While cane can easily fit 4 gyros and use barrage.
Like I said, EFT messes with people here. How far is the Cane optimal range? about 3 kilometers? What do you think happens at 20km? Dps is around 300. Guess what happens at 40 km. Dps is 0. Your argument is invalid. Uninstall EFT or learn to dps graph EFT warrior. Have you ever heard of falloff or barrage? Do you know that missiles doesnt have falloff? And do you know that cane can pop rifter with barrage from 40k before rifter alings to warp out... Also do you know what happens when HAM drake trying to shoot at 20k? Nothing will happen because my HAM drake has 18k range. So your argument is invalid. Pls unistall eve and stay in your EFT. What he tried to say was that the drake will do its full dps at 18k range and that the dps of the cane will go down as the target is farther away.
Well sure but cane can burn away and warp out because of its speed. And then drake doesnt kill anything. Yes cane dps will go down but still it can pop rifter from 40k with barrage. HAM drake cant kill anything from 40k. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:09:00 -
[3350] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: In your face he will kill you too.
No, we've been through this several times now. In a straight gank vs tank comparison, the Hurricane will lose inside web range, just like a Brutix and harbinger (actually IIRC the Harbinger can if it has Slaves) cannot either. It simply doesn't have the combination of DPS and EHP that the Drake has. This is easy to model.
Quote:How will you be able to dictate range like you said you will? You are slower, not more agile and the other pilot can keep you pointed well outside your theoretical fighting range.
The Hurricane cannot deal sufficient DPS to the Drake while remaining outside Jav range. You do know what falloff is, don't you? Assuming that we're not talking link Lokis everywhere, his point will burn out long before the Drake's tank is seriously threatened. |
|
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:13:00 -
[3351] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Well i think cane is OP compared to HAM drake. See the difference yourself fit HAM drake with 2 BCU and T2 missiles then fit AC cane with 4 gyros and hail. Thats the difference. Yes drake has bit more tank but cane has speed.
I am minnie/caldari pilot btw. so i fly canes and drakes.. So would i want cane to get nerfed even more. No i wouldnt but in means of balancing cane needs to be nerfed more. Maybe by dropping its cpu so it cant fit so many gyros... Why not just compare to a Drake with 0 BCUs and no tank? Summary: The Drake CAN in fact fit 3 BCUs (without expensive meta4 mods!), which means... The Drake does approximately 6% less DPS than the Hurricane and it can do it while sporting 25% more tank than a Hurricane. The Drake can fit 2 additional midslot ewar mods over the Hurricane, at the expense of one small neut (post-nerf). The Drake is slower, but is more agile and harder to jam. The Drake can overheat its tank. Why do you suggest an unreasonably poor fitting to compare with a 4 gyro (lol) Hurricane? I fail to see how the Hurricane is "OP" compared to the Drake. Should the Drake have higher DPS than the Hurricane while also sporting all of its current advantages? Im tired of arguing with you. I see your opinion and you see mine. Btw you saying thats poor drake fit but in matter of fact your drake fit pathetic. Short range BC without web n scram and with 2 painters and no LSE. Or some lame t1 modules. I think thats just stupid fit. How are you going to stop that cane who is burning away from you with its speed? And wth your doing with 2 TP's in close range boat. HAM drake doesnt even need painters. And if its fleet few painters in fleet is enough and can be done by minmatar TP bonused boat. Which can offer web aswell tho unless its T1. Anyways point remains you cant fit 3 bcu in HAM drake unless you make some stupid fit that doesnt make sense. So whatever unista. lol you clearly dont know what youre talking about . . . put his drake against your hurricane, i guarentee you'll lose, especially if those two TPs were TDs the drake has more EHP, the hurricane has more damage, we call this incomperable balance Also, you said earlier that the use of an ACR is "cheating" that is ridiculous . . . it does make you lose a slot, but a smart person will tell you to do whatever you can to make your fit better . . . Saying that is cheating is as moronic as saying using meta 4 modules to make your fit work is "cheating" . . . its idiotic because, if that makes your fit better, why not do it?
No you didnt understand the point at all. Its cheating to use ACR with HAM drake in comparison to AC cane that doesnt need to fit ACR for SR guns. Also meta 4 modules are stupid because meta4 point has only 20k range. And meta4 DCU has lower resists. Also its price issue. You do know how much meta4 cost? Also its stupid because i could aswell make deadspace fitted cane to compare it to T2 fit drake cause price wont matter right? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:13:00 -
[3352] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: In your face he will kill you too. No, we've been through this several times now. In a straight gank vs tank comparison, the Hurricane will lose inside web range, just like a Brutix and harbinger (actually IIRC the Harbinger can if it has Slaves) cannot either. It simply doesn't have the combination of DPS and EHP that the Drake has. This is easy to model. Quote:How will you be able to dictate range like you said you will? You are slower, not more agile and the other pilot can keep you pointed well outside your theoretical fighting range.
The Hurricane cannot deal sufficient DPS to the Drake while remaining outside Jav range. You do know what falloff is, don't you? Assuming that we're not talking link Lokis everywhere, his point will burn out long before the Drake's tank is seriously threatened.
I invite you to stop modeling things, but play the actual game. I can provide you with people who will gladly burn you down ingame to show how wrong you are. Plain and fair, no links/gang/whatever involved, just 1on1. They will do this as often as you wish, and generate a nice ammount of ISK for you if you keep insuring your Drakes. My offer stands .. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:22:00 -
[3353] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Sigras wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Well i think cane is OP compared to HAM drake. See the difference yourself fit HAM drake with 2 BCU and T2 missiles then fit AC cane with 4 gyros and hail. Thats the difference. Yes drake has bit more tank but cane has speed.
I am minnie/caldari pilot btw. so i fly canes and drakes.. So would i want cane to get nerfed even more. No i wouldnt but in means of balancing cane needs to be nerfed more. Maybe by dropping its cpu so it cant fit so many gyros... Why not just compare to a Drake with 0 BCUs and no tank? Summary: The Drake CAN in fact fit 3 BCUs (without expensive meta4 mods!), which means... The Drake does approximately 6% less DPS than the Hurricane and it can do it while sporting 25% more tank than a Hurricane. The Drake can fit 2 additional midslot ewar mods over the Hurricane, at the expense of one small neut (post-nerf). The Drake is slower, but is more agile and harder to jam. The Drake can overheat its tank. Why do you suggest an unreasonably poor fitting to compare with a 4 gyro (lol) Hurricane? I fail to see how the Hurricane is "OP" compared to the Drake. Should the Drake have higher DPS than the Hurricane while also sporting all of its current advantages? Im tired of arguing with you. I see your opinion and you see mine. Btw you saying thats poor drake fit but in matter of fact your drake fit pathetic. Short range BC without web n scram and with 2 painters and no LSE. Or some lame t1 modules. I think thats just stupid fit. How are you going to stop that cane who is burning away from you with its speed? And wth your doing with 2 TP's in close range boat. HAM drake doesnt even need painters. And if its fleet few painters in fleet is enough and can be done by minmatar TP bonused boat. Which can offer web aswell tho unless its T1. Anyways point remains you cant fit 3 bcu in HAM drake unless you make some stupid fit that doesnt make sense. So whatever unista. lol you clearly dont know what youre talking about . . . put his drake against your hurricane, i guarentee you'll lose, especially if those two TPs were TDs the drake has more EHP, the hurricane has more damage, we call this incomperable balance Also, you said earlier that the use of an ACR is "cheating" that is ridiculous . . . it does make you lose a slot, but a smart person will tell you to do whatever you can to make your fit better . . . Saying that is cheating is as moronic as saying using meta 4 modules to make your fit work is "cheating" . . . its idiotic because, if that makes your fit better, why not do it? No you didnt understand the point at all. Its cheating to use ACR with HAM drake in comparison to AC cane that doesnt need to fit ACR for SR guns. As my point was that cane does too much dps when it can fit so many gyro. And by reducing its CPU it would balance AC cane compared to HAM drake. Also meta 4 modules are stupid because meta4 point has only 20k range. And meta4 DCU has lower resists. Also its price issue. You do know how much meta4 cost? Also its stupid because i could aswell make deadspace fitted cane to compare it to T2 fit drake cause price wont matter right?
I bought my meta 4 DC at 2 mill each. Problem? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:27:00 -
[3354] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:How will you be able to dictate range like you said you will? You are slower, not more agile and the other pilot can keep you pointed well outside your theoretical fighting range. So what I see is, you will do zero and lose the fight. In your face he will kill you too. So he will either do the first or the second, thats why HAM Drakes die 1on1. Seriously, there have been so many tests. If you want to prove me wrong I can gladly give you contact details for guys who will show you how your Drake gets blown up, personally I lack a bit ingame time atm, else I would do it myself. Comparing EFT stats is not Eve, simple as that.
right now, the HAM drake with javelin scourge does damage out to 30.4 km, call it 25 km because this is the real world after all, and that range will go up with a tracking enhancer (if its a 15% buff the new range is 34.95 km so say 30) so . . . maybe with a faction point and heat you'll get out more than 30 km The best chance the cane has is to close to 0 and use hail + neuts or to run away. Please stop mixing up things - in this specific argument "Drake vs Cane close range" we are discussing Eve at it is *now* not, Eve as it could be after the patch. Its clearly true there is a window of opportunity for a Cane where it can kite all damage from that Drake, and an even bigger window where it can kite high damage ammo from that Drake. Apart from that it can also just go close in and become your personal dual neut friend. The Cane will win either way, if someone disagrees, test it out and test it not in EFT pls. I agree that at 0, the cane will be the hands down winner, what im saying is that right now in eve, the HAM drake can project damage all the way out to point range.
My statement is that from 9 km to 0 km, the cane does more DPS, from 9.5 km to 25 km, the drake does more DPS right now.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Apart from that - no one with their brains set right will claim the Drake is OP as a HAM ship. It clearly is NOT AT ALL. It loses to all other tier 2s in 1on1, although not by a big margin. The Drake is 4th of 4 there, simple as that. It is however best in some ranges atm if it comes to long range comparison with HMLs vs med turrets. My point is, thats not because HML are broken (as they are not), but because long range medium turrets dont project so far as they should to be long range. Base DPS are not bad at all (using highest DPS ammo, ofc), but range sucks too much then, and the medium DPS ammo types (which are completely comparable to Drakes DPS btw, but are instant!) lack range too. This should be adressed, and could be adressed. Nothing more, nothing less. You realize of course that this is a matter of opinion right?
it is your opinion that HMLs are "just right" as far as damage projection goes, and all the turrets are "too short"
Im not trying to be snarky, but you do realize that is an opinion right? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:28:00 -
[3355] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote: Well sure but cane can burn away and warp out because of its speed. And then drake doesnt kill anything. Yes cane dps will go down but still it can pop rifter from 40k with barrage. HAM drake cant kill anything from 40k.
Lol, no it cant. Get out of eft please. And a Brutix can't kill anything from 40km either, your point is? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:31:00 -
[3356] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: In your face he will kill you too. No, we've been through this several times now. In a straight gank vs tank comparison, the Hurricane will lose inside web range, just like a Brutix and harbinger (actually IIRC the Harbinger can if it has Slaves) cannot either. It simply doesn't have the combination of DPS and EHP that the Drake has. This is easy to model. Quote:How will you be able to dictate range like you said you will? You are slower, not more agile and the other pilot can keep you pointed well outside your theoretical fighting range.
The Hurricane cannot deal sufficient DPS to the Drake while remaining outside Jav range. You do know what falloff is, don't you? Assuming that we're not talking link Lokis everywhere, his point will burn out long before the Drake's tank is seriously threatened. I think you're wrong here, the cane will kill you at 0 because he has more DPS and has neuts to turn your tank off, but you're right about the range thing. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:34:00 -
[3357] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: Well sure but cane can burn away and warp out because of its speed. And then drake doesnt kill anything. Yes cane dps will go down but still it can pop rifter from 40k with barrage. HAM drake cant kill anything from 40k.
Lol, no it cant. Get out of eft please. And a Brutix can't kill anything from 40km either, your point is?
Not using EFT. This happened in game. And my point was to say that cane can shoot upto 40k when drake cant. As the guy who i answered to was stating that drake does more dmg at 30k with HAMS. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:38:00 -
[3358] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Sigras wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Eckyy wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Well i think cane is OP compared to HAM drake. See the difference yourself fit HAM drake with 2 BCU and T2 missiles then fit AC cane with 4 gyros and hail. Thats the difference. Yes drake has bit more tank but cane has speed.
I am minnie/caldari pilot btw. so i fly canes and drakes.. So would i want cane to get nerfed even more. No i wouldnt but in means of balancing cane needs to be nerfed more. Maybe by dropping its cpu so it cant fit so many gyros... Why not just compare to a Drake with 0 BCUs and no tank? Summary: The Drake CAN in fact fit 3 BCUs (without expensive meta4 mods!), which means... The Drake does approximately 6% less DPS than the Hurricane and it can do it while sporting 25% more tank than a Hurricane. The Drake can fit 2 additional midslot ewar mods over the Hurricane, at the expense of one small neut (post-nerf). The Drake is slower, but is more agile and harder to jam. The Drake can overheat its tank. Why do you suggest an unreasonably poor fitting to compare with a 4 gyro (lol) Hurricane? I fail to see how the Hurricane is "OP" compared to the Drake. Should the Drake have higher DPS than the Hurricane while also sporting all of its current advantages? Im tired of arguing with you. I see your opinion and you see mine. Btw you saying thats poor drake fit but in matter of fact your drake fit pathetic. Short range BC without web n scram and with 2 painters and no LSE. Or some lame t1 modules. I think thats just stupid fit. How are you going to stop that cane who is burning away from you with its speed? And wth your doing with 2 TP's in close range boat. HAM drake doesnt even need painters. And if its fleet few painters in fleet is enough and can be done by minmatar TP bonused boat. Which can offer web aswell tho unless its T1. Anyways point remains you cant fit 3 bcu in HAM drake unless you make some stupid fit that doesnt make sense. So whatever unista. lol you clearly dont know what youre talking about . . . put his drake against your hurricane, i guarentee you'll lose, especially if those two TPs were TDs the drake has more EHP, the hurricane has more damage, we call this incomperable balance Also, you said earlier that the use of an ACR is "cheating" that is ridiculous . . . it does make you lose a slot, but a smart person will tell you to do whatever you can to make your fit better . . . Saying that is cheating is as moronic as saying using meta 4 modules to make your fit work is "cheating" . . . its idiotic because, if that makes your fit better, why not do it? No you didnt understand the point at all. Its cheating to use ACR with HAM drake in comparison to AC cane that doesnt need to fit ACR for SR guns. As my point was that cane does too much dps when it can fit so many gyro. And by reducing its CPU it would balance AC cane compared to HAM drake. Also meta 4 modules are stupid because meta4 point has only 20k range. And meta4 DCU has lower resists. Also its price issue. You do know how much meta4 cost? Also its stupid because i could aswell make deadspace fitted cane to compare it to T2 fit drake cause price wont matter right? No i understand you perfectly; the AC cane doesnt need a fitting mod to fit its short range guns, so you shouldnt either. I totally understand your point but i disagree with it on principle.
That would be like the hurricane pilot saying "a drake doesnt have to fit faction mods to get a 100,000 EHP tank so neither should I" The ships are different, stop trying to make them the same. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:41:00 -
[3359] - Quote
Quote:
I bought my meta 4 DC at 2 mill each. Problem?
Yea maybe you bought one. But its bullshit to say you get it with 2mil every day. Jita price is 5million. You know i also once sold stabber fleet issue hull with 100mils but it doesnt make it market price to go 100mil.
http://eve-marketdata.com/price_check.php?type_name_header=Internal+Force+Field+Array+I |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:44:00 -
[3360] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: Well sure but cane can burn away and warp out because of its speed. And then drake doesnt kill anything. Yes cane dps will go down but still it can pop rifter from 40k with barrage. HAM drake cant kill anything from 40k.
Lol, no it cant. Get out of eft please. And a Brutix can't kill anything from 40km either, your point is? Not using EFT. This happened in game. And my point was to say that cane can shoot upto 40k when drake cant. As the guy who i answered to was stating that drake does more dmg at 30k with HAMS. Well it can. Because of Tracking Computer and Tracking Enhancer. Again, your argument is invalid. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:45:00 -
[3361] - Quote
Learn to observe the market bro. I bought 20 or something in Hek when the price was good. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:46:00 -
[3362] - Quote
Quote:
That would be like the hurricane pilot saying "a drake doesnt have to fit faction mods to get a 100,000 EHP tank so neither should I" The ships are different, stop trying to make them the same.
But thats the whole point of these nerfs. To balance them.. And it would balance them if cane would have to fit something like processor overcloking unit to be able to fit so many gyros and TE's.
|
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:48:00 -
[3363] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Learn to observe the market bro. I bought 20 or something in Hek when the price was good.
I do know how to observe market thanks. But im not intrested finding stack of cheap meta 4 dcu's when price is lower than average as i dont even use them.
But then if we do like you. Cane costs only 20million because i build them myself from crap and i need only fit it. So 20mil cane vs 70mil drake.. Says cane is not only OP but its alot cheaper aswell. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 09:59:00 -
[3364] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:
That would be like the hurricane pilot saying "a drake doesnt have to fit faction mods to get a 100,000 EHP tank so neither should I" The ships are different, stop trying to make them the same.
While I disagree with you in other points, this is pretty valid - the ships are different, stop trying to make them the same. I hope you see how contrary this statement is though to the intention of the OP Dev? Missiles are one thing, turrets are another. Some things go well for missiles (easier PvE for example), some things go well for turrets. As a whole you can say this is for sure not Caldari-Online or Missiles-Online, but much more Winmatar-Online or Projectiles-Online. I object to the basic assumption of the OP, and to many others here. I pointed out why I think people feel like that and I feel many pilots see those changes with the same concerns like I do. Just because they actually play the game and not EFT. best regards
I add this same answer to your post aswell. And its not me who is trying to "balance" = make things similar. But since CCP is going to balance i was just stating that cane need to be nerfer to more in order to balance it with drake.
"But thats the whole point of these nerfs. To balance them.. And it would balance them if cane would have to fit something like processor overcloking unit to be able to fit so many gyros and TE's" |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:03:00 -
[3365] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Quote:
That would be like the hurricane pilot saying "a drake doesnt have to fit faction mods to get a 100,000 EHP tank so neither should I" The ships are different, stop trying to make them the same.
But thats the whole point of these nerfs. To balance them.. And it would balance them if cane would have to fit something like processor overcloking unit to be able to fit so many gyros and TE's.
Did you know that the battlecruisers are not rebalanced yet? For all you know, you will be able to fit 8 HAMs, a full tank with speed and tackle and 2 TEs and 2 BCUs on your drake. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:04:00 -
[3366] - Quote
IMHO they should switch the fittings on the HML and HAM
Its universal that shorter ranged weapons are easier to fit; this is to make up for the disadvantage of actually having to get in range . . . why are missiles different?
Also they should make HAMs and HMLs the same as far as explosion radius and velocity are concerned. There is no reason for the short ranged ones to be nerfed like they are. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
215
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:11:00 -
[3367] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:
That would be like the hurricane pilot saying "a drake doesnt have to fit faction mods to get a 100,000 EHP tank so neither should I" The ships are different, stop trying to make them the same.
While I disagree with you in other points, this is pretty valid - the ships are different, stop trying to make them the same. I hope you see how contrary this statement is though to the intention of the OP Dev? Missiles are one thing, turrets are another. Some things go well for missiles (easier PvE for example), some things go well for turrets. As a whole you can say this is for sure not Caldari-Online or Missiles-Online, but much more Winmatar-Online or Projectiles-Online. I object to the basic assumption of the OP, and to many others here. I pointed out why I think people feel like that and I feel many pilots see those changes with the same concerns like I do. Just because they actually play the game and not EFT. best regards I add this same answer to your post aswell. And its not me who is trying to "balance" = make things similar. But since CCP is going to balance i was just stating that cane need to be nerfed more in order to balance it with drake. "But thats the whole point of these nerfs. To balance them.. And it would balance them if cane would have to fit something like processor overcloking unit to be able to fit so many gyros and TE's" the cane does more DPS at < 9 km and > 25 km and the drake does more DPS between 9 and 25 the cane has neuts (being taken away) and is faster, the drake has more (2x) EHP . . . how is this not fair?
why does the cane need to have less CPU? should the drake really have 3x the EHP because thats what would happen to the comparison.
The cane gets to fit more gyros/TEs the drake gets to fit more ewar/TCs i dont see the problem |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
766
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:12:00 -
[3368] - Quote
Sigras wrote:IMHO they should switch the fittings on the HML and HAM
Its universal that shorter ranged weapons are easier to fit; this is to make up for the disadvantage of actually having to get in range . . . why are missiles different?
Also they should make HAMs and HMLs the same as far as explosion radius and velocity are concerned. There is no reason for the short ranged ones to be nerfed like they are.
Because that would indicate a modicum of thought instead of the lucky dip approach we seem to get from the CSM and CCP God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:18:00 -
[3369] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
the cane does more DPS at < 9 km and > 25 km and the drake does more DPS between 9 and 25 the cane has neuts (being taken away) and is faster, the drake has more (2x) EHP . . . how is this not fair?
why does the cane need to have less CPU? should the drake really have 3x the EHP because thats what would happen to the comparison.
The cane gets to fit more gyros/TEs the drake gets to fit more ewar/TCs i dont see the problem
Do you see how HG Slaves and speed come into that equation, same as the (even only slightly) bigger drone bay of the Cane? Thats why EFT is NOT Eve. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:20:00 -
[3370] - Quote
Everyone wrote:"Stupid CCP homogenizing weapon platforms with this nerf! Oh, and they need to swap HAM and HML fitting to match SR/LR turrets. What do you mean, that something completely different."
Hehe |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
372
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:26:00 -
[3371] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I invite you to stop modeling things, but play the actual game. I can provide you with people who will gladly burn you down ingame to show how wrong you are. Plain and fair, no links/gang/whatever involved, just 1on1. They will do this as often as you wish, and generate a nice ammount of ISK for you if you keep insuring your Drakes. My offer stands ..
Hit me up in game after the Jav changes go through. You may find this thread an interesting read in the mean time. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:33:00 -
[3372] - Quote
Sigras wrote:IMHO they should switch the fittings on the HML and HAM
Its universal that shorter ranged weapons are easier to fit; this is to make up for the disadvantage of actually having to get in range . . . why are missiles different?
Also they should make HAMs and HMLs the same as far as explosion radius and velocity are concerned. There is no reason for the short ranged ones to be nerfed like they are. I would be happy with this. That way ham drake wouldnt had spend one rig slot just to fit close ran.ge guns |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:36:00 -
[3373] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: I invite you to stop modeling things, but play the actual game. I can provide you with people who will gladly burn you down ingame to show how wrong you are. Plain and fair, no links/gang/whatever involved, just 1on1. They will do this as often as you wish, and generate a nice ammount of ISK for you if you keep insuring your Drakes. My offer stands ..
Hit me up in game after the Jav changes go through. You may find this thread an interesting read in the mean time.
I am familiar with this thread, as I know many things about BC PvP. You said something there "And the biggest problem is that I've assumed no ECM drones. Wink" Thats the point. You wont win vs. a Harbinger, if he knows how to use his drones to kill yours/jam you. He has twice your bay. And you maybe forgot about slaves ...
And *if* something will be changed with Javs, things might be different. We will see then. For now my statement stays, and its been proven. Also I take your answer as a "no" to my 1on1 offer, you could as well say "I know I will most probably lose, so I better wait for a buff". Which is ok for me, thanks. Exactly what I said in fact ...
|
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:37:00 -
[3374] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:
That would be like the hurricane pilot saying "a drake doesnt have to fit faction mods to get a 100,000 EHP tank so neither should I" The ships are different, stop trying to make them the same.
While I disagree with you in other points, this is pretty valid - the ships are different, stop trying to make them the same. I hope you see how contrary this statement is though to the intention of the OP Dev? Missiles are one thing, turrets are another. Some things go well for missiles (easier PvE for example), some things go well for turrets. As a whole you can say this is for sure not Caldari-Online or Missiles-Online, but much more Winmatar-Online or Projectiles-Online. I object to the basic assumption of the OP, and to many others here. I pointed out why I think people feel like that and I feel many pilots see those changes with the same concerns like I do. Just because they actually play the game and not EFT. best regards I add this same answer to your post aswell. And its not me who is trying to "balance" = make things similar. But since CCP is going to balance i was just stating that cane need to be nerfed more in order to balance it with drake. "But thats the whole point of these nerfs. To balance them.. And it would balance them if cane would have to fit something like processor overcloking unit to be able to fit so many gyros and TE's" the cane does more DPS at < 9 km and > 25 km and the drake does more DPS between 9 and 25 the cane has neuts (being taken away) and is faster, the drake has more (2x) EHP . . . how is this not fair? why does the cane need to have less CPU? should the drake really have 3x the EHP because thats what would happen to the comparison. The cane gets to fit more gyros/TEs the drake gets to fit more ewar/TCs i dont see the problem
fact still remains that cane is op compared to drake. And drake one less rig slot because it needs acr to fit sr guns.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:39:00 -
[3375] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Why did I write every working system? Well, becaue basically thats it - HML is the only really working system for missile PvP above frig size. And for Amarr and Matarr all systems except medium long range work, now which do you like better? Having 1 out of 4 options, or 3 out of 4? With plenty of ships to fit them on, or with just 1 working missile-platform *at all*?
HML, the only working system, and yet, they are OP in regards with other LR medium weapon. So we fix HML to make them in line with other medium LR weapons, and we fix the other missiles systems.
What is wrong with other missiles systems ? Damage application (in fact, versatility most of the time) and damage projection (in fact, they project very well, just less than OP HML).
Problem is that we cannot make large missiles to kill everything, or they will be OP ; so a direct fix of damage application would make them to versatile and powerful. Tracking enhancers is then the obvious solution : easy to implement and that solve the problem. Using a module mean that missiles boat will have to trade something for more versatility in damage application. Win-win.
About HAM, their damage can look rather weak, but they are exactly like rockets in this matter : its only an impression because they have no tracking and always hit, and they hit farther than anything but pulse lasers, though pulse lasers don't have their damage at range. Damage application may be a bit problematic, but these changes will fix that, and then they will be almighty. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:42:00 -
[3376] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Now, when it comes to overheating the tanks.
This is almost meaningless because both ships can overheat their tank.
However, you can't overheat rigs, shield power relays/fux coils, or shield extenders. Only resistance modules.
However, the Hurricane using an active repper/booster will be able to get more tank boost through overheating than a drake will get.
You can't overheat EANMs. You can't overheat ANPs. You can overheat active armor hardeners (you know, those with boost to one resist only)
And seriously, active tanked PVP Cane? You need two medium armor repairers to match repping power of one medium shield booster. Just a little fun fact for you. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 10:54:00 -
[3377] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
HML, the only working system, and yet, they are OP in regards with other LR medium weapon. So we fix HML to make them in line with other medium LR weapons, and we fix the other missiles systems.
HML are not OP per se. They work well on 1 tech 1 hull (Drake) and dont completely suck on one more (Caracal, although thats debatable). They are weaker than lr med turrets on ranges below around 35 km, and weaker than them above their max range (which is 75km locking for Drake, or 79km for all l5 without rigs or the like if you can spare a medslot for a Sebo). They are stronger in that window of 35-79km, which is, admitted a nice frame. I dont object to change LR turrets to close that window a bit more to maybe 55-79km where HML would be better and 35-55km would be where they work about the same.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: What is wrong with other missiles systems ? Damage application (in fact, versatility most of the time) and damage projection (in fact, they project very well, just less than OP HML).
Those other systems work so very well and are just not OP, yeah ... which you can see in how much they are used in PvP - Cruise Missiles? HML only seem OP because they are the only missiles which work. They wouldnt seem OP at all if other missiles would work too (esp. Torps and CMs, but also HAMs) and that window of opportunity in LR med size battle would be smaller. In fact, the only thing which they are really overused for is Null sec Drake Blobs, and Raven/CM would kill Drake/HML there, if only Raven/CM was working as intended. And still Raven/CM wouldnt most probably be OP then, just because BS-size is much easier to counter with other BS than tons of BC. And its more expensive, and you need more SP. So Drake blobs as they are now would be easy to counter with tech 1, BS would fight BS, and in smaller scale BC everything is fine already now (except maybe too much Winmatar over all)
Hopefully you understand now .. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 11:03:00 -
[3378] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:They are weaker than lr med turrets on ranges below around 35 km
Except that you can't really hit anything below 30km. Even with heavies you can at least hit your target. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
96
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 11:07:00 -
[3379] - Quote
Noemi has lost the argument about 15 times now but just keeps repeating his uninformed opinions over and over.
People have shown, using the actual statistics and figures and fittings, that HMLs are out of line both in range and DPS and OP. The people who argue against this aren't using numbers, or even statistics, but just making bald statements of opinion which, surprise surprise, defend their own use of HMLs.
Thats game over. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 11:20:00 -
[3380] - Quote
Q: Are HM's overpowered?
A from everyone only using HML's: No. A from everyone else: Yes.
Why are we even discussing this still... |
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 11:33:00 -
[3381] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Why are we even discussing this still...
Because of the potential impact to other caldari hulls.
See, the thing is, people assure you that ... say the caracal is perfectly viable and a great little hull. Odd then....that you hardly ever see them abusing this OP weapon system...
I also don't see Rooks tearing the place up with said system either. Before anyone says HAMs, if HML are OP...why not use them?
Just a couple of examples, but lets try to avoid any nasty side effects/mitigate them as much as possible.
There's also the whole TD affecting missiles thing, the stock retort of "lol fit a TE/TC then" assumes available mid slots. I'm pretty sure no-one runs with spare slots . This will result in sacrifice and yes, before you bother LOLDRAKETANK....what about every other ship?
This translates into a real decrease to missile boat effectiveness be it direct DPS or their survivability - and aside from the two known problem hulls, I don't see missile boats tearing up the cosmos. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 11:49:00 -
[3382] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Noemi has lost the argument about 15 times now but just keeps repeating his uninformed opinions over and over.
This is as wrong as it can be, and you know it is. :-)
Lallante wrote: People have shown, using the actual statistics and figures and fittings, that HMLs are out of line both in range and DPS and OP. The people who argue against this aren't using numbers, or even statistics, but just making bald statements of opinion which, surprise surprise, defend their own use of HMLs.
Thats game over.
I show you *ingame* how HML are working well, but are not OP in everything else than nullsec Drake blobs. Fix those, and there are no issues left which cant be solved by a slight buff in usable range for LR medium turrets, something which I *never* objected against! You can do statistics and numbers like you want, but you cant cheat the game. Its a matter of fact people are happy to use other stuff than HML in most of PvP in Eve, and those absurd numbers of Drakes and HML are just a niche thing which CCP in fact invented with the change to doomsdays.
So please stict with the facts of this game, and everything can still be going well for you :) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 11:51:00 -
[3383] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
This translates into a real decrease to missile boat effectiveness be it direct DPS or their survivability - and aside from the two known problem hulls, I don't see missile boats tearing up the cosmos.
And even those 2 so called problem hulls dont tear up the Cosmos, but just work in a specific environment .. apart from that, Tengus are not more an issue than Machariels are, both have a price tag which makes them unlikely to flood fleets. What you said is true though, missile boats suck in PvP with those 2 exceptions (and SBs, ok), and this should be solved *first*. Thanks.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 11:55:00 -
[3384] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Why are we even discussing this still... Because of the potential impact to other caldari hulls. See, the thing is, people assure you that ... say the caracal is perfectly viable and a great little hull. Odd then....that you hardly ever see them abusing this OP weapon system... I also don't see Rooks tearing the place up with said system either. Before anyone says HAMs, if HML are OP...why not use them? Just a couple of examples, but lets try to avoid any nasty side effects/mitigate them as much as possible. There's also the whole TD affecting missiles thing, the stock retort of "lol fit a TE/TC then" assumes available mid slots. I'm pretty sure no-one runs with spare slots . This will result in sacrifice and yes, before you bother LOLDRAKETANK....what about every other ship? This translates into a real decrease to missile boat effectiveness be it direct DPS or their survivability - and aside from the two known problem hulls, I don't see missile boats tearing up the cosmos.
The Caracal is getting a revamp and will become awesome. RoF bonus is sweet!
Yeah and there's this whole TD's already affect turrets thing. The stock retort of "lol fit a TE/TC then" assumes available lowslots. I'm pretty sure no-one runs with spare slots . This will result in sacrifice and yes, before you bother LOLTRIPLEREP....what about the Drake?
This translates into a real decrease to turret boat effectiveness be it direct DPS or their repping ability- and aside from the Myrmidon, I don't see active armor boats tearing up the cosmos. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 11:59:00 -
[3385] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Noemi has lost the argument about 15 times now but just keeps repeating his uninformed opinions over and over.
People have shown, using the actual statistics and figures and fittings, that HMLs are out of line both in range and DPS and OP. The people who argue against this aren't using numbers, or even statistics, but just making bald statements of opinion which, surprise surprise, defend their own use of HMLs.
Thats game over. see, the problem is that neither figures nor fittings are guaranteed to give you a balanced picture of the current state of things. let us - just for a moment - assume that neither the drake nor the tengu were as good as they are. let's just say the drake loses its resistance bonus and becomes unpopular for 0.0 blobs and the tengu loses its ability to fit 100mn ABs. both ships will instantly plummet on the killboards and with them, so will HMLs. would then anybody in their right mind still complain about heavy missiles being too strong? i submit to you that heavy missiles would be where cruises, torpedoes and medium rails already are: insignificant and laughed at.
before you start burning straw men, please consider: - i am not saying that drake and tengu are fine. both ships need a tweak. - i am also not saying that heavy missiles are fine. in fact, you will find me and many others agree that the range nerf to HMLs is justified, but not the DPS nerf. - what i AM saying is that if not for the drake or tengu, you would not even see heavy missiles on the kill boards, which indicates that the weapon system itself is not as OP as its paper stats seem to be.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
127
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:10:00 -
[3386] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: see, the problem is that neither figures nor fittings are guaranteed to give you a balanced picture of the current state of things. let us - just for a moment - assume that neither the drake nor the tengu were as good as they are. let's just say the drake loses its resistance bonus and becomes unpopular for 0.0 blobs and the tengu loses its ability to fit 100mn ABs. both ships will instantly plummet on the killboards and with them, so will HMLs. would then anybody in their right mind still complain about heavy missiles being too strong? i submit to you that heavy missiles would be where cruises, torpedoes and medium rails already are: insignificant and laughed at.
This is very correct. However, bringing HM's in line with other systems and balancing both the underused and the overused ships, we will maybe see more diversity in ships used, which is the entire point.
We are seeing slight powercreep in the tiercide. Almost all ships get a buff, and winmatar are mostly kept where it is because their ships are so good.
What do you think will happen when the tiercide hits battlecruisers? 5% RoF and a velocity bonus on the Drake with missiles the way they are now. Holybatmanshit, no other ship would be used EVER. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:12:00 -
[3387] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Why are we even discussing this still... Because of the potential impact to other caldari hulls. See, the thing is, people assure you that ... say the caracal is perfectly viable and a great little hull. Odd then....that you hardly ever see them abusing this OP weapon system... I also don't see Rooks tearing the place up with said system either. Before anyone says HAMs, if HML are OP...why not use them? Just a couple of examples, but lets try to avoid any nasty side effects/mitigate them as much as possible. There's also the whole TD affecting missiles thing, the stock retort of "lol fit a TE/TC then" assumes available mid slots. I'm pretty sure no-one runs with spare slots . This will result in sacrifice and yes, before you bother LOLDRAKETANK....what about every other ship? This translates into a real decrease to missile boat effectiveness be it direct DPS or their survivability - and aside from the two known problem hulls, I don't see missile boats tearing up the cosmos. The Caracal is getting a revamp and will become awesome. RoF bonus is sweet! Yeah and there's this whole TD's already affect turrets thing. The stock retort of "lol fit a TE/TC then" assumes available lowslots. I'm pretty sure no-one runs with spare slots . This will result in sacrifice and yes, before you bother LOLTRIPLEREP....what about the Drake? This translates into a real decrease to turret boat effectiveness be it direct DPS or their repping ability- and aside from the Myrmidon, I don't see active armor boats tearing up the cosmos.
And the jury is out if the caracal will be "awesome" current projections are (I believe) lower DPS even with an extra BCU...
Whilst you are correct, that status quo already exists for turret users and I DO see them tearing stuff up. It's called WINmatar for a reason.
Or are you suggesting ALL missile hulls need to have a global reduction in PvP effectiveness because they are too good? Because...you know...that'd be a tough sell. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:25:00 -
[3388] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: And the jury is out if the caracal will be "awesome" current projections are (I believe) lower DPS even with an extra BCU...
Whilst you are correct, that status quo already exists for turret users and I DO see them tearing stuff up. It's called WINmatar for a reason.
Or are you suggesting ALL missile hulls need to have a global reduction in PvP effectiveness because they are too good? Because...you know...that'd be a tough sell.
No by all means. Most missile hulls need an increase in pvp effectiveness, considering the powercreep that will inevitably hit turretships as well. I also think the Drake should get a buff in the form of RoF bonus, but then we have to look at the missile platform.
By nerfing missiles a bit, you get to individually buff all the ships that use missiles without making them OP. I don't think anyone wants to see the revamped drake get a negative bonus to missile velocity to compensate the great range inherit in HM's, just because that great range would be a good thing for some other missile ships. You follow where I'm going with this?
Better to nerf missiles and give long range missile ships a great velocity and flight time bonus, and short range missile boats a small bonus instead of a small bonus to long range boats and a negative bonus to short range boats |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:36:00 -
[3389] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Whilst you are correct, that status quo already exists for turret users and I DO see them tearing stuff up. It's called WINmatar for a reason.
If you think turrets are better than missiles then why people use Drakes and Tengus in fleet fights when turret ships like Prophecy, Harbinger, Brutix, Myrmidon and Ferox would do same job?
I've heard cap injected triple rep Myrm is quite awesome. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:37:00 -
[3390] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote: And the jury is out if the caracal will be "awesome" current projections are (I believe) lower DPS even with an extra BCU...
Whilst you are correct, that status quo already exists for turret users and I DO see them tearing stuff up. It's called WINmatar for a reason.
Or are you suggesting ALL missile hulls need to have a global reduction in PvP effectiveness because they are too good? Because...you know...that'd be a tough sell.
No by all means. Most missile hulls need an increase in pvp effectiveness, considering the powercreep that will inevitably hit turretships as well. I also think the Drake should get a buff in the form of RoF bonus, but then we have to look at the missile platform. By nerfing missiles a bit, you get to individually buff all the ships that use missiles without making them OP. I don't think anyone wants to see the revamped drake get a negative bonus to missile velocity to compensate the great range inherit in HM's, just because that great range would be a good thing for some other missile ships. You follow where I'm going with this? Better to nerf missiles and give long range missile ships a great velocity and flight time bonus, and short range missile boats a small bonus instead of a small bonus to long range boats and a negative bonus to short range boats
Indeed, and I see a case (a strong case) for sorting these boats, but I can't quite reconcile why the TD thing? Why not more surgical to target the known issues?
Seems odd. |
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:44:00 -
[3391] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Whilst you are correct, that status quo already exists for turret users and I DO see them tearing stuff up. It's called WINmatar for a reason. If you think turrets are better than missiles then why people use Drakes and Tengus in fleet fights when turret ships like Prophecy, Harbinger, Brutix, Myrmidon and Ferox would do same job? I've heard cap injected triple rep Myrm is quite awesome.
Because of synergies on those ships over and above missiles? Because of hybrids sucking for years and only relatively recently fixed so people have misaligned skills? Because nothing blocs and exploits lag like a drake?
In any event, I was referring to missiles across the board with that comment, not HML, in context of the global weakening of missile boats the TD change enforces. Missile users other than heavy are pretty damned thin on the ground in the PvP scene. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:44:00 -
[3392] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: Indeed, and I see a case (a strong case) for sorting these boats, but I can't quite reconcile why the TD thing? Why not more surgical to target the known issues?
Seems odd.
I have flown some solo (dualboxing) with an Arbitrator support. Did you know, a single Arbitrator can make the effective range of a Minmatar battleship go down to about 5-10km or make the guns track worse than a titan? VS any ship with turrets, the arbitrator is just as effective as a Falcon, yet is is beyond useless vs any missile boat, where the Falcon is still because Falcon. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:49:00 -
[3393] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote: Indeed, and I see a case (a strong case) for sorting these boats, but I can't quite reconcile why the TD thing? Why not more surgical to target the known issues?
Seems odd.
I have flown some solo (dualboxing) with an Arbitrator support. Did you know, a single Arbitrator can make the effective range of a Minmatar battleship go down to about 5-10km or make the guns track worse than a titan? VS any ship with turrets, the arbitrator is just as effective as a Falcon, yet is is beyond useless vs any missile boat, where the Falcon is still because Falcon.
No argument that they hit ships hard, but even with missiles being immune to this form of EWAR, there's STILL are large gap between the number of missile hulls and turret hulls (setting aside the HML for a moment since that's being directly nerfed).
Despite missiles being immune to this and both other weapon systems being very vulnerable its STILL not worth bringing a missile boat to most fights because guns just do it better. Making missiles vulnerable to this simply bangs a nail in the coffin of missile boats in PvP (Again, set aside HML as it is being addressed directly). |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:52:00 -
[3394] - Quote
I think you have to note what turrets "simply do better". Turrets instant alpha better, but they have less versatility in forms of damage types. They hit small targets better, but only if they are at sufficient range and not moving too fast. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:53:00 -
[3395] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:In any event, I was referring to missiles across the board with that comment, not HML, in context of the global weakening of missile boats the TD change enforces. Missile users other than heavy are pretty damned thin on the ground in the PvP scene.
Check 425mm AC range with Barrage under Curse's TDs. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 12:55:00 -
[3396] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:In any event, I was referring to missiles across the board with that comment, not HML, in context of the global weakening of missile boats the TD change enforces. Missile users other than heavy are pretty damned thin on the ground in the PvP scene. Check 425mm AC range with Barrage under Curse's TDs. A curse can buttraep a cane so hard! kill it's range with one TD loaded with optimal script, neut off his prop and let the drones and HM's do their thing. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 13:00:00 -
[3397] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:I think you have to note what turrets "simply do better". Turrets instant alpha better, but they have less versatility in forms of damage types. They hit small targets better, but only if they are at sufficient range and not moving too fast.
Oh yes.
But what I don't understand is why when the problem is HML/two hulls and those are already being fixed (albeit in a bit of a cack handed manner) why then we lump a nerf on other missile hulls.
I don't think there's much argument that, other than drake/tengu, missile hulls are pretty much bottom of the heap in PvP.
Whilst SNI owners will jump for joy at TC/TE helping them apply PvE damage, the PvP implications of this change are a) Significant and b) Just not needed at this stage (unless I'm missing something?).
Fair enough, later apply equality and have the ships affected by it and add slots to allow counters thus remaining 'neutral' but now? Before the already sub-par boats are balanced? I genuinely don't understand it. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 13:16:00 -
[3398] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: see, the problem is that neither figures nor fittings are guaranteed to give you a balanced picture of the current state of things. let us - just for a moment - assume that neither the drake nor the tengu were as good as they are. let's just say the drake loses its resistance bonus and becomes unpopular for 0.0 blobs and the tengu loses its ability to fit 100mn ABs. both ships will instantly plummet on the killboards and with them, so will HMLs. would then anybody in their right mind still complain about heavy missiles being too strong? i submit to you that heavy missiles would be where cruises, torpedoes and medium rails already are: insignificant and laughed at.
This is very correct. However, bringing HM's in line with other systems and balancing both the underused and the overused ships, we will maybe see more diversity in ships used, which is the entire point. so your plan is to fix what isn't broken and leave it like that for half a year or even a year instead of fixing the problem and ONLY the problem.
Quote: We are seeing slight powercreep in the tiercide. Almost all ships get a buff, and winmatar are mostly kept where it is because their ships are so good.
what does this have to do with heavy missiles?
Quote: What do you think will happen when the tiercide hits battlecruisers? 5% RoF and a velocity bonus on the Drake with missiles the way they are now. Holybatmanshit, no other ship would be used EVER.
you are assuming that the rest of the hull stays the same as it is now, which does not need to be the case. let's say the drake hull bonuses you proposed actually go live like that. all you need to do is remove one launcher hardpoint (and maybe tune down CPU) and the drake's DPS are perfectly fine. the range will be about the same as now (i do not oppose the range nerf) and the brick tank is down by 25%, which together with the drake's abysmal sig and speed will probably make it one of the squishiest BCs.
same can be done with all other ships. in fact, considering that they are already underused, you would probably need to buff them EVEN MORE after the HML nerf which makes the risk of overdoing it even higher.
so here is the two likely scenarios:
1. heavy missiles get shafted: - drake and tengu are now in the middle of the pack - drake and tengu both lose their unique roles as good mission runners - almost all other HML ships become completely useless until they are finally rebalanced in a year or two - after the rebalance, one or more hulls may become as OP as the drake is now which will cause the same turret pilot tears
2. heavy missiles get to keep their DPS, only range is nerfed: - drake becomes much less valid in blobs, tengu is also somewhat affected. both ships will move down a little on the killboards but stay strong options until they are rebalanced. - PVE players do not need to throw away their favorite hulls and train turrets from scratch - the other HML platforms stay at least somewhat competitive until they are eventually slightly buffed in their rebalance pass - the likelihood of another balance issue with heavy missiles is minimal due to well-known behavior of the weapon system.
P.S.: in cas you're wondering; the idea of tracking for missiles is so stupid i don't even include it in my speculations.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 13:30:00 -
[3399] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:I think you have to note what turrets "simply do better". Turrets instant alpha better, but they have less versatility in forms of damage types. They hit small targets better, but only if they are at sufficient range and not moving too fast. Oh yes. But what I don't understand is why when the problem is HML/two hulls and those are already being fixed (albeit in a bit of a cack handed manner) why then we lump a nerf on other missile hulls. I don't think there's much argument that, other than drake/tengu, missile hulls are pretty much bottom of the heap in PvP. Whilst SNI owners will jump for joy at TC/TE helping them apply PvE damage, the PvP implications of this change are a) Significant and b) Just not needed at this stage (unless I'm missing something?). Fair enough, later apply equality and have the ships affected by it and add slots to allow counters thus remaining 'neutral' but now? Before the already sub-par boats are balanced? I genuinely don't understand it.
What are the other Hulls that as you feel are being nerfed by this change. The Caracal after the patch will do more DPS with the other 3 missile types then in currently can. The others from my understanding have not been balanced yet and CCP Foozie said he would look into fixing the Cerb and NH if he has time this patch. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 13:40:00 -
[3400] - Quote
MIrple wrote: What are the other Hulls that as you feel are being nerfed by this change. The Caracal after the patch will do more DPS with the other 3 missile types then in currently can. The others from my understanding have not been balanced yet and CCP Foozie said he would look into fixing the Cerb and NH if he has time this patch.
Every. Single. Missile. Hull. Ever.
They're going to HAVE to fit a TC/TE or lose DPS. If they fit TC/TE, they WILL lose EHP.
The introduction of TD affecting all missiles (even going to far as to affect unguided when the rigs dont work on them) is a direct and immediate reduction in combat effectiveness to ALL missile hulls.
As for the caracal, it'll have to use its two bonus slots to keep at/just under todays DPS, which last I checked isn't blowing anyone's minds. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 13:51:00 -
[3401] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:They're going to HAVE to fit a TC/TE or lose DPS. If they fit TC/TE, they WILL lose EHP.
Just like how it works for turret ships too.
Morrigan LeSante wrote:The introduction of TD affecting all missiles (even going to far as to affect unguided when the rigs dont work on them) is a direct and immediate reduction in combat effectiveness to ALL missile hulls.
You say that like TDs don't affect turrets at all. Again: Cane pilot can't do anything against experienced Curse pilot other thwn get friend to help him. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 13:58:00 -
[3402] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:I think you have to note what turrets "simply do better". Turrets instant alpha better, but they have less versatility in forms of damage types. They hit small targets better, but only if they are at sufficient range and not moving too fast. Oh yes. But what I don't understand is why when the problem is HML/two hulls and those are already being fixed (albeit in a bit of a cack handed manner) why then we lump a nerf on other missile hulls. I don't think there's much argument that, other than drake/tengu, missile hulls are pretty much bottom of the heap in PvP. Whilst SNI owners will jump for joy at TC/TE helping them apply PvE damage, the PvP implications of this change are a) Significant and b) Just not needed at this stage (unless I'm missing something?). Fair enough, later apply equality and have the ships affected by it and add slots to allow counters thus remaining 'neutral' but now? Before the already sub-par boats are balanced? I genuinely don't understand it. What are the other Hulls that as you feel are being nerfed by this change. The Caracal after the patch will do more DPS with the other 3 missile types then in currently can. The others from my understanding have not been balanced yet and CCP Foozie said he would look into fixing the Cerb and NH if he has time this patch.
what if he does not have the time? are the people who spent a year training for the nighthawk supposed to unsubscribe until 2014? yes i know i know, train turrets lol. except by the time you trained for *insert turret system here*, it may already be up for the nerf bat just like missiles are now.
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:02:00 -
[3403] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I say from the point of view of missile boats being hugely underwhelming (aside from the two problem children): Why do missile boats need weakened at ALL?.
Buffing missile ships like Drake and Tengu without even a little nerf isn't a good idea to start... |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:04:00 -
[3404] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: what if he does not have the time? are the people who spent a year training for the nighthawk supposed to unsubscribe until 2014? yes i know i know, train turrets lol. except by the time you trained for *insert turret system here*, it may already be up for the nerf bat just like missiles are now.
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
One does not simply(tm) spend an entire year to fly only the Nighthawk. In that year you will have skills to use a myriad of other hulls effectively. Unless you did something horribly wrong |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:04:00 -
[3405] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:MIrple wrote: What are the other Hulls that as you feel are being nerfed by this change. The Caracal after the patch will do more DPS with the other 3 missile types then in currently can. The others from my understanding have not been balanced yet and CCP Foozie said he would look into fixing the Cerb and NH if he has time this patch.
Every. Single. Missile. Hull. Ever. They're going to HAVE to fit a TC/TE or lose DPS. If they fit TC/TE, they WILL lose EHP. The introduction of TD affecting all missiles (even going to far as to affect unguided when the rigs dont work on them) is a direct and immediate reduction in combat effectiveness to ALL missile hulls. As for the caracal, it'll have to use its two bonus slots to keep at/just under todays DPS, which last I checked isn't blowing anyone's minds.
If you looked the Caracal got a CPU buff and 2 additional low slots on it to add the BCU to bring it back to the current lvl of DPS and the other to add a TE. So yes they are infact balancing missile ships around the proposed nerf. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:10:00 -
[3406] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:MIrple wrote: What are the other Hulls that as you feel are being nerfed by this change. The Caracal after the patch will do more DPS with the other 3 missile types then in currently can. The others from my understanding have not been balanced yet and CCP Foozie said he would look into fixing the Cerb and NH if he has time this patch.
Every. Single. Missile. Hull. Ever. They're going to HAVE to fit a TC/TE or lose DPS. If they fit TC/TE, they WILL lose EHP. The introduction of TD affecting all missiles (even going to far as to affect unguided when the rigs dont work on them) is a direct and immediate reduction in combat effectiveness to ALL missile hulls. As for the caracal, it'll have to use its two bonus slots to keep at/just under todays DPS, which last I checked isn't blowing anyone's minds. If you looked the Caracal got a CPU buff and 2 additional low slots on it to add the BCU to bring it back to the current lvl of DPS and the other to add a TE. So yes they are infact balancing missile ships around the proposed nerf.
Yes, the Caracal is going from bad to bad.......
Is the Caracal the only cruiser getting a buff ? |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:16:00 -
[3407] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:MIrple wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:MIrple wrote: What are the other Hulls that as you feel are being nerfed by this change. The Caracal after the patch will do more DPS with the other 3 missile types then in currently can. The others from my understanding have not been balanced yet and CCP Foozie said he would look into fixing the Cerb and NH if he has time this patch.
Every. Single. Missile. Hull. Ever. They're going to HAVE to fit a TC/TE or lose DPS. If they fit TC/TE, they WILL lose EHP. The introduction of TD affecting all missiles (even going to far as to affect unguided when the rigs dont work on them) is a direct and immediate reduction in combat effectiveness to ALL missile hulls. As for the caracal, it'll have to use its two bonus slots to keep at/just under todays DPS, which last I checked isn't blowing anyone's minds. If you looked the Caracal got a CPU buff and 2 additional low slots on it to add the BCU to bring it back to the current lvl of DPS and the other to add a TE. So yes they are infact balancing missile ships around the proposed nerf. Yes, the Caracal is going from bad to bad....... Is the Caracal the only cruiser getting a buff ?
If you look at the 4 attack cruisers the Caracal and the Thorax will be the 2 ships that shine after the changes. The stabber will likely be a heavy tackler and the omen is still up in the air.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:21:00 -
[3408] - Quote
Important notice : TD affecting missiles is not a nerf to them, it's the downside of TE/TC/TL affecting them too !
And if TD were so powerful, how would have done all the turrets ships all these years ? |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:22:00 -
[3409] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Lallante wrote:Noemi has lost the argument about 15 times now but just keeps repeating his uninformed opinions over and over.
People have shown, using the actual statistics and figures and fittings, that HMLs are out of line both in range and DPS and OP. The people who argue against this aren't using numbers, or even statistics, but just making bald statements of opinion which, surprise surprise, defend their own use of HMLs.
Thats game over. see, the problem is that neither figures nor fittings are guaranteed to give you a balanced picture of the current state of things. let us - just for a moment - assume that neither the drake nor the tengu were as good as they are. let's just say the drake loses its resistance bonus and becomes unpopular for 0.0 blobs and the tengu loses its ability to fit 100mn ABs. both ships will instantly plummet on the killboards and with them, so will HMLs. would then anybody in their right mind still complain about heavy missiles being too strong? i submit to you that heavy missiles would be where cruises, torpedoes and medium rails already are: insignificant and laughed at. before you start burning straw men, please consider: - i am not saying that drake and tengu are fine. both ships need a tweak. - i am also not saying that heavy missiles are fine. in fact, you will find me and many others agree that the range nerf to HMLs is justified, but not the DPS nerf. - what i AM saying is that if not for the drake or tengu, you would not even see heavy missiles on the kill boards, which indicates that the weapon system itself is not as OP as its paper stats seem to be.
Except of course if drake was worse people would use nighthawk, it is flat out better, just more expensive. Everyone knows cerb is broken. Nobody uses t1 cruisers (yet), navy cara is soley not used because a drake is flat out better. So of the three other ships that actually use hmls 2 are not used purely becasue the drake is a better platform for the isk while the third has been broken since the missile nerf.
Drakes resist bonus is not that big a deal, if it lost it would simply fit another resist mod in one of its utility meds. 100Mn tengus is a one trick pony, most are 10 Mn (thunderbirds) and the tengus is far superior than drake in buffer fleet or permamwd fits as well. Drake and Tengu are used simply because they are the best platform for the best (most adaptable) weapon. Drake because its cheap, tengu because it is highly surviveable (mainly due to its engagement range). Everyone who can fly a nighthawk can fly a drake, not so the other way round, and why would you do all that training just for a 10% better ship that costs you 200mil each time your fleet welps. If you want to spend isk you can train for a tengu, its quicker. Nighthawk is not used because its a command ship with the cost and sp limitations that imposes.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:25:00 -
[3410] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: what if he does not have the time? are the people who spent a year training for the nighthawk supposed to unsubscribe until 2014? yes i know i know, train turrets lol. except by the time you trained for *insert turret system here*, it may already be up for the nerf bat just like missiles are now.
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
One does not simply(tm) spend an entire year to fly only the Nighthawk. In that year you will have skills to use a myriad of other hulls effectively. Unless you did something horribly wrong so instead of training some other char for, say, capitals, rorqual etc. i have to shut down EVERYTHING and spend the next year regaining my ability to shoot things?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
884
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:27:00 -
[3411] - Quote
Posting on page 177 of the thread-ageddon.
I think that the main issue with TD's affecting missiles is that they will become the main all-in-one reliable solution for EWAR options on the average ship. Multiply this by the fact that the TD bonused ships from the amarr really don't get THAT big an advantage (25% on 30% TD is a wopping 35% bonus, woot). Compared to ECM, you don't really need a tracking disrupting ship to have an effective tracking disruption capability.
I think you need a separate module called a Ballistic Control Disruptor to make it a choice you make in the fitting screen and makes it stand out. As well, there is a possibility there... bear with me...
To give the missile disruption module as the bonused EWAR for Amarr disruption ships, and then give the current TD's to the Minmatar ships. And that would give the minmatar a real EWAR system to play with, while on a story level explaining why Minmatar swap between missiles and turrets (because of the ballistic disruption capability of the amarr).
Just throwing that out there... Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:27:00 -
[3412] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Important notice : TD affecting missiles is not a nerf to them, it's the downside of TE/TC/TL affecting them too !
And if TD were so powerful, how would have done all the turrets ships all these years ?
Basically because people couldn't rely on them as they were bound to bump into a drake. Really though the td thing could be quite nice for drakes and even tengus as they are one of the few ships with spare utility meds.
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Kraken.
69
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:30:00 -
[3413] - Quote
After thinking over these changes for a few days.
Personally I know a overall damage reduction of 15% is enough. Which translates into 70 -90 damage per second less comparatively to other long range weapon systems with navy ammunition @ 15,000 - 20,000m. The Drakes advantage of consistent damage appilcation all over 50,000m is still intact.
With that said. Range was one of the Drakes biggest advantage.
Personally, I believe tier 2 battlecruisers and tech 1 ships below (cruisers, destroyers, frigates) effectiveness should be limited to 40,000m (40km) and less. The relm beyond that should be held by heavy assault cruisers, tier 3 battlecruisers, recons, strategic cruisers, heavy interdictors, Command ships and battleships etc (so, tech 2 ships , tier 3 battlecruisers or higher class ships). Even with a 20% damage reduction the heavy missile-Drake will still be viable, but more so in groups (not to sure about solo). Anyway, the range reduction brings them closer to battleship damage projection which is also a hidden NERF.
The tracking enhancer and computer crowd seems some what deluded with regard to those proposed modules effectiveness, though. Tech 2 long range ammunition will always be a better (unless you want gimp) choice in terms of the player versus player enviroment and I've looked @ putting tracking ehancers and computers on every missile ship; command ship and below (Sacrilege, Crow and Hawk were somewhat interesting).
I hope to GAWD ccp does not do this effect missile thing because it's r3t@rded... Also BERF TD's... Never looked @ the PVE implications of these changes because I know next to nothing about PVE... Anyway.
So, there's nothing but a hard NERF to heavy missiles and they SHOULD be NERFED back inline with the other long range weapon systems. Instead of being on par with close range weapon systems and also having the damage projection of long range weapon systems.
Anyway, nano /heavy assault missile-drakes using javlins seems like the future v0v @ least in small gangs and solo. Unless CCP nerfs the range on those that is...
Also increase light missiles damage by 20% = / |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:32:00 -
[3414] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
Why would it have comparable levels of dps to a double damage bonused pirate faction ship? Do you even know what you are saying? And how do you get "half". |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:39:00 -
[3415] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
Why would it have comparable levels of dps to a double damage bonused pirate faction ship? Do you even know what you are saying? because most other faction battleships do.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:44:00 -
[3416] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Lallante wrote:Noemi has lost the argument about 15 times now but just keeps repeating his uninformed opinions over and over.
People have shown, using the actual statistics and figures and fittings, that HMLs are out of line both in range and DPS and OP. The people who argue against this aren't using numbers, or even statistics, but just making bald statements of opinion which, surprise surprise, defend their own use of HMLs.
Thats game over. see, the problem is that neither figures nor fittings are guaranteed to give you a balanced picture of the current state of things. let us - just for a moment - assume that neither the drake nor the tengu were as good as they are. let's just say the drake loses its resistance bonus and becomes unpopular for 0.0 blobs and the tengu loses its ability to fit 100mn ABs. both ships will instantly plummet on the killboards and with them, so will HMLs. would then anybody in their right mind still complain about heavy missiles being too strong? i submit to you that heavy missiles would be where cruises, torpedoes and medium rails already are: insignificant and laughed at. before you start burning straw men, please consider: - i am not saying that drake and tengu are fine. both ships need a tweak. - i am also not saying that heavy missiles are fine. in fact, you will find me and many others agree that the range nerf to HMLs is justified, but not the DPS nerf. - what i AM saying is that if not for the drake or tengu, you would not even see heavy missiles on the kill boards, which indicates that the weapon system itself is not as OP as its paper stats seem to be. Except of course if drake was worse people would use nighthawk, it is flat out better, just more expensive. Everyone knows cerb is broken. Nobody uses t1 cruisers (yet), navy cara is soley not used because a drake is flat out better. So of the three other ships that actually use hmls 2 are not used purely becasue the drake is a better platform for the isk while the third has been broken since the missile nerf. Drakes resist bonus is not that big a deal, if it lost it would simply fit another resist mod in one of its utility meds. 100Mn tengus is a one trick pony, most are 10 Mn (thunderbirds) and the tengus is far superior than drake in buffer fleet or permamwd fits as well. Drake and Tengu are used simply because they are the best platform for the best (most adaptable) weapon. Drake because its cheap, tengu because it is highly surviveable (mainly due to its engagement range). Everyone who can fly a nighthawk can fly a drake, not so the other way round, and why would you do all that training just for a 10% better ship that costs you 200mil each time your fleet welps. If you want to spend isk you can train for a tengu, its quicker. Nighthawk is not used because its a command ship with the cost and sp limitations that imposes.
even if you were right, how is that an argument to nerf heavy missiles instead of nerfing the drake? and also, the nighthawk is already arguably worse than the sleipnir, what happens if you cut its damage by 20%, taking its DPS below that of some destroyers?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:45:00 -
[3417] - Quote
Enslaved Mistress wrote:One issue there, if you are shooting 250km, it will take over 20secs for your missiles to hit target, that is more then enough time for your target to warp. Better to use a rail boat or something. Cerbs were already able to do that, it isn't really the best idea, a lot of the time your target has warped off is already dead before your first missiles make contact haha.
To be honest people already use caracal gangs pre buff and basically they have a couple of good dictor pilots to keep the enemy bubbled and then they just kite away (thats at half the range sure enough, but missiles are getting a velocity buff as well) basically like a poor mans tengu. The dps is minimal (though enough to kill any random straggler) but the alpha from 10-15 caras is enough to kill any support stone dead all while the enemy can do nothing to fight back. Very effective though only a harassing tool. In many ways it is superior to sniper hacs, which tells you all you need to know about the current situation with the weapon systems. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:50:00 -
[3418] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
Why would it have comparable levels of dps to a double damage bonused pirate faction ship? Do you even know what you are saying? because most other faction battleships do.
Stop comparing Faction BS to Pirate BS for one. Show me a Faction BS that gets a double damage bonus.
Edit: The Navy Tempest does get a Double Damage bonus but the other to the typhoon and the domi have a split damage bonus. So I will agree that the Tempest does have it but the others do not. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 14:53:00 -
[3419] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Enslaved Mistress wrote:One issue there, if you are shooting 250km, it will take over 20secs for your missiles to hit target, that is more then enough time for your target to warp. Better to use a rail boat or something. Cerbs were already able to do that, it isn't really the best idea, a lot of the time your target has warped off is already dead before your first missiles make contact haha. To be honest people already use caracal gangs pre buff and basically they have a couple of good dictor pilots to keep the enemy bubbled and then they just kite away (thats at half the range sure enough, but missiles are getting a velocity buff as well) basically like a poor mans tengu. The dps is minimal (though enough to kill any random straggler) but the alpha from 10-15 caras is enough to kill any support stone dead all while the enemy can do nothing to fight back. Very effective though only a harassing tool. In many ways it is superior to sniper hacs, which tells you all you need to know about the current situation with the weapon systems.
10-15 of anything can alpha any support. notice how your strategy of making the caracal useful relies on the caracals being carried by other hulls and the enemy being unable to exploit any of its obvious weak spots.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:00:00 -
[3420] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
Why would it have comparable levels of dps to a double damage bonused pirate faction ship? Do you even know what you are saying? because most other faction battleships do. Stop comparing Faction BS to Pirate BS for one. Show me a Faction BS that gets a double damage bonus. Edit: The Navy Tempest does get a Double Damage bonus but the other to the typhoon and the domi have a split damage bonus. So I will agree that the Tempest does have it but the others do not. why would i stop comparing them? they are often used for the same tasks, so comparing them is perfectly reasonable. also, i couldn't care less which ship has which bonus. the fact of the matter is that most faction battleships can be fit to run decent dps whereas the scorpion can't. and tracking enhancers won't do anything to change that.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:00:00 -
[3421] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Lallante wrote:Noemi has lost the argument about 15 times now but just keeps repeating his uninformed opinions over and over.
People have shown, using the actual statistics and figures and fittings, that HMLs are out of line both in range and DPS and OP. The people who argue against this aren't using numbers, or even statistics, but just making bald statements of opinion which, surprise surprise, defend their own use of HMLs.
Thats game over. see, the problem is that neither figures nor fittings are guaranteed to give you a balanced picture of the current state of things. let us - just for a moment - assume that neither the drake nor the tengu were as good as they are. let's just say the drake loses its resistance bonus and becomes unpopular for 0.0 blobs and the tengu loses its ability to fit 100mn ABs. both ships will instantly plummet on the killboards and with them, so will HMLs. would then anybody in their right mind still complain about heavy missiles being too strong? i submit to you that heavy missiles would be where cruises, torpedoes and medium rails already are: insignificant and laughed at. before you start burning straw men, please consider: - i am not saying that drake and tengu are fine. both ships need a tweak. - i am also not saying that heavy missiles are fine. in fact, you will find me and many others agree that the range nerf to HMLs is justified, but not the DPS nerf. - what i AM saying is that if not for the drake or tengu, you would not even see heavy missiles on the kill boards, which indicates that the weapon system itself is not as OP as its paper stats seem to be. Except of course if drake was worse people would use nighthawk, it is flat out better, just more expensive. Everyone knows cerb is broken. Nobody uses t1 cruisers (yet), navy cara is soley not used because a drake is flat out better. So of the three other ships that actually use hmls 2 are not used purely becasue the drake is a better platform for the isk while the third has been broken since the missile nerf. Drakes resist bonus is not that big a deal, if it lost it would simply fit another resist mod in one of its utility meds. 100Mn tengus is a one trick pony, most are 10 Mn (thunderbirds) and the tengus is far superior than drake in buffer fleet or permamwd fits as well. Drake and Tengu are used simply because they are the best platform for the best (most adaptable) weapon. Drake because its cheap, tengu because it is highly surviveable (mainly due to its engagement range). Everyone who can fly a nighthawk can fly a drake, not so the other way round, and why would you do all that training just for a 10% better ship that costs you 200mil each time your fleet welps. If you want to spend isk you can train for a tengu, its quicker. Nighthawk is not used because its a command ship with the cost and sp limitations that imposes. even if you were right, how is that an argument to nerf heavy missiles instead of nerfing the drake? and also, the nighthawk is already arguably worse than the sleipnir, what happens if you cut its damage by 20%, taking its DPS below that of some destroyers?
Its not worse than an arty sleipnir any more than drake is worse than cane. And i see nothing wrong with a destroyer at close range using a close range weapon system having the dps of a bc (even t2) at long range using a long range weapon system.
I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else. Its the same with the other weapon systems, people find the best weapon system for a given tactic, then they look for the best platform. there is no point nerfing the platform, they will just pick the next best. Nerf navy geddon everyone goes back to abaddons for heavy pulse, nerf maelstroms evryone just uses tempests for 1400 arty. Balance the weapon systems though and its easy to fine tune ship bonuses.
Balancing nighthawk with drake is relativelty straightforward - reduce the training requirements (in the works), add some fitting (so it can fit hams), change the hml only bonuses so they effect hams, and make it omni damage if they do so with the drake. Currently while NH is a little better than drake using hmls if you have the skills and the isk, it is not so with hams.
With cerb there is not much wrong with the bonuses, its its puny frame that is the issue.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:06:00 -
[3422] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:I say from the point of view of missile boats being hugely underwhelming (aside from the two problem children): Why do missile boats need weakened at ALL?. Buffing missile ships like Drake and Tengu without even a little nerf isn't a good idea to start...
It's not a direct buff, it's a compromise which would involve a loss of tank to do it on these hulls. That's an ok principle: more gank, less tank
However - those hulls are directly and clearly weakened by the HM changes already, there is no reason to lump TD effects on all other boats.
One more time for luck: Why are we reducing the combat effectiveness of already recognised weak hulls across the board? to what point or purpose? So they can spend 6 months even weaker before a rebalance puts them back to where they are today a-la the caracal? |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:08:00 -
[3423] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:MIrple wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
Why would it have comparable levels of dps to a double damage bonused pirate faction ship? Do you even know what you are saying? because most other faction battleships do. Stop comparing Faction BS to Pirate BS for one. Show me a Faction BS that gets a double damage bonus. Edit: The Navy Tempest does get a Double Damage bonus but the other to the typhoon and the domi have a split damage bonus. So I will agree that the Tempest does have it but the others do not. why would i stop comparing them? they are often used for the same tasks, so comparing them is perfectly reasonable. also, i couldn't care less which ship has which bonus. the fact of the matter is that most faction battleships can be fit to run decent dps whereas the scorpion can't. and tracking enhancers won't do anything to change that.
I dunno where you get your stats from man, t2 SNI - 1100 dps, t2 Machariel 1100 dps. machariel has more range (hard to say how much with out knowing tc bonuses for missiles), but then its meant to be better its 2 meta levels above SNI with double faction hull and a whole extra role bonus. Even so the SNI has a better tank. And the only other bs that has that sort of damage projection is the nightmare which is again a pirate faction ship. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:09:00 -
[3424] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:MIrple wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:
oh btw: the SNIs damage is about half of what a pimped machariel can bring and no amount of tracking will get it even to comparable levels.
Why would it have comparable levels of dps to a double damage bonused pirate faction ship? Do you even know what you are saying? because most other faction battleships do. Stop comparing Faction BS to Pirate BS for one. Show me a Faction BS that gets a double damage bonus. Edit: The Navy Tempest does get a Double Damage bonus but the other to the typhoon and the domi have a split damage bonus. So I will agree that the Tempest does have it but the others do not. why would i stop comparing them? they are often used for the same tasks, so comparing them is perfectly reasonable. also, i couldn't care less which ship has which bonus. the fact of the matter is that most faction battleships can be fit to run decent dps whereas the scorpion can't. and tracking enhancers won't do anything to change that.
Possibly because Pirate BS are meant to be better then Faction BS. CCP has stated this. So this is the reason you should not be comparing the two types. I can fit out a SNI to deal around 980 DPS and this inst enough for you. What is your definition of decent DPS? |
octahexx Charante
The Scope Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:16:00 -
[3425] - Quote
just kill the caldari tree all in all and give me the sp back so i can respec it instead to something usefull,tengu and cerb and anything using hmls will be useless anyway,and to however said fit HAMS on a caracal has obviously never flown one it has the powergrid of a calculator for godssake.
its like ccp has borderline compulsary behaviour you keep buffing things to just smack them down,fw,incursions,up down up down.
how about slowing down and just adjust small at a time and get things actually in balance instead of spastic overreactions.
edit* i think beneath it all you want more battleships on the field for isk sink and you dont care if burn all the bcs in the process. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:26:00 -
[3426] - Quote
Doddy wrote:I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else.
i don't see why you would need to 'balance' HML damage when they are not in direct competition with other weapon systems. no one ever has the choice between fitting HMLs and turrets on the same hull (except maybe some weird loki fits), so there is no reason to change the weapon system at all. just take the ships that fly with HMLs and balance them against the ships that don't. it's even easier than changing both sides of the equation at the same time. and on top of that, tell me one good reason to nerf all HML platforms, even the weaker ones and then leave them in that sorry state for months or years, before fixing them eventually.
i also strongly disagree with your claim that people would just step down to other HML ships. without the awesome properties of the drakegu, there is hardly any reason to pick missiles over turrets, at least in pvp. the arty sleipnir DESTROYS the nighthawk, and all other hulls are outclassed by the other races' counterparts.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:27:00 -
[3427] - Quote
Out of everybody arguing to NOT nerf HML's, How many of you have noticed they are taking 20% off HML's VOLLEY damage, NOT their DPS. In reality your only going to be losing +/- 50DPS with good skills.
HML's are LONG RANGED. They will still be more effective then pretty much any other long ranged weapon of the same size.
Pro tip - fit HAM's, enjoy even more DPS, and still out range just about every short ranged medium gun. HML's arnt the ONLY weapon the caldari have, they arn't killing the race, they are bringing it back inline with the rest. Deal with it. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:28:00 -
[3428] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Yes, the Caracal is going from bad to bad.......
Is the Caracal the only cruiser getting a buff ?
Lol-fit Caracal you can do post-patch:
[Caracal, 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
352dps (405dps overheated) with full damage type selection 250km lock range with fleet bonuses 328km theoretical max range
^ This takes into account stacking penalties, and assumes TC's will give a 30% range bonus. Even if it's 15% you can still get the Caracal's missile range past 250km. This does not include the planned HML nerf.
Additionally, if CCP goes through with giving Fury higher DPS and less range, the DPS number will be even higher and you can probably still hit past 250km.
A bad T1 cruiser is one that can lob 350+ DPS out almost 100km past maximum lock range? Granted, this is a comedy fit, but it illustrates that something isn't right.
Maybe velocity and flight time need to be stacked against each other, or maybe nerf heavy missiles. Maybe only give TC's and TE's the ability to modify explosion radius and explosion velocity, and leave range in the realm of rigs only. I'm not sure what the fix is, but something is wrong with missiles when you take a ship that is pretty much in-line with its peers as far as slot layout and bonuses go, and it throws out better numbers than a T2 fit sniper battleship. |
Metal Icarus
Endless Destruction Against ALL Anomalies
285
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:29:00 -
[3429] - Quote
octahexx Charante wrote:just kill the caldari tree all in all and give me the sp back so i can respec it instead to something usefull,tengu and cerb and anything using hmls will be useless anyway,and to however said fit HAMS on a caracal has obviously never flown one it has the powergrid of a calculator for godssake.
its like ccp has borderline compulsary behaviour you keep buffing things to just smack them down,fw,incursions,up down up down.
how about slowing down and just adjust small at a time and get things actually in balance instead of spastic overreactions.
edit* i think beneath it all you want more battleships on the field for isk sink and you dont care if burn all the bcs in the process.
Yeah because working with the changes and adapting your fits are way too hard. (cry moar plz) |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:32:00 -
[3430] - Quote
MIrple wrote: Possibly because Pirate BS are meant to be better then Faction BS. CCP has stated this. So this is the reason you should not be comparing the two types. I can fit out a SNI to deal around 980 DPS and this inst enough for you. What is your definition of decent DPS?
well no **** sherlock. just because one is better than the other does not mean i can't compare them. also you conveniently skipped my point: most other faction battleships can come close to the mach's dps whereas the scorpion can't, unless you are an EFT warrior and fit something no one would ever use (which apparently you did).
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
128
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:33:00 -
[3431] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else.
i don't see why you would need to 'balance' HML damage when they are not in direct competition with other weapon systems. no one ever has the choice between fitting HMLs and turrets on the same hull (except maybe some weird loki fits), so there is no reason to change the weapon system at all. just take the ships that fly with HMLs and balance them against the ships that don't. it's even easier than changing both sides of the equation at the same time. and on top of that, tell me one good reason to nerf all HML platforms, even the weaker ones and then leave them in that sorry state for months or years, before fixing them eventually. i also strongly disagree with your claim that people would just step down to other HML ships. without the awesome properties of the drakegu, there is hardly any reason to pick missiles over turrets, at least in pvp. the arty sleipnir DESTROYS the nighthawk, and all other hulls are outclassed by the other races' counterparts.
The Huginn, Lachesis, New Stabber, would like to say differently about not having missile/gun set ups |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:36:00 -
[3432] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else.
i don't see why you would need to 'balance' HML damage when they are not in direct competition with other weapon systems. no one ever has the choice between fitting HMLs and turrets on the same hull (except maybe some weird loki fits), so there is no reason to change the weapon system at all. just take the ships that fly with HMLs and balance them against the ships that don't. it's even easier than changing both sides of the equation at the same time. and on top of that, tell me one good reason to nerf all HML platforms, even the weaker ones and then leave them in that sorry state for months or years, before fixing them eventually. i also strongly disagree with your claim that people would just step down to other HML ships. without the awesome properties of the drakegu, there is hardly any reason to pick missiles over turrets, at least in pvp. the arty sleipnir DESTROYS the nighthawk, and all other hulls are outclassed by the other races' counterparts.
What about ships with utility highs and missile hardpoints? The Hurricane, Cyclone, Rupture, Stabber, Bellicose, Moa, Arazu, Huginn, Muninn, Vagabond, Sleipnir, Claymore and Vulture?
The only part of this nerf that concerns me is heavy missiles as a secondary weapon system, it makes it a module you won't even consider tossing in that extra high on your Stabber. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
129
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:41:00 -
[3433] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:MIrple wrote: Possibly because Pirate BS are meant to be better then Faction BS. CCP has stated this. So this is the reason you should not be comparing the two types. I can fit out a SNI to deal around 980 DPS and this inst enough for you. What is your definition of decent DPS?
well no **** sherlock. just because one is better than the other does not mean i can't compare them. also you conveniently skipped my point: most other faction battleships can come close to the mach's dps whereas the scorpion can't, unless you are an EFT warrior and fit something no one would ever use (which apparently you did).
If one ship is better then the other you can compare them just don't be surprised that they weaker ship is still weaker. Now if you compare the Rattlesnake to the Mach I am sure the damage is much closer and this uses missile and drones. If you want to argue that there is a need of a Pirate missile ship I will agree but I don't agree with comparing a Faction battle ship T1 also to a Pirate one that some might say is OP. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:47:00 -
[3434] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else.
i don't see why you would need to 'balance' HML damage when they are not in direct competition with other weapon systems. no one ever has the choice between fitting HMLs and turrets on the same hull (except maybe some weird loki fits), so there is no reason to change the weapon system at all. just take the ships that fly with HMLs and balance them against the ships that don't. it's even easier than changing both sides of the equation at the same time. and on top of that, tell me one good reason to nerf all HML platforms, even the weaker ones and then leave them in that sorry state for months or years, before fixing them eventually. i also strongly disagree with your claim that people would just step down to other HML ships. without the awesome properties of the drakegu, there is hardly any reason to pick missiles over turrets, at least in pvp. the arty sleipnir DESTROYS the nighthawk, and all other hulls are outclassed by the other races' counterparts.
The arty sleip does not "destroy" the nighthawk, that is a laughable assertion. Flying in drake blobs I always take nighthawk or sleipnir and I would say the NH is generally superior at the moment. These changes might actually make the sleipnir considerably better though, especially as it does not seem to be getting the grid reduction the cane is getting to make up for artys reduced fitting requirements which is an oversight in my book, especially with lol ASBs around.
As for the other hulls you are horribly overgeneralising again. New caracal will be the best long range t1 cruiser hands down, as a tackle/kite only the stabber will be better. Only navy cruiser that is obviously better than navy cara is the stabber, but it has no ranged ability at all, navy vexor isn't really suited for kiting either cos of drone issues. As a long range hac cerb works well, it is just too flimsy for close in work (which missile changes won't effect either way). Sacreleige is awesome, one of my favourite ships and in my book only vaga is a better nano/tackle hac. Bellicose is becoming missile boat, and looks nice for a t1 cruiser.
Also you are the only one saying there wont be any changes for months, my reading of fozzies statements were that nh and cerb could well get a "fix" in the same patch.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:49:00 -
[3435] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else.
i don't see why you would need to 'balance' HML damage when they are not in direct competition with other weapon systems. no one ever has the choice between fitting HMLs and turrets on the same hull (except maybe some weird loki fits), so there is no reason to change the weapon system at all. just take the ships that fly with HMLs and balance them against the ships that don't. it's even easier than changing both sides of the equation at the same time. and on top of that, tell me one good reason to nerf all HML platforms, even the weaker ones and then leave them in that sorry state for months or years, before fixing them eventually. i also strongly disagree with your claim that people would just step down to other HML ships. without the awesome properties of the drakegu, there is hardly any reason to pick missiles over turrets, at least in pvp. the arty sleipnir DESTROYS the nighthawk, and all other hulls are outclassed by the other races' counterparts. The Huginn, Lachesis, New Stabber, would like to say differently about not having missile/gun set ups
point taken. i don't care a lot about the stabber or the same reason i don't care about the hurricane, but the other two do have the option to go either way and therefore produce direct competition between missiles and turrets. on the other hand, i am not really concerned about them as their main role is not DPS and they are not as common. no lachesis pilot will shake his fist at the sky and go "DAMN YOU CCP! i wanted to fit turrets but you made HMLS too OP!"
my second point still stands though: if CCP want to make such significant changes to a weapon system that affects so many players an so many months of training time, they should at least get it done quickly instead of leaving us hanging. just nerfing missiles and then counterbuffing the hulls a year later is a no-go.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 15:52:00 -
[3436] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:MIrple wrote: Possibly because Pirate BS are meant to be better then Faction BS. CCP has stated this. So this is the reason you should not be comparing the two types. I can fit out a SNI to deal around 980 DPS and this inst enough for you. What is your definition of decent DPS?
well no **** sherlock. just because one is better than the other does not mean i can't compare them. also you conveniently skipped my point: most other faction battleships can come close to the mach's dps whereas the scorpion can't, unless you are an EFT warrior and fit something no one would ever use (which apparently you did). If one ship is better then the other you can compare them just don't be surprised that they weaker ship is still weaker. Now if you compare the Rattlesnake to the Mach I am sure the damage is much closer and this uses missile and drones. If you want to argue that there is a need of a Pirate missile ship I will agree but I don't agree with comparing a Faction battle ship T1 also to a Pirate one that some might say is OP. again, my actual point was that OTHER faction battleships can very well come close to the machariel's DPS numbers whereas the scorpion is stuck several hundred DPS behind. and yes it DOES have a range advantage, there is just no real place to use that.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:04:00 -
[3437] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else.
i don't see why you would need to 'balance' HML damage when they are not in direct competition with other weapon systems. no one ever has the choice between fitting HMLs and turrets on the same hull (except maybe some weird loki fits), so there is no reason to change the weapon system at all. just take the ships that fly with HMLs and balance them against the ships that don't. it's even easier than changing both sides of the equation at the same time. and on top of that, tell me one good reason to nerf all HML platforms, even the weaker ones and then leave them in that sorry state for months or years, before fixing them eventually. i also strongly disagree with your claim that people would just step down to other HML ships. without the awesome properties of the drakegu, there is hardly any reason to pick missiles over turrets, at least in pvp. the arty sleipnir DESTROYS the nighthawk, and all other hulls are outclassed by the other races' counterparts. The arty sleip does not "destroy" the nighthawk, that is a laughable assertion. Flying in drake blobs I always take nighthawk or sleipnir and I would say the NH is generally superior at the moment. These changes might actually make the sleipnir considerably better though, especially as it does not seem to be getting the grid reduction the cane is getting to make up for artys reduced fitting requirements which is an oversight in my book, especially with lol ASBs around. believe it or not, eve is not all about blob warfare.
Quote: As for the other hulls you are horribly overgeneralising again. New caracal will be the best long range t1 cruiser hands down, as a tackle/kite only the stabber will be better. Only navy cruiser that is obviously better than navy cara is the stabber, but it has no ranged ability at all, navy vexor isn't really suited for kiting either cos of drone issues. As a long range hac cerb works well, it is just too flimsy for close in work (which missile changes won't effect either way). Sacreleige is awesome, one of my favourite ships and in my book only vaga is a better nano/tackle hac. Bellicose is becoming missile boat, and looks nice for a t1 cruiser.
frankly, i'm not in the mood to adress the ships one by one. let it only be said that most of the ships you named are already barely making it into the middle of the pack and that if they are good, it's often because their role does not rely on good DPS, so they are not that relevant in the current discussion.
Quote: Also you are the only one saying there wont be any changes for months, my reading of fozzies statements were that nh and cerb could well get a "fix" in the same patch.
the way i understood it is that they will *maybe* have time to look at *some* of the ships. the rest will be floating dead in the water for god knows how long. now if they actually could revisit at least the straight-up dps hulls, i would have less of an issue, although the danger of over-or underbuffing is still there.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:09:00 -
[3438] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: believe it or not, eve is not all about blob warfare.
Believe it or not Blob warfare doesn't have anything to do with it. In a solo situation sleip might be better because of lol ASBs but that is really the only situation the sleipnir is obviously better, and that is down to asbs, not that they are currently easy to fit on an arty sleipnir ..... |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:17:00 -
[3439] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: the way i understood it is that they will *maybe* have time to look at *some* of the ships. the rest will be floating dead in the water for god knows how long. now if they actually could revisit at least the straight-up dps hulls, i would have less of an issue, although the danger of over-or underbuffing is still there.
Well, how many other hulls are there? Bellicose, Caracal, Nighthawk, Cerb being looked at leaves navy caracal and navy osprey. Osprey is already broken like the other "tier 1" faction cruisers so nothing will really change there till they get thier own tiericide, navy cara too. Faction cruisers are going to need some love regardless thanks to the buffs to thier t1 cousins.
Which to be honest just shows you how under provided missile boats are.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:25:00 -
[3440] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: believe it or not, eve is not all about blob warfare.
Believe it or not Blob warfare doesn't have anything to do with it. In a solo situation sleip might be better because of lol ASBs but that is really the only situation the sleipnir is obviously better, and that is down to asbs, not that they are currently easy to fit on an arty sleipnir ..... two things: 1. as long as ASBs are the way they are, the sleipnir is better period. 2. even without ASBs, the sleipnir is a lot more versatile than the nighthawk and birngs many advantages to compensate for its only real disadvantage (projection).
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:29:00 -
[3441] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken. If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else.
i don't see why you would need to 'balance' HML damage when they are not in direct competition with other weapon systems. no one ever has the choice between fitting HMLs and turrets on the same hull (except maybe some weird loki fits), so there is no reason to change the weapon system at all. just take the ships that fly with HMLs and balance them against the ships that don't. it's even easier than changing both sides of the equation at the same time. and on top of that, tell me one good reason to nerf all HML platforms, even the weaker ones and then leave them in that sorry state for months or years, before fixing them eventually. i also strongly disagree with your claim that people would just step down to other HML ships. without the awesome properties of the drakegu, there is hardly any reason to pick missiles over turrets, at least in pvp. the arty sleipnir DESTROYS the nighthawk, and all other hulls are outclassed by the other races' counterparts. What about ships with utility highs and missile hardpoints? The Hurricane, Cyclone, Rupture, Stabber, Bellicose, Moa, Arazu, Huginn, Muninn, Vagabond, Sleipnir, Claymore and Vulture? The only part of this nerf that concerns me is heavy missiles as a secondary weapon system, it makes it a module you won't even consider tossing in that extra high on your Stabber.
see the good side: if the tracking madness goes through, at least your tracking enhancers will affect your missiles.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
219
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:49:00 -
[3442] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:fact still remains that cane is op compared to drake. And drake has one less rig slot because it needs acr to fit sr guns.
Also your talking about 25k ham range. Is that with those crappy javelins or is that EFT warrioring because my ham drake has 18k range in game. its with javelins . . . you know . . . the ammo designed for long range?
its amazing what happens when you put the right ammo in for the right situation.
and guess what? the drake with javelins does way more DPS at 25 than the cane with barrage and 425s |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:54:00 -
[3443] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:fact still remains that cane is op compared to drake. And drake has one less rig slot because it needs acr to fit sr guns.
Also your talking about 25k ham range. Is that with those crappy javelins or is that EFT warrioring because my ham drake has 18k range in game. its with javelins . . . you know . . . the ammo designed for long range? its amazing what happens when you put the right ammo in for the right situation. and guess what? the drake with javelins does way more DPS at 25 than the cane with barrage and 425s
You do know that javelins make you even slower? "It can reach higher velocity than the Scourge Heavy Assault Missile but needs to reduce the speed of the ship to compensate." Thats why i said crappy. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
95
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 16:56:00 -
[3444] - Quote
This thread has derailed.
No response to anything from CCP in quite a few pages and I highly doubt someone is keeping up and reading every page.
I guess we should just face it.
The only missiles that are now viable in pvp are going to be hams.
We're losing the tengu as our high efficiency missile boat.
And we're losing the only two danage focused missile boats viable in pvp above a cruiser.
So, to those of us who are truly effected by this, I guess we have the choice of unsubbing, or cross training.
Cause it doesn't look like what we have to say matters. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
200
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:01:00 -
[3445] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:
No you didnt understand the point at all. Its cheating to use ACR with HAM drake in comparison to AC cane that doesnt need to fit ACR for SR guns. As my point was that cane does too much dps when it can fit so many gyro. And by reducing its CPU it would balance AC cane compared to HAM drake. Also meta 4 modules are stupid because meta4 point has only 20k range. And meta4 DCU has lower resists. Also its price issue. You do know how much meta4 cost? Also its stupid because i could aswell make deadspace fitted cane to compare it to T2 fit drake cause price wont matter right?
Doesn't need an ACR it needs a 2% PG implant.
[Drake, ham]
7x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile)
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II
3x Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I 2x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
1.91% over power with my fitting skills.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
129
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:22:00 -
[3446] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote: You do know that javelins make you even slower?
As stated, read the OP, and you will see that will no longer be a fact. Makes me wonder how many actually read the OP. And how many of those again understood it...
Also. My armor tank wants to have a word with you about speed |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:23:00 -
[3447] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Doddy wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: believe it or not, eve is not all about blob warfare.
Believe it or not Blob warfare doesn't have anything to do with it. In a solo situation sleip might be better because of lol ASBs but that is really the only situation the sleipnir is obviously better, and that is down to asbs, not that they are currently easy to fit on an arty sleipnir ..... two things: 1. as long as ASBs are the way they are, the sleipnir is better period. 2. even without ASBs, the sleipnir is a lot more versatile than the nighthawk and birngs many advantages to compensate for its only real disadvantage (projection).
Not really, you tried fitting an asb on an arty sleip? Doesn't really work. Asbs effectiveness diminish with size of battle anyway, so it would only ever matter in a small fight. And an arty sleip is less versatile than a hml nighthawk period. The sleip hull is of course more versatile because you have extremely good autos on a ship with loads of fitting compared with the nighthawk with no ham bonuses and too little fitting. But that is why the NH hull needs a buff.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:36:00 -
[3448] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:
see, the problem is that neither figures nor fittings are guaranteed to give you a balanced picture of the current state of things. let us - just for a moment - assume that neither the drake nor the tengu were as good as they are. let's just say the drake loses its resistance bonus and becomes unpopular for 0.0 blobs and the tengu loses its ability to fit 100mn ABs. both ships will instantly plummet on the killboards and with them, so will HMLs.
I would not object to that either, if it helps to get Drakes unpopular for 0.0.
Daniel Plain wrote: would then anybody in their right mind still complain about heavy missiles being too strong? i submit to you that heavy missiles would be where cruises, torpedoes and medium rails already are: insignificant and laughed at.
Yep, exactly what I try to tell those guys for ages now - its not the OP HML, its the system in 0.0 which is the problem.
Daniel Plain wrote: before you start burning straw men, please consider: - i am not saying that drake and tengu are fine. both ships need a tweak. - i am also not saying that heavy missiles are fine. in fact, you will find me and many others agree that the range nerf to HMLs is justified, but not the DPS nerf. - what i AM saying is that if not for the drake or tengu, you would not even see heavy missiles on the kill boards, which indicates that the weapon system itself is not as OP as its paper stats seem to be.
I agree with you in all but one, the Drake is not OP in lowsec. It is however OP in null, just because you can use it like it is used there - cheap to replace, cheap to skill, get every grunt into one fast and its doing a good job then down there. But then again, something needs to be done, thats clear.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:49:00 -
[3449] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: Lets say you have a system that is OP. In this case, that system is HML. The reason it is seen as OP is because of it''s great projection and great range.
The main problem is, you start with a wrong assumption. HML are not OP per se. They are part of an op system in Drakeblobs in nullsec. And they are OP in PvE in Drakes and Tengus. I can not really judge about the 100MN AB Tengu, never flew one and the Tengus I fought seemed not that OP to me when they had it fitted. Maybe also noob pilots, cant say.
I can understand how people think they are OP when they just compare paper stats, but I can assure you, they are not OP as you think they are ... maybe its just so set up in peoples mind that missile ships suck at PvP that they think a missile system must be OP if it works in PvP? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 17:51:00 -
[3450] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: You do know that javelins make you even slower?
As stated, read the OP, and you will see that will no longer be a fact. Makes me wonder how many actually read the OP. And how many of those again understood it... Also. My armor tank wants to have a word with you about speed
My shield tank wants to have a word with your armor tank about HG Slaves .. |
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 18:04:00 -
[3451] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Bloutok wrote:Yes, the Caracal is going from bad to bad.......
Is the Caracal the only cruiser getting a buff ? Lol-fit Caracal you can do post-patch: [Caracal, 2] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script Tracking Computer II - Missile Flight Time Script Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I 352dps (405dps overheated) with full damage type selection 250km lock range with fleet bonuses 328km theoretical max range ^ This takes into account stacking penalties, and assumes TC's will give a 30% range bonus. Even if it's 15% you can still get the Caracal's missile range past 250km. This does not include the planned HML nerf. Additionally, if CCP goes through with giving Fury higher DPS and less range, the DPS number will be even higher and you can probably still hit past 250km. A bad T1 cruiser is one that can lob 350+ DPS out almost 100km past maximum lock range? Granted, this is a comedy fit, but it illustrates that something isn't right. Maybe velocity and flight time need to be stacked against each other, or maybe nerf heavy missiles. Maybe only give TC's and TE's the ability to modify explosion radius and explosion velocity, and leave range in the realm of rigs only. I'm not sure what the fix is, but something is wrong with missiles when you take a ship that is pretty much in-line with its peers as far as slot layout and bonuses go, and it throws out better numbers than a T2 fit sniper battleship.
Oh come on, you allow the buffed slot layout but ignore the DPS drop to prove a cruiser works, and one with zero tank whatsoever?
Todays caracal has a mighty sub 300 dps (which it'll NEVER apply to anything actually moving...except, ironcially a caldari BS ) with 2x BCUII and scourge fury. Yeah, I'm trembling at the thought of that...
Edit: Ah good, eve kill top 20 is back - a SINGLE missile system which isn't HML. ONE. Yeah, we TOTALLY need to be nerfing the missile boats which dont use heavy missiles |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
233
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 18:12:00 -
[3452] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: You do know that javelins make you even slower?
As stated, read the OP, and you will see that will no longer be a fact. Makes me wonder how many actually read the OP. And how many of those again understood it... Also. My armor tank wants to have a word with you about speed My shield tank wants to have a word with your armor tank about HG Slaves ..
My armour reps want to speak to your shield tank about crystal sets, and asbs, and boost amps, and active adaptives.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 18:40:00 -
[3453] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
Except of course if drake was worse people would use nighthawk, it is flat out better, just more expensive. Everyone knows cerb is broken. Nobody uses t1 cruisers (yet), navy cara is soley not used because a drake is flat out better. So of the three other ships that actually use hmls 2 are not used purely becasue the drake is a better platform for the isk while the third has been broken since the missile nerf.
Sorry to disagree here, but no, the NH is not flat out better for PvP. Beginning with the slot-layout, going on with the PG ...
Doddy wrote: I don't see why you can't understand how you need to balance the weapon systems before the ships that use them. Its the weapon that is broken.
No, Sir. And this statement wont get true if you repeat it a thousand times. HML per se is *not* a broken system. It has been explained tons of times, but some just deny to read and understand.
Doddy wrote: If you just nerf the drake everyone will just use something else. Its the same with the other weapon systems, people find the best weapon system for a given tactic, then they look for the best platform. there is no point nerfing the platform, they will just pick the next best. Nerf navy geddon everyone goes back to abaddons for heavy pulse, nerf maelstroms evryone just uses tempests for 1400 arty. Balance the weapon systems though and its easy to fine tune ship bonuses.
So the fact everyone puts Artys and ACs to ships of other races with no ship bonuses shows you then, how OP Projectiles really are? Besides, which would be the "next" ship in your list to use your so called OP HML if the Drake would be nerfed? I am curious ..
Doddy wrote: Balancing nighthawk with drake is relativelty straightforward - reduce the training requirements (in the works), add some fitting (so it can fit hams), change the hml only bonuses so they effect hams, and make it omni damage if they do so with the drake. Currently while NH is a little better than drake using hmls if you have the skills and the isk, it is not so with hams.
Personally I dont think training reqs should be reduced, but I may be a bit oldschool here. Apart from that I agree the NH doesnt need much, but its not as good with HML-PvP as you think it is, and slotlayout plays a role there. Could change though, if TE/TC-stuff really goes live ....
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 18:40:00 -
[3454] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: You do know that javelins make you even slower?
As stated, read the OP, and you will see that will no longer be a fact. Makes me wonder how many actually read the OP. And how many of those again understood it... Also. My armor tank wants to have a word with you about speed My shield tank wants to have a word with your armor tank about HG Slaves .. My armour reps want to speak to your shield tank about crystal sets, and asbs, and boost amps, and active adaptives.
Nice, you found the point Sir: things are different, and they are with a reason. Its just making sense to compare not stat by stat but get the whole picture first. Thats something many here seem to be completely unable to do though ...
When adressing the special issue here with Drake vs other BC, a crystal set will by no means be a pro Drake argument though, coz the only BC which can really use it well would be Winmatar ... funny enough, the buffer shield tanks have nothing to go with, the active shield tanks do, but the race which is shield tank only has next to no ship which can really make use of crystals :D |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 18:43:00 -
[3455] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Edit: Ah good, eve kill top 20 is back - a SINGLE missile system which isn't HML. ONE. Yeah, we TOTALLY need to be nerfing the missile boats which dont use heavy missiles
Yep .. and all those Drakes (and therefor most HML-kills) are just null sec war, as you can see with the No. 2 on the list ;) .. but go on, nerf missiles a bit more pls, they are so damn OP. And yeah, it must be missiles coz everyone knows Caldari and Drake suck at PvP, so if I get killed by one the reason must be OP weaponsystem!!!23
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:03:00 -
[3456] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: You do know that javelins make you even slower?
As stated, read the OP, and you will see that will no longer be a fact. Makes me wonder how many actually read the OP. And how many of those again understood it... Also. My armor tank wants to have a word with you about speed My shield tank wants to have a word with your armor tank about HG Slaves ..
Because everyone runs around with 2.4 billion in implants for battlecruisers right.
Get the **** out. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:03:00 -
[3457] - Quote
Well, let's not be hasty, HML do seem a bit *out there*, but the rest of the systems? Nope. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:07:00 -
[3458] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: You do know that javelins make you even slower?
As stated, read the OP, and you will see that will no longer be a fact. Makes me wonder how many actually read the OP. And how many of those again understood it... Also. My armor tank wants to have a word with you about speed My shield tank wants to have a word with your armor tank about HG Slaves .. Because everyone runs around with 2.4 billion in implants for battlecruisers right. Get the **** out.
Sorry to disagree, but yeah I know a fair lot of mostly lowsec mostly BC pilots who use HG Slaves in their Armorships. They just love the extra-performance. To be fair, yes its a sh*tload of money, but normally you wont lose it too ;)
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:10:00 -
[3459] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote: You do know that javelins make you even slower?
As stated, read the OP, and you will see that will no longer be a fact. Makes me wonder how many actually read the OP. And how many of those again understood it... Also. My armor tank wants to have a word with you about speed My shield tank wants to have a word with your armor tank about HG Slaves .. Because everyone runs around with 2.4 billion in implants for battlecruisers right. Get the **** out. Sorry to disagree, but yeah I know a fair lot of mostly lowsec mostly BC pilots who use HG Slaves in their Armorships. They just love the extra-performance. To be fair, yes its a sh*tload of money, but normally you wont lose it too ;)
Heh that changed then. You woulg get guy that claimed they ran LGs but there were no podmails. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:14:00 -
[3460] - Quote
Well okey then, HML is not overpowered.
It is overpowered IN IT'S CLASS.
As compared to railguns, beams and arties several times before in this threadnaught, they overshadow EVERY other long range platform both in range and dps. And most people bring EFT dps in double falloff when mentioning turrets, don't do that please. |
|
Atomic Option
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
21
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:18:00 -
[3461] - Quote
All for the separate missile guidance disruptor / missile guidance computer / missile guidance enhancer modules. I haven't done the math on balancing, but given the difference in the type of bonus being provided, it doesn't make much sense to use the same modules from a lore perspective.
Additionally separate modules would preserve the ability to use missiles to counter heavy TD fleets, while providing a long awaited counter to missile DPS. |
Drenan
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:29:00 -
[3462] - Quote
The 'unforseen consequences' of the proposed HM and TD changes have the potential to make the WIS cluster**** look like a storm in a teacup.
I thought the new paradigm at ccp was small incremental changes to mechanics?
Someone senior at CCP needs to get a grip of this now.
|
Usul Crysknife
Jita Exiles Strategic Warfare Operations Command
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:32:00 -
[3463] - Quote
When I first saw the change to missiles, my response was "WTF thats crap"
And then I sat down and ran the numbers - among all cruiser sized long range weapon systems, HMLS have the largest raw damage and range with lvl 5 skills. Okay so I can see that the raw numbers here need some balancing.
But when you take into consideration things like travel time, no wrecking shots, inability to tune range/damage tradeoff with ammo - and most importantly ship bonuses - it becomes obvious just looking at the raw damage numbers is inadequate.
Most missile ship bonuses are usually for Kinetic damage only, forcing missile pilots into a single damage type when one of the benefit of missiles is supposed to be swapping ammo to best suit your target's resist hole. In fact, the only missile cruiser that I can think of off the top of my head which gets a bonus that does not only affect Kinetic damage is the rook.
Gunboats get ROF bonuses, or (unrestricted) damage bonuses, or both. Comparing the drake to the hurricane at BC 5, the drake gets +25% DPS to kinetic only while the hurricane gets +50% to all projectile damage.
If CCP is going to go ahead and balance the raw damage of missiles to be in line with its peers, they need to do the same with ship bonuses at the very least.
|
OT Smithers
Buccaneer's Den
180
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:46:00 -
[3464] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
If you look at the 4 attack cruisers the Caracal and the Thorax will be the 2 ships that shine after the changes. The stabber will likely be a heavy tackler and the omen is still up in the air.
You're high man. Seriously. It's a piece of crap now (which is why you never really see them) and it will be just as much of a piece of crap after this.
With HMs it's post nerf DPS will actually be LOWER than it is now. It will be somewhat better with AMLs, but that's not saying a lot. You'll be pushing T1 frigate dps in a ship with no neuts or drones. What, exactly, do you think it's going to "shine" at doing other than decorating your hangar?
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 19:53:00 -
[3465] - Quote
Usul Crysknife wrote: Gunboats get ROF bonuses, or (unrestricted) damage bonuses, or both. Comparing the drake to the hurricane at BC 5, the drake gets +25% DPS to kinetic only while the hurricane gets +50% to all projectile damage.
If CCP is going to go ahead and balance the raw damage of missiles to be in line with its peers, they need to do the same with ship bonuses at the very least.
You need to factor in the fact that HM's have insane range, and insane dps when taking that range into account. They are also a long range weapon, so you can't compare them to 425mm AC Cane. Even at that, the range you will be fighting on might just as well be round about point range, where the Drake will dominate a Hurricane. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:01:00 -
[3466] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:It's not a direct buff, it's a compromise which would involve a loss of tank to do it on these hulls. That's an ok principle: more gank, less tank
However - those hulls are directly and clearly weakened by the HM changes already, there is no reason to lump TD effects on all other boats.
One more time for luck: Why are we reducing the combat effectiveness of already recognised weak hulls across the board? to what point or purpose? So they can spend 6 months even weaker before a rebalance puts them back to where they are today a-la the caracal?
Could you just stop for a moment and check what CCP is doing to missile boat bonuses?
TD is module you can use too. It's not as easy to fit one in every ship like people think: for example put TD to Coercer and then start to think what other mid slot modules you can fit.
If HML is "weakest weapon" in the game then why people use Drakes and Tengus?
Daniel Plain wrote:i don't see why you would need to 'balance' HML damage when they are not in direct competition with other weapon systems. no one ever has the choice between fitting HMLs and turrets on the same hull (except maybe some weird loki fits), so there is no reason to change the weapon system at all.
It's about ship choices. You can't fit HMLs to Harbingers (nobody ever said it's even possible) and go against Drakes. People just use Drakes and Tengus without any particular reason? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:03:00 -
[3467] - Quote
Jorma, they say "there are 2 problem hulls", meaning Drake and Tengu needs a rebalance, then they go on and say that the bonus is ****** because you only get a bonus to kinetic..... |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:12:00 -
[3468] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:It's not a direct buff, it's a compromise which would involve a loss of tank to do it on these hulls. That's an ok principle: more gank, less tank
However - those hulls are directly and clearly weakened by the HM changes already, there is no reason to lump TD effects on all other boats.
One more time for luck: Why are we reducing the combat effectiveness of already recognised weak hulls across the board? to what point or purpose? So they can spend 6 months even weaker before a rebalance puts them back to where they are today a-la the caracal? Could you just stop for a moment and check what CCP is doing to missile boat bonuses? TD is module you can use too. It's not as easy to fit one in every ship like people think: for example put TD to Coercer and then start to think what other mid slot modules you can fit. If HML is "weakest weapon" in the game then why people use Drakes and Tengus?
You're missing my point; set aside the HML...done that? Good.
Now tell me why EVERY OTHER MISSILE BOAT needs to contend with a nerf to effectiveness? Other than the two dodgy hulls, missile boats are - bluntly - a running joke.
It is different in PvE, of course, but those rats are not going to affect missioners with the TD so again....are non heavy missile, missile users REALLY that powerful we need to reduce their power PRIOR to a hull rebalance in PvP? Are ravens so tough? are the rooks overruning the forge? Perhaps the kestral is popping one too many rifters?
Set aside the two bad HML hulls and tell me why weapon systems that, with one exception being torps, don't even make the kill boards need reducing in power... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:23:00 -
[3469] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Jorma, they say "there are 2 problem hulls", meaning Drake and Tengu needs a rebalance, then they go on and say that the bonus is ****** because you only get a bonus to kinetic.....
Kinetic damage bonus is weird and stupid. But that's one of the things CCP is fixing.
They have done solid work thus far. We are actually going to point where I have to start thinking about training those missile skills. That kinetic damage bonus has been clear "stop right there!" sign for me. Even though people have suggested Raven/CNR/SNI. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:32:00 -
[3470] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Now tell me why EVERY OTHER MISSILE BOAT needs to contend with a nerf to effectiveness? Other than the two dodgy hulls, missile boats are - bluntly - a running joke.
It is different in PvE, of course, but those rats are not going to affect missioners with the TD so again....are non heavy missile, missile users REALLY that powerful we need to reduce their power PRIOR to a hull rebalance in PvP? Are ravens so tough? are the rooks overruning the forge? Perhaps the kestral is popping one too many rifters?
Set aside the two bad HML hulls and tell me why weapon systems that, with one exception being torps, don't even make the kill boards need reducing in power...
You do realize that Drake and other BCs aren't going to be rebalanced in next expansion? You do realize that T3s are probably the last ship class they rebalance? We are talking about probably year 2014 here.
CCP is going to buff missile ships in every size and shape.
You do realize that ROF bonus they have mentioned for new Drake is clear buff to Drake's dps? If heavy missiles have same range and damage they currently have, Drake would be the only BC to fly. If you would fly anything else you would be laughed out of game. |
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:39:00 -
[3471] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Now tell me why EVERY OTHER MISSILE BOAT needs to contend with a nerf to effectiveness? Other than the two dodgy hulls, missile boats are - bluntly - a running joke.
It is different in PvE, of course, but those rats are not going to affect missioners with the TD so again....are non heavy missile, missile users REALLY that powerful we need to reduce their power PRIOR to a hull rebalance in PvP? Are ravens so tough? are the rooks overruning the forge? Perhaps the kestral is popping one too many rifters?
Set aside the two bad HML hulls and tell me why weapon systems that, with one exception being torps, don't even make the kill boards need reducing in power... You do realize that Drake and other BCs aren't going to be rebalanced in next expansion? You do realize that T3s are probably the last ship class they rebalance? We are talking about probably year 2014 here. CCP is going to buff missile ships in every size and shape. You do realize that ROF bonus they have mentioned for new Drake is clear buff to Drake's dps? If heavy missiles have same range and damage they currently have, Drake would be the only BC to fly. If you would fly anything else you would be laughed out of game.
For the love of peace, FORGET THE FRICKIN' HML SYSTEMS. I'm not talking about them, don't give a rats ass. I care about the effectiveness nerf to ALL missile hulls brought by TD modules affecting missiles.
They're (in PvP) nerfing every missile hull for reasons which, apart from Drake/Tengu are completely obscured to me.
So....please tell me....what am I missing?
Fake edit: If the modules are split it may not be as bad; however the "WHY?!" still stands. Why nerf some of the least used, least effective boats out there? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:43:00 -
[3472] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: For the love of peace, FORGET THE FRICKIN' HML SYSTEMS. I'm not talking about them, don't give a rats ass. I care about the effectiveness nerf to ALL missile hulls brought by TD modules affecting missiles.
They're (in PvP) nerfing every missile hull for reasons which, apart from Drake/Tengu are completely obscured to me.
So....please tell me....what am I missing?
Fake edit: If the modules are split it may not be as bad; however the "WHY?!" still stands. Why nerf some of the least used, least effective boats out there?
Did you miss the entire tiercide thing going on? HML's get nerfed, hulls get buffed. And you missed the TE/TC's |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:53:00 -
[3473] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote: For the love of peace, FORGET THE FRICKIN' HML SYSTEMS. I'm not talking about them, don't give a rats ass. I care about the effectiveness nerf to ALL missile hulls brought by TD modules affecting missiles.
They're (in PvP) nerfing every missile hull for reasons which, apart from Drake/Tengu are completely obscured to me.
So....please tell me....what am I missing?
Fake edit: If the modules are split it may not be as bad; however the "WHY?!" still stands. Why nerf some of the least used, least effective boats out there?
Did you miss the entire tiercide thing going on? HML's get nerfed, hulls get buffed. And you missed the TE/TC's
Yes...and where are the boats going to put these modules? They will sacrifice tank. Sacrifice tank they already don't have, to maintain a DPS which is already substandard.
Why?
Why do TD need to affect missiles **now**?
Why can't it wait until the hulls are balanced? What is so criminal about light/cruise/rockets/torps/etc that we need to reduce their carrying hulls effectivness immediately?
All I can think of is missile boats need a PvE leg up....but there's better ways to do that.... |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 20:55:00 -
[3474] - Quote
Does everyone here think it's ok that turrets can be effectively destroyed by tracking disruptors, but there is no way to reduce missile range or explosion velocity/radius? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:01:00 -
[3475] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: Yes...and where are the boats going to put these modules? They will sacrifice tank. Sacrifice tank they already don't have, to maintain a DPS which is already substandard.
Why?
Why do TD need to affect missiles **now**?
Why can't it wait until the hulls are balanced? What is so criminal about light/cruise/rockets/torps/etc that we need to reduce their carrying hulls effectivness immediately?
All I can think of is missile boats need a PvE leg up....but there's better ways to do that....
Drake sacrificing tank it does no have... a¦á_a¦á
Get your head around this man, seriously. For how many YEARS have ALL turret ships had to sacrifice their tank or utility for better dps, which in Gallente's case have no range what so f****** ever, and are too slow to get in range to apply it, in Minmatar's case, they fight in falloff, which negates your argument about "sub-par" dps. The effective DPS of Minmatar are usually 40-60% of EFT dps. Amarr have super range with scorch, but it's still LOLDPS in close range where other turrets apply their full dps which is more or less always better than any Amarr hull. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:01:00 -
[3476] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:For the love of peace, FORGET THE FRICKIN' HML SYSTEMS. I'm not talking about them, don't give a rats ass. I care about the effectiveness nerf to ALL missile hulls brought by TD modules affecting missiles.
They're (in PvP) nerfing every missile hull for reasons which, apart from Drake/Tengu are completely obscured to me.
So....please tell me....what am I missing?
Fake edit: If the modules are split it may not be as bad; however the "WHY?!" still stands. Why nerf some of the least used, least effective boats out there?
TE/TC will affect missiles after this change. TD is direct counter to those modules. There would be no TDs if there's no TEs/TCs.
And not every ship has mid slots for TD. Show me PVP Armageddon with TD, PVP Abaddon with TD, PVP Coercer with TD.
Who says CCP doesn't just nerf TD and give bigger bonus to those ships that are specialized tracking disruptor ships (Arbitrator and its T2 variants)? New Arbitrator is going to have same bonus Curse already has so it's going to go up for T2. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:05:00 -
[3477] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Does everyone here think it's ok that turrets can be effectively destroyed by tracking disruptors, but there is no way to reduce missile range or explosion velocity/radius?
Your complaint is they are not the same, which I get but....missiles boats can't compete with turret boats beyond drak-guGäó as it is.
When missiles (APART FROM HEAVY) can compete with turrets, perhaps that is the time to address EWAR options?
Or perhaps you'd like firewall strats to work against turret fire too?
Look at the top 20 kills, top 20 weapon kills....put aside the busted and to be addressed HML hulls....do you see ANYTHING that suggests missiles boats are in need of a power reduction?
If so, what? |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:09:00 -
[3478] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote: Yes...and where are the boats going to put these modules? They will sacrifice tank. Sacrifice tank they already don't have, to maintain a DPS which is already substandard.
Why?
Why do TD need to affect missiles **now**?
Why can't it wait until the hulls are balanced? What is so criminal about light/cruise/rockets/torps/etc that we need to reduce their carrying hulls effectivness immediately?
All I can think of is missile boats need a PvE leg up....but there's better ways to do that....
Drake sacrificing tank it does no have... a¦á_a¦á Get your head around this man, seriously. For how many YEARS have ALL turret ships had to sacrifice their tank or utility for better dps, which in Gallente's case have no range what so f****** ever, and are too slow to get in range to apply it, in Minmatar's case, they fight in falloff, which negates your argument about "sub-par" dps. The effective DPS of Minmatar are usually 40-60% of EFT dps. Amarr have super range with scorch, but it's still LOLDPS in close range where other turrets apply their full dps which is more or less always better than any Amarr hull.
Jesus....what part of "SET ASIDE THE HML PLATFORMS"
is it you're struggling with?
/facepalm
Present some statistical evidence (like the kind so commonly cited to prove HML are broken) that demonstrates missile hulls [APART FROM HML] are in need of a power check. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:11:00 -
[3479] - Quote
Which is why they are rebalancing. TE/TC will help all those unused ships and their different missile platforms. Suddenly a bomber can go kill frigs with torps! So they can basically now compete with turrets, and they can be destroyed by a TD, just like turrets. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:13:00 -
[3480] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: Jesus....what part of "SET ASIDE THE HML PLATFORMS"
is it you're struggling with?
/facepalm
Present some statistical evidence (like the kind so commonly cited to prove HML are broken) that demonstrates missile hulls [APART FROM HML] are in need of a power check.
Um, I said missile platforms should get a buff, which they are getting, both in the form of hull rebalance, and TE/TC affecting missiles.... |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:15:00 -
[3481] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Look at the top 20 kills, top 20 weapon kills....put aside the busted and to be addressed HML hulls....do you see ANYTHING that suggests missiles boats are in need of a power reduction?
Is it just me or does this really say "nerf Scorch!"?
Hannott Thanos wrote:Um, I said missile platforms should get a buff, which they are getting, both in the form of hull rebalance, and TE/TC affecting missiles....
Yeah, I for one am looking forward to flying Raven/SNI. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:28:00 -
[3482] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Which is why they are rebalancing. TE/TC will help all those unused ships and their different missile platforms. Suddenly a bomber can go kill frigs with torps! So they can basically now compete with turrets, and they can be destroyed by a TD, just like turrets.
Well not really, it's not like they were overtanked to begin with.
It's asking them to make a sacrifice they will have a hard time juggling. It also creates a module which amounts to multispec ECM on steroids, there's NO-ONE it will be a bad move against. This will only serve to make TC/TE mandatory in order to retain todays (already iffy) DPS. At a cost of EHP, which they dont have to spare.
The TC/TE is a decent PvE buff, no mistake, but in PvP...it's a flat out nerf. There are no (non HML) hulls with slots to spare and (afaik) no hulls with stupid ass tanks - drake-gu aside again.
I mean, fair play if all missile boats were OTT, but they're NOT - Not right now. It's currently quite the opposite, so why not balance the hulls THEN bring the change in? I'm not adverse to the change when looking at the( very) long game, but now? Now makes NO sense to me and I've seen no material evidence that we need to drop missile boat power projection. So far the only debate seems to be "it also affects turrets" and that's pretty weak for a number of reasons I really shouldn't need to detail.
For what its worth: I keep saying ignore the HML platforms as that weapon system itself is specifically being nerfed directly, lets assume for ease that it is appropriate and brings those hulls into 'normal' lines.
Edit: @Jorma I already mentioned in this thread that the SNI has the potential to be a mission beast, not sure about he raven, don't think it can spare the slots too easily, maybe one low, I've not checked extensively. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:34:00 -
[3483] - Quote
Yeah, sorry, I'll try to keep HML's out of it. But as stated by CCP, it's impossible to balance ships around a system that is going to get changed as a whole on a later date, because then you have to rebalance all over again. TD's will inevitably affect missiles. If we don't take that into account when balancing, then all hulls will be broken (underpowered) when that change hits, or they will all be overpowered until it's changed. Drakes and Tengus had their FOTY, now it's time they feel the pain for a while as balancing takes it's time. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:41:00 -
[3484] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:The TC/TE is a decent PvE buff, no mistake, but in PvP...it's a flat out nerf. There are no (non HML) hulls with slots to spare and (afaik) no hulls with stupid ass tanks - drake-gu aside again.
For example Raven has 5 low slots. 4 for BCSs and one for suitcase? How about 3 for BCS, one for suitcase and one for TE?
Fitting compromises... It's not that difficult when you get used to it.
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Edit: @Jorma I already mentioned in this thread that the SNI has the potential to be a mission beast, not sure about he raven, don't think it can spare the slots too easily, maybe one low, I've not checked extensively.
It needs one more mid slot... |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:43:00 -
[3485] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Yeah, sorry, I'll try to keep HML's out of it. But as stated by CCP, it's impossible to balance ships around a system that is going to get changed as a whole on a later date, because then you have to rebalance all over again. TD's will inevitably affect missiles. If we don't take that into account when balancing, then all hulls will be broken (underpowered) when that change hits, or they will all be overpowered until it's changed. Drakes and Tengus had their FOTY, now it's time they feel the pain for a while as balancing takes it's time.
I agree, but can't work out why the TD needs doing now - unless its reaction to a backhanded PvE buff...which as I say would be a bit weird.
Of course, if its a separate module, then my concern can be considered addressed as we're back to rock, paper scissors modules and not "fit this or die" |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:54:00 -
[3486] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I agree, but can't work out why the TD needs doing now - unless its reaction to a backhanded PvE buff...which as I say would be a bit weird.
Of course, if its a separate module, then my concern can be considered addressed as we're back to rock, paper scissors modules and not "fit this or die"
I (and probably others) have mentioned that not all ships have mid slots for TD because there's way too many useful modules like cap boosters, prop mods, you know.
Please, go and check bonuses for new Arbitrator.
For me it looks like they are going to nerf base stats for TD. And to get full potential you have to use Arbitrator or its T2 variants. You know, the hull that's not exactly #1 on dps list. To get a decent dps out of them you need very good drone skills. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
130
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 21:58:00 -
[3487] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: I agree, but can't work out why the TD needs doing now - unless its reaction to a backhanded PvE buff...which as I say would be a bit weird.
Of course, if its a separate module, then my concern can be considered addressed as we're back to rock, paper scissors modules and not "fit this or die"
It needs to be done now if it is going to be done at all. Reasons are stated in my prev post. It's a balancing and time issue. 2 modules would be bad imo, rather make 2 new scripts. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 22:04:00 -
[3488] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote: I agree, but can't work out why the TD needs doing now - unless its reaction to a backhanded PvE buff...which as I say would be a bit weird.
Of course, if its a separate module, then my concern can be considered addressed as we're back to rock, paper scissors modules and not "fit this or die"
It needs to be done now if it is going to be done at all. Reasons are stated in my prev post. It's a balancing and time issue. 2 modules would be bad imo, rather make 2 new scripts.
Maybe, but the why do it at all is still a mystery. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 22:41:00 -
[3489] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Maybe, but the why do it at all is still a mystery.
Think about what would be possible if there's no way to counter TE/TC. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 22:44:00 -
[3490] - Quote
I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;) |
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
235
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 22:49:00 -
[3491] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;)
You realise fall-off is a bad thing right? Why would you want it?
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 22:50:00 -
[3492] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;)
No TD for missiles = no TE/TC for missiles It's as simple as that.
By your logic: to use TDs you don't need any gunnery skills so why would they affect turrets? |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 22:57:00 -
[3493] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Maybe, but the why do it at all is still a mystery. Think about what would be possible if there's no way to counter TE/TC.
Thats chicken & egg though - why introduce either? |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
235
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 23:03:00 -
[3494] - Quote
They should just make eccm reduce the effect of tds, then the people who don't want to use eccm "becasue thats all its good for" but still cry about ecm and the people scared of omg omnitds could all have a big group hug. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 23:12:00 -
[3495] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Thats chicken & egg though - why introduce either?
So you want them to buff base stats for missiles? That's actually a very bad idea. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 23:21:00 -
[3496] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Thats chicken & egg though - why introduce either? So you want them to buff base stats for missiles? That's actually a very bad idea. Why? Because then missiles would be the only viable weapon system in the game.
Doesn't need to be that specifically, get the hulls competitive first (however you do it), then add more dynamics to it.
Most missile boats are not great today, making them weaker today in anticpation of a balance patch/xpack 6/12/18 months away is not really the way to go, imo.
Imagine if, instead of buffing hybrids when they did, they instead made them worse with plans to buff the hulls a year later... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 23:47:00 -
[3497] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Doesn't need to be that specifically, get the hulls competitive first (however you do it), then add more dynamics to it.
Most missile boats are not great today, making them weaker today in anticpation of a balance patch/xpack 6/12/18 months away is not really the way to go, imo.
Imagine if, instead of buffing hybrids when they did, they instead made them worse with plans to buff the hulls a year later...
The problem is that it's not generally wise to rebalance all ships in one day. Real rebalancing takes time. A lot of it.
Of course there are many missile boats that need buffing but I've also seen in this thread very odd things like "cruise Raven is bad at killing frigs" and similar. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
311
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 23:48:00 -
[3498] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Thats chicken & egg though - why introduce either? So you want them to buff base stats for missiles? That's actually a very bad idea. Why? Because then missiles would be the only viable weapon system in the game. Doesn't need to be that specifically, get the hulls competitive first (however you do it), then add more dynamics to it. Most missile boats are not great today, making them weaker today in anticpation of a balance patch/xpack 6/12/18 months away is not really the way to go, imo. Imagine if, instead of buffing hybrids when they did, they instead made them worse with plans to buff the hulls a year later... Due to the order that they are doing things there will be an overlap period where either some HML platforms will be rebalanced and have current HML's thus making observing them in their intended role and tweaking them impossible in the short term, or start missile changes as soon as the first HML ship is balanced. They choose the later, balancing HML with the caracal. Almost makes me wish they did all levels of a ship size (T1/T2/Faction/etc) at the same or similar times. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 00:32:00 -
[3499] - Quote
To fit a TD and benefit from it, you need to be able to dictate range. To dictate range,you need a shield tank. Oh, that will be a problem, unless you want to fly with no tank... In fact, even with a spare mid slot, a TD won't be an obvious choice : cap injector ? web ? ECCM ? Tracking computer ? battery ? sensor booster ? more tank if shield tanked ? ASB (why not...) ?
BTW, TD will be useful only for frigates : missiles already have plenty of range, and TE/TC will give them even more ; explosion velocity/radius will probably not be so badly affected that you cannot hit BC/BS, and shield tank cruiser shouldn't see the difference either. No, I really think the only ship to benefit from TD affecting missiles will be frigates and maybe some very specific fits (and specialized ships of course).
Working TD fit are very specific, and this change will make them better, but not even fotm IMO. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 00:40:00 -
[3500] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;) You realise fall-off is a bad thing right? Why would you want it?
Err, no its not, when TEs come there and have an effect more falloff is better than less. Ask Winmatar. I agree with you its not the best to always fight in falloff, but if you have more range like that than your enemy, falloff is far from being useful.
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
311
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 00:51:00 -
[3501] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Doddy wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;) You realise fall-off is a bad thing right? Why would you want it? Err, no its not, when TEs come there and have an effect more falloff is better than less. Ask Winmatar. I agree with you its not the best to always fight in falloff, but if you have more range like that than your enemy, falloff is far from being useful. More falloff is still worse than more optimal and missiles have no falloff mechanic so they have all "optimal" out to and beyond optimal + falloff for other weapons systems. |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 01:38:00 -
[3502] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Doddy wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;) You realise fall-off is a bad thing right? Why would you want it? Err, no its not, when TEs come there and have an effect more falloff is better than less. Ask Winmatar. I agree with you its not the best to always fight in falloff, but if you have more range like that than your enemy, falloff is far from being useful. More falloff is still worse than more optimal and missiles have no falloff mechanic so they have all "optimal" out to and beyond optimal + falloff for other weapons systems. Your post has no falloff; it's just one big sentence. It's still worse than the other posts.
Missiles have variable "real" range depending on the speed and trajectory of their target. It's not unlike a short falloff interval at the end of an optimal, except that it depends on the target ship's movement. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
311
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 01:57:00 -
[3503] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Doddy wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I still dont see a reason to let TD work on missile and not give missile in the same time instant damage and falloff and wreckings. Apart from that, if missiles should be affected, some missile-skills should be needed to use a TD too ;) You realise fall-off is a bad thing right? Why would you want it? Err, no its not, when TEs come there and have an effect more falloff is better than less. Ask Winmatar. I agree with you its not the best to always fight in falloff, but if you have more range like that than your enemy, falloff is far from being useful. More falloff is still worse than more optimal and missiles have no falloff mechanic so they have all "optimal" out to and beyond optimal + falloff for other weapons systems. Your post has no falloff; it's just one big sentence. It's still worse than the other posts. Missiles have variable "real" range depending on the speed and trajectory of their target. It's not unlike a short falloff interval at the end of an optimal, except that it depends on the target ship's movement. There is no variable range, just a range that may not be expended in a linear fashion due to travel time. As such a missile may run out of travel time before reaching a target that appears to be within "range," but such is the nature of a weapon that actually travels. It's very unlike falloff as falloff reduces damage directly and increases the chances of a miss. Missile flight time is pretty boolean. It hits in time or it doesn't. Damage isn't reduced because it flew for 6 seconds instead of 5. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
98
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 03:21:00 -
[3504] - Quote
This is CCPs favorite thing to do with a contraversial thread that could use their input.
They ignore it till it dies from its own weight.
Only this time the thread was even created by CCP. |
Lili Lu
502
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 04:17:00 -
[3505] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:This is CCPs favorite thing to do with a contraversial thread that could use their input.
They ignore it till it dies from its own weight.
Only this time the thread was even created by CCP. You're so full of ****. Fozzie has responded plenty in this thread. But I don't blame him for not responding lately. Just the same tired old flawed comparisons, whines, and sometimes obvious lack of reading even the whole op, coming from people who can't get past their addiction to HMLs for the last 50 or so pages. Comparisons and whines already addressed and debunked.
Also, you've been posting a lot. Unfortunately I'm still getting the following (with plenty of time on refreshing it) for you on eve-kill:
"If you see no data, a cronjob has been submitted to calculate your monthly values. Please come back in a few minutes. Thank you for your patience"
Do you have any pvp experience? You've been playing this game almost 5 years and you have no pvp entries at all. Is all the butthurt you are posting seriously just about losing the current HML stats for pve? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 04:38:00 -
[3506] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:This is CCPs favorite thing to do with a contraversial thread that could use their input.
They ignore it till it dies from its own weight.
Only this time the thread was even created by CCP. You're so full of ****. Fozzie has responded plenty in this thread. But I don't blame him for not responding lately. Just the same tired old flawed comparisons, whines, and sometimes obvious lack of reading even the whole op, coming from people who can't get past their addiction to HMLs for the last 50 or so pages. Comparisons and whines already addressed and debunked. Also, you've been posting a lot. Unfortunately I'm still getting the following (with plenty of time on refreshing it) for you on eve-kill: "If you see no data, a cronjob has been submitted to calculate your monthly values. Please come back in a few minutes. Thank you for your patience" Do you have any pvp experience? You've been playing this game almost 5 years and you have no pvp entries at all. Is all the butthurt you are posting seriously just about losing the current HML stats for pve?
I have some pvp experience.
Hell, just took out a mackinaw and an orca with an untanked caracal about a month or so ago. (for some reason I can't find them even though I put them on Eve-Kill)
That said..I'm not big on pvp...
Also, my concern is not about losing the tengu as the missile boat of choice for high pve efficiency, but rather that I'll be losing the tengu without receiving anyting to replace it.
Nerf heavy missiles. Nerf the drake....Nerf the Tengu.... Just wait until BS rebalance before you do.
It's funny how everyone expects us missile boat pilots to give everything up because we have 2 out of how every many dps focused missille boats that are actually usable, but those very same people are unwilling to wait for these two ships to be rebalanced.
So, I don't wanna hear anymore of this "You can't stop OP ship rebalance because the others are underwhelming.."
If you wanna say that, I can just say... You can't take away our only effective ships until you give us bs balance.
They're the opposite ends of the argument. No one is right, no one is wrong. However, someone's gotta give up something, and since both the tengu and drake still die quite often, I'd say they can stay as is for a little while longer...... It's not like they're impossible to kill or anything...
OH,and nagging me about having no info listed isn't exactly the best thing for someone with no info listed to point out....
Oh, and ships having effectiveness in pve is just as important as pvp.. Otherwise, how are players supposed to earn isk to go get blown up again? |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 05:09:00 -
[3507] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Oh, and ships having effectiveness in pve is just as important as pvp.. Otherwise, how are players supposed to earn isk to go get blown up again?
They can fly a battleship like everyone else. Ever tried to do 4's in an artillery Hurricane or beam Harbinger? How about a Loki or Proteus? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 05:36:00 -
[3508] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:
They can fly a battleship like everyone else. Ever tried to do 4's in an artillery Hurricane or beam Harbinger? How about a Loki or Proteus?
Isn't this the part where I said that the drake and tengu are OP and do need balancing comes into play???
That said though, yes, they can use battleships like everyone else.
However, missile boat t1, pirate, t2, and faction battleships are all quite lack luster in pve when compared to their turret counterparts.
I've gone through will all skills 5 and built lvl 4 mission fits for every battleship in game.
I was unable to make a comperable fit with missile boat bs's to turret boat bs's without using pirate and faction mods.
That's without the turret boats having to fit faction/ ded.
Well, at least not till getting into pirate bs's.
All of the turret Marauders are quite effective in lvl 4's, however, they share the same issues.
Now, the Golem is a bit under par in comparison.
However, we do not have a pirate missile boat with high efficiency in lvl 4 missions either.
The Rattlesnake is far from being on par. It's a drone boat and sucks with missiles. Perhaps if they buffed it and gave it some high effectiveness with torps on top of drones, then maybe...
The point is that if we want a dps focused missile boat with high efficiency in pve, then the Tengu is the top of the line due to both its OP nature, and the subpar nature of missile boat bs's.
So, when you introduce me to a missile bs with the efficiency of a comperable turret boat, then maybe we can talk about using a bs. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
311
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 06:18:00 -
[3509] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: Isn't this the part where I said that the drake and tengu are OP and do need balancing comes into play???
Yet with both it's the base attributes of the weapon that makes them a feasible choice. I can get similar levels of tank and superior DPS from a proteus or legion but the range makes them much less ideal as all that DPS is lost to travel time. The systems even have similar bonuses on the other hulls but only the tengu ends up really standing out.
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Now, the Golem is a bit under par in comparison. Yes, the lack of a damage bonus other than the role bonus and torp drawbacks hurt it there but here's hoping that this change can help that issue in one regard.
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:The Rattlesnake is far from being on par. It's a drone boat and sucks with missiles. Perhaps if they buffed it and gave it some high effectiveness with torps on top of drones, then maybe. I would gladly take this new missile and drone beast, but I doubt it will happen. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 06:22:00 -
[3510] - Quote
Loading a TE or two onto a Raven/CNR/Golem will really help out a lot. They're probably going to need just a bit more love beyond that, but it's something. I don't think they're quite as bad as you seem to imply.
Food for thought, it took several *years* for the EVE population at large to realize that the Golem wasn't better than the Vargur (even after the falloff change to TC/TE). |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 06:53:00 -
[3511] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Loading a TE or two onto a Raven/CNR/Golem will really help out a lot. They're probably going to need just a bit more love beyond that, but it's something. I don't think they're quite as bad as you seem to imply.
Food for thought, it took several *years* for the EVE population at large to realize that the Golem wasn't better than the Vargur (even after the falloff change to TC/TE).
The only reason the golem would be able to fit tcs is because of the tank bonus while the raven and navy raven are so bad with cap and tank that you can't really risk any slots for efficiency without starting to fit faction and pirate mods. However, most turret boats can retain decent efficiency with a t2 fit and become more effective with faction and pirate mods.
The closest we get to being on par with turret boats is with the scorpion navy, and this is only due to 8 mid slots allowing for tank and target painters/ tcs after expac. However, it has sub par dps and isnt compensated through other means such as tanking ability or something else.
Bs class missile boats seriously need some balancing.
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 07:06:00 -
[3512] - Quote
Which t1 BS would you say clearly outclass the Raven in missions? I'll try and whip up some EFT-warrior fits that take the changes into account.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 07:58:00 -
[3513] - Quote
Well, for me the point is - if after this patch Caldari will have
a) one or more viable, competitive missile DPS-combat tech 1 hulls above frig size
b) one or more viable, competitive missile DPS PvE tech 1 hulls for l4s (viable - tanks like the best tech 1s of the other races and gets killspeeds like the best tier 1s of other races)
c) CMs, Torps and HAMs which are in line with ACs and Arty in those sizes, and HML which are in line with medium Arty
d) a competitive Drake which is not 4th of 4 tier 2s in short range (as it is now) and 4th of 4 in long range (which it would be, if those changes would go through) but either top in one and last in other (as it is now), or on par with both
then I will not complain...
As far as I can see, we will have none of the above, when we should in fact have all of them. Let me point this out:
for a) we have atm the Drake (and to a lesser degree the Tengu, although its not tech 1), for b) we have cheap Drake, a bit more expensive NH and most expensive Tengu. Tengu is a great mission runner, if kinetic damage is the one of choice, and performs a fair bit worse with other enemies. Its behind top mission ships, which are pirate faction though except Vargur (and in some cases Paladin). Make the Golem on par with the Vargur and I wont complain about that specific loss, but for others it might suck.
for c) we have HML which are a bit OP (although in real game much less OP than paper stats might let you believe) and for d) we have the situation as described. Drake is OP only in nullsec, in all other things its pretty balanced in its class.
If those changes come true, you will see every little bit of whats there will be gone, and its not certain when the changes for good will come. For myself I see no reason why this should be OK, and as I see with all those reactions there are many others who feel the same. Bring us in line, ok, but the result should also be, that there are not 11 Winmatar ships in top 20 list, and just 1 (!) missile system in top dealer list. out of 20 there should be 4 of each race and 4 pirate ships. And in weapons it should be similar too. Else it is simply not balanced. And seriously, to those who say "crosstrain" - all of you had plenty of time to adapt to what you call OP. Still I dont see Drakes only in PvP in lowsec or in highsec, why is that? Because you refuse to learn? Or maybe just because the Drake simply is NOT OP in this environment? I never got an answer to this other than "but in nullsec" ... and I really dont wonder why ...
short resume - if Caldari are in line after this patch in a way they are balanced for PvE and PvP with missile tech 1 hulls, then I am fine. If not then I am not. My concerns are it will end up with option 2... now do some work Devs, and dont hesitate to ask those who know about missile ships, should be easy for you to find them.
best regards
PS: Icing on the cake would be, to get a missile-Machariel though, a fast ship with really strong short range weapons which shoot to long range without losing too much DPS ... and no, I dont see why you shouldnt do that. You did if for gunnery too, and left it in the game for ages. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 08:27:00 -
[3514] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Make the Golem on par with the Vargur and I wont complain about that specific loss, but for others it might suck.
Actually you're asking 70+ km torp Golem with same tank Vargur has. A bit OP... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 08:40:00 -
[3515] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Make the Golem on par with the Vargur and I wont complain about that specific loss, but for others it might suck. Actually you're asking 70+ km torp Golem with same tank Vargur has. A bit OP...
Why is it OP if the Golem can do what the Vargur can? That would mean the Vargur is OP then, right? :) I think it would be balance, if Caldari could do with missiles what Winmatar can do atm with projectiles . But yeah, as Winmatar it maybe feels wrong when others have the same like you have.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 09:07:00 -
[3516] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Eckyy wrote:Loading a TE or two onto a Raven/CNR/Golem will really help out a lot. They're probably going to need just a bit more love beyond that, but it's something. I don't think they're quite as bad as you seem to imply.
Food for thought, it took several *years* for the EVE population at large to realize that the Golem wasn't better than the Vargur (even after the falloff change to TC/TE). The only reason the golem would be able to fit tcs is because of the tank bonus while the raven and navy raven are so bad with cap and tank that you can't really risk any slots for efficiency without starting to fit faction and pirate mods. However, most turret boats can retain decent efficiency with a t2 fit and become more effective with faction and pirate mods.
Do us all a favor go park outside a mission hub and scan all of the missions battleships passing by. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that 80% of them are faction, if not deadspace fit.
....Hell my Navy Domi is still in Empire somewhere, it may have a T2 mod on it...like two. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 09:25:00 -
[3517] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Why is it OP if the Golem can do what the Vargur can? That would mean the Vargur is OP then, right? :) I think it would be balance, if Caldari could do with missiles what Winmatar can do atm with projectiles . But yeah, as Winmatar it maybe feels wrong when others have the same like you have.
Easy answer, falloff. You know how much damage that Vargur (or Machariel) is doing at 70km? Not bloody much Where you hit for 2400(ish) a cycle in close to GET to 70km you have to load barrage, which aint cheap and once you do you are hitting for a couple hundred a cycle that far out It takes a while to kill frigs.. Generally you use either the Vargur or Mach at 40km with barrage or (like the mach) you add an AB and basically run BS to BS and let the drone deal with the little crap. No one does missions from 70km with 800mm repeaters, you wouldn't be able to carry enough ammo.
I didnt say you need to be able to hit to 70km with Rage Torps. All I want is this: Rage Torps work as fine as ACs do in Machariel and Vargur with high damage ammo, pricetag of Torps ISK/damage should be same as with ACs, i.e. if you deal a specific ammount of damage with one weapon system you dont burn more or less money than with the other, and on the ammount of damage is similar in similar ranges. Ofc I know this means AC have to deal a little bit more in 5km, but then again they will also deal a bit less in 45km. For the far falloff range Javelins should be able to do similar damage like ACs too. So, how is this unbalanced? Winmatar can do it, why should Caldari be NOT able to do it?
I didnt even come to that point of speed of ships, and also not to the application of damage to smaller targets ... nor flight time. But your reaction is unmasking indeed - how can that Caldari scum expect to have a fine working system as ours?
Btw about your point of how much a Vargur or Machariel is doing at 70 .. I know, I have them both. And yes, its a fair bit less than what the high EFT numbers make you believe. Still, esp. the Mach can cover distances so fast it will be inside its envelope of doom in a few seconds. Something the Golem cant ...
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 09:41:00 -
[3518] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Why is it OP if the Golem can do what the Vargur can? That would mean the Vargur is OP then, right? :) I think it would be balance, if Caldari could do with missiles what Winmatar can do atm with projectiles . But yeah, as Winmatar it maybe feels wrong when others have the same like you have.
Easy answer, falloff. You know how much damage that Vargur (or Machariel) is doing at 70km? Not bloody much Where you hit for 2400(ish) a cycle in close to GET to 70km you have to load barrage, which aint cheap and once you do you are hitting for a couple hundred a cycle that far out It takes a while to kill frigs.. Generally you use either the Vargur or Mach at 40km with barrage or (like the mach) you add an AB and basically run BS to BS and let the drone deal with the little crap. No one does missions from 70km with 800mm repeaters, you wouldn't be able to carry enough ammo. I didnt say you need to be able to hit to 70km with Rage Torps. All I want is this: Rage Torps work as fine as ACs do in Machariel and Vargur with high damage ammo, pricetag of Torps ISK/damage should be same as with ACs, i.e. if you deal a specific ammount of damage with one weapon system you dont burn more or less money than with the other, and on the ammount of damage is similar in similar ranges. Ofc I know this means AC have to deal a little bit more in 5km, but then again they will also deal a bit less in 45km. For the far falloff range Javelins should be able to do similar damage like ACs too. So, how is this unbalanced? Winmatar can do it, why should Caldari be NOT able to do it? I didnt even come to that point of speed of ships, and also not to the application of damage to smaller targets ... nor flight time. But your reaction is unmasking indeed - how can that Caldari scum expect to have a fine working system as ours? Btw about your point of how much a Vargur or Machariel is doing at 70 .. I know, I have them both. And yes, its a fair bit less than what the high EFT numbers make you believe. Still, esp. the Mach can cover distances so fast it will be inside its envelope of doom in a few seconds. Something the Golem cant ...
You got me there. I've never bothered with the BS missiles, plan on training Torps up next week. for that matter. If the changes got through like I think they are going to, expect the nano torp-phoon-of-doom to be coming to a system near you.
Of course I never bothered with Marauders either, the idea is cool and all, but I bought the Machariel first, and its just too good.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 10:27:00 -
[3519] - Quote
Haha ! What a joke : people who have not read the thread complain about CCP not reading ! Crazy ! But the best part is when you realize that *nothing* have been said which don't have been answered before the page 70...
100 of pages just because people haven't read... And now people are complaining about the best tool to fool a poor AI and call this balance... |
FleetAdmiralHarper
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 11:18:00 -
[3520] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
*zooms out-from my house to space.* *earth and the camera shake*
NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i get your reasoning for the nerf, HOW EVER, i submit this to you. buff other "long range weapons and damage" to be on par with heavy missiles.
as it stands i have a ferox (designed for hybrids and rails) but i run heavy's on it. why? not because i dont like them, because its been my experience that the damage of rails is so pitiful, it cant even crack a moderate passive tank on a ship. which is sad.
please don't make it imposable for us to kill things at range with this nerf.. which is exactly what will happen. as it stands heavy missiles/cruise are my only option.
PS: cruise missiles could use a tiny damage buff. like 10-15, and torps 20-30
oh and a navy issue rokh plox?? with 98ms standard speed, a 125m3 drone bay. and 8 slots for missiles or rails. and ship bonuses to go either way. =)
1st forum post. i had to try =P i want a smexy rokh =P XD |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 11:59:00 -
[3521] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Why is it OP if the Golem can do what the Vargur can? That would mean the Vargur is OP then, right? :) I think it would be balance, if Caldari could do with missiles what Winmatar can do atm with projectiles . But yeah, as Winmatar it maybe feels wrong when others have the same like you have.
Because you're asking a bit too much: - Speed of Mach - 1100+ dps at 70 km (just for comparison: Nightmare can do this only at 50 km) - Instantly hitting missiles - Vargur's tank |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 12:22:00 -
[3522] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Why is it OP if the Golem can do what the Vargur can? That would mean the Vargur is OP then, right? :) I think it would be balance, if Caldari could do with missiles what Winmatar can do atm with projectiles . But yeah, as Winmatar it maybe feels wrong when others have the same like you have.
Because you're asking a bit too much: - Speed of Mach - 1100+ dps at 70 km (just for comparison: Nightmare can do this only at 50 km) - Instantly hitting missiles - Vargur's tank - Apoc's capacitor
Sir, show me now, where I demanded any of those.
I never said I want the speed of a Mach for the Golem, nor did I say I want to be able to deal 1.1k DPS at 70km, nor did I say instantly hitting Torps (although its funny you say it would be OP to demand them ..), nor Vargurs tank as it is, nor Apocs Cap.
To claim I asked for that list you posted is just a lie.
I said I-¦d be fine with competitive performance of a Golem in PvE compared to the current top. And no one can argue Vargur/Mach (and in certain missions Mare) are NOT OP as they are now. I want to be able to deal same DPS like a Vargur can, accepting my ship is 1/3rd slower (!) and just be able to perform with a Golem/Torp in Missions the same like a Machariel/Vargur with AC. If you think thats too much to ask for, then you are saying basically if others want to be as good as Minmatar/Projectile then they want to be OP. Unmasking, indeed. |
Onslaughtor
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 12:46:00 -
[3523] - Quote
I would just like to request that change to the HAM's power grid that was talked about. I feel it would make the weapon more useful. Because even with the HM changes, its going to be easier to modify my fit to do the same thing as the current drake but at the cost of only a fraction of the tank loss. I'd rather fit HAMs and work up but thats really hard as its stands now. Also my Sacrilege and Legion would love you for it. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:20:00 -
[3524] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I never said I want the speed of a Mach for the Golem, nor did I say I want to be able to deal 1.1k DPS at 70km, nor did I say instantly hitting Torps (although its funny you say it would be OP to demand them ..), nor Vargurs tank as it is, nor Apocs Cap.
You or someone else said it's not acceptable that there's BS as fast as Mach. You or someone else said it's impossible to permarun T2 shield booster in Golem (= cap issue). You or someone else said it's not acceptable that there's weapon systems that don't follow laws of physics. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:25:00 -
[3525] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote:I would just like to request that change to the HAM's power grid that was talked about. I feel it would make the weapon more useful. Because even with the HM changes, its going to be easier to modify my fit to do the same thing as the current drake but at the cost of only a fraction of the tank loss. I'd rather fit HAMs and work up but thats really hard as its stands now. Also my Sacrilege and Legion would love you for it.
Unless they change the sacrilege to a drone boat but yes the medium launchers do need to be looked at the RML is so much easier to fit than HAMS although why you want to i don't know especially now these missile dessies eradicate the need for light missiles on a cruiser. Thus they should change the RML to use different ammo say a new missile called light assault basically a mixture of light missile and Heavy assault missile giving a missile designed to kill cruisers well with good damage because as we know HAMS are best for killing bc's really unless you have a TP like a bellicose. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
28
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 13:26:00 -
[3526] - Quote
bizarre double post then for some reason |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:05:00 -
[3527] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I never said I want the speed of a Mach for the Golem, nor did I say I want to be able to deal 1.1k DPS at 70km, nor did I say instantly hitting Torps (although its funny you say it would be OP to demand them ..), nor Vargurs tank as it is, nor Apocs Cap. You or someone else said it's not acceptable that there's BS as fast as Mach. You or someone else said it's impossible to permarun T2 shield booster in Golem (= cap issue). You or someone else said it's not acceptable that there's weapon systems that don't follow laws of physics.
Was not me, so get your facts straight. I said, I want the Golem/Torpfitted to be able to perform as well as a Vargur/ACfitted in missions l4. And thats not too much to ask for, but just balance, no? Apart from that, I would also like to see any missile ship be able to perform as well as a Machariel, in missions and PvP. Too much? I think not.
Thats what I really hate here - people say "you have to accept Drake is OP blablabla, thats why it needs to be nerfed" and in the same time deny, that there are other OP platforms (for years now) and if Caldari want a competitive ship they get told "adapt or die". No. Either we keep our so called OPs and you do too, or it gets levelled for all. Not just nerfbat to Drake and Winmatar-Opness should go on.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:21:00 -
[3528] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I never said I want the speed of a Mach for the Golem, nor did I say I want to be able to deal 1.1k DPS at 70km, nor did I say instantly hitting Torps (although its funny you say it would be OP to demand them ..), nor Vargurs tank as it is, nor Apocs Cap. You or someone else said it's not acceptable that there's BS as fast as Mach. You or someone else said it's impossible to permarun T2 shield booster in Golem (= cap issue). You or someone else said it's not acceptable that there's weapon systems that don't follow laws of physics. Was not me, so get your facts straight. I said, I want the Golem/Torpfitted to be able to perform as well as a Vargur/ACfitted in missions l4. And thats not too much to ask for, but just balance, no? Apart from that, I would also like to see at least one missile ship (and it may be pirate faction, ofc) be able to perform as well as a Machariel, in missions and PvP. Too much? I think not. Thats what I really hate here - people say "you have to accept Drake is OP blablabla, thats why it needs to be nerfed" and in the same time deny, that there are other OP platforms (for years now) and if Caldari want a competitive ship they get told "adapt or die". No. Either we keep our so called OPs and you do too, or it gets levelled for all. Not just nerfbat to Drake and Winmatar-Opness should go on.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:25:00 -
[3529] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Was not me, so get your facts straight. I said, I want the Golem/Torpfitted to be able to perform as well as a Vargur/ACfitted in missions l4. And thats not too much to ask for, but just balance, no? Apart from that, I would also like to see at least one missile ship (and it may be pirate faction, ofc) be able to perform as well as a Machariel, in missions and PvP. Too much? I think not.
Thats what I really hate here - people say "you have to accept Drake is OP blablabla, thats why it needs to be nerfed" and in the same time deny, that there are other OP platforms (for years now) and if Caldari want a competitive ship they get told "adapt or die". No. Either we keep our so called OPs and you do too, or it gets levelled for all. Not just nerfbat to Drake and Winmatar-Opness should go on.
Problem: you want to use current FOTM setup Solution: ?
Why don't you just train to fly Vargur/Mach if you think they are best ships? |
Lili Lu
503
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:28:00 -
[3530] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
I have some pvp experience.
Hell, just took out a mackinaw and an orca with an untanked caracal about a month or so ago. (for some reason I can't find them even though I put them on Eve-Kill)
That said..I'm not big on pvp...
Also, my concern is not about losing the tengu as the missile boat of choice for high pve efficiency, but rather that I'll be losing the tengu without receiving anyting to replace it.
Nerf heavy missiles. Nerf the drake....Nerf the Tengu.... Just wait until BS rebalance before you do.
It's funny how everyone expects us missile boat pilots to give everything up because we have 2 out of how every many dps focused missille boats that are actually usable, but those very same people are unwilling to wait for these two ships to be rebalanced.
So, I don't wanna hear anymore of this "You can't stop OP ship rebalance because the others are underwhelming.."
If you wanna say that, I can just say... You can't take away our only effective ships until you give us bs balance.
They're the opposite ends of the argument. No one is right, no one is wrong. However, someone's gotta give up something, and since both the tengu and drake still die quite often, I'd say they can stay as is for a little while longer...... It's not like they're impossible to kill or anything...
OH,and nagging me about having no info listed isn't exactly the best thing for someone with no info listed to point out....
Oh, and ships having effectiveness in pve is just as important as pvp.. Otherwise, how are players supposed to earn isk to go get blown up again?
Two pvp kills, and ganks on a couple idustrial ships at that, does not qualify you to post anything about pvp.
And, yeah, I have not been pvp-ing on Lili for months. Meanwhile I pvp regularly on another character. Regardless, Lili has over 2000 kills if you wait for the cronjob. I waited for your cronjob but it never changed. The point is with all your posting you should clarify that as to pvp you have no ability to comment.
As for your whine about no adequate missile boats for pve, it is just that, a whine. Prior to the Tengu the king of pve was the raven and navy raven. The CNR is still a great missile boat. The navy scorp is as well from what I hear. The regular Raven is no worse than any of the other base battleships for missioning. I don't know where you come up with your complaints or what you put you sp into. It appears not to be into any other weapon system than heavy missiles.
Now if you are loading sp into science and industry skills that's fine. Just don't come on here and post up a storm and pretending to know anything about all the weapon systems in the game and how HMLs currently do and soon will stack up against any other weapon system. Because, you clearly do not know these things other than what you perceive from eft. |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:37:00 -
[3531] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Was not me, so get your facts straight. I said, I want the Golem/Torpfitted to be able to perform as well as a Vargur/ACfitted in missions l4. And thats not too much to ask for, but just balance, no? Apart from that, I would also like to see at least one missile ship (and it may be pirate faction, ofc) be able to perform as well as a Machariel, in missions and PvP. Too much? I think not.
If only CCP would introduce some sort of medslot missile "tracking computer" that would assist the damage application of torps.
Seriously though, your argument is bad. The Machariel is generally understood to be the best PVP BS, and it's probably the best PVE one too. It is self-evidently absurd to argue that a ship needs to be boosted because it's inferior to a Mach.
Now, OTOH, if you were to argue that the Mach was overpowered and deserved toning down, then you'd have a better argument, especially since CCP admitted to a communication failure when dealing with the falloff bonus to TEs and the Mach. But you're not doing this. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:38:00 -
[3532] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Was not me, so get your facts straight. I said, I want the Golem/Torpfitted to be able to perform as well as a Vargur/ACfitted in missions l4. And thats not too much to ask for, but just balance, no? Apart from that, I would also like to see at least one missile ship (and it may be pirate faction, ofc) be able to perform as well as a Machariel, in missions and PvP. Too much? I think not.
Thats what I really hate here - people say "you have to accept Drake is OP blablabla, thats why it needs to be nerfed" and in the same time deny, that there are other OP platforms (for years now) and if Caldari want a competitive ship they get told "adapt or die". No. Either we keep our so called OPs and you do too, or it gets levelled for all. Not just nerfbat to Drake and Winmatar-Opness should go on. Problem: you want to use current FOTM setup Solution: ? Why don't you just train to fly Vargur/Mach if you think they are best ships?
And that does not apply to the Drake and Tengu then either?
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 14:41:00 -
[3533] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: Was not me, so get your facts straight. I said, I want the Golem/Torpfitted to be able to perform as well as a Vargur/ACfitted in missions l4. And thats not too much to ask for, but just balance, no? Apart from that, I would also like to see at least one missile ship (and it may be pirate faction, ofc) be able to perform as well as a Machariel, in missions and PvP. Too much? I think not.
If only CCP would introduce some sort of medslot missile "tracking computer" that would assist the damage application of torps. Seriously though, your argument is bad. The Machariel is generally understood to be the best PVP BS, and it's probably the best PVE one too. It is self-evidently absurd to argue that a ship needs to be boosted because it's inferior to a Mach. Now, OTOH, if you were to argue that the Mach was overpowered and deserved toning down, then you'd have a better argument, especially since CCP admitted to a communication failure when dealing with the falloff bonus to TEs and the Mach. But you're not doing this.
I dont speak mainly of the MACHARIEL in my postings here, I speak about the comparison Golem to Vargur. Machariel is my last point, there is no missile BS comparable to it. Why? I can tell you the reason, and I already did ...
And yes, I did exactly this: I said many times I accept a trade of so called OP ships. If Winmatar get in line with the rest (or the other way round) I gladly accept the Drake to be in line in long range battles with its peers. I would expect it to be in line close range then too, though.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:00:00 -
[3534] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:And yes, I did exactly this: I said many times I accept a trade of so called OP ships. If Winmatar get in line with the rest (or the other way round) I gladly accept the Drake to be in line in long range battles with its peers. I would expect it will be in line close range too, though.
HAM Drake has more EHP than any other tier 2 BC and has around same dps as Harbinger with Navy Multi but twice the range.
Why it's so important to have one ship that can do everything? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:20:00 -
[3535] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:[Besides, your point is it would be absurd to demand another BS to be as good as the Mach, so wouldnt it be absurd then too to demand other BC are as good as the Drake?
This is incoherent, I've no idea what you're trying to say. Nobody here is asking for other BCs to be boosted to the Drake's level and CCP is not proposing it. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:27:00 -
[3536] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:And yes, I did exactly this: I said many times I accept a trade of so called OP ships. If Winmatar get in line with the rest (or the other way round) I gladly accept the Drake to be in line in long range battles with its peers. I would expect it will be in line close range too, though. HAM Drake has more EHP than any other tier 2 BC and has around same dps as Harbinger with Navy Multi but twice the range. Why it's so important to have one ship that can do everything?
for most ppl here its because they dont fly anything else, so they NEED a ship that can do everything. A lot of ppl here haven't even considered cross training either.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:30:00 -
[3537] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:And yes, I did exactly this: I said many times I accept a trade of so called OP ships. If Winmatar get in line with the rest (or the other way round) I gladly accept the Drake to be in line in long range battles with its peers. I would expect it will be in line close range too, though. HAM Drake has more EHP than any other tier 2 BC and has around same dps as Harbinger with Navy Multi but twice the range. Why it's so important to have one ship that can do everything?
Answer to my question instead, will you? Why is it ok to have OP Winmatar ships everywhere, but OP Caldari must get nerfed? Your question is really funny, the Drake is the worst in tier 2 BC CLOSE RANGE 1on1, has been proven many times and if you just go a few pages back you see how someone who claimed something else pulled back when I offered him a 1on1. Eve is not EFT, Eve is not *only* DPS,EHP and range. That has been my point and the one of others before. The Drake is not a ship which can do everything. Basically, it will lose when too close to its counterparts. It can win if the others are tackled and Drake is in good range.
The fact Eve is not just EFT but a complete sum of all attributes is why HML are not OP as a system. Even if numbers tell something else, the hulls which use the system come into play. HML are admitted strong on Tengu and Drake, esp in comparison to other long range med size systems. This could be adressed at, should be adressed at too. But in the same time the known issues of *all* other med and large sized missile systems should be adressed at too: bring Torps to AC level and actual performance, if needed also by buffing the hulls which use them, same for CM and HAM.
Its a matter of fact: CM and Torps dont work for Caldari in PvP, and they dont work too well for others either (Torp phoon, no sure about that one). AC and Arty work very well, and to a degree where ppl use on other ship hulls too. So yes, I want Torps and CMs work as well as AC and Arty. And HAMs like med AC. And then its completely ok for me, if med Arty is completely in line with HML, either by buffing one or nerfing the other.
If you think thats not fair, then *you* are the one who wants a not balanced game. Atm balance is there in a very rough scheme like: Caldari have the Drake to fight with missiles, Amarr have their BS and the Oracle, Gallente have some of their BS, and 2 BC (because the Naga uses Hybrids too ..), Winmatar have nearly everything. Caldari do have the Rokh, if they leave missiles alone.
I personally dont think, this is balanced. But if you want to nerf Drake, then nerf all those working other ships too, so every race will have options in every class. And no, killing a ship first and then maybe buff another one some time later is not an option for me. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:32:00 -
[3538] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Besides, your point is it would be absurd to demand another BS to be as good as the Mach, so wouldnt it be absurd then too to demand other BC are as good as the Drake? I am sure the Drake is far more balanced in its class then the Mach is with other Pirate BS, and even more with other BS which are non-pirate. Its unmasking, again :-)
lol drake does not cost a bil and require two races to skill for. also, other faction BS's do compete well with mach, over powering it in their roles. But the mach IS a good all rounder
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:37:00 -
[3539] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:[Besides, your point is it would be absurd to demand another BS to be as good as the Mach, so wouldnt it be absurd then too to demand other BC are as good as the Drake? This is incoherent, I've no idea what you're trying to say. Nobody here is asking for other BCs to be boosted to the Drake's level and CCP is not proposing it.
You want other BC to be in line with the Drake. Right or wrong?
I said, I am fine with it. But I want other ships of Caldari also to be in line with their rivals, ships like Raven, Golem ... and I want this done in the same time or before. There is simply no reason for Caldari on the receiving end all the time, and call this bullsh*t then "balance".
I never demanded any *Caldari* ship to be as good (OP!) as the Machariel. But I want a missile ship (pirate faction) which is doing what the Mach is doing now - zooming around, deliver close range DPS with its Torps to absurd distances. Or nerf the Machariel, whatever you like better, so it will be in line. And I want the Golem to perform like the Vargur (which is only a short bit behind the Machariel in PvE btw ...), in range, DPS and application of those.
Thats nothing absurd, thats just balance.
So, do you agree this has to be done or not? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:41:00 -
[3540] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I never demanded any *Caldari* ship to be as good (OP!) as the Machariel. But I want a missile ship (pirate faction) which is doing what the Mach is doing now - zooming around, deliver close range DPS with its Torps to absurd distances. Or nerf the Machariel, whatever you like better, so it will be in line.
There is no missile pirate faction, so you can't have one. Deal with it.
Feel free to start a thread asking for the Mach to be nerfed though, I'll +1 it. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
100
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:43:00 -
[3541] - Quote
Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Eckyy wrote:Loading a TE or two onto a Raven/CNR/Golem will really help out a lot. They're probably going to need just a bit more love beyond that, but it's something. I don't think they're quite as bad as you seem to imply.
Food for thought, it took several *years* for the EVE population at large to realize that the Golem wasn't better than the Vargur (even after the falloff change to TC/TE). The only reason the golem would be able to fit tcs is because of the tank bonus while the raven and navy raven are so bad with cap and tank that you can't really risk any slots for efficiency without starting to fit faction and pirate mods. However, most turret boats can retain decent efficiency with a t2 fit and become more effective with faction and pirate mods. Do us all a favor go park outside a mission hub and scan all of the missions battleships passing by. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that 80% of them are faction, if not deadspace fit. ....Hell my Navy Domi is still in Empire somewhere, it may have a T2 mod on it...like two.
I didn't say no one faction or pirate fits modules.
What I said was that missile boat bs's must faction/pirate fit in order to have the efficiency of a turret boat with a t2 fit.
That means that your special faction domi with all ded/faction modules is more powerful than a navy raven or navy scorpion with all ded/faction modules.
My point is that turret boats are always at least 1 step ahead in every area except damage selection. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:52:00 -
[3542] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I personally dont think, this is balanced. But if you want to nerf Drake, then nerf all those working other ships too, so every race will have options in every class. And no, killing a ship first and then maybe buff another one some time later is not an option for me.
Do you think they could rebalance everything for next expansion?
What if they would tweaked heavy missiles after they have finished with T3s and before that we would have "balanced" missile ships with new heavy missile stats but missiles in game would be with older stats? Would you say those ships are broken? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:53:00 -
[3543] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Haha ! What a joke : people who have not read the thread complain about CCP not reading ! Crazy ! But the best part is when you realize that *nothing* have been said which don't have been answered before the page 70...
100 of pages just because people haven't read... And now people are complaining about the best tool to fool a poor AI and call this balance...
I don't know if you're knocking on me or if you're knocking on CCP.
Your comment doesn't seem cohesive.
That said, CCP has not commented on anything in quite a few pages.
The comments that they have given have been along the lines of a politician.
They answer questions that are easy answers and/or are rather just gicing more explanation on a topic they have already listed.
There are many questions that haven't been answered that won't get answered because.....well...I don't know... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:55:00 -
[3544] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: I never demanded any *Caldari* ship to be as good (OP!) as the Machariel. But I want a missile ship (pirate faction) which is doing what the Mach is doing now - zooming around, deliver close range DPS with its Torps to absurd distances. Or nerf the Machariel, whatever you like better, so it will be in line.
There is no missile pirate faction, so you can't have one. Deal with it. Feel free to start a thread asking for the Mach to be nerfed though, I'll +1 it.
I tell you something, even if there was one, their BS would suck in comparison to the Mach, just because large AC are so OP. The Mach just shows how OP AC really are, but in PvE the Vargur is not much behind.
Btw, I am not pleased at all by your tendency to completely ignore my questions. They are not rhethorical. Do you agree on the fact there is no reason why the Caldari Marauder should be worse than the Minmatar Marauder, and since it is atm not (neither with long nor with short range weapons) there is a need to buff both the systems and the ship, or nerf the Vargur so its in line with the Golem?
And do you agree on the fact, the same applies to all Caldari missile hulls except the Drake and Tengu, and to all systems like Torp, CM, and to a degree also HAM?
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:56:00 -
[3545] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:
oh and a navy issue rokh plox?? with 98ms standard speed, a 125m3 drone bay. and 8 slots for missiles or rails. and ship bonuses to go either way. =)
1st forum post. i had to try =P i want a smexy rokh =P XD
Torp boat navy Rokh with resistance bonuses.
Yes please!!!! |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 15:59:00 -
[3546] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I tell you something, even if there was one, their BS would suck in comparison to the Mach, just because large AC are so OP. The Mach just shows how OP AC really are, but in PvE the Vargur is not much behind.
Apoc + MPL II + Scorch = 70km optimal
Yeah, let's take away the only thing that makes short range pulse laser decent... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:04:00 -
[3547] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I personally dont think, this is balanced. But if you want to nerf Drake, then nerf all those working other ships too, so every race will have options in every class. And no, killing a ship first and then maybe buff another one some time later is not an option for me. Do you think they could rebalance everything for next expansion? What if they would tweaked heavy missiles after they have finished with T3s and before that we would have "balanced" missile ships with new heavy missile stats but missiles in game would be with older stats? Would you say those ships are broken?
I think there are things which have to be done for *years*: CMs and Torps should be usable in PvP (and as a side-effect, also in PvE, but I agree on Eve should not be balanced around PvE). As long as those issues are not solved I am complete against changing anything else. Make tech 1 BS hull PvP balanced over all 4 races, bring pirate BS and tech 2 hulls in BS in line, and bring their systems in line. I am convinced it would solve the biggest part of that "Drake-issue".
So, either balance it all now, or postpone BC/HML/Drake/Cane for now and do BS instead, and their weapons. If its absolutely needed to tone down HML for because changed missile ideas would bring HML more out of line, then this should not be much issue to do, when everything else is working as intended.
To your last question: I have no idea if they will be broken then or not. I know whats broken now: Raven/CM/Torp is completely dead in PvP, be it low, high or null. Change it and you will see how Drake blobs die faster than they die now already. Bring ACs/Arty in large caliber in line with Torp/CM (and also the other 2 pairs), and adjust the hulls so its just a matter of preference which race you fly, and no longer one of winning or losing. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:06:00 -
[3548] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I tell you something, even if there was one, their BS would suck in comparison to the Mach, just because large AC are so OP. The Mach just shows how OP AC really are, but in PvE the Vargur is not much behind. Apoc + MPL II + Scorch = 70km optimal Yeah, let's take away the only thing that makes short range pulse laser decent...
What do you want to say with that statement? While I agree the Apoc has a nice range with its lasers (Pulse same as Beams/Tachys ..), I dont feel it is OP in game to a degree there is nothing which can counter it, beat it in PvE or whatever. So pls make a statement which I can understand.
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:14:00 -
[3549] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Btw, I am not pleased at all by your tendency to completely ignore my questions. They are not rhethorical. Do you agree on the fact there is no reason why the Caldari Marauder should be worse than the Minmatar Marauder, and since it is atm not (neither with long nor with short range weapons) there is a need to buff both the systems and the ship, or nerf the Vargur so its in line with the Golem?
And do you agree on the fact, the same applies to all Caldari missile hulls except the Drake and Tengu, and to all systems like Torp, CM, and to a degree also HAM?
1. Some ships have to be worse than others, equality is virtually impossible. This is not justification for change unless you can demonstrate that the gap is excessive. You should either demonstrate that the Golem is excessively poor relative to the other three Marauders and therefore deserves to be boosted, or that the Vargur is excessively good and deserves to be nerfed. Or both, conceivably. You will also need to account for the missile TCs about to introduced. This is tricky because we don't know their stats. Since I don't run missions, I can comment no further, but you will probably need to post mission completion times for a representative sample of L4 missions in various factions' space.
2. Rocket platforms are fine, HAM Drake is fine, Manticore is fine. Cruise Raven is lol useless but this isn't only a problem with Cruise, but also one with instprobing and on-grid warps. Torp Raven needs something, not sure whether it should be something to do with torp damage application or the Raven itself. SML platforms are a bit niche but are getting boosted, opinion will have to wait. Likewise Caracal, although all cruisers suffer from being effectively low-tier battlecruisers. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:15:00 -
[3550] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:What do you want to say with that statement? While I agree the Apoc has a nice range with its lasers (Pulse same as Beams/Tachys ..), I dont feel it is OP in game to a degree there is nothing which can counter it, beat it in PvE or whatever. So pls make a statement which I can understand.
"70km range for short range turret is so OP"
TDs are very effective against pulse lasers.
Try this: do level 4 The Blockade in Amarr space using only Apocalypse (T1 or navy, doesn't matter). In Sansha version you get TD'ed to hell and BR version you will get neuted to hell. Try to do Sansha version under 30min without switching ships at any point. You can warp out and back at range if you want but it's not going to help you. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:15:00 -
[3551] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: As for your whine about no adequate missile boats for pve, it is just that, a whine. Prior to the Tengu the king of pve was the raven and navy raven. The CNR is still a great missile boat. The navy scorp is as well from what I hear. The regular Raven is no worse than any of the other base battleships for missioning. I don't know where you come up with your complaints or what you put you sp into. It appears not to be into any other weapon system than heavy missiles.
First off, I have a tengu fit doing 705 dps with heavy missiles.
Second, try taking out a mackinaw and orca using an untanked caracal with heavy missiles. Both ships were loaded down with t2 hobs. It's not an easy task. I almost got popped by the drones since I didn't have a tank.
Lastly
Quote:The navy scorp is as well from what I hear
Exactly.
From what you hear.
How about you worry about pvp and I'll continue to worry about pve like have.
You can assume that all those ships are great boats all you want, but you would be wrong.
All the ships you listed are capable of running lvl 4 missions, however, they underperform when compared to relatable turret bs's.
The Raven looks decent on paper with cruise. It has high damage with torps at the range of the Golem. However, both it and the navy raven don't have good damage application. They basically have the slot layout of the Golem only WITHOUT a tanking bonus OR a target painer bonus.
This means they can't get tank and effective dps at the same time because they're forced to compensate one or the other.
With the scorpion navy issue, it has 8 mid slots making it able to do quite well with both tank and appliable dps. HOWEVER, the scorpion navy gets no bonus to range, so is incapable of fitting torps in a lvl 4 mission.
We've already spoken of the golem.. GO back and read if you must...
So, you can continue saying that I don't know about pvp and in that same respect, you don't have any personal experience on how missile boats perform in pve.
So, let me worry about that. |
Lili Lu
506
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 16:53:00 -
[3552] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: some stuff I've flown Typhoon, Nighthawk, and yes even Drake in level 4s. I know something about misiles and pve. Not going to argue that cruises couldn't use a slight buff. And that would just be a slight damage increase like they are doing with light missiles. They are not meant to hit smaller stuff. So any messing with the explosion parameters would not be warranted. If you want to reliably kill frigs basically you should be doing it with light drones or small turrets or launchers anyway (and please don't start another argument over blapping frigs at range, we've already hashed that out previously itt).
Conversely, it does not appear that you have much experience with turrets. And anyway the best missioning in my opinion is with drone boats and sentries (of course that doesn't translate to sleepers and whs). But back to the subject of this thread, the changes to HMs are only part of the picture. If they make your job a little more difficult then recognize the new necessity to adjust your fittings to compensate. And you will still be able to laugh at sansha TD-ing anyway. Or recognize the necessity to reevaluate your Raven et al options. Turret boats really are not any greater, unless you want to point to the Macharial and well it's on the list and I will dance the day it gets a chop right along with you.
That Drakes ever were capable of running level 4s was a mistake. One that CCP apparently didn't care about. When people started fitting buffer and not regen on pvp Drakes and the Drake numbers started to explode and it persisted and kept getting worse, they finally started taking notice (after a couple years). Your Drake will still be a decent level 3 boat, like the Harby and Cane and Myrm. It will no longer have enough damage to make it through level 4s anymore. And in the future a regen tank will still be strong enough for level 3s but not for level 4s (when the general BC rebalancing comes) I would bet.
Heavy missiles are being brought back into line with other medium long range weapons. They still will have the most alpha and dps at range. But in the future if what you seek is good pvp brawler dps you will have to HAM fit them. Just as anyone presently has to ac, pulse, or blaster fit the other BCs. Welcome to the world of fitting choices. It sucks, but a game is better when everyone doesn't gravitate to particular items or skills, while others languish in the land of misfit toys. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 17:15:00 -
[3553] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: some stuff I've flown Typhoon, Nighthawk, and yes even Drake in level 4s. I know something about misiles and pve. Not going to argue that cruises couldn't use a slight buff. And that would just be a slight damage increase like they are doing with light missiles. They are not meant to hit smaller stuff. So any messing with the explosion parameters would not be warranted. If you want to reliably kill frigs basically you should be doing it with light drones or small turrets or launchers anyway (and please don't start another argument over blapping frigs at range, we've already hashed that out previously itt). Conversely, it does not appear that you have much experience with turrets. And anyway the best missioning in my opinion is with drone boats and sentries (of course that doesn't translate to sleepers and whs). But back to the subject of this thread, the changes to HMs are only part of the picture. If they make your job a little more difficult then recognize the new necessity to adjust your fittings to compensate. And you will still be able to laugh at sansha TD-ing anyway. Or recognize the necessity to reevaluate your Raven et al options. Turret boats really are not any greater, unless you want to point to the Macharial and well it's on the list and I will dance the day it gets a chop right along with you. That Drakes ever were capable of running level 4s was a mistake. One that CCP apparently didn't care about. When people started fitting buffer and not regen on pvp Drakes and the Drake numbers started to explode and it persisted and kept getting worse, they finally started taking notice (after a couple years). Your Drake will still be a decent level 3 boat, like the Harby and Cane and Myrm. It will no longer have enough damage to make it through level 4s anymore. And in the future a regen tank will still be strong enough for level 3s but not for level 4s (when the general BC rebalancing comes) I would bet. Heavy missiles are being brought back into line with other medium long range weapons. They still will have the most alpha and dps at range. But in the future if what you seek is good pvp brawler dps you will have to HAM fit them. Just as anyone presently has to ac, pulse, or blaster fit the other BCs. Welcome to the world of fitting choices. It sucks, but a game is better when everyone doesn't gravitate to particular items or skills, while others languish in the land of misfit toys.
I agree with most of what you said...
I am in agreement that both the tengu and drake need nerfing.
However, every other missile boat needs buffing.
I dont' care that they perform these nerfs.
I would just like them to hold off until they rebalance battleships and just do it all at once. If not, then until they do balance bs's i'm stuck with no missile boats with the efficiency of a tengu, and expecially not the efficiency of some turret boats.
This is what I keep getting at.
It's not that I won't have a missile boat to use in pve, it's that all that ISK and time that I've spent on the tengu will amount to nothing while at the same time I will have nothing to replace it with, without cross training to a totally different type of weapons systems an race of ships.
Like I said with the Golem. It has the potential to be a great mission boat. It looks awesome on paper. However, once you actually get it into the mission it underperforms.
One thing I'd like to say though is that the reason that I trained for the tengu is being taken away. So, I didn't waist SP, but rather CCP is going to be making my SP useless at least for what I trained it for.
So, can I get a refund? I could use that SP towards ships and weapons that I can actually use in pve. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 17:38:00 -
[3554] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I agree with most of what you said...
I am in agreement that both the tengu and drake need nerfing.
However, every other missile boat needs buffing.
I dont' care that they perform these nerfs.
I would just like them to hold off until they rebalance battleships and just do it all at once. If not, then until they do balance bs's i'm stuck with no missile boats with the efficiency of a tengu, and expecially not the efficiency of some turret boats.
This is what I keep getting at.
It's not that I won't have a missile boat to use in pve, it's that all that ISK and time that I've spent on the tengu will amount to nothing while at the same time I will have nothing to replace it with, without cross training to a totally different type of weapons systems an race of ships.
Like I said with the Golem. It has the potential to be a great mission boat. It looks awesome on paper. However, once you actually get it into the mission it underperforms.
One thing I'd like to say though is that the reason that I trained for the tengu is being taken away. So, I didn't waist SP, but rather CCP is going to be making my SP useless at least for what I trained it for.
So, can I get a refund? I could use that SP towards ships and weapons that I can actually use in pve.
Every other missile boat may need buffing, but that's not even what this thread is about. This thread is about the reduction of the range and DPS of heavy missiles. They're giving a buff in PvE to EVERY missile ship in the form of TE's and TC's, and giving missile ships a buff in PvP as well at the cost of being vulnerable to tracking disruptors.
You can in fact fit a TE on a Golem. It might even bet worth fitting 2 if the bonuses are good enough. Tracking mods on turret ships are in many circumstances more valuable than damage mods. Depending on how the numbers work out, you may be able to forgo the Flare rigs, freeing up two rig slots for something useful like cap, tanking, damage or range rigs. The same goes for the CNR.
If after the TE change people still haven't worked out a fit on the CNR or Golem that's competitive with the Kronos and Paladin, CCP can revisit torps or the ships themselves and give them a slight buff. Notice I didn't say the Vargur - I think it's out of line. If anything, we could use a slight reduction in the amount of falloff that TE's and TC's add, like from 30% to 25% or 20% - that would almost certainly bring them in line.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 17:50:00 -
[3555] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I agree with most of what you said...
I am in agreement that both the tengu and drake need nerfing.
However, every other missile boat needs buffing.
I dont' care that they perform these nerfs.
I would just like them to hold off until they rebalance battleships and just do it all at once. If not, then until they do balance bs's i'm stuck with no missile boats with the efficiency of a tengu, and expecially not the efficiency of some turret boats.
This is what I keep getting at.
It's not that I won't have a missile boat to use in pve, it's that all that ISK and time that I've spent on the tengu will amount to nothing while at the same time I will have nothing to replace it with, without cross training to a totally different type of weapons systems an race of ships.
Like I said with the Golem. It has the potential to be a great mission boat. It looks awesome on paper. However, once you actually get it into the mission it underperforms.
One thing I'd like to say though is that the reason that I trained for the tengu is being taken away. So, I didn't waist SP, but rather CCP is going to be making my SP useless at least for what I trained it for.
So, can I get a refund? I could use that SP towards ships and weapons that I can actually use in pve. Every other missile boat may need buffing, but that's not even what this thread is about. This thread is about the reduction of the range and DPS of heavy missiles. They're giving a buff in PvE to EVERY missile ship in the form of TE's and TC's, and giving missile ships a buff in PvP as well at the cost of being vulnerable to tracking disruptors. You can in fact fit a TE on a Golem. It might even bet worth fitting 2 if the bonuses are good enough. Tracking mods on turret ships are in many circumstances more valuable than damage mods. Depending on how the numbers work out, you may be able to forgo the Flare rigs, freeing up two rig slots for something useful like cap, tanking, damage or range rigs. The same goes for the CNR. If after the TE change people still haven't worked out a fit on the CNR or Golem that's competitive with the Kronos and Paladin, CCP can revisit torps or the ships themselves and give them a slight buff. Notice I didn't say the Vargur - I think it's out of line. If anything, we could use a slight reduction in the amount of falloff that TE's and TC's add, like from 30% to 25% or 20% - that would almost certainly bring them in line.
If the CNR and raven don't have room for target painters, then how are they supposed to have room for a TC or TE.
I almost feel that this change to TC and TE is a bit redundant. People assume this is a buff to missile boats but at the same time, what are we supposed to lose on our fits in order to use these modules. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 17:59:00 -
[3556] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:If the CNR and raven don't have room for target painters, then how are they supposed to have room for a TC or TE.
I almost feel that this change to TC and TE is a bit redundant. People assume this is a buff to missile boats but at the same time, what are we supposed to lose on our fits in order to use these modules.
TE offer a lowslot alternative to flare/rigor rigs, and will likely have a more powerful total effect than a midslot mod or rig. If (for instance) you can change a cap relay to a TE, and then change a rigor rig to a cap rig, the total effect would be a win-win - you have the range improving effects and explosion radius reduction from the TE in addition to the explosion velocity improvement that the rig gave, and you would also be able to get rid of the shield boost penalty from a cap relay.
It opens up lots of fitting options. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:04:00 -
[3557] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:If the CNR and raven don't have room for target painters, then how are they supposed to have room for a TC or TE.
I almost feel that this change to TC and TE is a bit redundant. People assume this is a buff to missile boats but at the same time, what are we supposed to lose on our fits in order to use these modules. TE offer a lowslot alternative to flare/rigor rigs, and will likely have a more powerful total effect than a midslot mod or rig. If (for instance) you can change a cap relay to a TE, and then change a rigor rig to a cap rig, the total effect would be a win-win - you have the range improving effects and explosion radius reduction from the TE in addition to the explosion velocity improvement that the rig gave, and you would also be able to get rid of the shield boost penalty from a cap relay. It opens up lots of fitting options.
Well, I'd imagine that having the TEs would help, but I don't think the TCs would help.
The reason why is because with the TCS you get eiter range or effectiveness. When it comes to cruise the effectiveness is nice, but with torps you need both the range and effectiveness. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:07:00 -
[3558] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Well, I'd imagine that having the TEs would help, but I don't think the TCs would help.
The reason why is because with the TCS you get eiter range or effectiveness. When it comes to cruise the effectiveness is nice, but with torps you need both the range and effectiveness.
Very true, this is why you really don't see TCs on turret ships either.
I'm also in favor of boosting the effectiveness of tracking computers, or perhaps even better, swapping the bonuses of TCs and TE's, making the midslot module more powerful. Shield tanking is often favored over armor tanking these days because all of the most powerful modules go in your lowslots, on top of the general superiority of shield tanking. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:16:00 -
[3559] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Well, I'd imagine that having the TEs would help, but I don't think the TCs would help.
The reason why is because with the TCS you get eiter range or effectiveness. When it comes to cruise the effectiveness is nice, but with torps you need both the range and effectiveness.
Very true, this is why you really don't see TCs on turret ships either. I'm also in favor of boosting the effectiveness of tracking computers, or perhaps even better, swapping the bonuses of TCs and TE's, making the midslot module more powerful. Shield tanking is often favored over armor tanking these days because all of the most powerful modules go in your lowslots, on top of the general superiority of shield tanking.
You mean the general superiority like HG Slaves?
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:19:00 -
[3560] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Well, I'd imagine that having the TEs would help, but I don't think the TCs would help.
The reason why is because with the TCS you get eiter range or effectiveness. When it comes to cruise the effectiveness is nice, but with torps you need both the range and effectiveness.
Very true, this is why you really don't see TCs on turret ships either. I'm also in favor of boosting the effectiveness of tracking computers, or perhaps even better, swapping the bonuses of TCs and TE's, making the midslot module more powerful. Shield tanking is often favored over armor tanking these days because all of the most powerful modules go in your lowslots, on top of the general superiority of shield tanking.
Well, I don't know about the superiority of shield tanking.
So far it seems that shield boats do have more capability of fitting more dps modules, and with TEs they'll get more effective dps and range.
However, from all the playing around that I've done with eft and from general discussions with other players, it also appears that armor tanks are capable of fitting more durable tanks.
The way I was thinking, maybe just remove tracking computers and make TEs omni slot, so they could go in either the mid or low slots.
I've felt this way about cap rechargers and shield rechargers. Shield boats rarely get to use them and what is available is low slots is less effective than mid slot cap and shield recharge. |
|
Lili Lu
506
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:25:00 -
[3561] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: You mean the general superiority like HG Slaves? Why are you bringing these up? As if everyone that armor tanks is running around with slave implant sets |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:25:00 -
[3562] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:You mean the general superiority like HG Slaves?
At least as far as PvE goes.
Active shield tanking is much stronger than active armor tanking even when you don't factor in pirate implants, and especially when you get into the realm of faction and dedspace modules.
With only T1/T2 mods, a passive shield tank is more often than not a better tank than active armor on ships smaller than BS, even on ships with bonuses to it like the Myrmidon. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:27:00 -
[3563] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well, I don't know about the superiority of shield tanking.
So far it seems that shield boats do have more capability of fitting more dps modules, and with TEs they'll get more effective dps and range.
However, from all the playing around that I've done with eft and from general discussions with other players, it also appears that armor tanks are capable of fitting more durable tanks.
The way I was thinking, maybe just remove tracking computers and make TEs omni slot, so they could go in either the mid or low slots.
I've felt this way about cap rechargers and shield rechargers. Shield boats rarely get to use them and what is available is low slots is less effective than mid slot cap and shield recharge.
You bring up some valid points. CCP set things up so that they are the way they are intentionally, but I suspect that the way they are may not be what's best for the current status quo. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:30:00 -
[3564] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: You mean the general superiority like HG Slaves? Why are you bringing these up? As if everyone that armor tanks is running around with slave implant sets
Yeah, i'm gonna have to agree.
Personally I don't consider implants when considering balance.
Mostly because they don't make that much of a difference by any means, but also because most players don't use them in pvp.
And in pve most players are still a long way from even considering slave implants. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 18:38:00 -
[3565] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well, I don't know about the superiority of shield tanking.
So far it seems that shield boats do have more capability of fitting more dps modules, and with TEs they'll get more effective dps and range.
However, from all the playing around that I've done with eft and from general discussions with other players, it also appears that armor tanks are capable of fitting more durable tanks.
The way I was thinking, maybe just remove tracking computers and make TEs omni slot, so they could go in either the mid or low slots.
I've felt this way about cap rechargers and shield rechargers. Shield boats rarely get to use them and what is available is low slots is less effective than mid slot cap and shield recharge. You bring up some valid points. CCP set things up so that they are the way they are intentionally, but I suspect that the way they are may not be what's best for the current status quo.
Yeah, while I do agree that we don't need every ship to be the same, at the same time I feel that we've got too many modules and in some cases these modules create too much of a seperation between missile and turret or shield and armor. The modules even help to create issues between ewar ships.
For instance, with the changes to missiles tracking disruptors will feel extremely powerful. However, this isn't going to be fixed with less, but rather with more.
For instance, I feel that there needs to be an individual script for each disruption type, I.E. turret optimal, turret tracking, missile range, and missile exp radius. Then, introduce an exchange timer when swapping scripts.
Back on topic though, in some cases less is more, and I think making TEs, cap rechargers, and shield rechagers low and midslot capable might help. (who even uses shield rechargers in their mids?) |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 19:10:00 -
[3566] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Well, I don't know about the superiority of shield tanking.
So far it seems that shield boats do have more capability of fitting more dps modules, and with TEs they'll get more effective dps and range.
However, from all the playing around that I've done with eft and from general discussions with other players, it also appears that armor tanks are capable of fitting more durable tanks.
The way I was thinking, maybe just remove tracking computers and make TEs omni slot, so they could go in either the mid or low slots.
I've felt this way about cap rechargers and shield rechargers. Shield boats rarely get to use them and what is available is low slots is less effective than mid slot cap and shield recharge. You bring up some valid points. CCP set things up so that they are the way they are intentionally, but I suspect that the way they are may not be what's best for the current status quo. Yeah, while I do agree that we don't need every ship to be the same, at the same time I feel that we've got too many modules and in some cases these modules create too much of a seperation between missile and turret or shield and armor. The modules even help to create issues between ewar ships. For instance, with the changes to missiles tracking disruptors will feel extremely powerful. However, this isn't going to be fixed with less, but rather with more. For instance, I feel that there needs to be an individual script for each disruption type, I.E. turret optimal, turret tracking, missile range, and missile exp radius. Then, introduce an exchange timer when swapping scripts. Back on topic though, in some cases less is more, and I think making TEs, cap rechargers, and shield rechagers low and midslot capable might help. (who even uses shield rechargers in their mids?)
Why? Just to make shield tanking even easier?
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 19:14:00 -
[3567] - Quote
Doddy wrote:HBM wrote:
Yeah, while I do agree that we don't need every ship to be the same, at the same time I feel that we've got too many modules and in some cases these modules create too much of a seperation between missile and turret or shield and armor. The modules even help to create issues between ewar ships.
For instance, with the changes to missiles tracking disruptors will feel extremely powerful. However, this isn't going to be fixed with less, but rather with more.
For instance, I feel that there needs to be an individual script for each disruption type, I.E. turret optimal, turret tracking, missile range, and missile exp radius. Then, introduce an exchange timer when swapping scripts.
Back on topic though, in some cases less is more, and I think making TEs, cap rechargers, and shield rechagers low and midslot capable might help. (who even uses shield rechargers in their mids?)
Why? Just to make shield tanking even easier?
These are the kind of responses you get from people who come in halfway through the conversation. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 19:34:00 -
[3568] - Quote
The whole point of eves split weapon system and split tanking system is to get to the same place by different roads. If you want to make the roads the same there is no point in having differences in the first place. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 19:52:00 -
[3569] - Quote
Doddy wrote:The whole point of eves split weapon system and split tanking system is to get to the same place by different roads. If you want to make the roads the same there is no point in having differences in the first place.
That's what I got at in a point above.
We dont' want armor tanking and shield tanking to be exactly alike, but there are places where they get too far apart.
Same can be said between missiles and turrets.
For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers.
With shield tanks they have to use cap flux coils and cap relays, but they would be greatly helped by being able to use cap rechargers that can be used in mid slots on armor boats...
So, there are times where there's too much differenciation and other times where there's not enough. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 20:00:00 -
[3570] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers.
TEs don't give big bonus to optimal range. TC with optimal range script is better for that. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 20:11:00 -
[3571] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers. TEs don't give big bonus to optimal range. TC with optimal range script is better for that. ummm no, that is wrong.
TCs with the tracking script give more tracking than a TE, but TEs give 15% optimal and 30% falloff; TCs with a range script give 15% optimal and 30% falloff. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
238
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 20:25:00 -
[3572] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Doddy wrote:The whole point of eves split weapon system and split tanking system is to get to the same place by different roads. If you want to make the roads the same there is no point in having differences in the first place. That's what I got at in a point above. We dont' want armor tanking and shield tanking to be exactly alike, but there are places where they get too far apart. Same can be said between missiles and turrets. For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers. With shield tanks they have to use cap flux coils and cap relays, but they would be greatly helped by being able to use cap rechargers that can be used in mid slots on armor boats... So, there are times where there's too much differenciation and other times where there's not enough.
But turret boats and shield tankers are not the ones needing assisted .....
In any case TEs are not any better than Tcs, they are quite balanced really. TC doesn' get the slight tracking improvement when optimal scripted but in exchange can use tracking script and be better, is fine.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 20:44:00 -
[3573] - Quote
I don't know....
As much as it's hard to let go of m side of the argument for waiting till bs rebalance before the nerf.
I'm afraid CCP doesn't care what missile boaters think.
Pretty sure it's happening without anything to fill the gap whether we like it or not...
SO, I think i'm done with this thread...If not with the game.. At least until bs rebalance... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 20:59:00 -
[3574] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You mean the general superiority like HG Slaves?
At least as far as PvE goes. Active shield tanking is much stronger than active armor tanking even when you don't factor in pirate implants, and especially when you get into the realm of faction and dedspace modules. With only T1/T2 mods, a passive shield tank is more often than not a better tank than active armor on ships smaller than BS, even on ships with bonuses to it like the Myrmidon.
You got a fair point, in PvE Armortanking is subpar compared to Shieldtanks. But in PvP this is not the same, acitve shield tanks are used there, same as shield buffers, but armor buffer is considered to be at least competitive, and HG Slavesets can put those buffers into really insane regions. And I cant repeat this too often - the game is mostly balanced around PvP, which is ok for me.
I see no more answers to my question about the imbalance between Torp/CM vs Arty/AC, and Golem vs Vargur performance. So I take it as a confirmation of my assumption, and people accept there cant be balance as long as so many ships and weapons are not in line. I wonder if this will lead to a more reasonable approach of the Dev in charge, and he will try to leave every race at least with some working ships for combat/DPS. |
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 21:50:00 -
[3575] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar -These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles -Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect: Max flight time (with optimal range script) Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script) -Make TDs affect Missiles Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time
@ Fozzie (in case you are still reading this thread)
When tracking influence both the Explosion radius and the Explosion velocity of missiles, it will create unwanted complications when comparing a Tracking Computer and a Target Painter. This can easily lead to a case where a TC is better for torpedoes while a TP is better for standard missiles, due to the difference in drf values (i can back this up with math if requested, but i will not be trolled into typing it in for just anyone).
As an alternative I suggest that tracking can only effect one value, just like it was on SiSi when missile tracking was first brought up several months ago. This will make the drf problem go away.
-If explosion radius is chosen only the targets size will be important. This will help both against small targets and against fast moving targets (in accordance with the missile damage equation). While this choice is a little boring, it will make TP's and TC's easy to compare, since they practically do the exact same thing
-If explosion velocity is chosen only target speed will be important. This will help only against targets that are using high speed to reduce missile damage. Personally i like this choice more, to me it feels more like tracking when the missiles are able to catch moving targets better, and it is in spirit very similar to turrets tracking.
I know that the size choice is technically better. But that is the domain of target painters. TP's needs to be good enough to justify the minmatar to have that as their racial ewar, and to make it worth its two skills, and having to activate it on each target as well as the additional cap use. This must be measured against the flexibility of the TC, which can with a simple script change suddenly improve the range instead. It is better if the TC can complement the TP, than make it obsolete.
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 22:02:00 -
[3576] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I don't know....
As much as it's hard to let go of m side of the argument for waiting till bs rebalance before the nerf.
I'm afraid CCP doesn't care what missile boaters think.
Pretty sure it's happening without anything to fill the gap whether we like it or not...
SO, I think i'm done with this thread...If not with the game.. At least until bs rebalance...
I recently started a new toon after not playing for several years. I've been playing for about 3 months and I am up to 5mil SP. I have Amarr Cruiser and Frigate to V, T2 small lasers, T2 small and medium drones, and I'm working on Destroyers V and T2 medium guns. I can already use almost all relevant T2 armor tanking modules at the medium and small level (I'm lacking EANM II) as well as a full T2 passive shield tank. I have Engineering and Electronics at V, and Weapon Upgrades at IV.
Honestly how long does it take to train something else if you're disappointed in how the ships you trained perform, or don't like how they fly?
You could get into an Amarr BS with BS 4 in like a week, and get all relevant large Amarr gun skills to 4 in another week and a half or so (assuming you started with zero skills), and use faction turrets. A Nightmare with Navy beams is a wicked awesome mission boat and it benefits from Caldari BS V.
Really, I think you're being overdramatic. Had I picked Caldari, I probably would've shrugged at this point and kept training.
_______________
Can you link your Tengu fit please? I'd like to play with it a bit.
(or anybody can link the common L4 Tengu fit) |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 22:09:00 -
[3577] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I don't know....
As much as it's hard to let go of m side of the argument for waiting till bs rebalance before the nerf.
I'm afraid CCP doesn't care what missile boaters think.
Pretty sure it's happening without anything to fill the gap whether we like it or not...
SO, I think i'm done with this thread...If not with the game.. At least until bs rebalance... I recently started a new toon after not playing for several years. I've been playing for about 3 months and I am up to 5mil SP. I have Amarr Cruiser and Frigate to V, T2 small lasers, T2 small and medium drones, and I'm working on Destroyers V and T2 medium guns. I can already use almost all relevant T2 armor tanking modules at the medium and small level (I'm lacking EANM II) as well as a full T2 passive shield tank. I have Engineering and Electronics at V, and Weapon Upgrades at IV. Honestly how long does it take to train something else if you're disappointed in how the ships you trained perform, or don't like how they fly? You could get into an Amarr BS with BS 4 in like a week, and get all relevant large Amarr gun skills to 4 in another week and a half or so (assuming you started with zero skills), and use faction turrets. A Nightmare with Navy beams is a wicked awesome mission boat and it benefits from Caldari BS V. Really, I think you're being overdramatic. Had I picked Caldari, I probably would've shrugged at this point and kept training. _______________ Can you link your Tengu fit please? I'd like to play with it a bit. (or anybody can link the common L4 Tengu fit)
Yeah, but to train a turret boat to the efficiency I have missiles at will take quite some time. At least 100 days.
I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.
It should be available with my current weapon systems. |
Lili Lu
506
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 22:11:00 -
[3578] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote: When tracking influence both the Explosion radius and the Explosion velocity of missiles, it will create unwanted complications when comparing a Tracking Computer and a Target Painter. This can easily lead to a case where a TC is better for torpedoes while a TP is better for standard missiles, due to the difference in drf values (i can back this up with math if requested, but i will not be trolled into typing it in for just anyone).
As an alternative I suggest that tracking can only effect one value, just like it was on SiSi when missile tracking was first brought up several months ago. This will make the drf problem go away.
-If explosion radius is chosen only the targets size will be important. This will help both against small targets and against fast moving targets (in accordance with the missile damage equation). While this choice is a little boring, it will make TP's and TC's easy to compare, since they practically do the exact same thing
-If explosion velocity is chosen only target speed will be important. This will help only against targets that are using high speed to reduce missile damage. Personally i like this choice more, to me it feels more like tracking when the missiles are able to catch moving targets better, and it is in spirit very similar to turrets tracking.
I know that the size choice is technically better. But that is the domain of target painters. TP's needs to be good enough to justify the minmatar to have that as their racial ewar, and to make it worth its two skills, and having to activate it on each target as well as the additional cap use. This must be measured against the flexibility of the TC, which can with a simple script change suddenly improve the range instead. It is better if the TC can complement the TP, than make it obsolete.
Good post.
Explosion radius and target signature could be viewed as an factors external to a missile. While explosion velocity could be viewed as internal to the missiles coding, components, and guidance. And thus more able to be influenced by the "tracking" mod on the host missile boat.
And I agree. TPs need to have their value (seeing as it is the weakest of the ewars) preserved. Webs and scrams will still be fit by anyone, but specialized painter boats need to have even more value than they have now. |
Aaron Greil
Royal Imperial Navy Reserves
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 22:20:00 -
[3579] - Quote
I don't know if there has been any more consideration about making a separate module for missiles rather than adding additional effects to the tracking enhancer/computer. Seriously, i think this would be a major help, and help keep the diversity between guns and missiles. This would allow fittings for the new mods to be tailored for missile ships. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 22:22:00 -
[3580] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I see no more answers to my question about the imbalance between Torp/CM vs Arty/AC, and Golem vs Vargur performance. So I take it as a confirmation of my assumption, and people accept there cant be balance as long as so many ships and weapons are not in line.
Look again.
Quote:1. Some ships have to be worse than others, equality is virtually impossible. This is not justification for change unless you can demonstrate that the gap is excessive. You should either demonstrate that the Golem is excessively poor relative to the other three Marauders and therefore deserves to be boosted, or that the Vargur is excessively good and deserves to be nerfed. Or both, conceivably. You will also need to account for the missile TCs about to introduced. This is tricky because we don't know their stats. Since I don't run missions, I can comment no further, but you will probably need to post mission completion times for a representative sample of L4 missions in various factions' space. |
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 22:51:00 -
[3581] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Yeah, but to train a turret boat to the efficiency I have missiles at will take quite some time. At least 100 days.
I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.
It should be available with my current weapon systems.
If Caldari missile ships are still superior to turret ships with BS IV and Large guns IV, I'd say the difference really isn't very big - cents on the dollar, so to speak.
If you're interested, I really do recommend the Nightmare path, you'll be pleasantly surprised with how well it works.
[Nightmare, 1] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script 100MN Afterburner II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 X-Large Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Large Energy Discharge Elutriation II Large Energy Discharge Elutriation I Large Ancillary Current Router I
All V and T2 fit (except for guns - Navy Tachs) and Navy Multi, you can lob 820 gun DPS out to 43+41km. You can also tank 475 rainbow DPS (382dps sustained) using a T2 cap injector, or 464dps (368 sustained) against EM/Therm using specific hardeners. It has an afterburner and can do 317m/s. It has the tracking to hit most cruisers orbiting at 20km, though those that get closer will have to be killed by drones.
Sound pretty comparable to your Tengu eh? Faction fit it and it really starts to shine.
/Sarcasm. Honestly, the Tengu is OP. |
Yank Sin
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:02:00 -
[3582] - Quote
Ok here is the real reason why balancing is going on IMO. Eve has always been a game for the more mature minded player. The type of player that would set a 20 day skill to get a 10% gain total on a skill that only gives 2% per level. The players that are coming into eve now are looking for the quick fix and are not will to put in the time or the planning for their toon. I have seen this 1st hand in a corp I joined up with awhile back. All the players were new 3-6 months old with some around a year old. They did not want to take the time to train the skills needed to advance in the right way it was quick get the skill to level 3 so I can get the next big ship.
Balancing IMO is to level the playing field between eveGÇÖs old style players that take the time and planning to train and eveGÇÖs new style player that just wants everything now. IMO ccp is leveling the field between the 2 different styles of players so that the new style player does not quit. Balancing should be done to make ships and mods better not worse. Why make the people that took the time and planning to train their skills to lv5 change their play style?
Players that take the time to train from support skills on up to lv5 to make there toon the best in a certain race of ship or weapons class should be in an elite class. And that elite class of player should have an advantage over the player that does not want to invest the time to do the same. So donGÇÖt nerf our mods, ships and weapons and call it balancing! Instead go out and fix the things that are really broken. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
132
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:13:00 -
[3583] - Quote
Aaron Greil wrote:I don't know if there has been any more consideration about making a separate module for missiles rather than adding additional effects to the tracking enhancer/computer. Seriously, i think this would be a major help, and help keep the diversity between guns and missiles. This would allow fittings for the new mods to be tailored for missile ships. You know, if they release another module for it, they are gonna have to double the bonus on both modules, because we can only bring half as many of each. you want that to happen? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
132
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:16:00 -
[3584] - Quote
Yank Sin wrote:Ok here is the real reason why balancing is going on IMO. Eve has always been a game for the more mature minded player. The type of player that would set a 20 day skill to get a 10% gain total on a skill that only gives 2% per level. The players that are coming into eve now are looking for the quick fix and are not will to put in the time or the planning for their toon. I have seen this 1st hand in a corp I joined up with awhile back. All the players were new 3-6 months old with some around a year old. They did not want to take the time to train the skills needed to advance in the right way it was quick get the skill to level 3 so I can get the next big ship.
Balancing IMO is to level the playing field between eveGÇÖs old style players that take the time and planning to train and eveGÇÖs new style player that just wants everything now. IMO ccp is leveling the field between the 2 different styles of players so that the new style player does not quit. Balancing should be done to make ships and mods better not worse. Why make the people that took the time and planning to train their skills to lv5 change their play style?
Players that take the time to train from support skills on up to lv5 to make there toon the best in a certain race of ship or weapons class should be in an elite class. And that elite class of player should have an advantage over the player that does not want to invest the time to do the same. So donGÇÖt nerf our mods, ships and weapons and call it balancing! Instead go out and fix the things that are really broken.
Your post gave me cancer, so I fixed it up a little.
And man, what is balancing in your mind? And what is broken in your mind?
Nerfing/buffing IS balancing. |
Yank Sin
Fellowship Of Lost Souls Rebel Alliance of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:38:00 -
[3585] - Quote
The changes that happened to the mining barges that form of balancing should be done. The current changes that are going on IMO is not to make a ship or mod better but it's to level the playing field between players.
Leveling the playing field between players that have access to the same skill books, implants, ships and mods should not be done. Once you start this type of balancing you take way from the players that do put the time in to max out there training.
IMO your telling people that took the time to max out there skills your better than your neighbor that does not want to invest the time like you did so I'm going to make things even by nerfing your ship and mods. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:42:00 -
[3586] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Yeah, but to train a turret boat to the efficiency I have missiles at will take quite some time. At least 100 days.
I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.
It should be available with my current weapon systems. If Caldari missile ships are still superior to turret ships with BS IV and Large guns IV, I'd say the difference really isn't very big - cents on the dollar, so to speak. If you're interested, I really do recommend the Nightmare path, you'll be pleasantly surprised with how well it works. [Nightmare, 1] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script 100MN Afterburner II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 X-Large Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Large Energy Discharge Elutriation II Large Energy Discharge Elutriation I Large Ancillary Current Router I All V and T2 fit (except for guns - Navy Tachs) and Navy Multi, you can lob 820 gun DPS out to 43+41km. You can also tank 475 rainbow DPS (382dps sustained) using a T2 cap injector, or 464dps (368 sustained) against EM/Therm using specific hardeners. It has an afterburner and can do 317m/s. It has the tracking to hit most cruisers orbiting at 20km, though those that get closer will have to be killed by drones. Sound pretty comparable to your Tengu eh? Faction fit it and it really starts to shine. /Sarcasm. Honestly, the Tengu is OP.
Well, a maxed out machariel is gonna take me 236 days to the nightmare's 153 days (thanks to some energy weapon skills and max caldari bs already)
Not exactly the range or damage selection of the Mach, but not bad at all.
See, the tengu is the best pve missile boat, and there's nothing like these two ships for us.
Kinda wish the golem didn't suck so bad. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
132
|
Posted - 2012.09.29 23:44:00 -
[3587] - Quote
Yank Sin wrote:The changes that happened to the mining barges that form of balancing should be done. The current changes that are going on IMO is not to make a ship or mod better but it's to level the playing field between players.
Leveling the playing field between players that have access to the same skill books, implants, ships and mods should not be done. Once you start this type of balancing you take way from the players that do put the time in to max out there training.
IMO your telling people that took the time to max out there skills your better than your neighbor that does not want to invest the time like you did so I'm going to make things even by nerfing your ship and mods.
Ok. So you mean they changed skills to give 0% at lvl 5? I missed that memo I guess. I don't think you know what balancing means dude. They are making obsolete hulls viable, and people with better skills will still have better skills. Pilots will still be bad and shitfits and counterfits will still be here. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 00:28:00 -
[3588] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.
It should be available with my current weapon systems. That is pure idiocy, there are some things certain weapon systems do that others just cant; thats what makes them different and interesting.
I trained lasers and I want to be part of an alpha fleet . . . walt, my zealot only does 1/3 the alpha of a muninn?! why arent all weapons the same???!!!!!!!111oneoneone
or
I trained drones and I want to snipe . . . wait, my sniper drones cant move and make me imobile??!! NNNNNOOOOOooooOOOOooooo!!!!!
some weapons are better at things than others, thats why we have different weapon systems not just the same weapon with different names.
As several people have pointed out, the missile ships will be just fine after this change; in fact, every missile system except for heavy missiles is getting a buff: HAMs cruise, torps, rockets, and standards are all missiles too . . . if you dont like what they did to heavy missiles, go pic a ship that specializes in a different kind of missile and fly that. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 01:30:00 -
[3589] - Quote
Sigras wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.
It should be available with my current weapon systems. That is pure idiocy, there are some things certain weapon systems do that others just cant; thats what makes them different and interesting. I trained lasers and I want to be part of an alpha fleet . . . walt, my zealot only does 1/3 the alpha of a muninn?! why arent all weapons the same???!!!!!!!111oneoneoneor I trained drones and I want to snipe . . . wait, my sniper drones cant move and make me imobile??!! NNNNNOOOOOooooOOOOooooo!!!!! some weapons are better at things than others, thats why we have different weapon systems not just the same weapon with different names. As several people have pointed out, the missile ships will be just fine after this change; in fact, every missile system except for heavy missiles is getting a buff: HAMs cruise, torps, rockets, and standards are all missiles too . . . if you dont like what they did to heavy missiles, go pick a ship that specializes in a different kind of missile and fly that.
not gonna go through every post to find that, but if its genuine then thats hilarious. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 01:49:00 -
[3590] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Yeah, but to train a turret boat to the efficiency I have missiles at will take quite some time. At least 100 days.
I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.
It should be available with my current weapon systems. If Caldari missile ships are still superior to turret ships with BS IV and Large guns IV, I'd say the difference really isn't very big - cents on the dollar, so to speak. If you're interested, I really do recommend the Nightmare path, you'll be pleasantly surprised with how well it works. [Nightmare, 1] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script 100MN Afterburner II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 X-Large Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Large Energy Discharge Elutriation II Large Energy Discharge Elutriation I Large Ancillary Current Router I All V and T2 fit (except for guns - Navy Tachs) and Navy Multi, you can lob 820 gun DPS out to 43+41km. You can also tank 475 rainbow DPS (382dps sustained) using a T2 cap injector, or 464dps (368 sustained) against EM/Therm using specific hardeners. It has an afterburner and can do 317m/s. It has the tracking to hit most cruisers orbiting at 20km, though those that get closer will have to be killed by drones. Sound pretty comparable to your Tengu eh? Faction fit it and it really starts to shine. /Sarcasm. Honestly, the Tengu is OP. Well, a maxed out machariel is gonna take me 236 days to the nightmare's 153 days (thanks to some energy weapon skills and max caldari bs already) Not exactly the range or damage selection of the Mach, but not bad at all. See, the tengu is the best pve missile boat, and there's nothing like these two ships for us. Kinda wish the golem didn't suck so bad.
Fun comparison fit assuming changes to TE's give +15% flight time:
[Golem, 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II
100MN Afterburner II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron X-Large Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II
Tank (omni) with AB off: Golem - 530 / 401 sustained Nightmare - 475 / 399 sustained
^ Both ships have the option of swapping out a painter/TC for a boost amp or specific hardener if they need it.
DPS figures don't include drones.
DPS @ 43km (Nightmare optimal w/Multi) Golem - 948 Nightmare - 820
DPS @ 49km (Golem max theoretical range with faction ammo) Golem - 948 Nightmare - 813 (Navy Multi is best ammo)
DPS @ 74km (Golem Javelin max theoretical range) Golem - 743dps Nightmare - 662dps (Xray is best ammo)
Golem can't hit past 74km, Nightmare can hit up to 137km (optimal) with radio, for 347dps. Realistically, I don't think anything beyond 74km is necessary to complete missions but it can be useful in a few.
Below 20km, the Nightmare is basically unable to hit orbiting battlecruiser hulls and below (if I remember correctly, but it might just be cruiser hulls).
If TE's give a bonus to explosion velocity and explosion radius (let's call it 15%), the Golem will able to effectively apply full DPS to a cruiser sized hull even with faction ammo. As it is, it's very nearly able to do this already. It will be able to apply nearly 75% of its DPS to Cruisers with Rage torps, and full damage to BCs and above.
The Nightmare is locked to EM and thermal damage. This isn't a problem if you only ever want to rat or run missions in Amarr areas. The Golem has full damage type selection.
The Golem has more tank and uses far fewer cap booster charges.
The Golem has a much larger cargohold if you'd like to loot and salvage, or hold more booster charges.
The Golem has a bonus to tractor beams which can significantly speed up some missions.
The Golem is faster than the Nightmare by about 10%.
The Golem is more agile than the Nightmare by about 10%.
The Nightmare locks targets about 25% faster.
The Golem is weak against Guristas due to its low sensor strength.
Food for thought.
|
|
Tgarius Storm
Empire Storm
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 02:06:00 -
[3591] - Quote
I have three accounts and I mainly fly Tengus, I pay a lot of ISK to outfit these and will still lose them to cap drain, they have a bullseye on them as it is. I have invested years in missile skills just to optimize the Tengu and now your wanting to ruin them. We are mainly a WH corp. and you already added cap draining to the sleepers which has made it much more difficult now your taking away our DPS. I feel it is very unfair to Tengu pilots to make this change and the thought that you can just screw with my entire way of playing EVE like this makes me very upset. I can guarantee you that I do not feel I have any kind of unfair advantage in my Tengu's.. I pay a lot of ISK to outfit them and there should be some advantage to this. I've already had to change the fits to try and compensate for cap draining sleepers, we really don't PVP in our ships because they are always a target and the first thing evryone does is cap drain them to death (Litterally). |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 02:11:00 -
[3592] - Quote
Tgarius Storm wrote:I have three accounts and I mainly fly Tengus, I pay a lot of ISK to outfit these and will still lose them to cap drain, they have a bullseye on them as it is. I have invested years in missile skills just to optimize the Tengu and now your wanting to ruin them. We are mainly a WH corp. and you already added cap draining to the sleepers which has made it much more difficult now your taking away our DPS. I feel it is very unfair to Tengu pilots to make this change and the thought that you can just screw with my entire way of playing EVE like this makes me very upset. I can guarantee you that I do not feel I have any kind of unfair advantage in my Tengu's.. I pay a lot of ISK to outfit them and there should be some advantage to this. I've already had to change the fits to try and compensate for cap draining sleepers, we really don't PVP in our ships because they are always a target and the first thing evryone does is cap drain them to death (Litterally).
What other ships would be comparably good to your corp's Tengu fit for what you do? Just curious. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
202
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 02:16:00 -
[3593] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Doddy wrote:The whole point of eves split weapon system and split tanking system is to get to the same place by different roads. If you want to make the roads the same there is no point in having differences in the first place. That's what I got at in a point above. We dont' want armor tanking and shield tanking to be exactly alike, but there are places where they get too far apart. Same can be said between missiles and turrets. For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers. With shield tanks they have to use cap flux coils and cap relays, but they would be greatly helped by being able to use cap rechargers that can be used in mid slots on armor boats... So, there are times where there's too much differenciation and other times where there's not enough.
Tracking enhancers are better then computers.
Lol no If you want both effects, just take the scirpt out, even unscripted a TC is better ....as in gas a greater effect.....in comparison to a TE. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
334
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 02:44:00 -
[3594] - Quote
180 pages, should be worked out by now.
I wonder if the people complaining at page one worked out every missile type has been buffed by the TC/TE change. Aye, 180 pages, they would have figured it out by now. Not like they are dumb as sh!t or anything.
So Fozzie Bear, still reading this crap? |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 02:50:00 -
[3595] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:180 pages, should be worked out by now.
I wonder if the people complaining at page one worked out every missile type has been buffed by the TC/TE change. Aye, 180 pages, they would have figured it out by now. Not like they are dumb as sh!t or anything.
So Fozzie Bear, still reading this crap?
So, you just said that the only thing being changed in the entire line of cruisers / BC is the TC/TE, nothing else is being buffed / nerfed / invented / changed / modified ? |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 03:07:00 -
[3596] - Quote
No opinion on the the changes to all but the Heavy Missiles. As for heavy missiles I think a 20% damage reduction may be a bit much. Missiles in general have a lower DPS than most other weapon types. I do agree that the damage they do in comparison to the Heavy Assault Missiles is a bit on the high side. If I had a choice I would go with a 10% damage reduction on Heavy Missiles and a 5% damage increase on Heavy Assault. A 20% damage reduction would cause the Tengu to no longer be a viable option over a BS in lvl4 missions. I am a dedicated mission runner and my current setup is an Orca w/ a Noctis and Tengu in the ship hanger (and a few extra ships for other purposes packaged in the hangers). With a signifcant damage reduction in Heavy Missiles I would then have to decide weather to take 40+mins on a lvl4 mission with the tengu or a 10min mission in a golem vs the current 15-20min tengu/10min golem ... the reason I don't currently use a golem is because of the time consumed relocating agents hence the use of an Orca.
Also for future balancing of the Tengu's tank please keep in mind that anyone bringing Neuts is going to beat a Tengu. Even mission rats with Neuts are difficult for a Tengu when there are more than 6 BS class. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 04:23:00 -
[3597] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Eckyy wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Yeah, but to train a turret boat to the efficiency I have missiles at will take quite some time. At least 100 days.
I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.
It should be available with my current weapon systems. If Caldari missile ships are still superior to turret ships with BS IV and Large guns IV, I'd say the difference really isn't very big - cents on the dollar, so to speak. If you're interested, I really do recommend the Nightmare path, you'll be pleasantly surprised with how well it works. [Nightmare, 1] Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script 100MN Afterburner II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 X-Large Shield Booster II Shield Boost Amplifier II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Large Energy Discharge Elutriation II Large Energy Discharge Elutriation I Large Ancillary Current Router I All V and T2 fit (except for guns - Navy Tachs) and Navy Multi, you can lob 820 gun DPS out to 43+41km. You can also tank 475 rainbow DPS (382dps sustained) using a T2 cap injector, or 464dps (368 sustained) against EM/Therm using specific hardeners. It has an afterburner and can do 317m/s. It has the tracking to hit most cruisers orbiting at 20km, though those that get closer will have to be killed by drones. Sound pretty comparable to your Tengu eh? Faction fit it and it really starts to shine. /Sarcasm. Honestly, the Tengu is OP. Well, a maxed out machariel is gonna take me 236 days to the nightmare's 153 days (thanks to some energy weapon skills and max caldari bs already) Not exactly the range or damage selection of the Mach, but not bad at all. See, the tengu is the best pve missile boat, and there's nothing like these two ships for us. Kinda wish the golem didn't suck so bad. Fun comparison fit assuming changes to TE's give +15% flight time: [Golem, 1] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Tracking Enhancer II 100MN Afterburner II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron X-Large Shield Booster II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800 Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Tank (omni) with AB off: Golem - 530 / 401 sustained Nightmare - 475 / 399 sustained ^ Both ships have the option of swapping out a painter/TC for a boost amp or specific hardener if they need it. DPS figures don't include drones. DPS @ 43km (Nightmare optimal w/Multi) Golem - 948 Nightmare - 820 DPS @ 49km (Golem max theoretical range with faction ammo) Golem - 948 Nightmare - 813 (Navy Multi is best ammo) DPS @ 74km (Golem Javelin max theoretical range) Golem - 743dps Nightmare - 662dps (Xray is best ammo) Golem can't hit past 74km, Nightmare can hit up to 137km (optimal) with radio, for 347dps. Realistically, I don't think anything beyond 74km is necessary to complete missions but it can be useful in a few. Below 20km, the Nightmare is basically unable to hit orbiting battlecruiser hulls and below (if I remember correctly, but it might just be cruiser hulls). If TE's give a bonus to explosion velocity and explosion radius (let's call it 15%), the Golem will able to effectively apply full DPS to a cruiser sized hull even with faction ammo. As it is, it's very nearly able to do this already. It will be able to apply nearly 75% of its DPS to Cruisers with Rage torps, and full damage to BCs and above. The Nightmare is locked to EM and thermal damage. This isn't a problem if you only ever want to rat or run missions in Amarr areas. The Golem has full damage type selection. The Golem has more tank and uses far fewer cap booster charges. The Golem has a much larger cargohold if you'd like to loot and salvage, or hold more booster charges. The Golem has a bonus to tractor beams which can significantly speed up some missions. The Golem is faster than the Nightmare by about 10%. The Golem is more agile than the Nightmare by about 10%. The Nightmare locks targets about 25% faster. The Golem is weak against Guristas due to its low sensor strength. Food for thought.
The only problem with the golem is that it has over 100m larger signature.
This is a significantly larger signature. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 04:32:00 -
[3598] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:No opinion on the the changes to all but the Heavy Missiles. As for heavy missiles I think a 20% damage reduction may be a bit much. Missiles in general have a lower DPS than most other weapon types. I do agree that the damage they do in comparison to the Heavy Assault Missiles is a bit on the high side. If I had a choice I would go with a 10% damage reduction on Heavy Missiles and a 5% damage increase on Heavy Assault. A 20% damage reduction would cause the Tengu to no longer be a viable option over a BS in lvl4 missions. I am a dedicated mission runner and my current setup is an Orca w/ a Noctis and Tengu in the ship hanger (and a few extra ships for other purposes packaged in the hangers). With a signifcant damage reduction in Heavy Missiles I would then have to decide weather to take 40+mins on a lvl4 mission with the tengu or a 10min mission in a golem vs the current 15-20min tengu/10min golem ... the reason I don't currently use a golem is because of the time consumed relocating agents hence the use of an Orca.
Also for future balancing of the Tengu's tank please keep in mind that anyone bringing Neuts is going to beat a Tengu. Even mission rats with Neuts are difficult for a Tengu when there are more than 6 BS class.
Personally, I loved the golem damage.
However, the weakness to pretty much anything including simple incoming damage due to sig radius is what truly hendered it.
I have no problem losing the tengu as my mission boat, I just wish I had a missile boat with the same efficiency to replace it before that happened.
Oh well....
I'm sure our missile boat bs's will eventually become more efficient in lvl 4 missions. The problem is based on the current rate of rebalance, we're looking at 6 months to a year before they even touch t1 bs's, yet alone t2.... |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
334
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 04:41:00 -
[3599] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:sYnc Vir wrote:180 pages, should be worked out by now.
I wonder if the people complaining at page one worked out every missile type has been buffed by the TC/TE change. Aye, 180 pages, they would have figured it out by now. Not like they are dumb as sh!t or anything.
So Fozzie Bear, still reading this crap? So, you just said that the only thing being changed in the entire line of cruisers / BC is the TC/TE, nothing else is being buffed / nerfed / invented / changed / modified ?
I said no such thing. I pointed out all missiles are having there ranges increased, which is a good thing for missile pilots. Didn't mention anything else at all either good or bad. I may have called some people dumb, but they wont figure that out what with the stupidity and all, so don't worry about it. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 05:03:00 -
[3600] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: Personally, I loved the golem damage.
However, the weakness to pretty much anything including simple incoming damage due to sig radius is what truly hendered it.
I have no problem losing the tengu as my mission boat, I just wish I had a missile boat with the same efficiency to replace it before that happened.
Oh well....
I'm sure our missile boat bs's will eventually become more efficient in lvl 4 missions. The problem is based on the current rate of rebalance, we're looking at 6 months to a year before they even touch t1 bs's, yet alone t2....
Honestly, both ships are as big as whales anyway. The Nightmare gets a small damage reduction against torps, but anything else (including turret ships) will hit them both for full damage anyway.. The Golem has a fine tank with just T2, and you can practically nap while missioning if you faction fit it. What's the problem?
The sensor strength is an issue - so don't run missions against Guristas, run them in Gallente or Minmatar space. You'll make more isk in Minmatar space anyway.
So the conclusion is: the Golem has superior damage, tank, cap, speed/agility, and a nifty tractor bonus, and yet it's somehow inferior to the Nightmare (how?) - which, btw, is probably the best laser platform in the game (at least for missions).
??? |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 05:11:00 -
[3601] - Quote
Ya know, one thing that hasn't been factored into this nerf is all the rebalancing going on.
They're introducing more powerful combat cruisers, ewar cruisers, etc etc... This is also the same with frigs.
These rebalances, especially to ewar, could be enough to break the current status que of the drake and tengu.
So, if we push for this nerf now, it could lead to inadequacy in hmls, and how long will this go on until it is rebalanced again.
This, and the changes to TDs are a good reason to hold off and get some feedback before the nerf to hmls goes through.. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
335
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 06:08:00 -
[3602] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Ya know, one thing that hasn't been factored into this nerf is all the rebalancing going on.
They're introducing more powerful combat cruisers, ewar cruisers, etc etc... This is also the same with frigs.
These rebalances, especially to ewar, could be enough to break the current status que of the drake and tengu.
So, if we push for this nerf now, it could lead to inadequacy in hmls, and how long will this go on until it is rebalanced again.
This, and the changes to TDs are a good reason to hold off and get some feedback before the nerf to hmls goes through..
No its not,
Changing it now and getting people to use other ships before they see stupid they looked in there overreaction and switch back to there Drake and Tengu is a good thing. The people overreacting are clear so stupid by the time they figure it out, the Drake will of course feel new and fresh to their dumbass mind.
Everything CCP has said since fan fest has been about cycles. Option 1 leads to option 2 that leads to options 3 that leads to option 1. The TD and TC/TE changes mean a bunch if not all pvp'ers will have a TD on there ship. Meaning most people are gonna have to at some point fit TCs more. The at some point TD become less powerful.... Please you should get the point by now.
They are doing that with modules, so what makes you think they aren't balancing the ships out so if 1 is popular people start flying 2, until people in 1 start flying 3 at which point people in 2 start... and so on.
Sure they are those options now, but since when was more options bad?
|
picattacip Vherocip
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 06:44:00 -
[3603] - Quote
Just spent the last 3 months training to fly a Tengu with T2 missiles for exploration. I guess I'm just ... unlucky. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 06:52:00 -
[3604] - Quote
picattacip Vherocip wrote:Just spent the last 3 months training to fly a Tengu with T2 missiles for exploration. I guess I'm just ... unlucky.
Not unlucky, smart. It was an excellent choice to train, too excellent.
The HAM Tengu is still going to be great. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 07:05:00 -
[3605] - Quote
picattacip Vherocip wrote:Just spent the last 3 months training to fly a Tengu with T2 missiles for exploration. I guess I'm just ... unlucky.
Plus even with the nerf, Tengu will be fine for exploration, if you were doing null sites you need more then a solo tengu anyway.....specially if you have the nullifier on it still.
Cloaky Tengus aren't that great at DPS or tank, but they are good enough for low sec sites. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 07:59:00 -
[3606] - Quote
About the Mare vs. Golem comparison, a few thoughts of mine, sticking to PvE:
1) Mare can insta Alpha small stuff which a Golem never can (below BC-size it can never Alpha anything, and it will never insta-hit either).
2) Long ranges favor guns a lot, esp. vs slow moving missile systems - it simply makes salvo-counting a pain, when you fight on high ranges km with Torps.
3) Torps dont work with EFT-ranges (like no missile does). It would only be fair if ingame the "real" theoretical max would be shown and not the wrong flighttime*velocity-calculation, so one could at least know for sure how far out a *not moving* target can be and still be in range.
4) Tank is not an issue.
5) The Mare is a Pirate BS, its ok when it performs a bit better than a Marauder (per CCP Definition). The Mare is so strong because it can fit oversized Lasers without issues (Tachyons), and has ship boni which ad perfectly to this system, by overcoming its weak tracking.
6) The Mare can perform on par with a Machariel in EM/Therm missions. The Paladin is not so far behind those 2 though, in EM/Therm. The Vargur overall performs similar to the Machariel, being a fair bit slower though. Still 1/4th to 1/3rd faster than a Golem ....
7) Damage-application is ok in a Golem, due to its inherent boni and ability to fit TPs, although it has to be checked if they will really be better than TCs then. And it requires a LOT of work.
8) For maximum effect the rigs on the Golem have to be mixed, one flight time and one velocity.
9) Ammo-cost is a non-issue for Laserships, unlike for the Golem with Torps ...
Bottom line: atm the Tengu is considered to be worse in PvE than the Vargur (and Paladin in EM-missions), and the only missions where it really shines are kinetic-resist weak enemies anyway, means in all others its even more behind. Still its better than the current Golem or CNR. So if its getting a nerf, pls bring the others in line with Winmatar. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 08:13:00 -
[3607] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: 9) Ammo-cost is a non-issue for Laserships, unlike for the Golem with Torps ...
Bottom line: atm the Tengu is considered to be worse in PvE than the Vargur (and Paladin in EM-missions), and the only missions where it really shines are kinetic-resist weak enemies anyway, means in all others its even more behind. Still its better than the current Golem or CNR. So if its getting a nerf, pls bring the others in line with Winmatar.
Unless you are sniping triggers and boning out, Tengu is worse then most battleships in missions. Because by the time you get a tengu to BS DPS levels, you have spent double the price of a T2 fit battleship that will go just as fast. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
31
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 08:13:00 -
[3608] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:About the Mare vs. Golem comparison, a few thoughts of mine, sticking to PvE:
1) Mare can insta Alpha small stuff which a Golem never can (below BC-size it can never Alpha anything, and it will never insta-hit either).
2) Long ranges favor guns a lot, esp. vs slow moving missile systems - it simply makes salvo-counting a pain, when you fight on high ranges km with Torps.
3) Torps dont work with EFT-ranges (like no missile does). It would only be fair if ingame the "real" theoretical max would be shown and not the wrong flighttime*velocity-calculation, so one could at least know for sure how far out a *not moving* target can be and still be in range.
4) Tank is not an issue.
5) The Mare is a Pirate BS, its ok when it performs a bit better than a Marauder (per CCP Definition). The Mare is so strong because it can fit oversized Lasers without issues (Tachyons), and has ship boni which ad perfectly to this system, by overcoming its weak tracking.
6) The Mare can perform on par with a Machariel in EM/Therm missions. The Paladin is not so far behind those 2 though, in EM/Therm. The Vargur overall performs similar to the Machariel, being a fair bit slower though. Still 1/4th to 1/3rd faster than a Golem ....
7) Damage-application is ok in a Golem, due to its inherent boni and ability to fit TPs, although it has to be checked if they will really be better than TCs then. And it requires a LOT of work.
8) For maximum effect the rigs on the Golem have to be mixed, one flight time and one velocity.
9) Ammo-cost is a non-issue for Laserships, unlike for the Golem with Torps ...
Bottom line: atm the Tengu is considered to be worse in PvE than the Vargur (and Paladin in EM-missions), and the only missions where it really shines are kinetic-resist weak enemies anyway, means in all others its even more behind. Still its better than the current Golem or CNR. So if its getting a nerf, pls bring the others in line with Winmatar.
-> 3. CCP is changing missile acceleration so EFT range values more closely resemble real range values.
-> 6. The Golem may be slower than the Nightmare in EM/Thermal missions, but it has damage type flexibility. Damage type selection is not to be sneered at, it can be very significant unless you never shoot stuff outside of your empire borders and turn down missions with any other type of NPC. Ever tried using a Paladin or Nightmare in Minmatar space? Even if the Golem doesn't specifically run your missions faster than a Nightmare in its turf, the Golem is certainly more flexible.
-> 8. I did that on purpose - the TE in the lows will be providing a flight time bonus so 2x velocity > 1x flight time 1x velocity - which provides the additional bonus of reaching targets faster.
-> 9. Granted, and it's not a small item either, but the Vargur and Machariel both have to deal with burning through super expensive ammo too.
The Golem isn't as far behind as everyone says and it's going to get better. Tracking Enhancers + removal of ship penalties on Javelins will improve it. I'm not convinced it needs anything further. The Golem will be getting a significant range bonus and a moderate damage application buff. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 08:20:00 -
[3609] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:
-> 9. Granted, and it's not a small item either, but the Vargur and Machariel both have to deal with burning through super expensive ammo too.
With a mach you may be carrying barrage, you rarely load it up though. For example an Angel Blockade you'll burn around 4000-5000 rounds, with barrage you just blew 5 mil in ammo, I don't know many people that do that.
Its MUCH cheaper to just use plain tech 1 ammo and burn at 750 between spawns.
Vagur only has four guns, so its a LOT easier on ammo, the mach you can dump a full cargohold in three missions if you get rats that like to sit out at 40km. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 08:24:00 -
[3610] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Mare can insta Alpha small stuff which a Golem never can (below BC-size it can never Alpha anything, and it will never insta-hit either).
If you have all Tachs in one group you're doing it wrong.
You run 4 Tachs in 2 groups: - to minimize overkilling - for cap management reasons
Noemi Nagano wrote:The Mare is so strong because it can fit oversized Lasers without issues (Tachyons)
It only has 4 turret hardpoints. Btw, 8 Tachs fits easily to Oracle. 4 Tachs fits to Paladin with ACR rig and AWU5.
Try to fit Tachs to Armageddon or Apoc... Even Abaddon has serious grid problems with Tachs. |
|
Aldos Rin
Team of Programmers Lawful Insanity
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 09:17:00 -
[3611] - Quote
Well someone needs to tell all the Cane pilots to get a drake because of the awesome HML advantage. Good thing no one knew about it in alliance tourney or it woulda been all Drakes and been boring. But since CCP seems intent on turning HMLs into big dumb slow bullets - just like turrets - can they be renamed "Caldari BIg Dumb Bullets" too. Of course I can drop a BCS or 2, another 40ish % damage to make em hit good. ANy how about adding explosion diameter and velo to the normal bullets except of course kinetic -but that would be unbalanced so Kin too. Are PvP Tengus REALLY all that good - without the 100mn?
So if you want to 'balance" the times HMLs work very well on Drakes and Tengus - can you also balance for the many times they don't. Thx AR |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 09:40:00 -
[3612] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bottom line: atm the Tengu is considered to be worse in PvE than the Vargur (and Paladin in EM-missions), and the only missions where it really shines are kinetic-resist weak enemies anyway, means in all others its even more behind. Still its better than the current Golem or CNR. So if its getting a nerf, pls bring the others in line with Winmatar.
Please post mission completion times in various factions' space to support this assertion. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
14
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 09:58:00 -
[3613] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: Edit... Oh, and it has half the sensor strength....
Honestly, those two issues are what hold Marauders back from being the kings of pve, which is what I feel they should be.
I've suggested npc ewar immunity for Marauders to give them this, but who knows....
wait what!? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
132
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 10:08:00 -
[3614] - Quote
By the way. I assume Tracking Links will also affect missiles? So basically, If you bring a friend or an alt, you don't have to sacrifice anything on your Drake, it's simply a pure buff |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 10:31:00 -
[3615] - Quote
-> 3. CCP is changing missile acceleration so EFT range values more closely resemble real range values.
-> 6. The Golem may be slower than the Nightmare in EM/Thermal missions, but it has damage type flexibility. Damage type selection is not to be sneered at, it can be very significant unless you never shoot stuff outside of your empire borders and turn down missions with any other type of NPC. Ever tried using a Paladin or Nightmare in Minmatar space? Even if the Golem doesn't specifically run your missions faster than a Nightmare in its turf, the Golem is certainly more flexible.
-> 8. I did that on purpose - the TE in the lows will be providing a flight time bonus so 2x velocity > 1x flight time 1x velocity - which provides the additional bonus of reaching targets faster.
-> 9. Granted, and it's not a small item either, but the Vargur and Machariel both have to deal with burning through super expensive ammo too.
The Golem isn't as far behind as everyone says and it's going to get better. Tracking Enhancers + removal of ship penalties on Javelins will improve it. I'm not convinced it needs anything further. The Golem will be getting a significant range bonus and a moderate damage application buff.
People complaining that when the Tengu is nerfed they'll have nothing are full of hot air.
As for bringing it up to the level of the Vargur/Mach, that's ridiculous. How about bringing those ships down to the level of the Paladin, Kronos and Golem? You're not entitled to have far and away the best missioning ship in every class just because you trained Caldari.[/quote]
3) still it would be nice if just *ingame* when you look at your loaded ammo there would be a *correct* value. Like with Turrets, and for them it gets even a correction for the TDs you face at that moment ..
6) Yes, I see that. Although Projectiles have that to a lesser degree too, which is why they are so OP atm.
8) But you do know people who have that ship will have to rerig, because they already plugged those mentioned t2s in to make it work at least a little bit?
9) Agreed.
If you think its ridiculous to demand a balance of Golem and Vargur, then I dont agree. Why is that so? If the Vargur is too OP (which I would agree at, but thats not the Vargur itself but totally out of line large ACs) and the Mach too, then either bring the others up there or nerf the 2 OP ships down.
I think your last statement is even more ridicuous - we dont have the far and away best mission ships in every class. For l3s other BCs work just as well as a Drake does, the only thing the Drake is better at is doing l4s. And we dont have the best l4 runners either. We have one very good platform (wich will be nerfed a LOT), and CNR/Golem/NH which are a fair bit behind (and NH gets nerfed too, until it gets buffed maybe in 2016).
Its statements like that last one which invalidate every reasonable bit you might say.
Apart from that: crosstraining is harder for missile-users than its for turret users in 3 alternate routes, and equal just in one (turret user going to missiles). Keep that in mind.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 10:41:00 -
[3616] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bottom line: atm the Tengu is considered to be worse in PvE than the Vargur (and Paladin in EM-missions), and the only missions where it really shines are kinetic-resist weak enemies anyway, means in all others its even more behind. Still its better than the current Golem or CNR. So if its getting a nerf, pls bring the others in line with Winmatar. Please post mission completion times in various factions' space to support this assertion.
Its been done plenty of times, and common sense tells the same. I wont do your work, and your tendency to not answer my questions at all.
Machariel > all, everywhere except in some Blood/Sansha missions, where Mare is on par.
Vargur close behind Mach. Paladin close behind Mare in Blood/Sansha.
Tengu fair bit behind those in all, a little less behind in Kinetic-Weak missions (Gurista, Serpentis, EoM), the more flight time and range included the better for the Tengu.
CNR/Golem behind Tengu.
1k DPS Dominix (350mm t2 rails + Garde II fitted) - nice DPS but weak in tank.
About the Kronos I have no solid info.
If anyone here disagrees, just go to the ships&modules or your local forums (I am using eve germany) for more info. You will find this is matter of fact.
(btw, if you assume you want to fly your l4s for a good LP-shop corp, which is a smart assumption, you will not end up in Caldari-space, just for the records ;) ) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 10:57:00 -
[3617] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:By the way. I assume Tracking Links will also affect missiles? So basically, If you bring a friend or an alt, you don't have to sacrifice anything on your Drake, it's simply a pure buff
Read OP for an answer on this - they plan to not let them work the same like they do for turrets, i.e. reduced effects. So much about "bring them more in-line" .... |
Crazy Nymphora
VN Gangsters
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 11:27:00 -
[3618] - Quote
20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 12:12:00 -
[3619] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote:20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right? You are looking for TE I think. |
Ivian Khorn
PROSPERO Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 12:13:00 -
[3620] - Quote
I said again. With this "rebalance" (actually - cutting of from payable form) CCP need to cut other weapons. You say they OP? - take down just ONE - range or wolley damage. And no more then 10-15% All ships has nearly same damage. altitude is 5-10%, and has big difference of speed. Caldary ships one of slowest ships. Make their speed like Minmatar, but and with this you no feel difference. Minmatar is 80% of PvP fleets. Change THIS and don`t nerf PvE - it don`t make rule at war in nullsec. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 12:50:00 -
[3621] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote:20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right?
Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
73
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:09:00 -
[3622] - Quote
Onictus wrote: Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far.
I guess missiles users will need some time to get used to TE/TC and their T2 ammo... |
Ivian Khorn
PROSPERO Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:14:00 -
[3623] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote:20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right? Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far.
At all 5 you have no more than 70 and effective range no more than 66. And with drake speed... you have a little chance to make it. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
763
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:19:00 -
[3624] - Quote
picattacip Vherocip wrote:Just spent the last 3 months training to fly a Tengu with T2 missiles for exploration. I guess I'm just ... unlucky.
Not sure where this is going without further explanations about ships bonus changes but in fact, on paper, you have to look at it like this:
Currently your missiles have a very long delayed dmg application but extreme ranges that can go above 150km with Cerberus, this is silly. It's even more silly because the paper dps you could apply with your missiles is not the true one because your target is moving and avoids at some point one part of the explosion radius thus less dps. Adding much more base speed to missiles will make your dps application sooner at longer ranges and almost instant at close ranges, increasing speed impact and reducing explosion radius will increase your dps applied even if base dmg is 25% less. In the end you should not loose much dps, loose range yes and this is good for the game now on top of these changes you need also to think about ship bonuses and this is where I'm really starting to believe you're not ready to see Tengus and Drakes be hangar queens, you should even expect to see a lot more missile ships once neglected become viable ships witch is good for the game. brb |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:43:00 -
[3625] - Quote
Ivian Khorn wrote:Onictus wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote:20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right? Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far. At all 5 you have no more than 70 and effective range no more than 66. And with drake speed... you have a little chance to make it.
Listed range is 115, and I most certainly have hit targets from 100 with it. |
Xorth Adimus
Blackwater USA Inc. Against ALL Authorities
20
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 13:55:00 -
[3626] - Quote
Medium ships designed and fit for long range should be able to hit at 80kms. If this isn't possible it makes them pointless vs SR battleship and tier 3 BC fleets and other opponents.
The way I see it people will just go back to using sniper canes for everything especially if you are making it easier to fit arties, or better yet tier 3 BCs.
Basic BCs should be entry level fleet ships for new players, T1 cruisers should also be part of this as smaller faster versions for specialised work.
Having T1 LR weapons like rails and now missiles nerfed in range makes all ships designed to fit them pointless, we all know LR medium lasers are already terrible.. So medium arty ships is the only way to go then!
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
374
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 14:06:00 -
[3627] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bottom line: atm the Tengu is considered to be worse in PvE than the Vargur (and Paladin in EM-missions), and the only missions where it really shines are kinetic-resist weak enemies anyway, means in all others its even more behind. Still its better than the current Golem or CNR. So if its getting a nerf, pls bring the others in line with Winmatar. Please post mission completion times in various factions' space to support this assertion. Its been done plenty of times, and common sense tells the same. I wont do your work, and your tendency to not answer most of my questions at all is not helping to motivate me more either.
Actually I answered your questions, point by point. You just didn't like the answers so you ignored them.
It's your job to provide evidence to support your assertions. Otherwise the signal-to-noise ratio of your posts will remain distressingly low. You'd still be be better than Hellboundman, though.
|
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 15:06:00 -
[3628] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Doddy wrote:
Right so you are saying everything is fine because a cane using 2 low slots (for tes) and a med slot (for an invul to get back the drakes resist bonus) does ALMOST (but not really) the same damage at that range? We will just pretend drakes don't have those 3 slots to do something else with right.
A fairly typical nano arty cane: MWD Disruptor LSE x2 DCU TE x2 Gyro x2 Nano A fairly typical nano HM drake: MWD Disruptor Web x2 LSE x2 Nano x2 BCU x2 Obviously people mix and match to taste. Comparing these two, and assuming both are rigged for tank, the Drake has about a 5k ehp advantage in tank, about a 30% advantage in dps at range, and loses about 300m/sec. I have NEVER said that the Drake does not do more damage at range. What I have said, repreatedly, is that it probably SHOULD do more damage at range as this is it's job. If the Drake lands at range there is no way an unsupported Cane can close the range and kill it before it dies in a fire. That's okay because the Drake has no way to stop that cane from leaving. Knowing this, why then do you suppose that you can go into virtually any low sec system in the game and see PvP pilots who can choose to fly anything they like, choosing the Cane over the Drake? The answer for most is probably SPEED, AGILITY, and instant damage application. In Eve, speed is LIFE. You cannot overestimate it's importance. Speed alone might not save your butt, but the lack of it ensures that your enemy has control over your fate. And when you start adding in things like implants and T3 boosts, the difference between the cane and the drake becomes pretty significant. I would argue that the BC class is perhaps the most balanced class of ships in the game. It's not perfect, but nothing is. I don't have a problem with CCP deciding that HMs and Drakes do not fit their vision for how the game should be played. That's their call, I don't fly Drakes anyway, so for me personally it doesn't much matter. BUT, when I think about how screwed Caldari Missile pilots have been for years, and now CCP is talking about screwing them some more, I get irritated -- particularly when the reasons they are offering are complete BS. I am the arty cane pilot that is supposedly getting picked on by those big mean Drake bullies. I am the guy that is supposedly at some mythical disadvantage. Yet I can fly either ship, I have T2 HMs and T2 arties, and I thing the Cane is the better boat most of the time. The Drake has it's uses, it's perfect for some things and sub-optimal for others. And in my opinion that's just how it should be.
This is why we fly both drakes and canes in our fleets. The drakes do more damage at the far end of our range, and the canes use their speed to take care of ships that can close the gap. With some tackle and logi support we can take on fleets of ther ships that outnumber us.
That isn't to say that this fleet comp is over-powered either, just that in a certain set of range and position it is very effective. It takes a bit of skill for the FC to keep that arrangement and there are several fleet comps and tactics that can break it up. |
Ivian Khorn
PROSPERO Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 15:20:00 -
[3629] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Ivian Khorn wrote:Onictus wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote:20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right? Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far. At all 5 you have no more than 70 and effective range no more than 66. And with drake speed... you have a little chance to make it. Listed range is 115, and I most certainly have hit targets from 100 with it.
With T1 missiles? and wihout imps? Lol BalComp-s are not increase range If you use rigs - artillary has rigs too. Targeting range of Drake at 5 is 75. But no 80 and of course is not 100.
Artillary and railguns has ammo with hight distance (1.2, 1.5, 1.8, range multiplier) and not so good damage |
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 15:27:00 -
[3630] - Quote
I have flown the drake in PvP since about the time it was introduced. During that time people have gone from saying it was useless to claiming it was overpowered, while it has recieved a nerf to shield recharge rate and very few buffs.
From the arguments here, I have seen little on how the delay in damage application causes a decrease in effective dps on target. Also, if heavy missiles were so overpowerd, one would expect to see them used more in PvP. But other than on Drakes, you don't see them used much. And they are used on drakes because the drakes have the tank to stay on field long enough to apply their dps despite the delay from using missiles. I don't think this points to drakes being too powerful, just to missiles and other missile boats being too weak.
Even if heavy missiles do need a nerf, I think the proposed nerf goes the wrong way. Rather than the minimal buff to speed, I think it would be better, esepcially if damage is also nerfed, to nerf flight time even more, say 50%-60% and give a buff to flight speed so you get your 25% reduction to range. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 15:36:00 -
[3631] - Quote
Ivian Khorn wrote:Onictus wrote:Ivian Khorn wrote:Onictus wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote:20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right? Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far. At all 5 you have no more than 70 and effective range no more than 66. And with drake speed... you have a little chance to make it. Listed range is 115, and I most certainly have hit targets from 100 with it. With T1 missiles? and wihout imps? Lol . BalComp-s are not increase range, If you use rigs - artillary has rigs too. Targeting range of Drake at 5 is 75. But no 80 and of course is not 100. Artillary and railguns has ammo with hight distance (1.2, 1.5, 1.8, range multiplier) and not so good damage
Yeah its called rigs and a sebo....the thing still does near 400DPS at 100km, you can't come close to that with ANY medium turret.
Do you guys NEVER use EFT? and yes T1 scourge |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 15:52:00 -
[3632] - Quote
Ivian Khorn wrote:With T1 missiles? and wihout imps? Lol . BalComp-s are not increase range, If you use rigs - artillary has rigs too. Targeting range of Drake at 5 is 75. But no 80 and of course is not 100.
Artillary and railguns has ammo with hight distance (1.2, 1.5, 1.8, range multiplier) and not so good damage
I did this quickly in Pyfa:
EHP: 73,8k Damage (dps/alpha): 399/2395 (no drones) Range (in Pyfa): 115 km Targeting range: 120 km
[Drake, Drake fit]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Internal Force Field Array I
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
Warrior II x5
Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-605 Zainou 'Snapshot' Heavy Missiles HM-705 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 16:18:00 -
[3633] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Ivian Khorn wrote:With T1 missiles? and wihout imps? Lol . BalComp-s are not increase range, If you use rigs - artillary has rigs too. Targeting range of Drake at 5 is 75. But no 80 and of course is not 100.
Artillary and railguns has ammo with hight distance (1.2, 1.5, 1.8, range multiplier) and not so good damage I did this quickly in Pyfa: EHP: 73,8k Damage (dps/alpha): 399/2395 (no drones) Range (in Pyfa): 115 km Targeting range: 120 km If you need speed replace one of the LSEs with named MWD. [Drake, Drake fit] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Internal Force Field Array I Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Warrior II x5 Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-605 Zainou 'Snapshot' Heavy Missiles HM-705 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005
[Drake, snipe]
7x Heavy Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile)
Sensor Booster II (Targeting Range Script) 2x Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Kinetic Deflection Field II
2x Ballistic Control System II 2x Capacitor Power Relay II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I
54,000 EHP Cap Stable 42% 368 DPS w/ CN Scourge Missile Range 115km Lock range 120km
No implants.
Dirt nasty cheap.
|
Lili Lu
507
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 17:26:00 -
[3634] - Quote
You see this is why the Drake had to be nerfed (even if only indirectly through HMs) because all these supposed knowledgable Drake pilots posting their butthurt here couldn't even fathom how to construct a 100km + range one. They have got to be the most unimaginitive lot in the game. They've never had range considerations forced on them, or tradeoff considerations in general for that matter, and now they will. They will have to learn to be creative with fittings and sacrificing things they formerly couldn't see past like the brick tank or whatever, in order to make the ship perform in a specific desired way.
And the sad thing is even with these changes it will still be probably best in class by virtue of the resist bonus. But I'm going to dance the day that the ridiculous BC shield regen stat gets altered, even though that will only affect pve. The damn things have been imbalanced from the getgo. It has led a charmed life, while the Myrm's op'd original 125m3 bandwidth was overnerfed at warp speed.
Oh and someone's bound to say but but the regen time was already increased to 1400 from 1250. Yeah but at the same time it got purger rigs which essentially restored the regen tank to what it was. The regen on a BS is 2500, and a Cruiser 1250. Meanwhile the shield hp of a BC is much closer to a BS's than a Cruisers. So even if the regen was placed squarely between a BS and a Cruiser at 1875 it would still regen faster than the other two ships due to having the hp skewed toward a BS's. I doubt it will get nerfed to 1875, but there's plenty of room between 1400 and 1875.
Drake/Tengu/HML addicts have ever only needed these three things to just about everything in this game, and usually quite well and even easier than any other race or class of ships. That is being taken away. Adjust fellas. There are plenty of aspects to this game you will have to discover the same way people who haven't followed the easy route have been doing for years. Yeah, I know what I'm talking about because I built an empire alt specifically into that easy route myself. I'll be looking forward to a Nighthawk buff on that character, but I've also trained it into Gallente ships for the Domi since every character in this game should have two races trained. And on the off-chance that CCP finally fiures out how to fix Gallente "soon." |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 17:32:00 -
[3635] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:You see this is why the Drake had to be nerfed (even if only indirectly through HMs) because all these supposed knowledgable Drake pilots posting their butthurt here couldn't even fathom how to construct a 100km + range one . They have got to be the most unimaginitive lot in the game. They've never had range considerations forced on them, or tradeoff considerations in general for that matter, and now they will. They will have to learn to be creative with fittings and sacrificing things they formerly couldn't see past like the brick tank or whatever, in order to make the ship perform in a specific desired way. And the sad thing is even with these changes it will still be probably best in class by virtue of the resist bonus. But I'm going to dance the day that the ridiculous BC shield regen stat gets altered, even though that will only affect pve. The damn things have been imbalanced from the getgo. It has led a charmed life, while the Myrm's op'd original 125m3 bandwidth was overnerfed at warp speed. Oh and someone's bound to say but but the regen time was already increased to 1400 from 1250. Yeah but at the same time it got purger rigs which essentially restored the regen tank to what it was. The regen on a BS is 2500, and a Cruiser 1250. Meanwhile the shield hp of a BC is much closer to a BS's than a Cruisers. So even if the regen was placed squarely between a BS and a Cruiser at 1875 it would still regen faster than the other two ships due to having the hp skewed toward a BS's. I doubt it will get nerfed to 1875, but there's plenty of room between 1400 and 1875. Drake/Tengu/HML addicts have ever only needed these three things to just about everything in this game, and usually quite well and even easier than any other race or class of ships. That is being taken away. Adjust fellas. There are plenty of aspects to this game you will have to discover the same way people who haven't followed the easy route have been doing for years. Yeah, I know what I'm talking about because I built an empire alt specifically into that easy route myself. I'll be looking forward to a Nighthawk buff on that character, but I've also trained it into Gallente ships for the Domi since every character in this game should have two races trained. And on the off-chance that CCP finally fiures out how to fix Gallente "soon."
There going to remove the resist bonus to rate of fire i think long overdue mind |
Lili Lu
507
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 17:35:00 -
[3636] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: There going to remove the resist bonus to rate of fire i think long overdue mind If you have read Fozzie's OP and followup posts I wouldn't be so sure of that. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 17:42:00 -
[3637] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Harvey James wrote: There going to remove the resist bonus to rate of fire i think long overdue mind If you have read Fozzie's OP and followup posts I wouldn't be so sure of that. It seems more likely that the kinetic bonus will be replaced with rof or maybe general damage bonus. The HM range nerf and forced fitting choices for range with these changes to TC and TE would just be undone if they gave the hull a range bonus. I won't mind if they don't replace the resist bonus (afterall the prophesy may be keeping it's resist bonus even with rebalancing) as long as the skewed general BC shield regen time is nerfed.
Nah the prophecy is going to be drone boat and harbinger will be mini abbadon plus you cant have 2 caldari bc's with resist bonus and they arent going to remove the ferox's if they want people to use it |
Ivian Khorn
PROSPERO Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 17:48:00 -
[3638] - Quote
But somewho forgot - missiles not do the instant damage. And their effiency loses with hight speed at ALL derections. When ship fly to you by line at hight speed - you dealt same damage. very LOW damage. When others (exactly cannons) can blow it up by one volley. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 17:49:00 -
[3639] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Harvey James wrote: There going to remove the resist bonus to rate of fire i think long overdue mind If you have read Fozzie's OP and followup posts I wouldn't be so sure of that. It seems more likely that the kinetic bonus will be replaced with rof or maybe general damage bonus. The HM range nerf and forced fitting choices for range with these changes to TC and TE would just be undone if they gave the hull a range bonus. I won't mind if they don't replace the resist bonus (afterall the prophesy may be keeping it's resist bonus even with rebalancing) as long as the skewed general BC shield regen time is nerfed.
Actually, what I see happening with the drake is..
remove kinetic bonus and give RoF bonus to bring all damage types up to the (soon to be nerfed) kinetic damage. Reduce the shield recharge rate. Give it a flight time/velocity bonus to heavy missiles to bring the range back up 10-15% from where they nerfed it.
This does several things. Give the drake back some range, but not full range. Gives it the same damage with all missiles, but not the damage it currently has on live. Reducing the shield recharge rate takes away the ability to passive tank. - This ultimately gives the drake more fitting capabilities since it won't be using most of its slots for tank, but also makes them mre suseptible to cap warfare which is ultimately what gives them the upper hand in pvp compared to other bcs.
It may also come with some sig reduction and velocity buff.
I feel this may be a good balance..
Like I've said though, the only problem I have is losing effectiveness with the tengu without having at least one of our battleships buffed to fill the efficiency gap that we'd get from the tengu nerf.
That said though, I really wish they would push the Marauder rebalance to the top of the list. I only say this because these ships have been broken for years without any compensation.
I had a golem, but it's pretty sad that I had to trade it for a tengu in order to get effectveness.
The only thing the Golem had going for it was dps, but everything else is lacking...
P.S.
I would love to see a new pirate bs that was the skin of the Rokh, but turned it into a torpedo boat.
I would fly that thing to the end of the earth.
Probably my favorite ship skin in game... (looks like the upper receiver of a desert eagle) |
Lili Lu
507
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 17:52:00 -
[3640] - Quote
Oh and here's a fun eft exercize for Drake addicts. Try getting a mwd, 7 heavy beam II, and an 800 plate onto the current Harbinger and having it even with falloff touching 100km. Since one of the recent posts I read did not seem to understand the grid penalty cost of range rigs for guns, and seemed to think the 80% range bonus with tech II ammo was all that. Also, try giving it some tank, and oh note your dps at that range. Have fun. |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 17:55:00 -
[3641] - Quote
bc's are meant to be close range so why would they give it a missile velocity bonus? Tier3's do all the sniping we need otherwise look at the cerb or caracal/ raven for missile sniping .. as much as missiles can snipe anyway |
Lili Lu
508
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:14:00 -
[3642] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: Nah the prophecy is going to be drone boat and harbinger will be mini abbadon plus you cant have 2 caldari bc's with resist bonus and they arent going to remove the ferox's if they want people to use it Well, it certainly will be interesting when they get to BCs. As for the not two resist bonused Caldari BCs, couldn't the same be said for not having two range bonused Caldari BCs?
One of Fozzie's followup posts hinted that the resist bonus on the Drake is not necessarily on the chopping block (even as nebulous as that chopping block is atm since they are still working on frigs and cruisers atm).
A mini Abaddon out of the Harby is a possibility. But it could just as easily be a mini Apoc/Abaddon (optimal and damage bonus) and the prophecy with drone damage and resist bonus. Loads of possibilities exist for all the races. Regardless I sure hope they manage to make the Gallente ships somehow relevant. And anyway, the BCs will not be getting the overall buffing that frigs and cruisers are getting. In fact I would argue they will still need some overall nerfing so as to not once again negate the combat cruisers and continue the training rush to BC. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:16:00 -
[3643] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:bc's are meant to be close range so why would they give it a missile velocity bonus? Tier3's do all the sniping we need otherwise look at the cerb or caracal/ raven for missile sniping .. as much as missiles can snipe anyway
I wouldn't say that tier 3s are meant to be snipers.
They're more like destroyers in that they're glass cannons.
Now, no one ever said that tier 2s are only supposed to be close range boats either.
If this were the case than all their bonuses would only be specifically to short range weapons.
CCP would never limit a ship to be just a ranged boat, or just a short range boat.
Sure, some may have bonuses that suggest long range weapons, and some may have bonuses that suggest short range weapons (i.e. tracking/optimal bonuses) but they can still be effective with the opposing weapons. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:18:00 -
[3644] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Onictus wrote: Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far.
I guess missiles users will need some time to get used to TE/TC and their T2 ammo...
basic drake without implats can break 80k |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:19:00 -
[3645] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Harvey James wrote: Nah the prophecy is going to be drone boat and harbinger will be mini abbadon plus you cant have 2 caldari bc's with resist bonus and they arent going to remove the ferox's if they want people to use it Well, it certainly will be interesting when they get to BCs. As for the not two resist bonused Caldari BCs, couldn't the same be said for not having two range bonused Caldari BCs? One of Fozzie's followup posts hinted that the resist bonus on the Drake is not necessarily on the chopping block (even as nebulous as that chopping block is atm since they are still working on frigs and cruisers atm). A mini Abaddon out of the Harby is a possibility. But it could just as easily be a mini Apoc/Abaddon (optimal and damage bonus) and the prophecy with drone damage and resist bonus. Loads of possibilities exist for all the races. Regardless I sure hope they manage to make the Gallente ships somehow relevant. And anyway, the BCs will not be getting the overall buffing that frigs and cruisers are getting. In fact I would argue they will still need some overall nerfing so as to not once again negate the combat cruisers and continue the training rush to BC.
Well, I think they'll try to leave the battlecruisers along the same lines they are now.
The reason why I say this is because they're buffing cruisers quite a bit, so to nerf bcs may bring them too close together and end up leaving a cap between cruiser and bs... |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:21:00 -
[3646] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Harvey James wrote:bc's are meant to be close range so why would they give it a missile velocity bonus? Tier3's do all the sniping we need otherwise look at the cerb or caracal/ raven for missile sniping .. as much as missiles can snipe anyway I wouldn't say that tier 3s are meant to be snipers. They're more like destroyers in that they're glass cannons. Now, no one ever said that tier 2s are only supposed to be close range boats either. If this were the case than all their bonuses would only be specifically to short range weapons. CCP would never limit a ship to be just a ranged boat, or just a short range boat. Sure, some may have bonuses that suggest long range weapons, and some may have bonuses that suggest short range weapons (i.e. tracking/optimal bonuses) but they can still be effective with the opposing weapons.
why do you think they removed torps from naga? the devs have already said that they were designed with sniping very much in mind |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:26:00 -
[3647] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:You see this is why the Drake had to be nerfed (even if only indirectly through HMs) because all these supposed knowledgable Drake pilots posting their butthurt here couldn't even fathom how to construct a 100km + range one . They have got to be the most unimaginitive lot in the game. They've never had range considerations forced on them, or tradeoff considerations in general for that matter, and now they will. They will have to learn to be creative with fittings and sacrificing things they formerly couldn't see past like the brick tank or whatever, in order to make the ship perform in a specific desired way. And the sad thing is even with these changes it will still be probably best in class by virtue of the resist bonus. But I'm going to dance the day that the ridiculous BC shield regen stat gets altered, even though that will only affect pve. The damn things have been imbalanced from the getgo. It has led a charmed life, while the Myrm's op'd original 125m3 bandwidth was overnerfed at warp speed. Oh and someone's bound to say but but the regen time was already increased to 1400 from 1250. Yeah but at the same time it got purger rigs which essentially restored the regen tank to what it was. The regen on a BS is 2500, and a Cruiser 1250. Meanwhile the shield hp of a BC is much closer to a BS's than a Cruisers. So even if the regen was placed squarely between a BS and a Cruiser at 1875 it would still regen faster than the other two ships due to having the hp skewed toward a BS's. I doubt it will get nerfed to 1875, but there's plenty of room between 1400 and 1875. Drake/Tengu/HML addicts have ever only needed these three things to just about everything in this game, and usually quite well and even easier than any other race or class of ships. That is being taken away. Adjust fellas. There are plenty of aspects to this game you will have to discover the same way people who haven't followed the easy route have been doing for years. Yeah, I know what I'm talking about because I built an empire alt specifically into that easy route myself. I'll be looking forward to a Nighthawk buff on that character, but I've also trained it into Gallente ships for the Domi since every character in this game should have two races trained. And on the off-chance that CCP finally fiures out how to fix Gallente "soon."
lol your assumeing a nighthawk buff but all itll most likely be is 5% dmg with a flight time bonus so wont actualy buff anything maybe get an extra low if were lucky but thats it. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
288
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:30:00 -
[3648] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control.
Reduced fitting costs for HAMs is something I would very very much like. Do want. |
Lili Lu
508
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:44:00 -
[3649] - Quote
serras bang wrote: lol your assumeing a nighthawk buff but all itll most likely be is 5% dmg with a flight time bonus so wont actualy buff anything maybe get an extra low if were lucky but thats it. The tech II BC rebalancing is far off on the horizon. We really can't have any idea what they will look like til we see what is done with tech I BCs and BSs, and then in what order tech III cruisers, tech II Cruisers and tech II BCs will be addressed.
But in general it appears safe to say the tech II BCs will get some level of buff in comparison to all those. At least safe to say the current Nighthawk, Abso, and Astarte since they are all are weak in comparison to the current Sleip. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 18:52:00 -
[3650] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:serras bang wrote: lol your assumeing a nighthawk buff but all itll most likely be is 5% dmg with a flight time bonus so wont actualy buff anything maybe get an extra low if were lucky but thats it. The tech II BC rebalancing is far off on the horizon. We really can't have any idea what they will look like til we see what is done with tech I BCs and BSs, and then in what order tech III cruisers, tech II Cruisers and tech II BCs will be addressed. But in general it appears safe to say the tech II BCs will get some level of buff in comparison to all those. At least safe to say the current Nighthawk, Abso, and Astarte since they are all are weak in comparison to the current Sleip.
The sleip is very nice perhaps too good like a heavy vaga almost could use some tweaks i think but it also depends on what they plan to do with command links in terms of AOE/range of them as this would be a limiting factor in terms of weapon range personally i hope they bring them into Long point range so there tank bonus means something otherwise why give let them have such strong tank as they will surely buff their EHP and more slots. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 19:32:00 -
[3651] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Oh and here's a fun eft exercize for Drake addicts. Try getting a mwd, 7 heavy beam II, and an 800 plate onto the current Harbinger and having it even with falloff touching 100km. Since one of the recent posts I read did not seem to understand the grid penalty cost of range rigs for guns, and seemed to think the 80% range bonus with tech II ammo was all that. Also, try giving it some tank, and oh note your dps at that range. Have fun.
Even though I'm not a Drake addict but I just had to... DPS isn't high especially so deep in falloff... All level 5, no implants.
[Harbinger, 100k Harby, kinda]
800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M Heavy Beam Laser II, Aurora M [Empty High slot]
Medium Energy Locus Coordinator II Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 20:01:00 -
[3652] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Harvey James wrote:bc's are meant to be close range so why would they give it a missile velocity bonus? Tier3's do all the sniping we need otherwise look at the cerb or caracal/ raven for missile sniping .. as much as missiles can snipe anyway I wouldn't say that tier 3s are meant to be snipers. They're more like destroyers in that they're glass cannons. Now, no one ever said that tier 2s are only supposed to be close range boats either. If this were the case than all their bonuses would only be specifically to short range weapons. CCP would never limit a ship to be just a ranged boat, or just a short range boat. Sure, some may have bonuses that suggest long range weapons, and some may have bonuses that suggest short range weapons (i.e. tracking/optimal bonuses) but they can still be effective with the opposing weapons. why do you think they removed torps from naga? the devs have already said that they were designed with sniping very much in mind
Actually, the naga originally had a bonus to torps.
They removed it because torps couldnt compete with turrets on a glass cannon.
Also, you can squeeze a lot of dps out of a close range tier 3. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 20:11:00 -
[3653] - Quote
Is there any consideration that comes from the alliance tournament?
To me it seems to be a good reference point on capability.
Drakes and tengus did ok, but only if they use kiting with hmls..
Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?
And didnt that very same team use winmatar the whole way through?
If hmls are so op, then how come they didnt pwn on a level playing field?
Granted I will say that tengus did outperform other t3s, but it underperformed to sleips and clays by a lot.
I would have to say that winmatar noticeably shined in the alliance tournament, and hmls underperformed in the alliance tournament.
However, gallente was almost missing from the battlefield besides the kronos. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 20:20:00 -
[3654] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:serras bang wrote: lol your assumeing a nighthawk buff but all itll most likely be is 5% dmg with a flight time bonus so wont actualy buff anything maybe get an extra low if were lucky but thats it. The tech II BC rebalancing is far off on the horizon. We really can't have any idea what they will look like til we see what is done with tech I BCs and BSs, and then in what order tech III cruisers, tech II Cruisers and tech II BCs will be addressed. But in general it appears safe to say the tech II BCs will get some level of buff in comparison to all those. At least safe to say the current Nighthawk, Abso, and Astarte since they are all are weak in comparison to the current Sleip.
we also have no idea if the resist profile will be staying with tech 2 ect it maybe that it dosent. however thats an interesting thing why bugger over the tengus subs ect and leave as is with a tech 1 initial resist profile and do the same with the rest of the t3's ? wouldnt that indead balance a lot of the issues out while stopping oversides abs and mwd's |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 20:29:00 -
[3655] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?
Yes, it was Minmatar rush setup.
But you can't say ASBs didn't have anything to do with it. Sleipnirs with ASBs... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 20:36:00 -
[3656] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won? Yes, it was Minmatar rush setup. But you can't say ASBs didn't have anything to do with it. Sleipnirs with ASBs...
I was gonna mention that, but a lot of fleets were using them as well. |
May Ke
Pointy Teeth Society Ishukone Drug and Research Utilization Group
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 20:37:00 -
[3657] - Quote
Thanks for ruining the cane. BC's should be able to fit the largest medium-sized guns, why else would they be developed? Why have a ship that is bigger than a cruiser, yet not able to fit battleship-size guns, and design it so that it cannot be used effectively? Not logical. Who? Me? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 20:55:00 -
[3658] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bottom line: atm the Tengu is considered to be worse in PvE than the Vargur (and Paladin in EM-missions), and the only missions where it really shines are kinetic-resist weak enemies anyway, means in all others its even more behind. Still its better than the current Golem or CNR. So if its getting a nerf, pls bring the others in line with Winmatar. Please post mission completion times in various factions' space to support this assertion. Its been done plenty of times, and common sense tells the same. I wont do your work, and your tendency to not answer most of my questions at all is not helping to motivate me more either. Actually I answered your questions, point by point. You just didn't like the answers so you ignored them. It's your job to provide evidence to support your assertions. Otherwise the signal-to-noise ratio of your posts will remain distressingly low. You'd still be be better than Hellboundman, though.
Sorry, but no. You didnt answer my questions point by point. You answered some, yes. And for others you gave indirect answers. I rarely heard a "yes" or "no" when in fact it was easy to give one or the other. You postponed this 1on1 test to another time, in fact stating I was right but not saying it, for example ... but I dont want to let this get off line - its ok, you decided to do it like you did. If you question common sense statements and try to look smart that way, go on.
I know there are enough ppl who know the truth about those things, and so I will just stick to them. Its a bit too much of an effort to go on like this :)
Matter of factly large ACs are far more out of line than HML, and Mach is more out of line than Tengu and Drake together. Since its highend/highprice content its a bit less of an issue for CCP though obviously .. still the fact remains, a so called OP BC for Caldari gets nerfed (which is decent in long range PvP and l4 missions), totally OP l4 masher AC-ships stay like they are, PvP in BS hulls is still a no-missile thing (apart from maybe the Typhoon, as its Winmatar thats maybe legit ..), and long range PvP in missiles works even worse than now. I dont like this kind of change, it makes the game even more boring than it is now.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 21:05:00 -
[3659] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Ivian Khorn wrote:Onictus wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote:20% damage and 25% range, isn't it too much? I think many of us use Heavy Missile for snipping, the damage nerf is reasonable (if not saying it's also a bit too much) but the range nerf would very much change the use of Heavy Missiles. This change is just for the sake of balancing, not to force people to change their play style, right? Which is why I had to post a 100km range drake before anyone would believe it would shoot that far. At all 5 you have no more than 70 and effective range no more than 66. And with drake speed... you have a little chance to make it. Listed range is 115, and I most certainly have hit targets from 100 with it.
He is right there, his ship is rigged for range though. Point is - with less DPS it would just not work anymore either. And those who say learn about tech 2 ammo should maybe check which t2 ammo is available for HML. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 21:10:00 -
[3660] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Is there any consideration that comes from the alliance tournament?
To me it seems to be a good reference point on capability.
Drakes and tengus did ok, but only if they use kiting with hmls..
Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?
And didnt that very same team use winmatar the whole way through?
If hmls are so op, then how come they didnt pwn on a level playing field?
Granted I will say that tengus did outperform other t3s, but it underperformed to sleips and clays by a lot.
I would have to say that winmatar noticeably shined in the alliance tournament, and hmls underperformed in the alliance tournament.
However, gallente was almost missing from the battlefield besides the kronos.
I take that back, gallente was present, but mostly in the form of drone boats.
Well, thats my point too. Where else than in a tournament can you see which ships are considered to be top for PvP?
And about PvE: if you go to missions hubs of corps with decent LP shops you will find those Machariels and Vargurs in dozens. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
102
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 21:19:00 -
[3661] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won? Yes, it was Minmatar rush setup. But you can't say ASBs didn't have anything to do with it. Sleipnirs with ASBs...
Also, I could be wrong but I seem to remember minmatar performing quite well in at9 when there weren't any asbs. |
Lili Lu
508
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 21:41:00 -
[3662] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Is there any consideration that comes from the alliance tournament?
To me it seems to be a good reference point on capability.
Drakes and tengus did ok, but only if they use kiting with hmls..
Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?
And didnt that very same team use winmatar the whole way through?
If hmls are so op, then how come they didnt pwn on a level playing field?
Granted I will say that tengus did outperform other t3s, but it underperformed to sleips and clays by a lot.
I would have to say that winmatar noticeably shined in the alliance tournament, and hmls underperformed in the alliance tournament.
However, gallente was almost missing from the battlefield besides the kronos.
I take that back, gallente was present, but mostly in the form of drone boats. Well, thats my point too. Where else than in a tournament can you see which ships are considered to be top for PvP? And about PvE: if you go to missions hubs of corps with decent LP shops you will find those Machariels and Vargurs in dozens. No. You can't use the Alliance Tournament for any valid analysis of the current eve battlefield balance. It is an artificial environment within an artificial environment. There are point costs for ships which determine their relative value in the tournament. The fittings will be different because tackling considerations are different. There is limited space for the fight, the arena boundaries. etc. The alliance tournament will not help you apologize for the drake or tengu, sorry. |
Ivian Khorn
PROSPERO Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 22:31:00 -
[3663] - Quote
At gang-pvp battlefield limited too. Taklers, jammers, and risk to lose target when it fly so far from scrammble. It is short-range combat. At range useful tempest or other, who takes down many sub-kaps by alpha-shotout. Or you somewhere see Alpha-shot wing with missile? (zerg-rush without comments) |
Ludiah
GOTTEG Mining and Industrial Union
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 22:48:00 -
[3664] - Quote
I have not had time to read through all 183+ pages of this discussion. I did want to talk about the overblown Hurricane nerf though.
I can understand your issues with the PG requirements of the long range weapons for the Amarr. However, I don't think that the Hurricane needs to be singled out for a nerf to justify the unnecessary decrease to the arty PG requirements. First of all, I don't think the reduction in PG usage by arty is justified at this point; nor do I think that the reduction in PG for the Hurricane was justified either.
I think the comparison of the base/bonused PG's of the Myrmidon (with the recent hybrid buff I think this is a good ship to compare the Hurricane to)and the Hurricane would help demonstrate my point a bit. As well as the PG usage (before and after 10% reduction in PG usage for Arty) between the 720mm TII arty and the 250mm TII railguns.
So. Using Pyfa and setting the Character to All 5, no implants.
Hurricane (current): 1350 MW (Base) 1687.5 MW (Bonused) Hurricane (proposed): 1125 MW (Base) 1406.25 MW (Bonused) Myrmidon: 1,175 MW (Base) 1468.8 MW (Bonused)
So the Hurricane is going to be sitting on a 17% NERF to it's Base PG. All because we are also 'getting' a 10% reduction in Arty PG fitting. Thanks, I'll pass. You can keep your 10% reduction to arty PG. I've never had issues fitting Arty on any cruiser sized ship I wanted to use it with (even if it required a PG module/implant/rig).
Here's the PG requirements (base and skill V) for the different weapons both before the proposed power reductions for arty and after.
250mm Railgun II - 208 MW (Base) 187.2 MW (Skill V) 720mm Howitzer Artillery II (current) - 275 MW (Base) 247.5 MW (Skill V) 720mm Howitzer Artillery II (proposed) - 247.5 MW (Base) 222.75 MW (Skill V)
Using the, overused, 2 T2 LSE passive shield Hurricane (for PvE) I can't fit a full rack of 720mm's now without an implant/rig/module and that's before I put anything in the 2 utility high's. The same is true of a dual MAR Myrm with a full rack of T2 250mm's (similar-ish peak paper repair/recharge rates though the Myrm can usually fit a better omni tank). So obviously the part about them not wanting us to carry a full rack of 720mm's isn't talking about one of the most common shield PvE layouts for the Hurricane. Using armor on the Cane gives worse repair rates (as the 'Cane isn't bonused to armor rep) and worse PG usage (MAR's use more PG than LSE's do).
As a side note: Active shield is weird with the 'Cane right now with the ASB's. Do you design a cap-stable (but only when the ASB has charges) tank, or a cap-unstable (aka pulsed, and no cap boosters) normal shield booster with a shield Amp tank(to get closer to those higher recharge rates of dual MAR/passive shield)?
Swapping to a prototypical shield cane for PvP (dropping the purgers for extenders and EM screens, dropping the SPRs for more Gyros and TE's, and dropping the Shield Recharger/AB/LSE's for MWD, Invuln-field, a webber and a disruptor) the 'Cane can 'just' fit a full rack of 720's (98.31% PG used) and two free high-slots with only 28.5 MW of PG remaining. That's with the current PG requirements. I can *MAYBE* see nerfing it's PG by say 50 MW or so to force the use of a PG implant/rig/module.
With the proposed changes the Cane isn't anything but gimped intentionally (imho). You can't fit that overused passive shield Cane with a full rack of 425mm's and a couple of medium neuts (it would require 1487.9 MW while the changed Hurricane would only have 1406.25 MW), let alone a full rack of 720mm's. But you can fit that paper myrm with a full rack of Heavy Neutron II's. Granted they are two different guns, but the concept is that if a (formerly) tier 2 BC can fit a full rack of their largest short-range mediums then surely their racial counterparts should also be able to fit a full rack of 'their' largest short-range mediums. (What types, pg usage, cpu usage etc are different but could be worked out).
According to the patch notes from Crucible (when the hybrid weapons got their PG usage cut):
CCP: "Hybrid turrets now use 12% less powergrid, rounded to the nearest number, with the exception of the Light Electron Blaster I, Light Ion Blaster I, 125 mm Railgun I and 75mm Railgun I which remain unchanged."
There was no corresponding cut to PG on hybrid ships (and for a justifiable reason their PG's tended to either be on the small side or just weren't up to handling the PG requirements of the old Hybrids. But there the hybrids were changed across the board. If you want to cut the PG requirements for Arty as WELL as the Base PG for Hurricanes but not do the same to AC's then it's quite obvious that this is just a distraction in order to be able to nerf the Hurricane before the 'balancing' component which you already have (imho) hinted at nerfing further.
CCP: "The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons."
That isn't a problem. That is a load of bullcrap designed to take our eyes of the fact that the Amarr are getting quite lovely drops in PG usage for their long (and short) ranged weapons without any comparative 17% nerf to their respective PG's. WE DON'T WANT THAT KIND OF NERF! You are 'Fixing' a problem that quite frankly just doesn't f'ing exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cont. |
Ludiah
GOTTEG Mining and Industrial Union
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 22:50:00 -
[3665] - Quote
To repeat. As it stands now. One cannot fit a full load of 720mm T2's into a Hurricane with normal fittings for long-range encounters.
CCP: "The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm."
We already cannot fit a full rack of 720's on a T2 fit ship without those things. So you are nerfing our range, and dps on our AC's but not giving us anything we don't already have! If you INSIST on dropping the PG requirements of the arty by 10% and use this to demand a PG drop (which should be across the board if you aren't planning on over-nerfing the Hurricane intentionally) then the only way you can justify any PG drop is to limit it to that SAME 10%!!!! But by doing that you are just cancelling out the change. So really. . . . All this is? Is justification to unnecessarily beat the ever-living-daylights out of the Hurricane (so it can't live up to its description) when it doesn't need it.
I highly doubt CCP will actually listen to the pilots who've flown these ships and know that they don't need this nerf. It'd hurt but it might be enough to get me to cancel my three accounts and to try to convince my friends to quit playing as well. The funny thing is? I don't even know that I own a Hurricane currently. It's not useful for what I've been doing in game. But this mainstay of the Minmatar fleet is the product not of an overpowered PG; but by a combination of: love by the pilots to find optimal configurations for their ship, and a good slot layout. I BEG CCP to wait to nerf the Hurricane till they've looked at all the rest of the ships in the BC line-up. PLEASE wait till you have the cruisers balanced and have actually started working on the BC's before you nerf the heart and soul out of the Hurricane!!!!!
I was so looking forward to the otherwise positive changes that I've been seeing in the balancing act. Now I'm dreading what other Minmatar ships that CCP will unjustifiably pillage and trash in this balancing act. The Rifter's already been knocked to the middle/bottom of the pack, and the Cane looks like it'll make the Myrm look like a freaking battleship after these changes (the Myrm will easily have a better tank, and dps than the Cane could hope to reasonably get). |
Ares Desideratus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 22:59:00 -
[3666] - Quote
I can understand nerfing heavy missile launchers, but the Cane is perfect the way it is, and not in a bad way. The Cane is what every other battlecruiser should be modeled after. |
Operative X10-4
Aqua Team Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:15:00 -
[3667] - Quote
As a missile user I have to say that I loved the missile changes, and I agree about the heavy missiles damage nerf. Let me tell that all weapons systems besides drones have 2 types: short range + high damage, long range + low damage, and everybody knows that heavy missiles are not like that right now.
But there is one thing, as a long range weapon it's meant to be use as a sniper fit, and one thing that makes snipers weapons class usefull is the insta strike of turrets.
Can some one answer me how can I use a missile as a sniper weapon on a fleet engagement without my targets warp away even before my missiles reach half the distance bettween us?? Impossible right... epecially without tacklers... something that turrets dont have to deal with.
So ok nerf the damage, it makes sence, but buff INSANELY MISSILE SPEED LOL, so that way my "missile sniper boat" something that nowadays is non existent will hit its targets. .... Bring new "warp missiles" class FTW!!! hahahaha :3 |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:26:00 -
[3668] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:I can understand nerfing heavy missile launchers, but the Cane is perfect the way it is, and not in a bad way. The Cane is what every other battlecruiser should be modeled after.
Err .. no. The Cane is even more OP than the Drake in BC vs BC encounters (although not as a long range platform, there the Drake is strong/stronger in certain ranges). Thats why Canes numbers are also bigger than Drakes (in lowsec and highsec PvP), and the Drake is only really OP in nullsec blobs. So your assumption of the Cane being fine is while in the same posting understanding the HML nerf is strange. The Cane is the best of 4 (although IMO overall pretty balanced) tier 2 BC atm, and if you consider the Drake to be OP, the Cane by definition is OP too.
Besides: people here really forget all the time to judge things as a whole - I am so tired of explaining this again and again, but for one more time:
EHP, range and DPS are not all which counts. Dronebay/bandwith, speed, agility, fitting variance, sigradius, locking range and so on are all important when it comes down to real fights. If its just a slugout of EHP and DPS the HAM Drake would win vs the other 3 tier 2s. In real Eve it loses though, to all of them (has been tested, and can be tested again, some guy who claimed the opposite rejected my offer to show him and kill his Drake). If you dont know about things like that, then I suggest you should first get your facts straight. No offense intended, to anyone, but sticking with facts would help this whole thing.
Best regards.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:32:00 -
[3669] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Is there any consideration that comes from the alliance tournament?
To me it seems to be a good reference point on capability.
Drakes and tengus did ok, but only if they use kiting with hmls..
Now, wasnt it an almost pure winmatar fleet that won?
And didnt that very same team use winmatar the whole way through?
If hmls are so op, then how come they didnt pwn on a level playing field?
Granted I will say that tengus did outperform other t3s, but it underperformed to sleips and clays by a lot.
I would have to say that winmatar noticeably shined in the alliance tournament, and hmls underperformed in the alliance tournament.
However, gallente was almost missing from the battlefield besides the kronos.
I take that back, gallente was present, but mostly in the form of drone boats. Well, thats my point too. Where else than in a tournament can you see which ships are considered to be top for PvP? And about PvE: if you go to missions hubs of corps with decent LP shops you will find those Machariels and Vargurs in dozens. No. You can't use the Alliance Tournament for any valid analysis of the current eve battlefield balance. It is an artificial environment within an artificial environment. There are point costs for ships which determine their relative value in the tournament. The fittings will be different because tackling considerations are different. There is limited space for the fight, the arena boundaries. etc. The alliance tournament will not help you apologize for the drake or tengu, sorry.
So it is ok if caldari DPS cruisers and BCs have 0 roles within 125 km arena ? That does not mean anything ? Not even the completely OP Ham drake made it in and that says nothing ?
Or, did you say that the people who organise the tournament messed up the value assigned to ships to a point where none of the caldari was good enough ?
Not only is the tournament a perfect indicator of ships power, it is the best.
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:34:00 -
[3670] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Actually, what I see happening with the drake is..
remove kinetic bonus and give RoF bonus to bring all damage types up to the (soon to be nerfed) kinetic damage. Reduce the shield recharge rate. Give it a flight time/velocity bonus to heavy missiles to bring the range back up 10-15% from where they nerfed it.
This does several things. Give the drake back some range, but not full range. Gives it the same damage with all missiles, but not the damage it currently has on live. Reducing the shield recharge rate takes away the ability to passive tank. - This ultimately gives the drake more fitting capabilities since it won't be using most of its slots for tank, but also makes them mre suseptible to cap warfare which is ultimately what gives them the upper hand in pvp compared to other bcs.
RoF>damage bonus because 1/0.75 = 1.333*. So with a RoF bonus rather than a damage boost it will be doing more dps with ALL missile types. so HAM drakes will be easily doing over 600dps of any damage type they like. it will be awesome. (i imagine the HM damage will be lower than now for obv reasons yeah)
yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:34:00 -
[3671] - Quote
Operative X10-4 wrote:As a missile user I have to say that I loved the missile changes, and I agree about the heavy missiles damage nerf. Let me tell that all weapons systems besides drones have 2 types: short range + high damage, long range + low damage, and everybody knows that heavy missiles are not like that right now.
But there is one thing, as a long range weapon it's meant to be use as a sniper fit, and one thing that makes snipers weapons class usefull is the insta strike of turrets.
Can some one answer me how can I use a missile as a sniper weapon on a fleet engagement without my targets warp away even before my missiles reach half the distance bettween us?? Impossible right... epecially without tacklers... something that turrets dont have to deal with.
So ok nerf the damage, it makes sence, but buff INSANELY MISSILE SPEED LOL, so that way my "missile sniper boat" something that nowadays is non existent will hit its targets. .... Bring new "warp missiles" class FTW!!! hahahaha :3
I could agree with you about maybe nerfing current t1, t2 fury, t2 precision and faction HMLs, so they would have less range than now but still their damage (so they would be in line with high damage ammo for long range medium turrets, which out-DPS a HML atm by a fair margin, but only on shorter ranges. In addition we would need another t2 long range missile type, which has maybe some other drawbacks, but should have:
- DPS similar to turret long range ammo , balanced like that - in useful sniper ranges like 70km it should be a bit less than turrets, on 80 similar, and on 90 more (turrets DPS go down with range, so missiles would need to be adjusted they correlate with turret DPS on 80).
- extremely reduced flight time, and extremely increase speed - 2-4 seconds flight time would be good, although we will end up probably with more.
Would give Caldari a long range option to snipe and not be completely too late in those long range fights, and no one could complain about DPS. It would apply like normal missiles: active flying could not really harm it, but high speed can, so burning towards a HML-Sniper is less dangerous than towards and turret-ship, but you can never get the damage to zero. I am sure it would be possible to make such a system working and balanced.
|
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:39:00 -
[3672] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Actually, what I see happening with the drake is..
remove kinetic bonus and give RoF bonus to bring all damage types up to the (soon to be nerfed) kinetic damage. Reduce the shield recharge rate. Give it a flight time/velocity bonus to heavy missiles to bring the range back up 10-15% from where they nerfed it.
This does several things. Give the drake back some range, but not full range. Gives it the same damage with all missiles, but not the damage it currently has on live. Reducing the shield recharge rate takes away the ability to passive tank. - This ultimately gives the drake more fitting capabilities since it won't be using most of its slots for tank, but also makes them mre suseptible to cap warfare which is ultimately what gives them the upper hand in pvp compared to other bcs.
RoF>damage bonus because 1/0.75 = 1.333*. So with a RoF bonus rather than a damage boost it will be doing more dps with ALL missile types. so HAM drakes will be easily doing over 600dps of any damage type they like. it will be awesome. (i imagine the HM damage will be lower than now for obv reasons yeah) yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus.
If the real problem about drakes is that they run L4 while other BCs may have problems. Just put restrictions at mission gates and/or change the rats.
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:42:00 -
[3673] - Quote
Bloutok wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Actually, what I see happening with the drake is..
remove kinetic bonus and give RoF bonus to bring all damage types up to the (soon to be nerfed) kinetic damage. Reduce the shield recharge rate. Give it a flight time/velocity bonus to heavy missiles to bring the range back up 10-15% from where they nerfed it.
This does several things. Give the drake back some range, but not full range. Gives it the same damage with all missiles, but not the damage it currently has on live. Reducing the shield recharge rate takes away the ability to passive tank. - This ultimately gives the drake more fitting capabilities since it won't be using most of its slots for tank, but also makes them mre suseptible to cap warfare which is ultimately what gives them the upper hand in pvp compared to other bcs.
RoF>damage bonus because 1/0.75 = 1.333*. So with a RoF bonus rather than a damage boost it will be doing more dps with ALL missile types. so HAM drakes will be easily doing over 600dps of any damage type they like. it will be awesome. (i imagine the HM damage will be lower than now for obv reasons yeah) yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus. If the real problem about drakes is that they run L4 while other BCs may have problems. Just put restrictions at mission gates and/or change the rats.
not the real problem with the drake or heavy missiles, but i believe it was the inspiration behind reducing the passive recharge rate of the drake. AND also cause it doesn't really make sense to have a drake with a better passive tank than a Rokh, when they have the exact same mids and resist bonuses |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.30 23:49:00 -
[3674] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus.
How so? Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby .. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 00:04:00 -
[3675] - Quote
Operative X10-4 wrote:As a missile user I have to say that I loved the missile changes, and I agree about the heavy missiles damage nerf. Let me tell that all weapons systems besides drones have 2 types: short range + high damage, long range + low damage, and everybody knows that heavy missiles are not like that right now.
But there is one thing, as a long range weapon it's meant to be use as a sniper fit, and one thing that makes snipers weapons class usefull is the insta strike of turrets.
Can some one answer me how can I use a missile as a sniper weapon on a fleet engagement without my targets warp away even before my missiles reach half the distance bettween us?? Impossible right... epecially without tacklers... something that turrets dont have to deal with.
So ok nerf the damage, it makes sence, but buff INSANELY MISSILE SPEED LOL, so that way my "missile sniper boat" something that nowadays is non existent will hit its targets. .... Bring new "warp missiles" class FTW!!! hahahaha :3
Fine, buff the missile speed to bullet speed and make a bunch of amo types with different ranges and damage comparable to a Cane Arty. Then make the drake speed about the same as the Cane speed. I am all fine with that. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 00:13:00 -
[3676] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:
yeah i believe they want to prevent the Drake from running level 4's so easily. and since it has a much faster recharge rate than the caldari battleships, this is a long time coming. But it will still have nearly 90k ehp even without a resist bonus.
How so? Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby ..
like a boss i did not think of doing this the simple way like u did, and i probably have an arithmetic error somewhere.
i literally just looked up the EHP of the shields on eft and divided by 1.25, then added EHP of armour and structure. Fitting is the same and i got 87k ehp.
confirming, done properly EHP goes to 82,791. thanks.
(i may have been on my power dag fit at the time) |
Lili Lu
508
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 01:17:00 -
[3677] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: The Cane is even more OP than the Drake in BC vs BC encounters (although not as a long range platform, there the Drake is strong/stronger in certain ranges). Thats why Canes numbers are also bigger than Drakes (in lowsec and highsec PvP), and the Drake is only really OP in nullsec blobs. So your assumption of the Cane being fine is while in the same posting understanding the HML nerf is strange. The Cane is the best of 4 (although IMO overall pretty balanced) tier 2 BC atm, and if you consider the Drake to be OP, the Cane by definition is OP too.
Besides: people here really forget all the time to judge things as a whole - I am so tired of explaining this again and again, but for one more time:
EHP, range and DPS are not all which counts. Dronebay/bandwith, speed, agility, fitting variance, sigradius, locking range and so on are all important when it comes down to real fights. If its just a slugout of EHP and DPS the HAM Drake would win vs the other 3 tier 2s. In real Eve it loses though, to all of them (has been tested, and can be tested again, some guy who claimed the opposite rejected my offer to show him and kill his Drake). If you dont know about things like that, then I suggest you should first get your facts straight. No offense intended, to anyone, but sticking with facts would help this whole thing.
Best regards.
Hmm, you say a lot as if you have experience with "BC v BC" duels and "lowsec and highsec PvP". So I looked for you on eve-kill. Guess what it said: "Search results No results." Meanwhile that "some guy who claimed the opposite" has a record on eve-kill http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=65946 . So I think you have got a lot to prove.
And you don't prove anything by making unsupported categorical statements like "the Cane by definition is OP too." I love the Drake whiners like yourself who deflect attention to Hurricanes, as if it somehow will save their drakes. And I would like to see how you prove that somehow Canes vastly outnumber Drakes in lowsec to make up for their obvious overrepresentation in null sec. You explain nothing, but you do post over and over again fact-less wastes of space itt.
And then there's this gem of a post by you -
Noemi Nagano wrote: Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby .. Ok, no Drake is ever flown with the BC skill at 0. I mean wtf do you smoke? We have no knowledge that the resist bonus is going anywhere. And then you keep bringing up HG Snaked Harbys as if they are everywhere. You clearly must be hallucinating them everywhere. I know this is an artificial reality, but you take it to a whole new level. I pray you never sell what you are smoking because the world will be doomed if you do. The more I'm reading your posts the more I think you have to be putting one on. I applaud your mastery of the art sir.
Moving on,
Bloutok wrote: So it is ok if caldari DPS cruisers and BCs have 0 roles within 125 km arena ? That does not mean anything ? Not even the completely OP Ham drake made it in and that says nothing ?
Or, did you say that the people who organise the tournament messed up the value assigned to ships to a point where none of the caldari was good enough ?
Not only is the tournament a perfect indicator of ships power, it is the best.
Dear Bloutok,
Your 4th question comes closest to understanding. You were almost there. But then you had to say "messed up the value assigned." You see, they knew very well what they wanted those values to select for. So it was, as they say, working as intended. Additionally, you had to mess up that dawning understanding in your 4th question by mistaking the values to be race specific.
Did you even ever look at the ATX website and read the rules etc.? The point values were class specific ffs. http://at.eve-ic.net/10/index.php?view=rules (expand ships and points) Tier 2 BCs this year were made cost inefficient by design. Tier 1 and tier 3 were made more desirable. And what was the result of it? Oh hell, look here and sort by class http://at.eve-ic.net/10/index.php?view=statistics&tab=ships&sortby=class&range=all Notice the relative lack of all tier 2 BCs and the better representation of tier 1 and tier 3 BCs.
So you see the tournament is not "a perfect indicator of ships power" nor "it is the best."(sic)
You two make me laugh. Keep posting. You will move this thread well past page 200. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 01:35:00 -
[3678] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: The Cane is even more OP than the Drake in BC vs BC encounters (although not as a long range platform, there the Drake is strong/stronger in certain ranges). Thats why Canes numbers are also bigger than Drakes (in lowsec and highsec PvP), and the Drake is only really OP in nullsec blobs. So your assumption of the Cane being fine is while in the same posting understanding the HML nerf is strange. The Cane is the best of 4 (although IMO overall pretty balanced) tier 2 BC atm, and if you consider the Drake to be OP, the Cane by definition is OP too.
Besides: people here really forget all the time to judge things as a whole - I am so tired of explaining this again and again, but for one more time:
EHP, range and DPS are not all which counts. Dronebay/bandwith, speed, agility, fitting variance, sigradius, locking range and so on are all important when it comes down to real fights. If its just a slugout of EHP and DPS the HAM Drake would win vs the other 3 tier 2s. In real Eve it loses though, to all of them (has been tested, and can be tested again, some guy who claimed the opposite rejected my offer to show him and kill his Drake). If you dont know about things like that, then I suggest you should first get your facts straight. No offense intended, to anyone, but sticking with facts would help this whole thing.
Best regards.
Hmm, you say a lot as if you have experience with "BC v BC" duels and "lowsec and highsec PvP". So I looked for you on eve-kill. Guess what it said: "Search results No results." Meanwhile that "some guy who claimed the opposite" has a record on eve-kill http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=65946 . So I think you have got a lot to prove. And you don't prove anything by making unsupported categorical statements like "the Cane by definition is OP too." I love the Drake whiners like yourself who deflect attention to Hurricanes, as if it somehow will save their drakes. And I would like to see how you prove that somehow Canes vastly outnumber Drakes in lowsec to make up for their obvious overrepresentation in null sec. You explain nothing, but you do post over and over again fact-less wastes of space itt. And then there's this gem of a post by you - Noemi Nagano wrote: Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby .. Ok, no Drake is ever flown with the BC skill at 0. I mean wtf do you smoke? We have no knowledge that the resist bonus is going anywhere. And then you keep bringing up HG Snaked Harbys as if they are everywhere. You clearly must be hallucinating them everywhere. I know this is an artificial reality, but you take it to a whole new level. I pray you never sell what you are smoking because the world will be doomed if you do. The more I'm reading your posts the more I think you have to be putting one on. I applaud your mastery of the art sir. Moving on, Bloutok wrote: So it is ok if caldari DPS cruisers and BCs have 0 roles within 125 km arena ? That does not mean anything ? Not even the completely OP Ham drake made it in and that says nothing ?
Or, did you say that the people who organise the tournament messed up the value assigned to ships to a point where none of the caldari was good enough ?
Not only is the tournament a perfect indicator of ships power, it is the best. Dear Bloutok, Your 4th question comes closest to understanding. You were almost there. But then you had to say "messed up the value assigned." You see, they knew very well what they wanted those values to select for. So it was, as they say, working as intended. Additionally, you had to mess up that dawning understanding in your 4th question by mistaking the values to be race specific. Did you even ever look at the ATX website and read the rules etc.? The point values were class specific ffs. http://at.eve-ic.net/10/index.php?view=rules (expand ships and points) Tier 2 BCs this year were made cost inefficient by design. Tier 1 and tier 3 were made more desirable. And what was the result of it? Oh hell, look here and sort by class http://at.eve-ic.net/10/index.php?view=statistics&tab=ships&sortby=class&range=all Notice the relative lack of all tier 2 BCs and the better representation of tier 1 and tier 3 BCs. So you see the tournament is not "a perfect indicator of ships power" nor "it is the best."(sic) You two make me laugh. Keep posting. You will move this thread well past page 200.
Can you find me a place where CCP says they killed tier2 voluntarily, or is it just that cyclones with ASB were simply better ? |
Lili Lu
508
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 01:56:00 -
[3679] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: Can you find me a place where CCP says they killed tier2 voluntarily, or is it just that cyclones with ASB were simply better ? What are you talking about? Look at the table. Tier 2 cost more than tier 3 and even more points as against tier 1.
The teams in the torunament chose the ships and gangs based on point cost. Choice in what ships to field is an exercize in maximizing return on the point cost. Tier 2s were simply overpriced. CCP well knew what it wanted in point cost. They tweek it every year.
In prior years there were lots of Drakes. CCP apparently did not want another drake and hurricance fest. So they overpriced tier 2 BCs this year and it kept them scarce in the tournament.
And yes, Cyclones with ASB are starting to appear a whole lot in small gang fighting. But once you start getting more than 10 or so in a gang and the gangs it is likely to fight, and you have logi support, the old standby buffered ships start to take over, like the Drake.
The tournament limits logis to one and limits the number of ships on each side. So even without the point cost the new ASB Cyclone was looking pretty darn good simply by gang size, and the cheap cost in points pretty much sealed the deal. This resulted in that plethora of Cyclones. It had nothing to do with some sudden disfavor for the Drake.
The teams chose to fly Feroxes and Brutixes more than Drakes and Canes. And it was not because they knew these two ships were getting a nerf in the near future. It had everything to do with the points. And the points were not set by CCP by throwing a dart at a dartboard. |
Bloutok
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 02:22:00 -
[3680] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: Can you find me a place where CCP says they killed tier2 voluntarily, or is it just that cyclones with ASB were simply better ? What are you talking about? Look at the table. Tier 2 cost more than tier 3 and even more points as against tier 1. The teams in the torunament chose the ships and gangs based on point cost. Choice in what ships to field is an exercize in maximizing return on the point cost. Tier 2s were simply overpriced. CCP well knew what it wanted in point cost. They tweek it every year. In prior years there were lots of Drakes. CCP apparently did not want another drake and hurricance fest. So they overpriced tier 2 BCs this year and it kept them scarce in the tournament. And yes, Cyclones with ASB are starting to appear a whole lot in small gang fighting. But once you start getting more than 10 or so in a gang and the gangs it is likely to fight, and you have logi support, the old standby buffered ships start to take over, like the Drake. The tournament limits logis to one and limits the number of ships on each side. So even without the point cost the new ASB Cyclone was looking pretty darn good simply by gang size, and the cheap cost in points pretty much sealed the deal. This resulted in that plethora of Cyclones. It had nothing to do with some sudden disfavor for the Drake. The teams chose to fly Feroxes and Brutixes more than Drakes and Canes. And it was not because they knew these two ships were getting a nerf in the near future. It had everything to do with the points. And the points were not set by CCP by throwing a dart at a dartboard.
Blah blah blah blah blah!!!
What i am saying is that CCP is either super bad at balancing things or voluntarily making some stuff bad for unknown reasons. Well, unknown to me..
I mean Sleipner + cyclone + Web....... Yeah, they know how to balance stuff. Or they have a goal..... That goal clearely includes drake being nerfed to unusable level. |
|
Lili Lu
508
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 02:26:00 -
[3681] - Quote
Bloutok wrote: What i am saying is that CCP is either super bad at balancing things or voluntarily making some stuff bad for unknown reasons. Well, unknown to me..
I mean Sleipner + cyclone + Web....... Yeah, they know how to balance stuff. Or they have a goal..... That goal clearely includes drake being nerfed to unusable level. I guess it makes you feel better to think your precious drake will be unusable. Carry on. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
103
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 03:00:00 -
[3682] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: What i am saying is that CCP is either super bad at balancing things or voluntarily making some stuff bad for unknown reasons. Well, unknown to me..
I mean Sleipner + cyclone + Web....... Yeah, they know how to balance stuff. Or they have a goal..... That goal clearely includes drake being nerfed to unusable level. I guess it makes you feel better to think your precious drake will be unusable. Carry on.
Well, honestly with just the missile nerf I can almost certain that drakes and maybe even tengus won't be used in the next alliance tournament.
They have always relied on kiting in order to compete.
With a large loss in range they won't be effective at kiting anymore and brawler missile boats don't last long.
I fear the removal of the drake as a competitive ship.
The tengu on the other hand will still be competitive, but I'm not sure it would be worth it anymore... it is a lot of isk |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 03:08:00 -
[3683] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: What i am saying is that CCP is either super bad at balancing things or voluntarily making some stuff bad for unknown reasons. Well, unknown to me..
I mean Sleipner + cyclone + Web....... Yeah, they know how to balance stuff. Or they have a goal..... That goal clearely includes drake being nerfed to unusable level. I guess it makes you feel better to think your precious drake will be unusable. Carry on. Well, honestly with just the missile nerf I can almost certain that drakes and maybe even tengus won't be used in the next alliance tournament. They have always relied on kiting in order to compete. With a large loss in range they won't be effective at kiting anymore and brawler missile boats don't last long. I fear the removal of the drake as a competitive ship. The tengu on the other hand will still be competitive, but I'm not sure it would be worth it anymore... it is a lot of isk
Because Drakes were used to such a great success in the last tournament.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
103
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 03:39:00 -
[3684] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Bloutok wrote: What i am saying is that CCP is either super bad at balancing things or voluntarily making some stuff bad for unknown reasons. Well, unknown to me..
I mean Sleipner + cyclone + Web....... Yeah, they know how to balance stuff. Or they have a goal..... That goal clearely includes drake being nerfed to unusable level. I guess it makes you feel better to think your precious drake will be unusable. Carry on. Well, honestly with just the missile nerf I can almost certain that drakes and maybe even tengus won't be used in the next alliance tournament. They have always relied on kiting in order to compete. With a large loss in range they won't be effective at kiting anymore and brawler missile boats don't last long. I fear the removal of the drake as a competitive ship. The tengu on the other hand will still be competitive, but I'm not sure it would be worth it anymore... it is a lot of isk Because Drakes were used to such a great success in the last tournament.
Yeah.... Just imagine how well they'll do now.... |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
223
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 04:32:00 -
[3685] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:I can understand nerfing heavy missile launchers, but the Cane is perfect the way it is, and not in a bad way. The Cane is what every other battlecruiser should be modeled after. see that's just your opinion, but IMHO, the hurricane is overpowered and eclipses all of the T1 cruisers, and some of the T2 cruisers.
What they're essentially doing is making you choose between the largest guns/tank and and medium neuts
You should have to make that sacrifice, you cant have everything with the cane any more and thats the way it should be. |
Theo Ramone
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 04:34:00 -
[3686] - Quote
If you nerf the missile range can you also nerf ECM/logi range?
As it stands today the only thing you can use to drive away ewar and rep ships is those "overpowered" missiles. It'll be super awesome when you can park your non DPS ships at 70 k and jam/rep all damn day because no weapon system worth a damn can reach them. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
223
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 04:40:00 -
[3687] - Quote
you mean like HMLs with tracking enhancers? or artillery? or beam lasers?
or ships that are . . . you know . . . designed to fight at that range? |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
335
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 05:22:00 -
[3688] - Quote
Theo Ramone wrote:If you nerf the missile range can you also nerf ECM/logi range?
As it stands today the only thing you can use to drive away ewar and rep ships is those "overpowered" missiles. It'll be super awesome when you can park your non DPS ships at 70 k and jam/rep all damn day because no weapon system worth a damn can reach them.
They are not nerfing the range, just making it a fitting option ffs, read. -25% base, 1 TC = 30% Increase, net 5% increase. This is only for heavy missiles all other missiles just get the 30% increase from the TC. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 09:35:00 -
[3689] - Quote
You just made my day ... seriously, learn to read *and* understand what people said:
Lili Lu wrote:And then there's this gem of a post by you - Noemi Nagano wrote: Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby .. Ok, no Drake is ever flown with the BC skill at 0. I mean wtf do you smoke? We have no knowledge that the resist bonus is going anywhere. And then you keep bringing up HG Slaved Harbys as if they are everywhere. You clearly must be hallucinating them everywhere. I know this is an artificial reality, but you take it to a whole new level. I pray you never sell what you are smoking because the world will be doomed if you do. The more I'm reading your posts the more I think you have to be putting one on. I applaud your mastery of the art sir.
I responded to some other guy who did the maths for a Drake without resistance bonus and figured out a wrong number. I just corrected him, never said Drakes can or will be flown at BC lvl 0. Even in this "gem of a post" I explained what I do "all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away" .. I mean, wtf do YOU smoke to get this posting of mine so completely wrong? And my comparison with a slaved Harbinger is valid, just because there *are* slaved Harbis (and also slaved plate Canes) in lowsec. And even more in highsec. If you dont know about them it might be you who is wrong there.
My offer for a 1on1 test HAM Drake vs ANY tier 2 BC close range was rejected by this guy who claimed before HAM Drake beats them all ... he said he wants to wait til HAMs are fixed. He could just have said "I have to correct my statement, HAM Drake is only better than the other 3 if the other 3 and the Drake all neglect drones (which I know they should not). If they are all allowed to use every aspect of the ship they have, the HAM Drake will lose a 1on1 to all 3 other tier 2 BC"
You agreed yourself on the fact the Drake is NOT overused over the Cane in low and high, in fact you said the Cane is stronger in numbers there, but this "wont justify" in your opinion the overuse of Drakes in nullsec.
you are ofc allowed to think like this. Me and many others feel the other way round: we dont think the overuse of Drakes in nullsec blobs is something which justifies a nerf of a ship (and/or its weapon system) which works well but not OP in all other parts of this game, esp. when you compare the OPness of a whole race and their overuse in every part of Eve now, be it PvP or PvE.
I, however, agreed on the idea of bringing medium long range a bit more in line with each other. Allow HML to deal substantial DPS at closer ranges like the counterparts do, give HML dedicated long range ammo which makes it WORTH shooting on far away targets by having small DPS (like turrets) but fast hits too (nearly like turrets), so your enemy wont be 2 times in warp before the first salvo could actually be there. Still the result should be the Drake is not 4th of 4 in close combat and 4th of 4 in long range. If its last in one its perfectly ok that its first in the other one. Even you with your biased viewpoint cant neglect this fact. Or maybe you can, we will see how you make me laugh next time :)
Lili Lu wrote:You two make me laugh. Keep posting. You will move this thread well past page 200.
Thanks, can give that back to you. I never met someone with worse skills in understanding reasonable arguments :)
|
Soldarius
TreadStone Standard Tribal Band
286
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 09:42:00 -
[3690] - Quote
I've been looking at the current mechanics of TD, TE, and TCs, and I have some concerns.
A scripted TD in the hands of a skilled recon pilot will reduce range or tracking by 62.81% per unit before stacking penalties. TE/TC come no where near that when increasing missile stats. TE give 15% optimal, 30% falloff, and 9.5% tracking. Range scripted TC gives the same range bonuses as the TE. Tracking scripted TC gives 30% tracking.
But perhaps it is bad to compare a recon's bonuses to a non-bonused ship. So... Scripted TD does 40.2%, base.
In all cases, the Tracking Disruptor will outperform any method of enhancement currently available. This is not good.
One way of correcting this imbalance would be to buff TE/TC. But then you have issues with all turrets getting a sudden buff, which is not a good idea when you're trying to balance things.
Another option would be to nerf TD. This is something that can be explored and is worthy of some play testing on the test server. But nerfing an underused EWAR mod may not be the best choice. And again, turret balance issues may arise.
A third option would be to create new items that affect only missiles. But it was my impression that the idea was to have a unified weapon disruptor. So perhaps that is not within the scope of the plan. This would also require a lot more dev time and work.
As an extension to option 3, we could get missile-focused scripts. This would also require more dev time. But not so much as a new module I think.
Option 4 is my personal choice, which is why I saved it for last. Just add stats to the current TD/TE/TC so that they affect missiles. No balance issues will arise in regards to turrets. No new resources need be created. Much less dev time.
I would suggest using the current stats as a baseline. Optimal+falloff for range. Split Tracking between explosion velocity and speed. Now either increase the missile bonuses on TE/TC so as to have a reasonable chance of getting a net 0 when being TDed, or nerf the TD missile penalties to match those of the TE/TC.
I would like to remind everyone that one of the facets of missiles is that they project damage better than equivalent turrets. So seriously, CCP. Nerfing missile range will pretty much kill them, because once you close on a missile boat, they usually diaf.
I am looking I am looking forward to seeing more Pilgrims. Time to train Amarr Cruiser 5?
"How do you kill that which has no life?" |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 09:52:00 -
[3691] - Quote
Oh, and about your quotation of Gypsios IIIs kills and losses - he has more kills than I do (this is not my main char), and I dont deny he has to have experience. Yet I dont see he did his kills with mostly Drakes and HML, in fact he killed not a lot with Drakes at all. Nor did I see recent HAM Drake kills of him. He did reject my 1on1 offer anyway, just because he *knew* with all of his experience it was not a smart idea to go to a 1on1 with a HAM Drake vs any other tier 2 BC and expect to win.
Dont get me wrong there, the HAM Drake is not "bad" in a way its totally UP. Its just so much worse it wont win normally (given equal skills and so on). The other ship will not be in good shape afterwards, so in a smart gang this evens out a bit. And if one pilot has not maxed skills or messes up, the Drake can maybe get the edge.
This all will maybe even out a bit more with the new patch, I would like to see that. Until then a Drake pilot who wants to be as efficient as possible should stick with HML and range. And since it is atm the only viable ranged missile platform (apart from Tengu, ok) for Caldari, and the only really competitive and not too expensive missile PvP ship at *all* (except maybe Torp-Phoon, which is not Caldari ..) I do feel like this nerf shouldnt be applied, and if it will be still applied then only with a viable alternative for missile dedicated Caldari pilots (who have no chance to just change from one turret system to another like a turret dedicated pilot can do due to support skills), for example a FINALLY working CM / Raven (and Torp / Raven).
Please note again: even if I am Caldari as main, I can fly any subcap combat ship except BO at all l5, including most popular specs like med/large AC, large Arty, large Laser and HML. Also drones on all l5 for subcap. So for me it means nothing. Sleipnir, Cyclone, Cane, whatever - I can use all Winmatar and have fun with them. But I hope for more balance, because this is what makes this game shine. Or at least, what would make it shine ... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1726
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 11:40:00 -
[3692] - Quote
Hey everyone. Spent part of the morning catching up on the posts here over the weekend. I'm planning on posting the 2.0 version of these missile changes here later today after I make sure that the CSM have enough time to get their feedback across. The basic preview of what you should expect is that we're separating the proposal into multiple parts so we can put some of it out in the winter and then re-evaluate the rest for subsequent patches.
BTW I want to make clear that we don't balance ships around the alliance tournament. It's a very different environment than normal TQ fighting. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 11:59:00 -
[3693] - Quote
Tengu and drake gonna die totally. No one will use tengu because all other T3's will be way better. Also no one will use drake because all other BC's are way better. So these 2 will die and disappear from eve just like happened to ferox. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
376
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:01:00 -
[3694] - Quote
Noemi, you never offered me a 1v1, so stop claiming that you did. As far as I can tell, you threatened to set mercs on me.
Noemi Nagano wrote:I invite you to stop modeling things, but play the actual game. I can provide you with people who will gladly burn you down ingame to show how wrong you are.
Despite your threats, I'm very happy to help demonstrate HAMs to you. Not your hired mercs, not some hired "Elite PVPer" with HG Slaves that you'll buy, but you. It's slightly absurd to do it now, since in this thread we're discussing how the Drake will perform after the changes, although you've spent a lot of time talking about the Vargur for some reason, but doing it pre-changes may be helpful for you.
In fact it would be sensible to run a series of these tests. Against a basic HAM Drake, here are my predictions, given "reasonable " fittings (no kinetic-specific hardeners, no pirate implant sets, no link t3s, but drugs are fine):
Brutix will lose in both shield and armour fits Active Cyclone will very likely win Buffer Ferox will lose, active Ferox has a chance of winning Prophecy will lose
Hurricane will lose in both armour and shield fits Myrm will lose in buffer shield, win in active armour and probably win in ASB fits Harbinger will lose in both armour and shield fits
I need to investigate the ASB options for Hurricane and Harbinger, so I may update these this evening, but I don't think things like ASB Canes are particularly viable. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:03:00 -
[3695] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Theo Ramone wrote:If you nerf the missile range can you also nerf ECM/logi range?
As it stands today the only thing you can use to drive away ewar and rep ships is those "overpowered" missiles. It'll be super awesome when you can park your non DPS ships at 70 k and jam/rep all damn day because no weapon system worth a damn can reach them. They are not nerfing the range, just making it a fitting option ffs, read. -25% base, 1 TC = 30% Increase, net 5% increase. This is only for heavy missiles all other missiles just get the 30% increase from the TC.
Eh you do know when you fit one TE it means -1 BCU which means hml's crappy dps is gonna be even more crappy. Caldari doesnt have 6 low slots of minmatar boats. Maybe buff drake and tengu then and give them 6 low slots...
|
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:04:00 -
[3696] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:Tengu and drake gonna die totally. No one will use tengu because all other T3's will be way better. Also no one will use drake because all other BC's are way better. So these 2 will die and disappear from eve just like happened to ferox.
No offence but, shall we wait untill these 2.0 changes are shown, before crying wolf.
I like my missiles as much as you do, though it speaks of respect when you wait to see what they changed, before whining, makes the chance someone listening far greater. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:15:00 -
[3697] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Ares Desideratus wrote:I can understand nerfing heavy missile launchers, but the Cane is perfect the way it is, and not in a bad way. The Cane is what every other battlecruiser should be modeled after. see that's just your opinion, but IMHO, the hurricane is overpowered and eclipses all of the T1 cruisers, and some of the T2 cruisers. What they're essentially doing is making you choose between the largest guns/tank and and medium neuts You should have to make that sacrifice, you cant have everything with the cane any more and thats the way it should be.
Cane is OP its best BC in game atm. And its way OP compared to HAM drake. HAM drake need to spend one rig slot just fit short range guns which gives advantage to cane. Cane has better speed, better dps, better range, better drone bay, it can fit more neuts. Only thing ham drake has over cane is shield tank. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:17:00 -
[3698] - Quote
Retardo Khaan wrote:sYnc Vir wrote:Theo Ramone wrote:If you nerf the missile range can you also nerf ECM/logi range?
As it stands today the only thing you can use to drive away ewar and rep ships is those "overpowered" missiles. It'll be super awesome when you can park your non DPS ships at 70 k and jam/rep all damn day because no weapon system worth a damn can reach them. They are not nerfing the range, just making it a fitting option ffs, read. -25% base, 1 TC = 30% Increase, net 5% increase. This is only for heavy missiles all other missiles just get the 30% increase from the TC. Eh you do know when you fit one TE it means -1 BCU which means hml's crappy dps is gonna be even more crappy. Caldari doesnt have 6 low slots of minmatar boats. Maybe buff drake and tengu then and give them 6 low slots...
Well that depends on how it stacks doesnt it? A heavily penalised BCU removed in favour of a 100% strength TE might well allow for a much better application of said (lower) 'paper' damage.
I'd rather apply 85% of 500 dps than 45% of 850 dps....
This is one of the reaons I fancy the SNI as a monster post changes. Paper DPS won't be that high, but my god it'll get it ALL down on a target. |
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:19:00 -
[3699] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:Tengu and drake gonna die totally. No one will use tengu because all other T3's will be way better. Also no one will use drake because all other BC's are way better. So these 2 will die and disappear from eve just like happened to ferox. No offence but, shall we wait untill these 2.0 changes are shown, before crying wolf. I like my missiles as much as you do, though it speaks of respect when you wait to see what they changed, before whining, makes the chance someone listening far greater.
Well yea i like missiles too. But i do also fly minmatar and gallente aswell and i do also have loki. Actually im allready selling my tengu. Il just buy machariel to replace it and then i can use those OP projectiles and forgot missiles ever exits.. |
Nalha Saldana
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
314
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:24:00 -
[3700] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Theo Ramone wrote:If you nerf the missile range can you also nerf ECM/logi range?
As it stands today the only thing you can use to drive away ewar and rep ships is those "overpowered" missiles. It'll be super awesome when you can park your non DPS ships at 70 k and jam/rep all damn day because no weapon system worth a damn can reach them. They are not nerfing the range, just making it a fitting option ffs, read. -25% base, 1 TC = 30% Increase, net 5% increase. This is only for heavy missiles all other missiles just get the 30% increase from the TC.
This isnt how math works, say you have 40km range: 40 * 0,75 = 30 30 * 1,3 = 39 |
|
Retardo Khaan
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:25:00 -
[3701] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Retardo Khaan wrote:sYnc Vir wrote:Theo Ramone wrote:If you nerf the missile range can you also nerf ECM/logi range?
As it stands today the only thing you can use to drive away ewar and rep ships is those "overpowered" missiles. It'll be super awesome when you can park your non DPS ships at 70 k and jam/rep all damn day because no weapon system worth a damn can reach them. They are not nerfing the range, just making it a fitting option ffs, read. -25% base, 1 TC = 30% Increase, net 5% increase. This is only for heavy missiles all other missiles just get the 30% increase from the TC. Eh you do know when you fit one TE it means -1 BCU which means hml's crappy dps is gonna be even more crappy. Caldari doesnt have 6 low slots of minmatar boats. Maybe buff drake and tengu then and give them 6 low slots... Well that depends on how it stacks doesnt it? A heavily penalised BCU removed in favour of a 100% strength TE might well allow for a much better application of said (lower) 'paper' damage. I'd rather apply 85% of 500 dps than 45% of 850 dps.... This is one of the reaons I fancy the SNI as a monster post changes. Paper DPS won't be that high, but my god it'll get it ALL down on a target.
'Well sure you have point there. But the fact is your not going to do 500dps with nerfed hml drake. 350dps - BCU might be closer without drones. Its just number from my head but im sure its closer to truth than 500. Currently you get 500ish dps with all V + 3 BCU + drones. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
98
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 12:43:00 -
[3702] - Quote
Looking forward to v2 of the changes. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 13:16:00 -
[3703] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:How so? Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby ..
And some 520k less than Slaved Damnation... Your point?
Why do you keep bringing up HG Slaves? Did I miss something? |
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 13:35:00 -
[3704] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:How so? Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby .. And some 520k less than Slaved Damnation... Your point? Why do you keep bringing up HG Slaves? Did I miss something? Yes. You see he's telling Gypsio that HAM Drakes suck against the ubiquitous HG slaved Harby You missed that he's batshit crazy and see all his enemies sporting HG slave clones in Harbingers when fighting his main . .
ah, that is assuming he has a main that pvps somewhere because it seems he'd rather use an npc corp posting alt on the forums here with no combat record, at all, ever.
But you know he could be right about HG Slaved Harbingers everywhere, because those sets are so cheap. And of course those folks are soloing C3s in ships other than Tengus making tons of isk with which to fight in HG slaved and presumably also pimped Harbys in high and low sec . . with all the money they are making with ships other than tengus in wormholes . . . |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 13:41:00 -
[3705] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:How so? Drake all l5 except BC, which I set on 0 manually to get the res bonus away will have a bit below 83k EHP with 2 invul, 2 LSE, 3 extender rigs and a DC II. Thats not a small number, agreed, but less than 90k and over 20k less than a HG Slaved Harby .. And some 520k less than Slaved Damnation... Your point? Why do you keep bringing up HG Slaves? Did I miss something? Yes. You see he's telling Gypsio that HAM Drakes suck against the ubiquitous HG slaved Harby You missed that he's batshit crazy and see all his enemies sporting HG slave clones in Harbingers when fighting his main . . ah, that is assuming he has a main that pvps somewhere because it seems he'd rather use an npc corp posting alt on the forums here with no combat record, at all, ever. But you know he could be right about HG Slaved Harbingers everywhere, because those sets are so cheap. And of course those folks are soloing C3s in ships other than Tengus making tons of isk with which to fight in HG slaved and presumably also pimped Harbys in high and low sec . . with all the money they are making with ships other than tengus in wormholes . . .
They better be in C3s if they can use HG Slaves in every fight. 2 bil in implants alone... |
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 13:46:00 -
[3706] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: I would like to remind everyone that one of the facets of missiles is that they project damage better than equivalent turrets. So seriously, CCP. Nerfing missile range will pretty much kill them, because once you close on a missile boat, they usually diaf. How is a missile boat with 6 mids and up to 4 to devote to tank and having a resist bonus, less sturdy than a 4 total mid-slot no-resist bonus ship shoehorning a flimsy shield tank into 2 (maybe) midslots?
How does nerfing missile range kill missile boats? You need a lot more evidence to support that assertion. |
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 14:11:00 -
[3707] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: You agreed yourself on the fact the Drake is NOT overused over the Cane in low and high, in fact you said the Cane is stronger in numbers there, but this "wont justify" in your opinion the overuse of Drakes in nullsec.
you are ofc allowed to think like this. Me and many others feel the other way round: we dont think the overuse of Drakes in nullsec blobs is something which justifies a nerf of a ship (and/or its weapon system) which works well but not OP in all other parts of this game, esp. when you compare the OPness of a whole race and their overuse in every part of Eve now, be it PvP or PvE.
I, however, agreed on the idea of bringing medium long range a bit more in line with each other. Allow HML to deal substantial DPS at closer ranges like the counterparts do, give HML dedicated long range ammo which makes it WORTH shooting on far away targets by having small DPS (like turrets) but fast hits too (nearly like turrets), so your enemy wont be 2 times in warp before the first salvo could actually be there. Still the result should be the Drake is not 4th of 4 in close combat and 4th of 4 in long range. If its last in one its perfectly ok that its first in the other one. Even you with your biased viewpoint cant neglect this fact. Or maybe you can, we will see how you make me laugh next time :) Nowhere did I agree with you that there are more canes than drakes in lowsec. My FW alt sees more drakes in lowsec. And noone is going to say there are more canes in null than drakes. Are you?
And it is not drake overuse in nullsec alone that has led to this nerf. CCP has much better tools to monitor stats on ship and module use than we have. Basically about the only thing we as players have is the eve-kill top 20. And on that Drakes have been king for years now. And that is only looking at a sample of pvp use, but it is a sample that is spread accross the eve battle environments. It is not just 0.0 alliances that post kills there.
One of the devs was tweeting CCPs numbers on daily module activations and someone posted it in a thread about 6 months ago. I can't remember which dev and in which thread. But the activations on HML II were on top by a multiple of the second place module which I think was 800mm AC II. So you see that stat was catching all pvp and pve weapon usage and there it was the Drake and Tengu overuse written very plainly.
You like to complain about Macharial and 800mm AC usage. Fine. I don't defend anything about the Mach. It could get a a nerf as well (or maybe the fall-off bonuses on TC and TE). But heavy missiles are used much more in the game.
As for your targets warping before your missiles land all I can say is get closer yourself or get better tackle.
Oh, and post with your main that has some pvp record. It can help people judge the worth of your arguments. It indicates you have some experience with pvp and are not just using eft or hearsay. To post with an npc corp forum alt just allows someone to dismiss your statements easily. Make it hard for me to do that. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 14:24:00 -
[3708] - Quote
Soldarius wrote: I would like to remind everyone that one of the facets of missiles is that they project damage better than equivalent turrets. So seriously, CCP. Nerfing missile range will pretty much kill them, because once you close on a missile boat, they usually diaf.
this person does not know what he is talking about and should be ignored.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 14:29:00 -
[3709] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Spent part of the morning catching up on the posts here over the weekend. I'm planning on posting the 2.0 version of these missile changes here later today after I make sure that the CSM have enough time to get their feedback across. The basic preview of what you should expect is that we're separating the proposal into multiple parts so we can put some of it out in the winter and then re-evaluate the rest for subsequent patches.
BTW I want to make clear that we don't balance ships around the alliance tournament. It's a very different environment than normal TQ fighting.
All I need to know is, do you love me? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 14:31:00 -
[3710] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Soldarius wrote: I would like to remind everyone that one of the facets of missiles is that they project damage better than equivalent turrets. So seriously, CCP. Nerfing missile range will pretty much kill them, because once you close on a missile boat, they usually diaf.
this person does not know what he is talking about and should be ignored.
Really missiles miss? Lose damage to fall off? Any of the above.
No, oh wait.
Who doesn't know what they are talking about again? |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1734
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 14:34:00 -
[3711] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Spent part of the morning catching up on the posts here over the weekend. I'm planning on posting the 2.0 version of these missile changes here later today after I make sure that the CSM have enough time to get their feedback across. The basic preview of what you should expect is that we're separating the proposal into multiple parts so we can put some of it out in the winter and then re-evaluate the rest for subsequent patches.
BTW I want to make clear that we don't balance ships around the alliance tournament. It's a very different environment than normal TQ fighting. All I need to know is, do you love me?
I love all our players equally. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 14:40:00 -
[3712] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Soldarius wrote: I would like to remind everyone that one of the facets of missiles is that they project damage better than equivalent turrets. So seriously, CCP. Nerfing missile range will pretty much kill them, because once you close on a missile boat, they usually diaf.
this person does not know what he is talking about and should be ignored. Really missiles miss? Lose damage to fall off? Any of the above. No, oh wait. Who doesn't know what they are talking about again? says the pilot with no record on evekill.
you burned the wrong guy there mate.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 14:53:00 -
[3713] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I love all our players equally. This is helping none of our persecution complexes.
"your doing it wrong" |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 15:09:00 -
[3714] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Spent part of the morning catching up on the posts here over the weekend. I'm planning on posting the 2.0 version of these missile changes here later today after I make sure that the CSM have enough time to get their feedback across. The basic preview of what you should expect is that we're separating the proposal into multiple parts so we can put some of it out in the winter and then re-evaluate the rest for subsequent patches.
BTW I want to make clear that we don't balance ships around the alliance tournament. It's a very different environment than normal TQ fighting.
Excited to see what you've come up with =) |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 15:09:00 -
[3715] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Spent part of the morning catching up on the posts here over the weekend. I'm planning on posting the 2.0 version of these missile changes here later today after I make sure that the CSM have enough time to get their feedback across. The basic preview of what you should expect is that we're separating the proposal into multiple parts so we can put some of it out in the winter and then re-evaluate the rest for subsequent patches.
BTW I want to make clear that we don't balance ships around the alliance tournament. It's a very different environment than normal TQ fighting. All I need to know is, do you love me? I love all our players equally.
ahhh. You're so sweet..
Serious question though...
While I understand the nerfing of heavy missiles as a cruiser size weapon.
Is there a plan in motion to buff this factor with the drake itself, as it's a Bc and not a standar cruiser?
I personally see the drake getting a shield recharge rate nerf removing it as a passive tank ship, thus making it more suseptible to cap warfare and a good amount less EHP.
However, in order for that to work it would need buffs towards missiles to counter this loss.
So, I guess what I'm really asking is
Are heavy missiles be balanced as though they were on a cruiser and will be compensated for on the drake, or are the be nerfed without compesation for the drake? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 15:15:00 -
[3716] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Soldarius wrote: I would like to remind everyone that one of the facets of missiles is that they project damage better than equivalent turrets. So seriously, CCP. Nerfing missile range will pretty much kill them, because once you close on a missile boat, they usually diaf.
this person does not know what he is talking about and should be ignored. Really missiles miss? Lose damage to fall off? Any of the above. No, oh wait. Who doesn't know what they are talking about again? says the pilot with no record on evekill.
Missiles do miss.
"Your volley of scourge Fury hit (target) for 0 damage"
0 damage is not a hit.
Also, we may not lose damage to fall off, but we also can't fire past our range. Turrets can still hit up to double their falloff just not for much...
That said, missiles also don't get critical or wrecking hits either... |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 15:16:00 -
[3717] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:So, I guess what I'm really asking is
Are heavy missiles be balanced as though they were on a cruiser and will be compensated for on the drake, or are the be nerfed without compesation for the drake?
wtb cruise missile drake.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 15:19:00 -
[3718] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:So, I guess what I'm really asking is
Are heavy missiles be balanced as though they were on a cruiser and will be compensated for on the drake, or are the be nerfed without compesation for the drake? wtb cruise missile drake.
lol, that would be a terrible terrible ship.. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 15:31:00 -
[3719] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:So, I guess what I'm really asking is
Are heavy missiles be balanced as though they were on a cruiser and will be compensated for on the drake, or are the be nerfed without compesation for the drake? wtb cruise missile drake. lol, that would be a terrible terrible ship..
I thought you guys want best ship in game.
I have to agree that there's something wrong with missile BSs when "worst turret ship" aka Rokh can rip through Raven's tank.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8aX60biCE4#t=6m04s |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 15:57:00 -
[3720] - Quote
Honestly, the Raven has never been renowned for tanking. You can get a vaguely respectable shield buffer on there, but it'll never compete with the Rokh's tank.
This is part of the torp-Raven problem - it's not entirely clear whether the problem is lack of torp range, difficulty of torp damage application or inadequacies in the torp platform (Raven). Part of the problem is that BS themselves have become slightly niche in the small-gang environment where missiles are generally best (excluding the HML Drake blobs, ofc) - small gangs want mobility and BS aren't really mobile, least of all the Raven...
So more range for torps? Cut explosion radius to 400 m? Or an extra medslot for the Raven? Some combination of the three? No idea myself. |
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:01:00 -
[3721] - Quote
i agree that ravens suck, however, rokh's are awesome ships, don't know where you are getting the "worst turret ship" idea from. It might need a bit of a speed buff (like the merlin got), but it's a great ship. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:02:00 -
[3722] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Honestly, the Raven has never been renowned for tanking. You can get a vaguely respectable shield buffer on there, but it'll never compete with the Rokh's tank. This is part of the torp-Raven problem - it's not entirely clear whether the problem is lack of torp range, difficulty of torp damage application or inadequacies in the torp platform (Raven). Part of the problem is that BS themselves have become slightly niche in the small-gang environment where missiles are generally best (excluding the HML Drake blobs, ofc) - small gangs want mobility and BS aren't really mobile, least of all the Raven... So more range for torps? Cut explosion radius to 400 m? Or an extra medslot for the Raven? Some combination of the three? No idea myself.
Well if we go with the new ship lines then the raven should be a attack ship so higher mobility and if they sort out the tank mods so large sh extenders only go on bs ships it might make it more desirable over drake blobs as it can do considerable dps with cruises especially with the new TE's TC's will help application of dps plus i think bs weapons will et looked at when they get to them |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:13:00 -
[3723] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Honestly, the Raven has never been renowned for tanking. You can get a vaguely respectable shield buffer on there, but it'll never compete with the Rokh's tank. This is part of the torp-Raven problem - it's not entirely clear whether the problem is lack of torp range, difficulty of torp damage application or inadequacies in the torp platform (Raven). Part of the problem is that BS themselves have become slightly niche in the small-gang environment where missiles are generally best (excluding the HML Drake blobs, ofc) - small gangs want mobility and BS aren't really mobile, least of all the Raven... So more range for torps? Cut explosion radius to 400 m? Or an extra medslot for the Raven? Some combination of the three? No idea myself.
I think both the raven and golem could probably go for an extra mid slot... Damage application is so difficult with torps and cruise that they need it for the target painters.
Expecially the raven which doesn't get a tanking bonus. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:15:00 -
[3724] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:as it can do considerable dps with cruises
Cruise is another part of the Raven problem. Cruise is fundamentally broken and of no use whatsoever. With insta-probing and on-grid warps, range beyond 150 km is of very limited use. Inside 100 km, cruise DPS is thoroughly outclassed by BS turrets. There may be a slight paper DPS advantage somewhere around 140 km, but difficulty of Cruise application against sub-BS and flight time issues basically mean that there's no reason to fly a cruise Raven.
How do you fix that? Alter probing and warping mechanics so >150 km is more useful? Cut Cruise range to ~100 km and increase DPS? Does a "fixed" cruise-Raven just lead us from homogenous Drake gangs to Raven fleets, with fleet dynamics making it impossible to find a middle ground between useless and overpowered? |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:18:00 -
[3725] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Harvey James wrote:as it can do considerable dps with cruises Cruise is another part of the Raven problem. Cruise is fundamentally broken and of no use whatsoever. With insta-probing and on-grid warps, range beyond 150 km is of very limited use. Inside 100 km, cruise DPS is thoroughly outclassed by BS turrets. There may be a slight paper DPS advantage somewhere around 140 km, but difficulty of Cruise application against sub-BS and flight time issues basically mean that there's no reason to fly a cruise Raven. How do you fix that? Alter probing and warping mechanics so >150 km is more useful? Cut Cruise range to ~100 km and increase DPS? Does a "fixed" cruise-Raven just lead us from homogenous Drake gangs to Raven fleets, with fleet dynamics making it impossible to find a middle ground between useless and overpowered?
mm.. missile velocity needs to significantly higher on cruises i suppose in exchange for flight time a slight dps increase im not sure once we have TE's TC's improving its applied dps |
sabastyian
Zombie Masses Zombie Plague
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:34:00 -
[3726] - Quote
So, you're going to nerf the hurricanes powergrid by around 15-17%? My Armor Hurricane with 220's and ham's doesnt even have 150 pwrg left over with perfect fitting skills, now you make your 1-6 boosting implants pointless if everyone has to get fitting implants so they can actually fit a standard fit, armor cane is already smacked around, it cant fit a 1600, mwd, 220's, and neuts if you t2 them, so now youre t2 plate buff is gonna be used less and then tung will still be the most used, and now youre nefing drakes..one of the crapiest battlecruisers for small scale combat, a Single Stabber fleet can take out 3 Heavy Missile Drakes if they dont fit webs, and the stabber doesnt even need links or reps to do it. You are now making the drake completely worthless, dont get me wrong, ive hated the drake since 2007, but it is still a terrible battlecruiser overall. Armor ships have every medium slot for utility and a stronger tank then shield, they can also "fit" slave implants and have a smaller signature radius, making missiles less efffective on them, where as turrets will hit shields for full dps. A Buffer Myrm - More tank and dps then drake Buffer Cane - More dps and tank then drake Harbinger - It has a massive dps boost against drakes overall and the tank is still good ( all these stats are armor fit ) What does the drake have? Range? A Brick tank and NO utility mods? Mediocre damage that my sabre can do more then? A speed that a mwding megathron has? The signautre of my Nidhoggur? The Ehp of my cane? Yes......nerf that battlecruiser!!!!! It is completely overpowered!!! A Ham drake if fit right can break 1k dps, so can every other battlecruiser, in comparrion overall in shield battlecruisers, the drake has the best tank and the lowest dps Myrm has Middle Tank and the BEST dps with the new drone damage modules The hurricane has the best Speed, the Worst tank, and The second best dps...... why neut it? If anyhting look at buffing Heavy Missiles damge, range decrease of 10% and a damaage boost of what, 10% with ham boost of 10% as well?
Also..... tracking disurptors can shut down any Turret based ship there is, why do the same to missile ships? A perfect lvl 5 Battleship has issues tracking a Battlecruiser at 5km if it has even 1 tracking disruptor on it, just throw the Tracking Disruptor idea in the trash, Buff Damage, Nerf Range, Show Ham's some love, and dont nerf the Hurricane Powergrid, if anything, give the myrm a small boost, and nerf the drakes shield hitpoints and boost the powergrid? Its hard enough to get hams, mwd, and a lse on there with a meta 4 lse and you still need fitting mods, boot that enough so you dont need it. Tri rep myrm is op on tankin and still has good dps, so it doesnt need a buff, hype cant get neutrons with dual rep ( or ions if i remember correctly ) so why should the bc?
Nerf drake tank and range, buff powergrid minorly and damage by 10% for HM and HAM damage to bring it up to par with other bc's damage and tank. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:46:00 -
[3727] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Harvey James wrote:as it can do considerable dps with cruises Cruise is another part of the Raven problem. Cruise is fundamentally broken and of no use whatsoever. With insta-probing and on-grid warps, range beyond 150 km is of very limited use. Inside 100 km, cruise DPS is thoroughly outclassed by BS turrets. There may be a slight paper DPS advantage somewhere around 140 km, but difficulty of Cruise application against sub-BS and flight time issues basically mean that there's no reason to fly a cruise Raven. How do you fix that? Alter probing and warping mechanics so >150 km is more useful? Cut Cruise range to ~100 km and increase DPS? Does a "fixed" cruise-Raven just lead us from homogenous Drake gangs to Raven fleets, with fleet dynamics making it impossible to find a middle ground between useless and overpowered?
Their massive explosion radius and slow explosion velocity doesn't help either.
As a comparison
Torps Rage radius - 650 velocity - 61
Javelin radius - 450 velocity - 71
Cruise Fury radius - 550 velocity - 78
Precision radius - 270 velocity - 71
A cruise missile is over double the exp radius of a heavy missile, but not much lower than a torp.
I have personally noticed that in order for a fury cruise to do more damage than a precision cruise against any npc battleship requires 2 target painters, and that's not even for maximum potential.
This is the same as torps. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 16:52:00 -
[3728] - Quote
yep like i said they are going to look at bs weapons when they get to them as clearly the cruises should have higher exp velocity |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1746
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:21:00 -
[3729] - Quote
Hey again everyone. I've updated the OP with the version 2.0 of these proposals after the discussion in this thread, with the CSM and with our whole team here.
The main goal of the revisions is to ensure that we don't have too many balls in the air at once affecting the same modules. We're delaying the tracking mod and tracking disruptor changes until the first release settles and since those changes would have been a general buff to all missiles we're adjusting the severity of the HM nerf and making direct changes to the previously "unguided" missiles to compensate.
Changes are underlined in the OP, and are: We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf. The velocity of heavy missiles is also being increased by a larger amount, with flight time adjusting to keep the overall range change the same while ensuring higher applied damage in the real world and less wasted volleys. As well we are looking at making the Guided Missile Precision skill affect everything and dropping HAM PG requirements by 10% (Still a little bit higher than heavy missiles but closer).
I have also included some actual details in the T2 missile change section.
Finally Ytterbium has already announced some adjustments to light missile fittings to help balance the new destroyers, expect a slight decrease to the new Kestrel fittings to compensate. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:25:00 -
[3730] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: As a comparison
Torps Rage radius - 650.0 velocity - 91.5
Javelin radius - 450.0 velocity - 106.5
T1/CN
radius - 450.0 velocity - 106.5
Cruise Fury radius - 412.5 velocity - 108.8
Precision radius - 202.5 velocity - 133.1
T1/CN
radius - 225.0 velocity - 129.4
Figures updated to include skills (GMP and TNP). I included T1 too, since we already know that the T2 stats will be changing, even if we don't know what to. |
|
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:26:00 -
[3731] - Quote
Its an interesting change. What sort of comparison (Damage/Range) are you looking at when compared to Rails/Beams. I'm worried that HMLs with short range ammo will still have more range, more damage, better fitting, and better damage application (Tracking/Explosion radius,Velocity)
Edit, Any chance for Rails/Beams to get an adjustment should HMLs still prove to be a no brainer at any range? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1747
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:27:00 -
[3732] - Quote
Frothgar wrote:Its an interesting change. What sort of comparison (Damage/Range) are you looking at when compared to Rails/Beams. I'm worried that HMLs with short range ammo will still have more range, more damage, better fitting, and better damage application (Tracking/Explosion radius,Velocity)
HMLs with short range ammo will have lower damage but higher range than long range turrets with short range ammo.
For comparison, a post-change HML with Furies will do less damage than a current HML with furies. Against a large stationary target a post-change HML with furies will do about the same damage as a current HML with DG faction missiles.
Frothgar wrote:Edit, Any chance for Rails/Beams to get an adjustment should HMLs still prove to be a no brainer at any range?
Not going to take any options off the table. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:28:00 -
[3733] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey again everyone. I've updated the OP with the version 2.0 of these proposals after the discussion in this thread, with the CSM and with our whole team here.
The main goal of the revisions is to ensure that we don't have too many balls in the air at once affecting the same modules. We're delaying the tracking mod and tracking disruptor changes until the first release settles and since those changes would have been a general buff to all missiles we're adjusting the severity of the HM nerf and making direct changes to the previously "unguided" missiles to compensate.
Changes are underlined in the OP, and are: We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf. The velocity of heavy missiles is also being increased by a larger amount, with flight time adjusting to keep the overall range change the same while ensuring higher applied damage in the real world and less wasted volleys. As well we are looking at making the Guided Missile Precision skill affect everything and dropping HAM PG requirements by 10% (Still a little bit higher than heavy missiles but closer).
I have also included some actual details in the T2 missile change section.
Finally Ytterbium has already announced some adjustments to light missile fittings to help balance the new destroyers, expect a slight decrease to the new Kestrel fittings to compensate.
but all guns do have the shorter ranged guns using less pg and cpu why not the same for missile launchers? |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:29:00 -
[3734] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Frothgar wrote:Its an interesting change. What sort of comparison (Damage/Range) are you looking at when compared to Rails/Beams. I'm worried that HMLs with short range ammo will still have more range, more damage, better fitting, and better damage application (Tracking/Explosion radius,Velocity) HMLs with short range ammo will have lower damage but higher range than turrets with short range ammo.
Specifically LR turrets like Rails/Beams/Arty I assume? They were so good that people generally compare them short range weapon systems.
In reference to your statement, sounds good. Now just some iterations on armor tanking would be <3 |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:32:00 -
[3735] - Quote
Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what? |
Frothgar
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:35:00 -
[3736] - Quote
Really like the sound of "Unguided" missiles getting some love. Guided missile precision effecting things like HAMs and Torps sounds good (I gave up flying a sacrilige with HAMs when I did less damage to a scrammed Vaga with HAMs than I did with HMLs) |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:36:00 -
[3737] - Quote
Take 2 on the missile changes is much more reasonable since you gave Furies an acutal use now.
But that said, it's actually a huge buff to HML Drakes that go to 0 on fleets with their massive EHP and the now much more massive damage from Fury.
You really need to remove the Resist bonus from the Drake this patch or else this will be a short term disaster. with a ~550 DPS 35km range Fury Drake.
Other than that, I really like take 2 changes due to the tradeoff of long range damage for more close range damage. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:41:00 -
[3738] - Quote
i find those patch notes confusing are you saying that rage and fury are getting buffs to damage and the Rage is getting even more range? if so why? surely the high damage HAMS need there range nerfed and even the t1 version as there is long range variant. this seems a step backwards |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:43:00 -
[3739] - Quote
Well, at least my tengu will still be usable in lvl 4's for now...
Tnx CCP |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1757
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:45:00 -
[3740] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what?
35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either.
Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:46:00 -
[3741] - Quote
Like where we're going with the new missile changes. 10% decrease in damage makes sense, especially given the increase in T2 missile damage where you can choose to take more damage at the expense of range. Good. My biggest problem with missiles has always been the ability to project damage out to 100km+, not the damage.
T3 battlecruisers and BSs get better with these changes. Battleships and T3 BCs with long range weapons should not be able to be outdistanced by heavy missiles.
Also, cheers for making HAMs a legitimate choice! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
671
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:47:00 -
[3742] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Take 2 on the missile changes is much more reasonable since you gave Furies an acutal use now.
But that said, it's actually a huge buff to HML Drakes that go to 0 on fleets with their massive EHP and the now much more massive damage from Fury.
You really need to remove the Resist bonus from the Drake this patch or else this will be a short term disaster. with a ~550 DPS 35km range Fury Drake.
Other than that, I really like take 2 changes due to the tradeoff of long range damage for more close range damage. Embrace the HAM Drake.
HAM PG reduction, moving some of the HM DPS nerf into the explosion radius, all good things. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:48:00 -
[3743] - Quote
so what reason have you kept out the TE's TC's seems a bit odd/unnecessary? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:48:00 -
[3744] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what? 35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either. Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values.
OK, so Revised, that's a 500 dps drake with 140k ehp at 30km ... better or comparable to most LR BS fits with CR ammo. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:48:00 -
[3745] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey again everyone. I've updated the OP with the version 2.0 of these proposals after the discussion in this thread, with the CSM and with our whole team here.
The main goal of the revisions is to ensure that we don't have too many balls in the air at once affecting the same modules. We're delaying the tracking mod and tracking disruptor changes until the first release settles and since those changes would have been a general buff to all missiles we're adjusting the severity of the HM nerf and making direct changes to the previously "unguided" missiles to compensate.
Changes are underlined in the OP, and are: We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf. The velocity of heavy missiles is also being increased by a larger amount, with flight time adjusting to keep the overall range change the same while ensuring higher applied damage in the real world and less wasted volleys. As well we are looking at making the Guided Missile Precision skill affect everything and dropping HAM PG requirements by 10% (Still a little bit higher than heavy missiles but closer).
I have also included some actual details in the T2 missile change section.
Finally Ytterbium has already announced some adjustments to light missile fittings to help balance the new destroyers, expect a slight decrease to the new Kestrel fittings to compensate.
That sounds like a very conservative, agreeable change. If it still needs fixing after you finish balancing the ships you can come back to it.
Bravo.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:49:00 -
[3746] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:so what reason have you kept out the TE's TC's seems a bit odd/unnecessary?
has more to do with the EWAR side I think |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1756
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:49:00 -
[3747] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Take 2 on the missile changes is much more reasonable since you gave Furies an acutal use now.
But that said, it's actually a huge buff to HML Drakes that go to 0 on fleets with their massive EHP and the now much more massive damage from Fury.
You really need to remove the Resist bonus from the Drake this patch or else this will be a short term disaster. with a ~550 DPS 35km range Fury Drake.
Other than that, I really like take 2 changes due to the tradeoff of long range damage for more close range damage.
Fury HMLs will do less damage post-patch than they do now. The +35% number is compared to post-patch T1 missiles.
Currently before bonuses Fury Heavy Missiles do 192 damage, post patch they'll do 182. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:49:00 -
[3748] - Quote
Very happy with the new changes, and I like the fact that missiles move faster. Also love the guided missile projection skill affecting all missiles now. That will make that skill so much more viable.
HAMs actually may be used quite often now. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:51:00 -
[3749] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what? 35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either. Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values.
Can Missiles Please get either damage specific resistance or more structure to make firewalling less easy to remove most damage.
That's one thing that needs to be fixed... it's just way to easy in large fleet fights.
It's also a ratting issue when sometimes up to 50% of your dps is lost to rat Defenders. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1756
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:52:00 -
[3750] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what? 35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either. Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values. Can Missiles Please get either damage specific resistance or more structure to make firewalling less easy to remove most damage.
The velocity buff already makes firewalls a little less powerful, I wouldn't want to nerf them further at this time considering how difficult a really good firewall is to pull off today. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:53:00 -
[3751] - Quote
My gut tells me HAMs (on a Drake/Caracal anyway) might be a bit over the top now, but I'm sure you guys have run the numbers and know better than my gut. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:54:00 -
[3752] - Quote
still kind of feels like you've given into all the drake obsessed people trying to save their OP ship instead of sticking to your guns and for christ sake surely all short range weapon systems should use less pg/cpu than their long range counterparts. And should be fighting inside web range like all the guns do. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:54:00 -
[3753] - Quote
Best thing to do is remove all rockets and missiles from game. This way everything would be balanced.
If rockets, missiles were good for 9 years now, why are you changing them i don't see the logic in there. So keep missiles as they are right now, or remove them completely from game.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:55:00 -
[3754] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what? 35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either. Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values. Can Missiles Please get either damage specific resistance or more structure to make firewalling less easy to remove most damage. The velocity buff already makes firewalls a little less powerful, I wouldn't want to nerf them further at this time considering how difficult a really good firewall is to pull off today.
You don't apparently know how to firewall then.
6 - 8 smartbombs means a smartbomb cycling every 1 second or less
With 12km Diameter, the chance of a missile making it through the gap even with 15,000 m/s speed is slim to none. On a non velocity boosted ship, it's even more severe. |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:58:00 -
[3755] - Quote
GMP applying to unguided missiles is a really massive buff - I'd argue that at the very least, rockets really don't need it and are very strong as is. Might be worth increasing their base explosion radius by 20-25% to compensate. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:59:00 -
[3756] - Quote
Quote:Tech Two Missiles -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles
Quote:-Fury: Increase damage bonus to +35%, reduce flight time to 50% of T1
Is this a nerf to fury range by 50%, or did I miss something and/or did you miss something?
[/quote] unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes -Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%)[/quote]
What exactly do you mean unify flight time, unify velocity and the rest of the unify?
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1757
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:01:00 -
[3757] - Quote
Whenever I listed a change as unifying it means that the different sizes of missiles had slightly different penalties or bonuses in that stat compared to their T1 counterparts. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:04:00 -
[3758] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Whenever I listed a change as unifying it means that the different sizes of missiles had slightly different penalties or bonuses in that stat compared to their T1 counterparts.
If Furies got a damage reduction too and I read that wrong, Then I'm back to hating 2.0 changes as well. Now there is still an un-needed damage reduction w/o any tradeoff for the closer range damage application and it still does not address the 2 ships that are causing all the problems while nerfing everything else.
Again, nobody has said yet that HMLs needed a damage reduction, only a range reduction. Either give furies a use at close range to trade off for the longer range damage reduction, or remove the reduction all together...
and yeah, firewalls. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:04:00 -
[3759] - Quote
so no TD's affecting missiles then despite it being promised at fanfest for summer how long will we have to wait for my curse to be effective against missiles? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:06:00 -
[3760] - Quote
Also, does this essentially make guided missiles longer range short range weapons now.
I mean, I'm a little lost on this.
There's no buff to precision range, but a massive nerf to fury range putting it less than precision, which means that guided missiles will be doing less that 65km with both precision and fury.
Or again, did I miss something?
Edit....
I take that back, with cruise missiles @ all skills lvl 5 it would be less than about 80km.
However, I didn't see a nerf to t1 and navy missile ranges, so can you please explain this? |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:09:00 -
[3761] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, does this essentially make guided missiles longer range short range weapons now.
I mean, I'm a little lost on this.
There's no buff to precision range, but a massive nerf to fury range putting it less than precision, which means that guided missiles will be doing less that 65km with both precision and fury.
Or again, did I miss something?
please make us a pretty picture that shows the changes maybe with different colours and lines going up and down please :P |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:11:00 -
[3762] - Quote
There we go. This I like. I wouldn't have even minded sticking with the 20% HM damage reduction with these other outlined tweaks. At first glance at the newest changes I was annoyed by rage missiles getting their explosion velocity and radius nerfed a bit more, but with the guided missile precision bonus actually affecting them, it should even out nicely. Good setup. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:11:00 -
[3763] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, does this essentially make guided missiles longer range short range weapons now.
I mean, I'm a little lost on this.
There's no buff to precision range, but a massive nerf to fury range putting it less than precision, which means that guided missiles will be doing less that 65km with both precision and fury.
Or again, did I miss something? please make us a pretty picture that shows the changes maybe with different colours and lines going up and down please :P
This!
I think a graph showing where the different missiles fall as far as damage and projection would be nice.
I like that you're applying GMP to all missile types, but I'm going to need some time to sort through what exactly the changes to exp radius and velocity will mean. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:11:00 -
[3764] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, does this essentially make guided missiles longer range short range weapons now.
I mean, I'm a little lost on this.
There's no buff to precision range, but a massive nerf to fury range putting it less than precision, which means that guided missiles will be doing less that 65km with both precision and fury.
Or again, did I miss something? please make us a pretty picture that shows the changes maybe with different colours and lines going up and down please :P
I think what you are asking for is a graph. :) Everyone in EVE loves graphs please post one if you can. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:12:00 -
[3765] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, does this essentially make guided missiles longer range short range weapons now.
I mean, I'm a little lost on this.
There's no buff to precision range, but a massive nerf to fury range putting it less than precision, which means that guided missiles will be doing less that 65km with both precision and fury.
Or again, did I miss something? please make us a pretty picture that shows the changes maybe with different colours and lines going up and down please :P
It may help, lol
I'm serious though.
If fury is getting nerfed below precision range, then what's the deal with that?
And will t1/navy stay long range.
The notes are a bit confusing on this part |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:14:00 -
[3766] - Quote
quick before our minds explode with too many numbers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:14:00 -
[3767] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: with a ~550 DPS 35km range Fury Drake.
Yes, because the 500 dps javelin HAM drake has caused so much problems at 30km right
Even with the previous outlined changes you would have been able to use javs with tracking enhancers getting 500 dps at like 40km. I don't see how this buff is unfair, drakes getting max DPS at 70km was unfair, now they get similar dps at 35km, sounds fair enough to me. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:15:00 -
[3768] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:quick before our minds explode with too many numbers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MY HEAD IS GETTING BIGGER!!!! |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1760
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:16:00 -
[3769] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Harvey James wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, does this essentially make guided missiles longer range short range weapons now.
I mean, I'm a little lost on this.
There's no buff to precision range, but a massive nerf to fury range putting it less than precision, which means that guided missiles will be doing less that 65km with both precision and fury.
Or again, did I miss something? please make us a pretty picture that shows the changes maybe with different colours and lines going up and down please :P It may help, lol I'm serious though. If fury is getting nerfed below precision range, then what's the deal with that? And will t1/navy stay long range. The notes are a bit confusing on this part
Post patch Furies and Precisions would have exactly the same range.
I'll get the numbers into a spreadsheet form for public viewing soon, probably should have thought to do that earlier. :oops: Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:16:00 -
[3770] - Quote
I see some of updates Fozzie made to the original post, but will submit my post anyway.
I've said plenty about it in game and figure I might as well get in on this forum. These are just ideas and I haven't done any math or testing to figure out what numbers would be appropriate. That's CCP's job.
RANGE The HM range nerf is harsh and should be reduced or removed. A recurring argument is that no other weapon system does full damage at their extreme optimals. A few points on that.
- First, missiles only do full damage if the target is not moving and its sig radius is favorable to the missiles explosion radius. There will always be some damage mitigation due to the targets movement, and any large missile will never do full damage to smaller targets without TP. - Second, while missiles can project reliable damage to extreme ranges, they do absolutely zero damage once you go just 1m out of their range. Turrets have falloff ranges and still maintain chances to hit, and missiles lack this entirely. To rephrase, missiles lose ALL of their damage after their 'optimal' whereas turrets loose a prot - And finally, delayed damage. The farther out your target it, the longer it takes to apply damage. Targets could potentially warp out before your missiles arrive, or be killed by turrets before your missiles arrive. If you warp out while your missiles are in flight they do no damage.
DAMAGE The HM damage nerf should be reduced. One point CCP Fozzie has brought up is that this arises when players compare HMs to short range weapon systems. I'm not comparing HMs to Blasters or Autocannons. When I started EVE and decided to use missiles, I looked at HAMs vs. HMs. The small amount of additional DPS from the HAMs doesn't make up for their much harder fitting requirements and much shorter range. Of course, HAMs are the short range version, so the fix that comes to mind is a smaller nerf to HM damage and slight buff to HAM damage, with easier fitting reqs.
TRACKING I understand that CCP can do as they please with making up stats and having something effect various attributes, but I don't like the idea of tracking disruptors, enhancers, or computers effecting anything to do with missiles. There's no aspect of missiles that involves the launcher rotating in order to track a target. Creating new mods with same effect is fine. It doesn't make sense for it to be an all in one mod. If this change t the very minimum, these should be different mods.
On a semi related note to the tracking changes, from what I've heard from a number of Amarr pilots, it seems like this change was made so that Amarr racial EWAR could effect missiles. This would be in the same vein as making projectiles and launchers use capacitor so they could be neuted out. CCP could do it easily, but it wouldn't make sense.
DAMAGE BONUS An "advantage" of missiles is that you get to choose your damage type. Being bonused for kinetic makes that advantage less appealing, especially at higher levels when you'll use kinetic over an NPC weakness because the bonused damage simply outweighs their weakness. Further, a 10 second reload time often means you won't be switching to a more effective damage type in the heat of a PvP battle. I see the new Caldari destroyer is getting a kinetic damage bonus. Caldari ships should be moved away from kinetic bonuses and towards general damage bonuses. That would maintain the neighborhood of volley damages that kinetic currently gets. An alternative would be a RoF bonus, lowering volley damage but maintaining bonused kinetic levels of DPS, while making counting volleys harder.
A reduction in reload time for all weapons would make switching ranges for turrets and damage types for projectiles and missiles a practical option. I remember reading in the skill discussion forum a suggestion for a skill that accomplishes that that was called Ordinance Handling. I would add to it that for lasers and mining crystals the skill could reduce damage and extend their lives. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:17:00 -
[3771] - Quote
Are we trying to make precision the long range ammo, or are we trying to make t1/navy long range ammo with fury in last and precision in 3rd I guess is what I'm asking |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1760
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:22:00 -
[3772] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Are we trying to make precision the long range ammo, or are we trying to make t1/navy long range ammo with fury in last and precision in 3rd I guess is what I'm asking
Both precision and fury are closer range than T1 or faction. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:23:00 -
[3773] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Changes are underlined in the OP, and are: We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf.
I'm a little disappointed by this, since it means that missile boats will still be de facto immune to one of the types of ewar. May I ask what the reason for reversing the TD changes was? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:23:00 -
[3774] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Harvey James wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, does this essentially make guided missiles longer range short range weapons now.
I mean, I'm a little lost on this.
There's no buff to precision range, but a massive nerf to fury range putting it less than precision, which means that guided missiles will be doing less that 65km with both precision and fury.
Or again, did I miss something? please make us a pretty picture that shows the changes maybe with different colours and lines going up and down please :P It may help, lol I'm serious though. If fury is getting nerfed below precision range, then what's the deal with that? And will t1/navy stay long range. The notes are a bit confusing on this part Post patch Furies and Precisions would have exactly the same range. I'll get the numbers into a spreadsheet form for public viewing soon, probably should have thought to do that earlier. :oops:
Well, even range fury/precision sounds like a fair balance, but I think the range nerf of heavy missiles might need to be compensated by a bit.
I feel if you're going to nerf fury range (which was the problem to begin with) to javelin range, then I don't see the need for anymore than a 5-10% range nerf.
Also, as I asked, will t1/CN be our long range ammo?
If so, I might suggest leaving their numbers alone, but perhaps nerfing the range of faction missiles.
So, it would be
t1 - mod damage, long range, mod application CN - higher damage, mid range, mod application Precision - low damage, short range, high application Fury- high damage, short range, low application
Like I said, if this is the goal I think you should consider taking away the direct hml range nerf and instead nerf the individual missiles. perhaps t1 would retain the 70km range?? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
92
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:26:00 -
[3775] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Are we trying to make precision the long range ammo, or are we trying to make t1/navy long range ammo with fury in last and precision in 3rd I guess is what I'm asking Both precision and fury are closer range than T1 or faction.
This makes sense because for the long range missiles, "long range" ammo would just suck because the missiles already hit far away enough. a "Tracking" ammo and a "damage" ammo are a much more useful combination. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:27:00 -
[3776] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Are we trying to make precision the long range ammo, or are we trying to make t1/navy long range ammo with fury in last and precision in 3rd I guess is what I'm asking
I agree I think more people would be happier if they just got rid of Fury and Precision and had Rage and Javelin. It would keep things more uniform and that way all missile launchers would have a short ranged hi damage, mid range mid damage, and long range low damage. Yes people will say you are dumbing down EVE but this would make people happy and very easy to understand. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
592
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:27:00 -
[3777] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Changes are underlined in the OP, and are: We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf.
I'm a little disappointed by this, since it means that missile boats will still be de facto immune to one of the types of ewar. May I ask what the reason for reversing the TD changes was?
Yeah I have to second this. Looks like td condor will remain fotm forever :-(
I was excited by the change but now am left disillusioned... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:28:00 -
[3778] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Are we trying to make precision the long range ammo, or are we trying to make t1/navy long range ammo with fury in last and precision in 3rd I guess is what I'm asking Both precision and fury are closer range than T1 or faction. This makes sense because for the long range missiles, "long range" ammo would just suck because the missiles already hit far away enough. a "Tracking" ammo and a "damage" ammo are a much more useful combination.
we'd still have our long range ammo in the form of t1 and faction
However, as a missile boat pilot being honest, I feel the navy should have a range reduction to put it lower range than t1, but higher damage |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:28:00 -
[3779] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:I'm Down wrote: with a ~550 DPS 35km range Fury Drake. Yes, because the 500 dps javelin HAM drake has caused so much problems at 30km right Even with the previous outlined changes you would have been able to use javs with tracking enhancers getting 500 dps at like 40km. I don't see how this buff is unfair, drakes getting max DPS at 70km was unfair, now they get similar dps at 35km, sounds fair enough to me.
the 30km HAM drake didn't always have a longer range option when needed either. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:29:00 -
[3780] - Quote
After reading the first 10 pages of this "thread", here are the common complaints and possible fixes:
20% damage reduction is too much, start with 10%. many complaints about the TD/TC/TE affects, but just as many like the new range/'tracking' bonus.
Possible solutions:
Switch the cpu/PG requirements for HAMs and HM's...so the long range weapons have the higher pg cost. THAT might be a better fix than anything else. Fitting a 6 HAM tengu requires fitting mods and/or a gimped tank, same for a Cerberus. either hams w/ tank, no tackle, or hams+tackle, no tank (though only a little experience in that realm). However, the nightwawk will definitly need a large PG boost, and the cerb will probably need a smallish-medium ish pg boost as well.
I think swapping the PG/CPU fitting for HAMs and HM's would be just as controversial, but more in-line with other weapon systems.
Also, target painters help out missile and turret ships, that's probably why CCP is applying the TD/TC/TE to missiles now. Thinking about it that way makes sense game-wise, if not common-sense wise.
I think the prevalent use of the drake+tengu is much more a problem of the Caldari race: they don't have any battlehips that are as good as a tengu. When cruise missiles and torps aren't just blatantly laughed at, then Caldari pilots will have more to rely on than just a tengu and drake
Also, 5% reduction in HM damage, 5-7% boost to HAM damage, possibly bonus to explosion velocity (better tracking, like close-range guns). Might actually see the sacrelige more than once a year that way.
TL;DR: swap PG/CPU req's for Hams and HM's, it might be a better way than just nerf-hammering a single weapon system. Not an end-all, be-all, but might work better than the large headache that's threatening to show up in December. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:30:00 -
[3781] - Quote
Also, as far as the removal of tc/te/td working for missiles.
Even though this is a good and bad thing for missile pilots, I'd like to see this remain this patch so we can get used to them.
what I mean by this is, should I be replacing my target painters with tcs, or what |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:30:00 -
[3782] - Quote
Leskit wrote:After reading the first 10 pages of this "thread", here are the common complaints and possible fixes: 20% damage reduction is too much, start with 10%. many complaints about the TD/TC/TE affects, but just as many like the new range/'tracking' bonus. Possible solutions: Switch the cpu/PG requirements for HAMs and HM's...so the long range weapons have the higher pg cost. THAT might be a better fix than anything else. Fitting a 6 HAM tengu requires fitting mods and/or a gimped tank, same for a Cerberus. either hams w/ tank, no tackle, or hams+tackle, no tank (though only a little experience in that realm). However, the nightwawk will definitly need a large PG boost, and the cerb will probably need a smallish-medium ish pg boost as well. I think swapping the PG/CPU fitting for HAMs and HM's would be just as controversial, but more in-line with other weapon systems. Also, target painters help out missile and turret ships, that's probably why CCP is applying the TD/TC/TE to missiles now. Thinking about it that way makes sense game-wise, if not common-sense wise. I think the prevalent use of the drake+tengu is much more a problem of the Caldari race: they don't have any battlehips that are as good as a tengu. When cruise missiles and torps aren't just blatantly laughed at, then Caldari pilots will have more to rely on than just a tengu and drake Also, 5% reduction in HM damage, 5-7% boost to HAM damage, possibly bonus to explosion velocity (better tracking, like close-range guns). Might actually see the sacrelige more than once a year that way. TL;DR: swap PG/CPU req's for Hams and HM's, it might be a better way than just nerf-hammering a single weapon system. Not an end-all, be-all, but might work better than the large headache that's threatening to show up in December.
You are 2 weeks behind. Please reread the OP changes have been made. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:31:00 -
[3783] - Quote
they should probably nerf the range of javelins a little too missiles in general seem to have the best range to damage ratio and sometimes best range fullstop |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:32:00 -
[3784] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, as far as the removal of tc/te/td working for missiles.
Even though this is a good and bad thing for missile pilots, I'd like to see this remain this patch so we can get used to them.
what I mean by this is, should I be replacing my target painters with tcs, or what
I would also like to keep TC/TE in this patch. Its better to just rip the band aid off then pull it slowly. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:32:00 -
[3785] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:I see some of updates Fozzie made to the original post, but will submit my post anyway.
I've said plenty about it in game and figure I might as well get in on this forum. These are just ideas and I haven't done any math or testing to figure out what numbers would be appropriate. That's CCP's job.
RANGE The HM range nerf is harsh and should be reduced or removed. A recurring argument is that no other weapon system does full damage at their extreme optimals. A few points on that.
- First, missiles only do full damage if the target is not moving and its sig radius is favorable to the missiles explosion radius. There will always be some damage mitigation due to the targets movement, and any large missile will never do full damage to smaller targets without TP. - Second, while missiles can project reliable damage to extreme ranges, they do absolutely zero damage once you go just 1m out of their range. Turrets have falloff ranges and still maintain chances to hit, and missiles lack this entirely. To rephrase, missiles lose ALL of their damage after their 'optimal' whereas turrets loose a prot - And finally, delayed damage. The farther out your target it, the longer it takes to apply damage. Targets could potentially warp out before your missiles arrive, or be killed by turrets before your missiles arrive. If you warp out while your missiles are in flight they do no damage.
DAMAGE The HM damage nerf should be reduced. One point CCP Fozzie has brought up is that this arises when players compare HMs to short range weapon systems. I'm not comparing HMs to Blasters or Autocannons. When I started EVE and decided to use missiles, I looked at HAMs vs. HMs. The small amount of additional DPS from the HAMs doesn't make up for their much harder fitting requirements and much shorter range. Of course, HAMs are the short range version, so the fix that comes to mind is a smaller nerf to HM damage and slight buff to HAM damage, with easier fitting reqs.
TRACKING I understand that CCP can do as they please with making up stats and having something effect various attributes, but I don't like the idea of tracking disruptors, enhancers, or computers effecting anything to do with missiles. There's no aspect of missiles that involves the launcher rotating in order to track a target. Creating new mods with same effect is fine. It doesn't make sense for it to be an all in one mod. If this change t the very minimum, these should be different mods.
On a semi related note to the tracking changes, from what I've heard from a number of Amarr pilots, it seems like this change was made so that Amarr racial EWAR could effect missiles. This would be in the same vein as making projectiles and launchers use capacitor so they could be neuted out. CCP could do it easily, but it wouldn't make sense.
DAMAGE BONUS An "advantage" of missiles is that you get to choose your damage type. Being bonused for kinetic makes that advantage less appealing, especially at higher levels when you'll use kinetic over an NPC weakness because the bonused damage simply outweighs their weakness. Further, a 10 second reload time often means you won't be switching to a more effective damage type in the heat of a PvP battle. I see the new Caldari destroyer is getting a kinetic damage bonus. Caldari ships should be moved away from kinetic bonuses and towards general damage bonuses. That would maintain the neighborhood of volley damages that kinetic currently gets. An alternative would be a RoF bonus, lowering volley damage but maintaining bonused kinetic levels of DPS, while making counting volleys harder.
A reduction in reload time for all weapons would make switching ranges for turrets and damage types for projectiles and missiles a practical option. I remember reading in the skill discussion forum a suggestion for a skill that accomplishes that that was called Ordinance Handling. I would add to it that for lasers and mining crystals the skill could reduce damage and extend their lives.
not empty quoting
When players get it and CCP doesn't, it's concerning. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:33:00 -
[3786] - Quote
MIrple wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, as far as the removal of tc/te/td working for missiles.
Even though this is a good and bad thing for missile pilots, I'd like to see this remain this patch so we can get used to them.
what I mean by this is, should I be replacing my target painters with tcs, or what I would also like to keep TC/TE in this patch. Its better to just rip the band aid off then pull it slowly.
And my curse wants to mess up some drakes :P... lol |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:35:00 -
[3787] - Quote
I'm gonna quote this cause it's the question/debate on my side that I really want answered so that I have a better understanding and/or perhaps CCP reconsiders the HML range nerf since they're giving a fury range nerf.
Quote:
Well, even range fury/precision sounds like a fair balance, but I think the range nerf of heavy missiles might need to be compensated by a bit.
I feel if you're going to nerf fury range (which was the problem to begin with) to javelin range, then I don't see the need for anymore than a 5-10% range nerf.
Ignore this part as it's already answered (((Also, as I asked, will t1/CN be our long range ammo?))))
If so, I might suggest leaving their numbers alone, but perhaps nerfing the range of faction missiles.
So, it would be
t1 - mod damage, long range, mod application CN - higher damage, mid range, mod application Precision - low damage, short range, high application Fury- high damage, short range, low application
Like I said, if this is the goal I think you should consider taking away the direct hml range nerf and instead nerf the individual missiles. perhaps t1 would retain the 70km range??
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
306
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:39:00 -
[3788] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I've updated this post with the 2.0 versions of this proposal. Changes are underlined and can be found described in this post. Some big sets of responses to questions about the original proposal can be found here and here.: Much better, especially the bit about unguided missiles now benefiting from relevant skills .. Sacrilege/Vengeance owes you a debt of gratitude.
Good call on postponing TD changes as that has the potential to really mess things up. Guessing you plan to wait until you have clearer picture of what will happen to ewar in general.
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:40:00 -
[3789] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I've updated this post with the 2.0 versions of this proposal. Changes are underlined and can be found described in this post. Some big sets of responses to questions about the original proposal can be found here and here.: Much better, especially the bit about unguided missiles now benefiting from relevant skills .. Sacrilege/Vengeance owes you a debt of gratitude. Good call on postponing TD changes as that has the potential to really mess things up. Guessing you plan to wait until you have clearer picture of what will happen to ewar in general.
BOO!!!! we want TD's to work on missiles :) |
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:43:00 -
[3790] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey again everyone. I've updated the OP with the version 2.0 of these proposals after the discussion in this thread, with the CSM and with our whole team here. *snip* Thanks for the update, this looks (IMO) more like a buff to missles in general now, with HMs getting a slight cut down - we will have to see if 10% reduce is ok or if, with the other changes in mind, 15% or 20% is appropriate.
Thanks again, can't say this often enough, for you keeping up with this threadnought
cu |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1764
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:45:00 -
[3791] - Quote
I put together a google spreadsheet with the numbers for the changed missiles, hopefully it makes things clearer:
NUMBERS!
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:46:00 -
[3792] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I put together a google spreadsheet with the numbers for the changed missiles, hopefully it makes things clearer: NUMBERS!
crap...I was hoping for a bar graph or something...thanks for making it easy...lol
Now help me with my quoted comment above.
please... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1766
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:47:00 -
[3793] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I'm gonna quote this cause it's the question/debate on my side that I really want answered so that I have a better understanding and/or perhaps CCP reconsiders the HML range nerf since they're giving a fury range nerf. Quote:
Well, even range fury/precision sounds like a fair balance, but I think the range nerf of heavy missiles might need to be compensated by a bit.
I feel if you're going to nerf fury range (which was the problem to begin with) to javelin range, then I don't see the need for anymore than a 5-10% range nerf.
Ignore this part as it's already answered (((Also, as I asked, will t1/CN be our long range ammo?))))
If so, I might suggest leaving their numbers alone, but perhaps nerfing the range of faction missiles.
So, it would be
t1 - mod damage, long range, mod application CN - higher damage, mid range, mod application Precision - low damage, short range, high application Fury- high damage, short range, low application
Like I said, if this is the goal I think you should consider taking away the direct hml range nerf and instead nerf the individual missiles. perhaps t1 would retain the 70km range??
The range of t1 missiles was a major part of the original balance concern, not furies. Furies got dropped down to help compensate for the buff to their damage. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
417
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:50:00 -
[3794] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf.
As someone who flies both Tengus and Sabres, all I can say is you are the game designer of my heart <3.
A ten percent damage decrease vs large targets is perfectly palatable (HML dps was a bit high but a 20% decrease seemed a bit steep), but the one place HML's were way out of line was in their ability to rip smaller targets to bits in an un-mitigateable fashion, so this pretty much owns.
<3 <3 <3 |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:51:00 -
[3795] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I put together a google spreadsheet with the numbers for the changed missiles, hopefully it makes things clearer: NUMBERS!
\o/ |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:52:00 -
[3796] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The range of t1 missiles was a major part of the original balance concern, not furies. Furies got dropped down to help compensate for the buff to their damage.
Understood
Now,
HOLY HELL rage torps have a MASSIVE exp radius.
can we bring that down some???
I mean, I realize they got a damage buff, but 125m large exp radius seems a bit much...
Also, it does appear that hmls do need to have their range nerf reduced a little..
they're only 475m farther than javelins (don't nerf javelins) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:56:00 -
[3797] - Quote
christ!!! those poor T2 torps will need some TP's or rigs/mods to although now with GMP skill reducing it this might not be such a bad thing you know have to sacrifice things to do what turret ships already do which then begs the question why aren't the TE/TC being brought out with these changes surely it will be needed for these alone. even if the bonuses are very small to begin with, tweak as needed rather than not use them at all. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1766
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:56:00 -
[3798] - Quote
FYI first few people to bring a killmail where they participated in a primarily ragetorp supercap killing get a free beer from me at fanfest. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:58:00 -
[3799] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: HOLY HELL rage torps have a MASSIVE exp radius.
I guess they're meant for killing caps and supercaps now.
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:59:00 -
[3800] - Quote
i would still like to see the dmg on Hm's reduced a little more and rage/javelin range nerfed more. |
|
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:59:00 -
[3801] - Quote
Hell yes! I love proposal 2 as much as I hated proposal 1. :P
Props for keeping some healthy variation in the game. :) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1766
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:00:00 -
[3802] - Quote
To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:00:00 -
[3803] - Quote
so are the torps/cruises going to be looked at more when you do the bs? |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
780
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:01:00 -
[3804] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I put together a google spreadsheet with the numbers for the changed missiles, hopefully it makes things clearer: NUMBERS! Yes |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:01:00 -
[3805] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over.
I hope there will be a point were most of the stats will be fixed. Hell I'm not buying ships anymore because I don't know how you guys are going to change them... Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1766
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:05:00 -
[3806] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:so are the torps/cruises going to be looked at more when you do the bs?
Very much yes. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:07:00 -
[3807] - Quote
DeBingJos wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over. I hope there will be a point were most of the stats will be fixed. Hell I'm not buying ships anymore because I don't know how you guys are going to change them...
I'm cross training to a nightmare.(already got caldari bs to 5)
just need ALL the turret skills and ALL the amarr skills.
Well, at least javelin torps will still be usable in missions.
Now if only there were a caldari boat worth fitting them on that wasn't a bomber....hmm.
I'm really hoping torps get a range buff during bs rebalance.
I'm also really hoping that caldari missile bs's won't suck as much after that either... |
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:10:00 -
[3808] - Quote
Will you be renaming the Guided missile precision skill?
|
Zhephell
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Quixotic Hegemony
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:10:00 -
[3809] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I put together a google spreadsheet with the numbers for the changed missiles, hopefully it makes things clearer: NUMBERS!
Fozzie I think you should remember the next days that the new % have as background the t1 statistics, because i see that a lot of people thinks that the 35% dps bonus of the rage and fury missiles = a 35% more dps that now, and that link is a realy nice one to remenber that. Everyone have to know that the 35% dps bonus of fury and rage munition is now a 29%, and the 72% penalty to the explosion radius it a 71,5% now (" i think"), and it is because like i said they have as background the t1 missiles statistics those changes.
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:11:00 -
[3810] - Quote
I think that even with reduction cost we won't see a lot HAM users this WInter because of too short range. And without TE/TC for missiles there probably won't be good missile platform for PvE. While you are here, I see that CCP still want to force Cladari into kinetic damage (with new destroyer). Could you consider replacing Winmatar +Damage bonus to +Explosive Damage bonus? It will be fair trade-off for Mataru pilots to get more DPS but being more predictable or doing less DPS but adapt to situation, just like with most Caldari ships. |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:12:00 -
[3811] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:DeBingJos wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over. I hope there will be a point were most of the stats will be fixed. Hell I'm not buying ships anymore because I don't know how you guys are going to change them... I'm cross training to a nightmare.(already got caldari bs to 5) just need ALL the turret skills and ALL the amarr skills. Well, at least javelin torps will still be usable in missions. Now if only there were a caldari boat worth fitting them on that wasn't a bomber....hmm. I'm really hoping torps get a range buff during bs rebalance. I'm also really hoping that caldari missile bs's won't suck as much after that either...
torps dont need more range if anything it needs less as does HAMs which strangely now has same range as torps unusual when its normally the bs that has much more range than the cruisers. it also begs the question what about stealth bombers? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:12:00 -
[3812] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:so are the torps/cruises going to be looked at more when you do the bs? Very much yes.
Though I am a missile boat pilot and I'm hurting myself by saying this, but I think that faction guided missiles need a slight range nerf to put t1 ammo as the long range.
Basically, as you go down hill you either get more damage or more effectiveness.
So, like I stated.
guided missiles
t1 - longest range, mod damage, mod application
Faction - long range, high damage, mod application (varying based on faction, perhaps guristas would be long range, mod damage, high application?)
Fury - short range, highest damage, low application
precision - short range, low damage, highest application
just a thought... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1768
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:14:00 -
[3813] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:Will you be renaming the Guided missile precision skill?
We'll be changing the descriptions of the missiles formerly known as unguided.
They were already obviously guided, so it clears up an area of confusion as well. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1768
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:15:00 -
[3814] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie, seing you participating in those threads makes me happy I think that even with reduction cost we won't see a lot HAM users this WInter because of too short range. And without TE/TC for missiles there probably won't be good missile platform for PvE. While you are here, I see that CCP still want to force Cladari into kinetic damage (with new destroyer). Could you consider replacing Winmatar +Damage bonus to +Explosive Damage bonus? It will be fair trade-off for Matari pilots to get more DPS but being more predictable or doing less DPS but adapt to situation, just like with most Caldari ships.
Take a close look at the new Minmatar destroyer. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:15:00 -
[3815] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:DeBingJos wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over. I hope there will be a point were most of the stats will be fixed. Hell I'm not buying ships anymore because I don't know how you guys are going to change them... I'm cross training to a nightmare.(already got caldari bs to 5) just need ALL the turret skills and ALL the amarr skills. Well, at least javelin torps will still be usable in missions. Now if only there were a caldari boat worth fitting them on that wasn't a bomber....hmm. I'm really hoping torps get a range buff during bs rebalance. I'm also really hoping that caldari missile bs's won't suck as much after that either... torps dont need more range if anything it needs less as does HAMs which strangely now has same range as torps unusual when its normally the bs that has much more range than the cruisers. it also begs the question what about stealth bombers?
torps is pretty much all stealth bombers have going for them. well... and a bomb, but once that bomb is launched they've pretty much worn out their welcome and everyone expects them to die anyway.
(they were almost not used this alliance tournament where as last year they were everywhere) |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:16:00 -
[3816] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Take a close look at the new Minmatar destroyer.
Oh, missed that one, nice. I was talking about turrets though. |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
85
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:18:00 -
[3817] - Quote
So if I understand the numbers correctly, which doesn't always happen since me and numbers don't get along, then I've got the following impression.
T1/Faction missiles are supposed to be used on ships for the appropriate size weapon system. IE, HML/HAM is for cruiser/BC sized ships.
Precision/Javelin missiles are used for the hull class a level below.
Rage/Fury are for ships a size up.
Which gives missiles a unique flare.
My problem with what I saw is the missiles don't seem to scale the same way as turrets. Why are cruiser sized missiles and BS sized missiles traveling the same distance?
Torps need to have their range boosted in the same progression other weapons follow.
Finally, I think all of the different missile types might be a bit much.
Why not simplify things with standard missiles with a balance of range and damage, velocity missiles with more range and less damage, then warhead missiles with more damage and less range.
Then add in a script for BCS which increases explosion velocity/decreases explosion radius at the cost of reduced damage, and a script which decreases velocity/increases radius at the cost of reduced range. This would allow someone to really customize their target selection with added penalties. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:18:00 -
[3818] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie, seing you participating in those threads makes me happy I think that even with reduction cost we won't see a lot HAM users this WInter because of too short range. And without TE/TC for missiles there probably won't be good missile platform for PvE. While you are here, I see that CCP still want to force Cladari into kinetic damage (with new destroyer). Could you consider replacing Winmatar +Damage bonus to +Explosive Damage bonus? It will be fair trade-off for Matari pilots to get more DPS but being more predictable or doing less DPS but adapt to situation, just like with most Caldari ships. Take a close look at the new Minmatar destroyer.
Oh, the changes that you're making to what was formerly known as guided missiles
(i.e. fury/precision being same range and t1/faction being long range)
Will this be happening with what was formerly known as unguided missiles?
If so, will t1 and faction be getting range buffs to compensate?
I ask because I find it to be a good balancing design for all missiles, just with some compensation here and there... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1772
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:21:00 -
[3819] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie, seing you participating in those threads makes me happy I think that even with reduction cost we won't see a lot HAM users this WInter because of too short range. And without TE/TC for missiles there probably won't be good missile platform for PvE. While you are here, I see that CCP still want to force Cladari into kinetic damage (with new destroyer). Could you consider replacing Winmatar +Damage bonus to +Explosive Damage bonus? It will be fair trade-off for Matari pilots to get more DPS but being more predictable or doing less DPS but adapt to situation, just like with most Caldari ships. Take a close look at the new Minmatar destroyer. Oh, the changes that you're making to what was formerly known as guided missiles (i.e. fury/precision being same range and t1/faction being long range) Will this be happening with what was formerly known as unguided missiles? If so, will t1 and faction be getting range buffs to compensate? I ask because I find it to be a good balancing design for all missiles, just with some compensation here and there...
The bonuses of T2 missiles for longrange launchers and T2 missiles for shortrange launchers are different. They can be seen in the OP or on the spreadsheet. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:23:00 -
[3820] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie, seing you participating in those threads makes me happy I think that even with reduction cost we won't see a lot HAM users this WInter because of too short range. And without TE/TC for missiles there probably won't be good missile platform for PvE. While you are here, I see that CCP still want to force Cladari into kinetic damage (with new destroyer). Could you consider replacing Winmatar +Damage bonus to +Explosive Damage bonus? It will be fair trade-off for Matari pilots to get more DPS but being more predictable or doing less DPS but adapt to situation, just like with most Caldari ships. Take a close look at the new Minmatar destroyer. Oh, the changes that you're making to what was formerly known as guided missiles (i.e. fury/precision being same range and t1/faction being long range) Will this be happening with what was formerly known as unguided missiles? If so, will t1 and faction be getting range buffs to compensate? I ask because I find it to be a good balancing design for all missiles, just with some compensation here and there... The bonuses of T2 missiles for longrange launchers and T2 missiles for shortrange launchers are different. They can be seen in the OP or on the spreadsheet.
Well, i'm not too happy about the changes, but i'm less annoyed than I was with version 1, so keeps up the work |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
224
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:24:00 -
[3821] - Quote
is it confirmed that guided missile precision is now going to affect all missiles? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:26:00 -
[3822] - Quote
Sigras wrote:is it confirmed that guided missile precision is now going to affect all missiles?
yes, all missiles, and unguided missiles are being redefined.
So, the will be the missile and systems formerly known as unguided. |
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:26:00 -
[3823] - Quote
Sigras wrote:is it confirmed that guided missile precision is now going to affect all missiles?
yeah, see the OP.
This makes HAM's with a target painter pretty effective for up close and personal face %%PE.
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:27:00 -
[3824] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:OlRotGut wrote:Will you be renaming the Guided missile precision skill?
We'll be changing the descriptions of the missiles formerly known as unguided. They were already obviously guided, so it clears up an area of confusion as well.
Oh, had an idea....just call them assault as opposed to unguided
|
DeltaPhalanx
Hordes Of Belial
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:27:00 -
[3825] - Quote
Fozzie, I presume since you have not mentioned it, that you're not likely to find time to update the Nighthawk and the Cerberus? |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:30:00 -
[3826] - Quote
DeltaPhalanx wrote:Fozzie, I presume since you have not mentioned it, that you're not likely to find time to update the Nighthawk and the Cerberus?
unfortunately they're doing all t1 before they go anywhere else.
to add to ur question though.
Fozzie, will ya'll be doing t2 after t1, or faction/pirate?
If you do t2 next can you do it in reverse order so Marauders get rebalanced sooner? It's been a long time coming |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:31:00 -
[3827] - Quote
DeltaPhalanx wrote:Fozzie, I presume since you have not mentioned it, that you're not likely to find time to update the Nighthawk and the Cerberus? Based on his previous answers they mostly will be upgraided after Battleships. He want's to first finish all T1 going down-to-up, then T2 and eventually T3 (don't know if it relevant to capitals because it's very touchy subject). |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:34:00 -
[3828] - Quote
DeltaPhalanx wrote:Fozzie, I presume since you have not mentioned it, that you're not likely to find time to update the Nighthawk and the Cerberus?
well the nighthawk will prob be HAM based i think if they make com links AOE hopefully 30-40km and cerb also should be a HAM boat but with range bonus so could be mobile like caracal |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
774
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:38:00 -
[3829] - Quote
I approve of missile rebalance 2.0. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Innominate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
196
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:38:00 -
[3830] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them." |
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:41:00 -
[3831] - Quote
Innominate wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them." Yes i also hope you forget about tracking mods for missiles, it's just not right.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:43:00 -
[3832] - Quote
As long as there is no high range / low DPS / fast flighttime option it all seems a bit messed to me. But well, we will see.
fly safe all. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
592
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:44:00 -
[3833] - Quote
Innominate wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them." this really pisses me off...
ccp fozzie please explain this change which was needed was scrapped? Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:46:00 -
[3834] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Innominate wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them." this really pisses me off... ccp fozzie please explain this change which was needed was scrapped? Because TD would become overpowered? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:47:00 -
[3835] - Quote
Spc One wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: HOLY HELL rage torps have a MASSIVE exp radius.
I guess they're meant for killing caps and supercaps now.
They always were meant for hitting ships one size larger... this isn't new. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
311
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:51:00 -
[3836] - Quote
Spc One wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Innominate wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them." this really pisses me off... ccp fozzie please explain this change which was needed was scrapped? Because TD would become overpowered? There were a number of potential counter proposals presented to lessen if not prevent this. I'm going to take the optimistic approach here and guess they want to finish working with large missile systems during the BS rebalance before adding a mechanic that affects all missile systems. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:51:00 -
[3837] - Quote
With the changes put forward I think just changing the command skills from
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to heavy missile Kinetic damage and 5% bonus to heavy missile explosion velocity per level
To
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 10% Missile Velocity and 5% bonus to explosion velocity per level to all medium sized missiles. |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
401
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:53:00 -
[3838] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
Best change in the winter balancing imo. Ungi ma+¦urinn ++ekkir reglurnar, en gamli ma+¦urinn ++ekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:54:00 -
[3839] - Quote
General feedback:
Making GMP affect unguided missiles is fine for HAMs and torps, but rockets may be a bit too good now. Change in HML base damage and explosion radius is sensible and more refined than the previous edition. T2 missiles all look sensible. Tracking mods/ewar - when you bring it in, ffs make them new modules, separate from TEs, TCs and TDs. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:54:00 -
[3840] - Quote
so CCP Fozzie when are you planning to make the TD change then? |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
43
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:59:00 -
[3841] - Quote
So what's up with missile fittings anyway? Rockets fit easier than lights, but for the others it's the wrong way around. Why is that?
Still waiting on a launcher capacity increase on rockets and torps. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1369
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:59:00 -
[3842] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what? 35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either. Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values. Can Missiles Please get either damage specific resistance or more structure to make firewalling less easy to remove most damage. The velocity buff already makes firewalls a little less powerful, I wouldn't want to nerf them further at this time considering how difficult a really good firewall is to pull off today. You don't apparently know how to firewall then. 6 - 8 smartbombs means a smartbomb cycling every 1 second or less With 12km diameter, the chance of a missile making it through the gap even with 15,000 m/s speed is slim to none. On a non velocity boosted ship, it's even more severe. And saying a "little less powerful" when a Firewall is about 90-95% effective already, is not a promising statement. What other fleet doctrine takes that kind of hit? Just a natural Resistance of 90% on one damage type would make it much harder to firewall. Is there something wrong with webbing the fire wall and moving around it?? Firewalls are fine. Sure they can be challenging to deal with for pilots who only know how to align, lock and shoot one target.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
592
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:59:00 -
[3843] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Spc One wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Innominate wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them." this really pisses me off... ccp fozzie please explain this change which was needed was scrapped? Because TD would become overpowered? There were a number of potential counter proposals presented to lessen if not prevent this. I'm going to take the optimistic approach here and guess they want to finish working with large missile systems during the BS rebalance before adding a mechanic that affects all missile systems.
yeah fingers crossed here buddy...
i think the perfect solution would be make it so only specialised e-war ships could use scripts and then add a tech II scripts that incease the bonus to 125%...
this would make it so using a td on a condor would not be that great and would not kill pvp as its doing today. but having a bud in a amarr ewar frig with a td with a tech II optimal range script would sevearly reduce range...
i am still hopefull that perhaps the affects for both te/tc/td will make it into the missiles sooner then later.. like version 1.1 or something like that in january... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:00:00 -
[3844] - Quote
Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:02:00 -
[3845] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated.
expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs.
That's more waisted ammo for us |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:08:00 -
[3846] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated. expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs. That's more waisted ammo for us And more server lag ?
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
592
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:11:00 -
[3847] - Quote
Spc One wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated. expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs. That's more waisted ammo for us And more server lag ?
and more isk sinks..
more ammo used means more isk used to use that ammo...
now only if heat made it so your lenzes burn out... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
774
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:12:00 -
[3848] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Spc One wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated. expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs. That's more waisted ammo for us And more server lag ? and more isk sinks.. more ammo used means more isk used to use that ammo... now only if heat made it so your lenzes burn out... That's not an isk sink.
Although it would be awesome if all missile sizes were... halved? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:14:00 -
[3849] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated. expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs. That's more waisted[sic] ammo for us
Gets a superior damage bonus. Complains about ammo consumption. |
Sinigr Shadowsong
WATAG Academy SOLAR WING
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:15:00 -
[3850] - Quote
Another solution instead of increasing launcher capacity aor halving missile size could be reducing reload time. Currently missiles spend more time than any weapon system to reloads.
Milton Middleson wrote: Gets a superior damage bonus. Complains about ammo consumption.
Well it's different from Matars who can load 120 shots into a turret and have 20000 spare ammo in cargo. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:16:00 -
[3851] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Indeed launcher capacity increase would be very appreciated. expecially since most damage buffs are getting changed to RoF buffs. That's more waisted[sic] ammo for us Gets a superior damage bonus. Complains about ammo consumption.
I've never complained about the ammo we were doing.
But I have complained many times about the waisted volleys |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
592
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:17:00 -
[3852] - Quote
Spc One wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Innominate wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
In other words, "Tracking mod and disruptor changes have been moved to the back burner and we hope you'll forget about them." this really pisses me off... ccp fozzie please explain this change which was needed was scrapped? Because TD would become overpowered?
what do you mean by would?
they already are...
the fact that you can put two tracking disrupters with optimal range scripts in a condor means that the other 3 attack frigs are useless...
by making it so td's affect missiles and turrets and then making it so only specialsed e-war ships can use scripts would offset this and i would not have to shame myself by having to fly condors all the damn time...
moreover light missiles are getting a damn damage boost... so fotm condor here we come... ffs... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
774
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:20:00 -
[3853] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Another solution instead of increasing launcher capacity aor halving missile size could be reducing reload time. Currently missiles spend more time than any weapon system to reloads. Projectiles also take 10 seconds to reload, and until fairly recently so did hybrids. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
944
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:25:00 -
[3854] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what? 35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either. Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values. Can Missiles Please get either damage specific resistance or more structure to make firewalling less easy to remove most damage. The velocity buff already makes firewalls a little less powerful, I wouldn't want to nerf them further at this time considering how difficult a really good firewall is to pull off today. You don't apparently know how to firewall then. 6 - 8 smartbombs means a smartbomb cycling every 1 second or less With 12km diameter, the chance of a missile making it through the gap even with 15,000 m/s speed is slim to none. On a non velocity boosted ship, it's even more severe. And saying a "little less powerful" when a Firewall is about 90-95% effective already, is not a promising statement. What other fleet doctrine takes that kind of hit? Just a natural Resistance of 90% on one damage type would make it much harder to firewall.
I'm told from a reliable source that HML TD'ing Sacrilege fleet can nullify the damage from turrets.
Though I must say, if you actually believe 6 large smartbombs render missile fleets moot, why have Drake fleets been amongst the popular for half a decade? ~ |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:28:00 -
[3855] - Quote
Well i would hope e-war is going to be more centralized as it is too strong on unbonused ships |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
593
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:37:00 -
[3856] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Well i would hope e-war is going to be more centralized as it is too strong on unbonused ships
yes its simple...
step one remove e-war scripts from all ships
step two make the use of e-war scripts a role bonus for ewar ships
step three make tech II versions of e-war scripts that have a 125% bonus to thier specific enhancement i.e. optimal range disrution bonus 125%
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:40:00 -
[3857] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Harvey James wrote:Well i would hope e-war is going to be more centralized as it is too strong on unbonused ships yes its simple... step one remove e-war scripts from all ships step two make the use of e-war scripts a role bonus for ewar ships step three make tech II versions of e-war scripts that have a 125% bonus to thier specific enhancement i.e. optimal range disrution bonus 125%
125% is excessive to say the least just halve the effectiveness of most of the e-war or thereabouts should do the trick maybe nerf scripts a little as-well. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:47:00 -
[3858] - Quote
so by my calculations Rage HAM's will be able to do something in the region of 15km at lv5 skills thats before any mods/rigs buff them now to me that seems excessive for a supposed short range high damage ammo type even conflag can't reach that far and lasers usually have the best range its clearly way too much as the fact that torps have the same range tells you this.
Surely 9km is more reasonable considering all the guns are well into falloff at this point |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
593
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:49:00 -
[3859] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
125% is excessive to say the least just halve the effectiveness of most of the e-war or thereabouts should do the trick maybe nerf scripts a little as-well.
i am thinking nerf all the ewar mods by a bunch
then increase the racial bonus on ewar ships
then introduce tech II scripts that will make them as usefull as they are today...
you would also have to increase the bonus for tp ships probs up to the level of ecm ships... but i would only nerf ecm and not boost ecm ewar ships...
so...
step one reduce all ewar mods by 10-15% in base effectivness...
step two increase the ewar bonus on ewar ships to compensate. (other then ecm ewar as ecm needs a nerf)
step three make the use of ewar scripts a role bonus for ewar ships...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:49:00 -
[3860] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:so by my calculations Rage HAM's will be able to do something in the region of 15km at lv5 skills thats before any mods/rigs buff them now to me that seems excessive for a supposed short range high damage ammo type even conflag can't reach that far and lasers usually have the best range its clearly way too much as the fact that torps have the same range tells you this.
Surely 9km is more reasonable considering all the guns are well into falloff at this point You can't compare lasers with missiles. If you do so you can say, make every weapon in eve same with same range and same falloff then you have perfect eve, all weapons are the same.
|
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:52:00 -
[3861] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Harvey James wrote:so by my calculations Rage HAM's will be able to do something in the region of 15km at lv5 skills thats before any mods/rigs buff them now to me that seems excessive for a supposed short range high damage ammo type even conflag can't reach that far and lasers usually have the best range its clearly way too much as the fact that torps have the same range tells you this.
Surely 9km is more reasonable considering all the guns are well into falloff at this point You can't compare lasers with missiles. If you do so you can say, make every weapon in eve same with same range and same falloff then you have perfect eve, all weapons are the same.
you're a right little troll aren't you? why do you think they are changing missiles? HM's are too good compared to guns thus they are getting nerfed do keep up :P |
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
798
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:53:00 -
[3862] - Quote
awe i was looking forward to Tracking computers effecting missiles, i was gonna work on a sniper/short range missile combo. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 20:54:00 -
[3863] - Quote
Herping yourDerp wrote:awe i was looking forward to Tracking computers effecting missiles, i was gonna work on a sniper/short range missile combo.
unfortunately eve is full of disappointments |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:00:00 -
[3864] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Changes are underlined in the OP, and are: We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf.
I'm a little disappointed by this, since it means that missile boats will still be de facto immune to one of the types of ewar. May I ask what the reason for reversing the TD changes was?
Diversity is good? |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:01:00 -
[3865] - Quote
I am not trolling. Every weapon in eve has it's special purpose so do missiles, missiles can be: 1. Smartbombed 2. Defended with defenders 3. Take a long time to get to target
Turrets do: 1. Instant damage (frigate dies in less than a second) 2. Can't be destroyed in space 3. No delay to target after activation
1. So take tengu for example and try to kill an npc frigate that's 50km away from you, you'll have hard time even hitting it. 2. Take vargur with a good fit and you'll instakill an npc frigate at 50km in less than a second.
as you see turrets are far more advanced then missiles even now before the nerf. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:04:00 -
[3866] - Quote
Also why do rockets have such a low explosion radius 20 is less than guns have and thats before modification granted rage has 34 but when thats modified it will be peanuts maybe a rethink is in order here me thinks |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:05:00 -
[3867] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:so by my calculations Rage HAM's will be able to do something in the region of 15km at lv5 skills thats before any mods/rigs buff them now to me that seems excessive for a supposed short range high damage ammo type even conflag can't reach that far and lasers usually have the best range its clearly way too much as the fact that torps have the same range tells you this.
Surely 9km is more reasonable considering all the guns are well into falloff at this point Which by extension means javelin is also too far ranged.
Why do you want everything to be the same??
How many times are you going to post in this thread in an attempt to nerf missiles to an even greater extent? Lemme guess - you don't use missiles?
15km Rage HAMs seems excessive to you? |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:08:00 -
[3868] - Quote
Spc One wrote:I am not trolling. Every weapon in eve has it's special purpose so do missiles, missiles can be: 1. Smartbombed 2. Defended with defenders 3. Take a long time to get to target
Turrets do: 1. Instant damage (frigate dies in less than a second) 2. Can't be destroyed in space 3. No delay to target after activation
1. So take tengu for example and try to kill an npc frigate that's 50km away from you, you'll have hard time even hitting it. 2. Take vargur with a good fit and you'll instakill an npc frigate at 50km in less than a second.
as you see turrets are far more advanced then missiles even now before the nerf.
now that's a more reasoned response but my point is still very much valid as missiles get compensated in various ways as a result but doesn't mean they shouldn't be compared and judged closely to what turrets do and realistically missiles dont get attacked often as defenders suck and smart-bombs are pretty poor and unused in most circumstances
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:11:00 -
[3869] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:Harvey James wrote:so by my calculations Rage HAM's will be able to do something in the region of 15km at lv5 skills thats before any mods/rigs buff them now to me that seems excessive for a supposed short range high damage ammo type even conflag can't reach that far and lasers usually have the best range its clearly way too much as the fact that torps have the same range tells you this.
Surely 9km is more reasonable considering all the guns are well into falloff at this point Which by extension means javelin is also too far ranged. Why do you want everything to be the same?? How many times are you going to post in this thread in an attempt to nerf missiles to an even greater extent? Lemme guess - you don't use missiles? 15km Rage HAMs seems excessive to you?
i've used missiles extensively being caldari and all used drakes/hawks etc. i now use gunships and can tell you having been on both sides just how much an advantage missiles have atm.
Why do you want everything to be the same?? no. who does this is a classic trolling question you cant win turrets aren't all the same blasters to projectiles very different things do pay attention. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
774
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:22:00 -
[3870] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:void/hail/conflag See, this is your problem. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Oleszka
Syntropia Of Avatara
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:24:00 -
[3871] - Quote
In my opinion, the changes are made in the wrong way. Why did you change the properties of missiles? So many player are already familiar whit it. Why did you not change the amount of materials for missiles and make them more expensive if they are so good???
And BTW missiles should be more expensive than other ammunition because you shooting a drone with a explsoive charge and no laser or projectile....
... so the conclusion is, make the missiles stronger and more expensive and the launcher cheaper
the way you choose, to make the missiles more similar to turrets in the way of using it, is not correct, because this weapons are not similar!
Make the game more complex and not world of warcraft. EvE-Movie, take a look and enjoy it PushMe |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
486
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:25:00 -
[3872] - Quote
Updated stats
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 26 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Explosion radius: 140 (previously 125)
The explosion radius change turns out to be roughly a 12% dps decrease against targets with a signature radius of 125 or lower (which is non-MWDing armor tanked T1 and T2 but not T3 cruisers). A target painter negates this.
The question is if this will be enough to curb the HML Drake proliferation. I would not be surprised if HML Drakes continued to be very popular in their bracket after this set of changes. What the numbers above don't reveal is the massive tank that a Drake can field. The loss in HML range is also less severe than it appears since missile acceleration is improved at the same time.
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:26:00 -
[3873] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Spc One wrote:I am not trolling. Every weapon in eve has it's special purpose so do missiles, missiles can be: 1. Smartbombed 2. Defended with defenders 3. Take a long time to get to target
Turrets do: 1. Instant damage (frigate dies in less than a second) 2. Can't be destroyed in space 3. No delay to target after activation
1. So take tengu for example and try to kill an npc frigate that's 50km away from you, you'll have hard time even hitting it. 2. Take vargur with a good fit and you'll instakill an npc frigate at 50km in less than a second.
as you see turrets are far more advanced then missiles even now before the nerf. now that's a more reasoned response but my point is still very much valid as missiles get compensated in various ways as a result but doesn't mean they shouldn't be compared and judged closely to what turrets do and realistically missiles dont get attacked often as defenders suck and smart-bombs are pretty poor and unused in most circumstances If you're looking at missions and complexes, EVERY npc has defenders on it, even dominx, nightmare, machariel .. etc.. Those ships don't have any launcher hardpoints but NPC's still use them, so defender missiles are heavy used by NPC's.
|
Let's Party
Guitar Players of EVE
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:28:00 -
[3874] - Quote
Drake needs a buff, not a nerf. |
Onslaughtor
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:28:00 -
[3875] - Quote
I disapprove of the new changes. Nothing has been fixed, game play has not been diversify, HMs are still better than all long range weapons, all other missiles that would have been mostly fixed the the TC/TE changes (ie, cruise,torps,HAMs) are still going to be under used and under performing. TD are still practically useless in small gang/ solo work. The TE/TC change would have fixed the HM nerf. I leave disappointed.
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:30:00 -
[3876] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Updated stats
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 26 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Explosion radius: 140 (previously 125)
The explosion radius change turns out to be roughly a 12% dps decrease against targets with a signature radius of 125 or lower (which is non-MWDing armor tanked T1 and T2 but not T3 cruisers). A target painter negates this.
The question is if this will be enough to curb the HML Drake proliferation. I would not be surprised if HML Drakes continued to be very popular in their bracket after this set of changes. What the numbers above don't reveal is the massive tank that a Drake can field. The loss in HML range is also less severe than it appears since missile acceleration is improved at the same time.
Exactly and this explosion radius is easily countered with skills etc. Especially when you consider most pvp ships are using mwds it ends up not mattering very often its range is still too good for its damage ratio. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:35:00 -
[3877] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Updated stats
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 26 (previously 29) Alpha: 189 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Explosion radius: 140 (previously 125)
The explosion radius change turns out to be roughly a 12% dps decrease against targets with a signature radius of 125 or lower (which is non-MWDing armor tanked T1 and T2 but not T3 cruisers). A target painter negates this.
The question is if this will be enough to curb the HML Drake proliferation. I would not be surprised if HML Drakes continued to be very popular in their bracket after this set of changes. What the numbers above don't reveal is the massive tank that a Drake can field. The loss in HML range is also less severe than it appears since missile acceleration is improved at the same time.
Exactly and this explosion radius is easily countered with skills etc. Especially when you consider most pvp ships are using mwds it ends up not mattering very often its range is still too good for its damage ratio.
You mean countered by a booster loki? 130m is right around what an AB/shield Tengu sits at without links
|
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
486
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:37:00 -
[3878] - Quote
Onictus wrote: You mean countered by a booster loki? 130m is right around what an AB/shield Tengu sits at without links
Yes, thanks for mentioning that. I was too lazy to factor in links. Anyway, at the fleet level combat we can expect that the Drake fleet will have sufficient target painter support to make this mostly irrelevant. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:45:00 -
[3879] - Quote
just wanted to throw in here that with the new changes, HAMs you'll probably get to ~75m explosion radius which will DESTROY frigs.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:50:00 -
[3880] - Quote
Disapointing...
And the worse is all these call for nerfing ewar : yes please, nerf armor tank even more !! Like, can you remove a med slot when you fit a plate or armor repair may be ? Shield tank cannot fit ewar, so make it completely useless please. And it's too difficult with ewar BTW, I cannot use a ful tank/dps fit to counter this, it's obviously OP.
Question : what is the point of ewar if only specialized ship can use it ? Cosmetic ? It's not like if then everyone won't cry to nerf the specialized boats, like the falcon.
People cry about the falcon because it's the only effective EWAR ship. If other ewar ship are buffed, then people will cry too. The problem is that people cry because they have to adapt their fit for unexpected but not certain threat. They want to be king in their full gank/tank ship and don't want any counter. They are childish. |
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 21:50:00 -
[3881] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:just wanted to throw in here that with the new changes, HAMs you'll probably get to ~75m explosion radius which will DESTROY frigs. Not really, battlecuisers and cruisers are slow and 15km range on hams means frigate could just run out of 15km range and frigate survives.
|
Lithorn
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 22:06:00 -
[3882] - Quote
There is one thing in the missile category that has been the running joke of Eve in my view for as long as I have been playing, that is auto targeting missiles. The performance of those have been disappointing or at best just barely functional for longer than I have been playing Eve. It's one of those skills that I ask myself "Why did I even bother to buy this skill book.."
Is there any plans to update them and make them relevant to Eve players? Issues I remember were: -- Missiles mindlessly auto-target large structures such as stations, asteroids, probably small animals (SQUIRREL!), anything but what they should be targeting. -- Damage is very poor.
I saw a CCP developer announce he was working on them, I was hopeful after reading the annoucement but my hopes were crushed after I read that he was only working on the naming of them. Changes/improvements are commendable but that one was very underwhelming.
The removal of the penalties to the t2 missiles (I hope that still happens) is great news, those were not helpful to anyone. I look forward to being able to use precision and javelin type missiles without having my speed cut in half.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 22:19:00 -
[3883] - Quote
Lithorn wrote:There is one thing in the missile category that has been the running joke of Eve in my view for as long as I have been playing, that is auto targeting missiles. The performance of those have been disappointing or at best just barely functional for longer than I have been playing Eve. It's one of those skills that I ask myself "Why did I even bother to buy this skill book.." Is there any plans to update them and make them relevant to Eve players? Issues I remember were: -- Missiles mindlessly auto-target large structures such as stations, asteroids, probably small animals (SQUIRREL!), anything but what they should be targeting. -- Damage is very poor. I saw a CCP developer announce he was working on them, I was hopeful after reading the annoucement but my hopes were crushed after I read that he was only working on the naming of them. Changes/improvements are commendable but that one was very underwhelming. The removal of the penalties to the t2 missiles (I hope that still happens) is great news, those were not helpful to anyone. I look forward to being able to use precision and javelin type missiles without having my speed cut in half.
The only problems with FOFs is that they shoot drones and that there aren't any rockets/hams/torps. If you disagree you are wrong. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 22:25:00 -
[3884] - Quote
the only problem with FoFs is that they shoot random crap instead of actual hostiles half of the time.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 22:31:00 -
[3885] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:
People cry about the falcon because it's the only effective EWAR ship. I.
You have to know that falcon has no tank, only ewar. And yet each week you see some thread crying against the falcon. People don't cry about arazu, because damp are useless, and they don't cry about ^pilgrim, because TD are useless against missiles ; and rapier ? Well, TP are an offensive tool you can replace by a TC, so...
Fact are that ewar is not so terrible that people says. EWAR need you to dictate range or tracking to be used (ECM is useless on anything but specialized ships, and need faith in God, so a bit pointless to debate here). Damp, with the range of destroyers and above, you need at least two of them AND speed supremacy, what most ship cannot afford, and still subject to be pinned down and killed, or drones. TD ? More effective : "only" missiles ship are immune, but you still need speed supremacy, and you still are "very" vulnerable to anything who catch you.
Basicaly, ewar is kiters defence, but it's an all or nothing, exactly like blaster boat are an all or nothing : a good kiter, and you are dead.
That is ewar used offensively. That is effective, but that should be considering the risks you take for using such a tactic. EWAR could be used defensively too, if it wasn't so nerfed already.
BTW, even if affecting missiles, TD would not be better than ECM on most ships, because that would not prevent the missiles to damage you. And even if it was the case (frigate with larger missiles), then, that would not be different from turret ships, which don't even need TD to be unable to hit frigates.
EWAR is still said to be an advantage of armor tank versus shield tank, but that is a fallacy. Armor ships would use EWAR if it wa worth using it. |
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 22:49:00 -
[3886] - Quote
My only problem is that this seems to make rockets even less useful. My poor Vengeance...
I mean seriously. Who was saying Rage rockets were overpowered? |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 22:52:00 -
[3887] - Quote
Jarin Arenos wrote:My only problem is that this seems to make rockets even less useful. My poor Vengeance...
I mean seriously. Who was saying Rage rockets were overpowered? Get something with turrets, it's far better and more superior. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
224
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 22:54:00 -
[3888] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:just wanted to throw in here that with the new changes, HAMs you'll probably get to ~75m explosion radius which will DESTROY frigs. Not really, battlecuisers and cruisers are slow and 15km range on hams means frigate could just run out of 15km range and frigate survives.
ummm where is everyone getting this 15 km range thing? whatever youre doing you're clearly doing it wrong.
CN HAMs go 20 km (probably more like 18 km) Javelin HAMs go 30 km (probably more like 26 km)
This is on a ship with no bonuses to range, and no range rigs/implants, and doesnt take into consideration that you can fly away from your target forcing him to fly toward you increasing your effective range. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
244
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:00:00 -
[3889] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:
Just a natural Resistance of 90% on one damage type would make it much harder to firewall.
While i think you are way overstating firewalls, i do like this idea, giving missiles a stronger resist to thier specific damage type. Purely beacuse at the moment when you lob a bomb when you decloak and attack a ratter the bomb destroys your first wave of torps :(
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
244
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:03:00 -
[3890] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lithorn wrote:There is one thing in the missile category that has been the running joke of Eve in my view for as long as I have been playing, that is auto targeting missiles. The performance of those have been disappointing or at best just barely functional for longer than I have been playing Eve. It's one of those skills that I ask myself "Why did I even bother to buy this skill book.." Is there any plans to update them and make them relevant to Eve players? Issues I remember were: -- Missiles mindlessly auto-target large structures such as stations, asteroids, probably small animals (SQUIRREL!), anything but what they should be targeting. -- Damage is very poor. I saw a CCP developer announce he was working on them, I was hopeful after reading the annoucement but my hopes were crushed after I read that he was only working on the naming of them. Changes/improvements are commendable but that one was very underwhelming. The removal of the penalties to the t2 missiles (I hope that still happens) is great news, those were not helpful to anyone. I look forward to being able to use precision and javelin type missiles without having my speed cut in half. The only problems with FOFs is that they shoot drones and that there aren't any rockets/hams/torps. If you disagree you are wrong.
This tbh, fofs 2 volleying a kitsune that has you permajammed is way satisfying.
|
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:04:00 -
[3891] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over. haven't hear this line before... no really |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:11:00 -
[3892] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:
Is there something wrong with webbing the fire wall and moving around it?? Firewalls are fine. Sure they can be challenging to deal with for pilots who only know how to align, lock and shoot one target.
B/C everyone in Eve brings 1 firewall ship and doesn't know how to position each one in a different spot. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:14:00 -
[3893] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: I'm told from a reliable source that HML TD'ing Sacrilege fleet can nullify the damage from turrets.
Though I must say, if you actually believe 6 large smartbombs render missile fleets moot, why have Drake fleets been amongst the popular for half a decade?
About the most educated post a CSM can make... glad you got elected bro... really serving the populace.
Yeah, lets not hammer firewalls down Elise.. not like your alliance hasn't figured them out perfectly... wouldn't want to make the game challenging for you at all. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:17:00 -
[3894] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Lithorn wrote:There is one thing in the missile category that has been the running joke of Eve in my view for as long as I have been playing, that is auto targeting missiles. The performance of those have been disappointing or at best just barely functional for longer than I have been playing Eve. It's one of those skills that I ask myself "Why did I even bother to buy this skill book.." Is there any plans to update them and make them relevant to Eve players? Issues I remember were: -- Missiles mindlessly auto-target large structures such as stations, asteroids, probably small animals (SQUIRREL!), anything but what they should be targeting. -- Damage is very poor. I saw a CCP developer announce he was working on them, I was hopeful after reading the annoucement but my hopes were crushed after I read that he was only working on the naming of them. Changes/improvements are commendable but that one was very underwhelming. The removal of the penalties to the t2 missiles (I hope that still happens) is great news, those were not helpful to anyone. I look forward to being able to use precision and javelin type missiles without having my speed cut in half. The only problems with FOFs is that they shoot drones and that there aren't any rockets/hams/torps. If you disagree you are wrong.
That, and for mission runners they shoot structures... |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
1006
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:34:00 -
[3895] - Quote
Although few people will care, I recommend making auto-targeting missiles better at hitting smaller targets (like ECM drones and closely orbiting tackle frigates). There are no T2 variants of these either.
I am disappointed to not see anything for citadel, but I can only hope that will come later (or I missed a post update).
|
Juris Macto
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 23:45:00 -
[3896] - Quote
These changes are ********, thank you for nerfing the tengu into being worse than the hurricane in terms of high-dps ammo range. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 00:25:00 -
[3897] - Quote
Juris Macto wrote:These changes are ********, thank you for nerfing the tengu into being worse than the hurricane in terms of high-dps ammo range. Not just tengu, all missile ships are affected, hence obsolete. |
Flatiner
Electrostatik Blazing Angels Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 00:38:00 -
[3898] - Quote
Wow I was already considering unsubbing my accounts due to lack of interesting content in eve -- ie it gets very repetitive for older players as ccp seems to cater to new players and not the vets anymore.
This missile change is crap as are fozzies ideas for these changes (and in general). Perhaps you should consult your player base (not just the goons either or other large alliances who have their hands in the ccp pot).
We the average player keep this game alive and now you want to take away a viable source of dps and ranged dps at that because why? Guns suck?
Why nerf the crap out of a good missile platform such as the drake or tengu because people who love guns cry when they canGÇÖt hit a target more than 80km out?
I for one hope ccp burns for this I would love to see a huge revolt and unsub with the "direction" ccp is going. You guys make startrek online sound better and better every time I read these ridiculous ideas and posts; at least I can walk in stations in startrek online (no we donGÇÖt forget what you promised us so long ago!)
My two cents, not a rant or a cry or whatever you want to call it, because frankly I could care less about what people have to say in this game and about what I post.
Have a good one
Flat
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
320
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:05:00 -
[3899] - Quote
Wait, are furies getting speed penalties? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
313
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:06:00 -
[3900] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Juris Macto wrote:These changes are ********, thank you for nerfing the tengu into being worse than the hurricane in terms of high-dps ammo range. Not just tengu, all missile ships are affected, hence obsolete. I may be doing the math wrong but how are you getting those numbers. Doesn't work out on skilled characters with Fury v Quake if I've got the numbers right. |
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
320
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:06:00 -
[3901] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Updated stats
250mm Railgun II with Spike: DPS: 20 Alpha: 92 Optimal: 65 km Falloff: 15 km Cap/sec: -1.1 PG: 187.2 CPU: 31.5
Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora: DPS: 21 Alpha: 91 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 10 km Cap/sec: -3.8 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 27.8
720mm Artillery II with Tremor: DPS: 17 Alpha: 242 Optimal: 54 km Falloff: 22 km Cap/sec: 0 PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5) CPU: 24
Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge: DPS: 26 (previously 29) Alpha: 213 (previously 237) Range: 63 km (previously 84) Cap/sec: 0 PG: 94.5 CPU: 41.3 Explosion radius: 140 (previously 125)
The explosion radius change turns out to be roughly a 12% dps decrease against targets with a signature radius of 125 or lower (which is non-MWDing armor tanked T1 and T2 but not T3 cruisers). A target painter negates this.
The question is if this will be enough to curb the HML Drake proliferation. I would not be surprised if HML Drakes continued to be very popular in their bracket after this set of changes. What the numbers above don't reveal is the massive tank that a Drake can field (due to low fitting requirements of HMLs). The loss in HML range is also less severe than it appears since missile acceleration is improved at the same time. The increase in missile speed is a straight buff.
So yes, HML Drakes will be weaker overall and might have to fit a missile speed rig but I still don't see any competitors in their price class that offers a similarly good combination of dps, hitpoints and range.
Now compare it at closer ranges. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
313
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 01:08:00 -
[3902] - Quote
Flatiner wrote:.Perhaps you should consult your player base... Congratulations, you just stumbled upon the entire reason for this thread. |
Mara Rinn
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1878
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 02:51:00 -
[3903] - Quote
Than you CCP Fozzie for breaking this rebalancing effort into smaller pieces. It is nice to see tools other than the 500lb sledgehammer being used in rebalancing. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1369
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 04:14:00 -
[3904] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Elise Randolph wrote: I'm told from a reliable source that HML TD'ing Sacrilege fleet can nullify the damage from turrets.
Though I must say, if you actually believe 6 large smartbombs render missile fleets moot, why have Drake fleets been amongst the popular for half a decade?
About the most educated post a CSM can make... glad you got elected bro... really serving the populace. Yeah, lets not hammer firewalls down Elise.. not like your alliance hasn't figured them out perfectly... wouldn't want to make the game challenging for you at all. You don't balance this game around the average player... I've always said that. You balance it around the players good enough to exploit the problematic features introduced. Because eventually, even the young less aware players start to figure out how to do it too and then the **** storm really kicks off. Now try starting your next post w/o a jab at me and add some content somewhere along the line. Missiles are about to take a huge nerf... God forbid the Devs give just a little back. Are you.... BLIND?!
The missile rebalance, nerf, was just scaled back a bit. It is rather annoying that you refuse to acknowledge the buffs to missiles they are doing as well. Missile velocity and removal of T2 missiles penalties to name a few.
Why do you keep exaggerating the nerf so much???
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Alara IonStorm
3229
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 04:33:00 -
[3905] - Quote
Hmmm.
Cut Missile Distance like this.
* Standard 20km * Heavy 40km * Cruise 80km
Then remove Precision Missiles all together. Change them to Javelin Missiles with lower Dmg at the Following Ranges.
* Standard 30km * Heavy 60km * Cruise 120km
Now add in ships that get a 10% Velocity Bonus and it looks like this.
* Standard 30km * Heavy 60km * Cruise 120km
* Standard 45km * Heavy 90km * Cruise 180km
Add in a 10% Velocity Bonus on T2 Tracking Mods and whatever works for tracking scripts and you are left with a reasonably good set of weapons once Cruise Missile Ships are balanced. Cut Heavy Dmg by about 5-7.5%. Then any LR weapons like Beams, Med Rails that fall short of this handle it in their ships and Weapon Fitting / Stats. At that point the Dmg would be mostly balanced.
The Tengu get a 10% Rof Bonus, and cut the Kin part so PvE'ers are mostly happy. All that would be left after this would be to decide if the Drake keeps its Tank Bonus and has half its range cut or gets Velocity Bonus and keeps a good amount of range and change the Dmg to RoF. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 04:35:00 -
[3906] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:
Why do you keep exaggerating the nerf so much???
exaggerating?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtfS55wysRHHdGQzQjBoeVRSUFRQVjF3QV84S1d2SFE#gid=0
There's a lot more than exaggerated nerfs on there.
All fury missiles are getting reduced to precision range. Rage torps have an increase explosion radius of 124. All rage missiles are getting a slight range nerf
Heavy missiles are getting more range nerfs than just fury They're also getting damage nerfs and damage application nerfs.
Hell, the only real buffs that are on there are countered by either reduced damage, or increased exp radius/reduced exp velocity/reduced range.
About the only really good thing that is coming from this is the removal of t2 ammo penalties. |
Yank Sin
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 05:13:00 -
[3907] - Quote
To be blunt I still see my Tengu that I spent for ever to train for turning to a wimpy shadow of its former glory. The good old days of target locking and killing rats at over 100km will be a fond memory of the past. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
761
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 05:22:00 -
[3908] - Quote
^ With comparison to great white shark.
All the rats would just alert each other a tengu warped in, then they would warp out and vacate the area till you left, then come back in.
I don't see you making much isk that way, and might feel wimpy still. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 05:23:00 -
[3909] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote: About the only really good thing that is coming from this is the removal of t2 ammo penalties.
You mean the only good thing FOR YOU.
..Which is not balance, and you have no idea what you are talking about.. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 05:34:00 -
[3910] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ With comparison to great white shark.
All the rats would just alert each other a tengu warped in, then they would warp out and vacate the area till you left, then come back in.
I don't see you making much isk that way, and might feel wimpy still. And when you trained for it, you didn't do it because it was OP, you just happened to be Caldari. You actually considered to train for the Legion, because all T3 are just as good for everything, but ended up with the Tengu by accident. Correct? |
|
Shadalana
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 05:45:00 -
[3911] - Quote
Am I blind or are this "new" changes just the "old" changes? |
QT McWhiskers
Hard Knocks Inc.
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:00:00 -
[3912] - Quote
Suddenly every wormhole corp has just went back to the drawing board to find out new ways of making more money than God again. |
Cardano Firesnake
Babylon Knights Test Alliance Please Ignore
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:26:00 -
[3913] - Quote
It is an excellent thing to rip off the Tengu / Drake Domination. All game modifications in this way are apreciated even if I Fly Drake and Tengu. I hope though that these two ships will not be so nerfed that they will become useless. We will see on the field... |
Audix
Rayn Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:31:00 -
[3914] - Quote
Dont understand why people don't like the missile change, its about time those drakes and "tengu"'s got the nerf they deserve, ahaha byebye missile's, time to fly pilgrims once again |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:42:00 -
[3915] - Quote
Rage HAM: 7500
Rage Torps: 7500
TROLOLOLOLOLO |
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:45:00 -
[3916] - Quote
QT McWhiskers wrote:Suddenly every wormhole corp has just went back to the drawing board to find out new ways of making more money than God again. Nope, not really. Dreads and Battleships ftw. Drakes and Tengus take too long ;) |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
187
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 06:59:00 -
[3917] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over.
Respectfully, this comment borders on the absurd. Get back to us when the Caldari no longer have entire classes of ships that are laughably broken. Until then you haven't balanced anything.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 07:24:00 -
[3918] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over. Respectfully, this comment borders on the absurd. Get back to us when the Caldari no longer have entire classes of ships that are laughably broken. Until then you haven't balanced anything.
My point for ages ... the "new" numbers dont solve really anything in my opinion. We still have the same thing, HML outclass medium sized turrets at sniping ranges, until they run out of flighttime and will have 0 DPS. Thats plain stupid and no balance at all.
If you want to get HML in line with med turrets you would have to do this:
-> change an existing ammo-type or add a new one with dedicated RANGE stats: flight time the same, speed increased dramatically to get ranges like the other platforms do in optimal + 1*falloff or maybe even optimal + 1.3* falloff. Those missiles should ofc not have the same damage like the shortrange ones, but should be comparable to sniper ammo of turrets.
-> adjust charge size for Hybrids and Missiles to be in line with Projectiles (atm projectile turrets can shoot way longer before they need to reload - why?).
-> bring Fury/Precision/t1/Faction in line so they will work. High damage advantage frame of Drake should be reduced, but dont forget there are ranges where the other systems deal more - this should be overall balanced.
Same should be applied to Torp/CM/HAM. In that same moment CMs on Ravens get viable one will see the Drake nullsecblobs die. And no, the Raven Blobs will still not be OP, just because they are 1) more expensive, 2) more skill intense and 3) BS-Size. The Problem with those Drake fleets was not what they actually did, but how cheap it was to field them, and how fast they were compared to BS-Fleets (naturally). If Drakes are countered easily by Ravens, Ravens still wont dominate other BS-fleets, they lack speed to perform like Drakes and they have a bigger price tag. Try it! |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
771
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 07:37:00 -
[3919] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:rodyas wrote:^ With comparison to great white shark.
All the rats would just alert each other a tengu warped in, then they would warp out and vacate the area till you left, then come back in.
I don't see you making much isk that way, and might feel wimpy still. And when you trained for it, you didn't do it because it was OP, you just happened to be Caldari. You actually considered to train for the Legion, because all T3 are just as good for everything, but ended up with the Tengu by accident. Correct?
No some like myself can fly all of them, so can use which ever one is best for the situation at hand, PVP I use my Loki, Money making I use my Tengu,Legion.
Unfortunately some thing in life will always be better at something than others but unlike in life CCP can make them all boring at the same time.
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 07:43:00 -
[3920] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over.
I consider that a good thing.
Thanks or chopping the changes in smaller parts, gives a better overview as to what every change will do once it's implanted.
I can live with this take on the HM, need to see what the the other changes will bring. And although I love my Hookbill and Hawk, Rockets should be monitored cearfully with the change in precision skill.
Keep up the good work |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 07:47:00 -
[3921] - Quote
I feel like its simply ridiculous to nerf the only existing and working missile platform above frig battle. CMs and Torps are outclassed a lot in PvE and even more in PvP. HAM is non-existent in PvE and not on par in PvP. HML is the only thing which works, and agreed: for PvE missions its better than med size turrets. But noticeable worse than best turrets (large AC/Tachys). And way better than CMs and Torps, esp. when considering the ships the other missiles are used on. So yes, Tengu is best in PvE, but only for Caldari. Vargur, Paladin, Mare and Machariel outclass it. Golem does not, get an idea?
I simply deny the fact there is a reason to nerf something, just because its good (or maybe even better than other things) as long as its neither the best nor the only strong/OP thing in this game. As long as Winmatar dominate everything there is no need to nerf Caldaris strong ships and weapons. Simple as that. |
Ark Anhammar
EVE University Ivy League
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 07:58:00 -
[3922] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Hmmm.
Cut Missile Distance like this.
* Standard 20km * Heavy 40km * Cruise 80km
Then remove Precision Missiles all together. Change them to Javelin Missiles with lower Dmg at the Following Ranges.
* Standard 30km * Heavy 60km * Cruise 120km
Now add in ships that get a 10% Velocity Bonus and it looks like this.
T1 / Faction
* Standard 30km * Heavy 60km * Cruise 120km
T2 Javelin
* Standard 45km * Heavy 90km * Cruise 180km
Add in a 10% Velocity Bonus on T2 Tracking Mods and whatever works for tracking scripts and you are left with a reasonably good set of weapons once Cruise Missile Ships are balanced. Cut Heavy Dmg by about 5-7.5%. The Tengu gets it's 7.5% RoF and 5% Kin Dmg bonus turned into a 10% Rof Bonus which cuts the Kin part so PvE'ers are mostly happy. Change the Drakes Kin Dmg to RoF then decide if the Drake keeps its Tank Bonus and has half its range cut or gets Velocity Bonus and keeps a good amount of range.
Then any other Medium LR weapons like Med Beams, Med Rails that fall short of this, handle the problem with both their ship stats (Tier Removal Base Stat Changes / Bonus Changes) and the Weapons Fitting / Stats themselves. At that point the Dmg would be mostly balanced and more Medium LR Weapons and the ships that use them making them better in the mid range role with good Dmg (35-60KM) while having an option to strike further (70-100ish KM) for less Dmg. More people should "like" this post to get through to CCP that this suggestion is great! |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
377
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:03:00 -
[3923] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I simply deny the fact there is a reason to nerf something, just because its good (or maybe even better than other things) as long as its neither the best nor the only strong/OP thing in this game. As long as Winmatar dominate everything there is no need to nerf Caldaris strong ships and weapons. Simple as that.
So what you're saying is that you think the Vargur/Mach are overpowered at L4 missions, but we shouldn't nerf them because of ECM?
I see.
Actually I don't. :picard: |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
224
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:06:00 -
[3924] - Quote
Yank Sin wrote:To be blunt I still see my Tengu that I spent for ever to train for turning to a wimpy shadow of its former glory. The good old days of target locking and killing rats at over 100km will be a fond memory of the past. Would you tell a great white shark to take out its teeth because it kills to much? No you would not. You would sit back and watch a killing machine at work. so youre idea is to . . . leave the Tengu totally overpowered?
You realize that after the change, youll be able to put one (1) range rig in and achieve > 100 km range plus your missiles will now be moving faster meaning less wasted ammo volleys; look what you have to do to the loki, proteus or legion to get them to go 100 km . . . and they do less damage there too . . .
yes, the tengu is getting a nerf because thats exactly what they needed. |
Astriela
Tax Cheaters
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:11:00 -
[3925] - Quote
Personal feedback to new changes: - guided missile precision: really nice change, long overdue imo - HAMs currently look good on paper but kinda suck in reality, this will bring them much closer to being useful, same with torps; this is also small boost to rockets, but I have limited experience with them, so can't give much feedback - light missiles: not really using them, so hard to give any useful feedback - heavy missiles: changes look very reasonable, especially coupled with improvement to javelins and furies - it not actually gives pilot a choice - furies as short ranged ammo rather then universal thing to use - HAMs: changes look quite good as well - TDs and TEs: would be nice to see (rough) numbers in plan for this one, but I understand reasons for holding changes back for now overall I can give only positive feedback on this one |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:34:00 -
[3926] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
I simply deny the fact there is a reason to nerf something, just because its good (or maybe even better than other things) as long as its neither the best nor the only strong/OP thing in this game. As long as Winmatar dominate everything there is no need to nerf Caldaris strong ships and weapons. Simple as that.
So what you're saying is that you think the Vargur/Mach are overpowered at L4 missions, but we shouldn't nerf them because of ECM? I see. Actually I don't. :picard:
I see you are strong in not getting the point. We talk about a ship nerf for Caldari here. My point is, if every race has strong ships for some aspects its more or less balanced. If one race has all strong ships for every aspect (except some ewar specs) its not balanced. Nerfing Drake and Tengu helps Winmatar to be OP even more, so no, this is not balance for me.
About nerfing Vargur and Machariel to be on par with its peers its something different, I agree here.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
224
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:35:00 -
[3927] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I simply deny the fact there is a reason to nerf something, just because its good (or maybe even better than other things) as long as its neither the best nor the only strong/OP thing in this game. As long as Winmatar dominate everything there is no need to nerf Caldaris strong ships and weapons. Simple as that. I accept your premise i reject your conclusion . . .
Your premise is that you should focus on the stuff thats most out of balance first. This is true
Your conclusion is that caldari ships are not as good as minmatar ships in every category and this is simply not true.
Right now the simple fact is that HMLs are the best long range weapon in the game by a wide margin. They have the best range, the best alpha, the best DPS and no cap usage.
So following your premise, they did the right thing and nerfed the HMLs which were most out of balance.
People will argue that the drake and tengu were the real problems; i submit that if you nerfed those two ships, you would just see a bunch of nighthawks take their place; the drake and tengu are just the most convenient platform to carry the most powerful ranged weapon on.
Still others will argue that missiles never do full damage to their target as there is almost always some damage reduction due to the way that the missile damage formula works. Did you know that there is a similar damage reduction applied to turrets? in fact, as the chance to hit goes down, so does the possible damage applied by each shot that does hit. If the target and you are not moving, the chance to hit is 100% and your gun will do anywhere from 51% to 150% damage with a 1% chance of a wrecking hit. This averages out to about 100% damage over time. If your chance to hit is 50% your gun will do anywhere from 1% to 100% damage when it does it with a 1% chance of a wrecking hit which averages out to about 50% over time. This means not only are you missing half the time when you do hit, youre only doing half damage, so a 50% chance to hit is more like 25% DPS |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:38:00 -
[3928] - Quote
Astriela wrote: - heavy missiles: changes look very reasonable, especially coupled with improvement to javelins and furies - it not actually gives pilot a choice - furies as short ranged ammo rather then universal thing to use
Except one thing: there are no Javelins for Heavy Missiles. If there were, things would be closer to balance maybe, but like that its just: HML are no longer long range. Period. And out-dpsed in shorter-medium ranges, so no longer viable at all :)
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
771
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:42:00 -
[3929] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Yank Sin wrote:To be blunt I still see my Tengu that I spent for ever to train for turning to a wimpy shadow of its former glory. The good old days of target locking and killing rats at over 100km will be a fond memory of the past. Would you tell a great white shark to take out its teeth because it kills to much? No you would not. You would sit back and watch a killing machine at work. so youre idea is to . . . leave the Tengu totally overpowered? You realize that after the change, youll be able to put one (1) range rig in and achieve > 100 km range plus your missiles will now be moving faster meaning less wasted ammo volleys; look what you have to do to the loki, proteus or legion to get them to go 100 km . . . and they do less damage there too . . . yes, the tengu is getting a nerf because thats exactly what they needed.
Yes and you prove my point from many earlier pages, it's the tengu that needs the nerf not the weapon platform. When anyone mentions the problems its always the ships they mention first not the missles.
This game needs more content not this continual tinkering that just pisses more people off than it actually pleases. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:48:00 -
[3930] - Quote
I like the new changes. Especially holding back on making the TDs the new God Mod.
But that explosion radius nerf might screw over Tengus pretty bad in PvE content. They don't have drones, so elite frigs/web drones are gonna be an utter biatch to kill. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:51:00 -
[3931] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I simply deny the fact there is a reason to nerf something, just because its good (or maybe even better than other things) as long as its neither the best nor the only strong/OP thing in this game. As long as Winmatar dominate everything there is no need to nerf Caldaris strong ships and weapons. Simple as that. I accept your premise i reject your conclusion . . . Your premise is that you should focus on the stuff thats most out of balance first. This is true Your conclusion is that caldari ships are not as good as minmatar ships in every category and this is simply not true. Right now the simple fact is that HMLs are the best long range weapon in the game by a wide margin. They have the best range, the best alpha, the best DPS and no cap usage. So following your premise, they did the right thing and nerfed the HMLs which were most out of balance.
On paper they look like that. IN game though, they are only in one specific PvP area out of line, in null sec blobs. Will explain more to this later.
In PvE they are out of line compared to their peers, but not out of line compared to other high end PvE stuff: the Tengu is not exactly "cheap" PvE ship, so comparing it to best other mission runners is reasonable. It shines in kinetic damage scenarios, everywhere else its a fair bit behind due to the damage bonus. Still its better than Golems and CNRs in most cases. But its noticable worse than Machariels, Paladins, Vargurs and Nightmares, and in all non-kin missions by a bigger margin. My conclusion is: while being a strong PvE system on a Drake and a Tengu, its still not out of line too much since there are better other systems (ship/weapon) around. Which are all non-Caldari except the Mare which has a small Caldari core :)
Sigras wrote:
People will argue that the drake and tengu were the real problems; i submit that if you nerfed those two ships, you would just see a bunch of nighthawks take their place; the drake and tengu are just the most convenient platform to carry the most powerful ranged weapon on.
No, you wouldnt. The NH is broken compared to the Drake - it has not enough PG and the slotlayout is also not optimal for a BC/Shieldtank in PvP. Its far more expensive and requires many skills (which is good) and would not replace the Drake in PvP apart from some small gang stuff at all. Nullsec fleets need cheap and easy to train ships.
In PvE the NH could perform well, but is worse than a Tengu atm. So the gap would be even bigger than now from best missile ship (now Tengu, then CNR/Golem/NH) to the best turret ships. Balance? No, I dont think so.
Atm HML dominate in one single aspect: Drake nullsec blobs. This is only happening thanks to doomsday device change, else BC-fleets would be obsolete in null. To get rid of them no nerf for HML or Drakes would be needed, just make CMs and Ravens work for PvP, they should be a natural counter to BCs with high speed, but moon-like sig sizes. Raven fleets with CM would obliterate Drake fleets. They would be a bit more expensive though, and need more skills. And, they would not be BC-sized, but BS, therefor easier to counter for other BS-fleets. I am sure this would bring balance to nullsec, and still not kill balance somewhere else.
With range nerfs for HML this could maybe also achieved, but atm we simply kill HML as a "longrange"system. There is no rangebonused low dps ammo for HML, you know ...
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 08:53:00 -
[3932] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Astriela wrote: - heavy missiles: changes look very reasonable, especially coupled with improvement to javelins and furies - it not actually gives pilot a choice - furies as short ranged ammo rather then universal thing to use
Except one thing: there are no Javelins for Heavy Missiles. If there were, things would be closer to balance maybe, but like that its just: HML are no longer long range. Period. And out-dpsed in shorter-medium ranges, so no longer viable at all :)
You act as if the the missile shop dont have twicw (triple in the case of tengu) of pretty much any other shield configured battlecruiser.......or are you going to throw the r3tarded. HG slave argument back out.
If you are in point range with a long range turret you are doing it wrong. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:02:00 -
[3933] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Astriela wrote: - heavy missiles: changes look very reasonable, especially coupled with improvement to javelins and furies - it not actually gives pilot a choice - furies as short ranged ammo rather then universal thing to use
Except one thing: there are no Javelins for Heavy Missiles. If there were, things would be closer to balance maybe, but like that its just: HML are no longer long range. Period. And out-dpsed in shorter-medium ranges, so no longer viable at all :) You act as if the the missile shop dont have twicw (triple in the case of tengu) of pretty much any other shield configured battlecruiser.......or are you going to throw the r3tarded. HG slave argument back out. If you are in point range with a long range turret you are doing it wrong.
Drakes have not the speed of Canes, so they cant dictate range like Canes. True or false?
With the new change they would also not have the range to fight back on the distance where they should normally work - long ranges.
Besides, HG slaves exist in low sec PvP. In fact most people I know use them in their armor ships in lowsec, and also highsec.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:13:00 -
[3934] - Quote
Drakes and tengus are not only seen in nullsec or wormhole, they are also in lowsec. Infact, they are everywhere ! Everywhere, from uber nullsec scale of 4000 man size fleet to solo pvp in low sec, and I don't even talk about pve where they are legions (lol, this ship should swap its name with the tengu I guess...)
And now, the changes look more like a plain buff, with faster missiles and usable T2 ammo, and people still cry to the nerf ?!!
For the range BTW, YOU, missiles users, cry about the TD/TE/TC change when it was an ubber buff. Half the nerf, half the buff. I'm affraid these changes won't change anything because HML are still ridiculously superior to long range medium weapons, but we can expect them to not be superior to Large long range weapons at least...
I'm losing faith in this community... And those saying that caldari worth nothing at pvp are the worse ignorant here.
But above all, please, Please, PLEASE ! READ THE THREAD !!! Yes it is a long one, but even CCP did it, and if half the posters have read, it would be half this length, or maybe even a third of it... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:18:00 -
[3935] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Drakes have not the speed of Canes, so they cant dictate range like Canes. True or false?
With the new change they would also not have the range to fight back on the distance where they should normally work - long ranges.
Besides, HG slaves exist in low sec PvP. In fact most people I know use them in their armor ships in lowsec, and also highsec.
Drakes have 50% more ehp than the hurricane, and can be nanoed. If not, the cane is armor tanked and is slower. 50km range IS long range. You also have rigs to extend range, and you can then achieve some 70-90 km. This is UBER lang range for medium weapons. Oh, and you have TWO or THREE TIME the dps of the cane at that range. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
203
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:28:00 -
[3936] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Astriela wrote: - heavy missiles: changes look very reasonable, especially coupled with improvement to javelins and furies - it not actually gives pilot a choice - furies as short ranged ammo rather then universal thing to use
Except one thing: there are no Javelins for Heavy Missiles. If there were, things would be closer to balance maybe, but like that its just: HML are no longer long range. Period. And out-dpsed in shorter-medium ranges, so no longer viable at all :) You act as if the the missile shop dont have twicw (triple in the case of tengu) of pretty much any other shield configured battlecruiser.......or are you going to throw the r3tarded. HG slave argument back out. If you are in point range with a long range turret you are doing it wrong. Drakes have not the speed of Canes, so they cant dictate range like Canes. True or false? With the new change they would also not have the range to fight back on the distance where they should normally work - long ranges. Besides, HG slaves exist in low sec PvP. In fact most people I know use them in their armor ships in lowsec, and also highsec.
1) A nano cane is 300m/s. If you aren't putting a nano on your Drake (or two) that is you issue, the ship still has a 13,000 point buffer....y'know like a MAELSTROM. I wouldn't try to fight an AC with a long range turret either, ever with a 720mm cane hevhas a tank and DPS advantage. Not mention fit a frigging web, that cane isn't doing 600dps if he can't get in you face, its called falloff.
2) A hurricane with barrage is doing maybe 150dps at the end of point range AND its shooting your strong resists, barrage only comes in explosive/kinetic.....with EMP he can't break your recharge.
3) In armor ships? Yeah so. Just burn away, armor ships can catch a cold, a shield Drake will FLAT outrun a repper mrym, much less anything with a plate. ...and lol hi sec, station hammers are a poor way to balance anything. when I lived in low I much preferred snakes over slaves......I have clones with both, but you'll rarely catch me in them because of bubbles. Hell with that. Besides, Drakes are "only overpowered in null blobs" where no one is using pirate implants unless the are in a cap anyway.
Actually isn't crime watch supposed to end the neutral logi fleet. I may hang out arcs couple market hubs for that one. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:31:00 -
[3937] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: And now, the changes look more like a plain buff, with faster missiles and usable T2 ammo, and people still cry to the nerf ?!!
Faster missiles(~15%) with far less range (25.5 % less) and no option for long range low DPS? Thats not a buff, dude. T2 Furies were usable before in certain conditions, now they are plain worthless (nerfed in every single aspect!).
Bouh Revetoile wrote: For the range BTW, YOU, missiles users, cry about the TD/TE/TC change when it was an ubber buff. Half the nerf, half the buff. I'm affraid these changes won't change anything because HML are still ridiculously superior to long range medium weapons, but we can expect them to not be superior to Large long range weapons at least...
They never have been superior to long range large turrets. Thats just BS you bring that up here :) HML are inferior to the best turrets (large AC and Tachys) in many aspects, still they are used because they are the best missile system atm. I see no problem in nerfing them, if missile users get something else: a working missile BS which is not Winmatar would be a good start. Buff CM/Raven, and HML are a non-issue in PvP, and will be significantly less used in PvE.
To those who say Drakes are used in lowsec and so on - ofc they are. I never said they are not. Still, Drakes are not *overused* there, the only place where you see too many is nullsec. Period. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:39:00 -
[3938] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: And now, the changes look more like a plain buff, with faster missiles and usable T2 ammo, and people still cry to the nerf ?!!
They never have been superior to long range large turrets. Thats just BS you bring that up here :) HML are inferior to the best turrets (large AC and Tachys) in many aspects, still they are used because they are the best missile system atm. I see no problem in nerfing them, if missile users get something else: a working missile BS which is not Winmatar would be a good start. Buff CM/Raven, and HML are a non-issue in PvP, and will be significantly less used in PvE. To those who say Drakes are used in lowsec and so on - ofc they are. I never said they are not. Still, Drakes are not *overused* there, the only place where you see too many is nullsec. Period
The fact that you have to comare HMLs to BATTLESHIP weapons isnt somewhat telling? Not to mention, when was the last time you saw a Tachyon battleship on a killmail? Last time I saw tachyon anything it was PL with tach Oracles. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:42:00 -
[3939] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: And now, the changes look more like a plain buff, with faster missiles and usable T2 ammo, and people still cry to the nerf ?!!
Faster missiles(~15%) with far less range (25.5 % less) and no option for long range low DPS? Thats not a buff, dude. T2 Furies were usable before in certain conditions, now they are plain worthless (nerfed in every single aspect!). Bouh Revetoile wrote: For the range BTW, YOU, missiles users, cry about the TD/TE/TC change when it was an ubber buff. Half the nerf, half the buff. I'm affraid these changes won't change anything because HML are still ridiculously superior to long range medium weapons, but we can expect them to not be superior to Large long range weapons at least...
They never have been superior to long range large turrets. Thats just BS you bring that up here :) HML are inferior to the best turrets (large AC and Tachys) in many aspects, still they are used because they are the best missile system atm. I see no problem in nerfing them, if missile users get something else: a working missile BS which is not Winmatar would be a good start. Buff CM/Raven, and HML are a non-issue in PvP, and will be significantly less used in PvE. To those who say Drakes are used in lowsec and so on - ofc they are. I never said they are not. Still, Drakes are not *overused* there, the only place where you see too many is nullsec. Period. Good job comparing HML to AC and Tachyons... lol. Are you trolling ? How many medium Railgun boat do you see in space ? And medium Beams ? Hell, even arty cane are not so common, and arties have an insane alpha to play with, but you don't hunt anything larger than a destroyer with arty, because the dps is too low.
Please, the only fact that you can compare HML with anything else than medium long range turret is a proof of their OPness.
PS : removing T2 ammo penalties is a plain buff in my definition. PS 2 : adding more damage to T2 ammo is also a buff. |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:44:00 -
[3940] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:I like the new changes. Especially holding back on making the TDs the new God Mod.
But that explosion radius nerf might screw over Tengus pretty bad in PvE content. They don't have drones, so elite frigs/web drones are gonna be an utter biatch to kill.
I doubt that, yes it will be a little harder to kill smaller ships, but not to a range that it becomes a real concern.
From personal experiance in 0.0 and low sec plexing I can say that although annoying Those rigates never became a real danger. To be honest the only danger those frigates bring is that you're being scrambled the minute you get probed.
And that is in a Covert-opps, nullifier set up, when you have the ejector bay and the fuel catalyst is will be even less a problem.
|
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:48:00 -
[3941] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: And now, the changes look more like a plain buff, with faster missiles and usable T2 ammo, and people still cry to the nerf ?!!
They never have been superior to long range large turrets. Thats just BS you bring that up here :) HML are inferior to the best turrets (large AC and Tachys) in many aspects, still they are used because they are the best missile system atm. I see no problem in nerfing them, if missile users get something else: a working missile BS which is not Winmatar would be a good start. Buff CM/Raven, and HML are a non-issue in PvP, and will be significantly less used in PvE. To those who say Drakes are used in lowsec and so on - ofc they are. I never said they are not. Still, Drakes are not *overused* there, the only place where you see too many is nullsec. Period The fact that you have to comare HMLs to BATTLESHIP weapons isnt somewhat telling? Not to mention, when was the last time you saw a Tachyon battleship on a killmail? Last time I saw tachyon anything it was PL with tach Oracles.
I already agreed on the fact HML are better than MEDIUM sized turrets atm. The fact I compare them with BS-sized turrets shows exactly the opposite of what you try to show: HML are not there because they are so massively OP, they are there because the BS-sized missile system are so MASSIVELY UP. Tengu wouldnt be your bet, if CNR or Golem would outperform it (which they should!), and then Tengus and HML would be a non-issue in PvE. Apart from that, they are already a non-issue in MY book in PvE, just because there are ships with turrets which are better. There are no missile ships which are better though! Now, where do we need the balance?
I did agree also on the fact there had to be some changes - read my postings and dont be so ignorant. I made suggestions like buffing turrets in a way, they not deal more absolute DPS (which they shouldnt) but the ranged DPS would be more in line with missiles. The damage graphs should be close together most of the time. This could easily be achieved by either buffing the turrets or giving missiles a dedicated long range ammo for HML (and Lights and CM too, maybe).
Drake would be non-existent in nullsec with CM/Ravens being no longer UP.
Seriously, why do you deny this simple truth?
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:54:00 -
[3942] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I already agreed on the fact HML are better than MEDIUM sized turrets atm. The fact I compare them with BS-sized turrets shows exactly the opposite of what you try to show: HML are not there because they are so massively OP, they are there because the BS-sized missile system are so MASSIVELY UP. Tengu wouldnt be your bet, if CNR or Golem would outperform it (which they should!), and then Tengus and HML would be a non-issue in PvE. Apart from that, they are already a non-issue in MY book in PvE, just because there are ships with turrets which are better. There are no missile ships which are better though! Now, where do we need the balance?
I did agree also on the fact there had to be some changes - read my postings and dont be so ignorant. I made suggestions like buffing turrets in a way, they not deal more absolute DPS (which they shouldnt) but the ranged DPS would be more in line with missiles. The damage graphs should be close together most of the time. This could easily be achieved by either buffing the turrets or giving missiles a dedicated long range ammo for HML (and Lights and CM too, maybe).
Drake would be non-existent in nullsec with CM/Ravens being no longer UP.
Seriously, why do you deny this simple truth?
So, HML are better than every other medium long range weapon, but don't nerf them ? And TC/TE affecting missiles would have made large missiles way better, but don't do it ? Oh, because of TD... Will "Because of pilgrim" become the new moto when losing a ship ? I don't think so...
PS : CCP Fozzy already explained why we cannot buff everything instead of nerfing one thing : it's called power creep. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:55:00 -
[3943] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Good job comparing HML to AC and Tachyons... lol. Are you trolling ?
In PvE you have to compare things which are used. Right or wrong? Its not my fault the CMs/Torps suck so hard in comparison to LAC/Tachs.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Please, the only fact that you can compare HML with anything else than medium long range turret is a proof of their OPness..
Err, no. The fact we need to compare them with those other systems shows we dont have an alternative weapon system as missile users. Thats the sad fact. I repeated tons of times: buff CMs/Torps and make Ravens usable in PvP, and 1) there will be no problems with HMLs anymore coz they would be outclassed then by CMs, and 2) even if there would be a nerf needed afterwards to bring em more in line with mlr turrets it would be not a big thing because Caldari missile users had something else to use.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: PS : removing T2 ammo penalties is a plain buff in my definition. PS 2 : adding more damage to T2 ammo is also a buff.
So, pls learn to read and understand.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtfS55wysRHHdGQzQjBoeVRSUFRQVjF3QV84S1d2SFE#gid=0
read the line with Fury missiles: you will see the Furies have LESS damage then. Not more. And removing penalties is a buff, but adding other penalties instead (Fury range!!! and every other single stat ... except speed) will result in a nerf, simple as that.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:55:00 -
[3944] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: And now, the changes look more like a plain buff, with faster missiles and usable T2 ammo, and people still cry to the nerf ?!!
They never have been superior to long range large turrets. Thats just BS you bring that up here :) HML are inferior to the best turrets (large AC and Tachys) in many aspects, still they are used because they are the best missile system atm. I see no problem in nerfing them, if missile users get something else: a working missile BS which is not Winmatar would be a good start. Buff CM/Raven, and HML are a non-issue in PvP, and will be significantly less used in PvE. To those who say Drakes are used in lowsec and so on - ofc they are. I never said they are not. Still, Drakes are not *overused* there, the only place where you see too many is nullsec. Period The fact that you have to comare HMLs to BATTLESHIP weapons isnt somewhat telling? Not to mention, when was the last time you saw a Tachyon battleship on a killmail? Last time I saw tachyon anything it was PL with tach Oracles. I already agreed on the fact HML are better than MEDIUM sized turrets atm. The fact I compare them with BS-sized turrets shows exactly the opposite of what you try to show: HML are not there because they are so massively OP, they are there because the BS-sized missile system are so MASSIVELY UP. Tengu wouldnt be your bet, if CNR or Golem would outperform it (which they should!), and then Tengus and HML would be a non-issue in PvE. Apart from that, they are already a non-issue in MY book in PvE, just because there are ships with turrets which are better. There are no missile ships which are better though! Now, where do we need the balance? I did agree also on the fact there had to be some changes - read my postings and dont be so ignorant. I made suggestions like buffing turrets in a way, they not deal more absolute DPS (which they shouldnt) but the ranged DPS would be more in line with missiles. The damage graphs should be close together most of the time. This could easily be achieved by either buffing the turrets or giving missiles a dedicated long range ammo for HML (and Lights and CM too, maybe). Drake would be non-existent in nullsec with CM/Ravens being no longer UP. Seriously, why do you deny this simple truth?
Raven?
I doubt it, a slow shield boat? Do you have any idea what a blap dread would do to them?
Not to mention, baddons would tear them apart on buffer alone.
...and the missile users whined enough for them to hold off on the change that would have helped the BS missiles. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 09:57:00 -
[3945] - Quote
And stop using PVE for a base to balancing issue please. PVE is the art of fooling a poor machine and min-maxing everything else. You cannot balance pve, because you would have to make all the things the same in order to do it. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:01:00 -
[3946] - Quote
HAHA, about the "nerfed" range of fury missiles : short range ammo of medium long range turret have an optimale range of 9km, after the skills, 20km with falloff and couple TE... Short range you said ? Let me lough please. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:05:00 -
[3947] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: So, HML are better than every other medium long range weapon, but don't nerf them ? And TC/TE affecting missiles would have made large missiles way better, but don't do it ? Oh, because of TD... Will "Because of pilgrim" become the new moto when losing a ship ? I don't think so...
PS : CCP Fozzy already explained why we cannot buff everything instead of nerfing one thing : it's called power creep.
HML are better than every other mlr weapon.
Large AC are better than every other lsr weapon.
Tachys are better than every other llr weapon for one aspect.
Large Arty are better than every other llr weapon for another aspect.
Medium AC are better than every other msr weapon.
So if you agree with me to nerf all in this list (and all which will end up in this list after you nerfed those here ..), then yes: nerf HML.
I dont see this is happening. And I dont see any missile systems here apart from HML. Thats the point for many here: missiles cant be best in something, else they have to be nerfed. Turrets may be best in one thing , because "there has to be one best, no?" ...
Bring those things in line, all of them. Or leave some OP things in game and dont complain about other OP things.
Seriously: Large AC are OP in every single aspect, starting with how long they can shoot til they have to reload to the platforms they are used on to their versatility. HML are OP in some aspects and on par in others. And they are only really of use in 2 (!) ships. There is not a single missile BS playing a role except those 2 ships. The only half viable PvP Missile BS is NOT Caldari but - surprise - Winmatar. How much more do you need to see whats going on? Nerfing the Drake, Tengu and/or HML will not bring balance to Eve. It will make it even more boring/Winmatar only. Those who dont see this are beyond hope. And many of those who see this will do like I will, end their sub. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
459
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:07:00 -
[3948] - Quote
The thing I was looking forward the most to... was tracking disruptors vs missiles (and TE/TC working on missiles too) I really think you should do your best to get this into the winter expansion as it's the most game changing Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:09:00 -
[3949] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:HAHA, about the "nerfed" range of fury missiles : short range ammo of medium long range turret have an optimale range of 9km, after the skills, 20km with falloff and couple TE... Short range you said ? Let me lough please.
PS : and I didn't spoke about the tracking issues you have at this range. At least, you can hit things orbiting you at 10km with fury.
Fury range according to this spreadsheet is 13.975 km. Will end up at around 20 in real game. And compare the DPS, too .. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:10:00 -
[3950] - Quote
Onictus wrote: Raven?
I doubt it, a slow shield boat? Do you have any idea what a blap dread would do to them?
Not to mention, baddons would tear them apart on buffer alone.
...and the missile users whined enough for them to hold off on the change that would have helped the BS missiles.
Yes, but Ravens would obliterate Drake fleets. Paper, rock, scissors, you know?
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:11:00 -
[3951] - Quote
Large ACs are op?
You sir have never used a scortch mega pulse lol. 800 mm reapeaters pale in comparison. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:12:00 -
[3952] - Quote
HaHa, I miss the best part of irony in short range fury missiles : only turret which will have the same range will be on caldari boats grace to their optimale range bonus. Isn't this funny ? :D
About the AC, I'm all for a nerf to them : they should use a bit of capacitor IMO, because this is their most OP thing, the neut immunity. Otherwise, people tend to confuse optimale+falloff and optimal. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:13:00 -
[3953] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote: Raven?
I doubt it, a slow shield boat? Do you have any idea what a blap dread would do to them?
Not to mention, baddons would tear them apart on buffer alone.
...and the missile users whined enough for them to hold off on the change that would have helped the BS missiles.
Yes, but Ravens would obliterate Drake fleets. Paper, rock, scissors, you know?
....and get ruined by nagas, nadoes, oracles, and every other BS doctrine.
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
762
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:14:00 -
[3954] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:rodyas wrote:^ With comparison to great white shark.
All the rats would just alert each other a tengu warped in, then they would warp out and vacate the area till you left, then come back in.
I don't see you making much isk that way, and might feel wimpy still. And when you trained for it, you didn't do it because it was OP, you just happened to be Caldari. You actually considered to train for the Legion, because all T3 are just as good for everything, but ended up with the Tengu by accident. Correct?
Well after this nerf the tengu will be more like the legion. You should be happy, get to try something you always wanted to do. Even CCP helped ya do it, so it wasn't too hard. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:20:00 -
[3955] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Fury range according to this spreadsheet is 13.975 km. Will end up at around 20 in real game. And compare the DPS, too ..
I did, though the turret dps at 10km is not what you get in EFT, very far from this. Tracking issues we call this.
Balance : when things are not the same and all have some pros and cons. Fury will still have a crazy alpha and dps, will still be meh against frigates, but still don't have tracking to care about, and hence still do steady and reliable damage. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:28:00 -
[3956] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Large ACs are op?
You sir have never used a scortch mega pulse lol. 800 mm reapeaters pale in comparison.
I did. In fact scored most of my BS kills with Mega Pulse ..... but with a fast ship and the insane falloff boost of TEs ACs rock.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:29:00 -
[3957] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote: Raven?
I doubt it, a slow shield boat? Do you have any idea what a blap dread would do to them?
Not to mention, baddons would tear them apart on buffer alone.
...and the missile users whined enough for them to hold off on the change that would have helped the BS missiles.
Yes, but Ravens would obliterate Drake fleets. Paper, rock, scissors, you know? ....and get ruined by nagas, nadoes, oracles, and every other BS doctrine.
But still they would get rid of Drakes, right? |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:33:00 -
[3958] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:The thing I was looking forward the most to... was tracking disruptors vs missiles (and TE/TC working on missiles too) I really think you should do your best to get this into the winter expansion as it's the most game changing
It is, that is why you should implant it when the ship lines are done with the initial ballance.
certainly not before you're done with T1 battleships, preferably not before they are done with every sub cap ship.
On a side note to the TD change, I still think it should be different modules not unlike EMC.
On the other hand it might opens an options for action mods:
As in a Faction mod that can jam both, with script, should be a nice Anmar Navy mod.
It could also be done for other racial features: Anmar Laser/missile mod, Minmatar, Projectile/missile, Caldari Hybride/Missile, Gallente Hyrbid drone, racial E-War combinations ect.
Should give some love to those mixed platform ships, at a Price ofcource. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:37:00 -
[3959] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Large ACs are op?
You sir have never used a scortch mega pulse lol. 800 mm reapeaters pale in comparison. I did. In fact scored most of my BS kills with Mega Pulse ..... but with a fast ship and the insane falloff boost of TEs ACs rock.
Tornado and Machariel are the only falloff bonused hull.
Neither of which is very prevalent with ACs people don't like commiting billion isk hulls to point range, and Toradis don't and enough tank to brawl with anything that can hit back. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:38:00 -
[3960] - Quote
Quote:Short Range Missiles Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles
I'm wondering if this will apply to the "Flare" missile rig aswell as that is the only rig with this restriction currently |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 10:39:00 -
[3961] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote: Raven?
I doubt it, a slow shield boat? Do you have any idea what a blap dread would do to them?
Not to mention, baddons would tear them apart on buffer alone.
...and the missile users whined enough for them to hold off on the change that would have helped the BS missiles.
Yes, but Ravens would obliterate Drake fleets. Paper, rock, scissors, you know? ....and get ruined by nagas, nadoes, oracles, and every other BS doctrine. But still they would get rid of Drakes, right?
Numbers game, cruises have the range, but if the Drakes kill thier mwds logi can likely hold them up,with torps lol pull range.
|
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1561
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:09:00 -
[3962] - Quote
I was a bit surprised seeing the 35% damage buff to T2 missiles (rage and furies), does this means what I think it means? "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:12:00 -
[3963] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Medium AC are better than every other msr weapon.
Does your Cane do 800+ dps at 4 km? Does your Cane do 450+ dps at 21 km? |
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:14:00 -
[3964] - Quote
In my opinion the nerfing is a bit toooo much. The nerf hits one area way too hard which makes flying a Drake pretty much useless in Wormholes / missions and what ever else the Drake is used for next to PvP.
It's too much... Take another look CCP... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:18:00 -
[3965] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:In my opinion the nerfing is a bit toooo much. The nerf hits one area way too hard which makes flying a Drake pretty much useless in Wormholes / missions and what ever else the Drake is used for next to PvP.
It's too much... Take another look CCP...
Drake in level 4s... yeah.
Any T1 BS is faster in level 4s compared to Drake. |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:32:00 -
[3966] - Quote
Well okay I was for this nerf and rebalance but tbh that may be a bit too much. The "new" caracal will be dead before it was born. Additionally CCP should really buff HAM range and dmg a bit. Maximum range with HAM you only get with two not very easy skills on level 5. That is probably a month training. New Caracal with HAM will probably equal with dmg at 28km with a good actual pre buff rupture. The only bonus (it is a big bonus) that the caracal has is dmg choosing. At closer range the caracal is simply dead. Rupture has more firepower with similar tank and bye. Maybe we really shouldn-¦t decrease the HM range so much (only 10 or 15% in total). And increase range of HAM and damage slightly (5%). That would make sense.
|
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
379
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:39:00 -
[3967] - Quote
since fozzie seems to still be reading this thread i thought i drop my .02 ISK on version 2.0 of the changes:
1. the good. postponing the missile 'tracking' change is a very good idea. you should take your time and think about whether this kind of homogenization is what the game needs (obviously, i think it isn't). the PG reduction for HAMs as well as explosion radius bonuses applying to short range missiles is 'OK'. it still is homogenization but not the bad kind, as it keeps missiles distinct from guns while mitigating the problems of rockets/HAMs/torps. you should rename the skill to just 'missile precision' if you can, but that's gravy.
2. the bad. heavy missile damage application being nerfed across the board is a very big issue. i don't mind the range nerfs too much, although fury hitting out to ~20km on an unbonused ship is somewhat ridiculous if you compare it to what it used to be. but if you stack explosion velocity and radius nerfs on top of that, HML damage application becomes almost unbearably bad. i can already see assault frigates 1v1'ing drakes while their gang just keeps point and watches.
3. the ugly. the actual damage numbers nerf combined with the range and explosion nerfs takes missiles even beneath medium railguns in terms of their usefulness. ironically, this is not as bad for the drake and tengu (the first having other strengths and the second having means to compensate) but it is HORRIBLE for the other HML hulls. unless you plan on taking all HML hulls into your rebalance pass, i would strongly suggest keeping at least HML damage numbers untouched. with the buffs to HAMs, they are already a viable alternative and many people will consider switching to brawler fits. if you stack the damage nerf on top of the rest, medium sized missile doctrine will become 'go HAM drake or go home' for a long time.
on a side note: when i started playing, i was told that caldari was the best race for PVE. after a few months of comparing hulls, i realized that this is not the case once you are past lvl3 missions. if the nerf goes live in the proposed way, the CNR and golem may become top notch dps platforms again (assuming javelins) but the drake's PVE dps will become so abysmal for a low-sp char that i would actually advise new players against caldari.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:49:00 -
[3968] - Quote
The Drake is already T2 frig and Dram fodder. |
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:55:00 -
[3969] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:In my opinion the nerfing is a bit toooo much. The nerf hits one area way too hard which makes flying a Drake pretty much useless in Wormholes / missions and what ever else the Drake is used for next to PvP.
It's too much... Take another look CCP... Drake in level 4s... yeah. Any T1 BS is faster in level 4s compared to Drake.
I use 2 Drakes to do Level 4 missions and it's very easy, saves me the risk of losing a more expensive ship and I like to fly the Drake.
Now that we're also active in Wormholes we use Drakes against sleepers, if they nerf range and damage it's gonna screw it up even more, not to mention that when you suddenly have to switch to PvP you might not get a chance to change your fits to HAM's, so you're stuck using HML, which isn't a problem right now, unless they are going to nerf it.
The nerf hits one area too much in my opinion and targets multiple ships which are going to loose it's spark. Tengu, Drake, Caracal and what ever else.
I think CCP needs to look at this a bit better and decide on 1 nerf, instead of hitting the HML with sooooo much at once. On top of that, a while back CCP talked about removing the Resistence bonus on the Drake, combined with this nerf, it's gonna make the Drake useless.
According to EON Magazine the drake is still the most used ship and the most destroyed ship... It earns this title over and over again... So why not adjust it a little bit instead of taking away it's charm. I don't fancy upgrading to a Battleship, I like to focus on 1 ship because it serves multiple area's of the game at once. Especially in wormholes.
This is gonna force people to train up different skills and switch to another race or upgrade to bigger ship... That isn;t fair when you've spend all your time training for those missile skills, I got most of mine at level 5, now I gotta rethink my training and wasted all those level 5 skills.
The nerf is too much, period. |
Konski Zwis
Mammoth Finances
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 11:57:00 -
[3970] - Quote
lol - drake with ~30 km range on t2 missiles ... yeah right ;) there will be plenty unsubs on winter ;) great job ccp ! ;) |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:01:00 -
[3971] - Quote
AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:14:00 -
[3972] - Quote
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang wrote:The Drake is already T2 frig and Dram fodder.
find.a.web.
You don't want to die to frigates web them. |
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:15:00 -
[3973] - Quote
If you start a Caldari character after the nerf hits you're gonna find yourself stuck using Railguns because the missile ships won't be useful until you can fly a Raven, who's gonna sit on their asses training for this and use Railguns in the meantime. Railguns are ****, even after CCP fixed this.
A while back they were promoting in high bright colors that Caldari was the race for missiles again and that they were gonna bring back the flare in using them.
I haven't used Rails since I switched from a Ferox to a Drake and then to a Tengu... I'm not always using my Tengu because in Wormholes it's sometimes risky putting an expensive ship on the field.
This nerf hits an entire tree of character growth. From the Caracal -> Drake -> Tengu... what comes next ? If you're forced to use Railguns, forget training for a Raven because you're forced to spend all your time training Railgun skills... I don't see the logic in this, unless the goal is to remove Caldari from the game entirely.
Caldari will become useful again after you've trained up for a Raven, but who's gonna sit in station for 6 months until they have the right skills to finally fly one... You still have to train up all the missile support skills, which are completely useless for the other ships after the nerf.
An entire tree of training and growing into new ships is going to be useless. The natural stepping stone of growing into a Cruiser, then a Battlecruiser and the into a T3 Cruiser is gonna disappear... Unless you fancy flying a Railgun Tengu. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:17:00 -
[3974] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:
According to EON Magazine the drake is still the most used ship and the most destroyed ship... It earns this title over and over again... So why not adjust it a little bit instead of taking away it's charm. I don't fancy upgrading to a Battleship, I like to focus on 1 ship because it serves multiple area's of the game at once. Especially in wormholes.
This is gonna force people to train up different skills and switch to another race or upgrade to bigger ship... That isn;t fair when you've spend all your time training for those missile skills, I got most of mine at level 5, now I gotta rethink my training and wasted all those level 5 skills.
The nerf is too much, period.
You "wasted" two weeks
All of the rest of the support skills are going to work for ALL of the other missiles
and seriously a "good set" of drake skills takes all of three months....you can have it near all Vs support skills included in maybe 7.....and most of those support skills cross to any hull you sit in. |
SubStandard Rin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:20:00 -
[3975] - Quote
When im looking in your googledoc doc. im noticing your nerfing the Precision missiles also in range? is this a error or are they going to have useless range also? tought of them as longrange missiles not shortrange versions.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:22:00 -
[3976] - Quote
Konski Zwis wrote:lol - drake with ~30 km range on t2 missiles ... yeah right ;) there will be plenty unsubs on winter ;) great job ccp ! ;)
Considering a barrage AC cane does a whopping 148 DPS with barrage to a drake at the edge of long point range......Oh NOES, remember the cane has half of the tank a drake does. |
Konski Zwis
Mammoth Finances
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:22:00 -
[3977] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:
According to EON Magazine the drake is still the most used ship and the most destroyed ship... It earns this title over and over again... So why not adjust it a little bit instead of taking away it's charm. I don't fancy upgrading to a Battleship, I like to focus on 1 ship because it serves multiple area's of the game at once. Especially in wormholes.
This is gonna force people to train up different skills and switch to another race or upgrade to bigger ship... That isn;t fair when you've spend all your time training for those missile skills, I got most of mine at level 5, now I gotta rethink my training and wasted all those level 5 skills.
The nerf is too much, period.
You "wasted" two weeks All of the rest of the support skills are going to work for ALL of the other missiles and seriously a "good set" of drake skills takes all of three months....you can have it near all Vs support skills included in maybe 7.....and most of those support skills cross to any hull you sit in.
lol - im wasted now about > 8 mc - becouse some stupid **** dont have any idea what to do with HM and drake blob ... lol . More stupid devs pls :) lets nerf everething ,and we will shoot to target at max 1 km :) and every weapon will do same dmg . |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
379
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:32:00 -
[3978] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
other cruisers have the advantage of hitting stuff for full damage when it's not under their guns. they also have falloff. opst nerf, heavy missiles will hit frigates like a wet noodle, no matter how good a pilot you are.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:37:00 -
[3979] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
other cruisers have the advantage of hitting stuff for full damage when it's not under their guns. they also have falloff. opst nerf, heavy missiles will hit frigates like a wet noodle, no matter how good a pilot you are.
LOL
Guess again.
You get in an AC cane I'll get in a ceptor or my dram and see how many full damage hits you get. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:39:00 -
[3980] - Quote
Konski Zwis wrote:
lol - im wasted now about > 8 mc - becouse some stupid **** dont have any idea what to do with HM and drake blob ... lol . More stupid devs pls :) lets nerf everething ,and we will shoot to target at max 1 km :) and every weapon will do same dmg .
So Navigation doesn't apply to all ships? OR Battle-cruiser V, or Signature analysis, or any of the enginnering skills?
WHAAAAAAAAA |
|
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:39:00 -
[3981] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
other cruisers have the advantage of hitting stuff for full damage when it's not under their guns. they also have falloff. opst nerf, heavy missiles will hit frigates like a wet noodle, no matter how good a pilot you are. LOL Guess again. You get in an AC cane I'll get in a ceptor or my dram and see how many full damage hits you get.
Thats the problem here dude... I dont have those fricking skills... I have Drake / Missile / Tengu skills... not fricking Cane skills... or guns, r lasers.... I do missiles... |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
272
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:40:00 -
[3982] - Quote
VERY well done ccp, this new round of proposed changes are much MUCH more palatable than the original proposals.....
....But then You new that...... you bid high, then bid lower to appear more reasonable.....
Remind me to never play poker with Fozzie!
:) |
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:41:00 -
[3983] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Konski Zwis wrote:
lol - im wasted now about > 8 mc - becouse some stupid **** dont have any idea what to do with HM and drake blob ... lol . More stupid devs pls :) lets nerf everething ,and we will shoot to target at max 1 km :) and every weapon will do same dmg .
So Navigation doesn't apply to all ships? OR Battle-cruiser V, or Signature analysis, or any of the enginnering skills? WHAAAAAAAAA
And how do those skills apply to missile damage / missile range ? They don't...
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:42:00 -
[3984] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
other cruisers have the advantage of hitting stuff for full damage when it's not under their guns. they also have falloff. opst nerf, heavy missiles will hit frigates like a wet noodle, no matter how good a pilot you are. LOL Guess again. You get in an AC cane I'll get in a ceptor or my dram and see how many full damage hits you get. Thats the problem here dude... I dont have those fricking skills... I have Drake / Missile / Tengu skills... not fricking Cane skills... or guns, r lasers.... I do missiles...
So do I, and I also do hybrids, projectile and lasers T2 BS on down.
......and you are over a year older then this toon.
So take two weeks and train up medium ACs, Hurricane is OP right, and Loki (ironically my last Dram tackle). |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:46:00 -
[3985] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
other cruisers have the advantage of hitting stuff for full damage when it's not under their guns. they also have falloff. opst nerf, heavy missiles will hit frigates like a wet noodle, no matter how good a pilot you are. Oh cool, missiles are different ! If you want your damage to be relative to your piloting skills, caldari can use hybrid turrets too. Missiles are no brainer reliant weapons, but when they don't work, you can't do anything. Don't believe you can always do something with turrets though, you would be disapointed... And when a frigate cought you for good, only the cane, with its neuts, can really get out of troubles. Though, all of them is vulnerable to TD kity frigates.
And precision missiles will be buffed. And YOU, missiles users, cry against the TD/TE/TC applyed to missiles. That would have made missiles the bane of frigates. Slam in your faces. You deserve it. |
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:47:00 -
[3986] - Quote
Onictus wrote: So do I, and I also do hybrids, projectile and lasers T2 BS on down.
......and you are over a year older then this toon.
So take two weeks and train up medium ACs, Hurricane is OP right, and Loki (ironically my last Dram tackle).
Why the hell should I ? I like flying Caldari, but to hit it with a bazooka and nerf an entire tree of ships into the ground is a litte extreme. I do not want to be forced into training into another race... is CCP gonna reimburse my skill points ? Cause if they are, then I'l consider it. But I did not spend months and months of training Engineering and Missile skills to level 5, just to switch to a fricking Cane or what ever your flavor of the month is. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:48:00 -
[3987] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
And precision missiles will be buffed. And YOU, missiles users, cry against the TD/TE/TC applyed to missiles. That would have made missiles the bane of frigates. Slam in your faces. You deserve it.
Pretty much, I was all excited to get a gank-a-thon torp/AC phoon and see what I could do with it. Bah. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
379
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:49:00 -
[3988] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
other cruisers have the advantage of hitting stuff for full damage when it's not under their guns. they also have falloff. opst nerf, heavy missiles will hit frigates like a wet noodle, no matter how good a pilot you are. LOL Guess again. You get in an AC cane I'll get in a ceptor or my dram and see how many full damage hits you get. except not every frigate is an interceptor but every frigate can be blapped with turrets.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:51:00 -
[3989] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote: So do I, and I also do hybrids, projectile and lasers T2 BS on down.
......and you are over a year older then this toon.
So take two weeks and train up medium ACs, Hurricane is OP right, and Loki (ironically my last Dram tackle).
Why the hell should I ? I like flying Caldari, but to hit it with a bazooka and nerf an entire tree of ships into the ground is a litte extreme. I do not want to be forced into training into another race... is CCP gonna reimburse my skill points ? Cause if they are, then I'l consider it. But I did not spend months and months of training Engineering and Missile skills to level 5, just to switch to a fricking Cane or what ever is your flavor of the month.
They aren't "nerfing them into the ground" they are taking them out of the realm of battleships and putting them back on a level with you know battlecruisers.
Because you had to compare HMLs to BATTLESHIP weapons to find similar performance before.
I like Drones, you don't see me whining that I can't use my Domi, or Ishtar, or Gila, or Ishkur or Myrm for EVERY damn thing. I can't they don't always work. So I say to you again.
Tough noodles. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:52:00 -
[3990] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote: except not every frigate is an interceptor but every frigate can be blapped with turrets.
Every frigate gets hit with missiles if its in range. EVERY volley. |
|
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:55:00 -
[3991] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: except not every frigate is an interceptor but every frigate can be blapped with turrets.
Every frigate gets hit with missiles if its in range. EVERY volley.
No they dont, my Manti gets hit with 10 damage from a drake because its too fast for the missiles to hit it. The closer I get, the harder it gets to hit it ever more... I hit another Drake with 2200 volley... |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:56:00 -
[3992] - Quote
Too lazy to check through all the math, but overall 2nd version of changes looks much more interesting. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 12:59:00 -
[3993] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: except not every frigate is an interceptor but every frigate can be blapped with turrets.
Every frigate gets hit with missiles if its in range. EVERY volley. No they dont, my Manti gets hit with 10 damage from a drake because its too fast for the missiles to hit it. The closer I get, the harder it gets to hit it ever more... I hit another Drake with 2200 volley...
Sooooooooo you just said it gets hit.
......and why doesn't the drake just warp off, because you'd get eaten up buy drones in point range. I've done it, recently, and I ate a bomb first. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
379
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:05:00 -
[3994] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: except not every frigate is an interceptor but every frigate can be blapped with turrets.
Every frigate gets hit with missiles if its in range. EVERY volley. No they dont, my Manti gets hit with 10 damage from a drake because its too fast for the missiles to hit it. The closer I get, the harder it gets to hit it ever more... I hit another Drake with 2200 volley... Sooooooooo you just said it gets hit. ......and why doesn't the drake just warp off, because you'd get eaten up buy drones in point range. I've done it, recently, and I ate a bomb first. confirming that frigate pilots are too stupid to kill drones.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:07:00 -
[3995] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Onictus wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: except not every frigate is an interceptor but every frigate can be blapped with turrets.
Every frigate gets hit with missiles if its in range. EVERY volley. No they dont, my Manti gets hit with 10 damage from a drake because its too fast for the missiles to hit it. The closer I get, the harder it gets to hit it ever more... I hit another Drake with 2200 volley... Sooooooooo you just said it gets hit. ......and why doesn't the drake just warp off, because you'd get eaten up buy drones in point range. I've done it, recently, and I ate a bomb first. confirming that frigate pilots are too stupid to kill drones.
To be fair it would take like 20 minutes per drone to kill a hobgoblin with torps. |
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:08:00 -
[3996] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: except not every frigate is an interceptor but every frigate can be blapped with turrets.
Every frigate gets hit with missiles if its in range. EVERY volley. No they dont, my Manti gets hit with 10 damage from a drake because its too fast for the missiles to hit it. The closer I get, the harder it gets to hit it ever more... I hit another Drake with 2200 volley... Sooooooooo you just said it gets hit. ......and why doesn't the drake just warp off, because you'd get eaten up buy drones in point range. I've done it, recently, and I ate a bomb first.
Because with this nerf the drake cant warp off cause it's being scambled and it couldn't get out of range cause it received a range nerf... So no warping off... and my Drones got killed by a smart bomb. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:10:00 -
[3997] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote: So do I, and I also do hybrids, projectile and lasers T2 BS on down.
......and you are over a year older then this toon.
So take two weeks and train up medium ACs, Hurricane is OP right, and Loki (ironically my last Dram tackle).
Why the hell should I ? I like flying Caldari, but to hit it with a bazooka and nerf an entire tree of ships into the ground is a litte extreme. I do not want to be forced into training into another race... is CCP gonna reimburse my skill points ? Cause if they are, then I'l consider it. But I did not spend months and months of training Engineering and Missile skills to level 5, just to switch to a fricking Cane or what ever your flavor of the month is.
random fun fact: caldari isn't all about missiles. random fun fact the second: it is never to late to lern new skills and beeing able to do new stuff. even if you do not want to crosstrain.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:12:00 -
[3998] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote: except not every frigate is an interceptor but every frigate can be blapped with turrets.
Every frigate gets hit with missiles if its in range. EVERY volley. No they dont, my Manti gets hit with 10 damage from a drake because its too fast for the missiles to hit it. The closer I get, the harder it gets to hit it ever more... I hit another Drake with 2200 volley... Sooooooooo you just said it gets hit. ......and why doesn't the drake just warp off, because you'd get eaten up buy drones in point range. I've done it, recently, and I ate a bomb first. Because with this nerf the drake cant warp off cause it's being scambled and it couldn't get out of range cause it received a range nerf... So no warping off... and my Drones got killed by a smart bomb.
Couldn't get out of range?
Even with a 20% hit and no rigs a drake would shoot 64km, and I doubt very highly you got away with a 10 point hit. Bombers have a BIG signature for fig to start with, and on top of that your veloicity means you have a micro warp. So from a 1000mm sig that bomber gets basically THREE vollied , even faster becasue to stay in point range you are only doing about 65% of your top speed in a 7500m orbit.
HMLs currently lose 12dps per launcher at that speed.
Sow me another tale please, I'll post the missile calulator for you if you want.
|
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:13:00 -
[3999] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote: So do I, and I also do hybrids, projectile and lasers T2 BS on down.
......and you are over a year older then this toon.
So take two weeks and train up medium ACs, Hurricane is OP right, and Loki (ironically my last Dram tackle).
Why the hell should I ? I like flying Caldari, but to hit it with a bazooka and nerf an entire tree of ships into the ground is a litte extreme. I do not want to be forced into training into another race... is CCP gonna reimburse my skill points ? Cause if they are, then I'l consider it. But I did not spend months and months of training Engineering and Missile skills to level 5, just to switch to a fricking Cane or what ever your flavor of the month is. random fun fact: caldari isn't all about missiles. random fun fact the second: it is never to late to lern new skills and beeing able to do new stuff. even if you do not want to crosstrain. edit: your last post about range&stuff; what?
It's being forced into it that bothers me. Cross training because you have the choice is something else. Now you're being forced to train something else because what you do now in your ship becomes useless. |
Silk daShocka
Lawn Dart Industries
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:13:00 -
[4000] - Quote
So I guess us hurricane pilots should flood this thread with QQ not enough pewpew complaints to have the cane nerf lessened. |
|
Joyana Dakota
Strategic Tactics And Recon
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:14:00 -
[4001] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Couldn't get out of range?
Even with a 20% hit and no rigs a drake would shoot 64km, and I doubt very highly you got away with a 10 point hit. Bombers have a BIG signature for fig to start with, and on top of that your veloicity means you have a micro warp. So from a 1000mm sig that bomber gets basically THREE vollied , even faster becasue to stay in point range you are only doing about 65% of your top speed in a 7500m orbit.
HMLs currently lose 12dps per launcher at that speed.
Sow me another tale please, I'll post the missile calulator for you if you want.
Right now yes... not after the nerf... jeeeez
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:22:00 -
[4002] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Couldn't get out of range?
Even with a 20% hit and no rigs a drake would shoot 64km, and I doubt very highly you got away with a 10 point hit. Bombers have a BIG signature for fig to start with, and on top of that your veloicity means you have a micro warp. So from a 1000mm sig that bomber gets basically THREE vollied , even faster becasue to stay in point range you are only doing about 65% of your top speed in a 7500m orbit.
HMLs currently lose 12dps per launcher at that speed.
Sow me another tale please, I'll post the missile calulator for you if you want.
Right now yes... not after the nerf... jeeeez and I only have an after burner fitted... not a MWD
The signature and velocities aren't chainging.
I just simulated it, with max speed me in a drake shooting my alt in a hound STILL does 150dps, after a 10% damage reduction OH NOES the drake only does 135DPS.
More then enough to chase off a torp bomber, drones or no.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:24:00 -
[4003] - Quote
Silk daShocka wrote:So I guess us hurricane pilots should flood this thread with QQ not enough pewpew complaints to have the cane nerf lessened.
While I kind of cry for my armor cane, I never really fly them anymore anyway (for all I have like 3 of them) so meh. Its not a big deal.
I spend a LOT more time in Tier 3s these days. |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
379
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:29:00 -
[4004] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Couldn't get out of range?
Even with a 20% hit and no rigs a drake would shoot 64km, and I doubt very highly you got away with a 10 point hit. Bombers have a BIG signature for fig to start with, and on top of that your veloicity means you have a micro warp. So from a 1000mm sig that bomber gets basically THREE vollied , even faster becasue to stay in point range you are only doing about 65% of your top speed in a 7500m orbit.
HMLs currently lose 12dps per launcher at that speed.
Sow me another tale please, I'll post the missile calulator for you if you want.
Right now yes... not after the nerf... jeeeez and I only have an after burner fitted... not a MWD The signature and velocities aren't chainging. I just simulated it, with max speed me in a drake shooting my alt in a hound STILL does 150dps, after a 10% damage reduction OH NOES the drake only does 135DPS. More then enough to chase off a torp bomber, drones or no.
except it won't be 135 but more like ~70 after the explosion nerfs.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:32:00 -
[4005] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
other cruisers have the advantage of hitting stuff for full damage when it's not under their guns. they also have falloff. opst nerf, heavy missiles will hit frigates like a wet noodle, no matter how good a pilot you are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvfhVXbMgc8 |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:35:00 -
[4006] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:Onictus wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Couldn't get out of range?
Even with a 20% hit and no rigs a drake would shoot 64km, and I doubt very highly you got away with a 10 point hit. Bombers have a BIG signature for fig to start with, and on top of that your veloicity means you have a micro warp. So from a 1000mm sig that bomber gets basically THREE vollied , even faster becasue to stay in point range you are only doing about 65% of your top speed in a 7500m orbit.
HMLs currently lose 12dps per launcher at that speed.
Sow me another tale please, I'll post the missile calulator for you if you want.
Right now yes... not after the nerf... jeeeez and I only have an after burner fitted... not a MWD The signature and velocities aren't chainging. I just simulated it, with max speed me in a drake shooting my alt in a hound STILL does 150dps, after a 10% damage reduction OH NOES the drake only does 135DPS. More then enough to chase off a torp bomber, drones or no. except it won't be 135 but more like ~70 after the explosion nerfs.
Exposion radiu is going to 140.....a MWD has a 245m sig radius....aka no penalty there you are only concrened with velocity and that isn't changing. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:40:00 -
[4007] - Quote
Silk daShocka wrote:So I guess us hurricane pilots should flood this thread with QQ not enough pewpew complaints to have the cane nerf lessened.
really isnt a big deal. all the nerf really does is preventing you from fitting 2 medium neuts while stille having full set of biggest weapons and decent tank. i mean, once you had all support skills on lvl5 there was absolutely no need to think about your fitting. there was more then enough fitting to go around ^^
Daniel Plain wrote: except it won't be 135 but more like ~70 after the explosion nerfs.
which is in the regime of what a light missile frig like breacher would inflinct - after the big frig buff. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:53:00 -
[4008] - Quote
Your missiles skills will be well invested for the futur HAM... There is not only HML which use missiles... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 13:54:00 -
[4009] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Your missiles skills will be well invested for the futur HAM... There is not only HML which use missiles...
*boggles* |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:01:00 -
[4010] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:If you start a Caldari character after the nerf hits you're gonna find yourself stuck using Railguns because the missile ships won't be useful until you can fly a Raven, who's gonna sit on their asses training for this and use Railguns in the meantime. Railguns are ****, even after CCP fixed this.
A while back they were promoting in high bright colors that Caldari was the race for missiles again and that they were gonna bring back the flare in using them.
I haven't used Rails since I switched from a Ferox to a Drake and then to a Tengu... I'm not always using my Tengu because in Wormholes it's sometimes risky putting an expensive ship on the field.
This nerf hits an entire tree of character growth. From the Caracal -> Drake -> Tengu... what comes next ? If you're forced to use Railguns, forget training for a Raven because you're forced to spend all your time training Railgun skills... I don't see the logic in this, unless the goal is to remove Caldari from the game entirely.
Caldari will become useful again after you've trained up for a Raven, but who's gonna sit in station for 6 months until they have the right skills to finally fly one... You still have to train up all the missile support skills, which are completely useless for the other ships after the nerf.
An entire tree of training and growing into new ships is going to be useless. The natural stepping stone of growing into a Cruiser, then a Battlecruiser and the into a T3 Cruiser is gonna disappear... Unless you fancy flying a Railgun Tengu.
you're over reacting.
These changes do the following:
1) Buff rockets, with missile precision (not that rockets did bad in the first place, and might become a little to much now) 2) Buff light missiles with PG and CPU reduction, explosion radius reduction (and made a Destroyer platform with it, than will be scary as it is now) 3) Buff Heavy Assault missiles with PG reduction, and precision (those will fire at frigates with the radius HM do now) 4) Buff Cruise T2 missiles (remove ship penalties Speed and Signature, Damage buf, explosion radius reduction) 5) T2 Torpedo ship penalties removed. 6) T2 light missiles got a buff, damage explosion velocity, and radius 7) T2 Heavy missiles, don't have ship penalties anymore. 8) Missiles get faster (harder to out run)
Nerfs/Ballence
1) T2 Range and Explosion Radius Fury 2) Heavy missiles Damage, Range, Explosion Radius.
That doesn't sound to hard does it, and gives good options for the Caracal Drake and Tengu.
Because of the removal of ship penalties you need less tank on your Drake that would give you room for a TP
Or switch to Heavy assaults and use a range rig, there explosion radius will be what the HM Explosion radius was.
Enough options if you ask me, and honestly more a buff than a nerf, only and only Heavy missiles at that.
Caldari will become useful again after you've trained up for a Raven, but who's gonna sit in station for 6 months until they have the right skills to finally fly one... You still have to train up all the missile support skills, which are completely useless for the other ships after the nerf.
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:11:00 -
[4011] - Quote
shhhhh
The sky is falling remember. |
Operative X10-4
Aqua Team Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:11:00 -
[4012] - Quote
I agree with the missiles changes, as a long range weapon the heavy missiles have a dps compared to shot range ones, but it's not all about numbers... let me say:
Long range missiles should be speed buffed A LOT, not only 14% or someting like that, it should be more like 100%, so that way will be viable to apply damage at long range, missiles take too long traveling to the target and in general the target can warp away before the 1st volley lands.
Between 2 equivalent ships the one who starts aplying damage first wins, so turrets>missiles at this point. But heavy missile can put up with that because: (ok.. it takes time to hit the target) but in general it strikes harder than other snipers weapons.
Long range missiles (heavy lauchers) are viable right now just because they strike like a short range weapon, so this way it can put up with the delay to start aplying damage problem.
You can debuff the damage but you have to really buf the speed. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:13:00 -
[4013] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:
Caldari will become useful again after you've trained up for a Raven, but who's gonna sit in station for 6 months until they have the right skills to finally fly one... You still have to train up all the missile support skills, which are completely useless for the other ships after the nerf.
Starting from scratch it doesn't take NEAR that long to get torps or cruise up to T2 with level 4 supports, more like 6 weeks.
|
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:23:00 -
[4014] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:
Caldari will become useful again after you've trained up for a Raven, but who's gonna sit in station for 6 months until they have the right skills to finally fly one... You still have to train up all the missile support skills, which are completely useless for the other ships after the nerf.
Starting from scratch it doesn't take NEAR that long to get torps or cruise up to T2 with level 4 supports, more like 6 weeks.
Sorry that part wasn't mine, It's part of Dakota's mail I was disagreeing with, made some error wit copy pasting, due to long composing time of mail, removed it in my post |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 14:58:00 -
[4015] - Quote
More sensible starting points, good stuff.
HOWEVER....am I reading the fury cruise changes right? Because if I am...holy crap....rigor/TP toting missile boats are going to start ripping missions apart. DPS increase, explosion radius decrease...so more 'paper' damage AND more gets applied? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1029
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 15:37:00 -
[4016] - Quote
Marvel as Fozzie wades through a sea of nerds, grunting mightily as his gigantic Nerdslayer battleaxe demolishes argument after argument, his muscles rippling with effort, and covered in a sheen of sweat. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 15:41:00 -
[4017] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Joyana Dakota wrote:In my opinion the nerfing is a bit toooo much. The nerf hits one area way too hard which makes flying a Drake pretty much useless in Wormholes / missions and what ever else the Drake is used for next to PvP.
It's too much... Take another look CCP... Drake in level 4s... yeah. Any T1 BS is faster in level 4s compared to Drake.
Accept the cruise raven. That thing has crap for damage application. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
771
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 15:48:00 -
[4018] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Marvel as Fozzie wades through a sea of nerds, grunting mightily as his gigantic Nerdslayer battleaxe demolishes argument after argument, his muscles rippling with effort, and covered in a sheen of sweat.
You have something on your chin I think God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1029
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 15:50:00 -
[4019] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Marvel as Fozzie wades through a sea of nerds, grunting mightily as his gigantic Nerdslayer battleaxe demolishes argument after argument, his muscles rippling with effort, and covered in a sheen of sweat. You have something on your chin I think
Correct, its called a beard, you'll understand one day when you're a man...one day |
Reticle
Sight Picture
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 15:55:00 -
[4020] - Quote
All I know is, this change makes missioning in a Tengu take a whole lot longer. Congratulations on making a crappy task like EVE missioning so much more crappier. The Macheriel crowd was neck and neck with the Tengu crowd for efficiency. Now it will be miles ahead, deal instant damage, and have all the benefits of being able to field a full complement of drones, which the typical mission tengu was not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sick and tired of CCP forcing us to make choices and plans a year or more in advance, then changing all the rules to make those choices irrelevant and wasteful. I care less about specific buffs/nerfs than i do about the wasted time, effort, and planning. |
|
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:12:00 -
[4021] - Quote
my tracking disruptors will patiently await the day they mess with the missile boats.
Now when you go back an look at them if you really want them to be universally useful EWAR make them effect remote effect ranges! |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:14:00 -
[4022] - Quote
Reticle wrote:All I know is, this change makes missioning in a Tengu take a whole lot longer. Congratulations on making a crappy task like EVE missioning so much more crappier. The Macheriel crowd was neck and neck with the Tengu crowd for efficiency. Now it will be miles ahead, deal instant damage, and have all the benefits of being able to field a full complement of drones, which the typical mission tengu was not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sick and tired of CCP forcing us to make choices and plans a year or more in advance, then changing all the rules to make those choices irrelevant and wasteful. I care less about specific buffs/nerfs than i do about the wasted time, effort, and planning.
/agreed
I'm wondering though... I what world was the tengu every on par with the Machariel?
I mean sure, it was te most effective missile boat for lvl 4 missions, but I wouldn't put on par with the Mach... |
0wl
Pocket Pirates
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:15:00 -
[4023] - Quote
I like these changes...I think its gonna bring the Drake in line nicely. I'm pleased those pesky T2 Ammo effects are going too. |
None ofthe Above
336
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:39:00 -
[4024] - Quote
Fozzie, et al.
I can see you are putting a lot of thought into this, much appreciated.
I like that we are getting rid of the guided/unguided missiles, that was always difficult to grasp, and even harder to explain to newbies.
Removing penalties to T2 ammo. Good.
Delaying TD changes, I think that's wise. A lot changing at once already.
The rest is pretty confusing... a lot changing, milder nerfs to HMLs is less shocking at any rate.
Still not sure whether to QQ or \o/
Probably means at least close to balanced. Not sure how HMLs will fare after this. HAMs, Lights and rockets should be more viable.
I look forward to testing. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:39:00 -
[4025] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Reticle wrote:All I know is, this change makes missioning in a Tengu take a whole lot longer. Congratulations on making a crappy task like EVE missioning so much more crappier. The Macheriel crowd was neck and neck with the Tengu crowd for efficiency. Now it will be miles ahead, deal instant damage, and have all the benefits of being able to field a full complement of drones, which the typical mission tengu was not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sick and tired of CCP forcing us to make choices and plans a year or more in advance, then changing all the rules to make those choices irrelevant and wasteful. I care less about specific buffs/nerfs than i do about the wasted time, effort, and planning. /agreed I'm wondering though... I what world was the tengu every on par with the Machariel? I mean sure, it was te most effective missile boat for lvl 4 missions, but I wouldn't put on par with the Mach...
Dominx is damn near as fast if you can't just snipe triggers and hit the next gate |
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:40:00 -
[4026] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Marvel as Fozzie wades through a sea of nerds, grunting mightily as his gigantic Nerdslayer battleaxe demolishes argument after argument, his muscles rippling with effort, and covered in a sheen of sweat. Yeah, a sea of HML addict nerds primarilly playing this game in pve mode. So tiring to to keep knocking down the same misconceptions. And my favorite was when they started citing the lack of Drakes in the ATX and didn't get it. God I hope they give this thread a rest.
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Silk daShocka wrote:So I guess us hurricane pilots should flood this thread with QQ not enough pewpew complaints to have the cane nerf lessened. really isnt a big deal. all the nerf really does is preventing you from fitting 2 medium neuts while stille having full set of biggest weapons and decent tank. i mean, once you had all support skills on lvl5 there was absolutely no need to think about your fitting. there was more then enough fitting to go around ^^
Kethry Avenger wrote:my tracking disruptors will patiently await the day they mess with the missile boats. Now when you go back an look at them if you really want them to be universally useful EWAR make them effect remote effect ranges! I think the delay on the TD,TC,and TE effects is probably more due to valid concerns over what the new missile destroyers might do to all frigs if their bonuses were to synergize too well with these new mods, and not due as much or even at all due to the butthurt posted by the HML crowd itt. It will come, but I suspect the effects of all those mods on missiles will have to be very weak, because it wouldn't take much to tip missiles into totally op. CCP discovered that when they did their last tweak of missiles (was it a couple years ago now?). The test server quickly showed missiles knocking anything and everything out of the sky with their first round of changes there.
Anyway, nice to see the range nerf on the high damage ammo. It brings that more in line with turrets. One would think a heavier more powerful warhead would consume more missile fuel in acceleration and thus result in less range.
Also, the numbers posted appear to me to reinforce the value of dedicated painter boats. Which is a needed thing for them. A stealth minmatar buff in the face of all the caldari whining.
As for the Hurricane, look at it this way. It's already getting its direct nerf. When the direct nerf comes to the Drake we can rejoice in another round of whine posting by the folks that kept whining about Canes as if they were lording over Drakes. |
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:49:00 -
[4027] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:
Caldari will become useful again after you've trained up for a Raven, but who's gonna sit in station for 6 months until they have the right skills to finally fly one... You still have to train up all the missile support skills, which are completely useless for the other ships after the nerf.
Starting from scratch it doesn't take NEAR that long to get torps or cruise up to T2 with level 4 supports, more like 6 weeks. Hell, I was lvl 4 missioning in a tech I cruise missile phoon with only 4 tech I launchers until I trained tech II and it got it's 5 launcher buff. It's not like you have to train tech II to start doing level 4 missions. Just start them and enjoy noticing the improvement when you have trained the tech II launchers. Noone needs to sit in a station for 6 months. |
None ofthe Above
336
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:51:00 -
[4028] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Marvel as Fozzie wades through a sea of nerds, grunting mightily as his gigantic Nerdslayer battleaxe demolishes argument after argument, his muscles rippling with effort, and covered in a sheen of sweat. Yeah, a sea of HML addict nerds primarilly playing this game in pve mode. So tiring to to keep knocking down the same misconceptions. And my favorite was when they started citing the lack of Drakes in the ATX and didn't get it. God I hope they give this thread a rest. Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Silk daShocka wrote:So I guess us hurricane pilots should flood this thread with QQ not enough pewpew complaints to have the cane nerf lessened. really isnt a big deal. all the nerf really does is preventing you from fitting 2 medium neuts while stille having full set of biggest weapons and decent tank. i mean, once you had all support skills on lvl5 there was absolutely no need to think about your fitting. there was more then enough fitting to go around ^^ Kethry Avenger wrote:my tracking disruptors will patiently await the day they mess with the missile boats. Now when you go back an look at them if you really want them to be universally useful EWAR make them effect remote effect ranges! I think the delay on the TD,TC,and TE effects is probably more due to valid concerns over what the new missile destroyers might do to all frigs if their bonuses were to synergize too well with these new mods, and not due as much or even at all due to the butthurt posted by the HML crowd itt. It will come, but I suspect the effects of all those mods on missiles will have to be very weak, because it wouldn't take much to tip missiles into totally op. CCP discovered that when they did their last tweak of missiles (was it a couple years ago now?). The test server quickly showed missiles knocking anything and everything out of the sky with their first round of changes then. Anyway, nice to see the range nerf on the high damage ammo. It brings that more in line with turrets. One would think a heavier more powerful warhead would consume more missile fuel in acceleration and thus result in less range. Also, the numbers posted appear to me to reinforce the value of dedicated painter boats. Which is a needed thing for them. A stealth minmatar buff in the face of all the caldari whining. As for the Hurricane, look at it this way. It's already getting its direct nerf. When the direct nerf comes to the Drake we can rejoice in another round of whine posting by the folks that kept whining about Canes as if they were lording over Drakes.
:P
EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 16:59:00 -
[4029] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:[ As for the Hurricane, look at it this way. It's already getting its direct nerf. When the direct nerf comes to the Drake we can rejoice in another round of whine posting by the folks that kept whining about Canes as if they were lording over Drakes.
I don't care I'll just hop in my Myrm and knock some heads. |
Reticle
Sight Picture
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:02:00 -
[4030] - Quote
Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Reticle wrote:All I know is, this change makes missioning in a Tengu take a whole lot longer. Congratulations on making a crappy task like EVE missioning so much more crappier. The Macheriel crowd was neck and neck with the Tengu crowd for efficiency. Now it will be miles ahead, deal instant damage, and have all the benefits of being able to field a full complement of drones, which the typical mission tengu was not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sick and tired of CCP forcing us to make choices and plans a year or more in advance, then changing all the rules to make those choices irrelevant and wasteful. I care less about specific buffs/nerfs than i do about the wasted time, effort, and planning. /agreed I'm wondering though... I what world was the tengu every on par with the Machariel? I mean sure, it was te most effective missile boat for lvl 4 missions, but I wouldn't put on par with the Mach... Dominx is damn near as fast if you can't just snipe triggers and hit the next gate The new AI will be busy ripping your drones to pieces. You'll be spending the majority of your time managing drone aggro. Have fun. |
|
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:08:00 -
[4031] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Lili Lu wrote:[ As for the Hurricane, look at it this way. It's already getting its direct nerf. When the direct nerf comes to the Drake we can rejoice in another round of whine posting by the folks that kept whining about Canes as if they were lording over Drakes. I don't care I'll just hop in my Myrm and knock some heads. Pfft, I'm less than thrilled with the current Myrm. My alt tries to make it work for gang fights. It still mostly sucks. Travel time on drones will always be a pita (worse than missile users have to wait). Also, the active armor bonus goes to waste most of the time.
I suspect none of the BCs will look entirely the same when they get to them, which is a good thing. Myrm for instance could use another 25 bandwidth and 50 bay but lose a couple turret slots and maybe even another high slot altogether. And the repair bonus is only really worth it for pve. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:10:00 -
[4032] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:As for the Hurricane, look at it this way. It's already getting its direct nerf. When the direct nerf comes to the Drake we can rejoice in another round of whine posting by the folks that kept whining about Canes as if they were lording over Drakes.
\o/ threadnaught all the topics
i have the feeling the will be another cane nerf, when the tier2 bcs get ther tiericide. atm the nerf only shut down the fotm dual medium neut cane. nothing serious.
but don't you love the minmatar haters club? makes you feel kind of special and appreciated :D sometimes even funnier then watching comedy.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
189
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:17:00 -
[4033] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Konski Zwis wrote:lol - drake with ~30 km range on t2 missiles ... yeah right ;) there will be plenty unsubs on winter ;) great job ccp ! ;) Considering a barrage AC cane does a whopping 148 DPS with barrage to a drake at the edge of long point range......Oh NOES, remember the cane has half of the tank a drake does.
This would be interesting if the ships were forced to remain motionless in this position. This, however, is not the case. That Drake, at the edge of long point range, cannot kill that Hurricane unless the cane pilot decides that this is the perfect time to go afk. I will assume you know the reason why and move on.
A ship's "power" is relative, and certainly not confined to the narrow parameters of dps and tank. Combat in eve is only rarely a one on one proposition where two space knights throw down their guantlets and meet at the sun for glorious honorable combat. Instead it's a chaotic mess of ship swapping and warping and gathering up more people to swarm your enemies. And in this chaos one weapon stands out above all others:
Speed.
Minmatar ships do not dominate PvP because they have the best tanks. Nor do they dominate because they do the best DPS. They dominate because they are able to better dictate the terms of the engagement, and often whether or not any engagement will take place at all. Add to this the noteworthy Minmatar versatility and you have a selection of ships any pilot would be well off choosing. It is for this reason that Canes outnumber Drakes by two or three to one in every low sec fleet. Speed is life.
For the Caldari however, none of this is the case. Their ships are slow, they typically have lower DPS weapons, fewer drones, few (if any) utility high slots, and restrictive fitting slot selections that dictate and restrict how a ship can be assembled. Further, as of today they only have a single T1 or T2 missile hull worth fitting -- the Drake. Every other ship in their lineup is broken. Actually, not to put to fine a point on it, with the exception of frigates every of CLASS of Caldari ship is broken. If you want to fly a BS you have to fly another race. If you want to fly an HAC you have to fly another race. If you want to fly a cruiser, you have to fly another race. If you want to fly a desxtroyer, the same applies. If you fly Caldari you have one ship.
And with this winter expansion this will not really change. The Caldari still will not have a missile cruiser worth flying, and it remains to be seen if CCP will adjustr the Moa to be comparable and competetive. They still will not have an HAC, they will not have a BS, they will not have a navy cruiser or faction cruiser. They will have their newly nerfed Drake, and after this expansion, a new missile destroyer. Every other missile ship in the game, the most broken selection of ships in the game, will become even worse -- not only because CCP has decided to curb stomp Caldari pilots yet again, but because they are buffing everyone else at the same time.
THIS is CCP's idea of balance. Take the worse race, ships, and weapons in the game -- the ones almost no one wastes their time using today -- and break them further. And at the same time BUFF the best ships and races in the game so that they hold an even greater advantage.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
189
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:25:00 -
[4034] - Quote
Joyana Dakota wrote:Onictus wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:AF going under the guns of larger ship is not a problem of the drake only, every cruisers and above live under this threat. How is this a problem ?
other cruisers have the advantage of hitting stuff for full damage when it's not under their guns. they also have falloff. opst nerf, heavy missiles will hit frigates like a wet noodle, no matter how good a pilot you are. LOL Guess again. You get in an AC cane I'll get in a ceptor or my dram and see how many full damage hits you get. Thats the problem here dude... I dont have those fricking skills... I have Drake / Missile / Tengu skills... not fricking Cane skills... or guns, r lasers.... I do missiles...
And I suppose you think that the months you put into training those missile support skills somehow entitle you to effective ships and weapons?!
It's not like you are one of the other privileged races. You are Caldari, you'll take your nerfs and you'll like them. |
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:26:00 -
[4035] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: THIS is CCP's idea of balance. Take the worse race, ships, and weapons in the game -- the ones almost no one wastes their time using today -- and break them further. And at the same time BUFF the best ships and races in the game so that they hold an even greater advantage. So much wrong with your analysis, but I'm just gonna quote this last bit for another chuckle.
Look if you are so unhappy with Caldari traits just crosstrain to what do you call it, oh yeah, Winmatar. Then you can omgwtfpwn everything in your 425ac dual medium neut speedracer . . .er . . . oh fudge. |
Anoeth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:26:00 -
[4036] - Quote
Reticle wrote:All I know is, this change makes missioning in a Tengu take a whole lot longer. Congratulations on making a crappy task like EVE missioning so much more crappier. The Macheriel crowd was neck and neck with the Tengu crowd for efficiency. Now it will be miles ahead, deal instant damage, and have all the benefits of being able to field a full complement of drones, which the typical mission tengu was not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sick and tired of CCP forcing us to make choices and plans a year or more in advance, then changing all the rules to make those choices irrelevant and wasteful. I care less about specific buffs/nerfs than i do about the wasted time, effort, and planning.
+1 - **** CCP . |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
190
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:44:00 -
[4037] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:OT Smithers wrote: THIS is CCP's idea of balance. Take the worse race, ships, and weapons in the game -- the ones almost no one wastes their time using today -- and break them further. And at the same time BUFF the best ships and races in the game so that they hold an even greater advantage. So much wrong with your analysis, but I'm just gonna quote this last bit for another chuckle. Look if you are so unhappy with Caldari traits just crosstrain to what do you call it, oh yeah, Winmatar. Then you can omgwtfpwn everything in your 425ac dual medium neut speedracer . . .er . . . oh fudge.
I don't fly Caldari Lili.
I am one of the folks CCP apparenlty feels needs their help against the scary Drake bullies. But unlike you, apparently, I have never had any problems with Drake pilots picking on me. The Drake is a fine ship, and it is situationally the best BC, but I have found that the speed and versatility of the Hurricane is a better fit for me and more often useful. Looking at your killboard I can see you spend a great deal of time flying with some mega blobs. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons a bit, leave your blob corp and try something else. You will probably discover that when the choice of ship is yours rather than dictated by some mega-fleet doctrine, and the consequences matter because no one is handing out free ships, that suddenly the Drake doesn't look all that special or overpowered after all.
Pretty much every pirate in the game can fly any BC he wants. Why aren't they choosing the overpowered Drake?
Perhaps, before you blather on about nerfs, you should discover the answer for yourself. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:49:00 -
[4038] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
This would be interesting if the ships were forced to remain motionless in this position. This, however, is not the case. That Drake, at the edge of long point range, cannot kill that Hurricane unless the cane pilot decides that this is the perfect time to go afk. I will assume you know the reason why and move on.
A ship's "power" is relative, and certainly not confined to the narrow parameters of dps and tank. Combat in eve is only rarely a one on one proposition where two space knights throw down their guantlets and meet at the sun for glorious honorable combat. Instead it's a chaotic mess of ship swapping and warping and gathering up more people to swarm your enemies. And in this chaos one weapon stands out above all others:
Speed.
Minmatar ships do not dominate PvP because they have the best tanks. Nor do they dominate because they do the best DPS. They dominate because they are able to better dictate the terms of the engagement, and often whether or not any engagement will take place at all. Add to this the noteworthy Minmatar versatility and you have a selection of ships any pilot would be well off choosing. It is for this reason that Canes outnumber Drakes by two or three to one in every low sec fleet. Speed is life.
Exactly my point for something like 50 pages now ... and yet so many seem to not see the light. Thanks for this great posting sir, quoted for truth!
OT Smithers wrote: For the Caldari however, none of this is the case. Their ships are slow, they typically have lower DPS weapons, fewer drones, few (if any) utility high slots, and restrictive fitting slot selections that dictate and restrict how a ship can be assembled. Further, as of today they only have a single T1 or T2 missile hull worth fitting -- the Drake. Every other ship in their lineup is broken. Actually, not to put to fine a point on it, with the exception of frigates every of CLASS of Caldari ship is broken. If you want to fly a BS you have to fly another race. If you want to fly an HAC you have to fly another race. If you want to fly a cruiser, you have to fly another race. If you want to fly a desxtroyer, the same applies. If you fly Caldari you have one ship.
And with this winter expansion this will not really change. The Caldari still will not have a missile cruiser worth flying, and it remains to be seen if CCP will adjustr the Moa to be comparable and competetive. They still will not have an HAC, they will not have a BS, they will not have a navy cruiser or faction cruiser. They will have their newly nerfed Drake, and after this expansion, a new missile destroyer. Every other missile ship in the game, the most broken selection of ships in the game, will become even worse -- not only because CCP has decided to curb stomp Caldari pilots yet again, but because they are buffing everyone else at the same time.
THIS is CCP's idea of balance. Take the worse race, ships, and weapons in the game -- the ones almost no one wastes their time using today -- and break them further. And at the same time BUFF the best ships and races in the game so that they hold an even greater advantage.
Yep. And as a reason they say "Drake, Tengu and HML are really out of line" - which is true, they were all quite ok in PvP and PvE, and not Winmatar. So yeah, they are out of line. *sigh* |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:53:00 -
[4039] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
I don't fly Caldari Lili.
I am one of the folks CCP apparenlty feels needs their help against the scary Drake bullies. But unlike you, apparently, I have never had any problems with Drake pilots picking on me. The Drake is a fine ship, and it is situationally the best BC, but I have found that the speed and versatility of the Hurricane is a better fit for me and more often useful. Looking at your killboard I can see you spend a great deal of time flying with some mega blobs. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons a bit, leave your blob corp and try something else. You will probably discover that when the choice of ship is yours rather than dictated by some mega-fleet doctrine, and the consequences matter because no one is handing out free ships, that suddenly the Drake doesn't look all that special or overpowered after all.
Pretty much every pirate in the game can fly any BC he wants. Why aren't they choosing the overpowered Drake?
Perhaps, before you blather on about nerfs, you should discover the answer for yourself.
Again, +1. Drakes are just OP in one thing: nullsec blobs, because they are 1) cheap (tech 1), 2) quite easy to train (naturally) and 3) fast enough to deal with BS. And they have indeed a good range on their HML.
Everywhere else most people prefer other ships over a Drake. But hell, CCP seems to be set about establishing even more reign of Winmatar. And this game will be more boring than before :)
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:56:00 -
[4040] - Quote
Reticle wrote:All I know is, this change makes missioning in a Tengu take a whole lot longer. Congratulations on making a crappy task like EVE missioning so much more crappier. The Macheriel crowd was neck and neck with the Tengu crowd for efficiency. Now it will be miles ahead, deal instant damage, and have all the benefits of being able to field a full complement of drones, which the typical mission tengu was not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sick and tired of CCP forcing us to make choices and plans a year or more in advance, then changing all the rules to make those choices irrelevant and wasteful. I care less about specific buffs/nerfs than i do about the wasted time, effort, and planning.
am amazed. ... besides asking myself how you can possibly cope with real life, you are seriously complaining about a pirate faction battleship beeing more efficient at doing missions intented for battleships (or maybe groups of smaller ships) than a cruiser hull? how can you not recognize how very wrong that is?
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 17:58:00 -
[4041] - Quote
Reticle wrote:Onictus wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Reticle wrote:All I know is, this change makes missioning in a Tengu take a whole lot longer. Congratulations on making a crappy task like EVE missioning so much more crappier. The Macheriel crowd was neck and neck with the Tengu crowd for efficiency. Now it will be miles ahead, deal instant damage, and have all the benefits of being able to field a full complement of drones, which the typical mission tengu was not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm sick and tired of CCP forcing us to make choices and plans a year or more in advance, then changing all the rules to make those choices irrelevant and wasteful. I care less about specific buffs/nerfs than i do about the wasted time, effort, and planning. /agreed I'm wondering though... I what world was the tengu every on par with the Machariel? I mean sure, it was te most effective missile boat for lvl 4 missions, but I wouldn't put on par with the Mach... Dominx is damn near as fast if you can't just snipe triggers and hit the next gate The new AI will be busy ripping your drones to pieces. You'll be spending the majority of your time managing drone aggro. Have fun.
That is different how?
I was never an afker
|
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:03:00 -
[4042] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Lili Lu wrote:OT Smithers wrote: THIS is CCP's idea of balance. Take the worse race, ships, and weapons in the game -- the ones almost no one wastes their time using today -- and break them further. And at the same time BUFF the best ships and races in the game so that they hold an even greater advantage. So much wrong with your analysis, but I'm just gonna quote this last bit for another chuckle. Look if you are so unhappy with Caldari traits just crosstrain to what do you call it, oh yeah, Winmatar. Then you can omgwtfpwn everything in your 425ac dual medium neut speedracer . . .er . . . oh fudge. I don't fly Caldari Lili. I am one of the folks CCP apparenlty feels needs their help against the scary Drake bullies. But unlike you, apparently, I have never had any problems with Drake pilots picking on me. The Drake is a fine ship, and it is situationally the best BC, but I have found that the speed and versatility of the Hurricane is a better fit for me and more often useful. Looking at your killboard I can see you spend a great deal of time flying with some mega blobs. Perhaps you should broaden your horizons a bit, leave your blob corp and try something else. You will probably discover that when the choice of ship is yours rather than dictated by some mega-fleet doctrine, and the consequences matter because no one is handing out free ships, that suddenly the Drake doesn't look all that special or overpowered after all. Pretty much every pirate in the game can fly any BC he wants. Why aren't they choosing the overpowered Drake? Perhaps, before you blather on about nerfs, you should discover the answer for yourself. Yeah Smithers, Lili fles minmatar and amarr. I have other mains. One flies gallente and minmatar. And guess what, the other two fly Caldari and Gallente. And they didn't all go out to 0.0, and instead are in lowsec.
Regardless, the amount of butthurt you post here about Drakes has me not believing you don't have another character that is still specced only in Drakes. And, I looked you up. Your most active month had 46 kills with Canes and 15 with Drakes, so even there you can't say "I don't fly Caldari" . .
Anyway, glad to see that you in fact did cross train. But you really need to let go of your original identification with the Drake. For being a Cane pilot it amazes me that you are not bitching instead about the direct Cane nerf. Your exagerrated and inacurate ("Take the worse race, ships, and weapons in the game -- the ones almost no one wastes their time using today ", really? about HMLs and Drakes?, which have been topping eve-kill for a couple or more years now) posting about Drakes and missiles doesn't serve anyone.
edit - or maybe it's because you still do all your pve in drakes and tengus and can't figure out how to make a minmatar ship work in pve. I don't know what it is but you seem incredibly angry over this nerf that anyone with open eyes saw coming (and long overdue). |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
206
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:04:00 -
[4043] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:]lol - drake with ~30 km range on t2 missiles ... yeah right ;) there will be plenty unsubs on winter ;) great job ccp ! ;)
Compared to T2 missile that NO ONE uses now?
OT Smithers wrote: This would be interesting if the ships were forced to remain motionless in this position. This, however, is not the case. That Drake, at the edge of long point range, cannot kill that Hurricane unless the cane pilot decides that this is the perfect time to go afk. I will assume you know the reason why and move on.
If you have the skills (and NONE of you seem to train past drake so you should) a Drake loses 9 NINE DPS to a hurricane with his MWD on. They aren't dramiel fast.
OT Smithers wrote: A ship's "power" is relative, and certainly not confined to the narrow parameters of dps and tank. Combat in eve is only rarely a one on one proposition where two space knights throw down their guantlets and meet at the sun for glorious honorable combat. Instead it's a chaotic mess of ship swapping and warping and gathering up more people to swarm your enemies. And in this chaos one weapon stands out above all others:
Speed.
So you are saying you never have tacklers?
OT Smithers wrote: Minmatar ships do not dominate PvP because they have the best tanks. Nor do they dominate because they do the best DPS. They dominate because they are able to better dictate the terms of the engagement, and often whether or not any engagement will take place at all. Add to this the noteworthy Minmatar versatility and you have a selection of ships any pilot would be well off choosing. It is for this reason that Canes outnumber Drakes by two or three to one in every low sec fleet. Speed is life.
Billsh1t, and look though my killboard, I've done low-sec.
OT Smithers wrote: For the Caldari however, none of this is the case. Their ships are slow, they typically have lower DPS weapons, fewer drones, few (if any) utility high slots, and restrictive fitting slot selections that dictate and restrict how a ship can be assembled. Further, as of today they only have a single T1 or T2 missile hull worth fitting -- the Drake. Every other ship in their lineup is broken. Actually, not to put to fine a point on it, with the exception of frigates every of CLASS of Caldari ship is broken. If you want to fly a BS you have to fly another race. If you want to fly an HAC you have to fly another race. If you want to fly a cruiser, you have to fly another race. If you want to fly a desxtroyer, the same applies. If you fly Caldari you have one ship.
And with this winter expansion this will not really change. The Caldari still will not have a missile cruiser worth flying, and it remains to be seen if CCP will adjustr the Moa to be comparable and competetive. They still will not have an HAC, they will not have a BS, they will not have a navy cruiser or faction cruiser. They will have their newly nerfed Drake, and after this expansion, a new missile destroyer. Every other missile ship in the game, the most broken selection of ships in the game, will become even worse -- not only because CCP has decided to curb stomp Caldari pilots yet again, but because they are buffing everyone else at the same time.
THIS is CCP's idea of balance. Take the worse race, ships, and weapons in the game -- the ones almost no one wastes their time using today -- and break them further. And at the same time BUFF the best ships and races in the game so that they hold an even greater advantage.
Random whining with little basis in fact.
Look at my killboard right now, most of my recent kills are caldari blobs, or screwing around on the Keberz gate ....in *gasp* a drake and doing top DPS amoung 9 other ships.
....oh and Rokh is a pretty brutal fleet ship |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:18:00 -
[4044] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
you are seriously complaining about a pirate faction battleship beeing more efficient at doing missions intented for battleships (or maybe groups of smaller ships) than a cruiser hull? how can you not recognize how very wrong that is?
You know why people compare those ships in missions? Because that cruiserhull is the best Caldari has for missions. Now you really should be the one to be amazed. We have not a single BS or Marauder, or Command Ship which is able to perform better in missions than this cruiser hull, the Tengu. And even the Tengu doesnt come close to winmatar Vargur Opness and Machariel. Its not so much behind vs. Guristas, Serpentis and EoM. But for all others it falls back a lot more.
Do you still wonder we do care about the nerfs for it, well knowing we have nothing as a viable alternative atm?
There is no doubt about those facts:
1) no other large or medium missile system is atm working in PvP (at all!) and in PvE (in terms of being on par) for Caldari ships except HML.
2) no other tech 1 missile-hull is really working atm except the Drake (above frig size, ofc).
3) the only BS which can use Torps and is half good is Winmatar.
Fix those issues, then fix what you think is OP with Caldari, and no one will complain.
I wrote that a few pages before, and again did not get answers (like normally, when it comes down to how it really is ;) ):
I dont object to the nerf of Drakes, Tengus and HMLs per se. If you feel like they are so much out of line = better than their counterparts, then pls go on. But in the same time you simply HAVE TO nerf all those things of all other races too which are atm out of line = better than their counterparts:
speed for Winmatar generally, L SR&LR Projectiles and Lasers, medium SR Projectile. If 11 of 20 ships in top 20 are Winmatar that gives a clear picture to me.
There cant be balance if you ignore all those OP ships of one race and just look for the single OP ship of another race ... but like I said before: those who dont want to see will be ignoring facts also now. I just hope there are enough who see the truth and continue to spread it. -¦nuff said. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
14
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:22:00 -
[4045] - Quote
Dear Fozzie:
Earlier you posted that the main reason to change HML's was to uniform it into a SOLID base platform on wich the other ships would be able to be redesigned. Without a good weaponsplatform designing a ship would be impossible. I agree completly.
However the HML missile in all its variants, as well as the Javelin and Rage torpedo do not look like a solid platform.
I'll try to explain my concerns, starting with the easiest:
Javelin and Rage Torpedo: While the Javelin and Rage Rocket and Heavy Assault Missiles have the same speed, this is not the case for the Torpedo. Hence the effectiveness of range modification bonuses on ships and or modules makes these weapon platforms behave strangely. In my opinion the Javelin Torpedo should get the same missile speed as the Rocket and Heavy Assault Missile: 3375 m/s. The Rage torpedo should get the same speed as their respective smaller sizes: 1875 m/s. This change is nessicary so any future TE, TD, TC's modules will affect all ships short range missile platforms in the same percentages.
Heavy Missiles
Speed: As in the above paragraph the heavy missile has a different speed then the light missile and cruise missiles. Again for future range modification bonuses / modules this should be the same speed as there respective counterparts. Without these changes you'll see that the TE, TD, TC's behave differently on different weapon systems. (in some configurations they'll be more effective, others less.)
This makes it extremly hard to balance ships.
Explosion Radius Another concern is the explosion radius. With these new changes, a basic heavy missile will not be able to do full damage against a basic cruiser. While weapon and ship are the same size. Every other medium weapon system has this ratio to 1 to 1. (In effect a heavy missile will do only 89% of the damage compared to a heavy assault missile against a stationary target in range) If you extrapolate this with skills, fits, and ship bonuses the damage changes against stationary targets will be even greater. (not to mention the effective damage against moveing targets)
Also this explosion radius nerf actually means the effective damage will be cut by 21% against a stationary target, and even more against a moveing one!
Not everything is bad! I would like to thank you though for the spreadsheet that gives us real values to theorycraft with. This is helpfull to be able to visualize what the changes will entail.
Conclusion Unfortunatly i'd rather have the Missile changes v 1.0 then the v 2.0 due to the above reasons, and due to the fact that without TE's and TC's in winter release, a few of the other ships rebalancing is negated due to the fact that those are calculated in there earlier redesign proces. (If not then they should of had!)
PS: Sneaky to try to put in an even bigger damage nerf by hideing it in an explosion radius penalty! |
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:32:00 -
[4046] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Dear Fozzie:
Earlier you posted that the main reason to change HML's was to uniform it into a SOLID base platform on wich the other ships would be able to be redesigned. Without a good weaponsplatform designing a ship would be impossible. I agree completly.
However the HML missile in all its variants, as well as the Javelin and Rage torpedo do not look like a solid platform.
I'll try to explain my concerns, starting with the easiest:
Javelin and Rage Torpedo: While the Javelin and Rage Rocket and Heavy Assault Missiles have the same speed, this is not the case for the Torpedo. Hence the effectiveness of range modification bonuses on ships and or modules makes these weapon platforms behave strangely. In my opinion the Javelin Torpedo should get the same missile speed as the Rocket and Heavy Assault Missile: 3375 m/s. The Rage torpedo should get the same speed as their respective smaller sizes: 1875 m/s. This change is nessicary so any future TE, TD, TC's modules will affect all ships short range missile platforms in the same percentages.
Heavy Missiles
Speed: As in the above paragraph the heavy missile has a different speed then the light missile and cruise missiles. Again for future range modification bonuses / modules this should be the same speed as there respective counterparts. Without these changes you'll see that the TE, TD, TC's behave differently on different weapon systems. (in some configurations they'll be more effective, others less.)
This makes it extremly hard to balance ships.
Explosion Radius Another concern is the explosion radius. With these new changes, a basic heavy missile will not be able to do full damage against a basic cruiser. While weapon and ship are the same size. Every other medium weapon system has this ratio to 1 to 1. (In effect a heavy missile will do only 89% of the damage compared to a heavy assault missile against a stationary target in range) If you extrapolate this with skills, fits, and ship bonuses the damage changes against stationary targets will be even greater. (not to mention the effective damage against moveing targets)
Also this explosion radius nerf actually means the effective damage will be cut by 21% against a stationary target, and even more against a moveing one!
Not everything is bad! I would like to thank you though for the spreadsheet that gives us real values to theorycraft with. This is helpfull to be able to visualize what the changes will entail.
Conclusion Unfortunatly i'd rather have the Missile changes v 1.0 then the v 2.0 due to the above reasons, and due to the fact that without TE's and TC's in winter release, a few of the other ships rebalancing is negated due to the fact that those are calculated in there earlier redesign proces. (If not then they should of had!)
PS: Sneaky to try to put in an even bigger damage nerf by hideing it in an explosion radius penalty!
The explosion radius nerf definitely makes a target painter a much more viable mod now.
I like the new changes; especially the guided missile precision skill affecting all subcap missiles. HAMS become really good.
If you wanna hit cruisers with HML's ; use precisions ya?
|
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 18:48:00 -
[4047] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
you are seriously complaining about a pirate faction battleship beeing more efficient at doing missions intented for battleships (or maybe groups of smaller ships) than a cruiser hull? how can you not recognize how very wrong that is?
You know why people compare those ships in missions? Because that cruiserhull is the best Caldari has for missions. Now you really should be the one to be amazed. We have not a single BS or Marauder, or Command Ship which is able to perform better in missions than this cruiser hull, the Tengu. And even the Tengu doesnt come close to winmatar Vargur Opness and Machariel. Its not so much behind vs. Guristas, Serpentis and EoM. But for all others it falls back a lot more. Do you still wonder we do care about the nerfs for it, well knowing we have nothing as a viable alternative atm? There is no doubt about those facts: 1) no other large or medium missile system is atm working in PvP (at all!) and in PvE (in terms of being on par) for Caldari ships except HML. 2) no other tech 1 missile-hull is really working atm except the Drake (above frig size, ofc). 3) the only BS which can use Torps and is half good is Winmatar. Fix those issues, then fix what you think is OP with Caldari, and no one will complain. I wrote that a few pages before, and again did not get answers (like normally, when it comes down to how it really is ;) ): I dont object to the nerf of Drakes, Tengus and HMLs per se. If you feel like they are so much out of line = better than their counterparts, then pls go on. But in the same time you simply HAVE TO nerf all those things of all other races too which are atm out of line = better than their counterparts: speed for Winmatar generally, L SR&LR Projectiles and Lasers, medium SR Projectile. If 11 of 20 ships in top 20 are Winmatar that gives a clear picture to me. There cant be balance if you ignore all those OP ships of one race and just look for the single OP ship of another race ... but like I said before: those who dont want to see will be ignoring facts also now. I just hope there are enough who see the truth and continue to spread it. -¦nuff said. That that cruiser hull was best for missions was simply evidence of the weapon system or the subsystem or a combo of both being op. Prior to the Tengu the most ubiquitous pve ship was the Raven and of course the Navy Raven. It appears some of you folks that have restricted yourselves to flying only one race, Caldari, will have to rediscover the Raven kind and Navy Scorp and Golem for your missioning. Unfortunately for you you will have to wait now for the TC and TE effect on missiles. Toning the falloff benefits back a little might be enough to make those two rather expensive ships less dominant or appearing to be.
As for the Vargur and Machariel I think the problem is less the ACs and more the overdone buff that occured on TCs and TEs dominant (because I do not necessarily agree with you that they are all you say anyway). I think that reduction in TC and TE effects combined with a reduction in the base strength of TDs starts to set the table for the reintroduction of the TC and TE effects on missiles that is currently delayed. Well that and some experience with the strength of the bonuses on the missile destroyers which pose a real danger the viability of any frig in the game.
Medium rails are seeing use in pvp on Nagas. And with the ASB Feroxes are being fielded again. So it is not true that only the HML Drake is working for Caldari in pvp.
As for your contention concerning out of line pirate BSs and Maruders that unfortunately is the by product of the step by step approach to rebalancing. I was calling for a speed up on it before all this simply because I saw nothing happening with Drakes and Tengus and their continued massive dominance in numbers for pvp and pve. I doubt it was my bitching for an interim fix to the Drake problem that led to this nerf as much as it was, as Fozzie said, they realized they couldn't complete Cruiser rebalncing unless they addressed the medium weapon imbalances first. I'm just happy that it worked out that an interim nerf is hitting the Drakes and Tengus before they actually get to rebalncing those ship classes.
As for your citation to eve-kill top 20 and the heavy minmatar representation, welcome to the club. It's about the only statistical tool we have for citing imblances other than out own anecdotal observations and opinions. There is a qualitative difference between the Minmatar and the Caldari representation in that the Minmatar is more diverse and less concentrated. Wheras the Caldari representation on that table was heavily concentrated at the top with Drakes in top position and Tengus in 2nd or 3rd. That will change.
And already we are seing the effect of the new tech II 1600 plates helping to revive amor usage, at least with Zealots. Meanwhile the heavy Minmatar numbers along with the continuing Caldari strength is due to the new ASBs and present mechanics favoring kiting, range, and speed. Both races have advantages in that regard. Maybe the new plates and an improved adaptive armor hardener can dent that kiting dominance. In any case, the minmatar representation is probably due to falloff stats on TEs and the kiting mechanic advantages and less to ACs per se being op. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
225
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 19:01:00 -
[4048] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Sigras wrote:Yank Sin wrote:To be blunt I still see my Tengu that I spent for ever to train for turning to a wimpy shadow of its former glory. The good old days of target locking and killing rats at over 100km will be a fond memory of the past. Would you tell a great white shark to take out its teeth because it kills to much? No you would not. You would sit back and watch a killing machine at work. so youre idea is to . . . leave the Tengu totally overpowered? You realize that after the change, youll be able to put one (1) range rig in and achieve > 100 km range plus your missiles will now be moving faster meaning less wasted ammo volleys; look what you have to do to the loki, proteus or legion to get them to go 100 km . . . and they do less damage there too . . . yes, the tengu is getting a nerf because thats exactly what they needed. Yes and you prove my point from many earlier pages, it's the tengu that needs the nerf not the weapon platform. When anyone mentions the problems its always the ships they mention first not the missles. As I said before in another post which you apparently did not read, the tengu is just the best platform for the most powerful weapon system.
The nighthawk isnt actually that far behind the tengu, and actually in some cases, it might be a little better. If they nerfed the drake/tengu, people would just use the nighthawk because its the next best ship to slap the over powered weapon system on.
Signal11th wrote:Great nerf the range all they want I rarely have to hit out at anything over 50k anyway. Nerf the tengu then everyone will fly Vagur, Vindi,Mach or whatever the flavour of the month is then guess what because everyone is using them they get nerfed and the continual downward spiral of "being the same" contiunes. How does that make everything the same? Everything is the same right now because everyone just flies the two best ships carrying the OP weapon system.
This is adding diversity to the game not making everything the same.
Signal11th wrote:This game needs more content not this continual tinkering that just pisses more people off than it actually pleases. This shows that you know nothing about game design.
MMOs hinge on their developers constantly tinkering with things to keep things from getting stale, or to keep one thing from being totally overpowered and everyone using that one thing. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 19:06:00 -
[4049] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
you are seriously complaining about a pirate faction battleship beeing more efficient at doing missions intented for battleships (or maybe groups of smaller ships) than a cruiser hull? how can you not recognize how very wrong that is?
You know why people compare those ships in missions? Because that cruiserhull is the best Caldari has for missions. Now you really should be the one to be amazed. We have not a single BS or Marauder, or Command Ship which is able to perform better in missions than this cruiser hull, the Tengu. And even the Tengu doesnt come close to winmatar Vargur Opness and Machariel. Its not so much behind vs. Guristas, Serpentis and EoM. But for all others it falls back a lot more. Do you still wonder we do care about the nerfs for it, well knowing we have nothing as a viable alternative atm? There is no doubt about those facts: 1) no other large or medium missile system is atm working in PvP (at all!) and in PvE (in terms of being on par) for Caldari ships except HML. 2) no other tech 1 missile-hull is really working atm except the Drake (above frig size, ofc). 3) the only BS which can use Torps and is half good is Winmatar. Fix those issues, then fix what you think is OP with Caldari, and no one will complain. I wrote that a few pages before, and again did not get answers (like normally, when it comes down to how it really is ;) ): I dont object to the nerf of Drakes, Tengus and HMLs per se. If you feel like they are so much out of line = better than their counterparts, then pls go on. But in the same time you simply HAVE TO nerf all those things of all other races too which are atm out of line = better than their counterparts: speed for Winmatar generally, L SR&LR Projectiles and Lasers, medium SR Projectile. If 11 of 20 ships in top 20 are Winmatar that gives a clear picture to me. There cant be balance if you ignore all those OP ships of one race and just look for the single OP ship of another race ... but like I said before: those who dont want to see will be ignoring facts also now. I just hope there are enough who see the truth and continue to spread it. -¦nuff said.
well before tengu, all were crazy about caldari navy raven. and actually golems. it's quite funny, that most of the people doing pve were flying caldari, even when fotm-lvl4 tengu was not around. and since you brought the machariel into it. you may have a look at the rattlesnake too, which was quite famous to for missioning, before tengu of corse.
as for "winmatar" t1 battleships, you would be suprised how many more skills (compared to raven or tengu for that matter) are needed to make the typhoon worth while. maybe its time you tried to do missions ( or pvp) in turret ships. you might get an inside in how it is for people on the other side (and yes i have a caldari char and yes ive done pve with caldari missile boats).
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
225
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 19:16:00 -
[4050] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:I accept your premise i reject your conclusion . . .
Your premise is that you should focus on the stuff thats most out of balance first. This is true
Your conclusion is that caldari ships are not as good as minmatar ships in every category and this is simply not true.
Right now the simple fact is that HMLs are the best long range weapon in the game by a wide margin. They have the best range, the best alpha, the best DPS and no cap usage.
So following your premise, they did the right thing and nerfed the HMLs which were most out of balance. On paper they look like that. IN game though, they are only in one specific PvP area out of line, in null sec blobs. Will explain more to this later. In PvE they are out of line compared to their peers, but not out of line compared to other high end PvE stuff: the Tengu is not exactly "cheap" PvE ship, so comparing it to best other mission runners is reasonable. It shines in kinetic damage scenarios, everywhere else its a fair bit behind due to the damage bonus. Still its better than Golems and CNRs in most cases. But its noticable worse than Machariels, Paladins, Vargurs and Nightmares, and in all non-kin missions by a bigger margin. My conclusion is: while being a strong PvE system on a Drake and a Tengu, its still not out of line too much since there are better other systems (ship/weapon) around. Which are all non-Caldari except the Mare which has a small Caldari core :) Thank God CCP isnt stupid enough to balance the game around PvE
Think about it this way; nobody ever uses the heavy interdictors in PvE, does that mean they need a boost? The Ishtar is by far the best PvE HAC, does that mean it needs a nerf? No, balancing around PvE is stupid
Sigras wrote:People will argue that the drake and tengu were the real problems; i submit that if you nerfed those two ships, you would just see a bunch of nighthawks take their place; the drake and tengu are just the most convenient platform to carry the most powerful ranged weapon on.
No, you wouldnt. The NH is broken compared to the Drake - it has not enough PG and the slot layout is also not optimal for a BC/Shieldtank in PvP. Its far more expensive and requires many skills (which is good) and would not replace the Drake in PvP apart from some small gang stuff at all. Nullsec fleets need cheap and easy to train ships.[/quote] Because nobody ever flies the tengu in PvP? The nighthawk actually isnt that far behind the Tengu, why? because its the weapon system thats totally OP
Noemi Nagano wrote:Atm HML dominate in one single aspect: Drake nullsec blobs. This is only happening thanks to doomsday device change, else BC-fleets would be obsolete in null. To get rid of them no nerf for HML or Drakes would be needed, just make CMs and Ravens work for PvP, they should be a natural counter to BCs with high speed, but moon-like sig sizes. Raven fleets with CM would obliterate Drake fleets. They would be a bit more expensive though, and need more skills. And, they would not be BC-sized, but BS, therefor easier to counter for other BS-fleets. I am sure this would bring balance to nullsec, and still not kill balance somewhere else. wow im assuming youve never been in null sec right? First of all, bringing the AOE DD back would only make the drake more popular because its the cheapest ship that can survive one, and second, people try to counter drakes with battleships all the time, and with turret battleships which you claim are "better" than the raven . . . usually it works out poorly for them.
Noemi Nagano wrote:With range nerfs for HML this could maybe also achieved, but atm we simply kill HML as a "longrange"system. There is no range bonused low dps ammo for HML, you know ... Just an FYI, but im sure you know this already, the regular HML missiles go as far as the "range bonused low dps ammo" for the turrets . . . but you knew that already right?
Also lasers and railguns have no ammo that makes them better at hitting small fast targets like missiles do . . . so to each his own. |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
765
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 19:30:00 -
[4051] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:it's quite funny, that most of the people doing pve were flying caldari, even when fotm-lvl4 tengu was not around.
This always makes me laugh high and hard. If you do lvl4's and kill all rats with your Tengu, you're doing it wrong. Tengu is the MASTER of BLITZ, I guess you don't really understand what this means.
If you want to know what a fotom ship is or what looks like just mission some day with a faction/DED fit Machariel or Nightmare, now those are like "waw" in dps/alpha you murder everything on grid FTL than you will ever be able to do with a 2billion Tengu. You make me think about someone not having a single idea what he's talking about and just moans about Tengus, T3 boosting, then T3's in general etc etc etc when the problem clearly comes from something else.
Earlier you reffer to Hurricane as bad ship, then Drake as OP. Don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously or think you're trolling. brb |
M1k3y Koontz
Blackened Skies Nulli Secunda
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 19:52:00 -
[4052] - Quote
Fozzie for president!
I'm saddened the DPS isn't being decreased as much as it could have, but range nerf will have a huge impact on the 0.0 Tengu and Drake blobs. GÖÑ
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 19:55:00 -
[4053] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: Medium rails are seeing use in pvp on Nagas..
How so? :)
Lili Lu wrote: And with the ASB Feroxes are being fielded again. Also, Rokhs are getting use. So it is not true that only the HML Drake is working for Caldari in pvp. And I think the worry that Drakes will disappear is overblown. They may disappear as a 0.0 blob fleet comp, but in lowsec and smaller gang fighting they will still have value after this nerf.
As a shield Prophecy, maybe. But not as damage dealers on more than 15km. Simple as that ...
Lili Lu wrote: As for your contention concerning out of line pirate BSs and Maruders that unfortunately is the by product of the step by step approach to rebalancing. I was calling for a speed up on it before all this simply because I saw nothing happening with Drakes and Tengus and their continued massive dominance in numbers for pvp and pve. I doubt it was my bitching for an interim fix to the Drake problem that led to this nerf as much as it was, as Fozzie said, they realized they couldn't complete Cruiser rebalncing unless they addressed the medium weapon imbalances first. I'm just happy that it worked out that an interim nerf is hitting the Drakes and Tengus before they actually get to rebalncing those ship classes.
As for your citation to eve-kill top 20 and the heavy minmatar representation, welcome to the club. It's about the only statistical tool we have for citing imblances other than out own anecdotal observations and opinions. There is a qualitative difference between the Minmatar and the Caldari representation in that the Minmatar is more diverse and less concentrated. Wheras the Caldari representation on that table was heavily concentrated at the top with Drakes in top position and Tengus in 2nd or 3rd. That will change.
Tengu is 4th, 2nd is Zealot - that shows how this system works, the big numbers come mostly from nullsec. Has been pointed out how it works. In lowsec you dont see those many Zealots. And also not so many Drakes like you see Canes. Figure why ...
Lili Lu wrote: And already we are seing the effect of the new tech II 1600 plates helping to revive amor usage, at least with Zealots. Meanwhile the heavy Minmatar numbers along with the continuing Caldari strength is due to the new ASBs and present mechanics favoring kiting, range, and speed. Both races have advantages in that regard. Maybe the new plates and an improved adaptive armor hardener can dent that kiting dominance. In any case, the minmatar representation is probably due to falloff stats on TEs and the kiting mechanic advantages and less to ACs per se being op.
I agree with you on armor tanks have trouble with speed. But Caldari ships (most of them) do too, have no active tanking bonus and no working weapon system (except the turret ones, but those are also far from being top). So right now even those changes will not give anything to Caldari for combat PvP. Again, how can you call this balancing?
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:01:00 -
[4054] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
wow im assuming youve never been in null sec right? First of all, bringing the AOE DD back would only make the drake more popular because its the cheapest ship that can survive one, and second, people try to counter drakes with battleships all the time, and with turret battleships which you claim are "better" than the raven . . . usually it works out poorly for them.
OMG .... you dont get it, do you? Turret BS would shred Ravens, there is no discussion about this. Thats simply because the Raven is big and slow enough. A fixed CM/Raven would still not PWN all, but could be set to be balanced vs its counterparts. But it could RIP Drake-blobs. Simple - it would have similar mechanics, but more range and EHP than a Drake. The better speed would be not so much of an issue due to tracking mechanics of missiles. So Ravens would be the rock for scissor Drakes, but other BS could be Paper for Ravens.
Sigras wrote: Just an FYI, but im sure you know this already, the regular HML missiles go as far as the "range bonused low dps ammo" for the turrets . . . but you knew that already right?
Also lasers and railguns have no ammo that makes them better at hitting small fast targets like missiles do . . . so to each his own.
FYI, thats not true after the nerfs. Then its 37.5 km before skills. And thats just the theoretical max, not what they will reach ingame. So just learn to read and understand before you come back. Please.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:08:00 -
[4055] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: FYI, thats not true after the nerfs. Then its 37.5 km before skills. And thats just the theoretical max, not what they will reach ingame. So just learn to read and understand before you come back. Please.
Go look at turrets "before skills:" and get back to us.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:14:00 -
[4056] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
well before tengu, all were crazy about caldari navy raven. and actually golems. it's quite funny, that most of the people doing pve were flying caldari, even when fotm-lvl4 tengu was not around. and since you brought the machariel into it. you may have a look at the rattlesnake too, which was quite famous to for missioning, before tengu of corse.
as for "winmatar" t1 battleships, you would be suprised how many more skills (compared to raven or tengu for that matter) are needed to make the typhoon worth while. maybe its time you tried to do missions ( or pvp) in turret ships. you might get an inside in how it is for people on the other side (and yes i have a caldari char and yes ive done pve with caldari missile boats).
If you read just some of my postings you would know I can fly every subcap combat ship with all l5 except some specs which are on l4. So thanks, I know which skills are needed. And yes, the Typhoon is a very skill intense ship indeed. I agree with you too about CNRs and Golems. They had their times. That was before the buff of pirate faction BS (Mach and Mare!) and Projectile Ammo buff. Since then Vargur/Machariel is by FAR top of the foodchain. Admitted, a CNR is still not a *bad* ship, but its far enough from the top, same as Golem, to show how far out of line Projectiles have gone. The only ship which is considered to be still halfway efficient in comparison with those tops (and Mare/Pala for em/therm missions) is the Tengu.
I never heard someone saying the Kronos is on par, AFAIK its not. So Golem and Kronos are worse than Pala and esp. Vargur - why? They are meant for PvE, so they should also be balanced in that, right? I agree on this is not the first priority, just because this game should not be balanced around PvE. How comes all those Drake haters come then with this stupid "but Drake can do l4s!!" argument? :)
You guys have to decide. You want balance around PvE or not?
If yes, fine, bring everything in line. Winmatar should be not first after this but on par with the rest. Or behind, to compensate for the long suffering :D (j/k)
If no, go on: in PvP Caldari has 2 useful missile hulls and 3 hulls at all in top 20. Winmatar has 11 ships in top 20. Balance? I think not. Solve those issues we have with Winmatar, and I am the first to sign any nerf idea for remaining OP ships, if they are Caldari, Amarr, Gallente or Pirate. I have all Pirate BS in my collection, and like them all in a way, but the only which I really use are Mare and Mach. Sometimes the RS when I am lazy .... I dont want OPs and UPs, I want useful ships. Every ship should be able to perform well if fitted right and flown well. Atm some are just unusable and others are totally OP. Thats not the game I want to play.
By all means - no to OP ships. But dont look just for the Caldari OPs. Thats all what I am saying!
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:17:00 -
[4057] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: FYI, thats not true after the nerfs. Then its 37.5 km before skills. And thats just the theoretical max, not what they will reach ingame. So just learn to read and understand before you come back. Please.
Go look at turrets "before skills:" and get back to us.
For example .. 720mm Arty - Tremor - 43 + 18. In my book somehow this is more than 37.5 km, no? And esp. considering the fact there is also falloff ... go look at "falloff" for missiles and get back to us. Or better, dont come back at all. Really sick of this sh*t :)
|
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
54
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:18:00 -
[4058] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:it's quite funny, that most of the people doing pve were flying caldari, even when fotm-lvl4 tengu was not around. This always makes me laugh high and hard. If you do lvl4's and kill all rats with your Tengu, you're doing it wrong. Tengu is the MASTER of BLITZ, I guess you don't really understand what this means.
let me stop you right there. right from the start you are making assumptions. where did i talk about how people are flying their missions?
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: If you want to know what a fotom ship is or what looks like just mission some day with a faction/DED fit Machariel or Nightmare, now those are like "waw" in dps/alpha you murder everything on grid FTL than you will ever be able to do with a 2billion Tengu.
actually, flavor of the month (there, i spelled it out) describes a certain fitting/ set up currently very popular. so where exactly is the connection to raw dps, or lvl4 playstyle in general? and here i thought in eve it was all about the best mix between effort, risk and profit. silly me.
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: You make me think about someone not having a single idea what he's talking about and just moans about Tengus, T3 boosting, then T3's in general etc etc etc when the problem clearly comes from something else.
i do not even want to know what went wrong there.
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: Earlier you reffer to Hurricane as bad ship, then Drake as OP. Don't be surprised if people don't take you seriously or think you're trolling.
would you mind quoting this part? because i have no recollection of saying the things you'd like to put into my mouth. on the drakes, yeah i think there some serious issues, but i certainly did not reffer to the cane as a bad ship. but given the way you interprid my posts in a very curious fashion, it would not be to far fetched to assume you warp something into my words which was not there.
since we are at the topic, please enlighten this unworthy person, who failed to see the truth. you seem to percieve it as a quite obvious fact. |
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:19:00 -
[4059] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Medium rails are seeing use in pvp on Nagas..
How so? :) I mixed up the medium hull and medium weapons. I meant medium rails on the feroxes (and blasterroxs as well). And medium hull in the Naga. at me for that slip up.
Noemi Nagano wrote: As a shield Prophecy, maybe. But not as damage dealers on more than 15km. Simple as that ... Wow, I must confess I have not seen a shield Prophecy. But of course those ASBs. . .
Noemi Nagano wrote: Tengu is 4th, 2nd is Zealot - that shows how this system works, the big numbers come mostly from nullsec. Has been pointed out how it works. In lowsec you dont see those many Zealots. And also not so many Drakes like you see Canes. Figure why ... No, actually you do see the pirate alliances rolling in zealots (AHAC gangs) in lowsec quite a lot. They love that ship. AHAC gangs still work well in non nullsec blob fighting. Eve-kill does not just record null sec pvp activity. It would be interesting though if eve-kill could give us better stats and analysis of those stats to work with so we could get a sense of distributions.
Noemi Nagano wrote: I agree with you on armor tanks have trouble with speed. But Caldari ships (most of them) do too, have no active tanking bonus and no working weapon system (except the turret ones, but those are also far from being top). So right now even those changes will not give anything to Caldari for combat PvP. Again, how can you call this balancing? Caldari, have not needed speed. They have been able to sit at range and kite. And nanos on Drakes have worked quite well. As for active tanking, show some creativity. The resist bonuses can work just as nicely with a booster as with an extender. Regardless, the balance, again from our only available reference, eve-kill, has been displaying a dearth of Gallente and Amarr, While a whole lot of Caldari and Minmatar. That that gets evened out with these changes will be balancing. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:24:00 -
[4060] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: FYI, thats not true after the nerfs. Then its 37.5 km before skills. And thats just the theoretical max, not what they will reach ingame. So just learn to read and understand before you come back. Please.
Go look at turrets "before skills:" and get back to us. For example .. 720mm Arty - Tremor - 43 + 18. In my book somehow this is more than 37.5 km, no? And esp. considering the fact there is also falloff ... go look at "falloff" for missiles and get back to us. Or better, dont come back at all. Really sick of this sh*t :)
yeah with a 14 second cycle time. |
|
Paikis
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
196
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:24:00 -
[4061] - Quote
For all those Tengu Fan Bois complaining about a lack of a replacement ship for running level 4 missions, can I suggest using the Caldari Navy Raven, which has always been better for level 4s anyway (with a few notable exceptions).
The Navy Raven has a better tank and more damage as well as range than the Tengu ever had, and then has drones on top of that! Unless your missions involve very large distances to travel and you can pop a trigger to unlock the gate, the CNR is just better in every department. There are VERY few occasions where I would use a Tengu over a CNR.
Anyone using a Tengu in level 4s is doing it wrong! |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:26:00 -
[4062] - Quote
Paikis wrote:For all those Tengu Fan Bois complaining about a lack of a replacement ship for running level 4 missions, can I suggest using the Caldari Navy Raven, which has always been better for level 4s anyway (with a few notable exceptions).
The Navy Raven has a better tank and more damage as well as range than the Tengu ever had, and then has drones on top of that! Unless your missions involve very large distances to travel and you can pop a trigger to unlock the gate, the CNR is just better in every department. There are VERY few occasions where I would use a Tengu over a CNR.
Anyone using a Tengu in level 4s is doing it wrong!
Tengu will still be fine, 90km after the nerf wiil still let you quick snipe missions, and if you weren't sniping missions you should be in something else. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:29:00 -
[4063] - Quote
seriously this new one will just kill t2's 50% less flight time than t1's and t1s are being cut by 35% giving heavy furies a total of a 75% flight time reduction over now not to mention a massive 72% explosive radius increase at these kinda figure as standard even criuser sized targets stationary dont even take full dmg from furys.
really 50% increase in explosive raius is enough and there flight time dont need reduced any more than what they will be. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
190
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:30:00 -
[4064] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: Yeah Smithers, Lili fles minmatar and amarr. I have other mains. One flies gallente and minmatar. And guess what, the other two fly Caldari and Gallente. And they didn't all go out to 0.0, and instead are in lowsec.
Regardless, the amount of butthurt you post here about Drakes has me not believing you don't have another character that is still specced only in Drakes. And, I looked you up. Your most active month had 46 kills with Canes and 15 with Drakes, so even there you can't say "I don't fly Caldari" . .
I told you what my favorite Battlecruiser is, and you are welcome to pour over my BC killboard and study to your heart's content. I did. I discovered that the last time I lost a Drake in combat was a year and a half ago. I don't even have one fitted out (though I am thinking of throwing one together -- every PvP pilot aught to have one sitting around just in case).
And no Lili, I don't have a Drake alt. Who in their right mind would train a Drake alt? That's silly. I have an alt that can fly a Badger 1. I don't even have a second account. Let alone multiple accounts.
Quote:Anyway, glad to see that you in fact did cross train. But you really need to let go of your original identification with the Drake. For being a Cane pilot it amazes me that you are not bitching instead about the direct Cane nerf. Your exagerrated and inacurate ("Take the worse race, ships, and weapons in the game -- the ones almost no one wastes their time using today ", really? about HMLs and Drakes?, which have been topping eve-kill for a couple or more years now) posting about Drakes and missiles doesn't serve anyone.
No, I have never considered myself a Drake pilot. I do, however, consider myself a Caldari pilot. And like most of us, I cross trained long ago -- long before I maxed out my missile skills. But that doesn't mean I remain oblivious to the plight of Caldari pilots who have tried to stick with their race.
Again, so we are clear, I am BENEFITTING from this nerf. It's good for me. And yet I am arguing against it because I think it's the wrong thing to do AT THIS TIME. I think nerfing HMs is arguably appropriate, but not until CCP fixes some of the other wreckage Caldari pilots are currently stuck with. Fix the Caldari BSs, fix the HACs and cruisers, then talk about nerfing the Drake.
As for the Cane nerf, it's not a big deal to me personally and I think it's necessary. Fitting a cane is ridiculously easy.
Quote:edit - or maybe it's because you still do all your pve in drakes and tengus and can't figure out how to make a minmatar ship work in pve. I don't know what it is but you seem incredibly angry over this nerf that anyone with open eyes saw coming (and long overdue).
The only PvE I do is occassional ratting in null sec. For that I use a Cynabol. I don't do missions ( I have never done even a single faction mission -- though from what I hear I should), I don't do mining, I don't do plexes or whatever they are called. I just rat a bit when I need some cash. Or I buy a plex and sell it in Jita-- I've done that a couple times.
Quote:edit 2 - also btw, note that my mains all have two races that can swing either armor or shield. I don't think training two shield centric or two armor centric races is the greatest idea. It reduces your options if your corp or alliance or FC calls for a differntly tanked fleet spec. In that regard Gallente and Amarr, or Caldari and Minmatar are not the best combos. And those combos don't open up any pirate faction ships to a character. Just a suggestion for any new players reading this thread.
I agree to a certain extent. I started Caldari then abandoned them quite early and switched to Minmatar. I am now working on Gallente. I agree 100% that it is a good idea to train both armor and shields. Also, if you are a new player reading this, switch to GUNS. Your missile support skills apply only to missiles. Your gunnery support skills apply to every other direct fire weapon in the game. Switch NOW. If you are holding out some hope that CCP is going to fix missiles, don't waste your time. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:38:00 -
[4065] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: I mixed up the medium hull and medium weapons. I meant medium rails on the feroxes (and blasterroxs as well). And medium hull in the Naga. at me for that slip up.
just lol.
Lili Lu wrote: Wow, I must confess I have not seen a shield Prophecy. But of course those ASBs. . .
Do you actually understand what I wrote there?
Lili Lu wrote: No, actually you do see the pirate alliances rolling in zealots (AHAC gangs) in lowsec quite a lot. They love that ship. AHAC gangs still work well in non nullsec blob fighting. Eve-kill does not just record null sec pvp activity. It would be interesting though if eve-kill could give us better stats and analysis of those stats to work with so we could get a sense of distributions.
this has been elaborated pretty well on around page 150 or 160 of this thread.
Lili Lu wrote: Caldari, have not needed speed. They have been able to sit at range and kite. And nanos on Drakes have worked quite well. As for active tanking, show some creativity. The resist bonuses can work just as nicely with a booster as with an extender. Regardless, the balance, again from our only available reference, eve-kill, has been displaying a dearth of Gallente and Amarr, While a whole lot of Caldari and Minmatar. That that gets evened out with these changes will be balancing.
Err, no. Amarr are fine with their BS and Zealot. The Harbinger is a fair bit behind Drake and esp Cane, but also not completely broken. Gallente have trouble, yes. And Caldari do too, because they have just 2 useful combat ships atm. But if its needed to nerf them - again! - I wont object. As long as other OP stuff is nerfed too, and afterwards we see balance, with 4 or 5 of each race in top 20, and maybe some pirate ships too. Although due to their price tag I would understand if they dont come out top in this specific ranking ;)
|
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:41:00 -
[4066] - Quote
i can already smell the riot and the huge numbers of unsubscribers |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:43:00 -
[4067] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
yeah with a 14 second cycle time.
You don't want me to get mathematic, I'm an engineer after all.
Now when I come with beams (43+8) you will say "yeah, with just EM/Therm damage", right? Sir, to find words for you I would love to quote a famous french football player in what he said to his coach. My education doesnt permit that though :). Fly safe, and best regards.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:50:00 -
[4068] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:
yeah with a 14 second cycle time.
You don't want me to get mathematic, I'm an engineer after all.
Now when I come with beams (43+8) you will say "yeah, with just EM/Therm damage", right? Sir, to find words for you I would love to quote a famous french football player in what he said to his coach. My education doesnt permit that though :). Fly safe, and best regards.
I lol'd |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
54
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:52:00 -
[4069] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
By all means - no to OP ships. But dont look just for the Caldari OPs. Thats all what I am saying!
and you are doing right in saying so. thatswhy we see a cane powergrid nerf. which is totally fine. ( and no, Lin-Young Borovskova , i still think the cane will be an excellent ship ;) ) i even go further and dare to say, when tiericide reaches the BCs there may be another cane nerf. but unfortunally this is a thread dedicated mostly to heavy missiles and their issues. so naturally the focus is is on them.
you want a ton of useful ships, i want a ton of useful ships. but then i get the impression people, who start yelling winmatar everytime the word balancing comes up, are not going top rest until every minmatar hull which is successful has a 30% build in handycap.
i guess no matter what to say, this "argument" could go on and on.
|
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 20:55:00 -
[4070] - Quote
serras bang wrote:seriously this new one will just kill t2's 50% less flight time than t1's and t1s are being cut by 35% giving heavy furies a total of a 75% flight time reduction over now not to mention a massive 72% explosive radius increase at these kinda figure as standard even criuser sized targets stationary dont even take full dmg from furys.
really 50% increase in explosive raius is enough and there flight time dont need reduced any more than what they will be.
Painters, implants, and rigs should handle that nicely and you still have the nice damage output without ship penalties now. Although, really, the furies sig radius really doesn't hurt the drake, it's already as big as a jump gate. |
|
Lili Lu
509
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 21:17:00 -
[4071] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Wow, I must confess I have not seen a shield Prophecy. But of course those ASBs. . . Do you actually understand what I wrote there? Yeah, that you think the Drake will only see use as a tank. And no I think you are getting overly dramatic about the HM nerf. Drakes will still be fielded in small(er) gangs they just won't be the go to ship for almost everyone. I love mixed gangs. I really don't like monoculture fleets. It is one reason why I left null sec. After this nerf I still foresee BCs being used, but not as the ubiquitous Drake/Cane gangs. These two nerfs restore more balance in tier 2 while nerfing the two ships that were used as cheap stand ins for what otherwise might be BSs. These two nerfs have me seeing more mixed BC gangs, opening up a place for Harbys and Myrms to be part of the mix. And of course the possibility of ASBs on all of the BCs
Lili Lu wrote: No, actually you do see the pirate alliances rolling in zealots (AHAC gangs) in lowsec quite a lot. They love that ship. AHAC gangs still work well in non nullsec blob fighting. Eve-kill does not just record null sec pvp activity. It would be interesting though if eve-kill could give us better stats and analysis of those stats to work with so we could get a sense of distributions.
Noemi Nagano wrote: Lilu this has been elaborated pretty well on around page 150 or 160 of this thread. Well, I've been following this thread, but I don't remember any lengthy discusison on Zealots. It might help if you elaborate what exactly has been elaborated on. And, what in my statment you disagree with, if anything.
Noemi Nagano wrote: Err, no. Amarr are fine with their BS and Zealot. The Harbinger is a fair bit behind Drake and esp Cane, but also not completely broken. Gallente have trouble, yes. And Caldari do too, because they have just 2 useful combat ships atm. But if its needed to nerf them - again! - I wont object. As long as other OP stuff is nerfed too, and afterwards we see balance, with 4 or 5 of each race in top 20, and maybe some pirate ships too. Although due to their price tag I would understand if they dont come out top in this specific ranking ;) I simply do not understand how you are missing the representation of Rokhs and Nagas? As for nerfing all the op stuff it simply can't be done at the same time. There is so much these guys are working on. They can't get to it all at one time. But at least with this nerf they did something about the number one ship imbalance that was in the game. And they also addressed the glaring disparites in medium weapons systems which they had to do in order to perform their Cruiser rebalancing. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 21:22:00 -
[4072] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:serras bang wrote:seriously this new one will just kill t2's 50% less flight time than t1's and t1s are being cut by 35% giving heavy furies a total of a 75% flight time reduction over now not to mention a massive 72% explosive radius increase at these kinda figure as standard even criuser sized targets stationary dont even take full dmg from furys.
really 50% increase in explosive raius is enough and there flight time dont need reduced any more than what they will be. Painters, implants, and rigs should handle that nicely and you still have the nice damage output without ship penalties now. Although, really, the furies sig radius really doesn't hurt the drake, it's already as big as a jump gate.
even with max skills and implants the and rigs explosive radius is still to big to lay full dmg on a criuser when its stationary. but on top of that im now forced to use target painters ? or suffer low dps ? not to mention tps wont work at the range of hml's or possibly even that of light missles |
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 21:29:00 -
[4073] - Quote
serras bang wrote:OlRotGut wrote:serras bang wrote:seriously this new one will just kill t2's 50% less flight time than t1's and t1s are being cut by 35% giving heavy furies a total of a 75% flight time reduction over now not to mention a massive 72% explosive radius increase at these kinda figure as standard even criuser sized targets stationary dont even take full dmg from furys.
really 50% increase in explosive raius is enough and there flight time dont need reduced any more than what they will be. Painters, implants, and rigs should handle that nicely and you still have the nice damage output without ship penalties now. Although, really, the furies sig radius really doesn't hurt the drake, it's already as big as a jump gate. even with max skills and implants the and rigs explosive radius is still to big to lay full dmg on a criuser when its stationary. but on top of that im now forced to use target painters ? or suffer low dps ? not to mention tps wont work at the range of hml's or possibly even that of light missles
Target painters have great range... I think farther than HML's can even go. (counting falloff).
and yes you are right with the skills, etc.; but use precision missiles against the cruisers; then switch to furies for the bigger stuff.
|
Lili Lu
511
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 21:36:00 -
[4074] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:serras bang wrote: even with max skills and implants the and rigs explosive radius is still to big to lay full dmg on a criuser when its stationary. but on top of that im now forced to use target painters ? or suffer low dps ? not to mention tps wont work at the range of hml's or possibly even that of light missles Target painters have great range... I think farther than HML's can even go. (counting falloff). and yes you are right with the skills, etc.; but use precision missiles against the cruisers; then switch to furies for the bigger stuff. Seras, not looking at your math about cruiser sig (which btw is possibly changing, read the cruiser rebalancing threads) but even if you are correct, have you run the numbers with a bonused painter boat? Unless you are talking just pve, the necessity of painter support, and from a bonused painting ship, is a much needed buff for painter boats. Lots of changes coming in the next expansion. And it will be a great day when people no longer say bring an ecm boat or don't bother bringing an ewar ship. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 21:43:00 -
[4075] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:OlRotGut wrote:serras bang wrote: even with max skills and implants the and rigs explosive radius is still to big to lay full dmg on a criuser when its stationary. but on top of that im now forced to use target painters ? or suffer low dps ? not to mention tps wont work at the range of hml's or possibly even that of light missles Target painters have great range... I think farther than HML's can even go. (counting falloff). and yes you are right with the skills, etc.; but use precision missiles against the cruisers; then switch to furies for the bigger stuff. Seras, not looking at your math about cruiser sig (which btw is possibly changing, read the cruiser rebalancing threads) but even if you are correct, have you run the numbers with a bonused painter boat? Unless you are talking just pve, the necessity of painter support, and from a bonused painting ship, is a much needed buff for painter boats. Lots of changes coming in the next expansion. And it will be a great day when people no longer say bring an ecm boat or don't bother bringing an ewar ship.
im talking purely pve liu and yes my calcs are bassed on the new sigs |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 21:46:00 -
[4076] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:serras bang wrote:OlRotGut wrote:serras bang wrote:seriously this new one will just kill t2's 50% less flight time than t1's and t1s are being cut by 35% giving heavy furies a total of a 75% flight time reduction over now not to mention a massive 72% explosive radius increase at these kinda figure as standard even criuser sized targets stationary dont even take full dmg from furys.
really 50% increase in explosive raius is enough and there flight time dont need reduced any more than what they will be. Painters, implants, and rigs should handle that nicely and you still have the nice damage output without ship penalties now. Although, really, the furies sig radius really doesn't hurt the drake, it's already as big as a jump gate. even with max skills and implants the and rigs explosive radius is still to big to lay full dmg on a criuser when its stationary. but on top of that im now forced to use target painters ? or suffer low dps ? not to mention tps wont work at the range of hml's or possibly even that of light missles Target painters have great range... I think farther than HML's can even go. (counting falloff). and yes you are right with the skills, etc.; but use precision missiles against the cruisers; then switch to furies for the bigger stuff.
and now the missle dmg is going even lower if i have to use presition ammo ? not only are we takeing a nerf to dmg its also the highest reliable dmg a ship will have ? seriously i want a refund of all missle sp and cal ship sp so i can go get somethign that will actualy work. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:07:00 -
[4077] - Quote
At the moment i-¦m really starting to get fed up with everyone continuesly talking about drakes and tengu-¦s and comparing guns with missiles, and nobody actually looking at the gameplay issues what these changes will do.
With these changes, the entire missile line will be so broken that no single ship designed on missiles can be redesigned properly.
Well have missiles that cant fully damage the same size ships, even when stationary. Well have missiles that will be faster then lighter variants. You-¦ll be able to out fly light and cruise missiles, yet heavy missiles will still catch you. You'll have 2 short range TII ammo's on long range weapon platform and only T1 and Faction ammo to use for longer range. You'll have a weapon systems designed to compete with eachother after skills instead of before skills so skill difference will have a lesser impact.
At this time i'm feeling the urge to just vote for removeing the drake and missile launcher subsystems of the tengu out of the game completly so people would actually start looking at what these changes will actually do for the game instead for there petty little self intrest.
These changes are not balancing, there certainly not the blueprint of a stable weapon system on wich to base ship hulls on and i'll explain why.
Like Gun tracking missiles do adjusting damage compared to speed. Unlike guns this is all speed, and not transversal speed. This means that no matter wich direction a ship is moveing you always have the same tracking penalty (as if shooting at optimized transversal). Due to this missiles damage is completly different then gun damage. Comparing them is no use what so ever. Like gun damage missile damage is also relevant to size. Unlike guns missiles have there own speed wich can be used to extend or shorten the range of your weapon, if the target is flying towards, or away from you. These are all unique characteristics wich make missiles different. In order to balance the weapon system a few things need to also be looked at.
With future planned TE, TC's and TD affecting missiles its verry unwise to suddenly start shifting missile speeds on different sized modules. The missile speeds for long range (be it light, heavy or cruise) should be the same otherwise TE, TC's and TD will affect the speeds of those missiles in an irregular manner. Eg: a 10% flight speed reduction on the host ship, will still make heavy missiles fly faster then light missiles. This will make the light missile in (extreme?) cases not be able to hit frigates, while the heavy missiles will. This is not something that is desired! Balanceing the missile range SHOULD be done by Flight time alone.
Weapon size and ship size (explosion radius / sig radius) should be on par with its intended targets. that means a t1 missile should be able to do full damage to a similar sized ship (wich is a cruiser) with this explosion radius difference on HML you will not be able to do this. In fact, you'll need to use missiles designed to hit smaller targets, to be able to get the 100% damage ratio to your same sized ship.
Also with these missile changes, a Precision Cruise missile will do MORE damage on a cruiser then a T1 heavy missile on a cruiser, while a Precision Heavy missile will do LESS damage on a frigate then a t1 light missile.
These are the things you need to adress in this topic, not if the raven should better for mission running then a tengu. Its The basics of missiles that needs to be discussed NOT the ships that haven't even be redesigned yet!
((Sorry for those who feel offended etc starting to get a little bid annoyed by some posters )) |
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:19:00 -
[4078] - Quote
serras bang wrote:OlRotGut wrote:serras bang wrote:OlRotGut wrote:serras bang wrote:seriously this new one will just kill t2's 50% less flight time than t1's and t1s are being cut by 35% giving heavy furies a total of a 75% flight time reduction over now not to mention a massive 72% explosive radius increase at these kinda figure as standard even criuser sized targets stationary dont even take full dmg from furys.
really 50% increase in explosive raius is enough and there flight time dont need reduced any more than what they will be. Painters, implants, and rigs should handle that nicely and you still have the nice damage output without ship penalties now. Although, really, the furies sig radius really doesn't hurt the drake, it's already as big as a jump gate. even with max skills and implants the and rigs explosive radius is still to big to lay full dmg on a criuser when its stationary. but on top of that im now forced to use target painters ? or suffer low dps ? not to mention tps wont work at the range of hml's or possibly even that of light missles Target painters have great range... I think farther than HML's can even go. (counting falloff). and yes you are right with the skills, etc.; but use precision missiles against the cruisers; then switch to furies for the bigger stuff. and now the missle dmg is going even lower if i have to use presition ammo ? not only are we takeing a nerf to dmg its also the highest reliable dmg a ship will have ? seriously i want a refund of all missle sp and cal ship sp so i can go get somethign that will actualy work.
Precision ammo will hit the smaller targets better now (if i read the numbers right); and with the heavy missile nerf to damage they (Precisions) have the same damage as T1 heavies.
or use Target painters with your Faction heavies.
OR scrap HML's and use HAM's. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:24:00 -
[4079] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:At the moment i-¦m really starting to get fed up with everyone continuesly talking about drakes and tengu-¦s and comparing guns with missiles, and nobody actually looking at the gameplay issues what these changes will do. With these changes, the entire missile line will be so broken that no single ship designed on missiles can be redesigned properly. Well have missiles that cant fully damage the same size ships, even when stationary. Well have missiles that will be faster then lighter variants. You-¦ll be able to out fly light and cruise missiles, yet heavy missiles will still catch you. You'll have 2 short range TII ammo's on long range weapon platform and only T1 and Faction ammo to use for longer range. You'll have a weapon systems designed to compete with eachother after skills instead of before skills so skill difference will have a lesser impact. At this time i'm feeling the urge to just vote for removeing the drake and missile launcher subsystems of the tengu out of the game completly so people would actually start looking at what these changes will actually do for the game instead for there petty little self intrest. These changes are not balancing, there certainly not the blueprint of a stable weapon system on wich to base ship hulls on and i'll explain why. Like Gun tracking missiles do adjusting damage compared to speed. Unlike guns this is all speed, and not transversal speed. This means that no matter wich direction a ship is moveing you always have the same tracking penalty (as if shooting at optimized transversal). Due to this missiles damage is completly different then gun damage. Comparing them is no use what so ever. Like gun damage missile damage is also relevant to size. Unlike guns missiles have there own speed wich can be used to extend or shorten the range of your weapon, if the target is flying towards, or away from you. These are all unique characteristics wich make missiles different. In order to balance the weapon system a few things need to also be looked at. With future planned TE, TC's and TD affecting missiles its verry unwise to suddenly start shifting missile speeds on different sized modules. The missile speeds for long range (be it light, heavy or cruise) should be the same otherwise TE, TC's and TD will affect the speeds of those missiles in an irregular manner. Eg: a 10% flight speed reduction on the host ship, will still make heavy missiles fly faster then light missiles. This will make the light missile in (extreme?) cases not be able to hit frigates, while the heavy missiles will. This is not something that is desired! Balanceing the missile range SHOULD be done by Flight time alone. Weapon size and ship size (explosion radius / sig radius) should be on par with its intended targets. that means a t1 missile should be able to do full damage to a similar sized ship (wich is a cruiser) with this explosion radius difference on HML you will not be able to do this. In fact, you'll need to use missiles designed to hit smaller targets, to be able to get the 100% damage ratio to your same sized ship. Also with these missile changes, a Precision Cruise missile will do MORE damage on a cruiser then a T1 heavy missile on a cruiser, while a Precision Heavy missile will do LESS damage on a frigate then a t1 light missile. These are the things you need to adress in this topic, not if the raven should better for mission running then a tengu. Its The basics of missiles that needs to be discussed NOT the ships that haven't even be redesigned yet! ((Sorry for those who feel offended etc starting to get a little bid annoyed by some posters ))
thank you your right though i dont think base (without skills) even t1 missles can hit for full dmg on stationary targets |
pressveck
OPUS STYX SOLAR WING
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:33:00 -
[4080] - Quote
I dont like the Missile NERV!
and now?
Nice to meet you: "heavy attack lauchers". What? More damage? Oh, nice! Lets go! |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:36:00 -
[4081] - Quote
for all of those that are saying switch to hams here something to consider it said all missle so hams will also be affected and seing hams dont actualy benifit from skill for drcressed explosive radius they aint gonna be able to hit the side of a barn |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
388
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:37:00 -
[4082] - Quote
serras bang wrote:for all of those that are saying switch to hams here something to consider it said all missle so hams will also be affected and seing hams dont actualy benifit from skill for drcressed explosive radius they aint gonna be able to hit the side of a barn
You might want to check that one Einstein. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:41:00 -
[4083] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:serras bang wrote:for all of those that are saying switch to hams here something to consider it said all missle so hams will also be affected and seing hams dont actualy benifit from skill for drcressed explosive radius they aint gonna be able to hit the side of a barn You might want to check that one Einstein.
defenenately says for hams also
-Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%)
or are high dmg hams not classed as rage no more ? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
388
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:45:00 -
[4084] - Quote
Quote:and seing hams dont actualy benifit from skill for drcressed explosive radius
Actually I meant this bit, HAMs will benefit from GMP in future. It's a big change tbh. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:50:00 -
[4085] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Quote:and seing hams dont actualy benifit from skill for drcressed explosive radius Actually I meant this bit, HAMs will benefit from GMP in future. It's a big change tbh.
in that case are there exp radius getting boosted to match hmls or is hmls going to there base before this multiplication ? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
317
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:52:00 -
[4086] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Gypsio III wrote:serras bang wrote:for all of those that are saying switch to hams here something to consider it said all missle so hams will also be affected and seing hams dont actualy benifit from skill for drcressed explosive radius they aint gonna be able to hit the side of a barn You might want to check that one Einstein. defenenately says for hams also -Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%) or are high dmg hams not classed as rage no more ? What part under the all missiles section bodes poorly for HAM's? They get closer to theoretical range now. As far as T2, T1 or faction should still give quite good performance now that GMP as well as explosion radius implants and rigs will affect them. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 22:58:00 -
[4087] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:serras bang wrote:Gypsio III wrote:serras bang wrote:for all of those that are saying switch to hams here something to consider it said all missle so hams will also be affected and seing hams dont actualy benifit from skill for drcressed explosive radius they aint gonna be able to hit the side of a barn You might want to check that one Einstein. defenenately says for hams also -Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%) or are high dmg hams not classed as rage no more ? What part under the all missiles section bodes poorly for HAM's? They get closer to theoretical range now. As far as T2, T1 or faction should still give quite good performance now that GMP as well as explosion radius implants and rigs will affect them.
t2 furry will not be over t1 by the time you factor in explosive radius or not much past and tech 1 ammo has always had problems with breaking tanks |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
317
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 23:04:00 -
[4088] - Quote
serras bang wrote: t2 furry will not be over t1 by the time you factor in explosive radius or not much past and tech 1 ammo has always had problems with breaking tanks
I was able to break tanks using T1 HML ammo. Using T1 HAM's with explosion radius skill bonuses, unless I'm missing some info, should be potentially be better than post nerf T1 HML ammo. |
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 23:30:00 -
[4089] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:serras bang wrote: t2 furry will not be over t1 by the time you factor in explosive radius or not much past and tech 1 ammo has always had problems with breaking tanks
I was able to break tanks using T1 HML ammo. Using T1 HAM's with explosion radius skill bonuses, unless I'm missing some info, should be potentially be better than post nerf T1 HML ammo. That being the case, in a range bonused ship like the tengu I'm not seeing a reason to not go with HAM's.
Agreed; Hams with a painter are going to be awesome. Now if they add in that mod change for the tracking computer stuff they could even be 'awesomer' |
Ellente Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.02 23:57:00 -
[4090] - Quote
So for every weapon system, except long range missiles, T2 ammo offers you a choice of short range high damage v's long range medium/low damage. Under this proposal though, long range missiles T2 ammo gets the choice of normal damage (potentially higher effective damage against small/fast targets) low range v's low range higher potential damage against big/slow targets and worse against normal/small/fast.
Bloody terrible choice. Faction ammo becomes the best ammo in all situations. Keeps range, boosts damage against all targets. Where is the choice? |
|
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:02:00 -
[4091] - Quote
Ellente Fervens wrote:So for every weapon system, except long range missiles, T2 ammo offers you a choice of short range high damage v's long range medium/low damage. Under this proposal though, long range missiles T2 ammo gets the choice of normal damage (potentially higher effective damage against small/fast targets) low range v's low range higher potential damage against big/slow targets and worse against normal/small/fast.
Bloody terrible choice. Faction ammo becomes the best ammo in all situations. Keeps range, boosts damage against all targets. Where is the choice?
Wrong.
With long-range guns, you start off with close range ammo which is best able to hit small targets (relative to other ammo types) at close range - the longer range ammos generally suck for most uses and are not used. T2 ammo gives you a choice between more damage close range with tracking penalty (ie only works against larger targets) or the ability to do decent damage at long range.
Heavy missiles start off able to do decent damage at long range. That is to say, heavy missile T1 ammo = gun T2 long range ammo. T2 missiles offer the ability to do higher damage at close range to larger targets ( = gun T2 close range ammo), and the ability to hit smaller targets better at close range ( = gun T1 ammo).
The analogy isn't perfect but it's close enough.
Additionally, missiles can select their damage type at any of these ranges. Minmatar do not have an "EMP Hail" or a "Phased Plasma barrage/tremor" - they're locked into explosive/kinetic. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:11:00 -
[4092] - Quote
Ellente Fervens wrote:So for every weapon system, except long range missiles, T2 ammo offers you a choice of short range high damage v's long range medium/low damage. Under this proposal though, long range missiles T2 ammo gets the choice of normal damage (potentially higher effective damage against small/fast targets) low range v's low range higher potential damage against big/slow targets and worse against normal/small/fast.
Bloody terrible choice. Faction ammo becomes the best ammo in all situations. Keeps range, boosts damage against all targets. Where is the choice?
problem with that is the tech 2 ammo is bloddy expensive going through 30 mill some days (yeah extream end) and both t2 ammo is about the same but guess what so is faction ammo up there in the pricing theres going to be hugh probs if these things happen seriously stop doing everything for pvp. your gonna end up killing mission or force people into specific ships for pvp prolly not that of caldari witch will make noone want to fly caldari and thus destroy the race if these changes go through you may as well remove all missle all caldari ship and the race all together. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
318
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:13:00 -
[4093] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Ellente Fervens wrote:So for every weapon system, except long range missiles, T2 ammo offers you a choice of short range high damage v's long range medium/low damage. Under this proposal though, long range missiles T2 ammo gets the choice of normal damage (potentially higher effective damage against small/fast targets) low range v's low range higher potential damage against big/slow targets and worse against normal/small/fast.
Bloody terrible choice. Faction ammo becomes the best ammo in all situations. Keeps range, boosts damage against all targets. Where is the choice? problem with that is the tech 2 ammo is bloddy expensive going through 30 mill some days (yeah extream end) and both t2 ammo is about the same but guess what so is faction ammo up there in the pricing theres going to be hugh probs if these things happen seriously stop doing everything for pvp. your gonna end up killing mission or force people into specific ships for pvp prolly not that of caldari witch will make noone want to fly caldari and thus destroy the race if these changes go through you may as well remove all missle all caldari ship and the race all together. Or just use HAM's when appropriate for the reasons detailed several times. As far as faction/T2 ammo cost is increased for turret boats as well. If this is an issue of cost than perhaps it's time to reevaluate your PvP habits or isk making ability. |
Eckyy
EVE University Ivy League
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:13:00 -
[4094] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Ellente Fervens wrote:So for every weapon system, except long range missiles, T2 ammo offers you a choice of short range high damage v's long range medium/low damage. Under this proposal though, long range missiles T2 ammo gets the choice of normal damage (potentially higher effective damage against small/fast targets) low range v's low range higher potential damage against big/slow targets and worse against normal/small/fast.
Bloody terrible choice. Faction ammo becomes the best ammo in all situations. Keeps range, boosts damage against all targets. Where is the choice? problem with that is the tech 2 ammo is bloddy expensive going through 30 mill some days (yeah extream end) and both t2 ammo is about the same but guess what so is faction ammo up there in the pricing theres going to be hugh probs if these things happen seriously stop doing everything for pvp. your gonna end up killing mission or force people into specific ships for pvp prolly not that of caldari witch will make noone want to fly caldari and thus destroy the race if these changes go through you may as well remove all missle all caldari ship and the race all together.
Or not.
I suggest you read a little bit of this thread before you make conclusions. |
Varesk
Origin. Black Legion.
163
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:14:00 -
[4095] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Changes are underlined in the OP, and are: We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf. The velocity of heavy missiles is also being increased by a larger amount, with flight time adjusting to keep the overall range change the same while ensuring higher applied damage in the real world and less wasted volleys. As well we are looking at making the Guided Missile Precision skill affect everything and dropping HAM PG requirements by 10% (Still a little bit higher than heavy missiles but closer).
EWAR effects were slated for this past summers release and never happened. Stated would be in winter release, isnt going to happen.
EWAR on missiles will happen (soon)
just like adjustments to
1) sov mechanics 2) drones 3) black ops 4) tech nerf |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:16:00 -
[4096] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:serras bang wrote:Ellente Fervens wrote:So for every weapon system, except long range missiles, T2 ammo offers you a choice of short range high damage v's long range medium/low damage. Under this proposal though, long range missiles T2 ammo gets the choice of normal damage (potentially higher effective damage against small/fast targets) low range v's low range higher potential damage against big/slow targets and worse against normal/small/fast.
Bloody terrible choice. Faction ammo becomes the best ammo in all situations. Keeps range, boosts damage against all targets. Where is the choice? problem with that is the tech 2 ammo is bloddy expensive going through 30 mill some days (yeah extream end) and both t2 ammo is about the same but guess what so is faction ammo up there in the pricing theres going to be hugh probs if these things happen seriously stop doing everything for pvp. your gonna end up killing mission or force people into specific ships for pvp prolly not that of caldari witch will make noone want to fly caldari and thus destroy the race if these changes go through you may as well remove all missle all caldari ship and the race all together. Or not. I suggest you read a little bit of this thread before you make conclusions.
exactly whats that ment to mean i have been flying caldari for years and put years of work into there ships and missles i think i know what im talking about here. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
318
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:21:00 -
[4097] - Quote
serras bang wrote: exactly whats that ment to mean i have been flying caldari for years and put years of work into there ships and missles i think i know what im talking about here.
And yet you aren't showing the slightest willingness to put that knowledge to good use in PvP or PvE with the new strategies being opened up with this change or subsequent (and hopefully soon coming) changes in modules as well. As a missile user I'm seeing more viable options in PvE at least. Would have been better still were the TC/TE/TD changes coming. I can't speak to well to PvP as I'm terrible and avoid it for the most part, but the implications for usefulness of short range missiles is great IMHO. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:44:00 -
[4098] - Quote
i put everything to pve when was the last time you had space in your med slotts to fit a tp ? or sensor boosters ect ?
while still maintining a decent tank and decent dps ?
not to mention the fact that a lot of ship will also now need a ab fit to middle to get within range of some ships to apply dps witch once again lowers tank capabilities as a fellow cal pilot on the pve side you know how fast we die when we dont have shields.
you will also know the burdens and lack of dps from tech 1 equipment thus you probably use tech 2 ok precision ammo gets a boost its needed for a while now and no penalties great. but furrys will even after 2 rigs and skills still not have a explosive radius enough to lay full dmg on criusers or bs or what have you as ythere recieving a nerf of 72% on the explosive radius and dont delude yourself of the 35% base dmg increase as if it would increase dmg applied to the target.
simply because the more raw dmg you have the more you start to lose because more raw dmg you lose more due to factor of explosive radius and sig radius and you now also lose more due to resists.
so now were left with t1 dmg through out as even furys wont apply that much more dmg and will be harder to do so.
if you want to continue this descusion then please do but please for the love of god present something to mitigate any one of these arguments.
it just another stealth cover from ccp to add bonuses to the ships so we think were getting buffed but in actual fact we gain nothing and possibly lose cause lets face it except from the fact that something like the caracl now puts out more dmg with more dmg types it capabilities havnt really increased from what it originaly can do due to the nerfs. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
247
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 00:57:00 -
[4099] - Quote
Eckyy wrote:Ellente Fervens wrote:So for every weapon system, except long range missiles, T2 ammo offers you a choice of short range high damage v's long range medium/low damage. Under this proposal though, long range missiles T2 ammo gets the choice of normal damage (potentially higher effective damage against small/fast targets) low range v's low range higher potential damage against big/slow targets and worse against normal/small/fast.
Bloody terrible choice. Faction ammo becomes the best ammo in all situations. Keeps range, boosts damage against all targets. Where is the choice? Wrong. With long-range guns, you start off with close range ammo which is best able to hit small targets (relative to other ammo types) at close range - the longer range ammos generally suck for most uses and are not used. T2 ammo gives you a choice between more damage close range with tracking penalty (ie only works against larger targets) or the ability to do decent damage at long range. .
The close range t2 ammo for long range guns greatly boosts tracking actually. It is short range guns that have the high damage/poor tracking close range ammo.
|
Hellz Hitman
No-Mercy STEEL BROTHERHOOD
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 01:38:00 -
[4100] - Quote
Alright I've read through the changes and it seems like as far as PVE is concerned, Fury missiles are now worthless. Most bs's operate at a 30-50 km orbit if I did the math on the changes I will have 32 km range with Fury missiles. Far from being well enough to PVE with. However, currently, Missiles are the most effective PVE weapon, really one of the only viable PVE weapons systems besides drones. Post nerf it feels that not only is the Cerb/Nighthawk/Caracal going to be near worthless, but that PVE in general is going to become a great bit more difficult.
What I'm worried about is the fact that currently there are very few effective caldari ships for PVE and PVP, however, this will achieve bringing the few good Caldari ships down to the rest of the pack. Can someone check my math or explain how this is all going to work out? I can fly all races, so over all it won't effect me too much, but alot of my newer guys require a weapons system that is going to be effective against the rats so they dont have to dedicate most of their eve career to high sec. These changes feel as if they effectively toss Noobs out of Null as they wont be able to rat and make isk effectively without always having someone there to shepard them
TL/DR I feel the Fury changes are excessive and will swiftly make them an unusable weapons system with a very limited amount of uses. I would support the fury range being decreased but the numbers are far too low to be equivalent. Missiles are a very different weapon system. I've been hit by medium blasters out past 50km, Never been hit from HAM's that far out. People need to remember that You don't get lucky with Missiles, either they hit or they dont. |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 02:27:00 -
[4101] - Quote
Hellz Hitman wrote:Alright I've read through the changes and it seems like as far as PVE is concerned, Fury missiles are now worthless. Most bs's operate at a 30-50 km orbit if I did the math on the changes I will have 32 km range with Fury missiles. Far from being well enough to PVE with. However, currently, Missiles are the most effective PVE weapon, really one of the only viable PVE weapons systems besides drones. Post nerf it feels that not only is the Cerb/Nighthawk/Caracal going to be near worthless, but that PVE in general is going to become a great bit more difficult.
What I'm worried about is the fact that currently there are very few effective caldari ships for PVE and PVP, however, this will achieve bringing the few good Caldari ships down to the rest of the pack. Can someone check my math or explain how this is all going to work out? I can fly all races, so over all it won't effect me too much, but alot of my newer guys require a weapons system that is going to be effective against the rats so they dont have to dedicate most of their eve career to high sec. These changes feel as if they effectively toss Noobs out of Null as they wont be able to rat and make isk effectively without always having someone there to shepard them
TL/DR I feel the Fury changes are excessive and will swiftly make them an unusable weapons system with a very limited amount of uses. I would support the fury range being decreased but the numbers are far too low to be equivalent. Missiles are a very different weapon system. I've been hit by medium blasters out past 50km, Never been hit from HAM's that far out. People need to remember that You don't get lucky with Missiles, either they hit or they dont.
and thats only range have you crunched your own figure for dmg application were appropriot ? such as criuser for hmls and frigs for lights ect i also expect these changes to affect rockets also.
however base distance i dont doubt your numbers are correct they seem to be in the ball park anyway if there even at that as 25% range reduction on t1's then a further 50% for furrys |
Ellente Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 02:31:00 -
[4102] - Quote
Eckyy wrote: Wrong.
With long-range guns, you start off with close range ammo which is best able to hit small targets (relative to other ammo types) at close range - the longer range ammos generally suck for most uses and are not used. T2 ammo gives you a choice between more damage close range with tracking penalty (ie only works against larger targets) or the ability to do decent damage at long range.
Heavy missiles start off able to do decent damage at long range. That is to say, heavy missile T1 ammo = gun T2 long range ammo. T2 missiles offer the ability to do higher damage at close range to larger targets ( = gun T2 close range ammo), and the ability to hit smaller targets better at close range ( = gun T1 ammo).
The analogy isn't perfect but it's close enough.
Additionally, missiles can select their damage type at any of these ranges. Minmatar do not have an "EMP Hail" or a "Phased Plasma barrage/tremor" - they're locked into explosive/kinetic.
damn forum ate my post, tbc. |
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 02:44:00 -
[4103] - Quote
From what CCP have mentioned, the defender missiles use quite a bit of server power to use, and so I don't think they're ever going to be all that useful, even if fixed. Shooting a missile to intercept another missile isn't the best way to counter that weapon system anyway, especially in an era of plentiful laser power. Also, there was that tracking disruptor modification that was going to allow it to deal with missiles that got delayed - I think there might be a better way to do it.
How about a new midslot defensive module that's basically like the target painter, but automatically shoots incoming missiles. It's 100% accurate, and would have a range of like, 10-15km max (it's a point defence laser). It'd need two shots to kill a torpedo or cruise missile of course. The firing rate wouldn't be too high, so that it'd probably only shoot 1 or perhaps two missiles per incoming volley, but it'd have the benefits of; a) actually being useful b) taking up a defensive slot instead of an offensive slot c) ease server load by not having to calculate missile to missile interception. b) keeps tracking disruptors for turrets only, and adds an extra defensive module option for setups.
Something to consider. |
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule Test Friends Please Ignore
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 02:55:00 -
[4104] - Quote
This one is straight at CCP Fozzie:
You are making hard decisions with an intent to improve Eve as a game, overall. This is commendable and desperately needed. However...
The changes to missiles are fine as long as it is possible to get some range back at the expense of other options. Without the tracking disruptor changes missiles are inferior to turrets in all scenarios -especially with the accuracy changes.
Please either add the the tracking enhancer/disruptor changes in this release or push back missile changes until you can add them together. I suggest just adding them now because if you don't do it now it may never happen. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 03:08:00 -
[4105] - Quote
dont go by the spreed sheet the whole thing is wrong or what fossie is saying on the forums is wrong one of the 2 example 215 dose not translate into 240 with a 72% increase its 365 so please fossie fix one of them so it actualy adds up.
while im on numbers ill run this past yah providing the old values are correct.
base flight of new heavy furys will be 22 k
as said above exp radius will be 365
so given a 365 explosive radius even with 25% reduction for skills makes an explosive radius of 273 thats over double what a criuser is and even larger than what a bc is.
but it gets worse the base dmg of new furys is assumeing the sheet is correct in the base dmg of furrys was 192 is 259 now lets look at something like the caracal without skills 5 launchers.
a totaly of 1.3k volley say now assumeing even the 273 explosive radius with skills only 388 of that after exp radius and 40% resists is factored in is actualy applied as dmg. and thats on a statoinary target. i rest my case on this the dmg from t1s is gonna either be lower than this albe it prolly not by much or much higher. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
319
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 03:22:00 -
[4106] - Quote
serras bang wrote:dont go by the spreed sheet the whole thing is wrong or what fossie is saying on the forums is wrong one of the 2 example 215 dose not translate into 240 with a 72% increase its 365 so please fossie fix one of them so it actualy adds up. It's 72% over revised T1, not 72% over current values. Also that is without GMP trained. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 03:43:00 -
[4107] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:serras bang wrote:dont go by the spreed sheet the whole thing is wrong or what fossie is saying on the forums is wrong one of the 2 example 215 dose not translate into 240 with a 72% increase its 365 so please fossie fix one of them so it actualy adds up. It's 72% over revised T1, not 72% over current values. So far it looks like T1 HAM's will have 2/3rds the range of fury HM's while doing more damage and having much better application of damage to the tune of ~93m explosion radius vs ~180m for furys (at GMP 5).
ok if thats the case fossie can you confirm or denie this please so i can crunch the numbers more accurately ? is t2 furry values be bassed of the revised t1 values ? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
319
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 03:47:00 -
[4108] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:serras bang wrote:dont go by the spreed sheet the whole thing is wrong or what fossie is saying on the forums is wrong one of the 2 example 215 dose not translate into 240 with a 72% increase its 365 so please fossie fix one of them so it actualy adds up. It's 72% over revised T1, not 72% over current values. So far it looks like T1 HAM's will have 2/3rds the range of fury HM's while doing more damage and having much better application of damage to the tune of ~93m explosion radius vs ~180m for furys (at GMP 5). ok if thats the case fossie can you confirm or denie this please so i can crunch the numbers more accurately ? is t2 furry values be bassed of the revised t1 values ? It can easily be confirmed using the sheet provided and some basic math. 140(New HM explosion radius) * 1.72 = 240.8 rounded to the nearest digit is 241, which is what the spreadsheet has. Also note the way it's stated in the op: "Fury: ...unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes" It is defining a rule for all fury variants across the current guided missile types, not creating a second penalty to HM furies. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 03:58:00 -
[4109] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:serras bang wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:serras bang wrote:dont go by the spreed sheet the whole thing is wrong or what fossie is saying on the forums is wrong one of the 2 example 215 dose not translate into 240 with a 72% increase its 365 so please fossie fix one of them so it actualy adds up. It's 72% over revised T1, not 72% over current values. So far it looks like T1 HAM's will have 2/3rds the range of fury HM's while doing more damage and having much better application of damage to the tune of ~93m explosion radius vs ~180m for furys (at GMP 5). ok if thats the case fossie can you confirm or denie this please so i can crunch the numbers more accurately ? is t2 furry values be bassed of the revised t1 values ? It can easily be confirmed using the sheet provided and some basic math. 140(New HM explosion radius) * 1.72 = 240.8 rounded to the nearest digit is 241, which is what the spreadsheet has. Also note the way it's stated in the op: "Fury: ...unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes" It is defining a rule for all fury variants across the current guided missile types, not creating a second penalty to HM furies.
ok if thats the case then furys are still perfectly viable the ranges still suck badly though |
Ellente Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 04:16:00 -
[4110] - Quote
I just ran the numbers on furies. These numbers are based on level 5 skills.
Firstly a perfect hit is 95% of current damage under the new numbers.
MWD not reported as this does not change missile damage due to sig radius increase is balance by speed increase.
Previously furies could score perfect hits on BC's and up without rigs or ewar. Post change a target painter is required to hit a BC perfectly (399), although if it using an AB it will be damage reduced to 50%(198). While a BS will still be hit perfectly (399) without EWAR even with an AB.
With a TP and a web on the target, you can hit a BC perfectly regardless of prop mod. it will be possible to hit a cruiser perfectly, while doing about 55% damage (219) if it is using an AB.
In summary, anything you could hit perfectly with TP + web before you can still hit perfectly with furies, but your overall damage will be reduced by 5% Anything you could hit with just a TP will still be hit perfectly. However anything your not hitting perfectly you will be hitting even worse after changes, on top of the 5% overall damage reduction.
Except the range is roughly a third (37%) of what it was!
Here are the numbers I used Values for missiles are after skills + ship (only affects damage) old new damage 421 399 Exp Rad 161.25m 180.75m Exp Vel 145.5m/s 102m/s
cruiser 135m 220m/s 527m/s with AB BC 275m 200m/s 470m/s with AB BS 420m 100m/s 235m/s with AB |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 04:17:00 -
[4111] - Quote
Ellente Fervens wrote:So for every weapon system, except long range missiles, T2 ammo offers you a choice of short range high damage v's long range medium/low damage. Under this proposal though, long range missiles T2 ammo gets the choice of normal damage (potentially higher effective damage against small/fast targets) low range v's low range higher potential damage against big/slow targets and worse against normal/small/fast.
Bloody terrible choice. Faction ammo becomes the best ammo in all situations. Keeps range, boosts damage against all targets. Where is the choice?
How do you think turrets work?
The SR T2 AMMO has tracking and range penaties, as well a cap consumption increase ( where applicable).
|
Ellente Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 04:28:00 -
[4112] - Quote
Onictus wrote: How do you think turrets work?
The SR T2 AMMO has tracking and range penalties, as well a cap consumption increase ( where applicable).
do you mean the short range ammo for both gun types? or both ammo types for short range guns?
I think the latter is correct not the former. (Javlin (T2 SR rails) has a tracking bonus not penalty)
|
Sarayu Wisdom
Zervas Aeronautics WHY so Seri0Us
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 05:35:00 -
[4113] - Quote
I have to say i'm very disappointed in the Nerf coming to the cane. The cane is by far the best Buffer armor boat for its class and this Nerf will be dramatically changing the way i fly the cane. I personally run 2x rolled 1600 plates in the lows and full rack of t2 duel 180 autos and 2 small nuets in the high slots. This fit will be 100% impossible to run now due to the PG change being made.
Just b/c a boat has a ton of left over PG when flown as a shield boat instead of an armor boat doesn't mean it should get a Nerf. I don't think ur taking into consideration the armor side of the cane in terms of running it as a solo pvp boat. 1 1600 plate is not enough buffer to take gate fire when in low sec and still secure a kill or 2 when u have 2-3 people beating on you. I have tried it with an alt, It failed miserably.
http://i.imgur.com/BDwen.png The hurricane fit in EFT with my Alts skills who flys it. Dps goes up dramatically with T2 and faction ammo, but that's not why i showed the fit. I showed the fit to show that the armor aspect of the cane is pretty much gone. When tried to fly it solo. This is just my opinion and i'm sure ppl will argue u don't need 2x plates, but this is my personal preference.
Also This is best fit for fighting a myrm that is running that new Active shifting armor Mod b/c u need the endurance to get him capped out to kill him other wise u don't have a chance in the world at killing him. |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 06:25:00 -
[4114] - Quote
I was ok with the 25% range nerf to HML untill I saw the range on T2 ammo thats nearly 66% reduction. and we are not getting the missile tracting mods? come on that is ridiculous. |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 08:09:00 -
[4115] - Quote
And your making torps even worse? Giving cruise a slight dps/application buff in exchange for cutting their range nearly in half? Hams hams are getting the same treatment as torps slight dps buff but less range and will find it harder to aply that dps so overall worse too
I'm trying to resist going all emo here but really what do you have against caldari ships?
Torps are only viable on one very expensive ship (in terms of Isk and sp), now they are going to need 3 painters to even hit a BS for full dps and will have even less range. please tell me thats not your full plan for the system. I'm disregarding stealth bombers as they are a very specialised ship and from what I know work quite well
My plan was to adapt or die by skilling into larger hulls but not sure thats going to be worth it now, Ill just have to bight the bullet and cross train.
..... ok came back to this post after I calmed down a bit. Cruise, hmm well no one ever uses the range of cruise anyway so ok cut the range but hits harder ok I get it...
but hams and torps getting less range? come on its madness that a BS class weapon has cruiser range any way and they are both getting cut? Can you please tell us why you think that is a good idea? Also has it been decided yet if HAMs are going to be kinder on grid? in line with other short range systems |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 08:53:00 -
[4116] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: FYI, thats not true after the nerfs. Then its 37.5 km before skills. And thats just the theoretical max, not what they will reach ingame. So just learn to read and understand before you come back. Please.
Go look at turrets "before skills:" and get back to us. For example .. 720mm Arty - Tremor - 43 + 18. In my book somehow this is more than 37.5 km, no? And esp. considering the fact there is also falloff ... go look at "falloff" for missiles and get back to us. Or better, dont come back at all. Really sick of this sh*t :) you realize that turrets get one range bonus skill to optimal and missiles get two right? after the change, unbonused missiles (with out range rigs) will go 63.3 km so say 60, and they will do all of their damage at 60 km minus sig radius/velocity.
Lasers without range modifications will go 54 + 10 km and the missile systems will do more damage out there.
Couple this with the fact that missiles can switch damage type and can change to better tracking ammo if need be. i think missiles will be fine. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 09:18:00 -
[4117] - Quote
Sigras wrote: you realize that turrets get one range bonus skill to optimal and missiles get two right?
you realize turrets get a bonus to optimal range and one to falloff, right? So 2 skills ... ( Missiles get also 2 skills, one for velocity and one for flight time, which both add up together to missile optimal. If it was me, I would adjust this all, also the % per level. )
And you do realize a missile cant reach out as far as turret does, due to this falloff?
Apart from that, do you realise missiles get 2 skills for RoF and damage (apart from the basic skill) with *less* bonus than turrets do? For missiles its 3% RoF and 2% damage per level (Rapid Fire and Missile Bombardment), for turrets its 4% RoF and 3% damage per level ... why? That adds up to 2 times 5% at level 5 ...
I said it again and again, looking at just 1 number or stat is not what will give you a perfect image of whats really happening.
In game there is no Drake-OPness. In fact in all PvP but nullsec the Drake is NOT the most common BC, and in Highsec its only used because its admitted the easiest start into l4s (skillwise).
In my book this game has to be changed in so many aspects to make it balanced again, and I can agree on there are things also a bit out of line with HML (too easy to use in PvE vs med turrets lr which makes the other 3 t3s worse in missions), but assuming we balance around PvP (which is how nearly every one set right wants it to be done) there are more urgent things than Drakes and HML. If this nerf is needed, do it. But if afterwards there will be no long range PvP at all for missile users and most probably also no missile PvP for Caldari with any other ship than frig class or maybe a HAM-Tengu (not sure about this) then this would be not balance but more injustice and less chance for variance than now.
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 09:22:00 -
[4118] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Apart from that, do you realise missiles get 2 skills for RoF and damage (apart from the basic skill) with *less* bonus than turrets do? For missiles its 3% RoF and 2% damage per level (Rapid Fire and Missile Bombardment), for turrets its 4% RoF and 3% damage per level ... why? That adds up to 2 times 5% at level 5 ...
Because turrets are way better than missiles, even now before the nerf, after the nerf missiles will be so bad that no one will use them.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 09:42:00 -
[4119] - Quote
Ellente Fervens wrote:Onictus wrote: How do you think turrets work?
The SR T2 AMMO has tracking and range penalties, as well a cap consumption increase ( where applicable).
do you mean the short range ammo for both gun types? or both ammo types for short range guns? I think the latter is correct not the former. (Javlin (T2 SR rails) has a tracking bonus not penalty) What I was trying to say was that for guns T2 ammo, provided you can overcome the application problems (tracking) represents the highest possible damage at both ends of the range scale. Currently T2 ammo on HMs represents best possible application of damage at short range, and reduced potential damage with precision missiles. Or best potential damage with similar range and hardest damage application. aha I thought of a better way of explaining what I mean :) Currently high tracking, 80% ish damage, halved range. - precision lowest tracking, 128% is damage, 90% range - fury proposed high tracking, normal damage, halved range - precision Lowest damage, 135% damage, halved range - fury
-75% range +25% cap 0.75% tracking "bonus"........0.1x.75 is 0.75.....its a penalty |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 11:01:00 -
[4120] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote: you realize that turrets get one range bonus skill to optimal and missiles get two right?
you realize turrets get a bonus to optimal range and one to falloff, right? So 2 skills ... ( Missiles get also 2 skills, one for velocity and one for flight time, which both add up together to missile optimal. If it was me, I would adjust this all, also the % per level. ) you realize that falloff means a damage reduction right? You seem to not listen to words, so lets try pictures
all calculations are done with max skills; the only things affecting the turrets are max skills and the ships/modules listed
the light blue is 250 railguns with spike on a brutix with three magstabs the dark blue is 720 howitzers with tremor on a hurricane with three gyrostabs the red is heavy beam lasers with aurora on a harbinger with three heat sinks the green is HMLs on a drake with CN scourge missiles with three BCS the black is where HMLs will be on a drake with CN scourge missiles and three BCS
the missile ranges are all set back 3-4 km to compensate for the range loss due to the target moving.
ships with less range generally have higher damage output, its called incomparable balance
So yes, all of the turrets can hit farther out than the missiles can, but the damage the missiles do in their optimal is so much greater as to make this an incomparable item
Yes I know that turrets can increase their range with TEs TCs, but Missiles can increase their range with range rigs
Yes I know that turrets do instant damage while missiles have travel time, but missiles have artillery like alpha, no cap cost, extra utility with shorter ranged T2 missiles, and the ability to switch damage types to compensate (yes i know that the drake takes a damage hit when switching damage types, but CCP seems to be moving away from the kinetic only bonus to caldari ships so wait and see)
All of these things are incomparable differences that go into making missiles a very well balanced system . . . does the green line look very balanced to you? |
|
Dr Sheng-Ji Yang
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 11:12:00 -
[4121] - Quote
Well let us face it: caldari are completely f.... Probably because they were slightly competitive to winmatar which still will be winmatar after the balance is done so far as I saw the new overkill rupture.
I mean: Cadari BS are completely useless in PVP, so you only had drake. Now the drake is gone and the caldari have.... erm? Nothing? LOL. And let us face it: Versus the Hurricane the drake has its issues too. So: I suppose some Minnies whined about that their Winmatar status could be eaten by caldari so they nerfed caldari completely. I wonder why everbody speaks about nerfing the Tengu when the Loki is a far more dangerous PVP ship? Loki would need a far heavier nerf. But oh sorry..... Winmatar. LOL.
The nerf of hm is really too much and ham neeed more buff than this 10% less powergrid. training time for using HAM okay is awsome because you really need missile bombardment and missile projection at 5. And even then your range is crap. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
771
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 11:41:00 -
[4122] - Quote
I have to say after reading the revised stuff this is starting to come across as trying to reduce latency on the servers more and more and not actually anything to do with "balancing" God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 11:44:00 -
[4123] - Quote
Sigras wrote: you realize that falloff means a damage reduction right?
Ofc I do. Damage projection of turrets ends at optimal + 2 times falloff. And after optimal damage will be reduced pretty fast. Still the ability to 1) do damage at all on a certain range and 2) do it instantly is what favours sniper turrets over sniper missiles atm. This is only not true in medium-long range (from 35 up to around 70km, with rigs and implants more) for medium sized long range weapons, where turrets fall back behind HML. In any other engagement range turrets outclass missiles, and ANY missiles (above frig size).
While I agree with you it might suck to have a 35km frame of missile OPness in medium sized weapons I ask you this - is it balance, that in all other ranges missiles are so far behind turrets that its just a waste of time mostly to bring them into battle there? Can you imagine how missile users feel in every other engagement type than Drake/HML at this range? So, give us working missiles in a way that they are *VIABLE* for PvP like turrets in those other ranges, and no one will deny you a buff for med turrets or nerf for HML so they are in line with med turrets in this 35-70 km frame. I promise here to support any claim for a fix then.
Sigras wrote:You seem to not listen to words, so lets try pictures
When you try to make me look like I am the one who is not reading I will now show you how you dont even understand your own picture ... seriously, and again, before I come to your picture:
do you agree with the fact missiles are UP in all other PvP ranges/fights than those described 35-70km in med weapons battle?
1) yes
2) no
If you choose no, I will like to hear examples for that claim. Currently I hear only examples for 1).
Now to your picture.
Sigras wrote: all calculations are done with max skills; the only things affecting the turrets are max skills and the ships/modules listed
the light blue is 250 railguns with spike on a brutix with three magstabs the dark blue is 720 howitzers with tremor on a hurricane with three gyrostabs the red is heavy beam lasers with aurora on a harbinger with three heat sinks the green is HMLs on a drake with CN scourge missiles with three BCS the black is where HMLs will be on a drake with CN scourge missiles and three BCS
First, this is where it starts to get wrong. There are no Sniper-Drakes with 3 BCS normally. A good idea is to use actual PvP fittings for a comparison.
If you neglect all damage mods and range mods, you will see you compare long range ammo for turrets on short ranges vs missiles which have one kind of range ammo atm (HML dont have long range ammo at all, and their high DPS ammo will get short range only in next patch, if it goes through). So you do it wrong again here, turrets won use long range ammo on short range, they will use highest DPS available at that fighting range. So compare this, pls.
Sigras wrote: the missile ranges are all set back 3-4 km to compensate for the range loss due to the target moving.
Err, no. When you set the range back by 3-4 km you dont even compensate for actual range in game for shooting a stationary target. Missile ranges are completely bugged when you use the values of new UI or EFT.
Sigras wrote: ships with less range generally have higher damage output, its called incomparable balance
I understand this concept very well. In addition turrets have also a chance to put in higher DPS ammo, in case of Amarr even without a significant reload time. If you dont put this into your picture you just do it wrong.
I assume you do this purposely, but it wont make your point more valid. Go on, but answer me my above question first, please. It will make it easier for me and others to see your intentions :)
|
Ellente Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 12:24:00 -
[4124] - Quote
Onictus wrote: -75% range +25% cap 0.75% tracking "multiplier"........0.1x.75 is 0.75.....its a penalty
Hmmm you used the Evelopedia? I think it is out of date. I was using Eve HQ fitter, so I went and checked in game. tracking speed multiplier 1.25 Javelin Large. So it is better. (I think they got changed recently so I understand the confusion.)
oh and the cap penalty is gone as well. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
26
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 12:40:00 -
[4125] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Request about different ammo types at different ranges
http://i.imgur.com/SJ357.png
Updated with new changes. 3 bcs, no bonuses best dmg ammo(t2/faction) for given range. Small warning: Do not be fooled by 720's low performance. Matari ships have usually double bonuses with less turrets. Think them about 15% better., which puts their initial dmg value slightly below 250's. Also HML is assumed using furies up to max fury range, faction ammo after that.
Right now:
Pre 25k the dps graph shows higher dmg for turrets with optimal ammo. I'd take these numbers valid between 15k-25k. Below this range tracking becomes a BIG issue. HML's will keep hitting just fine.
Post 25km it is no contest. Turret ships need to (and are using) use additional slots to compensate for range, which missile ships can use for ewar/speed/tank etc.
After patch:
I don't really know.....it looks blurry to me. I don't know exact details but furies are going to have a hard time hitting targets. But even if they do half damage they will still outdamage LR turrets between 0-13k as tracking IS a big problem.
Beyond 13k up to 35k turrets will be having the upper hand.
After 35k up to 65k HML damage will out do turrets.
Beyond that is the area for specialized ships/fittings that use additional mods/rigs to increase range. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 12:42:00 -
[4126] - Quote
Ellente Fervens wrote:Onictus wrote: -75% range +25% cap 0.75% tracking "multiplier"........0.1x.75 is 0.75.....its a penalty
Hmmm you used the Evelopedia? I think it is out of date. I was using Eve HQ fitter, so I went and checked in game. tracking speed multiplier 1.25 Javelin Large. So it is better. (I think they got changed recently so I understand the confusion.) oh and the cap penalty is gone as well.
Well that is handy
Tells you how often I use them.
|
Noa Fuyu
Forced Penetration
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 13:09:00 -
[4127] - Quote
I understand that missiles were buffed/changed and slots on ships (extra lows on the caracal for eg) were because T/Ds, Tracking enhancers and Computers were going to affect it, Are these ships and missiles still going to be ballanced without the T/Ds now? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 13:15:00 -
[4128] - Quote
Lots of people ITT don't seem to realise that guided missle skills will now apply to HAMs and Torps and rockets.
Together with the HAM PG reduction, HAM ships will now be FOTM.
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 13:17:00 -
[4129] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Ellente Fervens wrote:Onictus wrote: -75% range +25% cap 0.75% tracking "multiplier"........0.1x.75 is 0.75.....its a penalty
Hmmm you used the Evelopedia? I think it is out of date. I was using Eve HQ fitter, so I went and checked in game. tracking speed multiplier 1.25 Javelin Large. So it is better. (I think they got changed recently so I understand the confusion.) oh and the cap penalty is gone as well. Well that is handy Tells you how often I use them.
No he (and possible HQ) is just wrong. Long range ammos have a tracking penalty. There are no ammos with a tracking bonus. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 13:33:00 -
[4130] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Lots of people ITT don't seem to realise that guided missle skills will now apply to HAMs and Torps and rockets.
Together with the HAM PG reduction, HAM ships will now be FOTM. If the TD/TE changes ever come in, they will be ridiculously OP.
That said, I think the changes are thoughtful and balanced. I particularly like the solution to the overnerf whines on DMG (keep higher dmg than the turret counterparts but lose some ability to apply it to small targets).
Great job all round tbh. Bring on the EWAR changes next patch.
You do realize that fitting TE will reduce HAM's allready low dps. So how could one be OP without doing dps? Again caldari ships doesnt have minmatars low slots nor dps either... |
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
200
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 13:34:00 -
[4131] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Onictus wrote:Ellente Fervens wrote:Onictus wrote: -75% range +25% cap 0.75% tracking "multiplier"........0.1x.75 is 0.75.....its a penalty
Hmmm you used the Evelopedia? I think it is out of date. I was using Eve HQ fitter, so I went and checked in game. tracking speed multiplier 1.25 Javelin Large. So it is better. (I think they got changed recently so I understand the confusion.) oh and the cap penalty is gone as well. Well that is handy Tells you how often I use them. No he (and possible HQ) is just wrong. Some ammos have a tracking penalty. There are no ammos with a tracking bonus.
Are you trolling?
pretty sure titanium sabot and another have a 20% tracking bonus. All T2 close range ammo for Rails/Arty/Beams has a 25% tracking bonus. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
390
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 13:49:00 -
[4132] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
do you agree with the fact missiles are UP in all other PvP ranges/fights than those described 35-70km in med weapons battle?
1) yes
2) no
If you choose no, I will like to hear examples for that claim. Currently I hear only examples for 1).
no
rockets kite condor ham drake stealth bombers
not our fault if you can't use them |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:05:00 -
[4133] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Onictus wrote:Ellente Fervens wrote:Onictus wrote: -75% range +25% cap 0.75% tracking "multiplier"........0.1x.75 is 0.75.....its a penalty
Hmmm you used the Evelopedia? I think it is out of date. I was using Eve HQ fitter, so I went and checked in game. tracking speed multiplier 1.25 Javelin Large. So it is better. (I think they got changed recently so I understand the confusion.) oh and the cap penalty is gone as well. Well that is handy Tells you how often I use them. No he (and possible HQ) is just wrong. Some ammos have a tracking penalty. There are no ammos with a tracking bonus. You are clueless. All short-range tech 2 ammo types used for long-range guns have a 25% tracking bonus.
There's also projectile medium-range t1 ammo, which has had a tracking boost for even longer, and projectile long-range t1 ammo, which has a tiny tracking bonus. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:52:00 -
[4134] - Quote
Some figures:
Precision Heavy 0 m/s - 500 m/s Dam 135 Expl radius 125 Expl Velocity 97 Dam vs Frig 43.2 - 8.4 Dam vs Cruiser 135 - 26.2 Dam vs Battlecruiser 135 - 26.2 Dam vs Battleship 135 - 26.2
CN Heavy Dam 155 Expl radius 140 Expl velocity 81 Dam vs Frig 44.2 - 7.2 Dam vs Cruiser 138.4 - 22.4 Dam vs Battlecruiser 155 - 25.11 Dam vs Battleship 155 - 25.11
Fury Heavy Dam 182 Expl radius 241 Expl velocity 68 Dam vs Frig 30.2 - 4.1 Dam vs Cruiser 94.3 - 12.8 Dam vs Battlecruiser 182 - 24.8 Dam vs Battleship 182 - 24.8
Precision Cruise Dam 300 Expl radius 270 Expl Velocity 83 Dam vs Frig 44.4 - 7.4 Dam vs Cruiser 138.8 - 23.0 Dam vs Battlecruiser 300 - 49.8 Dam vs Battleship 300 - 49.8
* For sig radius i took the average sig radius of all 4 races tier 1 Battlecruisers
What does this mean?
This tabel shows that in any scenario, where the speed is higher than its explosion velocity (68 m/s) a Precision missile will outperform a fury missile. This tabel shows that in EVERY scenario, the Cruise precision missile will outperform faction heavy missiles.
you've just replaced drake blobs with double/tripple heavy neut Raven/Typhoon blobs with More range, effective hp, and more dam vs battlecruisers and up then the current drake blobs. Whats worse, they don't even need to think, shall i use faction, shall i use fury? no they will be doctorined to only bring Precision missiles. Your manageing to make 2 ships obsolete for blob warefare and merge them into 2 new ships, while at the same time makeing a weapons platform nearly impossible to balance with its new stats due to all the out of sync speed damage and applied damage ratios compared to the light and cruise variants.
Sollution?
Easy: Reverse the Sig radius change on heavy missiles, keep the 10% dam nerf, and change the missile speed back to the old missile speed, and reduce the flight time appropiatly to correspond with your new desired base range.
THEN when done that check the missile SKILLS. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 14:56:00 -
[4135] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
do you agree with the fact missiles are UP in all other PvP ranges/fights than those described 35-70km in med weapons battle?
1) yes
2) no
If you choose no, I will like to hear examples for that claim. Currently I hear only examples for 1).
no rockets kite condor ham drake stealth bombers not our fault if you can't use them
Although you were not the one who I asked, you still gave a revealing answer. More please :)
(in detail: about the HAM Drake you refused a 1on1 because I would have "threatened to set Mercs on" you ... in fact I said I cant do a 1on1 right now, but I know plenty of people who will do with pleasure and whoop your HAM Drakes *ss to show you how wrong you are about your idea of a HAM Drake being on par with *any* other tier 2 BC atm in close range 1on1. So this discussion *is* set and there is no need to continue it, thanks. The others .. lol, just lol. SBs are a special thing and Frigs have never been in discussion here! Funny thing you try to take them to make your point :) you could as well have said "yes", so thanks again! )
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
390
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:01:00 -
[4136] - Quote
Why did you offer me a 1v1 when you knew that you couldn't take part in it? What was the point, other than to make yourself look stupid?
You brought up frigates when you asked "do you agree with the fact missiles are UP in all other PvP ranges/fights than those described 35-70km in med weapons battle?". If you'd wanted to exclude frigates, you should have said. More thinking, less posting please. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
496
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:08:00 -
[4137] - Quote
Kesthely wrote: you've just replaced drake blobs with double/tripple heavy neut Raven/Typhoon blobs with More range, effective hp, and more dam vs battlecruisers and up then the current drake blobs.
I would call that a pretty big success to be honest.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:18:00 -
[4138] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Why did you offer me a 1v1 when you knew that you couldn't take part in it? What was the point, other than to make yourself look stupid?
You brought up frigates when you asked "do you agree with the fact missiles are UP in all other PvP ranges/fights than those described 35-70km in med weapons battle?". If you'd wanted to exclude frigates, you should have said. More thinking, less posting please.
You know perfectly well I never claimed frig PvP to be out of line atm, and in every other post than the one you quoted I said so in a more explicite way too.
And that 1on1 offer didnt let *me* look stupid but in fact you, since you declined it after your first claim HAM Drakes would beat anything close range, which seems a bit out of thin air now. And yeah, it did let you look stupid to first say HAM Drakes win all and when there is a 1on1 offer you say "maybe after the patch" (in which you hoped for TE/TC which indeed could have made the HAM Drake stronger than now). In fact I still understand you didnt want that 1on1, because a few killmails would have made you look even more stupid. So cool, for me this matter is settled.
More please :)
(btw, try to make a list for other weapontypes, and then check if it comes true to them too - working in just one little niche at all .. maybe *THEN* you start to understand what all those in your opinion "whiners" really mean ..) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:24:00 -
[4139] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Kesthely wrote: you've just replaced drake blobs with double/tripple heavy neut Raven/Typhoon blobs with More range, effective hp, and more dam vs battlecruisers and up then the current drake blobs.
I would call that a pretty big success to be honest.
I would call that a success too, even if I think it could be more easily achieved with just fixing CM and Ravens (not sure about Phoon if it needs more love), this would kill those Drake blobs too. And not kill something which is the only niche Caldari missile PvP works in atm (above frigsize).
You will always have some kind of blobs. The issue with the Drake blobs was just:
1) too cheap (for its performance) 2) too easy to sit in side (lower skill reqs than BS) 3) too fast/small (even as a not exactly fast BC its faster than BS) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:29:00 -
[4140] - Quote
CM is? |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:35:00 -
[4141] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CM is?
Cruise Missiles ... which are atm completely broken in PvP and subpar too in PvE. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:47:00 -
[4142] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Some figures:
Precision Heavy 0 m/s - 500 m/s
Sollution?
Because developing solutions off numbers derived from scenarios that don't even remotely resemble combat is useful?
Webs, TPs, MWDs, ABs, Shield Tanks are all part of the package and their effects need to be considered. (Ie. when was the last time you saw a BC doing 500m/s w/out a prop mod?) |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 15:49:00 -
[4143] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Kesthely wrote: you've just replaced drake blobs with double/tripple heavy neut Raven/Typhoon blobs with More range, effective hp, and more dam vs battlecruisers and up then the current drake blobs.
I would call that a pretty big success to be honest.
Although that would fix the DRAKE it wouldn't fix the HML. There are more ships then just the drake. Doing something so one ship suddenly isn't used anymore and a dozen other ships suffer the drawbacks as well isn't balancing. Eg in the case of the drake if ccp desides that the HML is to strong they could add role bonuses of -25% range of HML or -10% damage of HML like they did with the old destroyers. and then keep the normal ship bonuses that would still contribute to all missile systems. But thats a SHIP BALANCING ISSUE, not a MISSILE balancing issue.
As i've kept saying troughout this topic, i agree something has to be done with heavy missiles, i don't mind the range nerf, but there are other ways to make the heavy missiles better, like:
Switch the PG and CPU need for HAM and HML Give the HML a 25% reduction in flight time, while keeping its speed the same Reduce the Damage of HML by 10%
Fix the Missile skills so that after these base weapon changes the missiles work appropiatly
Then you have a solid base for to work on the ships. |
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 16:08:00 -
[4144] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CM is?
Cruise Missiles.
|
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 16:09:00 -
[4145] - Quote
@ Kesthely
What ship that was used before this nerf (apart from the Drake) that won't be used after it?
- Caracals are getting buffed, and will be better after Winter.
- NIghtmare's haven't been used in eons.
- Tengus will still be used. They just won't be the clear choice for PVE.
- HML Lachs will still be used. (their HMLs do lol dps now, so who cares)
- Celestis, lol.
- Curses still won't fit HMLs to their highs.
- Minnie ships still won't fit HMLs to their utility highs.
What ship that was not used before this nerf will be used after it?
- Ravens will return to Eve.
- Drone boats may return to the mid-range roaming niche.
- Mid-range turret boats may get a look in. (Arty Muninn, Ruppie and Cane, Eagles w/ Rails?)
- The dual damage bonus + dual range bonus on Cerbs is looking less stupid. (And RIDICULOUSLY fast missiles now).
|
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 16:13:00 -
[4146] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Kesthely wrote: you've just replaced drake blobs with double/tripple heavy neut Raven/Typhoon blobs with More range, effective hp, and more dam vs battlecruisers and up then the current drake blobs.
I would call that a pretty big success to be honest. Although that would fix the DRAKE it wouldn't fix the HML. There are more ships then just the drake. Doing something so one ship suddenly isn't used anymore and a dozen other ships suffer the drawbacks as well isn't balancing. Eg in the case of the drake if ccp desides that the HML is to strong they could add role bonuses of -25% range of HML or -10% damage of HML like they did with the old destroyers. and then keep the normal ship bonuses that would still contribute to all missile systems. But thats a SHIP BALANCING ISSUE, not a MISSILE balancing issue. As i've kept saying troughout this topic, i agree something has to be done with heavy missiles, i don't mind the range nerf, but there are other ways to make the heavy missiles better, like: Switch the PG and CPU need for HAM and HML Give the HML a 25% reduction in flight time, while keeping its speed the same Reduce the Damage of HML by 10% Fix the Missile skills so that after these base weapon changes the missiles work appropiatly Then you have a solid base for to work on the ships.
I can kind of agree with you, but one thing this change does do, is make missile rigs more important. As well as the painter modules.
And who knows, maybe they remove the drakes 5% shield resist bonus and change it in favor of a explosion radius, explosion vel bonus.
|
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 16:18:00 -
[4147] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote: And who knows, maybe they remove the drakes 5% shield resist bonus and change it in favor of a explosion radius, explosion vel bonus.
I think swapping a 5% shield resist bonus for a 10% Missile velocity bonus is more likely; and the Kinetic damage bonus for either a straight damage bonus or a ROF.
That leaves you with 90+Km range, 42K EHP, a point and a TP or Web, w/ 2 BCU.
The explosion velocity / radii bonus makes the drake too much of a frig killer. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 16:26:00 -
[4148] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote: (Ie. when was the last time you saw a BC doing 500m/s w/out a prop mod?)
AB BC's don't receive sig penalties and easily go faster then 500m/s MWD BS's don't get drawbacks of there sig increase in the values.
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Kesthely wrote:Some figures:
Precision Heavy 0 m/s - 500 m/s
Sollution?
Because developing solutions off numbers derived from scenarios that don't even remotely resemble combat is useful? Webs, TPs, MWDs, ABs, Shield Tanks are all part of the package and their effects need to be considered.
Yes an this is exactly where YOU are considering it wrong. These stats are the basic missile balance, without skills - ship bonuses - mods - ewar considered in the calculation. The stats that you need to look at when redesigning ship weapons / and ships.
The balance begins at its weapon system. Then you check if the current skills are still correct, then you add the Ship modules, and ewar, and finally you take in ship hulls in consideration. If any of the previous (weaponsystem, skills, ship modules, ewar) are out of sync, you can NEVER get a balanced ship.
With these changes, the end result might look ok on paper when you take in skills mods and shipbonuses in consideration on eg the drake. That doesn't mean that the weapon system itself didn't become more broken.
The idea that one single weapon system of a certain size class won't be able to do full damage against a target of the same size while the other 7 (short and long range guns, short range missiles) do is not a balance. The idea that a medium sized ship long range missile travels faster then a small sized ship long range missile is not a balance The idea that one TII ammo type out performs another TII ammo in every aspect, unless some verry strange scenarios happen is not a balance.
The idea is to design a weapon system thats balanced and then redesign the ships around it. Not to rebalance a weapon system around one ship, and then have to pull out magical rabbits out of a hat to fix other ships. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 16:52:00 -
[4149] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Kai'rae Saarkus wrote: (Ie. when was the last time you saw a BC doing 500m/s w/out a prop mod?)
AB BC's don't receive sig penalties and easily go faster then 500m/s MWD BS's don't get drawbacks of there sig increase in the values.
Both are prop mods, no? I thought the stats you were presenting were without Mods?
Kesthely wrote:Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Kesthely wrote:Some figures:
Precision Heavy 0 m/s - 500 m/s
Sollution?
Because developing solutions off numbers derived from scenarios that don't even remotely resemble combat is useful? Webs, TPs, MWDs, ABs, Shield Tanks are all part of the package and their effects need to be considered. Yes an this is exactly where YOU are considering it wrong. These stats are the basic missile balance, without skills - ship bonuses - mods - ewar considered in the calculation. The stats that you need to look at when redesigning ship weapons / and ships.
And that's how the nano age came about. With non-maxed skills, in non-maxed hulls, in non-maxed play styles - nano and MWDs were balanced.
You can't balance things without considering their context.
A BC going 500m/s without any sig bloom is the perfect situation in which to be taking missile damage; ofc in that situation that ship will take less than optimal missile DPS.
Equally, so what if Precision cruise do more DPS than Fury heavies. They should for a variety of reasons that have all to do with context, and nothing to do with the missile itself.
That being said: I think you're probably right that they've lent a little too hard on the Hvy Missile Explosion velocity to achieve the desired damage reduction. But, you're argument isn't really convincing me of that. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 16:59:00 -
[4150] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:@ Kesthely What ship that was used before this nerf (apart from the Drake) won't be used after it?
- Caracals are getting buffed, and will be better after Winter.
- NIghtmare's haven't been used in eons.
- Tengus will still be used. They just won't be the clear choice for PVE.
- HML Lachs will still be used. (their HMLs do lol dps now, so who cares)
- Celestis, lol.
- Curses still won't fit HMLs to their highs.
- Minnie ships still won't fit HMLs to their utility highs (except the Huginn - but you don't fly that for DPS anyway).
What ship that was not used before this nerf will be used after it?
- Ravens will return to Eve.
- Drone boats may return to the mid-range roaming niche.
- Mid-range turret boats may get a look in. (Arty Muninn, Ruppie and Cane, Eagles w/ Rails?)
- The dual damage bonus + dual range bonus on Cerbs is looking less stupid. (And RIDICULOUSLY fast missiles now).
How Caracals will be, we will all see then. Nighthawks (which is what you meant) havent been used, true. Which is a clear indication for HML not being OP at all, and the NH being broken. It should be fixed asap .. Tengus will be less viable than now, so in PvE they will be maybe even behind Golems and CNRs, which leaves Minmatar to be the even more uncontested overall PvE FOTM than they are already now ..
Ravens will only return, if they work as a complete system of CM/Raven in PvP. I dont see this will really be happening with the next patch. Cerb, we will see.
I still believe the solution of this all should be something completely different, give HML a true range ammo (t2) with small DPS like turrets long range ammo but similar range (maybe Optimal + 1.5 falloff of the turrets, can be balanced around that so its really working) and extremely fast missiles and extremely short flight times, so shooting on those ranges actually contributes to the battle. Then, and only then missiles can have a role in long range, if they are not OP by paper stats like HML are now.
To ad one thing: the Drake will not be "fixed" after this patch, it will be fixed just as a null sec blob tool, and fixed means here - killed. In other aspects it will be broken: sub par. So, no - this is not the right direction. Much work to do for you CCP!
|
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 18:32:00 -
[4151] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Some figures:
Precision Heavy 0 m/s - 500 m/s Dam 135 Expl radius 125 Expl Velocity 97 Dam vs Frig 43.2 - 8.4 Dam vs Cruiser 135 - 26.2 Dam vs Battlecruiser 135 - 26.2 Dam vs Battleship 135 - 26.2
CN Heavy Dam 155 Expl radius 140 Expl velocity 81 Dam vs Frig 44.2 - 7.2 Dam vs Cruiser 138.4 - 22.4 Dam vs Battlecruiser 155 - 25.11 Dam vs Battleship 155 - 25.11
Fury Heavy Dam 182 Expl radius 241 Expl velocity 68 Dam vs Frig 30.2 - 4.1 Dam vs Cruiser 94.3 - 12.8 Dam vs Battlecruiser 182 - 24.8 Dam vs Battleship 182 - 24.8
Precision Cruise Dam 300 Expl radius 270 Expl Velocity 83 Dam vs Frig 44.4 - 7.4 Dam vs Cruiser 138.8 - 23.0 Dam vs Battlecruiser 300 - 49.8 Dam vs Battleship 300 - 49.8
* For sig radius i took the average sig radius of all 4 races tier 1 Battlecruisers
What does this mean?
This tabel shows that in any scenario, where the speed is higher than its explosion velocity (68 m/s) a Precision missile will outperform a fury missile. This tabel shows that in EVERY scenario, the Cruise precision missile will outperform faction heavy missiles.
you've just replaced drake blobs with double/tripple heavy neut Raven/Typhoon blobs with More range, effective hp, and more dam vs battlecruisers and up then the current drake blobs. Whats worse, they don't even need to think, shall i use faction, shall i use fury? no they will be doctorined to only bring Precision missiles. Your manageing to make 2 ships obsolete for blob warefare and merge them into 2 new ships, while at the same time makeing a weapons platform nearly impossible to balance with its new stats due to all the out of sync speed damage and applied damage ratios compared to the light and cruise variants.
Sollution?
Easy: Reverse the Sig radius change on heavy missiles, keep the 10% dam nerf, and change the missile speed back to the old missile speed, and reduce the flight time appropiatly to correspond with your new desired base range.
THEN when done that check the missile SKILLS. Im not positive what exactly you did wrong with these numbers, but even when using the smallest battleship (typhoon 320 m) going 500 m/s which is truly a worst case scenario because it means he's not shield tanking to raise his sig, and not armor tanking because there is no way you get to 500 m/s with an armor tank without an MWD
even with a typhoon going 500 m/s precision missiles should still do 120.664 damage a caldari navy missile shooting at the same ship should do 78.69 damage Heavy Furys do 40.2 against the same ship
Remember this is a worst case scenario, and that target painters help a ton with fury damage which has a really high theoretical max. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 18:37:00 -
[4152] - Quote
@Sigras, I still wait for your answer on this:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1998084#post1998084
I assume I wont get any? :) |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 19:05:00 -
[4153] - Quote
the reason i didnt answer that post is that it's entirely based on speculation.
The number of variables to calculate to determine how the HAM/Torpedo changes will affect short range combat are to great for anyone to accurately comment on.
It is my feeling though that this change will really increase the effectiveness of HAMs especially vs blasters
secondly, saying that HMLs are the "only missile system viable" for PvP is a straw man argument. Railguns are useless, is that a justification for making blasters totally overpowered? no they are separate arguments.
Lastly, the argument that 3-4 km isnt enough to compensate for the loss of missiles due to a moving target is again purely speculation as you dont know how the missile speed/agility changes are going to affect their performance in combat.
Also, you realize that at shorter ranges, your missile launchers can also load higher damage ammo, but that wasnt what we were talking about was it?
The typical combat ranges are 100 km and that's only with dedicated sniper boats like the muninn/zealot; the cerberus can hit far past that with no range modifiers at all!
That fill your need for attention pumpkin? |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
191
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 19:05:00 -
[4154] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:I have to say after reading the revised stuff this is starting to come across as trying to reduce latency on the servers more and more and not actually anything to do with "balancing"
Obviously. And that is, in fact, what CCP offered as justification last year when they proposed nerfing the Drake.
Now however, in this very thread, we have been assured that missile lag is no longer the issue. Apparently it's the Drake's total wtfpwnage of everything in space with it's crazy range and ungodly DPS. The Drake is the freaking serial killer of Eve or something. And CCP does have a point...
Setting aside the Tornado, Naga, Talos, and Oracle, what BC can hit so far?!
And what BC, other than the Tornado, Naga, Talos, Oracle, Cane, Brutix, Ferox, Myrmidon, Prophesy, Harbinger, or Cyclone can do sooo much DPS?!
And speed, oh my god, what BC other than Tornado, Naga, Talos, Oracle, Cane, Brutix, Ferox, Myrmidon, Prophesy, Harbinger, or Cyclone can be fitted to go so fast?!
And let's not get started about the Drake's insane tank. What other BC, besides the Cane, Brutix, Ferox, Myrmidon, Prophesy, Harbinger, or Cyclone, can even begin to fit an 80K ehp tank?!
Clearly the Drake stands in a league all it's own. It has advantages no other BC can even begin to compete against. It's no wonder that 99% of the ships seen in low sec are Drakes. I, for one, welcome this new Drake nerf.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 19:08:00 -
[4155] - Quote
again, you miss the point; its not that the drake can do any one of the things the other battlecruisers you listed can do; its that the drake can do them all at once.
the DPS of heavy missiles is WAY out of line with every other weapon system. |
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 19:12:00 -
[4156] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Some figures:
Precision Heavy 0 m/s - 500 m/s Dam 135 Expl radius 125 Expl Velocity 97 Dam vs Frig 43.2 - 8.4 Dam vs Cruiser 135 - 26.2 Dam vs Battlecruiser 135 - 26.2 Dam vs Battleship 135 - 26.2
CN Heavy Dam 155 Expl radius 140 Expl velocity 81 Dam vs Frig 44.2 - 7.2 Dam vs Cruiser 138.4 - 22.4 Dam vs Battlecruiser 155 - 25.11 Dam vs Battleship 155 - 25.11
Fury Heavy Dam 182 Expl radius 241 Expl velocity 68 Dam vs Frig 30.2 - 4.1 Dam vs Cruiser 94.3 - 12.8 Dam vs Battlecruiser 182 - 24.8 Dam vs Battleship 182 - 24.8
Precision Cruise Dam 300 Expl radius 270 Expl Velocity 83 Dam vs Frig 44.4 - 7.4 Dam vs Cruiser 138.8 - 23.0 Dam vs Battlecruiser 300 - 49.8 Dam vs Battleship 300 - 49.8
* For sig radius i took the average sig radius of all 4 races tier 1 Battlecruisers
What does this mean?
This tabel shows that in any scenario, where the speed is higher than its explosion velocity (68 m/s) a Precision missile will outperform a fury missile. This tabel shows that in EVERY scenario, the Cruise precision missile will outperform faction heavy missiles.
you've just replaced drake blobs with double/tripple heavy neut Raven/Typhoon blobs with More range, effective hp, and more dam vs battlecruisers and up then the current drake blobs. Whats worse, they don't even need to think, shall i use faction, shall i use fury? no they will be doctorined to only bring Precision missiles. Your manageing to make 2 ships obsolete for blob warefare and merge them into 2 new ships, while at the same time makeing a weapons platform nearly impossible to balance with its new stats due to all the out of sync speed damage and applied damage ratios compared to the light and cruise variants.
Sollution?
Easy: Reverse the Sig radius change on heavy missiles, keep the 10% dam nerf, and change the missile speed back to the old missile speed, and reduce the flight time appropiatly to correspond with your new desired base range.
THEN when done that check the missile SKILLS.
Does this include launcher fire rate for dps? It looks like volley only to me. Tech 2 cruise launchers have a rate of fire of 17 sec before skills / mods. HML's have a rate of fire of 12 sec before skills / mods. This means that the Cruise precision have roughly the same volley damage as faction heavy on frigates vs a lower dps value. Everything looks pretty balanced to me except that there doesn't seem to be a reason to use precision over faction for heavies. This needs to be addressed I believe, otherwise the Fury selection seems spot on. A Raven using Precision cruise should still kill a frigate a tad slower than the heavy faction.
Applied damage with precision on smaller targets should be looked at, seems low. My thought process is precision for frigs, faction for cruisers, fury for anything bigger than a cruiser. Looks pretty close outside of the precision numbers.
This does make the missile mission runners more attractive as well, I use a SNI on my missioner and it does work well, this should just speed up the process and lower the need for as many cap boosters as I use. Thinking about swapping ammo types to what an when will be great as well. Hopefully the new AI will make mission running a more robust experience as well instead of a scripted action to grind isk.
The other factor to put into this I believe is how attractive they have made the Bellicose as a support ship for missile users. Bring a few in your fleet and watch all your missile boats perform better. They also look as if they will do pretty decent dps to boot.
CCP does look to be really thinking about the synergy of how these ships will work along side one another. Is a torp Raven going to be great at everything solo? Not at all, but with allowing guided missile precision to effect unguided missiles, it opens up the ability to use rigs for tank, and if you bring a couple bellicose friends along with a few tacklers, you have one hell of a dps machine that will actually be able to apply it's dps. Maybe even a logi cruiser or 2....
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 19:49:00 -
[4157] - Quote
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote: Does this include launcher fire rate for dps? It looks like volley only to me. Tech 2 cruise launchers have a rate of fire of 17 sec before skills / mods. HML's have a rate of fire of 12 sec before skills / mods.
Yes this is indeed only the volley damage. I agree with your assesment though. Perhaps CCP should look into balancing the damage with Rate of Fire and Damage.
I for one dont believe that the current damage output vs different sizes of ships (Explosion radius) is the biggest issue. I think that that is brought in to keep the damage down to roughly 20% of current damage.
I'm so against the explosion velocity penalty that i actually much rather have a 25% normal damage penalty then the 10% dam and 12% explosion velocity.
Also CCP if your upgradeing heavy missile speed to have fewer missiles in the air to reduce lag, remember with a lower rate of fire, you still get fewer missiles in the air! |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Happy Endings
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 19:58:00 -
[4158] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Im not positive what exactly you did wrong with these numbers, but even when using the smallest battleship (typhoon 320 m) going 500 m/s which is truly a worst case scenario because it means he's not shield tanking to raise his sig, and not armor tanking because there is no way you get to 500 m/s with an armor tank without an MWD
even with a typhoon going 500 m/s precision missiles should still do 120.664 damage a caldari navy missile shooting at the same ship should do 78.69 damage Heavy Furys do 40.2 against the same ship
Remember this is a worst case scenario, and that target painters help a ton with fury damage which has a really high theoretical max.
I don't know if i made a calculation error, in my case the difference was only 1.4 dam, in your case the difference is nearly 3 times the damage. Wich makes my point even clearer. With these changes why would you use a Fury missile vs a Precision missile except on caps?
|
Reticle
Sight Picture
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 20:01:00 -
[4159] - Quote
Jester has done our math for us. Somewhat encouraging to me personally
Great article: http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2012/10/projectionist.html
|
Ellente Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:19:00 -
[4160] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Some figures:
Precision Heavy 0 m/s - 500 m/s Dam 135 Expl radius 125 Expl Velocity 97 Dam vs Frig 43.2 - 8.4 Dam vs Cruiser 135 - 26.2 Dam vs Battlecruiser 135 - 26.2 Dam vs Battleship 135 - 26.2
CN Heavy Dam 155 Expl radius 140 Expl velocity 81 Dam vs Frig 44.2 - 7.2 Dam vs Cruiser 138.4 - 22.4 Dam vs Battlecruiser 155 - 25.11 Dam vs Battleship 155 - 25.11
Fury Heavy Dam 182 Expl radius 241 Expl velocity 68 Dam vs Frig 30.2 - 4.1 Dam vs Cruiser 94.3 - 12.8 Dam vs Battlecruiser 182 - 24.8 Dam vs Battleship 182 - 24.8
Precision Cruise Dam 300 Expl radius 270 Expl Velocity 83 Dam vs Frig 44.4 - 7.4 Dam vs Cruiser 138.8 - 23.0 Dam vs Battlecruiser 300 - 49.8 Dam vs Battleship 300 - 49.8
* For sig radius i took the average sig radius of all 4 races tier 1 Battlecruisers
Ah I think these numbers are wrong. May I ask what damage formula you used? The reason being that you can achieve perfect damage through sig radius alone. I am fairly sure that precision heavies will do full damage to a AB BS even before skills. See my earlier post on furies before and after changes. Damage = D * MIN(1, Sr/Er, (Ev/V * Sr/Er)^(log(DRF) / log(5.5)) ) |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:20:00 -
[4161] - Quote
Sigras wrote:again, you miss the point; its not that the drake can do any one of the things the other battlecruisers you listed can do; its that the drake can do them all at once.
the DPS of heavy missiles is WAY out of line with every other weapon system.
If that would be true in game - again - we would see stuff like we do with Projectiles, ships fitting them without having a bonus on them.
Everyone is free to crosstrain to Caldari, but somehow in lowsec you still see more Canes than Drakes, and many other stuff too which is NOT using HML.
HML&Drake are OP in null. Fix CM/Ravens and CM/Raven/Phoon fleets will **** the Drakes there. Problem solved.
And about what I asked you and you didnt want to answer yet: I didnt ask about how it *could* be after the patch, because I wanted to stick with how it is now:
is there *RIGHT NOW* another bigger than frig missile system working in PvP at all, except HMLs on mostly Drakes in that named range window, yes or no?
Then, will you agree there seem to be more urgent things to fix than trying to break this one single missile PvP system which is still working? For example OPness of Winmatar in nearly every ship class and engagement type, except null sec blobs ...?
Whatever.
Fly safe all .. |
Lili Lu
515
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:29:00 -
[4162] - Quote
Are people still bitching and moaning in this thread? Every single thing anyone could want to say about the changes has been said already many many times. Give it a rest, ffs. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 21:39:00 -
[4163] - Quote
I too am suprised the B!tching is still going STRONG.
Also HAMS should do alot better against smaller targets than heavy missiles. Don't know if something has changed on that front because I stop reading about these changes. |
Doc Severide
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
189
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 22:47:00 -
[4164] - Quote
Besides, regardless what anyone in this thread has said, the decision has been made, no one will be heard anyway... Why waste asking opinions when you've already decided? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3130
|
Posted - 2012.10.03 23:07:00 -
[4165] - Quote
Doc Severide wrote:Besides, regardless what anyone in this thread has said, the decision has been made, no one will be heard anyway... Why waste asking opinions when you've already decided?
Well aren't you the cheerful one!
You forgot about the part where Fozzie asked for feedback people gave it to him and than he changed things. There is that. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Hellz Hitman
No-Mercy STEEL BROTHERHOOD
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 01:25:00 -
[4166] - Quote
Right now, in a 1v1 fight drakes lose to just about any other BC. And HAM drakes are pitiful. Short range weapon system drake = 700 dps MAX. Short range weapon system cane = 856, Brutix = over 1k with rigs ect. Properly fit Myrm even can stretch 800. So please do on telling me how OP the weapons system is. Tell me how OP my 556 dps HML drake is, against a field of pvpers that Nano everything.
I see people saying the range changes wont be that bad because you can use missile range rigs, any missile rig that increases range effects it for appx 50% of the equivalent turret rig. Due to Missiles drawing their range from 2 stats and Turrets grabbing optimals from 1 and falloff from 1. Missiles are supposed to have a higher range to compensate for the fact that Missiles do not have fall off. And I'm sorry to all you hopefully naive people out there who believe that the missile rigs will compensate for it. It really wont.
And another thing, if I am using a turret ship, which with all turret skills to 5 or 4 I often do, I ensure I have 5-6 different ammo types, allowing me to maximize my dps regardless of my range. Please tell me how you can even compare that to missiles in any way. If I'm in my drake or nighthawk, I know I need to get 3-5 km closer to the target then my optimal. Can you say that as a Turret user? And I know that chances are in that target is moving even remotely fast and I'm in an unimplanted clone I stand NO chance of hitting them for meaningful damage. And the caracal changes wont make a bit of difference. Using it as a sniper ship is still unviable due to the 10-15 second flight time before first damage application at max ranged. Have any of you even used the caracal? I have several hundred kills in a caracal over the years, used to be my ship of choice until I cross trained into other races. By the time your missiles hit the target you are either about to get tackled, or a Talos or Nado already has you locked and is firing.
You want to talk about op? Talk about how a Talos with Void loaded can reach out and touch my drake for full damage at max range (65-75km), while even with his MWD on I'm still not hitting for full damage.
It's about the time to face the facts here. Caldari as a race is broken. The Cerberus, which has barely better stats then a caracal, but costs 100m+ more is broken. The Nighthawk, which is barely better then the tengu, or worse in some situations is broken. The Eagle? The Moa? Broken. After these changes the Ferox, yes, little 650 dps max Ferox is going to be the best Caldari ship to use in pvp. For those saying the Raven, you've never flown a Raven have you? Its not a Minnie bs, its quite slow, and once you switch out a mid for a target painter you tank less then all equivocal Bs's. Sure awesome dps with torps, but have you tried to keep up and hit a target. This isn't a turret based ship where you have fall off to rely on to at least ensure damage projection, and you dont have the drone bay of most turret based ships, so your damage really is the lowest of low.
And then should you try to leave the fight well, not too much of a point there, you wont get away. Unlike large rails or blasters or arties, or autos, or lasers, you cant hit a frig with a torp, nor a cruise for good damage. With a blaster, you can get one good hit off and BAM frig dead and you're gone. Try doing this with a Raven. You get one AMAZING hit off for.... 20 dmg. Meaning you still have a full 30 some odd shots to remove shield and armor, of course assuming that the frig hasn't regen'd it by now.
My point is simply, you can't "Balance" missiles by comparing them to drastically different weapons systems. Missiles had slightly better damage to equate for the fact that your shots take for ever to hit and that you will be wasting ammo with every 5-6 shot if a target dies.
Do the math, research it. Use the ships in game. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
321
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 01:50:00 -
[4167] - Quote
Hellz Hitman wrote:Right now, in a 1v1 fight drakes lose to just about any other BC. And HAM drakes are pitiful. Short range weapon system drake = 700 dps MAX. Short range weapon system cane = 856, Brutix = over 1k with rigs ect. Properly fit Myrm even can stretch 800. So please do on telling me how OP the weapons system is. Tell me how OP my 556 dps HML drake is, against a field of pvpers that Nano everything. Either your issue is HAM performance, which is getting buffed, or you are comparing HML's to short range weapons again, which is flawed. Possibly both.
Hellz Hitman wrote: I see people saying the range changes wont be that bad because you can use missile range rigs, any missile rig that increases range effects it for appx 50% of the equivalent turret rig. Due to Missiles drawing their range from 2 stats and Turrets grabbing optimals from 1 and falloff from 1. Missiles are supposed to have a higher range to compensate for the fact that Missiles do not have fall off. And I'm sorry to all you hopefully naive people out there who believe that the missile rigs will compensate for it. It really wont.
This is untrue. Missile range augmentation by one stat does more than turret range augmentation by just falloff or optimal. A missile flight speed OR flight time increase does for missiles what a pair of bonuses of the same factor, one to optimal AND a second to falloff, does for turrets. TC/TE changes would have helped give even more options.
Hellz Hitman wrote:You want to talk about op? Talk about how a Talos with Void loaded can reach out and touch my drake for full damage at max range (65-75km), while even with his MWD on I'm still not hitting for full damage. I'd like to know how that would work. At 65-75km you are deep into falloff and loosing damage. The ship can be a threat no doubt, but how it would be doing full damage is something I'm not aware of. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
95
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 02:19:00 -
[4168] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hellz Hitman wrote:You want to talk about op? Talk about how a Talos with Void loaded can reach out and touch my drake for full damage at max range (65-75km), while even with his MWD on I'm still not hitting for full damage. I'd like to know how that would work. At 65-75km you are deep into falloff and loosing damage. The ship can be a threat no doubt, but how it would be doing full damage is something I'm not aware of.
A talos with void does not come close to doing even falloff damage to 65 km
Hellz Hitman is just being unbelievably bad.
EDIT: The talos and the other tier3's are kinda stupid though. |
Hellz Hitman
No-Mercy STEEL BROTHERHOOD
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 02:19:00 -
[4169] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hellz Hitman wrote:Right now, in a 1v1 fight drakes lose to just about any other BC. And HAM drakes are pitiful. Short range weapon system drake = 700 dps MAX. Short range weapon system cane = 856, Brutix = over 1k with rigs ect. Properly fit Myrm even can stretch 800. So please do on telling me how OP the weapons system is. Tell me how OP my 556 dps HML drake is, against a field of pvpers that Nano everything. Either your issue is HAM performance, which is getting buffed, or you are comparing HML's to short range weapons again, which is flawed. Possibly both. Hellz Hitman wrote: I see people saying the range changes wont be that bad because you can use missile range rigs, any missile rig that increases range effects it for appx 50% of the equivalent turret rig. Due to Missiles drawing their range from 2 stats and Turrets grabbing optimals from 1 and falloff from 1. Missiles are supposed to have a higher range to compensate for the fact that Missiles do not have fall off. And I'm sorry to all you hopefully naive people out there who believe that the missile rigs will compensate for it. It really wont.
This is untrue. Missile range augmentation by one stat does more than turret range augmentation by just falloff or optimal. A missile flight speed OR flight time increase does for missiles what a pair of bonuses of the same factor, one to optimal AND a second to falloff, does for turrets. TC/TE changes would have helped give even more options. Hellz Hitman wrote:You want to talk about op? Talk about how a Talos with Void loaded can reach out and touch my drake for full damage at max range (65-75km), while even with his MWD on I'm still not hitting for full damage. I'd like to know how that would work. At 65-75km you are deep into falloff and loosing damage. The ship can be a threat no doubt, but how it would be doing full damage is something I'm not aware of.
The HAM Performance buff is still not going to bring it on par with weapons systems of the same type. Turret based weapon systems have the option of switching ammo to increase their range and maintain dps even at extreme ranges. Missiles really don't.
The HAM worthlessness, is a main reason why people use HML's as short range weapons systems. So I personally believe its worth a comparison, especially in the light of the nerfs which will be changing HMLs into a short to mid range weapon. Well that is if you want to do any dps at all.
I would also like to know why a Talos can hit me that hard from that much range. But it happens more often that not, he might miss one shot, or two if I'm lucky and attempting to keep transversal up. Talos and tornados are the new flavor of the month right now.
We had three drakes on a gate vs a solitary talos 68 km out. This talos was able to hit us with neutron blasters at that range for hits breaking 600 -800 dmg while our missiles barely scratched him for 100-200.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
95
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 02:23:00 -
[4170] - Quote
Hellz Hitman wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hellz Hitman wrote:Right now, in a 1v1 fight drakes lose to just about any other BC. And HAM drakes are pitiful. Short range weapon system drake = 700 dps MAX. Short range weapon system cane = 856, Brutix = over 1k with rigs ect. Properly fit Myrm even can stretch 800. So please do on telling me how OP the weapons system is. Tell me how OP my 556 dps HML drake is, against a field of pvpers that Nano everything. Either your issue is HAM performance, which is getting buffed, or you are comparing HML's to short range weapons again, which is flawed. Possibly both. Hellz Hitman wrote: I see people saying the range changes wont be that bad because you can use missile range rigs, any missile rig that increases range effects it for appx 50% of the equivalent turret rig. Due to Missiles drawing their range from 2 stats and Turrets grabbing optimals from 1 and falloff from 1. Missiles are supposed to have a higher range to compensate for the fact that Missiles do not have fall off. And I'm sorry to all you hopefully naive people out there who believe that the missile rigs will compensate for it. It really wont.
This is untrue. Missile range augmentation by one stat does more than turret range augmentation by just falloff or optimal. A missile flight speed OR flight time increase does for missiles what a pair of bonuses of the same factor, one to optimal AND a second to falloff, does for turrets. TC/TE changes would have helped give even more options. Hellz Hitman wrote:You want to talk about op? Talk about how a Talos with Void loaded can reach out and touch my drake for full damage at max range (65-75km), while even with his MWD on I'm still not hitting for full damage. I'd like to know how that would work. At 65-75km you are deep into falloff and loosing damage. The ship can be a threat no doubt, but how it would be doing full damage is something I'm not aware of. The HAM Performance buff is still not going to bring it on par with weapons systems of the same type. Turret based weapon systems have the option of switching ammo to increase their range and maintain dps even at extreme ranges. Missiles really don't. The HAM worthlessness, is a main reason why people use HML's as short range weapons systems. So I personally believe its worth a comparison, especially in the light of the nerfs which will be changing HMLs into a short to mid range weapon. Well that is if you want to do any dps at all. I would also like to know why a Talos can hit me that hard from that much range. But it happens more often that not, he might miss one shot, or two if I'm lucky and attempting to keep transversal up. Talos and tornados are the new flavor of the month right now. We had three drakes on a gate vs a solitary talos 68 km out. This talos was able to hit us with neutron blasters at that range for hits breaking 600 -800 dmg while our missiles barely scratched him for 100-200.
Keeping transveral up.. at 65km.. With an MWD... You do realize that doesn't work right?
Also a talos does just about 170 dps at 65km with null loaded and has around 26k ehp (Also worth noting that he is using LARGE guns, not a medium weapon system like the HML)
If you couldn't kill it with 3 hml drakes its because you are unbelievably bad. |
|
Akili Unik
Secure Arms Trade Coalition Secure Arms Trade Coalitions
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 02:25:00 -
[4171] - Quote
So what will happen to the rigs we've applied to those mining frigates? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
95
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 02:31:00 -
[4172] - Quote
Akili Unik wrote:So what will happen to the rigs we've applied to those mining frigates?
this isn't the thread you're looking for..
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=146069 <--
Also recompense for rigs on t1 frigs.. lol |
Hellz Hitman
No-Mercy STEEL BROTHERHOOD
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 02:36:00 -
[4173] - Quote
Keeping transveral up.. at 65km.. With an MWD... You do realize that doesn't work right?
Also a talos does just about 170 dps at 65km with null loaded and has around 26k ehp (Also worth noting that he is using LARGE guns, not a medium weapon system like the HML)
If you couldn't kill it with 3 hml drakes its because you are unbelievably bad.
EDIT: Also to your stupid rant about ammo types... See the t2 missile changes.[/quote] The T2 missile changes are unbelieveably bad. Not one of them really balances the system. So quit fail trolling. And If we caught it I don't doubt we could have killed it. Issue remains that the dps that it was able to output with a short range weapon system was larger then the dps we could output with missiles. Not whether we killed it or not.
I can also bring in examples of Nados, Talos, Pests, even brutix's insta popping frigates from extreme ranges. Ranges outside their optimal but at least unlike missiles they still had a chance to hit,.
And as for the transversal question, yes that was quite the point there. Glad you wrapped your head around it. |
Akili Unik
Secure Arms Trade Coalition Secure Arms Trade Coalitions
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 02:47:00 -
[4174] - Quote
This thread talks about the new patch. On the new patch some frigates and in my case the bantam are receiving some changes. I have fitted that bantam with 3 x cargo rigs II, lol crazy but yes. Now what will happen to those rigs since theyll become obsolete after the frigate changes role to logistic. Will I be stuck with useless expensive rigs on a logistic frig or will CCP "recompense" as you said? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
321
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 02:59:00 -
[4175] - Quote
Akili Unik wrote:This thread talks about the new patch. On the new patch some frigates and in my case the bantam are receiving some changes. I have fitted that bantam with 3 x cargo rigs II, lol crazy but yes. Now what will happen to those rigs since theyll become obsolete after the frigate changes role to logistic. Will I be stuck with useless expensive rigs on a logistic frig or will CCP "recompense" as you said? I really wanted to indulge my inner smartass but I'm going to refrain. To answer your question: yes, you are stuck with those rigs and no compensation if their treatment of the even more expensive medium T2 rigs on exhumers is any indication when those were changed.
Looking forward to the BS re-balance and the possibility of my fits becoming irrelevant or needing new ships altogether. |
IDGAD
The rent is too damnn high
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 03:25:00 -
[4176] - Quote
This has most likely been said a million times already but......
If you take heavy missiles down to the range, and damage of other long range medium guns, they will become the worst weapon of that class hands down (even with moderate bonuses). The core problem with missiles is actually their very existence. The idea of missiles is that you got increased range, and damage for the annoyances of their difficulty in hitting smaller targets that guns could, and of course THE TIME IT TAKES TO HIT . The largest factor in the new nerfed missiles will be that they will be like the others, but have nothing but major downfalls like damage infliction delays due to travel time. |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 03:52:00 -
[4177] - Quote
IDGAD wrote:This has most likely been said a million times already but......
If you take heavy missiles down to the range, and damage of other long range medium guns, they will become the worst weapon of that class hands down (even with moderate bonuses). The core problem with missiles is actually their very existence. The idea of missiles is that you got increased range, and damage for the annoyances of their difficulty in hitting smaller targets that guns could, and of course THE TIME IT TAKES TO HIT . The largest factor in the new nerfed missiles will be that they will be like the others, but have nothing but major downfalls like damage infliction delays due to travel time.
A good point and Ill quote it in the hope that if its said often enough it will be herd.
Please let missiles have one clear advantage over other systems to balance flight time and dont tell me damage selection as that is only of any use in pve and on ships that dont favour one damage type.
(would be nice to see those bonuses change to omni, hell even RoF would be ok but makes counting vollies harder and running costs higher)
At this point I dont care what that advantage is but please let it have one
I would prefer dps but range would be ok
massive alpha would be another option
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
763
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 03:58:00 -
[4178] - Quote
^ Would you be satisfied with missiles being better then blasters or rail guns? Or are you talking about a real weapon system? I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
LtTrog
five finger death punch
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 04:19:00 -
[4179] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ Would you be satisfied with missiles being better then blasters or rail guns? Or are you talking about a real weapon system?
well my idea of balance would be one weapon system be it lasors hybrids missiles or whatever has one clear advantage and disadvantage in each size small/med/large/cap these dont need to be unified across the whole system but need to be there.
e.g. lasors - cap hungry + rapid ammo selection/ low ammo costs missiles - flight time ? after changes I dont know
(and dont give me no tracking as the exp velocity/size more than compensates for that)
I dont want better than anything. I want best for X worst for Y for every system. For example; I want best alpha for medium weapons, ah ok that would be weapon system A I want best damage application in large weapons, ok you should use weapon system B
|
LtTrog
five finger death punch
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 04:21:00 -
[4180] - Quote
What can any honestly say missiles are best for in any size after the proposed changes? |
|
Psycros
Pod Jockey's International Corp
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 04:37:00 -
[4181] - Quote
Talk about adding insult to injury. For years we begged the devs to slightly nerf Caldari and boost the other races to make something besides a Drake or Raven hull worth using in most L3/L4 missions (and in many cases the only ships capable of completing them). As everyone knows, the requests for rebalancing were ignored. All the missioners finally sucked it up and put the bulk of their weapon SP towards missiles. When the Tengu was introduced we were glad we had, because once again Caldari was the only ship in the class worth using. Those who hadn't maxed out HMs already did so with a shrug of resignation: CCP loves Caldari and that's all there is to it. But now...we get this brilliant adjustment. Does it finally make anything but Caldari worth using in L3s and 4s? Nope! it just slows down your missions even MORE, as if they didn't take long enough already. That means less ISK/hr which means that missioners are being penalized for having made the only viable choice they had. Once again CCP proves its unwillingness to address the core imbalances between the races of EVE. Bear in mind I've only been talking about missions thus far: Caldari has the advantage in a number of PvP situations as well. The huge effective range of missiles is, of course, the main factor - but the problem is not primarily missile range, its the fact that missiles have a far higher chance of actually doing damage than any other weapon. Its the fact they can't be neuted out of operation, that they don't require sacrificing shield tank for DPS, the fact they can do every kind of damage, are effective at nearly any range, etc ad infinitum. As in RL, missiles in EVE simply outclass every other long-range weapon system. Add to this inequity the superiority of Caldari shield tanking and the problem becomes even more glaring. No, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before, but I think that too many of us have simply given up on CCP ever caring. Maybe that can change, maybe it can't, but I do know this much - if HMs are nerfed, EVE no longer becomes worth playing to me. Missions are too big of a time sink as is...if I'm suddenly making 20-35% less ISK/hr and not getting the SP back that all of us were forced to invest into one type of combat, I'm done waiting for CCP to get its act together. I'll save my money for the inevitable "EVE killer" that gets Kickstarted. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 05:33:00 -
[4182] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:again, you miss the point; its not that the drake can do any one of the things the other battlecruisers you listed can do; its that the drake can do them all at once.
the DPS of heavy missiles is WAY out of line with every other weapon system. If that would be true in game - again - we would see stuff like we do with Projectiles, ships fitting them without having a bonus on them. Everyone is free to crosstrain to Caldari, but somehow in lowsec you still see more Canes than Drakes, and many other stuff too which is NOT using HML. Long ranged weapons in general are not used outside of 0.0 because you cant mass tackle people with a bubble
you may not see many HMLs in low sec, but i guarantee you see more of them than medium beam lasers or railguns, and probably more than arty, though those do have the niche of alpha strike which still makes them viable in low sec.
How many HMLs do you see in low sec? How many Medium Beam Lasers? How many Railguns?
this is not evidence of the HML being balanced but evidence of the long range weapons not being the meta outside of 0.0
Noemi Nagano wrote:HML&Drake are OP in null. Fix CM/Ravens and CM/Raven/Phoon fleets will **** the Drakes there. Problem solved. So your suggestion is to leave the HML OP, and buff something else to counter it? ever hear of power creep? well im coining a new term; what you want is power leap!
Noemi Nagano wrote:And about what I asked you and you didnt want to answer yet: I didnt ask about how it *could* be after the patch, because I wanted to stick with how it is now:
is there *RIGHT NOW* another bigger than frig missile system working in PvP at all, except HMLs on mostly Drakes in that named range window, yes or no? Yes, HAMs work just fine right now, theyre just currently being overshadowed by HMLs which are better in every way.
nobody flies HAMs now because HMLs are totally overpowered and better than they are in every way, but if you take HMLs out of the equation and look at the weapon system objectively, HAMs are actually quite well balanced.
After the buff, HAMs will be quite a bit better.
Clearly you just like hearing yourself talk and no amount of evidence is going to convince what youve already determined to yourself in your own mind, this post is purely for the other people who may read it, so they may not be sucked into your zealotry. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 05:55:00 -
[4183] - Quote
IDGAD wrote:This has most likely been said a million times already but......
If you take heavy missiles down to the range, and damage of other long range medium guns, they will become the worst weapon of that class hands down (even with moderate bonuses). The core problem with missiles is actually their very existence. The idea of missiles is that you got increased range, and damage for the annoyances of their difficulty in hitting smaller targets that guns could, and of course THE TIME IT TAKES TO HIT . The largest factor in the new nerfed missiles will be that they will be like the others, but have nothing but major downfalls like damage infliction delays due to travel time. Its a good thing theyre not taking missiles down to the range and damage of any other turret then isnt it?
I posted a graph a few pages back, that shows that the drake will do 48 DPS more (15.5% more) than the next highest weapon system (beam lasers) and will be slightly out ranged by railguns, and outranged by artillery cannons if you count deep into falloff as "outranging" them.
Hellz Hitman wrote:The HAM Performance buff is still not going to bring it on par with weapons systems of the same type. Turret based weapon systems have the option of switching ammo to increase their range and maintain dps even at extreme ranges. Missiles really don't. you mean like javelin HAM missiles?
Hellz Hitman wrote:I would also like to know why a Talos can hit me that hard from that much range. But it happens more often that not, he might miss one shot, or two if I'm lucky and attempting to keep transversal up. Talos and tornados are the new flavor of the month right now.
We had three drakes on a gate vs a solitary talos 68 km out. This talos was able to hit us with neutron blasters at that range for hits breaking 600 -800 dmg while our missiles barely scratched him for 100-200. with 10 billion in implants, 4 TEs, and a strong sooth sayer booster, the talos with neutron blasters will do around 225 DPS at 65 km
this leaves me with four options of what to think about your story: 1. youre lieing to make your point - wouldnt be the first time someone has done this 2. youre exaggerating to make your point - basically the same thing as #1 3. you ran into someone with a one in a billion extremely strange fit 4. youre incompetent and dont know what youre talking about.
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and go with #3 but just know that if you sunk that much ISK into implants and boosters, you could get your HAMs to do that too. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 07:15:00 -
[4184] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
you may not see many HMLs in low sec, but i guarantee you see more of them than medium beam lasers or railguns, and probably more than arty, though those do have the niche of alpha strike which still makes them viable in low sec.
How many HMLs do you see in low sec? How many Medium Beam Lasers? How many Railguns?
this is not evidence of the HML being balanced but evidence of the long range weapons not being the meta outside of 0.0 .
No, its proof for my point: outside nullsec blobs Drakes are a non-issue in terms of being OP. They are balanced, outside nullsec blobs. So if you tone them down, they will be not balanced anymore outside nullsec blobs, they will be broken. Apart from that, I see Artillery being used in low sec, and also Beams and Rails, but mostly large. Then again - how many Cruise Missiles and Torps do you see *anywhere* in Eve?
About the nullsec blobs: The Drake in nullsec will also not exist anymore. You simply kill the ship with those changes, at least for those who want to do efficient PvP. Simple as that.
Sigras wrote: So your suggestion is to leave the HML OP, and buff something else to counter it? ever hear of power creep? well im coining a new term; what you want is power leap!
No. Power creep is something completely different :) If I would boost all med size long range weapons to be on par with the Drake where it is good NOW (medium-long engagement ranges) and not also give the others the weaknesses the Drake has, then this would be power creep. If I boost a currently completely broken system like Raven/CM (which are a complete NO GO for PvP at! Because they suck so hard) so it will be actually work AND have a role, then this is not power creep but balance. PvP Ravens should be the natural counter for PvP Drakes on long ranges (and on short too) because the Drake has a huge sig and should be countered easily by its big brother. You will see when you finally do it (and no one here except you seems to object) how CM would crush those Drake blobs into non-existense, while still the Drake would keep its balance in every other game.
CM/Raven/Phoon blobs would kill Drakes, but still could be countered with other tech 1 hull BS.
Sigras wrote: Yes, HAMs work just fine right now, theyre just currently being overshadowed by HMLs which are better in every way.
nobody flies HAMs now because HMLs are totally overpowered and better than they are in every way, but if you take HMLs out of the equation and look at the weapon system objectively, HAMs are actually quite well balanced.
You are wrong here, and your lack of knowledge may be there because you actually never used HAMs. In fact I dont see you used any Caldari ships recently, is that possible?
Sigras wrote: After the buff, HAMs will be quite a bit better.
Clearly you just like hearing yourself talk and no amount of evidence is going to convince what youve already determined to yourself in your own mind, this post is purely for the other people who may read it, so they may not be sucked into your zealotry.
If or if not HAMs will be better after the patch in a way they are giving the Drake a chance to be on par with the rest (which they dont do now!) we will see. What I see is this: atm the Drake is worst in HAM/close range of all tier 2 BC. 4th of 4. With HML it can compete with the best (tied 1st with the Cane) in all but nullsec. If you break HML and fail to fix HAM with the patch Caldari will not have a single viable and working missile pvp hull left above frig. This is what drives me, and if you call that zealotry, go on. I call it call for justice and balance.
As long as others have their OP systems and ships still going around I dont see a reason to nerf the only working caldari tech 1 hull/weapon system combination, especially when getting rid of the MAIN ISSUE (Nullsec blobs) is so ridiculously easy (buff CM/Raven, which should be done anyway!). And I dont see the reason esp. because the DRAKE IS NOT OP anywhere else but in nullsec blobs. You just stated that yourself, how meta game which favours the Drake is just not an issue in any other space than nullsec.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 07:31:00 -
[4185] - Quote
Sigras wrote: with 10 billion in implants, 4 TEs, and a strong sooth sayer booster, the talos with neutron blasters will do around 225 DPS at 65 km
this leaves me with four options of what to think about your story: 1. youre lieing to make your point - wouldnt be the first time someone has done this 2. youre exaggerating to make your point - basically the same thing as #1 3. you ran into someone with a one in a billion extremely strange fit 4. youre incompetent and dont know what youre talking about.
Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and go with #3 but just know that if you sunk that much ISK into implants and boosters, you could get your HAMs to do that too.
How so?
[Drake, Max HAM] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Assault Missile [empty high slot]
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
using 2 6% implants, 1 for range, 1 for RoF we will end up with:
458 DPS on 52.4 in EFT. Which is about 5km more than it will fly in game. There is no room for real tank and much else, there is no room for more implants for DPS or Range (HAM Damage AND Flight Time AND Missile Velo all sit in one slot, so I chose Missile Velo). You could fit a PG imp (which you need, and I did that), but then you would fast be in CPU Grid trouble too. No tackle.
Seriously Sigras, I advise you to not post in missile questions anymore as you clearly have no idea.
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
777
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 07:40:00 -
[4186] - Quote
Sigras wrote:again, you miss the point; its not that the drake can do any one of the things the other battlecruisers you listed can do; its that the drake can do them all at once.
the DPS of heavy missiles is WAY out of line with every other weapon system.
Which is why the first ship I take out of my hangar for PVP is the Drake....lol, I think the drake is around 4th on my list. Again all these argument show and have shown is that the problem is with the ships not the missles. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 08:03:00 -
[4187] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:How so?
Let me fix that fit for you.
Stats compared to shield Harby: EHP: 58,4k (+21,8k) DPS: 432 (-47) Range: 50,1km (+8,7km)
Oh, and don't forget to add Strong Crash Booster.
[Drake, Max HAM]
Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering EG-603 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-706 Zainou 'Deadeye' Target Navigation Prediction TN-906 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1006 |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 08:07:00 -
[4188] - Quote
Deleted |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 08:25:00 -
[4189] - Quote
Hellz Hitman wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Hellz Hitman wrote:Right now, in a 1v1 fight drakes lose to just about any other BC. And HAM drakes are pitiful. Short range weapon system drake = 700 dps MAX. Short range weapon system cane = 856, Brutix = over 1k with rigs ect. Properly fit Myrm even can stretch 800. So please do on telling me how OP the weapons system is. Tell me how OP my 556 dps HML drake is, against a field of pvpers that Nano everything. Either your issue is HAM performance, which is getting buffed, or you are comparing HML's to short range weapons again, which is flawed. Possibly both. Hellz Hitman wrote: I see people saying the range changes wont be that bad because you can use missile range rigs, any missile rig that increases range effects it for appx 50% of the equivalent turret rig. Due to Missiles drawing their range from 2 stats and Turrets grabbing optimals from 1 and falloff from 1. Missiles are supposed to have a higher range to compensate for the fact that Missiles do not have fall off. And I'm sorry to all you hopefully naive people out there who believe that the missile rigs will compensate for it. It really wont.
This is untrue. Missile range augmentation by one stat does more than turret range augmentation by just falloff or optimal. A missile flight speed OR flight time increase does for missiles what a pair of bonuses of the same factor, one to optimal AND a second to falloff, does for turrets. TC/TE changes would have helped give even more options. Hellz Hitman wrote:You want to talk about op? Talk about how a Talos with Void loaded can reach out and touch my drake for full damage at max range (65-75km), while even with his MWD on I'm still not hitting for full damage. I'd like to know how that would work. At 65-75km you are deep into falloff and loosing damage. The ship can be a threat no doubt, but how it would be doing full damage is something I'm not aware of. The HAM Performance buff is still not going to bring it on par with weapons systems of the same type. Turret based weapon systems have the option of switching ammo to increase their range and maintain dps even at extreme ranges. Missiles really don't. The HAM worthlessness, is a main reason why people use HML's as short range weapons systems. So I personally believe its worth a comparison, especially in the light of the nerfs which will be changing HMLs into a short to mid range weapon. Well that is if you want to do any dps at all. I would also like to know why a Talos can hit me that hard from that much range. But it happens more often that not, he might miss one shot, or two if I'm lucky and attempting to keep transversal up. Talos and tornados are the new flavor of the month right now. We had three drakes on a gate vs a solitary talos 68 km out. This talos was able to hit us with neutron blasters at that range for hits breaking 600 -800 dmg while our missiles barely scratched him for 100-200.
Yeah, with null and couple TCs you may be able lucky shot at 2.5 falloff.... You also understand those guns volley for over 3k in optimal with faction ammo right.
It's a BS turret and a bullshit build, and I'm not convinced its possible even then. |
Nathan Irythia
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 08:47:00 -
[4190] - Quote
I have only played EVE for a little over 2 months, so i might not have much to say about this. I only know what others have told me, what i-¦ve read and what i have experienced myself.
The 2.0 changes to this proposal looks alot better than the previous ones. A big discussion here is the range of the HML:s, and i agree they need some nerfing. although, i want to make sure you take into account that if i fly a hml drake, and my range is 80km. the ACTUAL range is alot less than that. these numbers arent well calculated, but all the enemy has to do is move away from me, and the range will be DRASTICLY reduced. all from 4km to 20km or more, depending on how fast the enemy moves. (and me moving towards him will not mean anything, as the missiles have nothing to do with my ship after they are launched).
with this said, when saying hml:s range is 80km for example, this is far from true, so make sure you take what i-¦ve said into account before nerfing the range too much.
again, i agree with the nerf. although make sure it is not too much. i am pretty sure you have already taken this into account but considering the very long travel time, the fact that my damage will come much later than the enemys, and the fact that the enemy may have already been destroyed after i-¦ve shot a volley, the hml deserve to be a little better/reliable than the rest. (i still agree with a nerf, i just want to make sure you dont nerf too much) i dont really know much about the other weapon systems downsides. i know turrets for example have falloff, but i-¦m am not very familiar with exactly how it works except beyond a certain range you start to miss.
again, i am just a newb, so dont rage at me too much if i-¦m wrong :D |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 08:50:00 -
[4191] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:How so? Let me fix that fit for you. Stats compared to shield Harby: EHP: 58,4k (+21,8k) DPS: 432 (-47) Range: 50,1km (+8,7km) Oh, and don't forget to add Strong Crash Booster. [Drake, Max HAM] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering EG-603 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-706 Zainou 'Deadeye' Target Navigation Prediction TN-906 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1006
While you are correct about the EHP and the DPS (before reload, Harbinger does not need to count in reload time at all ..) you are IMO not correct about the range (in game less than 50) and using the strong crash booster will kill your range even more (to below 40/EFT 36/ingame). Anyhow its not doing what Sigras said it would. Btw, your fitting is flatout better than the one I provided, but I wanted to purposely use 4 BCS to show absolute theory max damage. Ofc there is no good reason to not fit a DC to anything which will get damage in BC-PvP.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 08:55:00 -
[4192] - Quote
Nathan Irythia wrote:
again, i am just a newb, so dont rage at me too much if i-¦m wrong :D
While you may be a new player, you still seem to understand those issues with balancing a lot better than many so called vets ... exactly thats what has to be considered, not only one number which looks high but the whole ship and environment where its working. And mitigation of missile damage is not a non-issue, its happening a lot. Esp. outside web/scram range, where one cant control the speed of the enemy like in closer ranged battles.
So a thumbs up to you and thanks for your posting. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 09:36:00 -
[4193] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Nathan Irythia wrote:
again, i am just a newb, so dont rage at me too much if i-¦m wrong :D
While you may be a new player, you still seem to understand those issues with balancing a lot better than many so called vets ... exactly thats what has to be considered, not only one number which looks high but the whole ship and environment where its working. And mitigation of missile damage is not a non-issue, its happening a lot. Esp. outside web/scram range, where one cant control the speed of the enemy like in closer ranged battles. So a thumbs up to you and thanks for your posting.
Contests, you just figured out why no one uses medium long range turrets.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 11:31:00 -
[4194] - Quote
Sigras wrote:nobody flies HAMs now because HMLs are totally overpowered and better than they are in every way, but if you take HMLs out of the equation and look at the weapon system objectively, HAMs are actually quite well balanced.
Actually I'd be inclined to suggest that (today) it is more to do with the really, really harsh fitting requirements for HAMS compared to HML. You need stupidlyreally high skills to realistically fit HAMS (assuming no stupid money poured into meta items) |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 11:41:00 -
[4195] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Sigras wrote:nobody flies HAMs now because HMLs are totally overpowered and better than they are in every way, but if you take HMLs out of the equation and look at the weapon system objectively, HAMs are actually quite well balanced. Actually I'd be inclined to suggest that (today) it is more to do with the really, really harsh fitting requirements for HAMS compared to HML. You need stupidlyreally high skills to realistically fit HAMS (assuming no stupid money poured into meta items)
I posted a fit that was 1.9% over grid, 7 launchers, 3BCS +nano and web. only meta was a Experimental MWD, the rest was T2.
If you think that is bad, let me introduce you to a Vagabound, you pretty much have to use a PG implant on that ship, or run 30% less tank. |
Hellz Hitman
No-Mercy STEEL BROTHERHOOD
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 11:43:00 -
[4196] - Quote
I don't see how you can say that HML's are the problem with HAMs. DPS wise a HAM drake does less dps then any shorter range then other short range variants, absent the Ferox with neutron blasters. And I'm not pulling out strictly Eve hq numbers, I'm refering to my own skills. I'm basing off a NORMAL ship, not some bogus thing you cooked up with Eve HQ or EFT using T2 rigs (Most ships simply aren't t2 rigged) or expensive implants.
Every post defending the viability of HAMS has had Jav loaded with t2 rigs. How is that a defense? "You need t2 rigs to make HAMs viable." Not exactly the best defense for a weapons system. HAMS dps and range even with Jav loaded, which Jav also takes 10 seconds to load, is poor at best. Simply put. Stick it on a ship and try it out.
You guys can post all these numbers about how they are fine, but find me one ship that can get the DPS of a Harby or Brutix, or even a cane, using HML's and good luck. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 11:46:00 -
[4197] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Sigras wrote:nobody flies HAMs now because HMLs are totally overpowered and better than they are in every way, but if you take HMLs out of the equation and look at the weapon system objectively, HAMs are actually quite well balanced. Actually I'd be inclined to suggest that (today) it is more to do with the really, really harsh fitting requirements for HAMS compared to HML. You need stupidlyreally high skills to realistically fit HAMS (assuming no stupid money poured into meta items) I posted a fit that was 1.9% over grid, 7 launchers, 3BCS +nano and web. only meta was a Experimental MWD, the rest was T2. If you think that is bad, let me introduce you to a Vagabound, you pretty much have to use a PG implant on that ship, or run 30% less tank.
But at what skills? All level V isn't much use to new(er) players. Even middle aged players to be realistic, there's a lot more worthwhile for a great many pilots than AWU-V
The simple fact is (unless my skill time estimation fails me) you're able to hop into a HML drake months earlier than a HAM drake and realistically most players won't drive 100% focused for being able to fit a HAM drake.
Then you get into a war or whatever and you fly the best you can plug yourself into for a scrap - for most that'll be a HML boat LONG before its a HAM boat.
Obviously this changes with the winter changes, not sure how much though, I don't EFT on unconfirmed fittings. Not enough time |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 11:47:00 -
[4198] - Quote
Hellz Hitman wrote:I don't see how you can say that HML's are the problem with HAMs. DPS wise a HAM drake does less dps then any shorter range then other short range variants,.
Oh yeah for how far?
At the edge or web range you have caught medium blasterss, and at long point ranges it out DPS's everything short of a tier 3....Harby is likely close, drake has more tank then everything but a Cyclone or Myrm with sheilds....buy a significant margin.
....inb4 HG SLAVES |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 11:55:00 -
[4199] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante.[/quote wrote:
But at what skills? All level V isn't much use to new(er) players. Even middle aged players to be realistic, there's a lot more worthwhile for a great many pilots than AWU-V
TQ fittings with my current skills, I also started as Gallente....if you think HAMS are hard to fit, you never tried to mission in a Vexor or run a neutron Brutix.
Morrigan LeSante.[/quote wrote: The simple fact is (unless my skill time estimation fails me) you're able to hop into a HML drake months earlier than a HAM drake and realistically most players won't drive 100% focused for being able to fit a HAM drake.
So Caldari have to train up like everyone else? Sorry, that isn't really something I'm going to cry about.
Morrigan LeSante.[/quote wrote:Then you get into a war or whatever and you fly the best you can plug yourself into for a scrap - for most that'll be a HML boat LONG before its a HAM boat. Obviously this changes with the winter changes, not sure how much though, I don't EFT on unconfirmed fittings. Not enough time
Damn, sounds like ....balance. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 12:02:00 -
[4200] - Quote
Onictus wrote: So Caldari have to train up like everyone else? Sorry, that isn't really something I'm going to cry about.
Damn, sounds like ....balance.
?
I wasn't complaining, I'm simply saying that fitting requirements today are much more likely to be a contributing factor to relative HAM boat rareness as opposed to current HML/HAM differences. The original post I quoted suggested it was the weapon power differences when in reality it's probably a lot more to do with fitting for most. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 12:06:00 -
[4201] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
?
I wasn't complaining, I'm simply saying that fitting requirements today are much more likely to be a contributing factor to relative HAM boat rareness as opposed to current HML/HAM differences. The original post I quoted suggested it was the weapon power differences when in reality it's probably a lot more to do with fitting for most.
That I will go with.
Doesn't require T2 weapons to compete with near max skilled ships in its class. Is it optimal, of course not, but it DOES work.
Once you skill into it, its another beast, and if the people complaining that they need local points can't find tacklers, that isn't the issue. The fact that a long range fit with next to no damage bonus competes with EVERY other ship in its class, favorably, should be telling.
HAMS are getting buffed, and the fittings eased.
Sounds pretty good to me. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 12:25:00 -
[4202] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:
?
I wasn't complaining, I'm simply saying that fitting requirements today are much more likely to be a contributing factor to relative HAM boat rareness as opposed to current HML/HAM differences. The original post I quoted suggested it was the weapon power differences when in reality it's probably a lot more to do with fitting for most.
That I will go with. Doesn't require T2 weapons to compete with near max skilled ships in its class. Is it optimal, of course not, but it DOES work. Once you skill into it, its another beast, and if the people complaining that they need local points can't find tacklers, that isn't the issue. The fact that a long range fit with next to no damage bonus competes with EVERY other ship in its class, favorably, should be telling. HAMS are getting buffed, and the fittings eased. Sounds pretty good to me.
Aye, I like it. Though I like the fury cruise changes more
I honestly think a huge part of the HML dominance over HAM is the natural progression of a newbie/missioner for caldari.
Up until (relatively) recently it was a case of "lolbrids, go missile", so you went kestrel(LMS)>caracal(HML)>Drake>etc
Obviously a HAM caracal was a nonsense so it wasn't skilled into and since HML did ok in missions to allow progress onwards the system was largely ignored. The odds of people training up a heap of skills which they just dont need to make an effective mission boat really are quite slim and then, later if they transition to the PvP sphere, a quick cost/benefit/pragmatic analysis bungs them into a drake with HML.
Obviously an element of HML power is at play here, but really I think unless they were chronically underpowered you'd still see most caldari evolving into them.
I like the changes now (didnt like wave #1), I was busy cross training before I stopped for a couple of years and am back and continuing to cross train, I'm terrible for wanting to be able to play around in whatever I fancy at the time [:D] |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 12:30:00 -
[4203] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:[
I like the changes now (didnt like wave #1), I was busy cross training before I stopped for a couple of years and am back and continuing to cross train, I'm terrible for wanting to be able to play around in whatever I fancy at the time [:D]
I'm still kind of peeved that they pulled the TC/TE changes.
I was looking foreward to revamping my Phoons out of smartbombing and really big neut BC. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 12:52:00 -
[4204] - Quote
As much as it would've been hilarious for missioning, I still think it added too much pressure onto non drake/tengu missile using hulls to wrap it up in the one module.
Two mods (rather than a universal TD) would've been ok though. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 13:33:00 -
[4205] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Sigras wrote:nobody flies HAMs now because HMLs are totally overpowered and better than they are in every way, but if you take HMLs out of the equation and look at the weapon system objectively, HAMs are actually quite well balanced. Actually I'd be inclined to suggest that (today) it is more to do with the really, really harsh fitting requirements for HAMS compared to HML. You need stupidlyreally high skills to realistically fit HAMS (assuming no stupid money poured into meta items)
Let me introduce you to Sacrilege. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Sacrilege
If you fit HMLs you will laughed at and you lose 2nd damage bonus. |
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 13:57:00 -
[4206] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:As much as it would've been hilarious for missioning, I still think it added too much pressure onto non drake/tengu missile using hulls to wrap it up in the one module.
Two mods (rather than a universal TD) would've been ok though. How TD/TC/TE change would have changed other hulls? We don't even know how new cruisers will perform on TQ and people are already saying this would be bad.
I've been over this already in this thread...
Here's the brief version:
Single mod = ubquitous use in PvP = Essential to fit compensating mod = sacrifices on all missile hulls (of which two are a concern).
Weakens already underused hulls in PvP. Yes, yes already affects turret ships but since they're holding their own and (drake/tengu aside) other missile hulls aren't really I'm not certain its a valid comparison.
Two mods though, I'd be happy with. Scroll back for more detail/debate :) |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:27:00 -
[4207] - Quote
Hellz Hitman wrote: The T2 missile changes are unbelieveably bad. Not one of them really balances the system. So quit fail trolling. And If we caught it I don't doubt we could have killed it. Issue remains that the dps that it was able to output with a short range weapon system was larger then the dps we could output with missiles. Not whether we killed it or not.
I can also bring in examples of Nados, Talos, Pests, even brutix's insta popping frigates from extreme ranges. Ranges outside their optimal but at least unlike missiles they still had a chance to hit,.
And as for the transversal question, yes that was quite the point there. Glad you wrapped your head around it.
The talos does NOT outdps a drake at that range, you're just wrong.
Also like i said, large weapons, not medium, large. The difference is Massive. As for a brutix instapopping frigates at long ranges, i've been around for a while but i have never seen that...
Quit being bad.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:29:00 -
[4208] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
The talos does NOT outdps a drake at that range, you're just wrong.
425mm rail Talos.....it would out DPS a drake, but it would matter since the drake would have near triple the tank. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 14:54:00 -
[4209] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
The talos does NOT outdps a drake at that range, you're just wrong.
425mm rail Talos.....it would out DPS a drake, but it would matter since the drake would have near triple the tank.
He is talking about a blaster Talos.
Obviously a ship with 8 large rails would out dps hml's.
EDIT: although it may be that he is So bad that he thought a rail talos was a blaster talos. |
Metal Icarus
Endless Destruction Against ALL Anomalies
286
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:03:00 -
[4210] - Quote
two hundred and eleven ******* pages....
oh em eff gee |
|
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 15:34:00 -
[4211] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Onictus wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
The talos does NOT outdps a drake at that range, you're just wrong.
425mm rail Talos.....it would out DPS a drake, but it would matter since the drake would have near triple the tank. He is talking about a blaster Talos. Obviously a ship with 8 large rails would out dps hml's. EDIT: although it may be that he is So bad that he thought a rail talos was a blaster talos.
Either way this is an apple to oranges comparison, and your spot on Tarrant |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
192
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:05:00 -
[4212] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Hellz Hitman wrote: The T2 missile changes are unbelieveably bad. Not one of them really balances the system. So quit fail trolling. And If we caught it I don't doubt we could have killed it. Issue remains that the dps that it was able to output with a short range weapon system was larger then the dps we could output with missiles. Not whether we killed it or not.
I can also bring in examples of Nados, Talos, Pests, even brutix's insta popping frigates from extreme ranges. Ranges outside their optimal but at least unlike missiles they still had a chance to hit,.
And as for the transversal question, yes that was quite the point there. Glad you wrapped your head around it. The talos does NOT outdps a drake at that range, you're just wrong. Also like i said, large weapons, not medium, large. The difference is Massive. As for a brutix instapopping frigates at long ranges, i've been around for a while but i have never seen that... Quit being bad.
A 425mm rail Talos with 2 TEs, 2 Mag IIs, and collision and burst rigs pushes 892 dps @ 47km+49km w/ CNAM or 517 dps @ 168km +49km with spike. It's not going to "insta pop" buffered frigates at range, but it will shred them within seconds.
As for the rest, it's irrelevant that we are talking about a large turret. It's a BC weapon. It doesn't matter whether we call it a large rail or a 14" mega-pulse jizzie-jizzler, it fits on a BC and it is relevant to compare to the so-called overpowered HML and Drake. It comes down to this: whether we are talking about dps, dps at range, speed, tank, or whatever else you want to dredge up, there is absolutely nothing that the Drake can do that other BCs cannot also do comparably or better.
Drakes dominate null blobs because they are:
1. Cheap to build and fit (a blob doesn't need T2 weapons or shields, they are going for numbers and alpha) 2. Easy to skill into at the T1 level 3. Easy to command in a large scale battle 4. Effective long range fire platforms that can also apply predictable dps at short ranges and against smaller targets 5. The Drake comes with decent resists out of the box, and this helps logistics |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:22:00 -
[4213] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Hellz Hitman wrote: The T2 missile changes are unbelieveably bad. Not one of them really balances the system. So quit fail trolling. And If we caught it I don't doubt we could have killed it. Issue remains that the dps that it was able to output with a short range weapon system was larger then the dps we could output with missiles. Not whether we killed it or not.
I can also bring in examples of Nados, Talos, Pests, even brutix's insta popping frigates from extreme ranges. Ranges outside their optimal but at least unlike missiles they still had a chance to hit,.
And as for the transversal question, yes that was quite the point there. Glad you wrapped your head around it. The talos does NOT outdps a drake at that range, you're just wrong. Also like i said, large weapons, not medium, large. The difference is Massive. As for a brutix instapopping frigates at long ranges, i've been around for a while but i have never seen that... Quit being bad. A 425mm rail Talos with 2 TEs, 2 Mag IIs, and collision and burst rigs pushes 892 dps @ 47km+49km w/ CNAM or 517 dps @ 168km +49km with spike. It's not going to "insta pop" buffered frigates at range, but it will shred them within seconds. As for the rest, it's irrelevant that we are talking about a large turret. It's a BC weapon. It doesn't matter whether we call it a large rail or a 14" mega-pulse jizzie-jizzler, it fits on a BC and it is relevant to compare to the so-called overpowered HML and Drake. It comes down to this: whether we are talking about dps, dps at range, speed, tank, or whatever else you want to dredge up, there is absolutely nothing that the Drake can do that other BCs cannot also do comparably or better. Drakes dominate null blobs because they are: 1. Cheap to build and fit (a blob doesn't need T2 weapons or shields, they are going for numbers and alpha) 2. Easy to skill into at the T1 level 3. Easy to command in a large scale battle 4. Effective long range fire platforms that can also apply predictable dps at short ranges and against smaller targets 5. The Drake comes with decent resists out of the box, and this helps logistics
Its a BS weapon system,
It is ******* relevant. We are comparing weapon systems, not ships. You cannot compare Medium guns to large guns just because one medium ship can fit them. It doesn't work and if you can't see why, well you're bad.
And if you had bothered to read a bit further you would have seen me saying that obviously a ship with 8 large rails would out dps hml's. Again, large guns.. also eight of them. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
180
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:44:00 -
[4214] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:A 425mm rail Talos with 2 TEs, 2 Mag IIs, and collision and burst rigs pushes 892 dps @ 47km+49km w/ CNAM or 517 dps @ 168km +49km with spike. It's not going to "insta pop" buffered frigates at range, but it will shred them within seconds.
And Nighmare does 1100+ dps at 50 km. It also has very good tracking for that range too.
Can we finally stop comparing cruiser sized weapon systems to battleship sized weapon systems? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 16:53:00 -
[4215] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:A 425mm rail Talos with 2 TEs, 2 Mag IIs, and collision and burst rigs pushes 892 dps @ 47km+49km w/ CNAM or 517 dps @ 168km +49km with spike. It's not going to "insta pop" buffered frigates at range, but it will shred them within seconds. And Nighmare does 1100+ dps at 50 km. It also has very good tracking for that range too. Can we finally stop comparing cruiser sized weapon systems to battleship sized weapon systems?
I would like to compare ... medium ACs on a Cane with Cruises on a Raven. /scnr
|
Mikaila Penshar
Take it Deep
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:07:00 -
[4216] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Posting in a Fozzie thread. Love Fozzie long time. RIP Drake blob.
You got a little poo on your lips there ... let me just wipe that.... off... got it.
I can't believe I voted for you |
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:26:00 -
[4217] - Quote
To Fozzie:
Is there any way we could get just a small adjustment to Torpedo range during this pass? I think a buff to flight time or velocity to make them around 15%-25% longer range is in order.
I would also suggest a nerf to Cruise range. Out of the box they seem a tad too long and may start having some of the same problems as Heavies did. -20ish percent drop should be good. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:27:00 -
[4218] - Quote
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote:To Fozzie:
Is there any way we could get just a small adjustment to Torpedo range during this pass? I think a buff to flight time or velocity to make them around 15%-25% longer range is in order.
I would also suggest a nerf to Cruise range. Out of the box they seem a tad too long and may start having some of the same problems as Heavies did. -20ish percent drop should be good.
wth? Cruises have no needs for a nerf at all ... they are completely broken, what are you smoking? :) |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:32:00 -
[4219] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote:To Fozzie:
Is there any way we could get just a small adjustment to Torpedo range during this pass? I think a buff to flight time or velocity to make them around 15%-25% longer range is in order.
I would also suggest a nerf to Cruise range. Out of the box they seem a tad too long and may start having some of the same problems as Heavies did. -20ish percent drop should be good. wth? Cruises have no needs for a nerf at all ... they are completely broken, what are you smoking? :)
they need to nerf HAM range so torps wont look so bad next to them. then nerf torp range a little also cruises range aren't much of an issue as rails can do 150km or so cruises need to have higher velocity in exchange for some flight time like heavies got. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:33:00 -
[4220] - Quote
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote:To Fozzie:
Is there any way we could get just a small adjustment to Torpedo range during this pass? I think a buff to flight time or velocity to make them around 15%-25% longer range is in order.
I would also suggest a nerf to Cruise range. Out of the box they seem a tad too long and may start having some of the same problems as Heavies did. -20ish percent drop should be good.
You do realize that Short ranged weapons means short ranged right? I would say Pulses need there range reduce a little but other then that all other ships are similar with there based ranged ammo.
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 18:47:00 -
[4221] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Onictus wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
The talos does NOT outdps a drake at that range, you're just wrong.
425mm rail Talos.....it would out DPS a drake, but it would matter since the drake would have near triple the tank. He is talking about a blaster Talos. Obviously a ship with 8 large rails would out dps hml's. EDIT: although it may be that he is So bad that he thought a rail talos was a blaster talos.
At 70km with void....magic 8-balls says..................
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
192
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:04:00 -
[4222] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Its a BS weapon system,
It is ******* relevant. We are comparing weapon systems, not ships. You cannot compare Medium guns to large guns just because one medium ship can fit them. It doesn't work and if you can't see why, well you're bad.
And if you had bothered to read a bit further you would have seen me saying that obviously a ship with 8 large rails would out dps hml's. Again, large guns.. also eight of them.
Discussing BC balance while ignoring these ships is like praising the Titanic's seaworthiness while ignoring the hole in the bow. If we are going to selectively ignore 1/3 of the BC's, why stop there. Why don't we just ignore any ships, weapons, or fittings that don't advance the Drake Nerf Crusade? If you are going to selectively invent criteria, then why stop there? Why not tell us that the Drake is the FASTEST BC in the game? Why not claim that the Drake has the largest Drone bay compared to the other BC's? It's true, right? You just have to ignore all the cases where it isn't. And in any case, yes, large turrets are not medium turrets, nor are medium turrets HMLs, and HMLs are not HAMs, and HAMs are not Hybrids, and Hybrids are not Lasers, and.... and so what?
All fit on the class of ships we are discussing here. That's what matters.
The reason you object is the reason they must be considered. Your objection, of course, is that including these four BC's into our balance discussion makes the entire premise of a HML Drake nerf laughable. Long range damage projection? The HML Drake isn't even close to the top of that mountain. Maximum DPS? The HML Drake falls into the middle or even lower end of the scale. Mobility? The HML Drake is near the bottom of the pack. Tank? Here the Drake nears the summit. It might or might not be the best, but it's damn close, though why the Tank on this one ship would inspire CCP to nerf the missiles on multiple ships no one has yet explained.
You are welcome to try. Have at it. Post the numbers showing how uberfantastic the HML Drake is compared to these other ships. Show us the long range damage projection, the speed and mobility, the raw dps, post ANYTHING that justifies this middle of the road ship warranting a nerf. But you don't get to set the parameters and arbitrarily exclude the battlecruisers that don't support your case. Not if you want to be taken seriously.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:16:00 -
[4223] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Its a BS weapon system,
It is ******* relevant. We are comparing weapon systems, not ships. You cannot compare Medium guns to large guns just because one medium ship can fit them. It doesn't work and if you can't see why, well you're bad.
And if you had bothered to read a bit further you would have seen me saying that obviously a ship with 8 large rails would out dps hml's. Again, large guns.. also eight of them.
Discussing BC balance while ignoring these ships is like praising the Titanic's seaworthiness while ignoring the hole in the bow. If we are going to selectively ignore 1/3 of the BC's, why stop there. Why don't we just ignore any ships, weapons, or fittings that don't advance the Drake Nerf Crusade? If you are going to selectively invent criteria, then why stop there? Why not tell us that the Drake is the FASTEST BC in the game? Why not claim that the Drake has the largest Drone bay compared to the other BC's? It's true, right? You just have to ignore all the cases where it isn't. And in any case, yes, large turrets are not medium turrets, nor are medium turrets HMLs, and HMLs are not HAMs, and HAMs are not Hybrids, and Hybrids are not Lasers, and.... and so what? All fit on the class of ships we are discussing here. That's what matters. The reason you object is the reason they must be considered. Your objection, of course, is that including these four BC's into our balance discussion makes the entire premise of a HML Drake nerf laughable. Long range damage projection? The HML Drake isn't even close to the top of that mountain. Maximum DPS? The HML Drake falls into the middle or even lower end of the scale. Mobility? The HML Drake is near the bottom of the pack. Tank? Here the Drake nears the summit. It might or might not be the best, but it's damn close, though why the Tank on this one ship would inspire CCP to nerf the missiles on multiple ships no one has yet explained. You are welcome to try. Have at it. Post the numbers showing how uberfantastic the HML Drake is compared to these other ships. Show us the long range damage projection, the speed and mobility, the raw dps, post ANYTHING that justifies this middle of the road ship warranting a nerf. But you don't get to set the parameters and arbitrarily exclude the battlecruisers that don't support your case. Not if you want to be taken seriously.
Ok, i've already responded to this
Apples and oranges, stop being so bad. |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:34:00 -
[4224] - Quote
I am afraid you did the opposite of a buff to make tech 2 missiles usefull in terms of the rage torpedo. The biggest problem with them was never their sig penalty, or damage potential it lied with their range. as it stands before winter i have to use two tech 2 range extenders and a 5% implant to just barely touch a theoretical 40km. I am an incursion runner primarily these days and from my general knowledge this is an acceptable envelope for pvp but for incs it was never quite satisfactory. the primary target for dps boats like my golem is the ostingles which like to hover between 35 and 45 km on average. with reducing the flight time and not altering the velocity accordingly with an increase you have just pushed the majority of my targets out of reach. The level 4 mission realm as i remember it primarily used the javelines since it required the same number of jav volleys as rage volleys so engaging at max range was more efficient. please revise this for increased velocity in on rage as they were borderline useful before. |
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 19:41:00 -
[4225] - Quote
ORCACommander wrote:I am afraid you did the opposite of a buff to make tech 2 missiles usefull in terms of the rage torpedo. The biggest problem with them was never their sig penalty, or damage potential it lied with their range. as it stands before winter i have to use two tech 2 range extenders and a 5% implant to just barely touch a theoretical 40km. I am an incursion runner primarily these days and from my general knowledge this is an acceptable envelope for pvp but for incs it was never quite satisfactory. the primary target for dps boats like my golem is the ostingles which like to hover between 35 and 45 km on average. with reducing the flight time and not altering the velocity accordingly with an increase you have just pushed the majority of my targets out of reach. The level 4 mission realm as i remember it primarily used the javelines since it required the same number of jav volleys as rage volleys so engaging at max range was more efficient. please revise this for increased velocity in on rage as they were borderline useful before.
This is what I was getting at. Cruise have too much range for any necessary application, at least in my use. Torps are really limited in range, though.
Noemi Nagano wrote:MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote:To Fozzie:
Is there any way we could get just a small adjustment to Torpedo range during this pass? I think a buff to flight time or velocity to make them around 15%-25% longer range is in order.
I would also suggest a nerf to Cruise range. Out of the box they seem a tad too long and may start having some of the same problems as Heavies did. -20ish percent drop should be good. wth? Cruises have no needs for a nerf at all ... they are completely broken, what are you smoking? :)
I am just looking forward past the HML changes to see what could be a possible problem with range. My missioner's SNI has a lock range of 95ish km while the base flight distance of cruise are somewhere around 160ish (too lazy to check right now, anyone can chime in to give exacts cause I am at work) On a Raven thats around 250ish (EFT). I don't think a nerf would be even noticeable to those of us who use them. Then IF TE/TC ever effect them, no adjustments (or smaller ones) would be needed.
I don't use torps though because the range is just too low and the applied damage is also too low. With the change to Guided Missile Precision the applied damage should make them more useable. The range is still too low for me to consider. My Maelstrom can hit in double falloff to one-shot frigs in Level 4s at 50-60 km (T1 skills ammo and turrets). I don't think that asking for a Raven to hit out to 40-50km with torps and an SNI to hit out to 30-35km is too out of line with the short range Large Turrets.
A Ham Caracal (which should be viable post patch) will hit from around the same range as a torp Raven, maybe even exactly the same. That seems wonky to me.
I would assume that changes will be made to the BS missiles during BS tiericide, but I think with all the missile changes going on with Retribution, these small changes make sense.
Also, couldn't you just fold in TE/TC effects into the Launchers themselves? Or just a velocity boost, and make a new mid slot mod that with a scipt can either increase velocity at expense of lock time, or an applied damage boost for -range?
Edit: Above adding a +velocity stat torpedo, HAM, and rocket launchers could solve this problem. Rockets could then get a small buff as well, although I am not sure they need it as I don't use them. Anyone? |
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 20:17:00 -
[4226] - Quote
MIrple wrote:MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote:To Fozzie:
Is there any way we could get just a small adjustment to Torpedo range during this pass? I think a buff to flight time or velocity to make them around 15%-25% longer range is in order.
I would also suggest a nerf to Cruise range. Out of the box they seem a tad too long and may start having some of the same problems as Heavies did. -20ish percent drop should be good. You do realize that Short ranged weapons means short ranged right? I would say Pulses need there range reduce a little but other then that all other ships are similar with there based ranged ammo.
My tech one fit / skilled Minnie alt Maelstrom hits at falloff around 40km and double falloff around 60km with t1 short range ammo (2x TE). I don't even have barrage available yet. How would a torp on a bonused ship hitting for 40-50km be OP or out of line with other so called short range weapons? Unbonused they hit in EFT with max skills for a whopping 23km with faction or 34 with jav. Really? Where is barrage at ? 6.9x47km falloff and even further out for smaller targets into double falloff . Still more effective than a T2 torp with T1 ammo fittings and skill for the large autocannon for range. The desparity is pretty large. I am not in the Minmatar need a nerf, just buff things that need a little love. |
Miyah Putredas
Stargates and Smuggler Barons
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 21:45:00 -
[4227] - Quote
I obviously didn't read through 212 pages of comments, but wanted to give my opinion on the subject all the same.
I'm a pilot heavily trained towards medium sized missiles and all the appropriate ship hulls, both heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles alike. From my experience I can tell that heavy missiles are quite overpowered, especially in PvE use, and nerfing them is a good decision. The problem is that HAMs are quite far from being on par with other close range medium weapon systems. Sure, on paper they might look well balanced in terms of dps and range, but the reality is quite different. Medium pulse lasers, autocannons and blasters can fairly easily hit targets once they are properly scrammed and webbed, whereas HAMs are strugling to hit stationary cruiser sized targets, even with their current stats. Against frigates they are utterly pittyful, compared to guns which almost instapop every frig that stays still enough. With the t2 HAMs being heavily penalized in terms of damage projection and heavy missile damage reduced, missile pilots aren't really left with any competitive setups at all.
This same imbalance in damage projection can be seen with Battleship and Capital sized weapon systems as well, but I suppose that belongs into another discussion thread.
|
Alx Warlord
Security Task Force
172
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:57:00 -
[4228] - Quote
CCP Fozzie,
And how about the balance of HAM? don't you think that they do low damage??? most of the HAM ships have few missile slots, take a legion with HAM for example...
Also HAM got really poor range, get no skill bonus to hit small sig ships, have really bad explosion velocity, spend allot of ammo, this way HM is better at close range then HAM in many cases including close combat ones..... [Discussion] - New POS system ( Construction Block Built - Starbasecraft) <<< Please CCP read this! |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
79
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 22:57:00 -
[4229] - Quote
Miyah Putredas wrote:I obviously didn't read through 212 pages of comments, but wanted to give my opinion on the subject all the same.
I'm a pilot heavily trained towards medium sized missiles and all the appropriate ship hulls, both heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles alike. From my experience I can tell that heavy missiles are quite overpowered, especially in PvE use, and nerfing them is a good decision. The problem is that HAMs are quite far from being on par with other close range medium weapon systems. Sure, on paper they might look well balanced in terms of dps and range, but the reality is quite different. Medium pulse lasers, autocannons and blasters can fairly easily hit targets once they are properly scrammed and webbed, whereas HAMs are strugling to hit stationary cruiser sized targets, even with their current stats. Against frigates they are utterly pittyful, compared to guns which almost instapop every frig that stays still enough. With the t2 HAMs being heavily penalized in terms of damage projection and heavy missile damage reduced, missile pilots aren't really left with any competitive setups at all.
This same imbalance in damage projection can be seen with Battleship and Capital sized weapon systems as well, but I suppose that belongs into another discussion thread.
Infact, HAM have absolutely no problem hiting stationary cruiser or larger target. Explosion radius of HAM is 125. And web+scram target is way below the 150m/s explosion velocity of HAM too unless it use an AB. Difference with turret is that you can orbit your target at 20m, allowing for an amazing transversale velocity, and still hit your target for full damage.
On top of that, the proposed changes will apply the ex specific guided missiles skills to all missiles ; rocket, HAM and torp will become guided if you prefer. Which mean that these weapons will do full damage to almost anything they may hit.
BTW, a frigate that stay still in front of a gun barrel deserve to die, but they rarely do this and you can easily say that a frigate going under your gun won't ever be hit, going under the gun not being so troublesome when you are used to do it.
But just check the OP, HAM are being buffed severely. |
Erogo Proxy
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:10:00 -
[4230] - Quote
Here is a idea, have the HML nerf only affect people in a fleet larger then 5 people you fight the blob and let missions runners be happy. >.> my other ideas involve sulfuric and nitric acids and best be kept in my mind. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:18:00 -
[4231] - Quote
Erogo Proxy wrote:Here is a idea, have the HML nerf only affect people in a fleet larger then 5 people you fight the blob and let missions runners be happy. >.> my other ideas involve sulfuric and nitric acids and best be kept in my mind. My idea is you should put these acids in your head. HML *need* a nerf, and there is a hundred of pages explaining why; and not only in blobs. Hint : it's a long range medium size weapon system. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:47:00 -
[4232] - Quote
Erogo Proxy wrote:Here is a idea, have the HML nerf only affect people in a fleet larger then 5 people you fight the blob and let missions runners be happy. I have a good part of my skills into running missions with ships that use them and this nerf seems to hurt mission runners alot more then the PVPers. Feel cheated in a way having put time into training something for that reason then having it hit with a nerf bat to the point of something else becoming a more viable option. >.> my other ideas involve sulfuric and nitric acids and best be kept in my mind
having it trained is not really a viable argument for sparing it from a nerf. everyone who has been crying about wasted training time really need to put a sock in it. its being nerfed to make it more fair compared to other long range weapons and u shouldn't have put all ur skill points in a single weapon system anyways. if another weapon becomes more viable, then train for that one as well.
Drone players have been told that they will shortly be unable to afk mission but i've yet to see whining like i have here. |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:01:00 -
[4233] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Yeah, with null and couple TCs you may be able lucky shot at 2.5 falloff.... You also understand those guns volley for over 3k in optimal with faction ammo right.
It's a BS turret and a bullshit build, and I'm not convinced its possible even then.
Umm... Fly one.
It works. It really does.
-- -- - -- -
All you number crunchers need to close your EFT's and locate your EVE launcher. Right now my entire corp is planning to basically abandon everything HML because frankly this nerf will make Drakes/Tengu's pointless.
Sure we'll find occasional use for a Falcon, but really with Turret Destabilizers becoming so versatile for EVERY weapon type the Amarr Curse/Pilgrim are looking better already. Plus THAT recon can actually carry a tank AND do offensive work with Neuts and drones \O/
Horray guys! Caldari will now be COMPLETELY obsolete. Don't worry. Minmatar will be next. CCP Fozzies work on the Hurricane basically kisses the Armor Cane good bye. |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 00:06:00 -
[4234] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
BTW, a frigate that stay still in front of a gun barrel deserve to die, but they rarely do this and you can easily say that a frigate going under your gun won't ever be hit, going under the gun not being so troublesome when you are used to do it.
But just check the OP, HAM are being buffed severely.
Hmmm... Apparently you're not familiar with the frigate mulcher hurricane. That's ok, though. Because soon that fit won't even be possible on the Cane.
:) |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:08:00 -
[4235] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Onictus wrote:
Yeah, with null and couple TCs you may be able lucky shot at 2.5 falloff.... You also understand those guns volley for over 3k in optimal with faction ammo right.
It's a BS turret and a bullshit build, and I'm not convinced its possible even then.
Umm... Fly one. It works. It really does. -- -- - -- - All you number crunchers need to close your EFT's and locate your EVE launcher. Right now my entire corp is planning to basically abandon everything HML because frankly this nerf will make Drakes/Tengu's pointless. Sure we'll find occasional use for a Falcon, but really with Turret Destabilizers becoming so versatile for EVERY weapon type the Amarr Curse/Pilgrim are looking better already. Plus THAT recon can actually carry a tank AND do offensive work with Neuts and drones \O/ Horray guys! Caldari will now be COMPLETELY obsolete. Don't worry. Minmatar will be next. CCP Fozzies work on the Hurricane basically kisses the Armor Cane good bye.
It's the same thing as a blaster mega killer, I've spent PLENTY of time in one. I don't remeber ever getting it to hit for much over 40km, much less 70km
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:28:00 -
[4236] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:
BTW, a frigate that stay still in front of a gun barrel deserve to die, but they rarely do this and you can easily say that a frigate going under your gun won't ever be hit, going under the gun not being so troublesome when you are used to do it.
But just check the OP, HAM are being buffed severely.
Hmmm... Apparently you're not familiar with the frigate mulcher hurricane. That's ok, though. Because soon that fit won't even be possible on the Cane. :)
It can still fit 2 small neuts.. Which is enough to kill frigs. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 02:33:00 -
[4237] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
It can still fit 2 small neuts.. Which is enough to kill frigs.
Yes, but those neuts were the ONLY reason to plate a cane and use it over a Stabber Fleet. If killing frigs is your thing the SFI just does it plane better. |
Yank Sin
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 07:49:00 -
[4238] - Quote
My Tengu is a very nice little ship that makes missions very lovely to do. It kills at very long range and at very short range from frigs to bs. It tanks lv4 missions with out any problems the rats try there best to break my tank but they can't.
So let me see when the change happens ccp takes away my punch and my range to make the gun guys happy. So what is next taking away my tank to make the bs guys happy that a cruiser cant solo lv4 mission?
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
779
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 09:04:00 -
[4239] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote:Onictus wrote:
Yeah, with null and couple TCs you may be able lucky shot at 2.5 falloff.... You also understand those guns volley for over 3k in optimal with faction ammo right.
It's a BS turret and a bullshit build, and I'm not convinced its possible even then.
Umm... Fly one. It works. It really does. -- -- - -- - It's the same thing as a blaster mega, I've spent PLENTY of time in one. I don't remember ever getting it to hit for much over 40km, much less 70km. Looking at it, with two scripted TCs you are sitting almost dead on optimal x2 fall with null at 70km. So your chance to hit an unmoving drake is sub 10% and your DPS is sub frigate levels. Oh and Hey Issy.
Which is great but really if you're sitting off 70k from a drake fleet in a blaster fitted ship the problem isn't with the drake it's with the FC who doesn't know what he's doing.
God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
82
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:26:00 -
[4240] - Quote
Isaiah Harms wrote: Hmmm... Apparently you're not familiar with the frigate mulcher hurricane. That's ok, though. Because soon that fit won't even be possible on the Cane.
:)
Infact, I am. Problem with the hurricane are not the guns but the neuts and the drones. Of course you must be careful with the guns, but at 500-1000m, they are pretty ineffective.
And as you said, soon, it will be the end of this cane. :-) |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:39:00 -
[4241] - Quote
Yank Sin wrote:My Tengu is a very nice little ship that makes missions very lovely to do. It kills at very long range and at very short range from frigs to bs. It tanks lv4 missions with out any problems the rats try there best to break my tank but they can't.
So let me see when the change happens ccp takes away my punch and my range to make the gun guys happy. So what is next taking away my tank to make the bs guys happy that a cruiser cant solo lv4 mission?
yes :) But you need to realize why the are doing instead of crying like a baby about it Then you will realize how lucky you have been to fly it |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
779
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 10:47:00 -
[4242] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Yank Sin wrote:My Tengu is a very nice little ship that makes missions very lovely to do. It kills at very long range and at very short range from frigs to bs. It tanks lv4 missions with out any problems the rats try there best to break my tank but they can't.
So let me see when the change happens ccp takes away my punch and my range to make the gun guys happy. So what is next taking away my tank to make the bs guys happy that a cruiser cant solo lv4 mission?
yes :) But you need to realize why the are doing instead of crying like a baby about it Then you will realize how lucky you have been to fly it
I wouldn't call flying a ship that cost me 2.5 billion and the potential loss (yes I know they are only lvl 1) of skill points lucky I'd call it deserved. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Mars Theran
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
333
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 11:35:00 -
[4243] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:assuming the change might make TDs overpowered, and defender missiles make a lot of lag, can you do something like making defender missiles function similarly to TDs but play a fancy client-side graphic?
e: to be clear, I meant "make defender missiles function like the proposed effects of TDs against missiles"
Why would that make sense? Maybe I was actually sleeping in front of my computer and dreamed I posted. Certainly, it's not there now. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
28
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:31:00 -
[4244] - Quote
please review the reduction in flight times the base4 25% is fine on t1's as it still gives a possibility of it having longer thnge than guns however the tech 2 furry is way outta line base flight is same as base optimal for med turrets witch present a hugh prob as guns can fight in fall of if needed not to mention that in most catagorys of ships caldari are the slowest.
take minmitar for example there med t2 guns is roughly the same as fury hmls base flight time after all bonuses the optimal of there guns and fall off is gonna be over powerd to that of missles not only that minmitar in general have the fastest of all the ships i see problems here please adress this and stop the stupid debuffing to t2 furys another 25 - 35% on distance would be more than enough on t2 fury for anything a further 20% reduction should be more than sufficient however as distance was our only advantage and one we releaied on. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:33:00 -
[4245] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Isaiah Harms wrote: Hmmm... Apparently you're not familiar with the frigate mulcher hurricane. That's ok, though. Because soon that fit won't even be possible on the Cane.
:)
Infact, I am. Problem with the hurricane are not the guns but the neuts and the drones. Of course you must be careful with the guns, but at 500-1000m, they are pretty ineffective. And as you said, soon, it will be the end of this cane. :-)
You understand he's talking about an armor cane.
That would be the one that rarely has 425s usually 220mm or even dual 1800mm, a web (or two) and a TE To allow it to hit to point ranges.
...It is not the hull you want to get 500-1000 in with a frigate. In fact there aren't a lot of ships you want to be that close to that hurricane in. I've tackle a carrier in one. |
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:52:00 -
[4246] - Quote
CCP Fonzie : Can CCP reimburse skillpoints to people who have trained missiles? In a MMO like Eve balance does change from time to time and skills will not be reimbursed unless their use is being removed from the game
ccp gone mad telling people they aint gonna reimburse |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
390
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 12:57:00 -
[4247] - Quote
Anyone wanting the refund of skillpoints related to rockets if the Jav and GMP changes go through is madder than that notorious madman Mad Jack McMad. HAMs too, tbh. |
Altaren Famas
Inner 5phere
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:02:00 -
[4248] - Quote
As im not going to search thru the 200 pages on this thread can someone explain in short why different range missiles arent a good idea? Different flight times for different damage. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
390
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:29:00 -
[4249] - Quote
Altaren Famas wrote:As im not going to search thru the 200 pages on this thread can someone explain in short why different range missiles arent a good idea? Different flight times for different damage.
They are a good idea, and they do exist. Rockets, HAMs and torps are shorter-ranged but more damaging than Lights, Heavies and Cruise. And within individual missiles, Fury/Rage trade range for increased damage in exactly the fashion that you desire.
Hope this helps! |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
202
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:30:00 -
[4250] - Quote
Altaren Famas wrote:As im not going to search thru the 200 pages on this thread can someone explain in short why different range missiles arent a good idea? Different flight times for different damage.
Becasue a major advantage of missiles is that they're effective accross their entire range envelope. Turrets require (too many really) different ammo types to cover different ranges. |
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
174
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 13:32:00 -
[4251] - Quote
The Tengu whiners should note that they have been thrown a very nice bone in the proposed update:
"CCP Fozzie" wrote: Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles
This is a huge boost for damage application with HAMs, and since there isn't anything in any mission that can outrun a Tengu that wants to keep outside HAM range I'd say that the Heavy Missile DPS shift to HAMs is quite fair for mission Tengus (and will allow people to mission effectively in PvP fit ships which is part of the stated goals of all this rebalancing). |
Daniel Plain
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
381
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 14:50:00 -
[4252] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:The Tengu whiners should note that they have been thrown a very nice bone in the proposed update: "CCP Fozzie" wrote: Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles
This is a huge boost for damage application with HAMs, and since there isn't anything in any mission that can outrun a Tengu that wants to keep outside HAM range I'd say that the Heavy Missile DPS shift to HAMs is quite fair for mission Tengus (and will allow people to mission effectively in PvP fit ships which is part of the stated goals of all this rebalancing). this is a very good change for PvP, no question. on the other hand, I highly doubt that the HAM tengu will be viable in PvE (especially missions) after the change, unless someone can show me a build with ~70km reach and ~700dps after implants. it's a pity, really.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings" -MXZF |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
390
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:12:00 -
[4253] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:I highly doubt that the HAM tengu will be viable in PvE (especially missions) after the change, unless someone can show me a build with ~70km reach and ~700dps after implants. it's a pity, really.
Indeed, woe is you.
[Tengu, 700] Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System
Republic Fleet 10MN Afterburner ~tanky stuff~
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
5% HAM damage and ROF implants. Actually I lie, it's only 695 DPS. 73.8 km EFT range, so should be around 70 km in practice after the acceleration change. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
223
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:39:00 -
[4254] - Quote
T3 ships was a mistake to be released in their current form anyway - complaining about having imbalanced ships nerfed is a sign of subjectivity and lack of understanding when it comes to game balance. Basically you are selfish and doesn't care about others...
Bringing isk into it makes you look even worse - Yes, the isk SHOULD represent the theoretical power of a ship but just because you spent a fortune for a ship it doesn't mean you should be much better than cheaper ships... CCP even admitted (though it wasn't easy for them) that somehow these ships might need a small adjustment.
Hell yeah they do. People dont even care about engaging people with T3 ships unless they got a numerical advantage. Ofcourse people dont mind paying a few billion isk to fly them when they are so much better than any other choice for most tasks
Pinky |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:41:00 -
[4255] - Quote
you mission runners and being spoiled at killing things at far range :P still wondering why a medium missile system slotted for high damage has more range than a large weapon system slated for damage. |
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:44:00 -
[4256] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Daniel Plain wrote:I highly doubt that the HAM tengu will be viable in PvE (especially missions) after the change, unless someone can show me a build with ~70km reach and ~700dps after implants. it's a pity, really. Indeed, woe is you. [Tengu, 700] Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System Republic Fleet 10MN Afterburner ~tanky stuff~ Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Javelin Heavy Assault Missile Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition I Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay 5% HAM damage and ROF implants. Actually I lie, it's only 695 DPS. 73.8 km EFT range, so should be around 70 km in practice after the acceleration change.
I just looked through the spreadsheet and only the Heavy missiles are getting velocity changes. Not sure if you figured that in or not.
On a separate note, this brings up the talk of Heavies now having more velocity than any other missile system.
New heavy velocity on all types: 4300 (3750 old)
Velocity on all types but rage versions of unguided and precision/t1 faction of Torps is now 3750, just like it was before.
I would call for the velocities accross all types to be normalized like before, buff velocity and nerf flight time to maintain ratios. In the case of torpedo's, I would just buff velocity to get more range for all types. 5-10km on each type would have the appropriate range growth. As it stands right now with these proposed changes HAMs and Torps retain the same range. HAMs do not need a range nerf. Again I go back to buff Torpedo's range via velocity.
Otherwise we run into a problem, and I see it happening during testing, that Heavy's, even with their nerfed range and damage will apply said damage faster than any missile type. The changed heavy numbers look good, though, and the damage projection looks to still be spot on for a medium weapon system.
below is the data strait from the spreadsheet.
first number is old, second number is new Inferno Precision Heavy Missile37504300 Inferno Fury Heavy Missile 37504300
Inferno Fury Cruise Missile37503750 Inferno Precision Cruise Missile37503750
Inferno Javelin Torpedo 22502250 Inferno Rage Torpedo 12501250
Inferno Javelin HAM 33753375 Inferno Rage HAM 18751875
Inferno Fury LM 37503750 Inferno Precision LM 37503750
Inferno Javelin Rocket 33753375 Inferno Rage Rocket 22501875
Damage increase ranges and explosion velocity / radius look pretty good, (Torp Rage seems to be a bit too high). Faction will be the better choice for everything over rage I think just because of the velocity nerf. Precision torp/HAM should be pretty good.
Google doc with spreedsheet from Fozzie (first page of this thread)
|
OlRotGut
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:45:00 -
[4257] - Quote
I've read through every single page on this post, albeit I have skipped some of the arguments between players; however I don't think I've read an answer that explains this:
"All Missiles Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players."
What does the bold part mean? (if I missed the explanation, I am sorry.) |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 15:48:00 -
[4258] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:I've read through every single page on this post, albeit I have skipped some of the arguments between players; however I don't think I've read an answer that explains this:
"All Missiles Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players."
What does the bold part mean? (if I missed the explanation, I am sorry.)
i think that new players will have to figure out you need to subtract 5% from your range in order to figure out your "true range" |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
783
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:02:00 -
[4259] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Bringing isk into it makes you look even worse - Yes, the isk SHOULD represent the theoretical power of a ship but just because you spent a fortune for a ship it doesn't mean you should be much better than cheaper ships... CCP even admitted (though it wasn't easy for them) that somehow these ships might need a small adjustment.
Pinky
lol, of course it should, if that wasn't the case you wouldn't be paying 400mil for a medium booster, I'm sure Aston Martin and Ferrrari et al would love your take on life. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
783
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:03:00 -
[4260] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:I've read through every single page on this post, albeit I have skipped some of the arguments between players; however I don't think I've read an answer that explains this:
"All Missiles Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players."
What does the bold part mean? (if I missed the explanation, I am sorry.)
It means "Less server load" God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
|
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:36:00 -
[4261] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:I've read through every single page on this post, albeit I have skipped some of the arguments between players; however I don't think I've read an answer that explains this:
"All Missiles Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players."
What does the bold part mean? (if I missed the explanation, I am sorry.)
The spreadsheet indicates this is not true. Fozzie can we get some clarification here? I believe that a velocity increase across the board would be fine. I don't think anyone in this discussion would really mind for a range buff to especially the unguided missiles.
I was really looking forward to the TE/TC effecting missiles. With it delayed, I really think we should get a buff to unguided missile types especially. Lights and Cruise both look to be in a good spot (still think Cruise have too much built in range). |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 16:37:00 -
[4262] - Quote
I think its about time to lock this thread.. Its just on repeat now.. |
Lili Lu
515
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 17:28:00 -
[4263] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:I think its about time to lock this thread.. Its just on repeat now.. Has been for a lot of pages. When these changes hit the test server there will likely be a new thread in that subforum. But the endless overly dramatic reactions of "just delete missiles etc." is getting tiring. Hell, the Drake hasn't received its direct nerf while the Hurricane did, and there has been very little whining by Hurricane pilots compared to Drake. And the quality of the upset Cane pilot posts have been much better.
There will be an endless supply of mainly pve centric players that hardly ever read the forums or post here. They will keep slowly learning of this change, and decide to not read the op or the rest of the thread closely, and thus make the same reactionary and unstudied overly-emotional posts.
On the other hand. Closing this thread would just result in even more whining OPs and new threads on this change, than there already are, in GD and S&M. So it may be better to leave it open. But at this point I wouldn't blame Fozzie if he were to do what the whiners have accused him of in the past, and what he has demosnstrated he did not do. That is, to ignore this thread. |
Ewersmen
Dalax Pty Ltd Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:05:00 -
[4264] - Quote
Its simple you pay for a game u have the right to complain ....hence why i'm here.
My main is fully trained for missiles....so how much time is that ...i mainly use heavies ...like many others ...THE MOST USED MISSILE IN THE GAME ....ooo ok we will nerf it omg...dont fix something that is not broken ..and what do i retrain now ..all that time for what ..cause really everyone knows heavies are the best missile in the game ....torps are great on big things etc....cruise missiles are bad...heavy assults are good sometimes...and thats it
U know what i love this game but common ccp fix some other things first man...i was in a fleet fight the other might td was red was omg...battleships buff the hell out of them ...there weak ...and the list go's on |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:37:00 -
[4265] - Quote
Ewersmen wrote:Its simple you pay for a game u have the right to complain ....hence why i'm here.
My main is fully trained for missiles....so how much time is that ...i mainly use heavies ...like many others ...THE MOST USED MISSILE IN THE GAME ....ooo ok we will nerf it omg...dont fix something that is not broken ..and what do i retrain now ..all that time for what ..cause really everyone knows heavies are the best missile in the game ....torps are great on big things etc....cruise missiles are bad...heavy assults are good sometimes...and thats it
U know what i love this game but common ccp fix some other things first man...i was in a fleet fight the other might td was red was omg...battleships buff the hell out of them ...there weak ...and the list go's on
1. Missiles will be fine post nerf, in fact they will still probably be too good. 2. How much time you spent training them is completely irrelevant because they will still be quite functional, the only way it would be relevant was if they were removing hml's completely 3. Let me quote you "cause really everyone knows heavies are the best missile in the game" Thats why they need to be nerfed? because they aren't supposed to be best. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 19:59:00 -
[4266] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: 3. Let me quote you "cause really everyone knows heavies are the best missile in the game" Thats why they need to be nerfed? because they aren't supposed to be best.
His point was that heavy missiles aren't the best cause they're soo OP, they're the best cause nothing else is that good. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 20:07:00 -
[4267] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote: 3. Let me quote you "cause really everyone knows heavies are the best missile in the game" Thats why they need to be nerfed? because they aren't supposed to be best.
His point was that heavy missiles aren't the best cause they're soo OP, they're the best cause nothing else is that good.
Just not true. |
Ager Agemo
Saturn Reaper
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 22:40:00 -
[4268] - Quote
CCP Fozzie with all due respect... but are you nuts? why are you nerfing Battleship missile weapons when they actually are EXTREMELY poor and weak compared to their turret counterparts, not to mention, if you are not going to actually balance T2 weapons why are you even touching Torpedos and cruise missiles, if you are going to modify all the missiles at least do it right nad look them on a case per case instead of global modifications, having torps with shorter range than HAMs is downright ridiculous |
Hauling Hal
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
94
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:06:00 -
[4269] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tech Two Missiles Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles
Please, please, please, get rid of the current reduced flight time for Precision missiles compared to non-precision. What's the point having a missile designed to hit fast moving targets when it runs out of flight time before it gets to them. What's worse, is that you can hit the fast targets with a T1 missile and not a T2 precision!
Reducing the effective range for heavies by 25% for will makes this even worse than it already is....
P.S. Whilst you're changing EW effects related to missiles, review the idea of making ECM affect rate of fire, so it behaves in a consistent way like the other EW. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:12:00 -
[4270] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
1. Missiles will be fine post nerf, in fact they will still probably be too good. 2. How much time you spent training them is completely irrelevant because they will still be quite functional, the only way it would be relevant was if they were removing hml's completely 3. Let me quote you "cause really everyone knows heavies are the best missile in the game" Thats why they need to be nerfed? because they aren't supposed to be best.
Excuse me, but you are wrong here.
1) Missiles will NOT be fine after nerf. Atm in PvP the following systems are used above frig size: HMLs on Drakes (and Tengus). Thats it. HAM is next to a non-issue, and Torps are useful only on a Phoon. CMs are utter rubbish. After the patch it will change to: nothing will be used.
2) thats exactly whats happening, they will be removed as an option for PvP if you want to compete.
3) You are right, they are not supposed to be the best. The reason for them being the best ist another one than the one you seem to assume: HML seem to be OP, because CMs and Torps suck so much. And HAMs too, although they fall back a bit less in comparison than CM and Torps, which should simply own. Compare Large AC to Medium AC, and then Torps to HAMs and you see whats wrong. CM to HML is just a joke.
Proof for my assumption: when did you see a working CM-ship in PvP for the last time? See, thats it. CMs are terribly broken. In PvE they also dont work like they should. Although there its still somewhat possible to use em.
Circles, and circles again. But as long as people make statements full of so many completely wrong things like the one of Mr. Tarrant, there is no other way than come back and correct them.
Best regards. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:15:00 -
[4271] - Quote
Please please please. T2 missiles were hardly used before, so how can anyone say that they will be nerfed ? Removing the penalties on them is an amazing buff considering how powerful these ammo can be ; though, like turrets, they are situational.
This thread is boring.
PS : HML are OP compared to other medium size gun, not compared to other sized weapons. The fact that you need to use the argument of cruise missiles or torp to prove they are not OP is an amazing fail and a proof that they are indeed OP. PS2 : small size missiles are used, and they are *deadly*. |
Hauling Hal
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
94
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:28:00 -
[4272] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Please please please. T2 missiles were hardly used before, so how can anyone say that they will be nerfed ? Removing the penalties on them is an amazing buff considering how powerful these ammo can be ; though, like turrets, they are situational.
This thread is boring.
PS : HML are OP compared to other medium size gun, not compared to other sized weapons. The fact that you need to use the argument of cruise missiles or torp to prove they are not OP is an amazing fail and a proof that they are indeed OP. PS2 : small size missiles are used, and they are *deadly*.
T2 Furies were used a LOT. T2 precisions weren't used because of their limited range compared to T1 missiles. Removing the penalties is a buff, but it isn't amazing. Making all the missiles viable would be amazing, but if Precisions don't get their limited range changed back to a standard missile's range, they still won't be used. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:33:00 -
[4273] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: My idea is you should put these acids in your head. HML *need* a nerf, and there is a hundred of pages explaining why; and not only in blobs. Hint : it's a long range medium size weapon system.
So, you will maybe care to explain me that again, because I have yet to see proof for your theory. My question to you comes later in the text.
What I see in this thread, and implicite in your post too, is claims about
1) HML being OP in comparison to other systems (unbonused stats comparison, fitted ships comparison on maximum range of HML in EFT)
2) HML are OP because the Drake and Tengu rule all, and Eve is in fact Drake online.
3) HML are OP because in nullsec .. and so on.
What I dont see is a serious analysis of the weapon system in its actual INGAME use in PvP.
I hope we can agree on this: stats alone mean nothing, important is, whats actually happening in the game. Else we would not be playing Eve but EFT.
What I can see *in the game* is:
- HML/Drake/Tengu are used a lot in PvE (although Tengu is by no means a contender for "best PvE mission ship", that goes to Machariel, with Vargur a close second, then Nightmare and Paladin (esp. when EM/Therm is what you want to deal), then with some distance Tengu in kinetic missions, and then some more distance Tengu in other missions). Drake is the best BC for level 4 missions, simply because the others cant tank and deal damage in the same way. All of Drakes strongpoints work in PvE, all of its weaks are kind of irrelevant there.
- HML/Drake blobs are very strong in nullsec (low SP req, low cost, fast ship in comparison to BS)
- in lowsec and highsec PvP the Drake is present, but by no means in an unbalanced way. As many stated above, the meta game doesnt favour Drakes there, thats why most people prefer a Cane over a Drake.
Now the question to you: Where exactly do you get the basis for your assumption, the HML/Drake combination would be an issue ingame OUTSIDE nullsec?
The nullsec scenario could be solved easily by buffing CMs so they are actually a VIABLE weapon system for PvP. CM/Raven/Phoon would annihilate Drakeblobs, and still not be OP due to them being 1) more expensive and 2) more skill intense, in addition also a fair bit slower, so other BS could do something against them.
Apart from that, simply ask yourself this question - why is it, that people fit ACs and Arti on their Caldari, Gallente or Amarr ships? And why does NO one fit HMLs to his ship, except Drakes and Tengus? (other HML ships are either not used with HML - Caracal for example - or are not used at all - Cerberus, Nighthawk, and ships with no bonus are completely ignoring HML too ....) Maybe its not the system, even when its paper stats may look so good ... and please dont get me wrong, I dont want to talk about HMLs like they suck - they dont. But their strongpoints are better for PvE (and blobs) than for sophisticated PvP - reliable damage over a long range-window (0-max range). But they come in delayed, they can be outrun, their damage can be mitigated just by speed (no matter which direction unlike with turrets) .. and missiles can also be destroyed in space.
I hope you can see why this thread is still going - there are simply not enough people seeing the light yet ;) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:36:00 -
[4274] - Quote
Ager Agemo wrote:CCP Fozzie with all due respect... but are you nuts? why are you nerfing Battleship missile weapons when they actually are EXTREMELY poor and weak compared to their turret counterparts, not to mention, if you are not going to actually balance T2 weapons why are you even touching Torpedos and cruise missiles, if you are going to modify all the missiles at least do it right nad look them on a case per case instead of global modifications, having torps with shorter range than HAMs is downright ridiculous I'm not seeing too much of a BS weapons nerf comparing Fury cruises pre and post change or Rage torps. If I did the math right: Fury cruises are getting a 9% damage buff and a 6% explosion radius reduction. Granted they get a large range reduction, but the excess range on cruises really does nothing to affect their usefulness.
Rage torps are getting a 6% damage bonus while having the same range as T1 torps and a 6% reduction from current stats. The explosion radius is bolating by 19% but that will be countered by the GMP skill now applying to them, making them about the same at lvl 4 as now and better at lvl 5. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.05 23:47:00 -
[4275] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Please please please. T2 missiles were hardly used before, so how can anyone say that they will be nerfed ? Removing the penalties on them is an amazing buff considering how powerful these ammo can be ; though, like turrets, they are situational.
This thread is boring.
PS : HML are OP compared to other medium size gun, not compared to other sized weapons. The fact that you need to use the argument of cruise missiles or torp to prove they are not OP is an amazing fail and a proof that they are indeed OP. PS2 : small size missiles are used, and they are *deadly*.
HML are not OP compared to other medium sized guns per default. They are stronger than LR MT compared on their max range (and, admitted, a fair bit before that max). They are far weaker above missile max (=0 DPS), which comes sooner than some know. They are also not stronger than LR MT when those turrets can use high damage ammo (ranges below 35 km).
This means
below 35 km: LR MT > HML 35km-70km: HML >> LR MT 70km+: LR MT >>> HML
I agree though that this window is too big. There should be a catch up, simply by adding a dedicated long range ammo for missiles, which would work with lower DPS than standard ammo, but on higher ranges and with much higher velocity. So it would be versatile enough for mixed sniper fleets, not OP at all and give the Drake the chance to fight back without having a DPS-edge. It should all be balanced so there are maybe 2 range windows, for example 35-50 HML would use t1/faction ammo and be stronger than turrets, then from 50-70 where turrets have the edge and then from 70-80 where HML would be first again with long range ammo.
At this moment we see the 4 tier 2 BCs normally flown like that: Canes and Harbingers dedicated close range, Drake dedicated long range (Myrm is another thing, but that goes a bit far here). The Drake might be best of the bunch in long range, but in close range its definitely not. So each of them has a role.
About your "point" with this comparison of HML and CM/Torp - I am sorry, but you are the one who is wrong here.
Compare the potential DPS of a Destroyer with a CM/Raven and you see whats going on, esp. considering the fact those not really hot DPS wont even apply well ingame.
Again, when was the last time you saw CMs in PvP used with *success*? HML are not better than CM because HML are OP, but because CM are so terribly broken like the Caldari Platform for CMs, the Raven is broken.
Apart from that - never judge any platform alone by paper stats. HML are used on ships, and in fact they are so OP that they can be used with success on exactly 2 (!) ships. /sarcasm
Compare the stats of the ships, fit a picture and play the game - then you will see how this is not Drake online (apart from some places in nullsec maybe).
|
Alai Ji
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:21:00 -
[4276] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Apart from that, simply ask yourself this question - why is it, that people fit ACs and Arti on their Caldari, Gallente or Amarr ships?
Answer: Because ships not bonused for MIssiles don't (generally) have (many) Missile hardpoints.
So you can't fly a MIssile Myrm; you can't fly a Missile Arbi; you can't fly a MIssile EOS; etc.
Nobody uses HMLs as a secondary weapon because: Their range is so different from the primary weapon either RLML (for anti frig, or in low fitting situations) or HAMs (for pure DPS) are a better match, or (more usually) Neuts are just sooo much more useful.
You do see missiles used on ships without bonuses where good medium range is important (Celestis often use a mix of HMLs and utility instead of Hybrids - this is because Celestis' are pretty well the only non-bonused, non-Caldari medium hull with a decent number of missile harpoints).
Cerb's arn't used because increasing the range of HMLs from 70-120 doesn't really advantage you over the Drake's tank and mid slots.
Post missile nerf: Caracals and Cerbs will have a role as long range (~90km) missile boats. Nighthawks will still be competing in the same niche as Drakes for no real benefit (although extra DPS bonus, explosion velocity bonus will be more useful post nerf).
So, let's consider the reverse of your question: If, HMLs were buffed what ships would use them that don't right now?
Minnie ships may use them in their utility highs, but I think Neuts would still be the preferred option. Sacs would just use HMLs over HAMs. And we still wouldn't see Caracals, Cerbs and NIghthawks (or HML Feroxes) because they would still be outperformed by Drakes.
Sooo.... even if HMLs were made more OP we would see pretty well the same ships using HMLs as on TQ as a present |
Lili Lu
516
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 00:30:00 -
[4277] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: What I dont see is a serious analysis of the weapon system in its actual INGAME use in PvP.
I hope we can agree on this: stats alone mean nothing, important is, whats actually happening in the game. Else we would not be playing Eve but EFT.
What I can see *in the game* is:
- HML/Drake/Tengu are used a lot in PvE (although Tengu is by no means a contender for "best PvE mission ship", that goes to Machariel, with Vargur a close second, then Nightmare and Paladin (esp. when EM/Therm is what you want to deal), then with some distance Tengu in kinetic missions, and then some more distance Tengu in other missions). Drake is the best BC for level 4 missions, simply because the others cant tank and deal damage in the same way. All of Drakes strongpoints work in PvE, all of its weaks are kind of irrelevant there.
- HML/Drake blobs are very strong in nullsec (low SP req, low cost, fast ship in comparison to BS)
- in lowsec and highsec PvP the Drake is present, but by no means in an unbalanced way. As many stated above, the meta game doesnt favour Drakes there, thats why most people prefer a Cane over a Drake.
Now the question to you: Where exactly do you get the basis for your assumption, the HML/Drake combination would be an issue ingame OUTSIDE nullsec? Noemi you are frankly full of it. You either trash citation to eve-kill statistics or attempt to minimize them by saying they only represent null sec drake usage. Where is your damn evidence for that? You supply your own anecdotal observations as if they are not subject to being questioned. My anecdotal observations are that drakes still outnumber Canes in lowsec. So who is right? That's the whole point. Neither of us has any more ability to say which is more predominant.
Eve-kill top twenty is about the only statiscal tool we have. And some randomization enters the display in that it is open to any organization to sign on and create killboards. Eve-kill does not only record null sec killmails. We don't know the distribution on Drake usage. We cannot say just what percentage of drakes on killmails is coming from null v low sec. And even if we could, and it was mostly catching nullsec use, it would not support your contention that Canes are used more in lowsec. If eve-kill could provde raw data for statistical analysis then one of us might be right, or we could both be partially right, or neither right.
The whole thing is moot though because I'm sure CCP has the ability to break down it's own stats on HML, Drake, and Tengu usage. They can even keep track of total module activations each day. HML II was the most use module by a multiple of the second place module, from a tweet by one of the devs for one day's stats. Do you really doubt that CCP didn't look at the matter more closely than you or I have the ability to do? I think they did look at it closely and came to the conclusion that HML/Drake/Tengu use in pvp and pve in all sectors was out of whack otherwise they would not be engaging in this nerf.
So keep posting your assertions and observations as if they are statements of fact, but you are fooling noone. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 06:15:00 -
[4278] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:
1. Missiles will be fine post nerf, in fact they will still probably be too good. 2. How much time you spent training them is completely irrelevant because they will still be quite functional, the only way it would be relevant was if they were removing hml's completely 3. Let me quote you "cause really everyone knows heavies are the best missile in the game" Thats why they need to be nerfed? because they aren't supposed to be best.
Excuse me, but you are wrong here. 1) Missiles will NOT be fine after nerf. Atm in PvP the following systems are used above frig size: HMLs on Drakes (and Tengus). Thats it. HAM is next to a non-issue, and Torps are useful only on a Phoon. CMs are utter rubbish. After the patch it will change to: nothing will be used. 2) thats exactly whats happening, they will be removed as an option for PvP if you want to compete. 3) You are right, they are not supposed to be the best. The reason for them being the best ist another one than the one you seem to assume: HML seem to be OP, because CMs and Torps suck so much. And HAMs too, although they fall back a bit less in comparison than CM and Torps, which should simply own. Compare Large AC to Medium AC, and then Torps to HAMs and you see whats wrong. CM to HML is just a joke. Proof for my assumption: when did you see a working CM-ship in PvP for the last time? See, thats it. CMs are terribly broken. In PvE they also dont work like they should. Although there its still somewhat possible to use em. Circles, and circles again. But as long as people make statements full of so many completely wrong things like the one of Mr. Tarrant, there is no other way than come back and correct them. Best regards.
I swear this is the last time i'll make this point.
1. After the TE/TC changes all missiles will be better for it, especially hams.
2. HML's will still outdps all long range weapons in real projected dps by a wide margin.
3. You're being stupid now. HML's don't seem overpowered compared to CM/torps, those are large weapon systems and really have little bearing on the balance issue since HML's are a medium weapon. HML's are overpowered because they outdps all other medium long range weapons by around 30-40% at 60km
Cruise missiles being broken does not mean HML's should not be nerfed, that is a logical fallacy and a bad one. I'm guessing it never occured to you that CM/torps would get a visit from the balance fairy in the next few sets of changes? You know, since the balance project is on going and is going to change ALL ships in the game? Hmm?
And to the later comment that medium long range weapons do more dps at short range.
I dare you, try to shoot a fast moving target with medium arties at ranges shorter than 20km, enjoy.
Stop being BAD. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 07:58:00 -
[4279] - Quote
The hurricane you see in lowsec are mostly AC fit. There is indeed arty canes, but they are mostly on gate and station to blab frigates.
So you are comparing a drake with long range weapon system (HML) to most ships with short range weapon systems that roam low sec, and that is the evidence of the problem.
As for the range of HML you keep saying they are outdps by turrets when they have no more range, but HML reliably hit up to 70km ; this is the reason why long range fleet aim at 60-70km range with short range weapons. Outside of this range, the drake cannot lock its target... To have a medium turret fit reaching this range, you have to dedicate it to range, and your dps will be half or third of the drake dps. And you are wrong for the range <35km : HML have a comparable dps to short range ammo turret in these range too. Difference is that turrets in these range can't track a ****, and lose a lot of effective dps. And remember you can put rigs to increase your range.
And for T2 fury missiles, I'd like to see some on a kill mail of a non pve drake... But keep talking pve, that's obviously the way to balance things...
And once again, if you need to compare HML to torp or cruise to prove they are not OP, it's an evidence of their OPness.
There was a comparison between all long range weapon stat, without any bonus. Basically, HML have alpha, short range dps at any range, and range comparable to the others. New HML are still better than turrets, only having slightly less dps at short range, traded with damage application, or even dps with fury ; they have now a shorter range, but are way faster, and you still can use rigs to extend it. And they have usable T2 ammo now, completely aleviating the dps and damage application nerf. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:20:00 -
[4280] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:[
I hope you can see why this thread is still going - there are simply not enough people seeing the light yet ;)
You aren't reading. There have been a number of people pointing out the factual errors for most of this thread.
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:22:00 -
[4281] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:The hurricane you see in lowsec are mostly AC fit. There is indeed arty canes, but they are mostly on gate and station to blab frigates.
So you are comparing a drake with long range weapon system (HML) to most ships with short range weapon systems that roam low sec, and that is the evidence of the problem.
As for the range of HML you keep saying they are outdps by turrets when they have no more range, but HML reliably hit up to 70km ; this is the reason why long range fleet aim at 60-70km range with short range weapons. Outside of this range, the drake cannot lock its target... To have a medium turret fit reaching this range, you have to dedicate it to range, and your dps will be half or third of the drake dps. And you are wrong for the range <35km : HML have a comparable dps to short range ammo turret in these range too. Difference is that turrets in these range can't track a ****, and lose a lot of effective dps. And remember you can put rigs to increase your range.
And for T2 fury missiles, I'd like to see some on a kill mail of a non pve drake... But keep talking pve, that's obviously the way to balance things...
And once again, if you need to compare HML to torp or cruise to prove they are not OP, it's an evidence of their OPness.
There was a comparison between all long range weapon stat, without any bonus. Basically, HML have alpha, short range dps at any range, and range comparable to the others. New HML are still better than turrets, only having slightly less dps at short range, traded with damage application, or even dps with fury ; they have now a shorter range, but are way faster, and you still can use rigs to extend it. And they have usable T2 ammo now, completely aleviating the dps and damage application nerf.
This is total and complete bullshit.
It takes exactly 1 mod and 2 rigs to get a drake to hit for over 100km....with over 300dps. There isn't a T1 ship in the game that can come close to that with medium guns.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:48:00 -
[4282] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:The hurricane you see in lowsec are mostly AC fit. There is indeed arty canes, but they are mostly on gate and station to blab frigates.
So you are comparing a drake with long range weapon system (HML) to most ships with short range weapon systems that roam low sec, and that is the evidence of the problem..
Dont you see how *you* are just doing the same? You say the HML Drake is OP on range, so next to no one uses other medium weapon ranged ships. But you dont say the HAM Drake is UP, coz nearly no one uses it over a AC Cane or Pulse Harbi. Still this is true: the Drake is the best ranged vessel in tier II BCs. But its also the worst brawler of the tier II BCs. So all of those ships have a role atm. Drake is king in applied DPS in 35-70 km range. But before and afterwards it is clearly weaker than the others. It is so much weaker than the others that you actually see 2-3 times as many Hurricanes in lowsec compared to Drakes! Do you think lowsec pilots are all just dumb and have no skills, so they dont use the best ship? In my experience its the other way round - people in lowsec know much more about PvP than most others. And they know especially well, that PvP is more than crunching numbers in EFT: DPS/range/EHP is all you guys talk about. You forget agility, speed, utility slots, Drone-abilities, fitting variation, speed of DPS application ... and many others more. So thats why you miss how the game is actually played.
short summary:
What you (and others) want to do is this:
you want to remove Drakes role of being stronger in this engagement range - it should be "in line" with the rest.
What you (and others) fail to see is:
it will not have a role then anymore. It has its role because it is usable with success in a certain range. If it is no longer better there, but still worse in other ranges, why should one take it? Especially considering the fact this certain role is none, which is favoured by current meta .. apart from in nullsec.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: As for the range of HML you keep saying they are outdps by turrets when they have no more range, but HML reliably hit up to 70km ; this is the reason why long range fleet aim at 60-70km range with short range weapons. Outside of this range, the drake cannot lock its target... To have a medium turret fit reaching this range, you have to dedicate it to range, and your dps will be half or third of the drake dps. And you are wrong for the range <35km : HML have a comparable dps to short range ammo turret in these range too. Difference is that turrets in these range can't track a ****, and lose a lot of effective dps. And remember you can put rigs to increase your range.
Short answers: about the DPS - you are plain wrong. Go to EFT and check it out, Drake will be 1/3rd behind in DPS.Further more, tracking IS an issue, but not to a degree one cant solve it (mixed fleets ftw, if you dont have tackle to slow em down you wont kill em anyway).
Bouh Revetoile wrote: And for T2 fury missiles, I'd like to see some on a kill mail of a non pve drake... But keep talking pve, that's obviously the way to balance things...
I absolutely have no clue what you want to tell us with that? And I always make clear PvE is not the way to balance things. In opposite its the Drake-haters who say its OP in PvE. I think though you can see some things in PvE, as a trend. And I personally dont wonder its the Machariel and Vargur which are so OP there.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 08:48:00 -
[4283] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: And once again, if you need to compare HML to torp or cruise to prove they are not OP, it's an evidence of their OPness.
And once again - no. We dont "need" to compare them to Torps/Cruise, but we *see* something when we look at all systems: HMLs are used in PvE and PvP, Torps and Cruises are NOT used in PvP and not used much in PvE, same for HAMs. Now compare: Large AC and Arty are used a LOT in PvP (and PvE), med AC is used a LOT in PvP, and even med Arty is used in PvP (although to a smaller degree).
So I dont actually compare HMLs with other missile systems. I compare missile systems with Projectiles. And what I see is, 4 out of 4 are used in Projectiles, because they are *ALL* viable and useful, and all of them are on par or even OP in their roles. And 1 out of 4 is used in missiles, but not because this one is OP, but because all other 3 just dont do what they should, so if you want to use missile in above frig size PvP you simply HAVE to use HML on a Drake. The only other half viable
I agree with you in one: if HAMs were better (so they would be competitive in small gangs/roams in PvP), there would be many Drakes not using HML but HAMs. But if you have the choice to either suck and die (HAMs) or not suck and maybe help your fleet to win (HMLs), then which would you chose?
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
There was a comparison between all long range weapon stat, without any bonus. Basically, HML have alpha, short range dps at any range, and range comparable to the others. New HML are still better than turrets, only having slightly less dps at short range, traded with damage application, or even dps with fury ; they have now a shorter range, but are way faster, and you still can use rigs to extend it. And they have usable T2 ammo now, completely aleviating the dps and damage application nerf.
To claim new HML would be still better than turrets is completely neglecting the fact how they are used. They have less range (much less for t2) and less DPS. All soft stats are nerfed, the only thing which is removed is speed drawback for precisions and signature drawback for furies, while nerfing all of their other stats. To say this t2 ammo would be "usable now" is a bad joke.
Maybe your lack of understanding of Drakes and HML comes from your inability to use them? All I see for you are Gallente ships in PvP (btw, I dont deny some Gallente ships need to be buffed, but thats not the topic here ..) ...
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:03:00 -
[4284] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
I swear this is the last time i'll make this point.
1. After the TE/TC changes all missiles will be better for it, especially hams.
You are welcome to not post anymore if you feel better then.
There will be no TE/TC changes now. If HAMs will be better then or not we will see. People like me are concerned about HML nerfs because atm (!) there is no other useful PvP missile system above frig size. If (and only then!) PvP is possible with success in Caldari ships using Torps, HAMs and CMs, I will be the first one to sign HMLs should be absolutely in line with their medium turret long range cousins. Until then I am not. Simply because there is no other option, which is bad IMO. :)
Garviel Tarrant wrote: 2. HML's will still outdps all long range weapons in real projected dps by a wide margin.
Not true for high velocity small signature targets. Everything else has to be checked once the actual numbers are there.
Garviel Tarrant wrote: 3. You're being stupid now. HML's don't seem overpowered compared to CM/torps, those are large weapon systems and really have little bearing on the balance issue since HML's are a medium weapon. HML's are overpowered because they outdps all other medium long range weapons by around 30-40% at 60km.
And they are outdpsd in other areas, AND they are by no means a 1on1 killer AND they are used only because HAMs suck so much. I agree with you that in applied DPS over range (after flight time, though) HML are good. But thats the only thing they can do, so shouldnt they be good at it? :) They cant hit out to falloffs coz there is none, they cant apply insta DPS, and they cant change to more DPS close range.
Garviel Tarrant wrote: Cruise missiles being broken does not mean HML's should not be nerfed, that is a logical fallacy and a bad one. I'm guessing it never occured to you that CM/torps would get a visit from the balance fairy in the next few sets of changes? You know, since the balance project is on going and is going to change ALL ships in the game? Hmm?
I didnt say HML should be nerfed because CM are broken. I said, HML *seem* to be broken, because their natural counter is broken. If Raven/Cruise would work like they should, you could counter any ranged Drake easily with CM. And counter the Raven/CM with short range DPS (of nearly any class), and counter the short range DPS in a medium range of maybe 50km with Drakes again. The point which makes HML to look like they are OP is the absence of other viable and working PvP missile systems.
In addition thats also why they are used by so many Caldari - they have no other chance to do above frig size missile PvP if they dont use HML.
Garviel Tarrant wrote: And to the later comment that medium long range weapons do more dps at short range.
I dare you, try to shoot a fast moving target with medium arties at ranges shorter than 20km, enjoy.
Stop being BAD.
Try to fly fast shorter than 20km if your enemy is not dumb and AFK .. I beg you, please ... thats so funny I nearly spilled my coffee :) I bet you didnt mean that tackled moon-size signatured Drake, when you talked about that fast moving target?
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:05:00 -
[4285] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
To claim new HML would be still better than turrets is completely neglecting the fact how they are used. They have less range (much less for t2) and less DPS. All soft stats are nerfed, the only thing which is removed is speed drawback for precisions and signature drawback for furies, while nerfing all of their other stats. To say this t2 ammo would be "usable now" is a bad joke.
Maybe your lack of understanding of Drakes and HML comes from your inability to use them? All I see for you are Gallente ships in PvP (btw, I dont deny some Gallente ships need to be buffed, but thats not the topic here ..) ...
What alternate reality do you live in? Drakes currently have significantly more DPS at range, and they STILL WILL after the adjustement due to fall off, and they do it with a full tank, something NO other non-tier 3 BC can manage, the rest have to trade tank for range to mount top tier T2 guns. ALL of them.
....and please tell me what I don't know about drakes. |
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:06:00 -
[4286] - Quote
Once in the past there was a thingin United States. It called "Pay as you go" and was about covering backend costs, if you come with an idea.
There is an idea - nerf HML. As HML range is the main ability for Drake\Tengu\NightHawk\Cerberus , lets take one main ability from every tier2 BC. I'll start with hurricane: add speed and agility penalty to t2 ammo. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:07:00 -
[4287] - Quote
SyntaxPD wrote:Once in the past there was a thingin United States. It called "Pay as you go" and was about to cover backend, if you come with an idea.
There is an idea - nerf HML. As HML range is the main ability for Drake\Tengu\NightHawk\Cerberus , lets take one main ability from every tier2 BC. I'll start with hurricane: add speed and agility penalty to t2 ammo.
Did you read the OP? The hurrican is loosing 225grid. so no more 425s plus neuts, and the armor cane looses 20% of its tank because you need to use an ACR to fit guns at all. |
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:11:00 -
[4288] - Quote
Onictus wrote: Did you read the OP? The hurrican is loosing 225grid. so no more 425s plus neuts, and the armor cane looses 20% of its tank because you need to use an ACR to fit guns at all.
Okay, then just take some cpu from Drake, so it cannot fir HML without co-cpu. Not to mention you already cannot fir HAM without RCU.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:16:00 -
[4289] - Quote
SyntaxPD wrote:Onictus wrote: Did you read the OP? The hurrican is loosing 225grid. so no more 425s plus neuts, and the armor cane looses 20% of its tank because you need to use an ACR to fit guns at all.
Okay, then just take some cpu from Drake, so it cannot fir HML without co-cpu. Not to mention you already cannot fir HAM without RCU.
Or just carry ECM drones lol
...and certainly Harbi and Mrym need to be nerfed |
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:31:00 -
[4290] - Quote
Onictus wrote:...and certainly Harbi and Mrym need to be nerfed
If it comes to main advantages in weapon systems, so...
Limit dronebay on myrm or replace current drone bonus with "Drones control range bonus" .
Harbinger is non-issue, it's tier1, so compare it with tier1.
Prophecy: umm.... seems fine, how about to add 10 seconds timer to change ammo ? |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 09:44:00 -
[4291] - Quote
SyntaxPD wrote:[quote=Onictus]
this is sarcasm post, dont take it serious, i just want ccp to show their real motives for HML nerf. How you weight the factors? what is OP and what is not? Show us the numbers!
Read the thread, its there in the first couple pages.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 10:02:00 -
[4292] - Quote
SyntaxPD wrote:Onictus wrote:...and certainly Harbi and Mrym need to be nerfed If it comes to main advantages in weapon systems, so... Limit dronebay on myrm or replace current drone bonus with "Drones control range bonus" . Harbinger is non-issue, it's tier1, so compare it with tier1. Prophecy: umm.... seems fine, how about to add 10 seconds timer to change ammo ? this is sarcasm post, dont take it serious, i just want ccp to show their real motives for HML nerf. How you weight the factors? what is OP and what is not? Show us the numbers!
Harbinger is not tier 1. But about everything else:
- when it comes to turrets , people seem to be willing to accept there has to be one system which is best at certain things. For example no one complains about ACs being OP in some things or Arty in other things to the same degree as they complain about HML. For turrets you get statements like "one has to be the best, and then just adapt (=crosstrain) or die".
For HML however people say "HML are OP, they have to be brought back into line!!" ... I tell you something: the reason why many didnt crosstrain for them is because they are NOT OP. They are useful in a certain way, and the only useful missile system in small gangs/roams/fleets at ALL atm (above frigs, again ..). But they are not OP except being so cheap to use and easy to train for null sec fleets. Thats why Canes outnumber Drakes by 2 or 3 in lowsec (something ANY skilled PvP player in lowsec will confirm!). And you simply dont see any other above frig missile PvP except with HML. HAMs are non existent, Torps are used in bombers (frig size ship) and maybe in an occasional Neut-Torp-Phoon, but not in Caldari hulls, CM are completely broken. Fix those to be in line with their turret brothers, and we will all agree to bring HML in line with med turrets. Until then - adapt or die. Or fix those OP turrets too :)
And to that guy who said something about me trashing " citation to eve-kill statistics" : read what has been explained about eve-kill. The numbers there are not representative, because the way they are made will give disproportional bigger numbers for bigger fleets. Note the Zealot on rank 2, and ask yourself how many Zealots you see do PvP in your environment normally. I dont say there are none. But in my experience Zealots are much less used in lowsec than many other ships, same in highsec. But in nullsec they are a viable counter for Drakeblobs, so a fight of Drakeblobs and Zealots in nullsec is a very viable explanation for those numbers.
Fix other missile systems and you will see a drastic change to HML/Drake use, because people have then the ability to really choose something: go on close range roam with your friends Cane in your HAM/Drake, or do nice fleet ranged DPS with a Raven, or do in your face torp stuff.. the Raven will be used then in PvP and it will render the Drake obsolete in nullsec, and in lowsec the Drake is not overpowered at all. Its balanced in imbalance - better at some things, and worse in other. Thats why lowsec is not Drakespace, but Canespace, if you want to name it after the most used ship ....
Best regards. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
391
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 10:05:00 -
[4293] - Quote
Looks like Noemi got round to hiring those mercs. He was never interested in a 1v1, just all talk and no trousers. |
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 10:17:00 -
[4294] - Quote
Okay, here are the numbers. Since the topic is about weapon systems, compare naked ships with only t2 guns set at their maximum range. All BCs got Warden II, to keep the line of firing at around 60km. Drake charged with Nova Fury HML due to fact that we are comparing weapons system, not a single bonus of ship. Myrm have 3x Warden II as it's 50/50 guns-drones platform
Drake(HML): 368 DPS - 75km, about 50% 55% CPU left and 40% PG left Hurricane(720mm): 213 DPS - 54+21km, a lot of CPU left, about 15% of PG left Prophecy(HBL): 171.5DPS - 54+10km, 60% CPU left, less than 10% PG left. Myrmydon(250mm+WardenII): 322DPS - 64.8+15km. 65% CPU left, 20% PG left
Ok, what now?
Drake and Myrmydon are 2 highest DPS available at 60km in tier2 BC class, but they suffer counterparts that do not touch other 2. I do not touch speed, agility etc as these affect every weapon system:
1. Missiles have a flight time and have a risk of not hitting target at all if distance grows while they fly 2. DPS can be lowered by using defenders, and there are plenty of ships with utility high with launcher. 3. Drones can be shot and stop making damage. 4. SmartBombs, save from both.
Not about weapons: Take also into account, that Drake and Myrm are 2 slowest in their class. And this is fine, because they can hit far but once caught, they can not escape. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 10:19:00 -
[4295] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Looks like Noemi got round to hiring those mercs. He was never interested in a 1v1, just all talk and no trousers.
Can you tell me what exactly you want to say with that? :)
Explanation for all of those who didnt read the start: Gypsio III claimed the HAM Drake to be best tier 2 close range BC. I objected and offered a 1on1 HAM Drake vs any other tier 2 BC. I said I couldnt do it myself but had to give that to someone else who has time to do it. And then it was not me who refused this 1on1 test, but Gypsio who said "we do it after the patch" which translates for me to "I know I will lose now, but maybe after patch HAM Drake will be better".
It does not matter who flies the ship, I am all l5 with any BC tier 2, as will be the people who will show you how much a HAM Drake gets owned. You decided to not show, so telling I would be all talk and no trousers is kind of funny, hearing it from that guy who didnt take the offer. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
391
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 10:49:00 -
[4296] - Quote
Actually I said the Myrmidon is probably the best in a close-range 1v1, so you're wrong again.
If you were ever serious about your challenge you'd have been in touch with a time and place. You haven't. As I said, all talk and no trousers.
Goodbye. Feel free to carry on being bad. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 11:05:00 -
[4297] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Actually I said the Myrmidon is probably the best in a close-range 1v1, so you're wrong again.
If you were ever serious about your challenge you'd have been in touch with a time and place. You haven't. As I said, all talk and no trousers.
Goodbye. Feel free to carry on being bad.
Err no. I was serious, you said you want to postpone it to "after the patch" ... dont twist the facts please :) And the Myrm best may be correct, but you never said so before AFAIK. If you did, please show me where.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 11:09:00 -
[4298] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:For the records: I never said the Myrm and Brutix are OP (they are not, but still they can beat the sh*t our of a Drake if the fight is taking place under their rules) You'd be surprised. Equally-skilled Drake should beat both Brutix and Myrm in shield gank configurations even if the fight starts at Void optimal. Active-rigged dual MAR fits are much harder to model, but the Myrm can certainly win and the Brutix can very likely win too. But these aren't particularly common fits these days.
Thats what I found from you, sir, in this thread in regards of Myrm vs Drake. ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1974227#post1974227 ) So yes, I agree you said Myrm can win in one configuration. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 11:15:00 -
[4299] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:What is the range of the HAM-Drake again? ;) And remember, no falloff, and it will always be way shorter than what EFT says. About 25 km, more with fancy flying that forces an opponent to chase you, increasing the relative velocity of the missiles. Now you tell me the turret DPS of a dual-TE Hurricane at 25 km, using RF EMP. You may being to see a problem at this point. Of course, you could use Barrage... but you may want to inspect its damage type. Of course, you know all this, being an experienced Drake pilot. No offence but I'm pretty much maxed out on skills for both drakes and canes and I'll take a cane over a drake any day of the week for pvp.
Here ... AAA guy with 700+ likes, judge yourself if you think he is a credible source. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 11:26:00 -
[4300] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I invite you to stop modeling things, but play the actual game. I can provide you with people who will gladly burn you down ingame to show how wrong you are. Plain and fair, no links/gang/whatever involved, just 1on1. They will do this as often as you wish, and generate a nice ammount of ISK for you if you keep insuring your Drakes. My offer stands ..
thats my offer.
Here is your answer:
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: I invite you to stop modeling things, but play the actual game. I can provide you with people who will gladly burn you down ingame to show how wrong you are. Plain and fair, no links/gang/whatever involved, just 1on1. They will do this as often as you wish, and generate a nice ammount of ISK for you if you keep insuring your Drakes. My offer stands ..
Hit me up in game after the Jav changes go through. You may find this thread an interesting read in the mean time.
This means you were not willing to do that before Jav changes, means you are aware of current weakness of HAMs.
Instead of doing that you tried to derail things:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1989607#post1989607
Gypsio III wrote:Noemi, you never offered me a 1v1, so stop claiming that you did. As far as I can tell, you threatened to set mercs on me.
So, sorry, I dont buy that stuff you say anymore. Everyone is free to judge himself.
Best regards.
|
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 11:42:00 -
[4301] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie
Have you looked at the missile skills? they all have 10% bonus where as turrets have 5% for range. have you considered changing them to 5% bonus's instead? It might make it easier to balance them and make that excel sheet look more accurate 7500 on HAMS rage looks good but in real terms you have to double it to get near its real distance. it might help with TE's and TC's as-well |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 11:57:00 -
[4302] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:@ CCP Fozzie
Have you looked at the missile skills? they all have 10% bonus where as turrets have 5% for range. have you considered changing them to 5% bonus's instead? It might make it easier to balance them and make that excel sheet look more accurate 7500 on HAMS rage looks good but in real terms you have to double it to get near its real distance. it might help with TE's and TC's as-well
Agreed on that. Same goes for the DPS-skills though, the other way round: Surgical Strike and Rapid Firing have both 1% more per level than the counterparts in missiles.
It would be smart to bring that all in line, so skills would make both systems better in a similar way. Goes to implants too btw, this should all be brought a bit more in line with each other.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 15:00:00 -
[4303] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Everything you said so far
You really should play more eve..
And come back here when you actually know what you're talking about,
This is getting embarrassing. |
Millz Reaper
Red Water Syndicate LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 15:59:00 -
[4304] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Pisov viet wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 30% -Base velocity increased by 6.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit) -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
Is that only heavy missiles, or also heavy assault missiles? Just heavy missiles.
SO, with all these nerfs are missiles atleast going to be able to crit like all the other medium weapons? |
Lili Lu
516
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 16:57:00 -
[4305] - Quote
Millz Reaper wrote: SO, with all these nerfs are missiles atleast going to be able to crit like all the other medium weapons?
Yeah, and miss altogether too
Seriously dude. This thread is well over 200 pages, do you really think your butthurt flippant commentary has not been posted dozens of times already.
I see you have no likes. Maybe Noemi will give you one. Although even his butthurt at least tries to craft an argument. Apparently you can't even be bothered to do more than whine.
Enjoy your nerf, because that is all you'll ever see in all the changes which you chose to abbreviate. CCP hates you and all Caldari and missile users. Why do they do this to you? It's so unfair. |
Mikaila Penshar
Take it Deep
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 17:46:00 -
[4306] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Millz Reaper wrote: SO, with all these nerfs are missiles atleast going to be able to crit like all the other medium weapons?
Yeah, and miss altogether too Seriously dude. This thread is well over 200 pages, do you really think your butthurt flippant commentary has not been posted dozens of times already. I see you have no likes. Maybe Noemi will give you one. Although even his butthurt at least tries to craft an argument. Apparently you can't even be bothered to do more than whine. Enjoy your nerf, because that is all you'll ever see in all the changes which you chose to abbreviate. CCP hates you and all Caldari and missile users. Why do they do this to you? It's so unfair.
Who pee'd in your Cheerios? |
Lili Lu
516
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 18:29:00 -
[4307] - Quote
Mikaila Penshar wrote: Who pee'd in your Cheerios? The endless supply of whiners in this thread. You can devote a lot of time carefully refuting their flawed arguments, when they try to argue against the value and necessity of these changes. But there will be an endless supply of **** posters like that fellow that contribute nothing but their own persecution complex,and which they apparently love to wrap themselves in. |
stoicfaux
1698
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 19:11:00 -
[4308] - Quote
Now that missile users need to switch between missile types more often, would it make sense to reduce the reload time on launchers?
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head. Feature Request: -áDamnation Ship Codpiece-áfor the NeX store.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 20:56:00 -
[4309] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Mikaila Penshar wrote: Who pee'd in your Cheerios? The endless supply of whiners in this thread. You can devote a lot of time carefully refuting their flawed arguments, when they try to argue against the value and necessity of these changes. But there will be an endless supply of **** posters like that fellow that contribute nothing but their own persecution complex,and which they apparently love to wrap themselves in.
Oh , its not *us* who have the flawed arguments here.
Once again, there may be a necessity for changes. First of all, projectile weapons need to be nerfed, a lot. 3 of 4 medium and large systems are OP atm, and 1 is working ok. 1 of 4 medium and large missile systems is working atm, and may even be OP in some environments, the other 3 are broken, more or less.
Now, when you say the HML-nerf is needed (and funny enough, many people mix it with a "Drake-nerf" or things like that ..), then I come to the conclusion those OP Projectiles need some nerfbat too. Just because nerfing that single working system in the missile area will render an entire races branch completely useless. Whereas another entire race can go on to win Eve.
And no, thats not a whine, thats facts. Get yours straight, learn to understand the stats you quote, learn how things work in this game. Seriously, a ship/weapon system combination which is *not* your first choice in most aspects of the game in regards of PvP like the HML/Drake cant be the reason to nerf a weapon system which does work only on this single ship (as tech 1 hulls) and is OP as a ship/weapon combination only in nullsec blobs.
By all means, fix that issue, but dont break whats working in every other part. Think out of the box, and you will get a better result in the end ...
What I want to see after those changes is: 4-5 ships of each race in those stats top 20. What I want to see is 1/4th of them being missile .. and not all but 2 gunnery based. And if the Drake is no longer in this stats thats ok for me. As long as 4 other Caldari combat hulls show up there, and those are not all gunnery based.
Best regards.
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 20:59:00 -
[4310] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Now that missile users need to switch between missile types more often, would it make sense to reduce the reload time on launchers?
No what is needed is to increase the ******* capacity on rocket launchers..
They regularly need to take a 10s reload in a 1v1 fight, thats just stupid for a frig. |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 21:12:00 -
[4311] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Now that missile users need to switch between missile types more often, would it make sense to reduce the reload time on launchers?
No what is needed is to increase the ******* capacity on rocket launchers.. They regularly need to take a 10s reload in a 1v1 fight, thats just stupid for a frig.
mm...intriguing perhaps reload times should scale with the size of the ship mm.. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
210
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 21:21:00 -
[4312] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Oh , its not *us* who have the flawed arguments here.
Once again, there may be a necessity for changes. First of all, projectile weapons need to be nerfed, a lot. 3 of 4 medium and large systems are OP atm, and 1 is working ok. 1 of 4 medium and large missile systems is working atm, and may even be OP in some environments, the other 3 are broken, more or less.
Ahh yes, didn't you note SOMETHING had to be best....well HMLs will still be best, and a on a hull with a huge tank after the nerf.
Noemi Nagano wrote: Now, when you say the HML-nerf is needed (and funny enough, many people mix it with a "Drake-nerf" or things like that ..), then I come to the conclusion those OP Projectiles need some nerfbat too. Just because nerfing that single working system in the missile area will render an entire races branch completely useless. Whereas another entire race can go on to win Eve.
Large rails are pretty well fine ATM, I heard that was a caldari weapon as well.
Noemi Nagano wrote: And no, thats not a whine, thats facts. Get yours straight, learn to understand the stats you quote, learn how things work in this game. Seriously, a ship/weapon system combination which is *not* your first choice in most aspects of the game in regards of PvP like the HML/Drake cant be the reason to nerf a weapon system which does work only on this single ship (as tech 1 hulls) and is OP as a ship/weapon combination only in nullsec blobs.
I've got drake blobbed in low sec too. Amazing what happens when you bring tackle and use a LR fit.....at LR.
Noemi Nagano wrote: By all means, fix that issue, but dont break whats working in every other part. Think out of the box, and you will get a better result in the end ...
So if the issue is drake blobs how do you fix it? The ship already has the crappiest weapon bonus in the game, and Tengu is a confluence on many factors, non of which will render it useless after the nerf.
Noemi Nagano wrote: What I want to see after those changes is: 4-5 ships of each race in those stats top 20. What I want to see is 1/4th of them being missile .. and not all but 2 gunnery based. And if the Drake is no longer in this stats thats ok for me. As long as 4 other Caldari combat hulls show up there, and those are not all gunnery based.
TC/TE working on explosion radii would have done wonders there. But everyone bitched till they pulled it. So now its backin the air.
I'm guessing till they do the BC/BS revamps. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 21:42:00 -
[4313] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Large rails are pretty well fine ATM, I heard that was a caldari weapon as well.
Yeah, but not missile AFAIK. How hard is it to understand what I wrote? I talk about MISSILE PvP here (in a HML nerf thread, duh).
Onictus wrote: So if the issue is drake blobs how do you fix it? The ship already has the crappiest weapon bonus in the game, and Tengu is a confluence on many factors, non of which will render it useless after the nerf.
Has been explained by me and others before, and not only once. Fix Raven/CM and Drake blobs will die. And Raven/CM blobs will not be OP due to they are BS -> slower than Drakes. And more expensive to field, and you need a large weapon system skilled and not a med one.
Onictus wrote: TC/TE working on explosion radii would have done wonders there. But everyone bitched till they pulled it. So now its backin the air.
I'm guessing till they do the BC/BS revamps.
We will see what happens then.
Do you agree with me that the biggest problem in Eve atm is not Drake/HML but OPness of so many Winmatar ships, or do you neglect this? Which does not mean Winmatar are better in everything, but they are better in so many things, one of the most important being speed ...
|
Lili Lu
516
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 22:25:00 -
[4314] - Quote
Noemi, shut up, really. You keep just making the same pronouncements over and over as if they are of course true simply because you pronounce them.
But I know you won't listen. You'll just keep whining about how every other weapon system and race of ships is better. Tell me where I'm wrong in figuring you like having a persecution complex?
P.S. just for you, I hope when they get to BC rebalancing proper, that the Drake does become even worse than just another average joe among BCs. I hope it becomes indisputedly the worst of the lot. Then you will find your heaven. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 22:28:00 -
[4315] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:We will see what happens then.
Do you agree with me that the biggest problem in Eve atm is not Drake/HML but OPness of so many Winmatar ships, or do you neglect this? Which does not mean Winmatar are better in everything, but they are better in so many things, one of the most important being speed ... yes, I agree, the minmatar are the problem at short range, and the HML is the problem at long range;
They just chose to fix the long range problem first probably because its easier to fix . . .
Dont forget, they're handing out a huge nerf to the hurricane with this change too
Its clearly your opinion that the matari are more broken than the HML, but saying you HAVE to fix one before the other is like saying "the radio doesnt work in my car, so until i get that fixed, i cant fix the windshield wipers" |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
58
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 22:59:00 -
[4316] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
What I want to see after those changes is: 4-5 ships of each race in those stats top 20. What I want to see is 1/4th of them being missile .. and not all but 2 gunnery based. And if the Drake is no longer in this stats thats ok for me. As long as 4 other Caldari combat hulls show up there, and those are not all gunnery based.
never goingt to happen. the shocker: it has nothing to to with balancing. there will always be some kind of FOTM, because FCs like their fleets organized and optimized for the job to be done. all you can strive for is a system where the meta gaming and the FOTM kind of alternate rapidly between different themes. when one particular setup becomes popular , for example maelstrom alpha fleets, a month later the counter becomes more popular, i dont know maybe hacs with big ewar wings (damps and tracking disruptors). random examples.
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 23:56:00 -
[4317] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
1) HML being OP in comparison to other systems (unbonused stats comparison, fitted ships comparison on maximum range of HML in EFT)...
... What I dont see is a serious analysis of the weapon system in its actual INGAME use in PvP.
what do u suggest on a text based medium? U keep saying the drake fails against all the other BC's when ur probably trying to use HML drakes at close quarters to them. the HAM drake is fine and is seen often in high and low sec. ppl have shown you all the comparative information when it comes to HML's vs long range turrets
Noemi Nagano wrote:
What I can see *in the game* is: ... ... - HML/Drake blobs are very strong in nullsec (low SP req, low cost, fast ship in comparison to BS)
- in lowsec and highsec PvP the Drake is present, but by no means in an unbalanced way. As many stated above, the meta game doesnt favour Drakes there, thats why most people prefer a Cane over a Drake.
yah, and the cane is also getting nerfed
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Apart from that, simply ask yourself this question - why is it, that people fit ACs and Arti on their Caldari, Gallente or Amarr ships? And why does NO one fit HMLs to his ship, except Drakes and Tengus?
AC's tend to go on ships that primarily use turrets but have no damage bonus. Moa's, Ferox's, Mallers etc these are usually very tanky ships where the low requirements of the AC's leave plenty of resources for a heavy tank. also being able to swap damage types is great. Now...the reason the other races dont have a ship that use heavy missiles is because there are no medium ships (AT ALL[E] save the sacrilege [E]) that use missiles as a primary damage source other than caldari ships. that is why u dont see HML's else where. If there was a minni cruiser that focused on missiles, it would use HML's. If there was an amarr cruiser that focused on missiles it would use HML's.
Noemi Nagano wrote: I hope you can see why this thread is still going - there are simply not enough people seeing the light yet ;)
Yeah and you're one that doesn't |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.06 23:58:00 -
[4318] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Yeah, but not missile AFAIK. How hard is it to understand what I wrote? I talk about MISSILE PvP here (in a HML nerf thread, duh).
Its a HML and Cane nerf thread...but some are whining more than others |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
20
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:00:00 -
[4319] - Quote
quoted self rather than edited. BOSS |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:28:00 -
[4320] - Quote
Some stats:
I was just curious of the results. Maybe you can use them. Please note that the data my not be representative since the data change over time. Please note that these data do not tell the entire truth.
Eve Kill Top 20 Period: 01.10.2012-06.10.2012 Date of extraction. 07.10.2012 Link: http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
Ships:
RankShipsKillsRace*Type* 1Zealot 37.900 AmarrGun 2Drake 18.835 CaldariMissile 3Naga 12.417 CaldariGun 4Hurricane 12.164 MinmatarGun 5Loki 9.886 MinmatarGun 6Tornado 9.236 MinmatarGun 7Tengu 8.362 CaldariMissile 8Apocalypse Navy Issue 6.915 AmarrGun 9Stabber Fleet Issue 5.923 MinmatarGun 10Maelstrom 5.402 MinmatarGun 11Thrasher 4.684 MinmatarGun 12Huginn 4.671 MinmatarGun 13Sabre 4.670 MinmatarGun 14Rokh 4.467 CaldariGun 15Oracle 4.371 AmarrGun 16Apocalypse 4.163 AmarrGun 17Talos 4.109 GallenteGun 18Legion 3.890 AmarrGun 19Cynabal 3.851 MinmatarGun 20Proteus 3.519 GallenteGun 169.435
* my assumptions.
Analysis:
GunMissileTotal Amarr 57.239 - 57.239 Caldari 16.884 27.197 44.081 Minmatar 60.487 - 60.487 Gallente 7.628 - 7.628 Total 142.238 27.197 169.435
GunMissileTotal Amarr34%0%34% Caldari10%16%26% Minmatar36%0%36% Gallente5%0%5% Total84%16%100%
In category 1Minmatar, gun36% 2Amarr, gun34% 3Caldari missile16%
Overall 1Minmatar36% 2Amarr34% 3Caldari26%
Weapons:
RankWeaponsKillsType*Size* 1Heavy Pulse Laser II 9.517 LaserMedium 2Heavy Missile Launcher II 8.854 MissileMedium 3425mm AutoCannon II 5.984 ProjectileMedium 4Mega Pulse Laser II 5.280 LaserLarge 5200mm AutoCannon II 3.947 ProjectileSmall 6220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 3.513 ProjectileMedium 7425mm Railgun II 3.370 HybridLarge 8150mm Light AutoCannon II 3.323 ProjectileSmall 9125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 3.163 ProjectileSmall 10720mm Howitzer Artillery II 3.023 ProjectileMedium 11Light Neutron Blaster II 2.424 HybridSmall 12Prototype 'Arbalest' Torp.Launcher 2.400 MissileLarge 13Neutron Blaster Cannon II 2.318 HybridLarge 141400mm Howitzer Artillery II 2.219 ProjectileLarge 15800mm Repeating Artillery II 1.560 ProjectileLarge 16Light Ion Blaster II 1.426 HybridSmall 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II 1.382 HybridMedium 18Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 1.279 ProjectileMedium 19Medium Pulse Laser II 1.114 LaserSmall 20250mm Light Artillery Cannon II 1.103 ProjectileSmall 67.199
* my assumptions.
Analysis:
SmallMediumLargeTotal Laser 1.114 9.517 5.280 15.911 Missile - 8.854 2.400 11.254 Projectile 11.536 13.799 3.779 29.114 Hybrid 3.850 1.382 5.688 10.920 Total 16.500 33.552 17.147 67.199
SmallMediumLargeTotal Laser2%14%8%24% Missile0%13%4%17% Projectile17%21%6%43% Hybrid6%2%8%16% Total25%50%26%100%
In category 1Projectile, medium21% 2Projectile, small17% 3Laser, medium14%
Overall 1Projectile43% 2Laser24% 3Missile17% |
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:49:00 -
[4321] - Quote
Unseen Spectre wrote:Some stats: Sorry, that did not come out well the first time. Here is another go. "," is used as separator. I was just curious of the results. Maybe you can use them. Please note that the data my not be representative since the data change over time. Please note that these data do not tell the entire truth. Eve Kill Top 20 Period: 01.10.2012-06.10.2012 Date of extraction. 07.10.2012 Link: http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20Ships: Rank,Ships,Kills,Race*,Type* 1,Zealot, 37.900, Amarr,Gun 2,Drake, 18.835, Caldari,Missile 3,Naga, 12.417,Caldari,Gun 4,Hurricane, 12.164, Minmatar,Gun 5,Loki, 9.886, Minmatar,Gun 6,Tornado, 9.236, Minmatar,Gun 7,Tengu, 8.362, Caldari,Missile 8,Apocalypse Navy Issue, 6.915, Amarr,Gun 9,Stabber Fleet Issue, 5.923, Minmatar,Gun 10,Maelstrom, 5.402, Minmatar,Gun 11,Thrasher, 4.684, Minmatar,Gun 12,Huginn, 4.671, Minmatar,Gun 13,Sabre, 4.670, Minmatar,Gun 14,Rokh, 4.467, Caldari,Gun 15,Oracle, 4.371, Amarr,Gun 16,Apocalypse,4.163 Amarr,Gun 17,Talos, 4.109,Gallente,Gun 18,Legion, 3.890, Amarr,Gun 19,Cynabal, 3.851, Minmatar,Gun 20,Proteus, 3.519, Gallente,Gun Total 169.435 * my assumptions. Analysis: Race,Gun,Missile,Total Amarr, 57.239, 0, 57.239 Caldari, 16.884, 27.197, 44.081 Minmatar, 60.487, 0, 60.487 Gallente, 7.628, 0, 7.628 Total, 142.238, 27.197, 169.435 Race,Gun,Missile,Total Amarr,34%,0%,34% Caldari,10%,16%,26% Minmatar,36%,0%,36% Gallente,5%,0%,5% Total,84%,16%,100% Rank In category 1,Minmatar gun,36% 2,Amarr gun,34% 3,Caldari missile,16% Rank Overall 1,Minmatar,36% 2,Amarr,34% 3,Caldari,26% Weapons: Rank,Weapons,Kills,Type*,Size*, 1,Heavy Pulse Laser II, 9.517, Laser,Medium 2,Heavy Missile Launcher II, 8.854,Missile,Medium 3,425mm AutoCannon II, 5.984,Projectile,Medium 4,Mega Pulse Laser II, 5.280,Laser,Large 5,200mm AutoCannon II, 3.947,Projectile,Small 6,220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, 3.513,Projectile,Medium 7,425mm Railgun II, 3.370,Hybrid,Large 8,150mm Light AutoCannon II, 3.323, Projectile,Small 9,125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, 3.163,Projectile,Small 10,720mm Howitzer Artillery II, 3.023, Projectile,Medium 11,Light Neutron Blaster II, 2.424, Hybrid,Small 12,Prototype 'Arbalest' Torp.Launcher, 2.400, Missile,Large 13,Neutron Blaster Cannon II, 2.318, Hybrid,Large 14,1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, 2.219, Projectile,Large 15,800mm Repeating Artillery II, 1.560, Projectile,Large 16,Light Ion Blaster II, 1.426, Hybrid,Small 17,Heavy Neutron Blaster II, 1.382, Hybrid,Medium 18,Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, 1.279, Projectile,Medium 19,Medium Pulse Laser II, 1.114, Laser,Small 20,250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, 1.103, Projectile,Small Total 67.199 * my assumptions. Analysis: Weapon,Small,Medium,Large,Total Laser, 1.114, 9.517, 5.280, 15.911 Missile, 0, 8.854, 2.400, 11.254 Projectile, 11.536, 13.799, 3.779, 29.114 Hybrid, 3.850, 1.382, 5.688, 10.920 Total, 16.500, 33.552, 17.147, 67.199 Weapon,Small,Medium,Large,Total Laser,2%,14%,8%,24% Missile,0%,13%,4%,17% Projectile,17%,21%,6%,43% Hybrid,6%,2%,8%,16% Total,25%,50%,26%,100% Rank In category 1,Projectile medium,21% 2,Projectile small,17% 3,Laser medium,14% Rank Overall 1,Projectile,43% 2,Laser,24% 3,Missile,17%
If they were meant to be relevant for this argument then pull the stats for heavy missiles, arties, rails and beams of medium size only. Ur stats are comparing high dps short ranged weapons with long ranged weapons and of varying sizes.
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 00:57:00 -
[4322] - Quote
Hi Earlier in this thread there were some discussions related to the statistics from EVE Kill about the most used weapon systems, including heavy missiles compared to other weapon systems as well as drakes/tengus compared to other ships. I was just curious about what a more in depth analysis of the results would show. This is just a general analysis of the data from EVE Kill, not a specific analysis of the medium long range weapon systems. If you cannot use the data, just ignore them.
Addition: I just presented the data, how you want to use them is entirely up to you |
Khamalaa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:07:00 -
[4323] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Unseen Spectre wrote:Some stats: Sorry, that did not come out well the first time. Here is another go. "," is used as separator. I was just curious of the results. Maybe you can use them. Please note that the data my not be representative since the data change over time. Please note that these data do not tell the entire truth. Eve Kill Top 20 Period: 01.10.2012-06.10.2012 Date of extraction. 07.10.2012 Link: http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20Ships: Rank,Ships,Kills,Race*,Type* 1,Zealot, 37.900, Amarr,Gun 2,Drake, 18.835, Caldari,Missile 3,Naga, 12.417,Caldari,Gun 4,Hurricane, 12.164, Minmatar,Gun 5,Loki, 9.886, Minmatar,Gun 6,Tornado, 9.236, Minmatar,Gun 7,Tengu, 8.362, Caldari,Missile 8,Apocalypse Navy Issue, 6.915, Amarr,Gun 9,Stabber Fleet Issue, 5.923, Minmatar,Gun 10,Maelstrom, 5.402, Minmatar,Gun 11,Thrasher, 4.684, Minmatar,Gun 12,Huginn, 4.671, Minmatar,Gun 13,Sabre, 4.670, Minmatar,Gun 14,Rokh, 4.467, Caldari,Gun 15,Oracle, 4.371, Amarr,Gun 16,Apocalypse,4.163 Amarr,Gun 17,Talos, 4.109,Gallente,Gun 18,Legion, 3.890, Amarr,Gun 19,Cynabal, 3.851, Minmatar,Gun 20,Proteus, 3.519, Gallente,Gun Total 169.435 * my assumptions. Analysis: Race,Gun,Missile,Total Amarr, 57.239, 0, 57.239 Caldari, 16.884, 27.197, 44.081 Minmatar, 60.487, 0, 60.487 Gallente, 7.628, 0, 7.628 Total, 142.238, 27.197, 169.435 Race,Gun,Missile,Total Amarr,34%,0%,34% Caldari,10%,16%,26% Minmatar,36%,0%,36% Gallente,5%,0%,5% Total,84%,16%,100% Rank In category 1,Minmatar gun,36% 2,Amarr gun,34% 3,Caldari missile,16% Rank Overall 1,Minmatar,36% 2,Amarr,34% 3,Caldari,26% Weapons: Rank,Weapons,Kills,Type*,Size*, 1,Heavy Pulse Laser II, 9.517, Laser,Medium 2,Heavy Missile Launcher II, 8.854,Missile,Medium 3,425mm AutoCannon II, 5.984,Projectile,Medium 4,Mega Pulse Laser II, 5.280,Laser,Large 5,200mm AutoCannon II, 3.947,Projectile,Small 6,220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, 3.513,Projectile,Medium 7,425mm Railgun II, 3.370,Hybrid,Large 8,150mm Light AutoCannon II, 3.323, Projectile,Small 9,125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, 3.163,Projectile,Small 10,720mm Howitzer Artillery II, 3.023, Projectile,Medium 11,Light Neutron Blaster II, 2.424, Hybrid,Small 12,Prototype 'Arbalest' Torp.Launcher, 2.400, Missile,Large 13,Neutron Blaster Cannon II, 2.318, Hybrid,Large 14,1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, 2.219, Projectile,Large 15,800mm Repeating Artillery II, 1.560, Projectile,Large 16,Light Ion Blaster II, 1.426, Hybrid,Small 17,Heavy Neutron Blaster II, 1.382, Hybrid,Medium 18,Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, 1.279, Projectile,Medium 19,Medium Pulse Laser II, 1.114, Laser,Small 20,250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, 1.103, Projectile,Small Total 67.199 * my assumptions. Analysis: Weapon,Small,Medium,Large,Total Laser, 1.114, 9.517, 5.280, 15.911 Missile, 0, 8.854, 2.400, 11.254 Projectile, 11.536, 13.799, 3.779, 29.114 Hybrid, 3.850, 1.382, 5.688, 10.920 Total, 16.500, 33.552, 17.147, 67.199 Weapon,Small,Medium,Large,Total Laser,2%,14%,8%,24% Missile,0%,13%,4%,17% Projectile,17%,21%,6%,43% Hybrid,6%,2%,8%,16% Total,25%,50%,26%,100% Rank In category 1,Projectile medium,21% 2,Projectile small,17% 3,Laser medium,14% Rank Overall 1,Projectile,43% 2,Laser,24% 3,Missile,17% If they were meant to be relevant for this argument then pull the stats for heavy missiles, arties, rails and beams of medium size only. Ur stats are comparing high dps short ranged weapons with long ranged weapons and of varying sizes. edit, or i could just quickly do it... weapons Rank,Weapons, Kills, Type*, Size*, 1, Heavy Missile Launcher II, 8.854,Missile,Medium 2, 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, 3.023, Projectile,Medium and the rest dont even show up...
Your simplification is full of bias.
The thing that stands out about the list posted is that the weapon systems with low fitting requirements are the most commonly used, baring hybrids due to issues relating to the hulls in a large part.
This becomes even more obvious when you consider that the only limiting factor on most hulls in terms of Damage, Taking and Speed capability is the fitting limitations.
I can easily imagine a frigate with Mega Beams, BS sized prop mods, BS sized active tanks, and heavy neuts. OP right? The reason it does not happen is fitting requirements.
All considerations of damage and range comparisons seem to fail because the Missile systems are backwards, with close range missiles having larger cpu and grid requirements. If one was to compare the relative damage, range, etc in a fitting efficiency comparison, I would not be surprised to see the top used weapons with the highest ratios (in the same classes, ie. HML vs HAM, Pulse vs Beam, etc). IF you have 100 dps for 100cpu, or 200 dps for 50 cpu, it becomes obvious that one can make a more powerful ship with the later if they can compensate for any drawbacks like range, tracking, etc.
If you swap missile fittings, then the long range setups loose tank, or props, or other additions that help make them a more powerful ship.
This fact is readily identifiable for anyone who has bothered to fit caldari ships with missiles. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:25:00 -
[4324] - Quote
Unseen Spectre wrote:Some stats: Sorry, that did not come out well the first time. Here is another go. "," is used as separator. I was just curious of the results. Maybe you can use them. Please note that the data my not be representative since the data change over time. Please note that these data do not tell the entire truth. Eve Kill Top 20 Period: 01.10.2012-06.10.2012 Date of extraction. 07.10.2012 Link: http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20Ships: Rank,Ships,Kills,Race*,Type* 1,Zealot, 37.900, Amarr,Gun 2,Drake, 18.835, Caldari,Missile 3,Naga, 12.417,Caldari,Gun 4,Hurricane, 12.164, Minmatar,Gun 5,Loki, 9.886, Minmatar,Gun 6,Tornado, 9.236, Minmatar,Gun 7,Tengu, 8.362, Caldari,Missile 8,Apocalypse Navy Issue, 6.915, Amarr,Gun 9,Stabber Fleet Issue, 5.923, Minmatar,Gun 10,Maelstrom, 5.402, Minmatar,Gun 11,Thrasher, 4.684, Minmatar,Gun 12,Huginn, 4.671, Minmatar,Gun 13,Sabre, 4.670, Minmatar,Gun 14,Rokh, 4.467, Caldari,Gun 15,Oracle, 4.371, Amarr,Gun 16,Apocalypse,4.163 Amarr,Gun 17,Talos, 4.109,Gallente,Gun 18,Legion, 3.890, Amarr,Gun 19,Cynabal, 3.851, Minmatar,Gun 20,Proteus, 3.519, Gallente,Gun Total 169.435 * my assumptions. Analysis: Race,Gun,Missile,Total Amarr, 57.239, 0, 57.239 Caldari, 16.884, 27.197, 44.081 Minmatar, 60.487, 0, 60.487 Gallente, 7.628, 0, 7.628 Total, 142.238, 27.197, 169.435 Race,Gun,Missile,Total Amarr,34%,0%,34% Caldari,10%,16%,26% Minmatar,36%,0%,36% Gallente,5%,0%,5% Total,84%,16%,100% Rank In category 1,Minmatar gun,36% 2,Amarr gun,34% 3,Caldari missile,16% Rank Overall 1,Minmatar,36% 2,Amarr,34% 3,Caldari,26% Weapons: Rank,Weapons,Kills,Type*,Size*, 1,Heavy Pulse Laser II, 9.517, Laser,Medium 2,Heavy Missile Launcher II, 8.854,Missile,Medium 3,425mm AutoCannon II, 5.984,Projectile,Medium 4,Mega Pulse Laser II, 5.280,Laser,Large 5,200mm AutoCannon II, 3.947,Projectile,Small 6,220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, 3.513,Projectile,Medium 7,425mm Railgun II, 3.370,Hybrid,Large 8,150mm Light AutoCannon II, 3.323, Projectile,Small 9,125mm Gatling AutoCannon II, 3.163,Projectile,Small 10,720mm Howitzer Artillery II, 3.023, Projectile,Medium 11,Light Neutron Blaster II, 2.424, Hybrid,Small 12,Prototype 'Arbalest' Torp.Launcher, 2.400, Missile,Large 13,Neutron Blaster Cannon II, 2.318, Hybrid,Large 14,1400mm Howitzer Artillery II, 2.219, Projectile,Large 15,800mm Repeating Artillery II, 1.560, Projectile,Large 16,Light Ion Blaster II, 1.426, Hybrid,Small 17,Heavy Neutron Blaster II, 1.382, Hybrid,Medium 18,Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, 1.279, Projectile,Medium 19,Medium Pulse Laser II, 1.114, Laser,Small 20,250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, 1.103, Projectile,Small Total 67.199 * my assumptions. Analysis: Weapon,Small,Medium,Large,Total Laser, 1.114, 9.517, 5.280, 15.911 Missile, 0, 8.854, 2.400, 11.254 Projectile, 11.536, 13.799, 3.779, 29.114 Hybrid, 3.850, 1.382, 5.688, 10.920 Total, 16.500, 33.552, 17.147, 67.199 Weapon,Small,Medium,Large,Total Laser,2%,14%,8%,24% Missile,0%,13%,4%,17% Projectile,17%,21%,6%,43% Hybrid,6%,2%,8%,16% Total,25%,50%,26%,100% Rank In category 1,Projectile medium,21% 2,Projectile small,17% 3,Laser medium,14% Rank Overall 1,Projectile,43% 2,Laser,24% 3,Missile,17%
Completely irrelevant.
|
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:25:00 -
[4325] - Quote
Please note that the "Ship" list and the "Weapon" list are two separate lists with no direct link. SO do not assume a direct link. As noted, the data was copied from the EVE Kill Top 20 web page, and I am not 100% sure how they extract the data. Again, the data do also not tell the entire truth only a part of it. Please note that the number of is taken from EVE Kill, whereas my assumptions can always be discussed and you are right that these may be wrong. It was just what made sense to me. In ships I took what I thought was most logical (you have ships with split weapon systems which I counted as guns). I assumed that Drake and Tengu were the only ships in the list dedicated to missiles. This may not be entirely true for the Tengu since it can fit guns. With respect to weapons, I did not split it into short range vs. long range (which I could have done). I just used the rough size classification of the weapons from EVE. I just wanted to present the data. I have tried to show for right or wrong how I got to the result. You may disagree, fair enough, I am OK with that. Anyway use them as you see fit. Or ignore them. That is entirely up to you. And remember the graduation of lying: Lying, more lying, satistics - depending on ones intentions/perspective you can almost always prove anything with statistics :D. SO always be critical of presented statistics. |
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
349
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 01:52:00 -
[4326] - Quote
Quick nerf the Zealot. Clearly its op....
Totally messing, but come on someone will say it. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:07:00 -
[4327] - Quote
Unseen Spectre wrote:Please note that the "Ship" list and the "Weapon" list are two separate lists with no direct link. SO do not assume a direct link. As noted, the data was copied from the EVE Kill Top 20 web page, and I am not 100% sure how they extract the data. Again, the data do also not tell the entire truth only a part of it. Please note that the number of is taken from EVE Kill, whereas my assumptions can always be discussed and you are right that these may be wrong. It was just what made sense to me. In ships I took what I thought was most logical (you have ships with split weapon systems which I counted as guns). I assumed that Drake and Tengu were the only ships in the list dedicated to missiles. This may not be entirely true for the Tengu since it can fit guns. With respect to weapons, I did not split it into short range vs. long range (which I could have done). I just used the rough size classification of the weapons from EVE. I just wanted to present the data. I have tried to show for right or wrong how I got to the result. You may disagree, fair enough, I am OK with that. Anyway use them as you see fit. Or ignore them. That is entirely up to you. And remember the graduation of lying: Lying, more lying, satistics - depending on ones intentions/perspective you can almost always prove anything with statistics :D. SO always be critical of presented statistics.
These statistics simply aren't relevant.
The statistics that matter are the effectiveness of the weapon systems.
If any metric like the one you showed was to be used it would be to compare hml's to medium arty/beam/rail use,,, and i think you know what those numbers would say |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
114
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:20:00 -
[4328] - Quote
How do statistics tell you a weapon system is OP?
Anyone who's FC'd or even used a Drake or a Tengu can tell you that the tengu just has a silly good bonus, and the drake is win b/c of it's tank and range.
Nobody every says **** about the HMLs being too high of damage....
but it's a typical dev response to show their cluelessness about the game rather than any knowledgeable reaction to a problem.
I really wish Fozzie would back off the heavy handed changes, Just do the range nerf, and patch more in later after seeing the results. The issue with such a heavy handed response to missiles is that when you go so far overboard, you don't know how to bring it back to life properly. Small nerfs and witnessing reactions to those nerfs are strategically better solutions to a problem than huge nerfs potentially breaking something in the other direction. Eve history has show devs who have done this right and done this wrong. |
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard Bora Alis
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:33:00 -
[4329] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:Quick nerf the Zealot. Clearly its op....
Totally messing, but come on someone will say it. Compare zealot with other ahacs.
Munnin = useles Zealot = OP
Zealot use to destroy navy apocs of goonswarm and navy apocs use to destroy tengu fleets of AAA.
A entire fleet of tengu's. |
Lili Lu
517
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 04:57:00 -
[4330] - Quote
No, the eve-kill stats can be relevant. Well as relevant as we can get. But what the drake apologist that posted them is overlooking is that that is ten days out of a month. The month isn't over. So a lot could change by the end of the month, or not.
Additionally, the explanation for the sudden reemergence of the Zealot and Navy Apoc is the new tech II 1600 plates. All the prior months for the last two years or so it has been Drakes and Tengus. Nothing about the new emergence of these zealots and napocs negates the medium weapon rebalance that CCP is doing. It is not making medium beams any better in relation to HMLs (especially since those Zealots are using pulses).
Also, the real thing to notice about this months emerging top 20 is that it is not Harbingers. If suddenly Harbinger fleets started popping up all over the place, ok, drake whiners can call for a nerf. Because then we would have another teir 2 tech I BC outperforming (in a cost/benefit regard) ships that take much more sp and isk to get into.
Also, regardless, as others are replying, if this months stats really were the result of something having to do with weapons, there would still be a weapon performance disparity amongst the long range medium weapon systems. HML just have too many advantages in the current eve environment. That is being brought into line.
So, this is more like the kind of discussion that should be happening. Not someone saying that they see more Hurricanes in lowsec and therefore the Cane is op and not the Drake. An argument like that means **** all. But one also has to more closely analyze what the eve-kill top 20 is showing.
Here it is showing that the new improved tech II 1600 plates are actually providing a benefit to armor configurations. Which is a good thing because the adaptive armor hardener was a bomb, while the shield ships got (too) wonderful ancilliary shield boosters. But, indeed, none of this answers the HML medium long range weapons disparity, which is still alive and kicking and still in need of a nerf.
edit - and congrats people calling for a Zealot nerf. You now get to wait a bunch of months for something to be done on that score if CCP deems it worthy. Just be thankfull you will not have to wait for years, which has been the case for HMLs and Drakes. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 08:50:00 -
[4331] - Quote
Those who critisise this new stat in october funnily enough are the same who used the stats before to show how OP the Drake is.
Guys, no one disagrees on the fact, the Drake is strong in medium long range fights, if ranges are above turrets optimal+half falloff for their HIGH DPS AMMO, and below the end of missile range.
Thats where the Drake is good.
It will however not be so good if used outside these ranges.
So the ship is at it is BALANCED. It has strong ranges, and weaker ones. It has things it can do well, and others it cant do well.
As long as you dont balance every ship to be the same in every aspect you will not have complete balance. You will have a strongest and weakest in every class and role. As long as there is a role for more than one ship of each race (and not one which is completely niche) for ME there is no need to pull the nerfbat.
The nerfbat was needed for Falcons, no question.
But for the Drake and HML its stupid to nerf them. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 08:56:00 -
[4332] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
Here it is showing that the new improved tech II 1600 plates are actually providing a benefit to armor configurations. Which is a good thing because the adaptive armor hardener was a bomb, while the shield ships got (too) wonderful ancilliary shield boosters. But, indeed, none of this answers the HML medium long range weapons disparity, which is still alive and kicking and still in need of a nerf.
You are so biased its really fun to read what you say :)
Read again: HAMs are not there at all. Caldari medium sized ships have to use HML (or rails, but .. heh.) except the Naga, which uses large rails. Medium weapons are like this: most used are med projectile, second most are medium lasers, third are medium missiles ... now I clearly see why HML needed to be nerfed .. NOT.
Guys, you dont like missiles, and most probably CCP will give in to your complaints. But you do know you are just biased and thats why you dont like to lose to a missile ship :) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 09:05:00 -
[4333] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:How do statistics tell you a weapon system is OP?
Anyone who's FC'd or even used a Drake or a Tengu can tell you that the tengu just has a silly good bonus, and the drake is win b/c of it's tank and range.
Nobody every says **** about the HMLs being too high of damage....
but it's a typical dev response to show their cluelessness about the game rather than any knowledgeable reaction to a problem.
I really wish Fozzie would back off the heavy handed changes, Just do the range nerf, and patch more in later after seeing the results. The issue with such a heavy handed response to missiles is that when you go so far overboard, you don't know how to bring it back to life properly. Small nerfs and witnessing reactions to those nerfs are strategically better solutions to a problem than huge nerfs potentially breaking something in the other direction. Eve history has show devs who have done this right and done this wrong.
Your posting shows a calm and sophisticated approach to what should be done. Thumbs up to you.
I got only one question for you - do you think it could help to buff the natural counter for HML (CMs on battleshiphulls) for PvP so they could kill HML blobs?
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 09:35:00 -
[4334] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: You are so biased its really fun to read what you say :)
Read again: HAMs are not there at all. Caldari medium sized ships have to use HML (or rails, but .. heh.) except the Naga, which uses large rails. Medium weapons are like this: most used are med projectile, second most are medium lasers, third are medium missiles ... now I clearly see why HML needed to be nerfed .. NOT.
Guys, you dont like missiles, and most probably CCP will give in to your complaints. But you do know you are just biased and thats why you dont like to lose to a missile ship :)
asdfgjhagdfkasdfhsld;fghjlk;gjlha\sdfioauyglkdghafshgjldkfjg; (this was my head rolling on the keyboard at ur cluelessness)
why dont YOU read again. medium artillery, rail and beams hardly get any use because HML's completely dominate the long range field. This is why they are getting nerfed, to be more fair compared to artillery, rails and beams. not auto-cannons, nor blasters, nor pulses.
who are u sleeping with? cause they've clearly bummed ur brains out and i wanna be next. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:00:00 -
[4335] - Quote
Khamalaa wrote: Your simplification is full of bias.
The thing that stands out about the list posted is that the weapon systems with low fitting requirements are the most commonly used, baring hybrids due to issues relating to the hulls in a large part.
This becomes even more obvious when you consider that the only limiting factor on most hulls in terms of Damage, Taking and Speed capability is the fitting limitations.
I can easily imagine a frigate with Mega Beams, BS sized prop mods, BS sized active tanks, and heavy neuts. OP right? The reason it does not happen is fitting requirements.
All considerations of damage and range comparisons seem to fail because the Missile systems are backwards, with close range missiles having larger cpu and grid requirements. If one was to compare the relative damage, range, etc in a fitting efficiency comparison, I would not be surprised to see the top used weapons with the highest ratios (in the same classes, ie. HML vs HAM, Pulse vs Beam, etc). IF you have 100 dps for 100cpu, or 200 dps for 50 cpu, it becomes obvious that one can make a more powerful ship with the later if they can compensate for any drawbacks like range, tracking, etc.
If you swap missile fittings, then the long range setups loose tank, or props, or other additions that help make them a more powerful ship.
This fact is readily identifiable for anyone who has bothered to fit caldari ships with missiles.
i have said before in this post that if they put the scale of requirements of HAMs to HMLs to match that of Auto's to Arties, Blasters to Rails or Pulses to beams then that would also work.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
212
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:11:00 -
[4336] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I'm Down wrote:How do statistics tell you a weapon system is OP?
Anyone who's FC'd or even used a Drake or a Tengu can tell you that the tengu just has a silly good bonus, and the drake is win b/c of it's tank and range.
Nobody every says **** about the HMLs being too high of damage....
but it's a typical dev response to show their cluelessness about the game rather than any knowledgeable reaction to a problem.
I really wish Fozzie would back off the heavy handed changes, Just do the range nerf, and patch more in later after seeing the results. The issue with such a heavy handed response to missiles is that when you go so far overboard, you don't know how to bring it back to life properly. Small nerfs and witnessing reactions to those nerfs are strategically better solutions to a problem than huge nerfs potentially breaking something in the other direction. Eve history has show devs who have done this right and done this wrong. Your posting shows a calm and sophisticated approach to what should be done. Thumbs up to you. I got only one question for you - do you think it could help to buff the natural counter for HML (CMs on battleshiphulls) for PvP so they could kill HML blobs?
Cruise missiles? Lol
All of the weapons in game you come up with cruise missiles?
Seriously, there are two ways to counter a drake fleet.
1) Get close enough to negate the tank advantage via DPS. Which requires CR battlecruisers and requires more logi.
2) Out range them, and you need tier 3 battlecruisers or battleships, no other t2 battlecruiser can outrange dedicated LR Drakes, and the few that can have the tank of an assault frigate.
You say cruise missiles? .....welcome to the LR argument. The fact is for all of your bleating, the best answer you have for a drake is battleships.
...and with the T2 weapon changes what keeps that drake fleet from rewarping and getting as close as possible and killing your ravens with rage ammo. That would be the PERFECT situation for it.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:39:00 -
[4337] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Seriously, there are two ways to counter a drake fleet.
1) Get close enough to negate the tank advantage via DPS. Which requires CR battlecruisers and requires more logi.
2) Out range them, and you need tier 3 battlecruisers or battleships, no other t2 battlecruiser can outrange dedicated LR Drakes, and the few that can have the tank of an assault frigate.
You say cruise missiles? .....welcome to the LR argument. The fact is for all of your bleating, the best answer you have for a drake is battleships.
...and with the T2 weapon changes what keeps that drake fleet from rewarping and getting as close as possible and killing your ravens with rage ammo. That would be the PERFECT situation for it.
The point with the OPness of Drake in nullsec is they do what normally BS should do there, although they need bigger numbers. The Drake is cheaper than BS, but BS have a hard time fighting it because its smaller and faster. If a BS could counter the Drake it would be the Raven - it would have more EHP and more DPS, and if they fix CM so they would work the Ravens could outrange the Drakes with ease.
For smaller scale Drakes can and will win long range fights, and will lose close range fights. So the Drake is the long range tier 2 BC, the others are stronger in close range. Where is the problem? Either make em all the same in all ranges, or let some be best in one role and others in another role.
Who objects to this statement? Hands up to show *you* are clueless ..
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:43:00 -
[4338] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
why dont YOU read again. medium artillery, rail and beams hardly get any use because HML's completely dominate the long range field. This is why they are getting nerfed, to be more fair compared to artillery, rails and beams. not auto-cannons, nor blasters, nor pulses.
why dont YOU read again? Medium SR turrets completely dominate the field on short range, HAMs are non-existent there. So the Drake HAS to use HML to be competitive, and it is. Drake is best in a certain range, when fitted with HML. Other ships are better in other ranges when fitted with the best they have.
There is no problem in balance when each ship has a role, and when for example an AC Cane will simply RIP a HML Drake, if its close enough. If the Drake manages to stay far enough out, the Drake wins. Thats *balance* ....
and about that sex thing, I dont share, thank you :) |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
114
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:47:00 -
[4339] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I'm Down wrote:How do statistics tell you a weapon system is OP?
Anyone who's FC'd or even used a Drake or a Tengu can tell you that the tengu just has a silly good bonus, and the drake is win b/c of it's tank and range.
Nobody every says **** about the HMLs being too high of damage....
but it's a typical dev response to show their cluelessness about the game rather than any knowledgeable reaction to a problem.
I really wish Fozzie would back off the heavy handed changes, Just do the range nerf, and patch more in later after seeing the results. The issue with such a heavy handed response to missiles is that when you go so far overboard, you don't know how to bring it back to life properly. Small nerfs and witnessing reactions to those nerfs are strategically better solutions to a problem than huge nerfs potentially breaking something in the other direction. Eve history has show devs who have done this right and done this wrong. Your posting shows a calm and sophisticated approach to what should be done. Thumbs up to you. I got only one question for you - do you think it could help to buff the natural counter for HML (CMs on battleshiphulls) for PvP so they could kill HML blobs?
Why do people think there need to be more counters when you nerf their range to hell? That alone is the counter b/c it limits the ability to kite out of most turret ranges. |
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard Bora Alis
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 10:49:00 -
[4340] - Quote
About cruise missiles.
DONT BUFF C.M. DAMAGE BECAUSE FARMERS CRUSH ECONOMY.
I think CCP should make high speed CMM to compete with artillery (damage 100% of t1 range 40% of t1, base sig 400m) And high damage CM agains large targets (Fury CM). (damage 130% of t1 range 60% base sig 550m)
Noemi Nagano wrote:So the ship is at it is BALANCED.. I believe everything you say, , now prove your competence and show your killboard. |
|
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 12:15:00 -
[4341] - Quote
Unseen Spectre wrote: Rank,Ships,Kills,Race*,Type* 1,Zealot, 37.900, Amarr,Gun 2,Drake, 18.835, Caldari,Missile 3,Naga, 12.417,Caldari,Gun 4,Hurricane, 12.164, Minmatar,Gun 5,Loki, 9.886, Minmatar,Gun 6,Tornado, 9.236, Minmatar,Gun 7,Tengu, 8.362, Caldari,Missile 8,Apocalypse Navy Issue, 6.915, Amarr,Gun 9,Stabber Fleet Issue, 5.923, Minmatar,Gun 10,Maelstrom, 5.402, Minmatar,Gun 11,Thrasher, 4.684, Minmatar,Gun 12,Huginn, 4.671, Minmatar,Gun 13,Sabre, 4.670, Minmatar,Gun 14,Rokh, 4.467, Caldari,Gun 15,Oracle, 4.371, Amarr,Gun 16,Apocalypse,4.163 Amarr,Gun 17,Talos, 4.109,Gallente,Gun 18,Legion, 3.890, Amarr,Gun 19,Cynabal, 3.851, Minmatar,Gun 20,Proteus, 3.519, Gallente,Gun
All the top ranking ships belong to fleet doctrines. The list is a fun piece of statistics. But it doesn't actually show if any particular weapon is overpowerd (by say +20% compared to the others). What it does show is that EVE has a rock, paper, scissor situation.
The fact that the Zealot is so dominant right now might look like it is OP. But neither the hull nor it's weapons or modules are clearly superior to other choices, it's just the sum that is. In my subjective opionion the Zealot is just a good counter to the shield/HML boats (lasers work good against shields and the AB fitted Zealots cut incoming HML damage in half from speedtanking). The reason why the Zealot can dominate the rankings is just another indication of how popular the shield/HML fits are.
I am going out on really deep water now: What we might see is 1) HML nerf 2) drake loose popularity, and then a lot of blame on how CCP overdid things once again. But maybe this ranking is also showing that there is a current shift in doctrines that will reduce the popularity of the Drake regardless of this nerf. But only maybe, it's harder to find Zealot pilots than Drake pilots after all, and Drakes might still be cost effective even if they die a bit more.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 12:59:00 -
[4342] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote: All the top ranking ships belong to fleet doctrines. The list is a fun piece of statistics. But it doesn't actually show if any particular weapon is overpowerd (by say +20% compared to the others). What it does show is that EVE has a rock, paper, scissor situation.
The fact that the Zealot is so dominant right now might look like it is OP. But neither the hull nor it's weapons or modules are clearly superior to other choices, it's just the sum that is. In my subjective opionion the Zealot is just a good counter to the shield/HML boats (lasers work good against shields and the AB fitted Zealots cut incoming HML damage in half from speedtanking). The reason why the Zealot can dominate the rankings is just another indication of how popular the shield/HML fits are.
I am going out on really deep water now: What we might see is 1) HML nerf 2) drake loose popularity, and then a lot of blame on how CCP overdid things once again. But maybe this ranking is also showing that there is a current shift in doctrines that will reduce the popularity of the Drake regardless of this nerf. But only maybe, it's harder to find Zealot pilots than Drake pilots after all, and Drakes might still be cost effective even if they die a bit more.
Nice posting, indeed. What I see there is this: there are people who dont cry, they dont die, they adapt! And, voila, they found something which works. After this there will be another ship which is maybe good in countering the Zealots, or not ,... we will see.
my resume: investigate things, but keep the whole picture in mind. Atm Drakes dont seem to be ruler of nullsec anymore, and no nerf was needed ... I agree with you in the point its harder to find Zealots than Drakes, and they are also more expensive to replace. So my bet would still go for a tech 1 hull counter, best missile based :) Either way, the players with skills show we dont need nerfbats normally, but just time to adapt ..
although I admit, some issues should be adressed, and again, I am the last one to object to a reasonable adjustment. It should leave the ships in a decent shape though, and if one ship is 4th of 4 in one aspect then the fact its 1st of 4 in another aspect does NOT give a reason for a nerf, but just shows overall there is balance.
best regards |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 13:48:00 -
[4343] - Quote
@Lili Lu As for the statistics. You are of course correct that period of reference is too short for the data to be representative. I thought I had indicated that in the post, but obviously not. So point taken. As for GÇ£drake apologistGÇ¥. True I like both the drake and the tengu. However, that is not to say that they should not be changed to be more in line with other similar ships, as long as it is done in a balanced way. Personally, I think the second proposal is better than the first, but it is not necessarily perfect. I hope that in the end (after balancing of the ships themselves) the overall performance of the drake and tengu will be at the same general level as other similar ships (not worse or better), and the missile changes are just the first step. In the end CCP that will do the balance (presumably based on posts in this mega-thread) and we will have to live with it whether we like it or not. As players we need to adjust to these changes either by cross training skills, adjusting fits etc. This has not been the first time and will probably not be the last. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
212
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:14:00 -
[4344] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
The fact that the Zealot is so dominant right now might look like it is OP. But neither the hull nor it's weapons or modules are clearly superior to other choices, it's just the sum that is. In my subjective opionion the Zealot is just a good counter to the shield/HML boats (lasers work good against shields and the AB fitted Zealots cut incoming HML damage in half from speedtanking). The reason why the Zealot can dominate the rankings is just another indication of how popular the shield/HML fits are.
Yes popular, why would that be? I doubt you have fought GSF....looting the field after a battle with them is pointless. Its a lot of meta 2 and 3 crap that you would never fit. So yeah, Zealots are boss, simply because they have a significant SP advantage.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Nice posting, indeed. What I see there is this: there are people who dont cry, they dont die, they adapt! And, voila, they found something which works. After this there will be another ship which is maybe good in countering the Zealots, or not ,... we will see.
So you mean cry or agree......I don't agree with the najority of your points at all. I'm for what CCP is doing now, and I've spent half of the last year in either a Drake or a Tengu.
...and my killboards are public, this is my main.
Noemi Nagano wrote: my resume: investigate things, but keep the whole picture in mind. Atm Drakes dont seem to be ruler of nullsec anymore, and no nerf was needed ... I agree with you in the point its harder to find Zealots than Drakes, and they are also more expensive to replace. So my bet would still go for a tech 1 hull counter, best missile based :) Either way, the players with skills show we dont need nerfbats normally, but just time to adapt ..
Yeah, its not king because GSF isn't terribly agile with their fittings. ....which goes back to the lower SP line pilot. I'm sure they woudld love to crush a system with 300 Tengues, but they are backed into a corner by virtue of their SRP and lack of pilots that have the support skills to an acceptable level to bring a T3 fleet.
TEST swapped to Foxcats to stop our Tengus, a meta that relies on cap superiority to work.
Noemi Nagano wrote: although I admit, some issues should be adressed, and again, I am the last one to object to a reasonable adjustment. It should leave the ships in a decent shape though, and if one ship is 4th of 4 in one aspect then the fact its 1st of 4 in another aspect does NOT give a reason for a nerf, but just shows overall there is balance.
Again, they are being adressed. HMLs are being brought into line with the rest of the weapon systems. Drake will still be the boss of T2 BCs, and Tengu will still be rediculous, |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:24:00 -
[4345] - Quote
@ Onictus, the first is not a quote of mine. You messed up quoting there ..
Onictus wrote:
Yes popular, why would that be? I doubt you have fought GSF....looting the field after a battle with them is pointless. Its a lot of meta 2 and 3 crap that you would never fit. So yeah, Zealots are boss, simply because they have a significant SP advantage.
Has been named before. You have can bring quite cheap ships, low SP reqs, and still have something half useful.
Onictus wrote: Again, they are being adressed. HMLs are being brought into line with the rest of the weapon systems. Drake will still be the boss of T2 BCs, and Tengu will still be rediculous,
The Drake is not the boss of tier 2 BCs now, and wont be the boss of them after. This point of yours will not get correct when you repeat it again and again. I remind you of that posting of your AAA mate who said he would prefer the Cane over the Drake for PvP any day of the week. Thats how many people in lowsec feel.
Which does not mean, the Drake has no use. Its boss of long range DPS/tank in tier 2 BC. But that doesnt make it overall champion :)
About the post patch Drake and Tengu I dont share your optimistic view. I think they might be both no longer of value in PvP. But we will see.
Anyway, the real problem lies in all other missile systems medium and large: if one or 2 of them would be useful (and the ships which use them would work, Raven!!!), then I am *sure* there wouldnt be so many HML users (and since HML only work in Drakes at tech 1 - Drake users!). It would be more spread over shipclasses and weapon systems, which would be good for Eve.
But like it is atm HML are the only viable PvP option for a missile trained Caldari in medium/large size battle. Thats what should be adressed *first*. And it would fix so many things .... you have to do a smarter approach on that fixing stuff then though ;)
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:41:00 -
[4346] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:@ Onictus, the first is not a quote of mine. You messed up quoting there .. Onictus wrote:
Yes popular, why would that be? I doubt you have fought GSF....looting the field after a battle with them is pointless. Its a lot of meta 2 and 3 crap that you would never fit. So yeah, Zealots are boss, simply because they have a significant SP advantage.
Has been named before. You can field quite cheap ships with pretty low SP reqs, and still have something half useful. This means for a Alliance with big numbers this is a good "basic combat" vessel. Onictus wrote: Again, they are being adressed. HMLs are being brought into line with the rest of the weapon systems. Drake will still be the boss of T2 BCs, and Tengu will still be rediculous,
The Drake is not the boss of tier 2 BCs now, and wont be the boss of them after. This point of yours will not get correct when you repeat it again and again. I remind you of that posting of your AAA mate who said he would prefer the Cane over the Drake for PvP any day of the week. Thats how many people in lowsec feel. Which does not mean, the Drake has no use. Its boss of long range DPS/tank in tier 2 BC. But that doesnt make it overall champion :) About the post patch Drake and Tengu I dont share your optimistic view. I think they might be both no longer of value in PvP. But we will see. Anyway, the real problem lies in all other missile systems medium and large: if one or 2 of them would be useful (and the ships which use them would work, Raven!!!), then I am *sure* there wouldnt be so many HML users (and since HML only work in Drakes at tech 1 - Drake users!). It would be more spread over shipclasses and weapon systems, which would be good for Eve. But like it is atm HML are the only viable PvP option for a missile trained Caldari in medium/large size battle. Thats what should be adressed *first*. And it would fix so many things .... you have to do a smarter approach on that fixing stuff then though ;)
I MUCH prefer the cane to a drake.
Sadly I'm not flying in groups of 5 most of the time, I NEED to be able to take 25 ships at a time, so that means Drake. In a nutshell.
When I came off trial I had 0 caldari or armarr skilss, the comment made was "holy **** you love Hurricanes" Because I couldn't fly a lot of the doctrines, but I had a logi 5 alt, so I got by.
|
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:49:00 -
[4347] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:my resume: investigate things, but keep the whole picture in mind. Atm Drakes dont seem to be ruler of nullsec anymore, and no nerf was needed ... I agree with you in the point its harder to find Zealots than Drakes, and they are also more expensive to replace. So my bet would still go for a tech 1 hull counter, best missile based :) Either way, the players with skills show we dont need nerfbats normally, but just time to adapt ..
although I admit, some issues should be adressed, and again, I am the last one to object to a reasonable adjustment. It should leave the ships in a decent shape though, and if one ship is 4th of 4 in one aspect then the fact its 1st of 4 in another aspect does NOT give a reason for a nerf, but just shows overall there is balance.
best regards
I agree with you on everything, but I think the Drake needs a nerf even if they have been toppled by counterfits.
Smart ship choices and clever fittings can easily hide built in imbalances. Bringing HML's back in line will help CCP to balance the missile ships properly (with the number of weapon slots and good hull bonuses). Unfortunately the HML nerf will have immediate negative consequences for us players, but only in a short term perspective. We shouldn't forget that the ship balancing is a long term project with the aim of making all ships viable choices, different but competitive. To get a good long term result I think we need this nerf. But as someone said previously (some early post, too lazy to dig it out), perhaps the HML nerf could have waited until the BC balancing changes. It would have made the transition smoother perhaps, but the Drake/Tengu would have ended up on the chopping block sooner or later anyway with painful results for everyone who loves them.
Personally I think that missiles in general needs to be looked at again. I hope that this HML nerf will bring attention to that. To quickly compare turrets and missiles: short range turrets have good tracking to hit fast targets, but for missiles it is the long range weapons that are good against fast targets (rockets are the only exception, and this is because they were fixed). I thought this reverse situation was strange and surprising the first time I noticed it, and it could explain (partially) why HAMs perform badly in practice.
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 14:52:00 -
[4348] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:my resume: investigate things, but keep the whole picture in mind. Atm Drakes dont seem to be ruler of nullsec anymore, and no nerf was needed ... I agree with you in the point its harder to find Zealots than Drakes, and they are also more expensive to replace. So my bet would still go for a tech 1 hull counter, best missile based :) Either way, the players with skills show we dont need nerfbats normally, but just time to adapt ..
although I admit, some issues should be adressed, and again, I am the last one to object to a reasonable adjustment. It should leave the ships in a decent shape though, and if one ship is 4th of 4 in one aspect then the fact its 1st of 4 in another aspect does NOT give a reason for a nerf, but just shows overall there is balance.
best regards I agree with you on everything, but I think the Drake needs a nerf even if they have been toppled by counterfits. Smart ship choices and clever fittings can easily hide built in imbalances. Bringing HML's back in line will help CCP to balance the missile ships properly (with the number of weapon slots and good hull bonuses). Unfortunately the HML nerf will have immediate negative consequences for us players, but only in a short term perspective. We shouldn't forget that the ship balancing is a long term project with the aim of making all ships viable choices, different but competitive. To get a good long term result I think we need this nerf. But as someone said previously (some early post, too lazy to dig it out), perhaps the HML nerf could have waited until the BC balancing changes. It would have made the transition smoother perhaps, but the Drake/Tengu would have ended up on the chopping block sooner or later anyway with painful results for everyone who loves them. Personally I think that missiles in general needs to be looked at again. I hope that this HML nerf will bring attention to that. To quickly compare turrets and missiles: short range turrets have good tracking to hit fast targets, but for missiles it is the long range weapons that are good against fast targets (rockets are the only exception, and this is because they were fixed). I thought this reverse situation was strange and surprising the first time I noticed it, and it could explain (partially) why HAMs perform badly in practice.
HAMS perform well in the role they are meant to be used i.e. heavily tackled bc so a HAM drake using webs work effectively |
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 15:50:00 -
[4349] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:HAMS perform well in the role they are meant to be used i.e. heavily tackled bc so a HAM drake using webs work effectively
I disagree with that. It is a cruiser sized weapon, all other cruiser sized weapons work good against cruisers, but HAMs only start to work good against BC targets or bigger (without liberal application of webs/TP). If they were optimized to kill the bigger BC's one would expect more damage than cruiser sized weapon damage out from them. To me, this doesn't feel right at all. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 15:56:00 -
[4350] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote:Harvey James wrote:HAMS perform well in the role they are meant to be used i.e. heavily tackled bc so a HAM drake using webs work effectively I disagree with that. It is a cruiser sized weapon, all other cruiser sized weapons work good against cruisers, but HAMs only start to work good against BC targets or bigger (without liberal application of webs/TP). If they were optimized to kill the bigger BC's one would expect more damage than cruiser sized weapon damage out from them. To me, this doesn't feel right at all.
Well damage application will improve with the GMP skill and when they do TE's TC's but atm they do well enough against bc's and cruisers especially as cruisers tank is so poor atm. |
|
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
65
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 15:59:00 -
[4351] - Quote
also i do think they should make light assaults to replace firing light missiles in RML's which would be more cruiser friendly for less dps instead of firing frig ammo. |
Arduemont
Lords 0f Justice Fidelas Constans
299
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 16:04:00 -
[4352] - Quote
I've been watching this thread, and I just wanted to say I am happy to see the proposal has changed.
All of my original concerns have pretty much been addressed. I doubt many people ever bother to post to say thanks to CCP for paying attention to our concerns, because as soon as they see that their concerns are addressed they just stop watching the thread.
So I want to take this operability to say thanks, for myself, but also for all the people too lazy to say it themselves.
|
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 16:33:00 -
[4353] - Quote
Biggest problem is that a weapons effectiveness is based on 4 fronts. the first three have to do with the weapons system design itself. First here it needs to be balanced against those in the same category versus those that are smaller and larger than itself. then it needs to be balanced in regard to short range high damage vs long range lower damage. Finally it gets balanced against other weapon categories in this case missiles VS guns, vs, lasers, vs hybrids. The last facet is the bonuses from ship specific hulls. This part can not be done first first the weapons system must be balanced against itself and others by their bare bones unaltered unskilled stats. then the ship based balancing can begin which will allow for a lot more fine tuning.
in the abstract consider this, something always need to be better than something else and something always has to be worse, otherwise you are making direct clones of the same thing and you will have no variety and no incentive choose anything over another choice |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 16:47:00 -
[4354] - Quote
ORCACommander wrote:Biggest problem is that a weapons effectiveness is based on 4 fronts. the first three have to do with the weapons system design itself. First here it needs to be balanced against those in the same category versus those that are smaller and larger than itself. then it needs to be balanced in regard to short range high damage vs long range lower damage. Finally it gets balanced against other weapon categories in this case missiles VS guns, vs, lasers, vs hybrids. The last facet is the bonuses from ship specific hulls. This part can not be done first first the weapons system must be balanced against itself and others by their bare bones unaltered unskilled stats. then the ship based balancing can begin which will allow for a lot more fine tuning.
in the abstract consider this, something always need to be better than something else and something always has to be worse, otherwise you are making direct clones of the same thing and you will have no variety and no incentive choose anything over another choice
Basically I agree with you here - there has to be something which is better, and something which is worse if we dont do all the same. My concerns (and those of others) for those changes which are planned are though, that missile will not be on the better end anywhere afterwards, bt instead be always a worse choice than guns. Atm missiles are fine for one thing, and worse for all others. This one thing which they are fine at (speaking of meds and larges!) is what should get nerfed according to CCP.
Although I would like to see a more balanced Eve in the end, I fear they mess it up somewhere in between. :) |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 17:04:00 -
[4355] - Quote
I will slightly disagree with you though. missiles are good at 2 things PVE, because of swappable damage, low barrier to entry, ease of use and range. and from what i have been reading of the specific pvp application of HM. I agree in the range nerf on the Heavy missile since it goes toward addressing the disparity between Cruise missiles and Heavy Missiles. the damage decrease i don't agree with, at least for this large a percentage.
only thing i am terribly concerned about is that as a torpedo user i do not compare against large autocannons in a meaningful way. I would trade all these buffs to them for comparable range without having to give my golem two tech 2 range rigs |
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 17:19:00 -
[4356] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:also i do think they should make light assaults to replace firing light missiles in RML's which would be more cruiser friendly for less dps instead of firing frig ammo.
With LM's getting a 10 percent buff in damage accross the board, fury LM's in RLML's might be pretty good at not only damage projection (in a velocity bonus hull) and application of that damage. I am certainly going to give them a try in the new Caracal. It's dps will be low up close, but once you pass falloff in a comparable Medium turret, you will still be able to apply full damage with the proper ammo. Faction should hit in a Caracal from around 45 km or so. It will also rip apart frigs and destroyers, and be fairly mobile at the same time (gunna nano mine).
From Fozzie's spreadsheet, it looks like Faction ammo is the desired ammo for same size / ranged engagements. Precision for a size below, and Fury for a size above / heavy webbed and painted targets. 12 ammo choices per launcher type is pretty flexible. Even the nerfed heavy missiles will have many uses and applications. Need some more in your face damage to a BC in your face use fury.
Oh and HAMs and Torps will apply there damage better with Guided Missile precision.
Maybe it would be a good time to continue the theme of the RMLM to BS sized weaponry. It has been suggested before, but I believe a Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher would be great. Have around 20% faster rate of fire than a HML, but have fitting requirements along the lines of the dual 425 autocannons (1000-1200 PG 25-35 cpu). Would give another option to BS to close the gap for longer range than torps but better applied damage, but lose out to cruise past 60km or so.
|
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 17:21:00 -
[4357] - Quote
ORCACommander wrote:I will slightly disagree with you though. missiles are good at 2 things PVE, because of swappable damage, low barrier to entry, ease of use and range. and from what i have been reading of the specific pvp application of HM. I agree in the range nerf on the Heavy missile since it goes toward addressing the disparity between Cruise missiles and Heavy Missiles. the damage decrease i don't agree with, at least for this large a percentage.
only thing i am terribly concerned about is that as a torpedo user i do not compare against large autocannons in a meaningful way. I would trade all these buffs to them for comparable range without having to give my golem two tech 2 range rigs
Torps are going to be affected by Guided Missile Precision, giving a pretty good buff to applied damage. I agree, though, that an increase to velocity on torps is necessary to bring things into line for torps.
Stealth bombers get a buff by this as well...... |
Lili Lu
519
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 17:24:00 -
[4358] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:I've been watching this thread, and I just wanted to say I am happy to see the proposal has changed. All of my original concerns have pretty much been addressed. I doubt many people ever bother to post to say thanks to CCP for paying attention to our concerns, because as soon as they see that their concerns are addressed they just stop watching the thread. So I want to take this operability to say thanks, for myself, but also for all the people too lazy to say it themselves. Well, thank you for thanking CCP. But think what you want as far as what their reaction was. I doubt it was the volume of whining that changed things. I think the TD/TE/TC delay was done out of some concern that they needed to do more testing on the numbers for those. Because they are introducing two new missile destroyers that have an explosion bonus and if those were augmented with too much from TE or TC they could be too good in their role as frig killers.
As for the changes on HMs themselves I'm glad part of the changes were a big reduction in range on the tech II high damage ammo, mirroring what occurs with turret ammo. Regardless this was never presented solely as a total nerf to missiles it is a project to bring them in line with turrets. In that they will eventually have to live with needing to fit TE and TC to get them to perform in certain ways and conversely other (hopefully only the specilized ships) ships will be able to fubar the missiles just as they can now fubar turrets with TDs. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
186
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 17:25:00 -
[4359] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Basically I agree with you here - there has to be something which is better, and something which is worse if we dont do all the same. My concerns (and those of others) for those changes which are planned are though, that missile will not be on the better end anywhere afterwards, bt instead be always a worse choice than guns. Atm missiles are fine for one thing, and worse for all others. This one thing which they are fine at (speaking of meds and larges!) is what should get nerfed according to CCP.
Although I would like to see a more balanced Eve in the end, I fear they mess it up somewhere in between. :)
If you think HML problem would be easy to fix just by changing Drake/Tengu, what changes would you do to Drake/Tengu so that there would not be any reason to change HMLs? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 18:27:00 -
[4360] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
If you think HML problem would be easy to fix just by changing Drake/Tengu, what changes would you do to Drake/Tengu so that there would not be any reason to change HMLs?
I.
I think there *is* no HML problem. If there would be a HML problem in a way they would be far OP in comparison to other stuff, then
1) everyone in lowsec would fly HML-Drakes instead of Canes, but in fact the numbers show its the other way round 2) the bonused hulls which can use HML would be all usable or OP, in fact just 2 of them are used regularly
short resume - HML are not OP IMO
II.
I agree HML are stronger than medium turrets, but IMO in a way this is not yet completely out of line or OP. As far as I see this, the medium long range turrets are able to deal more DPS in ranges below 35km and above ~70km (for a not sniper-rigged Drake). Although this might seem to be a huge advantage in fact current meta game of Eve doesnt favour this kind of engagement range too much apart from null sec blob fights.
this could be adressed by changing medium long range turrets, and or adjusting some things for HML .. for example long range t2 ammo with less DPS for HML, so in the end there would be 2 range-windows which favour HML (for example 35-50 and then 65-80 or so) and the others are better for turrets. Not sure if this is viable or not.
III.
For the Tengu I am not sure if maybe the missile subsystems boni have to be adjusted, so the ranges dont get so high.
IV.
Drake nullsec blobs could be solved by fixing CMs and Ravens for PvP - something which will hopefully happen anyway. Atm there seems to be a quite popular counter to Drakes in nullsec anyway, and everywhere else except in PvE the Drake is not OP.
In one thing I agree to Lili Lu btw, putting Fury t2s to short range makes sense. I fear they will not work though due to their hard nerfs on every soft stat. And it would be maybe smart to make flight time even smaller but adjust all velocities, so missiles have the similar range but much less time in air (=less load, more use in mixed fleets). If thing should be brought in line, then this important stat should not be neglected.
Fly safe all ..
PS: I just used my Machariel and Vargur to earn some ISK the last days and ... OMG are they op. I mean .. doing the same stuff with a perfect Tengu, counting salvoes and knowing about every thing which is needed to speed up a mission its still so far behind the Machariel and Vargur :D (which is ok per se, t3 *cruiser* shouldnt be on par with a pirate BS. But the Tengu is the best missioner with missiles by a quite big margin .... ;) ) |
|
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 18:40:00 -
[4361] - Quote
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote:ORCACommander wrote:I will slightly disagree with you though. missiles are good at 2 things PVE, because of swappable damage, low barrier to entry, ease of use and range. and from what i have been reading of the specific pvp application of HM. I agree in the range nerf on the Heavy missile since it goes toward addressing the disparity between Cruise missiles and Heavy Missiles. the damage decrease i don't agree with, at least for this large a percentage.
only thing i am terribly concerned about is that as a torpedo user i do not compare against large autocannons in a meaningful way. I would trade all these buffs to them for comparable range without having to give my golem two tech 2 range rigs Torps are going to be affected by Guided Missile Precision, giving a pretty good buff to applied damage. I agree, though, that an increase to velocity on torps is necessary to bring things into line for torps. Stealth bombers get a buff by this as well......
that skill was never a problem for me really. most hq incursion fleets have the 2 webs i need to bring a frigate down to below ex0losion velocity |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
186
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 18:50:00 -
[4362] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:this could be adressed by changing medium long range turrets, and or adjusting some things for HML .. for example long range t2 ammo with less DPS for HML, so in the end there would be 2 range-windows which favour HML (for example 35-50 and then 65-80 or so) and the others are better for turrets. Not sure if this is viable or not.
...
Drake nullsec blobs could be solved by fixing CMs and Ravens for PvP - something which will hopefully happen anyway. Atm there seems to be a quite popular counter to Drakes in nullsec anyway, and everywhere else except in PvE the Drake is not OP.
That's not how you fix the problem. You don't fix problems with nerfing weapon systems you don't use.
With those ranges medium long range turrets would be good only at 30-35 km. Below 30 km and you start having tracking problems. Ever tried 720mm Cane? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 19:02:00 -
[4363] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
If you think HML problem would be easy to fix just by changing Drake/Tengu, what changes would you do to Drake/Tengu so that there would not be any reason to change HMLs?
I. I think there *is* no HML problem. If there would be a HML problem in a way they would be far OP in comparison to other stuff, then 1) everyone in lowsec would fly HML-Drakes instead of Canes, but in fact the numbers show its the other way round 2) the bonused hulls which can use HML would be all usable or OP, in fact just 2 of them are used regularly short resume - HML are not OP IMOII. I agree HML are stronger than medium turrets, but IMO in a way this is not yet completely out of line or OP. As far as I see this, the medium long range turrets are able to deal more DPS in ranges below 35km and above ~70km (for a not sniper-rigged Drake). Although this might seem to be a huge advantage in fact current meta game of Eve doesnt favour this kind of engagement range too much apart from null sec blob fights. this could be adressed by changing medium long range turrets, and or adjusting some things for HML .. for example long range t2 ammo with less DPS for HML, so in the end there would be 2 range-windows which favour HML (for example 35-50 and then 65-80 or so) and the others are better for turrets. Not sure if this is viable or not.i III. For the Tengu I am not sure if maybe the missile subsystems boni have to be adjusted, so the ranges dont get so high. IV. Drake nullsec blobs could be solved by fixing CMs and Ravens for PvP - something which will hopefully happen anyway. Atm there seems to be a quite popular counter to Drakes in nullsec anyway, and everywhere else except in PvE the Drake is not OP. In one thing I agree to Lili Lu btw, putting Fury t2s to short range makes sense. I fear they will not work though due to their hard nerfs on every soft stat. And it would be maybe smart to make flight time even smaller but adjust all velocities, so missiles have the similar range but much less time in air (=less load, more use in mixed fleets). If thing should be brought in line, then this important stat should not be neglected. Fly safe all .. PS: I just used my Machariel and Vargur to earn some ISK the last days and ... OMG are they op. I mean .. doing the same stuff with a perfect Tengu, counting salvoes and knowing about every thing which is needed to speed up a mission its still so far behind the Machariel and Vargur :D (which is ok per se, t3 *cruiser* shouldnt be on par with a pirate BS. But the Tengu is the best missioner with missiles by a quite big margin .... ;) )
Again, you compare a faction BS and a dedicated PvE battleship ......to a cruiser.
You live in a fantasy land, your....opinions......are suspect.
|
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 19:39:00 -
[4364] - Quote
ORCACommander wrote:MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote:ORCACommander wrote:I will slightly disagree with you though. missiles are good at 2 things PVE, because of swappable damage, low barrier to entry, ease of use and range. and from what i have been reading of the specific pvp application of HM. I agree in the range nerf on the Heavy missile since it goes toward addressing the disparity between Cruise missiles and Heavy Missiles. the damage decrease i don't agree with, at least for this large a percentage.
only thing i am terribly concerned about is that as a torpedo user i do not compare against large autocannons in a meaningful way. I would trade all these buffs to them for comparable range without having to give my golem two tech 2 range rigs Torps are going to be affected by Guided Missile Precision, giving a pretty good buff to applied damage. I agree, though, that an increase to velocity on torps is necessary to bring things into line for torps. Stealth bombers get a buff by this as well...... that skill was never a problem for me really. most hq incursion fleets have the 2 webs i need to bring a frigate down to below ex0losion velocity
When I saw the TE/TC changes I was really looking forward to using a torp ship, but with them not being included into the mix they will still just be too short on range. 2x TE effecting missiles would have solved your problem as the AC user is going to have 2 of them most likely.
Again I believe the solution is a velocity buff to unguided missiles esp. torps and hams. Or just include the TE/TC changes. |
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 19:50:00 -
[4365] - Quote
I think the one thing that people tend to forget with Missiles is that their skill tree is dedicated to ONLY missiles. Thus Missiles should be more power OR the skill requirements considerable lower.
Now you want people to train for a set of support skills that support only one weapon type and you are nerfing many many aspects of how it works.
Before others post about DRONES. Nearly every ship uses drones, thus training in Drones supports just about every ship.
I don't care what you chaps wrap this up as, for me this is a purely ISK control change. I'd much rather you just come out and say it.
|
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 19:53:00 -
[4366] - Quote
ehhh i don't really want to see those changes and have the turret ewar mods completely screw over missiles however i would love a 30% velocity increase on every missile and a 30% decrease on flight time to keep ranges as they are but reduce the dps lag. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
85
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 19:54:00 -
[4367] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: II.
I agree HML are stronger than medium turrets, but IMO in a way this is not yet completely out of line or OP. As far as I see this, the medium long range turrets are able to deal more DPS in ranges below 35km and above ~70km (for a not sniper-rigged Drake). Although this might seem to be a huge advantage in fact current meta game of Eve doesnt favour this kind of engagement range too much apart from null sec blob fights.
this could be adressed by changing medium long range turrets, and or adjusting some things for HML .. for example long range t2 ammo with less DPS for HML, so in the end there would be 2 range-windows which favour HML (for example 35-50 and then 65-80 or so) and the others are better for turrets. Not sure if this is viable or not.
IV.
Drake nullsec blobs could be solved by fixing CMs and Ravens for PvP - something which will hopefully happen anyway. Atm there seems to be a quite popular counter to Drakes in nullsec anyway, and everywhere else except in PvE the Drake is not OP.
In one thing I agree to Lili Lu btw, putting Fury t2s to short range makes sense. I fear they will not work though due to their hard nerfs on every soft stat. And it would be maybe smart to make flight time even smaller but adjust all velocities, so missiles have the similar range but much less time in air (=less load, more use in mixed fleets). If thing should be brought in line, then this important stat should not be neglected.
Point II is plain wrong : a tier 2 BC with LR turrets have between 400 and 450 dps. It then have absolutely no tank, and it cannot hit anything moving at less than 20km. So a drake will outdps such a ship at approximately 25km (yes, because a drake can reach 400dps) if doesn't already outdps the turrets boats. In the same time, the drake sport an amazing tank (like twice a turret medium LR boat).
I don't care about everything else, this is not balance ; HML are OP, because that's not really the drake that allow for these stats, but the weapons themselves, as it has been showed numerous times before with weapons stats (the drake is only a revelator of the problem) ; but some continue to ignore them completely and bring some silly arguments about other missiles (which are all buffed amazingly) and whine that HML is the only usable missile system (a wrong assertion once again, proved numerous times before).
Point IV is garbage : T2 ammo with long range would be OP considering how they work with missiles. T2 short range ammo on LR turrets are *very* short range. Javelin on medium railguns give you 9km range with all 5 skills. T2 missiles with skills will have more than 20km range... This range justify the few percent dps they lack compared to turrets, even after the changes (yes, because a 35% damage bonus over T1 ammo is almost more than what they are doing now).
As for the statistics we saw, the only thing we can say about them is that they seem to be some large zealot fleet used, probably in nullsec, this week. There were also some Naga fleets. And some others. But that tell us more about nullsec politic than balance. |
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace
PiiiGGGss iiiNNN SSSpppAAAcccEEE
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:03:00 -
[4368] - Quote
ORCACommander wrote:ehhh i don't really want to see those changes and have the turret ewar mods completely screw over missiles however i would love a 30% velocity increase on every missile and a 30% decrease on flight time to keep ranges as they are but reduce the dps lag.
Sounds pretty good to me, although I would do 30% velocity and a 15% flight time decrease to unguided types to give them a range buff. |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:08:00 -
[4369] - Quote
trust me i want a range buff on my torps i was merely making that as a statement to repair the gap between instant damage of turret systems and missile delayed damage |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
114
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:17:00 -
[4370] - Quote
If anyone even did a small bit of research on eve history, you'd realize that the only reason drakes became popular was b/c of the speed nerf when HMLs actually lost their main counter.
Maybe Fozzie should do his research and realize that the reason they have been buffed to **** up til now is b/c they were so horrible before. If he'd just fix the damn ships that were the problem, he would see how much better the platform would be w/o doing more than a range nerf... but that would require playing the game, and actually knowing anything about it.
Maybe you guys should pull back a bit on the whole speed nerf thing that oh yeah, got a massive rage thread too b/c it was so heavy handed and has crushed almost any speed design left in game besides high dollar oversized AB/Agility fits.
Yet, I don't hear fozzie saying, oh yeah, maybe we should nerf webs a bit, or oh yeah, maybe we shoud rethink the MWD killing scrams, or the slow as **** AB on almost any ship but a T3 and limited hac fits.
Doing anything but a range nerf to start is just bad and it's tragic that the devs can't see this.
By thier own admission [the 2 ships that are causing the problem] should be reason 1 why doing any more changes to HML's w/o fixing the ships first is a tragic error in judgement.
I've never said this should make missiles immune to more nerfs or changes, but **** sake, learn how to do things properly.... start small and make moves as necessary. |
|
Barrak
Wormhole Engineers Greater Realms
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:24:00 -
[4371] - Quote
I'm curious.
Back before the initial post was changed I got the impression from the actual post and from others in the game that other than the Heavy Missiles, most other things were receiving a buff..... so that got me to looking at your chart closely and I have put the following information together which makes for pretty dismal reading if you have points in Missiles.
I was going to put comments in against changes, but I think they showed my view to much, so I have left it as pure figures.
Heavy Missiles:
Negative:
- Have received an AVERAGE negative change to the value of 22.7%.
- Across all of the Heavy Missile types there is a total of 725.% drop in stats.
Positive:
- Have received an AVERAGE positive change to the value of 13.3%
- Across all of the Heavy Missile types there is a total of 132.% drop in stats.
Other T2 Missiles:
Negative:
- Have received an AVERAGE negative change to the value of 19%.
- Across all of the Heavy Missile types there is a total of 304.5% drop in stats.
Positive:
- Have received an AVERAGE positive change to the value of 10.4%
- Across all of the Heavy Missile types there is a total of 114.8.% drop in stats.
Make of it what you will..............
Regards
Barrak |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:34:00 -
[4372] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:If anyone even did a small bit of research on eve history, you'd realize that the only reason drakes became popular was b/c of the speed nerf when HMLs actually lost their main counter.
Maybe Fozzie should do his research and realize that the reason they have been buffed to **** up til now is b/c they were so horrible before. If he'd just fix the damn ships that were the problem, he would see how much better the platform would be w/o doing more than a range nerf... but that would require playing the game, and actually knowing anything about it.
Maybe you guys should pull back a bit on the whole speed nerf thing that oh yeah, got a massive rage thread too b/c it was so heavy handed and has crushed almost any speed design left in game besides high dollar oversized AB/Agility fits.
Yet, I don't hear fozzie saying, oh yeah, maybe we should nerf webs a bit, or oh yeah, maybe we shoud rethink the MWD killing scrams, or the slow as **** AB on almost any ship but a T3 and limited hac fits.
Doing anything but a range nerf to start is just bad and it's tragic that the devs can't see this.
By thier own admission [the 2 ships that are causing the problem] should be reason 1 why doing any more changes to HML's w/o fixing the ships first is a tragic error in judgement.
I've never said this should make missiles immune to more nerfs or changes, but **** sake, learn how to do things properly.... start small and make moves as necessary.
if you are going to rebuild the entire system, by this i mean their entire tiericide plan and what looks to be a comprehensive overhaul of missiles as well then historical patterns will be worthless to look at as in the new environment you are now at base 0. Current fleet and player trends will be meaningless because they are based off the old model and the effect of the changes can not be measured until you see how the player base adapted themselves to the new situation. small changes right now can not work because of the massive redesign. small changes only work if you are tweaking an existing system not writing a new one. Honestly i think the entire tiereicide and weapons overhauls should of been sorted out as a single expansion and watch the entire player base sink and swim but that would ruin ccp's time loved expansion schedule since. |
Buzz Skywalker
Magnificent Mayhem Mining
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 20:49:00 -
[4373] - Quote
Barrak: what I make of that is you don't know how to do analysis, as your numbers are meaningless. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 21:46:00 -
[4374] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Again, you compare a faction BS and a dedicated PvE battleship ......to a cruiser.
You live in a fantasy land, your....opinions......are suspect.
Ok, Mr. Onictus - go tell me which Caldari ship (and yes, name ANY) does perform better than a Tengu in regards of mission efficiency? (and no, I dont want Eve to be balanced around PvE!)
I can tell you, its not the dedicated PvE battleship. Nor is it the faction tier 2 BS. Nor the faction tier 1 BS. Nor the tier 3 BS. There is no Caldari BS which can be on par with the Tengu in average missions, and the Tengu is quite a lot behind the best. The Tengu is, admitted, a fair bit better than all other t3s in PvE missions, although in other areas of PvE its not the best.
This shows 2 things. First: Caldari have the most efficient l4 mission runner for t3s. Hooray. Second: Caldaris best ships are not on par with the best others. And furthermore, their battleships perform so much worse due to their completely broken weapon systems even their t3 can be in front.
Its not *my fault* CCP is not able to make CNRs and Golems work like they should. I gladly would take a Golem (which I can use with perfect skills) or a CNR (same) instead of my Tengu when I feel like doing a mission. If I want to max my ISK/h I have to leave my caldari ships in hangar though and have to use Winmatar/Angel. Or my Nightmare. Do you think this is ok? I dont. Especially not when I think of all those fanatics around who claim how "OP" and "gamebreaking" the incredible HML system is ..... its not. It can be dealt with. It is not overused anywhere apart from nullsec blobs. And even those seem to be countered now.
On paper stats say nothing. The game says all. Ask PvP vets in low, which ship they want to fly - I bet its a minority who says "Drake". Just because the Drake is not bad (and it is not) does not mean it really rules. Its solid, but a one trick pony. If you want to fly the best people choose other ships first.
But Drakes are good for new players, because they can still contribute a bit even with not so high skills. And its easy to use a Drake too. All those "strongpoints" are also its weakness though: you cant really surprise someone with a Drake. You know what you get when you see one.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 22:00:00 -
[4375] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Point II is plain wrong : a tier 2 BC with LR turrets have between 400 and 450 dps. It then have absolutely no tank, and it cannot hit anything moving at less than 20km. So a drake will outdps such a ship at approximately 25km (yes, because a drake can reach 400dps) if doesn't already outdps the turrets boats. In the same time, the drake sport an amazing tank (like twice a turret medium LR boat).
Compare the weapon stats like you guys always do. Or compare fitted ships, then we have a different scenario. In this other aspects like Drone bay (yes, on 20km Drones DO play a role), speed and the like play a big role.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I don't care about everything else, this is not balance ;
Thats your problem. You are focussed on one aspect and not seeing the big picture. Poor you.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: HML are OP, because that's not really the drake that allow for these stats, but the weapons themselves, as it has been showed numerous times before with weapons stats (the drake is only a revelator of the problem) ; but some continue to ignore them completely and bring some silly arguments about other missiles (which are all buffed amazingly) and whine that HML is the only usable missile system (a wrong assertion once again, proved numerous times before).
Why does the Caracal then not own Cruiser PvP? Why isnt the NH better than Sleipnir or Absolution?
Besides - no other missiles are buffed. And atm there is no other MEDIUM or LARGE missile system usable in terms of PLAYING A ROLE in PvP.
And: we dont know yet IF this will change after the patch. I think it wont really change, except HML will also not be used in numbers anymore.
I understand *very well* though that you as a Gallentean Pilot dont like missile PvP too much :)
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Point IV is garbage : T2 ammo with long range would be OP considering how they work with missiles.
Do you actually understand what I wanted to achieve with this proposal? Define OP? Your statement is complete nonsense, seriously.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
As for the statistics we saw, the only thing we can say about them is that they seem to be some large zealot fleet used, probably in nullsec, this week. There were also some Naga fleets. And some others. But that tell us more about nullsec politic than balance.
See, there were stats used before - Drake was number 1 there, and HML were used more. Everyone said "proof, this stats clearly show how OP" and so on. Some people tried to explain how they were made, and although we gave reasonable arguments for this point of view the anti-HML-fanatics wouldnt listen and claim "those are the best stats we have".
Now we have different stats, which give a different picture. Maybe invalidate a bit what the stats before showed ... and magically those new stats "show nothing", which explain maybe "nullsec politic" but dont show if something is broken or not.
You dont see what you dont want to see. I see HML are not out of line in terms of gamebreaking. You think they are in a certain role. I agree they are strong in that role, never denied that (in fact, I said that already when EVERYONE in Eve seemed to say "Drakes suck in PvP"). But they are not strong in others (naturally), and their short range pendant is not working as well as the Cane does with ACs. Or the Myrm does (with ACs). And I know people who will kill any PvP HAM Drake 1on1 with any other tier 1 or tier 2 BC except Prophecy maybe ... so no. The Drake is not OP, nor are HML. HML have a role where they are good, Drakes have roles where they are good. But so do MANY other ships in Eve too. But not so many Caldari ships, and no Caldari missile ship in PvP. Except the Drake (and, even when its more expensive and for sure not affordable for everyone, the Tengu).
So go on, fanatics. But be honest about your intentions - you dont want balance, you just dont like how missiles own you in PvP in certain situations :) because, if you were looking for balance, you would like to adress the *real* issues in this game.
Best regards
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
28
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 22:09:00 -
[4376] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:I've been watching this thread, and I just wanted to say I am happy to see the proposal has changed. All of my original concerns have pretty much been addressed. I doubt many people ever bother to post to say thanks to CCP for paying attention to our concerns, because as soon as they see that their concerns are addressed they just stop watching the thread. So I want to take this operability to say thanks, for myself, but also for all the people too lazy to say it themselves.
thing is they havent been ccp simply went away and said how can we achieve the same nerf we wanted but present it in a differant way with the sig radius and the flight time being so heavily nerfed we are losing the same dmg expecialy with the radius all criuser sized ships should have the sig radius after basic skills to lay full dmg on there class size simple as that reguardless if there t2 or not and tbh the distance nerf is to much. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
28
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 22:14:00 -
[4377] - Quote
push back any changes to missles untill all t1 ships are rebalanced with the winter expansion caldari (dont know about other races) but caldari will not have a reliable ship that can even complete all missions dreed pirate scarlet for instance even a cnr will not be able to complete that mission. |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 22:17:00 -
[4378] - Quote
serras you can't balance the ships until the weapons themselves have a base balance because of all the bonuses the hulls get are built around the weapons systems and defense systems |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 22:45:00 -
[4379] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Ok, Mr. Onictus - go tell me which Caldari ship (and yes, name ANY) does perform better than a Tengu in regards of mission efficiency? (and no, I dont want Eve to be balanced around PvE!)
I can tell you, its not the dedicated PvE battleship. Nor is it the faction tier 2 BS. Nor the faction tier 1 BS. Nor the tier 3 BS. There is no Caldari BS which can be on par with the Tengu in average missions, and the Tengu is quite a lot behind the best. The Tengu is, admitted, a fair bit better than all other t3s in PvE missions, although in other areas of PvE its not the best.
...
Ok, personal experience having flown almost every caldari ship in missions, raven - sucks compared to tengu, CNR and Golem - better DPS worse tank (they do the missions alot faster), CNS - similar DPS and tank to a Tengu, Rattlesnake - greater DPS and similar tank to a Tengu, Gila - slightly weaker than a Tengu.
Note: These are Hi-Sec MISSION fit ships - NOT for use where you think you might loose them in PvP.
Basically, of the ones I mentioned there are only two that are worse than a tengu, and only one of those shouldn't be. All the rest perform better. Where they lack is in the ability to be fit inside an Orca hanger for mission runners - which is the ONLY reason I fly a tengu for missions. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 23:00:00 -
[4380] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Ok, Mr. Onictus - go tell me which Caldari ship (and yes, name ANY) does perform better than a Tengu in regards of mission efficiency? (and no, I dont want Eve to be balanced around PvE!)
I can tell you, its not the dedicated PvE battleship. Nor is it the faction tier 2 BS. Nor the faction tier 1 BS. Nor the tier 3 BS. There is no Caldari BS which can be on par with the Tengu in average missions, and the Tengu is quite a lot behind the best. The Tengu is, admitted, a fair bit better than all other t3s in PvE missions, although in other areas of PvE its not the best.
...
Ok, personal experience having flown almost every caldari ship in missions, raven - sucks compared to tengu, CNR and Golem - better DPS worse tank (they do the missions alot faster), CNS - similar DPS and tank to a Tengu, Rattlesnake - greater DPS and similar tank to a Tengu, Gila - slightly weaker than a Tengu. Note: These are Hi-Sec MISSION fit ships - NOT for use where you think you might loose them in PvP. Basically, of the ones I mentioned there are only two that are worse than a tengu, and only one of those shouldn't be. All the rest perform better. Where they lack is in the ability to be fit inside an Orca hanger for mission runners - which is the ONLY reason I fly a tengu for missions.
I would like to see some of your DPS/Tank numbers, and ships speed, same with a collection of some mission completion times. I fly/own DS-pimped CNRs and Golems, same as a Rattlesnake. None of them is able to do for example Worlds Collide Guri/Serp in a similar speed as a Tengu. A Golem can be fitted to have better on paper DPS, right. In fact, even CM fitted it can have good numbers, but in game it will not be as good as the Tengu. I have one Torp Golem (t2 rigged)... and there are not really many missions where it can actually do its damage well ... range is just so much of an issue, and speed doesnt favour the Golem either. When I compare that to my Machariel or Vargur I simply have to cry.
So no, I dont subscribe to this pov. I think you made this mistake because either you fitted your Tengu wrong or dont know how to max ISK/h ...
Best regards.
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
214
|
Posted - 2012.10.07 23:25:00 -
[4381] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Ok, Mr. Onictus - go tell me which Caldari ship (and yes, name ANY) does perform better than a Tengu in regards of mission efficiency? (and no, I dont want Eve to be balanced around PvE!)
I imagine an active Golem. Tengu doesn't come CLOSE to most battleship performance without faction launchers and a deadspace tank. At which point you may as well use....well a battleship, any battleship. Oh and did I mention the ammo costs for a Tengu are up there with an AC Maelstrom or Macharial, they chew ammo like mad.
Noemi Nagano wrote: I can tell you, its not the dedicated PvE battleship. Nor is it the faction tier 2 BS. Nor the faction tier 1 BS. Nor the tier 3 BS. There is no Caldari BS which can be on par with the Tengu in average missions, and the Tengu is quite a lot behind the best. The Tengu is, admitted, a fair bit better than all other t3s in PvE missions, although in other areas of PvE its not the best.
Yeah so, you guys complained until they pulled the thing that would have buffed it. I was LOOKING FORWARD to seeing what a Torp Phoon could do with three BCS, two tracking comps and a a few neuts.
Noemi Nagano wrote: This shows 2 things. First: Caldari have the most efficient l4 mission runner for t3s. Hooray. Second: Caldaris best ships are not on par with the best others. And furthermore, their battleships perform so much worse due to their completely broken weapon systems even their t3 can be in front.
No one runs level 4s in ANY of the other T3s. I'vbe seen loki's plexing and prots doing lv 5s with logis but nothing like you see from Tengus. Hell you can run 8/10s with solo tengus.....none of the other T3s can manage that....why would that be. (Its not rate of fire)
Its not *my fault* CCP is not able to make CNRs and Golems work like they should. I gladly would take a Golem (which I can use with perfect skills) or a CNR (same) instead of my Tengu when I feel like doing a mission. If I want to max my ISK/h I have to leave my caldari ships in hangar though and have to use Winmatar/Angel. Or my Nightmare. Do you think this is ok? I dont. Especially not when I think of all those fanatics around who claim how "OP" and "gamebreaking" the incredible HML system is ..... its not. It can be dealt with. It is not overused anywhere apart from nullsec blobs. And even those seem to be countered now.
Noemi Nagano wrote: On paper stats say nothing. The game says all. Ask PvP vets in low, which ship they want to fly - I bet its a minority who says "Drake". Just because the Drake is not bad (and it is not) does not mean it really rules. Its solid, but a one trick pony. If you want to fly the best people choose other ships first.
GTFO because my killboard is out there ....unlike yours..... you can see I lived in Low for quite some time, and guess what Drakes where everywhere and they were a force to be reconed with my FIRST ship loss was to a drake.
Noemi Nagano wrote: But Drakes are good for new players, because they can still contribute a bit even with not so high skills. And its easy to use a Drake too. All those "strongpoints" are also its weakness though: you cant really surprise someone with a Drake. You know what you get when you see one.
Apparently not, for all of the people that didn't think a drake could hit past 100km or thta HAMs needed 4 fitting mods to get onboard.
Like I said. I have a stack of kills in both Drake and Tengu in the last month. Post your **** or STFU. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 00:11:00 -
[4382] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
See, there were stats used before - Drake was number 1 there, and HML were used more. Everyone said "proof, this stats clearly show how OP" and so on. Some people tried to explain how they were made, and although we gave reasonable arguments for this point of view the anti-HML-fanatics wouldnt listen and claim "those are the best stats we have".
Now we have different stats, which give a different picture. Maybe invalidate a bit what the stats before showed ... and magically those new stats "show nothing", which explain maybe "nullsec politic" but dont show if something is broken or not.
You dont see what you dont want to see. I see HML are not out of line in terms of gamebreaking. You think they are in a certain role. I agree they are strong in that role, never denied that (in fact, I said that already when EVERYONE in Eve seemed to say "Drakes suck in PvP"). But they are not strong in others (naturally), and their short range pendant is not working as well as the Cane does with ACs. Or the Myrm does (with ACs). And I know people who will kill any PvP HAM Drake 1on1 with any other tier 1 or tier 2 BC except Prophecy maybe ... so no. The Drake is not OP, nor are HML. HML have a role where they are good, Drakes have roles where they are good. But so do MANY other ships in Eve too. But not so many Caldari ships, and no Caldari missile ship in PvP. Except the Drake (and, even when its more expensive and for sure not affordable for everyone, the Tengu).
So go on, fanatics. But be honest about your intentions - you dont want balance, you just dont like how missiles own you in PvP in certain situations :) because, if you were looking for balance, you would like to adress the *real* issues in this game.
Best regards
U have such a warped perception. the way ur determined to only compare HML's (a long range, low dps weapon) with AC's (a short range high dps weapon) completely ruins ur credibility. i've tried to explain how HML's are so much more superior to other long range medium weapons that they barely see any use by anyone, and that it is that fact that CCP and others are trying to change.
If u insist on comparing HML's to AC's then they'll need to up the DPS of heavies but bring the upper range to about 15km..oh wait, thats HAM's!! doh...
|
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 01:05:00 -
[4383] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Arduemont wrote:I've been watching this thread, and I just wanted to say I am happy to see the proposal has changed. All of my original concerns have pretty much been addressed. I doubt many people ever bother to post to say thanks to CCP for paying attention to our concerns, because as soon as they see that their concerns are addressed they just stop watching the thread. So I want to take this operability to say thanks, for myself, but also for all the people too lazy to say it themselves. thing is they havent been ccp simply went away and said how can we achieve the same nerf we wanted but present it in a differant way with the sig radius and the flight time being so heavily nerfed we are losing the same dmg expecialy with the radius all criuser sized ships should have the sig radius after basic skills to lay full dmg on there class size simple as that reguardless if there t2 or not and tbh the distance nerf is to much.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles: -Damage decreased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Explosion radius increased by 12%
The above values are for T1 and Navy HML only
What does this mean for HML damage? In the HML nerf version 2.0 the biggest improvement is that large and slow ships (BC's without AB and BS's) will be hit harder (-10% damage, instead of the earlier -20%), small and fast ships (cruisers and below with just basespeed) will still have a damage reduction closer to the first nerf suggestions (some cases down to -19.6% but mostly -16.7%, instead of the earlier -20%). It's an improvement from version 1.0, no secrets in it now serras.
Below is just to show where the numbers come from. No need to read it.
Brief number crunching and interpretation: Using the missile damage formula and setting all skills to 5 I got these values for a +12% increase in explosion radius: -Small (below 93.75m sig radius) and slow (below 222m/s for a 30m target and below 122m/s for a 93.75m target) ships will take -(100% - 1/1.12) = -10.7% damage. -Ships larger than 105m will not have any extra damage reduction. Ships between 93.75m and 105m will see a gradual loss of damage from 0% down to -10.7%. -Fast ships (complex case with lots of calculations, just giving example speeds of where speed tanking begin for a few different target sizes (also: MWD speeds do not count due to sig bloom, only base speed or AB speed): standard frig (40m) 181m/s+, standard cruiser (125m) 162m/s+ and standard BC (250m) 324m/s+) will take -(100% - (1/1.12)^0.6823) = -7.44% damage while speed tanking.
How to interpret this and how to include the overall -10% damage into these values: -Small (less than 93.75m) and slow targets will take -19.6% damage ( =-(100% - 0.9*(1/1.12)) ) -Large (over 105m) and slow targets will take -10% damage ( =-(100% - 0.9*1) ) -Any target fast enough to speed tank will take -16.7% ( =-(100% - 0.9*(1/1.12)^0.6823)) ) (-19.6% and -16.7% are ratios and not actual damage, speed tanking is always better, but the damage reduction ratio just happen to be lower for speed tanks. What -16.7% means is very hard to interpret without really understanding the missile equation and it's graphs, an alternative but absolutely accurate interpretation is to think of the +12% to explosion radius as meaning +12% to the target speed instead, meaning that from the HML damage perspective all targets will be moving 12% faster and hence see more damage reduction from speed tanking as a result). |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 05:50:00 -
[4384] - Quote
There has been a fair amount of talk about this upcoming nerf on our corp / alliance TS. Some of the folks commenting fly Drakes, but the majority do not. The concensus among these folks is that these nerfs are ridiculous and that CCP is seriously screwing Caldari pilots yet again. I say concensus, but in fact not a single person thought these nerfs were a good idea or justified.
It really brings home the problem Caldari pilots are facing right now. Their current destroyer is pretty much crap. None of their cruisers are worth flying and this will only get worse with this update. They don't have a working HAC. Their BS's are garbage. Right now, they have tough, slow, low DPS frigates, and they have the Drake. And CCP has proposed nerfing that.
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 07:03:00 -
[4385] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Their current destroyer is pretty much crap.
Cormorant IS a beast. You need to fly it properly.
OT Smithers wrote:None of their cruisers are worth flying and this will only get worse with this update.
Blackbird is one of the best(and cheapest) force multipliers in the game. Moa is quite strong if you play to its strengths. Caracal is going to become the FOTM after this patch.
OT Smithers wrote:They don't have a working HAC.
Who does? Most of HAC's are made obsolote by tier2 and tier3 bc's.
OT Smithers wrote:Their BS's are garbage.
Scorpion and Rokh have just made a sad face at you.
OT Smithers wrote:Right now, they have tough, slow, low DPS frigates,
Condor's are very widely used after the patch. I've a few in my hangar too. You should try them.
....and what is the point of all this in the HEAVY MISSILE balancing thread.
Let me put this here again:
http://i.imgur.com/SJ357.png
(3xdamage mods. nonbonusedship. Best ammo type selected for given range. Assume 720's 15% stronger as matari ships come with double bonus-less turrets (1.33*6/7 = 1.15))
This is the relevant graph. Current HML is really outrageous. Other medium gun platforms need to use additional slots (te/tc) to be able to compete in range. Where as missile platforms can use those slots for tank/ewar. New one is more in line with other turrets. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 07:56:00 -
[4386] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Javelin on medium railguns give you 9km range with all 5 skills.
Get a better hull
[Ferox, Test] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
250mm Railgun II, [ammo of choice] 250mm Railgun II, [ammo of choice] 250mm Railgun II, [ammo of choice] 250mm Railgun II, [ammo of choice] 250mm Railgun II, [ammo of choice] 250mm Railgun II, [ammo of choice] [empty high slot]
Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
66.8k EHP, depending on ammo Opt range of 137//19. DPS of 233/409 with heat.
EFT warrioring is fun [:D] |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:47:00 -
[4387] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
U have such a warped perception.
Funny you say that, because if you read my postings and understood them you wouldnt come to a conclusion like this:
Daichi Yamato wrote: the way ur determined to only compare HML's (a long range, low dps weapon) with AC's (a short range high dps weapon) completely ruins ur credibility.
..... why do you think I compare those 2? I said one is efficient in one thing (unlike its pendant on the other ship) and vice versa.
HAM Drake loses grand time vs AC Cane (and HML Drake does too, btw ..). Arti Cane will most probably lose to HML Drake.
So where is the problem? If you want short range success (which is what meta favours anyway) go Cane. If you want the better chance long range, go Drake. How can this be NOT balanced???
Daichi Yamato wrote: i've tried to explain how HML's are so much more superior to other long range medium weapons that they barely see any use by anyone, and that it is that fact that CCP and others are trying to change.
If u insist on comparing HML's to AC's then they'll need to up the DPS of heavies but bring the upper range to about 15km..oh wait, thats HAM's!! doh...
you do not understand my point. I didnt *ever* deny, that overall usability of HML is *better* than their medium long range gunnery counterparts. BUT: same applies the other way round for HAMS - they are *worse* than their medium short range gunnery counterparts.
This leads to the situation we have. Drake being worst in CC, Drake being best in a range-window of 35+ to end of missile flight range in long range.
If you want to change the second, then adress the first too. If Drake should be "on par" with the others (and not just on par in EFT numbers like DPS/range/EHP) then this should be in long range AND in close range. We are far away from that. Drone bay and bandwith, speed, fitting versatility, utility highs all DONT favour the Drake.
People like you who ignore these facts make it so hard to get a solid discussion here - you claim things which are plain bullshit (like you said I would have compared ACs to HMLs , which I didnt do for combat, but for roles!) or dont get the whole picture (HML are just one part of the medium missile combat, and as long as the other is not working as intended *I* dont wonder only one of the 2 is used. Same applies to a certain degree to medium long range gunnery, although at least I do see med arty and med rails being used from time to time. Far more than HAMs for sure. (and before you dont get it again - no, I dont compare short range with long range. I compare working systems with other working systems, and not working systems with other not working systems. Changing just one and leave the rest like it is would not bring balance to med sized weapons.)
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:56:00 -
[4388] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:There has been a fair amount of talk about this upcoming nerf on our corp / alliance TS. Some of the folks commenting fly Drakes, but the majority do not. The concensus among these folks is that these nerfs are ridiculous and that CCP is seriously screwing Caldari pilots yet again. I say concensus, but in fact not a single person thought these nerfs were a good idea or justified.
It really brings home the problem Caldari pilots are facing right now. Their current destroyer is pretty much crap. None of their cruisers are worth flying and this will only get worse with this update. They don't have a working HAC. Their BS's are garbage. Right now, they have tough, slow, low DPS frigates, and they have the Drake. And CCP has proposed nerfing that.
I quote this guy for truth. The only role Caldari have above frig size after this proposed changes are with 2 large railgun ships (Naga and Rokh) or ECM (Blackbird, Scorp, Falcon). Oh, and logistics ....
There is no real combat role left like every other race has, and some have plenty (Winmatar, Amarr).
The Caracal will not be FOTM at all, I dont know why it should.
And about the HAC thing - afaik the Zealot is a HAC which works. Fagabonds are also working better than nearly any Caldari ship. And Ishtar is not so bad either. Although its PvE quality will be crippled soon. Btw - how OP! Ishtar can do l5s solo, no other races HAC can do that ... did you ever hear this point before? :) |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
115
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 08:57:00 -
[4389] - Quote
Lets study some of the most useful combat ships in game and consider why everyone flocks to them.... It's important for this thread, I promise.
Zealot.... resistance/tank Abaddon.... resistance bonus/tank... then dps Rohk .... resistance bonus/tank.... sure as hell isn't tracking or dps. Drake.... resistance bonus/tank
All Tech 3s..... resistance bonus/tank... then dps.
Minmitar... Alpha/capless/speed
Of the list, virtually none of those get used for dps as THE primary reason... baring alpha.
Which means this game has 2 problems.... Resistance bonuses being too good in conjunction with logistics, and alpha being the only counter...
now to missiles.... 2 ships.... drake/tengu... which categories do you really think they fall into that make them OP? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:09:00 -
[4390] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
I imagine an active Golem. Tengu doesn't come CLOSE to most battleship performance without faction launchers and a deadspace tank. At which point you may as well use....well a battleship, any battleship. Oh and did I mention the ammo costs for a Tengu are up there with an AC Maelstrom or Macharial, they chew ammo like mad.
Er no. An "active Golem" (whatever you mean with that, because Golems are really never flown as passives ...) will get those numbers:
Golem: 4 faction BCS, 4 t2 CMs, Fury ammo (which will not work well!) - 650 DPS
Tengu: 4 faction BCS, 6 t2 HML, Fury ammo (which WILL work) - 761 DPS for kin, 609 DPS for other.
The Golem has drones though, which it can use for small stuff to speed up things. The Golem will have a hard time though to put on a speed mod so it gets anywhere close to the Tengus ability to make those long distance missions better/faster (same as Machariel ...).
With the proposed faction launchers Golem will have 575 DPS btw, using faction ammo, or 522 with t1 ammo.
Matter of fact is - the Golem has only a chance to be better than the Tengu in terms of ISK/h if you fit it 1) with Torps (rigged for range with t2 rigs) and 2) use it only in short range missions which have to be 3) all with short flight times to gates/objectives too. Only under those conditions a Golem might be on par or above a Tengu.
A Machariel or Vargur will always be faster than Tengu if its not just blitzing Recon 2/3, 3/3 and Cargo Delivery (for which a MWD Vagabond will be best anyway :D ). I have seriously no grief about those 2 Winmatar/Angel ships being better than the Tengu. Its like you said, the Tengu is hands down the best PvE Mission t3. But the point is, its also the best missile PvE ship which it shouldnt be, and its not there because its so OP, but because the Caldari BS and Caldari Missile BS size suck so much!
Onictus wrote: Yeah so, you guys complained until they pulled the thing that would have buffed it. I was LOOKING FORWARD to seeing what a Torp Phoon could do with three BCS, two tracking comps and a a few neuts.
Yeah can imagine .. would have been *so much* fun when another Winmatar ship would rock some more *rolleyes*
|
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:12:00 -
[4391] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Lets study some of the most useful combat ships in game and consider why everyone flocks to them.... It's important for this thread, I promise.
Zealot.... resistance/tank Abaddon.... resistance bonus/tank... then dps Rohk .... resistance bonus/tank.... sure as hell isn't tracking or dps. Drake.... resistance bonus/tank
All Tech 3s..... resistance bonus/tank... then dps.
Minmitar... Alpha/capless/speed
Of the list, virtually none of those get used for dps as THE primary reason... baring alpha.
Which means this game has 2 problems.... Resistance bonuses being too good in conjunction with logistics, and alpha being the only counter...
now to missiles.... 2 ships.... drake/tengu... which categories do you really think they fall into that make them OP?
I agree with you on this point - resistance boni are a very strong thing in combination with logi. They are also helpful for other things, but really shine when you add the remote rep/remote shield stuff. Maybe this would be the way to solve things.
Ah and one more thing which many tend to forget - the t2 resistances of hulls are also not really balanced .. some are very useful and others simply are not. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:26:00 -
[4392] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
If you want to change the second, then adress the first too. If Drake should be "on par" with the others (and not just on par in EFT numbers like DPS/range/EHP) then this should be in long range AND in close range. We are far away from that. Drone bay and bandwith, speed, fitting versatility, utility highs all DONT favour the Drake.
yeah...cane is getting nerfed too and HAMs are being buffed. how did u miss that? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:32:00 -
[4393] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I'm Down wrote:Lets study some of the most useful combat ships in game and consider why everyone flocks to them.... It's important for this thread, I promise.
Zealot.... resistance/tank Abaddon.... resistance bonus/tank... then dps Rohk .... resistance bonus/tank.... sure as hell isn't tracking or dps. Drake.... resistance bonus/tank
All Tech 3s..... resistance bonus/tank... then dps.
Minmitar... Alpha/capless/speed
Of the list, virtually none of those get used for dps as THE primary reason... baring alpha.
Which means this game has 2 problems.... Resistance bonuses being too good in conjunction with logistics, and alpha being the only counter...
now to missiles.... 2 ships.... drake/tengu... which categories do you really think they fall into that make them OP? I agree with you on this point - resistance boni are a very strong thing in combination with logi. They are also helpful for other things, but really shine when you add the remote rep/remote shield stuff. Maybe this would be the way to solve things. Ah and one more thing which many tend to forget - the t2 resistances of hulls are also not really balanced .. some are very useful and others simply are not.
Actually his list is complete rubbish. People fly Rokhs for range and EHP People fly Zealots for range, sig, and maneuvrability ("resistance??") People fly Drakes for range and EHP People fly Abaddons for dps, EHP and resistance bonus
Only the last one does his point hold, and really only as the secondary reason. The main reason people fly abbaddons is DPS.
Resistance bonuses are pretty good, certainly better than local tanking bonuses. The idea that "alpha is the only counter" is wrong however. Killing the logistics ships, neuting out the logis or the tanking ship, Ewar of any kind etc are all effective counters. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
252
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:36:00 -
[4394] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Lets study some of the most useful combat ships in game and consider why everyone flocks to them.... It's important for this thread, I promise.
Zealot.... resistance/tank Abaddon.... resistance bonus/tank... then dps Rohk .... resistance bonus/tank.... sure as hell isn't tracking or dps. Drake.... resistance bonus/tank
All Tech 3s..... resistance bonus/tank... then dps.
Minmitar... Alpha/capless/speed
Of the list, virtually none of those get used for dps as THE primary reason... baring alpha.
Which means this game has 2 problems.... Resistance bonuses being too good in conjunction with logistics, and alpha being the only counter...
now to missiles.... 2 ships.... drake/tengu... which categories do you really think they fall into that make them OP?
See this is the problem, those are not the reason for those ships being used (well the minmatar is partly right), you are fundimentally wrong.
Zealot is used because it has the best damage projection of the ahacs by a long way. (going by your way of it it would be sacreleige) Drake is used because it has the best damage projection of any shield bc by a long way. Those who can afford it use tengu because guess what, it has better projection. Abaddon and Rokh are used because they have the best damage projection of BS, though the abaddon is being superseeded by the navy apoc by anyone that can afford them as it has better projection (even though it has worse resists and dps).
Even with the winmatar its at least partly about projection, 1400s having great range so long as you have your target webbed and barrage allowing autos to project well even on hulls with no fall-off bonus. Of course the auto ships that do have a fall-off bonus are all pure win, again because of projection (hello machariel).
So ccp thinks the drake/tengu damage projection is too much and nerfs it (mainly i suspect because it isn't hampered at close range like turrets), it has nothing to do with resist bonuses.
|
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:52:00 -
[4395] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:There has been a fair amount of talk about this upcoming nerf on our corp / alliance TS. Some of the folks commenting fly Drakes, but the majority do not. The concensus among these folks is that these nerfs are ridiculous and that CCP is seriously screwing Caldari pilots yet again. I say concensus, but in fact not a single person thought these nerfs were a good idea or justified.
It really brings home the problem Caldari pilots are facing right now. Their current destroyer is pretty much crap. None of their cruisers are worth flying and this will only get worse with this update. They don't have a working HAC. Their BS's are garbage. Right now, they have tough, slow, low DPS frigates, and they have the Drake. And CCP has proposed nerfing that.
In a short term perspective, yes, Caldari's will have it a little rougher. But the ship balancing isn't ending with the HML nerf. The HML nerf is made just so that medium missile ships can be properly balanced and get the hardpoints and slot layout they need to be competitive (but not overpowered). The alternative, when an intrinsically overpowered weapon system exists, is to make all ships that use them weaker. Perhaps by taking away a high and a medium slot (for a launcher and a TC respectively) during the rebalance. Would that be more acceptable? So that Amarr, Minmatar and Gallente ships have 15 slots and Caldari's have 13.
It's not fun to be an underdog, even if it is just during a transition period. The Caldari's has enough bad ships as it is. But lets not forget the aim of the rebalancing: to make all ships into viable choices. This includes the Caldari ships. Fozzie just needs some more time. |
octahexx Charante
Morior Invictus. Ethereal Dawn
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 09:57:00 -
[4396] - Quote
using the kb stats as any kind of pointer what is an op ship.anything test or cfc is using will be overrepresented because of their huge numbers in fleets.
remove caldari aka drakes and their counters will disappear also from the field like zealots. saying that tengu is op is also weird,you risk sp using the tengu besides the pure isk cost that is way higher then a battleship cost.
ccp will nerf caldari its not that they dont understand that some people dont want it,they do,they just intend to do it anyway.
people posting use hybrids instead of caldari is just pure funny...use gallente primary system on caldari te be usable ...lol
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
116
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:03:00 -
[4397] - Quote
Doddy wrote:I'm Down wrote:Lets study some of the most useful combat ships in game and consider why everyone flocks to them.... It's important for this thread, I promise.
Zealot.... resistance/tank Abaddon.... resistance bonus/tank... then dps Rohk .... resistance bonus/tank.... sure as hell isn't tracking or dps. Drake.... resistance bonus/tank
All Tech 3s..... resistance bonus/tank... then dps.
Minmitar... Alpha/capless/speed
Of the list, virtually none of those get used for dps as THE primary reason... baring alpha.
Which means this game has 2 problems.... Resistance bonuses being too good in conjunction with logistics, and alpha being the only counter...
now to missiles.... 2 ships.... drake/tengu... which categories do you really think they fall into that make them OP? See this is the problem, those are not the reason for those ships being used (well the minmatar is partly right), you are fundimentally wrong. Zealot is used because it has the best damage projection of the ahacs by a long way. (going by your way of it it would be sacreleige) Drake is used because it has the best damage projection of any shield bc by a long way. Those who can afford it use tengu because guess what, it has better projection. Abaddon and Rokh are used because they have the best damage projection of BS, though the abaddon is being superseeded by the navy apoc by anyone that can afford them as it has better projection (even though it has worse resists and dps). Even with the winmatar its at least partly about projection, 1400s having great range so long as you have your target webbed and barrage allowing autos to project well even on hulls with no fall-off bonus. Of course the auto ships that do have a fall-off bonus are all pure win, again because of projection (hello machariel). So ccp thinks the drake/tengu damage projection is too much and nerfs it (mainly i suspect because it isn't hampered at close range like turrets), it has nothing to do with resist bonuses.
You are completely wrong.... zealots power comes from it's tank, not it's projected dps, which is pretty ****. Most of it's tank comes from super high resist combined with the logistical effect from it. Only secondary is the sig which is so easily countered it's not even funny.
Rokh/abaddon, both are used for resist...or as you called it, EHP.
The only reason the NAPOC is being used is b/c it's shear raw HP combined with it's still very solid resist build makes up for the slight resist decline when traded with the range projection that allows it to counter Tengu's...
Yes, tengu's have great range... and I've fought very hard to get Missile range nerfed and have said throughout this thread that range nerf is good for Missiles. So when you tell me that tengu's problem and drakes problem is range projection.... you're making my argument. Range alone is enough of a nerf to start. There's no need to do a triple nerf at the very beginning that isn't addressing the problem that 2 ships are causing with missiles.
But saying that tengu and drake don't benefit much more by their tanking abilities is idiotic. Even a **** build 100mn tengu still get's well over 120k ehp and silly good resist that make logistics awesome |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:21:00 -
[4398] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote:OT Smithers wrote:There has been a fair amount of talk about this upcoming nerf on our corp / alliance TS. Some of the folks commenting fly Drakes, but the majority do not. The concensus among these folks is that these nerfs are ridiculous and that CCP is seriously screwing Caldari pilots yet again. I say concensus, but in fact not a single person thought these nerfs were a good idea or justified.
It really brings home the problem Caldari pilots are facing right now. Their current destroyer is pretty much crap. None of their cruisers are worth flying and this will only get worse with this update. They don't have a working HAC. Their BS's are garbage. Right now, they have tough, slow, low DPS frigates, and they have the Drake. And CCP has proposed nerfing that.
In a short term perspective, yes, Caldari's will have it a little rougher. But the ship balancing isn't ending with the HML nerf. The HML nerf is made just so that medium missile ships can be properly balanced and get the hardpoints and slot layout they need to be competitive (but not overpowered). The alternative, when an intrinsically overpowered weapon system exists, is to make all ships that use them weaker. Perhaps by taking away a high and a medium slot (for a launcher and a TC respectively) during the rebalance. Would that be more acceptable? So that Amarr, Minmatar and Gallente ships have 15 slots and Caldari's have 13. It's not fun to be an underdog, even if it is just during a transition period. The Caldari's has enough bad ships as it is. But lets not forget the aim of the rebalancing: to make all ships into viable choices. This includes the Caldari ships. Fozzie just needs some more time.
I think thats exactly the point. Its not that Caldari are FOTM for a while now, or OP. The last thing Caldari had which was OP was the Falcon. And that was not even combat but E-war .... so yes, it feels wrong for a Caldari missile user he should get even worse stuff for quite some time because there has to be a "solid base to rebalance all ships" ... in our opinion we just need some ok ships and everything is fine. Nerf the Drake, nerf HML, but give something else for the meantime, so people will not unsub because they are fed up with being always on the receiving end.
And for those who say HAM will get buffed - we have to see if they will. And we have to see if they are actually on par then. Atm they are by far NOT.
Besides, the approach of changing HAM and HMLs fitting reqs might actually be much more useful than any other idea so far - that way Drakes *would* need a fitting mod for MWD+tank+HMLs which would bring them more in line with their counterparts. Then introduce some high velo/low dps t2 long range missile and reduce ranges for all other missiles - voila.
Maybe this is what could help. Anyway, I am not really hoping for Fozzie to actually think out of the box .... he seems to be pretty set on what he wants to do, as comparisons with hidden/soft stats from nerf v1 to nerf v2 show. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
252
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:26:00 -
[4399] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Doddy wrote:I'm Down wrote:Lets study some of the most useful combat ships in game and consider why everyone flocks to them.... It's important for this thread, I promise.
Zealot.... resistance/tank Abaddon.... resistance bonus/tank... then dps Rohk .... resistance bonus/tank.... sure as hell isn't tracking or dps. Drake.... resistance bonus/tank
All Tech 3s..... resistance bonus/tank... then dps.
Minmitar... Alpha/capless/speed
Of the list, virtually none of those get used for dps as THE primary reason... baring alpha.
Which means this game has 2 problems.... Resistance bonuses being too good in conjunction with logistics, and alpha being the only counter...
now to missiles.... 2 ships.... drake/tengu... which categories do you really think they fall into that make them OP? See this is the problem, those are not the reason for those ships being used (well the minmatar is partly right), you are fundimentally wrong. Zealot is used because it has the best damage projection of the ahacs by a long way. (going by your way of it it would be sacreleige) Drake is used because it has the best damage projection of any shield bc by a long way. Those who can afford it use tengu because guess what, it has better projection. Abaddon and Rokh are used because they have the best damage projection of BS, though the abaddon is being superseeded by the navy apoc by anyone that can afford them as it has better projection (even though it has worse resists and dps). Even with the winmatar its at least partly about projection, 1400s having great range so long as you have your target webbed and barrage allowing autos to project well even on hulls with no fall-off bonus. Of course the auto ships that do have a fall-off bonus are all pure win, again because of projection (hello machariel). So ccp thinks the drake/tengu damage projection is too much and nerfs it (mainly i suspect because it isn't hampered at close range like turrets), it has nothing to do with resist bonuses. You are completely wrong.... zealots power comes from it's tank, not it's projected dps, which is pretty ****. Most of it's tank comes from super high resist combined with the logistical effect from it. Only secondary is the sig which is so easily countered it's not even funny.
No, i am not wrong. While in raw eft terms the zealot may have a better tank than other ahacs it is actually weaker against the things ahacs are actually used against. Deimos has far superior dps/tank against drakes/tengus/rokhs and vagas have far greater tanks against abaddons/napocs (especially as they are faster/smaller sig). Nobody uses them because of the poor damage projection making them basically useless while zealots with scorch have fantastic projection in comparison. Also if the sig and projection were not important you would be using absolutions which have far better dps/tank than zealots. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:38:00 -
[4400] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
... but give something else for the meantime, so people will not unsub because they are fed up with being always on the receiving end.
if they'd rather unsub than adapt to other weapon systems, races etc then they're playing the wrong game anyways. o/ toodles
Noemi Nagano wrote: And for those who say HAM will get buffed - we have to see if they will. And we have to see if they are actually on par then. Atm they are by far NOT.
so when HAM's have a buff in line ur talk about how u need to wait and see how it works in the real game before u decide whether its justified or not, but when HML's get nerfed its 'ZOMG CALDARI ARE DEAD, UNSUB!' before u know what they'll be like? it could very well be that the HML becomes useless and then get some love back later, but right now they eclispse all other medium long range weapons, which needs to change.
|
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:44:00 -
[4401] - Quote
Anyone saying caldari have no option to pvp beside drake is a fool and don't pvp so much. That have been said plenty of times and is more wrong at each now line of ship revealed for rebalance.
For the point with the Ferox, Just look at range of new fury on bonused velocity hull, like the cerberus : oh ! 30km with fury ! When comparing something, use something comparable please. BTW, Ferox is a caldari hull, pretty ironic...
Like these statistics : a length of 5 days for statistics don't even cover a week. Who knows if there wasn't twice more drakes the two days after this selection ?
Statistics showing the overabundance of drake are stats based on SEVERAL YEARS of data. I could choose a set of data covering only 2h of a brawl between two huge drake fleet, and statistic would show than near 100% of ships flown are drakes, but that wouldn't be a proof. The statistics showing about the zealot are just that : a picture of the week. But I'm losing my time because you obviously don't have a clue of how to use statistics.
And anyway, statistics never have been the only proof of HML superiority : the fact that you compare them to AC or other ships is selfexplaining, but you don't even see it : if HML were in line with other LONG RANGE MEDIUM weapons, why aren't we seing more Ferox ? Or more arty cane fleets ? Alpha is supposed to be very powerful, and yet, we see Maelstrom or tornado or tempest fleet, but no alpha hurricane fleets. There is munin fleet though, and sometimes some loki fleets, but the most common is arty BS. But for any one of those ships, there is a drake or two flying...
The argument for this is that there is no other missile system to use. And besides the fact that a sub par weapon system don't make another one good (FC just go to another ship, or you would see fleets of blaster frigates), this is wrong. HAM drake would be very powerful, but they are completely outshined by HML. HML are better than HAM in most cases. Though it's not because HAM are bad, they are not, they only have the drawback of short range weapon systems. But HML are so much better in so many circumstances, you always have a better time fitting them.
For all the other missiles, and the large one above all the others, well, a fix would have came with TE/TC, but you don't even saw it... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 10:50:00 -
[4402] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
... but give something else for the meantime, so people will not unsub because they are fed up with being always on the receiving end.
if they'd rather unsub than adapt to other weapon systems, races etc then they're playing the wrong game anyways. o/ toodles Noemi Nagano wrote: And for those who say HAM will get buffed - we have to see if they will. And we have to see if they are actually on par then. Atm they are by far NOT.
so when HAM's have a buff in line ur talk about how u need to wait and see how it works in the real game before u decide whether its justified or not, but when HML's get nerfed its 'ZOMG CALDARI ARE DEAD, UNSUB!' before u know what they'll be like? it could very well be that the HML becomes useless and then get some love back later, but right now they eclispse all other medium long range weapons, which needs to change.
If something "right now eclipses" its pendant, then you say it needs change? I wonder how you justify there is no nerf for Projectiles as a total then, and Zealots, and most Winmatar ships ... seriously, there cant be perfect balance in a game like Eve as long as you dont give everyone the same. But if a system/ship combo is good in some things and not good in others, and others are vice versa for ME (and many others) this is balance.
You will see no more missile hulls of Caldari in top 20 eve kill net after this change. But you will still see all those Amarr and esp. Winmatar ships there ... if you feel that is good, fine for you. I dont, and I can use them all too. But I dont like unbalanced games .... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 11:02:00 -
[4403] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Anyone saying caldari have no option to pvp beside drake is a fool and don't pvp so much. That have been said plenty of times and is more wrong at each now line of ship revealed for rebalance.
For the point with the Ferox, Just look at range of new fury on bonused velocity hull, like the cerberus : oh ! 30km with fury ! When comparing something, use something comparable please. BTW, Ferox is a caldari hull, pretty ironic...
Like these statistics : a length of 5 days for statistics don't even cover a week. Who knows if there wasn't twice more drakes the two days after this selection ?
Statistics showing the overabundance of drake are stats based on SEVERAL YEARS of data. I could choose a set of data covering only 2h of a brawl between two huge drake fleet, and statistic would show than near 100% of ships flown are drakes, but that wouldn't be a proof. The statistics showing about the zealot are just that : a picture of the week. But I'm losing my time because you obviously don't have a clue of how to use statistics.
And anyway, statistics never have been the only proof of HML superiority : the fact that you compare them to AC or other ships is selfexplaining, but you don't even see it : if HML were in line with other LONG RANGE MEDIUM weapons, why aren't we seing more Ferox ? Or more arty cane fleets ? Alpha is supposed to be very powerful, and yet, we see Maelstrom or tornado or tempest fleet, but no alpha hurricane fleets. There is munin fleet though, and sometimes some loki fleets, but the most common is arty BS. But for any one of those ships, there is a drake or two flying...
The argument for this is that there is no other missile system to use. And besides the fact that a sub par weapon system don't make another one good (FC just go to another ship, or you would see fleets of blaster frigates), this is wrong. HAM drake would be very powerful, but they are completely outshined by HML. HML are better than HAM in most cases. Though it's not because HAM are bad, they are not, they only have the drawback of short range weapon systems. But HML are so much better in so many circumstances, you always have a better time fitting them.
For all the other missiles, and the large one above all the others, well, a fix would have came with TE/TC, but you don't even saw it...
Your posting is so full of nonsense, but thats no wonder - you are Gallente only in your ships, so your idea of missiles may lack a bit the first hand thing :)
first of all: I never compared HML with AC in a way that I said one system has to be same like other. I compared HML with Arty, and HAM with AC. And I said as long as AC is superior to HAM (which it is, no questions asked, even an unbonused ship like Myrm will rip HAM Drake when AC fitted) it is perfectly legitimate HML are better than Arty.
second: I agreed (dont know how many times now) that the *range window* where HML outclass medium lr turrets is too big. It should be two windows, for which we would need long range ammo (it doesnt make sense to cut HMLs range too much, since it is a long range system. If we ruin this we have no more long range system at all for missile users, which would not be balanced either) with LOWER DPS than current ammo, and cut flight times of shorter range higher DPS ammo.
third: name the Caldari missile PvP ships please which are a viable alternative atm in above frig size PvP.
fourth: no, the fix with TE/TC would not have brought what you thought it would. Which is because missiles have different attributes than turrets. And we have flight time. And we have damage mitigation by any high speed movement, not just high transversal ...
fifth: its *never* a weapon system alone. In Eve we fly ships, and they a ton more attributes than the ones you guys always talk about.
sixth: show me the numbers for lowsec, and you will see what I (and many others here!) say: Canes outnumber Drakes by 2 or 3 to 1 there.
And no, after this patch there wont be more Drakes, but less. If you have the chance to use something subpar and something above par or on par, only hardcore freaks would chose the first option, which is where Caldari will be in missile PvP above Frig. Maybe you are happy about that, I am not.
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 11:06:00 -
[4404] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:For the point with the Ferox, Just look at range of new fury on bonused velocity hull, like the cerberus : oh ! 30km with fury ! When comparing something, use something comparable please. BTW, Ferox is a caldari hull, pretty ironic...
It was the first one open on my EFT. Point was saying "OH NOES THE RANGE IS TERRIBLE [ON UNBONUSED HULLS]" is...daft |
xinthorminaias
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 11:57:00 -
[4405] - Quote
Big nerfs like this are very bad for the game. They give the impression of a poorly managed game and undermine the notion that Eve is real, and yes they will result in some lost subscriptions (this will be the last straw for some) and for what gain? IF there is imbalance, and I say "if" because the stats I've seen in this forum are not at all conclusive when taking account of real world circumstances, then the way to deal with is a way that does not break the continuity of the game. If the problem is one of Drake blobs then a far better solution would be for the other races to have better missile defences to nullify this.
An inherent feature of missiles is that they should pack the most punch, should have the longest range, but are vulnerable to interception. Defender missiles are one problem that could be fixed at the same time. (And yes I have read Fozzie's comment about them using too much CPU - I say think again and more creatively). Blasters, Rail Guns and Lasers are also weapon systems with potential anti-missile ability, especially against missiles that have been in flight for a while and their trajectory has been assessed. There must be ways these could be used/adapted such as probability based interception that would not introduce significant load while having the desired and real world effect.
As proposed this nerf is just fertile ground for the laws of unintended consequences. Please Please build the game forwards rather then trying to re-invent it. This not only makes the game more fun for all players it will bring in more revenue for CCP.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
225
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 12:43:00 -
[4406] - Quote
Eve has not had any real balancing done for several years which is why so many things are being adressed... Believe it or not but this will attract not only new players but a lot of the old ones too. Veteran players sick of T3 strategic cruisers being the subcap win button on so many levels as well as caps/super caps needing major attention not only for the people facing them, but also for the people flying them.
Viva la Revolution - Viva la balance - Viva la Eve
Obviously it would be an illusion to believe that all of this will be perfect and I already see a few eye sores in the cruiser rebalance but this is a major thumbs up for T1 ships and Im sure the rest will be balanced as soon as possible.
Pinky |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
788
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 12:59:00 -
[4407] - Quote
xinthorminaias wrote:Big nerfs like this are very bad for the game. They give the impression of a poorly managed game and undermine the notion that Eve is real, and yes they will result in some lost subscriptions (this will be the last straw for some) and for what gain? IF there is imbalance, and I say "if" because the stats I've seen in this forum are not at all conclusive when taking account of real world circumstances, then the way to deal with is a way that does not break the continuity of the game. If the problem is one of Drake blobs then a far better solution would be for the other races to have better missile defences to nullify this.
An inherent feature of missiles is that they should pack the most punch, should have the longest range, but are vulnerable to interception. Defender missiles are one problem that could be fixed at the same time. (And yes I have read Fozzie's comment about them using too much CPU - I say think again and more creatively). Blasters, Rail Guns and Lasers are also weapon systems with potential anti-missile ability, especially against missiles that have been in flight for a while and their trajectory has been assessed. There must be ways these could be used/adapted such as probability based interception that would not introduce significant load while having the desired and real world effect.
As proposed this nerf is just fertile ground for the laws of unintended consequences. Please Please build the game forwards rather then trying to re-invent it. This not only makes the game more fun for all players it will bring in more revenue for CCP.
The problem with missles is that they use to much server power, anything that conteracts missle will require just as much, hint, hint God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
195
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:08:00 -
[4408] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:third: name the Caldari missile PvP ships please which are a viable alternative atm in above frig size PvP.
Onyx Caracal/Caracal Navy Issue Tengu Rook Drake Widow Flycatcher Raven Scorpion
You have to remember that Caldari isn't just about missiles: Basilisk Ferox Naga Rokh Chimera Falcon
And so on... |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:13:00 -
[4409] - Quote
Raven.......
I'm going with LOLWUT on that one. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
252
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:24:00 -
[4410] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:third: name the Caldari missile PvP ships please which are a viable alternative atm in above frig size PvP. Onyx Caracal/Caracal Navy Issue Tengu Rook Drake Widow Flycatcher Raven Scorpion You have to remember that Caldari isn't just about missiles: Basilisk Ferox Naga Rokh Chimera Falcon And so on...
Moa is wtfbbq as well despite what some people seem to think, not to mention blackbird. Vulture is great.
Basically Raven is limited thanks to torps fail with no tackle and broken cruise, the hacs are too fragile/low dps and the nighthawk while currently not too bad (though totally eclipsed by tengu) is going to be screwed by the hml change unless it gets ham friendly buffing. The phoenix is limited thanks to citadel missiles but still has a role and the supercaps are shield tankers in an armour tankers world (plus levi has same probs as phoenix). Other than that caldari ships are pretty much fine.
|
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:30:00 -
[4411] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Moa is wtfbbq as well despite what some people seem to think, not to mention blackbird. Vulture is great.
Basically Raven is limited thanks to torps fail with no tackle and broken cruise, the hacs are too fragile/low dps and the nighthawk while currently not too bad (though totally eclipsed by tengu) is going to be screwed by the hml change unless it gets ham friendly buffing. The phoenix is limited thanks to citadel missiles but still has a role and the supercaps are shield tankers in an armour tankers world (plus levi has same probs as phoenix). Other than that caldari ships are pretty much fine.
I imagine much of the 'reputation' for the non-missile hulls stems from the days of hybrids being utterly, utterly terrible. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
195
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:34:00 -
[4412] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Raven.......
I'm going with LOLWUT on that one.
Know any better ships for structure shooting other than Abaddon and Rev? |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
316
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:45:00 -
[4413] - Quote
Ever see what a torp Raven does to whatever is in front of it?
Sure, it can't solo much of anything but as an Amarr only pilot I can assure you that is not all there is .. Caldari and Amarr has always been co-op biased with hulls that are so specialized that they need one another to succeed (how often do you see solo Zealots? ).
Once you let go of the idea that PvP must be a solo endeavour you'll realise that Caldari actually has a lot going for it; unsurpassed damage projection, ECM, selectable damage types, ECM, more midslots than God, ECM and best of all .. an amicable relationship with Amarr |
Lord Ryan
True Xero
691
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 14:59:00 -
[4414] - Quote
"DIE IN A FIRE" Do not assume-áanything above this line-áwas typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient. Nerf it cause I can't fly it. I want to fly a badass Mon Calamari stlye-ácruiser painted to match my Tron clothes. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 15:38:00 -
[4415] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Raven.......
I'm going with LOLWUT on that one. Know any better ships for structure shooting other than Abaddon and Rev?
PoS bashing isn't my typical "PvP" vision tbh |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 16:23:00 -
[4416] - Quote
Deerin wrote:Cormorant IS a beast. You need to fly it properly.
Yeah... okay.
Quote:Blackbird is one of the best(and cheapest) force multipliers in the game. Moa is quite strong if you play to its strengths. Caracal is going to become the FOTM after this patch.
The Blackbird (and all other ECM ships) are support ships rather than a combat ships. Relatively few people want to fly these things, and in any case CCP is talking about nerfing them. The MOA is not quite strong when compared to it's competetors, which is why basically no one flies them. And this update doesn't help. In many respects the MOA will become worse than it is today (see the thread for details), and when compared to the improved Rupture and Vexor it will be laughably underpowered.
The Caracal today is a niche ship, and not a particularly good one, which is why no one uses them. After this update the HML Caracal will see it's already poor dps nerfed yet again. It is possible to fit it with AMLs for use as an anti-frigate platform (as can also be done today), but it's a poor choice for the job. Fitted in this way it pushes T1 frigate dps; it has no drones; it has no neuts; it lacks the mids to fit prop, scram, web, and a respectable tank; and it's not even particularly fast. Where it got a nerf, the T1 frigates and cruisers it is expected to face will all have gotten respectable buffs.
Quote:Who does? Most of HAC's are made obsolote by tier2 and tier3 bc's....Scorpion and Rokh have just made a sad face at you.
The answer to this would be Minmatar, Amarr, and Gallente. The Zealot is currently the number one killer in the game. The Vagabond is the best ship in the game at what it does. The Muninn isnt a Zealot, and is arguable outclassed by the Nado (and the arty cane), but it's solid and some people seem to like it. The Ishtar, Sac, and Deimos are all solid ships seen often in game.
The Caldari Eagle is currently selling for SCRAP price in Jita -- I don't believe I have ever actually seen one used in game. The Cerberus is just broken. It does poor and delayed damage at long ranges, but it's slow, suffers from terrible cap, and it has a poor tank. The Cerebus is the ship every Caldari pilot really wants to fly, so they buy one, fly it once or twice, and then sell it. And incredibly, CCP is NERFING it yet again.
I discussed ECM ships above. The Rokh is actually not that bad. It's not that good either, but it's not that bad.
Quote:Condor's are very widely used after the patch. I've a few in my hangar too. You should try them.
All of the Caldari frigates are at worst okay, and some are now fantastic.
Quote:....and what is the point of all this in the HEAVY MISSILE balancing thread.
Simple. Right now Caldari pilots are pretty well screwed when it comes to the ships that they can use, and Caldari missile pilots -- the folks choosing to use their race's signature weapon -- are completely hosed. They have a few nice frigates, they have some ECM ships, and they have the Drake. CCP plans to hammer them yet again.
Post update, until the TD nerf comes in, Caldari pilots will have a solid frigate lineup and a new missile destroyer that looks fantastic. Their cruisers, currently the worst in the game, will be comparatively even worse off then they are today Their BC will go from being situationally "overpowered," to situationally average and poor everywhere else Their HACs, currently the worst in the game (and selling for scrap prices in Jita), will be nerfed yet again Their Command ships, currently the worst in the game, will be nerfed yet again Their Battleships will remain as they are today -- that is to say the worst in the game.
Seriously, this is balance?
I don't fly Caldari. CCP can delete the whole race from the game and the only ship that would vanish from my Hangar is a badger mark one. I trained Caldari, and I have a lot of SP in Caldari ships, but I realized long ago that if I wanted to play the game I needed to switch races. But what, exactly, are the Caldari pilots who didn't abandon the race supposed to fly?
This is the frigate and cruiser balance pass. Caldari pilots have nothing to wait for, this is it. This is the big "fix." And CCP has decided to fix things by making the races that are already good, even better -- and the race that is currently screwed, even worse than it is today. In this, CCP is like a policeman who finds a sex-crime victim in an ally, panties hanging off one ankle, and instead of reaching for their radio to call an ambulance, they reach for their zipper. |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 16:34:00 -
[4417] - Quote
All this rhetoric makes me sad. |
OracleRez
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 16:45:00 -
[4418] - Quote
NiGhTTraX wrote:The current Drake with 7x T2 HML launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing T1 Scourge Heavy Missiles outputs 321 DPS. With 7x T2 HAM launchers and 2x T2 BCU, firing Scourge outputs 401 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 720mm Artys and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 371 DPS. The Hurricane with 6x T2 425mm Autocannons and 2x T2 Gyrostabs with EMP outputs 477 DPS. The new Drake will only have 0.8 x 321 = 257 DPS at a 25% lower range or 320 DPS with HAMs. It becomes the shittiest battlecruiser in terms of DPS. And if you nerf it further by reducing its tank, well.... Oh and now they can be tracking disrupted? So let me get this straight. Missiles will loose some of their range, will have the lowest DPS among weapons, they have flight time and they will also be tracking disrupted? And their only advantage will remain the ability to choose damage types? (which no one does because of the kinetic bonus on Caldari hulls) Did I mention that missiles can be smartbombed or taken out with defenders? Goodbye solo missile platforms! CCP Frozie wrote:The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. No other high tier battlecruiser requires implants or gun downgrading to fulfill its intended purpose. These decisions seem terrible on paper imho. TDs will be the new and improved ECM. At least with ECM you're taking the risk of bringing the wrong jammer. If TD effects will apply to everything there's absolutely no reason to not bring one.
I agree completely, i like this guy already! think about sucky dps on missile boats (becasue they already suck in pvp, and now adding tracking disrupting on top of it?..) BTW i think tracking disrupting on missiles would really only need to be the only "change" to missiles . |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
195
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 16:51:00 -
[4419] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Raven.......
I'm going with LOLWUT on that one. Know any better ships for structure shooting other than Abaddon and Rev? PoS bashing isn't my typical "PvP" vision tbh
It is PvP. It can also lead to combat that you see as PvP. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
202
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 17:21:00 -
[4420] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote:OT Smithers wrote:There has been a fair amount of talk about this upcoming nerf on our corp / alliance TS. Some of the folks commenting fly Drakes, but the majority do not. The concensus among these folks is that these nerfs are ridiculous and that CCP is seriously screwing Caldari pilots yet again. I say concensus, but in fact not a single person thought these nerfs were a good idea or justified.
It really brings home the problem Caldari pilots are facing right now. Their current destroyer is pretty much crap. None of their cruisers are worth flying and this will only get worse with this update. They don't have a working HAC. Their BS's are garbage. Right now, they have tough, slow, low DPS frigates, and they have the Drake. And CCP has proposed nerfing that.
In a short term perspective, yes, Caldari's will have it a little rougher. But the ship balancing isn't ending with the HML nerf. The HML nerf is made just so that medium missile ships can be properly balanced and get the hardpoints and slot layout they need to be competitive (but not overpowered). The alternative, when an intrinsically overpowered weapon system exists, is to make all ships that use them weaker. Perhaps by taking away a high and a medium slot (for a launcher and a TC respectively) during the rebalance. Would that be more acceptable? So that Amarr, Minmatar and Gallente ships have 15 slots and Caldari's have 13. It's not fun to be an underdog, even if it is just during a transition period. The Caldari's has enough bad ships as it is. But lets not forget the aim of the rebalancing: to make all ships into viable choices. This includes the Caldari ships. Fozzie just needs some more time.
This is the balance pass.
How many more years does CCP need? Hell, until a year ago Caldari pilots didn't even have frigates -- rockets and hybrids were still broken. They had the Drake and fifty other broken hulls. And people said that was okay, Caldari were the PvE race, and they had the Drake. Not that folks outside nullsec blobs and mission runners actually used the Drake all that often, but Caldari had it. And for years they have been told that they should be content with that. So what are people going to say now? They gonna say "Oh, well, you have the 100dps Condor!" But CCP has more missile nerfs coming down the pipe, with TDs soon to be destroying missiles, so just how awesome will the Condor (and the soon to be nerfed Drake) be then?
Does ANYONE, outside the fine folks at CCP, actually think the new and improved Moa is balanced against the improved Rupture or the Vexor? Hell, the improved Moa is trash compared to the CURRENT Rupture and Vexor, the new super Ruppie and Vexor are gonna be insane. And the new Caracal will do worse dps than the one we have decorating so many hangars today. CCP didn't improve it with this plan, they nerfed it -- it's a cruiser that does frigate DPS, with no neuts or drones. The Minmatar EWAR cruiser will be a better missile boat than the Caldari missile cruiser, the Minmatar missile Frigate will be a better missile boat than the Caldari missile cruiser -- that's CCPs idea of balance. It's flat ridiculous.
I just feel sorry for the people who have stuck with it and trusted CCP. People who have put months or years into training their Caldari missile skills and ships, all patiently waiting for CCP to eventually make it right. People like the woman in my corporation. She is an embarassed Caldari missile pilot, that's what she does. When it comes to Cruisers, the most prolific class of ships in the game, she can fly them all, but she flies Caldari, so she doesn't have any that are worth flying. She has only the soon-to-be-nerfed Drake and the lol-Raven. And now, with this update, she has announced that she is giving up. After years of waiting she is gonna abandon Caldari and train Minmatar. And what can you say? If you want to play the game and be competetive, you cannot fly Caldari. That's what this balance pass was supposed to correct, but instead CCP has decided to make things worse. |
|
Manfred Hideous
TOHOKU 9.0
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 17:30:00 -
[4421] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I've updated this post with the 2.0 versions of this proposal. Changes are underlined and can be found described in this post. Some big sets of responses to questions about the original proposal can be found here and here.:Google doc with numbers for the affected missiles.Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread. I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible. I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.
They aren't really artillery ships when the have autocannons fitted, right?
I see the need to tweak the cane so that it can't fit the medium neuts but I think this nerf went a little too far. wouldn't is suffice to make the cane require an RCUII for an artillery fitting instead of also requiring a rig or implant? With seven heavy beams, the harb can sport a 1600mm plate and be within 1% of its PG and with the turret PG changes should fit nicely after the patch. The drake has always been able to fully fit its LR weapons and only requires a PDSII to pull off dual LSEs
As I said, I mostly support this nerf. I just think it should be somewhat reduced in severity.
|
Wrathful Hawk
Warsmiths The Kadeshi
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 17:32:00 -
[4422] - Quote
You're ruining the hurricane, i hope you're proud of yourselves for ruining the best battlecruiser in the game. And not just a little bit, by a country mile.
And i'm not talking about the nanofag cane. I'm talking the armour close range brawler.
I'm disappointed in you CCP. Very disappointed. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:14:00 -
[4423] - Quote
S4nn4 wrote:serras bang wrote:Arduemont wrote:I've been watching this thread, and I just wanted to say I am happy to see the proposal has changed. All of my original concerns have pretty much been addressed. I doubt many people ever bother to post to say thanks to CCP for paying attention to our concerns, because as soon as they see that their concerns are addressed they just stop watching the thread. So I want to take this operability to say thanks, for myself, but also for all the people too lazy to say it themselves. thing is they havent been ccp simply went away and said how can we achieve the same nerf we wanted but present it in a differant way with the sig radius and the flight time being so heavily nerfed we are losing the same dmg expecialy with the radius all criuser sized ships should have the sig radius after basic skills to lay full dmg on there class size simple as that reguardless if there t2 or not and tbh the distance nerf is to much. CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles: -Damage decreased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Explosion radius increased by 12%
The above values are for T1 and Navy HML only What does this mean for HML damage?In the HML nerf version 2.0 the biggest improvement is that large and slow ships (BC's without AB and BS's) will be hit harder (-10% damage, instead of the earlier -20%), small and fast ships (cruisers and below with just basespeed) will still have a damage reduction closer to the first nerf suggestions (some cases down to -19.6% but mostly -16.7%, instead of the earlier -20%). It's an improvement from version 1.0, no secrets in it now serras. Below is just to show where the numbers come from. No need to read it.Brief number crunching and interpretation:Using the missile damage formula and setting all skills to 5 I got these values for a +12% increase in explosion radius: -Small (below 93.75m sig radius) and slow (below 222m/s for a 30m target and below 122m/s for a 93.75m target) ships will take -(100% - 1/1.12) = -10.7% damage. -Ships larger than 105m will not have any extra damage reduction. Ships between 93.75m and 105m will see a gradual loss of damage from 0% down to -10.7%. -Fast ships (complex case with lots of calculations, just giving example speeds of where speed tanking begin for a few different target sizes (also: MWD speeds do not count due to sig bloom, only base speed or AB speed): standard frig (40m) 181m/s+, standard cruiser (125m) 162m/s+ and standard BC (250m) 324m/s+) will take -(100% - (1/1.12)^0.6823) = -7.44% damage while speed tanking. How to interpret this and how to include the overall -10% damage into these values: -Small (less than 93.75m) and slow targets will take -19.6% damage ( =-(100% - 0.9*(1/1.12)) ) -Large (over 105m) and slow targets will take -10% damage ( =-(100% - 0.9*1) ) -Any target fast enough to speed tank will take -16.7% ( =-(100% - 0.9*(1/1.12)^0.6823)) ) (-19.6% and -16.7% are ratios and not actual damage, speed tanking is always better, but the damage reduction ratio just happen to be lower for speed tanks. What -16.7% means is very hard to interpret without really understanding the missile equation and it's graphs, an alternative but absolutely accurate interpretation is to think of the +12% to explosion radius as meaning +12% to the target speed instead, meaning that from the HML damage perspective all targets will be moving 12% faster and hence see more damage reduction from speed tanking as a result).
none of witch factors in the t2';s witch is were most of the problems are not only dose t2 furys now have 40% of its range it dose have it now take a base dmg nerf. also take a velocity nerf and also with skills taken away from from explosive radius it now has something that cant lay full dmg on a criuser sized target. on top of that hame now have a smaller explosive radius than long range missles( witch is a joke now as the ranges you were capable of was caldaris only advantage) it would seem to me that something is wrong here close range ammo should be having a smaller base explosive velocity and a larger explosive radius while long range should be the oposite just my opinion.
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
253
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:35:00 -
[4424] - Quote
serras bang wrote: it would seem to me that something is wrong here close range ammo should be having a smaller base explosive velocity and a larger explosive radius while long range should be the oposite just my opinion.
You are right, it is just your opinion.
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 18:47:00 -
[4425] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Raven.......
I'm going with LOLWUT on that one. Know any better ships for structure shooting other than Abaddon and Rev? PoS bashing isn't my typical "PvP" vision tbh It is PvP. It can also lead to combat that you see as PvP.
So's ninja salvaging...[]itechnically[/i].
Point being the ravn is a fiasco in 'typical' PvP. Even in your scenario above, if the raven is jumped it dies in a fire.
I guess its good at shooting stationary objects which aren't shooting back |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
195
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 19:05:00 -
[4426] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I guess its good at shooting stationary objects which aren't shooting back
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8aX60biCE4#t=6m04s
It's just a duel but it shows that Raven isn't as bad as some people make it look like. |
Crazy Nymphora
VN Gangsters
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:06:00 -
[4427] - Quote
Wow... honestly it's getting more and more difficult to keep up with what's going on in your mind CCP...
I don't know if you are doing this to actually balance out the game or trying to mess it up to force people to spend time training for an entirely new skill set for new ships and weapon systems. Because you are completely ruining the famous Heavy Missiles. Version 2 is not getting better than version 1 at all, it only messes the thing up in a different way.
I thought you said 25% range nerf (it's already overkill), but now it's: from 33750 to 13975... it's 60% range nerf... what the...
And Explosion Velocity: from 97 to 68............. It has almost the explosion velocity of a cruise missile!!??!?! And even increased Explosion Radius??
You are really just making it worse and worse. I'm pretty sure lots of people here including me are trying hard to understand it your way but it's getting really difficult. Please be reasonable. This game is great, everyone loves it, you know it.
DO.NOT.RUIN.IT
Please. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:26:00 -
[4428] - Quote
What am I missing? The Rohk spent damn near the entire fight perma jammed with ECM drones and it still managed to kil lthe raven that was hammering it non-stop for five minutes. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:37:00 -
[4429] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:What am I missing? The Rohk spent damn near the entire fight perma jammed with ECM drones and it still managed to kil lthe raven that was hammering it non-stop for five minutes.
how about the shield booster vs buffer? |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:43:00 -
[4430] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote:Wow... honestly it's getting more and more difficult to keep up with what's going on in your mind CCP...
I don't know if you are doing this to actually balance out the game or trying to mess it up to force people to spend time training for an entirely new skill set for new ships and weapon systems. Because you are completely ruining the famous Heavy Missiles. Version 2 is not getting better than version 1 at all, it only messes the thing up in a different way.
I thought you said 25% range nerf (it's already overkill), but now it's: from 33750 to 13975... it's 60% range nerf... what the...
And Explosion Velocity: from 97 to 68............. It has almost the explosion velocity of a cruise missile!!??!?! And even increased Explosion Radius??
You are really just making it worse and worse. I'm pretty sure lots of people here including me are trying hard to understand it your way but it's getting really difficult. Please be reasonable. This game is great, everyone loves it, you know it.
DO.NOT.RUIN.IT
Please.
Yeah, they are seriously just breaking the hell out of them. It's astonishing how completely disconnected from reality these changes actually are. A case can be made for nerfing HMs a bit -- but only by a small amount, and only once they actually FIX some of the forty or fifty other broken Caldari ships and bring them up to par. But this... this is just incredible.
|
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:56:00 -
[4431] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:OT Smithers wrote:What am I missing? The Rohk spent damn near the entire fight perma jammed with ECM drones and it still managed to kil lthe raven that was hammering it non-stop for five minutes. how about the shield booster vs buffer?
Elaborate. I watched a perma-jammed Rohk still manage to Roflstomp a Raven.
The Raven might very well be the most broken PvP Battleship in the game (if not, it's broken enough that no one bothers to use it), and as part of their "balance" pass CCP is nerfing it some more. Why? Lord only knows.
CCP, seriously, what in the hell are you guys doing? |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:56:00 -
[4432] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:What am I missing? The Rohk spent damn near the entire fight perma jammed with ECM drones and it still managed to kil lthe raven that was hammering it non-stop for five minutes. Yeah, I'm not seeing why this would make me want to fly a Raven. If you can't win with that many consecutive jams, you might be flying a terrible ship. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 20:59:00 -
[4433] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote:Wow... honestly it's getting more and more difficult to keep up with what's going on in your mind CCP...
I don't know if you are doing this to actually balance out the game or trying to mess it up to force people to spend time training for an entirely new skill set for new ships and weapon systems. Because you are completely ruining the famous Heavy Missiles. Version 2 is not getting better than version 1 at all, it only messes the thing up in a different way.
I thought you said 25% range nerf (it's already overkill), but now it's: from 33750 to 13975... it's 60% range nerf... what the...
And Explosion Velocity: from 97 to 68............. It has almost the explosion velocity of a cruise missile!!??!?! And even increased Explosion Radius??
You are really just making it worse and worse. I'm pretty sure lots of people here including me are trying hard to understand it your way but it's getting really difficult. Please be reasonable. This game is great, everyone loves it, you know it.
DO.NOT.RUIN.IT
Please. The 25% was for T1, not Fury's. |
Gorn Arming
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:01:00 -
[4434] - Quote
I am kind of assuming at this point that CCP is throwing their hands in the air with regard to battleship-sized missiles for now. Bombers will be fine due to the 50% hull bonus on explosion velocity, and no actual battleship fits missiles for PvP anyway right now.
Hopefully when the balance train makes it to battleships we'll see an improvement. |
Harvey James
Prospero's Sight
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:01:00 -
[4435] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:OT Smithers wrote:What am I missing? The Rohk spent damn near the entire fight perma jammed with ECM drones and it still managed to kil lthe raven that was hammering it non-stop for five minutes. Yeah, I'm not seeing why this would make me want to fly a Raven. If you can't win with that many consecutive jams, you might be flying a terrible ship.
guys active tank wins buffer tank in one on one situations irrelevant of dps that raven can put out its not rocket science |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:25:00 -
[4436] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:I am kind of assuming at this point that CCP is throwing their hands in the air with regard to battleship-sized missiles for now. Bombers will be fine due to the 50% hull bonus on explosion velocity, and no actual battleship fits missiles for PvP anyway right now.
Hopefully when the balance train makes it to battleships we'll see an improvement.
Exactly. NO ONE fits missiles for PvP in BS-size. Thats exactly my point for ages. And thats why the Drake seems to be "overused". If you have missiles and want tech 1 combat PvP above frig you NEED to fly the Drake. There simply is nothing else.
And this list here:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:third: name the Caldari missile PvP ships please which are a viable alternative atm in above frig size PvP. Onyx Caracal/Caracal Navy Issue Tengu Rook Drake Widow Flycatcher Raven Scorpion You have to remember that Caldari isn't just about missiles: Basilisk Ferox Naga Rokh Chimera Falcon And so on...
made me smile grand time. You couldnt have done it better, thanks.
Onyx is a HIC, Scorp is ECM. Widow is not a damage dealer at all. Tengu is there, Drake is there. Both will get nerfed, for your information... as will the weapons for Rook, Cara/CNI and Onyx ... Caracal has been pointed out by others already .. and Raven is so broken its not even worth mentioning in regards of PvP. And about pos bash my Armageddon might want to have a word with you.
That video though was the best. Like OT Smithers said ... I see a Rokh (which isnt really top of foodchain anyway) which seriously kicks the ass of this poor Raven even when the Rokh is most of the time jammed ... |
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:31:00 -
[4437] - Quote
serras bang wrote: none of witch factors in the t2';s witch is were most of the problems are not only dose t2 furys now have 40% of its range it dose have it now take a base dmg nerf. also take a velocity nerf and also with skills taken away from from explosive radius it now has something that cant lay full dmg on a criuser sized target. on top of that hame now have a smaller explosive radius than long range missles( witch is a joke now as the ranges you were capable of was caldaris only advantage) it would seem to me that something is wrong here close range ammo should be having a smaller base explosive velocity and a larger explosive radius while long range should be the oposite just my opinion.
There was a good post about the uses for T2 ammo a few pages ago:
MotorBoatMe WithYourFace wrote: From Fozzie's spreadsheet, it looks like Faction ammo is the desired ammo for same size / ranged engagements. Precision for a size below, and Fury for a size above / heavy webbed and painted targets. 12 ammo choices per launcher type is pretty flexible. Even the nerfed heavy missiles will have many uses and applications. Need some more in your face damage to a BC in your face use fury.
The hard hitting T2 ammo seem to be intended only for big targets. It's like that now too. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:36:00 -
[4438] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
This is the balance pass.
How many more years does CCP need? Hell, until a year ago Caldari pilots didn't even have frigates -- rockets and hybrids were still broken. They had the Drake and fifty other broken hulls. And people said that was okay, Caldari were the PvE race, and they had the Drake. Not that folks outside nullsec blobs and mission runners actually used the Drake all that often, but Caldari had it. And for years they have been told that they should be content with that. So what are people going to say now? They gonna say "Oh, well, you have the 100dps Condor!" But CCP has more missile nerfs coming down the pipe, with TDs soon to be destroying missiles, so just how awesome will the Condor (and the soon to be nerfed Drake) be then?
Does ANYONE, outside the fine folks at CCP, actually think the new and improved Moa is balanced against the improved Rupture or the Vexor? Hell, the improved Moa is trash compared to the CURRENT Rupture and Vexor, the new super Ruppie and Vexor are gonna be insane. And the new Caracal will do worse dps than the one we have decorating so many hangars today. CCP didn't improve it with this plan, they nerfed it -- it's a cruiser that does frigate DPS, with no neuts or drones. The Minmatar EWAR cruiser will be a better missile boat than the Caldari missile cruiser, the Minmatar missile Frigate will be a better missile boat than the Caldari missile cruiser -- that's CCPs idea of balance. It's flat ridiculous.
I just feel sorry for the people who have stuck with it and trusted CCP. People who have put months or years into training their Caldari missile skills and ships, all patiently waiting for CCP to eventually make it right. People like the woman in my corporation. She is an embarassed Caldari missile pilot, that's what she does. When it comes to Cruisers, the most prolific class of ships in the game, she can fly them all, but she flies Caldari, so she doesn't have any that are worth flying. She has only the soon-to-be-nerfed Drake and the lol-Raven. And now, with this update, she has announced that she is giving up. After years of waiting she is gonna abandon Caldari and train Minmatar. And what can you say? If you want to play the game and be competetive, you cannot fly Caldari. That's what this balance pass was supposed to correct, but instead CCP has decided to make things worse.
Another posting here quoted for truth. Exactly thats the point. Caldari are screwed over and over again, they are no longer top of PvE for a while (since projectile buff/Pirate BS buff), their only tech 1 med+ sized missile PvP hull (Drake) will get screwed too - go on like that CCP and you have soon less trouble with server load :)
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
211
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 21:44:00 -
[4439] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
That video though was the best. Like OT Smithers said ... I see a Rokh (which isnt really top of foodchain anyway) which seriously kicks the ass of this poor Raven even when the Rokh is most of the time jammed ...
And amazingly, this video was provided as evidence that the Raven isn't all that bad. Had the Raven not had ECM drones the battle would have been over faster than a T1 frigate duel. That Raven melted faster than a popsicle in a blast furnace. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:07:00 -
[4440] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
And amazingly, this video was provided as evidence that the Raven isn't all that bad. Had the Raven not had ECM drones the battle would have been over faster than a T1 frigate duel. That Raven melted faster than a popsicle in a blast furnace.
Yeah well, shows who here has a twisted view on Eve how it really is and who does not. If you want Caldari/Missiles to be worst of all, then this Raven did really well. Its all a matter of what you expect :D
I think it did as poor as I knew it would do, I trained Torp spec 5 some time ago and still didnt find them useful in PvP at all. If you feel like Torps and Ravens had a role, then you could find 3 other weapon systems doing the same but just better. And the Raven hull is so broken its a real shame. Whats the description again? Something like "The workhorse of Caldari Navy ..." yeah right. My ass ...
|
|
Razefummel
SILENCE ... I kill you
136
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 22:31:00 -
[4441] - Quote
Its a shame that CCP will crush an whole Weapongroup to Dust because it has no "Turretlike behavior" just because of 2 Ships... Drake and Tengu.
Congrats ... that is logic at its best.
Missiles will be useles at all ... you will maybe see more HAM-Drakes ... but not for long. 21 Tage Trial + 450 Millionen :-á http://www.eveger.de/forum/showthread.php?20631-Buddy-Programm-21-Tage-Trial-Angebote&p=835496&viewfull=1#post835496 Der Public Chanel unserer Corporation ist: Dimension |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 23:11:00 -
[4442] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
If something "right now eclipses" its pendant, then you say it needs change? I wonder how you justify there is no nerf for Projectiles as a total then, and Zealots, and most Winmatar ships ... seriously, there cant be perfect balance in a game like Eve as long as you dont give everyone the same. But if a system/ship combo is good in some things and not good in others, and others are vice versa for ME (and many others) this is balance.
You will see no more missile hulls of Caldari in top 20 eve kill net after this change. But you will still see all those Amarr and esp. Winmatar ships there ... if you feel that is good, fine for you. I dont, and I can use them all too. But I dont like unbalanced games ....
the fact that u have to mention the zealot and an entire RACE of ships suggest that there is lots to chose from. And gallente get plenty of use, especially in hi-sec. the fact is, there is a big spread of ships and all sizes of caldari ships are seen frequently (save destroyer, ill give u that).
There is no single ship that eclipses all else (except the falcon is a ridiculous force multiplier), but there is a single long range medium weapon that renders all others impotent...
right now, medium rails and beams and arties have NO role and cannot compete (ok, medium arties do have a role) so it makes sense to reduce the overpowered abilities of the heavies so that medium turrets get a look in.
projectiles do not eclipse all else. they are good for pvp because u can swap damage types (and ppl would use missiles too if any other race than the caldari had ships that used them). But even with this advantage, u see a substantial amount of blaster boats, HAM ships and pulse laser boats in hi sec wars because close range fights are nicely balanced. (granted HAM's needed some love, but thankfully they were usually attached to a 100k ehp drake)
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Another posting here quoted for truth. Exactly thats the point. Caldari are screwed over and over again, they are no longer top of PvE for a while (since projectile buff/Pirate BS buff), their only tech 1 med+ sized missile PvP hull (Drake) will get screwed too - go on like that CCP and you have soon less trouble with server load :)
yes, the sooner u leave the better. that way the caldari pilots that are left are the ones that know how and when to use them. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.10.08 23:18:00 -
[4443] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
...I trained Torp spec 5 some time ago and still didnt find them useful in PvP at all..
can u post KM's or loss mails for this toon? or are u just pretending to have done pvp? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
195
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 04:13:00 -
[4444] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:What am I missing? The Rohk spent damn near the entire fight perma jammed with ECM drones and it still managed to kil lthe raven that was hammering it non-stop for five minutes.
- Ion Blaster Cannon IIs, not 425mm Railgun IIs - Rokh's bonuses: "Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 10% large hybrid optimal range per level and 5% shield resistance per level" - X-Large Shield Booster II
Rokh has clear tanking advantage. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 06:20:00 -
[4445] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:[quote=OT Smithers]
I think it did as poor as I knew it would do, I trained Torp spec 5 some time ago and still didnt find them useful in PvP at all. If you feel like Torps and Ravens had a role, then you could find 3 other weapon systems doing the same but just better. And the Raven hull is so broken its a real shame. Whats the description again? Something like "The workhorse of Caldari Navy ..." yeah right. My ass ...
I learned T2 cruise missiles few years back and havent used them since. Not either in PVP nor PVE. Whole ship and both its weapon systems are just useless. Cant even use them on naga. T2 large projectiles on other hand are very usefull in both PVP and PVE. Just for example Machs, Maels, Phoons nados etc all work with both long or short range and either in PVP or PVE.. Just saying...
And no im not going to spend another month to learn another useless large missile system. Even they would be nice with bomber. Id rather learn amarr BS and large lasors...
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
217
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 06:28:00 -
[4446] - Quote
nt |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 06:40:00 -
[4447] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
...I trained Torp spec 5 some time ago and still didnt find them useful in PvP at all..
can u post KM's or loss mails for this toon? or are u just pretending to have done pvp?
Eh maybe he uses alt to post here? Anyways your PVP records aint too "experienced" with that toon either.. You have 33 kills and 14 losses..
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Daichi+Yamato#kills
And yes im alt too. But it wasnt me who brought PVP records up in here |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 07:02:00 -
[4448] - Quote
Gorn Arming wrote:OT Smithers wrote:What am I missing? The Rohk spent damn near the entire fight perma jammed with ECM drones and it still managed to kil lthe raven that was hammering it non-stop for five minutes. Yeah, I'm not seeing why this would make me want to fly a Raven. If you can't win with that many consecutive jams, you might be flying a terrible ship.
I'm late to reply (video wouldnt play on mobile, "author has not made it available to mobile devices"?).
Yeah, the biggest shock for me there was the ECM drone effectiveness tbh.
Caldari do have some decent hulls (though much of their higher worth stuff flies under the ECM banner), it's far from all doom & gloom but the raven I just cannot take seriously in a list of "viable" PvP hulls). |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 08:53:00 -
[4449] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
There is no single ship that eclipses all else (except the falcon is a ridiculous force multiplier), but there is a single long range medium weapon that renders all others impotent...
Err .. no. This medium weapon is stronger than its counter parts in a range from 35-70 km. It *still* has delayed damage there, it still has its good numbers only with one damage type (and not a MIX!), so if it would be so OP, we would see 1) much more Drakes in low and high, and 2) much more kin hardeners and 3) much more ships actually using it.
Daichi Yamato wrote: projectiles do not eclipse all else.
Of course they do. No cap use, good tracking, huge falloff (which can be boosted by TEs too) and selectable damage type. They are the weapon of choice for nearly everything, and now comes the best part - they are normally fitted on ships with the best speed .... where we come to part 2:
Daichi Yamato wrote: they are good for pvp because u can swap damage types (and ppl would use missiles too if any other race than the caldari had ships that used them). But even with this advantage, u see a substantial amount of blaster boats, HAM ships and pulse laser boats in hi sec wars because close range fights are nicely balanced.
The point is, ships AND weapons together are what is going on in this game. Although speed is most probably the most important thing of all (lets you decide if you engage or not, and so on ..), all those other attributes count a lot too.
Daichi Yamato wrote: (granted HAM's needed some love, but thankfully they were usually attached to a 100k ehp drake)
And you know why? Because no other Caldari ship can really fit those, NHs PG is too small, Caracal and other Cruiser hulls are just not on par, and HAMs are so bad in comparison to their gunnery pendants its not even worth it to fit them on a Drake most of the time (even if that ship has nice numbers in EHP and DPS, it sill will not win vs its peers. Power of those other attributes, you know?).
And other races better use another weaponsystem than HAMs, because they have better choices left. That, and only that, is the reason why Drakes use HML normally. If they want to be competitive they *have* to stay a bit out, and *have* to use a weapon system which allows them to do so. And yes, this system is good in what it does. But so are large ACs, large Pulses, large Arties, med ACs, med Pulses ... even large Rails :)
Daichi Yamato wrote:
yes, the sooner u leave the better. that way the caldari pilots that are left are the ones that know how and when to use them.
Oh, I know how to use them. And I know how to crosstrain. I have every ship below cap which is used for combat on 5 shipskill except BOs.. and all weapon system which are used there on spec 4 or spec 5 too. :) but I dont consider this fun - I want to have the chance to really *use* a thing, and still be competitive. Ofc one has to look for roles. But just ECM/Logi/fleet sniper with Nagas/Rokhs is not enough for me as Caldari. And its so poor in comparison to what others can do. :)
|
xinthorminaias
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 09:27:00 -
[4450] - Quote
One of the really sad (and maybe funny) things about this is the majority of people affected will be solo players using Drakes for Level 4's and possibly wormholes. The first many will know of it will be when they find they lose their ship and can no longer do the missions they were doing. |
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 09:58:00 -
[4451] - Quote
xinthorminaias wrote:One of the really sad (and maybe funny) things about this is the majority of people affected will be solo players using Drakes for Level 4's and possibly wormholes. The first many will know of it will be when they find they lose their ship and can no longer do the missions they were doing.
Also solo players using tengus in LVL4's, Null and WH.. But no worries solution is here.. just sell your drakes and tengus and buy vargurs, machs and maels... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
196
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 11:17:00 -
[4452] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Ofc one has to look for roles. But just ECM/Logi/fleet sniper with Nagas/Rokhs is not enough for me as Caldari. And its so poor in comparison to what others can do. :)
What others can do?
For example Amarr has this "very limited roles" thingy going on in case you haven't noticed.
When you say other races have solid T1 cruiser/BC line up...
Can you name two good T1 cruisers from Amarr? I can help you with first: Arbitrator. No need to hurry. I know this is difficult question. Bonus points if you name three or four good T1 Amarr cruisers. |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 11:20:00 -
[4453] - Quote
Unfortunately i will soon wake up again.... |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage Peregrine Nation
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 11:43:00 -
[4454] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:xinthorminaias wrote:One of the really sad (and maybe funny) things about this is the majority of people affected will be solo players using Drakes for Level 4's and possibly wormholes. The first many will know of it will be when they find they lose their ship and can no longer do the missions they were doing. Also solo players using tengus in LVL4's, Null and WH.. But no worries solution is here.. just sell your drakes and tengus and buy vargurs, machs and maels...
And those of us who love our Nighthawks, albiet they were always underpowered, and spent a heck of alot of skillpoints to get command ship 5. Now we are going to be stuck with an even worse ship that cost alot of training time. This is just nonsense, fix the launchers and ships on test and then bring the changes to live server at the same time. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 12:55:00 -
[4455] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
...I trained Torp spec 5 some time ago and still didnt find them useful in PvP at all..
can u post KM's or loss mails for this toon? or are u just pretending to have done pvp? Eh maybe he uses alt to post here? Anyways your PVP records aint too "experienced" with that toon either.. You have 33 kills and 14 losses.. http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Daichi+Yamato#killsAnd yes im alt too. But it wasnt me who brought PVP records up in here first place
which ruins his credibility when he posts (urs too). he doesnt sound like someone who knows much about pvp, and he hasnt anything to support his claims
I post with my main but i have alts too, that i also pvp with http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Luhya+Saho
i dnt get to pew alot, nor am i the next Garmon, but i do pvp at least |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 13:48:00 -
[4456] - Quote
If you have any credibility for judging missile performance first hand? Yours and your alts KB show you fly mostly Winmatar ...
Anyway, facts are all on the table, so everyone can get his picture.
You and others who share your PoV say Caldari Missile PvP in form of Drake/HML is so OP its gamebreaking and needs to be fixed.
Me and others claimed the changes will render Caldari Missile PvP useless above frig size, which it already *is* ATM with the exception of Drake/HML (Tengu/HML for the rich guys ..). Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role, and this role seems to be too unimportant in 2 out of 3 Eve-Universe parts (low and highsec), so Drakes are not the most used PvP ship there. They are, agreed, overused in nullsec. Which could be changed by other means than nerfing HML. And maybe the counter has already been found. Nerf Zealots!! /sarcasm
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
196
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 13:52:00 -
[4457] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role
AC Cane vs. HML Drake
Who wins?
Oh, I'm still waiting list of good T1 Amarr cruisers. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 14:43:00 -
[4458] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:If you have any credibility for judging missile performance first hand? Yours and your alts KB show you fly mostly Winmatar ...
Anyway, facts are all on the table, so everyone can get his picture.
You and others who share your PoV say Caldari Missile PvP in form of Drake/HML is so OP its gamebreaking and needs to be fixed.
Me and others claimed the changes will render Caldari Missile PvP useless above frig size, which it already *is* ATM with the exception of Drake/HML (Tengu/HML for the rich guys ..). Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role, and this role seems to be too unimportant in 2 out of 3 Eve-Universe parts (low and highsec), so Drakes are not the most used PvP ship there. They are, agreed, overused in nullsec. Which could be changed by other means than nerfing HML. And maybe the counter has already been found. Nerf Zealots!! /sarcasm
dai is more gal, and luh was born minnie so that makes sense yeah. but i have flown all races. whilst u try to take that moral high ground, are u even going to show anyone that u've flown anything but caldari?
when u see everyone destroying ur ship it MUST be beause the race u've chosen is poor, it couldnt at all be the fact that u just have no idea what ur doing... |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
789
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:00:00 -
[4459] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:[quote=Noemi Nagano]If you have any credibility for judging missile performance first hand? Yours and your alts KB show you fly mostly Winmatar ...
when u see everyone destroying ur ship it MUST be beause the race u've chosen is poor, it couldnt at all be the fact that u just have no idea what ur doing...
Or it could just be the ship he is flying is actually shite???
Think to yourself when you're going out either solo or small gang pvp how far down the list is the drake?? God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:19:00 -
[4460] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:[quote=Noemi Nagano]If you have any credibility for judging missile performance first hand? Yours and your alts KB show you fly mostly Winmatar ...
when u see everyone destroying ur ship it MUST be beause the race u've chosen is poor, it couldnt at all be the fact that u just have no idea what ur doing... Or it could just be the ship he is flying is actually shite??? Think to yourself when you're going out either solo or small gang pvp how far down the list is the drake??
Small gang pvp sees a fair few drakes. both kill boards that have been posted for my toons involve several drakes. |
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
789
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:20:00 -
[4461] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Signal11th wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:[quote=Noemi Nagano]If you have any credibility for judging missile performance first hand? Yours and your alts KB show you fly mostly Winmatar ...
when u see everyone destroying ur ship it MUST be beause the race u've chosen is poor, it couldnt at all be the fact that u just have no idea what ur doing... Or it could just be the ship he is flying is actually shite??? Think to yourself when you're going out either solo or small gang pvp how far down the list is the drake?? Small gang pvp sees a fair few drakes. both kill boards that have been posted for my toons involve several drakes.
Yes but its not the first choice is it...even further down now the Tier 3 BC's are out. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
196
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:36:00 -
[4462] - Quote
When people realize that Gallente/Minmatar ships are best for solo/skirmish like stuff? Combat style for Amarr and Caldari is different. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 15:41:00 -
[4463] - Quote
lol only one ship can be first choice, and yes the cane is overpowered. Luckily for most folks its getting nerfed. but yeah, the drake is second choice for small scale BC roams, or if its a shield roam its preferred over canes by a smidge
Bearing in mind i probably have a different mind to small scale than u, and in most cases these will be HAM drakes. large engagements for us would be preluded by the words 'BRING DRAKES U NOOBS' |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
216
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:00:00 -
[4464] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role AC Cane vs. HML Drake Who wins? Oh, I'm still waiting list of good T1 Amarr cruisers.
If the Drake pilot isn't a moron and close into neut range, drake.
(my killboard has lots of caldari for reference) |
Losvar
The Tuskers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:13:00 -
[4465] - Quote
About time my NH got nerfed, it's so much better than using a Sleipnir with 3k dps sustainable tank without crystals, while still pushing out 800+ dps. Those damn caldari HACs and command ships are so stupidly OP!
Would be nice if they at least provided some lube when raping a lot of already under-performing Caldari ships (all caracal hulls, NH, raven, golem, onyx)
Note: Drake is very strong (borderline OP) and Tengu is the most OP ship in all of EvE, but it's not due to HMLs being OP. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 18:28:00 -
[4466] - Quote
Losvar wrote:About time my NH got nerfed, it's so much better than using a Sleipnir with 3k dps sustainable tank without crystals, while still pushing out 800+ dps. Those damn caldari HACs and command ships are so stupidly OP!
Would be nice if they at least provided some lube when raping a lot of already under-performing Caldari ships (all caracal hulls, NH, raven, golem, onyx)
Note: Drake is very strong (borderline OP) and Tengu is the most OP ship in all of EvE, but it's not due to HMLs being OP.
ROFL [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Hermann Simm
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:02:00 -
[4467] - Quote
The missile nerf will make the nighthawk a useless pile of garbage. why? With all lvl 5 skills, maximum damage t2 ammo the nighthawk does 320dps with hmls (less with the change) and has 320powergrid left or 399dps with heavy assault launchers and then has 207 powergrid left
In comparison The Absolution does 464 dps and has 722 powergrid left The Sleipnir does 428 dps and has 850 powergrid left The Astrarte does 621 dps and has 635 powergrid left |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:19:00 -
[4468] - Quote
The nighthawk was a useless pile of garbage before the missile nerfs . . . .
Once heavy missiles are back in line and the drake gets changed, the nighthawk can be looked at |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:29:00 -
[4469] - Quote
Sigras wrote:The nighthawk was a useless pile of garbage before the missile nerfs . . . .
Once heavy missiles are back in line and the drake gets changed, the nighthawk can be looked at
The Nighthawk wasn't THAT bad. P sure a fleet of Nighthawk would be able to blob a blob of art-sliepnirs EASY. SAFE @ 65k like BOSSES doing TENGU DPS. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 19:30:00 -
[4470] - Quote
Showing how ships that were broken before the changes are broken after the changes proves nothing. Even CCP have admitted NH and Cerb and Raven need work. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 22:05:00 -
[4471] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Showing how ships that were broken before the changes are broken after the changes proves nothing. Even CCP have admitted NH and Cerb and Raven need work.
The point is .. these ships do need work for a far longer time than Drakes in nullsec were even a thing to consider ... but yeah, I will just rest toons and use others. Like I said, its nothing personal for me - if ship x would be the only real option for race y and it would get nerfed I would post here too.
If someone denies Caldari missile PvP needs a ship in med and/or large size which is actually *working* then he should just GTFO of a *balance* thread. Atm there is a ship which is working in certain kinds of engagements. After this patch *those* will no longer work, and its not clear if others will. If you fly Gallente only feel free to post, but dont think you have actually an idea of missile PvP. Btw, I dont say Gallente are blessed, they are also on the receiving end for a while now. But still seem to have more viable ships overall ... and yeah, I do see the problem is also Caldari tier 1 BS is not a real Combat BS like the other 3 races pendants .. maybe things would be different then. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
222
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 22:08:00 -
[4472] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Showing how ships that were broken before the changes are broken after the changes proves nothing. Even CCP have admitted NH and Cerb and Raven need work.
What Caldari ships are NOT currently broken? All are in desperate need of some actual balance. CCP has instead decided to nerf them. And I include in this the "impoved" Moa and Caracal.
And let's not forget, they have already said that they have more nerfs coming. The TD thing might well wipe out rocket frigates, and if TDs become the must-fit module (and if they work, they will be) then things will only be that much worse.
Honestly, there is no reason to bother talking about it, so I think I will stop wasting my time. CCP clearly doesn't give a damn about balance. If they did they would not be proposing the things that they are.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 22:28:00 -
[4473] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Lallante wrote:Showing how ships that were broken before the changes are broken after the changes proves nothing. Even CCP have admitted NH and Cerb and Raven need work. What Caldari ships are NOT currently broken? All are in desperate need of some actual balance. CCP has instead decided to nerf them. And I include in this the "impoved" Moa and Caracal. And let's not forget, they have already said that they have more nerfs coming. The TD thing might well wipe out rocket frigates, and if TDs become the must-fit module (and if they work, they will be) then things will only be that much worse. Honestly, there is no reason to bother talking about it, so I think I will stop wasting my time. CCP clearly doesn't give a damn about balance. If they did they would not be proposing the things that they are. So having a weapons system that far outclasses it's peers is balanced? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
55
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:07:00 -
[4474] - Quote
You say HML are OP because they are better than their peers in a certain range window? I agree on the fact they are better, and much better in that range window. And I agree too, this range window is maybe too big. But first you have to see that paper stats are not all, there are soft stats apart from range and DPS even for weapons, not only for ships. And then this advantage of the so OP HMLs seems to be not so big anymore, you see, they work on just 2 ships .. so I say HML may be OP in medium lr, but they are not more OP in real Eve gameplay than medium and large ACs or large Pulses are OP in comparison to Caldaris peers. Nor are HML more OP compared to their peers than large Beams or large Arty or large Rails are OP in comparison to Cruises.
And second: if this is the only working thing you have AT ALL in missile PvP, yes, thats balance, even when in this one single aspect Caldari might be the best. Or like others say, balance in imbalance. The Drake has this single role, and no other missile PvP ship above frig for Caldari has any role at all. How can you call this OP for Caldari? I would gladly trade superiority in that one single role (which does not really exist outside nullsec anyway) for being on par in all combat roles with a variety of working missile (=signature weapon for Caldari) combat ships in medium and large size.
But - this proposed change (nerf) will not give this to Caldari. It will just screw what they had, without giving anything back.
And for all those who come back now with "stop comparing ACs with HML" - learn. to. read. Really.
|
Lili Lu
521
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:11:00 -
[4475] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Lallante wrote:Showing how ships that were broken before the changes are broken after the changes proves nothing. Even CCP have admitted NH and Cerb and Raven need work. What Caldari ships are NOT currently broken? All are in desperate need of some actual balance. CCP has instead decided to nerf them. And I include in this the "impoved" Moa and Caracal. And let's not forget, they have already said that they have more nerfs coming. The TD thing might well wipe out rocket frigates, and if TDs become the must-fit module (and if they work, they will be) then things will only be that much worse. Honestly, there is no reason to bother talking about it, so I think I will stop wasting my time. CCP clearly doesn't give a damn about balance. If they did they would not be proposing the things that they are. Yeah, everyone is flying Gallente. And look at all the Heavy Beam ships flying out there. And all those newly rebalanced gallente and amarr turret and drone frigs are just laughing it up against Hookbills, Condors, and Merlins. We should preserve the rocket boats ability to ignore TDs just like those turret boats can.
Stepping away from my sarcasm that just showed how ridiculous your first two paragraphs are, I agree with you that they have to be careful with the TD/TC/TE changes for reasons other than just that the mod becomes universal. The universal use of TDs could be easily addressed by giving it a base stat nerf. That addresses the current op use of it against turret ships, and it also prevents the universal use of it to affect missile boats as well.
A base nerf on the TD strength also makes the specialized boats more valuable, possibly almost as valuable as ecm boats currently are.
Additionally, the TE and TC effects on missiles have to be rather weak as well. Increased tracking currently is not going to make a 425 an easy frig killer at any range and speed. An explosion radius or speed bonused LM, HM or HAM could though. And the new missile destroyers are already getting a bonus on explosion parameters.
I suspect the valid concern many of us have raised about not creating a new TD a la old-style multispec, and the possible synergy of these new TC/TE mods with the new missile destroyers making them op, are the reasons they decided to delay the new TD/TC/TE effects. They obviously decided to think it through more. And, btw, I think it had much less to do with any complaining itt.
So you see they do care about balance it is their job. Do you really think they think their job is to nerf a fictional race of spaceships in this game? For what reason? Do they want to persecute you and laugh at you? Seriously, you think that? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:29:00 -
[4476] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:You say HML are OP because they are better than their peers in a certain range window? I agree on the fact they are better, and much better in that range window. And I agree too, this range window is maybe too big. But first you have to see that paper stats are not all, there are soft stats apart from range and DPS even for weapons, not only for ships. And then this advantage of the so OP HMLs seems to be not so big anymore, you see, they work on just 2 ships .. so I say HML may be OP in medium lr, but they are not more OP in real Eve gameplay than medium and large ACs or large Pulses are OP in comparison to Caldaris peers. Nor are HML more OP compared to their peers than large Beams or large Arty or large Rails are OP in comparison to Cruises. Large weapons are designed around larger engagement envelopes so infringing upon the smaller LR turrets is to be expected, but that is something that all the med LR turrets have to face. It doesn't give HM's a free pass any more than it does for 250mm rails. That being said if the SR options on both large and medium are lacking to the point that HM's are the only goto it means those systems need fixed, which the TC/TE and skill changes are working towards in some respects.
Noemi Nagano wrote: And second: if this is the only working thing you have AT ALL in missile PvP, yes, thats balance, even when in this one single aspect Caldari might be the best. Or like others say, balance in imbalance. The Drake has this single role, and no other missile PvP ship above frig for Caldari has any role at all. How can you call this OP for Caldari? I would gladly trade superiority in that one single role (which does not really exist outside nullsec anyway) for being on par in all combat roles with a variety of working missile (=signature weapon for Caldari) combat ships in medium and large size.
No, outclassing a role in one size while lacking in others is the very definition of imbalance. It means the ships are subpar and one weapon is OP. This isn't balance. This creates the situation we are facing now where if you touch either the system or the 2 ships that use it effectively you get the same backlash. Touch the drake and Tengu and Caldari PvP is dead since those were the only viable non-frigate options. Touch HM's and Caldari PvP is dead because the only viable choices used that weapon to be competitive.
Noemi Nagano wrote:But - this proposed change (nerf) will not give this to Caldari. It will just screw what they had, without giving anything back.
And for all those who come back now with "stop comparing ACs with HML" - learn. to. read. Really. Those comparisons are exactly what people are doing. Either comparing DPS of HM Drakes to AC Canes or comparing to a completely different tier of weapon by comparing to AC Tornadoes. I'd love to have gotten the whole package with all the changes and make HAM's and torps have greater range and better damage application without TP juggling but we'll have to wait on that (in part, the guided missile projection skill and related rigs/implants applying should help). |
Lili Lu
521
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:40:00 -
[4477] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: You say HML are OP because they are better than their peers in a certain range window? I agree on the fact they are better, and much better in that range window. And I agree too, this range window is maybe too big. But first you have to see that paper stats are not all, there are soft stats apart from range and DPS even for weapons, not only for ships. And then this advantage of the so OP HMLs seems to be not so big anymore, you see, they work on just 2 ships .. so I say HML may be OP in medium lr, but they are not more OP in real Eve gameplay than medium and large ACs or large Pulses are OP in comparison to Caldaris peers. Nor are HML more OP compared to their peers than large Beams or large Arty or large Rails are OP in comparison to Cruises.
Two ships are used so heavily because they are the best for that weapon system either in dps or isk/efficiency. Were it not for the cheapness of a Drake in isk and sp, the Cerb would look better. Were it not for the dps of the Tengu the Nighthawk would look better. They all have very good tanks.
I italisized your above quote where I have to ask what are you saying. Medium pulse and medium ac are roughly being used in equal numbers. Medium blasters are not. That shows you the importance of range. And, you seem to miss the strength of TE falloff bonuses on medium ac use.
Falloff sucks. But to have TEs give so much a larger bonus on falloff than optimal makes ac dps loss from falloff still workable. Then combine that with speed advantages falloff becomes even less of a suck. And the numbers on medium pulse are coming solely from heavy Zealot use. The Zealot is not used though for the damage being op. It is used because you can fit them on a ship with decent speed and a heavy tank (new tech II 1600 plates and sig tanking), and still have decent enough range for a short range weapon system. There is no such combination for blasters and Gallente boats. DPS projection still languishes. So yes, neither medium ac or medium pulse are op in comparison with each other, unlike HMs v all the other medium long range weapons.
[quote=Noemi Nagano] And second: if this is the only working thing you have AT ALL in missile PvP, yes, thats balance, even when in this one single aspect Caldari might be the best. Or like others say, balance in imbalance. The Drake has this single role, and no other missile PvP ship above frig for Caldari has any role at all. How can you call this OP for Caldari? I would gladly trade superiority in that one single role (which does not really exist outside nullsec anyway) for being on par in all combat roles with a variety of working missile (=signature weapon for Caldari) combat ships in medium and large size.
But - this proposed change (nerf) will not give this to Caldari. It will just screw what they had, without giving anything back. /quote]
You appear to be ignoring all the little buffs CCP has recently and will be giving to small and medium missiles other than HMs. Caldari is far from getting screwed in the frigate rebalancing. In fact the Caldari frigates are doing a lot better than their counterparts.
You keep whining about Cruises. Hell yeah they are lackluster. But that's just it. Read the OP again. Fozzie stated they had to address the medium weapon systems at this time because the current imbalances were fubarring any attempts to comprehensively rebalance medium ships, Cruisers.
Welcome to the crowd wishing they could get to everything at once. But they can't/won't. So fixes to Cruises or Torps and thus to BSs will have to wait til they get to that step. And the Nighthawk may have to wait longer since I suspect they will finish BSs before they address tech II ships (and that may start with frigs again, although I don't know why they couldn't work down in size when they get to tech II).
Lastly, I'm going to say to you again, you have to stop making assertions like "there are more Canes than Drakes in lowsec". You and I can have differing perceptions of use there, and state them. But neither you nor I can profess to have any statistical knowledge of the true lowsec usage numbers of those ships. CCP can though. And they apparently are not seeing the Drake plague as a solely nullsec phenomenon. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:43:00 -
[4478] - Quote
The nerf hammer has been swung and as usual it doesn't fix much but rather just shifts the balance around, HMs are going to be quite crappy after this patch (like all medium LR weapons except Arties cause lol Winmatar), which in a sense is balance as all other medium LR weapons are crap so HMs are just being brought down to that level.
Psssst, HAMs are going to be where its at, new Caracal can have 400 dps @ 25km w/ 79m3 explosion radius, 2km/s and 24k EHP. Like almost all other medium weapon platforms, missiles are going to be either use short range weapons (which do damage to long point range which further reduces the need to ever use LR weapons) or go home. |
irishFour
Mobile Meth Lab Monkeys
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.09 23:58:00 -
[4479] - Quote
Let me get this strait. I plan my gaming experience around the current format of YOUR game ccp, and i train heavy missile spec 5 (which i lost when podded 2 times in a row because im an idiot), get my battle cruiser skill to five, get a pimp tengu for both pvp and pve, and your changing it, and your response to some one asking "can I have my sp back" is no, its a transitional game.
I dedicated my time and money adapting to your game, flawed or not, doesn't matter to me, the game was in front of me and I and lots of other players dedicated months of training to become competent tengu and drake pilots.
Guess what CCP, i live in the drone lands, and as far as PVE content and Moon content, it sucks. It sucks a lot. and you know what people say, not all space is meant to be equal, want better space go conquer somewhere else, and take some one else 's space. Well guess what all you hml haters, drake haters, and tengu cry babies. If its the best ship/ships in the game for their classes, you should have trained for them, and nothings stoping you from training for them now. ALL this crying about the drake and tengu being too awesome, damn right its awesome, if it wasn't awesome, everything would be at the same sucky level.
Anyways, next my months and months of pimp mach skills are going to be nerfed cause it does 1250 dps at 72km. Too much applied dps and too much range, lets bring it down to 650 at 25km so it can be like everything else.
We dont live in a fair world, and its always the same people crying and trolling at the same time. the drake is too good, the tengu is too good, if you dont like drones move cause its not as good. same people crying, and getting their way.
hello month of hams I like to have my cake and eat it too |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
248
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:20:00 -
[4480] - Quote
I gave up caring what you do to HML but I question the result or goal you have CCP.
We used to have sniper fleets that worked the battle field from 249 km. Now a sniper fleet is seen as anything 100 km out. You seem hell bent on leather to make us play some hug a thug game, getting fleets to come in closer and closer. It just seems that everything you do isn't about balance, it's about being contrary with play style. |
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
87
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:25:00 -
[4481] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: You say HML are OP because they are better than their peers in a certain range window? I agree on the fact they are better, and much better in that range window. And I agree too, this range window is maybe too big. But first you have to see that paper stats are not all, there are soft stats apart from range and DPS even for weapons, not only for ships. And then this advantage of the so OP HMLs seems to be not so big anymore, you see, they work on just 2 ships .. so I say HML may be OP in medium lr, but they are not more OP in real Eve gameplay than medium and large ACs or large Pulses are OP in comparison to Caldaris peers. Nor are HML more OP compared to their peers than large Beams or large Arty or large Rails are OP in comparison to Cruises. Two ships are used so heavily because they are the best for that weapon system either in dps or isk/efficiency. Were it not for the cheapness of a Drake in isk and sp, the Cerb would look better. Were it not for the dps of the Tengu the Nighthawk would look better. They all have very good tanks. I italisized your above quote where I have to ask what are you saying. Medium pulse and medium ac are roughly being used in equal numbers. Medium blasters are not. That shows you the importance of range. And, you seem to miss the strength of TE falloff bonuses on medium ac use. Falloff sucks. But to have TEs give so much a larger bonus on falloff than optimal makes ac dps loss from falloff still workable. Then combine that with speed advantages falloff becomes even less of a suck. And the numbers on medium pulse are coming solely from heavy Zealot use. The Zealot is not used though for the damage being op. It is used because you can fit them on a ship with decent ab speed and a heavy tank (new tech II 1600 plates and sig tanking), and still have decent enough range for a short range weapon system. There is no such combination for blasters and Gallente boats. DPS projection still languishes. So yes, neither medium ac or medium pulse are op in comparison with each other, unlike HMs v all the other medium long range weapons. Noemi Nagano wrote: And second: if this is the only working thing you have AT ALL in missile PvP, yes, thats balance, even when in this one single aspect Caldari might be the best. Or like others say, balance in imbalance. The Drake has this single role, and no other missile PvP ship above frig for Caldari has any role at all. How can you call this OP for Caldari? I would gladly trade superiority in that one single role (which does not really exist outside nullsec anyway) for being on par in all combat roles with a variety of working missile (=signature weapon for Caldari) combat ships in medium and large size.
But - this proposed change (nerf) will not give this to Caldari. It will just screw what they had, without giving anything back. You appear to be ignoring all the little buffs CCP has recently and will be giving to small and medium missiles other than HMs. Caldari is far from getting screwed in the frigate rebalancing. In fact the Caldari frigates are doing a lot better than their counterparts. You keep whining about Cruises. Hell yeah they are lackluster. But that's just it. Read the OP again. Fozzie stated they had to address the medium weapon systems at this time because the current imbalances were fubarring any attempts to comprehensively rebalance medium ships, Cruisers. Welcome to the crowd wishing they could get to everything at once. But they can't/won't. So fixes to Cruises or Torps and thus to BSs will have to wait til they get to that step. And the Nighthawk may have to wait longer since I suspect they will finish BSs before they address tech II ships (and that may start with frigs again, although I don't know why they couldn't work down in size when they get to tech II). Lastly, I'm going to say to you again, you have to stop making assertions like "there are more Canes than Drakes in lowsec". You and I can have differing perceptions of use there, and state them. But neither you nor I can profess to have any statistical knowledge of the true lowsec usage numbers of those ships. CCP can though. And they apparently are not seeing the Drake plague as a solely nullsec phenomenon.
I'll add to this. There's no NEED for optimal fleet setups/Doctrines in Low security space. Also, hml-Drakes will still be very effective. The range is still intact (for the most part) and a Drake will still be doing significant damage to a cruiser.
Um!
The changes to Fury missile was significant and I'm not sure how I'll come to terms with it solo. However, in fleets it's as viable as close range ammunition in Railguns, Beam Lasers and Artillery. The damage is p much the same as it is now and with stasis webifiers applied; there should be no issue. Clearly a Drake will still have it's resistence bonus and large amount of hit points.
Anyway, a fleet commander or anyone putting together a fleet doctrine would be R3T@RD3D if they decided to throw Drakes out. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 00:50:00 -
[4482] - Quote
irishFour wrote:Let me get this strait. I plan my gaming experience around the current format of YOUR game ccp, and i train heavy missile spec 5 (which i lost when podded 2 times in a row because im an idiot), get my battle cruiser skill to five, get a pimp tengu for both pvp and pve, and your changing it, and your response to some one asking "can I have my sp back" is no, its a transitional game.
I dedicated my time and money adapting to your game, flawed or not, doesn't matter to me, the game was in front of me and I and lots of other players dedicated months of training to become competent tengu and drake pilots.
Guess what CCP, i live in the drone lands, and as far as PVE content and Moon content, it sucks. It sucks a lot. and you know what people say, not all space is meant to be equal, want better space go conquer somewhere else, and take some one else 's space. Well guess what all you hml haters, drake haters, and tengu cry babies. If its the best ship/ships in the game for their classes, you should have trained for them, and nothings stoping you from training for them now. ALL this crying about the drake and tengu being too awesome, damn right its awesome, if it wasn't awesome, everything would be at the same sucky level.
Anyways, next my months and months of pimp mach skills are going to be nerfed cause it does 1250 dps at 72km. Too much applied dps and too much range, lets bring it down to 650 at 25km so it can be like everything else.
We dont live in a fair world, and its always the same people crying and trolling at the same time. the drake is too good, the tengu is too good, if you dont like drones move cause its not as good. same people crying, and getting their way.
hello month of hams I think you need to get in line behind Cruise using SB pilots, Nano pilots, SC pilots with max subcap drone skills, and no doubt a host of others to get the cold shoulder. |
Crazy Nymphora
VN Gangsters
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 03:46:00 -
[4483] - Quote
Maybe we should just stop talking about "balance" because CCP doesn't seem to be listening and we are only feeding trolls.
So, the game changes, balance or not it's CCP's God will, we play their game, we obey their rules, just like that.
But as they said from the start, this is for the sake of balance, being honest or not, they do have the responsibility of at least making it "sound" fair, right? How about we vote for a "Heavy missile related skill points remap", or "Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk related skill points remap"?
We paid for a released working game which is supposed to be balanced. If it is broken, it's CCP's fault, they are responsible to fix it, and to REFUND. They cannot just screw things up and leave us - the customers to suffer without getting anything back, isn't that the common sense?
I think you all understand this might be already in their calculation since the start, it's pretty classic. They can make things imbalance on purpose, then they "fix" it, which is actually just shifting the advantage between players, without giving those who lost the advantage anything back, which will encourage/force those to "adapt" with their "fix". This adaptation process is exactly what they want, it keeps up the heat and people will have to spend more money on the game, that's where CCP be happy. We are customers, we fight, we troll, we kill each other, and we feed CCP. That's how the game is supposed to be "working". |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
324
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 03:59:00 -
[4484] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote:Maybe we should just stop talking about "balance" because CCP doesn't seem to be listening and we are only feeding trolls.
So, the game changes, balance or not it's CCP's God will, we play their game, we obey their rules, just like that.
But as they said from the start, this is for the sake of balance, being honest or not, they do have the responsibility of at least making it "sound" fair, right? How about we vote for a "Heavy missile related skill points remap", or "Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk related skill points remap"?
We paid for a released working game which is supposed to be balanced. If it is broken, it's CCP's fault, they are responsible to fix it, and to REFUND. They cannot just screw things up and leave us - the customers to suffer without getting anything back, isn't that the common sense?
I think you all understand this might be already in their calculation since the start, it's pretty classic. They can make things imbalance on purpose, then they "fix" it, which is actually just shifting the advantage between players, without giving those who lost the advantage anything back, which will encourage/force those to "adapt" with their "fix". This adaptation process is exactly what they want, it keeps up the heat and people will have to spend more money on the game, that's where CCP be happy. We are customers, we fight, we troll, we kill each other, and we feed CCP. That's how the game is supposed to be "working". The obvious issue with that idea is that the use of our skills, regardless of their place in the balance, can't be used unless we are subbed anyways. So what is CCP getting that we aren't willingly giving just for access to the server? Or are you suggesting that there are some who will simply refuse to do anything but train till they become proficient with another ships after these changes?
As far as the remaps, CCP obviously feels more obligated to game balance than to the perceived value of SP which should be understood as not static as balance changes can and do happen. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 03:59:00 -
[4485] - Quote
Well to be honest I don't think these changes in their current iteration are going to straight up obliterate HMs from the face of EvE. For example I run an 800 dps (with implants) HM Tengu for L4s, with this change it's probably going to drop to around 700 dps with implants and it's range is going to be reduced from 110km to around 82km with less efficiency on smaller targets and honestly I can live with that, I'm not going to sell my Tengu as 700 dps to 82km is very respectable and even gives many battleships a run for their money with other nice benefits (small sig, fast, no drone reliance etc) and drawbacks (ammo costs, wasted volleys etc)
That's just one example but honestly asking for SP refund at this point is a little premature, it's hard to tell from stats alone how these changes are going to play out until it actually goes live, at that point if HMs are nerfed into oblivion I feel it'll be justified to ask for an SP refund although what's more likely is that CCP won't give one (as that's always been their policy) and make us wait years to rebalance HMs which is what I fear. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:05:00 -
[4486] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The point is .. these ships do need work for a far longer time than Drakes in nullsec were even a thing to consider ... but yeah, I will just rest toons and use others. Like I said, its nothing personal for me - if ship x would be the only real option for race y and it would get nerfed I would post here too.
Yeah, other races like Amarr has solid T1 cruiser line up. FYI, Amarr had most broken T1 ship line up in frigates and cruisers before they started rebalancing.
OMG @ these "Nighthawk will be broken" posts... Let me tell you the one very important fact: Cerb and Nighthawk are already broken "because Tengu can do it better". |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
225
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:41:00 -
[4487] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: So having a weapons system that far outclasses it's peers is balanced?
Which weapon system is this, and define exactly what you mean by "outclasses." Be specific.
If you are talking about Heavy Missiles, how is it possible that this weapon is so overpowered and yet the majority of hulls fitting it are considered so broken as to be unusable? And further, why would you say that it far outclasses its competetors when, in fact, it's competetors apply their damage instantly, and offer higher dps at close ranges.
Perhaps the answer, the real answer, is that Heavy Missiles only "far outclass" the competition at certain ranges and under specific situations, and are inferior in others.
The reality is this: when individual pilots are tasked with buying their own ships and flying them in small gang PvP, the HML Drake is not even close to the first choice. You can see this for yourself any time you like. Just head into the nearest low sec and see what people are choosing for themselves. Some choose the Drake, it's a solid ship, but most choose something else. Drakes are popular in huge fleets. They are perfect for this role. They're easy to train for. It makes no difference in this role whether the ship and pilot are T2 or not. They're so cheap that you can build a hundred of them for what a single fitted out carrier costs, so alliances don't care about losing them.
As it happens I have crunched the numbers myself several times. I believe that Heavy Missiles are somewhat overpowered. I believe that they do about 15% more dps than they should in a perfect world. However, this ignores the delayed damage application (this alone might justify a higher than "perfect" dps to compensate), and the fact that HML Drakes are limited to scourge ammo if they want full damage. When you begin talking about other non-bonused damage types it's hard to argue that the HML Drake is overpowered at all. And once you add the new T3 BC's into the equation, the suggestion becomes silly.
But as I have said, I am not particularly opposed to an HML nerf. I am absolutely opposed to one at this time. Until CCP actually fixes some of the other currently broken Caldari ships, talking about nerfing the only one they have left is ludicrous. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
116
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 05:56:00 -
[4488] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote: But as they said from the start, this is for the sake of balance, being honest or not, they do have the responsibility of at least making it "sound" fair, right? How about we vote for a "Heavy missile related skill points remap", or "Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk related skill points remap"?
I'm going to have to agree with this.
Honestly, with the hml rebalance and with the eventual tengu nerf, it's not going to be the lvl 4 missioning missile boat of choice that it is now.
That said, the sole purpose for me to train for this tengu was merely for lvl 4 missions. I don't use it for pvp, wh space, low/null sec roams, or even exploration. I use it 100% wholy and solely for lvl 4 missions. If it's not going to be near as capable as it is now, well, then CCP has essentially taken away the only purpose for me to train for it.
So, I'd like to have my SP into the tengu, and t2 heavy missiles refunded. I say t2 missiles because if they were never usable for lvl 4 missions to begin with, then I wouldn't have trained hmls past lvl 4.
That's somewhere around 1.9 mil SP. I could totally put that towards some turre skills that I would actually use in lvl 4 missions. |
Martin0
Maximum-Overload
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:20:00 -
[4489] - Quote
To all tengu whiners. Fit a microwarpdrive and HAM. Geto colose to your mission target. Shoot. I'm running missions with a BLASTER PROTEUS why you cant use a tengu with HAM? |
Macgun90
Cold Nova Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:25:00 -
[4490] - Quote
Tech Two Missiles -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles -Fury: Increase damage bonus to +35%, reduce flight time to 50% of T1, unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes -Javelin: Just remove ship penalties -Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%)
Nice to see that T2 missles are getting tweeked but I found the reduced flight time on fury to be quite to high. I understand that some buffs will bring nerfs which fine but rather then have a 50% reduction why not make it a 25%? Personaly I would like to keep their flight time the same but to compensate why not bring the damage buff down to 30% from the proposed 35% and the improved explosion radius buff from 72% down to maybe around 60-65%? We get to keep the range but trade some of the buffing power to do so.
If their must be a universal cut to flight time then so be it but that 50% is rather excessive and I believe should be reconsidered. The idea of seeing a T2 fury cruise missle getting its range reduced to a range that would be under 100km is gut wrenching considering cruise are the only long range missle battleship weapon. When compared to other race battleship sized long range weapons they would pale in comparison. Again if the flight time of fury must be reduced please reconsider the amount you are wanting to do so by. |
|
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
117
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:40:00 -
[4491] - Quote
Martin0 wrote:To all tengu whiners. Fit a microwarpdrive and HAM. Geto colose to your mission target. Shoot. I'm running missions with a BLASTER PROTEUS why you cant use a tengu with HAM?
Yes, this is a possibility, however, come t3 nerfs this may not be possible. I believe that CCP's overall feel towards t3 cruisers is that they're all too powerful to be considered a cruiser size vessel. They out perform t2 ships which are designed to be the best at their designed task, yet the t3's outshine all of them, be it t2 cruiser or even battlecruiser.
Based on the design plan that CCP gave during fanfest, they shouldn't outperform t2's, but should be more versatile than pirate and navy. However, even then, they outperform ALL cruisers and even bc's. This should be beyond their capability.
So, expect that your proteus to also become useless as a lvl 4 mission boat. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:45:00 -
[4492] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Yeah, everyone is flying Gallente. And look at all the Heavy Beam ships flying out there. And all those newly rebalanced gallente and amarr turret and drone frigs are just laughing it up against Hookbills, Condors, and Merlins. We should preserve the rocket boats ability to ignore TDs just like those turret boats can.
I prefer Gallente and Minmatar frigates to Caldari. But the Caldari frigates are solid at this time.
Quote:Stepping away from my sarcasm that just showed how ridiculous your first two paragraphs are, I agree with you that they have to be careful with the TD/TC/TE changes for reasons other than just that the mod becomes universal. The universal use of TDs could be easily addressed by giving it a base stat nerf. That addresses the current op use of it against turret ships, and it also prevents the universal use of it to affect missile boats as well.
A base nerf on the TD strength also makes the specialized boats more valuable, possibly almost as valuable as ecm boats currently are.
IF TDs work then everyone will use them. If they do not work then there is no point fitting them on any ship. If they require a special bonused ship to make them function, there is no point wasting time coding it into the game.
Quote:Additionally, the TE and TC effects on missiles have to be rather weak as well. Increased tracking currently is not going to make a 425 an easy frig killer at any range and speed. An explosion radius or speed bonused LM, HM or HAM could though. And the new missile destroyers are already getting a bonus on explosion parameters.
Caldari ships already suffer from a shortage of mid and low slots. They really don't have extra slots to devote to TEs and TCs.
Quote:I suspect the valid concern many of us have raised about not creating a new TD a la old-style multispec, and the possible synergy of these new TC/TE mods with the new missile destroyers making them op, are the reasons they decided to delay the new TD/TC/TE effects. They obviously decided to think the numbers through more. And, btw, I think it had much less to do with any complaining itt.
So you see they do care about balance. It is their job. Do you really think they think their job is to nerf a fictional race of spaceships in this game? For what reason? Do they want to persecute you and laugh at you? Seriously, you think that?
No, I do not believe that anyone at CCP wants to screw Caldari players (and their own paychecks) over.
I think that CCP has somehow adopted a certain mindset when it comes to Caldari. You can see it over and over again, and in every ship and weapon balance decision that they make.
When it comes to the other races, there is a VISION there, and the ships reflect this. The devs put passion into it, and they clearly try to make the ships as good as they can in whatever that role happens to be. This can be seen clearly, for example, in the new combat cruiser proposals. Consider the Minmatar Rupture. The Minmatar vision is fast, versatile, high DPS but fragile ships operating in falloff. They are the Klingons of Eve. So when it came time to design the new super ruppie, that's what CCP did. They made it incredibly fast and agile, they gave it a full flight of drones and one extra to spare, the made it light so it would accelerate quickly, the gave if a utility high and the grid to fit a medium neut. And with four mid slots, coupled with it's speed, it has the option of fighting in disruptor range as a shield nano-cruiser, or going armor and using those four mids for prop, scram, web, and TD. It is, in every way, the very definition of Minmatar design.
Or consider the new Vexor. The same thing applies. It's getting much faster, it's actually more agile than a ruppie, it's gaining over a thousand extra tank in both hull and armor. It fills the Gallente vision of hull/armor tanked high DPS / short range combat perfectly. The new super vexor genuinely has it all. It's a nasty little ship.
Then there's the Moa. It's Caldari. At one time I suspect that CCP had a vision for the Caldari as well -- long range missile and rail DPS coupled with powerful electronic warfare and ECM. But over time they have decided that they don't really want either to be a part of their game. Understandable, but with nothing to replace this the new CCP vision for the Caldari can be summed up in a single word:
Mediocrity.
In practice what we tend to get are purposeless generic hulls that do nothing particularly well, and in too many cases don't even rise to that level of failure. Flying Caldari is like being a soldier in Sadam's army. You've got enemies talking up how scary you are, you've got superiors spewing BS, but you know that your tanks and planes are nowhere near up to the job and your role is to die gloriously as the star of someone's victory video.
The Moa starts out as the slowest of the new cruisers. It's also the heaviest, so it accelates slower as well. It has the second to lowest number of drones. And it starts out with the least combined tank of any of them. In other words, it starts at the bottom in virtually every stat, all the way across the board. And it doesn't get any better from there. Because there's no vision. You can look at the goofy numbers and the shortage of midslots and see instantly that CCP doesn't have a clue what this ship is supposed to do. They just threw something together and called it good. It's Caldari after all.
But like I said, I don't believe anyone at CCP has some plan that involves screwing a quarter of their players. But then that doesn't matter. Whether it's by design or indifference the result is the same. And that's what I would like to see CCP address. Not next month or next year, but now. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
216
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 06:59:00 -
[4493] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote: But as they said from the start, this is for the sake of balance, being honest or not, they do have the responsibility of at least making it "sound" fair, right? How about we vote for a "Heavy missile related skill points remap", or "Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk related skill points remap"?
I'm going to have to agree with this. Honestly, with the hml rebalance and with the eventual tengu nerf, it's not going to be the lvl 4 missioning missile boat of choice that it is now. That said, the sole purpose for me to train for this tengu was merely for lvl 4 missions. I don't use it for pvp, wh space, low/null sec roams, or even exploration. I use it 100% wholy and solely for lvl 4 missions. If it's not going to be near as capable as it is now, well, then CCP has essentially taken away the only purpose for me to train for it. So, I'd like to have my SP into the tengu, and t2 heavy missiles refunded. I say t2 missiles because if they were never usable for lvl 4 missions to begin with, then I wouldn't have trained hmls past lvl 4. That's somewhere around 1.9 mil SP. I could totally put that towards some turre skills that I would actually use in lvl 4 missions.
Yeah, I'd like all off the time and SP I spent on medium pulse, beam and rails.......the ones I've never mounted on a ship......ever back. While we are at it, large beam, I've never used a T2 mega beam.
Oh, and I have more SP missiles than you do.
Cry more, man. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 07:48:00 -
[4494] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role AC Cane vs. HML Drake Who wins? Oh, I'm still waiting list of good T1 Amarr cruisers.
AC cane will slaughter HML drake.. Unless its drake blob with logi support...
And about T1 cruisers.. They sucks for all races.. Id be willing to pew only with rupture.. Rest are crap atm.
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
790
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 07:48:00 -
[4495] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The point is .. these ships do need work for a far longer time than Drakes in nullsec were even a thing to consider ... but yeah, I will just rest toons and use others. Like I said, its nothing personal for me - if ship x would be the only real option for race y and it would get nerfed I would post here too. Yeah, other races like Amarr has solid T1 cruiser line up. FYI, Amarr had most broken T1 ship line up in frigates and cruisers before they started rebalancing. OMG @ these "Nighthawk will be broken" posts... Let me tell you the one very important fact: Cerb and Nighthawk are already broken "because Tengu can do it better".
The nighthawk was broken before the tengu even appeared, I know I flew it.
The problem will never be fixed because CCP by their own design are caught in a Catch-22 situation.
They obviously need variety to keep the punters interested so each ship has a specific role , e.g bomber,cruiser,blackops etc but what they don't expect is the ingenuity of the aforementioned punters in their ability to make a ship deisgned for a specific role into a ship doing another role quite successfully.
Thus CCP have to "balance" the ships continually to try and make them what they orginally designed to do. Unfortunately for CCP they have 50k punters all trying to make their ships do something better or faster or more efficient than CCP want them to.
It's never ending unfortunately until CCP change their mindset. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 07:50:00 -
[4496] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:If you are talking about Heavy Missiles, how is it possible that this weapon is so overpowered and yet the majority of hulls fitting it are considered so broken as to be unusable? And further, why would you say that it far outclasses its competetors when, in fact, it's competetors apply their damage instantly, and offer higher dps at close ranges.
Wait... What?
Ever tried to hit a moving target with high angular velocity using any of the long range medium sized turrets at 15-25km?
If no, I recommend trying 720s. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 07:54:00 -
[4497] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role AC Cane vs. HML Drake Who wins? Oh, I'm still waiting list of good T1 Amarr cruisers. If the Drake pilot isn't a moron and close into neut range, drake. (my killboard has lots of caldari for reference)
If the cane pilot isnt moron he gets drake in neut range as cane is faster ship.. Also cane can always burn out of point range and warp out unless its webbed/scrammed but then it would also be in neut range.. So drake aint winning crap without noob piloting cane. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 07:56:00 -
[4498] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:If you are talking about Heavy Missiles, how is it possible that this weapon is so overpowered and yet the majority of hulls fitting it are considered so broken as to be unusable? And further, why would you say that it far outclasses its competetors when, in fact, it's competetors apply their damage instantly, and offer higher dps at close ranges. Wait... What? Ever tried to hit a moving target with high angular velocity using any of the long range medium sized turrets at 15-25km? If no, I recommend trying 720s.
Id recommend dual web loki with 720's works everytime
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
216
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 07:59:00 -
[4499] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Onictus wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role AC Cane vs. HML Drake Who wins? Oh, I'm still waiting list of good T1 Amarr cruisers. If the Drake pilot isn't a moron and close into neut range, drake. (my killboard has lots of caldari for reference) If the cane pilot isnt moron he gets drake in neut range as cane is faster ship.. Also cane can always burn out of point range and warp out unless its webbed/scrammed but then it would also be in neut range.. So drake aint winning crap without noob piloting cane.
If the drake pilot isn't a moron he warpd in at 40 km and cane is in armor when it gets there.
See how this works? Even better, the drake has a web.
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 08:01:00 -
[4500] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote: But as they said from the start, this is for the sake of balance, being honest or not, they do have the responsibility of at least making it "sound" fair, right? How about we vote for a "Heavy missile related skill points remap", or "Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk related skill points remap"?
I'm going to have to agree with this. What about compensation for none-HML pilots then? All this time that heavy missiles were OP, they were fighting unfair battle. Some of them (maybe most in fact) even knew their weapon system was inferior, but refused to make yet some more contribution into turning EVE Online into Drake&Tengu Online. They deserve encouragement, dont you think?
But seriously, folks. You now have a chance to open a new chapter in your way in EVE. And you want to skrew it with SP reimbursement? Do you really think that if you manage to train for new ship and/or weapon in easy-mode, it will make you happy? Only through struggle gain we strength. So dont be lazy, stop whining - and adapt. |
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 08:08:00 -
[4501] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Onictus wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role AC Cane vs. HML Drake Who wins? Oh, I'm still waiting list of good T1 Amarr cruisers. If the Drake pilot isn't a moron and close into neut range, drake. (my killboard has lots of caldari for reference) If the cane pilot isnt moron he gets drake in neut range as cane is faster ship.. Also cane can always burn out of point range and warp out unless its webbed/scrammed but then it would also be in neut range.. So drake aint winning crap without noob piloting cane. If the drake pilot isn't a moron he warpd in at 40 km and cane is in armor when it gets there. See how this works? Even better, the drake has a web.
Then cane warps to station for repairs and warps back at 0.. Yea i see how it works
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
216
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 08:28:00 -
[4502] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:
If the cane pilot isnt moron he gets drake in neut range as cane is faster ship.. Also cane can always burn out of point range and warp out unless its webbed/scrammed but then it would also be in neut range.. So drake aint winning crap without noob piloting cane.
If the drake pilot isn't a moron he warpd in at 40 km and cane is in armor when it gets there.
See how this works? Even better, the drake has a web.
[/quote]
Then cane warps to station for repairs and warps back at 0.. Yea i see how it works [/quote]
Warps to what? Without a scanner he has no warp in. Unless you are dumb enough to sit there.
Have you ever done this? Seriously if you wait for someone to rewarp you deserve to die in a fire, much less dock up.
I thought null sec players were supposed to be terrible, what is this ****. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
208
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 08:29:00 -
[4503] - Quote
To all those little girls whining about skill point redemption because you think HML's will be useless after the patch build a bridge and get over it.
If you want your skill points back then also pay back ALL the ISK you have earned using them while they have been in their unbalanced state. You've had a great time while HML's have been outperforming the other weapons. Hell, so have I. I have made billions, tens of billions from HML Drakes in WH space. You got to use them while they were the go to weapon system and you will get to use them after the patch when they will simply be on par with other ships. Tengu's will still be one of the best PvE hulls in the game and will outperform the other T3's for a while. Drakes will still be used in large gangs in null sec and those people saying Drakes don't get used in Low sec must be blind or on drugs. I've seen many Drakes in Low sec. I've flown many Drakes in Low sec. I use them to run plex's usually and the HAM Drake is a great ship for small gang PvP. With the patch it's going to be even better.
Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 08:49:00 -
[4504] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:
If the cane pilot isnt moron he gets drake in neut range as cane is faster ship.. Also cane can always burn out of point range and warp out unless its webbed/scrammed but then it would also be in neut range.. So drake aint winning crap without noob piloting cane.
If the drake pilot isn't a moron he warpd in at 40 km and cane is in armor when it gets there. See how this works? Even better, the drake has a web.
Then cane warps to station for repairs and warps back at 0.. Yea i see how it works
Quote:
Warps to what? Without a scanner he has no warp in. Unless you are dumb enough to sit there.
Have you ever done this? Seriously if you wait for someone to rewarp you deserve to die in a fire, much less dock up.
I thought null sec players were supposed to be terrible, what is this ****.
Well lets say that drake had landed 40k towards station from belt 1. So if cane warps back from station to belt at 40k he will land drake at 0 if drake havent been moving. Also why wouldnt cane be able to use cov ops alt? If drake is near celestial cov ops alt dont even need probes. But anyways you said that drake would land 40k from cane. So first of all how did drake pilot get warpin without scouts? And why would cane sit there still in armor? Thats the same reason drake would be still sitting there when cane comes back...
And no i havent waited in armor to someone come kill me. Have you ever waited in armor that someone come kill you? Or why you started talking about it? Tought you was joking or something with that example... |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group Aerodyne Collective
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:00:00 -
[4505] - Quote
Would you stop this Drake/Cane hollywar, please? This is pathetic. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:12:00 -
[4506] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Would you stop this Drake/Cane hollywar, please? This is pathetic.
But the A was just going to tell how they use drake to kill cane they cant point that are sitting still in armor. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
56
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:25:00 -
[4507] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:[ But as I have said, I am not particularly opposed to an HML nerf. I am absolutely opposed to one at this time. Until CCP actually fixes some of the other currently broken Caldari ships, talking about nerfing the only one they have left is ludicrous.
Again, all what you said is correct. I just quoted the last part again, because it is whats making people go crazy here: exactly what you say, the problem is not the nerf per se, but what it in fact means for Caldari missile PvP. Fix HML when other stuff is there and working, and no one will complain.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
56
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:27:00 -
[4508] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:To all those little girls whining about skill point redemption because you think HML's will be useless after the patch build a bridge and get over it.
Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself.
To all those little girls whining about HML to be so OP, build a bridge and get over it.
Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself.[/quote]
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
216
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:36:00 -
[4509] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:Would you stop this Drake/Cane hollywar, please? This is pathetic. But the A was just going to tell how they use drake to kill cane they cant point that are sitting still in armor 40k away.
You said the faster ship. So can a cane run down a drake with a headstart?
Sure.
Does he WANT to, lol yeah go try it, a nano-cane is only 300m/s or so faster then a drake and has about 10k less shield buffer and Crap resists in comparison. Getting into a footrace with a drake is just as ******* stupid as waiting for a rewarp You hold that cane at arm's reach he has to swap to barrage and shoot into your strongest resist....or piddle away doing less DPS with less tank at 13km ish with faction ammo. Hurricane only puts up 600 DPS for 3km, its got a lower optimal then a BLASTER ship.
So yeah you want to go nose to nose with a cane you deserve to get screwed, I might try it with a mrym, oddly no cane will warp in on a bait myrm, not unless the have back up, or don't know what they are doing. No AC cane wants to deal with a mrym up close, they may get lucky kiting, but its really easy to screw up.
If you are in a fight that isn't to your advantage, you already ****** up. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:46:00 -
[4510] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:Would you stop this Drake/Cane hollywar, please? This is pathetic. But the A was just going to tell how they use drake to kill cane they cant point that are sitting still in armor 40k away. You said the faster ship. So can a cane run down a drake with a headstart? Sure. Does he WANT to, lol yeah go try it, a nano-cane is only 300m/s or so faster then a drake and has about 10k less shield buffer and Crap resists in comparison. Getting into a footrace with a drake is just as ******* stupid as waiting for a rewarp You hold that cane at arm's reach he has to swap to barrage and shoot into your strongest resist....or piddle away doing less DPS with less tank at 13km ish with faction ammo. Hurricane only puts up 600 DPS for 3km, its got a lower optimal then a BLASTER ship. So yeah you want to go nose to nose with a cane you deserve to get screwed, I might try it with a mrym, oddly no cane will warp in on a bait myrm, not unless the have back up, or don't know what they are doing. No AC cane wants to deal with a mrym up close, they may get lucky kiting, but its really easy to screw up. If you are in a fight that isn't to your advantage, you already ****** up.
Yes i said cane is faster ship which means cane can get in neut/optimal or burnout of drakes point range. But the fact is that drake needs to be in point range to point anything or otherwise cane just warps away. So why would drake warp cane at 40k knowing that cane will just warp away? Anyways this pretty useless thing to argue.. Soo...
|
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:58:00 -
[4511] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:To all those little girls whining about skill point redemption because you think HML's will be useless after the patch build a bridge and get over it.
Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself.
No im not going to build a bridge. Im going to build a machariel to adapt and get over it. But sell i will all my hml drakes and tengus. And the fact remains that they wont be used anymore in null blobs or pve. Some few funny solo/small gang ham drakes might still be seen in lowsec but thats pretty much all its going to be...
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
208
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 09:58:00 -
[4512] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:To all those little girls whining about skill point redemption because you think HML's will be useless after the patch build a bridge and get over it.
Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself. To all those little girls whining about HML to be so OP, build a bridge and get over it. Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself.
This would include the develpopers of the game which means that they are overpowered. If you think otherwise you are delusional and need to be commited |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
216
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:00:00 -
[4513] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Onictus wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:Would you stop this Drake/Cane hollywar, please? This is pathetic. But the A was just going to tell how they use drake to kill cane they cant point that are sitting still in armor 40k away. You said the faster ship. So can a cane run down a drake with a headstart? Sure. Does he WANT to, lol yeah go try it, a nano-cane is only 300m/s or so faster then a drake and has about 10k less shield buffer and Crap resists in comparison. Getting into a footrace with a drake is just as ******* stupid as waiting for a rewarp You hold that cane at arm's reach he has to swap to barrage and shoot into your strongest resist....or piddle away doing less DPS with less tank at 13km ish with faction ammo. Hurricane only puts up 600 DPS for 3km, its got a lower optimal then a BLASTER ship. So yeah you want to go nose to nose with a cane you deserve to get screwed, I might try it with a mrym, oddly no cane will warp in on a bait myrm, not unless the have back up, or don't know what they are doing. No AC cane wants to deal with a mrym up close, they may get lucky kiting, but its really easy to screw up. If you are in a fight that isn't to your advantage, you already ****** up. Yes i said cane is faster ship which means cane can get in neut/optimal or burnout of drakes point range. But the fact is that drake needs to be in point range to point anything or otherwise cane just warps away. So why would drake warp cane at 40k knowing that cane will just warp away? Anyways this pretty useless thing to argue.. Soo...
Engaging a close range ship inside point range is pretty stupid anyway. Warp at range and see if he bites, if he does you win if he warps you didn't lose anything.
Fortunately solo is a small part of the game.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
216
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:07:00 -
[4514] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:To all those little girls whining about skill point redemption because you think HML's will be useless after the patch build a bridge and get over it.
Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself. No im not going to build a bridge. Im going to build a machariel to adapt and get over it. But sell i will all my hml drakes and tengus. And the fact remains that they wont be used anymore in null blobs or pve. Some few funny solo/small gang ham drakes might still be seen in lowsec but thats pretty much all its going to be...
That is the point most like drake was stepping into battleship shoes.
That is what the are trying to stop.
HAM Drakes aren't terrible and HAM Tengus are bloody mean. |
HELLBOUNDMAN
The Proletarii
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:12:00 -
[4515] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Yeah, I'd like all off the time and SP I spent on medium pulse, beam and rails.......the ones I've never mounted on a ship......ever back. While we are at it, large beam, I've never used a T2 mega beam.
Oh, and I have more SP missiles than you do.
Cry more, man.
I've got almost 9mil sp in missiles and am trained for t2 hmls, cruise, and torps. Pretty much all my missile support skills are at 5.
Now, as far as the rest of your comment, you trained those skills for a certain reason, the fact that you changed that reason and/or aborted that purpose is none of my concern.
However, I trained certain skills and it is CCP that is removing the purpose for training those skills, not myself.
You argue and entirely different point. You use an example of wanting a refund because you don't use those skills.
However, the truth with me is I want a refund because CCP has removed the use I have for those skills.
Two totally different things.
Quote:What about compensation for none-HML pilots then? All this time that heavy missiles were OP, they were fighting unfair battle. Some of them (maybe most in fact) even knew their weapon system was inferior, but refused to make yet some more contribution into turning EVE Online into Drake&Tengu Online. They deserve encouragement, dont you think?
But seriously, folks. You now have a chance to open a new chapter in your way in EVE. And you want to skrew it with SP reimbursement? Do you really think that if you manage to train for new ship and/or weapon in easy-mode, it will make you happy? Only through struggle gain we strength. So dont be lazy, stop whining - and adapt.
Sure, you can have compensation for none-hml pilots as soon as the users of every other missile system in game gets compensated for being under powered compared to virtually every other weapon system in game.
Also, you compare it as though the hml is so superior to others, yet the only reason th drake is even a viable option is due to its EHP. If the drake didn't have double the standard EHP of other bc's, no one would fly it.
Now the tengu is a freak of nature. It's capable of fitting a 100mn afterburner, a significant dps, and a solid tank all at the same time. So, yeah, it's a bit hard to beat. Now, as far as compensation for losing to a tengu, well, write a petition to CCP. You lost your ship/s due to game issues beyond your control, so technically they should replace it. They won't, but they should.. This is beyond my control as a player.
As far as the whole "New chapter" part. To you it may be a new chapter.
To me it's the removal of a chapter.
They're removing the tengu as a viable opton in lvl 4 missions. Not just with this hml nerf, but also with the up and coming t3 nerfs which will surely see the nerfing of the tengu if not all 4 t3's.
However, even with just this missile nerf I'm losing the effectiveness from the tengu that is the only reason why I trained it over another ship. I've flown and trained for every possible missile boat above a tengu and nothing outperforms it partly due to the tengu being OP, but also because missile boat bs's are subpar to bs turret boats in just about every way.
So, I will see removal of the tengu as the top tier missile boat for lvl 4 missioners, but will also NOT see the rebalance of a single missile boat bs in order to compensate. This means if I want comperable efficiency to what I had with the tengu, I'm going to have to cross train for a turret boat, and probably take a large hit because no one is going to want a tengu built for lvl 4 missions anymore. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
216
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 10:16:00 -
[4516] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Onictus wrote:
Yeah, I'd like all off the time and SP I spent on medium pulse, beam and rails.......the ones I've never mounted on a ship......ever back. While we are at it, large beam, I've never used a T2 mega beam.
Oh, and I have more SP missiles than you do.
Cry more, man.
I've got almost 9mil sp in missiles and am trained for t2 hmls, cruise, and torps. Pretty much all my missile support skills are at 5. Now, as far as the rest of your comment, you trained those skills for a certain reason, the fact that you changed that reason and/or aborted that purpose is none of my concern. However, I trained certain skills and it is CCP that is removing the purpose for training those skills, not myself. You argue and entirely different point. You use an example of wanting a refund because you don't use those skills. However, the truth with me is I want a refund because CCP has removed the use I have for those skills. Two totally different things. Quote:What about compensation for none-HML pilots then? All this time that heavy missiles were OP, they were fighting unfair battle. Some of them (maybe most in fact) even knew their weapon system was inferior, but refused to make yet some more contribution into turning EVE Online into Drake&Tengu Online. They deserve encouragement, dont you think?
But seriously, folks. You now have a chance to open a new chapter in your way in EVE. And you want to skrew it with SP reimbursement? Do you really think that if you manage to train for new ship and/or weapon in easy-mode, it will make you happy? Only through struggle gain we strength. So dont be lazy, stop whining - and adapt. Sure, you can have compensation for none-hml pilots as soon as the users of every other missile system in game gets compensated for being under powered compared to virtually every other weapon system in game. Also, you compare it as though the hml is so superior to others, yet the only reason th drake is even a viable option is due to its EHP. If the drake didn't have double the standard EHP of other bc's, no one would fly it. Now the tengu is a freak of nature. It's capable of fitting a 100mn afterburner, a significant dps, and a solid tank all at the same time. So, yeah, it's a bit hard to beat. Now, as far as compensation for losing to a tengu, well, write a petition to CCP. You lost your ship/s due to game issues beyond your control, so technically they should replace it. They won't, but they should.. This is beyond my control as a player. As far as the whole "New chapter" part. To you it may be a new chapter. To me it's the removal of a chapter. They're removing the tengu as a viable opton in lvl 4 missions. Not just with this hml nerf, but also with the up and coming t3 nerfs which will surely see the nerfing of the tengu if not all 4 t3's. However, even with just this missile nerf I'm losing the effectiveness from the tengu that is the only reason why I trained it over another ship. I've flown and trained for every possible missile boat above a tengu and nothing outperforms it partly due to the tengu being OP, but also because missile boat bs's are subpar to bs turret boats in just about every way. So, I will see removal of the tengu as the top tier missile boat for lvl 4 missioners, but will also NOT see the rebalance of a single missile boat bs in order to compensate. This means if I want comperable efficiency to what I had with the tengu, I'm going to have to cross train for a turret boat, and probably take a large hit because no one is going to want a tengu built for lvl 4 missions anymore.
65km with a hamgu works for null statics, it'll wreck level 4s
For the sorry you suck at 8 th grade math, the damage calculation isnt hard.
|
Veschenko
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 11:07:00 -
[4517] - Quote
/me starts training Gunnery |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 11:56:00 -
[4518] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:OT Smithers wrote:[ But as I have said, I am not particularly opposed to an HML nerf. I am absolutely opposed to one at this time. Until CCP actually fixes some of the other currently broken Caldari ships, talking about nerfing the only one they have left is ludicrous. Again, all what you said is correct. I just quoted the last part again, because it is whats making people go crazy here: exactly what you say, the problem is not the nerf per se, but what it in fact means for Caldari missile PvP. Fix HML when other stuff is there and working, and no one will complain. Just have a look at, well, all the other sub BS missile systems, and all the caldari missile hulls the are being rebalanced. Caldari are having the high end of the rebalance pass, and you are completely ignoring it. Missile frigates never had any problem BTW, the fact you say the opposite is meaningful...
But even worse : cruise and torp would have be mainly fixed if the TE/TC thing would have go through, and other missiles systems would have had an amazing buff, but everyone cried in fear of TD. Retards they were, and you are paying the price now. But HML need to be rebalanced anyway, CCP know it, and most players know it. The only ones complaining here don't understand anything or are dishonnest (or both...) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 12:44:00 -
[4519] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Fix HML when other stuff is there and working, and no one will complain.
Do you want them to balance ships now and missiles later?
That would mean missiles would be balanced after all subcaps are rebalanced. That's quite long time to wait...
Of course they can't balance ships before weapon system those ships use is in line with other weapon systems in same class.
HAMs still work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSoFCC26KGw
Oversized ABs too until they rebalance T3s (probably last subcap ship class). |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 13:14:00 -
[4520] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:To all those little girls whining about skill point redemption because you think HML's will be useless after the patch build a bridge and get over it.
Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself. To all those little girls whining about HML to be so OP, build a bridge and get over it. Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself.
u cried bro.
we just tried to explain CCP's thinking to u |
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 14:19:00 -
[4521] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Fix HML when other stuff is there and working, and no one will complain.
HAMs still work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSoFCC26KGwOversized ABs too until they rebalance T3s (probably last subcap ship class).
Thats nice vid.. But why is it bad thing that T3 can fit 100mn AB? Thats the whole point of T3 imho. That you can modify it with subsystems to be unique in the ways T1 and T2 hulls never can be. You want T3's to just be low sig battlecruisers or what? Or you want everyone to fly with similar ships without ability to modify them for your needs? Like microwave meals you can always add ketchup to them but their still just microwave meals..
100mn AB T3's are part of this game and they shouldnt be removed is my opinion..
|
Lili Lu
523
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:15:00 -
[4522] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:To all those little girls whining about skill point redemption because you think HML's will be useless after the patch build a bridge and get over it.
Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself. To all those little girls whining about HML to be so OP, build a bridge and get over it. Suck it up. Stop moaning. Adapt, or do us all a favour and biomass yourself. u cried bro. we just tried to explain CCP's thinking to u Precisely this. And Noemi is doing his crying on a posting alt. Poor thing.
edit- And I love the constant deflection saying "but but the Cane is really the op ship," meanwhile totally ignoring the fact that in the OP the Cane GOT NERFED DIRECTLY. You've now got nothing to deflect attention to, oh no! |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 15:24:00 -
[4523] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Onictus wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Those 2 ships are not breaking the game IMO, they are just good in a role AC Cane vs. HML Drake Who wins? Oh, I'm still waiting list of good T1 Amarr cruisers. If the Drake pilot isn't a moron and close into neut range, drake. (my killboard has lots of caldari for reference) If the cane pilot isnt moron he gets drake in neut range as cane is faster ship.. Also cane can always burn out of point range and warp out unless its webbed/scrammed but then it would also be in neut range.. So drake aint winning crap without noob piloting cane. If the drake pilot isn't a moron he warpd in at 40 km and cane is in armor when it gets there. See how this works? Even better, the drake has a web.
It sounds like both of you are describing something I like to call...
Balance. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:05:00 -
[4524] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:edit- And I love the constant deflection saying "but but the Cane is really the op ship," meanwhile totally ignoring the fact that in the OP the Cane GOT NERFED DIRECTLY. You've now got nothing to deflect attention to, oh no!
Bye bye dual med neut 425mm Cane. We will not miss you. |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 17:34:00 -
[4525] - Quote
Still irritated by the Hurricane PG nerf. It just doesn't make sense.
Problem:
Medium artilleries are hard to fit. Ships which use Medium ACs get a lot of spare PG.
Sensible solution:
Decrease medium artillery PG uses by 10%. Increase medium AC uses by x%.
Both problems are solved.
CCP solution:
Decrease medium artillery PG uses by 10%. Nerf Hurricane PG.
So now it's actually harder to fit medium artilleries than it was before. You do realise people will just drop the ACs down to 180mms and not actually make a huge difference, right?
Derp.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 18:09:00 -
[4526] - Quote
what they were saying is that the hurricane had too much PG (able to fit 720s and a MWD without a fitting mod) relative to how much 720s cost, so theyre making arty cost less for everything else and MORE for the cane as it already had too much grid. |
The Bazzalisk
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 18:18:00 -
[4527] - Quote
Sigras wrote:what they were saying is that the hurricane had too much PG (able to fit 720s and a MWD without a fitting mod) relative to how much 720s cost, so theyre making arty cost less for everything else and MORE for the cane as it already had too much grid. You might want to fit some tank on there, buddy. Also some supplementary dps to counter the fact that artillery cannons have the lowest dps of all the long range weapons platforms might be nice.
But let's just discount those facts and say that the Hurricane has too much PG simply because it can fit an MWD and 6 720s without a fitting mod. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 18:27:00 -
[4528] - Quote
Just so we are all aware, CCP Fozzie hasn't commented on this thread in the last ten days.
This is not a criticism, there is nothing to be said. He plans to nerf HMs and some other missiles.
Some players think this is a fantastic idea, others disagree.
My personal opinion is that this is a VERY bad idea at this time. I have seen quite a few people talking about this in game, and so far I have yet to see anyone praising this as a good idea. And these are not Drake pilots. I live in low sec, so Drakes are not as common as other ships, and a nerf like this doesn't really hurt these folks. Yet every single person I have seen talking about this, every freaking one of them, all apparently think that this proposal is ridiculous. For what it's worth.
I think that CCP needs to take a GIANT step back, fix the other Caldari ships, and then see where things stand.
With this Winter Update they need to rethink the Moa, come up with some concept that will actually make people want to fly it, and then built it around that. This will sound shocking, and a RADICAL departure from the norm, but CCP needs to make the Moa not poor or mediocre (as is typical for Caldari), nor good, but great. Pretend that it's Minmatar, or Gallente, and make it a ship that Caldari players are eager to fly.
Make it so good that the players from other races actually consider cross-training into Caldari just so they can use it. You know, the way you do with the other races, only this time it will be Caldari. Do the same with the new Caracal. Just forget that it's Caldari and design it the way you would if it were some other race. Make it cool and exciting, then see what happens.
Then move on to other Caldari ships. Fix their Battleships, fix their HACs and Command Ships and Interdictors. Make them the kind of ships that everyone wants to fly. Make them so good that Caldari pilots currently training some other race (in other words, all of them) momentarily regret the time they didn't invest into their own. You know... balance for everyone, including the Caldari. It's novel, it's a radical departure, but I think it's an idea whose time has come!
THEN, and only then, take a look at see where HM Drakes stand, and if they need a nerf go for it. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 18:32:00 -
[4529] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:Sigras wrote:what they were saying is that the hurricane had too much PG (able to fit 720s and a MWD without a fitting mod) relative to how much 720s cost, so theyre making arty cost less for everything else and MORE for the cane as it already had too much grid. You might want to fit some tank on there, buddy. Also some supplementary dps to counter the fact that artillery cannons have the lowest dps of all the long range weapons platforms might be nice. But let's just discount those facts and say that the Hurricane has too much PG simply because it can fit an MWD and 6 720s without a fitting mod. Now, with the artillery PG buff and the Hurricane PG nerf, it will be even harder to fit 720s to a Hurricane. Obviously that means they will get used more, right guys? Medium artilleries are not used for two main reasons: a) The main attraction of an artillery is its alpha. Medium artilleries - both 650 and 720 have pretty **** poor alpha. b) They're hard to fit to pretty much everything. And yet making them harder to fit to Hurricanes seems like a good idea? Lol
A nano cane fitting T2 650's can do so with no fitting mods or rigs, provided it downgrades the twin neuts to smalls. Swapping one extender rig to an Ancil Power allows you to swap one small neut for a medium.
The 650 arty cane is the ship I fly more than any other. I like the added damage it gives over the 425s in the 20km plus range. This change really doesn't matter to me all that much. Either way it will be a fantastic ship. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 19:00:00 -
[4530] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: With this Winter Update they need to rethink the Moa, come up with some concept that will actually make people want to fly it, and then built it around that. This will sound shocking, and a RADICAL departure from the norm, but CCP needs to make the Moa not poor or mediocre (as is typical for Caldari), nor good, but great. Pretend that it's Minmatar, or Gallente, and make it a ship that Caldari players are eager to fly.
Make it so good that the players from other races actually consider cross-training into Caldari just so they can use it. You know, the way you do with the other races, only this time it will be Caldari. Do the same with the new Caracal. Just forget that it's Caldari and design it the way you would if it were some other race. Make it cool and exciting, then see what happens.
Then move on to other Caldari ships. Fix their Battleships, fix their HACs and Command Ships and Interdictors. Make them the kind of ships that everyone wants to fly. Make them so good that Caldari pilots currently training some other race (in other words, all of them) momentarily regret the time they didn't invest into their own. You know... balance for everyone, including the Caldari. It's novel, it's a radical departure, but I think it's an idea whose time has come!
You mean, like revamping ALL of their T1 frigates, destroyers and cruisers, and making them so powerful that some are already saying they will most be OP ? Granted. If only they could make caldari players able to read, but that would be too much I guess... |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 19:15:00 -
[4531] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Then move on to other Caldari ships. Fix their Battleships, fix their HACs and Command Ships
That requires nerfing Tengu. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 19:17:00 -
[4532] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:Sigras wrote:what they were saying is that the hurricane had too much PG (able to fit 720s and a MWD without a fitting mod) relative to how much 720s cost, so theyre making arty cost less for everything else and MORE for the cane as it already had too much grid. You might want to fit some tank on there, buddy. Also some supplementary dps to counter the fact that artillery cannons have the lowest dps of all the long range weapons platforms might be nice.
well duh, you have to fit tank, but the brutix cant even fit rails + MWD without using an RCU, never mind adding tank
also, the hurricane gets two damage bonuses to counter the fact that arty has low DPS.
The Bazzalisk wrote:Medium artilleries are not used for two main reasons:
a) The main attraction of an artillery is its alpha. Medium artilleries - both 650 and 720 have pretty **** poor alpha. b) They're hard to fit to pretty much everything.
And yet making them harder to fit to Hurricanes seems like a good idea? Lol
ummm . . . the muninn and arti cane fleets that fly around 0.0 alpha striking logistics ships would like a word with you.
Also, you realize that the arti are now going to be easier to fit to everything except the cane, right? this is going to make alpha muninn fleets far more effective |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 20:42:00 -
[4533] - Quote
Sigras wrote:
ummm . . . the muninn and arti cane fleets that fly around 0.0 alpha striking logistics ships would like a word with you.
Also, you realize that the arti are now going to be easier to fit to everything except the cane, right? this is going to make alpha muninn fleets far more effective
Yeah, you are right with that. The point is many people actually just play EFT and dont know about ingame performance. Thats why you get comments like "Cane can not fit tank AND MWD AND arty without a fitting mod whine whine" ..
Personally, I am curious how the Cane will work after the patch/nerf, and I think its good the twin med Neut option for short range fittings is now a bit harder to fit :) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
58
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 20:46:00 -
[4534] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: Then move on to other Caldari ships. Fix their Battleships, fix their HACs and Command Ships and Interdictors. Make them the kind of ships that everyone wants to fly. Make them so good that Caldari pilots currently training some other race (in other words, all of them) momentarily regret the time they didn't invest into their own. You know... balance for everyone, including the Caldari. It's novel, it's a radical departure, but I think it's an idea whose time has come!
THEN, and only then, take a look at see where HM Drakes stand, and if they need a nerf go for it.
Exactly. OT Smithers is right, again. Give those over 9000 broken hulls a viable working role, one which others would love to take. And you will see how the Drake is no issue at all anymore (and if it still is, then there *is* an alternative route for Caldari pilots, which does not mean "crosstrain!"). Ofc it would be best to have a role for every single hull in game, but I agree this is maybe not so easy to do. But at least some more than just *one* tech 1 hull above frig size would suit a professional company well.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 21:40:00 -
[4535] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Then move on to other Caldari ships. Fix their Battleships, fix their HACs and Command Ships That requires nerfing Tengu.
I am okay with this. I think the Tengu and other T3s probably need a nerf. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 23:10:00 -
[4536] - Quote
Tracking disruptors are a serious issue and CCP made a very good decision to look @ them. Those who believed that tracking enhancers would be a renaissance for missiles are R3T@RD3D. especially if tracking disruptors effected missiles.
Compare a 50% increase in signature radious and a 50% increase in explosion velocity or a 50% decrease in missile velocity. To a Tracking ehancer 15 - 30 % precent bonus. Tracking Ehancers also even stack. My issue with cruise missile is overall damage not damage application, because I can do good damage to a cruiser with stasis webifiers applied. The effect on TORPS would be meh! You'd be better off with a Target painter and EVEN better would be a stasis webifiers applied to a target and 2 of the aforementioned modules used together would be even better.
So, if that tracking disruptor BOOST happened; it would have compounded the NERF to heavy missiles solo and in small gangs. This will leave drones and missiles the only other weapon systems not effected by that mechanic. Allowing missile ship users to continue to abuse the current mechanic we have and never be effected by it. Which is fine IMO because missiles being effected by a module that effects turret mechanics DOESNT make sense.
Cerberus:
One of the main issues in why a Cerberus was not used was because hml-Drakes was as good in long rang-HAC range. That won't be the case anymore. The Munin, Zealot and Cerberus were always the best @ that tactic, but the rise of the Drake overshadowed the benifits of a Cerberus. Long range-HAC's exist @ 90 - 110km and a Drake exist @ 70 - 80k (little to no movement of a target). So I do plan on using a Cerberus more and I have used it in gangs in the past and have flown it solo. The BOOST to light missiles will also make RML really really good and allow the ship to do near 400dps with it along with the navy caracal. Oh! HAMS... [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
218
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 23:22:00 -
[4537] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:
ummm . . . the muninn and arti cane fleets that fly around 0.0 alpha striking logistics ships would like a word with you.
Also, you realize that the arti are now going to be easier to fit to everything except the cane, right? this is going to make alpha muninn fleets far more effective
Yeah, you are right with that. The point is many people actually just play EFT and dont know about ingame performance. Thats why you get comments like "Cane can not fit tank AND MWD AND arty without a fitting mod whine whine" .. Personally, I am curious how the Cane will work after the patch/nerf, and I think its good the twin med Neut option for short range fittings is now a bit harder to fit :)
Back it up.
Post on your PvP toon, telling us about "how it works" with a no kill alt is kinda of a ***** move. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 23:29:00 -
[4538] - Quote
by that logic, i'd need to be a murderer to speak out against murder; or Id need to be rich to know that its a good thing to be rich . . . |
Lili Lu
524
|
Posted - 2012.10.10 23:54:00 -
[4539] - Quote
Sigras wrote:by that logic, i'd need to be a murderer to speak out against murder; or Id need to be rich to know that its a good thing to be rich . . . Sigras, not a good analogy.
You would be more correct to say you would have to be a murderer to speak out in favor of murder, or a victim to speak out against murder, and of course that is sort of impossible.
Also the act is different from the tool. A closer analogy would be you would have to be a fencer to speak out concerning the utility of sabres v epees. And, that is what's being said. You have to have experience with both weapons systems to really know how they operate and what are their strengths and weaknesses, for each.
Some of us have those skills and that experience. Some, like Noemi, display a remarkable lack of that with turrets. |
Lili Lu
524
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 00:10:00 -
[4540] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Tracking disruptors are a serious issue and CCP made a very good decision to look @ them. Those who believed that tracking enhancers would be a renaissance for missiles are R3T@RD3D. especially if tracking disruptors effected missiles.
Compare a 50% increase in signature radious and a 50% increase in explosion velocity or a 50% decrease in missile velocity. To a Tracking ehancer 15 - 30 % precent bonus. Tracking Ehancers also even stack. My issue with cruise missile is overall damage not damage application, because I can do good damage to a cruiser with stasis webifiers applied. The effect on TORPS would be meh! You'd be better off with a Target painter and EVEN better would be a stasis webifiers applied to a target and 2 of the aforementioned modules used together would be even better.
So, if that tracking disruptor BOOST happened; it would have compounded the NERF to heavy missiles solo and in small gangs. This will leave drones and missiles the only other weapon systems not effected by that mechanic. Allowing missile ship users to continue to abuse the current mechanic we have and never be effected by it. Which is fine IMO because missiles being effected by a module that effects turret mechanics DOESNT make sense.
Not if, but when and with what numbers. The change is coming. They just realized it looks like that they couldn't do what you are fearing. A simple transfer of the existing numbers for turrets to missiles. And, if the existing numbers favor the TD ship over the TE/TC ship then that may have to change for turrets as well.
Currently unbonused TDs are ******* over turret boats. That would really be no problem if it was coming from specialized TD ships, because that would be what they are supposed to do. But currently the unbonused TD is ******* over turret ships. That should stop, and it also should not be allowed on the new missile effects.
I don't see how they can't nerf the base stats on TDs and then hand a larger bonus to TD boats. That alone will prevent the god mod that TDs otherwise would be. And correspondingly the TE and TC effects on missiles will have to be rather weak as well so as not to ironically make missiles OP in a different way.
Major Killz wrote: Cerberus:
One of the main issues in why a Cerberus was not used was because hml-Drakes was as good in long rang-HAC range. That won't be the case anymore. The Munin, Zealot and Cerberus were always the best @ that tactic, but the rise of the Drake overshadowed the benifits of a Cerberus. Long range-HAC's exist @ 90 - 110km and a Drake exist @ 70 - 80k (little to no movement of a target). So I do plan on using a Cerberus more and I have used it in gangs in the past and have flown it solo. The BOOST to light missiles will also make RML really really good and allow the ship to do near 400dps with it along with the navy caracal. Oh! HAMS...
Also, all the sniper HACs lost their utility when tier 3 BCs entered the game. So you really don't see much sniper Zealot, but you still can see ab pulse AHAC Zealots. We still see a few sniper Munnins, but really they too are overshadowed by arty Nados.
Fixing the HACs is a task I don't envy for the balancing team. All the roles they used to have (except AHACs, but even then the tech IIIs are pushing) have been taken over by tier 2 or tier 3 BCs and tech IIIs. It will be interesting to see what they can do with them as a group. |
|
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 00:50:00 -
[4541] - Quote
True on Tier 3's overshadowing HACS. Oh well! CCP seems to make there jobs more difficult every year v0v [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 04:39:00 -
[4542] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:OT Smithers wrote: Then move on to other Caldari ships. Fix their Battleships, fix their HACs and Command Ships and Interdictors. Make them the kind of ships that everyone wants to fly. Make them so good that Caldari pilots currently training some other race (in other words, all of them) momentarily regret the time they didn't invest into their own. You know... balance for everyone, including the Caldari. It's novel, it's a radical departure, but I think it's an idea whose time has come!
THEN, and only then, take a look at see where HM Drakes stand, and if they need a nerf go for it.
Exactly. OT Smithers is right, again. Give those over 9000 broken hulls a viable working role, one which others would love to take. And you will see how the Drake is no issue at all anymore (and if it still is, then there *is* an alternative route for Caldari pilots, which does not mean "crosstrain!"). Ofc it would be best to have a role for every single hull in game, but I agree this is maybe not so easy to do. But at least some more than just *one* tech 1 hull above frig size would suit a professional company well.
Why should Caldari be superior? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 06:10:00 -
[4543] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Why should Caldari be superior?
Why should they be inferior? And you wont deny when you look at just tech 1 missile hulls above frig they *ARE* inferior atm. If you take away the only working one you end with - nil. Exactly.
There is no posting of alts needed to back up what I said here :) what exactly will you see when I tell you this? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=ROU+Psychopath#kills
I think no one with their brains set right denies the fact there is no Caldari missile PvP in numbers medium or large size except HML Drake (and T3 Tengu). So if you kill HML PvP for Caldari then there is nothing left. As we dont know if or how HAMs will do after this patch in comparison to other weapon systems. Atm they are not the best bet if you want to win.
And PvP is about winning, so the winner takes it all. Hence the name Winmatar ... they win it all. Except ECM ;)
Best regards.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 07:04:00 -
[4544] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Why should they be inferior? And you wont deny when you look at just tech 1 missile hulls above frig they *ARE* inferior atm.
You didn't answer my question.
We all know missile ships aren't that good. And you think only Caldari missile ships need work?
You also say that like every other race has it way better. Let's look at Amarr ships for example. - Maller (Bait with ACs? Nothing else) - Omen (even though it can at least do something) - Augoror (Oh god! Why!?)
- Prophecy (AC... DC)
Whole Amarr T1 frigate line up before they started rebalancing. Ok, Punisher was good but with ACs... |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
280
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 09:11:00 -
[4545] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Why should Caldari be superior?
Why should they be inferior? And you wont deny when you look at just tech 1 missile hulls above frig they *ARE* inferior atm. If you take away the only working one you end with - nil. Exactly. There is no posting of alts needed to back up what I said here :) what exactly will you see when I tell you this? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=ROU+Psychopath#killsI think no one with their brains set right denies the fact there is no Caldari missile PvP in numbers medium or large size except HML Drake (and T3 Tengu). So if you kill HML PvP for Caldari then there is nothing left. As we dont know if or how HAMs will do after this patch in comparison to other weapon systems. Atm they are not the best bet if you want to win. And PvP is about winning, so the winner takes it all. Hence the name Winmatar ... they win it all. Except ECM ;) Best regards.
The problem is that missile hulls are only a part of the caldari line up, the hybrid hulls are all pretty good (eagle excepted) while the support ships (ewar and logis) are all good. Of the missile hulls drake and tengu are clearly very good, nighthawk is good but overshadowed by tengu, frig missiles are fine so really you are soley saying caldari pilots are screwed because of the raven which doesn't use hml (trorp raven at least getting buffed thanks to GMP), caracal (getting buffed) and cerberus (which is broken because of its crappy tank/speed, not because of missiles).
Its a bit like saying gellente players are screwed because certain drone boats underperform in certain situations. What about minatar missile users? they only get torp phoon and bomber. Or amarr drone boats who only get recons or amarr missile users who only have t2 ships? |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 09:23:00 -
[4546] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Why should Caldari be superior?
Why should they be inferior? And you wont deny when you look at just tech 1 missile hulls above frig they *ARE* inferior atm.
And post Nerf?
Drakes will still have a role (nobody ever flew them for DPS, it was because of the Buffer and the plethora of mids the fact they had easy DPS was gravy).
Tengus will still be flown, they just won't outnumber Legions and Protei by such a large margin.
Caracals will be good (ROF bonus means not tied to Kinetic, means a roughly +15% DPS bonus for Therm, EM and Exp), their extra range will matter (pushes HMLs out to 90Km) as it means they've got a niche Drakes can't fill. (Previously 80Km Drakes were good enough that you didn't need to think about extra range, meaning the range bonus on Caracals was just wasted).
Cerbs... 60Km Precision (which o/all got a damage buff) + enough mids to fit a TP (for a Gang fit without a point) will make it molest Frigs at range. Either way, the nerf in comparison to it's bonuses (++ Range and ++ Damage) mean that the window in which Cerbs > Drakes will get wider (it's not a big window, but it is there; whereas "atm" it's practically non-existent).
Raven will still be broken.
Oh, and HAMs are now useful. So you get a second flavour of all 4 of those ships which is better now than it was. And RLML Caracal will also be better post patch.
So overall.. you're "atm" is pointless. "atm" Drakes a still good. Post Nerf you'll have more Caldari missile boat love. They'll have real roles, roles that you can consider using them for rather than going "Lol, Drake is better, fly that". |
Manfred Hideous
TOHOKU 9.0
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 10:09:00 -
[4547] - Quote
The Bazzalisk wrote:Still irritated by the Hurricane PG nerf. It just doesn't make sense.
Problem:
Medium artilleries are hard to fit. Ships which use Medium ACs get a lot of spare PG.
Sensible solution:
Decrease medium artillery PG uses by 10%. Increase medium AC uses by x%.
Both problems are solved.
CCP solution:
Decrease medium artillery PG uses by 10%. Nerf Hurricane PG.
So now it's actually harder to fit medium artilleries than it was before. You do realise people will just drop the ACs down to 180mms and not actually make a huge difference, right?
Derp.
While I agree they nerfed it too hard, it did need to lose a med neut. The problem with making A/C harder to fit is that would mean ALL cruisers that use them would become hard to fir at all. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
92
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 10:43:00 -
[4548] - Quote
Oh cool, it's now time to state evidence, like T1 cruisers are currently ****, and BS missiles ned work. Congrats, you reach page 2 of this thread. Though you miss all the other thread about T1 cruiser rebalance. You need to work a little more. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 11:44:00 -
[4549] - Quote
Doddy wrote: The problem is that missile hulls are only a part of the caldari line up, the hybrid hulls are all pretty good (eagle excepted)
Sorry, but if I want to go Hybrids I normally feel Gallente are not worse doing that. Sniping a Naga and Rohk have a role. Ferox is not first choice for most things, Moa sucks in comparison to other cruisers, and even more it will after patch. Eagle sucks hard too ...
Doddy wrote: while the support ships (ewar and logis) are all good. Of the missile hulls drake and tengu are clearly very good, nighthawk is good but overshadowed by tengu,
No. Did you actually ever fly a NH? In PvP it can do some things even worse than a Drake due to its massive PG problems, and the slotlayout is also not too good for a medium size hull shieldtank in PvP. The NH is so far worse than Sleipnir or Absolution that its making no sense to think its because of the Tengu - its because the NH is broken as it is. Btw, funny enough that the so called OP HML system doesnt change that ... guess why.
The point about my complaint is - missiles are THE signature weapon of Caldari. Not Hybrids, unlike some others say. Compare it to amarr lasers and minmatar projectiles. If we half the number of useful combat hulls like those two have for their signature weapon ABOVE FRIG SIZE (in capitals, just for you so you dont come back with Frigs AGAIN), then we see CCPis doing the right thing.
Will wait some more :) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 12:49:00 -
[4550] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Ferox is not first choice for most things
Blaster Ferox... Yes, blaster work now.
Blaster Rokh...
Funny how you didn't mention anything about Vulture. That probably means it works. |
|
Dread Pirate Pete
Tribal Core Defiant Legacy
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 13:40:00 -
[4551] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:[quote=Doddy]The point about my complaint is - missiles are THE signature weapon of Caldari. Not Hybrids, unlike some others say.
Pretty sure Rails are equal with missiles on the "signature Caldari" front, blasters being Gallente... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
219
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 15:48:00 -
[4552] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Why should Caldari be superior?
Why should they be inferior? And you wont deny when you look at just tech 1 missile hulls above frig they *ARE* inferior atm. If you take away the only working one you end with - nil. Exactly. There is no posting of alts needed to back up what I said here :) what exactly will you see when I tell you this? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=ROU+Psychopath#killsI think no one with their brains set right denies the fact there is no Caldari missile PvP in numbers medium or large size except HML Drake (and T3 Tengu). So if you kill HML PvP for Caldari then there is nothing left. As we dont know if or how HAMs will do after this patch in comparison to other weapon systems. Atm they are not the best bet if you want to win. And PvP is about winning, so the winner takes it all. Hence the name Winmatar ... they win it all. Except ECM ;) Best regards.
Boy that is funny I was screwing around with an alt in matar low sec
...three gate camps with at least two drake pre camp
No one uses drakes. Ever, and I'm not a sarcastic ****. Please lay off, just let it go.
425mm Rokh does 500ish DPS for 60+39 optimal + falloff (fleet fit i.e. with tank) I wonder why a drake is a tad out of line. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
59
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 17:40:00 -
[4553] - Quote
You have big issues with reading/comprehension ... I never said no one uses Drakes. I said they are not OP except in certain nullsec situations, where the numbers break it all. They are a strong option for medium/long range combat, but its not the best bet for many occassions. Esp. in low sec. Just let us know which others ship you met, and how many, and we might get an idea.
Funny btw you dont say anything about my credibility anymore ... |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
107
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 19:20:00 -
[4554] - Quote
why can't people accept that the devs are balancing each ship class in turn and BCs, BSs and t2 ships will be dealt with in order. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
92
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 19:30:00 -
[4555] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:You have big issues with reading/comprehension ... I never said no one uses Drakes. I said they are not OP except in certain nullsec situations, where the numbers break it all. They are. They are long range medium size weapons, and compared to others long range medium size weapons. And compare to these, they are definitely OP.
Someone said you even see drakes in lowsec ; have you *ever* seen a ship with long range medium size weapons for solo or very small gang pvp ? No, because they are useless in this situation and they should be HAM drakes, but they are HML drakes. Are HAM so bad ? I don't think so. Though HML are so much more versatile that you don't have any advantage using HAM : no need for full tackle, long range and frigate defense.
Skip strait to the conclusion if you are lazy now, I explain things.
But the question remain : is it the weapon, the HML, or the ship, the drake which are OP ? Most used HML platforms are Drake and Tengu. One is a BC, a fairly common and overused class of ship, and the other is a T3, a very expensive and capable platform.
What are the other HML platforms ? Caracal and Cerberus. Both are cruisers, and like many of their counterparts, they are not used. Is it because of HML or because of the hull ? Considering the state of the others similar hulls, we can bet this is because of the hull.
Tengu now : like all the other T3, it have good overall abilities, but not so amazing infact, and a proteus can field a way better tank than the tengu, though it will be armour tank. But unlike the others, the tengu have a shield tank and HML.
And the Drake finally : BS speed, an amazing shield tank and HML. Speed is extremely important, and yet, the drake see a wide use.
Now, Noisverbus could tell you better than me why drake and tengu are so good, with it's projection-buffer paradigm, but to go strait to the conclusion, HML are the best weapon for projecting damage, and shield tank vs armour tank need a lot of work. So drake and tengu are the convergence point of a lot of things which all make them OP, and HML are one of them. To balance the drake and the tengu, we need to balance shield and HML.
TL;DR: Conclusion : HML are the best medium weapon for projecting damage. They are by design. They provide reliant and stable damage at all the range they can hit, and this range is huge. On top of that, they are very versatile, able to hit even frigates for noticeable damage. We can't really change these things. The only thing we can do is to make a bubble of ranges where the other long range medium size weapons can live. To achieve this, we have to reduce their damage, so other long range medium size weapons have a better theoretical dps at short range, and reduce their range, so the ship need to sacrifice a bit of tank to hit farther, and maybe railguns can live too. And we hit their ability to murder frigates, so they have one more weakness. This last one is a bit opposed to the ideology of long range missiles, but well, if this is the only thing we can do without making everyone calling for murder, it's better than nothing
Intended role, that is how the game try to be balanced around. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
220
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 19:36:00 -
[4556] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:You have big issues with reading/comprehension ... I never said no one uses Drakes. I said they are not OP except in certain nullsec situations, where the numbers break it all. They are a strong option for medium/long range combat, but its not the best bet for many occassions. Esp. in low sec. Just let us know which others ship you met, and how many, and we might get an idea.
Funny btw you dont say anything about my credibility anymore ...
Post you main then tell me about credibility.
I dare you.
Oh by the by here are my stats https://a-killed.me/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=174017&view=ships_weapons |
Lili Lu
524
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 19:40:00 -
[4557] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You have big issues with reading/comprehension ... I never said no one uses Drakes. I said they are not OP except in certain nullsec situations, where the numbers break it all. They are a strong option for medium/long range combat, but its not the best bet for many occassions. Esp. in low sec. Just let us know which others ship you met, and how many, and we might get an idea.
Funny btw you dont say anything about my credibility anymore ... Post you main then tell me about credibility. I dare you. Noemi talks about lowsec, but then can't post with his main. I think all he does is mine and mission in high sec. No pvp record at all. |
Jack-ya-wanna Imaima-Jihad
Fink Operations The Volition Cult
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 20:51:00 -
[4558] - Quote
Okay, I am not going to read all 225 pages of this thread. What I will do is post my own opinion =).
Hurricane: Definitely needs to be unable to fit 2 nuets. And could use the projected pg change.
Drake: Sigh...
Okay so the idea is to get a definite difference between HML and HAM's.
HML's are designed for long range. HAM's are for close.
CCP why are you nerfing the range of the HML's when they are designed for long range?????????????????? Ihmo
What should happen is Like guns, HML missiles become idiotically useless within x range, for argument say 15km.
So H - Missles should work:
Optimal 40-70km
75% effective 15-40km
50% effective 0-15km
Where as HAM's work to the exact opposite
Optimal 30k
75% effective 30-max range
Not saying these exact numbers, but make it where HML's are useless @ close range and HAM's are semi useless @ close to their max. This would make a clearer role of both launchers. Just like you have rails and blasters or arty and autocannons.
Another note, nurfing the explosion radius of the HM's make them less useful against smaller ships, they already are useless against bs's. So wthell are you going to shoot? Ihmo.
I think CCP needs to focus more on 2 things. One Cruisers should be generally designed to take other cruisers and smaller ships with the same ability to take a BC as a BC could take a BS. Battlecruisers should be able to take cruisers, bc's and be better against bs's, but semi useless against smaller.
Second, the other BC's need to be made USEFUL. To date the Cane has the great ability to be a jack of all trades. The Drake is the ONLY useful PVP missileboat currently ingame. Why? because the Carcal is useless, their isnt a t1 destroyer missileboat, no t1 useful cruiser missileboat, no great t1 frig missileboat. Step up the BC's ability to be great pvp ships in their own way.
The missile skill as a whole is semi FAIL. All the skills aren't semi interchangeable with anything else like everything else is. AKA for the nubs Arty/auto's. Rail/blasters and lazors all use the same support skills (controlled burst etc). its an entire separate skill set and if the hml's are nurfed, guess what MISSILES BECOME A USELESS SET OF SKILLS. The drake is the SOLE cost effective and USEFUL missileboat in the ENTIRE game.
SO CCP, before you destroy the ONLY useful Missileboat in the entire game, PLEASE make the others useful AND make a destroyer t1 missileboat. A real LoL is even the missile dread sucks. 1v1 vs any other and its not even a contest...sigh.
My big concern is that missiles are currently a sole entity. Their support skills aren't used for anything but missile launchers. So in my eyes missiles are a more specialized skill set. Thus make them worth their time to train useful. Actually make a destroyer MB. Actually improve the Krestel and Condor. The Carcal is a total joke as it is paper and no dps. I think the Carcal needs to take after its Navy counterpart and the Navy get maybe a better tank boost.
Like stated before, the ONLY pvp useable missleboat (forgetting the rich pilots who fly tengu's like thrashers) is the drake. HM nerf = drake less useful = not ideal over anyother race = why are missiles in the game?
Their isnt anywhere to go atm with missiles past HML/HAM's for pvp. A raven is NEVER used in pvp (cept for bait). So where the hell is the point of even having missiles in the game?
|
Lili Lu
524
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 21:19:00 -
[4559] - Quote
Jack-ya-wanna Imaima-Jihad wrote:Okay, I am not going to read all 225 pages of this thread. What I will do is post my own opinion =).
Hurricane: Definitely needs to be unable to fit 2 nuets. And could use the projected pg change.
Drake: Sigh... stopped reading your post right there.
Seriously, if you can't be arsed to read the OP and the followup posts by the OP which are linked in the OP why should we read your uninformed whine? |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
239
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 23:07:00 -
[4560] - Quote
Lallante wrote:why can't people accept that the devs are balancing each ship class in turn and BCs, BSs and t2 ships will be dealt with in order.
Probably because...
1. This is CCP. How many YEARS were rockets something that would get you laughed at for fitting? How many YEARS did it take them to fix Hybrids? How many YEARS have people been waiting for a fix to Cruise Missiles or Torpedos? And what about those T2 cruisers and Command ships and Battleships you mention, how many YEARS have Caldari pilots been the only race in the game that doesn't have one worth flying?
2. People are looking at the changes proposed so far, the so-called balancing of frigates and cruisers and the nerfing of the Drake, and they are seeing a whole lot of the same old same old. I suspect that not one person, not a single one, read the proposed changes to the Moa and said to themselves, "Now THAT's a ship I want to fly!" They said it about the Rupture, they said it about the Vexor, but the Moa? They can't even figure out what the hell it's supposed to actually do -- and neither, it seems, can CCP.
3. It's a bloody fine line between situationally useful and hangar queen. CCP doesn't want to break the Drake, they just don't want people to USE it. If this sounds like a paradox, congratulations, you get it. But CCP apparently does not. If CCP screws up and breaks the Drake what then? What EXACTLY do you suggest that Caldari pilots switch to? Be specific.
4. After years of having CCP screw them over and over and over again, Caldari pilots are justifiably distrustful and angry. This is not exactly some new issue. Hell, CCP even screwed Caldari pilots with the Naga. If, like CCP, you think this is no big deal I suspect that you reconsider. CCP is so used to sticking it to Caldari players that they are obviously beginning to take them for granted. But there is a line, and they are dancing and giggling towards it now. There's no safety net, they are about to f@ck with the ONLY combat ship Caldari pilots have left.
Think about that. Seriously, THINK about it.
The Drake is not so overpowered that leaving it alone for now causes a problem. It's been "broken" for years, it's actually less of a problem today than it has been in the past, so leaving it the hell alone really doesn't matter. CCP needs to step the hell back, fix some of the NUMEROUS other broken Caldari hulls, then revisit this later if it's still a problem. |
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
239
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 23:22:00 -
[4561] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You have big issues with reading/comprehension ... I never said no one uses Drakes. I said they are not OP except in certain nullsec situations, where the numbers break it all. They are a strong option for medium/long range combat, but its not the best bet for many occassions. Esp. in low sec. Just let us know which others ship you met, and how many, and we might get an idea.
Funny btw you dont say anything about my credibility anymore ... Post you main then tell me about credibility. I dare you. Noemi talks about lowsec, but then can't post with his main. I think all he does is mine and mission in high sec. No pvp record at all. So consequently all his statements are pure ****.
Why do you guys even go there? What difference does it make? Address the content of the post rather than the person posting it.
If you want to make fun of someone's stats here's mine:
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=OT+Smithers
I'm a bit rusty, just getting back to the game and all, so there is all kinds of things you can poke fun of. Knock yourself out. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.11 23:33:00 -
[4562] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You have big issues with reading/comprehension ... I never said no one uses Drakes. I said they are not OP except in certain nullsec situations, where the numbers break it all. They are a strong option for medium/long range combat, but its not the best bet for many occassions. Esp. in low sec. Just let us know which others ship you met, and how many, and we might get an idea.
Funny btw you dont say anything about my credibility anymore ... Post you main then tell me about credibility. I dare you. Noemi talks about lowsec, but then can't post with his main. I think all he does is mine and mission in high sec. No pvp record at all. So consequently all his statements are pure ****. Why do you guys even go there? What difference does it make? Address the content of the post rather than the person posting it. If you want to make fun of someone's stats here's mine: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=OT+SmithersI'm a bit rusty, just getting back to the game and all, so there is all kinds of things you can poke fun of. Knock yourself out.
the point is when ppl try to say they know something about pvp, then something to back it up would give their points merit. however, noemi has no KB, has only flown caldari, has never used turrets because they are 'un-caldari' (that kinda seals it there for me) or HAM's, and fixates on a comparison between two weapon systems that fulfill different roles.
its bullshit post after bullshit post based purely on getting wtf pwned by AC canes (by the sounds of it the only pvp they've had is against ninja's in missions)
i said before, it has nothing to do with size of anyones pvp ****. noemi just has NO pvp record to give credit to them.
edit - Even if they had just a bunch of loss mails to go on. at least we'd have something to go on |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 04:16:00 -
[4563] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You have big issues with reading/comprehension ... I never said no one uses Drakes. I said they are not OP except in certain nullsec situations, where the numbers break it all. They are a strong option for medium/long range combat, but its not the best bet for many occassions. Esp. in low sec. Just let us know which others ship you met, and how many, and we might get an idea.
Funny btw you dont say anything about my credibility anymore ... Post you main then tell me about credibility. I dare you. Noemi talks about lowsec, but then can't post with his main. I think all he does is mine and mission in high sec. No pvp record at all. So consequently all his statements are pure ****. Why do you guys even go there? What difference does it make? Address the content of the post rather than the person posting it. If you want to make fun of someone's stats here's mine: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=OT+SmithersI'm a bit rusty, just getting back to the game and all, so there is all kinds of things you can poke fun of. Knock yourself out. the point is when ppl try to say they know something about pvp, then something to back it up would give their points merit. however, noemi has no KB, has only flown caldari, has never used turrets because they are 'un-caldari' (that kinda seals it there for me) or HAM's, and fixates on a comparison between two weapon systems that fulfill different roles. its bullshit post after bullshit post based purely on getting wtf pwned by AC canes (by the sounds of it the only pvp they've had is against ninja's in missions) i said before, it has nothing to do with size of anyones pvp ****. noemi just has NO pvp record to give credit to them. edit - Even if they had just a bunch of loss mails to go on. at least we'd have something to go on
Bingo.
Nothing about losses, who cares. But claiming to be a gruru with no record and/or hiding behind an NPC corp alt is pretty week.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:00:00 -
[4564] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
the point is when ppl try to say they know something about pvp, then something to back it up would give their points merit.
I posted you one of my alts which obviously doesnt have the issues you mentioned: 1) PvP 2) by no way Drake only :)
Daichi Yamato wrote: however, noemi has no KB, has only flown caldari, has never used turrets because they are 'un-caldari' (that kinda seals it there for me) or HAM's, and fixates on a comparison between two weapon systems that fulfill different roles.
With this char I have no KB, correct.
Daichi Yamato wrote: its bullshit post after bullshit post based purely on getting wtf pwned by AC canes (by the sounds of it the only pvp they've had is against ninja's in missions)
I wtf pwned others with my AC Canes, and I made kills with other ships as well. I never said the Drake is sh*t. What I said is, right now it has a role (although that role is not as big as some claim it is), but it wont after those planned changes. OT Smithers just said it right - dont screw Caldari *again*.
Daichi Yamato wrote: i said before, it has nothing to do with size of anyones pvp ****. noemi just has NO pvp record to give credit to them.
edit - Even if they had just a bunch of loss mails to go on. at least we'd have something to go on
I have a main which is a trader, so no, I wont post lossmails with this char coz this one doesnt fly anything :) I have posted a kb of an PvP alt, just get you facts straight.
And no, credibility does not come from KBs, it comes from facts. I name the facts, I give proof for them (as OT Smithers does too). I am not responsible for the faults in balancing CCP made over and over again. They had plenty of time to make medium and large missiles work for PvP, they didnt use their time well if you ask me.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:11:00 -
[4565] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:
the point is when ppl try to say they know something about pvp, then something to back it up would give their points merit.
I posted you one of my alts which obviously doesnt have the issues you mentioned: 1) PvP 2) by no way Drake only :) Daichi Yamato wrote: however, noemi has no KB, has only flown caldari, has never used turrets because they are 'un-caldari' (that kinda seals it there for me) or HAM's, and fixates on a comparison between two weapon systems that fulfill different roles.
With this char I have no KB, correct. Daichi Yamato wrote: its bullshit post after bullshit post based purely on getting wtf pwned by AC canes (by the sounds of it the only pvp they've had is against ninja's in missions)
I wtf pwned others with my AC Canes, and I made kills with other ships as well. I never said the Drake is sh*t. What I said is, right now it has a role (although that role is not as big as some claim it is), but it wont after those planned changes. OT Smithers just said it right - dont screw Caldari *again*. Daichi Yamato wrote: i said before, it has nothing to do with size of anyones pvp ****. noemi just has NO pvp record to give credit to them.
edit - Even if they had just a bunch of loss mails to go on. at least we'd have something to go on
I have a main which is a trader, so no, I wont post lossmails with this char coz this one doesnt fly anything :) I have posted a kb of an PvP alt, just get you facts straight. And no, credibility does not come from KBs, it comes from facts. I name the facts, I give proof for them (as OT Smithers does too). I am not responsible for the faults in balancing CCP made over and over again. They had plenty of time to make medium and large missiles work for PvP, they didnt use their time well if you ask me.
What facts?
It's been posted over and over in MEDIUM long range catagory HMLs are the best weapon by a significant margin, and will remain so after the nerf.
I sure as **** didn't go selling my Drakes and Tengus.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:14:00 -
[4566] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
Address the content of the post rather than the person posting it.
They have nothing more to say to the content. Simply because no one set right in his mind actually *could* make a point against those facts you and me presented. No one will object to the fact Caldari missile PvP above frig size is just Drake (and for the rich guys Tengu) with HML. So they have to find something else :)
I quote your other posting again, just because it cant be said often enough.
OT Smithers wrote:Lallante wrote:why can't people accept that the devs are balancing each ship class in turn and BCs, BSs and t2 ships will be dealt with in order. Probably because... 1. This is CCP. How many YEARS were rockets something that would get you laughed at for fitting? How many YEARS did it take them to fix Hybrids? How many YEARS have people been waiting for a fix to Cruise Missiles or Torpedos? And what about those T2 cruisers and Command ships and Battleships you mention, how many YEARS have Caldari pilots been the only race in the game that doesn't have one worth flying? 2. People are looking at the changes proposed so far, the so-called balancing of frigates and cruisers and the nerfing of the Drake, and they are seeing a whole lot of the same old same old. I suspect that not one person, not a single one, read the proposed changes to the Moa and said to themselves, "Now THAT's a ship I want to fly!" They said it about the Rupture, they said it about the Vexor, but the Moa? They can't even figure out what the hell it's supposed to actually do -- and neither, it seems, can CCP. 3. It's a bloody fine line between situationally useful and hangar queen. CCP doesn't want to break the Drake, they just don't want people to USE it. If this sounds like a paradox, congratulations, you get it. But CCP apparently does not. If CCP screws up and breaks the Drake what then? What EXACTLY do you suggest that Caldari pilots switch to? Be specific. 4. After years of having CCP screw them over and over and over again, Caldari pilots are justifiably distrustful and angry. This is not exactly some new issue. Hell, CCP even screwed Caldari pilots with the Naga. If, like CCP, you think this is no big deal I suspect that you reconsider. CCP is so used to sticking it to Caldari players that they are obviously beginning to take them for granted. But there is a line, and they are dancing and giggling towards it now. There's no safety net, they are about to f@ck with the ONLY combat ship Caldari pilots have left. Think about that. Seriously, THINK about it. The Drake is not so overpowered that leaving it alone for now causes a problem. It's been "broken" for years, it's actually less of a problem today than it has been in the past, so leaving it the hell alone really doesn't matter. CCP needs to step the hell back, fix some of the NUMEROUS other broken Caldari hulls, then revisit this later if it's still a problem.
Best regards. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:22:00 -
[4567] - Quote
Onictus wrote: What facts?
It's been posted over and over in MEDIUM long range catagory HMLs are the best weapon by a significant margin, and will remain so after the nerf.
I sure as **** didn't go selling my Drakes and Tengus.
1) Its been posted over and over again that there are range windows for MEDIUM long range weapons where HML is NOT best but worst in DPS.
2) Its been posted over and over again that missiles have FLIGHT TIME.
3) Its been posted over and over again that NO OTHER HML-based ship actually works except Drake and Tengu.
4) Its been posted over and over again that NO OTHER CALDARI MISSILE PVP ship than those 2 actually works above frig size.
5) Its been posted over and over again that Drakes are NOT the most used ship in lowsec and highsec.
6) Its been posted over and over again that picking on SOME STATS alone does not make sense in a game which is about ALL STATS combined. Eve is NOT EFT.
7) Its been posted over and over again that there are known and used counters against nullsec blobs with HML Drakes.
Onictus, you said you were in lowsec a few days ago and met gatecamps, each of them with 2 or so Drakes. You failed to answer my questions which other ships and how many of them where in those lowsec gatecamps. Nor didnt you tell us how many ships of which kind you met overall. I am pretty sure Drakes were not the majority of ships you saw in lowsec ;)
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:25:00 -
[4568] - Quote
Screwed by the naga?
You are kidding right? Naga us one of the better tier 3 for gang work
Did you fly the "torp" Naga on SiSi, it was terrible....a horrible horrible ship, Crap range, Crap damage and pain to fit.
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP. It's a silly emotional argument with no basis in fact. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:32:00 -
[4569] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP.
Its pretty clear you dont care about missile PvP. Still its there and should have a role, like the signature weapons of other races do have a role too in medium and large PvP. Btw, with this one sentence you really did a LOT for your credibility :)
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
161
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:55:00 -
[4570] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Screwed by the naga?
You are kidding right? Naga us one of the better tier 3 for gang work
Did you fly the "torp" Naga on SiSi, it was terrible....a horrible horrible ship, Crap range, Crap damage and pain to fit.
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP. It's a silly emotional argument with no basis in fact.
In a properly balanced game all weapon systems should be viable and worth using, ignoring bad weapon systems and leaving them be is bad balancing. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 07:58:00 -
[4571] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Onictus wrote:Screwed by the naga?
You are kidding right? Naga us one of the better tier 3 for gang work
Did you fly the "torp" Naga on SiSi, it was terrible....a horrible horrible ship, Crap range, Crap damage and pain to fit.
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP. It's a silly emotional argument with no basis in fact. In a properly balanced game all weapon systems should be viable and worth using, ignoring bad weapon systems and leaving them be is bad balancing.
That was my point, right now you don't use heavy beams or rails.....because of HMLs nothing holds a candle. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 08:01:00 -
[4572] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote:
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP.
Its pretty clear you dont care about missile PvP. Still its there and should have a role, like the signature weapons of other races do have a role too in medium and large PvP. Btw, with this one sentence you really did a LOT for your credibility :)
Yeah, I don't care about it specifically.
Yet most of the kills I have in the last 6 months are in Drakes, Tengus, and Nagas......with a couple in a Rokh.
Like I said, check my killboards.
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
792
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 08:14:00 -
[4573] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Onictus wrote:Screwed by the naga?
You are kidding right? Naga us one of the better tier 3 for gang work
Did you fly the "torp" Naga on SiSi, it was terrible....a horrible horrible ship, Crap range, Crap damage and pain to fit.
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP. It's a silly emotional argument with no basis in fact. In a properly balanced game all weapon systems should be viable and worth using, ignoring bad weapon systems and leaving them be is bad balancing.
They are already just for different scenarios, you will never attain balance in EVE as in doing so it would destroy EVE completely.
It's certain ships and lack of tactics which make the imbalance not missles. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 08:21:00 -
[4574] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Onictus wrote:Screwed by the naga?
You are kidding right? Naga us one of the better tier 3 for gang work
Did you fly the "torp" Naga on SiSi, it was terrible....a horrible horrible ship, Crap range, Crap damage and pain to fit.
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP. It's a silly emotional argument with no basis in fact. In a properly balanced game all weapon systems should be viable and worth using, ignoring bad weapon systems and leaving them be is bad balancing. They are already just for different scenarios, you will never attain balance in EVE as in doing so it would destroy EVE completely. It's certain ships and lack of tactics which make the imbalance not missles.
Ok so a heavy beam harbi, how do you tactic that against a drake blob, with its 20k ehp and range disadvantage, or rail mrym (lol) ....well other than fitting pulses and blasters and getting in someone's grill. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
792
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 08:34:00 -
[4575] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Signal11th wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Onictus wrote:Screwed by the naga?
You are kidding right? Naga us one of the better tier 3 for gang work
Did you fly the "torp" Naga on SiSi, it was terrible....a horrible horrible ship, Crap range, Crap damage and pain to fit.
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP. It's a silly emotional argument with no basis in fact. In a properly balanced game all weapon systems should be viable and worth using, ignoring bad weapon systems and leaving them be is bad balancing. They are already just for different scenarios, you will never attain balance in EVE as in doing so it would destroy EVE completely. It's certain ships and lack of tactics which make the imbalance not missles. Ok so a heavy beam harbi, how do you tactic that against a drake blob, with its 20k ehp and range disadvantage, or rail mrym (lol) ....well other than fitting pulses and blasters and getting in someone's grill.
You choose a different ship...tactics, christ you know 0.0 nearly every enemy fleet compostition is always known 99% of the time so you either conteract it or you forget about it.
Nearly every 0.0 fleet i've ever been in I've known 15 minutes before what I'll be flying up against. There will always be a "blob" of some kind. You remove the Drake then it will be Zealot blobs, you get rid of them it will be rohk blobs etc etc,
I've been in drake blobs and have won/lost heavy and have been against brake blobs and killed them all. All the times its been about FC tactics not the ships themselves.
The drakes are at range so you try to get a warp in on them, if you can't you either withdraw or die. If it's a drake/zealot blob with heavy logisitics again you have to change your tactics and so on and so on.
Unfortunately EVE at the moment encourages blobs, there's no point nerfing everything until it's all mundane you tinker/nerf/buff the foundations of the cause of the problem not the problem itself. Prevention is better than the cure. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 08:41:00 -
[4576] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Onictus wrote:Signal11th wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Onictus wrote:Screwed by the naga?
You are kidding right? Naga us one of the better tier 3 for gang work
Did you fly the "torp" Naga on SiSi, it was terrible....a horrible horrible ship, Crap range, Crap damage and pain to fit.
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP. It's a silly emotional argument with no basis in fact. In a properly balanced game all weapon systems should be viable and worth using, ignoring bad weapon systems and leaving them be is bad balancing. They are already just for different scenarios, you will never attain balance in EVE as in doing so it would destroy EVE completely. It's certain ships and lack of tactics which make the imbalance not missles. Ok so a heavy beam harbi, how do you tactic that against a drake blob, with its 20k ehp and range disadvantage, or rail mrym (lol) ....well other than fitting pulses and blasters and getting in someone's grill. You choose a different ship...tactics, christ you know 0.0 nearly every enemy fleet compostition is always known 99% of the time so you either conteract it or you forget about it. Nearly every 0.0 fleet i've ever been in I've known 15 minutes before what I'll be flying up against. There will always be a "blob" of some kind. You remove the Drake then it will be Zealot blobs, you get rid of them it will be rohk blobs etc etc, The drakes are at range so you try to get a warp in on them, if you can't you either withdraw or die. If it's a drake/zealot blob with heavy logisitics again you have to change your tactics and so on and so on. Unfortunately EVE at the moment encourages blobs, there's no point nerfing everything until it's all mundane you tinker/nerf/buff the foundations of the cause of the problem not the problem itself. Prevention is better than the cure.
They can't nerf blobs, that would be anti-sandbox, the sandbox is a core principle of the game.
How else would you suggest they do a balance pass? By not balancing anything.
All of the bleating in this thread CCP said straight out that HMLs are so far out of line they were having trouble with the hulls. So I'd save the nerdraging dramatitics until we see what the do with the BCs and BSs.
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
792
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 08:53:00 -
[4577] - Quote
I've been fighting in 0.0 for the last 3 years and to be honest in the last 6 months I've hardly seen a drake blob, mostly zealots or rohks now. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 08:57:00 -
[4578] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:I've been fighting in 0.0 for the last 3 years and to be honest in the last 6 months I've hardly seen a drake blob, mostly zealots or rohks now.
We had a baby one today.
Drake gangs of 50-70 we still see. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 09:46:00 -
[4579] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I wtf pwned others with my AC Canes, and I made kills with other ships as well. I never said the Drake is sh*t. What I said is, right now it has a role (although that role is not as big as some claim it is), but it wont after those planned changes. OT Smithers just said it right - dont screw Caldari *again*.
How good your AC Cane is against a proper counter: Curse's tracking disruptors?
Noemi Nagano wrote:1) Its been posted over and over again that there are range windows for MEDIUM long range weapons where HML is NOT best but worst in DPS.
Are you talking about 15-30km?
No, that's not the range where turrets out dps missiles. Because you will have major tracking problems with long range turrets at that range. |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
792
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 09:53:00 -
[4580] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Signal11th wrote:I've been fighting in 0.0 for the last 3 years and to be honest in the last 6 months I've hardly seen a drake blob, mostly zealots or rohks now. We had a baby one today. Drake gangs of 50-70 we still see.
You're down south aren't you? Yeah it was the last time I saw Drake blobs was when I was down Delve, Fatyh way. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 10:15:00 -
[4581] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Onictus wrote:Signal11th wrote:I've been fighting in 0.0 for the last 3 years and to be honest in the last 6 months I've hardly seen a drake blob, mostly zealots or rohks now. We had a baby one today. Drake gangs of 50-70 we still see. You're down south aren't you? Yeah it was the last time I saw Drake blobs was when I was down Delve, Fatyh way.
Delve was a blast, take 100 out fight till local passed 800 bugger off and do it again in an hour. Usually the third cyno per fight meant it was time to GTFO. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 13:12:00 -
[4582] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:
the point is when ppl try to say they know something about pvp, then something to back it up would give their points merit.
I posted you one of my alts which obviously doesnt have the issues you mentioned: 1) PvP 2) by no way Drake only :)
must have missed it. link again? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 13:15:00 -
[4583] - Quote
Oh and I didn't forget this thing I was waiting till I have a PC
Noemi Nagano wrote:Onictus wrote: What facts?
It's been posted over and over in MEDIUM long range catagory HMLs are the best weapon by a significant margin, and will remain so after the nerf.
I sure as **** didn't go selling my Drakes and Tengus.
1) Its been posted over and over again that there are range windows for MEDIUM long range weapons where HML is NOT best but worst in DPS. 2) Its been posted over and over again that missiles have FLIGHT TIME. 3) Its been posted over and over again that NO OTHER HML-based ship actually works except Drake and Tengu. 4) Its been posted over and over again that NO OTHER CALDARI MISSILE PVP ship than those 2 actually works above frig size. 5) Its been posted over and over again that Drakes are NOT the most used ship in lowsec and highsec. 6) Its been posted over and over again that picking on SOME STATS alone does not make sense in a game which is about ALL STATS combined. Eve is NOT EFT. 7) Its been posted over and over again that there are known and used counters against nullsec blobs with HML Drakes. Onictus, you said you were in lowsec a few days ago and met gatecamps, each of them with 2 or so Drakes. You failed to answer my questions which other ships and how many of them where in those lowsec gatecamps. Nor didnt you tell us how many ships of which kind you met overall. I am pretty sure Drakes were not the majority of ships you saw in lowsec ;)
1) Apples to oranges. HMLs do less dps then then AC/blasters/pulses SHORT range weapons, they out DPS Arties/beams/rails/ UNTIL you factor in short range T2 ammo, which HMLs are getting as well.
2) Who cares, find a tackle, if the target isn't leaving....you still hit hard.
3) There are only four medium missile boats, 50% of them are pretty damn good.
4) Wow look at all of the qualifiers there......yeah and so what. Learn a turret. I did. Off the top of my head, harpy, claw, caracal (rapids are funny) drake, tengu, falcon, rook, scorp and rokh are workable PvP ships. Use them if you must be a purist.
5) Whatever, they are as common as anything else.
6) You are right Eve isn't EFT show my a long range turret BC that has the range damage AND tank of a Drake or a T3 that can match a Tengu in the preceding categories. I'm willing to bet you can't.....and no sentry myrm bullshit, no one.ever. flies them.
7) Yeah, I know pretty much anything that can hit back beats a drake blob.
...and sorry I didn't note the exact composition of those camps. they were all half (or better) drakes with cyclones and or various light tackle. Lucky for me I was running an AB frig and they weren't locking me fast enough to keep me from burning back to the gate and the ceptor that caught me couldn't slow me down.
|
Lili Lu
526
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 14:40:00 -
[4584] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: 1) Its been posted over and over again that there are range windows for MEDIUM long range weapons where HML is NOT best but worst in DPS.
2) Its been posted over and over again that missiles have FLIGHT TIME.
3) Its been posted over and over again that NO OTHER HML-based ship actually works except Drake and Tengu.
4) Its been posted over and over again that NO OTHER CALDARI MISSILE PVP ship than those 2 actually works above frig size.
5) Its been posted over and over again that Drakes are NOT the most used ship in lowsec and highsec.
6) Its been posted over and over again that picking on SOME STATS alone does not make sense in a game which is about ALL STATS combined. Eve is NOT EFT.
7) Its been posted over and over again that there are known and used counters against nullsec blobs with HML Drakes.
Noemi, you are so full of it. That list is not facts. It is perceptions. Your perceptions. They prove nothing.
Also, you say you linked who your main is that supposedly is flying Hurricanes. I'm not asking, I'm demanding. Post it. You can post up your spam about pve all you want, because noone doubts you have experience with that. But, until you prove you have some pvp record, anything you say here concerning pvp is a load of ****.
1. That damage window is incredibly short, not 35km as you assert. You keep doing precisely what many of us and Fozzie have criticized as a facetious argument. To compare short range weapons systems dps against Drake HML dps is mixing apples and oranges. You mix them everytime you engage in your Cane whine. Those Canes are dps-ing in a short perimeter, the 10k or so that they have been engaging their dual medium neuts and ACs already in falloff.
And you keep missing that with the nerf they won't be able to use 425 ac and dual medium neuts anymore without a totally gimped fit, because they are getting grid nerfed, ffs, directly. My god if (no really, when ) the Drake had got directly nerfed with this pass what would you be saying. You'd be sperging your unsupported crap even more than you are now.
2. Flight time? So what? It does not matter. Those heavys are moving faster to target than any scout drone. Drakes would only have to worry about it if they are sitting at max range. In nullsec they do this with a bunch of other drakes and the thus the delay doesn't matter at all for killmail glory and doesn't matter for effectiveness because the whole fleets volley is what matters.
It doesn't happen in lowsec because almost everyone is sitting at zero to 30 so they can get a point. 30km of travel time on a missile doesn't lose anyone killmail glory. Drakes do fine, even near the top on killmails in mixed gangs, and noone is warping away from missiles in flight if they weren't already not pointed anyway. Try whining about drone travel time and you would have more credibility.
Oh, and if you are going to parade flight time as this terrible drawback to missiles, then balance that out with benefits like not needing cap (and not currently subject to tracking disruption )
3. Onictus already destroyed your whine about no other HML ships. And, with rebalancing Minmatar is getting a line of missile focused ships. But thats the whole point, this adjustment to HMs is being done to enable the process of rebalancing.
4. Ugh, your assertion number 4 is a rewording of your assertion number 3, so already addressed.
5. Agian for the umpteenth time, and you always avoid addressing it when I point this out, POSTING OVER AND OVER the same assertion based on your perception DOES NOT MAKE IT A FACT. You have no rangdom statistical sample of drake v cane usage numbers in lowsec. You have only your perception.
I have a differing perception. I see just as many Drakes or more in lowsec than Canes. Last night I was in two BC battles. Mainly mixed drakes and canes beacuse the others are **** atm. Drakes were outnumbering Canes by about 2 to 1. But does that make my perception and assertion any more an accurate portrayal of drake v cane use in lowsec? NO.
But, CCP has the tools to evaluate drake use in the game on a true statistical basis. They are not saying Drakes predominate only in nullsec. So stop repeating your own assertion as if we will all eventually accept it as fact. It is not fact.
6. Indeed, eve is not eft. But again, until you post with a main that has some pvp record all your posting can only be figured as that of an eft *****. And anyway, it seems your side finally gave up on the damage stats arguments because HMs are so obviously better. Regardless, CCP is not relying on EFT.
7. The issue is not whether there are counters to nullsec drake blobs. Again this is your attempt to characterize the problem as just nullsec drake blobs. CCP does not see it that way, and they have the ability to see drake/HML use within the game in all contexts. And, to just keep pointing to nullsec drake blobs doesn't help your argument anyway because you won't see Myrm or Harby blobs, and even Cane blobs won't be viable to replace Drakes (and especially after this nerf). BCs will all be getting rebalnced later as well. I doubt CCP wants to have them owning all the available niches for tech I Cruisers and HACs anymore.
Stop posting arguments and calling them facts. Stop calling posts, facts. This is an exchange of arguments. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 17:08:00 -
[4585] - Quote
@Lili Lu
First of all, there is one full of it .. but thats not me.
I linked an alts KB, if you, Lili Lu,are not happy, go on. I wont link more alts (which I have). And you can demand what you want, but you wont get any. There is really no more need to argue with you. You are set, and its not changing anything to talk to you. But still, others should not read your lies uncommented :)
Lili Lu wrote:
1. That damage window is incredibly short, not 35km as you assert. You keep doing precisely what many of us and Fozzie have criticized as a facetious argument. To compare short range weapons systems dps against Drake HML dps is mixing apples and oranges. You mix them everytime you engage in your Cane whine. Those Canes are dps-ing in a short perimeter, the 10k or so that they have been engaging their dual medium neuts and ACs already in falloff.
no. You just cant read, obviously. I said it again and again. And again. I compare LONG RANGE MEDIUM WEAPONS. If you are unable to do so, then not my problem. Everyone who is able to read already understood it, there is a range window where HML are doing more DPS, and before and after LR MT do more.
Application is another issue, but mechanics are very different here for both types, missiles and guns. So if you compare the weaks of the one with the strongs of the other or vice versa, then you are comparing apples and oranges, not me.
Lili Lu wrote:And you keep missing that with the nerf they won't be able to use 425 ac and dual medium neuts anymore without a totally gimped fit, because they are getting grid nerfed, ffs, directly. My god if (no really, when ) the Drake had got directly nerfed with this pass what would you be saying. You'd be sperging your unsupported crap even more than you are now.
I am not missing anything. Again, learn to read and understand.
Lili Lu wrote: 2. Flight time? So what? It does not matter.
Yeah, thats your opinion. But thats not fact. Its a measurable thing on those longer ranges we are talking about. If you deny that fact you just show your set up mind - again.
Lili Lu wrote: 3. Onictus already destroyed your whine about no other HML ships. And, with rebalancing Minmatar is getting a line of missile focused ships. But thats the whole point, this adjustment to HMs is being done to enable the process of rebalancing.
Onictus destroyed nothing, tbh. There are 2 HML using ships in Eve, one of them a t3 which are on par or good in a role. All others are NOT. Thats exactly my point, and if HML get nerfed (which is the plan of Fozzie, do you deny that?), those other ship are even more on the receiving end.
Lili Lu wrote: 4. Ugh, your assertion number 4 is a rewording of your assertion number 3, so already addressed.
Hahaha .... now you made me laugh. Exactly. But only because large missiles and medium short range missiles dont exist. Or ... maybe .... wait? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 17:08:00 -
[4586] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: 5. Agian for the umpteenth time, and you always avoid addressing it when I point this out, POSTING OVER AND OVER the same assertion based on your perception DOES NOT MAKE IT A FACT. You have no rangdom statistical sample of drake v cane usage numbers in lowsec. You have only your perception.
No one with their brains set right (and yes, unfortunately this will exclude you ..) will claim Drakes are the most used ships in high and low. No one. Not even Onictus.
Lili Lu wrote: But, CCP has the tools to evaluate drake use in the game on a true statistical basis. They are not saying Drakes predominate only in nullsec. So stop repeating your own assertion as if we will all eventually accept it as fact. It is not fact.
Err no. Thats a simple lie you tell here :) I never ever read anything like that in an official CCP announcement.
I will not stop posting facts, at least not as long as narrow minded people who obviously even cant read keep spamming their Drake/HML hate here :) |
Lili Lu
526
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 17:39:00 -
[4587] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:@Lili Lu First of all, there is one full of it .. but thats not me. I linked an alts KB, if you, Lili Lu,are not happy, go on. I wont link more alts (which I have). And you can demand what you want, but you wont get any. There is really no more need to argue with you. You are set, and its not changing anything to talk to you. But still, others should not read your lies uncommented :) Lili Lu wrote:
1. That damage window is incredibly short, not 35km as you assert. You keep doing precisely what many of us and Fozzie have criticized as a facetious argument. To compare short range weapons systems dps against Drake HML dps is mixing apples and oranges. You mix them everytime you engage in your Cane whine. Those Canes are dps-ing in a short perimeter, the 10k or so that they have been engaging their dual medium neuts and ACs already in falloff.
no. You just cant read, obviously. I said it again and again. And again. I compare LONG RANGE MEDIUM WEAPONS. If you are unable to do so, then not my problem. Everyone who is able to read already understood it, there is a range window where HML are doing more DPS, and before and after LR MT do more. Application is another issue, but mechanics are very different here for both types, missiles and guns. So if you compare the weaks of the one with the strongs of the other or vice versa, then you are comparing apples and oranges, not me.
Weak. I haven't sen any post by you with a link to a character with any pvp record. Why so afraid to re-post if you say you already did?
You keep whining about Canes and dps. Canes only out dps Drakes because they are usally fit with 425 ACs and 2 mdium neuts. Few people fight in arty canes because it leave little grid for tank. Unless they are with a group looking to alpha some poor sucker.
Also, just resorting to "liar liar" is pretty **** poor on your part. I haven't presented any of what I say as absolute fact. You do. That is my point. We both are presenting arguments. Neither of which can be authoritatively stated to be fact. THerfore I am not lying (and neither are you btw). But you try to cast your opinions as fact. That is not a lie, but it is a mischaracterization. And thus your arguments are weak.
Also, CCP is able to track all module activations each day. They can tell just how many more HML II activations are occuring in game. I suspect they can break that down as well geographically. So while they may not be able to count individual activations to differentiate pve from pvp, certainly if they are finding plenty of HML activation in lowsec it's not Drake blobs or people running level 4s in Drakes there (although it may catch some low sec Tengu level 4 activity). |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
60
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:07:00 -
[4588] - Quote
Just go back 2 pages and you see the link easily.
Second: if you accuse me of mixing AC Canes and Arty Canes, comparing HML Drakes with AC Canes and the like, then yes - you are a liar . I never did that.
The only time I mentioned those two ships/fittings was when I spoke about viable roles. There is no discussion about the AC Cane being the ship of choice for most low sec PvP players (if they want to go BC). The Drake with HML on the other hand is also a viable choice. If you really want to compare those two in terms of what they do in a 1on1, then HML Drake will lose to any AC Cane with a half smart pilot due to it cant catch the Cane, and if it can then the Cane will be too close for the Drake so the winner will be the Cane.
That does not mean the Drake has no role - it has. It has to stay far enough out and deal DPS from there. Those DPS are not so hot (esp. when not shooting kinetic ..) and come in delayed, but steady. So thats the role of a Drake, it can be a brick of a tank and deal solid DPS from 0-max. Its role is not favoured by current meta though, except in nullsec blobs. Simple as that. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:14:00 -
[4589] - Quote
Noemi Nagano is p funny.
I doubt anyone with any sense really believes most of Noemi Nagano statements. I'm p sure CCP isn't paying much attention.
With that said. If a player does SPAM enough, it's possible to derail a thread or any changes a player may NOT want (I know from experience lol). However, I've never seen it work the other way around. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Rita May
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:16:00 -
[4590] - Quote
on a totally unrelated side note:
i have the feeling that the sudden changes in argumentation from the topic of this thread to "your points are invalid because you are posting with a NPC-Corp Alt" has two reasons:
1. The horse is dead, no more beating, let it rest in peace 2. if one starts to feal s/he has no (more) valid points to contribute s/he starts to flame the "inexperienced" noobs in the NPC-Corps
regarding point 1. i'd like to add: if new information comes up i'm more than happy to discuss that again
cu. |
|
Marcus Harikari
Guitar Players of EVE
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:24:00 -
[4591] - Quote
NO HML NERF NO HML NERF |
Lili Lu
526
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 18:53:00 -
[4592] - Quote
Rita May wrote:on a totally unrelated side note:
i have the feeling that the sudden changes in argumentation from the topic of this thread to "your points are invalid because I am posting with an NPC-Corp Alt and calling you a liar liar" has two reasons:
1. The horse is dead, no more beating, let it rest in peace 2. if one starts to feal s/he has no (more) valid points to contribute s/he starts to flame the those that disagree with her from an inexperienced noob in the NPC-Corps
regarding point 1. i'd like to add: if new information comes up i'm more than happy to discuss that again
cu. FYP See what I did there.
But yeah, I said about a hundred pages ago that those whining about the changes were just repeating themselves, or as you put it, beating a dead horse |
Lili Lu
526
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 19:08:00 -
[4593] - Quote
Why Noemi, is this http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=ROU+Psychopath&page=1#kills really you. So you like to gank noobships in Jita? I paged back many pages and still didn't see any lowsec fighting, which you profess to do. Whatever floats your boat I guess. And, damn, if it is you, shouldn't you be moaning about the Hurricane nerf? Why all your hair pulling over the HML nerf and Drakes?
You know you can post with that guy. Ok, I have some pity for you now. Carry on. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
176
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 19:58:00 -
[4594] - Quote
Missile users get the HAM buff to go alongside the HM nerf.
Is switching fits really such a tragedy? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
396
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 21:57:00 -
[4595] - Quote
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=13141153
I see a Jita ganker who can't fit a Drake. No wonder. Seriously Noemi, you should really stick to forum PVP. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 22:31:00 -
[4596] - Quote
Maybe its beyond your knowledge, but kills in Jita dont neccesarily need to be ganks ... there is a thing called wardec :)
And that Drake was not a good one, agreed on that. FC wanted HAMs when I had just t1 ready, he still wanted HAMs .. *sigh* the BCS were no issue for me, like I said - trading ;)
About the rest - everything has been said. I never said I fly only Drake, in fact in most of my postings you can read I can use all there is in subcap (and nowadays also all t2 weapons). So for me this is nothing personal, I dont *need* the Drake or Cane or whatever ship. But I like balance. I want Eve to be a place where every race can do something (and more than just E-war or Logi) in every ship class. And with their signature weapons, not some Gallentean gunnery ;) ... so fix the NH, fix the Raven, fix Torps, CMs and HAMs and then you can think of a change to HMLs. But not the other way round. Screwing over a race again and again is just lame.
Best regards. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 22:39:00 -
[4597] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Noemi Nagano is p funny.
I doubt anyone with any sense really believes most of Noemi Nagano statements. I'm p sure CCP isn't paying much attention.
With that said. If a player does SPAM enough, it's possible to derail a thread or any changes a player may NOT want (I know from experience lol). However, I've never seen it work the other way around.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17230713
well, I think you are funny too :) you managed to fit an even worse PvP HAM Drake than me - do you also have an FC as excuse? :D
thats what I mean .. you can and will find stupid/bad/whatever fittings for everyone, if you look a bit. Didnt take me long in fact to find this, was the first Drake I clicked on.
So, what does that mean about you and your credibility? Nothing, tbh .. you could have learned, or it was bad luck when you were caught in a semi-fitted ship or whatever. I can only say something about your credibility in terms of what you write here. It makes no sense to me, but others may feel different. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
329
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 22:44:00 -
[4598] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Major Killz wrote:Noemi Nagano is p funny.
I doubt anyone with any sense really believes most of Noemi Nagano statements. I'm p sure CCP isn't paying much attention.
With that said. If a player does SPAM enough, it's possible to derail a thread or any changes a player may NOT want (I know from experience lol). However, I've never seen it work the other way around. http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17230713well, I think you are funny too :) you managed to fit an even worse PvP HAM Drake than me - do you also have an FC as excuse? :D thats what I mean .. you can and will find stupid/bad/whatever fittings for everyone, if you look a bit. Didnt take me long in fact to find this, was the first Drake I clicked on. So, what does that mean about you and your credibility? Nothing, tbh .. you could have learned, or it was bad luck when you were caught in a semi-fitted ship or whatever. I can only say something about your credibility in terms of what you write here. It makes no sense to me, but others may feel different. As one who doesn't PvP much what was the issue with that fit? |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 22:52:00 -
[4599] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Major Killz wrote:Noemi Nagano is p funny.
I doubt anyone with any sense really believes most of Noemi Nagano statements. I'm p sure CCP isn't paying much attention.
With that said. If a player does SPAM enough, it's possible to derail a thread or any changes a player may NOT want (I know from experience lol). However, I've never seen it work the other way around. http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17230713well, I think you are funny too :) you managed to fit an even worse PvP HAM Drake than me - do you also have an FC as excuse? :D thats what I mean .. you can and will find stupid/bad/whatever fittings for everyone, if you look a bit. Didnt take me long in fact to find this, was the first Drake I clicked on. So, what does that mean about you and your credibility? Nothing, tbh .. you could have learned, or it was bad luck when you were caught in a semi-fitted ship or whatever. I can only say something about your credibility in terms of what you write here. It makes no sense to me, but others may feel different. As one who doesn't PvP much what was the issue with that fit?
Just being terribubble with terribubble fits ofc v0v [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
26
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 23:38:00 -
[4600] - Quote
I thought this was settled like 100 pages ago.... drakes are barely losing any dps, who cares? ***** when its on the test server, because sitting here whining about base numbers and eft warrioring doesnt mean a damn thing. |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.12 23:53:00 -
[4601] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Maybe its beyond your knowledge, but kills in Jita dont neccesarily need to be ganks ... there is a thing called wardec :)
Maybe its beyond your knowledge but the rest of eve generally considers HS pvp with scorn and derision as it barely qualifies as real pvp in 99% of all cases. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
246
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 04:51:00 -
[4602] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Screwed by the naga?
You are kidding right? Naga us one of the better tier 3 for gang work
Did you fly the "torp" Naga on SiSi, it was terrible....a horrible horrible ship, Crap range, Crap damage and pain to fit.
I don't care about missile PvP that would be like ragequittig because my ogre IIs don't destroy all in PvP. It's a silly emotional argument with no basis in fact.
I did not suggest that the Naga is not a fine ship. It is, and I am sure that the Gallente pilots were grateful to have it. But Caldari's signature weapon is MISSILES. Making the Naga use hybrids was the equivalent of making the Tornado use missiles. Except CCP didn't do that, did they.
Today, a year later, it's old news. but at the time it absolutely pissed a lot of Caldari pilots off big time. So much so that I heard someone in my corp bring it up just the other day, and he was still mad about it. That's the thing that some of you guys don't understand, and you couldn't understand unless it was happening to you. Imagine the scenario, you are a Caldari pilot, you have been waiting literally years now for CCP to fix your ships, you've got the Drake and that's it. You never trained hybrids because, up until very recently hybrids were broken as well --and even with them fixed it's not like the Caldari have any great hybrid ships worth training them for.
Suddenly, out of no where CCP announces new ships for everyone. An entirely new class of BC, and one that will potentially allow you to finally use those elite torpedo skills you trained so long ago. If you were Caldari, you were THRILLED. It was the best Christmas ever. Then CCP changed their mind, jerked your toy right out of your hands, and gave it instead to someone else.
So yeah, it was a big deal.
And as for the Torp Naga on SiSi, welcome to the exiciting world of Caldari PvP. Of course it was crap, it's ALL crap, that's what this thread is about. That's WHY people are angry. Caldari pilots are tired of the nerfs, tired of the broken ships, tired of the broken weapons, tired of seeing development attention and imagination focussed on making everyone else better and Caldari worse. You realize that Caldari pilots have not one, but TWO additional nerfs CCP has already said are in the works. They are nerfing missiles further with TDs, and they are nerfing ECM.
But not one statement about fixing anything. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 05:41:00 -
[4603] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:IBut Caldari's signature weapon is MISSILES. Making the Naga use hybrids was the equivalent of making the Tornado use missiles. Except CCP didn't do that, did they.
Caldari are Hybrid/missiles
Its not CCP's fault you're daft and decided they should only use missiles.
|
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
792
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 06:50:00 -
[4604] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:Missile users get the HAM buff to go alongside the HM nerf.
Is switching fits really such a tragedy?
I actually fly a HAM tengu pretty often, I find that the ham tengu at the right range is better than the hml tengu anyway,all it needs is a good range buff. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Shaalira D'arc
Quantum Cats Syndicate
525
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 06:58:00 -
[4605] - Quote
231 pages. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 07:46:00 -
[4606] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
Suddenly, out of no where CCP announces new ships for everyone. An entirely new class of BC, and one that will potentially allow you to finally use those elite torpedo skills you trained so long ago. If you were Caldari, you were THRILLED. It was the best Christmas ever. Then CCP changed their mind, jerked your toy right out of your hands, and gave it instead to someone else.
So yeah, it was a big deal.
And as for the Torp Naga on SiSi, welcome to the exiciting world of Caldari PvP. Of course it was crap, it's ALL crap, that's what this thread is about. That's WHY people are angry. Caldari pilots are tired of the nerfs, tired of the broken ships, tired of the broken weapons, tired of seeing development attention and imagination focussed on making everyone else better and Caldari worse. You realize that Caldari pilots have not one, but TWO additional nerfs CCP has already said are in the works. They are nerfing missiles further with TDs, and they are nerfing ECM.
But not one statement about fixing anything.
Yep. Again, quoted for truth. Imagine the Nado would get all missile hardpoints (Minmatar are mixed Projectiles/Missiles, right?). Would you guys enjoy this? In fact, the Nado should have gotten 4/4 ... that was the concept for Minmatar, long time ago.
It has been fixed, now. And with a reason. Unfortunately CCP seems to forget to fix Caldari. Instead they just break it more and more.
About all those KB-nitpickers who still cant read - I said this is one char of mine, and I posted an alt. I have more alts than just 1. If you think you can judge what I wrote by knowing I have a trader char and an nowadays mostly highsec PvP alt then go on. 1 year back I used this other toon mostly in lowsec (you will have to go back to page 4 or 5 or so, time has passed :) ), and I still use other toons right now in lowsec. I honestly dont care if you believe me or not, your minds are set anyway :)
Still, nothing of this changes anything with the known facts - Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls is broken except HML on 2 ships (which is strong in a certain engagement type but not worth too much in many others). As long as this imbalance is not fixed in a way that more Caldari ships are as useful in combat as amarrian BS or HAC, or Winmatar over all, I *will* continue to post here. Give us options, and I promise you will see far less Drakes and much more Ravens, Nighthawks, Caracals, Cerberus and maybe new fixed Nagas with missile slots :D
And if you break ECM then please give the Scorpion a combat/DPS role too, like the Geddon, Dominix and Phoon have. More combat options for missiles (but yeah, first CMs and Torps need a BIG fix).
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 07:55:00 -
[4607] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:OT Smithers wrote:
Suddenly, out of no where CCP announces new ships for everyone. An entirely new class of BC, and one that will potentially allow you to finally use those elite torpedo skills you trained so long ago. If you were Caldari, you were THRILLED. It was the best Christmas ever. Then CCP changed their mind, jerked your toy right out of your hands, and gave it instead to someone else.
So yeah, it was a big deal.
And as for the Torp Naga on SiSi, welcome to the exiciting world of Caldari PvP. Of course it was crap, it's ALL crap, that's what this thread is about. That's WHY people are angry. Caldari pilots are tired of the nerfs, tired of the broken ships, tired of the broken weapons, tired of seeing development attention and imagination focussed on making everyone else better and Caldari worse. You realize that Caldari pilots have not one, but TWO additional nerfs CCP has already said are in the works. They are nerfing missiles further with TDs, and they are nerfing ECM.
But not one statement about fixing anything.
Yep. Again, quoted for truth. Imagine the Nado would get all missile hardpoints (Minmatar are mixed Projectiles/Missiles, right?). Would you guys enjoy this? In fact, the Nado should have gotten 4/4 ... that was the concept for Minmatar, long time ago. It has been fixed, now. And with a reason. Unfortunately CCP seems to forget to fix Caldari. Instead they just break it more and more. About all those KB-nitpickers who still cant read - I said this is one char of mine, and I posted an alt. I have more alts than just 1. If you think you can judge what I wrote by knowing I have a trader char and an nowadays mostly highsec PvP alt then go on. 1 year back I used this other toon mostly in lowsec (you will have to go back to page 4 or 5 or so, time has passed :) ), and I still use other toons right now in lowsec. I honestly dont care if you believe me or not, your minds are set anyway :) Still, nothing of this changes anything with the known facts - Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls is broken except HML on 2 ships (which is strong in a certain engagement type but not worth too much in many others). As long as this imbalanceis not fixed in a way that more Caldari ships are as useful in combat as amarrian BS or HAC, or Winmatar over all, I *will* continue to post here. Give us options, and I promise you will see far less Drakes and much more Ravens, Nighthawks, Caracals, Cerberus and maybe new fixed Nagas with missile slots :D And if you break ECM then please give the Scorpion a combat/DPS role too, like the Geddon, Dominix and Phoon have. More combat options for missiles (but yeah, first CMs and Torps need a BIG fix).
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 08:01:00 -
[4608] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Imagine the Nado would get all missile hardpoints (Minmatar are mixed Projectiles/Missiles, right?). Would you guys enjoy this? In fact, the Nado should have gotten 4/4 ... that was the concept for Minmatar, long time ago.
Caldari: missiles/hybrids Gallente: hybrids/drones Amarr: lasers/drones Minmatar: projectiles/missiles/drones
There's a reason why Minmatar is "most skill intensive race" in the game. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 08:10:00 -
[4609] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Imagine the Nado would get all missile hardpoints (Minmatar are mixed Projectiles/Missiles, right?). Would you guys enjoy this? In fact, the Nado should have gotten 4/4 ... that was the concept for Minmatar, long time ago.
Caldari: missiles/hybrids Gallente: hybrids/drones Amarr: lasers/drones Minmatar: projectiles/missiles/drones There's a reason why Minmatar is "most skill intensive race" in the game.
Winmatar have indeed been mixed weapons mostly before. But you might have noticed CCP is trying to get rid of mixed weapons for them, as its a matter of fact this concept didnt work too well in real game.
Then again .. if you feel like Minmatar is the most skill intensive race then you will certainly be proud you should get a mixed weapons Tornado, or mixed weapons tier 3 BS, right? A 4/4 Nado, wouldnt that be cool? And so very elite too?
Right now Minmatar need drones like any other race does (maybe except Caldari pilots, who dont have a single subcap which has room for a flight of 5 heavies/sentries), and they need projectiles. Missiles they can train, but dont really need them, because they suck anyway (although a Torp Phoon is atm the best missile combat BS..). What they have to do more than others is train shield and armor, but its only because they have the *options* for both. You can stick with one or the other and still build viable ships. So no, I dont think you need really more SP to make good use of Minmatar atm, in fact you can skip maxing optimal range and completely ignore cap use reduction for gunnery if you are Minmatar.
Edit: I just see you edited Amarr in your posting while I was writing this here .. revealing, isnt it? :D |
Mishra Ninghor
The Scarlet Storm
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 09:05:00 -
[4610] - Quote
These changes are starting to look real good. A 10% nerf to HML damage is pretty much on the mark what they need. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 10:49:00 -
[4611] - Quote
Mishra Ninghor wrote:These changes are starting to look real good. A 10% nerf to HML damage is pretty much on the mark what they need.
Tbh, no. HML dont need a general damage nerf. What they need to be better in line:
1) t2 range ammo with significantly reduced DPS (to be in line with long range turrets) and more range and much (!) more missile speed (same).
2) reduced range for their higher DPS ammo. So shutting furies to short range would be ok, if they wont be completely broken by those other soft stats (and I fear they will be broken). And giving t1 and faction missiles a bit shorter range than planned would be ok too, if there is a lower DPS longer range option for "real" sniping.
If you just nerf damage for all types missiles will suck too hard. Hint: Caldari are not the race with the built in "i wtf pwn because i am so fast" button. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 12:42:00 -
[4612] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Mishra Ninghor wrote:These changes are starting to look real good. A 10% nerf to HML damage is pretty much on the mark what they need. Tbh, no. HML dont need a general damage nerf. What they need to be better in line: 1) t2 range ammo with significantly reduced DPS (to be in line with long range turrets) and more range and much (!) more missile speed (same). 2) reduced range for their higher DPS ammo. So shutting furies to short range would be ok, if they wont be completely broken by those other soft stats (and I fear they will be broken). And giving t1 and faction missiles a bit shorter range than planned would be ok too, if there is a lower DPS longer range option for "real" sniping. If you just nerf damage for all types missiles will suck too hard. Hint: Caldari are not the race with the built in "i wtf pwn because i am so fast" button.
noooooo! uve started him off again. now we have to do this all over... |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 12:54:00 -
[4613] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Why Noemi, is this http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=ROU+Psychopath&page=1#kills really you. So you like to gank noobships in Jita? Or are you maybe one the noobships ganked? I paged back many pages and still didn't see any lowsec fighting, which you profess to do. Whatever floats your boat I guess. And, damn, if it is you, shouldn't you be moaning about the Hurricane nerf? Why all your hair pulling over the HML nerf and Drakes? You know you can post with that guy. or can you? duhn dah dunh Ok, I have some pity for you now. Carry on.
he has plenty of low sec losses from a while back. i was impressed by the fact hes doesn't fly only drakes tbh lol
i assumed they were GCC targets because the only ppl i've known to get killed in noobships so much are noob players that don't understand aggression and concordokken mechanics. especially in jita.
edit: yah, so they ARE GCC http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=16566084 http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=16566081
lol |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 13:20:00 -
[4614] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Caldari are not the race with the built in "i wtf pwn because i am so fast" button.
Is there a reason why Caldari needs iWin button? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 13:26:00 -
[4615] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Caldari are not the race with the built in "i wtf pwn because i am so fast" button. Is there a reason why Caldari needs iWin button?
No, none at all. But there shouldnt be another race which is favoured in PvP either, right? :) Simple, if you dont understand the problems which exist in Eve atm, then ask. There are people here willing to explain. You just have to be open minded, thats all :)
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 13:44:00 -
[4616] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: he has plenty of low sec losses from a while back. i was impressed by the fact hes doesn't fly only drakes tbh lol
i assumed they were GCC targets because the only ppl i've known to get killed in noobships so much are noob players that don't understand aggression and concordokken mechanics. especially in jita.
If you care to read you will see I dont have only plenty of lowsec losses .. but also lowsec kills, and much more of them. As you can see this particular toon is not really about Drakes. I said that also a lot of times, reading and understanding will help here.
And this here for example http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17680770 was no GCC at all. Same as the same guy short time before. Although I admit Gyro II was maybe not the best choice in his fitting.
So if you are done with your KB ideas and discussion you could get back to the point, which is not "Noemis KB" or "Noemis 101 for PvP". Nor if I am a better PvP player than one or all of you or not.
The point is how Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls will work out with a nerf of the only working platforms Caldari have atm. Its a matter of fact there are only 2 working hulls in this sizes, and only one system if you want to be competitive. Its also a matter of fact that this combo is going to get nerfed by CCP if they do what they announced in the OP.
My solution for this issue (which cant be denied to be an issue by anyone with their brains set right) would be to 1) first FIX all not working Caldari missile hulls and missile systems and then 2) afterwards check if the problem with HMLs and Drakes does still exist.
If it does CCP will have to find a way, which maybe will include an HML nerf. But I doubt there will be need for this. Apart from that I have yet to see proof for the assumption so many here take as a fact: the assumption of HML Drakes being so OP like those pure Gallente and pure Mini pilots say they are. Crosstrain and check yourself. And then you will maybe dont wonder anymore why so many Caldari pilots dont use a Drake but crosstrain to Winmatar or the like ... in the real game the Drake is just a solid ship. Nothing less, agreed, but also nothing more. Thats why its NOT outnumbering any other ship in most places in Eve, and the nullsec problem which does exist (admitted) seems to get solved by tactics and ideas too ..
Best regards. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
396
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 14:44:00 -
[4617] - Quote
I like the way that Noemi's favoured Hurricane fit is both slower and less agile than a basic Drake.
It does do 5 DPS more with Hail at 1400 m range though, so that must make all the difference. Well, until Rage damage is increased in the patch, then it'll be inferior in speed, agility, DPS and tank. But that's just EFT warrioring, I suppose pilot skill makes the difference. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 15:06:00 -
[4618] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
If it does CCP will have to find a way, which maybe will include an HML nerf. But I doubt there will be need for this. Apart from that I have yet to see proof for the assumption so many here take as a fact: the assumption of HML Drakes being so OP like those pure Gallente and pure Mini pilots say they are. Crosstrain and check yourself.
So how do you explain me?
I fly the hole damn stack of them and agree with the changes. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 15:38:00 -
[4619] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:I like the way that Noemi's favoured Hurricane fit is both slower and less agile than a basic Drake.
It does do 5 DPS more with Hail at 1400 m range though, so that must make all the difference. Well, until Rage damage is increased in the patch, then it'll be inferior in speed, agility, DPS and tank. But that's just EFT warrioring, I suppose pilot skill makes the difference.
If you would take just the numbers, then you might be right. Although you seem to neglect things like drones, signature, neuts, explosion velo and radius ... go on with this, but take that to a private convo. Because its absolutely not contributing to this topic here. Thanks a lot :)
Btw, Rage damage will be increased with the planned changes, but same will happen with the drawback softstats (slower explosion velocity, higher explosion radius). And the range will be reduced some more. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
92
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 17:03:00 -
[4620] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Gypsio III wrote:I like the way that Noemi's favoured Hurricane fit is both slower and less agile than a basic Drake.
It does do 5 DPS more with Hail at 1400 m range though, so that must make all the difference. Well, until Rage damage is increased in the patch, then it'll be inferior in speed, agility, DPS and tank. But that's just EFT warrioring, I suppose pilot skill makes the difference. If you would take just the numbers, then you might be right. Although you seem to neglect things like drones, signature, neuts, explosion velo and radius ... go on with this, but take that to a private convo. Because its absolutely not contributing to this topic here. Thanks a lot :) Btw, Rage damage will be increased with the planned changes, but same will happen with the drawback softstats (slower explosion velocity, higher explosion radius). And the range will be reduced some more. Lol ! You are in fact implying that you contribute to the thread, whereas all you are doing is yelling insanities, like caldari only good ship for pvp is the drake, which is completely wrong, or hybrid are gallente weapons, which is completely wrong too.
Please, stop talking. When we are saying that the HML are OP because not in line with MEDIUM size LONG RANGE weapons, you start talking about the hurricane, which is currently nerfed, in this thread. And when this become clear, you fall back to HML are not OP because of short range weapons.
You are boring. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
68
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 17:41:00 -
[4621] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Lol ! You are in fact implying that you contribute to the thread, whereas all you are doing is yelling insanities, like caldari only good ship for pvp is the drake,
Stop right here. Where did I say that? Please learn to read. What I said is of Caldaris missile hulls medium and large only 2 are working, and only with one weapon system (HML). Show me proof for your statement. You wont find any ..
Bouh Revetoile wrote: which is completely wrong, or hybrid are gallente weapons, which is completely wrong too.
Completely wrong is just what you say here, sir. I never said Caldari dont have Hybrids. I said missiles are THE Caldari signature weapon, which is something different. You really have serious issues in understanding stuff.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Please, stop talking. When we are saying that the HML are OP because not in line with MEDIUM size LONG RANGE weapons, you start talking about the hurricane, which is currently nerfed, in this thread. And when this become clear, you fall back to HML are not OP because of short range weapons.
You are boring.
First of all - I never fell "back" to this "short range weapon comparison" argument. Never ever. Show me where I did, or I tell you a BLOODY LIAR. What I did was: I said some ships do atm have viable short range fittings (and others dont) and vice versa: other ships have viable long range fittings and others dont. If you cant understand this comparison of ships for roles, then you are really a hopeless case.
I stand to this statement from the start of this thread til the end: HML are not OP per se. If you think they are, then ask yourself those questions:
- why is no other ship really good with them except the Drake and the Tengu?
- why should they be OP when there are range windows where they can and will get outdamaged by MEDIUM SIZE LONG RANGE TURRETS?
- why do you think HML are flying around in space alone? They need a ship, and those ships have attributes like speed and dronebay, and they give certain boni, some also affecting the weapon systems. Furthermore there are skills involved, matter of fact is: gunnery has 5% more RoF bonus and 5% more damage bonus at all l5 compared to missiles, just with the support skills! Learn to understand this concept ..
Before you do I think you should not come back here :)
Thanks. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
227
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 18:52:00 -
[4622] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: - why should they be OP when there are range windows where they can and will get outdamaged by MEDIUM SIZE LONG RANGE TURRETS?
- .
Probably because inside that window you speak of you can't hit a BC with a MWD. Take your cane, load it up with 720mm + quake and try to hit something.
A Cane with x3 gyros and a Te does 517dps.....however, it also tracks at 0.0376 rad/sec That is terrible, 1200mm arties have similar tracking with enough TEs under them.
.....oh and did I mention optimal is 8km
There is a reason that NO ONE uses the SR T2 ammo for skirmishing above frigates. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
198
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 18:57:00 -
[4623] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:- why should they be OP when there are range windows where they can and will get outdamaged by MEDIUM SIZE LONG RANGE TURRETS?
Can you show me Harbinger that outdamages Drake at 50+ km? Or Brutix that outdamages Drake at 50+ km? Or 720mm Cane that outdamages Drake at 15-20 km? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 19:21:00 -
[4624] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Or 720mm Cane that outdamages Drake at 15-20 km?
720mm with quake and 3 Gyros will...if he can hit the drake.
|
Sang-in Tiers
Hedion University Amarr Empire
43
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 22:24:00 -
[4625] - Quote
While you guys are discussing who shall be most OP I'll keep dreaming that one day Amarr will be viable again. |
Sycotic Deninard
Polaris Breach Corp
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 22:27:00 -
[4626] - Quote
Looking at the 2nd proposed changes to HML's that Fozzie has announced makes me laugh. The range nerf is worse and the applied damage to the HML/HAMS is a joke. Yes I know that the missile will get to its target faster and yes I know that the ship penalties have been removed from the Tech II variants but the nerf to the range, explosion radius and missile velocity makes using HML missiles pointless.
It's become abundantly clear that CCP Fozie doesn't entirely understand the missile system nor the impact that it will have for most of the Caldari race. Like I said earlier in this post, this change will have a direct impact on CCP's subscription base and by the looks of it others have expressed the same thing. |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 22:40:00 -
[4627] - Quote
Sycotic Deninard wrote:Looking at the 2nd proposed changes to HML's that Fozzie has announced makes me laugh. The range nerf is worse and the applied damage to the HML/HAMS is a joke. Yes I know that the missile will get to its target faster and yes I know that the ship penalties have been removed from the Tech II variants but the nerf to the range, explosion radius and missile velocity makes using HML missiles pointless.
It's become abundantly clear that CCP Fozie doesn't entirely understand the missile system nor the impact that it will have for most of the Caldari race. Like I said earlier in this post, this change will have a direct impact on CCP's subscription base and by the looks of it others have expressed the same thing.
so...looking at the changes to HMLs right now. It's NOT that bad...
using EFT with modded data added in looking at my current MISSION tengu.
I'm down to 597dps from 660dps (w/ navy scourge) and I put on a Rigor 2, so that should more than make up for the explosion radius...I'm down from <130km range to <97km range....
that isn't that bad....on paper. I'm pretty sure its not bad at all in practice |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 22:52:00 -
[4628] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote: none of this affects Heavy Assault Missiles, they are not a variant of Heavy Missiles. The only changes on Heavy Assault Missiles is the PG change and the tech2 missile changes
Yup finally got around to finishing HAM spec lol
|
Sycotic Deninard
Polaris Breach Corp
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 22:59:00 -
[4629] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:Sycotic Deninard wrote:Looking at the 2nd proposed changes to HML's that Fozzie has announced makes me laugh. The range nerf is worse and the applied damage to the HML/HAMS is a joke. Yes I know that the missile will get to its target faster and yes I know that the ship penalties have been removed from the Tech II variants but the nerf to the range, explosion radius and missile velocity makes using HML missiles pointless.
It's become abundantly clear that CCP Fozie doesn't entirely understand the missile system nor the impact that it will have for most of the Caldari race. Like I said earlier in this post, this change will have a direct impact on CCP's subscription base and by the looks of it others have expressed the same thing. so...looking at the changes to HMLs right now. It's NOT that bad... using EFT with modded data added in looking at my current MISSION tengu. I'm down to 597dps from 660dps (w/ navy scourge) and I put on a Rigor 2, so that should more than make up for the explosion radius...I'm down from <130km range to <97km range.... that isn't that bad....on paper. I'm pretty sure its not bad at all in practice edit: and oh: CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 35% -Base velocity increased by 14.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Explosion radius increased by 12% -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
none of this affects Heavy Assault Missiles, they are not a variant of Heavy Missiles. The only changes on Heavy Assault Missiles is the PG change and the tech2 missile changes
Oh?
Here are the posted numbers for changes to the HAMS.
Inferno Rage Heavy Assault Missile
Old Flight Time: 4.3 New Flight Time: 4
Old Range: 8062.5 New Range: 7500
Old Explosion Velocity: 93 New Explosion Velocity: 87
Old Explosion Radius: 180 New Explosion Radius: 215
|
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 23:08:00 -
[4630] - Quote
Last I checked Rage were Tech2 Missiles... |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 23:20:00 -
[4631] - Quote
Sycotic Deninard wrote:Ajunta Pal wrote:Sycotic Deninard wrote:Looking at the 2nd proposed changes to HML's that Fozzie has announced makes me laugh. The range nerf is worse and the applied damage to the HML/HAMS is a joke. Yes I know that the missile will get to its target faster and yes I know that the ship penalties have been removed from the Tech II variants but the nerf to the range, explosion radius and missile velocity makes using HML missiles pointless.
It's become abundantly clear that CCP Fozie doesn't entirely understand the missile system nor the impact that it will have for most of the Caldari race. Like I said earlier in this post, this change will have a direct impact on CCP's subscription base and by the looks of it others have expressed the same thing. so...looking at the changes to HMLs right now. It's NOT that bad... using EFT with modded data added in looking at my current MISSION tengu. I'm down to 597dps from 660dps (w/ navy scourge) and I put on a Rigor 2, so that should more than make up for the explosion radius...I'm down from <130km range to <97km range.... that isn't that bad....on paper. I'm pretty sure its not bad at all in practice edit: and oh: CCP Fozzie wrote: Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 35% -Base velocity increased by 14.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% -Damage decreased by 10% (rounded to closest digit) -Explosion radius increased by 12% -Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
none of this affects Heavy Assault Missiles, they are not a variant of Heavy Missiles. The only changes on Heavy Assault Missiles is the PG change and the tech2 missile changes Oh? Here are the posted numbers for changes to the HAMS. Inferno Rage Heavy Assault Missile Old Flight Time: 4.3 New Flight Time: 4 Old Range: 8062.5 New Range: 7500 Old Explosion Velocity: 93 New Explosion Velocity: 87 Old Explosion Radius: 180 New Explosion Radius: 215
and no hull penalties.
|
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 23:30:00 -
[4632] - Quote
Don't know what if any hull changes are going to happen. I'll assume that was partly directed at me. Pretty much what I'm saying is that the current changes aren't going to ruin a Tengu - atleast as far as missions go. Also, I'm only checking Tengu, I might check a Drake sometime...and I won't check the other heavy missile hulls, because as has been said, they are broken. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
228
|
Posted - 2012.10.13 23:59:00 -
[4633] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:Don't know what if any hull changes are going to happen. I'll assume that was partly directed at me. Pretty much what I'm saying is that the current changes aren't going to ruin a Tengu - atleast as far as missions go. Also, I'm only checking Tengu, I might check a Drake sometime...and I won't check the other heavy missile hulls, because as has been said, they are broken.
A three BCS HML Drake fall down to about 395 DPS or so. |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 02:31:00 -
[4634] - Quote
It has come to my attention that CCP Fozzie is in Pandemic Legion, that's why and only reason he wants to nerf heavy missiles so -A- can't fight back with tengus. Same with instalocking hurricanes.
If heavy missiles have been good and working since game came out it is really stupid to change them now. This only shows that Pandemic Legion wants to change game mechanics by putting their own people into CCP.
CCP Fozzie i hope you don't change heavy missiles attributes, if you do whole eve will know that PL is cheating for changing game mechanics.
|
Lili Lu
531
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 05:14:00 -
[4635] - Quote
Not sure if serious, because if serious, pretty darn sad, but not unexpected. I'd rather think this was a very convincing tongue in cheek post. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4902
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 05:53:00 -
[4636] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:It has come to my attention that CCP Fozzie is in Pandemic Legion, that's why and only reason he wants to nerf heavy missiles so -A- can't fight back with tengus. Same with instalocking hurricanes. If heavy missiles have been good and working since game came out it is really stupid to change them now. This only shows that Pandemic Legion wants to change game mechanics by putting their own people into CCP. CCP Fozzie i hope you don't change heavy missiles attributes, if you do whole eve will know that PL is cheating for changing game mechanics.
Because PL don't have working doctrines to counter Tengus
I still think that the other medium LR weapons should be brought up to the standard of HMLs rather than seeing HMLs degraded to the level of barely used weapon classes, but accusing someone of gross unprofesionalism just because you've come to rely on a single fleet doctrine... MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 06:47:00 -
[4637] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:PAPULA wrote:It has come to my attention that CCP Fozzie is in Pandemic Legion, that's why and only reason he wants to nerf heavy missiles so -A- can't fight back with tengus. Same with instalocking hurricanes. If heavy missiles have been good and working since game came out it is really stupid to change them now. This only shows that Pandemic Legion wants to change game mechanics by putting their own people into CCP. CCP Fozzie i hope you don't change heavy missiles attributes, if you do whole eve will know that PL is cheating for changing game mechanics. Because PL don't have working doctrines to counter Tengus I still think that the other medium LR weapons should be brought up to the standard of HMLs rather than seeing HMLs degraded to the level of barely used weapon classes, but accusing someone of gross unprofesionalism just because you've come to rely on a single fleet doctrine...
I proposed something like that too on an earlier page - give medium LR turrets a bit more of their DPS (which are on paper higher with high damage faction ammo than HML are) on longer ranges. Could be done with two ways or combination of both, either change lr turret ammo so its a bit better in its stats or introduce super fast flying t2 long range missiles which will have low DPS, but can contribute better in sniper fights and would be much more in line with turrets (which is what Fozzie claimed he wanted to do - bring things more in line ..). Basically it still stands: if you ruin the Drake for medium or longer ranges there will be no reason to fly the only working Caldari missile PvP hull in med or large hull anymore. Because in shorter ranges all of its weaks compared to the other battlecruisers count so much more, so for example the smaller drone bay ...
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 07:10:00 -
[4638] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Because in shorter ranges all of its weaks compared to the other battlecruisers count so much more, so for example the smaller drone bay ...
Drake has 25 m3 drone bay. That's enough for one flight of light scout drones. Caldari has never been "drone race".
And why should Caldari ships have bigger drone bays than Amarr or Gallente ships? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 08:41:00 -
[4639] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Because in shorter ranges all of its weaks compared to the other battlecruisers count so much more, so for example the smaller drone bay ... Drake has 25 m3 drone bay. That's enough for one flight of light scout drones. Caldari has never been "drone race". And why should Caldari ships have bigger drone bays than Amarr or Gallente ships?
No one said they should. You should really learn to read and not to see things which are not there.
When you compare short range fighing abilities of BCs you have to count the drone capacity and bandwith too, a Harbinger for example could fit a flight of lights AND a flight of light ECM drones .. or all medium ECM or all medium combat .. this is a big advantage over a Drake. So if you just look at primary weapons DPS and EHP of the ship you dont get whats going on in game, and for short range this is even more so.
If you dont understand this concept then just go on to ask. But stop to imply things into my statements which I never said.
Btw, talking about credibility .. where is *your* actual combat record? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 09:16:00 -
[4640] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:No one said they should. You should really learn to read and not to see things which are not there.
When you compare short range fighing abilities of BCs you have to count the drone capacity and bandwith too, a Harbinger for example could fit a flight of lights AND a flight of light ECM drones .. or all medium ECM or all medium combat .. this is a big advantage over a Drake. So if you just look at primary weapons DPS and EHP of the ship you dont get whats going on in game, and for short range this is even more so.
If you dont understand this concept then just go on to ask. But stop to imply things into my statements which I never said.
Btw, talking about credibility .. where is *your* actual combat record?
Harbinger does 343 dps at 70 km. Drake does 440 dps at 110+ km. (143km, targeting range 120km)
Harbinger does 343+158 dps at 60 km. Drake does 440+99 dps at 60 km.
Harbinger has 45,4k EHP. Drake has 58,4k EHP. |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
397
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 09:19:00 -
[4641] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote: The only changes on Heavy Assault Missiles is the PG change and the tech2 missile changes
Guided Missile Precision. |
Lipbite
Express Hauler
169
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 09:56:00 -
[4642] - Quote
Can I get 5mill missile skillpoints refund on my missile boat alt? Now she is useless as DPS in incursions, after Fury cruises changes she will be completely useless as sniper as well. 110km paper range for missiles isn't enough to reach NPCs orbiting at 100-120km + DPS loss (due to flight time of missiles) is tremendous already. |
Noslen Nosilla
Federal Logistics Initiative Conglomerate
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 10:04:00 -
[4643] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I've updated this post with the 2.0 versions of this proposal. Changes are underlined and can be found described in this post. Some big sets of responses to questions about the original proposal can be found here and here.:Google doc with numbers for the affected missiles.Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread. I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible. [/list]
While you are on the subject of missles how about fixing the Rapid Light Missle Launchers so that they can fire the Light Defender Missle 1? As the Light defender can be fired from the Light Missle Launcher module group and the Rapid Light Missle Launchers are after all Light Missle launchers they should be able to do that. Also the Heavy Assault Missle Launchers will only carry and launch Light Defenders should they not use Heavy Defenders instead? Oh Great Bird of the Galaxy does no one ever read the news? |
Durkuh Durka
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 13:46:00 -
[4644] - Quote
I just pulled down a set of EFT dat files that purportedly uses the proposed numbers.
ASSUMING the numbers and calcs in these files are correct, then the Hurricane is completely trashed as an arty platform (which is funny given you called it that in your original post).
A plated cane with 720's if going to be 20% over PG with an RCUII. To actually use armor, you literally need to fill up the rig slots with ACRs. Did you really intend to make the hurricane require four fitting devices to use artillery?
A shield cane, as you noted will require one ACR and one RCUII.
Contrast this with an armor harby with 7 vs 6 turrets. It has over 50K EHP and dishes out nearly 100DPS more than the armor cane, while using an RCUII and one ACR.
While the dual medium neuts probably need to be addressed, they're hardly as game breaking enough to require you to completely dumpster the hurricane as an arty ship. You'd be better off leaving the PG and reducing the highs by one (not that I'd want that).
I would suggest holding off on this change until after the BC revision period arrives. Work on the class as a whole without trying to hodge podge the changes for one platform. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 14:25:00 -
[4645] - Quote
Durkuh Durka wrote:I just pulled down a set of EFT dat files that purportedly uses the proposed numbers.
ASSUMING the numbers and calcs in these files are correct, then the Hurricane is completely trashed as an arty platform (which is funny given you called it that in your original post).
A plated cane with 720's if going to be 20% over PG with an RCUII. To actually use armor, you literally need to fill up the rig slots with ACRs. Did you really intend to make the hurricane require four fitting devices to use artillery?
A shield cane, as you noted will require one ACR and one RCUII.
Contrast this with an armor harby with 7 vs 6 turrets. It has over 50K EHP and dishes out nearly 100DPS more than the armor cane, while using an RCUII and one ACR.
While the dual medium neuts probably need to be addressed, they're hardly as game breaking enough to require you to completely dumpster the hurricane as an arty ship. You'd be better off leaving the PG and reducing the highs by one (not that I'd want that).
I would suggest holding off on this change until after the BC revision period arrives. Work on the class as a whole without trying to hodge podge the changes for one platform.
I think they nerf the Neut-option for the Cane because they are well aware they will completely TRASH the Drake with those changes for PvP, and it would not look good if we see more Winmatar. So they hope Gallente and Amarr will fill up the hole the Drake leaves. So while basically I agree with you about the existing balance problems I am not sure you are aware of the much bigger issue with the complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls which is incoming. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 14:31:00 -
[4646] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:the complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls which is incoming.
Heavy missiles need to be nerfed so CCP can rebalance ships around new stats so those missile ships will be used in the future too.
You can't say Drake isn't OP when that hull gets used in lowsec and nullsec a lot. |
Lili Lu
531
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 16:09:00 -
[4647] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:the complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls which is incoming. Heavy missiles need to be nerfed so CCP can rebalance ships around new stats so those missile ships will be used in the future too. You can't say Drake isn't OP when that hull gets used in lowsec and nullsec a lot.
But you forget Noemi has proven with his own eyes (from Jita) that Drakes aren't used in lowsec, only Canes. So you see you are clearly wrong because Noemi's eyes record those facts for all of us. No getting around it.
Also, Noemi, post here with ROU Psychopath.
It seems your only post ever on the forums was this http://eve-search.com/search/author/ROU+Psychopath http://eve-search.com/thread/33177-1/page/1#8
I'm not sure he is your character. Post here with him. Prove my suspision wrong. There you go Noemi, an opportunity to prove me wrong definitively, without using only your anecdotal perception and experience.
edit - And yeah. CCP has as it's mission the desire for the "complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls." |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 16:25:00 -
[4648] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:But you forget Noemi has proven with his own eyes (from Jita) that Drakes aren't used in lowsec, only Canes. So you see you are clearly wrong because Noemi's eyes record those facts for all of us. No getting around it.
True. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
117
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 16:32:00 -
[4649] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: So while basically I agree with you about the existing balance problems I am not sure you are aware of the much bigger issue with the complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls which is incoming.
Ignore the HAM Caracal at your peril. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 16:42:00 -
[4650] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:the complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls which is incoming. Heavy missiles need to be nerfed so CCP can rebalance ships around new stats so those missile ships will be used in the future too. You can't say Drake isn't OP when that hull gets used in lowsec and nullsec a lot.
It gets used, but not more than other hulls in lowsec, and nullsec we will see what the Zealots will do. So according to your line the Zealot, Cane, Naga, Loki, Nado are all OP too?
Btw, 14th of October says:
1 Zealot 55779 2 Drake 45373 3 Hurricane 27594 4 Naga 26584 5 Loki 25543 6 Tornado 23159 7 Tengu 21838 8 Maelstrom 16372 9 Rokh 13099 10 Stabber Fleet Issue 12411 11 Thrasher 11908 12 Oracle 11884 13 Sabre 11448 14 Cynabal 10552 15 Talos 10203 16 Huginn 9943 17 Legion 9676 18 Manticore 8752 19 Apocalypse Navy Issue 8729 20 Hound 8676
And I tell you something more. The most OP ship in Eve atm is not even in this list. But thats because its got a price tag which will not let everyone use it in numbers in PvP.
about this stupid BS Lili Lu keeps to post - just one. I never said Drakes are not used in low. And most probably all the rest she/he says is as valid as this obvious lie. There is no need for more proof Lili, you show yourself how wrong you are over and over again :)
|
|
Lili Lu
531
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 17:01:00 -
[4651] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: It gets used, but not more than other hulls in lowsec, and nullsec we will see what the Zealots will do. So according to your line the Zealot, Cane, Naga, Loki, Nado are all OP too?
Btw, 14th of October says:
1 Zealot 55779 2 Drake 45373 3 Hurricane 27594 4 Naga 26584 5 Loki 25543 6 Tornado 23159 7 Tengu 21838 8 Maelstrom 16372 9 Rokh 13099 10 Stabber Fleet Issue 12411 11 Thrasher 11908 12 Oracle 11884 13 Sabre 11448 14 Cynabal 10552 15 Talos 10203 16 Huginn 9943 17 Legion 9676 18 Manticore 8752 19 Apocalypse Navy Issue 8729 20 Hound 8676
And I tell you something more. The most OP ship in Eve atm is not even in this list. But thats because its got a price tag which will not let everyone use it in numbers in PvP.
about this stupid BS Lili Lu keeps to post - just one. I never said Drakes are not used in low. And most probably all the rest she/he says is as valid as this obvious lie. There is no need for more proof Lili, you show yourself how wrong you are over and over again :) Oh Noemi (ROU Psychopath wanabe) finally you post something other than your own perceptions. Congrats. And you know why Zealots and some other armor tanked ships are very recently seeing more use? Because surprisingly the new tech II 1600mm plates breathed new life into AHAC Zealots etc. Do you have a problem with a ship that takes a whole bunch more sp to skill into dethroning the Drake? I guess so.
But it doesn't change anything about the imbalance with HMs. Nothing changed with heavy pulse IIs and scorch. So sadly for you this recent break in the multi-year pattern of Drakes topping that list does nothing to support any alteration of the impending nerf to HMs.
And your last sentence is the resort of someone who would otherwise just post something like "oh yeah, well you're an *******." |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 17:18:00 -
[4652] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:the complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls which is incoming. Heavy missiles need to be nerfed so CCP can rebalance ships around new stats so those missile ships will be used in the future too. You can't say Drake isn't OP when that hull gets used in lowsec and nullsec a lot. Well CCP should just make all weapons the same, exact same range, exact same damage. Then we have a balanced weapon system, but do we really want that ? same for all 4 races ?
|
Lili Lu
531
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 17:21:00 -
[4653] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:the complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls which is incoming. Heavy missiles need to be nerfed so CCP can rebalance ships around new stats so those missile ships will be used in the future too. You can't say Drake isn't OP when that hull gets used in lowsec and nullsec a lot. Well CCP should just make all weapons the same, exact same range, exact same damage. Then we have a balanced weapon system, but do we really want that ? same for all 4 races ? Yeah, that's what's happening here. Btw, I guess this followup post is proving your first post itt was a serious post. Tinfoil hats, my friend. Tin foil hats. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
397
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 18:59:00 -
[4654] - Quote
Had any luck on the Jita undock this weekend Noemi? If not, maybe you should have chosen a slightly less obvious name for your NPC-corp remote sensor boosting ganglink Vulture alt. |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 19:08:00 -
[4655] - Quote
So... Fozzie... any updates to share with us on these proposed missile changes? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 19:59:00 -
[4656] - Quote
I was going to post this earlier but there was a jump from edge of space that was way more interesting than arguing with Noemi.
There's two ways to do this:
1) They rebalance ships and tweak missiles after all ships have been rebalanced. - Problem with this is if they go with new missile stats most of the ships would appear as "broken". 2) Tweak missiles when they are going to rebalance first ships that use those missiles. The way they seem to be doing it. - Problem: weapon system would appear as "broken". |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
498
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 20:02:00 -
[4657] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Btw, 14th of October says: 1 Zealot 55779 2 Drake 45373 3 Hurricane 27594 4 Naga 26584 5 Loki 25543 6 Tornado 23159 7 Tengu 21838 8 Maelstrom 16372 9 Rokh 13099 10 Stabber Fleet Issue 12411 11 Thrasher 11908 12 Oracle 11884 13 Sabre 11448 14 Cynabal 10552 15 Talos 10203 16 Huginn 9943 17 Legion 9676 18 Manticore 8752 19 Apocalypse Navy Issue 8729 20 Hound 8676
This development is very interesting. It's the first time that the Drake isn't #1 by a large margin. Psychological effect of impending HML nerfs? Or is it the T2 plates as Lili Lu is suggesting?
It's worth noting that HMLs are still #1 weapon system by the way. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
229
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 20:19:00 -
[4658] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Btw, 14th of October says: 1 Zealot 55779 2 Drake 45373 3 Hurricane 27594 4 Naga 26584 5 Loki 25543 6 Tornado 23159 7 Tengu 21838 8 Maelstrom 16372 9 Rokh 13099 10 Stabber Fleet Issue 12411 11 Thrasher 11908 12 Oracle 11884 13 Sabre 11448 14 Cynabal 10552 15 Talos 10203 16 Huginn 9943 17 Legion 9676 18 Manticore 8752 19 Apocalypse Navy Issue 8729 20 Hound 8676
This development is very interesting. It's the first time that the Drake isn't #1 by a large margin. Psychological effect of impending HML nerfs? Or is it the T2 plates as Lili Lu is suggesting? It's worth noting that HMLs are still #1 weapon system by the way.
No its Goons backing themselves in a corner with doctrine and not being able to react, and thus getting themselves farmed by NC.
A zealot gets basically a 50% damage reduction against drakes by virtue or being a zealot, likewise if you can land right in the middle of an alphafleet with zealots....lol 1400mms tracking AB AAAAAAAARRRRRRMMMMOOOOOORRRRR HACS at close range? Yeah, good luck with that.
Evekill being hosed means I can't really prove it atm....but trust me those numbers are the war going on in the north.
|
Lili Lu
531
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 21:13:00 -
[4659] - Quote
Onictus wrote: A zealot gets basically a 50% damage reduction against drakes by virtue or being a zealot, likewise if you can land right in the middle of an alphafleet with zealots....lol 1400mms tracking AB AAAAAAAARRRRRRMMMMOOOOOORRRRR HACS at close range? Yeah, good luck with that.
Evekill being hosed means I can't really prove it atm....but trust me those numbers are the war going on in the north. Eve-kill whether hosed or not does not break those numbers down by region of space. Plenty of revival of AHACs and Zealots in lowsec. So it's not just nullsec and NC.
Regardless, concerning nullsec use, AHACs had pretty much receeded from view. Their sudden reemergence in the last month or so needs explanation. Nothing has changed other than the introduction of the new stats for tech II 1600 plates. Having that extra buffer is a big deal to ships that otherwise lacked enough for the trully large scale cluster **** battles. It's the only explanation I can come up with (not being involved in nullsec fleet fights anymore).
I'm sure if my theory was or is wrong someone would have or will post that I'm wrong, and explain why they are so prolific once again. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
93
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 21:42:00 -
[4660] - Quote
While T2 armor plates had an increase in amount. There is no fundamental difference between AHACS now and AHACS during Pandemic Legions war with the Northern Coalition.
The reasons for moving from Zealots toward Abaddons are still there. However, in those days there was more of a focus on Drakes instead of battleships. Bring enough Drakes and the ability of heavy missiles to do damage to a AHAC dissapears. Abaddons could just deal with more volley damage from the sheer number of Drakes there were compared to Zealots. That's still the case. Long range battleships were not a counter to Abaddons, but used correctly could beat them and are easy to train for and get into.
Navy Apocalypse are inferior to Abaddon @ 60,000m and low. Provided a Tengu fleet stays within Abaddon optimal a fleet of Abaddons was and do MELT Tengu's. Once a Tengu went 80 - 120,000m from a fleet of Abaddons there damage drops of dramatically. Navy Apocs optimal damage well up to 100 - 110,000m. Tengu's are still superior provided there is equal to a slight lean of numbers towards Navy Apocs.
Navy Apocs can be countered by Rokhs and Tengu's.
Note: I remember when I first brought up the fact that those Evekill stats reflected 0.0 fleet doctrines. Players like Gyp who has a post not to far above this one said "how so?" and many thought others too. I was saying that for a year before it became a common fact. When it became truley commonly accepted was when PL started using ROKHS. 1 large entity using a new fleet doctrine and that did massive amount of damage determined what was on that list.
Anyway, AHACS have NOT changed significantly. They're just dealing with alot less numbers than PL was dealing with ALONE versus the old northern coalition. The CFC has lost alot of numbers and have split into 2 smaller entites much more capable of handling wars on 2 fronts but, it seems the north is weaker than the south. Which has alot more to do with PL's involvement and leadership in the south. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
229
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 22:13:00 -
[4661] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:
Anyway, AHACS have NOT changed significantly. Black Legion/NCDOT/Nulli are just dealing with alot less numbers compared to what PL was dealing with ALONE versus the old northern coalition. The CFC has lost alot of there numbers and have split into 2 smaller entites much more capable of handling wars on 2 different fronts but, it seems the north is weaker than the south. Which has alot more to do with PL's involvement in the south (Pl being the real leadership of the south (the puppet master)).
Astute. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 22:55:00 -
[4662] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:the complete removal of Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls which is incoming. Heavy missiles need to be nerfed so CCP can rebalance ships around new stats so those missile ships will be used in the future too. You can't say Drake isn't OP when that hull gets used in lowsec and nullsec a lot. It gets used, but not more than other hulls in lowsec, and nullsec we will see what the Zealots will do. So according to your line the Zealot, Cane, Naga, Loki, Nado are all OP too? Btw, 14th of October says: 1 Zealot 55779 2 Drake 45373 3 Hurricane 27594 4 Naga 26584 5 Loki 25543 6 Tornado 23159 7 Tengu 21838 8 Maelstrom 16372 9 Rokh 13099 10 Stabber Fleet Issue 12411 11 Thrasher 11908 12 Oracle 11884 13 Sabre 11448 14 Cynabal 10552 15 Talos 10203 16 Huginn 9943 17 Legion 9676 18 Manticore 8752 19 Apocalypse Navy Issue 8729 20 Hound 8676 And I tell you something more. The most OP ship in Eve atm is not even in this list. But thats because its got a price tag which will not let everyone use it in numbers in PvP. about this stupid BS Lili Lu keeps to post - just one. I never said Drakes are not used in low. And most probably all the rest she/he says is as valid as this obvious lie. There is no need for more proof Lili, you show yourself how wrong you are over and over again :)
mostly irrelevant... |
Torg Fireforge
SkunkWorks Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.14 23:14:00 -
[4663] - Quote
Well with the amount of drakes i have lost to PVE I do not see the reason to make the change my range is fair it is only at close range does my DPS seem to go up. Not the other way around ..my max range so far is only 58 km but even then I am not alsways hitting my target. I does the better when my targets are at 48 km or less and the lower the range the better the DPS due to the targets lack of latter movement. But what do I know i have been just playing for the past year and just got be able to use the drake for the past three months and I still lose ships to the game and some times to the players. So i will do what I can with what you give me... For I know I may never find that right ship to stop me from being killed by players. |
lovebus
Beyond The Gates Black Core Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 01:12:00 -
[4664] - Quote
Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 35% -Base velocity increased by 14.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% Granted the range is being nerfed but since the velocity is being increased this actually makes them more viable for fleet engagements due to less volleys being lost to the winds once a target dies.
on the flip side of that coin it kinda takes away from what missiles are. If we start looking at how to mitigate this fundamental isue with the missiles then it will eventually just be another turret platform. I have very mixxed feelings about these changes but then again i'm cross trained into every race and dont use missiles |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
144
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:10:00 -
[4665] - Quote
lovebus wrote:Heavy Missiles -Base flight time reduced by 35% -Base velocity increased by 14.66% -In total, base range reduced by ~25% Granted the range is being nerfed but since the velocity is being increased this actually makes them more viable for fleet engagements due to less volleys being lost to the winds once a target dies. on the flip side of that coin it kinda takes away from what missiles are. If we start looking at how to mitigate this fundamental isue with the missiles then it will eventually just be another turret platform. I have very mixxed feelings about these changes but then again i'm cross trained into every race and dont use missiles
You forgot about the other part:
Tech Two Missiles -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles -Fury: Increase damage bonus to +35%, reduce flight time to 50% of T1, unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes -Javelin: Just remove ship penalties -Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%)
I have been a laser bunny for a while, so am rusty with the T2 missiles by name, but isn't this buff on T2 missiles making up for the damage reduction on the launchers?
~Z |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:43:00 -
[4666] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
You forgot about the other part:
Tech Two Missiles -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles -Fury: Increase damage bonus to +35%, reduce flight time to 50% of T1, unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes -Javelin: Just remove ship penalties -Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%)
I have been a laser bunny for a while, so am rusty with the T2 missiles by name, but isn't this buff on T2 missiles making up for the damage reduction on the launchers?
~Z
No, unfortunately its not. Although the numbers in this posting may seem like an overall buff, in fact this "+35% damage bonus" for fury HM is not absolute, but relative. Means, with the lower base numbers for t1 HM the post-patch Fury will have less damage than it does now, and in addition on a much shorter range. Explosion radius increase is also a nerf, not a buff, same with explosion velocity. Someone else already did the maths, it will result in
1) less damage
2) far less range
3) far worse projection of this already reduced damage
@ Lili, so, if I post here with Psycho, will you once and for all keep your mouth shut? :)
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 06:50:00 -
[4667] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote: This development is very interesting. It's the first time that the Drake isn't #1 by a large margin. Psychological effect of impending HML nerfs? Or is it the T2 plates as Lili Lu is suggesting?
Has been explained a bit ... but it shows for sure those stats are not a good point for those "nerf Drake23" people.
Takeshi Yamato wrote: It's worth noting that HMLs are still #1 weapon system by the way.
Yes. They are the only weapon system in this list too which can be used with success by Caldari medium and large missile hulls. So an entire races signature weapon type is represented by HML. Hence the numbers. Care to do the addition for the gunnery pendants? Just take numbers of place 2 and 4 or 3 and 5 together, and you end up with significant more lasers and projectiles than HML, and that was just rank 2-5 ... so no, I dont think HML are a problem, the complete absence of t2 Torps and CM is a problem, same with HAMs. But you cant blame HML for the crappy performance of the other medium and large missile systems.
Btw, , the only other missile system in this list is what bombers usually fit, which are pretty equal in all races.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 08:12:00 -
[4668] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: It's worth noting that HMLs are still #1 weapon system by the way.
Yes. They are the only weapon system in this list too which can be used with success by Caldari medium and large missile hulls. So an entire races signature weapon type is represented by HML. Hence the numbers. Care to do the addition for the gunnery pendants? Just take numbers of place 2 and 4 or 3 and 5 together, and you end up with significant more lasers and projectiles than HML, and that was just rank 2-5 ... so no, I dont think HML are a problem, the complete absence of t2 Torps and CM is a problem, same with HAMs. But you cant blame HML for the crappy performance of the other medium and large missile systems.
There's only 4 ships with lasers. Actually some of those Legions might be HAM* fit. Two of those laser ships (Oracle and NApoc) use mega pulses. Zealots are there only because of that war. Do you see Harbinger there? I don't.
* = "why would you fit HAMs!?"
Because they own. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSoFCC26KGw |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 09:15:00 -
[4669] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote: It's worth noting that HMLs are still #1 weapon system by the way.
Yes. They are the only weapon system in this list too which can be used with success by Caldari medium and large missile hulls. So an entire races signature weapon type is represented by HML. Hence the numbers. Care to do the addition for the gunnery pendants? Just take numbers of place 2 and 4 or 3 and 5 together, and you end up with significant more lasers and projectiles than HML, and that was just rank 2-5 ... so no, I dont think HML are a problem, the complete absence of t2 Torps and CM is a problem, same with HAMs. But you cant blame HML for the crappy performance of the other medium and large missile systems. There's only 4 ships with lasers. Actually some of those Legions might be HAM* fit. Two of those laser ships (Oracle and NApoc) use mega pulses. Zealots are there only because of that war. Do you see Harbinger there? I don't. * = "why would you fit HAMs!?" Because they own. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSoFCC26KGw
I dont deny HAMs might be worth it on Legions. They are atm not on Caldari hulls though. And yes, Lasers are also not overrepresented ... but still more there than missiles. Or will you deny this?
See, your point with this Legion/HAMs is really a fair bit OT, when we talk about how much all medium and large Caldari missile hulls suck for PvP except the Tengu and Drake with HML. It would be like I say the Dominix owns for missions with Garde II when you talk about how bad Minmatar BS perform with long range missiles.
Btw, the fact you see no Harbingers there but Drakes ... it could be (and to a certain ratio it will be) because atm the Harbinger is not the first choice in PvP BC class. It doesnt suck completely, but it is not the best either. Its a solid ship which you can fly and no FC will send you home with it (if it somehow fits to gang ofc). But: Amarr have a great AHAC, which does some things so much better, so there is a *viable* alternative in many cases. Same with Amarr BS: they are not bad at all.
For Caldari its exactly the opposite: Cerberus would be there also a lot more if it wouldnt suck so hard (and admitted, if Drakes ability to do "real" sniper fits like the one Onictus posted would be cut down a bit). And if there would be a missile BS which is Caldari and worth flying, you would see far less Drakes. And a fair bit less HML overall. And this would be without a single nerf for the system, just by giving OPTIONS. Viable, working options. And not options which will get you a high rank in most ridiculous killmails.
btw Jorma, I still miss *your* combat alts .. is this credibility thing everyone here seems to talk about for the last 20 pages only a one way thing? :) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
94
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 09:48:00 -
[4670] - Quote
Congrats : comparing HML Drake to Pulse Zealot ! I don't think HAM are so bad, and I don't think HAM Drake is bad either. As I said, there is no HAM drake because HML are so much more versatile for too much proportion of the power of HAM. You can do a lot of things with HAM, but you can do a lot more with HML, so why fitting HML ? This is because HML are OP : HML are not a short-medium range weapon system, but a long range one. They should be balance around long range medium size weapons.
And please, stop using stats of ONE day of EVE !!! It is an insult to intelligence. Use relevant data, and if you don't know what is a relevant dataset, don't use statistics. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 09:56:00 -
[4671] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Cerberus would be there also a lot more if it wouldnt suck so hard
Why would you choose ship which needs more SP to fly than Tengu when Tengu does everything Cerberus does and a lot more?
Btw, there's 4 pure missile ships on that list. Huginn is split 3/3.
And yes, HAMs work with Caldari ships like Drake and Tengu. Tengu's offensive missile subsystem is actually a bit better than Legion's Assault Optimization subsystem. |
flind
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 10:08:00 -
[4672] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Congrats : comparing HML Drake to Pulse Zealot ! I don't think HAM are so bad, and I don't think HAM Drake is bad either. As I said, there is no HAM drake because HML are so much more versatile for too much proportion of the power of HAM. You can do a lot of things with HAM, but you can do a lot more with HML, so why fitting HML ? This is because HML are OP : HML are not a short-medium range weapon system, but a long range one. They should be balance around long range medium size weapons.
And please, stop using stats of ONE day of EVE !!! It is an insult to intelligence. Use relevant data, and if you don't know what is a relevant dataset, don't use statistics.
Nah, it's because you can't fit Battlecruiser with a 20km range weapon. It's just doesn't work. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
94
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 10:11:00 -
[4673] - Quote
flind wrote: Nah, it's because you can't fit Battlecruiser with a 20km range weapon. It's just doesn't work.
Oh, yeah, I understand, kind of like the the Hurricane, or the Brutix, or the Harbinger, or the Myrmidon, or the Cyclone... |
flind
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 10:30:00 -
[4674] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:flind wrote: Nah, it's because you can't fit Battlecruiser with a 20km range weapon. It's just doesn't work.
Oh, yeah, I understand, kind of like the the Hurricane, or the Brutix, or the Harbinger, or the Myrmidon, or the Cyclone...
Lol, man, check Hurricane's shooting range with Barrage and a couple of TEs.. Even ultra close Brutix with Null and 2 TEs has 22km fall-off. And you may add to this 5 medium drones as well. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
199
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 11:15:00 -
[4675] - Quote
flind wrote:And don't forget that HAMs take much more PG than HMs. You need RCU to fit them.
[Drake, Max HAM]
Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering EG-603
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
230
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 12:30:00 -
[4676] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:flind wrote:And don't forget that HAMs take much more PG than HMs. You need RCU to fit them. [Drake, Max HAM] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x5 Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering EG-603
Slightly more tanky
[Drake, ham]
7x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile)
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II
3x Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I 2x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
1.91% over grid so you still need the EG-603 |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
398
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 12:34:00 -
[4677] - Quote
Plus you won't need the PG implant or fitting mod after the patch, with the HAML PG reduction. |
Durkuh Durka
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 16:47:00 -
[4678] - Quote
So CCP Fozzie, were you just trying to troll the drake/cane fanbops into frothing anger or do you plan on returning to respond to the issues being mentioned? |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
180
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 17:07:00 -
[4679] - Quote
Durkuh Durka wrote:So CCP Fozzie, were you just trying to troll the drake/cane fanbops into frothing anger or do you plan on returning to respond to the issues being mentioned? Seems like the "issues being mentioned" were already addressed.
Maybe not to your satisfaction, but someone is always disappointed. |
Durkuh Durka
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 17:10:00 -
[4680] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:Durkuh Durka wrote:So CCP Fozzie, were you just trying to troll the drake/cane fanbops into frothing anger or do you plan on returning to respond to the issues being mentioned? Seems like the "issues being mentioned" were already addressed. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but someone is always disappointed.
Maybe I missed in in all the rageposting but I haven't seen any new Dev posts. I'd appreciate a link if you don't mind providing. |
|
Enya Enaka
Amalgamated Cockroach Corp
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 17:56:00 -
[4681] - Quote
Durkuh Durka wrote:So CCP Fozzie, were you just trying to troll the drake/cane fanbops into frothing anger or do you plan on returning to respond to the issues being mentioned?
Here is CCP Fozzie getting the Tengu 'Fanbops' frothing (all in good fun) at the Thursday Austin Meet where he nerf bats a 100MN Tengu.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-3qTVo8c8 |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 19:23:00 -
[4682] - Quote
Enya Enaka wrote:Durkuh Durka wrote:So CCP Fozzie, were you just trying to troll the drake/cane fanbops into frothing anger or do you plan on returning to respond to the issues being mentioned? Here is CCP Fozzie getting the Tengu 'Fanbops' frothing (all in good fun) at the Thursday Austin Meet where he nerf bats a 100MN Tengu. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-3qTVo8c8
Just the 100mn lol ironic
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 19:26:00 -
[4683] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Congrats : comparing HML Drake to Pulse Zealot ! I don't think HAM are so bad, and I don't think HAM Drake is bad either. As I said, there is no HAM drake because HML are so much more versatile for too much proportion of the power of HAM. You can do a lot of things with HAM, but you can do a lot more with HML, so why fitting HML ? This is because HML are OP : HML are not a short-medium range weapon system, but a long range one. They should be balance around long range medium size weapons.
And please, stop using stats of ONE day of EVE !!! It is an insult to intelligence. Use relevant data, and if you don't know what is a relevant dataset, don't use statistics.
simply OMG. From the very first to the very last word you seem to not understand anything of what was posted here.
Best part is .. its not the stats of ONE day of Eve. Seriously, you dont only score one against your own team, you seem to be in hat trick mode. If YOU dont understand how those stats are made, then maybe better dont post. Thanks. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 19:38:00 -
[4684] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Btw, there's 4 pure missile ships on that list. Huginn is split 3/3.
And yes, HAMs work with Caldari ships like Drake and Tengu. Tengu's offensive missile subsystem is actually a bit better than Legion's Assault Optimization subsystem.
And 2 of those 4 are bombers (=Frigsize) which are pretty equal over all races.
Btw, where is your combat alt? |
xUnlimitedx
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Test Alliance Please Ignore
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 19:51:00 -
[4685] - Quote
JESUS.... ccp u make me very angry. REMOVE T2 AMMO MALUS GOOOO. |
Ellente Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 21:55:00 -
[4686] - Quote
ok Fozzie here is some feedback in your preferred format.
I don't agree with the nerf on fury range, it renders them pointless as javelins will out damage them on anything below BS and they have a gnats peni of difference in range. An additional reason for my dislike of this change is that it effectively gives the choice of high tracking short range T2 ammo and higher damage much worse tracking short range T2 ammo. You may as well fit faction launchers as the utility of these weapon systems are going to be so limited.
I think it is well and good to out damage furies with javelin I think it is fine to out track (better exp vel and rad) but surely the long range weapon should have some advantage in T2 ammo? I'd suggest range. (I.E make it 75%-80% of normal not 50%) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
98
|
Posted - 2012.10.15 22:19:00 -
[4687] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Best part is .. its not the stats of ONE day of Eve. Seriously, you dont only score one against your own team, you seem to be in hat trick mode. If YOU dont understand how those stats are made, then maybe better dont post. Thanks.
Then, explain your stats. I don't want to know battleclinic or whatever site you pic these stats on, it's your job to explain why they are relevant if you want to use them to support your argumentation.
BTW, even one month would not be a relevant time frame. Six would start to say something, maybe. But as someone said, those stats are more a picture of nullsec politic than anything else. CCP on its part have relevant stats, and they think HML are OP. Guess who might be closer from the truth ?
Anyway, as I already said, any statistic won't change the fact that HML are OP by themselves compared to comparable turrets. This can explain part of the drake overabundance, and part of the tengu OPness.
As CCP Fozzy said, to rebalance correctly the ships, they need to work on a sane weapon system. So they need to rebalance HML.
With these changes, the Drake will still be good, it only won't be so OP anymore. Start using a short range weapon system to do a lot of damage : HAM. They are definitly buffed in the changes. Just look at them.
And finally T2 ammo : T2 ammo usually are situational. These new T2 ammo will be situational, and they will be very good in those situations. Why shouldn't they be that way ? Why do you want to rebalance HML only to through away this balancing by providing OP T2 ammo ?
@Noemi : you are only moving from one point to another, completely ignoring anything you don't want to hear. It is boring. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
69
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 00:49:00 -
[4688] - Quote
Bouh, its pointless to discuss with you. You blame me of moving on when you dont even seem to read or understand what has been posted here before.
So lets make this clear, I think you are not able to contribute here because:
First: You are pure Gallente with literally NO clue at all about how missiles work. You showed this again and again.
Second: You fail to read stuff which is important and which is not, you fail to understand stats which are posted ( accusing me about they were just "one day" stats was just the icing on the cake) and you continue to claim things which are simply not true.
The Drake is not OP, it never was, and most probably it never will be. Its good in some things, and not good in others. In long range combat its atm the best BC, in close range its by far not. How can you call this imbalance? Its not an I-win-button. Its like this in a Drake: You manage to stay out of close range and still keep your enemy in place? Grats, you have a good chance to win. You fail to do so by letting them come too close or get too far out? You either wont kill him or you wont kill him and lose. How can this be considered to be OP? You have also not the speed to dictate every thing and the decision about engaging or not may be much more committing than with Winmatar which often have the GTFO option.
If you fail to understand that then, sorry, this is not my problem. But its obviously pointless to discuss any missile balancing things with a guy who has no clue about missile PvP apart from being on the receiving end.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Then, explain your stats. I don't want to know battleclinic or whatever site you pic these stats on, it's your job to explain why they are relevant if you want to use them to support your argumentation.
It has been said before how they work. If you dont follow this thread then better dont post. Or get a different attitude, and people will explain. See, it was not ME who didnt understand how these stats worked, but you, still you commented my posting with this "insult to intelligence"-stuff and other things .. well done, go on :)
Bouh Revetoile wrote: BTW, even one month would not be a relevant time frame..
Since those stats are over one month and not longer you will have to check again and again. Report back when you got your 6-month frame, starting with 1st of September 2012 if you please ....
Bouh Revetoile wrote: CCP on its part have relevant stats, and they think HML are OP. Guess who might be closer from the truth ?.
Fozzie thinks they are OP, and he seems to be a bit ... strange in his views about missiles. Starting with those numbers in the OP, where he speaks about a damage buff for Furies when in fact their damage gets nerfed. Same as their softstats which get nerfed. He speaks about bringing them more in line, when in fact he refuses to do things to bring them more in line (giving t2 long ammo for example with less damage but fast speed/short flighttime). Either accept missiles are one thing and guns are another (with all their cons and pros) or make em equal.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Anyway, as I already said, any statistic won't change the fact that HML are OP by themselves compared to comparable turrets. This can explain part of the drake overabundance, and part of the tengu OPness..
You think this can explain the Drake masses, but you are wrong. First: IF HML would be OP, why are they just popular in 2 ships? Second: which ships should Caldari guys who are fond of missiles use else? There you go. Its never a weapon system alone. Its always a combination, and also a combination of reasons. Caldari missile users have no other working hulls than Tengu and Drake. And they have no other working systems in medium and large size (except torps for bombers, which all races do have ..). Simple as that. And since missiles are THE signature weapon for Caldari, some of us trained them. Funny eh?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
335
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 03:25:00 -
[4689] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Fozzie thinks they are OP, and he seems to be a bit ... strange in his views about missiles. Starting with those numbers in the OP, where he speaks about a damage buff for Furies when in fact their damage gets nerfed. Same as their softstats which get nerfed. Increasing (buffing) the damage bonus for Fury's over T1's while decreasing the T1 damage is not the same as saying they are getting a damage buff.
Noemi Nagano wrote:He speaks about bringing them more in line, when in fact he refuses to do things to bring them more in line (giving t2 long ammo for example with less damage but fast speed/short flighttime). Either accept missiles are one thing and guns are another (with all their cons and pros) or make em equal. The concept of T2 LR ammo doesn't translate to missiles since missiles have no variable range T1 ammo. T2 LR ammo gives long range reach with midrange DPS while giving an application penalty (tracking). Compare to precision which will give same as T1 DPS with better application but less range. So precision is effectively your T1 LR ammo equivalent, just instead of range you get damage application and instead of tracking penalties you get a range reduction from T1.
Noemi Nagano wrote:You think this can explain the Drake masses, but you are wrong. First: IF HML would be OP, why are they just popular in 2 ships? Those ships outclass all the other HML platforms. HML base range is typically more than enough for the task so there is little reason to drop the tank a drake could sport for the range of a cerb/caracal, and the nighthawk is so close in performance that there is no real reason to incur the extra cost for the most part. The tengu just gives all the drake has and more in addition to being able to have the extra reach the caracal and cerb have.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Second: which ships should Caldari guys who are fond of missiles use else? Depends on how well they do at giving HML ships unique roles. If well, whichever suits the need you have. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 04:21:00 -
[4690] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The Drake is not OP, it never was, and most probably it never will be. Its good in some things, and not good in others. In long range combat its atm the best BC, in close range its by far not. How can you call this imbalance? Its not an I-win-button. Its like this in a Drake: You manage to stay out of close range and still keep your enemy in place? Grats, you have a good chance to win. You fail to do so by letting them come too close or get too far out? You either wont kill him or you wont kill him and lose. How can this be considered to be OP? You have also not the speed to dictate every thing and the decision about engaging or not may be much more committing than with Winmatar which often have the GTFO option.
Could you show how AC Hurricane could possibly win against HML Drake.
Do you know the fact that Cane does 600+ only at 3,9 km? Yeah, that's how long optimal Cane has with LONG RANGE ammo and two TEs. For comparison: Brutix has 4,39 km optimal with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs and Harbinger 9,75 km with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs. |
|
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 06:20:00 -
[4691] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The Drake is not OP, it never was, and most probably it never will be. Its good in some things, and not good in others. In long range combat its atm the best BC, in close range its by far not. How can you call this imbalance? Its not an I-win-button. Its like this in a Drake: You manage to stay out of close range and still keep your enemy in place? Grats, you have a good chance to win. You fail to do so by letting them come too close or get too far out? You either wont kill him or you wont kill him and lose. How can this be considered to be OP? You have also not the speed to dictate every thing and the decision about engaging or not may be much more committing than with Winmatar which often have the GTFO option. Could you show how AC Hurricane could possibly win against HML Drake. Do you know the fact that Cane does 600+ only at 3,9 km? Yeah, that's how long optimal Cane has with LONG RANGE ammo and two TEs. For comparison: Brutix has 4,39 km optimal with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs and Harbinger 9,75 km with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs.
Falloff, heard of it? The ability to choose between brawling and kiting on the same fit is one of the reason that makes the Cane (and in general Winmatar ships) powerful because as the speed race with alot of utility, more often than not they can pick their targets and engagement range and disengage when it's not going for them. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 06:52:00 -
[4692] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The Drake is not OP, it never was, and most probably it never will be. Its good in some things, and not good in others. In long range combat its atm the best BC, in close range its by far not. How can you call this imbalance? Its not an I-win-button. Its like this in a Drake: You manage to stay out of close range and still keep your enemy in place? Grats, you have a good chance to win. You fail to do so by letting them come too close or get too far out? You either wont kill him or you wont kill him and lose. How can this be considered to be OP? You have also not the speed to dictate every thing and the decision about engaging or not may be much more committing than with Winmatar which often have the GTFO option. Could you show how AC Hurricane could possibly win against HML Drake. Do you know the fact that Cane does 600+ only at 3,9 km? Yeah, that's how long optimal Cane has with LONG RANGE ammo and two TEs. For comparison: Brutix has 4,39 km optimal with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs and Harbinger 9,75 km with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs. Falloff, heard of it? The ability to choose between brawling and kiting on the same fit is one of the reason that makes the Cane (and in general Winmatar ships) powerful because as the speed race with alot of utility, more often than not they can pick their targets and engagement range and disengage when it's not going for them.
Yeah exaclty that falloff means your 600 DPS cane is doing 225ish DPS with a 64% hit chance. at 20km ...and shooting drake's strongest resists with barrage. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 07:03:00 -
[4693] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The Drake is not OP, it never was, and most probably it never will be. Its good in some things, and not good in others. In long range combat its atm the best BC, in close range its by far not. How can you call this imbalance? Its not an I-win-button. Its like this in a Drake: You manage to stay out of close range and still keep your enemy in place? Grats, you have a good chance to win. You fail to do so by letting them come too close or get too far out? You either wont kill him or you wont kill him and lose. How can this be considered to be OP? You have also not the speed to dictate every thing and the decision about engaging or not may be much more committing than with Winmatar which often have the GTFO option. Could you show how AC Hurricane could possibly win against HML Drake. Do you know the fact that Cane does 600+ only at 3,9 km? Yeah, that's how long optimal Cane has with LONG RANGE ammo and two TEs. For comparison: Brutix has 4,39 km optimal with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs and Harbinger 9,75 km with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs.
You, sir, failed to show your combat alt. I will therefor ignore your remarks until you show one. Btw, if I wouldnt, I could take them as proof you have no clue: not a single Eve player will claim the AC Cane to be inferior in PvP to a HML Drake. Seriously. Neither in 1on1 nor in small roams. The Drake can shine in bigger numbers, but in small scale AC Canes will either be able to run or kill the Drake. No way the HML Drake can win that with half decent pilots in the Cane. And thats no problem at all, since one is short range, the other long ... so long range should need to stay away.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 07:15:00 -
[4694] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Increasing (buffing) the damage bonus for Fury's over T1's while decreasing the T1 damage is not the same as saying they are getting a damage buff.
Ok, I can agree on that. Still its a bit fishy how he wrote it, just because he didnt make it clear Fury will have LESS DPS than they have now for the casual reader. There are really many people in game atm who believe after the patch HML Fury will doe MORE DPS than now, which is just wrong in so many ways ... and Fozzie wrote it in a way people can take it wrong, and I do think he did it purposely.
Tyberius Franklin wrote: The concept of T2 LR ammo doesn't translate to missiles since missiles have no variable range T1 ammo. T2 LR ammo gives long range reach with midrange DPS while giving an application penalty (tracking). Compare to precision which will give same as T1 DPS with better application but less range. So precision is effectively your T1 LR ammo equivalent, just instead of range you get damage application and instead of tracking penalties you get a range reduction from T1.
Oh, I think if you want to bring them in line, you should try to solve that. There is no reason to cut the range-ability of the long range system (!) so hard it will not be possible to snipe with it anymore at all. I can agree on sniping with lower DPS, that makes sense (just because turrets do really have low DPS on max ranges), but not with 0 DPS. So if you want missiles to be competitive long range you have to give an option there for long range, fast flight (so your damage will not come too late) and low DPS. About the tracking/application we can see how to balance it. Generally speaking, turrets have no big issues with hitting on long ranges due to normally low transversal, although falloff comes in effect too and makes it harder. Missiles otoh have big issues with hitting on the edge of their range (movement of target) and generally have issues with fast targets, regardless which direction its flying. Missiles do have far less issues with closer range stuff (from max range -10% and down, but the thing which gives them a headache is still signature/speed of target, which is a big problem for HAMs and Torps esp., but also Cruises and Fury HML).
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Depends on how well they do at giving HML ships unique roles. If well, whichever suits the need you have.
If they buff the Nighthawk in a way it will be usable with success in PvP (unlike now, because right now its in fact not better than the Drake but often worse, 5 meds vs 6 meds in Drake and POOR PG ..), also regarding the price- and skillreq-tag and do the same with all those t1 and t2 Cruisers, then maybe. Atm the Caracal is not top with HML, and with worse HML it will obviously not be better. And as long as the Raven sucks so hard (and its weapons do too) there is really no option other than the Drake. OT Smithers said it well - time to end this Caldari-nerfing once and for all, the time to make those broken hulls work is NOW. Not sometime in the future, after this nerf and that nerf ... |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 08:25:00 -
[4695] - Quote
Enya Enaka wrote:Durkuh Durka wrote:So CCP Fozzie, were you just trying to troll the drake/cane fanbops into frothing anger or do you plan on returning to respond to the issues being mentioned? Here is CCP Fozzie getting the Tengu 'Fanbops' frothing (all in good fun) at the Thursday Austin Meet where he nerf bats a 100MN Tengu. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-3qTVo8c8 Proof that he's PL. Search for raivi in game, also look at youtube comments.
Now you know why ccp is nerfing heavy missiles it's not because they need change but because of PL. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 08:59:00 -
[4696] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The Drake is not OP, it never was, and most probably it never will be. Its good in some things, and not good in others. In long range combat its atm the best BC, in close range its by far not. How can you call this imbalance? Its not an I-win-button. Its like this in a Drake: You manage to stay out of close range and still keep your enemy in place? Grats, you have a good chance to win. You fail to do so by letting them come too close or get too far out? You either wont kill him or you wont kill him and lose. How can this be considered to be OP? You have also not the speed to dictate every thing and the decision about engaging or not may be much more committing than with Winmatar which often have the GTFO option. Could you show how AC Hurricane could possibly win against HML Drake. Do you know the fact that Cane does 600+ only at 3,9 km? Yeah, that's how long optimal Cane has with LONG RANGE ammo and two TEs. For comparison: Brutix has 4,39 km optimal with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs and Harbinger 9,75 km with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs. You, sir, failed to show your combat alt. I will therefor ignore your remarks until you show one. Btw, if I wouldnt, I could take them as proof you have no clue: not a single Eve player will claim the AC Cane to be inferior in PvP to a HML Drake. Seriously. Neither in 1on1 nor in small roams. The Drake can shine in bigger numbers, but in small scale AC Canes will either be able to run or kill the Drake. No way the HML Drake can win that with half decent pilots in the Cane. And thats no problem at all, since one is short range, the other long ... so long range should need to stay away.
You've never actually done this have you? |
Signal11th
Against ALL Anomalies
794
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 09:01:00 -
[4697] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The Drake is not OP, it never was, and most probably it never will be. Its good in some things, and not good in others. In long range combat its atm the best BC, in close range its by far not. How can you call this imbalance? Its not an I-win-button. Its like this in a Drake: You manage to stay out of close range and still keep your enemy in place? Grats, you have a good chance to win. You fail to do so by letting them come too close or get too far out? You either wont kill him or you wont kill him and lose. How can this be considered to be OP? You have also not the speed to dictate every thing and the decision about engaging or not may be much more committing than with Winmatar which often have the GTFO option. Could you show how AC Hurricane could possibly win against HML Drake. Do you know the fact that Cane does 600+ only at 3,9 km? Yeah, that's how long optimal Cane has with LONG RANGE ammo and two TEs. For comparison: Brutix has 4,39 km optimal with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs and Harbinger 9,75 km with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs. You, sir, failed to show your combat alt. I will therefor ignore your remarks until you show one. Btw, if I wouldnt, I could take them as proof you have no clue: not a single Eve player will claim the AC Cane to be inferior in PvP to a HML Drake. Seriously. Neither in 1on1 nor in small roams. The Drake can shine in bigger numbers, but in small scale AC Canes will either be able to run or kill the Drake. No way the HML Drake can win that with half decent pilots in the Cane. And thats no problem at all, since one is short range, the other long ... so long range should need to stay away. You've never actually done this have you?
Although I see your point personally I would choose a cane over a drake anyday in small gang pvp. The drake is just a "tank" like you get in other games, boring to fly and only really shines when you have a few and a logi handy. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 09:47:00 -
[4698] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The Drake is not OP, it never was, and most probably it never will be. Its good in some things, and not good in others. In long range combat its atm the best BC, in close range its by far not. How can you call this imbalance? Its not an I-win-button. Its like this in a Drake: You manage to stay out of close range and still keep your enemy in place? Grats, you have a good chance to win. You fail to do so by letting them come too close or get too far out? You either wont kill him or you wont kill him and lose. How can this be considered to be OP? You have also not the speed to dictate every thing and the decision about engaging or not may be much more committing than with Winmatar which often have the GTFO option. Could you show how AC Hurricane could possibly win against HML Drake. Do you know the fact that Cane does 600+ only at 3,9 km? Yeah, that's how long optimal Cane has with LONG RANGE ammo and two TEs. For comparison: Brutix has 4,39 km optimal with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs and Harbinger 9,75 km with SHORT RANGE ammo and two TEs. You, sir, failed to show your combat alt. I will therefor ignore your remarks until you show one. Btw, if I wouldnt, I could take them as proof you have no clue: not a single Eve player will claim the AC Cane to be inferior in PvP to a HML Drake. Seriously. Neither in 1on1 nor in small roams. The Drake can shine in bigger numbers, but in small scale AC Canes will either be able to run or kill the Drake. No way the HML Drake can win that with half decent pilots in the Cane. And thats no problem at all, since one is short range, the other long ... so long range should need to stay away. You've never actually done this have you? Although I see your point personally I would choose a cane over a drake anyday in small gang pvp. The drake is just a "tank" like you get in other games, boring to fly and only really shines when you have a few and a logi handy.
As would I, the idea that a cane is a hard counter to a drake is just flat false though. There is no basis to make that statement. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 10:19:00 -
[4699] - Quote
Now Noemi, as you are constantly saying I don't a **** about missiles because I fly gallente, I'd like to see some pvp stats of you. Because anything I saw on this thread was a highsec gank Drake...
On the other hand, all you say seem to be aimed at pve : saying there is only BC and BS in the game is stupid. Missiles frigates work fine, and are even deadly. You always completely ignored this fact. You also are implying caldari don't have half of their ships with hybrid guns. Fact is that caldari also use hybrids, and their hybrid BC/BS work very fine. Their hybrid frigates work fine too, but I wonder if you ever flown in a frigate after your first week.... They also have an OP EWAR, which make 3 cruisers and one BS of them OP. That is starting to be a bunch of caldari ships, but you will ignore this I guess, and quibble on something else.
You keep talking about the caracal, cerberus and nighthawk to support your assertion of "HML are not OP". Though these ships are known to have balance problem. Have you looked at the new caracal ? It will be deadly. The others will follow. All races have their not so flown ships, and this is the reason of all these rebalances.
Now, have you seen the HAM buff ? Start trying to fight with a HAM drake if you want to fight a AC cane. The fact that you are comparing the HML drake and the AC hurricane in a pvp situation is THE proof the HML OPness. Hurricane is being nerfed BTW... But you should ignore this, or cry against it, otherwise that would support the HML nerf.
What is left then ? Usually, you start by saying I don't know a **** about missiles, then that the drake is not OP because it's the only caldari ship, and then that the hurricane is better. Oh, I forgot the part of missiles are definitly OP because of medium long range turrets. Yeah, a long range weapon system have to be compared to other long range weapon systems. Sad, but that's it. Start to rage for a HAM buff, and you will be heared, but fighting the HML nerf only to let the drake being competitive against the hurricane is stupid.
And finaly statistic : there is a lot of bias you should avoid with statistics. One of them is a fashion effect. Can you prove that the Zealot being above the drake is not an effect of fashion or nullsec politic this month ? No, you cannnot, because you can't even gather multiple months statistics. BTW, fleet Zealot are pulse Zealot, so once again, a short range weapon system against a long range weapon system.
So I repeat it, I don't really care about the drake in itself, but the fact are HML are OP against what they should be compared to : medium long range turrets.
HML being able to hit fine at lower range when long range turret cannot is fine, it's by design, but allowing a drake to outdps all its peers even at any range, and even have more than TWICE their dps at long range is significative.
Making HML like turret is stupid BTW. We have too different weapon systems, they should work differently. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 10:22:00 -
[4700] - Quote
Oh, and I forget this point : missile velocity have been buffed greatly. Not all that bad it seem ? |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 10:37:00 -
[4701] - Quote
Just one thing here Mr. missile/Drake hater, who cant read ...
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Now, have you seen the HAM buff ? Start trying to fight with a HAM drake if you want to fight a AC cane. The fact that you are comparing the HML drake and the AC hurricane in a pvp situation is THE proof the HML OPness. Hurricane is being nerfed BTW... But you should ignore this, or cry against it, otherwise that would support the HML nerf.
Once and for all. I am not comparing the HML Drake to an AC Cane. I say when one meets the other under certain conditions it can win, and under other it cant and will lose for sure. Same will apply to a comparison HAM Drake and Arty Cane btw, but unlike Arty Canes with have a certain value atm, HAM Drakes are not viable.
Same would apply to a Pulse II Harbinger btw, it will rip a HML Drake to pieces if it gets close enough. Or an AC Myrm or whatever. HAM Drake will lose most encounters to short range fitted enemies, HML Drake has a good chance of winning long range battles. Change one, and change the other. Make the Drake be on par with the others close range, and I am fine with the others being on par with the Drake long range. According to the planned changes this will not be happening though. The HAM Drake will remain a niche thing, and the HML Drake will be removed from PvP. Maybe its this Gallente thing, you dont want to be the only one who gets his backdoor abused?
Bouh Revetoile wrote: HML being able to hit fine at lower range when long range turret cannot is fine, it's by design, but allowing a drake to outdps all its peers even at any range, and even have more than TWICE their dps at long range is significative.
No. It cant. It will NOT outdps all its peers on any range. Proof this stupid theory or GTFO. Proof has been brought for the contrary btw ... so better get some serious work done before you post again.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 10:38:00 -
[4702] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Oh, and I forget this point : missile velocity have been buffed greatly. Not all that bad it seem ?
Ranges have been reduced a lot more than speed has been buffed. Hardly a plus ... and buffed greatly would have been a 50-100% increase btw ...
but yeah, pointless to argue with someone like you :) you really have no clue. Thanks for showing that again and again :)
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 10:45:00 -
[4703] - Quote
You are all in irrationality. You want the *Drake* to compete short range toe to toe with the other BCs and you don't care it can be with HML or HAM. Why crying to don't nerf HML when they need it when you can cry to buff HAM ?
And for the peers I was talking about, I was speaking about other long range medium size turret ships. But if you need some stats, I will do my best. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 10:46:00 -
[4704] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Same would apply to a Pulse II Harbinger btw, it will rip a HML Drake to pieces if it gets close enough.
Someone has never flown plated Harbinger it seems... |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 11:02:00 -
[4705] - Quote
Well, the Hurricane shouldn't be touched @ all. A fleet of shield Harbingers are supperior to a fleet of autocannon-shield-Hurricanes. Thing is a Drake, Harbinger, Talos, Oracle, Naga and Talos all have superior damage projection/applied. The aforementioned all out damage a shield-Hurricane with autocannons @ 13 and above. That's a fact! The only time that changes is with artillery; however, heavy missiles still out shine them in terms of similar damage per second and even more projection (ignoring volley damage).
I'm against the changes to the Hurricane, but its not so big of a deal that it would warrant long conversations with TERRIBUBBLE players.
If a HML-Drake is losing to a Hurricane. Then that pilot is ******** or someone has warfare links and the other does NOT. Same can be said about a shield-Harbinger versus a shield-Hurricane (autocannon). losing in either engagement is an achivement only the most r3t@rded is capable of. Not even a shield-Talos (blasters) is capable of defeating a shield harbinger (heavy pulse lasers) under 30,000m. There damage is to similar @ 25,000m or more and up close @ around 13,000m a shield-harbinger is capable of 850dps; even more with conflag. Tank is the main difference because that damage projection/applied is too similar.
Anyway, without the changes to TE's I and many other pilots were switching to Drakes and Shield-Harbingers anyway. The Hurricane was terrible everywhere and just outclassed. TE's have enabled it to use range along with its speed as an advantage, but its not a I win button; just hard to lose when facing better battlecruisers who will defeat you in point range. @ that point you can choose to get out or esploded trying to get out. The shield-hurricane for me is more usefull against sub-battlecruisers.
I use a Drake, Harbinger, Talos or Naga versus things above cruisers. Generally against multiple things.
Only time a Hurricane really shines in fleets is when using artillery. Otherwise you're always better off in some of the aforementioned battlecruisers.
There are no OP Minmatar ships in eveyclass. The only ones I know of that are is a Sabre (could argue this), Thrasher and that's it. However, there not sh!t in every class. Often THIRD and sometimes being the second best in a class.
Btw, the Myrmidon and Drake are the best close range battlecruisers and some would say the Harbinger is THIRD in that list. Being that it did not excel @ range or close range PRE TE nerf; the non bad pilots were starting to use the other bc's leaVing the Hurricane dead. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Anny Jackson
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 11:53:00 -
[4706] - Quote
So HM are too strong for long range weapon? Ok, lets nerf their damage. But let's make them instant and with different types so you can vary their range as well. Then no problems I think. Because you may get those turret ships to shoot from much further than missile ships (aside from Cerberus). Yeah, they will look alike, but the balance will become perfect. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
99
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 11:55:00 -
[4707] - Quote
[Drake, pvp]
7x Heavy Missile Launcher II (Scourge Fury Heavy Missile)
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I EM Ward Field II Target Painter II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Damage Control II 2x Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
[Statistics - All 5]
Effective HP: 80-á365 (Eve: 70-á095) Tank Ability: 147,83 DPS Damage Profile - -Omni-Damage- (EM: 25,00%, Ex: 25,00%, Ki: 25,00%, Th: 25,00%) Shield Resists - EM: 81,91%, Ex: 77,03%, Ki: 72,44%, Th: 72,83% Armor Resists - EM: 57,50%, Ex: 23,50%, Ki: 36,25%, Th: 53,25%
Capacitor (Lasts 4m 10s)
Volley Damage: 2-á761,84 DPS: 411,01 ================================================================== [Harbinger, beam]
7x Heavy Beam Laser II (Imperial Navy Multifrequency M)
Large Shield Extender II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Microwarpdrive II
2x Heat Sink II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II Reactor Control Unit II Co-Processor I
2x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
[Statistics - All 5]
Effective HP: 59-á429 (Eve: 51-á753) Tank Ability: 78,25 DPS Damage Profile - -Omni-Damage- (EM: 25,00%, Ex: 25,00%, Ki: 25,00%, Th: 25,00%) Shield Resists - EM: 62,47%, Ex: 77,36%, Ki: 72,83%, Th: 63,78% Armor Resists - EM: 57,50%, Ex: 32,00%, Ki: 36,25%, Th: 44,75%
Capacitor (Lasts 1m 55s)
Volley Damage: 1-á643,64 DPS: 467,80 ===================================================================== Now, tell me that these fit are **** or whatever, but anyway. I choose the harbinger because the hurricane would have had less dps but alpha, and the brutix is tier1. So the harbinger indeed have more dps. Roughly 15% more. Though you cannot see here the tracking and falloff values on the harbinger (0,0565@8,6+13km). Though, with this tracking and at this range, you won't ever touch anything moving, and you know how the falloff work (Drake outdps the harbi at 12km, 15km with CNScourge). Values began to be similar (+13dps for harbniger) with Imperial Navy Xray vs Caldari navy scourge. The harbinger then will have 0,0452rad/s@25,8+13km. Drake outdps the harbinger at around 28km.
So, for bigger target (BC and over), the Drake will outdps the harbinger from 28km to 70km. You can then fit the drake for long range. Though, we will see a little more details about these tracking values.
0,045rad.s@28km mean a transversale velocity of 1125m/s. At 20km, it's 900m/s. At 10km, it's 450m/s, or 565 with gleam. This mean that if your target have this transversal velocity, your dps will be halved. That mean that any frigate is you doom, and you won't even hit a cruiser at less than 20km.
So the mightest long range medium size turret system is outdps by HML at 28km, and it suffer from HUGE tracking penalties for the lower ranges to the benefit of around 15% dps. Farther than 28km, HML will go out to 70km where they will have a 30% dps advantage.
Add that the harbinger have no tank nor ewar/tackle (it's a small fleet harbinger test I took, you would use a pulse harbinger in real life, because of tracking and dps).
You cannot solo in this harbinger, you can do it with the Drake. This is because of frigates and cruisers. On top of these very good performances, the drake have versatility and can engage almost any target, it's tank making for the lack of dps if needed. No other ship can do this : fight effectively from 0 to 70km. Oh, I'm wrong here, BS can do it...
You can figure how it turns out with tech3 ships, it's interesting too. Tengu damage projection is almost better than LARGE long range turrets.
You can say whatever you want about chances or skills, fact are that a drake can take on infinitely more targets than this harbinger or any ship with long range medium size weapon system. That is imbalanced, or OP.
To fix this, you need either to nerf the versatility (damage application) or the dps. CCP decided to nerf the dps, and it's fine I think because HML versatility is what differenciate them from turrets. With 10% damage nerf, turrets may have their window (I miss the 20% nerf). With the range nerf, you have to specialize your ship with rigs to achieve the old range (so it's still possible), and you will still outdps any other medium long range turret (but not by 30% anymore, only 20%, which is still huge). Missile speed have been buffed BTW, so the drawback of delay kind of vanish.
Now Noemi, stop writing until it is for posting your killboard please, and with *relevant* pvp, and go for some lvl4 missions with your drake ? Or just stop talking about my gallente "skills". |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1905
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:03:00 -
[4708] - Quote
Hey everyone, I got back from GDC yesterday and have now caught up on the posts I missed here.
We don't have any new changes to the proposal to report at this time, but we're working on getting a testing window in place so we can get some changes out to you guys for hands on testing.
We very well may change the proposal further but odds are the next changes will happen after we get some test server feedback so people can try things out. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Opertone
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
134
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:08:00 -
[4709] - Quote
OMG, you nerfed two of my favorite choices!
First you mess with quality of my missiles! In fact I would appreciate more missile power.
Then I cross trained to minmatar and now you nerf number one minmatar ship - hurricane! It was perfect, real strong, lots of spare fittings and tank.
Your turn my eve career upside down. Half of the time caldari missiles sucked, then they were fixed and now you take away the toy! Unfair!
Hurricane was my minnie ship of choice - why do you need to weaken it? Instead people need to cross train to minmatar.
I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1905
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:17:00 -
[4710] - Quote
Opertone wrote: I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
This proposed change is a very significant buff to torpedoes. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
82
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:30:00 -
[4711] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Opertone wrote: I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
This proposed change is a very significant buff to torpedoes.
Yeah, if TC/TE changes are implemented the Golem is going to be capable of some crazy damage application over a ridiculous range with torps. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:37:00 -
[4712] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Oh, and I forget this point : missile velocity have been buffed greatly. Not all that bad it seem ? Ranges have been reduced a lot more than speed has been buffed. Hardly a plus ... and buffed greatly would have been a 50-100% increase btw ... but yeah, pointless to argue with someone like you :) you really have no clue. Thanks for showing that again and again :)
Holy pot meets kettle statement batman. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:49:00 -
[4713] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Same would apply to a Pulse II Harbinger btw, it will rip a HML Drake to pieces if it gets close enough. Someone has never flown plated Harbinger it seems...
Says the one with no combat record and no combat alt? :)
|
Lili Lu
532
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:53:00 -
[4714] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Oh, and I forget this point : missile velocity have been buffed greatly. Not all that bad it seem ? Ranges have been reduced a lot more than speed has been buffed. Hardly a plus ... and buffed greatly would have been a 50-100% increase btw ... but yeah, pointless to argue with someone like you :) you really have no clue. Thanks for showing that again and again :) Holy pot meets kettle statement batman. Yeah, Noemi is the ultimate npc alt corp cluless whiner. And is responsible for a significant portion of this thread's overblown length. Hey Noemi, Fozzie is not changing anything due to your continued pouting and complaining, if he's changing anything it will be on their internal statistics, rational examination of numbers (which you don't do), and as he explains now, testing on the test server.
And, I love this
Opertone wrote:OMG, you nerfed two of my favorite choices!
First you mess with quality of my missiles! In fact I would appreciate more missile power.
Then I cross trained to minmatar and now you nerf number one minmatar ship - hurricane! It was perfect, real strong, lots of spare fittings and tank.
Your turn my eve career upside down. Half of the time caldari missiles sucked, then they were fixed and now you take away the toy! Unfair!
Hurricane was my minnie ship of choice - why do you need to weaken it? Instead people need to cross train to minmatar.
I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea. For a character from 2005, that is an epic fad of the last threee year chasing whine post. Hey, I hear Supercarriers are incredible. Start now and you will be killing everything and . . oh sorry. Yeah there'll be an sp reimbursement for everybody. Because that is the type of game eve has always been.
edit - unless Opertone is making the most awesome troll post in which case |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:57:00 -
[4715] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Opertone wrote: I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
This proposed change is a very significant buff to torpedoes.
How so? Small increase in damage for rage (positive), and increase of explosion velo (negative), and decrease of range (negative). The general ship penalties removal is ok, but not really gamebreaking news for Torp users. GMP will work for Torps now though, which maybe helps a bit to apply the damage better. Test server will show. I fear they will be as useless for a Raven like before, which also lies within the Raven platform though ..
Fozzie, can you comment on the rumors spread by some you are attached to a certain political block and may have personal interest in this topic?
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
174
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:57:00 -
[4716] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:
I'm against the changes to the Hurricane, but its not so big of a deal that it would warrant long conversations with TERRIBUBBLE players.
Also, like always. Many are behind the META of combat. The Hurricane is being phased out because of tier 3's.
Well based on your asb hawks performance against my enyo a few days ago i have come to the conclusion that you are actually the "terribubble" player.
As for cane being replaced by tiers 3s... Maybe this argument is somewhat valid when comparing the arty cane to tier 3 however when fitting the the ship in a more conventional role it's still by far the mot versatile of the bcs. You've got reasonable ehp values (60k+) when armor fit on top of 2x webs, and nuets. The armor cane really does not have much competition in the current bc lineup as it' the runaway obvious choice. It's been unquestionably overpowered for years now and i expect further nerfs to the ship or significant buffs to comparable bcs before next summer's xpack. |
Lili Lu
532
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:06:00 -
[4717] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: How so? Small increase in damage for rage (positive), and increase of explosion velo (negative), and decrease of range (negative). The general ship penalties removal is ok, but not really gamebreaking news for Torp users. GMP will work for Torps now though, which maybe helps a bit to apply the damage better. Test server will show. I fear they will be as useless for a Raven like before, which also lies within the Raven platform though ..
Fozzie, can you comment on the rumors spread by some you are attached to a certain political block and may have personal interest in this topic?
"Rumors" Keep being clueless and terrible Noemi.
Or should I say ROU. Come on Noemi, give us some more quotes about your grandmother off the Brighton pier. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1907
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:24:00 -
[4718] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Fozzie, can you comment on the rumors spread by some you are attached to a certain political block and may have personal interest in this topic?
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game, not the interest of any specific alliances. I'm one member of the whole design team that collectively signs off on any changes and we have an internal affairs department that is in charge of protecting against any unethical conduct.
If anyone has any specific concerns with evidence of bias they should contact the CCP IA department, but I can assure you that I'm not in the pocket of any ingame interests and I think my record so far supports that fact. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Borascus
Red Core Paradigm Shift Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:32:00 -
[4719] - Quote
As a stress test to Heavy Missile Balance have you attempted to test the DPS of Heavy Missiles in the Gallente COSMOS Mission (Parchanier) - Drone Mind (2 of 2).
The Drone BS that needs to be taken out in that mission has a strong tank and would be the best hi-sec encounter to test Heavy Missiles.
If you need 3 or more drakes to take it down missiles are too weak.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
231
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:35:00 -
[4720] - Quote
Borascus wrote: If you need 3 or more drakes to take it down missiles are too weak.
I'll throw you a question then.
Why exactly do you think the other three races use battleships over level 3? I'll give you three guesses. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:44:00 -
[4721] - Quote
Borascus wrote:As a stress test to Heavy Missile Balance have you attempted to test the DPS of Heavy Missiles in the Gallente COSMOS Mission (Parchanier) - Drone Mind (2 of 2).
The Drone BS that needs to be taken out in that mission has a strong tank and would be the best hi-sec encounter to test Heavy Missiles.
If you need 3 or more drakes to take it down missiles are too weak.
This is a really, really really bad argument.
|
Starr FFox
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:49:00 -
[4722] - Quote
Grats on the genocide of the caldarirace. Hml damage was crap before now it will be pathetic. Can we get our heavy missile skills sp back and respecialize it hams? Hml was a long train with support skills. I now have to crosstrain into another races ships. Caldari have always sucked at pvp this will make it even tougher to have a caldari pilot in a fleet unless they are ecming. Are. Gonna nerf that too while you are at it? Are u gonna nerf other races long range weapons like aetillery so they only do like 275 damage as well...... Didnt think so. Way to go ccp ...... Tears yeah tears will flow on behalf of all caldari pilots as they have to crosstrain or stick to ecm or possibly pve. Pvp will no longer be viable as if drakes were op lolz. A drake on the battlefield is no more than a distraction unless you have blobs of them.think my drake has around 377 dpsmwhile my maelstrom fitedmwith artys have around 1100 or something, at even a greater range, so lets nerf hmls so they have shorter range one damage type bonus so everyone with a brain knows what hardener to throw on, and make it less than 300 damage.....huh? |
Lili Lu
532
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:59:00 -
[4723] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: Fozzie, can you comment on the rumors spread by some you are attached to a certain political block and may have personal interest in this topic?
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game, not the interest of any specific alliances. I'm one member of the whole design team that collectively signs off on any changes and we have an internal affairs department that is in charge of protecting against any unethical conduct. If anyone has any specific concerns with evidence of bias they should contact the CCP IA department, but I can assure you that I'm not in the pocket of any ingame interests and I think my record so far supports that fact. Quite right Fozzie. You have to be polite. Because of your position. But I don't
Hey Noemi, for the sake of argument, let's entertain your stupid adherence to this "rumor". Do you even know that PL was one of the first entities to fly both Drake fleet and Tengu fleets? They are usually on the cutting edge of combat tactics. You know how many years ago both of those things appeared? Yeah it was "years" ago for both. PL would have no need to nerf HMs to combat anyone because they themselves have had the ability to use them for a long time. I know this not only from reading forums and killboards, but also from having flown allied to them and having been on the receiving end of PL fleets in my eve career.
You however, keep showing your cluelessness by accusing Fozzie of somehow wanting to nerf HMs purely to aid a PL desperately in need of this nerf. You should really stop posting your bullshit.
edit - Ah, and excellent whine posts Borascus and Starr FFox. So much bad in each post I'm not sure if you two are really serious. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:01:00 -
[4724] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Major Killz wrote:
I'm against the changes to the Hurricane, but its not so big of a deal that it would warrant long conversations with TERRIBUBBLE players.
Also, like always. Many are behind the META of combat. The Hurricane is being phased out because of tier 3's.
Well based on your asb hawks performance against my enyo a few days ago i have come to the conclusion that you are actually the "terribubble" player. As for cane being replaced by tiers 3s... Maybe this argument is somewhat valid when comparing the arty cane to tier 3 however when fitting the the ship in a more conventional role it's still by far the mot versatile of the bcs. You've got reasonable ehp values (60k+) when armor fit on top of 2x webs, and nuets. The armor cane really does not have much competition in the current bc lineup as it' the runaway obvious choice. It's been unquestionably overpowered for years now and i expect further nerfs to the ship or significant buffs to comparable bcs before next summer's xpack.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14863453 yes you are indeed pre and I am terrible. Congratulations! I wish you the best of luck in your delusional world of PRO and grats on winning... You should read those comments. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:03:00 -
[4725] - Quote
Starr FFox wrote:Grats on the genocide of the caldarirace. Hml damage was crap before now it will be pathetic. Can we get our heavy missile skills sp back and respecialize it hams? Hml was a long train with support skills. I now have to crosstrain into another races ships. Caldari have always sucked at pvp this will make it even tougher to have a caldari pilot in a fleet unless they are ecming. Are. Gonna nerf that too while you are at it? Are u gonna nerf other races long range weapons like aetillery so they only do like 275 damage as well...... Didnt think so. Way to go ccp ...... Tears yeah tears will flow on behalf of all caldari pilots as they have to crosstrain or stick to ecm or possibly pve. Pvp will no longer be viable as if drakes were op lolz. A drake on the battlefield is no more than a distraction unless you have blobs of them.think my drake has around 377 dpsmwhile my maelstrom fitedmwith artys have around 1100 or something, at even a greater range, so lets nerf hmls so they have shorter range one damage type bonus so everyone with a brain knows what hardener to throw on, and make it less than 300 damage.....huh?
Skill UP, a drake can pull 486 DPS no implants/frigs, 340 with the "standard" 2BCS fit....and that 2 BCS fit can reach 110km.
....and again, you have to use a BATTLESHIP to find an unfavorable comparison. That doesn't tell you anything?
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:08:00 -
[4726] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Starr FFox wrote:Grats on the genocide of the caldarirace. Hml damage was crap before now it will be pathetic. Can we get our heavy missile skills sp back and respecialize it hams? Hml was a long train with support skills. I now have to crosstrain into another races ships. Caldari have always sucked at pvp this will make it even tougher to have a caldari pilot in a fleet unless they are ecming. Are. Gonna nerf that too while you are at it? Are u gonna nerf other races long range weapons like aetillery so they only do like 275 damage as well...... Didnt think so. Way to go ccp ...... Tears yeah tears will flow on behalf of all caldari pilots as they have to crosstrain or stick to ecm or possibly pve. Pvp will no longer be viable as if drakes were op lolz. A drake on the battlefield is no more than a distraction unless you have blobs of them.think my drake has around 377 dpsmwhile my maelstrom fitedmwith artys have around 1100 or something, at even a greater range, so lets nerf hmls so they have shorter range one damage type bonus so everyone with a brain knows what hardener to throw on, and make it less than 300 damage.....huh? Skill UP, a drake can pull 486 DPS no implants/frigs, 340 with the "standard" 2BCS fit....and that 2 BCS fit can reach 110km. ....and again, you have to use a BATTLESHIP to find an unfavorable comparison. That doesn't tell you anything?
i believe he is referring to the upcoming changes to dmg and range on HML's but his numbers on the arties are well wide off the mark they will do about 500dps at best as tornado's do atm but have poor tracking as battleship weapons do. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:13:00 -
[4727] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
i believe he is referring to the upcoming changes to dmg and range on HML's but his numbers on the arties are well wide off the mark they will do about 500dps at best as tornado's do atm but have poor tracking as battleship weapons do.
HML Drake will still pull 396DPS after the nerf, which is pretty ******* respectable for a medium LR weapon. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
176
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:16:00 -
[4728] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Major Killz wrote:
I'm against the changes to the Hurricane, but its not so big of a deal that it would warrant long conversations with TERRIBUBBLE players.
Also, like always. Many are behind the META of combat. The Hurricane is being phased out because of tier 3's.
Well based on your asb hawks performance against my enyo a few days ago i have come to the conclusion that you are actually the "terribubble" player. As for cane being replaced by tiers 3s... Maybe this argument is somewhat valid when comparing the arty cane to tier 3 however when fitting the the ship in a more conventional role it's still by far the mot versatile of the bcs. You've got reasonable ehp values (60k+) when armor fit on top of 2x webs, and nuets. The armor cane really does not have much competition in the current bc lineup as it' the runaway obvious choice. It's been unquestionably overpowered for years now and i expect further nerfs to the ship or significant buffs to comparable bcs before next summer's xpack. http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14863453 yes you are indeed pre and I am terrible. Congratulations! I wish you the best of luck in your delusional world of PRO and grats on winning... You should read those comments.
Oh I did however your blatant attempt at underplaying your obvious miss click mistake was rather underwhelming. Saying things like "I went back to writing" to try and underplay it further is convincing no one. I will look forward to thrashing you again in the near future. Do try and not make noob mistakes next time, it makes the kills worth so much less for me.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:17:00 -
[4729] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:
i believe he is referring to the upcoming changes to dmg and range on HML's but his numbers on the arties are well wide off the mark they will do about 500dps at best as tornado's do atm but have poor tracking as battleship weapons do.
HML Drake will still pull 396DPS after the nerf, which is pretty ******* respectable for a medium LR weapon.
Reallly? im guessing your talking rage but there range and tracking will be much weaker so would probably need some TE's/TC's to improve its actual dps Also are you including drones in that? |
TheLast Poofighter
Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:17:00 -
[4730] - Quote
I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind making the missile platform behave like a turret platform. My understanding is that there are two separate skill trees as they are intended to behave and perform differently - I think most of the changes proposed would be widely accepted if the secondary skills of missiles were reimbursed and merge gunnery and missile skill trees to a "turrets" skill tree. As it would stand now this just seems like a huge hit to newer players who may have not cross trained for both disciplines (guns and missiles that is) and to one specific race that really isn't geared for pvp anyway.
Also I don't understand the reasoning of "defender missiles take up too much cpu so to fix a problem we are going to make everything behave the same." While I know that isn't a direct quote, it was kinda how it came across. Is it that difficult to fix a great idea that works very well for npc battle ships in level 4 missions? It seems like there really could be all kinds of creative solutions and the route taken was rather bland and boring. Defender pulses, defender arrays, robo-nano-dragons, cloaked defender missiles - really, you have a whole universe of creative options here. I have always appreciated the complex Paper, Rock, Scissors nature of Eve but this change just kinda seems like we all get a rock. My rant is finished I am going to watch a Charlie Brown Halloween and wait for the extended DT to finish.
PS - My daughter who has Down Syndrome is an avid player of Eve. I thought it would be a good idea for her to take up mining to prepare her for potential disappointments - however, she took more to POS management. She like to set up complex designs and shapes for hours on end. Her POS is large Amarr tower which she like to call "the Broken Potato Peeler." Would it be possible for the anchoring/un-anchoring and onlining/offlining times to get buffed? |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:18:00 -
[4731] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:
i believe he is referring to the upcoming changes to dmg and range on HML's but his numbers on the arties are well wide off the mark they will do about 500dps at best as tornado's do atm but have poor tracking as battleship weapons do.
HML Drake will still pull 396DPS after the nerf, which is pretty ******* respectable for a medium LR weapon. Reallly? im guessing your talking rage but there range and tracking will be much weaker so would probably need some TE's/TC's to improve its actual dps
No x3 BCS |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:25:00 -
[4732] - Quote
TheLast Poofighter wrote:I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind making the missile platform behave like a turret platform. My understanding is that there are two separate skill trees as they are intended to behave and perform differently - I think most of the changes proposed would be widely accepted if the secondary skills of missiles were reimbursed and merge gunnery and missile skill trees to a "turrets" skill tree. As it would stand now this just seems like a huge hit to newer players who may have not cross trained for both disciplines (guns and missiles that is) and to one specific race that really isn't geared for pvp anyway.
Why? Missiles are applicable to all four races, as are the turret support skills. New players that AREN'T Caldari have to deal with this anyway. I'm an Angle pilot given the choice, I much prefer gallente and matar. However, I can also fly all four races BS and down with T2 weapons. The newer "caldari" players get to share the experince of newer Amarr, Gallente and Matari players and crosstrain.
TheLast Poofighter wrote: Also I don't understand the reasoning of "defender missiles take up too much cpu so to fix a problem we are going to make everything behave the same." While I know that isn't a direct quote, it was kinda how it came across. Is it that difficult to fix a great idea that works very well for npc battle ships in level 4? It seems like there really could be all kinds of creative solutions and the route taken was rather bland and boring. Defender pulses, defender arrays, robo-nano-dragons, cloaked defender missiles - really, you have a whole universe of creative options here. I have always appreciated the complex Paper, Rock, Scissors nature of Eve but this change just kinda seems like we all get a rock. My rant is finished I am going to watch a Charlie Brown Halloween and wait for the extended DT to finish.
Their issue with defenders is hardware resources. For the rest of us smartbombs do fine.
TheLast Poofighter wrote: PS - My daughter who has Down Syndrome is an avid player of Eve. I thought it would be a good idea for her to take up mining to prepare her for potential disappointments - however, she took more to POS management. She like to set up complex designs and shapes for hours on end. Her POS is large Amarr tower which she like to call "the Broken Potato Peeler." Would it be possible for the anchoring/un-anchoring and onlining/offlining times to get buffed?
You have no idea how most of us wish that lol |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:26:00 -
[4733] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:
i believe he is referring to the upcoming changes to dmg and range on HML's but his numbers on the arties are well wide off the mark they will do about 500dps at best as tornado's do atm but have poor tracking as battleship weapons do.
HML Drake will still pull 396DPS after the nerf, which is pretty ******* respectable for a medium LR weapon. Reallly? im guessing your talking rage but there range and tracking will be much weaker so would probably need some TE's/TC's to improve its actual dps No x3 BCS
you misunderstand im talking the difference between paper dps and actual dps application i.e. tracking. but from reading earlier in this topic people were mentioning 300 dps would be more accurate not including drone dps that and people will most likely use faction ammo for the extra range and tracking bonus over T2 rage ammo |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:28:00 -
[4734] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:Onictus wrote:Harvey James wrote:
i believe he is referring to the upcoming changes to dmg and range on HML's but his numbers on the arties are well wide off the mark they will do about 500dps at best as tornado's do atm but have poor tracking as battleship weapons do.
HML Drake will still pull 396DPS after the nerf, which is pretty ******* respectable for a medium LR weapon. Reallly? im guessing your talking rage but there range and tracking will be much weaker so would probably need some TE's/TC's to improve its actual dps No x3 BCS you misunderstand im talking the difference between paper dps and actual dps application i.e. tracking. but from reading earlier in this topic people were mentioning 300 dps would be more accurate not including drone dps that and people will most likely use faction ammo for the extra range and tracking bonus over T2 rage ammo
You lose 9 DPS to a max skilled hurricane with a MWD.
What do I not understand again? |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:32:00 -
[4735] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Major Killz wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Major Killz wrote:
I'm against the changes to the Hurricane, but its not so big of a deal that it would warrant long conversations with TERRIBUBBLE players.
Also, like always. Many are behind the META of combat. The Hurricane is being phased out because of tier 3's.
Well based on your asb hawks performance against my enyo a few days ago i have come to the conclusion that you are actually the "terribubble" player. As for cane being replaced by tiers 3s... Maybe this argument is somewhat valid when comparing the arty cane to tier 3 however when fitting the the ship in a more conventional role it's still by far the mot versatile of the bcs. You've got reasonable ehp values (60k+) when armor fit on top of 2x webs, and nuets. The armor cane really does not have much competition in the current bc lineup as it' the runaway obvious choice. It's been unquestionably overpowered for years now and i expect further nerfs to the ship or significant buffs to comparable bcs before next summer's xpack. http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14863453 yes you are indeed pre and I am terrible. Congratulations! I wish you the best of luck in your delusional world of PRO and grats on winning... You should read those comments. Oh I did however your blatant attempt at underplaying your obvious miss click mistake was rather underwhelming. Saying things like "I went back to writing" to try and underplay it further is convincing no one. I will look forward to thrashing you again in the near future. Do try and not make noob mistakes next time, it makes the kills worth so much less for me.
Sounds good clown. I l00k forward to sch00ling your whole corporation. You can find me out roaming and PVPing anytime. I hope to see you undocked when we're the same system and not cowering in station. Also, I tend not to local chatter so I do ignore any atempts to conversate or talk smack.
Also, we both know you were trying to leave that engagement once you noticed I was kiting you 2 death. Unfortunatly I knew even if I was to stay @ my desired range. I wouldn't b able to end it with my ASB reloading (60 seconds). Infact when I was ask by a corp m8 "are going to esplode" because 7 people in more corporation were next door and on coms. I said 'no'. I'm going to warp out, he won or would win and there's nothing I can do about. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 14:36:00 -
[4736] - Quote
/popcorn |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 15:00:00 -
[4737] - Quote
This change will effect an old dynamic that was becoming ubiquitous. The move from battleships to lower ship classes or reliance upon them. There was a helpful cost and skill training time benifit with battlecruisers.
Now! Battleships will become the major go to ships again. The range reduction on the Drake alone made that the case. The cost of defending and fielding ships will rise and the benifit of SOV is decreasing.
Being in 0.0 will become more skill intensive if alliance will be reliant on battleships again.
The 2 weapon systems that will stand out from these changes will be Pulse Lasers and Artillery. The Drake will still be strong but will be food even for a fleet of blaster-Rokhs or autocannon-Maelstroms much less Abaddon and Armageddons. Tier 3's will almost completey overshadow the other lower teir battlecruisers; the Drakes range was the only thing holding back the aforementioned from becoming reality.
For coalition style battles you'll see more ships that have high resistence and large EHP; Rokhs, Abaddon, Armageddons, Tengu, rail-Proteus, art-Loki and Zealots. The long range ships of choice will be Naga, Oracle, Talos, and Tornados.
Drakes may or may not be removed from use in important engagement. As it stands now. The hml-Drake is close inline with a Art-Hurricane than it was before. The only difference being ehp and resistence.
BOOST for battleships and those with a large amount of skill points and a NERF to new and smaller entities who cannot afford to field battleships or dont have high skill point pilots.
Although! Tier 3's are not to hard to get into. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
145
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 15:20:00 -
[4738] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Oh I did however your blatant attempt at underplaying your obvious miss click mistake was rather underwhelming. Saying things like "I went back to writing" to try and underplay it further is convincing no one. I will look forward to thrashing you again in the near future. Do try and not make noob mistakes next time, it makes the kills worth so much less for me.
The one time nyan cat pirates win a fight they clearly need to go on about it for multiple posts on a completely unrelated forum topic... |
Lili Lu
534
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 15:21:00 -
[4739] - Quote
Major Killz wrote: decent assessment Although I don't agree with all that is stated, it is a decent assessment of the effect of these changes at this time. Missiles at each level of ship class have always either been a hit or miss proposition by virtue of the relative lack of ships that can use them. For instance Noemi complains about Drake and Tengu being the only good HML boats. Well actually they are only 2 out of 4 total HML boats. The Nighthawk and Cerb are not necessarily bad ships it's just that they are overshadowed in cost and effectiveness by the Drake and Tengu.
However, the rebalancing process has commenced. We can already see a shift with Minmatar receiving missile boats. That process will likely continue on up into BC and BS. So a missile centric Cyclone is a possibility. Whether we will end up with a Cruise/torp shield Tempest or Phoon to go with shield tanked cruise/torp Ravens, or armor tanked Cruise/torp Ravens to go with armor cruise/torp Phoons as future possible fleet comps reamiains to be seen. Lots of possibilities in future that will expand the number of "missile" boats at every level.
There will be some months or a year or more of odd imbalances between tech I and tech II relative value as the process progresses. But definitely having a game where one race has an easy to skill fleet ship and all the others don't is ending. Likewise a game where people can just train one weapon system (HMs) and one race (Caldari) and run just about any pve content and use those same skills for any level of pvp is ending.
This will be good for the game when it's all done. |
Durkuh Durka
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 15:26:00 -
[4740] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, I got back from GDC yesterday and have now caught up on the posts I missed here.
We don't have any new changes to the proposal to report at this time, but we're working on getting a testing window in place so we can get some changes out to you guys for hands on testing.
We very well may change the proposal further but odds are the next changes will happen after we get some test server feedback so people can try things out.
Thankfully, I can fly a Harbinger as well as a Hurricane, so I shoudn't be horribly affected when you make plated arty canes a thing of the past (thanks to the need for three ACRs and an RCUII).
|
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
251
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 15:28:00 -
[4741] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Opertone wrote: I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
This proposed change is a very significant buff to torpedoes.
Even with these changes there is still no reason to fly a Caldari Torpedo BS. And Cruise Missiles remain a joke.
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
147
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 15:33:00 -
[4742] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Opertone wrote: I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
This proposed change is a very significant buff to torpedoes. Even with these changes there is still no reason to fly a Caldari Torpedo BS. And Cruise Missiles remain a joke.
i was under the impression that fozzie was talking about torpedoes as a weapon, not cruise missiles, and not caldari BSes which have not gone through a balancing pass as of yet.
Cruise missiles will undoubtedly be looked at soon, as well as making the raven more PvP worthy rather than just a straight PvE runner. |
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. Varangon Tagma
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 16:17:00 -
[4743] - Quote
Fozzie do you plan to reduce power requirements for armour plates? With new reduced cane power grid IGÇÖm having trouble seeing how armor cane will remain viable. Armor tanking is already less favourite choice on canes compared to shield tanking, and given that shield tanks are less power hungry then armor tanks this disparity will grow even bigger. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
398
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 16:35:00 -
[4744] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Opertone wrote: I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
This proposed change is a very significant buff to torpedoes. Even with these changes there is still no reason to fly a Caldari Torpedo BS. And Cruise Missiles remain a joke.
That's because it's well understood that the problems with current torp Raven are located within both torps and the Raven hull itself, so you can hardly expect changes which don't address the Raven to solve the problem. Likewise with Cruise. So we'll just have to wait until tiericide gets to BS. Although Cruise is a really complicated problem...
Still, the torp GMP change is a very hefty boost - people have talked about cutting torp explosion radius down to 400 m before, but here CCP charge straight in with a cut to 337.5 m! That means full torp damage to a webbed Drake, no loss of damage to the hard signature cap. More of a problem is the entire utility of BS in small-gang combat where mobility is life, but, again, that's a BS problem, not a missile one, so don't look for a solely missile solution.
I do not believe that the GMP boost to rockets is justified, particularly in conjunction with Jav rockets becoming useful. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 16:46:00 -
[4745] - Quote
well rockets already have a sig rad of 20 for T1 which is lower than drones!!! and T2 rage 34 javelin is even less they do need to change that for sure |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
251
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 16:54:00 -
[4746] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game....
I will be brief.
This issue is a whole lot bigger than the Drake. The perception CCP has given many Caldari players is that it is always Hot-Drop O'Clock when it comes to sticking it to them. Again, itGÇÖs not about the Drake, itGÇÖs about the entire picture.
You need to actually FIX some of the many broken Caldari ships.
They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. No one who can fly the Vagabond wishes they could trade it for the Cerberus. No one is looking at the new Rupture or Vexor and wishing they could fly the new joke Moa instead. No one wants to swap their battleship, any battleship, for a Raven. No one is bummed because they are stuck flying the crappy Thrasher. No one has ever said, GÇ£Man that Nighthawk sure is a sweet ship compared to this piece of junk Sleipner.GÇ¥ Hell, the new Minmatar EWAR cruiser will be a better missile boat than the Caldari missile boat. How silly is that? The problem isnGÇÖt the new Bellicose, itGÇÖs the way you build Caldari ships. ItGÇÖs CCPGÇÖs Caldari standard which seems to be:
Aspire to mediocrityGǪthen fail to hit the mark.
ThatGÇÖs what you guys have got to change. The Drake might be overpowered, but worrying about that is like trying to figure out how much to leave for a tip when you left your empty wallet at home. |
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:07:00 -
[4747] - Quote
TheLast Poofighter wrote: ==Snip == It seems like there really could be all kinds of creative solutions and the route taken was rather bland and boring. Defender pulses, defender arrays, robo-nano-dragons, cloaked defender missiles - really, you have a whole universe of creative options here. ==Snip == I read this part and a Anti-Missile Defense style Sentry Drone went zipping through my head... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
71
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:08:00 -
[4748] - Quote
Yes i would like to see the caracal getting a stronger bonus say 7.5% to ROF and the bellicose losing a medium drone to balance them a bit more after-all surely the caracal should do more dps than a ewar cruiser and being an attack cruiser surely it should be lighter and faster too the bellicose is lighter and quicker than most of the cruisers how does that make sense? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:13:00 -
[4749] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: <- snip -> tons of clueless stuff deleted) <- snip ->
Now Noemi, stop writing until it is for posting your killboard please, and with *relevant* pvp, and go for some lvl4 missions with your drake ? Or just stop talking about my gallente "skills".
I posted one of my alts KB. If you cant read I wont help. And I dont do l4s in a Drake. If I do them (which I sometimes do) then I take either my Mare or my Mach. Guess why :)
Your Gallente "skills" (its good you set it in quotation marks :D ) clearly excelled when you fitted those 2 ships. Even better they were when you failed to see a big difference of Harbinger and Drake - their drone bay. And bandwith. Although I thought you should be familiar with drones, as a Gallente pilot ... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:21:00 -
[4750] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Opertone wrote: I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
This proposed change is a very significant buff to torpedoes. Even with these changes there is still no reason to fly a Caldari Torpedo BS. And Cruise Missiles remain a joke.
Quoted again. For truth again.
|
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:28:00 -
[4751] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game....
I will be brief. This issue is a whole lot bigger than the Drake. The perception CCP has given many Caldari players is that it is always Hot-Drop O'Clock when it comes to sticking it to them. Again, itGÇÖs not about the Drake, itGÇÖs about the entire picture. You need to actually FIX some of the many broken Caldari ships. They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. No one who can fly the Vagabond wishes they could trade it for the Cerberus. No one is looking at the new Rupture or Vexor and wishing they could fly the new joke Moa instead. No one wants to swap their battleship, any battleship, for a Raven. No one is bummed because they are stuck flying the crappy Thrasher. No one has ever said, GÇ£Man that Nighthawk sure is a sweet ship compared to this piece of junk Sleipner.GÇ¥ Hell, the new Minmatar EWAR cruiser will be a better missile boat than the Caldari missile boat. How silly is that? The problem isnGÇÖt the new Bellicose, itGÇÖs the way you build Caldari ships. ItGÇÖs CCPGÇÖs Caldari standard which seems to be: Aspire to mediocrityGǪthen fail to hit the mark. ThatGÇÖs what you guys have got to change. The Drake might be overpowered, but worrying about that is like trying to figure out how much to leave for a tip when you left your empty wallet at home.
Fozzie, really: listen to this guy. Thats whats the feeling for most people who like to fly Caldari. I know there are some who are different. But really most *I* know feel exactly like that. Doesnt mean all of them will stick to Caldari, some just adapt and crosstrain... But its just pointless to treat an entire race like that. And when was the last time someone chose to crosstrain to Caldari? Ever? (if it was not just the ship skills for Gurista or Sansha ships ...) |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:31:00 -
[4752] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Borascus wrote: If you need 3 or more drakes to take it down missiles are too weak.
I'll throw you a question then. Why exactly do you think the other three races use battleships over level 3? I'll give you three guesses.
That is 2 guesses too many. |
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:32:00 -
[4753] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:You need to actually FIX some of the many broken Caldari ships.
They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. No one who can fly the Vagabond wishes they could trade it for the Cerberus. ***etc***
You'll find that there are many people who sit and think "why the hell did I train for this recon, I should have got a Falcon." Lots of people (atleast... PvErs) will sit there and think "why on earth did I train for this Legion/Prot/Loki I should have got a Tengu" and I'm sure plenty of people will sit there thinking "why bother with other BCs when you can use a drake that can do similar dps at 5x the range whilst tanking better and not even needing to be actively piloted."
Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that Caldari have some terrible ships (I'm struggling to find a pvp option I like for my alt, so she's cross trained amarr for a HAM Legion) but they definitely have some plus sides. All the races have some ships that just can't serve a utility. Look at the current Amarr T1 cruiser range and the Prophecy. Aside from the Arbitrator they're all completely and utterly pointless. (and currently looking to be much better when the expansion lands!)
The changes Fozzie is making here with missiles and through the frig/destroyer/cruiser lines will work towards fixing some of the flaws that exist at the moment, as the balancing changes work through Battlecruisers and Battleships I'm sure things will even out through all ship types. I sure hope so as I'd love to be able to go fly a Nighthawk on my alt as it looks sweet :D |
Aldeb Haraz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:34:00 -
[4754] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game....
They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. .
Right, all those Caldari ships are trash. Starting at the bottom:
Griffin Merlin Hawk Harpy Kitsune Flycatcher CN Hookbill Blackbird Falcon Rook Basilisk Onyx Tengu Ferox Drake Vulture Rokh Widow Nightmare Rattlesnake Chimera
These ships make up a large portion of the Caldari lineup and are all extremely relevant in PVP. They are all viable, and usually the best ship in their class. The myth that has been perpetuated that Caldari is trash in PVP and is only successful because of HML ships is factually wrong and should be put to rest.
Come winter, we also see the rest of the cruisers brought up: the Osprey becomes a strong support ship, the Caracal very effective at applying DPS at medium range, the Moa a decent shield brawler, and even forgotten ships like NH and Cerb can now make decent HAM fits. |
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:39:00 -
[4755] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:
The changes Fozzie is making here with missiles and through the frig/destroyer/cruiser lines will work towards fixing some of the flaws that exist at the moment, as the balancing changes work through Battlecruisers and Battleships I'm sure things will even out through all ship types. I sure hope so as I'd love to be able to go fly a Nighthawk on my alt as it looks sweet :D
The way I look at it is that the ships that are broken now will be even more broken after the missile change, until they are rebalanced to make them useable again. It isn't like many people are using them now, so there isn't a lot of difference between 'broken' and 'even more broken'.
Having said that, the caracal should theoretically rebalanced as it is presented in this forum, right? |
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:39:00 -
[4756] - Quote
Chimera? notsureifserious
Only any good if you pimp fit it and are in a Pulsar wormhole. |
TheLast Poofighter
Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:44:00 -
[4757] - Quote
Onictus wrote:TheLast Poofighter wrote:I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind making the missile platform behave like a turret platform. My understanding is that there are two separate skill trees as they are intended to behave and perform differently - I think most of the changes proposed would be widely accepted if the secondary skills of missiles were reimbursed and merge gunnery and missile skill trees to a "turrets" skill tree. As it would stand now this just seems like a huge hit to newer players who may have not cross trained for both disciplines (guns and missiles that is) and to one specific race that really isn't geared for pvp anyway. Why? Missiles are applicable to all four races, as are the turret support skills. New players that AREN'T Caldari have to deal with this anyway. I'm an Angle pilot given the choice, I much prefer gallente and matar. However, I can also fly all four races BS and down with T2 weapons. The newer "caldari" players get to share the experince of newer Amarr, Gallente and Matari players and crosstrain. TheLast Poofighter wrote: Also I don't understand the reasoning of "defender missiles take up too much cpu so to fix a problem we are going to make everything behave the same." While I know that isn't a direct quote, it was kinda how it came across. Is it that difficult to fix a great idea that works very well for npc battle ships in level 4? It seems like there really could be all kinds of creative solutions and the route taken was rather bland and boring. Defender pulses, defender arrays, robo-nano-dragons, cloaked defender missiles - really, you have a whole universe of creative options here. I have always appreciated the complex Paper, Rock, Scissors nature of Eve but this change just kinda seems like we all get a rock. My rant is finished I am going to watch a Charlie Brown Halloween and wait for the extended DT to finish.
Their issue with defenders is hardware resources. For the rest of us smartbombs do fine. TheLast Poofighter wrote: PS - My daughter who has Down Syndrome is an avid player of Eve. I thought it would be a good idea for her to take up mining to prepare her for potential disappointments - however, she took more to POS management. She like to set up complex designs and shapes for hours on end. Her POS is large Amarr tower which she like to call "the Broken Potato Peeler." Would it be possible for the anchoring/un-anchoring and onlining/offlining times to get buffed?
You have no idea how most of us wish that lol
I think I stated why but here is another reason - because missle apocs, maels, hyperions and megathrons are just silly
Agreed - defenders use too many resources but a smart bomb does not why not fix this rather than homogenize? But this point confuses me further. So there are already mechanics in place that counter the "the amazingly high" dps of these long range weapons? Like the Firewall and alpha mael fleet? Are these hardware resource hogs? Again this sounds like lazy way out - maybe nerf the amount time dev's spend on the forums and buff the time they spend on developing.
And to address your final point - yes, somehow I knew my daughter with Downs could appeal to -A-. |
TheLast Poofighter
Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:47:00 -
[4758] - Quote
Qaidan Alenko wrote:TheLast Poofighter wrote: ==Snip == It seems like there really could be all kinds of creative solutions and the route taken was rather bland and boring. Defender pulses, defender arrays, robo-nano-dragons, cloaked defender missiles - really, you have a whole universe of creative options here. ==Snip == I read this part and a Anti-Missile Defense style Sentry Drone went zipping through my head...
You sir should get paid for that idea - much more interesting than a nerf. Yet alas, I can sympathize with CCP Fozzie. I am sure it is very difficult to live up to such debacles as Incarna. |
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 17:47:00 -
[4759] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:The way I look at it is that the ships that are broken now will be even more broken after the missile change, until they are rebalanced to make them useable again. It isn't like many people are using them now, so there isn't a lot of difference between 'broken' and 'even more broken'.
Having said that, the caracal should theoretically rebalanced as it is presented in this forum, right?
I've not really looked at the suggested new Caracal stats in any detail, but I'd imagine the way it has been balanced takes into account the missile changes. If anyone thinks it doesn't - go post in detail why so Fozzie can see it!
Without sitting there with a calculator and working out the dps figures with the changes to missiles I don't think things look too bad for them. Yes HML are getting a much needed nerf, but you lose the really lame missile penalties, HAM become more easy to fit and I believe also higher peak dps with rage missiles (applying the damage is seperate) Caldari ships with their decent quantity of mid slots will need to adapt and fit more in the way of tackle (atleast a web/painter) to start making the most of the new missile systems and before long I'm sure everyone will be quite happy with their 700dps HAM drakes that still have 80k ehp :p
The thing as I see it, is that Caldari ships are now going to have to fit more than just a point in order to apply some dps, just like anyone with any form of turret does currently. You'll just no longer be able to sit at 70km going "haha heavy missiles lol" |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 18:20:00 -
[4760] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Fozzie, really: listen to this guy. Thats whats the feeling for most people who like to fly Caldari. I know there are some who are different. But really most *I* know feel exactly like that. Doesnt mean all of them will stick to Caldari, some just adapt and crosstrain... But its just pointless to treat an entire race like that. And when was the last time someone chose to crosstrain to Caldari? Ever? (if it was not just the ship skills for Gurista or Sansha ships ...)
still spouting bs
ppl cross train to caldari for merlins, drakes, tengus, rokhs, scorps, crows, falcons, basilisks, nagas.
ppl cross train to minmatar for less |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 19:20:00 -
[4761] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Fozzie, really: listen to this guy. Thats whats the feeling for most people who like to fly Caldari. I know there are some who are different. But really most *I* know feel exactly like that. Doesnt mean all of them will stick to Caldari, some just adapt and crosstrain... But its just pointless to treat an entire race like that. And when was the last time someone chose to crosstrain to Caldari? Ever? (if it was not just the ship skills for Gurista or Sansha ships ...)
still spouting bs ppl cross train to caldari for merlins, drakes, tengus, rokhs, scorps, crows, falcons, basilisks, nagas. ppl cross train to minmatar for less
Some of them - accepted. Caldari logis and Caldari ECM are decent. Caldari frigs are ok too. Naga and Rokh seem to be pretty popular, but never thought one would actually crosstrain for them. And dont forget ... they are gunnery ships, and whats the main point about this all? Caldari Missile PvP. So .. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
831
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 19:29:00 -
[4762] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Chimera? notsureifserious
Only any good if you pimp fit it and are in a Pulsar wormhole.
Awesome to move your ships to the front with a nice Ship hangar bay. Nice corp hangar and decent cargo bay to add more stuff to front market and make some iskies.
Think about it like a rorkal but different. brb |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 19:31:00 -
[4763] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Fozzie, really: listen to this guy. Thats whats the feeling for most people who like to fly Caldari. I know there are some who are different. But really most *I* know feel exactly like that. Doesnt mean all of them will stick to Caldari, some just adapt and crosstrain... But its just pointless to treat an entire race like that. And when was the last time someone chose to crosstrain to Caldari? Ever? (if it was not just the ship skills for Gurista or Sansha ships ...)
still spouting bs ppl cross train to caldari for merlins, drakes, tengus, rokhs, scorps, crows, falcons, basilisks, nagas. ppl cross train to minmatar for less Some of them - accepted. Caldari logis and Caldari ECM are decent. Caldari frigs are ok too. Naga and Rokh seem to be pretty popular, but never thought one would actually crosstrain for them. And dont forget ... they are gunnery ships, and whats the main point about this all? Caldari Missile PvP. So ..
Jaguar, Wolf, Hurricane and Nado. 4 reasons for me to fly Minmatar. The race you call "OP" and "race with superior damage projection". |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 19:38:00 -
[4764] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Fozzie, really: listen to this guy. Thats whats the feeling for most people who like to fly Caldari. I know there are some who are different. But really most *I* know feel exactly like that. Doesnt mean all of them will stick to Caldari, some just adapt and crosstrain... But its just pointless to treat an entire race like that. And when was the last time someone chose to crosstrain to Caldari? Ever? (if it was not just the ship skills for Gurista or Sansha ships ...)
still spouting bs ppl cross train to caldari for merlins, drakes, tengus, rokhs, scorps, crows, falcons, basilisks, nagas. ppl cross train to minmatar for less Some of them - accepted. Caldari logis and Caldari ECM are decent. Caldari frigs are ok too. Naga and Rokh seem to be pretty popular, but never thought one would actually crosstrain for them. And dont forget ... they are gunnery ships, and whats the main point about this all? Caldari Missile PvP. So ..
it wasnt a completely comprehensive list: hawk and condor should be there too. im just doing this from the top of my head.
there are 3 turret ships there, 1 logi, 2 ecm and now 5 missile ships.
is it also worth mentioning there are no medium turret ships there? and 2 medium launcher ships? since this is about HML's versus medium LR turrets so... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
234
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 20:21:00 -
[4765] - Quote
Irregessa wrote:Onictus wrote:Borascus wrote: If you need 3 or more drakes to take it down missiles are too weak.
I'll throw you a question then. Why exactly do you think the other three races use battleships over level 3? I'll give you three guesses. That is 2 guesses too many, though the reason is that the drake has a tremendous tank compared to the other t1 BC.
Guess again, myrm and cyclone easily match a Drake's tank. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
398
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 20:38:00 -
[4766] - Quote
Caldari problems:
Phoenix. Largely pointless. Needs a reason to be flown in a world of blap dreads, armour capitals and lol-OP Moros. Chimera. Largely pointless. Needs a reason to be flown in a world of Archon and armour capitals.
Cruise. Poor DPS, poorish application of DPS, too slow. Offers no meaningful DPS advantage in a world where ranges beyond 150 km are of little use. Totally pointless.
Raven. Too flimsy, maybe another medslot? There is a wider problem with the lack of utility of BS in small-gang environments though. Not easy to fix.
Vulture. Lacks HP relative to the Damnation, partially obsoleted by link T3s, relatively limited call for shield ganglinks because of the importance of armour in heavy gangs and mobility in smaller gangs.
ECM. Broadly balanced but an utterly terrible mechanic. Needs a thorough rework Cerberus and Eagle. Obsoleted by other ships, no idea what to do here. Nighthawk. Awful PG. Largely pointless - partially because of Drake, partially because Field CS have no actual role.
Many of these ships suffer from the silly imbalances between armour and shield in different types of fleet - tricky to fix. The HACs need a role. All CS need a rework. Cruise and ECM need a thorough rework. |
Lili Lu
536
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 20:52:00 -
[4767] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:I will be brief.
This issue is a whole lot bigger than the Drake. The perception CCP has given many Caldari players is that it is always Hot-Drop O'Clock when it comes to sticking it to them. Again, itGÇÖs not about the Drake, itGÇÖs about the entire picture.
You need to actually FIX some of the many broken Caldari ships.
They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. No one who can fly the Vagabond wishes they could trade it for the Cerberus. No one is looking at the new Rupture or Vexor and wishing they could fly the new joke Moa instead. No one wants to swap their battleship, any battleship, for a Raven. No one is bummed because they are stuck flying the crappy Thrasher. No one has ever said, GÇ£Man that Nighthawk sure is a sweet ship compared to this piece of junk Sleipner.GÇ¥ Hell, the new Minmatar EWAR cruiser will be a better missile boat than the Caldari missile boat. How silly is that? The problem isnGÇÖt the new Bellicose, itGÇÖs the way you build Caldari ships. ItGÇÖs CCPGÇÖs Caldari standard which seems to be:
Aspire to mediocrityGǪthen fail to hit the mark.
ThatGÇÖs what you guys have got to change. The Drake might be overpowered, but worrying about that is like trying to figure out how much to leave for a tip when you left your empty wallet at home. What a load of whine. Ok let's examine Caldari options from the ships most used for kills in the game, from the eve-kill top 20. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
Minmatar 10 + half /20 Caldari has 5/20 Amarr has 3/20 Gallente has 1 + half/20
Caldari is hardly without options from that list. And that is just this month's stats. In previous months Merlins and Condors were in there.
Amarr has Zealots, Abaddons, and Oracles. The smaller two of the three ships have not been consistently in there (at least not in the positions they currently sit thanks to the new plates).
And then there's Gallente. Quite a lot of months there had been no representation other than the angel ships (half gallente but using projectile weapon skills).
So if anyone could post the whine you did it would be Gallente centric players. Funny though, they approach nowhere near the level of whine and sense of entitlement on the forums as Caldari centric players have. And ever since I've been playing this game Caldari have had a lock on pve. A lock which got even worse with the introduction of wormhole pve content that heavily favored Caldari ships.
Your complaint is not supported. |
Borascus
Red Core Paradigm Shift Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 21:01:00 -
[4768] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Borascus wrote: If you need 3 or more drakes to take it down missiles are too weak.
I'll throw you a question then. Why exactly do you think the other three races use battleships over level 3? I'll give you three guesses.
I did this mission with tech 2 on a Hyperion.
The spawn in the mission has a large tank and I'm basing the test on 3 players for that COSMOS mission which is higher than any of the other missions; which can be solo'd.
It's a "missile rebalance" statistically speaking, testing heavy missiles there is a very good way to see if players will get a fair experience.
Reasons: The COSMOS Mission is a *0 standing to acquire mission*, meaning day one players could stumble upon it. They would then complete the first mission, and find out they can't complete the second mission *after accepting the mission*.
It would be a penalty. Finding one player to help in the early days of an EVE career is easy, finding two (that will work together) straight off the bat isn't.
When I ran it, the reward was a shield implant that had a buy order of 100mil (it can be any of several shield implants ranging from 1mil-100mil).
Its a fair test.
Although, using buffed torpedoes on a raven would probably be an easier solution. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 21:22:00 -
[4769] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Jaguar, Wolf, Hurricane and Nado. 4 reasons for me to fly Minmatar. The race you call "OP" and "race with superior damage projection".
Where is the link for your combat alt? Go play EFT again Jorma.
Mael, Cyclone, Pest, Phoon, Vaga, Rifter, Rupture .. they are all viable. I dont say they are all OP. But its OP to have so many ships which are working, and look at how Rupture will get buffed.
Of those 5 missile ships I see only 2 medium hulls, and no large. Frigs are already balanced, no one questioned that. We are concerned about how it will end above frig size. |
Lili Lu
536
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 21:34:00 -
[4770] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Where is the link for your combat alt? Go play EFT again Jorma. Maybe he'll link someone like you did but not post with that character. Still waiting for you to post with a character that has some pvp record. Linking is not enough. And, no, I'll still call you on your bullshit arguments even if you do. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 22:08:00 -
[4771] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Mael, Cyclone, Pest, Phoon, Vaga, Rifter, Rupture .. they are all viable. I dont say they are all OP. But its OP to have so many ships which are working, and look at how Rupture will get buffed.
caldari have plenty of working ships, and look at the buffs the moa and caracal are getting. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 22:33:00 -
[4772] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Jaguar, Wolf, Hurricane and Nado. 4 reasons for me to fly Minmatar. The race you call "OP" and "race with superior damage projection".
Where is the link for your combat alt? Go play EFT again Jorma. Mael, Cyclone, Pest, Phoon, Vaga, Rifter, Rupture .. they are all viable. I dont say they are all OP. But its OP to have so many ships which are working, and look at how Rupture will get buffed. Of those 5 missile ships I see only 2 medium hulls, and no large. Frigs are already balanced, no one questioned that. We are concerned about how it will end above frig size.
LOL
Seriously that is the best you got? |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
100
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 23:16:00 -
[4773] - Quote
Noemi Nagano has already lost the war. CCP will implement the current iteration changes. Good fight Noemi Nagano! [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 00:07:00 -
[4774] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Mael, Cyclone, Pest, Phoon, Vaga, Rifter, Rupture .. they are all viable. I dont say they are all OP. But its OP to have so many ships which are working, and look at how Rupture will get buffed.
caldari have plenty of working ships, and look at the buffs the moa and caracal are getting.
Moa's been nerfed; it's slower than all of the other offensive cruisers and far easier to kite than it is now. And it's still got an awful slot layout compared to everything else with a useless highslot.
Caracal's going to be excellent, however. Especially with the addition of the GMP skill bonus and the easier fitting.
And being able to fit a web, if it so chooses. :\ |
Starr FFox
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 01:00:00 -
[4775] - Quote
Ok lets go with cane arty thebn still far supirior to drakes current lmedium range dp output. I guess ccp wants caldari to do nothing other than missions and mining. And moron that says im crying lol is that the best you could do? Really?? So disagreeing with a change in the game is crying? As ibsaid caldari can ecm in pvp and that about what this climits them to. I personally dont care if i respec my caldari pilot not like it willlong. Im just pointing out the biased vs caldaris. Take it how u want and go ahead and talk about whining again.... Its a game not worth the energy of whin. But thats all your type does i bet if i searched the word whining it would point to your pists lol. Like i said before its genocide in my eyes nerfing an alrady poor fighting race is biased for sure.not like all these elite changes will makanyone quit the game or anythin. Kinda sux how would u like spending months of traing on a weapon that is now next to useless. Just saying you must not fly missile boats haha |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 01:53:00 -
[4776] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Mael, Cyclone, Pest, Phoon, Vaga, Rifter, Rupture .. they are all viable. I dont say they are all OP. But its OP to have so many ships which are working, and look at how Rupture will get buffed.
caldari have plenty of working ships, and look at the buffs the moa and caracal are getting. Moa's been nerfed; it's slower than all of the other offensive cruisers and far easier to kite than it is now. And it's still got an awful slot layout compared to everything else with a useless highslot. Caracal's going to be excellent, however. Especially with the addition of the GMP skill bonus and the easier fitting. And being able to fit a web, if it so chooses. :\ How was it nerfed? It's faster than before with more fitting and more base HP. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 02:28:00 -
[4777] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Aglais wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
Mael, Cyclone, Pest, Phoon, Vaga, Rifter, Rupture .. they are all viable. I dont say they are all OP. But its OP to have so many ships which are working, and look at how Rupture will get buffed.
caldari have plenty of working ships, and look at the buffs the moa and caracal are getting. Moa's been nerfed; it's slower than all of the other offensive cruisers and far easier to kite than it is now. And it's still got an awful slot layout compared to everything else with a useless highslot. Caracal's going to be excellent, however. Especially with the addition of the GMP skill bonus and the easier fitting. And being able to fit a web, if it so chooses. :\ How was it nerfed? It's faster than before with more fitting and more base HP.
It's range bonus is gone, it's the slowest combat cruiser (and since combat cruisers are slower than attack cruisers, that makes it the base-slowest direct combat ship), it's slot layout is unchanged (read: idiotic, seeing as the Vexor and Rupture both also have four medslots now as well). So it's going to have a wealth of fitting problems compared to the others, it's easier to kite (unless you slap on rails; it seems that CCP is trying to deny the Moa the ability to be anything but a sniper) and pretty much just has being fittable as almost-bait going for it, unless it can get a fifth medslot, in which case I can see it getting that much more competitive. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 04:45:00 -
[4778] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Where is the link for your combat alt? Go play EFT again Jorma.
No need to go back to EFT. I don't even use EFT btw. Unlike someone else, I actually fly all T1 battlecruisers and use all weapon systems.
Starr FFox wrote:Ok lets go with cane arty thebn still far supirior to drakes current lmedium range dp output.
When shooting stationary target at 70 km: - 720mm Cane does 275 dps with Tremor - HML Drake does 462 dps with Fury
When shooting moving target at 9 km: - 720mm Cane does 432 dps with Quake if it can hit the target - HML Drake does 462 dps with Fury |
xShapex
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 06:00:00 -
[4779] - Quote
Dont forget about the -75% tracking when u use T2 longrange weapon longrange ammo. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 07:55:00 -
[4780] - Quote
TheLast Poofighter wrote:Onictus wrote:TheLast Poofighter wrote:I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind making the missile platform behave like a turret platform. My understanding is that there are two separate skill trees as they are intended to behave and perform differently - I think most of the changes proposed would be widely accepted if the secondary skills of missiles were reimbursed and merge gunnery and missile skill trees to a "turrets" skill tree. As it would stand now this just seems like a huge hit to newer players who may have not cross trained for both disciplines (guns and missiles that is) and to one specific race that really isn't geared for pvp anyway. Why? Missiles are applicable to all four races, as are the turret support skills. New players that AREN'T Caldari have to deal with this anyway. I'm an Angle pilot given the choice, I much prefer gallente and matar. However, I can also fly all four races BS and down with T2 weapons. The newer "caldari" players get to share the experince of newer Amarr, Gallente and Matari players and crosstrain. TheLast Poofighter wrote: Also I don't understand the reasoning of "defender missiles take up too much cpu so to fix a problem we are going to make everything behave the same." While I know that isn't a direct quote, it was kinda how it came across. Is it that difficult to fix a great idea that works very well for npc battle ships in level 4? It seems like there really could be all kinds of creative solutions and the route taken was rather bland and boring. Defender pulses, defender arrays, robo-nano-dragons, cloaked defender missiles - really, you have a whole universe of creative options here. I have always appreciated the complex Paper, Rock, Scissors nature of Eve but this change just kinda seems like we all get a rock. My rant is finished I am going to watch a Charlie Brown Halloween and wait for the extended DT to finish.
Their issue with defenders is hardware resources. For the rest of us smartbombs do fine. TheLast Poofighter wrote: PS - My daughter who has Down Syndrome is an avid player of Eve. I thought it would be a good idea for her to take up mining to prepare her for potential disappointments - however, she took more to POS management. She like to set up complex designs and shapes for hours on end. Her POS is large Amarr tower which she like to call "the Broken Potato Peeler." Would it be possible for the anchoring/un-anchoring and onlining/offlining times to get buffed?
You have no idea how most of us wish that lol I think I stated why but here is another reason - because missle apocs, maels, hyperions and megathrons are just silly Agreed - defenders use too many resources but a smart bomb does not why not fix this rather than homogenize? But this point confuses me further. So there are already mechanics in place that counter the "the amazingly high" dps of these long range weapons? Like the Firewall and alpha mael fleet? Are these hardware resource hogs? Again this sounds like lazy way out - maybe nerf the amount time dev's spend on the forums and buff the time they spend on developing. And to address your final point - yes, somehow I knew my daughter with Downs could appeal to -A-.
Yeah well ever heard of stealth bombers, and recons I checked they were all missile bonused. In fact the only two missile bonused gallente hulls are the recons and bombers.
....and you know what if your daughter actually LIKES POS management, if it weren't for that roles thing, I'm sure I could find a LOT of POSs for her to mess with. I hate POS work.
|
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 08:13:00 -
[4781] - Quote
xShapex wrote:Dont forget about the -75% tracking when u use T2 longrange weapon longrange ammo.
Medium rails with spike on a ferox with two magstabs do 4 dps to a microwarping frig at 60km
Thats why its not a real comparison to use those ammo type dps numbers.. They dont' actually do that dps. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
73
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 08:38:00 -
[4782] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Where is the link for your combat alt? Go play EFT again Jorma. No need to go back to EFT. I don't even use EFT btw. Unlike someone else, I actually fly all T1 battlecruisers and use all weapon systems. Starr FFox wrote:Ok lets go with cane arty thebn still far supirior to drakes current lmedium range dp output. When shooting stationary target at 70 km: - 720mm Cane does 275 dps with Tremor - HML Drake does 462 dps with Fury When shooting moving target at 9 km: - 720mm Cane does 432 dps with Quake if it can hit the target- HML Drake does 462 dps with Fury
I fly all BC too, not all on this toon though. I cant see any combat record for you, so I cant judge if you know about this topic here.
Funny thing though that all those guys who ranted about that thing when I did not reveal a name before are now not saying a single word. Revealing, again :)
And Jorma, when you post some numbers here, it would be smart to give also the used fittings. Your numbers dont seem to fit. Apart from that (has been said numerous times) it does not make sense to just take range/DPS into comparison. Eve is much more complex than this. If it would be just about range/DPS, then agreed, everyone in BC would fly a Drake. Dont you wonder why it is NOT like that? :)
Btw, I dont think this case is lost. It will be going on testserver, and then people who care will see. Its not about me, never was .. I am fine, all l5 gunnery too (except some specs, but heh), its about those who like to be dedicated to a race/signature weapon. Just again - imagine how you would feel if for example all atm working medium and large projectiles would be nerfed, and in exchange you get some minor adjustment to stuff which is no real issue right now. How would that feel? :) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 09:53:00 -
[4783] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:And Jorma, when you post some numbers here, it would be smart to give also the used fittings. Your numbers dont seem to fit. Apart from that (has been said numerous times) it does not make sense to just take range/DPS into comparison. Eve is much more complex than this. If it would be just about range/DPS, then agreed, everyone in BC would fly a Drake. Dont you wonder why it is NOT like that? :)
Btw, I dont think this case is lost. It will be going on testserver, and then people who care will see. Its not about me, never was .. I am fine, all l5 gunnery too (except some specs, but heh), its about those who like to be dedicated to a race/signature weapon. Just again - imagine how you would feel if for example all atm working medium and large projectiles would be nerfed, and in exchange you get some minor adjustment to stuff which is no real issue right now. How would that feel? :) First, it's not dps/range numbers only, that's true : although dps/range is better with HML, actual damage application is FAR BETTER with HML. Do I need a fit and numbers to prove it ? Because, if you know the turrets system as much as you are saying, I shouldn't need it. As someone said, hiting an AB frig at 60km with T2 long range ammo and arties apply around 4 dps.
Truth is, if it's not everyone, it's a LOT of people who fly drakes, EVEN IN LOWSEC. When a ship can do everything, it's called OP. Gess what ? We find the drake everywhere : from nullsec blob warfare to NPC nullsec small gangs, from lowsec to wormhole, and in every pve activity but incursions. And all this with HML.
As for the "minor adjustments", you must be kiding, because 25% for damage application to all short range missiles + grid buff for HAM + working T2 ammo is more of what I call HUGE. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 10:29:00 -
[4784] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I fly all BC too, not all on this toon though. I cant see any combat record for you, so I cant judge if you know about this topic here.
Funny thing though that all those guys who ranted about that thing when I did not reveal a name before are now not saying a single word. Revealing, again :)
And Jorma, when you post some numbers here, it would be smart to give also the used fittings. Your numbers dont seem to fit. Apart from that (has been said numerous times) it does not make sense to just take range/DPS into comparison. Eve is much more complex than this. If it would be just about range/DPS, then agreed, everyone in BC would fly a Drake. Dont you wonder why it is NOT like that? :)
Btw, I dont think this case is lost. It will be going on testserver, and then people who care will see. Its not about me, never was .. I am fine, all l5 gunnery too (except some specs, but heh), its about those who like to be dedicated to a race/signature weapon. Just again - imagine how you would feel if for example all atm working medium and large projectiles would be nerfed, and in exchange you get some minor adjustment to stuff which is no real issue right now. How would that feel? :)
if they nerfed arties because of their high alpha and buffed auto's, i wouldnt cry like this. if they nerfed blasters to make rails more viable, i wouldnt ask for my hybrid SP's back if they nerfed the optimal of pulses and buffed beams dps i wouldn't say that the entire race is no longer viable and say hundreds will un-sub despite the fact that beams are even more rare than HAMs in pvp.
if u dedicated ur entire skill tree to a single race and a single weapon system because it could give u everything, then u deserve every bit of this nerf. eve is about adaptation.
specialising will get u ahead in specific roles but partly why minmatar are very successful is they are the most versatile, yet skill intensive, race. They just can't specialise like the other races. |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1575
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 11:32:00 -
[4785] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:if u dedicated ur entire skill tree to a single race and a single weapon system because it could give u everything, then u deserve every bit of this nerf. eve is about adaptation.
specialising will get u ahead in specific roles but partly why minmatar are very successful is they are the most versatile, yet skill intensive, race. They just can't specialise like the other races. While I agree with the rest; No. Eve is about the sandbox, it's about doing anything you like; as long as it's within the constraints given to you by the game and the EULA. We can say that players should and it's highly recommended to crosstrain to different ships or weapon systems, but it doesn't and should never mean in any way that a player can't stick to one. That's stupid and completely contradictive to what the game is about. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 11:34:00 -
[4786] - Quote
Sofia Wolf wrote:Fozzie do you plan to reduce power requirements for armour plates? With new reduced cane power grid IGÇÖm having trouble seeing how armor cane will remain viable. Armor tanking is already less favourite choice on canes compared to shield tanking, and given that shield tanks are less power hungry then armor tanks this disparity will grow even bigger.
I hope not. Cane is allready OP. And with these HML nerfs Cane should get nerfed even more tbh. -15% to ac falloff etc. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 12:08:00 -
[4787] - Quote
Aldeb Haraz wrote:OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game....
They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. . Right, all those Caldari ships are trash. Starting at the bottom: Griffin Merlin Hawk Harpy Kitsune Flycatcher CN Hookbill Blackbird Falcon Rook Basilisk Onyx Tengu Ferox Drake Vulture Rokh Widow Nightmare Rattlesnake Chimera These ships make up a large portion of the Caldari lineup and are all extremely relevant in PVP. They are all viable, and usually the best ship in their class. The myth that has been perpetuated that Caldari is trash in PVP and is only successful because of HML ships is factually wrong and should be put to rest. Come winter, we also see the rest of the cruisers brought up: the Osprey becomes a strong support ship, the Caracal very effective at applying DPS at medium range, the Moa a decent shield brawler, and even forgotten ships like NH and Cerb can now make decent HAM fits.
Your such funny guy with your fantasies. I added comments you forgot to type there.
Chimera - worst carrier in game. Rattle and nightmare faction ships not really caldari. Widow - crap (vargur does it better) Rokh - Mediocre (maelstrom does it better) Vulture - crap (claymore does it better) Drake - Well everyone has own opinions but fact is that cane is better and OP Tengu - ZOMG OP tengu Ferox - LOL worst ship in game. Kinda like prophecy but prophecy can even bait. Onyx - Nice shield hic Basilisk - Good shield logi Rook - Fail combat recon. Useless (minnie combat recon does it better) Falcon - Nice force recon. Good cloaky ECM ship Blackbird - LOL suicide ECM boat or resebo alt. Used mostly by E-UNI CN Hookbill - Nice frigate but still faction Flycatcher - Works but not as good as sabre Kitsune - Nice ECM frig. But not too many places for viable usage Harpy - Nice AF frig. Good example of good caldari boats. Hawk - Ok missile based AF Merlin - Pretty decent t1 caldari hull Griffin - Suicide ECM frig. Bit like blackbird. Prolly used mostly by E-UNI
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 12:44:00 -
[4788] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote: I added comments you forgot to type there.
Chimera - worst carrier in game. ==> I'd like some details, because I hadn't heard about the Nidhoggur to be so much better. Chimera is "only" a shield archon arfter all... Rattle and nightmare faction ships not really caldari. Widow - crap (vargur does it better) ==> Vargur don't have ECM... Maybe you were speaking about the Panther ? Haha ! Rokh - Mediocre (maelstrom does it better) ==> tell this to PL ? Maelstom don't do it better, except for alpha. Vulture - crap (claymore does it better) ==> except when you need siege warfare link ? Yes, tengu is better, as is the loki versus the vulture. Drake - Well everyone has own opinions but fact is that cane is better and OP ==> cane is OP and is being nerfed because it deserves it ; HML deserve it too. Tengu - ZOMG OP tengu Ferox - LOL worst ship in game. Kinda like prophecy but prophecy can even bait. ==> you must haven't flown it since the hybrid buff... Onyx - Nice shield hic Basilisk - Good shield logi Rook - Fail combat recon. Useless (minnie combat recon does it better) ==> minie combat recon don't have ECM... Falcon - Nice force recon. Good cloaky ECM ship Blackbird - LOL suicide ECM boat or resebo alt. Used mostly by E-UNI ==> like any other T1 cruiser ? CN Hookbill - Nice frigate but still faction Flycatcher - Works but not as good as sabre Kitsune - Nice ECM frig. But not too many places for viable usage Harpy - Nice AF frig. Good example of good caldari boats. Hawk - Ok missile based AF Merlin - Pretty decent t1 caldari hull ==> I like your appelation "pretty decent". :-) Griffin - Suicide ECM frig. Bit like blackbird. Prolly used mostly by E-UNI ==> like all EWAR T1 frigs ?
Funny exercise BTW. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
82
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 12:48:00 -
[4789] - Quote
Yeah lighten up guys, ditch the HMLs. All aboard the HAM train! They're going to be awesome. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:13:00 -
[4790] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Keko Khaan wrote: I added comments you forgot to type there.
Chimera - worst carrier in game. ==> I'd like some details, because I hadn't heard about the Nidhoggur to be so much better. Chimera is "only" a shield archon arfter all... Rattle and nightmare faction ships not really caldari. Widow - crap (vargur does it better) ==> Vargur don't have ECM... Maybe you were speaking about the Panther ? Haha ! Rokh - Mediocre (maelstrom does it better) ==> tell this to PL ? Maelstom don't do it better, except for alpha. Vulture - crap (claymore does it better) ==> except when you need siege warfare link ? Yes, tengu is better, as is the loki versus the vulture. Drake - Well everyone has own opinions but fact is that cane is better and OP ==> cane is OP and is being nerfed because it deserves it ; HML deserve it too. Tengu - ZOMG OP tengu Ferox - LOL worst ship in game. Kinda like prophecy but prophecy can even bait. ==> you must haven't flown it since the hybrid buff... Onyx - Nice shield hic Basilisk - Good shield logi Rook - Fail combat recon. Useless (minnie combat recon does it better) ==> minie combat recon don't have ECM... Falcon - Nice force recon. Good cloaky ECM ship Blackbird - LOL suicide ECM boat or resebo alt. Used mostly by E-UNI ==> like any other T1 cruiser ? CN Hookbill - Nice frigate but still faction Flycatcher - Works but not as good as sabre Kitsune - Nice ECM frig. But not too many places for viable usage Harpy - Nice AF frig. Good example of good caldari boats. Hawk - Ok missile based AF Merlin - Pretty decent t1 caldari hull ==> I like your appelation "pretty decent". :-) Griffin - Suicide ECM frig. Bit like blackbird. Prolly used mostly by E-UNI ==> like all EWAR T1 frigs ? Funny exercise BTW.
Chimera - worst carrier in game. ==> I'd like some details, because I hadn't heard about the Nidhoggur to be so much better. Chimera is "only" a shield archon arfter all...
Nidhoggur is good carrier with its repping bonuses that can be armor tanked. Chimera is not good in armor capital fleets.
Widow - crap (vargur does it better) ==> Vargur don't have ECM... Maybe you were speaking about the Panther ? Haha !
Actually i did confuse golem to widow.
Vulture - crap (claymore does it better) ==> except when you need siege warfare link ? Yes, tengu is better, as is the loki versus the vulture.
When you need siege warfare link. Yes. Both are fleet command ships and both can fit siege warfare links. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Claymore http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Vulture
Rook - Fail combat recon. Useless (minnie combat recon does it better) ==> minie combat recon don't have ECM...
I do know it doesnt have ECM. And i wouldnt even want it to have ECM. But instead i would want rook to have decent tank and webifier bonus.
Blackbird - LOL suicide ECM boat or resebo alt. Used mostly by E-UNI ==> like any other T1 cruiser ?
So what other race have useless suicide ECM hulls? And why is that only e-uni uses them?
Dont know about exercise but funny might be true..
|
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
305
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:23:00 -
[4791] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Aldeb Haraz wrote:OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game....
They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. . Right, all those Caldari ships are trash. Starting at the bottom: Griffin Merlin Hawk Harpy Kitsune Flycatcher CN Hookbill Blackbird Falcon Rook Basilisk Onyx Tengu Ferox Drake Vulture Rokh Widow Nightmare Rattlesnake Chimera These ships make up a large portion of the Caldari lineup and are all extremely relevant in PVP. They are all viable, and usually the best ship in their class. The myth that has been perpetuated that Caldari is trash in PVP and is only successful because of HML ships is factually wrong and should be put to rest. Come winter, we also see the rest of the cruisers brought up: the Osprey becomes a strong support ship, the Caracal very effective at applying DPS at medium range, the Moa a decent shield brawler, and even forgotten ships like NH and Cerb can now make decent HAM fits. I added comments you forgot to type there. Chimera - worst carrier in game. Rattle and nightmare faction ships not really caldari. Widow - crap (vargur does it better) Rokh - Mediocre (maelstrom does it better) Vulture - crap (claymore does it better) Drake - Well everyone has own opinions but fact is that cane is better and OP Tengu - ZOMG OP tengu Ferox - LOL worst ship in game. Kinda like prophecy but prophecy can even bait. Onyx - Nice shield hic Basilisk - Good shield logi Rook - Fail combat recon. Useless (minnie combat recon does it better) Falcon - Nice force recon. Good cloaky ECM ship Blackbird - LOL suicide ECM boat or resebo alt. Used mostly by E-UNI CN Hookbill - Nice frigate but still faction Flycatcher - Works but not as good as sabre Kitsune - Nice ECM frig. But not too many places for viable usage Harpy - Nice AF frig. Good example of good caldari boats. Hawk - Ok missile based AF Merlin - Pretty decent t1 caldari hull Griffin - Suicide ECM frig. Bit like blackbird. Prolly used mostly by E-UNI
Erm you have no clue, this is one of the funniest posts on these forums tbh.
I mean how is "vargur does it better" a comment on the widow..... It does missioning better i guess ...
|
Durkuh Durka
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:27:00 -
[4792] - Quote
He means the vulture gets a bonus specific to siege warfare that is above and beyone that of a Claymore.
specifically: Vulture 3% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level
Claymore: 3% bonus to effectiveness of Skirmish Warfare Links per level
Yeah I know I'm being trolled. |
Deez Icho
FIRST SHOCK SQUADRON MASQUERADE.
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:32:00 -
[4793] - Quote
If we tell about ships, First of all Caldari haven't pirate faction ships at all. What this mean: If you learn caldari race technology (ships with missile or hybrid weapons) this skills points will be useless with most of all pirate faction ships.
Lets see them: Guristas ships base on caldari hulls, but you galent weapons - drones as main weapon. You need to learn ALL galent technology to drive this ships. Sansha's ships base on ammar hulls, use ammar weapons, but as defense use shields like caldari ships. You need to learn ALL ammar technology to drive this one.
Other races can learn only spaceship command skills of another race and can use one type of pirate faction, they dont need learn both spaceship command skills and weapon skills. Caldari need faction shield (armor) ship with missile weapon system where
Why drake and tengu so OP? Its not due weapon system, it's case they are easiest ships to use in eve. It's just a lot of tank, when don't need other actions to maintain it.
Fury HML do very small amount of damage to any frig size ships, while other weapon system (not missile) can deal maximum without extra ordinary actions. Fury HML deal small damage to any AB fited ships (except BS). In that case missile on it's optimal must do more raw damage than other systems.
Want to fix caldari? PLZ remake, remove explosion velocity, add another factor (work with explosion radius, ship signature and speed of target, or transversal speed) but not separate.
Any value changes don't fix problem. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
306
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:32:00 -
[4794] - Quote
Durkuh Durka wrote:He means the vulture gets a bonus specific to siege warfare that is above and beyone that of a Claymore. specifically: Vulture 3% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level Claymore: 3% bonus to effectiveness of Skirmish Warfare Links per level Yeah I know I'm being trolled.
Not to mention the vulture has a so much better tank its not even funny.
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:44:00 -
[4795] - Quote
Doddy wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Aldeb Haraz wrote:OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game....
They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. . Right, all those Caldari ships are trash. Starting at the bottom: Griffin Merlin Hawk Harpy Kitsune Flycatcher CN Hookbill Blackbird Falcon Rook Basilisk Onyx Tengu Ferox Drake Vulture Rokh Widow Nightmare Rattlesnake Chimera These ships make up a large portion of the Caldari lineup and are all extremely relevant in PVP. They are all viable, and usually the best ship in their class. The myth that has been perpetuated that Caldari is trash in PVP and is only successful because of HML ships is factually wrong and should be put to rest. Come winter, we also see the rest of the cruisers brought up: the Osprey becomes a strong support ship, the Caracal very effective at applying DPS at medium range, the Moa a decent shield brawler, and even forgotten ships like NH and Cerb can now make decent HAM fits. I added comments you forgot to type there. Chimera - worst carrier in game. Rattle and nightmare faction ships not really caldari. Widow - crap (vargur does it better) Rokh - Mediocre (maelstrom does it better) Vulture - crap (claymore does it better) Drake - Well everyone has own opinions but fact is that cane is better and OP Tengu - ZOMG OP tengu Ferox - LOL worst ship in game. Kinda like prophecy but prophecy can even bait. Onyx - Nice shield hic Basilisk - Good shield logi Rook - Fail combat recon. Useless (minnie combat recon does it better) Falcon - Nice force recon. Good cloaky ECM ship Blackbird - LOL suicide ECM boat or resebo alt. Used mostly by E-UNI CN Hookbill - Nice frigate but still faction Flycatcher - Works but not as good as sabre Kitsune - Nice ECM frig. But not too many places for viable usage Harpy - Nice AF frig. Good example of good caldari boats. Hawk - Ok missile based AF Merlin - Pretty decent t1 caldari hull Griffin - Suicide ECM frig. Bit like blackbird. Prolly used mostly by E-UNI Erm you have no clue, this is one of the funniest posts on these forums tbh. I mean how is "vargur does it better" a comment on the widow..... It does missioning better i guess ...
You dont have any clue either. I already said i confused widow to golem. So if you cant read i cant really help you. But funny you are tho. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 13:52:00 -
[4796] - Quote
Durkuh Durka wrote:He means the vulture gets a bonus specific to siege warfare that is above and beyone that of a Claymore. specifically: Vulture 3% bonus to effectiveness of Siege Warfare Links per level Claymore: 3% bonus to effectiveness of Skirmish Warfare Links per level Yeah I know I'm being trolled.
Well maybe he did. But same goes with claymore and skirmish links. Ppl gonna use tengus and lokis for that anyways...
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:32:00 -
[4797] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Just again - imagine how you would feel if for example all atm working medium and large projectiles would be nerfed, and in exchange you get some minor adjustment to stuff which is no real issue right now. How would that feel? :)
"Whatever. I just use hybrids and lasers. Small projectile turrets are more fun anyway."
But if they would remove gunnery from the game... |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
236
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:38:00 -
[4798] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Sofia Wolf wrote:Fozzie do you plan to reduce power requirements for armour plates? With new reduced cane power grid IGÇÖm having trouble seeing how armor cane will remain viable. Armor tanking is already less favourite choice on canes compared to shield tanking, and given that shield tanks are less power hungry then armor tanks this disparity will grow even bigger. I hope not. Cane is allready OP. And with these HML nerfs Cane should get nerfed even more tbh. -15% to ac falloff etc.
Hurricane doesn't have a falloff bonus killer. |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
306
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 14:49:00 -
[4799] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Doddy wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Aldeb Haraz wrote:OT Smithers wrote:
They need to be good enough that people from other races wish, if only briely, that they had trained to fly them. Right now thatGÇÖs not the case. Ever. Even with this winter update. The opposite is always true. .
Right, all those Caldari ships are trash. Starting at the bottom: Griffin Merlin Hawk Harpy Kitsune Flycatcher CN Hookbill Blackbird Falcon Rook Basilisk Onyx Tengu Ferox Drake Vulture Rokh Widow Nightmare Rattlesnake Chimera These ships make up a large portion of the Caldari lineup and are all extremely relevant in PVP. They are all viable, and usually the best ship in their class. The myth that has been perpetuated that Caldari is trash in PVP and is only successful because of HML ships is factually wrong and should be put to rest. Come winter, we also see the rest of the cruisers brought up: the Osprey becomes a strong support ship, the Caracal very effective at applying DPS at medium range, the Moa a decent shield brawler, and even forgotten ships like NH and Cerb can now make decent HAM fits. I added comments you forgot to type there. Chimera - worst carrier in game. Rattle and nightmare faction ships not really caldari. Widow - crap (vargur does it better) Rokh - Mediocre (maelstrom does it better) Vulture - crap (claymore does it better) Drake - Well everyone has own opinions but fact is that cane is better and OP Tengu - ZOMG OP tengu Ferox - LOL worst ship in game. Kinda like prophecy but prophecy can even bait. Onyx - Nice shield hic Basilisk - Good shield logi Rook - Fail combat recon. Useless (minnie combat recon does it better) Falcon - Nice force recon. Good cloaky ECM ship Blackbird - LOL suicide ECM boat or resebo alt. Used mostly by E-UNI CN Hookbill - Nice frigate but still faction Flycatcher - Works but not as good as sabre Kitsune - Nice ECM frig. But not too many places for viable usage Harpy - Nice AF frig. Good example of good caldari boats. Hawk - Ok missile based AF Merlin - Pretty decent t1 caldari hull Griffin - Suicide ECM frig. Bit like blackbird. Prolly used mostly by E-UNI Erm you have no clue, this is one of the funniest posts on these forums tbh. I mean how is "vargur does it better" a comment on the widow..... It does missioning better i guess ... Funniest post on forum. Oh really? Are you serious? Mixing golem to widow is funniest thing you have ever seen on eve forums? Get a life pls.
Well they are not very funny forums tbh. And that was only one of many weird assertions in your post. Vulture is a great CS, core of most shiled fleets. Rook is a great combat recon as it can actually kill stuff unlike the others, pity falcon has same layout. Rokh is better than mael at pretty much everything other than alpha, BB is a great ship for a t1 cruiser. Ferox is a million miles from being worst ship in game, it just suffers from tiering like the other first tier bcs.
But yeah chimera sucks, flycatcher is not a sabre (which is way better than all other dictors)
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 15:13:00 -
[4800] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:if u dedicated ur entire skill tree to a single race and a single weapon system because it could give u everything, then u deserve every bit of this nerf. eve is about adaptation.
specialising will get u ahead in specific roles but partly why minmatar are very successful is they are the most versatile, yet skill intensive, race. They just can't specialise like the other races. While I agree with the rest; No. Eve is about the sandbox, it's about doing anything you like; as long as it's within the constraints given to you by the game and the EULA. We can say that players should and it's highly recommended to crosstrain to different ships or weapon systems, but it doesn't and should never mean in any way that a player can't stick to one. That's stupid and completely contradictive to what the game is about.
its still a sandbox and u can still stick to a single race and a single weapon system if u want, but u must accept the disadvantages that brings.
|
|
Ellen Stavinski
Zbieram na Piwo
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 19:00:00 -
[4801] - Quote
I was loving this game...but I am not happy with the way that you are doing the nerf...
Nerfing heavy missiles instead of ships is bad approach imo...
I am saying that since I am a quite new player who has picked up Caldari, shield tanking and heavy missiles as primary...
Finally after 6 months of training ships tree, shields, missiles I have reach my Nighthawk !...
DPS in this ship is good but not so good enough like in others...basically I am trying to say that if you going to nerf HM there are no option for me = cant jump quickly to anything else, and donGÇÖt want to pickup anything where I will spend another few months of training...
I will give a try...Heavy assault ?!
before you make any changes please consider
I can see that upcoming changes in HM are most welcome, But I am sure there will be lots unhappy like I am...
If nerf will affected me to much going to cancel subscription.... |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
150
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 19:48:00 -
[4802] - Quote
Ellen Stavinski wrote:I was loving this game...but I am not happy with the way that you are doing the nerf...
Nerfing heavy missiles instead of ships is bad approach imo...
I am saying that since I am a quite new player who has picked up Caldari, shield tanking and heavy missiles as primary...
Finally after 6 months of training ships tree, shields, missiles I have reach my Nighthawk !...
DPS in this ship is good but not so good enough like in others...basically I am trying to say that if you going to nerf HM there are no option for me = cant jump quickly to anything else, and donGÇÖt want to pickup anything where I will spend another few months of training...
I will give a try...Heavy assault ?!
before you make any changes please consider
I can see that upcoming changes in HM are most welcome, But I am sure there will be lots unhappy like I am...
If nerf will affected me to much going to cancel subscription....
You need to fix the weapon before you can balance ships around it. Look at the Caracal for proof. I know it sucks to finally get into a ship and then see it nerfed. I bet CCP Foozie fixes the NH this time around but if not train for HAM and wait for the next round of balancing. It will all work out in the end. |
Crazy Nymphora
VN Gangsters
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 20:28:00 -
[4803] - Quote
MIrple wrote:You need to fix the weapon before you can balance ships around it. Look at the Caracal for proof. I know it sucks to finally get into a ship and then see it nerfed. I bet CCP Foozie fixes the NH this time around but if not train for HAM and wait for the next round of balancing. It will all work out in the end.
How long do you think it would take them to actually balance ships after screwing up their weapon system? I'm quite new to this game so I don't know, but my friend said it usually takes CCP 6 years to actually "fix" things they broke. I don't think many people are happy to wait that long for their beloved stuff to get fixed.
What if we ask for a bit of Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk buff on DPS/Range to balance it because the nerf was too much? Obviously CCP won't listen and trolls will troll.
That's what we get, Ellen Stavinski. If you don't like it, I'd honestly recommend you to quit, don't listen to those trolls, they will say something like "don't cry, quit already, no one cares", they only are trying to hold you back from quitting so you can feed them more.
Don't pay for something you don't enjoy and don't feed the trolls. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
150
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 20:43:00 -
[4804] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote:
How long do you think it would take them to actually balance ships after screwing up their weapon system? I'm quite new to this game so I don't know, but my friend said it usually takes CCP 6 years to actually "fix" things they broke. I don't think many people are happy to wait that long for their beloved stuff to get fixed.
What if we ask for a bit of Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk buff on DPS/Range to balance it because the nerf was too much? Obviously CCP won't listen and trolls will troll.
That's what we get, Ellen Stavinski. If you don't like it, I'd honestly recommend you to quit, don't listen to those trolls, they will say something like "don't cry, quit already, no one cares", they only are trying to hold you back from quitting so you can feed them more.
Don't pay for something you don't enjoy and don't feed the trolls.
The old CCP would take 6 years to fix this. The new CCP I would say by the next expansion. You do not need a DPS/Range buff on the Drake/Tengue/Nighthawk you need to understand that HM are a long range weapon system and need to be treated as such. There have been countless post about how with the changes they are now inline with other medium long range weapon systems. Switch to HAMS on the Drake and Tengue if you want higher Damage. The Nighthawk needs some love the Cerb does to but that is known and on the radar. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
784
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 20:59:00 -
[4805] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote:MIrple wrote:You need to fix the weapon before you can balance ships around it. Look at the Caracal for proof. I know it sucks to finally get into a ship and then see it nerfed. I bet CCP Foozie fixes the NH this time around but if not train for HAM and wait for the next round of balancing. It will all work out in the end. How long do you think it would take them to actually balance ships after screwing up their weapon system? I'm quite new to this game so I don't know, but my friend said it usually takes CCP 6 years to actually "fix" things they broke. I don't think many people are happy to wait that long for their beloved stuff to get fixed. What if we ask for a bit of Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk buff on DPS/Range to balance it because the nerf was too much? Obviously CCP won't listen and trolls will troll. That's what we get, Ellen Stavinski. If you don't like it, I'd honestly recommend you to quit, don't listen to those trolls, they will say something like "don't cry, quit already, no one cares", they only are trying to hold you back from quitting so you can feed them more. Don't pay for something you don't enjoy and don't feed the trolls.
I recommend you quit too. I'm not shitposting. |
Crazy Nymphora
VN Gangsters
9
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 21:05:00 -
[4806] - Quote
rodyas wrote:I recommend you quit too. I don't usually reply to trolls because that's how they get fed, just pointing one out so you know how they would be like. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 23:03:00 -
[4807] - Quote
Ellen Stavinski wrote:I was loving this game...but I am not happy with the way that you are doing the nerf...
Nerfing heavy missiles instead of ships is bad approach imo...
I am saying that since I am a quite new player who has picked up Caldari, shield tanking and heavy missiles as primary...
Finally after 6 months of training ships tree, shields, missiles I have reach my Nighthawk !...
DPS in this ship is good but not so good enough like in others...basically I am trying to say that if you going to nerf HM there are no option for me = cant jump quickly to anything else, and donGÇÖt want to pickup anything where I will spend another few months of training...
I will give a try...Heavy assault ?!
before you make any changes please consider
I can see that upcoming changes in HM are most welcome, But I am sure there will be lots unhappy like I am...
If nerf will affected me to much going to cancel subscription....
HM's will still be the leaders of their group. but if they're nerfed too much for u then train other weapons rather than quitting. there is more to eve than caldari missile boats. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 23:22:00 -
[4808] - Quote
Ellen Stavinski wrote:I was loving this game...but I am not happy with the way that you are doing the nerf...
Nerfing heavy missiles instead of ships is bad approach imo...
I am saying that since I am a quite new player who has picked up Caldari, shield tanking and heavy missiles as primary...
Finally after 6 months of training ships tree, shields, missiles I have reach my Nighthawk !...
DPS in this ship is good but not so good enough like in others...basically I am trying to say that if you going to nerf HM there are no option for me = cant jump quickly to anything else, and donGÇÖt want to pickup anything where I will spend another few months of training...
I will give a try...Heavy assault ?!
before you make any changes please consider
I can see that upcoming changes in HM are most welcome, But I am sure there will be lots unhappy like I am...
If nerf will affected me to much going to cancel subscription.... Repeat after me : "Heavy. Assault. Missiles."
HML are not the only weapon in game, nor the only missiles weapon. HAM will be brutal. |
neobuilder
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.17 23:51:00 -
[4809] - Quote
wow were to start. lets just hit main points i think. first great job ccp you killed all lvl 4 mission running for all but 3 very expensive bs, that means all people how depend on missions to fund there acounts and dont have those specific skills for them are screwed. how many of your paying cutomers is that i wonder. 50-60% maybe more all your sleeper part timer's will now be looking for new mmo as well since they cant or wont want to take time to train for the new system that they will worked fine. and with that will leave eve. so now that drop intrest in people getting into dust because of these poor development choices. that in turn will put people off on any new ventures you come up with outside of eve. because of your poor managment skills. lol man are you guys really trying to kill your whole company????? there's still time to fix these issues and get eve back to the game we all know and love. please stop the madness |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 00:44:00 -
[4810] - Quote
neobuilder wrote:wow were to start. lets just hit main points i think. first great job ccp you killed all lvl 4 mission running for all but 3 very expensive bs, that means all people how depend on missions to fund there acounts and dont have those specific skills for them are screwed. how many of your paying cutomers is that i wonder. 50-60% maybe moreall your sleeper part timer's will now be looking for new mmo as well since they cant or wont want to take time to train for the new system that they will worked fine. and with that will leave eve. so now that drop intrest in people getting into dust because of these poor development choices. that in turn will put people off on any new ventures you come up with outside of eve. because of your poor managment skills. lol man are you guys really trying to kill your whole company????? there's still time to fix these issues and get eve back to the game we all know and love. please stop the madness
cant tell if troll
wow, where to start? ur saying ppl are running missions to pay for their accounts and then try to claim they make upto 50-60% of CCP's paying customers. so which is it? are they paying with isk or money?
on top of that: u think 50-60% of all eve accounts run lvl 4's in drakes and tengu's? u dnt think they could spend a week training and running level 3's like everyone else did to get a raven? any game developments that get rid of ppl like u is brilliant management. BB4eva CCP
edit- can i has ur, and the rest of that 50-60% of eve peeps's, stuffs? |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 00:52:00 -
[4811] - Quote
neobuilder wrote:first great job ccp you killed all lvl 4 mission running for all but 3 very expensive bs, that means all people how depend on missions to fund there acounts and dont have those specific skills for them are screwed. how many of your paying cutomers is that i wonder. 50-60% maybe more... If this were true it would be absolute 100% proof that HML needs a nerf. |
Malango
Astro Defence Industry
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 00:55:00 -
[4812] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:neobuilder wrote:wow were to start. lets just hit main points i think. first great job ccp you killed all lvl 4 mission running for all but 3 very expensive bs, that means all people how depend on missions to fund there acounts and dont have those specific skills for them are screwed. how many of your paying cutomers is that i wonder. 50-60% maybe moreall your sleeper part timer's will now be looking for new mmo as well since they cant or wont want to take time to train for the new system that they will worked fine. and with that will leave eve. so now that drop intrest in people getting into dust because of these poor development choices. that in turn will put people off on any new ventures you come up with outside of eve. because of your poor managment skills. lol man are you guys really trying to kill your whole company????? there's still time to fix these issues and get eve back to the game we all know and love. please stop the madness cant tell if troll wow, where to start? ur saying ppl are running missions to pay for their accounts and then try to claim they make upto 50-60% of CCP's paying customers. so which is it? are they paying with isk or money? on top of that: u think 50-60% of all eve accounts run lvl 4's in drakes and tengu's? u dnt think they could spend a week training and running level 3's like everyone else did to get a raven? any game developments that get rid of ppl like u is brilliant management. BB4eva CCP
They're ******* aggro too. and drones. people like me that have **** gunnery and great drone skills are ******. as the rats will aggro my drones meaning i can's mission and will leave eve.
|
neobuilder
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 00:58:00 -
[4813] - Quote
it is true with new drone agrssion rules fly those big ravens in to those lvl4 get scramed with no way to get out . ill salvage you wrecks with a kronos when you die. before you start trolling you should realy learn more game and damage mechanics. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 00:58:00 -
[4814] - Quote
Malango wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:neobuilder wrote:wow were to start. lets just hit main points i think. first great job ccp you killed all lvl 4 mission running for all but 3 very expensive bs, that means all people how depend on missions to fund there acounts and dont have those specific skills for them are screwed. how many of your paying cutomers is that i wonder. 50-60% maybe moreall your sleeper part timer's will now be looking for new mmo as well since they cant or wont want to take time to train for the new system that they will worked fine. and with that will leave eve. so now that drop intrest in people getting into dust because of these poor development choices. that in turn will put people off on any new ventures you come up with outside of eve. because of your poor managment skills. lol man are you guys really trying to kill your whole company????? there's still time to fix these issues and get eve back to the game we all know and love. please stop the madness cant tell if troll wow, where to start? ur saying ppl are running missions to pay for their accounts and then try to claim they make upto 50-60% of CCP's paying customers. so which is it? are they paying with isk or money? on top of that: u think 50-60% of all eve accounts run lvl 4's in drakes and tengu's? u dnt think they could spend a week training and running level 3's like everyone else did to get a raven? any game developments that get rid of ppl like u is brilliant management. BB4eva CCP They're ******* aggro too. and drones. people like me that have **** gunnery and great drone skills are ******. as the rats will aggro my drones meaning i can's mission and will leave eve.
troll? :3 am i learning? cause gal pilots couldn't possibly run missions whilst still being at their keyboard...right?? CCP said that mission rats will not try to eat ur drones as much as sleepers or incursions which isnt a terrible amount atm. just use sentries until they are close enough to use heavies with no risk.
can i has ur stuff too? |
Malango
Astro Defence Industry
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 01:05:00 -
[4815] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Malango wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:neobuilder wrote:wow were to start. lets just hit main points i think. first great job ccp you killed all lvl 4 mission running for all but 3 very expensive bs, that means all people how depend on missions to fund there acounts and dont have those specific skills for them are screwed. how many of your paying cutomers is that i wonder. 50-60% maybe moreall your sleeper part timer's will now be looking for new mmo as well since they cant or wont want to take time to train for the new system that they will worked fine. and with that will leave eve. so now that drop intrest in people getting into dust because of these poor development choices. that in turn will put people off on any new ventures you come up with outside of eve. because of your poor managment skills. lol man are you guys really trying to kill your whole company????? there's still time to fix these issues and get eve back to the game we all know and love. please stop the madness cant tell if troll wow, where to start? ur saying ppl are running missions to pay for their accounts and then try to claim they make upto 50-60% of CCP's paying customers. so which is it? are they paying with isk or money? on top of that: u think 50-60% of all eve accounts run lvl 4's in drakes and tengu's? u dnt think they could spend a week training and running level 3's like everyone else did to get a raven? any game developments that get rid of ppl like u is brilliant management. BB4eva CCP They're ******* aggro too. and drones. people like me that have **** gunnery and great drone skills are ******. as the rats will aggro my drones meaning i can's mission and will leave eve. troll? :3 am i learning? cause gal pilots couldn't possibly run missions whilst still being at their keyboard...right?? CCP said that mission rats will not try to eat ur drones as much as sleepers or incursions which isnt a terrible amount atm. just use sentries until they are close enough to use heavies with no risk. can i has ur stuff too?
I never afk missions. i use drone navi's and active missions. i hate sentry drones. so i'd still be f****ed. If it turns out do-able when the update comes i'll be ok. otherwise my fave ship the gila is useless to me. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 01:06:00 -
[4816] - Quote
Malango wrote:They're ******* aggro too. and drones. people like me that have **** gunnery and great drone skills are ******. as the rats will aggro my drones meaning i can's mission and will leave eve. Train RR, drop the guns and fit reps?
Malango wrote:I never afk missions. i use drone navi's and active missions. i hate sentry drones. so i'd still be f****ed. If it turns out do-able when the update comes i'll be ok. otherwise my fave ship the gila is useless to me. Why the sentry hate?
Edit: Not sure how to make a gila work. Especially passive it may be hard to fit mods to draw aggro with the cap issue a passive fit usually brings. |
Malango
Astro Defence Industry
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 01:21:00 -
[4817] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Malango wrote:They're ******* aggro too. and drones. people like me that have **** gunnery and great drone skills are ******. as the rats will aggro my drones meaning i can's mission and will leave eve. Train RR, drop the guns and fit reps? Malango wrote:I never afk missions. i use drone navi's and active missions. i hate sentry drones. so i'd still be f****ed. If it turns out do-able when the update comes i'll be ok. otherwise my fave ship the gila is useless to me. Why the sentry hate? Edit: Not sure how to make a gila work. Especially passive it may be hard to fit mods to draw aggro with the cap issue a passive fit usually brings.
there is no drawing aggro anymore. my gila fit right now can tank like 550 dps and give out 690 dps. i love it. I have light missile to get aggro but from what i know aggro is changing. you won't pull aggro the rats on missions change aggro.
I have a mim alt with T2 large guns. but I love my main. I'm a gllante man! ha
will just have to train a kronos....
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 01:26:00 -
[4818] - Quote
Malango wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Malango wrote:They're ******* aggro too. and drones. people like me that have **** gunnery and great drone skills are ******. as the rats will aggro my drones meaning i can's mission and will leave eve. Train RR, drop the guns and fit reps? Malango wrote:I never afk missions. i use drone navi's and active missions. i hate sentry drones. so i'd still be f****ed. If it turns out do-able when the update comes i'll be ok. otherwise my fave ship the gila is useless to me. Why the sentry hate? Edit: Not sure how to make a gila work. Especially passive it may be hard to fit mods to draw aggro with the cap issue a passive fit usually brings. there is no drawing aggro anymore. my gila fit right now can tank like 550 dps and give out 690 dps. i love it. I have light missile to get aggro but from what i know aggro is changing. you won't pull aggro the rats on missions change aggro. I have a mim alt with T2 large guns. but I love my main. I'm a gllante man! ha will just have to train a kronos.... There is drawing aggro as like the other aggro switching rats they will prioritize threats. Ewar/RR are supposed to be good ways to make them focus on a particular target, the question is how effective it will be.
That said the advantages of using drones on guristas/serpentis just dropped quite a bit if it works.. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 01:33:00 -
[4819] - Quote
Malango wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Malango wrote:They're ******* aggro too. and drones. people like me that have **** gunnery and great drone skills are ******. as the rats will aggro my drones meaning i can's mission and will leave eve. Train RR, drop the guns and fit reps? Malango wrote:I never afk missions. i use drone navi's and active missions. i hate sentry drones. so i'd still be f****ed. If it turns out do-able when the update comes i'll be ok. otherwise my fave ship the gila is useless to me. Why the sentry hate? Edit: Not sure how to make a gila work. Especially passive it may be hard to fit mods to draw aggro with the cap issue a passive fit usually brings. there is no drawing aggro anymore. my gila fit right now can tank like 550 dps and give out 690 dps. i love it. I have light missile to get aggro but from what i know aggro is changing. you won't pull aggro the rats on missions change aggro. I have a mim alt with T2 large guns. but I love my main. I'm a gllante man! ha will just have to train a kronos....
learn to sentry. rattlers or domis are better because they can tank better and push out more dps (the rattler especially). dnt expect ur gila to be able to do everything. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
784
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 04:28:00 -
[4820] - Quote
Crazy Nymphora wrote:rodyas wrote:I recommend you quit too. I don't usually reply to trolls because that's how they get fed, just pointing one out so you know how they would be like.
I'm not shitposting. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 06:49:00 -
[4821] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Repeat after me : "Heavy. Assault. Missiles."
HML are not the only weapon in game, nor the only missiles weapon. HAM will be brutal.
HML are, atm, the only missilesystem in MEDIUM or LARGE size which is actually WORKING for Caldari missile ships. I agree with you there are more types: HAM, Torps and CM. Torps work in bombers, thats it. The others simply dont work in Caldari missile ships. With "working" I mean being on par with their peers or being better in certain aspects while not sucking completely in others.
For gunnery its mostly accepted nearly every medium and large system works, although medium long range guns are outshined in certain ranges by HML right now.
So atm we have this picture:
Medium short range: gunnery wins
Medium long range: missile wins
Large short range: gunnery wins
Large long range: gunnery wins (and gunnery wins there by a margin you dont even see missiles at all)
I think, tbh, this is not balanced. I furthermore think this will be even worse after the patch. Thats because I dont see yet HAM will take the top then in medium short range. But if it does NOT, then gunnery wins all the 4, since HML will get nerfed ... remember: there is no reason to use something which is not at least on par.
While I agree with the fact HML is best in its class in ranges of 35km til max missile ranges it still suffers the delayed damage which *is* an issue on longer ranges. When you warp all in air missiles will miss, and thats when you push the "warp" button, not when you actually warp where it makes sense. Thats not the same with gunnery for example ..
Lets face it. Right now there is only one option for Caldari missile users in PvP medium or large hulls. Thats HML. If this system will get screwed AND HAM will not take a leading place in medium short range (which I doubt it will), then Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls is dead until they rebalance again.
I dont think this is the way to go. And many others here agree with me.
Just imagine again, please. Its like taking all useful gunnery options of a certain race, without giving anything back and just say "we have to do this so we can balance everything around that sometime later". One difference though - you can still use ALL your gunnery support skills, and simply train another gunnery tree and the ships which are needed.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 08:08:00 -
[4822] - Quote
Ellen Stavinski wrote:I am saying that since I am a quite new player who has picked up Caldari, shield tanking and heavy missiles as primary...
Finally after 6 months of training ships tree, shields, missiles I have reach my Nighthawk !...
Just be happy you didn't start as Amarr...
Do you know what I did after 6 months? I was struggling to complete level 3s in my new Harbinger with T1 guns.
Malango wrote:They're ******* aggro too. and drones. people like me that have **** gunnery and great drone skills are ******. as the rats will aggro my drones meaning i can's mission and will leave eve.
People should do missions with friends. It's more fun anyway.
I've never lost drones to sleepers. Sleepers are known for their drone hate. Probably because they seem to hate RR/ewar even more.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Large long range: gunnery wins (and gunnery wins there by a margin you dont even see missiles at all)
Could you show me 300 km Rokh or Naga? Just so we can compare it to 300 km Raven. Yeah, I know shooting beyond 250km is impossible but in theory Raven could shoot that far. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
258
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 08:46:00 -
[4823] - Quote
MIrple wrote: You need to fix the weapon before you can balance ships around it. Look at the Caracal for proof. I know it sucks to finally get into a ship and then see it nerfed. I bet CCP Foozie fixes the NH this time around but if not train for HAM and wait for the next round of balancing. It will all work out in the end.
CCP has not earned this level of trust, certainly not from Caldari players.
My advice to Caldari pilots is different than yours and probably far more productive. Don't wait for CCP to fix anything, and certainly nothing Caldari. It's not going to happen any time soon if at all.
Switch your training immediately to some other race. I suggest Gallante (the hybrids will dovetail nicely with the Caldari ships you can already fly) but Minmatar will do as well. Gallente have an exceptional assortment of actual working ships. They've got T1 Frigates, AF's, Interceptors, Cruisers, HACs, Recons, and even BSs -- all are fantastic. The same can be said for the Minmatar. With either race you cannot go wrong. And unlike Caldari and missile skills, when you train gunnery you are training a pool of support skills that apply to every race in the game. It's an exceptional foundation.
I did this a long time ago and I have never looked back. Had I waited for CCP to fix things then I would STILL BE WAITING today. Instead of spending my time enjoying the game and doing PvP, I would be stuck flying a Drake, waiting for CCP to nerf it, and reading comments from folks about how it's okay because one day CCP will make things right.
But I didn't wait and neither should you.
I only regret the wasted points I put into things like Missiles and Caldari ship command. If CCP offered a refund I would take that deal in a second and never look back. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
260
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 09:05:00 -
[4824] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Crazy Nymphora wrote:
How long do you think it would take them to actually balance ships after screwing up their weapon system? I'm quite new to this game so I don't know, but my friend said it usually takes CCP 6 years to actually "fix" things they broke. I don't think many people are happy to wait that long for their beloved stuff to get fixed.
What if we ask for a bit of Drake/Tengu/Nighthawk buff on DPS/Range to balance it because the nerf was too much? Obviously CCP won't listen and trolls will troll.
That's what we get, Ellen Stavinski. If you don't like it, I'd honestly recommend you to quit, don't listen to those trolls, they will say something like "don't cry, quit already, no one cares", they only are trying to hold you back from quitting so you can feed them more.
Don't pay for something you don't enjoy and don't feed the trolls.
The old CCP would take 6 years to fix this. The new CCP I would say by the next expansion. You do not need a DPS/Range buff on the Drake/Tengue/Nighthawk you need to understand that HM are a long range weapon system and need to be treated as such. There have been countless post about how with the changes they are now inline with other medium long range weapon systems. Switch to HAMS on the Drake and Tengue if you want higher Damage. The Nighthawk needs some love the Cerb does to but that is known and on the radar.
There is absolutely no reason to believe this. If CCP introduced a bug that caused Caldari ships to explode whenever you activated their weapons, they would fix it by increasing the falloff on Minmatar Autocannons.
Read the new Combat Cruisers proposal and actually look at their ideas for the "improved" Moa. Compare it to the other ships and look at the numbers. It's obvious that CCP doesn't even know what this thing is supposed to do. This is their idea of balance. The same applies to the Caracal. The new Minmatar EWAR cruiser is, in virtually every way, a better Missile Cruiser than the Caldari Missile Cruiser. If you think flying a slow cruiser with no drones, no neuts, no tank, and frigate DPS sounds great, then the super-Caracal is for you. If not, fly the new Bellicose and enjoy a fast cruiser with more dps, drones, a neut, a target painter bonus, and a comparable tank.
Again, this is CCPs idea of balance when it comes to the Caldari. And it's not going to change. This IS the balance pass for these ships. When it goes live, that's it. It's entirely possible that they will never touch them again during the life of this rapidly aging game. The same applies to the dozen or so other broken Caldari hulls. It's entirely possible that they will never get fixed. They've been broken for YEARS now, and CCP hasn't said one word about fixing them.
Rather than feeding new players a bunch of feel-good nonsense, tell them the truth. They are far better served to switch to one of the other working races. CCP has written off the Caldari and they should as well.
And yes, it really is that simple. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 09:08:00 -
[4825] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Could you show me 300 km Rokh or Naga? Just so we can compare it to 300 km Raven. Yeah, I know shooting beyond 250km is impossible but in theory Raven could shoot that far.
Seriously, if you mix CM and Ravens in the context of PvP, you have to say nothing else than: they. just. suck. Maybe you will need bigger letters. But I hope you got the message: RAVENS AND CM SUCK IN PVP. They suck so much they will not even lose, because no one flies them in PvP.
I see even more why *you* dont post your combat alt - you simply dont have any. :) Statements like that of Ravens outranging Nagas in theory show very well you have not much clue of whats going on. And no, I dont deny the statement itself. But bringing it here in a discussion of whats happening IN GAME and how it should be changed/balanced is just ridiculous, at best.
And to that postings of OT Smithers: Read them, understand them and follow his suggestions. He is right. Which is a shame, for CCP, but still truth. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 10:53:00 -
[4826] - Quote
so am i the only one whos trained more chars INTO missiles and caldari after the coming of this change??
lol |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 10:55:00 -
[4827] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:The old CCP would take 6 years to fix this. The new CCP I would say by the next expansion. You do not need a DPS/Range buff on the Drake/Tengue/Nighthawk you need to understand that HM are a long range weapon system and need to be treated as such. There have been countless post about how with the changes they are now inline with other medium long range weapon systems. Switch to HAMS on the Drake and Tengue if you want higher Damage. The Nighthawk needs some love the Cerb does to but that is known and on the radar.
There is absolutely no reason to believe this. If CCP introduced a bug that caused Caldari ships to explode whenever you activated their weapons, they would fix it by increasing the falloff on Minmatar Autocannons.
Read the new Combat Cruisers proposal and actually look at their ideas for the "improved" Moa. Compare it to the other ships and look at the numbers. It's obvious that CCP doesn't even know what this thing is supposed to do. This is their idea of balance. The same applies to the Caracal. The new Minmatar EWAR cruiser is, in virtually every way, a better Missile Cruiser than the Caldari Missile Cruiser. If you think flying a slow cruiser with no drones, no neuts, no tank, and frigate DPS sounds great, then the super-Caracal is for you. If not, fly the new Bellicose and enjoy a fast cruiser with more dps, drones, a neut, a target painter bonus, and a comparable tank.
Again, this is CCPs idea of balance when it comes to the Caldari. And it's not going to change. This IS the balance pass for these ships. When it goes live, that's it. It's entirely possible that they will never touch them again during the life of this rapidly aging game. The same applies to the dozen or so other broken Caldari hulls. It's entirely possible that they will never get fixed. They've been broken for YEARS now, and CCP hasn't said one word about fixing them.
Rather than feeding new players a bunch of feel-good nonsense, tell them the truth. They are far better served to switch to one of the other working races. CCP has written off the Caldari and they should as well.
And yes, it really is that simple. [/quote] What is pitiful is that someone can fly missile boat for years and don't even know how they work. What is even more sad is that someone can fly a race for years and don't even train for it's secondary weapon system, thus abandoning HALF the ships he can fly. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 10:58:00 -
[4828] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:so am i the only one whos trained more chars INTO missiles and caldari after the coming of this change??
lol You're certainly not the only one with a brain, but the more loudy people are those who are upset, and anger often plug off the brain. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 11:06:00 -
[4829] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Statements like that of Ravens outranging Nagas in theory show very well you have not much clue of whats going on.
[Raven, Raven fit]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot]
Large Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise Missiles CM-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-706
But of course main problem is that you want missile to work like turrets: instant damage. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 11:06:00 -
[4830] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: Repeat after me : "Heavy. Assault. Missiles."
HML are not the only weapon in game, nor the only missiles weapon. HAM will be brutal.
HML are, atm, the only missilesystem in MEDIUM or LARGE size which is actually WORKING for Caldari missile ships. I agree with you there are more types: HAM, Torps and CM. Torps work in bombers, thats it. The others simply dont work in Caldari missile ships. With "working" I mean being on par with their peers or being better in certain aspects while not sucking completely in others. For gunnery its mostly accepted nearly every medium and large system works, although medium long range guns are outshined in certain ranges by HML right now. So atm we have this picture: Medium short range: gunnery wins Medium long range: missile wins Large short range: gunnery wins Large long range: gunnery wins (and gunnery wins there by a margin you dont even see missiles at all) I think, tbh, this is not balanced. I furthermore think this will be even worse after the patch. Thats because I dont see yet HAM will take the top then in medium short range. But if it does NOT, then gunnery wins all the 4, since HML will get nerfed ... remember: there is no reason to use something which is not at least on par. While I agree with the fact HML is best in its class in ranges of 35km til max missile ranges it still suffers the delayed damage which *is* an issue on longer ranges. When you warp all in air missiles will miss, and thats when you push the "warp" button, not when you actually warp where it makes sense. Thats not the same with gunnery for example .. Lets face it. Right now there is only one option for Caldari missile users in PvP medium or large hulls. Thats HML. If this system will get screwed AND HAM will not take a leading place in medium short range (which I doubt it will), then Caldari missile PvP in medium and large hulls is dead until they rebalance again. I dont think this is the way to go. And many others here agree with me. Just imagine again, please. Its like taking all useful gunnery options of a certain race, without giving anything back and just say "we have to do this so we can balance everything around that sometime later". One difference though - you can still use ALL your gunnery support skills, and simply train another gunnery tree and the ships which are needed. So, in fact, you know HML are OP, but because you believe HML is the only working system and because you haven't read the OP or didn't understand how the changes will improve short range missiles, you think HML need to be OP and obsolete a whole class of guns only for caldari to have a weapon to do their lvl4 missions ? And you don't care about pvp and balance.
Thank you very much for admiting it.
But reasonable people posting here look at the whole picture of things, not only caldari missiles. And if some missiles have a problem, the way to do things is to fix those missiles, not to leave an OP system alone just for the sake of it.
Small missiles are brutal (all of them will be after when wintor will come, see light missiles buff), HAM will be brutal (see winter changes for HAM, yes close range have some constraints, but you will use to them, like everyone else), and Torpedos will be brutal (see winter changes). HML will be on par (see this thread), and that will leave cruise missiles with some needed work. Can't you wait for one more month for them to be rebalanced ? |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 11:07:00 -
[4831] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: But of course main problem is that you want missile to work like turrets: instant damage.
Quote for truth.
Missiles are differents, with inherent drawback and advantages, that doesn't mean they have to be OP. |
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
28
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 13:45:00 -
[4832] - Quote
ccp doesnt have the balls to nerf missiles.an if they do,they will be ones to suffer because of mass unsubscribing,riots just like when cq replaced ship spinning hangar. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
221
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 13:51:00 -
[4833] - Quote
Hey, Recoil IV, has your avatar smelled something bad or are you in a permament state af rage? |
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
28
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 13:53:00 -
[4834] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Hey, Recoil IV, has your avatar smelled something bad or are you in a permament state af rage?
rage |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
398
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 13:55:00 -
[4835] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Hey, Recoil IV, has your avatar smelled something bad or are you in a permament state af rage? rage
The perfect ship for you is surely a Rage HAM Drake then. :nod: |
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
28
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 13:56:00 -
[4836] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Hey, Recoil IV, has your avatar smelled something bad or are you in a permament state af rage? rage The perfect ship for you is surely a Rage HAM Drake then. :nod:
and that ship is getting ****** up.therefore : rage. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
222
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 13:58:00 -
[4837] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Hey, Recoil IV, has your avatar smelled something bad or are you in a permament state af rage? rage The perfect ship for you is surely a Rage HAM Drake then. :nod: and that ship is getting ****** up.therefore : rage.
I think HAM Drakes will be all the "rage" after this patch though |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
262
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 13:58:00 -
[4838] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: What is pitiful is that someone can fly missile boat for years and don't even know how they work. What is even more sad is that someone can fly a race for years and don't even train for it's secondary weapon system, thus abandoning HALF the ships he can fly.
PS : all caldari ship after the rebalancing are hell of a lot more than deadly (see merlin/condor).
Post on your main.
In the meantime, here's my killboard: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=OT+Smithers
You might note the absense of Caldari ship losses. The reason you don't see them is that I only rarely fly Caldari ships. I can of course, but I prefer to use the best ships for the job at hand.
The reason many Caldari pilots didn't train for hybrids is simple: they were badly broken, and when you stuck these broken weapons on mediocre or broken Caldari hulls they were laughably fail. A Caldari pilot making the choice to train gunnery (and most eventually do) wasn't wasting their time sticking with Caldari, they were switching to a non-broken race. Remember, up until last year Caldari pilots didn't even have a working frigate.
The only pirate I know who flies Caldari missile ships exclusively told me just last week that she was giving up and training Minmatar. She was tired of the nerfs, tired of flying her max skilled yet broken hulls, tired of being left behind when the gang went out because she doesn't have any non-broken ships that are appropriate to what we were doing. That, and I think it bothered her that her perfectly skilled torpedos, fired from her level 5 Raven, and supported by a target painter, weren't hitting my Cyclone hard enough to make me use my ASBs. They were so embarassingly bad that I actually felt bad for her. I might have even allowed her to kill me, just to buck up her spirits and all, but I didn't have all day.
I am not arguing for Caldari fixes for myself. I already have great ships that I can fly, and a buff to Caldari ships doesn't help me. But it does help the game, and that's why I am posting in this forum. |
Dalto Bane
Knights of the Posing Meat Ineluctable.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 13:59:00 -
[4839] - Quote
Well CCP, I have about 25 drake hulls and around 100 or so HML and HAM T2 mods that you need to reimburse me for, since the drake will be utterly useless in any capacity. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 14:00:00 -
[4840] - Quote
Doddy wrote:
Well they are not very funny forums tbh. And that was only one of many weird assertions in your post. Vulture is a great CS, core of most shiled fleets. Rook is a great combat recon as it can actually kill stuff unlike the others, pity falcon has same layout. Rokh is better than mael at pretty much everything other than alpha, BB is a great ship for a t1 cruiser. Ferox is a million miles from being worst ship in game, it just suffers from tiering like the other first tier bcs.
But yeah chimera sucks, flycatcher is not a sabre (which is way better than all other dictors)
Well i dont see vultures being used at all. I do see claymores being used occasionaly. I dont see rooks used at all either. Mostly because scorpions or falcons suits better for the job. Scorpion has range and tank. Falcon has cloak. I did say ROKH was mediocre i didnt say it sux. But being good ship is also something else than being part of huge blob. There is other options than just be part of rokh or mael alpha fleet. Many people uses mael for pve for example. I dont see rokhs getting used in pve that much. Sure theres some. But still mael is better ship in general. And the ferox. While its true that i havent used it after hybrid buff. It still does suck hands down.. How often you see ferox fleet coming at you? |
|
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
28
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 14:11:00 -
[4841] - Quote
Dalto Bane wrote:Well CCP, I have about 25 drake hulls and around 100 or so HML and HAM T2 mods that you need to reimburse me for, since the drake will be utterly useless in any capacity.
i will also ask for skill point reimbursement (caldari spaceshit command and missiles) |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
222
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 14:19:00 -
[4842] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Dalto Bane wrote:Well CCP, I have about 25 drake hulls and around 100 or so HML and HAM T2 mods that you need to reimburse me for, since the drake will be utterly useless in any capacity. i will also ask for skill point reimbursement (caldari spaceshit command and missiles)
Don't hold your breath.
HML's will still be pretty good. Which means Drakes will still be pretty good. HAM's are getting a decent buff with the skill changes and the Caracal is going to be a very good T1 cruiser with either RLML's, HML's or HAM's.
You're grumbling is not really necessary. All will be fine. Trust me. In six months time when we're looking at the summer expansion no one will remember all of this unecessary whining.
........and I think Drake blobs will still exist. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
262
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 14:21:00 -
[4843] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Recoil IV wrote:Spugg Galdon wrote:Hey, Recoil IV, has your avatar smelled something bad or are you in a permament state af rage? rage The perfect ship for you is surely a Rage HAM Drake then. :nod: and that ship is getting ****** up.therefore : rage. I think HAM Drakes will be all the "rage" after this patch though
HAM Drakes were already decent on paper, but they had problems applying that DPS to anything but larger targets. The change to GMP skill will allow them to hit smaller targets. How effective they will be remains to be seen, but they could be quite good. And they need to be with the restrictive range.
This skill change should have happened years ago, as is removing the T2 ammo penalties from missiles. CCP did this for the other races and weapons, but they didn't bother with Caldari. Add it to the long list of reasons why so many Caldari pilots have absolutely no faith in CCP.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
262
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 14:30:00 -
[4844] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:Dalto Bane wrote:Well CCP, I have about 25 drake hulls and around 100 or so HML and HAM T2 mods that you need to reimburse me for, since the drake will be utterly useless in any capacity. i will also ask for skill point reimbursement (caldari spaceshit command and missiles)
I would LOVE this as an option. I've got a whole lot of SP invested into broken hulls and weapons, and despite all the non-Caldari pilots (as usual) assuring us that everything is just fine, I have absolutely no faith that CCP even being interested in balance. If they are, I damn sure haven't seen it.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
264
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 14:46:00 -
[4845] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: Don't hold your breath.
HML's will still be pretty good. Which means Drakes will still be pretty good. HAM's are getting a decent buff with the skill changes and the Caracal is going to be a very good T1 cruiser with either RLML's, HML's or HAM's.
You're grumbling is not really necessary. All will be fine. Trust me. In six months time when we're looking at the summer expansion no one will remember all of this unecessary whining.
........and I think Drake blobs will still exist.
This is a game in which people train for months or invest billions of isk for a few percent more damage. And CCP is hitting HMs with a damage nerf so hard it will be the equivalent of seeing your "Heavy Missile 5" skill reduced to level one. Will HMs they still work? Yes.... They will still apply damage at range. The damage will be a lot less, the range shorter, but they will still hit the target.
But you are wrong on this: Caldari pilots are not going to just forget. Not even close.
Many Caldari pilots are still angry with CCP over the Naga incident. I heard some guy in my corp ranting about that just the other day. Hell, I suspect a lot of Caldari pilots are still angry that it took them so many years to fix rockets. People don't just forget that kind of thing -- not when CCP is still doing it.
Do you seriously think that a Caldari pilot, looking at the broken Cerberus decorating his hangar, is going to forget that CCPs solution to fixing it was to nerf it further into the dust? You think he's going to hop into his still broken Raven and decide everything is okay? Caldari pilots are pissed because CCP has been f@cking them for years.
And remember, CCP has already said that they have more Caldari nerfs planned. They want TDs to impact missiles, and that want to castrate ECM. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 14:48:00 -
[4846] - Quote
I don't care what "whiners" say about HAM changes. I know my Sacrilege likes them a lot (especially that PG req change ).
OT Smithers wrote:I would LOVE this as an option. I've got a whole lot of SP invested into broken hulls and weapons, and despite all the non-Caldari pilots (as usual) assuring us that everything is just fine, I have absolutely no faith that CCP even being interested in balance. If they are, I damn sure haven't seen it.
As soon as I can get 13M SP back from gunnery if I want. |
Lili Lu
539
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 15:12:00 -
[4847] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: (some stuff) (some response stuff, and then this) I see even more why *you* dont post your combat alt - you simply dont have any. :) . . . And to that postings of OT Smithers: Read them, understand them and follow his suggestions. He is right. Which is a shame, for CCP, but still truth. Classic Noemi **** post.
1) We're all still waiting for you to post from a character with any pvp record. Come on Noemi, it's not difficult to do. If you do indeed have such a character. And, no, your posts will still be ****, just less ****, and I will still post replies pointing out how they are ****.
2) You can shove your command for others to "read, understand, and follow" OT's posts. You commanding anyone to do anything is laughable, and your commands are worth ****. Seriously why should anyone listen to you and even less a command from you. I don't see anyone else posting commands. I see people posting opinions and arguments. Where do you think you are, and who do you think you are to command anyone?
3) Concerning OT, he seems like a decent guy. He's got a fun bio to read. Unfortunately though, he is only commenting on this game from the perspective of one race. And his persecution complex about CCP's treatment of that race in the game is actually, both sad, and funny at the same time. He flies minmatar, but posts like all he flies is Caldari. But I sorta like OT. He's not a posting alt, he has a pvp record, and hasn't spammed this thread with as much crap as you have, Noemi. |
Lili Lu
539
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 15:13:00 -
[4848] - Quote
Dear OT,
Let me tell you my sad/funny story of Lili and 2006. I see that you started in '09. In '06 the race that was indisputedly ass stink in the game was amarr. But I didn't know that. And back then your rolled race mattered. You started with a pitance of sp. And your attributes were single digits. You actually looked forward to training into higher tiers of frigates and cruisers because it took time. And there were no tech III ships or even tier 2 BCs. Anyway, I posted back then similar posts to yours, only about how amarr was the suck. But the difference was noone could even pretend amarr was not.
I quickly realized, like you suggest, that I should crosstrain if I wanted to avoid being stuck in the suck. I chose minmatar. Minmatar was no great shakes at that time either. Gallente was the best pvp race in the game. Caldari was the best pve race (and continued to be and still is btw, which is a horrible lack of balance), ******* Ravens everywhere ruling that domain. But Minmatar had some pvp options. Also, I started my first other account. I put that puppy straight into Caldari/Gallente.
Then came the tier 2 BCs. They changed everything. Initially Myrms were kickass. But incredibly fast, in response to Caldari whines (caldari being the predominant race of characters and ships in game, and always have been) it was nerfed immediately. No more 125 bandwidth Myrms ruling pvp. The Myrm receeded from view. Meanwhile lots of changes occurred. The brief Amarr revival of 2009 died when the sniping Apocs lost their place with probing changes (as did all sniper BSs).
And simultaneous to this is the story of the Drake. That curious species of op'd pve tank regen Drakes, were allowing caldari characters (usually 3 charisma achuras, another story of wonderful imbalance in the game) to smugly gain entry into level 4 income making much faster than those flying other races.
And then some time in 2009-2010 due to the disappearance of the sniping BSs, some smart person said, wait a second, this drake thing is actually a BS, a cheaper and easier BS. Up until that moment bears were showing up for pvp in regen drakes as if that op'd pve regen tank was going to survive getting primaried. Poeple laughed at a derided drake pilots for this. But that smart person realized if buffer fit with extender rigs and not purgers, that resist bonused BC had essentially a BS sized buffer. And lo and behold those HMs put out much more damage at mid range combat (40-70km) than any other medium weapon, and even most short range weapon fit rr battleships at that range. Mid range was starting to be favored due to various changes in game.
Plenty of developments have occured, too complex to list them all. But suffice to say that Caldari has never been the worst pvp race. It was never good for "solo." But really who thinks solo is scrupulously honored and any way to play this game. The drakes for which you whine, regularly out dps Gallente drone boats, and even sometime Canes, in low sec scraps that I fly now on my latest account. You think missile travel is a pita. Try drone travel time. 10-30 ship engagements do not only favor close range face melt. So, drake hm spam only experiences that initial volley delay and then it lays into the target. Probably a couple volleys have already landed before medium drones have traversed the 20-40kms as the fight weaves around. And those volleys are flying faster than the dual-neut cane racing to the next target.
So, OT, all this is to say, I think you lack perspective. Both over time, and accross races. Over the last year Caldari has been second to Minmatar for number of ships regularly appearing on the eve-klill top 20. And its top two have dominated the first to third spots for a couple years. Meawhile Gallente has been stuck in the suck and lucky to have any representation (this month one ship) in the top 20, but sometimes that is only through an angel ship (so really only a half ship for representation). Amarr has had a few ships. But they are ships that take more training to get into. Zealots and Abaddons. And those ships really only shine with well developed skills.
No player in this game should think he can get away with training only one race and one particular weapon system. Heretofore it's been possible to do that with Caldari medium ships and HMLs. No other path has had that luxury. That luxury will go. Please try to find the grace to deal with it as the rebalancing process progresses.
Sincerely, LiLu |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
264
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 15:18:00 -
[4849] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:I don't care what "whiners" say about HAM changes. I know my Sacrilege likes them a lot (especially that PG req change ). OT Smithers wrote:I would LOVE this as an option. I've got a whole lot of SP invested into broken hulls and weapons, and despite all the non-Caldari pilots (as usual) assuring us that everything is just fine, I have absolutely no faith that CCP even being interested in balance. If they are, I damn sure haven't seen it. As soon as I can get 13M SP back from gunnery if I want.
Heh-heh! We both know CCP isn't refunding anything. That's not their policy. But if they offered I would take it in a second. I don't bother with Caldari ships, I fly Minmatar and Gallente so I always have a better option, but I could certainly use those wasted Caldari points elsewhere.
I believe that the HAM Drake is going to be dangerous but situational. It's going to be fighting in scram range as that's the only place it can hit, and there are far better options there. The Myrmidon, for example. The Myrmidon (in anything except plated configurations) is significantly faster, does far more dps, offers multiple flavors of drones, and actually has a better tank. But you don't see many people using them, and for good reason.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
264
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 16:26:00 -
[4850] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Dear OT,
Let me tell you my sad/funny story of Lili and 2006. I see that you started in '09. In '06 the race that was indisputedly ass stink in the game was amarr. But I didn't know that. And back then your rolled race mattered. You started with a pitance of sp. And your attributes were single digits. You actually looked forward to training into higher tiers of frigates and cruisers because it took time. And there were no tech III ships or even tier 2 BCs. Anyway, I posted back then similar posts to yours, only about how amarr was the suck. But the difference was noone could even pretend amarr was not.
........edit for space.......
Sincerely, LiLu
Nice post. I have a "sad story" as well. This was back before the rocket fix. I was brand new to PvP. I had just finished training rockets to level 5, my very first T2 weapon, based on an old thread talking about how great rockets were. So off I went into battle. My victim didn't melt as the thread suggested. Instead, this clown started laughing at me and posting my damage numbers in local. OT Smithers Rockets hits for 30 damage...LULZ! OT Smithers Rockets hits you for 27 damage... I am there blasting away, and all of local is laughing and talking smack at the noob who trained rockets. The guy didn't even bother to kill me with his Rifter (which, now that I think about it, is pretty surprising). He just buzzed around soaking up my damage and laughing at me. I was like "WTF? the forums said this was supposed to be amazing!" So I rechecked the thread to see what I had done wrong, and discovered that it had been written like three years before. Doh!
Anyway, it's funny today.
We all have our own opinions. Like yours, mine is based on my experience and play style. I have tried to post reasonable and balanced suggestions based upon my experience in game. I am not arguing for anything that helps me in any way, I am not trying to get some advantage for myself. I don't fly Drakes very often, I fly against them. I am one of those folks flying against the so-called overpowered Drakes, and I am just not seeing it. Your experiences flying in null sec fleets are different than what I see flying (usually outnumbered) in tiny low sec pirate gangs, and I respect that your opinions are every bit as valid as my own within that framework. I can easily see how the Drake, in those environments, would be ridiculous.
I have said multiple times that an argument can be made that the HM Drake is somewhat overpowered. It OBJECTIVELY does better damage at range than other medium weapons, it's relatively fast, and it manages all this while maintaining a decent tank. It's a great ship. It's the best BC in certain situations, and one could argue (though I would disagree) that it is the best BC in the game (I think the Cane gets this honor).
None of this argues for a severe nerf. It's actually okay if the Caldari have the best BC (if you believe that the Drake earns this title). Someone has to, and there is no reason it cannot be Caldari. Particularly when we consider that BCs as a whole are pretty well balanced overall. The Harbi and Myrm could use a little love, but overall the entire class is pretty solid.
However, I do not actually have a problem with CCP nerfing the HM Drake. I've crunched the numbers myself, and interestingly enough I came up with almost the same damage reduction that CCP is suggesting. Almost, because they want to nerf it more than I though was strictly fair considering flight time.
My concerns are these:
1. The range nerf is fine. I would even dial the range back a bit more. It does not need to hit that far without rigs. 2. The damage nerf is too high once you take into account the delay and reload issues. 3. Before doing any of this, CCP needs to fix some of the other currently broken Caldari hulls.
This last is the most important. I think CCP is underestimating just how angry some Caldari pilots were even before all this was proposed. I have heard them in game and on TS over and over again. They have entire classes of ships that are selling for scrap prices in Jita, and CCP's response -- after years of waiting for a fix -- is to nerf those ships further. These folks trained for Caldari HACs and Command ships and BS's, and they want to use them in PvP. They trained for Cruise Missiles and Torpedos, they want to use those too.
Like I said, these are my opinions. And even when I disagreed with other posters I have tried to keep my comments respectful, constructive, and directed at the content of the post rather than the person making it. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 16:32:00 -
[4851] - Quote
Vengeance, yeah that ship looks great. Now have to train T2 rockets!
After trying some things: What a crap ship! All tank and no damage.
Yeah, you Caldari pilots have it so hard. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 16:57:00 -
[4852] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Vengeance, yeah that ship looks great. Now have to train T2 rockets!
After trying some things: What a crap ship! All tank and no damage.
Yeah, you Caldari pilots have it so hard.
@ Lili, Jorma didnt even name a combat alt, unlike me. Still you dont seem to be bothering with encouraging him to do so, funny?
And you didnt answer my question. Will you GTFO and stop posting your stuff here as soon as I posted from my PvP toon? :)
and Jorma, about this Raven - I really really hope you will bring it to PvP. Really.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 16:59:00 -
[4853] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Statements like that of Ravens outranging Nagas in theory show very well you have not much clue of whats going on. [Raven, Raven fit] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Large Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Large Core Defense Field Extender I Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise Missiles CM-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-706 But of course main problem is that you want missile to work like turrets: instant damage.
Posting this ship here is ... great. :) I sincerely hope you fly that with your combat alt, er wait - you dont have any, right?
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 17:19:00 -
[4854] - Quote
Just a few things out of this ..
Lili Lu wrote:Caldari was the best pve race (and continued to be and still is btw, which is a horrible lack of balance )
You seem to be the only one who is claiming Caldari dominate PvE atm. A Vargur and esp. a Machariel will wipe the floor in missions with every Caldari ship.
Lili Lu wrote: So, OT, all this is to say, I think you lack perspective. Both over time, and accross races. Over the last year Caldari has been second to Minmatar for number of ships regularly appearing on the eve-klill top 20. And its top two have dominated the first to third spots for a couple years. Meawhile Gallente has been stuck in the suck and lucky to have any representation (this month one ship) in the top 20, but sometimes that is only through an angel ship (so really only a half ship for representation). Amarr has had a few ships. But they are ships that take more training to get into. Zealots and Abaddons. And those ships really only shine with well developed skills. And yeah, we don't know what protion of lowsec v nullsec combat eve-kill is capturing. But it is definitely not only reflecting null-sec use.
The Zealot numbers seem to show its mostly nullsec, but it wont matter much. CCP has made a decision, and they will see what they get :)
Lili Lu wrote: No player in this game should think he can get away with training only one race and one particular weapon system.
I sincerely doubt ANY of those guys who are by you and others called whiners here is interested in sticking with just one particular weapon system. Thats been my credo from the very start: give us variety, give us options. Heck, even nerf HML but in return for the love of god, give us WORKING HAMs, WORKING TORPs, WORKING CMs. Used in WORKING NHs, Cerbs, Ravens. And then I am sure not a single one of those who are opposing to the incoming nerf will seriously complain. I for sure wont.
But as long as projectile BS wipe the floor with missile BS I dont see why a Drake should not be able to be first of 4 in *its* domain. Change one ok, but change the others too. And not sometime later, but right now.
So yeah, backing up OT Smithers again. Is there one of you who thinks OT is wrong with what he said about the Moa in comparison to its peers, or the Caracal compared to the Bellicose (!!!!)? If so, bring facts please. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 17:27:00 -
[4855] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:You seem to be the only one who is claiming Caldari dominate PvE atm. A Vargur and esp. a Machariel will wipe the floor in missions with every Caldari ship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj6xTEFUs0s
Feel free to show Legion, Loki or Proteus doing same. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 17:32:00 -
[4856] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You seem to be the only one who is claiming Caldari dominate PvE atm. A Vargur and esp. a Machariel will wipe the floor in missions with every Caldari ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj6xTEFUs0sFeel free to show Legion, Loki or Proteus doing same.
Post your combat alt. Thanks.
The relevance of your video is as big as your combat record Jorma ..
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 17:41:00 -
[4857] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You seem to be the only one who is claiming Caldari dominate PvE atm. A Vargur and esp. a Machariel will wipe the floor in missions with every Caldari ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj6xTEFUs0sFeel free to show Legion, Loki or Proteus doing same. Post your combat alt. Thanks. The relevance of your video is as big as your combat record Jorma ..
There's a lot more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL0c7dn6TEE |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 17:53:00 -
[4858] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You seem to be the only one who is claiming Caldari dominate PvE atm. A Vargur and esp. a Machariel will wipe the floor in missions with every Caldari ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj6xTEFUs0sFeel free to show Legion, Loki or Proteus doing same. Post your combat alt. Thanks. The relevance of your video is as big as your combat record Jorma .. There's a lot more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL0c7dn6TEE
Yeah, this here has the same relevance to this topic like your awesome Raven fitting. I bet it will roll eve-kill.net stats from now on. You wont post your combat alt, is that correct?
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
180
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 18:08:00 -
[4859] - Quote
@Noemi: do you even lift? |
Manfred Hideous
TOHOKU 9.0
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 18:57:00 -
[4860] - Quote
Quote: I will ask everyone to please keep your feedback and your interactions with each other civil. Remember that this is the Features and Ideas forum, not the wild untamed expanse of General Discussion or the brutal gladiatorial pit of CAOD. This is the section of the forums where intellectual equals meet in mutual admiration to calmly and rationally discuss potential changes to the game, muse casually about overnight interest rates, and sip tea with our pinky extended. Feedback is always more useful when it includes details about the problems you foresee from a specific change.
"I don't agree with change X because I believe it will have effect Y for reasons A, B and C" is excellent and very persuasive feedback and I thank the large numbers of you who have provided this kind of feedback so far. "DIE IN A FIRE" is an example of significantly less useful feedback. It doesn't tell us which changes you object to, or what the reasons for your position are. In fact it even makes it hard to tell whether you actually object to the content of the change or are just experiencing an unusually strong craving for S'mores.
Well, I guess that didn't work out. 3/4 of this thread is S**t posting.
|
|
Unit757
XVIII Legion
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 19:43:00 -
[4861] - Quote
Yep, drakes and tengus really are going to be horrible after this. Its such a shame that HAMs are restricted from being fit on them.
Seriously, this isnt the end of the world, the nerf isnt that bad. HAMs still outrange the turret based short range guns, and HMLs still outrange and out dps most long range. Your losing at most 30-40 dps. HML drakes will still do more damage then a triple mag stabbed 250mm ferox, even using non kinetic missiles. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
104
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 19:55:00 -
[4862] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I sincerely doubt ANY of those guys who are by you and others called whiners here is interested in sticking with just one particular weapon system. Thats been my credo from the very start: give us variety, give us options. Heck, even nerf HML but in return for the love of god, give us WORKING HAMs, WORKING TORPs, WORKING CMs. Used in WORKING NHs, Cerbs, Ravens. And then I am sure not a single one of those who are opposing to the incoming nerf will seriously complain. I for sure wont.
THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING -º-º-º Caps lock, because I'm afraid you won't see it otherwise. See : Condor is already here, and for winter, AT THE SAME TIME OF HML NERF, you will have a Kestrel, a new destroyer, and a Caracal. On top of that, ALL SHORT RANGE MISSILES ARE BUFFED -º-º-º-º
And all this at the same ******* time !
All what you want. :-)
The poor torp raven will finaly revive.
BTW, if they where no Rokh flying, maybe it's because of all those caldari who think Hybrids are a gallente weapon only, there some on this thread already... Merlin and Rohk at least always had made decent hybrid boats. Moa and Ferox too in a certain extent (medium blasters were buffed recently). |
Lili Lu
540
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 20:26:00 -
[4863] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: @ Lili, Jorma didnt even name a combat alt, unlike me. Still you dont seem to be bothering with encouraging him to do so, funny?
And you didnt answer my question. Will you GTFO and stop posting your stuff here as soon as I posted from my PvP toon? :)
and Jorma, about this Raven - I really really hope you will bring it to PvP. Really. Oh no, Noemi. I've answered your whiney question more twice already.
No, I will not leave this thread once you post with your alleged pvp character. I will only lose that criticism of your flawed arguments. So do it. Take that ammo away from me. At least have that victory. But you will still have me calling you on your bullshit here in this thread.
edit - Jorma does not appear on my radar as a poster of bad arguments. So I don't care. I don't know why he doesn't post with a character that has a pvp record. If you care by all means continue to ask him or criticize him however you want. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 20:30:00 -
[4864] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING -º-º-º Caps lock, because I'm afraid you won't see it otherwise.
Esp. you showed numerous times you cant even read it when its in caps ...
Bouh Revetoile wrote: See : Condor is already here, and for winter, AT THE SAME TIME OF HML NERF, you will have a Kestrel, a new destroyer, and a Caracal. On top of that, ALL SHORT RANGE MISSILES ARE BUFFED -º-º-º-º
Condor is not medium or large hull, Kestrel is neither. The new destroyer is what everyone gets, we will see which is best and which is worst ... so - 3 of the 4 ships you name here are absolutely irrelevant for the issue all those people who are concerned about the change have.
The 4th hull you name is the Caracal. It has been pointed out before by OT Smithers how the Caldari missile cruiser fails to be on par with the Winmatar Bellicose. A cruiser which is not even meant to be primarily DPS ...
Bouh Revetoile wrote: The poor torp raven will finaly revive.
how so?
I see some facts here posted by you (frigs and destroyers) which are irrelevant. Mixed with some claims which are wrong (Torp Raven and Caracal). All in all you show again and again you dont have much idea of missile PvP. Show me how I am wrong please, for example by telling more about the Torp Raven revival .. |
Lili Lu
540
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 21:01:00 -
[4865] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Just a few things out of this ..
You seem to be the only one who is claiming Caldari dominate PvE atm. A Vargur and esp. a Machariel will wipe the floor in missions with every Caldari ship.
The Zealot numbers seem to show its mostly nullsec, but it wont matter much. CCP has made a decision, and they will see what they get :)
I sincerely doubt ANY of those guys who are by you and others called whiners here is interested in sticking with just one particular weapon system. Thats been my credo from the very start: give us variety, give us options. Heck, even nerf HML but in return for the love of god, give us WORKING HAMs, WORKING TORPs, WORKING CMs. Used in WORKING NHs, Cerbs, Ravens. And then I am sure not a single one of those who are opposing to the incoming nerf will seriously complain. I for sure wont.
But as long as projectile BS wipe the floor with missile BS I dont see why a Drake should not be able to be first of 4 in *its* domain. Change one ok, but change the others too. And not sometime later, but right now.
So yeah, backing up OT Smithers again. Is there one of you who thinks OT is wrong with what he said about the Moa in comparison to its peers, or the Caracal compared to the Bellicose (!!!!)? If so, bring facts please.
Vargurs and Macahariels are very good indeed. But I think you miss why. It has to do with the overdone buff to falloff on TE IIs. I have never thought it should have been so skewed. It should not be giving only a 15% optimal but a 30% falloff bonus. I think CCP should trim that back to 25% or 20% on falloff. A little tweak like that can do a lot to restore some balance on why people opt for ac. AC on so many ships that even have bonuses for something else.
Regardless, I would rather fly a missile ship against Sanshas (that may change in the future with TD changes) and I do, a cruise phoon.
Zealots are used also in lowsec. Pirate alliances love AHACs there. No bubbles and fleets sizes allow the AHACs to survive without getting volleyed by any turret or HM drake blobs. Again, you cannot ascribe all of the eve-kill stats to nullsec use. Nullsec use may have a dispropotionate representation on it's stats, but we don't know. Eve-kill is open to and is used by alliances and corporations throughout the eve universe. If eve-kill would break the top 20 down by sec status of where kills occur we might. But at this point I think most of us would just like an eve-kill that stays online.
Cruises work fine. As I said, when I can stomach missioning again, my favorite ship is the cruise phoon. Could they use a buff. Sure they could. I would love it. And so would people flying caldari ships that use them. But for the most part that will have to wait for BS rebalancing to start. In the meantime Ravenkind and Navy Scorps etc are hardly bad for pve.
For pvp the whole picture may change. Minmatar may end up with a missile BC and already has the phoon. Minmatar in general appears to be getting a line of missile boats. Hell they might even make the Tempest more like the phoon in that it could fit missiles and even a shield tank like the Raven. We don't know what the BS rebalance will bring.
As for your list of caldari ships you claim are broken. So what. Do you really think Caldari is the only race to have that? FFS look for Gallente ships on eve-kill. Is anyone thrilled with rail boats for pve? Where are beams in all this? Or drone boats in pvp? But that's just it. A game where everyone gravitates to a couple ships is not healthy. That is what we have had with Drakes and Tengus. Part of the reason for that was the HM imbalance. HM were simply so much better than other long range medium weapons as the OP and many following posts have shown.
Meanwhile Drakes could even use those HMs to compete with large short range weapons. They couldn't match, but they were good enough that people would and do fly drakes against BSs. The weapon system and the tank. The weapon system is being addressed now. The tank I suspect will be addressed later when they start work on the BC hull bonuses. The Drake may end up retaining its resist bonus. But it certainly might have a lower base hp for shield. Likewise All BCs may lose the skewed op shield regen time they currently have.
I guess my post to OT was a way of saying, believe me, I know about waiting years for a broken line of ships to get fixed. Amarr waited years in the toilet. So I have some empathy for having broken ships, but little sympathy. I doubt Caldari will have to wait for more than a year to get decent missile BSs. And anyway, the Rokh is already fleet worthy. So, Noemi, cry me a river. You've lived many years with some op'd stuff. If you are consinged to middling or worse for a short period, while hopefully we all end up with better balanced game, then that's quite fair.
edit- and you consistently ignore the buffs that are occuring to missiles along with this HM nerf. They are not negligible. And will be even more so with whatever TC/TE stats are introduced for missiles. So what if you will be potentially subject to TDs along with it. My bet is that TD will be made efficacious only on bonused ships. We will all be looking out for those then like we currently do for ecm boats. Welcome to the club. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
271
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 21:20:00 -
[4866] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: The 4th hull you name is the Caracal. It has been pointed out before by OT Smithers...
Whoa! Hold on there. I have never tried to claim that I am some kind of authority on anything. I have posted my opinion only, and it is no more or less valid than anyone else -- including the folks who disagree with me. I consider any day in which I am right more often than wrong a good day.
I BELIEVE -- my opinion only -- that the Caracal is not going to be as impressive as some folks are making it out to be. I have stated why. It's not terribly fast, it lacks a utility high slot, it lacks drones, and in most weapons configurations it's not even particularly tough. Nor is it really going to do great dps.
What it will do is, essentially, the same thing it can do today. It can lob low damage missiles a long way. If you wanted a twin web AML cruiser, there is no need to wait for this update -- you can fly that baby today, and fly it against unbuffed enemies. If you want an HML Caracal you can fly that today as well -- and fire un-nerfed missiles. So if you think the new Caracal will be great, there's no need to wait for your pwn-mobile, hop in the Caracal today and take it for a spin. Wrack up lots of kills with the beast.
Sure, it gets faster with this update, but everything else gets faster as well, and in some cases the boost is far greater than anything CCP has proposed for the Caracal. The Caracal will be able to fit more BCS's, obviously, but there again it will be shooting against targets that are tougher so it's essentially a wash.
The only real difference so far as I can tell is that it will finally be able to fit HAMs. That's a very nice change. Like I have said, I don't think it's going to be what some folks are claiming -- and the folks shouting the loudest about how awesome it will be aren't flying it now (no one is) so I don't know how seriously they should be taken.
Maybe they're right. Maybe not.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
104
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 21:22:00 -
[4867] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The 4th hull you name is the Caracal. It has been pointed out before by OT Smithers how the Caldari missile cruiser fails to be on par with the Winmatar Bellicose. A cruiser which is not even meant to be primarily DPS ... Bouh Revetoile wrote: The poor torp raven will finaly revive.
how so? I see some facts here posted by you (frigs and destroyers) which are irrelevant. Mixed with some claims which are wrong (Torp Raven and Caracal). All in all you show again and again you dont have much idea of missile PvP. Show me how I am wrong please, for example by telling more about the Torp Raven revival .. Ok, so lighter hull are irrelevant... When you speak about balance, you should explain what is your picture. I can assure you that light hull are pretty relevant pvp things.
But ok, let's go to cruisers and above : HAM. I shouldn't have anything more to say. Can you at least state what problems you see with HAM, torp and CM ?
Remember, a skill will apply to all short range missiles, and they will be able to use their T2 ammo without penalties to the ship. HAM fitting have been reduced too.
Now, about the Caracal and the Bellicose : First, this is not the thread to discuss them (go spam the other threads) ; second, Something not working is not a reason to not balance something OP ; third, the bellicose have one less launcher, same number of mid (-1 for the painter), and same number of mids, all it have over the caracal is speed, and it's not a large margin.
Torp now, with skill applyed, will have a better explosion radius, 360m. Even BC will be murdered, and cruisers with TP will suffer greatly. With long javelin torpedos, you will hit at 40km, pretty much like autocanons, but without falloff.
If that doesn't suit you, then explain why, instead of crying for HML. Fix what is broken, and stop defending what shouldn't be. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 21:34:00 -
[4868] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
Vargurs and Macahariels are very good indeed. But I think you miss why.
Trust me on this, I for sure DONT miss why :)
Lili Lu wrote: It has to do with the overdone buff to falloff on TE IIs. I have never thought it should have been so skewed. It should not be giving only a 15% optimal but a 30% falloff bonus. I think CCP should trim that back to 25% or 20% on falloff. A little tweak like that can do a lot to restore some balance on why people opt for ac. AC on so many ships that even have bonuses for something else..
True. Still that doesnt change anything about what I said. Machariels and Vargurs are way better in missions than any Caldari ship now, and the advantage will even be bigger than now after the HML nerf. So to claim Caldari are still the PvE race is just not true. Agreed on that or not?
Lili Lu wrote:
Regardless, I would rather fly a missile ship against Sanshas (that may change in the future with TD changes) and I do, a cruise phoon.
Sansha can be a bit of a PITA for turrets, yes.
Lili Lu wrote: Cruises work fine. As I said, when I can stomach missioning again, my favorite ship is the cruise phoon. Could they use some further buffing. Sure they might. I would love it. And so would people flying caldari ships that use them. But for the most part that will have to wait for BS rebalancing to start. In the meantime Ravenkind and Navy Scorps etc are hardly bad for pve.
They are not bad. But also not overwhelmingly good, and for sure not "king of PvE".
And in PvP they suck right now. They suck so much really no one uses them. Do you agree on that or not?
Do you furthermore agree on Torps being also subpar if not used on bombers? Yes or no?
Basically it comes down to this. If you will not see how bad any other medium or large missile system is right now for Caldari PvP then you cant understand why there are so many HML Drakes. OT Smithers basically brought it to the point, again and again.
Caldari missile PvP in large or medium hulls is not working except with HML Drake&Tengu. This should be adressed first, or in the same moment with a nerf to the thing which is working. Else you render it all useless.
And about HAM: right now HAMs are not on par with medium short range turrets. They may be on par after the patch, although I doubt it. Postpatch: the Caracal is not on par with the Bellicose in most aspects, and the Bellicose is not even meant to be a DPS ship. How can you consider this as balance??
Will you agree on the fact the new Moa is by far inferior to the new proposed Vexor and Rupture, yes or no? |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
399
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 21:36:00 -
[4869] - Quote
If you think the Bellicose is better than the Caracal, then you're literally facetarded. The Caracal's missile velocity bonus allows kiting HAM fits and lets AML fits effectively engage MWDing frigates. Then there's the small matter of 25% more raw DPS from the extra launcher... |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
125
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 22:36:00 -
[4870] - Quote
I keep seeing people saying that the Bellicose is superior to the Caracal. This MAY be the case as an anti-frigate platform. But a HAM Caracal will rip the Bellicose apart. Caracal is tougher, has better range, and more damage. Yes, the Bellicose is faster, but really it has to get in closer before it can deal damage thanks to it's lack of a missile velocity bonus if it so chooses to use HAMs. And when it does it's going to get pelted by nearly 500 raw DPS (with my skills), and if it gets too close, well... It'll be webbed and likely die. Both are going to be competent missile ships, and honestly I don't have any problems with the Bellicose being so strong in combat, because it reflects that Minmatar use both projectiles and missiles as weapons, and it kind of almost acts as an extension of the Breacher, but focused more on damage and actually applying it thanks to target painters. Yes, the Bellicose will be a competent missile cruiser, to the point that I'm honestly actually considering trying it, but it's not going to outclass the Caracal, in any way whatsoever; they perform different roles. Which is exactly as CCP intends. Furthermore, the Caracal doesn't really have to rely on drones; the Bellicose needs them for a significant chunk of it's DPS. 445 of my Caracal fit's ~481 DPS is missiles and missiles alone. And that's comparable to the total DPS that the Bellicose (also with my skills) deals out at a shorter range. |
|
Lili Lu
540
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 23:11:00 -
[4871] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Machariels and Vargurs are way better in missions than any Caldari ship now, and the advantage will even be bigger than now after the HML nerf. So to claim Caldari are still the PvE race is just not true. Agreed on that or not?
They are not bad. But also not overwhelmingly good, and for sure not "king of PvE".
And in PvP they suck right now. They suck so much really no one uses them. Do you agree on that or not?
Do you furthermore agree on Torps being also subpar if not used on bombers? Yes or no?
Basically it comes down to this. If you will not see how bad any other medium or large missile system is right now for Caldari PvP then you cant understand why there are so many HML Drakes. OT Smithers basically brought it to the point, again and again.
Caldari missile PvP in large or medium hulls is not working except with HML Drake&Tengu. This should be adressed first, or in the same moment with a nerf to the thing which is working. Else you render it all useless.
And about HAM: right now HAMs are not on par with medium short range turrets. They may be on par after the patch, although I doubt it. Postpatch: the Caracal is not on par with the Bellicose in most aspects, and the Bellicose is not even meant to be a DPS ship. How can you consider this as balance??
Will you agree on the fact the new Moa is by far inferior to the new proposed Vexor and Rupture, yes or no? But again, the machariel and vargur strength stops looking so much if TE falloff gets another look. I think I saw a deve comment that they were reconsidering it. Can't remember where it was though.
There should be no king of pve. At least not any one ship. But over the length of my time in eve Caldari as a race has been king of pve. It started with Ravens. Then went to tengus. Machariels and Vargurs only really entered that realm with the TE falloff buff.
Cruises are weak in pvp. For a long time though, as long as I was able to get away with it, I wnet out in sniper BS fleets in a cruise phoon. It had the range, and one just had to accept that some strategic switching to a secondary was needed, and even then it would not be near the top on killmails very often. Of course close range fits can pump out a lot of damage. And for those it would be torps. Torps are never meant to be a ranged weapon. Even on a range bonused ship torps, blasters, ac, and pulse should not be hitting reliably past 30km imo. That pulses can, is an artifact of the heavy use of tracking mods and rigs and ship bonuses creating that. And that can conflict with tank and damage. So if a future torp boat does that it should be due to TEs and rigs.
I don't understand how you keep missing that GMP skill will soon apply to rockets, HAMs, and Torps. That is an amazing buff. TBH I think it is another reason they delayed the TE changes for missiles. We really need to see what is going to happen with missiles and the new bonuses various ships will have to judge what percentages the new tracking mods should have for missiles. The potential for op'd torps etc is very possible. Some things in eve have a very narrow tolerance range between worthless and op. It is a wonderfully complex game in that regard.
Both the new Bellicose and Caracal are excellent examples of the brave new world we will be entering with the new missile changes. Both these ships could turn out to be very powerful. Missiles are definitely one of those things in eve that have that narrow band of tolerance between worthless and op. And I can't yet perceive either as miles better than the other.
As for the Moa, I'll just link this post, https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2056913#post2056913 and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1995793#post1995793 . Fozzie posted that the fittings on support cruisers will be getting a change due to a blog post showing how the Scythe would end up so much better to field than a Scimitar. So they are reading all these threads. The was already an adjustment to the original op in this thread. But don't get your hopes up that continued complaining will induce another set of changes. The current iteration is probably what will go to the test server. And then it might get altered after testing there.
This points up something I am glad to see. They appear quite aware to adjust a buff downward if someone can show how the numbers will make the buff op. That is a very good thing. Underpowered ships can just be not flown and thus have much less of a negative effect on the game. OP ships, brought about by buffs, can severly and adversely affect the game. The old Dramiels, the present 100mn Tengus, the old snipe range Falcons. Things like these break games. Underpowered ships are much easier to buff up later. OP ships get a bunch of players gravitating into them and enjoying their use. And thus they get a huge and vocal lobbying contingent. It becomes much harder for CCP to then nerf them. Another example, witness this 244 page thread. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
43
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 23:58:00 -
[4872] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:ccp doesnt have the balls to nerf missiles.an if they do,they will be ones to suffer because of mass unsubscribing,riots just like when cq replaced ship spinning hangar.
Recoil IV wrote:Dalto Bane wrote:Well CCP, I have about 25 drake hulls and around 100 or so HML and HAM T2 mods that you need to reimburse me for, since the drake will be utterly useless in any capacity. i will also ask for skill point reimbursement (caldari spaceshit command and missiles)
its hard to remain civil when faced with this kind of ignorance. every bone in ur body screams at u to troll them all the way to their mums.
but just for u Fozzie,
Recoil and Bane, if u didnt rely on using the HML's for everything u do then this nerf wouldn't be hitting u so hard. relying on a single OP'd weapons system was foolish from the beginning because the nerf was going to come eventually. its ur own fault for thinking u could get everything in a single weapon system for a minimal amount of SP's and foolish for believing it would last forever.
However, if u do decide to quit, feel free to donate to me anything (or everything) that doesn't get reimbursed (lol). and when u log off for the last time, watch u dnt get hit by a metaphorical door on the way out. |
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 03:13:00 -
[4873] - Quote
My concern is pretty straightforward. So please hear me out!
Drakes and Caldari ships as a general rule are the worst PvP ships as is. Wouldn't this make an already terrible PvP ship (Drake) even worse? That said, the drake's only big advantage is PvE. These changes to damage will take even that away.
My suggestion is to change it so that the HMs only do maximum damage after reaching a certan distance (30km). That way they can be kept as long-range (for a cruiser) and respectable dps. Furthermore, within the short-range block, the HAML will have the advantage.
I personally found the flight time of the HMs to be annoying at range. Also, that my quoted range and actual were two different. For example, if it said I could hit within 58 km it wouldn't be till ~48 km till anything useful. Will that still be the case and if so, that needs to be fixed or investigated. Especially, if the range of the HMs is being nerfed.
Thanks for your time and attention! |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
283
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 03:38:00 -
[4874] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:You seem to be the only one who is claiming Caldari dominate PvE atm. A Vargur and esp. a Machariel will wipe the floor in missions with every Caldari ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj6xTEFUs0sFeel free to show Legion, Loki or Proteus doing same.
I don't know about the Legion and Proteus, but the Loki blows through level 4's e4ffortlessly. I did some a couple weeks ago just to see if they were as horrible as I remember (they were) and I used a Loki. It was, to put it mildly, unreal. If you care, message me tomorrow and I will send you the fit I used. It's probably not ideal (I only did maybe ten or so missions) but it worked for me. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
133
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 03:53:00 -
[4875] - Quote
Ok will you please come with some new points or just shut the hell up.. Both sides.
its been a hundred pages since something new was said in here, now you're just endlessly going in circles.. |
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 05:42:00 -
[4876] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Recoil IV wrote:ccp doesnt have the balls to nerf missiles.an if they do,they will be ones to suffer because of mass unsubscribing,riots just like when cq replaced ship spinning hangar. Recoil IV wrote:Dalto Bane wrote:Well CCP, I have about 25 drake hulls and around 100 or so HML and HAM T2 mods that you need to reimburse me for, since the drake will be utterly useless in any capacity. i will also ask for skill point reimbursement (caldari spaceshit command and missiles) its hard to remain civil when faced with this kind of ignorance. every bone in ur body screams at u to troll them all the way to their mums. but just for u Fozzie, Recoil and Bane, if u didnt rely on using the HML's for everything u do then this nerf wouldn't be hitting u so hard. relying on a single OP'd weapons system was foolish from the beginning because the nerf was going to come eventually. its ur own fault for thinking u could get everything in a single weapon system for a minimal amount of SP's and foolish for believing it would last forever. However, if u do decide to quit, feel free to donate to me anything (or everything) that doesn't get reimbursed (lol). and when u log off for the last time, watch u dnt get hit by a metaphorical door on the way out.
you just assuming were noobs,and you should feel bad about yourself. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
201
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 07:50:00 -
[4877] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lili Lu wrote: It has to do with the overdone buff to falloff on TE IIs. I have never thought it should have been so skewed. It should not be giving only a 15% optimal but a 30% falloff bonus. I think CCP should trim that back to 25% or 20% on falloff. A little tweak like that can do a lot to restore some balance on why people opt for ac. AC on so many ships that even have bonuses for something else..
True. Still that doesnt change anything about what I said. Machariels and Vargurs are way better in missions than any Caldari ship now, and the advantage will even be bigger than now after the HML nerf. So to claim Caldari are still the PvE race is just not true. Agreed on that or not?
For blitzing too? If you only care about isk/hr you're going to blitz missions. Tengu is best for the job. And why should BC (Drake) be able to do missions designed for BSs (L4s)?
OT Smithers wrote:I don't know about the Legion and Proteus, but the Loki blows through level 4's e4ffortlessly. I did some a couple weeks ago just to see if they were as horrible as I remember (they were) and I used a Loki. It was, to put it mildly, unreal. If you care, message me tomorrow and I will send you the fit I used. It's probably not ideal (I only did maybe ten or so missions) but it worked for me.
Problem is: Tengu has range and dps Loki has tank and dps Legion lacks range, dps and tank Proetus lacks range and dps
I'd still pick any BS for the job though. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
44
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 12:49:00 -
[4878] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:
you just assuming were noobs,and you should feel bad about yourself.
no, i'm assuming ur eve life revolves around HML's and u think everybody's life revolves around HML's. the only reason the two of u committed so much of ur time and SP's to HML's and the ships that they are most frequent attached to is because they could give u so much flexibility and power with a reletively small SP investment.
the mere fact that ppl are saying their eve life is over because of this nerf says to me that alot of ppl trained into this weapon and nothing more so that they, like u, could get everything in one weapon system. thats not balance.
i realise a lot of ppl use HML's because they are damn useful as they are. but the vast majority of players are mature enough to see that they were too good and are prepared to suffer the nerf or move onto other weapon systems.
once HML's are nerfed there will not be a protest like there was after incarna |
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 13:45:00 -
[4879] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Recoil IV wrote:
you just assuming were noobs,and you should feel bad about yourself.
no, i'm assuming ur eve life revolves around HML's and u think everybody's life revolves around HML's. the only reason the two of u committed so much of ur time and SP's to HML's and the ships that they are most frequent attached to is because they could give u so much flexibility and power with a reletively small SP investment. the mere fact that ppl are saying their eve life is over because of this nerf says to me that alot of ppl trained into this weapon and nothing more so that they, like u, could get everything in one weapon system. thats not balance. i realise a lot of ppl use HML's because they are damn useful as they are. but the vast majority of players are mature enough to see that they were too good and are prepared to suffer the nerf or move onto other weapon systems. once HML's are nerfed there will not be a protest like there was after incarna
no it does not revolve around hml.and another true story : ccp actualy is forcing people into training various stuff some by nerfing them aswell becauseb by doing so they are also forcing people to have their account active more active.for example,me going inactive and having hm trained to maximum and right now being a fairly good weapon system.when i come back i find out i have to train another suitable weapon system thus forcing to have your account active at all time.i`m not saying you cant go inactive,you can.but its my opionion.also the removal of ghost training proved that ccp wants you to pay the subscription in order to keep skilling.wich in my opionion is not really fair either.i may be wrong but i dont really care.its my opinion and i`m sticking to it.
also you`re wrong.there will be a lot of protesting and mass unsubscribing. |
Yoshite McLulzypants
People called Romanes they go the house
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 14:28:00 -
[4880] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Short Range Missiles Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles
Don't forget crash boosters when making this fix . |
|
Lili Lu
544
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 14:57:00 -
[4881] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote: no it does not revolve around hml.and another true story : ccp actualy is forcing people into training various stuff some by nerfing them aswell becauseb by doing so they are also forcing people to have their account active more active.for example,me going inactive and having hm trained to maximum and right now being a fairly good weapon system.when i come back i find out i have to train another suitable weapon system thus forcing to have your account active at all time.i`m not saying you cant go inactive,you can.but its my opionion.also the removal of ghost training proved that ccp wants you to pay the subscription in order to keep skilling.wich in my opionion is not really fair either.i may be wrong but i dont really care.its my opinion and i`m sticking to it.
also you`re wrong.there will be a lot of protesting and mass unsubscribing.
No there won't be mass unsubscribing. There has not been mass unsubscribing with any previous rebalancing/nerfing. There has been mass complaining on the forums. And it will happen again because there are many like you who thought a game should be easy enough to hear about or figure out which weapon system is op and allows you to run about everything in the game, then train just that weapon system. This change restores balance such that there will no longer be any one weapon system that allows anyone to do about everything in the game. People will just train other missile skills to compensate after they whine. Or they will finally understand the wisdom of having both gunnery and missile skills.
As for ghost training, having had ghost training was the dumbest business move CCP ever made (well, except for that proposed and thankfully abandoned, game change which did create mass unsubscribing, the F2P P2W fiasco). It's very simple, you have to pay to have your character improve. Most games do that through requiring play time and repetitive grinding of in-game actions. Improvement in eve though is tied to time. Thus the improvment had to be tied to subscription in order for the company to make money. The elimination of ghost training was the single best business move I've seen since I've been playing here from 2006.
It really is no big deal that you may now have to train Cruise spec, or HAM spec, etc to continue to do what you currently do only with HM spec. Missile specs are much easier to train than the gunnery trees. And all the support missile skills you have already trained for HMs already are or will now become transferrable to all the other missile specs. The addition of GMP to affecting all missiles is a huge buff to rockets, HAMs, and torps. That alone is going to shake up things quite unpredictably and however it does shake out it is an accross the board buff for missile use. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1930
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 15:23:00 -
[4882] - Quote
Yoshite McLulzypants wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Short Range Missiles Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles
Don't forget crash boosters when making this fix .
Crash has always affected the short range missiles. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 15:34:00 -
[4883] - Quote
Missile specs are much easier to train than the gunnery trees. And all the support missile skills you have already trained for HMs already are or will now become transferrable to all the other missile specs. The addition of GMP to affecting all missiles is a huge buff to rocketstorps.
Umm...does this girl understand what she's talking about?
No...really...talking bout GMP as a buff, because it will affect rage rockets with 30m explosion signature...
And this -25% won't help torps a lot. It barely solves one problem, but there is 2 more: exp velo and speed. So torps will be such useless as they are now.
Oh and there is one main skill and one special to every type of weapon, turrets or missiles. Even multipliers are same...
|
Lili Lu
544
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 15:54:00 -
[4884] - Quote
Apteko wrote:Quote:Missile specs are much easier to train than the gunnery trees. And all the support missile skills you have already trained for HMs already are or will now become transferrable to all the other missile specs. The addition of GMP to affecting all missiles is a huge buff to rockets ... torps. Umm...does this girl understand what she's talking about? No...really...talking bout GMP as a buff, because it will affect rage rockets with 30m explosion signature... And this -25% won't help torps a lot. It barely solves one problem, but there is 2 more: exp velo and speed. So torps will be such useless as they are now. Oh and there is one main skill and one special to every type of weapon, turrets or missiles. Even multipliers are same... Ah yes whiney boy, CCP surely owes you a new weapon system to do everything since they are so unfairly taking away the existing weapon system that allowed you to do everything.
The buffs should have to solve all your problems. Then you can just change over to the new easy paradigm and not have to think. All games should be easy. That's what makes them fun. Why can't CCP see this?
|
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 16:07:00 -
[4885] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:[quote=Apteko] Quote:[b] Oh and there is one main skill and one special to every type of weapon, turrets or missiles. Even multipliers are same... Ah yes whiney boy, CCP surely owes you a new weapon system to do everything since they are so unfairly taking away the existing weapon system that allowed you to do everything. The buffs should have to solve all your problems. Then you can just change over to the new easy paradigm and not have to think. All games should be easy. That's what makes them fun. Why can't CCP see this?
Boo!
Such a pure lose, since you can't say anything about your fail in previous post. :( not even challenging.
Stable dmg is not always advantage... ability to hit frigsize for 200 dmg all the way sometimes is much worse, than chance to instakill it, while it is 30km away and moving straight forward...
And this poor torps, flying slower than enemy ships...^) |
Lili Lu
544
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 16:19:00 -
[4886] - Quote
Apteko wrote: Boo!
Such a pure lose, since you can't say anything about your fail in previous post. :( not even challenging.
Stable dmg is not always advantage... ability to hit frigsize for 200 dmg all the way sometimes is much worse, than chance to instakill it, while it is 30km away and moving straight forward...
And this poor torps, flying slower than enemy ships...^) I know, I'm so wrong. I mean where are the mods to help out these new still underperforming missiles like something to increase the signature radius of a target or to slow it down? And why couldn't they even give these abilities to drones so I can still feel safe and not have to sacrifice any tanking slots? Why can't any of those things help me kill everytihing and anything with the weapons in my high slots? Why is this game so hard and inflexible? And here they are giving a buff and it's still not enough because I don't see how I could ever win at this game. I just want to have my screen show some balloons falling and sparkles going off and say "you win". |
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 16:38:00 -
[4887] - Quote
Quote:I know, I'm so wrong
That was enough. no need in all this strange sentences. you wrote...
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
374
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 16:47:00 -
[4888] - Quote
Apteko wrote:Quote:Missile specs are much easier to train than the gunnery trees. And all the support missile skills you have already trained for HMs already are or will now become transferrable to all the other missile specs. The addition of GMP to affecting all missiles is a huge buff to rockets ... torps. [...] Oh and there is one main skill and one special to every type of weapon, turrets or missiles. Even multipliers are same... Large laser spec requires small and medium spec IV, which require small and medium lasers V, a support skill to V and gunnery to V.
Torpedo spec only requires torpedo V (light missile III, heavy missile III) and missile launcher operation IV.
The difference is 50 days or so. Cruiser sized missile specs are also easier to train for than gun specs. |
Lili Lu
544
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 16:50:00 -
[4889] - Quote
Apteko wrote:Quote:I know, I'm so wrong That was enough. no need in all this strange sentences. you wrote.. Yeah, I guess there's no sarcasm in your language. Or at least not in your little world. Again, things should be easy to figure out. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
202
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 16:55:00 -
[4890] - Quote
[quote=Apteko]Quote:Oh and there is one main skill and one special to every type of weapon, turrets or missiles. Even multipliers are same...
What Lili means is the fact that to use T2 HMLs you don't have to train T2 light missiles first. Or to use T2 torps you don't have to train first T2 rockets and T2 HAMs.
With guns it's a different story: To use T2 large autocannons you have to train T2 small autocannons and T2 medium autocannons. To use T2 large artillery you have to train T2 small artillery and T2 medium artillery. |
|
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:07:00 -
[4891] - Quote
Quote:With guns it's a different story: To use T2 large autocannons you have to train T2 small autocannons and T2 medium autocannons. To use T2 large artillery you have to train T2 small artillery and T2 medium artillery.
Yeah.
It's done, cuz there is just a few ships using torps as main wep, ofc.
Else it will be just waste of skillpoints. There is nothing "imbalance" or even "good" in it: you gain less variety of ships for less points spend.
And skills, that have any influence on your weapon system effectiveness, are totally the same. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:15:00 -
[4892] - Quote
Apteko wrote:Quote:With guns it's a different story: To use T2 large autocannons you have to train T2 small autocannons and T2 medium autocannons. To use T2 large artillery you have to train T2 small artillery and T2 medium artillery. Yeah. It's done, cuz there is just a few ships using torps as main wep, ofc. Else it will be just waste of skillpoints. There is nothing "imbalance" or even "good" in it: you gain less variety of ships for less points spend. And skills, that have any influence on your weapon system effectiveness, are totally the same.
Torps can be used on Stealth bombs, Battleships. so 4 SB plus Typhoon, Widow, Raven, Scorp NI, Rattlesnake so That is 11 Ships right there so how is this just a few? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:15:00 -
[4893] - Quote
.. and all those missile support skills have no use for anything else. And:
RoF and damage bonus skills have both 1% more per level for gunnery in comparison to RoF and damage bonus skills for missiles. Why? This sums to a 5% bigger RoF and 5% bigger damage bonus for turrets over missiles on all l5 ... change that ASAP. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:18:00 -
[4894] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Apteko wrote:Quote:With guns it's a different story: To use T2 large autocannons you have to train T2 small autocannons and T2 medium autocannons. To use T2 large artillery you have to train T2 small artillery and T2 medium artillery. Yeah. It's done, cuz there is just a few ships using torps as main wep, ofc. Else it will be just waste of skillpoints. There is nothing "imbalance" or even "good" in it: you gain less variety of ships for less points spend. And skills, that have any influence on your weapon system effectiveness, are totally the same. Torps can be used on Stealth bombs, Battleships. so 4 SB plus Typhoon, Widow, Raven, Scorp NI, Rattlesnake so That is 11 Ships right there so how is this just a few?
The SBs use torps, indeed. Most of them dont seem to use t2 launchers though, according to eve-kill .. And the Phoon is in this list the only really viable PvP combat BS. Its not Caldari, ofc ... Scorp is not there for its Torps, nor is Widow.
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
399
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:20:00 -
[4895] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:.. and all those missile support skills have no use for anything else. And:
RoF and damage bonus skills have both 1% more per level for gunnery in comparison to RoF and damage bonus skills for missiles. Why? This sums to a 5% bigger RoF and 5% bigger damage bonus for turrets over missiles on all l5 ... change that ASAP.
You misunderstand. This is a good thing for missile users and young characters in particular, as it means that missiles are relatively better at lower skill level, since the deviation from the magnitude of the bonuses at skills-at-V is less, relative to turrets.
Hope this helps! |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:20:00 -
[4896] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:MIrple wrote:Apteko wrote:Quote:With guns it's a different story: To use T2 large autocannons you have to train T2 small autocannons and T2 medium autocannons. To use T2 large artillery you have to train T2 small artillery and T2 medium artillery. Yeah. It's done, cuz there is just a few ships using torps as main wep, ofc. Else it will be just waste of skillpoints. There is nothing "imbalance" or even "good" in it: you gain less variety of ships for less points spend. And skills, that have any influence on your weapon system effectiveness, are totally the same. Torps can be used on Stealth bombs, Battleships. so 4 SB plus Typhoon, Widow, Raven, Scorp NI, Rattlesnake so That is 11 Ships right there so how is this just a few? The SBs use torps, indeed. Most of them dont seem to use t2 launchers though, according to eve-kill .. And the Phoon is in this list the only really viable PvP combat BS. Its not Caldari, ofc ... Scorp is not there for its Torps, nor is Widow.
I didnt put Scorp on the list be you could add that as well as I only posted the CN Scorp. While I agree they are not there to use these they are still there main weapon system as they do have a bonus to them. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:21:00 -
[4897] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:MIrple wrote:Apteko wrote:Quote:With guns it's a different story: To use T2 large autocannons you have to train T2 small autocannons and T2 medium autocannons. To use T2 large artillery you have to train T2 small artillery and T2 medium artillery. Yeah. It's done, cuz there is just a few ships using torps as main wep, ofc. Else it will be just waste of skillpoints. There is nothing "imbalance" or even "good" in it: you gain less variety of ships for less points spend. And skills, that have any influence on your weapon system effectiveness, are totally the same. Torps can be used on Stealth bombs, Battleships. so 4 SB plus Typhoon, Widow, Raven, Scorp NI, Rattlesnake so That is 11 Ships right there so how is this just a few? The SBs use torps, indeed. Most of them dont seem to use t2 launchers though, according to eve-kill .. And the Phoon is in this list the only really viable PvP combat BS. Its not Caldari, ofc ... Scorp is not there for its Torps, nor is Widow.
SB's don't have enough cpu for T2 torps beside some manticore fits really depends what you sacrifice
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:23:00 -
[4898] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:MIrple wrote:Apteko wrote:Quote:With guns it's a different story: To use T2 large autocannons you have to train T2 small autocannons and T2 medium autocannons. To use T2 large artillery you have to train T2 small artillery and T2 medium artillery. Yeah. It's done, cuz there is just a few ships using torps as main wep, ofc. Else it will be just waste of skillpoints. There is nothing "imbalance" or even "good" in it: you gain less variety of ships for less points spend. And skills, that have any influence on your weapon system effectiveness, are totally the same. Torps can be used on Stealth bombs, Battleships. so 4 SB plus Typhoon, Widow, Raven, Scorp NI, Rattlesnake so That is 11 Ships right there so how is this just a few? The SBs use torps, indeed. Most of them dont seem to use t2 launchers though, according to eve-kill .. And the Phoon is in this list the only really viable PvP combat BS. Its not Caldari, ofc ... Scorp is not there for its Torps, nor is Widow. SB's don't have enough cpu for T2 torps beside some manticore fits really depends what you sacrifice
While I agree with the fact that SB are limited on their CPU they still fit torp launchers and I was responding to someone who stated that torps are not used on many ships.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:29:00 -
[4899] - Quote
yes well phoon is getting revamped as full torp boat maybe with TP. I still don't see why scorp is ecm and has to be ecm boat surely a battleship should be all about dps and tank would be nice if they made it a proper torp boat like the navy version |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
106
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 17:50:00 -
[4900] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The SBs use torps, indeed. Most of them dont seem to use t2 launchers though, according to eve-kill .. And the Phoon is in this list the only really viable PvP combat BS. Its not Caldari, ofc ... Scorp is not there for its Torps, nor is Widow.
Start by telling us what you want. You are always moving the point, each time we say something, you say no, there is more. The most hilarious is this "not caldari BS" ****. What do you want ? We already told you torp will be buffed, so the raven might be pvp compliant, as will be the golem, and the drake, and the caracal. They you say "I doubt it", but the truth is you don't know, but they very well may be very good.
You are ignoring all the answers to your problems. |
|
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:33:00 -
[4901] - Quote
why exactly are you nerfing missiles again? they`re never the top damagers anywhere nor good for intercepting stuff.. actually missiles except torps have the lowest dps and take ages to reach the targets unless they`re pointblank .. yet u`re nerfing the range.. nerfing the dps and ******* up explosion radius.. thus making missiles obsolete.. while in previous patches u were buffing the guns.. logic in that? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:35:00 -
[4902] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The SBs use torps, indeed. Most of them dont seem to use t2 launchers though, according to eve-kill .. And the Phoon is in this list the only really viable PvP combat BS. Its not Caldari, ofc ... Scorp is not there for its Torps, nor is Widow.
Start by telling us what you want. You are always moving the point, each time we say something, you say no, there is more. The most hilarious is this "not caldari BS" ****. What do you want ? We already told you torp will be buffed, so the raven might be pvp compliant, as will be the golem, and the drake, and the caracal. They you say "I doubt it", but the truth is you don't know, but they very well may be very good. You are ignoring all the answers to your problems.
No, this is simply wrong. You deny to accept my answers, points and reasons. Same I do with yours though, so no one can really blame the other there. I simply dont see a reason any more to argue with *you* as a person. Which does not mean I will leave your in my opinion wrong points uncommented :) but talking with you about this all really is pointless.
What I can do apart from that is to point out *your* char seems to have little or no first hand experience with those missile systems. You seem to be gallente only, and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships which play a big role in PvP ;) .. and the only torp ship is the SB, naturally. So I think you dont have any clue about that at all. You never used a HML ship in PvP nor a HAM ship, nor did you see how very sucky Cruises and Torps perform in PvP, or in PvE compared to the current OP ships... so yes, your opinion as being on the receiving end of missile PvP is not of any relevance for me. I would for sure much more listen to what you say if you talk about balancing of Gallente ships.
But back to Cruises and Torps, and also to HAMs, they all perform very bad, and that might be better with the next patch, most probably they wont work better though. What can be said for sure is, that the one and only PvP medium or large size missile system which works *right now* will be worse after the patch. And I dont see any other large or medium missile system taking a good (=top/on par with top) place after this patch.
I hope I am wrong. I am pretty sure I am not.
Best regards.
PS: That what you call "the most hilarious" shows exactly how poor your understanding of this all is: nerfing a working PvP missile system is in the first place a CALDARI nerf, because they are the ones with missiles as their signature weapon. Winmatar have some missiles too, as do other races, but they dont rely on them. Caldari do. Others pointed out before why so many Caldari pilots did NOT train for hybrids (they sucked a lot too, for a long time) and rather went to train Amarr/Lasers or Winmatar/Projectile when they realised how poor most missile systems and ships were doing in PvP. Those Caldari who stuck with missiles and their race used Drakes. Or Tengus. Nothing else really worked. So no, giving Winmatar a working Torp-BS after this patch will not help with this issue :) |
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:43:00 -
[4903] - Quote
i`m pretty sure that the winter`s in full force back at their HQ.. it froze those last bitsa of common sense they had long ago off.. cause right now.. they`re just killing one of the 4 playable factions in this game.. and expect people to actually love it? cccp... please.. be so kind.. get some oxygen masks and hot very sweet tea.. `cause currently u make no f sense whatsoever.. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
203
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:45:00 -
[4904] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships
That you do indeed.
Lachesis - Gallente T2 cruiser, combat recon |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:51:00 -
[4905] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships That you do indeed. Lachesis - Gallente T2 cruiser, combat recon
You should 1) learn to quote, 2) post your combat alt, 3) show how the Lachesis is of any significance for this matter here. I really hope you dont come back before you did that all.
for 1) a little helper:
Noemi Nagano wrote: and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships which play a big role in PvP ;)
and yes, that was edited. But way before you posted .. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:53:00 -
[4906] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships That you do indeed. Lachesis - Gallente T2 cruiser, combat recon
You might as well argue politics or religion with Niom she has dug her feet in and no matter what points you provide she will not budge from her sky is falling soap box stance. Rockets, HAMS and Torp are getting buffed after the patch that is plain as day as a whole skill will now apply to them. How she will not admit that this will help them I don't know. Just talk to the others in this thread that have a good head about them. All will be fine |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:56:00 -
[4907] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships That you do indeed. Lachesis - Gallente T2 cruiser, combat recon You should 1) learn to quote, 2) post your combat alt, 3) show how the Lachesis is of any significance for this matter here. I really hope you dont come back before you did that all. for 1) a little helper: Noemi Nagano wrote: and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships which play a big role in PvP ;)
and yes, that was edited. But way before you posted ..
Please post your combat alt as well as Eve Kill does not have any stats on you |
Lili Lu
545
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 18:59:00 -
[4908] - Quote
But Noemi, what exactly is your definition of "working"? No turret in the game can be used universally to kill any size ship at any distance within it's max range. That is what people were doing or at least trying to do with HMs, especially in pve.
Turret users quickly get used to knowing that their guns won't be able to do this mo matter what size, range, or tracking they have. They know they have to rely on neuts, drones, smartbombs, or some ew to try to fill in gaps and even then there will be some situations where they are without a counter.
Meanwhile I think HM users got spoiled. If it's a big ship hit it with Fury. If it's a small ship hit it with precision. And when neither of those are doing enough then try faction HMs. It seems from many posts I read on S&M too many people complain about their missiles not doing enough damage to small or fast targets, and forget they have a dronebay which is for that. Or forget they can fit a neut in a high (and that almost always demands some fitting adjustments usually for grid no matter what the ship, except for ac hurricanes which is being addressed in the op, lol). Or forget they could fit a smarty if they concerned about drone attacks. Or maybe I should fit a web or TD or such in a mid that will aide the ability of my missiles to hit something they can't take out very fast or at least keep the target from doing much harm to me.
Working is relative term. If the definition of working for you is to have something operate like HMs have been, forget it. That won't happen, or at least shouldn't happen again in the game. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:07:00 -
[4909] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships That you do indeed. Lachesis - Gallente T2 cruiser, combat recon You should 1) learn to quote, 2) post your combat alt, 3) show how the Lachesis is of any significance for this matter here. I really hope you dont come back before you did that all. for 1) a little helper: Noemi Nagano wrote: and I fail to see the gallente Cruise Missile, Heavy Missile and HAM ships which play a big role in PvP ;)
and yes, that was edited. But way before you posted .. Please post your combat alt as well as Eve Kill does not have any stats on you
I did way before in this thread. I wont do all the work for you if you join late and dont do the job :) I posted one, although that one was more of a Winmatar toon. I already mentioned I am not personally affected by this missile thing, my other toon which I used for a while in lowsec PvP with mostly Drakes is inactive, found Winmatar to be much more fun. I can just switch. Still this is not good for a game IMO, if balance is one OP race and all others have to see what they can do .. and a signature weapon system like missiles should be represented in PvP. Atm it is, due to HML in Drakes. I feel like this will change, and I dont see it will for the better.
Btw, I never said GMP applying to Torps, HAMs and Rockets is bad. I said they will IMO need more than that to actually perform well in the ships Caldari have. Besides some soft stats received a NERF in those plans, for example explosion velo and radius and range ... you should study the spreadsheet and understand what those numbers mean.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:14:00 -
[4910] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Please post your combat alt as well as Eve Kill does not have any stats on you
This is her main. http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17718520
And talking about "Winmatar" superiority... Someone got schooled by Blue Republic.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Btw, I never said GMP applying to Torps, HAMs and Rockets is bad. I said they will IMO need more than that to actually perform well in the ships Caldari have.
I think there was some talk about TE/TC (or whatever they would be called after the change of stats) affecting missiles, but for some reason they postponed that change... I wonder why... |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:17:00 -
[4911] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I did way before in this thread. I wont do all the work for you if you join late and dont do the job :) I posted one, although that one was more of a Winmatar toon. I already mentioned I am not personally affected by this missile thing, my other toon which I used for a while in lowsec PvP with mostly Drakes is inactive, found Winmatar to be much more fun. I can just switch. Still this is not good for a game IMO, if balance is one OP race and all others have to see what they can do .. and a signature weapon system like missiles should be represented in PvP. Atm it is, due to HML in Drakes. I feel like this will change, and I dont see it will for the better.
Btw, I never said GMP applying to Torps, HAMs and Rockets is bad. I said they will IMO need more than that to actually perform well in the ships Caldari have. Besides some soft stats received a NERF in those plans, for example explosion velo and radius and range ... you should study the spreadsheet and understand what those numbers mean.
Please don't insult me I does nothing for making your case it only makes you look little and petty. I have looked at the numbers. Yet the Rage are getting a change to Exp radius and velocity. Sorry I have not read every post in this thread I have read most of it though.
When the changes hit the test server we can take a look at how these changes will effect the game as that will be the best data not spreadsheets. If you have read this whole thread naught you would have seen countless people debunk the EFT warriors.
So please be civil in her and wait for the changes to hit SISI |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:17:00 -
[4912] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:But Noemi, what exactly is your definition of "working"? No turret in the game can be used universally to kill any size ship at any distance within it's max range. That is what people were doing or at least trying to do with HMs, especially in pve.
Turret users quickly get used to knowing that their guns won't be able to do this mo matter what size, range, or tracking they have. They know they have to rely on neuts, drones, smartbombs, or some ew to try to fill in gaps and even then there will be some situations where they are without a counter.
Meanwhile I think HM users got spoiled. If it's a big ship hit it with Fury. If it's a small ship hit it with precision. And when neither of those are doing enough then try faction HMs. It seems from many posts I read on S&M too many people complain about their missiles not doing enough damage to small or fast targets, and forget they have a dronebay which is for that. Or forget they can fit a neut in a high (and that almost always demands some fitting adjustments usually for grid no matter what the ship, except for ac hurricanes which is being addressed in the op, lol). Or forget they could fit a smarty if they concerned about drone attacks. Or maybe I should fit a web or TD or such in a mid that will aide the ability of my missiles to hit something they can't take out very fast or at least keep the target from doing much harm to me.
Working is relative term. If the definition of working for you is to have something operate like HMs have been, forget it. That won't happen, or at least shouldn't happen again in the game.
I said that before, but will repeat again.
Is, in your opinion, using HAMs, Torps (in BS) and Cruises atm a viable way if you want to be competitive in PvP?
If you answer with yes (which I really doubt you will), then please name which ships, fittings and environments you have in mind. We could go into detail there then. And I am pretty sure it will be easy to find gunnery ships, which will do the job much better, and apart from that also do other jobs.
With "working" I mean "being competitive, if you chose to fit this system". Nothing more, but also nothing less. It has been pointed out before (and numerous times!) how the Drake can hardly be gamebreaking OP, because else everyone in lowsec would fly it (which is not happening). The HML/Drake is working in a role. And, agreed, no other medium gunnery ship is as good as the Drake in this role. But - there are tons of roles in this game, and looking just at medium and large ships and leaving ECM out I see no Caldari missile ship as top in any of them. Caldari rule with ECM, they are good in frigfights nowadays (was different for very long) and they dont completely suck in PvE, although others are better for quite a while now. And they have the Drake for medium/long range battles. Thats it for those who want to use missiles and Caldari. Dont you see the difference to other races yourself? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:21:00 -
[4913] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
I did way before in this thread. I wont do all the work for you if you join late and dont do the job :) I posted one, although that one was more of a Winmatar toon. I already mentioned I am not personally affected by this missile thing, my other toon which I used for a while in lowsec PvP with mostly Drakes is inactive, found Winmatar to be much more fun. I can just switch. Still this is not good for a game IMO, if balance is one OP race and all others have to see what they can do .. and a signature weapon system like missiles should be represented in PvP. Atm it is, due to HML in Drakes. I feel like this will change, and I dont see it will for the better.
Btw, I never said GMP applying to Torps, HAMs and Rockets is bad. I said they will IMO need more than that to actually perform well in the ships Caldari have. Besides some soft stats received a NERF in those plans, for example explosion velo and radius and range ... you should study the spreadsheet and understand what those numbers mean.
Please don't insult me I does nothing for making your case it only makes you look little and petty. I have looked at the numbers. Yet the Rage are getting a change to Exp radius and velocity. Sorry I have not read every post in this thread I have read most of it though. When the changes hit the test server we can take a look at how these changes will effect the game as that will be the best data not spreadsheets. If you have read this whole thread naught you would have seen countless people debunk the EFT warriors. So please be civil in her and wait for the changes to hit SISI
I really dont see how I insulted you with my posting! So you should maybe point out my so called insult ..
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:22:00 -
[4914] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Lili Lu wrote:But Noemi, what exactly is your definition of "working"? No turret in the game can be used universally to kill any size ship at any distance within it's max range. That is what people were doing or at least trying to do with HMs, especially in pve.
Turret users quickly get used to knowing that their guns won't be able to do this mo matter what size, range, or tracking they have. They know they have to rely on neuts, drones, smartbombs, or some ew to try to fill in gaps and even then there will be some situations where they are without a counter.
Meanwhile I think HM users got spoiled. If it's a big ship hit it with Fury. If it's a small ship hit it with precision. And when neither of those are doing enough then try faction HMs. It seems from many posts I read on S&M too many people complain about their missiles not doing enough damage to small or fast targets, and forget they have a dronebay which is for that. Or forget they can fit a neut in a high (and that almost always demands some fitting adjustments usually for grid no matter what the ship, except for ac hurricanes which is being addressed in the op, lol). Or forget they could fit a smarty if they concerned about drone attacks. Or maybe I should fit a web or TD or such in a mid that will aide the ability of my missiles to hit something they can't take out very fast or at least keep the target from doing much harm to me.
Working is relative term. If the definition of working for you is to have something operate like HMs have been, forget it. That won't happen, or at least shouldn't happen again in the game. I said that before, but will repeat again. Is, in your opinion, using HAMs, Torps (in BS) and Cruises atm a viable way if you want to be competitive in PvP? If you answer with yes (which I really doubt you will), then please name which ships, fittings and environments you have in mind. We could go into detail there then. And I am pretty sure it will be easy to find gunnery ships, which will do the job much better, and apart from that also do other jobs. With "working" I mean "being competitive, if you chose to fit this system". Nothing more, but also nothing less. It has been pointed out before (and numerous times!) how the Drake can hardly be gamebreaking OP, because else everyone in lowsec would fly it (which is not happening). The HML/Drake is working in a role. And, agreed, no other medium gunnery ship is as good as the Drake in this role. But - there are tons of roles in this game, and looking just at medium and large ships and leaving ECM out I see no Caldari missile ship as top in any of them. Caldari rule with ECM, they are good in frigfights nowadays (was different for very long) and they dont completely suck in PvE, although others are better for quite a while now. And they have the Drake for medium/long range battles. Thats it for those who want to use missiles and Caldari. Dont you see the difference to other races yourself?
As most Caldari have not trained up gunnery skills they are missing out on 2 fine ships at the moment the Naga and the Rohk. These ships will start to appear more and more in the tops ships as people get the required skills to use them. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:23:00 -
[4915] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:MIrple wrote:Please post your combat alt as well as Eve Kill does not have any stats on you This is her main. http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17718520And talking about "Winmatar" superiority... Someone got schooled by Blue Republic. Noemi Nagano wrote:Btw, I never said GMP applying to Torps, HAMs and Rockets is bad. I said they will IMO need more than that to actually perform well in the ships Caldari have. I think there was some talk about TE/TC (or whatever they would be called after the change of stats) affecting missiles, but for some reason they postponed that change... I wonder why...
nice you are able to post a combat toon of mine, now go on with the one of yours. Afterwards just 2 more tasks and you can come back again. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:23:00 -
[4916] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Is, in your opinion, using HAMs, Torps (in BS) and Cruises atm a viable way if you want to be competitive in PvP?
HAM Tengu HAM Legion Sacrilege SBs Typhoon |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:27:00 -
[4917] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Is, in your opinion, using HAMs, Torps (in BS) and Cruises atm a viable way if you want to be competitive in PvP? HAM Tengu HAM Legion Sacrilege SBs Typhoon
To be fair to Noemi
I have never seen a Sac gang. Does this happen in low-sec? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:27:00 -
[4918] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Is, in your opinion, using HAMs, Torps (in BS) and Cruises atm a viable way if you want to be competitive in PvP? HAM Tengu HAM Legion Sacrilege - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXWW-q4LaeISBs Typhoon
I fail to see any useful information, due to a poster with no combat alt. Thanks for not coming back :) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:40:00 -
[4919] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Is, in your opinion, using HAMs, Torps (in BS) and Cruises atm a viable way if you want to be competitive in PvP? HAM Tengu HAM Legion Sacrilege SBs Typhoon To be fair to Noemi I have never seen a Sac gang. Does this happen in low-sec?
To be fair, I said before the only viable Torp BS atm is the Phoon, although I dont think its actually great because of the Torps, but because the rest is so good even with Torps it does not suck. But ok, I can accept the Phoon answer. As will everyone hopefully accept the fact the Phoon is not exactly a Caldari ship.
In my posting I furthermore asked for "Torps (in BS)" which somehow makes "SBs" not a really smart answer. HAM t3s might be ok, didnt see them rolling too much though, and for sure not in real numbers. They also have a price-tag. Sacrilege I never saw owning when I spent most of my time in lowsec. In one week I have a bit more time and might be more active, so will report if I see any changes. Apart from that, the Sacrilege is also a bit un-caldari in my opinion ...
So we end up with 1 Caldari t3, 1 Winmatar BS, and 2 Amarr ships (t2 and t3) which are viable missile PvP ships in the opinion of some. Which does not really seem to object my first statement .. :) |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 19:51:00 -
[4920] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
To be fair, I said before the only viable Torp BS atm is the Phoon, although I dont think its actually great because of the Torps, but because the rest is so good even with Torps it does not suck. But ok, I can accept the Phoon answer. As will everyone hopefully accept the fact the Phoon is not exactly a Caldari ship.
In my posting I furthermore asked for "Torps (in BS)" which somehow makes "SBs" not a really smart answer. HAM t3s might be ok, didnt see them rolling too much though, and for sure not in real numbers. They also have a price-tag. Sacrilege I never saw owning when I spent most of my time in lowsec. In one week I have a bit more time and might be more active, so will report if I see any changes. Apart from that, the Sacrilege is also a bit un-caldari in my opinion ...
So we end up with 1 Caldari t3, 1 Winmatar BS, and 2 Amarr ships (t2 and t3) which are viable missile PvP ships in the opinion of some. Which does not really seem to object my first statement .. :)
How would you fix Torps/Cruise. In my mind they should be similar to how Artys work slow cycle time Very High Alpha. Cruise missiles need to have there flight speed increased and there flight time nerfed.
I think one other point that needs to be made is although Cadari do have missile ships they have an even slit that favors hybrids over missile based ships. This could have changes with the new patch though. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:08:00 -
[4921] - Quote
Saying someone don't know what he is saying is hell of a lot easier than arguing I guess, but smart people don't care about *who* is saying something, but about *what* he is saying.
Each time you say "show your alt" or "you have no relevant experience", you are saying to us that you don't have an argument to oppose to us, so you are doing a personnal attack to discredit us.
That is very poor rhetoric.
Now, I already told why I think the buff to short range missiles will certainly be very effective. You only ever said you doubt it will be. Basically, you are affraid of losing your HML.
By the way, we already pointed out how HML won't ever be useless with these changes, and how exactly they are only "on par" (which mean, not really OP anymore, but still far superior to any long range medium size turret), and hence still very useful.
On a side note, "we won't have any other weapon to use" is both plain wrong (see short range missiles buffed + hybrid turrets) and absolutely not a reason not to nerf an OP weapon system.
But still, you will yell at will that caldari will be uterly useless if these changes hit TQ and support your assertion of "the drake is not OP" with the argument "a hurricane can defeat it with autocanon", which is a broken argumentation. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:09:00 -
[4922] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:[quote=MIrple]To be fair, I said before the only viable Torp BS atm is the Phoon, although I dont think its actually great because of the Torps, but because the rest is so good even with Torps it does not suck. But ok, I can accept the Phoon answer. As will everyone hopefully accept the fact the Phoon is not exactly a Caldari ship.
In my posting I furthermore asked for "Torps (in BS)" which somehow makes "SBs" not a really smart answer. HAM t3s might be ok, didnt see them rolling too much though, and for sure not in real numbers. They also have a price-tag. Sacrilege I never saw owning when I spent most of my time in lowsec. In one week I have a bit more time and might be more active, so will report if I see any changes. Apart from that, the Sacrilege is also a bit un-caldari in my opinion ...
So we end up with 1 Caldari t3, 1 Winmatar BS, and 2 Amarr ships (t2 and t3) which are viable missile PvP ships in the opinion of some. Which does not really seem to object my first statement .. :) By the way, have you seen ? They are buffing HAM and Torps. Maybe they acknowledged these problems you are pointing already. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:10:00 -
[4923] - Quote
MIrple wrote: How would you fix Torps/Cruise. In my mind they should be similar to how Artys work slow cycle time Very High Alpha. Cruise missiles need to have there flight speed increased and there flight time nerfed.
Agreed on that, although I fear it will not be enough to make them actually work .. but would be a first approach maybe.
MIrple wrote: I think one other point that needs to be made is although Cadari do have missile ships they have an even slit that favors hybrids over missile based ships. This could have changes with the new patch though.
I dont exactly understand what you mean by that, could you explain?
The Rokh and the Naga are good ships in their roles, didnt say anything other. Still many Caldari would love them to be missile ships and have a similar good role as missile ships ...
The Moa sucks a bit, but will even fall back more after the proposed changes.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:11:00 -
[4924] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:[quote=MIrple]To be fair, I said before the only viable Torp BS atm is the Phoon, although I dont think its actually great because of the Torps, but because the rest is so good even with Torps it does not suck. But ok, I can accept the Phoon answer. As will everyone hopefully accept the fact the Phoon is not exactly a Caldari ship.
In my posting I furthermore asked for "Torps (in BS)" which somehow makes "SBs" not a really smart answer. HAM t3s might be ok, didnt see them rolling too much though, and for sure not in real numbers. They also have a price-tag. Sacrilege I never saw owning when I spent most of my time in lowsec. In one week I have a bit more time and might be more active, so will report if I see any changes. Apart from that, the Sacrilege is also a bit un-caldari in my opinion ...
So we end up with 1 Caldari t3, 1 Winmatar BS, and 2 Amarr ships (t2 and t3) which are viable missile PvP ships in the opinion of some. Which does not really seem to object my first statement .. :) By the way, have you seen ? They are buffing HAM and Torps. Maybe they acknowledged these problems you are pointing already.
Dont you see they are buffing some stats but *nerf* others??? Are you really so blind, or do you just dont know better? |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:16:00 -
[4925] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:MIrple wrote: How would you fix Torps/Cruise. In my mind they should be similar to how Artys work slow cycle time Very High Alpha. Cruise missiles need to have there flight speed increased and there flight time nerfed.
Agreed on that, although I fear it will not be enough to make them actually work .. but would be a first approach maybe. MIrple wrote: I think one other point that needs to be made is although Cadari do have missile ships they have an even slit that favors hybrids over missile based ships. This could have changes with the new patch though.
I dont exactly understand what you mean by that, could you explain? The Rokh and the Naga are good ships in their roles, didnt say anything other. Still many Caldari would love them to be missile ships and have a similar good role as missile ships ... The Moa sucks a bit, but will even fall back more after the proposed changes.
If you go ship by ship through the Caldari lineup you will see that it is an almost even split between Hybrid ships and Missile ships with hybrid having a few more.
I have tried the new stats on the Moa it isn't as bad as people are saying. I will agree it is hard to fit for any sort of solo work but it is not a fail ship. This will have to wait until after the new combat cruiser stats come out to argue though.
I think the problem is for Caldari they think all the ships should be missile and cant wrap their heads around the idea of training for hybrids. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:28:00 -
[4926] - Quote
MIrple wrote:If you go ship by ship through the Caldari lineup you will see that it is an almost even split between Hybrid ships and Missile ships with hybrid having a few more.
I have tried the new stats on the Moa it isn't as bad as people are saying. I will agree it is hard to fit for any sort of solo work but it is not a fail ship. This will have to wait until after the new combat cruiser stats come out to argue though.
I think the problem is for Caldari they think all the ships should be missile and cant wrap their heads around the idea of training for hybrids. I wasn't sure about this, but I would had bet it ! Caldari primary weapon system is hybrid weapons !! |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:31:00 -
[4927] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Saying someone don't know what he is saying is hell of a lot easier than arguing I guess, but smart people don't care about *who* is saying something, but about *what* he is saying. Each time you say "show your alt" or "you have no relevant experience", you are saying to us that you don't have an argument to oppose to us, so you are doing a personnal attack to discredit us. That is very poor rhetoric. Now, I already told why I think the buff to short range missiles will certainly be very effective. You only ever said you doubt it will be. Basically, you are affraid of losing your HML. By the way, we already pointed out how HML won't ever be useless with these changes, and how exactly they are only "on par" (which mean, not really OP anymore, but still far superior to any long range medium size turret), and hence still very useful. On a side note, "we won't have any other weapon to use" is both plain wrong (see short range missiles buffed + hybrid turrets) and absolutely not a reason not to nerf an OP weapon system. But still, you will yell at will that caldari will be uterly useless if these changes hit TQ and support your assertion of "the drake is not OP" with the argument "a hurricane can defeat it with autocanon", which is a broken argumentation.
First - I wasnt the one who started this "combat alt" thing. But someone like Jorma really showed again and again (and then another time ..) how much he knows of PvP (epic highlight was this CM Raven). And so I think he should do what I did too. Telling us the truth about his alt. When I didnt do that first, everyone said "Noemi has no combat alt hooohoo", when I showed mine everyone said "woo, you suck with your highsec PvP" (not even looking at what I did over time with just this toon). And little Jorma boy shows nothing and no one complains. But yeah, he cant show anything, just because he got nothing but EFT and no clue.
Second: I never said the Drake is not OP because the Cane can defeat it with ACs ... you obviously didnt understand what I was posting. I said the Drake is not OP because it just has certain roles where it is good and others where it is NOT. And the roles where it shines are not really favoured in current meta game either, apart from null sec. Same goes for other ships. OP is a ship like the Machariel, which can simply leave the scene quite often if it should not be on the winning end. OP was a ship like the Dramiel before it got nerfed. Same reason. The Drake is not OP. It cant dictate anything ... it can do well if the enemy plays by its rules and it will die in fire if the enemy doesnt.
Third: Me and others showed how a mediocre system will not be enough, because there is no need to choose it if there are better options. I am pretty sure after this patch there wont be any need for medium or large missile PvP at all, because you can do all it can do better with some turrets.
Fourth: You fail to see - again and again! - how missiles really work, and which role ships play too. Isnt it revealing the only working Torp-BS is not Caldari, but Winmatar? Not that Winmatar need it, they have 2 fine Projectile BS already .. but they do have it. Caldari has the Rokh (which is good as a sniper) and have the Scorpion (which is good as ECM), and the Raven, which just sucks at everything than getting some insurance payout (for those who remember ..). Seriously, have you EVER used missiles and Caldari ships in Eve? Ever? If so, please tell which and where.
And fifth: its smarter to stop the conversation with someone who refuses to see facts (facts like the incoming nerfs of some stats and their impact) than to go on and on and on. I see the buffs some missiles will get. But I also see the nerfs. And I know the Caldari ships which use those weapons. I know them from flying them, trying stuff with them and seeing how they fail to do what they should. And so I think I am in a much better position to see the impact of those changes than you are. Again, I might be wrong. But I doubt it. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:32:00 -
[4928] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:[quote=MIrple]To be fair, I said before the only viable Torp BS atm is the Phoon, although I dont think its actually great because of the Torps, but because the rest is so good even with Torps it does not suck. But ok, I can accept the Phoon answer. As will everyone hopefully accept the fact the Phoon is not exactly a Caldari ship.
In my posting I furthermore asked for "Torps (in BS)" which somehow makes "SBs" not a really smart answer. HAM t3s might be ok, didnt see them rolling too much though, and for sure not in real numbers. They also have a price-tag. Sacrilege I never saw owning when I spent most of my time in lowsec. In one week I have a bit more time and might be more active, so will report if I see any changes. Apart from that, the Sacrilege is also a bit un-caldari in my opinion ...
So we end up with 1 Caldari t3, 1 Winmatar BS, and 2 Amarr ships (t2 and t3) which are viable missile PvP ships in the opinion of some. Which does not really seem to object my first statement .. :) By the way, have you seen ? They are buffing HAM and Torps. Maybe they acknowledged these problems you are pointing already. Dont you see they are buffing some stats but *nerf* others??? Are you really so blind, or do you just dont know better? Only thing I see getting worse is Rage (torp and assault) loosing half a KM range and explosion radius bloom, though if you are using HML's now you probably have GMP trained and can get a better explosion radius than before.
Edit, missed the Assault rage explosion velocity nerf. Though still, more damage and lower explosion radius. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:37:00 -
[4929] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
If you go ship by ship through the Caldari lineup you will see that it is an almost even split between Hybrid ships and Missile ships with hybrid having a few more.
I have tried the new stats on the Moa it isn't as bad as people are saying. I will agree it is hard to fit for any sort of solo work but it is not a fail ship. This will have to wait until after the new combat cruiser stats come out to argue though.
I think the problem is for Caldari they think all the ships should be missile and cant wrap their heads around the idea of training for hybrids.
Hybrid a few more? Are you serious?
Now please show me how you came to that. I am really curious now. For BS for example I see 2 Navy and 2 tech 1 hulls with missiles, 2 tech 2 hulls with missiles and 1 tech 1 hull for Rails. Makes it 6 to 1 for missiles ...
I agree with you about the thing though many Caldari refused to train Hybrids, but I told you why - they sucked hard for a long time, and if you had to go for turrets you wouldnt go Hybrid but better train Lasers or Projectiles (which got insanely buffed after sucking a bit too for a while).
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:38:00 -
[4930] - Quote
Xamiakas wrote:why exactly are you nerfing missiles again? they`re never the top damagers anywhere nor good for intercepting stuff.. actually missiles except torps have the lowest dps and take ages to reach the targets unless they`re pointblank .. yet u`re nerfing the range.. nerfing the dps and ******* up explosion radius.. thus making missiles obsolete.. while in previous patches u were buffing the guns.. logic in that? I love posts like this . . . you guys are idiots
This change is a buff to every single missile system except the HML
They are not nerfing missiles, they are buffing missiles, theyre nerfing the HML |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:41:00 -
[4931] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:To be fair, I said before the only viable Torp BS atm is the Phoon, although I dont think its actually great because of the Torps, but because the rest is so good even with Torps it does not suck. But ok, I can accept the Phoon answer. As will everyone hopefully accept the fact the Phoon is not exactly a Caldari ship.
Yes, it's a Minmatar ship.
In pvp Typhoon is more often seen in torp/neut setup. You don't see very often torp/1400mm setups outside of level 4 dps support role (and even there it's cruise/1400mm). |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:45:00 -
[4932] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Only thing I see getting worse is Rage (torp and assault) loosing half a KM range and explosion radius bloom, though if you are using HML's now you probably have GMP trained and can get a better explosion radius than before.
Edit, missed the Assault rage explosion velocity nerf. Though still, more damage and lower explosion radius.
With GMP at level 5 you will be a little bit better of than now, yes. With level 4 you wont. But explosion velo of HAM rage is not yet in this equation, and: they didnt rock before, how should they rock now with just a tiny improvement in one part (assuming GMP 5) but in the same time a range reduction (although not a big one) and a nerf in Explo Velo? I tell you what happens. They might be a bit better in Legions and Tengus. But for Caldari tech 1 hulls (and tech 2) they will suck like before (going for the HAMs) and for Torps, maybe the Phoon can use em. Caldari will not have any benefit. Believe me or not, you will see how I was right when its too late to change ("we cant adjust this at the moment, because we have to bring some mining stuff into balance first" or whatever lame excuse they will have for not repairing Caldari missile PvP).
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:51:00 -
[4933] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Xamiakas wrote:why exactly are you nerfing missiles again? they`re never the top damagers anywhere nor good for intercepting stuff.. actually missiles except torps have the lowest dps and take ages to reach the targets unless they`re pointblank .. yet u`re nerfing the range.. nerfing the dps and ******* up explosion radius.. thus making missiles obsolete.. while in previous patches u were buffing the guns.. logic in that? I love posts like this . . . you guys are idiots This change is a buff to every single missile system except the HML They are not nerfing missiles, they are buffing missiles, theyre nerfing the HML
This statement as a whole is not true. They are buffing certain aspects of some missiles, and nerfing other aspects too. Please dont generalise. Do the numbers for Torps and HAM, and CM and see how they will all ... continue to suck in any Caldari hull. The GMP-buff is mostly eaten up by nerfs, range for rage is reduced, overall application is not really improved.
The only ship which might be working could be the HAM Tengu, not really sure about that one. Can use it, so maybe will give it a try. But should that be the way to go, making a t3 the only working missile ship in med and large size? :) (HAM Drake will IMO not be of any importance in anything but show case 1on1s, where it might be better than now, but I still doubt that).
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 20:57:00 -
[4934] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The only ship which might be working could be the HAM Tengu, not really sure about that one. Can use it, so maybe will give it a try. But should that be the way to go, making a t3 the only working missile ship in med and large size? :)
How would current situation change? Nothing would change.
Currently Tengu can be used for everything. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 21:10:00 -
[4935] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The only ship which might be working could be the HAM Tengu, not really sure about that one. Can use it, so maybe will give it a try. But should that be the way to go, making a t3 the only working missile ship in med and large size? :) How would current situation change? Nothing would change. Currently Tengu can be used for everything.
Of course there would be a change - Drake will not be viable anymore. So Caldari missile PvP will be not happening in tech 1 hulls any more above frig size. And seriously - tell me your combat alt. :) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 21:16:00 -
[4936] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Only thing I see getting worse is Rage (torp and assault) loosing half a KM range and explosion radius bloom, though if you are using HML's now you probably have GMP trained and can get a better explosion radius than before.
Edit, missed the Assault rage explosion velocity nerf. Though still, more damage and lower explosion radius.
With GMP at level 5 you will be a little bit better of than now, yes. With level 4 you wont. But explosion velo of HAM rage is not yet in this equation, and: they didnt rock before, how should they rock now with just a tiny improvement in one part (assuming GMP 5) but in the same time a range reduction (although not a big one) and a nerf in Explo Velo? I tell you what happens. They might be a bit better in Legions and Tengus. But for Caldari tech 1 hulls (and tech 2) they will suck like before (going for the HAMs) and for Torps, maybe the Phoon can use em. Caldari will not have any benefit. Believe me or not, you will see how I was right when its too late to change ("we cant adjust this at the moment, because we have to bring some mining stuff into balance first" or whatever lame excuse they will have for not repairing Caldari missile PvP). I'm getting slightly better explosion radius at lvl 4: Rage Torp Old EV: 650 New EV (No skills): 774 New EV (GMP lvl 4): 774 * 0.8 = 619.2
Rage HAM Old EV: 180 New EV (No skills): 215 New EV (GMP lvl 4): 215 * 0.8 = 172 |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 21:29:00 -
[4937] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Only thing I see getting worse is Rage (torp and assault) loosing half a KM range and explosion radius bloom, though if you are using HML's now you probably have GMP trained and can get a better explosion radius than before.
Edit, missed the Assault rage explosion velocity nerf. Though still, more damage and lower explosion radius.
With GMP at level 5 you will be a little bit better of than now, yes. With level 4 you wont. But explosion velo of HAM rage is not yet in this equation, and: they didnt rock before, how should they rock now with just a tiny improvement in one part (assuming GMP 5) but in the same time a range reduction (although not a big one) and a nerf in Explo Velo? I tell you what happens. They might be a bit better in Legions and Tengus. But for Caldari tech 1 hulls (and tech 2) they will suck like before (going for the HAMs) and for Torps, maybe the Phoon can use em. Caldari will not have any benefit. Believe me or not, you will see how I was right when its too late to change ("we cant adjust this at the moment, because we have to bring some mining stuff into balance first" or whatever lame excuse they will have for not repairing Caldari missile PvP). I'm getting slightly better explosion radius at lvl 4: Rage Torp Old EV: 650 New EV (No skills): 774 New EV (GMP lvl 4): 774 * 0.8 = 619.2 Rage HAM Old EV: 180 New EV (No skills): 215 New EV (GMP lvl 4): 215 * 0.8 = 172
I stand corrected then: with l4 you will be better (by a very small margin). Doesnt change the fact its not really a buff, esp. with HAMs and explo velo nerf ...
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 21:31:00 -
[4938] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I stand corrected then: with l4 you will be better (by a very small margin). Doesnt change the fact its not really a buff, esp. with HAMs and explo velo nerf ...
It's more of a meta buff as you now can 1) use other means to further help damage projection and 2) can start shifting reliance to webs to ensure full application rather than NEEDING both web AND TP |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 21:37:00 -
[4939] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The Rokh and the Naga are good ships in their roles, didnt say anything other. Still many Caldari would love them to be missile ships and have a similar good role as missile ships ...
The Moa sucks a bit, but will even fall back more after the proposed changes.
Though missiles are not turrets. Missiles won't ever be exactly like turrets, but still, they can have a role. But this role is not "everything" like the current role of HML.
Do you know cruise raven outdps almost all turret ships at 70 or 80km and above ? The only exception is the Naga (a caldari ship). And cruise missiles go to more than 8000m/s with this ship : the speed of tengu or cerberus heavy missiles.
IMO, this delay was a problem in the past, but nowdays, I doubt it.
HAM Drake already outdps a hurricane at 12km.
Torps ? It's basicaly blasters with range. The only drawback was damage application.
Now, damage application will be buffed, and seeing how these systems were used, it's certainly a good thing, but going too far could be desastrous. When the changes will hit the test server, we will figure out if that was enough.
BTW, the "nerf" you see on HAM and Torp is only a slight reduction in range of high damage ammo (supposed to be used on large target), which ones also receive a buff to damage. The explosion radius "nerf" is only here to make it remain the same after the new skill applyed.
For the Moa, there is no way it suck after the changes. It may even be better than the Thorax.
Fun fact : a lot (a very lot) of your alt's kills in low sec are in drake. It seems to be rather effective here, even out of blob warfare, doesn't it ? Don't be affraid, it will still be. |
Lili Lu
545
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 21:41:00 -
[4940] - Quote
Correction. Alleged/claimed combat main. That character has made only one post ever according to Eve-search, and here it is, http://eve-search.com/thread/33177-1/page/1#8 in a recruitment thread:
"Awesome corp and alliance...almost as fun as the time i chucked grandma off Brighton Pier..."
Agreed, if that is indeed Noemi's character one would think he would be hopping mad over the Cane nerf and not give a rats ass about the HM nerf. Also, you tell me, does that sound like Noemi? It certainly doesn't sound like Noemi's previous attempts at humor itt. Likewise, I haven't gathered any indication from his posts itt that tells me Noemi lives in the UK. And, Noemi strikes me as not a native english speaker. Which is not to say that Noemi isn't writing much better than I could write in whatever his native language is. It's of course the content of the posts that is problematic.
Regardless, until that character posts in this thread and proclaims "I am the Noemi Nagano of much repetitive posting itt" I will remain skeptical that Noemi does indeed have any pvp experience.
Come on Noemi, do eet. Win a victory over my taunting at least.
edit - and to all the intervening Noemi posts, I've clocked out for a while. I really don't want to expend more effort atm to dissect the flaws in his latest arguments. I'm sure they've already been presented and countered anyway in this monster thread on some earlier page. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 21:44:00 -
[4941] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I stand corrected then: with l4 you will be better (by a very small margin). Doesnt change the fact its not really a buff, esp. with HAMs and explo velo nerf ...
You can also do like everyone with turret : use faction ammo instead of T2 high damage ones when you have to hit smaller stuff ; thse don't see ANY nerf, only the buffs. HAM also get a PG buff BTW. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 22:45:00 -
[4942] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I stand corrected then: with l4 you will be better (by a very small margin). Doesnt change the fact its not really a buff, esp. with HAMs and explo velo nerf ...
You can also do like everyone with turret : use faction ammo instead of T2 high damage ones when you have to hit smaller stuff ; thse don't see ANY nerf, only the buffs. HAM also get a PG buff BTW.
The problem is I dont need that faction ammo for just hitting smaller stuff .. with HAMs I need it to hit stuff in the same size. Duh. And even then damage application might suck grand time. You didnt answer to my questions about your missile and Caldari ship first hand experience btw. Is that the same guy who tells me I would just go from one to the next? |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 00:32:00 -
[4943] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:
ccp actualy is forcing people into training various stuff some by nerfing them aswell
yes, it is highly encouraged u train various things. to have a single weapon system that can do everything is overpowered. it sucks that there is a weapon system that is the be all and end all of long range combat and can still do well at close ranges. This is why the nerf is a good thing.
Recoil IV wrote: ...removal of ghost training proved that ccp wants you to pay the subscription in order to keep skilling.wich in my opionion is not really fair either.i may be wrong but i dont really care.its my opinion and i`m sticking to it.
also you`re wrong.there will be a lot of protesting and mass unsubscribing.
its a pay-to-play game, like many mmorpgs. if u can make enough isk each month u can pay in plexes, but just because u dnt want to pay doesn't mean they're going to allow u to have an uber good-at-everything ship and weapons combo. if my thinking is right, ur ideals are in-congruent to CCP's and those like urself are going to see a lot of disappointments.
if i'm completely honest, i'd be happy to see other players like urself leave and never come back. eve is a hard game that changes all the time and u cant whine when it (or CCP) makes things difficult for u. u either leave or htfu and adapt because by-god i dont want to play along side whiners like urself and i don't want to fight against u either as ur whining will just irritate me. there is absolutely nothing stopping u from skilling into another race if u think caldari have it so hard.
And don't ask for ur skill points back for crying out loud. its ridiculous that ppl believe they have the remotest chance of getting them back, it just makes u look like such a fool when u do. They'll only be reimbursed if they HML's or caldari are removed from the game entirely (like the learning skills were).
anyways, noemi was getting grief about asking for KB's...i was one of the first to call him/her to show their own and they did. i said i was impressed that they pew at all because they were such an HML fanboy but tried to appear particularly knowledgeable about pvp. tbh noemi, ur about my standard with the vast majority of it being station games in high sec, but i think i have a bit more xp in low, null and WH's.
just setting records straight there^
noemi (i know alot of ppl have been doom saying but i feel like ur the only one staying here long enough to reply to), u act like this nerf is the worst thing ever, before u even seen what it will be like on the test server. but when ppl try to remind u of the buffs u always say 'we'll see what they're like before we make any decisions'. u cant be that blind to ur own inconsistencies.
Everything will be run through the mill on the test servers, its what they are for. if this nerf is as ridiculous as some ppl say it will be recognised.
one last thing, 500mil (i'm poor) says no protest. any takers? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
232
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 01:43:00 -
[4944] - Quote
Recoil IV wrote:no it does not revolve around hml.and another true story : ccp actualy is forcing people into training various stuff some by nerfing them aswell becauseb by doing so they are also forcing people to have their account active more active.for example,me going inactive and having hm trained to maximum and right now being a fairly good weapon system.when i come back i find out i have to train another suitable weapon system thus forcing to have your account active at all time.i`m not saying you cant go inactive,you can.but its my opionion.also the removal of ghost training proved that ccp wants you to pay the subscription in order to keep skilling.wich in my opionion is not really fair either.i may be wrong but i dont really care.its my opinion and i`m sticking to it.
also you`re wrong.there will be a lot of protesting and mass unsubscribing. So . . . what is your suggestion as an alternative? having them leave the game completely alone and never change anything ever?
That is idiotic and in fact was part of what the protest was about, people thought that CCP was just letting eve coast on its success and not balancing anything.
You are entitled to your opinion, however so am I and my opinion is that your opinion is idiotic.
honestly, if the HML change causes the same reaction as incarna, ill fly to iceland and eat the server myself. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 01:52:00 -
[4945] - Quote
Sigras wrote: honestly, if the HML change causes the same reaction as incarna, ill fly to iceland and eat the server myself.
make that dinner for two |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 02:38:00 -
[4946] - Quote
for those of you saying the 10% damage nerf is good, I don't think you truely understand the extent of the nerf.
Missiles are becoming highly ewar sensitive to the same extent as guns while still suffering delayed and destroyable damage.
Missiles are delayed damage.
Range nerf equates to damage nerf and defensive nerf.
All non drake/Tengu's get **** on with anything but HAMs, yet still HAMs suck on all but 2 ships that use them b/c of lack of tank/mids/speed. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
339
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 02:41:00 -
[4947] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:for those of you saying the 10% damage nerf is good, I don't think you truely understand the extent of the nerf.
Missiles are becoming highly ewar sensitive to the same extent as guns while still suffering delayed and destroyable damage.
Missiles are delayed damage.
Range nerf equates to damage nerf and defensive nerf.
All non drake/Tengu's get **** on with anything but HAMs, yet still HAMs suck on all but 2 ships that use them b/c of lack of tank/mids/speed. I'm not seeing much evidence that many are taking advantage of their destructibility, at least in PvP. Also the Ewar changes aren't coming this winter. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 03:11:00 -
[4948] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I'm Down wrote:for those of you saying the 10% damage nerf is good, I don't think you truely understand the extent of the nerf.
Missiles are becoming highly ewar sensitive to the same extent as guns while still suffering delayed and destroyable damage.
Missiles are delayed damage.
Range nerf equates to damage nerf and defensive nerf.
All non drake/Tengu's get **** on with anything but HAMs, yet still HAMs suck on all but 2 ships that use them b/c of lack of tank/mids/speed. I'm not seeing much evidence that many are taking advantage of their destructibility, at least in PvP. Also the Ewar changes aren't coming this winter.
in 0.0, it's pretty common to firewall.
As for the ewar... you know it's coming... so why promote a nerf knowing that it's going to be even worse soon?
Range nerf is enough... damage nerf can always come later if it's not enough. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
288
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 03:36:00 -
[4949] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:Apteko wrote:Quote:Missile specs are much easier to train than the gunnery trees. And all the support missile skills you have already trained for HMs already are or will now become transferrable to all the other missile specs. The addition of GMP to affecting all missiles is a huge buff to rockets ... torps. [...] Oh and there is one main skill and one special to every type of weapon, turrets or missiles. Even multipliers are same... Large laser spec requires small and medium spec IV, which require small and medium lasers V, a support skill to V and gunnery to V. Torpedo spec only requires torpedo V (light missile III, heavy missile III) and missile launcher operation IV. The difference is 50 days or so. Cruiser sized missile specs are also easier to train for than gun specs.
If you were to compare training times of ALL the weapons in a class, from frigate to BS, in both long and short range versions, plus specializations, you would notice that training missiles is actually significantly longer. Training Small Projectile to 5, and tha associated specs to 1, gives you both the T2 small autocannons AND the T2 small rails. This pattern continues up the line (though the specialization requirement goes up to four as you progress).
Small Projectile 5 -Sm AC Spec 4 - Sm Arty Spec 4 Medium Projectile 5 -Med AC 4 -Med Arty 4 Large Projectile 5 -Lg AC Spec 4 -Lg Arty Spec 4
To aquire the same complete weapons range, long and short range weapons in every class from frigate to BS, using missiles, would require you to train:
Rockets 5 -Rocket Spec 4 Light Missiles 5 -Light Missile Spec 4 Heavy Missile 5 -Heavy Missile Spec 4 Heavy Assault Missile 5 -Heavy Assault Missile Spec 4 Torpedo 5 -Torpedo Spec 4 Cruise Missile 5 -Cruise Missile Spec 4
See the difference? The reason it APPEARS shorter is because many people skip over the weapons they are uninterested in. If, however, they want to fly missile ships of every class, and have the ability to fit both long and short range weapons, they need to train all them all. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
288
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 03:42:00 -
[4950] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Recoil IV wrote:
you just assuming were noobs,and you should feel bad about yourself.
no, i'm assuming ur eve life revolves around HML's and u think everybody's life revolves around HML's. the only reason the two of u committed so much of ur time and SP's to HML's and the ships that they are most frequent attached to is because they could give u so much flexibility and power with a reletively small SP investment. the mere fact that ppl are saying their eve life is over because of this nerf says to me that alot of ppl trained into this weapon and nothing more so that they, like u, could get everything in one weapon system. thats not balance. i realise a lot of ppl use HML's because they are damn useful as they are. but the vast majority of players are mature enough to see that they were too good and are prepared to suffer the nerf or move onto other weapon systems. once HML's are nerfed there will not be a protest like there was after incarna
It's generally more useful to try to understand WHY people disagree with you rather than assuming that they are all fools who lack your wisdom and insight.
In any case, if CCP agrees with you then no problem. Missiles will be nerfed and, in your opinion, no one will care. Caldari pilots will go on as they always do, their main (and, in some respects, only) combat ship will be that much less effective, but they won't mind because they will know that one day, some day, CCP will fix their other ships and weapons. On that magical day some years from now Caldari pilots will log in to discover that they finally have working versions of the ships and weapons the other races enjoy today, and the millions of skill points they invested will suddenly have value.
But it is possible that you are wrong.
It is possible that some Caldari players -- perhaps hundreds or even thousands -- are tired of waiting for magical "some days" and are sick of seeing the little that they do have nerfed. It is possible that Caldari players will not understand or accept that CCPs solution to broken ships like the Cerberus is to nerf it some more. It's possible that hundreds or even thousands of Caldari players were already distrustful or even angry with CCP even prior to all this. It's possible.
You don't agree with me, but I think CCP is playing with dynamite. If they keep kicking it, as they have promised to do, it might very well explode. I think CCP needs to take a step back and give some serious thought to the Caldari situation overall. They need to stop talking nerfs and start talking about fixes.
In my opinion. |
|
Lili Lu
546
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 03:50:00 -
[4951] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:I'm Down wrote:for those of you saying the 10% damage nerf is good, I don't think you truely understand the extent of the nerf.
Missiles are becoming highly ewar sensitive to the same extent as guns while still suffering delayed and destroyable damage.
Missiles are delayed damage.
Range nerf equates to damage nerf and defensive nerf.
All non drake/Tengu's get **** on with anything but HAMs, yet still HAMs suck on all but 2 ships that use them b/c of lack of tank/mids/speed. I'm not seeing much evidence that many are taking advantage of their destructibility, at least in PvP. Also the Ewar changes aren't coming this winter. in 0.0, it's pretty common to firewall. As for the ewar... you know it's coming... so why promote a nerf knowing that it's going to be even worse soon? Range nerf is enough... damage nerf can always come later if it's not enough. Yeah and there is more than nullsec in the game. Noone is firewalling missiles in lowsec smaller engagements that I've seen. Besides firewalls are not like an automatic missile negator anyway.
Range nerf is not enough. HMs have too much damage compared to other long range weapons. It's been shown a hundred times already probably itt. Keep whining in vain though. |
Lili Lu
546
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 04:26:00 -
[4952] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: It is possible that some Caldari players -- perhaps hundreds or even thousands -- are tired of waiting for magical "some days" and are sick of seeing the little that they do have nerfed. It is possible that Caldari players will not understand or accept that CCPs solution to broken ships like the Cerberus is to nerf it some more. It's possible that hundreds or even thousands of Caldari players were already distrustful or even angry with CCP even prior to all this. It's possible.
You don't agree with me, but I think CCP is playing with dynamite. If they keep kicking it, as they have promised to do, it might very well explode. I think CCP needs to take a step back and give some serious thought to the Caldari situation overall. They need to stop talking nerfs and start talking about fixes.
In my opinion. OT, the Caldari situation? If anyone has a "racial" beef in this game it would be Gallente centered players. Gallente's been in the toilet for a couple or more years now. But I don't see the same volume of complaining from Gallente players as that from Caldair centric players.
Frankly Caldari centric players seem to have a sense of entitlement in this game. I don't know why it attracts such people. Or maybe it makes them. Most players roll Caldari and use it quite easily for pve money making. They then seem to think they should rule pvp as well. And don't seem to notice the similar situations amarr and gallente are in as far as having many worthless ships and a few good one. Only Minmatar seems to be blessed atm.
But hopefully all those festering imbalances will be changing with this process that has essentially just begun. I don't perceive any Caldari hate with the rebalances that have already entered the game. In fact the opposite. Which ia a little concerning frankly. That this one long overdue nerf came to HMs is the first downside for Caldari ships so far.
Roll with it. This process is not over. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
288
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 05:23:00 -
[4953] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: OT, the Caldari situation? If anyone has a "racial" beef in this game it would be Gallente centered players. Gallente's been in the toilet for a couple or more years now. But I don't see the same volume of complaining from Gallente players as that from Caldair centric players.
But you DID see it prior to the Hybrid buff.
The Gallente might have some cause for complaint, the same could be said for the Amarr (I have certainly seen quite a few comments from Amarr players on these forums).
Quote:Frankly Caldari centric players seem to have a sense of entitlement in this game. I don't know why it attracts such people. Or maybe it makes them. Most players roll Caldari and use it quite easily for pve money making. They then seem to think they should rule pvp as well. And don't seem to notice the similar situations amarr and gallente are in as far as having many worthless ships and a few good one. Only Minmatar seems to be blessed atm.
But hopefully all those festering imbalances will be changing with this process that has essentially just begun. I don't perceive any Caldari hate with the rebalances that have already entered the game. In fact the opposite. Which ia a little concerning frankly. That this one long overdue nerf came to HMs is the first downside for Caldari ships so far.
Roll with it. This process is not over.
I have a great deal of respect for you. Your comments in the other winter update threads demostrate an amazing depth of knowlege about the game -- I am a bit jealous to be honest. But respectfully, I think you are missing the boat here in this thread.
You are talking about Heavy Missiles and the Drake, and really everything you have to say about them is either subjectively or objectively correct. But the problem here is not Heavy missiles. The problem is the OTHER Caldari ships and weapons, and the way Caldari players feel they have been treated by CCP. In my opinion that's why people are upset. You or I might not agree that they have any reason for complaint. That's irrelevant. It's a real problem none the less.
CCP clearly does not get it. You can see it in this thread with the way they packaged all this.
They launched into this thread with a whole bunch of nerf talk. That was foolish, and the only reason they packaged it this way was because they simply do not understand why Caldari pilots are upset, and they apparently do not care enough to really listen and find out.
Had they instead titled this thread "Time For Some Caldari Love!" and then opened it with a long list of all the buffs to HAMs and Torps and Light Missiles, the removal of the T2 penalties, and the changes to skills and mods that would make these weapons even better....then slipped the HM nerf in at the end, this thread would be forty pages long and everyone would be talking about all the stuff they would slaughter with their new HAM Drakes and Caracals. Better still if CCP took the time to hint at all the awesome additional Caldari "love" coming next year rather than just talking gleefully about all the additional Caldari nerfs they have planned.
But that's not what happened. So we have this mess, and what Caldari players reading this thread see is not a list of buffs and a couple (perhaps necessary) nerfs, but rather CCP saying: "We are gonna f@ck you up the ass again, but this time we'll toss some money on the nightstand before we go."
THAT'S the Caldari problem that CCP needs to address.
In my opinion. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 06:45:00 -
[4954] - Quote
If one just takes the numbers then a CM Raven will kill almost everything on long ranges. In game it does not.
If one just takes the numbers then a HML Drake would kill almost everything on long ranges (except the CM Raven :D). In game it does not either. Unlike the Raven it does work though in game. IMO not in a gamebreaking way, but others do disagree - hard to say who is right and who is not. Matter of fact is, this game is not Drake online, and if people would have to chose a race which they fly and have to stick with it I am pretty sure it would not be Caldari for most. Do you disagree there too?
Admitted, the HML Drake is good. And the damage at the end of HM-range is too much out of line compared to its peers. If one does not want to buff *their* ability to do more at those ranges then there comes only one thing to my mind which could solve that issue and not break balance in all other aspects , that would be giving HML some new t2 long range ammo which has far less DPS but less flight time too, and will be on target much faster. And reduce the range of standard higher damage ammo.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 08:04:00 -
[4955] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Also, you tell me, does that sound like Noemi?
To be honest, no.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I'm Down wrote:for those of you saying the 10% damage nerf is good, I don't think you truely understand the extent of the nerf.
Missiles are becoming highly ewar sensitive to the same extent as guns while still suffering delayed and destroyable damage.
Missiles are delayed damage.
Range nerf equates to damage nerf and defensive nerf.
All non drake/Tengu's get **** on with anything but HAMs, yet still HAMs suck on all but 2 ships that use them b/c of lack of tank/mids/speed. I'm not seeing much evidence that many are taking advantage of their destructibility, at least in PvP. Also the Ewar changes aren't coming this winter.
And looks like CCP is nerfing TDs and trying to make Arbi/Pilgrim/Curse the only viable hull to use TDs. Those ships aren't known for their pwning abilities in fleets... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 09:54:00 -
[4956] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I stand corrected then: with l4 you will be better (by a very small margin). Doesnt change the fact its not really a buff, esp. with HAMs and explo velo nerf ...
You can also do like everyone with turret : use faction ammo instead of T2 high damage ones when you have to hit smaller stuff ; thse don't see ANY nerf, only the buffs. HAM also get a PG buff BTW. The problem is I dont need that faction ammo for just hitting smaller stuff .. with HAMs I need it to hit stuff in the same size. Duh. And even then damage application might suck grand time. You didnt answer to my questions about your missile and Caldari ship first hand experience btw. Is that the same guy who tells me I would just go from one to the next? That question is irrelevant.
And now, explosion radiius of HAM will be buffed. Isn't it exactly what HAM needed ? Duh. Oh, and web, do you know it ? Cool module in fact. |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
374
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 10:25:00 -
[4957] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:If you were to compare training times of ALL the weapons in a class, You're not wrong, but I wasn't comparing training times of all the weapons in a class |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 10:32:00 -
[4958] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:If one just takes the numbers then a CM Raven will kill almost everything on long ranges. In game it does not, at least thats my perception. Do you guys disagree?
Why ? Is it because it's bad ? Or is it because people never tryed it recently ?
Quote: If one just takes the numbers then a HML Drake would kill almost everything on long ranges (except the CM Raven :D). In game it does not either. Unlike the Raven it does work though in game. IMO not in a gamebreaking way, but others do disagree - hard to say who is right and who is not. Matter of fact is, this game is not Drake online, and if people would have to chose a race which they fly and have to stick with it I am pretty sure it would not be Caldari for most. Do you disagree there too?
HML Drake does kill everything up to it's size. It take a BS or a wel flown short range BC to kill a Drake.
And people do chose caldari and stick to it. That's the case for all the whiners in this thread, like if they could not learn another race.
Quote: Admitted, the HML Drake is good. And the damage at the end of HM-range may be too much out of line compared to its peers. If one does not want to buff the mlr turrets ability to do more DPS at those ranges then there comes only one thing to my mind which could solve that issue and not break balance in all other aspects (first of all the damage at all other ranges, which ends up being too low in comparison for HML if CCP just nerfs the absolute damage of existing ammo), and that would be giving HML some new t2 long range ammo which has far less DPS, longer range but less flight time too, and so will be on target much faster. And reduce the range of standard higher damage ammo, so this will not work as a long range ammunition any more.
Fozzy said you cannot go the power creep road in a sand box. You cannot buff everything each time forever. So you need the nerf hammer some times, and it's time to crush HML this time.
You are complaining about the delay, but it doesn't seem to be such a problem, seeing how used are the Drake and the Tengu *everywhere*. And you have long and short range ammo with the changes : faction ammo for long range, T2 for short range with either high damage or lower target damage application.
Quote: I think the best way would be something different though, first fix whats broken, and then check if this Drake/HML issue still exists. If it does not, then fine. If it does, also fine, because then everyone (who wants to stick with Caldari and missiles!) can just use something else with the same race and weapon tree. And thats the main point, unlike any other race Caldari dont have those options. It has been admitted before by others here, .. working torp BS? Use the Phoon. Working HAM? Go for Legion or Sacrilege (or Tengu, ok - but certainly not an option for average players to PvP only with t3s, right?) .. working Cruises? Nothing at all.
They are fixing HAM and Torp AT THE SAME TIME. But still, every HML whiner come here to cry, completely ignoring the buff all other missiles are receiving.
Quote: Eve is very complex. Ignoring softstats, ship attributes and curent metagame in this comparison will not give a good basis for balancing. Thats my opinion, and others might disagree, again. Still I am sure those things matter a lot more than most who promote the nerf as "needed" or "balanced" here admit.
Eve is complex, and yet, there is some way to understand *exactly* how these changes will affect raw damage and range.
With the new explosion radius HAM will have, you will be able to murder any tackled frigate. An AB cruiser will take 25% of torp dps, which is still correct provided it's the best counter to missiles damage. TPed cruiser in torp range will be doomed, and I'm affraid non AB frigates will die too. So what does Torp and HAM need to be working system for you ? Old HAM and Torp had difficulties to apply their damage, but with the GMP skill applyed, it's day and night between them and new ones. FYI : http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/knof/eve_missiles.swf |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
101
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 11:22:00 -
[4959] - Quote
I would say Amarr has WAY more issues sub-battleships. Some would say Gallente is even worse, but I don't agree with that completely.
Almost all Caldari ships are viable and almost all if not all Minmatar ships are viable comparatively. For the most part, I cant say the same about Amarr sub-battleships v0v [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 12:00:00 -
[4960] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: That question is irrelevant.
In fact its not irrelevant at all, but I understand your answer - you have no first hand experience with missiles and Caldari. Thanks.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: And now, explosion radiius of HAM will be buffed. Isn't it exactly what HAM needed ? Duh. Oh, and web, do you know it ? Cool module in fact.
I know webs, I know TPs. Explosion radius will be buffed a little bit by a skill applying to it which didnt apply before. We will see how it works. My bet goes for HAM will still not be first choice or on par with first choice for close combat. At least not on Caldari hulls. We will see if I am wrong. But I think you are :)
|
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 12:14:00 -
[4961] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I know webs, I know TPs.
And "the only problem" is that you have to lose tank to fit those? Am I right? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 12:17:00 -
[4962] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: That question is irrelevant.
In fact its not irrelevant at all, but I understand your answer - you have no first hand experience with missiles and Caldari. Thanks. Bouh Revetoile wrote: And now, explosion radiius of HAM will be buffed. Isn't it exactly what HAM needed ? Duh. Oh, and web, do you know it ? Cool module in fact.
I know webs, I know TPs. Explosion radius will be buffed a little bit by a skill applying to it which didnt apply before. We will see how it works. My bet goes for HAM will still not be first choice or on par with first choice for close combat. At least not on Caldari hulls. We will see if I am wrong. But I think you are :) And you still don't have answered the only question that matter : what does HAM and Torp need ?
BTW, no, missile experience is irrelevant if you are smart enough to argue and discuss my arguments. That is basic rhetoric : people may be whoever they want, they may even die eventually, but the words are still there, and they are not less true because of the death of who said them. Only the words matter here, not the people writing them. I don't want to believe you but to understand you. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 12:53:00 -
[4963] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I know webs, I know TPs. And "the only problem" is that you have to lose tank to fit those? Am I right?
no, you are wrong :) but your postings dont matter do me anyway, so why do I even answer. :) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 12:55:00 -
[4964] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
BTW, no, missile experience is irrelevant if you are smart enough to argue and discuss my arguments. That is basic rhetoric : people may be whoever they want, they may even die eventually, but the words are still there, and they are not less true because of the death of who said them. Only the words matter here, not the people writing them. I don't want to believe you but to understand you.
Go fly Caldari missile ships and learn first hand. If you dont want to - fine. But dont expect others then to explain everything from the very beginning. Its just boring to do so, esp. since others here have done that already. :) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 13:08:00 -
[4965] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:If one just takes the numbers then a CM Raven will kill almost everything on long ranges. In game it does not, at least thats my perception. Do you guys disagree?
Why ? Is it because it's bad ? Or is it because people never tryed it recently ?
Thats exactly what I mean. Someone with this idea cant get help by words. Go out, fly it, enjoy. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 13:08:00 -
[4966] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Go fly Caldari missile ships and learn first hand. If you dont want to - fine. But dont expect others then to explain everything from the very beginning. Its just boring to do so, esp. since others here have done that already. :) You still never had pointed what the problem of HAM and Torp was beside damage application. Maybe there is not any other problem ?
Maybe you are lazy, but maybe you don't know because you don't even understand how your weapon system work, or maybe you are wrong ? Maybe you are that stupid ? Who knows if you don't want to talk... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 13:13:00 -
[4967] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Go fly Caldari missile ships and learn first hand. If you dont want to - fine. But dont expect others then to explain everything from the very beginning. Its just boring to do so, esp. since others here have done that already. :) You still never had pointed what the problem of HAM and Torp was beside damage application. Maybe there is not any other problem ? Maybe you are lazy, but maybe you don't know because you don't even understand how your weapon system work, or maybe you are wrong ? Maybe you are that stupid ? Who knows if you don't want to talk...
No, it's because she wants one sized missile system for everything. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 13:38:00 -
[4968] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Go fly Caldari missile ships and learn first hand. If you dont want to - fine. But dont expect others then to explain everything from the very beginning. Its just boring to do so, esp. since others here have done that already. :) You still never had pointed what the problem of HAM and Torp was beside damage application. Maybe there is not any other problem ? Maybe you are lazy, but maybe you don't know because you don't even understand how your weapon system work, or maybe you are wrong ? Maybe you are that stupid ? Who knows if you don't want to talk... No, it's because she wants one sized missile system for everything.
wrong again, and so easy to see for anyone who cares to read my postings here. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
204
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 14:01:00 -
[4969] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:wrong again, and so easy to see for anyone who cares to read my postings here.
Maybe torps aren't meant for frig killing? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 14:06:00 -
[4970] - Quote
I found it ! She want 70km ranged HAM and frig killing torpedoes ! |
|
Omarosas
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 14:09:00 -
[4971] - Quote
Time to train up turret skills and abandon missiles...what a waste of SP |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 14:32:00 -
[4972] - Quote
While you two clowns (one with no clue at all and the other with no Caldari or missile experience apart from being killed by them) go on with your really valuable posting, I still hope some others get it :)
Bouh Revetoile wrote:I found it ! She want 70km ranged HAM and frig killing torpedoes !
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:wrong again, and so easy to see for anyone who cares to read my postings here. Maybe torps aren't meant for frig killing?
I should have known you were trolls from the moment on when this Raven fitting was posted/Raven was considered to be an option. So yeah, have to take that one.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 14:43:00 -
[4973] - Quote
You have no real solo kill, so why are we reading you ? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 14:49:00 -
[4974] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:While you two clowns (one with no clue at all and the other with no Caldari or missile experience apart from being killed by them) go on with your really valuable posting, I still hope some others get it :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYezgyi3M80 |
Vokradacka
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 17:13:00 -
[4975] - Quote
Sry guys , but torps ill get insignificant buff .. they ill be still sux . = caldari small weapons sux , caldari large weapons sux , caldari medium weapons mediocre ( nerf HML , little buffed HAMs) ...deal with it . train winmatar as rest of us . |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
47
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 17:27:00 -
[4976] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
It's generally more useful to try to understand WHY people disagree with you rather than assuming that they are all fools who lack your wisdom and insight.
In any case, if CCP agrees with you then no problem. Missiles will be nerfed and, in your opinion, no one will care. Caldari pilots will go on as they always do, their main (and, in some respects, only) combat ship will be that much less effective, but they won't mind because they will know that one day, some day, CCP will fix their other ships and weapons. On that magical day some years from now Caldari pilots will log in to discover that they finally have working versions of the ships and weapons the other races enjoy today, and the millions of skill points they invested will suddenly have value.
But it is possible that you are wrong.
It is possible that some Caldari players -- perhaps hundreds or even thousands -- are tired of waiting for magical "some days" and are sick of seeing the little that they do have nerfed. It is possible that Caldari players will not understand or accept that CCPs solution to broken ships like the Cerberus is to nerf it some more. It's possible that hundreds or even thousands of Caldari players were already distrustful or even angry with CCP even prior to all this. It's possible.
You don't agree with me, but I think CCP is playing with dynamite. If they keep kicking it, as they have promised to do, it might very well explode. I think CCP needs to take a step back and give some serious thought to the Caldari situation overall. They need to stop talking nerfs and start talking about fixes.
In my opinion.
this may have been a more gracious response than i deserve so a hat tipping to u o`7
caldari are used in pvp and pve. and not just drakes and tengus. Falcons, rokhs scorps etc are quite common. because of this, i think the premise that caldari are a broken race is simply wrong as long as ppl are happy to fly them in the numbers they do. not every caldari ship is being flown by a die hard caldari roleplayer. ppl choose to fly these ships because they are effective, and in some cases, the leaders of their fields. Every single race has its ships that dnt see much use, not just caldari
similarly, the near total absence of medium beams and rails would also suggest there is some kind of balance gap between them and the other weapons in their niche (it is the HML's that need changing). This nerf is attempting to address that, and future expansions will likely address the balance gaps (including the ones for the cerberus and nighthawk) between certain ships.
ppl can be (over) dramatic about these changes if they want, but i'm betting 500mil isk and a meal of hardware that they are a minority |
Cerlin
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 17:50:00 -
[4977] - Quote
"Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit"
Can we please have this back in? It was finally making ewar changes legit and give missiles a way to buff themselves with tracking enhancers. As it stands a TD frig cant tackle a missile boat well, and you are keeping this trend up. Why take this out? Please add at least some form of this so TD can still be useful. Why does it feel like ECM is the only type of EWAR that actually works? Please change this back.
I do a lot of small frig/ship pvp and this change was one of the best this patch. Without this and now only a 10% nerf to HM damage you are changing very little. And for a small ship, you are making the HM hit HARDER with no way to counter (which would be the TD) change. Why are we showing so much love to the battle cruiser weapon EVERYONE uses and neglecting the frig sid? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 17:56:00 -
[4978] - Quote
Cerlin wrote:Without this and now only a 10% nerf to HM damage you are changing very little. And for a small ship, you are making the HM hit HARDER
how so? Please explain how you come to this conclusion :) hint: you might have missed the changes to explosion radius of precisions ... |
Mazzerri Aurilen
Serious Internet Spaceship Holding Company IMPERIAL LEGI0N
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 18:02:00 -
[4979] - Quote
So if I understand the modification, CCP wanted to decrease the range of HM's but in turn increased their effective range. Okay, I can work with that because it is nothing I was not use to but then bring back 60% of the damge which was going to be taken awy from Heavy Missiles? Wait, there is more!! The best counter I have heard in years (tracking disruptors on missiles) gets pushed back for a long time. Why even do all this work for such a small change. Well besides the fact you might have bad a missile boat harder to tackle then an AC boat. Disapprove |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 18:30:00 -
[4980] - Quote
Mazzerri Aurilen wrote:So if I understand the modification, CCP wanted to decrease the range of HM's but in turn increased their effective range. Okay, I can work with that because it is nothing I was not use to but then bring back 60% of the damge which was going to be taken awy from Heavy Missiles? Wait, there is more!! The best counter I have heard in years (tracking disruptors on missiles) gets pushed back for a long time. Why even do all this work for such a small change. Well besides the fact you might have bad a missile boat harder to tackle then an AC boat. Disapprove
I really dont get the point of your posting, what do you mean with "increased their effective range"? :) |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 18:35:00 -
[4981] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Cerlin wrote:Without this and now only a 10% nerf to HM damage you are changing very little. And for a small ship, you are making the HM hit HARDER how so? Please explain how you come to this conclusion :) hint: you might have missed the changes to explosion radius of precisions ... Hint : look at the explosion velocity.
BTW, ALL HM have an explosion velocity nerf. With the counter buff for precision, that mean that precision missiles will hit frigates for the exact same proportion of damage than before. BUT, precision damage are BUFFED, so HML will hurt frigates MORE !
And remember these stats are without skills. |
Cerlin
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 18:40:00 -
[4982] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Cerlin wrote:Without this and now only a 10% nerf to HM damage you are changing very little. And for a small ship, you are making the HM hit HARDER how so? Please explain how you come to this conclusion :) hint: you might have missed the changes to explosion radius of precisions ...
Please look at the increase to explosion velocity on both standard HM and the precision missiles now. Cumulative 30% increase on damage to cruiser and smaller targets. In the age of sig tanking this is huge.
-Explosion radius increased by 12% (this is bad, reread my own info on missiles) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles (this is good)
so that is a boost to radius, boost to velocity, and boost to the damage on the missiles for smaller target. 3 different boosts to the damage done to smaller sig targets. That is a buff my friend.
Edit: I was missing something sorry, but still it looks like Precision are getting buffed, yes? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 19:09:00 -
[4983] - Quote
Cerlin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Cerlin wrote:Without this and now only a 10% nerf to HM damage you are changing very little. And for a small ship, you are making the HM hit HARDER how so? Please explain how you come to this conclusion :) hint: you might have missed the changes to explosion radius of precisions ... Please look at the increase to explosion velocity on both standard HM and the precision missiles now. Cumulative 30% increase on damage to cruiser and smaller targets. In the age of sig tanking this is huge. -Explosion radius increased by 12% (this is bad, reread my own info on missiles) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles (this is good) so that is a boost to radius, boost to velocity, and boost to the damage on the missiles for smaller target. 3 different boosts to the damage done to smaller sig targets. That is a buff my friend. Edit: I was missing something sorry, but still it looks like Precision are getting buffed, yes?
Bigger explosion radius is not a buff ....
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 19:52:00 -
[4984] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Standard and faction ammo has been severly nerfed (less damage, less range, bigger exp. radius) in hitting smaller stuff.
Why should heavy missiles hit frigs for full damage?
Oh, yeah... I'm so going to hit Dramiel with HPLs. |
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 20:16:00 -
[4985] - Quote
Quote:Oh, yeah... I'm so going to hit Dramiel with HPLs.
Actually, HMLs are equivalent to medium weapon systems and cruise/torps - to large. You don't hit frig size with MPLs or what?
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:If one just takes the numbers then a CM Raven will kill almost everything on long ranges. In game it does not, at least thats my perception. Do you guys disagree?
Why ? Is it because it's bad ? Or is it because people never tryed it recently ?
Oh...perfect. I had the same "it's all because noone tried to do it" and "they are all wrong" ideas about 10 years ago. So young, so innocent...%)
Quote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYezgyi3M80
2+*** tengu got decent tanking ability? Oh...we got a solution - nerf whole weapon system. So obvious way to fix smth%)
And seriously...may be the problem is in ...umm...charges?
HAMs and HMLs are pretty equal to blasters and rails, ok...but...variety of ammo is totally different.
Instead all this antimatter/javelin/iridium bullets missile ships got only precies and furies.
Range decrease...this 25% is essential, but ok...needed.
But now HML will suck, cuz there is no short range ammo with bonus dmg still effective against cruiser/frig size.
Furies become even worse with all this changes. Precies...they were not so good before and they won't change much. Oh...Noemy said everything already.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 20:22:00 -
[4986] - Quote
Apteko wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:If one just takes the numbers then a CM Raven will kill almost everything on long ranges. In game it does not, at least thats my perception. Do you guys disagree?
Why ? Is it because it's bad ? Or is it because people never tryed it recently ? Oh...perfect. I had the same "it's all because noone tried to do it" and "they are all wrong" ideas about 10 years ago. So young, so innocent...%)
Yep you are right there .. he is just a Gallentean only, forgive him his lack of insight. What I find a bit disturbing though is his attitude .. he should really listen to people who actually skilled and used missiles IMO. Like all those other guys who fail to see how those changes are NOT a buff to precision like they think, but just a minor change which will not help to bring a now not so hot system to life. Best part is the "explosion radius has been buffed!!" thing .. OMG.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 20:28:00 -
[4987] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Yep you are right there .. he is just a Gallentean only, forgive him his lack of insight. What I find a bit disturbing though is his attitude .. he should really listen to people who actually skilled and used missiles IMO. Like all those other guys who fail to see how those changes are NOT a buff to precision like they think, but just a minor change which will not help to bring a now not so hot system to life. Best part is the "explosion radius has been buffed!!" thing .. OMG.
Also looks like he likes solo/small gang pvp, which is btw, area where Minmatar/Gallente shines.
They buffed hybrids less than a year ago. |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 20:55:00 -
[4988] - Quote
Apteko wrote:Quote:Oh, yeah... I'm so going to hit Dramiel with HPLs. Actually, HMLs are equivalent to medium weapon systems and cruise/torps - to large. You don't hit frig size with MPLs or what?
Medium pulses are small guns. And they do, in fact, have trouble hitting frigates if you fly poorly. Heavy Pulses are medium guns and find it almost impossible to hit a competently flown frigate without tracking mods+good flying or multiple webs. Even medium autocannons and blasters have trouble hitting frigates that get in close without at least one web or a bunch of tracking mods. Frigates can counter by orbiting close and bringing tracking disruptors.
Contrast this with HMLs, which hit small targets quite hard, always hit, and for which damage mitigation options are fairly limited. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 21:02:00 -
[4989] - Quote
Apteko wrote:Actually, HMLs are equivalent to medium weapon systems and cruise/torps - to large. You don't hit frig size with MPLs or what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JvfhVXbMgc8
And like you can see Mega Pulses don't hit frigate if that frigate pilot knows what he is doing. |
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 21:17:00 -
[4990] - Quote
Quote:Medium pulses are small guns.
actually heavy missiles are small missiles then. Cruise are medium one and torps are big....so everything is comparable: BS - medium weapon system, BC - small weap sys and large....let capital fleet use large ones)
ah. this funny harbs with MPLs and Canes with 220 cannons, they just don't know, that they are using small weapons.
Irony mod off.
Gradation is not similar and it shouldn't be, really.
You have some...umm...wrong thinkings bout HML performance. Actually...you will deal really low dmg against fast frig hulls. It will be stable, but still awful with no chance of dealing full dmg. |
|
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 22:16:00 -
[4991] - Quote
Apteko wrote:Quote:Medium pulses are small guns. actually heavy missiles are small missiles then. Cruise are medium one and torps are big....so everything is comparable: BS - medium weapon system, BC - small weap sys and large....let capital fleet use large ones) ah. this funny harbs with MPLs and Canes with 220 cannons, they just don't know, that they are using small weapons. Irony mod off. Gradation is not similar and it shouldn't be, really. No, you're just an idiot. Medium Pulse Lasers are the largest class of small pulse laser turrets. They require the small energy turret skill. If you found a Harbinger fitting medium pulse lasers, he was terribad or running a gimmick fit.
Quote:You have some...umm...wrong thinkings bout HML performance. Actually...you will deal really low dmg against fast frig hulls. It will be stable, but still awful with no chance of dealing full dmg. You obviously haven't spent much time in a frigate being shot at by an HML drake. "Dealing full dmg [sic]" and hitting something very hard are two very different things. An AC hurricane almost never hits for full damage either, because of falloff and tracking. That doesn't mean that just because I'm 14km away I won't be getting a facefull of damage. |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 22:37:00 -
[4992] - Quote
Has any one brought up the reload time? Missile Launchers take 10 seconds, while guns take 5 not to mention the instant swap for lens. |
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 22:57:00 -
[4993] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Apteko wrote:Quote:Medium pulses are small guns. actually heavy missiles are small missiles then. Cruise are medium one and torps are big....so everything is comparable: BS - medium weapon system, BC - small weap sys and large....let capital fleet use large ones) ah. this funny harbs with MPLs and Canes with 220 cannons, they just don't know, that they are using small weapons. Irony mod off. Gradation is not similar and it shouldn't be, really. No, you're just an idiot. Medium Pulse Lasers are the largest class of small pulse laser turrets. They require the small energy turret skill. If you found a Harbinger fitting medium pulse lasers, he was terribad or running a gimmick fit.
Ahh...that's the way we compare guns now. Not analyzing their role, their dps and other attributes...and no, we don't compare ship types it can be fitted either.
The key is "this thing is in small group, so it is small" and "Missiles are called heavy, so they are heavy weapon" Umm...do you really call every pilot with female avatar "miss"?%)
And what means "hard" 400dmg out of 2k volley? Cane deals more.
it's all about "Hey i lost almost half of my shield, that freak is hitting hard!" Noone cares about almost 2 times longer reload... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.20 23:30:00 -
[4994] - Quote
Apteko wrote:No, you're just an idiot. Medium Pulse Lasers are the largest class of small pulse laser turrets. They require the small energy turret skill. If you found a Harbinger fitting medium pulse lasers, he was terribad or running a gimmick fit.
Ahh...that's the way we compare guns now. Not analyzing their role, their dps and other attributes...and no, we don't compare ship types it can be fitted either.
The key is "this thing is in small group, so it is small" and "Missiles are called heavy, so they are heavy weapon" Umm...do you really call every pilot with female avatar "miss"?%)
And what means "hard" 400dmg out of 2k volley? Cane deals more.
it's all about "Hey i lost almost half of my shield, that freak is hitting hard!" Noone cares about almost 2 times longer reload...[/quote] Learn turret names please. If you put light missile launchers on your drake, you will hit frigates for full damage like a frigate. What he is saying is that naming in pulse turret is odd, and a small turret is named "medium pulse laser". It's exactly like missiles in fact : Heavy pulse, missiles and blasters are medium size weapons. Though, as a class, the cruiser size pulse laser barely hit frigates unless they are webbed and/or the cruiser/BC pilot is very good at piloting.
But I can't blame Noemi to don't know these things, she never flown a frigate. And she obviously never saw an Amarr cruiser BTW, not knowing what is a Heavy Pulse Laser.
By the way, I've just been killed by a hurricane today, so you certainly will say "I told ya, turrets hit frigates fine", but that's wrong : the cane completely neutralized me, so it manage to MWD off and then he was far enough to kill me. Otherwise, I would have had tanked him fine forever. Something you *cannot* do against HML unless you are AB + active tank fit. A similar drake would have web and TP the interceptor to apply consequent damage to it. Though, if you were flying frigates, you would know that tackling a drake leave you with something like 1 or 2 minutes of life expectancy if you are not AB+tanky. You can tank a turret ship *forever* in a frigate (an Oracle just paid it the hard way), even without any tank -- I read a story where someone killed a tornado with a velator ; it couldn't have been a drake instead of the tornado, because of HML.
Seeing this, I'm really sceptical about the knowledge of some missile specialists here...
Noemi, you know, I may never had fired a medium missile, but I fought them a lot more than you it seem, in conditions where these stats actually matter. How do you care for this when you shoot a BC ? HML hit cruisers very fine. "Your" killboard can attest it.
Though, I'd like to know from missiles experts that roam this thread : what is the problem of HML and Torp ? |
Lili Lu
547
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 00:53:00 -
[4995] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Apteko wrote:Quote:Oh, yeah... I'm so going to hit Dramiel with HPLs. Actually, HMLs are equivalent to medium weapon systems and cruise/torps - to large. You don't hit frig size with MPLs or what? Medium pulses are small guns. And they do, in fact, have trouble hitting frigates if you fly poorly. Heavy Pulses are medium guns and find it almost impossible to hit a competently flown frigate without tracking mods+good flying or multiple webs. Even medium autocannons and blasters have trouble hitting frigates that get in close without at least one web or a bunch of tracking mods. Frigates can counter by orbiting close and bringing tracking disruptors. Contrast this with HMLs, which hit small targets quite hard, always hit, and for which damage mitigation options are fairly limited. Please proceed Mr. Apteko . . .
Yeah, this thread is full of guys that came into this game. Realized or were told all they had to train was one single weapon in order to run just about all the pve content and have a place in about every environment of pvp. And now they will be losing that ease, and are full of whine. They will soon have to discover a whole game that they never knew existed. The game where one weapon does not do everything for you.
Also, I can't wait til CCP figures out the numbers for TD/TC/TE and lifts the delay on those affecting missiles. Again, welcome missile users, to a game you either did not know existed, or knew and decided to avoid because they made it easy for you to avoid. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 01:35:00 -
[4996] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:I'm Down wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:I'm Down wrote:for those of you saying the 10% damage nerf is good, I don't think you truely understand the extent of the nerf.
Missiles are becoming highly ewar sensitive to the same extent as guns while still suffering delayed and destroyable damage.
Missiles are delayed damage.
Range nerf equates to damage nerf and defensive nerf.
All non drake/Tengu's get **** on with anything but HAMs, yet still HAMs suck on all but 2 ships that use them b/c of lack of tank/mids/speed. I'm not seeing much evidence that many are taking advantage of their destructibility, at least in PvP. Also the Ewar changes aren't coming this winter. in 0.0, it's pretty common to firewall. As for the ewar... you know it's coming... so why promote a nerf knowing that it's going to be even worse soon? Range nerf is enough... damage nerf can always come later if it's not enough. Yeah and there is more than nullsec in the game. Noone is firewalling missiles in lowsec smaller engagements that I've seen. Besides firewalls are not like an automatic missile negator anyway. Range nerf is not enough. HMs have too much damage compared to other long range weapons. It's been shown a hundred times already probably itt. Keep whining in vain though.
"too much damage" even though it's delayed and reduced with speed and sig... yeah, ok pro. |
Lili Lu
547
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 02:59:00 -
[4997] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: "too much damage" even though it's delayed and reduced with speed and sig... yeah, ok pro. Yeah, ok pro, because turrets have no downsides either. vOv Most of all being that they don't do that HML damage at range.
You seem pretty terrible. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 04:10:00 -
[4998] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:I'm Down wrote: "too much damage" even though it's delayed and reduced with speed and sig... yeah, ok pro. Yeah, ok pro, because turrets have no downsides either. vOv Most of all being that they don't do that HML damage at range. You seem pretty terrible.
Yeah, those turrets that can hit any class ship for ~ full damage when webs/painters are used... regardless of size... or when traversal is low....
You have no ******* clue why missiles required all the previous buffs in their history or why people are arguing so adamantly against the nerf when it's 2 gd ships causing the problems, not the weapon itself. |
Lili Lu
547
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 05:00:00 -
[4999] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Yeah, those turrets that can hit any class ship for ~ full damage when webs/painters are used... regardless of size... or when traversal is low....
You have no ******* clue why missiles required all the previous buffs in their history or why people are arguing so adamantly against the nerf when it's 2 gd ships causing the problems, not the weapon itself.
"full damage" Ok, see that is where I question your logic. And then you notice the qualifiers you placed on that. Those same mods increase missile damage. So, what is your point?
Arguing adamantly does not make one right. And those two ships will probably get their own trimming, later. But when you strip down the weapons to just themselves, it's been shown repeatedly in this thread that HM damage is much too high compared to other medium long range weapons. The current nerf will have them still doing the most damage at max range. They just won't being doing as close to those guns at short range.
Then these new weapon stats will be added onto the newly respecced hulls that use them. That's the whole point in the OP. To leave HMs as they are was complicating all the later rebalancing because they left HM boats too powerful. People are not flying Drakes and Tengus only because they have monster tanks. They're flying them because they also do much better damage at long range. That will now apparently be 10% less.
Also, there will be similar mechanics to increase damage application once the tracking mod changes come into the game. This is not the totality of the changes. Recognize we don't have the whole picture yet. Crying over one nerf amongst the mix is stupid, tbh. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 05:09:00 -
[5000] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:I'm Down wrote: Yeah, those turrets that can hit any class ship for ~ full damage when webs/painters are used... regardless of size... or when traversal is low....
You have no ******* clue why missiles required all the previous buffs in their history or why people are arguing so adamantly against the nerf when it's 2 gd ships causing the problems, not the weapon itself. "full damage" Ok, see that is where I question your logic. And then you notice the qualifiers you placed on that. Those same mods increase missile damage. So, what is your point? Arguing adamantly does not make one right. And those two ships will probably get their own trimming, later. But when you strip down the weapons to just themselves, it's been shown repeatedly in this thread that HM damage is much too high compared to other medium long range weapons. The current nerf will have them still doing the most damage at max range. They just won't being doing as close to those guns at short range. Then these new weapon stats will be added onto the newly respecced hulls that use them. That's the whole point in the OP. To leave HMs as they are was complicating all the later rebalancing because they left HM boats too powerful. People are not flying Drakes and Tengus only because they have monster tanks. They're flying them because they also do much better damage at long range. That will now apparently be 10% less. Also, there will be similar mechanics to increase damage application once the tracking mod changes come into the game. This is not the totality of the changes. Recognize we don't have the whole picture yet. Crying over one nerf amongst the mix is stupid, tbh.
You can't compare missiles damage to other weapons when it's not the same... It's like comparing Artilleries to fricking rails or beams.... Again, learn your history, there's a reason they are as high as they currently are.... because they never competed well in the past at lower DPS.
I've already said there are a multitude of ways to nerf HML's that don't require a direct damage nerf... the primary being range.
And you should realize that those qualifiers that make turrets of any size always hit for near full damage don't apply to missiles in the same regard.... especially if you go and nerf Missile exp velocity and radius.
Why do I think you're just a dev in sheeps clothing... I've never once seen you disagree with their ideas yet history has shown they've had one disaster after another.... striking. |
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 05:38:00 -
[5001] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Standard and faction ammo has been severly nerfed (less damage, less range, bigger exp. radius) in hitting smaller stuff. Why should heavy missiles hit frigs for full damage? Oh, yeah... I'm so going to hit Dramiel with HPLs.
One may note that you don't use T2 close range ammo on smaller stuff either unless you have a huginn buddy webbing it down for you |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 05:40:00 -
[5002] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Has any one brought up the reload time? Missile Launchers take 10 seconds, while guns take 5 not to mention the instant swap for lens.
Also incorrect.
Lasers swap instantly, projectiles take 10sec only hybribs swap in 5 seconds. |
Lili Lu
547
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 05:47:00 -
[5003] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Why do I think you're just a dev in sheeps clothing... I've never once seen you disagree with their ideas yet history has shown they've had one disaster after another.... striking. Lol. I've criticized the devs in plenty of threads. When I think they deserve it. Sorry I don't think like you that they deserve criticism for this change.
But go ahead and put your tin foil hat on. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 07:17:00 -
[5004] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Learn turret names please
Learn who you quoted please.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: But I can't blame Noemi to don't know these things, she never flown a frigate. And she obviously never saw an Amarr cruiser BTW, not knowing what is a Heavy Pulse Laser.
.... I never named the lasers wrong here, I did Frig PvP and I am Amarr all l5 too subcap. You mixed me up with some other guy, I see how good you are in being precise now ...
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Noemi, you know, I may never had fired a medium missile, but I fought them a lot more than you it seem, in conditions where these stats actually matter. How do you care for this when you shoot a BC ? HML hit cruisers very fine. "Your" killboard can attest it.
Never questioned this.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Though, I'd like to know from missiles experts that roam this thread : what is the problem of HML and Torp ?
Certainly you mean HAM and Torp, and not HML and Torp ...
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 08:34:00 -
[5005] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Lili Lu wrote:I'm Down wrote: Yeah, those turrets that can hit any class ship for ~ full damage when webs/painters are used... regardless of size... or when traversal is low....
You have no ******* clue why missiles required all the previous buffs in their history or why people are arguing so adamantly against the nerf when it's 2 gd ships causing the problems, not the weapon itself. "full damage" Ok, see that is where I question your logic. And then you notice the qualifiers you placed on that. Those same mods increase missile damage. So, what is your point? Arguing adamantly does not make one right. And those two ships will probably get their own trimming, later. But when you strip down the weapons to just themselves, it's been shown repeatedly in this thread that HM damage is much too high compared to other medium long range weapons. The current nerf will have them still doing the most damage at max range. They just won't being doing as close to those guns at short range. Then these new weapon stats will be added onto the newly respecced hulls that use them. That's the whole point in the OP. To leave HMs as they are was complicating all the later rebalancing because they left HM boats too powerful. People are not flying Drakes and Tengus only because they have monster tanks. They're flying them because they also do much better damage at long range. That will now apparently be 10% less. Also, there will be similar mechanics to increase damage application once the tracking mod changes come into the game. This is not the totality of the changes. Recognize we don't have the whole picture yet. Crying over one nerf amongst the mix is stupid, tbh. You can't compare missiles damage to other weapons when it's not the same... It's like comparing Artilleries to fricking rails or beams.... Again, learn your history, there's a reason they are as high as they currently are.... because they never competed well in the past at lower DPS. I've already said there are a multitude of ways to nerf HML's that don't require a direct damage nerf... the primary being range. And you should realize that those qualifiers that make turrets of any size always hit for near full damage don't apply to missiles in the same regard.... especially if you go and nerf Missile exp velocity and radius. Why do I think you're just a dev in sheeps clothing... I've never once seen you disagree with their ideas yet history has shown they've had one disaster after another.... striking. I think the problem is that you're using your experience when saying that turrets apply more damage, and thats totally understandable, but not at all how you should go about balancing things.
everything has to be balanced around the best players. Sure against 90% of players, turrets will do more damage than missiles because they *herp* *derp* set approach and press F1, but you dont balance around all of the morons, you have to balance around the best.
I guarantee you'd be far better off in a drake than you would in a harbinger if the frigate tackling you were piloted by garmon
Its just like starcraft, right now im gold league, and I think storm is totally imba, its impossible to dodge and kills me every time, but they dont balance around people like me, they have to balance for the best people in the world, or the super GSL code S players would completely break the game.
Its the same here; they could balance around you fighting me, but if they did that, someone like garmon could use greater piloting skill to be completely unbeatable. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 08:35:00 -
[5006] - Quote
Just one thing about this here, ..
Lili Lu wrote:
And really either way the thing that will kill you the fastest is drones (which you will have to kill before they kill you). And this is how it should be.
I agree with you here. The main thing a BC should rely on to kill fast orbitting small stuff is drones. Then again you maybe see the logic behind this: Caldari have a good missile option, which will be able to deal a bit of damage too. And they have in the same time the smallest drone bay and smallest bandwith too. So if you want to shift balance, then dont forget to rebalance this aspect either.
Thats my whole point, the whole time: assuming a system is not working in one aspect (thats what you do, when you say HML are OP because they deal too much damage on far out ranges compared to their turret peers) then one has to consider what happens when you nerf this system. You have to be aware of the consequences of a nerf for all those other aspectss too. And in this case close combat DPS will suffer too much IMO (raw damage for faction/t1/fury HML will ALL get nerfed, same with some soft stats, so they have less damage and will apply this damage worse than they do now!). Maybe the dronebay-size and bandwith need to be adressed then to compensate those issues.
Note: I dont say "buff the Drakes dronebay". I do say think about the *whole* thing, and dont forget those details, because thats what could easily kill a ship as a working platform.
PS: A bit OT: apart from that, I dont deny relying on Drones for DPS is a bit painful, esp. under sentry fire ... I am not objecting to a Drone-buff. But it could be Drones are the same for CCP like missiles are, something they dont like too much because of serverload .. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 10:06:00 -
[5007] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Standard and faction ammo has been severly nerfed (less damage, less range, bigger exp. radius) in hitting smaller stuff. Why should heavy missiles hit frigs for full damage? Oh, yeah... I'm so going to hit Dramiel with HPLs. One may note that you don't use T2 close range ammo on smaller stuff either unless you have a huginn buddy webbing it down for you
I know Conflag is really bad ammo against fast frigates like Dramiel.
I'm Down wrote:Yeah, those turrets that can hit any class ship for ~ full damage when webs/painters are used... regardless of size... or when traversal is low....
I want to see: - Rail Brutix doing 400+ dps at 70+ km - Beam Harbinger doing 400 dps at 100 km
Nevermind... Those don't exist. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 11:31:00 -
[5008] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Just one thing about this here, .. Missiles on the other hand have only one class - Heavy Missile Launchers for example, with the variations tech 1, meta, and so on. If a Drake wants to "downgrade" to be able to fight Frigs better it would have to use a different class, Rapid Light launchers for example. Then it will not get a bonus on that launchers though, because the ship bonus is only for Heavy and Heavy Assault ... of course it would be much work to change this all, still it might be hard to find good balance with everything if there are so many differences in turrets and missiles. Its a bit like Tachyons which are out of line with other long range large guns, simply because there is no equivalent railgun or artillery.
Dont get me wrong, I dont say this *has* to be changed and brought in line. But I do say again - if you neglect those differences then you might not be able to make the right decisions. I want the same with drones !
And if you think the smallest medium guns hit frigates fine without a web, you are very wrong. I repeat : without a web or a neut, even the smallest medium short range turrets can be outtracked easily (I can do it, so anyone can...)
Noemi, you never answered : what are the problems of HAM and Torp ? Maybe they are not that obvious if even CCP didn't know what they are... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 11:38:00 -
[5009] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Thats my whole point, the whole time: assuming a system is not working in one aspect (thats what you do, when you say HML are OP because they deal too much damage on far out ranges compared to their turret peers) then one has to consider what happens when you nerf this system. You have to be aware of the consequences of a nerf for all those other aspects too. And in this case close combat DPS will suffer too much IMO (raw damage for faction/t1/fury HML will ALL get nerfed, same with some soft stats, so they have less damage and will apply this damage worse than they do now!). Maybe the dronebay-size and bandwith need to be adressed then to compensate those issues.
I missed this one ! HML are a LONG RANGE weapon. They are not meant to be competing at SHORT RANGE. Will you ever understand this ?
And don't answer about HAM if it's not to point their problems. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 11:44:00 -
[5010] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Just one thing about this here, .. Missiles on the other hand have only one class - Heavy Missile Launchers for example, with the variations tech 1, meta, and so on. If a Drake wants to "downgrade" to be able to fight Frigs better it would have to use a different class, Rapid Light launchers for example. Then it will not get a bonus on that launchers though, because the ship bonus is only for Heavy and Heavy Assault ... of course it would be much work to change this all, still it might be hard to find good balance with everything if there are so many differences in turrets and missiles. Its a bit like Tachyons which are out of line with other long range large guns, simply because there is no equivalent railgun or artillery.
Dont get me wrong, I dont say this *has* to be changed and brought in line. But I do say again - if you neglect those differences then you might not be able to make the right decisions. I want the same with drones ! And if you think the smallest medium guns hit frigates fine without a web, you are very wrong. I repeat : without a web or a neut, even the smallest medium short range turrets can be outtracked easily (I can do it, so anyone can...) Noemi, you never answered : what are the problems of HAM and Torp ? Maybe they are not that obvious if even CCP didn't know what they are...
I answered this numerous times, but agreed, I never again answered on your question. If you are really interested in getting an answer I will: Torps and HAMs have the following issues atm:
1) without multiple helping modules they dont apply to targets of the same size (mediums for HAM, large for Torp)
2) their flight time doesnt help either to time helping modules (more a PvE issue than PvP)
3) their short range is in fact even shorter in Eve than the numbers in EFT and info screen may show
4) the Caldari Torp-hulls suck, for HAM there is only the Drake (NH doesnt work with HAM at all!) which does better with HML (short range does not help the Drake too much, small drone bay is one of the issues there).
The only Torp ships which work right now are bombers and the Phoon (although I already said I am not sure if its the Phoon itself which lets this otherwise poor system shine .. or if its just the broken Raven which lets Torps look so sucky).
With the incoming change I see a very small buff to Torps in regards of application (with GMP on l5 it will be a bit better than now), for HAM this buff is countered already by a nerf in the soft stats. The range of rage Torps and HAMs will be reduced some more. So no, I dont see the next patch will make them work on hulls where they didnt work before. Reduced PG may help the NH, but as the NH is not really good at all right now we will have to wait if it will be better after a change (in 2013+).
Btw, I dont understand what you meant with the first sentence - Drones are really completely different, arent they? |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 11:49:00 -
[5011] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Thats my whole point, the whole time: assuming a system is not working in one aspect (thats what you do, when you say HML are OP because they deal too much damage on far out ranges compared to their turret peers) then one has to consider what happens when you nerf this system. You have to be aware of the consequences of a nerf for all those other aspects too. And in this case close combat DPS will suffer too much IMO (raw damage for faction/t1/fury HML will ALL get nerfed, same with some soft stats, so they have less damage and will apply this damage worse than they do now!). Maybe the dronebay-size and bandwith need to be adressed then to compensate those issues.
I missed this one ! HML are a LONG RANGE weapon. They are not meant to be competing at SHORT RANGE. Will you ever understand this ? And don't answer about HAM if it's not to point their problems.
.... you are really not getting it. Do you once and for all drop this BS now about comparisons I never did? I didnt compare HML with SHORT RANGE systems. I compare HML on SHORT RANGES with LONG RANGE systems.
ANY OTHER LONG RANGE SYSTEM has SHORT RANGE AMMO, which will give HIGHER DPS (RF EMP M and so on). If you compare those DPS numbers, HML will be screwed there with the incoming changes. Completely. Besides: HML as they will be after this patch cant be considered a LONG RANGE system anymore, because their range will be medium at best - 25% cut of from what they have now. If you dont put rigs in your ship to snipe. Because there are no modules to change missile range ... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:01:00 -
[5012] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I answered this numerous times, but agreed, I never again answered on your question. If you are really interested in getting an answer I will: Torps and HAMs have the following issues atm:
1) without multiple helping modules they dont apply to targets of the same size (mediums for HAM, large for Torp)
2) their flight time doesnt help either to time helping modules (more a PvE issue than PvP)
3) their short range is in fact even shorter in Eve than the numbers in EFT and info screen may show
4) the Caldari Torp-hulls suck, for HAM there is only the Drake (NH doesnt work with HAM at all!) which does better with HML (short range does not help the Drake too much, small drone bay is one of the issues there).
The only Torp ships which work right now are bombers and the Phoon (although I already said I am not sure if its the Phoon itself which lets this otherwise poor system shine .. or if its just the broken Raven which lets Torps look so sucky).
With the incoming change I see a very small buff to Torps in regards of application (with GMP on l5 it will be a bit better than now), for HAM this buff is countered already by a nerf in the soft stats. The range of rage Torps and HAMs will be reduced some more. So no, I dont see the next patch will make them work on hulls where they didnt work before. Reduced PG may help the NH, but as the NH is not really good at all right now we will have to wait if it will be better after a change (in 2013+).
Btw, I dont understand what you meant with the first sentence - Drones are really completely different, arent they? Finally some materials. In fact, you actually pointed these problems, and I already answered them, but you ignored me, like always when something is not to your taste.
1) See GMP skill applyed. Same size target will be hit fine. 25% is HUGE, not small. And add the fitting buff to HAM. Use a web if speed is still a problem. Use a turret ship if you want the advantages of turrets.
2) HM velocity is increased, and we don't balance a weapon system for pve.
3) See acceleration corrected : actual range will now be very closer from the theoretical range.
4) BC and BS will be adressed later, probably for the next summer expansion, but it might be sooner than this.
I think you should have read the OP more carefully...
And I understand now why you prefer to smack talk and discredit your interlocutors instead of arguing. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:06:00 -
[5013] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Thats my whole point, the whole time: assuming a system is not working in one aspect (thats what you do, when you say HML are OP because they deal too much damage on far out ranges compared to their turret peers) then one has to consider what happens when you nerf this system. You have to be aware of the consequences of a nerf for all those other aspects too. And in this case close combat DPS will suffer too much IMO (raw damage for faction/t1/fury HML will ALL get nerfed, same with some soft stats, so they have less damage and will apply this damage worse than they do now!). Maybe the dronebay-size and bandwith need to be adressed then to compensate those issues.
I missed this one ! HML are a LONG RANGE weapon. They are not meant to be competing at SHORT RANGE. Will you ever understand this ? And don't answer about HAM if it's not to point their problems. .... you are really not getting it. Do you once and for all drop this BS now about comparisons I never did? I didnt compare HML with short range systems. For you a bit bigger: I did NOT compare HML with SHORT RANGE SYSTEMS.I compare HML on SHORT RANGES with other LONG RANGE systems on short range... and just for you: other MEDIUM LR systems that is. You are so set in your Gallentean mind that you will fail to see again and again. Really, get missile skills and use them, so you actually get a clue. ANY OTHER LONG RANGE SYSTEM has SHORT RANGE AMMO, which will give HIGHER DPS (RF EMP M and so on). HML has Fury, which right now may have too long range, but will be nerfed a LOT after the patch, less damage, very much nerfed application (in both numbers, exp. velo and radius!) and very short range. If you compare those DPS numbers, HML will be screwed there with the incoming changes. Completely. Besides: HML as they will be after this patch cant be considered a LONG RANGE system anymore, because their range will be medium at best - 25% cut of from what they have now. If you dont put rigs in your ship to snipe. Because there are no modules to change missile range ... And you are still ignoring tracking. T2 short range ammo have a range of 9km. At 9km, even with the tracking bonus, you are not gonna track ANYTHING. You are always asking me to try some missile boat, but YOU should try a rail/beam/arty boat as well I think, you would realize how mighty HML are at short range compared to long range turrets. Even a cruiser at 20km can easily outtrack long range turrets, provided it have a speed advantage.
PS : for the T2 ammo, LR and SR gun and missiles are kind of reverse : short range missiles get the long range ammo and weak damage application while long range missiles are the ones for damage application + damage application ammo ; both get high damage low damage application ammo. For turret, it is short range turret with high damage application and long range turret with low damage application. Tracking bonus on short range ammo is only here to allow them to hit something, really. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:07:00 -
[5014] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Thats my whole point, the whole time: assuming a system is not working in one aspect (thats what you do, when you say HML are OP because they deal too much damage on far out ranges compared to their turret peers) then one has to consider what happens when you nerf this system. You have to be aware of the consequences of a nerf for all those other aspects too. And in this case close combat DPS will suffer too much IMO (raw damage for faction/t1/fury HML will ALL get nerfed, same with some soft stats, so they have less damage and will apply this damage worse than they do now!). Maybe the dronebay-size and bandwith need to be adressed then to compensate those issues.
I missed this one ! HML are a LONG RANGE weapon. They are not meant to be competing at SHORT RANGE. Will you ever understand this ? And don't answer about HAM if it's not to point their problems. .... you are really not getting it. Do you once and for all drop this BS now about comparisons I never did? I didnt compare HML with short range systems. For you a bit bigger: I did NOT compare HML with SHORT RANGE SYSTEMS.I compare HML on SHORT RANGES with other LONG RANGE systems on short range... and just for you: other MEDIUM LR systems that is. You are so set in your Gallentean mind that you will fail to see again and again. Really, get missile skills and use them, so you actually get a clue. ANY OTHER LONG RANGE SYSTEM has SHORT RANGE AMMO, which will give HIGHER DPS (RF EMP M and so on). HML has Fury, which right now may have too long range, but will be nerfed a LOT after the patch, less damage, very much nerfed application (in both numbers, exp. velo and radius!) and very short range. If you compare those DPS numbers, HML will be screwed there with the incoming changes. Completely. Besides: HML as they will be after this patch cant be considered a LONG RANGE system anymore, because their range will be medium at best - 25% cut of from what they have now. If you dont put rigs in your ship to snipe. Because there are no modules to change missile range ...
OK in what magical world does RF EMP to more damage than HMLs with CN scorge? or Rails? Beams are probably close, probably.
and HMLs will still be plenty long range, 90km listed distance god damn sure isn't short learn to fit rigs. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:14:00 -
[5015] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
1) See GMP skill applyed. Same size target will be hit fine. 25% is HUGE, not small. And add the fitting buff to HAM. Use a web if speed is still a problem. Use a turret ship if you want the advantages of turrets.
Explosion radius and explosion velocity will get nerfed for HAMs. So there is not a 25% improvement. But as a non-missile-user you will fail to see this :) (has been discussed before btw, read those postings).
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
2) HM velocity is increased, and we don't balance a weapon system for pve.
Has never been said PvE should be a reason to balance. Except by all the Drake-haters - "Drake can do l4s OMG!!" ...
Bouh Revetoile wrote: 3) See acceleration corrected : actual range will now be very closer from the theoretical range.
That indeed we have to see.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I think you should have read the OP more carefully...
Says the guy who
1) mixed HML and HAM in his posting
2) doesnt read what I compare
3) blamed me numerous times for things which I never did (without a single attempt for an excuse afterwards, btw ...)
4) doesnt understand how buffing one thing while nerfing other relevant stats may result not in a huge buff but maybe even a nerf
5) has no first hand idea of how missiles work.
.. and so on.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:28:00 -
[5016] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:OK in what magical world does RF EMP to more damage than HMLs with CN scorge? or Rails? Beams are probably close, probably.
and HMLs will still be plenty long range, 90km listed distance god damn sure isn't short learn to fit rigs. HML pre nerf have *always* more dps than arties, whatever the range. And missiles have rigs too. And dps at 90km for medium arties is laughable. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:35:00 -
[5017] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Explosion radius and explosion velocity will get nerfed for HAMs. So there is not a 25% improvement. But as a non-missile-user you will fail to see this :) (has been discussed before btw, read those postings).
Now I'm sure you are either dishonnest or have reading problems. Only HIG DAMMAGE short range missiles ammo will see their explosion radius/velocity nerfed, and that is only to counter the GMP skill applying.
T2 ammo are not meant to be used for everything. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:37:00 -
[5018] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:OK in what magical world does RF EMP to more damage than HMLs with CN scorge? or Rails? Beams are probably close, probably.
and HMLs will still be plenty long range, 90km listed distance god damn sure isn't short learn to fit rigs. HML pre nerf have *always* more dps than arties, whatever the range. And missiles have rigs too. And dps at 90km for medium arties is laughable.
I didnt write this. Learn to F*RIGGIN QUOTE.
And apologise for all those postings where you tell lies about what I wrote. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:42:00 -
[5019] - Quote
Corrected, my apologies. Don't use it as a pretext for avoiding all the relevant things. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:46:00 -
[5020] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:ANY OTHER LONG RANGE SYSTEM has SHORT RANGE AMMO, which will give HIGHER DPS (RF EMP M and so on). HML pre nerf have *always* more dps than arties, whatever the range. Edit : fail quote
Theoretically you can use quake and get more DPS....it also takes you into 1400mm tracking ranges, you'll miss anything short of a webbed BS with a MWD on.
Oh and you need three Gryostabs to do it. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:48:00 -
[5021] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:and very short range
Compared to what? Quake? Javelin? Gleam? |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 12:50:00 -
[5022] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:and very short range Compared to what? Quake? Javelin? Gleam?
....and those are some impressive optimals there.....NOT. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 13:51:00 -
[5023] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Theoretically you can use quake and get more DPS....it also takes you into 1400mm tracking ranges, you'll miss anything short of a webbed BS with a MWD on.
Oh and you need three Gryostabs to do it. Infact, you can reach these damage values with scourge fury. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 14:31:00 -
[5024] - Quote
Yeah, and you could fit 2 more HML to the Canes highslots and end up with 490 DPS (RF EMP + Fury HML) compared to the Drakes 411 DPS (Scourge Fury) 368 DPS (CN Scourge) or 329 DPS (other damage type Fury) (both ships with all l5, no implants, no Drones).
So yes, the Cane can easily Out-DPS the Drake on paper. And thats even before the patch. Btw, without those launchers the Cane would have 426 DPS (RF ammo) or 432 (Quake). Still have bigger bay, still have bigger bandwith. And, to be fair, also a worse tank. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 14:43:00 -
[5025] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Yeah, and you could fit 2 more HML to the Canes highslots and end up with 490 DPS (RF EMP + Fury HML) compared to the Drakes 411 DPS (Scourge Fury) 368 DPS (CN Scourge) or 329 DPS (other damage type Fury) (both ships with all l5, no implants, no Drones).
So yes, the Cane can easily Out-DPS the Drake on paper. And thats even before the patch. Btw, without those launchers the Cane would have 426 DPS (RF ammo) or 432 (Quake). Still have bigger bay, still have bigger bandwith. And, to be fair, also a worse tank.
A list for you, all l5, 2 t2 damage mods, no rigs, no drones, no implants:
Cane with 6 Arty + 2 HML:
490 DPS (RF high damage + Fury)
426 DPS (RF high damage and no launchers)
Drake:
411 DPS (Scourge Fury)
386 DPS (Scourge Faction)
329 DPS (Fury non-Scourge)
just to compare others:
Harbinger with IN Multi:
468 DPS
Brutix with CN Antimatter:
444 DPS
I perfectly know all those ships will have tracking issues with fast close stuff. And I know perfectly well, in game it will not be the best bet to use them there. But you can clearly see, * the numbers show* - the Drake is worst in DPS. There is no point in denying this :)
Yeah because people use HMLs on atry canes......not. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 14:51:00 -
[5026] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Yeah, and you could fit 2 more HML to the Canes highslots and end up with 490 DPS (RF EMP + Fury HML)
My version of Pyfa says 496 (RF EMP + Scourge Fury, no implants) but...
That's with Howitzers. Good luck fitting MWD + any tank.
Oh and it only does that in 15 km optimal if it can hit the target with those 720mms.
Ok, I give it 4 TEs. Optimal range is 22,1 km. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 15:13:00 -
[5027] - Quote
With two launchers, the cane don't have less tank than the drake, it have no tank at all. And you can put a third BCS on the drake to outdps the cane.
And still, this is short range. But I already did these comparisons, and conclued to an advantage of the harbinger over a 2 BCS drake until 28km, range where the drake have no tracking issues. Beyond, it's all for the drake, up to a 40% dps advantage (without tracking issues). Yes, there is damage mitigation specific to missiles, but in no way it is comparable to long range turrets tracking with long range ammo.
These stats are way out of turrets performances, and obsolete them. That is why HML need to be nerfed, and their dps reduced |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 15:32:00 -
[5028] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:With two launchers, the cane don't have less tank than the drake, it have no tank at all. And you can put a third BCS on the drake to outdps the cane.
It has tank... 26k EHP of it. But yeah, Drake has more tank and it easily outdamages Cane at longer distances.
[Hurricane, SH!TF!T]
Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Stasis Webifier II J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet EMP M Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603
Sorry about the name. I forgot to change it. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 15:39:00 -
[5029] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:With two launchers, the cane don't have less tank than the drake, it have no tank at all. And you can put a third BCS on the drake to outdps the cane. It has tank... 26k EHP of it. But yeah, Drake has more tank and it easily outdamages Cane at longer distances. 26kehp is less than a T1 cruiser... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 15:42:00 -
[5030] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:26kehp is less than a T1 cruiser...
Yeah, compared to most. Not if compared to Minmatar cruisers.
Main reason for "good luck fitting MWD + any tank" |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:01:00 -
[5031] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: - lots of chit chat-
My numbers are correct. I didnt deny the fact *IN GAME* things might be different. But before you said its not possible to outdps a HML Drake with an Arty-Cane, which simply is not true. If you fit more damage mods to one ship than the other you will know yourself how this irrelevates all comparisons. Still, for you:
462 DPS for the Drake then, 3 BCS. Still way behind the 2 Gyro 6 Arty+2 HML Cane, and still no drones counted in. With drones this would be:
561 DPS (Drake) to 601 DPS (Cane). Heck, the Cane could even go for Amarr Drones and deal pure EM with the Drones and still have 570 DPS.
Again, I didnt say those fittings will play a role in game. In game other things do also matter. But once and for all - this EFT-warrioring doesnt prove your point, in fact it does the opposite. I was right. You were not.
Btw, it would be nice if you gave a fitting for your Drake, with 3 BCS. Normally you end up with some CPU-issues if you want to stick with t2 in Drakes and take 3 damage mods :)
Best regards.
PS: That Cane I spoke about has FAR more speed than the Drake, and is also far from having no tank. I will not post the fitting though, will hopefully be able to use it for some demonstration later on, I am pretty sure it could beat any HML Drake if the fight is not starting at below 10 and will for sure not lose to any HML Drake (again, assuming not starting at zero). |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
292
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:13:00 -
[5032] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Finally some materials. In fact, you actually pointed these problems, and I already answered them, but you ignored me, like always when something is not to your taste.
1) See GMP skill applyed. Same size target will be hit fine. 25% is HUGE, not small. And add the fitting buff to HAM. Use a web if speed is still a problem. Use a turret ship if you want the advantages of turrets.
Possibly true, but we will need to wait and see how these things work in practice. I think it is entirely possible that the change to GMP will allow HAMs, Torps, and Rockets to finally function correctly.
Quote:2) HM velocity is increased, and we don't balance a weapon system for pve.
It's PvE. Who cares.
Quote:3) See acceleration corrected : actual range will now be very closer from the theoretical range.
Not quite. Missile FLIGHT DISTANCE will be closer to the theoretical max. The weapon itself, however, must still fly a pursuit course which impacts it's actual effective range. In cases in which the target is approaching the firing ship, the effective range increases. In cases in which the target is manuevering away or moving laterally, the missile expends it's flight time chasing the target. In worst case scenarios in which the target is fleeing, the reduction in range is equal to the flight time, times the velocity of the target ship.
Assuming my math is correct:
Ignoring missile acceleration, a new Heavy Missile fired by a pilot with Missile Projection 5, requires 5 seconds to reach a stationary Cynabol 35km away. If that same Cynabol is travelling away from the firing ship at 3000 m/sec, the missile will require seven seconds to impact, having travelled 50km to reach the target. If the firing ship is travelling at 1500km/sec in pursuit, the range between ships at the time the first salvo hits will have grown to 45km. The missiles from the next salvo, fired at that new range, will then be at the edge of the maximum missile flight time when acceleration is taken into account. They should hit approximately 10 seconds after launch. The following salvos will not hit at all.
The same applies, obviously to orbits. Here the problem is less timing out, and more damage delay.
However, the new short range precision ammo will definately suffer from the timing out problem. Here the missiles will have a maximum travel range of just over 20km. If fired at an Ares holding point at 25km, the missiles are completely incapable of hitting the target at all. They will, however, be capable of hitting any Frigate, regardless of target velocity, within scram range.
Whether that Frigate is using an MWD or not, the new precision missile will still fail to apply full damage. An AB frigate, obviously, is significantly smaller than the explosion radius, and far faster than the explosion velocity, so the missiles will hardly touch it at all. And again, this is within scram range. Once we approach disruptor range, target speed becomes a factor. I am too lazy to do the math right now, but it seems likely that the typical practical range for the new precision missiles will be 15km or less against MWD Frigates or fast Cruisers.
Quote:4) BC and BS will be adressed later, probably for the next summer expansion, but it might be sooner than this.
I wonder if this means more Drake nerfs by summer. :P
Perhaps CCP will remove their shield resist and replace it with a cargo capacity bonus. That seems true to form. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:15:00 -
[5033] - Quote
Onictus wrote:
Yeah because people use HMLs on atry canes......not.
I never said they do. I said the exact opposite. Still the possibility is there, and the numbers are also higher for the Cane with NO HML used. Which somehow is the exact opposite of what Jorma and that gallentean troll said.
Lets look back. I stated before how I feel about HML not being OP. Others said "but look at the numbers, it shows they are OP!". I said numbers alone are not working in Eve, because its always a combination of stuff like a ship with its attributes and a weapon system and meta game which all have to be calculated. People said "no, you have to stick with the numbers, the rest is just your weird perception!!". I said "ok, if discussing just numbers, then for some numbers I agree on they "look" like they are OP. But care to look at other numbers, which give a different picture, using the same ships, same weapons but other ranges and ammo" .. then the same people came and said "those numbers mean nothing, ships are not used like that".
Maybe you get it? When I said looking at the game itself is what we should do people said that would be wrong, numbers are all. When the numbers (eve-kill.net stats, EFT numbers, whatever) said something which didnt fit to their point of view they say those numbers are wrong and we should look at what happens in the game. This will go on and on. Simple as that.
I show how the Cane deals more DPS than the Drake and they say "you compare short range fittings with long range fittings", if I show long range Cane deals more they say "it will not work, it has too small EHP". If I would reveal the EHP of my fit they would claim something else ... it does not matter, one cant convince trolls.
Either way, I am not convinced about the need for nerfing HML. And I am not convinced we will have a more balanced game after this. In fact I am sure the game will have less balance afterwards. But again, we will see.
But if all those who say I am wrong will give some 100 mil ISK afterwards when they see how I was right, then I would be a rich man ...
|
Lili Lu
548
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:31:00 -
[5034] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I agree with you here. The main thing a BC should rely on to kill fast orbitting small stuff is drones. Then again you maybe see the logic behind this: Caldari have a good missile option, which will be able to deal a bit of damage too. And they have in the same time the smallest drone bay and smallest bandwith too. And a Drake has the worst option of those 4 tier2 BCs to fit some good utility high, getting a single small neut is normally all you can do.. So if you want to shift balance, then dont forget to rebalance this aspect either. Thats my whole point, the whole time: assuming a system is not working in one aspect (thats what you do, when you say HML are OP because they deal too much damage on far out ranges compared to their turret peers) then one has to consider what happens when you nerf this system. You have to be aware of the consequences of a nerf for all those other aspects too. And in this case close combat DPS will suffer too much IMO (raw damage for faction/t1/fury HML will ALL get nerfed, same with some soft stats, so they have less damage and will apply this damage worse than they do now!). Maybe the dronebay-size and bandwith need to be adressed then to compensate those issues. . . . PS: A bit OT: apart from that, I dont deny relying on Drones for DPS is a bit painful, esp. under sentry fire ... I am not objecting to a Drone-buff. But it could be Drones are the same for CCP like missiles are, something they dont like too much because of serverload .. PPS: And one more note: for missiles there is really only one line in each class.For turrets there are options. Let me show you what I mean. Turrets have normally faster firing, better tracking, lower alpha, shorter range options and bigger brothers with worse stats in tracking and RoF but more damage and range (for example dual180mm AC, 220mm AC and 425mm AC). So if you want to fit a Cane for anti-frig, you can use those smaller ones and still get a weapon bonus. This will cripple your ability to deal maximum DPS to bigger ships and longer ranges, but will enable you to hit smaller stuff pretty ok. Missiles on the other hand have only one class - Heavy Missile Launchers for example, with the variations tech 1, meta, and so on. If a Drake wants to "downgrade" to be able to fight Frigs better it would have to use a different class, Rapid Light launchers for example. Then it will not get a bonus on that launchers though, because the ship bonus is only for Heavy and Heavy Assault ... of course it would be much work to change this all, still it might be hard to find good balance with everything if there are so many differences in turrets and missiles. Its a bit like Tachyons which are out of line with other long range large guns, simply because there is no equivalent railgun or artillery.
Noemi, the problem I see with Drake addicts is a severe lack of creativity. Let's examine the neut issue first.
Lack of tiers for HMLs doesnt matter, and you don't have to drop down to light missiles. You want a medium neut in your utility high, here it is. It does require you to sacrifice some tank for grid. But turret users do that all the time. Welcome to the club. And, your ehp is still higher than a Harby or Cane, 76k ehp.
Highs - 7 x HML II (precision scourge), Medium Unstable Energy Neut Meds - LSE II, Limited Annointed EM field, Invuln II, Faint Epsilon Scrambler, Fleeting Propulsion web, Experimental 10mn mwd Lows - DC II, 2 x BSC II, Beta Reactor Control Rigs - 3 x CDFE Drones - 5 light drones of whatever you want
Any tackling frig that wants to put a scram and web on that Drake is gonna get hurt.
As for other ships having a larger drone bay big deal. Small dronebay is a Caldari thing. They don't prioritize drones. Gallente don't prioritize missiles. It's the games traditional racial flavor. If you like drones or missiles you crosstrain to the other or to Amarr or Minmatar. There will be no increase in drone bay for Caldari unless CCP wants to chuck out the whole backstory and racial flavor in the game. Your missiles will do some damage to a tackling frig and it will supplement your light drone damage. Turret boats don't get that benefit unless they are using their lowest tier short range guns with web and scram and the frig is orbiting far enough out not to have enough angular motion, but still in short enough range for damage to apply. Oh and that's ignoring painters in the mix.
And really with, Cane 30 m3, Cyclone 40m3, Prophecy 25m3, Harby 50m3, Brutix 50m3, Myrm (it's a frigging drone boat), none of these is doing anything worse to frigs with drones except the Myrm as it should. Yeah all subcaps are limited to 5 lights (yes it did and still does have to do with server load even more than missiles) to attack frigs so the 10-25m3 is there for spares or an alternate flavor of light drone. I don't fill my entire 50m3 drone bay with 5 mediums that will never hit a tackling frig when needed.
And when you gave your example of downgrading guns, and the ability to downgrade guns, you flipped over from long range guns to short range guns. Try seeing if 650mm arty or quad beam or dual 150mm rail does any better in this regard.
It's a hell of a lot easier to fit a Drake with good anti-tackling frig utlity and tank than a Beam harby or Arty Cane or Rail Brutix. So you see the Drake does not have a frig problem. It has a Drake pilot mindset problem. "OMG I should have to lose a LSE?" "How will I ever survive with just a 76k ehp tank?" "Fit a couple tackling mods in my mids where tank should be?" "Nooooooo!" |
Recoil IV
New Eden Renegades Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:36:00 -
[5035] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Yeah, and you could fit 2 more HML to the Canes highslots and end up with 490 DPS (RF EMP + Fury HML) compared to the Drakes 411 DPS (Scourge Fury) 368 DPS (CN Scourge) or 329 DPS (other damage type Fury) (both ships with all l5, no implants, no Drones).
So yes, the Cane can easily Out-DPS the Drake on paper. And thats even before the patch. Btw, without those launchers the Cane would have 426 DPS (RF ammo) or 432 (Quake). Still have bigger bay, still have bigger bandwith. And, to be fair, also a worse tank.
A list for you, all l5, 2 t2 damage mods, no rigs, no drones, no implants:
Cane with 6 Arty + 2 HML:
490 DPS (RF high damage + Fury)
426 DPS (RF high damage and no launchers)
Drake:
411 DPS (Scourge Fury)
386 DPS (Scourge Faction)
329 DPS (Fury non-Scourge)
just to compare others:
Harbinger with IN Multi:
468 DPS
Brutix with CN Antimatter:
444 DPS
I perfectly know all those ships will have tracking issues with fast close stuff. And I know perfectly well, in game it will not be the best bet to use them there. But you can clearly see, * the numbers show* - the Drake is worst in DPS. There is no point in denying this :)
i have made a similiar comparison between a 720mm cane vs hm drake vs 250mm railgun.cane wins by far,drake beats brutix and cane beats all :D |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:39:00 -
[5036] - Quote
Anyway, 18-23km is the only window where your cane outdps the drake. Cool, very useful.
Only use of arties is for alpha, not dps. That is the whole problem : dps difference between HML and turrets is not enough at close range (considering damage application), and too much at long range. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:45:00 -
[5037] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Drake, with 3 BCS. Normally you end up with some CPU-issues if you want to stick with t2 in Drakes and take 3 damage mods
T2 isn't always better...
[Drake, Draek]
Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5 |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:47:00 -
[5038] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Anyway, 18-23km is the only window where your cane outdps the drake. Cool, very useful.
Only use of arties is for alpha, not dps. That is the whole problem : dps difference between HML and turrets is not enough at close range (considering damage application), and too much at long range.
Thats your perception. The one of a non-Caldari, non-missile pilot. :) Very useful you gave us your opinion. Thanks. :)
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:54:00 -
[5039] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Anyway, 18-23km is the only window where your cane outdps the drake. Cool, very useful.
Only use of arties is for alpha, not dps. That is the whole problem : dps difference between HML and turrets is not enough at close range (considering damage application), and too much at long range. Thats your perception. The one of a non-Caldari, non-missile pilot. :) Very useful you gave us your opinion. Thanks. :)
About as useful as that hurricane fit. |
Lili Lu
548
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:55:00 -
[5040] - Quote
My god, why do Draek theads always end up as fitting advice to uncreative Drake pilots? |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 16:56:00 -
[5041] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:My god, why do Draek theads always end up as fitting advice to uncreative Drake pilots?
That's a very good question. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 17:13:00 -
[5042] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Lili Lu wrote:My god, why do Draek theads always end up as fitting advice to uncreative Drake pilots? That's a very good question.
That fitting of yours would die in fire vs the Cane of mine :) like I said, will do the test soon enough and fraps it too :) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 18:22:00 -
[5043] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Lili Lu wrote:My god, why do Draek theads always end up as fitting advice to uncreative Drake pilots? That's a very good question. That fitting of yours would die in fire vs the Cane of mine :) like I said, will do the test soon enough and fraps it too :)
It loses to dual neut AC Cane if Drake pilot is stupid enough to warp to neut range. |
Lili Lu
548
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 18:29:00 -
[5044] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: It loses to dual neut AC Cane if Drake pilot is stupid enough to warp to neut range. A dual neut ac cane that is no longer a 425 dual medium neut cane per the cane nerf in the op.
I see so much less butthurt posting from cane pilots itt because I would bet most of them are busy trying to figure out how to adjust fittings instead of whining, like spoiled drake pilots are doing. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 21:24:00 -
[5045] - Quote
I am speaking of an arty Cane, obviously. But never mind, you dont have a combat char anyway :) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 21:26:00 -
[5046] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: It loses to dual neut AC Cane if Drake pilot is stupid enough to warp to neut range. A dual neut ac cane that is no longer a 425 dual medium neut cane per the cane nerf in the op (?) I see so much less butthurt posting from cane pilots itt because I would bet most of them are busy trying to figure out how to adjust fittings instead of whining, like spoiled drake pilots are doing.
That reason you give here is the one you see with your perception. There might be another reason for this too, that is .. if the Cane wont work so good anymore, there will be plenty of other winmatar projectile ships left, which *do* work :) so not so much reason to be upset. But all this has been said before. If you dont want to see the light you wont see it. :) |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
66
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 21:36:00 -
[5047] - Quote
I love these changes.
Not too bothered about Heavy Missiles getting nerfed.
Love it that HAMs are getting buffed, especially Javelin T2s.
Love that Rage Torps are getting range and damage buffed. So so excellent. And Javelin Torps will be great.
Love it that Lights are getting easier fitting requirements. But a damage buff too? Coo-al. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 22:36:00 -
[5048] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:That reason you give here is the one you see with your perception. There might be another reason for this too, that is .. if the Cane wont work so good anymore, there will be plenty of other winmatar projectile ships left, which *do* work :) so not so much reason to be upset. But all this has been said before. If you dont want to see the light you wont see it. :) You *will* have HAM and Torp to play with. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 22:51:00 -
[5049] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:That reason you give here is the one you see with your perception. There might be another reason for this too, that is .. if the Cane wont work so good anymore, there will be plenty of other winmatar projectile ships left, which *do* work :) so not so much reason to be upset. But all this has been said before. If you dont want to see the light you wont see it. :) Name one . . .
im not sure if you've ever seen a vagabond try to take on a drake, but its quite like seeing a dune buggy vs a mack truck in a demolition derby
sure, the vaga would have to do something seriously stupid to lose, but it would never ever win that fight.
what about the tengu vs the loki? same story pretty much . . .
How about the rupture vs . . . oh wait thats a T1 cruiser . . .
What about the tempest vs . . . oh wait tracking and speed issues.
What about the tornado? possibly . . . even though its paper thin and gets blown up by bombers . . .
What about the rifter? aHA, the rifter is still a good ship ok I found one . . .
Wow youre right, so many totally overpowered projectile ships that work so well . . . |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 23:01:00 -
[5050] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:That reason you give here is the one you see with your perception. There might be another reason for this too, that is .. if the Cane wont work so good anymore, there will be plenty of other winmatar projectile ships left, which *do* work :) so not so much reason to be upset. But all this has been said before. If you dont want to see the light you wont see it. :) Name one . . . im not sure if you've ever seen a vagabond try to take on a drake, but its quite like seeing a dune buggy vs a mack truck in a demolition derby sure, the vaga would have to do something seriously stupid to lose, but it would never ever win that fight. what about the tengu vs the loki? same story pretty much . . . How about the rupture vs . . . oh wait thats a T1 cruiser . . . What about the tempest vs . . . oh wait tracking and speed issues. What about the tornado? possibly . . . even though its paper thin and gets blown up by bombers . . . What about the rifter? aHA, the rifter is still a good ship ok I found one . . . Wow youre right, so many totally overpowered projectile ships that work so well . . .
You mean projectile/Minmatar ships are bad? :) Is that your point? Sorry, but I dont buy that one. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 23:03:00 -
[5051] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:That reason you give here is the one you see with your perception. There might be another reason for this too, that is .. if the Cane wont work so good anymore, there will be plenty of other winmatar projectile ships left, which *do* work :) so not so much reason to be upset. But all this has been said before. If you dont want to see the light you wont see it. :) You *will* have HAM and Torp to play with.
your perception, again. For sure we will not have Torp working with a Raven after this patch. Maybe in future times. And about that guy who said rage Torps range will be buffed .. read again.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 23:09:00 -
[5052] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:your perception, again. For sure we will not have Torp working with a Raven after this patch. Maybe in future times. And about that guy who said rage Torps range will be buffed .. read again.
And for sure you perception about raven torp which won't work in the future is certain truth. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
124
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 23:29:00 -
[5053] - Quote
Quote: I think the problem is that you're using your experience when saying that turrets apply more damage, and thats totally understandable, but not at all how you should go about balancing things.
everything has to be balanced around the best players. Sure against 90% of players, turrets will do more damage than missiles because they *herp* *derp* set approach and press F1, but you dont balance around all of the morons, you have to balance around the best.
I guarantee you'd be far better off in a drake than you would in a harbinger if the frigate tackling you were piloted by garmon
Its just like starcraft, right now im gold league, and I think storm is totally imba, its impossible to dodge and kills me every time, but they dont balance around people like me, they have to balance for the best people in the world, or the super GSL code S players would completely break the game.
Its the same here; they could balance around you fighting me, but if they did that, someone like garmon could use greater piloting skill to be completely unbeatable.
There you are comparing a drake to a harb.... the problem ship arises again.... it's proof positive that the problem is 2 ships, not the weapon system. If you try making the same comparison with a cerb and a zealot, or a caracal and an omen, you fall flat both times.
Saying that the weapon system itself needs to be nerfed to **** so that you can go back and rebalance the ships a 2nd time after you tear it to pieces is just silly.... and it's only 2 ships.
How about instead, you tear those two ships apart, leave the rest balanced as is, and fix the problems on those 2 ships.... drake: resist/fittings and Tengu: ROF bonus and slot layouts. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
124
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 23:32:00 -
[5054] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Onictus wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Standard and faction ammo has been severly nerfed (less damage, less range, bigger exp. radius) in hitting smaller stuff. Why should heavy missiles hit frigs for full damage? Oh, yeah... I'm so going to hit Dramiel with HPLs. One may note that you don't use T2 close range ammo on smaller stuff either unless you have a huginn buddy webbing it down for you I know Conflag is really bad ammo against fast frigates like Dramiel. I'm Down wrote:Yeah, those turrets that can hit any class ship for ~ full damage when webs/painters are used... regardless of size... or when traversal is low.... I want to see: - Rail Brutix doing 400+ dps at 70+ km - Beam Harbinger doing 400 dps at 100 km Nevermind... Those don't exist. Oh, and you probably want to watch this. A lot of info about how turrets work in game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JvfhVXbMgc8
I want to see a HML drake do damage instantaneously.... I want to see it not lose damage to speed at those ranges, I want to see it do nearly 600 dps in close..... see how it works.
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 00:34:00 -
[5055] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:My god, why do Draek theads always end up as fitting advice to uncreative Drake pilots?
this^^ lol, had one near the middle of this thread who was completely ignorant of cookie cutter HAM drakes.
also did someone say HAMs dnt apply decent damage to their own size? cause they REALLY do.
Noemi Nagano wrote:
That reason you give here is the one you see with your perception. There might be another reason for this too, that is .. if the Cane wont work so good anymore, there will be plenty of other winmatar projectile ships left, which *do* work :) so not so much reason to be upset. But all this has been said before. If you dont want to see the light you wont see it. :)
i am one of those 'winmatar' pilots that uses an armour cane (the worst off from the nerf) for most my high sec warfare. i have been looking at other ships, but i've also been messing around with cane fittings.
i have plenty to test once the changes go onto the test server, and then 'live' tests when they are on tranq'. This is what u might call adapting and evolving to the changes in the game. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 05:17:00 -
[5056] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I want to see a HML drake do damage instantaneously....
Could you show us where they use missiles for sniping in real world? Where missiles deal instant damage in real world?
I'm Down wrote:I want to see it do nearly 600 dps in close.....
Use HAMs. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
143
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 05:33:00 -
[5057] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:I'm Down wrote:I want to see a HML drake do damage instantaneously.... Could you show us where they use missiles for sniping in real world? Where missiles deal instant damage in real world? I'm Down wrote:I want to see it do nearly 600 dps in close, but still have 100km range Use HAMs. Dude, read the whole quote |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 05:37:00 -
[5058] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:I'm Down wrote:I want to see a HML drake do damage instantaneously.... Could you show us where they use missiles for sniping in real world? Where missiles deal instant damage in real world? I'm Down wrote:I want to see it do nearly 600 dps in close..... Use HAMs. Dude, read the whole quote
I did. She wants missiles with instant damage. She also wants HMLs to deal 600 dps (like 400 at 120 km isn't enough...). She wants to snipe with missiles (just like they do somewhere in real world ). |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 06:40:00 -
[5059] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:I'm Down wrote:I want to see a HML drake do damage instantaneously.... Could you show us where they use missiles for sniping in real world? Where missiles deal instant damage in real world? I'm Down wrote:I want to see it do nearly 600 dps in close..... Use HAMs. Dude, read the whole quote I did. She wants missiles with instant damage. She also wants HMLs to deal 600 dps (like 400 at 120 km isn't enough...). She wants to snipe with missiles (just like they do somewhere in real world ).
Thats a good example of how Jorma (but also this gallentean missile expert) twist reality. They pick parts of postings and dont get the context. Numerous times I have been blamed for comparing short range turrets with HML when those guys were just not able to read what I compared .. funny thing no one comes with EFT numbers anymore since I showed how *very* wrong they all were with those DPS calculations before.
About that range window where HML are better than turrets - really no one (including me!) said its fair this window is so big. Having 35-40km of pure win is not fair for other races. Then again, from close to 35 its not bad for the others. And the others have better working close range options. Lets look at this again:
pro Caldari/ missile PvP:
p1- HML/Drake shines from 35 to locking range, assuming a dedicated sniper fitting this can be very long and will still be long after patch
p2- Drake has nice resists which works very well with Logis
p3- Drake is cheap and will do better and better with larger numbers
p4- the damage applies exactly the same every time under the exact same conditions
p5- tracking cant be underflown like with turrets
contra Caldari/ missile PvP
c1- there is no Caldari medium or large sized combat vessel which shines below 35 in comparison to its peers or overall
c2- there is only one viable tech 1 hull which can get used in combat in medium and large size, and 1 t3
c3- the damage comes in delayed
c4- the damage can be killed in space
c5- the damage will be reduced by speed & sig size, and can be reduced to zero
Right now in med/large hulls Caldari missile PvP has this one option, HML on Drake (and Tengu, for the rich). I think its not good that there are no other useful options. But to kill this one option before there is some other is just another big Caldari nerf. Nothing less.
After this patch there will be a change in p1- The window will be much smaller for non-rigged ships. Rigged ships will maybe have other issues, when they now have to be closer. The damage overall will also get reduced, esp. with Fury having a very short range and really bad application after the patch.
Maybe there will be a change in c1 - some here say the HAM Drake will shine then. I have yet to see that. Others (mainly one, and a gallentean missile expert he is) says the Torp Raven will be back. I am not sure if I need to comment this.
All other aspects will remain more or less the same. Some softstats are buffed (application of a skill), others are nerfed.
So, how will this new Eve be more balanced than before? I cant see more balance if Caldari lose their only tech 1 combat missile hull above frig size. It has been pointed out before how missile users are more stuck with missiles than turret users - their support skills dont work for turrets. It has been all said again and again. If one wants to understand the concerns he should actually be well able to do so.
If one wants to stick with his race and not use missiles, and furthermore not open his mind to thoughts he could never have had with no idea of those ships and weapons, then he may not get the point though.
Best regards.
PS:
Again, if I were a dev I would do something completely different:
- change Fury to short range is ok. Nerfing its softstats is not. Reducing its damage also is just ridiculous.
- change t1/faction range to medium is ok. Nerfing the damage is not needed IMO.
- introduce t2 long range with lower DPS to match the DPS of turret ships on sniping ranges at around ~70km for example. Or make it 75/80km, whatever feels best for balance. Before that mark turrets would have the edge, after that mark the missiles would be a bit better (til they run out). Flight time should be short, and velocity should be very high, so sniping actually makes sense.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 06:57:00 -
[5060] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Lili Lu wrote:My god, why do Draek theads always end up as fitting advice to uncreative Drake pilots? this^^ lol, had one near the middle of this thread who was completely ignorant of cookie cutter HAM drakes. also did someone say HAMs dnt apply decent damage to their own size? cause they REALLY do.
I saw one fitting here which surprised me a bit - that was the dedicated sniper fitting. I was indeed not aware of how far the range could be stretched. Maybe there should be a change to that when TE/TC come to the game. Then again, really long ranges are nothing one normally wants anyway ... 150km is bad ;)
All other fittings were nothing new to me, although none of them was really good. I think there are better options for real Eve PvP. But for sure wont post them as long as there is no need :) |
|
Opertone
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
152
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 08:27:00 -
[5061] - Quote
I don't like when Caldari get their Nerf...
i am Caldari :/
On a side note - RAGE torpedoes require 2-3 target painters on a golem to make the most out of them. They help compensate for the extremely low explosion velocity of all torps. Even a Hulk can speed tank them :P |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 09:25:00 -
[5062] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Right now in med/large hulls Caldari missile PvP has this one option
- Caracal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F6_q6XROTY - Blackbird What's more annoying than getting killed by missile spammer? You get killed by jamming missile spammer. - Raven - Scorpion NI - Drake - Tengu
And if you just could realize that Caldari isn't "missile race": - Vulture - Ferox - Rokh - Tengu (yes, it has hybrid subsystem too )
And to your "HAM only work against BSs and capitals!". Train your missile support skills. Even I can hit cruisers and BCs fine with my HAM Sacrilege (yeah, like there's a working HML version ) and I only have missile support skills at level 2-3. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 09:55:00 -
[5063] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Right now in med/large hulls Caldari missile PvP has this one option - Caracal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F6_q6XROTY- Blackbird What's more annoying than getting killed by missile spammer? You get killed by jamming missile spammer. - Raven - Scorpion NI - Drake - Tengu And if you just could realize that Caldari isn't "missile race": - Vulture - Ferox - Rokh - Tengu (yes, it has hybrid subsystem too ) And to your "HAM only work against BSs and capitals!". Train your missile support skills. Even I can hit cruisers and BCs fine with my HAM Sacrilege (yeah, like there's a working HML version ) and I only have missile support skills at level 2-3.
Caracal is right now outclassed by its peers. We will see how it will do after the patch. I doubt it will rock. Blackbird is nice for ECM. For sure not for DPS. Raven sucks in PvP. Completely. If you deny that then you really have less clue than i thought. Scorp NI is basically same as Raven in DPS, with worse range (no ship bonus!) and much better resists. And a huge price tag. I dont see them rolling in Eve tbh.
For the railboats I didnt object. But matter of fact is many Caldari dont have gunnery skills, since the options they had (hybrids) used to suck for a long time and got buffed not so long ago. If a Caldari will go gunnery, then he is smart and just goes Winmatar anyway. You forgot the Naga, which is far more important than the Ferox btw.
HAMs on a Sacrilege might work. Although you will not know this, since you dont PvP at all, right? :)
So, my statement remains: Drake/HML is the thing which works, and Tengu/HML is the option for rich people. Thats it for med/large missile PvP with Caldari, *the* missile race in Eve .. nice? I think not. But after the patch it will seem like glorious times ...
PS: If you would have quoted more than one sentence, most of this would have been covered already in my OP. But your ability to read and understand may be as small as your ability to quote .. and to PvP. Best regards.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 10:02:00 -
[5064] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:And the others have better working close range options. Lets look at this again:
This is plain wrong : learn about tracking, as it have been said countless of times. Before 25km, the paper dpsof turrets is only paper dps, and you almost never apply it fully. Missiles dps at close range is WAY MORE reliable.
Quote: PS:
Again, if I were a dev I would do something completely different:
- change Fury to short range is ok. Nerfing its softstats is not. Reducing its damage also is just ridiculous.
- change t1/faction range to medium is ok. Nerfing the damage is not needed IMO.
- introduce t2 long range with lower DPS to match the DPS of turret ships on sniping ranges at around ~70km for example. Or make it 75/80km, whatever feels best for balance. Before that mark turrets would have the edge, after that mark the missiles would be a bit better (til they run out). Flight time should be short, and velocity should be very high, so sniping actually makes sense.
Feel free to comment on that one, feel free to tell me what are your concerns with this idea.
[/quote] IMO, nerfing damage is needed both for long and short range. And if you leave fury missiles alone, they will be too powerful compared to turrets. As for their soft stats, fury are not meant to hit smaller target but larger ones. For cruisers, faction HM work fine at short range, and for smaller targets, you have buffed precision missiles.
And for long range, max range of medium railguns is around 80-85km + about 25km falloff with no range bonus, and that's a sniper fit : with *no* tank. If missiles hit up to these distances, their dps is still too high. Medium turret dps at these range is less than 250.
With 3 rigs, you can upgrade the range of heavy missiles by almost 50%, that mean the new HM, in sniping mode, will reach 75km : it's their current range. Their speed already have been buffed, and with rigs, you can reach even more (8500m/s with 2 missile velocity rigs, on unbonused hull, same as today's bonused hull). I think it's enough.
With a long range ammo, you just delete the range of missiles drawbacks, because they would outrange every turrets of their class.
Quote: All other fittings were nothing new to me, although none of them was really good. I think there are better options for "real" Eve PvP. But for sure wont post them as long as there is no need :)
You mean high sec pvp ? :o
Smacktalking is funny in fact. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 10:08:00 -
[5065] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
You mean high sec pvp ? :o
Smacktalking is funny in fact.
Smacktalk is all you got, little gallentean boy :) So stick with it, you are far better there than in explaining things about missiles. Has been pointed out before for example how new precisions will fail .. but you decide to live in your little gallentean world, and I understand very well you dont like missiles there :) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 10:14:00 -
[5066] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:For the railboats I didnt object. But matter of fact is many Caldari dont have gunnery skills, since the options they had (hybrids) used to suck for a long time and got buffed not so long ago. If a Caldari will go gunnery, then he is smart and just goes Winmatar anyway. You forgot the Naga, which is far more important than the Ferox btw.
Blasters Merlin and Ferox always used to have some use (robustness + damage application), but as you said, hybrid skilled caldari are something very rare.
Anyway, for frigates and cruisers, it was not only missile caldari who were screwed until recently : there was the rifter and one cruiser for each race. Caldari had the blackbird at this time... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 10:16:00 -
[5067] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Smacktalk is all you got, little gallentean boy :) So stick with it, you are far better there than in explaining things about missiles. Has been pointed out before for example how new precisions will fail .. but you decide to live in your little gallentean world, and I understand very well you dont like missiles there :) Poor you ! Interceptors will be able to tackle your drake ? I'm very sad about this...
Well, no, I'm not. That's what you don't seem to understand : IMO, no ship should be immune to smaller targets without specificaly fitting for it.
PS : I'm very interested to know why the Raven will still suck after the buff to torp, if you don't mind making a good action and enlighting the poor soul I am. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 10:36:00 -
[5068] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:For the railboats I didnt object. But matter of fact is many Caldari dont have gunnery skills, since the options they had (hybrids) used to suck for a long time and got buffed not so long ago. If a Caldari will go gunnery, then he is smart and just goes Winmatar anyway. You forgot the Naga, which is far more important than the Ferox btw.
Tengu has one of the best gunnery subsystems. Why you or other Pro Caldari pilots don't use it? Well, because you can do everything better with HML.
About HAMs "not working on Caldari hulls": Compare Sacrilege's and Tengu's bonuses. Do you really think Sacrilege is better? Lol. In case you don't get it: 10% per level to missile velocity. + a bit faster ROF. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 12:43:00 -
[5069] - Quote
Can't believe this thread is still alive
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tengu has one of the best gunnery subsystems. Why you or other Pro Caldari pilots don't use it? Well, because you can do everything better with HML.
I rather suspect the answer to this has it's roots in the fact hybrids were utterly godawful for years.
I remember back in my rookie days on the newbie help channel being advised to stay well clear of them as they were so bad (was sound advice at the time) and the only way to go as a new caldari pilot was missiles (unless one had a penchant for regular pod viewing).
You have that status quo for years and the only advice going down the line is use missiles, sure eventually people will cross train but I'm in no way surprised about the crop of (H?)ML indoctrinated pilots coming through the ranks.
Sure, there are a bunch of technical (and valid) reasons why missiles are a good move but really the biggest catalyst for pushing most pilots in that direction was almost certainly down to hybrids being utterly awful. And that started probably before the tengu even was born.
That situation has changed, but it'll take a long time for that to filter down. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 13:01:00 -
[5070] - Quote
Opertone wrote:I don't like when Caldari get their Nerf...
i am Caldari :/
On a side note - RAGE torpedoes require 2-3 target painters on a golem to make the most out of them. They help compensate for the extremely low explosion velocity of all torps. Even a Hulk can speed tank them :P
another troll? hmm :S
torps do almost full damage to battleship and BC rats with a single painter on or if they are burning their prop's. they will do significantly less damage to cruisers and smaller. working as intended, use drones.
hulks cannot speed tank torps. in fact if their (lack) of speed is taken into account they would actually receive more damage. if u've been shooting hulks with ur torps and do poor damage this is more than likely due to the small sig of hulks. even if the hulk has a T2 10mn AB that it cant even fit along side strip miners, it cannot get fast enough to significantly reduce incoming damage from rage torps (i guess if it overheated it would). |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 13:06:00 -
[5071] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I rather suspect the answer to this has it's roots in the fact hybrids were utterly godawful for years.
I remember back in my rookie days on the newbie help channel being advised to stay well clear of them as they were so bad (was sound advice at the time) and the only way to go as a new caldari pilot was missiles (unless one had a penchant for regular pod viewing).
You have that status quo for years and the only advice going down the line is use missiles, sure eventually people will cross train but I'm in no way surprised about the crop of (H?)ML indoctrinated pilots coming through the ranks.
Sure, there are a bunch of technical (and valid) reasons why missiles are a good move but really the biggest catalyst for pushing most pilots in that direction was almost certainly down to hybrids being utterly awful. And that started probably before the tengu even was born.
When I started nobody forced me to fly Caldari. Actually I picked even worse race to start with. After 18 months of intense training of core and support skills I can finally say "I can do some damage!".
Morrigan LeSante wrote:That situation has changed, but it'll take a long time for that to filter down. Plus it does take a good while to train gunnery up if you've not really used it before which as mentioned, a load of caldari pilots will not have.
Hybrids were buffed almost year ago. And it doesn't take that long to train at least medium hybrids to T2. Training time for large is probably the problem for new players and missile users (high multiplier) and the fact that you just can't skip small guns in your training if you want to focus on medium/large guns. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
238
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 13:13:00 -
[5072] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Hybrids were buffed almost year ago. And it doesn't take that long to train at least medium hybrids to T2. Training time for large is probably the problem for new players and missile users (high multiplier) and the fact that you just can't skip small guns in your training if you want to focus on medium/large guns.
Blasters are in a far better place. I've still yet to mount a T2 250mm on anything. Ever. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
8
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 13:59:00 -
[5073] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:I rather suspect the answer to this has it's roots in the fact hybrids were utterly godawful for years.
I remember back in my rookie days on the newbie help channel being advised to stay well clear of them as they were so bad (was sound advice at the time) and the only way to go as a new caldari pilot was missiles (unless one had a penchant for regular pod viewing).
You have that status quo for years and the only advice going down the line is use missiles, sure eventually people will cross train but I'm in no way surprised about the crop of (H?)ML indoctrinated pilots coming through the ranks.
Sure, there are a bunch of technical (and valid) reasons why missiles are a good move but really the biggest catalyst for pushing most pilots in that direction was almost certainly down to hybrids being utterly awful. And that started probably before the tengu even was born. When I started nobody forced me to fly Caldari. Actually I picked even worse race to start with. After 18 months of intense training of core and support skills I can finally say "I can do some damage!". Morrigan LeSante wrote:That situation has changed, but it'll take a long time for that to filter down. Plus it does take a good while to train gunnery up if you've not really used it before which as mentioned, a load of caldari pilots will not have. Hybrids were buffed almost year ago. And it doesn't take that long to train at least medium hybrids to T2. Training time for large is probably the problem for new players and missile users (high multiplier) and the fact that you just can't skip small guns in your training if you want to focus on medium/large guns.
I know, but you need to remember that despite what people say, missiles aren't fundamentally broken (from a PvE standpoint). Unless you're maxed on missile skills/fancy a variety of hulls there's really no reason pressure to train guns if you came up as a missile user, even after the buff.
Gunnery is WAY more reliant on its support skills than missiles are, that is to say you can get by (comparatively speaking) a lot better using missiles at low support skills compared to guns. There's also the fact that the gunnery pre-reqs DEMAND support skills at a decent level, missiles dont.
Anyway, that's certainly why I started life as a missile user, the power of HML was literally never factor, it was the suckage of hybrids. Even now, my HML skill level is 3 and so is my BC level. I started life as a new character to EVE and went down the 'safe' route of missions to build a buffer before developing elsewhere |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 16:51:00 -
[5074] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Quote: I think the problem is that you're using your experience when saying that turrets apply more damage, and thats totally understandable, but not at all how you should go about balancing things.
everything has to be balanced around the best players. Sure against 90% of players, turrets will do more damage than missiles because they *herp* *derp* set approach and press F1, but you dont balance around all of the morons, you have to balance around the best.
I guarantee you'd be far better off in a drake than you would in a harbinger if the frigate tackling you were piloted by garmon
Its just like starcraft, right now im gold league, and I think storm is totally imba, its impossible to dodge and kills me every time, but they dont balance around people like me, they have to balance for the best people in the world, or the super GSL code S players would completely break the game.
Its the same here; they could balance around you fighting me, but if they did that, someone like garmon could use greater piloting skill to be completely unbeatable.
There you are comparing a drake to a harb.... the problem ship arises again.... it's proof positive that the problem is 2 ships, not the weapon system. If you try making the same comparison with a cerb and a zealot, or a caracal and an omen, you fall flat both times. Saying that the weapon system itself needs to be nerfed to **** so that you can go back and rebalance the ships a 2nd time after you tear it to pieces is just silly.... and it's only 2 ships. How about instead, you tear those two ships apart, leave the rest balanced as is, and fix the problems on those 2 ships.... drake: resist/fittings and Tengu: ROF bonus and slot layouts. Did you even read the post before responding? seriously, read my post, then read your post again.
My post is not comparing the two ships at all, its talking about their relative damage when shooting at people with different piloting skills.
People have been saying that missiles do less DPS against smaller targets than turrets, because turrets can hit for full damage if the target is coming straight at them. My point is that only happens when the pilot youre fighting is terrible, and a good pilot will avoid WAY more turret damage than missile damage, so in that scenario its always better to be in a missile ship.
Yes it is comparing the two weapon systems not the two ships. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 17:28:00 -
[5075] - Quote
@ CCP Fozzie have you thought about changing any of the 3 missile skills that have a 10% bonus to them? missile velocity, missile bombardment and target navigation prediction. All 3 will affect the TE's/ TC's to varying degrees.
Both of the range bonus skills add 50% to missile range effectively doubling there range when added together when turret skills only add 25% for falloff and optimal so already a 50% extra then turret skills do before you take into consideration that most guns use only one fully like autocannons and lasers use falloff or optimal range so in effect missiles add 75% more range than the turret skills do how is this balanced?
so pros and cons to changing them are: pros: balances the skills in line with the rest of them will effectively reduce the range of missiles by 50%,allowing you to use TE's and TC's to add range without making missiles OP.
cons: will have to rebalance long range missiles a bit say add 10-15% back to missile velocity. same with adding some exp velocity.
But overall short range missiles are overanged atm and the exp radius is also too low which need rebalancing irrelevant of the skills mentioned. This approach will give you flexibility with TE's/ TC's which i imagine you are holding back because they might make missiles OP without further missile changes. Also rebalancing the skills in line with the turret skills which is only fair. |
Bodega Cat
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
40
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 18:54:00 -
[5076] - Quote
If they kept the HAM changes, and made it so you could swap ammo nearly instant, i'd be happy.
Then you can actually exploit the damage holes tactfully in a fight for range, and resist holes of various ships etc.
As it is now, a swap after you change targets nullifys the added DPS you are trying to gain in most situations entirely. Make it instant, and now you are adding great value to HAM's, and actually appreciating players who learn how to leverage this mechanic most effectively above those who just derp derp.
I'm with everyone else in the sense that i'd stomach this nerf a whole lot better if we were inching out just a little more viability out of HAM's.
Then again, flat damage boost works for me as well.
I'll take your word for it that fixes to Cereb and Nighthawk are coming... As it doesn't even need to be mentioned these ships are going to be buried even deeper into obscurity until then. |
Lili Lu
550
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 19:02:00 -
[5077] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Smacktalk is all you got, little gallentean boy :) So stick with it, you are far better there than in explaining things about missiles. Has been pointed out before for example how new precisions will fail .. but you decide to live in your little gallentean world, and I understand very well you dont like missiles there :) Poor you ! Interceptors will be able to tackle your drake ? I'm very sad about this... Well, no, I'm not. That's what you don't seem to understand : IMO, no ship should be immune to smaller targets without specificaly fitting for it.
And, I'm not convinced that Noemi really knows anything or has any experience with turrets and projectiles. He just says he is ROU, but has still not posted here with ROU saying "I'm Noemi." So really Noemi, you can't criticize Bouh in that way until you prove that you actually have expereince with projectiles.
Meanwhile, I've got all sizes of tech II lasers and projectiles, and tech II missiles of every size and kind, on Lili. And I have another character with tech II hybrids of all sizes and shapes. I got it all man. I been everywhere man I been everywhere. |
Lili Lu
550
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 19:21:00 -
[5078] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:@ CCP Fozzie have you thought about changing any of the 3 missile skills that have a 10% bonus to them? missile velocity, missile bombardment and target navigation prediction. All 3 will affect the TE's/ TC's to varying degrees.
Both of the range bonus skills add 50% to missile range effectively doubling there range when added together when turret skills only add 25% for falloff and optimal so already a 50% extra then turret skills do before you take into consideration that most guns use only one fully like autocannons and lasers use falloff or optimal range so in effect missiles add 75% more range than the turret skills do how is this balanced?
so pros and cons to changing them are: pros: balances the skills in line with the rest of them will effectively reduce the range of missiles by 50%,allowing you to use TE's and TC's to add range without making missiles OP.
cons: will have to rebalance long range missiles a bit say add 10-15% back to missile velocity. same with adding some exp velocity.
But overall short range missiles are overanged atm and the exp radius is also too low which need rebalancing irrelevant of the skills mentioned. This approach will give you flexibility with TE's/ TC's which i imagine you are holding back because they might make missiles OP without further missile changes. Also rebalancing the skills in line with the turret skills which is only fair.
Yeah, I've never understood CCP's predilection to give Caldari ships bigger bonuses than other ships get. I'm referring specifically to 10% per level bonuses on range whether guns or missiles. That is huge. At level 5 it means 50% more range. Meanwhile other races get 5% damage or rof or if they're lucky 7.5% range bonuses. What's with that? And as you point out it gets compounded even further for missiles because the two range skills there are 10% skills and the corresponding two gun range skills are 5%.
Effectively with the right ship the missile user is gathering 150% of range bonus from hull and skills and the turret user only 87.5% at most. And that is with missiles that, until these adjustments go through, have more "optimal" (if you will) already. Tech II long range ammo will effectively only get you to HM range even after the change. But the available skill and hull differential will still be 150% vs at most 87.5%.
Something there has to change. Maybe that can be done with giving differential boosts to TC/TE effects on missiles. Currently the TE gun 15% optimal plus 30% falloff could be converted to a flat 10 or 15% missile flight time or speed only. i.e. The turret user will retain more gain from the tracking mods to balance against the missile users better hull and skill bonuses. Either way CCP has to be careful that all these changes don't just preserve a very significantly larger range advantage with missiles.
Also, while addressing TC and TE CCP should reexamine the 30% falloff bonus. Medium beams are stuck with the same optimal as Medium arty. But the arty gets a double sized falloff and then gets an even further lopsided gain when adding a 30% falloff to it's much larger base falloff. Either give beams some more base optimal, or cut tracking mod falloff gain from 30% to 25% (vs. optimal 15%), or both. |
Lili Lu
550
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 19:34:00 -
[5079] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Opertone wrote:I don't like when Caldari get their Nerf...
i am Caldari :/
another troll? hmm :S
Either that or another example of the very odd and extreme rl rp type that for some reason gravitate into caldari characters. Hell, even the amarr rp types don't refer to themselves in a thread and post on ships stats saying "I am an Amarrian" and want to keep slaves, etc. They save that **** for the Intergalactic Summit subforum.
No. You are not a ******* mythical future corporate neo-fascist space ship pilot. You are a frigin human being and this is a game.
Train a second race of ships ffs. Noone's going to invalidate your parking privileges in the Caldari empire just because you trained something else. Everyone should train a second race anyway, for options, better knowledge of the game, and hopefully then better informed posting here. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 19:46:00 -
[5080] - Quote
I have pointed out before how in damage skills its the opposite - for RoF and damage the turret supports both have 1% per level more, giving 5% more damage and 5% better RoF at all l5 compared to missile brothers. Does it matter? Not really, apart from turrets will rely more on those skills than missiles in getting maximum damage. For range its the other way round. Missile range needs full skills, else it sucks.
Ofc if you reduce the skill effects you will need to get base range up, if you just bring the skills in line, balance would be broken.
Harvey James wrote:@ CCP Fozzie have you thought about changing any of the 3 missile skills that have a 10% bonus to them? missile velocity, missile bombardment and target navigation prediction. All 3 will affect the TE's/ TC's to varying degrees.
Both of the range bonus skills add 50% to missile range effectively doubling there range when added together when turret skills only add 25% for falloff and optimal so already a 50% extra then turret skills do before you take into consideration that most guns use only one fully like autocannons and lasers use falloff or optimal range so in effect missiles add 75% more range than the turret skills do how is this balanced?
so pros and cons to changing them are: pros: balances the skills in line with the rest of them will effectively reduce the range of missiles by 50%,allowing you to use TE's and TC's to add range without making missiles OP.
cons: will have to rebalance long range missiles a bit say add 10-15% back to missile velocity. same with adding some exp velocity.
But overall short range missiles are overanged atm and the exp radius is also too low which need rebalancing irrelevant of the skills mentioned. This approach will give you flexibility with TE's/ TC's which i imagine you are holding back because they might make missiles OP without further missile changes. Also rebalancing the skills in line with the turret skills which is only fair.
|
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 20:19:00 -
[5081] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
QFT. Yeah, I've never understood CCP's predilection to give Caldari ships bigger bonuses than other ships get. I'm referring specifically to 10% per level bonuses on range whether guns or missiles. That is huge. At level 5 it means 50% more range. Meanwhile other races get 5% damage or rof or if they're lucky 7.5% range bonuses. What's with that? And as you point out it gets compounded even further for missiles because the two range skills there are 10% skills and the corresponding two gun range skills are 5%.
Effectively with the right ship the missile user is gathering 150% of range bonus from hull and skills and the turret user only 87.5% at most. And that is with missiles that, until these adjustments go through, have more "optimal" (if you will) already. Tech II long range ammo will effectively only get you to HM range even after the change. But the available skill and hull differential will still be 150% vs at most 87.5%.
Something there has to change. Maybe that can be done with giving differential boosts to TC/TE effects on missiles. Currently the TE gun 15% optimal plus 30% falloff could be converted to a flat 10 or 15% missile flight time or speed only. i.e. The turret user will retain more gain from the tracking mods to balance against the missile users better hull and skill bonuses. Either way CCP has to be careful that all these changes don't just preserve a very significantly larger range advantage with missiles.
Also, while addressing TC and TE CCP should reexamine the 30% falloff bonus. Medium beams are stuck with the same optimal as Medium arty. But the arty gets a double sized falloff and then gets an even further lopsided gain when adding a 30% falloff to it's much larger base falloff. Either give beams some more base optimal, or cut tracking mod falloff gain from 30% to 25% (vs. optimal 15%), or actually, do both. It will also be a little snip off the extreme falloff ranges with ACs, and the boats that use that very extended falloff and to which the Drake addicts deflect their nerf calls to, the Vargur and Mach.
The point is, you have to compare stuff at all l5, not at all l0. Thats where it matters. I agree with you though it should all be brought in line (same with the damage/rof supports where turrets have the higher value) and balanced around the skills then. It would be easier to understand and fair on every skill level - unlike now, where turrets have a damage problem with lower skills and missiles a range problem.
This will however NOT lead to less range for missiles, in fact base ranges would have to be buffed because else missiles would be just short range, and that would be the long range ones ;)
About the TEs I agree too, 30% falloff boost was too much. This is a good example for how something can get really messed up with attributes, when one system is so much out of line. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
128
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 21:23:00 -
[5082] - Quote
Sigras wrote:I'm Down wrote:Quote: I think the problem is that you're using your experience when saying that turrets apply more damage, and thats totally understandable, but not at all how you should go about balancing things.
everything has to be balanced around the best players. Sure against 90% of players, turrets will do more damage than missiles because they *herp* *derp* set approach and press F1, but you dont balance around all of the morons, you have to balance around the best.
I guarantee you'd be far better off in a drake than you would in a harbinger if the frigate tackling you were piloted by garmon
Its just like starcraft, right now im gold league, and I think storm is totally imba, its impossible to dodge and kills me every time, but they dont balance around people like me, they have to balance for the best people in the world, or the super GSL code S players would completely break the game.
Its the same here; they could balance around you fighting me, but if they did that, someone like garmon could use greater piloting skill to be completely unbeatable.
There you are comparing a drake to a harb.... the problem ship arises again.... it's proof positive that the problem is 2 ships, not the weapon system. If you try making the same comparison with a cerb and a zealot, or a caracal and an omen, you fall flat both times. Saying that the weapon system itself needs to be nerfed to **** so that you can go back and rebalance the ships a 2nd time after you tear it to pieces is just silly.... and it's only 2 ships. How about instead, you tear those two ships apart, leave the rest balanced as is, and fix the problems on those 2 ships.... drake: resist/fittings and Tengu: ROF bonus and slot layouts. Did you even read the post before responding? seriously, read my post, then read your post again. My post is not comparing the two ships at all, its talking about their relative damage when shooting at people with different piloting skills. People have been saying that missiles do less DPS against smaller targets than turrets, because turrets can hit for full damage if the target is coming straight at them. My point is that only happens when the pilot youre fighting is terrible, and a good pilot will avoid WAY more turret damage than missile damage, so in that scenario its always better to be in a missile ship. Yes it is comparing the two weapon systems not the two ships.
I totally read your post and if you want to go down the training path, lets talk about the isolation of missile skills versus the omni turret skills that apply to all 3 racial weapons more than halving the time of crosstraining.
If you want to talk about pilot skill, Good pilots know how to abuse missile spam in so many ways, it makes it much easier to avoid than turrets ever. Turret's have the negative of one slip up making an alpha strike of death occur for small ships. There is no such truth with missiles. Turrets also have the advantage in small scale combat of ship seperation. 2 ships shooting spread out can maneuver to create problem zones for an attacker. Missiles have no such advantage.
It's only idiots and newbs who don't understand how to maneuver around missiles properly to win fights.
It's those same players who think the drake is OP damage boat... and don't get why the Tengu is unbalanced. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 21:27:00 -
[5083] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:
I totally read your post and if you want to go down the training path, lets talk about the isolation of missile skills versus the omni turret skills that apply to all 3 racial weapons more than halving the time of crosstraining.
Thats an important point too. Remember my suggestion, some 100 pages ago?
Remove missiles completely, reimburse SP, invent a new gunnery system which would be Caldari signature ... or give all hulls a weapon size bonus, and not a specific system one: 5% RoF per level for medium sized weapons and so on ... although then all the ships and weapons would need to be more in line than now, PG/CPU wise.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
111
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 22:11:00 -
[5084] - Quote
Yep, make everything the same is the ultimate balance solution. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 22:15:00 -
[5085] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Yep, make everything the same is the ultimate balance solution.
Well basically thats the point. As long as there are differences, you will not have full balance. And its sometime a point of view thing, if people feel stuff is balanced or not. If one takes just numbers, nearly everything is broken in Eve. If you check the game itself, some things seem to still work ok even if the numbers show something else.
Bring balance, ok, but then do it in a way really every race and every weapon system has its fair share. Atm this is not the case. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 22:37:00 -
[5086] - Quote
FULL balance is hard to achieve without homogenizing everything, but it is possible to achieve a balance that keeps everyone happy while still maintaining different style and traits. For example a game like Star Craft, such different races/mechanics but over time they managed to establish a good balance between the races without making them the same. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
111
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 22:59:00 -
[5087] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I totally read your post and if you want to go down the training path, lets talk about the isolation of missile skills versus the omni turret skills that apply to all 3 racial weapons more than halving the time of crosstraining.
If you want to talk about pilot skill, Good pilots know how to abuse missile spam in so many ways, it makes it much easier to avoid than turrets ever. Turret's have the negative of one slip up making an alpha strike of death occur for small ships. There is no such truth with missiles. Turrets also have the advantage in small scale combat of ship seperation. 2 ships shooting spread out can maneuver to create problem zones for an attacker. Missiles have no such advantage.
It's only idiots and newbs who don't understand how to maneuver around missiles properly to win fights.
It's those same players who think the drake is OP damage boat... and don't get why the Tengu is unbalanced. Crosstraining ? you can use your missiles the same for each race. That's quite even better than turret IMO.
2v1 ? Two missiles boat can spread out to create problem zone for the attacker too...
And yes, that's the main difference between turrets and missiles : missiles have reliant damage on which you have almost no control ; turrets have statistic damage dependant on your piloting and the one of the ennemy. This is by design.
That's something we saw a lot though : people complaining missiles are not turrets, and hence deserve to be OP to be useful. As long as this idea remain, we will have useless debates with no other solution than deleting missiles and making them turrets.
Missiles have fundamental caracteristics, as have turrets : missiles : delayed damage ; reliable damage, independant of piloting ; time out ; dps depend on external things (speed/signature of target) ; destroyable.
As a consequence, damage on smaller targets may be a problem. Long range missiles have precision to hit one class lower ships ; and short range missiles have javelin to hit faster target or at longer range.
Turrets : instant damage ; statistical damage (hit chance) ; tracking ; falloff.
As a consequence, dps is highly reliant on piloting, and that can be used in both ways. Their ammo allow them to modify range and dps, and hence their dps tend to drop slowly as range increase.
Turret being able to blap smaller targets is a consequence of tracking, as is small target being able to outtrack turrets. Small targets mitigating missiles damage only by being a small target is a consequence of the reliable damage, independant of the piloting skill of the target, as is the inability of the target to protect itself against the missiles.
Now, all these caracteristics have to be balanced, but no one of them should be removed. Then, balance the weapon systems with these caracteristics in minds (and maybe others I forget, it's late).
For HML, making them being so powerful at long range only because turrets are more powerful at short range is not balance, because if turrets have not enough dps to compete with HML, they are obsolete, exactly as you can see on TQ. You cannot boost turret dps too much, because they would then obsolete short range turrets in long short range (web range is the realm of short range weapon system). Hence, we need to nerf HML dps.
Damage application though is not directly comparable between turrets and missiles. They both have their pros and cons for damage application, it's by design. The question is more how you have to limit the dps. For turrets, it's tracking and signature resolution (even though the second is almost useless, but I'd like it to be more relevant), and range. For missiles, it's missile speed, and explosion velocity and radius.
If turrets are balance damage application wise, then we don't care about a turret blaping a frigate in certain conditions. The question is, how bad a missile should hurt a fast target or a small target or a fast small target. The question, of course, also apply for same size target.
PS : balancing is not making everyone happy, because you cannot make everyone happy. You always have someone unhappy and whining. PPS : I'm realizing you were certainly saying that all systems should have a fair chance or a role. This is it. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
103
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 23:54:00 -
[5088] - Quote
So, after taking sometime to work out all the new values. Seems like the Drake will still be intact solo. The range reduction will be most felt in large fleet engagements. However, as long as a Drake has its resistence bonus; it will still be VERY good. No changes in fleet doctrines.
I am concerned with the changes to arts, because from what I can see. CCP has GIMPED art-Hurricane setup ALOT. < That was an exaggeration
The shield-autocanno-Hurricane is still intact. I hardly ever used dual neutralizers solo and when I did it was versus frigates and cruisers. 2 small neutralizers are effective against those ships and 1 small and 1 medium is almost as effective in terms of overall neutralizing.
So in the end. P much everthings untoached, other than a BIG loss of heavy missile RANGE. art-Hurricanes and rail-Brutix fleets will be ALOT more competitive with Drake fleets too. Loss of heavy missile range has ALOT more to do with that too.
- Thread 07 [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 00:00:00 -
[5089] - Quote
Bodega Cat wrote:If they kept the HAM changes, and made it so you could swap ammo nearly instant, i'd be happy.
being able to swap damage types and ranges mid flight is balanced by long reload times. if ppl manage to swap ammo mid fight with AC's in 10 seconds u can do it with missiles too.
I'm Down wrote:
If you want to talk about pilot skill, Good pilots know how to abuse missile spam in so many ways, it makes it much easier to avoid than turrets ever. Turret's have the negative of one slip up making an alpha strike of death occur for small ships. There is no such truth with missiles.
It's only idiots and newbs who don't understand how to maneuver around missiles properly to win fights.
what the hell are u talking about? its not a slip up that gets u alpha'd by a turret, the slightest bit of transversal in a frig at ranges under 10km completely throw even 220's off. u have to be a complete bone head spamming the approach button to take turret damages at such close range. or are u talking arties? that are even worse. avoiding turrets is a lot easier than avoiding missiles and it hurts less too.
also, 'maneuver around missiles'??? what do u even mean by that? can u tell me a method of mitigating missile damage mid flight other than flying very fast in any direction, even directly towards or away from the target? (something u cant do against turrets)
i'm agreeing with bouh, missile skills apply to all races, like drones, not just caldari. when it comes to turrets u have to skill up everything but support skills when u cross train.
its also worth noting that caldari are the quickest to train for. most of the hardcore caldari pilots here are only likely to have missile, shield and spaceship command skills upto BC maxed. Other races have at least 2 weapon systems to max; Amarr and minnie have to skill into BS to effectively run level 4's and; gal and minnie need to skill both armour and shield skills to make good use of their tanks.
it would be reasonable to suggest that caldari maximise their potential sooner because they have fewer tanks and weapons to skill for. it could be argued that caldari should also skill for ECM, but most of the ppl here have given me the impression they haven't. |
Opertone
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
156
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 04:38:00 -
[5090] - Quote
Uhhm, I am cross trained into Minmatar, it turns out they have better ships for solo and skirmishes and many skills remain useful, I am also trained up to gallente HAC, BC.
I still associate myself with Caldari State - and I love everything about them. And I strongly think that OverPowered Caldari is a good thing for everyone. You can now stop crying that caldari is not good for PvP, drake has its PvP use.
I use torpedoes everyday. My golem has 3 bonused RF target painters, I use best implants and rigs, my tech I torpedoes do full damage on battleships with 1-2 painters. Rage torpedoes definitely require 2 target painters, better 3.
Anything that goes 1m/s faster than explosion velocity speed tanks, HULK sure moves faster than 70 m/s (untrained). Torp's explosion velocities near Mining Barge velocity. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 06:52:00 -
[5091] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:(same with the damage/rof supports where turrets have the higher value)
Base stats for missiles are already higher. And in Tengu your rof is already less than 3 seconds. And that's with HMLs not HAMs.
Noemi Nagano wrote:and balanced around the skills then. It would be easier to understand and fair on every skill level - unlike now, where turrets have a damage problem with lower skills and missiles a range problem.
Amarr pilot with pulse lasers has superior range and damage at low skill levels. Do you know why nobody uses Radio or Microwave crystals? Go try those and you will understand. Even with your all l5 Minmatar character you will have really low dps with those crystals. But of course you can continue sharing your biased opinions in this thread and keep us entertained.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:08:00 -
[5092] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Yep, make everything the same is the ultimate balance solution. Well basically thats the point. As long as there are differences, you will not have full balance. And its sometimes a point of view thing if people feel stuff is balanced or not. If one takes just numbers, nearly everything is broken in Eve. If you check the game itself, some things seem to still work ok even if the numbers show something else ;) Bring balance, ok, but then do it in a way really every race and every weapon system has its fair share. Atm this is not the case. this is the most idiotic thing i have ever read on these forums.
Have you ever heard of starcraft? (brood war, not SC2) The three races (terran, protoss and zerg) were WAY WAY different in just about every way, and yet the game was nearly perfectly balanced. In fact, it was so well balanced, that at the very end, they made several balance tweaks in order to slightly push things out of balance so it didnt just turn into chess, where all the "right" moves are always known.
Also see MTG and LoL for examples of perfect imbalance.
I beg you to check out this video which talks about this concept in a great and entertaining way.
please check out the video, its awesome. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
292
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:20:00 -
[5093] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Hybrids were buffed almost year ago. And it doesn't take that long to train at least medium hybrids to T2. Training time for large is probably the problem for new players and missile users (high multiplier) and the fact that you just can't skip small guns in your training if you want to focus on medium/large guns.
Blasters are in a far better place. I've still yet to mount a T2 250mm on anything. Ever.
No doubt.
And in any case, when someone cross-trains into direct fire weapons they damn sure aren't sticking with Caldari anyway. Who in their right mind would. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:30:00 -
[5094] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:And in any case, when someone cross-trains into direct fire weapons they damn sure aren't sticking with Caldari anyway. Who in their right mind would.
- Merlin - Vulture - Rokh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8aX60biCE4 - Naga - Ferox - Harpy
Minmatar or "Winmatar" like you say it isn't that good when a single T2 cruiser can completely disable "godly" Hurricane. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 07:37:00 -
[5095] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:I totally read your post and if you want to go down the training path, lets talk about the isolation of missile skills versus the omni turret skills that apply to all 3 racial weapons more than halving the time of crosstraining. I never mentioned cross training, but it is a worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with balance because again, you cant balance around the noobs with 20,000,000 SP, you have to balance around all the bitter vets with > 100,000,000 SP
Allow me to illustrate: if they said "missiles and drones are two weapon systems that take 2x longer than everything else to train, so we're going to reward the players who train for them by making their weapons 20% better than the other weapons" what would be the problem with that? Eventually everyone would just be flying missiles and drones, and the bitter vets who have tons of SP would be flying them tomorrow!
The game must be balanced outside of the training time it takes to get anything. This is also the reason why cost is not a balancing factor. This is how we got into the titan/super carrier disaster that we have now; they said since they cost so much and take so long to train for, they should **** everything in their way . . . it turns out that doesnt work for balancing.
I'm Down wrote:If you want to talk about pilot skill, Good pilots know how to abuse missile spam in so many ways, it makes it much easier to avoid than turrets ever. Turret's have the negative of one slip up making an alpha strike of death occur for small ships. There is no such truth with missiles. You also realize that missiles have the negative that you can never avoid all of the damage that a missile ship is going to do to you (unless you fly out of range), so eventually a missile ship will kill you . . . There is no such truth with turrets.
My vengance can tackle a tempest literally until down time because at 10 km with faction titanium sabot his chance to hit me is less than 0.00000000000000000000000000010062% by comparison, the odds to win the powerball jackpot are about 0.0000000005707% So it will hit me basically never, but even a torp raven with faction missiles will do 12 DPS to me, which isnt all that great, but my vengance will still go down in around 16 minutes as opposed to . . . never . . .
I'm Down wrote:Turrets also have the advantage in small scale combat of ship seperation. 2 ships shooting spread out can maneuver to create problem zones for an attacker. Missiles have no such advantage. Missile ships can spread out forcing their gun toting counterparts to fly from one ship to the next to apply full damage taking up valuable time that the missile ships all spend doing full damage. CF every alliance tournament with drakes, tengus, caracals, cerberus (cerberi?), etc |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 08:02:00 -
[5096] - Quote
Sigras wrote: this is the most idiotic thing i have ever read on these forums.
Have you ever heard of starcraft? (brood war, not SC2) .
I was ranked there in top 100 ...
Sigras wrote:The three races (terran, protoss and zerg) were WAY WAY different in just about every way, and yet the game was nearly perfectly balanced. In fact, it was so well balanced, that at the very end, they made several balance tweaks in order to slightly push things out of balance so it didnt just turn into chess, where all the "right" moves are always known. Also see MTG and LoL for examples of perfect imbalance. I beg you to check out this video which talks about this concept in a great and entertaining way. please check out the video, its awesome.
I played LoL a lot, what I can say is there seems this ever young song of the new introduced OP chars which get then severly nerfed after a while .. although that is more some business model than actual game balancing ;)
Still in Eve things how they are right now can hardly be called balanced. There are too many ships which have no use at all, and too many weapon systems (esp. med and large missiles except HML .. but admitted, also some medium long range turrets) which dont work. But even with this not very well working balance we do have at least one working ship for every race with a racial weapon system. I think you would not call this game better balanced if there were no viable PvP Minmatar projectile ships in medium and large hulls left after a patch . I feel like this might happen to Caldari and missiles. If it wont, and Caldari still have working missile platforms above Frig size I am fine. If not, then I am not.
Simple as that.
PS: Would be the same with Amarr/Laser and Gallente/Hybrid ..
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 08:33:00 -
[5097] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Gallente/Hybrid
Gallente isn't hybrid race just like Caldari isn't missile race.
Both races have almost even split between two weapon systems (if you can call drones one).
Gallente: drones/hybrids Caldari: hybrids/missiles
And Amarrians aren't purely laser users. Missile ships (even though you are limited to short range missiles), drone boats, laser ships.
And we still have ships that are better with projectiles: Maller and Prophecy for example. At least you can take full advantage of half of the bonuses this way (maximizing tank). |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 08:43:00 -
[5098] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Gallente/Hybrid Gallente isn't hybrid race just like Caldari isn't missile race. Both races have almost even split between two weapon systems (if you can call drones one). Gallente: drones/hybrids Caldari: hybrids/missiles And Amarrians aren't purely laser users. Missile ships (even though you are limited to short range missiles), drone boats, laser ships. And we still have ships that are better with projectiles: Maller and Prophecy for example. At least you can take full advantage of half of the bonuses this way (maximizing tank).
The point is (just because you dont seem to get it, again and again!), Gallentean pilots would not be happy if they had no working PvP medium and large hull ship with hybrids. Same with Amarrians and Lasers. Do you disagree or not?
|
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
330
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 08:52:00 -
[5099] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Gallente/Hybrid Gallente isn't hybrid race just like Caldari isn't missile race. Both races have almost even split between two weapon systems (if you can call drones one). Gallente: drones/hybrids Caldari: hybrids/missiles And Amarrians aren't purely laser users. Missile ships (even though you are limited to short range missiles), drone boats, laser ships. And we still have ships that are better with projectiles: Maller and Prophecy for example. At least you can take full advantage of half of the bonuses this way (maximizing tank). The point is (just because you dont seem to get it, again and again!), Gallentean pilots would not be happy if they had no working PvP medium and large hull ship with hybrids. Same with Amarrians and Lasers. Do you disagree or not?
Caldari have a perfectly good hybrid line up, its only the secondary weapon system that has problems.
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 08:53:00 -
[5100] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:this is the most idiotic thing i have ever read on these forums.
Have you ever heard of starcraft? (brood war, not SC2) . I was ranked there in top 100 ... you realize that if you were actually ranked in the top 100, you would have described yourself as GSL code S not "ranked in the top 100" right?
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:The three races (terran, protoss and zerg) were WAY WAY different in just about every way, and yet the game was nearly perfectly balanced. In fact, it was so well balanced, that at the very end, they made several balance tweaks in order to slightly push things out of balance so it didnt just turn into chess, where all the "right" moves are always known. Also see MTG and LoL for examples of perfect imbalance. I beg you to check out this video which talks about this concept in a great and entertaining way. please check out the video, its awesome. I played LoL a lot, what I can say is there seems this ever young song of the new introduced OP chars which get then severly nerfed after a while .. although that is more some business model than actual game balancing ;) I was just pointing out that when you said "game elements cant be balanced and different simultaneously" you were unambiguously and demonstrably wrong.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Still in Eve things how they are right now can hardly be called balanced. There are too many ships which have no use at all, and too many weapon systems (esp. med and large missiles except HML .. but admitted, also some medium long range turrets) which dont work. But even with this not very well working balance we do have at least one working ship for every race with a racial weapon system. I think you would not call this game better balanced if there were no viable PvP Minmatar projectile ships in medium and large hulls left after a patch . I feel like this might happen to Caldari and missiles. If it wont, and Caldari still have working missile platforms above Frig size I am fine. If not, then I am not.
Simple as that.
PS: Would be the same with Amarr/Laser and Gallente/Hybrid .. What im saying is that you have an unreasonable definition of "working platform"
Technically if the missiles actually come out of the launcher, and hit the target for damage they're a "working platform" they wouldnt be a "working platform" if they . . . crashed the game client when you fired them
what you mean is that you want them to be competitive in a PvP environment that you specify, which is a very narrow definition.
I would consider the HML a working platform after this change, the caracal with HMLs will **** a rupture with 720s, or a thorax with 250s, and the drake with HMLs will still beat a cane with 720s
I would consider HAMs a working platform after this change, basically any caldari ship with HAMs will beat a gallente blaster boat of the same class, unless theyre stupid and get tackled; an autocannon vs HAM fight will basically come down to piloting skill, and you do a bit more DPS than lasers at max HAM range with the added bonus of being able to switch damage types.
I really think you need to take another look at your definition of a "working platform" |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 08:54:00 -
[5101] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The point is (just because you dont seem to get it, again and again!), Gallentean pilots would not be happy if they had no working PvP medium and large hull ship with hybrids. Gallentean pilots dont have any working medium and large hulls with hybrids . . . |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 09:53:00 -
[5102] - Quote
Opertone wrote:
Anything that goes 1m/s faster than explosion velocity speed tanks, HULK sure moves faster than 70 m/s (untrained). Torp's explosion velocities near Mining Barge velocity.
nah, look up the equation...
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage
going slower than explosion velocity means that it may take more damage. but the targets sig and drf is taken into account. and basing it on an untrained tech 2 missile is just silly. rage torps have an explosion velocity of over 100m/s when trained. this is much faster than a hulk. trust me, its just the sig that kills torp damage on hulks.
also, many skills remain useful after training minmatar because minmataar have to train everything to fly well. shields, armour, turrets, missiles and drones. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 10:08:00 -
[5103] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The point is (just because you dont seem to get it, again and again!), Gallentean pilots would not be happy if they had no working PvP medium and large hull ship with hybrids. Gallentean pilots dont have any working medium and large hulls with hybrids . . . EDIT: Ok, maybe the Talos . . . but really thats it . . . including serpentis faction ships . . . none of them can ever get in range . . . ever!
There's no working rail platform for Gallente in medium and large hulls. A lot of working blaster platforms though, but they only work in small gangs and very specific situations. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 10:22:00 -
[5104] - Quote
Noemi, There could be absolutely no other missile system, that would not be a reason not to balance HML against other medium size long range platform. |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 10:41:00 -
[5105] - Quote
You do all realize that the HML system used to be the only medium missile system right? And thats its current "balance" was based on that. It had to fill the role of both long and short range.
Missile systems were originally balanced as long range slow firing small target hitting and short range fast firing large target hitting. With the HML being the only system at the time they put it in the middle and used T2 ammo to change its role between the two. Then they released the HAMLs and made some changes to HML (not enough to change its do all role though)
As for the changes that are listed, I don't think the range nerf or base damage nerf are uncalled for. However, having to equip rigs or implants to make your weapons hit in class is not appropriate (for ANY weapon system).
To balance small target hitting I would scrap the current explosion velocity and explosion radius and create "Missile Tracking" and use a "Missile Sensor Strength". "Missile Tracking" would work similarly to turret tracking, if the small ship is moving around too fast the missile won't be able to hit it. "Missile Sensor Strength" would work similarly to Turret Signature Resolution.
You would end up getting the "crappy" hits, the misses, and you should also get the critical hits.
Yes, this would mean they would work the same, but with flight time. Right now missiles are popular because they have consistent and predictable damage (especially in PvE) and have "some" damage application at any range they can hit at. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 11:13:00 -
[5106] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:However, having to equip rigs or implants to make your weapons hit in class is not appropriate (for ANY weapon system).
Cool, because it won't be the case (and it isn't with HML).
And no, HML are not OP because they are the only working missile system, they are OP because of their inherent stats and position in the missile hierarchy. They don't *have to fill* the role of all the others, they just fill it. For the others to live, you first need to "kill" HML and put them to their place. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 11:23:00 -
[5107] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:As for the changes that are listed, I don't think the range nerf or base damage nerf are uncalled for. However, having to equip rigs or implants to make your weapons hit in class is not appropriate (for ANY weapon system).
Like for example armor Harbinger:
Low slots: Tank/damage/TEs 2/2/2 or 3/2/1 or maybe 3/3 and sacrifice one of my utility med slots for TC? |
Subtlty
Fight Club - Beginners PvP
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 12:50:00 -
[5108] - Quote
I don't have much input, other then expressing my relief that the 20% nerf to HML DMG was changed to 10%. 20% dmg nerf to HML was too much. As for the rest of the changes, range, explosion velocity, ect., I think is spot on. great job so far. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 13:27:00 -
[5109] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Ajunta Pal wrote:However, having to equip rigs or implants to make your weapons hit in class is not appropriate (for ANY weapon system).
Cool, because it won't be the case (and it isn't with HML). And no, HML are not OP because they are the only working missile system, they are OP because of their inherent stats and position in the missile hierarchy. They don't *have to fill* the role of all the others, they just fill it. For the others to live, you first need to "kill" HML and put them to their place.
Inherent stats you say? A few pages before I pointed out how HML in a Drake have less damage than medium long range turrets, if all ships fit 2 damage mods. How can you really come up with inherent stats?
I agree with you if you argue with reasonable in game stuff:
- in game, HML are stronger than med lr turrets in a range from 35km til max range of missiles.
So a Caldari missile ship (Drake/HML) is the winner there. If you compare long range large, short range large and short range medium Caldari missile doesnt play a first role (if it plays a role at all).
thats what *I* call balance. In one its good, in others its not. If you want to break that up because you feel like in medium long range turrets should have the edge - fine. But then give missiles another role where they shine. Or dont claim any more you want *balance*, because its obvious then that you dont want that, but just domination for turrets everywhere :)
So it comes down to this:
1) There are 2 ways, really. Either let missiles shine in some things and be crappy in other, and turrets vice versa. Or make all the same in efficiency.
2) I dont see the patch is doing either of those 2.
I see some people here who disagree with the 2) - thats ok, we all cant know for sure.
But for all those who disagree with 1) ... tell what *you* want. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 14:00:00 -
[5110] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:A few pages before I pointed out how HML in a Drake have less damage than medium long range turrets, if all ships fit 2 damage mods.
HBL Harbinger does more damage with IN Xray than HML Drake does with Furies.
That's if that Harbinger can track its target. Do you know what tracking speed means? Do you know how to calculate effective tracking speed?
Oh and that is: 22 km for Harbinger 73 km for Drake |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 14:30:00 -
[5111] - Quote
You keep saying turrets have a dps advantage at short range, though this advantage is LOW. About 10%. And you keep ignoring long range turret tracking at this range. Considering damage application, Drake dps may very well be MORE than the turrets.
And you keep ignoring the 40% dps advantage at range. And your only solution is different range ammo ? So missiles are more like turrets ?
Let me tell you your idea of balance is bad. Balance is not one thing OP somewhere, and another OP somewhere else.
Balance is turret have better damage at short range but less damage application whereas missiles have better damage at long range with more damage application (and missiles do have better damage application when you consider long range turrets).
Missiles != turrets. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
108
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 14:51:00 -
[5112] - Quote
Arguing that long range turrets have more dps at close range than HMLs is like arguing that a damnation does more dps than a vulture.
That's not what they are for, and not what they should be balanced around. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
113
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 14:56:00 -
[5113] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Arguing that long range turrets have more dps at close range than HMLs is like arguing that a damnation does more dps than a vulture.
That's not what they are for, and not what they should be balanced around. And yet, that's all long range turrets have against long range missiles, this and instant damage application. |
Lili Lu
550
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 15:37:00 -
[5114] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:You do all realize that the HML system used to be the only medium missile system right? And thats its current "balance" was based on that. It had to fill the role of both long and short range.
Missile systems were originally balanced as long range slow firing small target hitting and short range fast firing large target hitting. With the HML being the only system at the time they put it in the middle and used T2 ammo to change its role between the two. Then they released the HAMLs and made some changes to HML (not enough to change its do all role though)
As for the changes that are listed, I don't think the range nerf or base damage nerf are uncalled for. However, having to equip rigs or implants to make your weapons hit in class is not appropriate (for ANY weapon system).
To balance small target hitting I would scrap the current explosion velocity and explosion radius and create "Missile Tracking" and use a "Missile Sensor Strength". "Missile Tracking" would work similarly to turret tracking, if the small ship is moving around too fast the missile won't be able to hit it. "Missile Sensor Strength" would work similarly to Turret Signature Resolution.
You would end up getting the "crappy" hits, the misses, and you should also get the critical hits.
Yes, this would mean they would work the same, but with flight time. Right now missiles are popular because they have consistent and predictable damage (especially in PvE) and have "some" damage application at any range they can hit at.
Gave you your first like. Not because I agree with your suggestions, but because I appreciated your examination of the historical development of HMs in the game.
I don't like your missile tracking idea. Talk about homogenizing the game. That would. Also, people, missile users, focus too much on rigor rigs or whatever you were referring to. Noone should be shooting a cruise missile at a frig. Unless that is the only weapon he has with sufficient range. Any frig that gets close is for your drones, neuts, webs, or all those to take care of. Drone control range is about 45-60km. That is also about where long range turrets start having tracking problems. But within that range your drones et al are what should be fit to take care of that threat.
Anyway, the TC/TE/TD changes were what was going to address the rigor rig phenom. It will probably free up rig slots. Amazing that some missile users didn't notice that. They could only focus on the HM damage nerf and not all the other changes that were adjusting how their missiles would operate. Those were on balance favorable despite a weak 10% damage nerf and a new susceptibility to ewar that turrets have lived with for many years.
But anyway, good post, as I said, because of the reminder to us all of the historical aspect of this game. If it was going to be designed from scratch CCP would probably have created so many things differently. But that is not realistic and all the changes are constrained and affected by what has gone before. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
130
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 15:51:00 -
[5115] - Quote
And then everyone again forgot the HAM buff which will keep Drakes in the game at shorter ranges and also produce actually effective Caracals. And also Sacrilege buff. |
Darak Tar
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:04:00 -
[5116] - Quote
Aglais wrote:And then everyone again forgot the HAM buff which will keep Drakes in the game at shorter ranges and also produce actually effective Caracals. And also Sacrilege buff.
I am looking forward to my Sacrilege being useful again!
I'm actually not sure how this will effect my Tengu though.
510 DPS at 99KM Range currently.. I'm guessing that will drop to something like 300DPS and 50KM range? |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:12:00 -
[5117] - Quote
Darak Tar wrote:Aglais wrote:And then everyone again forgot the HAM buff which will keep Drakes in the game at shorter ranges and also produce actually effective Caracals. And also Sacrilege buff. I am looking forward to my Sacrilege being useful again! I'm actually not sure how this will effect my Tengu though. 510 DPS at 99KM Range currently.. I'm guessing that will drop to something like 300DPS and 50KM range?
Its a 10% reduction in damage and 25% range reduction so more like 459 DPS at 75k |
Lili Lu
551
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:16:00 -
[5118] - Quote
Darak Tar wrote: I am looking forward to my Sacrilege being useful again!
I'm actually not sure how this will effect my Tengu though.
510 DPS at 99KM Range currently.. I'm guessing that will drop to something like 300DPS and 50KM range?
iirc, as this thread is now sooooo looooong, the nerf on HMs is 25% range and 10% damage.
So with your baseline example, wouldn't that be something like 74km and 460 dps if fittings remained the same?
edit - damn was i really that distracted that it took me more than 4 minutes to post this and get beaten to the punch by MIrple |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:27:00 -
[5119] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Darak Tar wrote: I am looking forward to my Sacrilege being useful again!
I'm actually not sure how this will effect my Tengu though.
510 DPS at 99KM Range currently.. I'm guessing that will drop to something like 300DPS and 50KM range? iirc, as this thread is now sooooo looooong, the nerf on HMs is 25% range and 10% damage. So with your baseline example, wouldn't that be something like 74km and 460 dps if fittings remained the same? edit - damn was i really that distracted that it took me more than 4 minutes to post this and get beaten to the punch by MIrple
Indeed. Also I guess simple math is hard for missile chuckers they have gotten to used to press F1 receive bacon. |
Lili Lu
551
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:33:00 -
[5120] - Quote
MIrple wrote: Indeed. Also I guess simple math is hard for missile chuckers they have gotten to used to press F1 receive bacon.
Oh sure, just try to derail this thread to bacon. Bacon is pretty tasty. But it would have to be some mighty fine bacon to succeed in that task. |
|
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:35:00 -
[5121] - Quote
Seriously guys. HAMs are going to get easier to fit. If you want, try to put a few on your Tengus, too. Yeah, they'll have far less range. But you'll notice that you're doing obscene amounts of damage. And you've already still got some pretty good tank. Why not give it a try? It might not be that bad. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:39:00 -
[5122] - Quote
@Bouh, you always talk about the same stuff again and again.
You bring numbers, I wreck your numbers with EFT, you say oh wait, those numbers are not relevant, .. and so on. Its a circle which will not end, and thats why I tried a different approach.
I asked a question before, maybe it was not posted in an explicit way, so some of you may not have seen it .. would be important to know your answer to go on, so I post it again:
_____ 1) There are 2 ways, really. Either let missiles shine in some things and be crappy in other, and turrets vice versa. Or make all the same in efficiency. *added: efficiency in every aspect*
2) I dont see the patch is doing either of those 2.
I see some people here who disagree with the 2) - thats ok, we all cant know for sure.
But for all those who disagree with 1) ... tell what *you* want. _____
So, whats your opinion about that? Do YOU think 1) is correct, and just disagree with 2)? I can live with that, people can have their opinions. I already said I would be a rich man if all those who say "everything will be balanced" after the patch will come and give me some 100 mil ISK :D .. but yeah, maybe I am wrong, and alone the Cane nerf will give so much more balance to BC close combat that a mildly buffed HAM Drake is viable again. We will see.
But your opinion about part 1) is important ..
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
And you keep ignoring the 40% dps advantage at range. And your only solution is different range ammo ? So missiles are more like turrets ?
Let me tell you your idea of balance is bad. Balance is not one thing OP somewhere, and another OP somewhere else.
Balance is turret have better damage at short range but less damage application whereas missiles have better damage at long range with more damage application (and missiles do have better damage application when you consider long range turrets).
Missiles != turrets.
PS : HML shines at long range, but today's HML shine also at long short range.
Balance does not work for just one weapon system though Bouh. There are 2 long and short range systems in medium and large size for the 4 trees (Proj., Hybrid, Laser and Missile). Of those 4 just ONE works for missiles. You cant take just this and nerf it, and completely ignore the others. If you do, you will not get balance.
Do you agree with me, that in the end there EITHER has to be 1 missile system of those 4 on top of its class and for the other 3 there will be a turret system on top OR in the end NO single system is on top but all 4 in all 4 sizes are viable in PvP in terms of being on par with the rest?
The first is, what we have atm. The second is what we will NOT have after this patch. And my concerns are we will have also not the first then. Thas no balance, thats f*ck up missile users. Simple as that :) |
Lili Lu
551
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:45:00 -
[5123] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: some stuff
Operation Bacon has failed already. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:51:00 -
[5124] - Quote
Noemi,
I just got some numbers thought I would share them.
From an EFT that had the revelation proposed stats ported over
HML - CN Scourge - Drake Maxed skilled - 2x BCU
Explosion velocity 121 Explosion radius 105 Velocity - 6450 DPS - 332 @ 62.9K
HAM - CN Scourge - Drake Maxed skilled - 2x BCU
Explosion velocity 151 Explosion radius 93 Velocity - 3375 DPS - 462 @ 20.3K
The numbers look good to me the only thing I would say needs to be changed IMO is the speed of HAMS increased and the flight time decreased.
I can post the new Raven Torp Numbers as well if you like
Mirple |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
293
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:52:00 -
[5125] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:And in any case, when someone cross-trains into direct fire weapons they damn sure aren't sticking with Caldari anyway. Who in their right mind would. - Merlin - Vulture - Rokh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8aX60biCE4- Naga - Ferox - Harpy Minmatar or "Winmatar" like you say it isn't that good when a single T2 cruiser can completely disable "godly" Hurricane.
I am missing your point...
In any case, you listed an odd selection of hulls. The easiest way to tell how good a ship or weapon actually is, is to consider how many people regret training for something else instead. No one has ever said, "Caldari Battleships ROCK! I would gladly trade my Mael, Phoon, and Pest for that Caldari Rohk!" or "Why did I train for this stupid Sleipner when I could have flown the Vulture!" The same applies to weapons. You have never, even once, seen someone unhappy because they trained for Arties instead of Cruise Missiles. There are probably few Caldari PvP pilot in the game that don't wish they had their Caldari ship and weapons SP to invest elsewhere.
This is what I would like to see changed.
The players of other races might well complain, all the races have their issues, but NONE of these players look at the Caldari and wish they had chosen to waste their training time there instead. If things were balanced you could randomly select any class of ships and weapons in the game, and have a hard time saying which was the best and which the worst. You could just pick a ship or weapon from any class and make a good argument that it was the best. None of this: "Well, you know, you could maybe USE it if you had to... have you thought about cross training?"
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 16:59:00 -
[5126] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:And in any case, when someone cross-trains into direct fire weapons they damn sure aren't sticking with Caldari anyway. Who in their right mind would. - Merlin - Vulture - Rokh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8aX60biCE4- Naga - Ferox - Harpy Minmatar or "Winmatar" like you say it isn't that good when a single T2 cruiser can completely disable "godly" Hurricane. I am missing your point... In any case, you listed an odd selection of hulls. The easiest way to tell how good a ship or weapon actually is, is to consider how many people regret training for something else instead. No one has ever said, "Caldari Battleships ROCK! I would gladly trade my Mael, Phoon, and Pest for that Caldari Rohk!" or "Why did I train for this stupid Sleipner when I could have flown the Vulture!" The same applies to weapons. You have never, even once, seen someone unhappy because they trained for Arties instead of Cruise Missiles. There are probably few Caldari PvP pilot in the game that don't wish they had their Caldari ship and weapons SP to invest elsewhere. This is what I would like to see changed. The players of other races might well complain, all the races have their issues, but NONE of these players look at the Caldari and wish they had chosen to waste their training time there instead. If things were balanced you could randomly select any class of ships and weapons in the game, and have a hard time saying which was the best and which the worst. You could just pick a ship or weapon from any class and make a good argument that it was the best. None of this: " Well, you know, you could maybe USE it if you had to... have you thought about cross training?"
Nice and to the point again :) .. +1
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:03:00 -
[5127] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Noemi,
I just got some numbers thought I would share them.
From an EFT that had the revelation proposed stats ported over
HML - CN Scourge - Drake Maxed skilled - 2x BCU
Explosion velocity 121 Explosion radius 105 Velocity - 6450 DPS - 332 @ 62.9K
HAM - CN Scourge - Drake Maxed skilled - 2x BCU
Explosion velocity 151 Explosion radius 93 Velocity - 3375 DPS - 462 @ 20.3K
The numbers look good to me the only thing I would say needs to be changed IMO is the speed of HAMS increased and the flight time decreased.
I can post the new Raven Torp Numbers as well if you like
Mirple
Those HAM numbers look good to you? Well, compare it to its peers. And consider to count in the Drone bay too, because on short range Drones *are* an option ... those 20.3k are theoretical max I assume? Means, another 2k less in Eve?
The new torp Raven will not be good before the hull itself is fixed and Torps are fixed (will see if this is the case after patch, the Torp part that is ..). Could be possible the Phoon will do ok with the new Torps (it already didnt do so bad with the old ones, Winmatar hull ...).
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
206
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:06:00 -
[5128] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:The players of other races might well complain, all the races have their issues, but NONE of these players look at the Caldari and wish they had chosen to waste their training time there instead. If things were balanced you could randomly select any class of ships and weapons in the game, and have a hard time saying which was the best and which the worst. You could just pick a ship or weapon from any class and make a good argument that it was the best. None of this: "Well, you know, you could maybe USE it if you had to... have you thought about cross training?"
After 6 months from starting the game I struggled in level 3 missions with my new Harbinger. Oh, why I didn't choose easy mode when I started?
Try to guess how many times I was really close to biomassing my character and unsub?
It doesn't get any easier now. - What ships can you fly? - Amarr T1 subcaps and T2 frigs and cruisers... - Stop right there! Go back to home and train Drake/Tengu and HML. - I was just about to mention Drake and Cane...
No armor fleets anymore. Everything is shields, shields, missiles, shields... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:13:00 -
[5129] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Seriously guys. HAMs are going to get easier to fit. If you want, try to put a few on your Tengus, too. Yeah, they'll have far less range. But you'll notice that you're doing obscene amounts of damage. And you've already still got some pretty good tank. Why not give it a try? It might not be that bad.
On Tengus they might be ok (I cant judge, never used a HAM Tengu before and the ones I met and killed were maybe failfits..), but if the t3 is the only thing which is working in missile PvP - would that be balance? |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
294
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:14:00 -
[5130] - Quote
Sigras wrote: I never mentioned cross training, but it is a worthwhile discussion. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with balance because again, you cant balance around the noobs with 20,000,000 SP, you have to balance around all the bitter vets with > 100,000,000 SP
Allow me to illustrate: if they said "missiles and drones are two weapon systems that take 2x longer than everything else to train, so we're going to reward the players who train for them by making their weapons 20% better than the other weapons" what would be the problem with that? Eventually everyone would just be flying missiles and drones, and the bitter vets who have tons of SP would be flying them tomorrow!
The game must be balanced outside of the training time it takes to get anything. This is also the reason why cost is not a balancing factor. This is how we got into the titan/super carrier disaster that we have now; they said since they cost so much and take so long to train for, they should **** everything in their way . . . it turns out that doesnt work for balancing.
True enough, but there is another side to this:
Right now missiles are far and away the most skill intensive sub-cap weapons line in the game. Worse, the investment into missiles is not transferable to other weapon's systems as it is in the case with the others. Finally, Missiles are the Caldari signature weapon. If we are to disregard SP investment as being irrelevant to balance, then wherever possible we should balance the investment demands and the return on that investment.
A solution is to eliminate the missile support skills completely and merge them into a general class of weapon support skills.
Second, eliminate the separate missile lines for each weapon and stack them as they do with the others. The chain would then look like this:
Small Missiles 5 (Allows T2 Rockets and Light Missiles) - Short Range Rocket Specialization 4 - Long Range Light Missile Specialization 4 Medium Missiles 5 (Allows T2 HAMs and HMLs) - Short Range Ham Specialization 4 - Long Range Heavy Missile Specialization 4 Large Missiles (Allows T2 Torpedos and Cruise Missiles) - Short Range Torpedo Specialization 4 - Long Range Cruise Missile Specialization 4
Under this system, Caldari pilots will have invested no more SP than any other race, their support skills would apply to ALL weapons. It would also go a long way towards eliminating many of their complaints.
|
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:15:00 -
[5131] - Quote
The numbers I posted were without drones. |
Aglais
Liberation Army BricK sQuAD.
133
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:16:00 -
[5132] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Aglais wrote:Seriously guys. HAMs are going to get easier to fit. If you want, try to put a few on your Tengus, too. Yeah, they'll have far less range. But you'll notice that you're doing obscene amounts of damage. And you've already still got some pretty good tank. Why not give it a try? It might not be that bad. On Tengus they might be ok (I cant judge, never used a HAM Tengu before and the ones I met and killed were maybe failfits..), but if the t3 is the only thing which is working in missile PvP - would that be balance?
HAM Caracals. HAM Drakes. Standard missile launchers. Rockets. Maybe even some torp ships appear due to Guided Missile Precision affecting all missiles now. Also, the Legion can be HAM fit- this buff may be the thing that gets people to legitimately look at it. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:18:00 -
[5133] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:The players of other races might well complain, all the races have their issues, but NONE of these players look at the Caldari and wish they had chosen to waste their training time there instead. If things were balanced you could randomly select any class of ships and weapons in the game, and have a hard time saying which was the best and which the worst. You could just pick a ship or weapon from any class and make a good argument that it was the best. None of this: "Well, you know, you could maybe USE it if you had to... have you thought about cross training?" After 6 months from starting the game I struggled in level 3 missions with my new Harbinger. Oh, why I didn't choose easy mode when I started? Try to guess how many times I was really close to biomassing my character and unsub? It doesn't get any easier now. - What ships can you fly? - Amarr T1 subcaps and T2 frigs and cruisers... - Stop right there! Go back to home and train Drake/Tengu and HML. - I was just about to mention Drake and Cane... No armor fleets anymore. Everything is shields, shields, missiles, shields...
As you might have noticed, Eve is not and will not get balanced around PvE. While I do agree that this aspect sucks a bit, we all have to live with it. No one ever objected to the fact the Drake outclasses the other 3 BC in l4s and is also way in front in l3s. Although in l3s those other 3 tier 2s will do a good job too. But PvE is just not a reason for CCP to balance things. Adapt or die. (which you should btw anyway in regards of the so OP Drake/HML - crosstrain, if you feel its OP. Oh, and its so easy and fast to get all those missile skills, right?) |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:21:00 -
[5134] - Quote
MIrple wrote:The numbers I posted were without drones.
Also please post a fit in a battle cruiser that can do 462 dps with guns only at ~24k range and not in fall off.
24k range? I thought 20.3k? And how will you maintain that exact range with a ship which is not the fastest in its class?
And yes, without Drones, thats what I meant: Caldari have the smallest bay, remember? A Harbinger can do a lot more Drone DPS than a Drake for example .. or shut it down a LOT with 5 med ECMs ... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
206
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:22:00 -
[5135] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:As you might have noticed, Eve is not and will not get balanced around PvE. While I do agree that this aspect sucks a bit, we all have to live with it. No one ever objected to the fact the Drake outclasses the other 3 BC in l4s and is also way in front in l3s. Although in l3s those other 3 tier 2s will do a good job too. But PvE is just not a reason for CCP to balance things. Adapt or die. (which you should btw anyway in regards of the so OP Drake/HML - crosstrain, if you feel its OP. Oh, and its so easy and fast to get all those missile skills, right?)
I was talking about PvP (not PvE or your iWin solo PvP).
Where did you last see Abaddon fleet? Where did you last see any armor fleet?
FCs say "if you can't fly Drake/Tengu and use T2 HMLs then go home noob". |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
295
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:23:00 -
[5136] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Gallente/Hybrid Gallente isn't hybrid race just like Caldari isn't missile race. Both races have almost even split between two weapon systems (if you can call drones one). Gallente: drones/hybrids Caldari: hybrids/missiles And Amarrians aren't purely laser users. Missile ships (even though you are limited to short range missiles), drone boats, laser ships. And we still have ships that are better with projectiles: Maller and Prophecy for example. At least you can take full advantage of half of the bonuses this way (maximizing tank).
How many Gallente ships have ZERO turret hardpoints -- relying upon Drones for 100% of their offense?
What percentage of ships, all races, field at least some drones?
The Minmatar signature weapons is Projectiles The Amarr Signature weapon is Lasers The Caldari Signature weapon is Missiles The Gallente signature weapon is Hybrids
Obviously there is some small amount of cross over, and every race fields some secondary weapons -- including some hulls devoted exclusively to these secondary weapons. But just as every race has a signature EWAR, they all have a signature weapon. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:24:00 -
[5137] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:MIrple wrote:The numbers I posted were without drones.
Also please post a fit in a battle cruiser that can do 462 dps with guns only at ~24k range and not in fall off. 24k range? I thought 20.3k? And how will you maintain that exact range with a ship which is not the fastest in its class? And yes, without Drones, thats what I meant: Caldari have the smallest bay, remember? A Harbinger can do a lot more Drone DPS than a Drake for example .. or shut it down a LOT with 5 med ECMs ...
Sorry 20 is correct. We are not talking drones in this only the turrert or missile DPS/projection. BC's still need to be balanced remember. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
206
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 17:30:00 -
[5138] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:How many Gallente ships have ZERO turret hardpoints -- relying upon Drones for 100% of their offense?
What percentage of ships, all races, field at least some drones?
The Minmatar signature weapons is Projectiles The Amarr Signature weapon is Lasers The Caldari Signature weapon is Missiles The Gallente signature weapon is Hybrids
Obviously there is some small amount of cross over, and every race fields some secondary weapons -- including some hulls devoted exclusively to these secondary weapons. But just as every race has a signature EWAR, they all have a signature weapon.
Because Amarr "signature weapon" is lasers then Arbitrator is laser ship? With those two turret hardpoints. At level 5 Arbi does more damage with drones than those "signature weapons".
And to be honest, you're not going to be great Minmatar pilot if you only train projectiles... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 18:00:00 -
[5139] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:MIrple wrote:The numbers I posted were without drones.
Also please post a fit in a battle cruiser that can do 462 dps with guns only at ~24k range and not in fall off. 24k range? I thought 20.3k? And how will you maintain that exact range with a ship which is not the fastest in its class? And yes, without Drones, thats what I meant: Caldari have the smallest bay, remember? A Harbinger can do a lot more Drone DPS than a Drake for example .. or shut it down a LOT with 5 med ECMs ... Sorry 20 is correct. We are not talking drones in this only the turrert or missile DPS/projection. BC's still need to be balanced remember.
I am talking about either actual stuff happening in Eve (which makes sense) or just numbers. If you take just numbers, then no, this Drake doesnt look hot to me. For sure no contender for No.1 in close combat. And for the "real" thing it looks even worse.
Thanks for you effort though. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
296
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 18:03:00 -
[5140] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:The players of other races might well complain, all the races have their issues, but NONE of these players look at the Caldari and wish they had chosen to waste their training time there instead. If things were balanced you could randomly select any class of ships and weapons in the game, and have a hard time saying which was the best and which the worst. You could just pick a ship or weapon from any class and make a good argument that it was the best. None of this: "Well, you know, you could maybe USE it if you had to... have you thought about cross training?" After 6 months from starting the game I struggled in level 3 missions with my new Harbinger. Oh, why I didn't choose easy mode when I started? Try to guess how many times I was really close to biomassing my character and unsub? It doesn't get any easier now. - What ships can you fly? - Amarr T1 subcaps and T2 frigs and cruisers... - Stop right there! Go back to home and train Drake/Tengu and HML. - I was just about to mention Drake and Cane... No armor fleets anymore. Everything is shields, shields, missiles, shields...
Few Points:
** I was talking about PvP. For years Caldari pilots were told that they were the PvE race. This was the excuse as to why they basically only had the Drake. "You're the best at PvE, and you have the Drake, so shut up!" Hell, up until a year or so ago Caldari pilots didn't even have frigates -- it took five webs, three target painters, and a Falcon to make Caldari rockets frigates work, and Hybrids were a joke.
** If you are having these kinds of problems you need to change corporations. Change what you are DOING in game. The problem isn't your ships, it's some goofy fleet doctrine crap spewed by unimaginative fleet-*****. Whether you are Amarr or Caldari or whatever, whether you are a two month old new player or a 100 million SP bitter-vet, never let ANYONE tell you this kind of nonsense. If they don't value you as an individual, if they see you as some meaningless body filling a Drake, tell them to F@ck off and go find good people to fly with. Hell, get your pirate on and come fly with my corporation. We're small, we're damn near always outnumbered, but we get into some crazy fights and no one is going to tell you a damn thing about what you fly.
** I see armor fleets every day. I was in an armor gang just yesterday. These things come and go, and next month everyone might well be hull tanking their ships and talking smack to anyone who lacks this skill. Ignore them and fly what you like. |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
154
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 18:08:00 -
[5141] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:MIrple wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:MIrple wrote:The numbers I posted were without drones.
Also please post a fit in a battle cruiser that can do 462 dps with guns only at ~24k range and not in fall off. 24k range? I thought 20.3k? And how will you maintain that exact range with a ship which is not the fastest in its class? And yes, without Drones, thats what I meant: Caldari have the smallest bay, remember? A Harbinger can do a lot more Drone DPS than a Drake for example .. or shut it down a LOT with 5 med ECMs ... Sorry 20 is correct. We are not talking drones in this only the turrert or missile DPS/projection. BC's still need to be balanced remember. I am talking about either actual stuff happening in Eve (which makes sense) or just numbers. If you take just numbers, then no, this Drake doesnt look hot to me. For sure no contender for No.1 in close combat. And for the "real" thing it looks even worse. Thanks for you effort though.
So I comes down to you said show me the numbers but when the numbers are shown its now ships when the ship is shown its the numbers again. I give up as its just a matter of your right about this and everyone including CCP is wrong. Got it I am not going to post in here till the ships are live on SiSi. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
298
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 18:20:00 -
[5142] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:How many Gallente ships have ZERO turret hardpoints -- relying upon Drones for 100% of their offense?
What percentage of ships, all races, field at least some drones?
The Minmatar signature weapons is Projectiles The Amarr Signature weapon is Lasers The Caldari Signature weapon is Missiles The Gallente signature weapon is Hybrids
Obviously there is some small amount of cross over, and every race fields some secondary weapons -- including some hulls devoted exclusively to these secondary weapons. But just as every race has a signature EWAR, they all have a signature weapon. Because Amarr "signature weapon" is lasers then Arbitrator is laser ship? With those two turret hardpoints. At level 5 Arbi does more damage with drones than those "signature weapons". And to be honest, you're not going to be great Minmatar pilot if you only train projectiles...
RTB....
why? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
117
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 19:20:00 -
[5143] - Quote
Noemi, making something the best somewhere is NOT balance, in fact, it's UNblance. You don't want balancing, you want UNblancing.
Balancing is making everything relevant, everything have it's role somewhere. What you are requesting is deleting all medium size long range turret to have you caldari missiles to eclipse everything else somewhere.
HML will always be the best at long range compared to it's size guns.
As for the signature weapon, this whole idea is silly. Hybrids are as much important to caldari as missiles ; exactly like hybrids are as much important to gallente than drones. Caldari signature is long range combat and heavy shield, not missiles. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 21:41:00 -
[5144] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi, making something the best somewhere is NOT balance, in fact, it's UNblance. You don't want balancing, you want UNblancing.
Balancing is making everything relevant, everything have it's role somewhere. What you are requesting is deleting all medium size long range turret to have you caldari missiles to eclipse everything else somewhere.
HML will always be the best at long range compared to it's size guns.
As for the signature weapon, this whole idea is silly. Hybrids are as much important to caldari as missiles ; exactly like hybrids are as much important to gallente than drones. Caldari signature is long range combat and heavy shield, not missiles.
You really dont read what I say. You just pick a part and fail to understand even that.
I said
1) EITHER do it like it is now: each weapon system category (med LR, med SR, large LR, large SR) has systems which work well, and others which dont. Missiles win in just ONE of these 4 categories. And in no other. Guns win in the other three.
2) OR do it balanced: neither guns nor missiles win in any of those categories, guns and missile work with same efficiency in combat, so taking one or the other is just a matter of personal taste. This is not how it is right now.
If you want to change 1) so missiles are no longer on top in one category, but guns are on top in all, then this can not be called balance. I agree 1) is not perfect. But 1) without a missile system being in front in one of those 4 is worse. Esp. since I dont see 2) coming anytime soon.
And no, its not silly to say missiles are Caldaris signature weapon. It has been explained to you again and again why so many Caldari pilots feel like that. Its again *you* who doesnt get the point. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
117
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 22:53:00 -
[5145] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:And no, its not silly to say missiles are Caldaris signature weapon. It has been explained to you again and again why so many Caldari pilots feel like that. Its again *you* who doesnt get the point. We should look at what it should be, not improve the bad who is because of evolution. Caldari pilot can think whatever they want, if they think caldari signature weapon is missiles, they think are wrong, that's as simple as that.
And no, whatever the state of things, we shouldn't aim at making things OP in some area and other one OP in another area. That's only the wrong way of doing things, and absolutely not balancing. Only your point 2 is relevant, 1 is senseless.
You refuse to see the buff to all other missiles, you only say "no, they won't be enough" without any reason or argument other than "CCP is bad, so let's do something even worse than what we have now". |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 00:34:00 -
[5146] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I am talking about either actual stuff happening in Eve (which makes sense) or just numbers. If you take just numbers, then no, this Drake doesnt look hot to me. For sure no contender for No.1 in close combat. And for the "real" thing it looks even worse.
Thanks for you effort though.
uve said before that drakes always do poorly in close range fights, but the last one i 1v1'd did pretty well on me (into structure) despite a thermal hole i already knew about.
HAM drakes do pretty well when they arent piloted and fit terribly. a couple of notes on stereo typical drake piloting:
- The reluctance of a lot of drake pilots to use anything but kinetic damage hampers their ability to take on shield tankers and many T2 ships. - Scrams will often allow HAM drakes to kite better than disruptors, but u dnt see many of them used. - The presence of EM hardeners and screen reinforcers leaves drake pilots more vulnerable to everything but lasers.
On the other hand, ive seen good pilots who are better prepared come out on top with a drake as many times as ppl in canes, the other to be nerfed BC
HAM drakes are good at what they do, and as far as i've seen, competitive before this buff. i'm suggesting that, if u've experienced HAM drakes constantly failing up close, it might just be down to pilot error.
if i was to go further and suggest that hardcore drake pilots have a reputation for being the most un-creative, un-resourceful, predictable and generally poorest pvp players in the game, would i be wrong? |
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
131
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 01:02:00 -
[5147] - Quote
did i read that right that all TII damage missiles are getting a 50% range nerf, including rockets, cruise, torp , lights and HAMs? ALL TII high damage missiles have had their ranges HALVED?????WTF?? |
Lili Lu
556
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 04:43:00 -
[5148] - Quote
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:did i read that right that all TII damage missiles are getting a 50% range nerf, including rockets, cruise, torp , lights and HAMs? ALL TII high damage missiles have had their ranges HALVED?????WTF??
_____________________ Tech Two Missiles -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles -Fury: Increase damage bonus to +35%, reduce flight time to 50% of T1, unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes -Javelin: Just remove ship penalties -Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%) _____________________
If you equate Rage and Fury then yes.
You see it's Fury that are 50% of tech I, so actually a little less than 50% range nerf. The idea being like high damage tech II turret ammo which is always very range limited. Rage is going to have same range as tech I torps etc.
If you can't relax your reflexive rage to read the op calmly and rationally, then why post? Reread it. Think about it. Then if you are still mad, at least you won't be sputtering mad, misreading, and misposting. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
298
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 06:10:00 -
[5149] - Quote
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:did i read that right that all TII damage missiles are getting a 50% range nerf, including rockets, cruise, torp , lights and HAMs? ALL TII high damage missiles have had their ranges HALVED?????WTF??
T2 Fury Heavy Missiles are seeing their base damage reduced from 192 to 182; their maximum range reduced from 33km to 14km; their explosion velocity nerfed from 97 to 68; and their explosion radius increased from 215m to 241m (note: lower is better, so this too is a nerf).
T2 Heavy Precision Missiles are recieving a damage buff from 130 to 135; their base range reduced from 18.5km to 14km; their explosion velocity increased to 97; and their explosion radius increased from 112 to 125 (lower is better). Basically, the new improved Precision will hit small fast targets about as well as T1 faction HMs do today, except with maximum skills they will only reach out to about 20km against a stationary target -- so if you are pointed at 24km you aren't hitting it with Precision missiles.
The same sorts of changes apply to the other T2 missiles as well. Rage HAMs, for example, are seeing a slight reduction in range, and a solid nerf to explosion velocity (10% worse) and radius (20% worse).
The good news with all these T2 missiles is that with the ship penalities removed you can now fire them without crippling your own ship, the bad news is that you probably won't want to fire them anyway. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:08:00 -
[5150] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
The good news with all these T2 missiles is that with the ship penalities removed you can now fire them without crippling your own ship, the bad news is that you probably won't want to fire them anyway.
Exactly what I said before ...
And @Bouh: so you think 1) is bad and 2) is what we need, but fail to see 2) will not be there? Will you call it better balance if no missile system is on top or on par with top after the patch and all 4 categories medium & large long & short are won by turretships?
Apart from that, I think Launchers magazines are not big enough. Should be adressed too.
|
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:16:00 -
[5151] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
uve said before that drakes always do poorly in close range fights, but the last one i 1v1'd did pretty well on me (into structure) despite a thermal hole i already knew about.
Do you feel like HAM Drakes are right now on top of close range? I dont. And thats not because Caldari dont like to do close combat per se. I feel its a ship thing.
Daichi Yamato wrote: HAM drakes do pretty well when they arent piloted and fit terribly. a couple of notes on stereo typical drake piloting:
- The reluctance of a lot of drake pilots to use anything but kinetic damage hampers their ability to take on shield tankers and many T2 ships.
Well, I always took other ammo with me in my Drakes, like I do with any ship. But you cripple your DPS by 25% if you dont use Kin, and often enough this is more than shooting the weakest resistance will give you *more*. Ofc, everyone who fights Gallente t2 with Scourge should get his bottom smacked hard.
Daichi Yamato wrote: - Scrams will often allow HAM drakes to kite better than disruptors, but u dnt see many of them used. - The presence of EM hardeners and screen reinforcers leaves drake pilots more vulnerable to everything but lasers.
And RF EMP. But yeah, having better omni resist is the goal which one should have. Never used something else than a set of 3 extender rigs personally, and tried to adapt to the expected situation with the fitting.
Daichi Yamato wrote:
if i was to go further and suggest that hardcore drake pilots have a reputation for being the most un-creative, un-resourceful, predictable and generally poorest pvp players in the game, would i be wrong?
There may be many poor Caldari PvP players. I met a few of them, one was losing a Drake to my Moa for example ... I am not sure if the absolute numbers indicate something wrong there though. Of those *interested* in PvP there shouldnt be a real difference to other races. And about the un-creative thing: the Drake has not that many options with fitting. You can do many things on paper, but in "real" Eve its a bit of a one-trick pony. Has been said again and again and no one really objected when it was this "the Drake sucks at PvP" a few years ago in ships&modules ... the ship didnt change. It never sucked at PvP IMO, but it can hardly surprise anyone. If you meet a Drake you know what you can expect. If the pilot does something completely different in his fittings it will most probably not work as soon as the enemy finds out.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 07:46:00 -
[5152] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:If you meet a Drake you know what you can expect.
I will lose my ship if I don't warp away.
Curse vs. Drake is one sided fight. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
10
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 08:10:00 -
[5153] - Quote
MIrple wrote:The numbers I posted were without drones.
Also please post a fit in a battle cruiser that can do 462 dps with guns only at ~24k range and not in fall off.
You can, with suitable wrangling, get a BC hull which does 409dps at 19+25 and can reach as far out as 233dps at 137+25.
Depending on ammo you can get a range in between those, including 403dps at 38+25.
It's not exactly the numbers you wanted but it's close and it's not at a hard range cap at 24 either. A decent trade, on pixels at least. Almost the damage of the high damage short range missile with the option to reduce damage as you increase range all the way out to 5x the range of the missile system.
EFT warrioring though, I offer no guarantees as to it's real world efficiency. Remarkable the numbers you can actually get if you're devious
Edit: As I post this it makes me think the REAL way to balance missiles properly is a variety of ammunition types varying in power/range. Being locked into a single type (damage excepted) dictated by hardpoint is causing issues imo. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 08:42:00 -
[5154] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Edit: As I post this it makes me think the REAL way to balance missiles properly is a variety of ammunition types varying in power/range. Being locked into a single type (damage excepted) dictated by hardpoint is causing issues imo.
Yeah, I said that too before. Introduce low dps high range fast velocity sniper ammo, to be balanced on long ranges and cut ranges of higher damage ammo. Or even introduce more different ranges/different damage. Guess what they said? They didnt like that idea. Its simple, there are people here who just hate missiles with passion, and dont want to see on par or even on top in comparisons. They want missiles to be inferior to turrets. So they will object to any reasonable change idea and tell again and again just how OP missiles are.
What they want? They want missiles to get nerfed into something like a noob weapon, which works ok, but will never be on par with the best. So a real pro wont use it and use pro turrets instead. Thats the attitude, and we cant change those people. But we can point out their intentions :)
Best regards.
PS: To all those who say Drake/HML is OP, Tengu/HML is OP - adapt and use one! You yourself said how fast t2 HML can be trained up - go and adapt! Or die in fire :) Funny thing is, Drake/HML are so OP for such a long time (they have not been changed for quite a while), still its not Drake online. You had so much time to adapt, really ..
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 08:44:00 -
[5155] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:If you meet a Drake you know what you can expect. I will lose my ship if I don't warp away. Curse vs. Drake is one sided fight.
The Curse is most probably not a good hard counter to a Drake then. Use your EFT Curse (the guy with no combat record, remember?) on some other ships. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
11
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 08:57:00 -
[5156] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Its simple, there are people here who just hate missiles with passion, and dont want to see on par or even on top in comparisons. They want missiles to be inferior to turrets. So they will object to any reasonable change idea and tell again and again just how OP missiles are.
I don't think the devs think like that and in any case, (heavy) missiles might well be OP in the real world. As a non HML user barring the odd dabble at skill level 3, I don't feel qualified to say one way or the other. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 09:05:00 -
[5157] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The Curse is most probably not a good hard counter to a Drake then. Use your EFT Curse (the guy with no combat record, remember?) on some other ships.
Why should missiles be superior? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:08:00 -
[5158] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The Curse is most probably not a good hard counter to a Drake then. Use your EFT Curse (the guy with no combat record, remember?) on some other ships. Why should missiles be superior?
Why should they be inferior? :) they are atm inferior in some aspects and superior in others. You simply fail to point out how they will be balanced if they get nerfed in the aspects in which they are superior *without* buffing them in those other things so they will not be inferior there anymore.
either make missiles on par with all other stuff (=perfect balance), or make them better in some things and worse in others, so the result is also an overall balance.
Will you deny the fact that when comparing large and medium long and short range systems only one of those 4 is atm rocked by missiles?
CM <<<< LRLT Torps << SRLT HAM < or << SRMT HML > or >>> LRMT
if afterwards all are equal to turrets, fine. If afterwards one area is missile won, and the other are turret, also ok for me. I feel like both wont happen though.
Besides, Jorma, without a combat record I somehow fail to see why I should answer to your ever same questions again and again .. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:27:00 -
[5159] - Quote
Missiles are better in everything /= overall balance
Caracal can do almost 300 dps at 200 km and you don't see where problem is...
Oh, and about combat record... You haven't posted with your "pvp main" yet. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:28:00 -
[5160] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:OT Smithers wrote:
The good news with all these T2 missiles is that with the ship penalities removed you can now fire them without crippling your own ship, the bad news is that you probably won't want to fire them anyway.
Exactly what I said before ... And @Bouh: so you think 1) is bad and 2) is what we need, but fail to see 2) will not be there? Will you call it better balance if no missile system is on top or on par with top after the patch and all 4 categories medium & large long & short are won by turretships? And about that "ignore history" thing. Fine, but then balance this out like OT Smithers suggested, in redesigning the missile skill tree. Make those supports the same, so cross training is easier (also for the turret users who want to go missile! ;) ) and change the skills like for turrets, small, med and large basic skills, and specs needed for going up. Btw, why do people not just crosstrain to the Drake and flood Eve with it? Its so fast to skill missiles, remember? Apart from that, I think Launchers magazines are not big enough. Should be adressed too. You are asking for missiles to become turrets. This is stupid.
BTW, Caldari are ALREADY on TOP for long range damage dealing, either with HML on medium hull or with everything they have on large hull. They also have the BEST ewar AND shields.
You are not asking any balance, you are asking missiles to become turrets or caldari to be OP. Use turrets if you want turrets, and if you cannot appreciate missiles advantages, don't use them.
Drones don't share the skill tree with turrets, and that never was a problem. Gallente pilots always had and still *have to* skill for BOTH drones AND hybrids to use their ships. Infact, Caldari may be the ONLY race who can use effectively half it's ships with only one weapon system (amarr drone bays make them less good than caldari for this).
You categories won is nonsense. Missiles and caldari do have their strength. And ignoring small size is pretty convenient to you too. Ignoring *any*thing which don't go for your "don't nerf HML even if they are OP" sillyness.
Start by defining inferior vs superior. Cruise Missiles DO are superior to turrets at long range.
You know, there will ALWAYS be something on top of something. Caldari are on top of LONG RANGE combat and on top of shield tank and EWAR.
Skill for hybrids, and let these missiles be balanced. Missiles are NOT turrets, they will NEVER EVER be exactly like turrets, that would be the death of this game.
Now Noemi, if you don't mind bringing some real arguments, instead elephants being superior to hippopotamus, that would elevate the debate. As I already asked, start by defining "superior". |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:41:00 -
[5161] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Missiles are better in everything /= overall balance
Caracal can do almost 300 dps at 200 km and you don't see where problem is...
Oh, and about combat record... You haven't posted with your "pvp main" yet.
You havent even bothered to post one of your combat alts. So I again fail to see why I should bother with this complaint.
But this "missiles are better in everything" stuff is just ridiculous bullshit. Thanks for again proving you are a troll, and nothing but a troll.
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:44:00 -
[5162] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:BTW, Caldari are ALREADY on TOP for long range damage dealing, either with HML on medium hull or with everything they have on large hull.
I'm not convinced the large hull situation you describe is entirely accurate.
They are almost certainly the quickest and easiest to be moderately successful with, but that's not really the same.
As I said, I believe the reason missiles are hard to balance is because range/DPS is dictated not by ammo, but by hardpoint. Every other weapon DPS/range chart is a bell(ish) curve. Missiles are uniform then zero. Yes, there are short/long range turrets too, but much of their reach/power is dictated by ammo. This enforces the trade off which is hard to overcome/address balance against compared to missiles.
I mentioned earlier it's possible to get a long range turret platform extremely close to a short range HAM drakes damage whilst maintaining a massively longer range. Yes, the boat is only close in DPS at short ranges, however beyond the hard end point of the HAM it does 0 dps. This is possible because of ammo variations available to the gun platform to extend its range at a cost of DPS or vice versa. Comparing that turret ship to the "long range" HML drake, it kills it in terms of both DPS and range.
Allowing different missiles to have different profiles would make things a lot easier to balance, perhaps easier is the wrong phrase - it would allow much more flexibility in terms of fine tuning the systems. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:47:00 -
[5163] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: You are asking for missiles to become turrets. This is stupid.
I dont. I said before I am fine with the fact they are different. As long as they are not inferior in everything in PvP, that is. Atm they are not inferior in everything, so for me they are ok. If you feel they are OP, feel free to crosstrain to Caldari and missiles. :-)
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Drones don't share the skill tree with turrets, and that never was a problem. Gallente pilots always had and still *have to* skill for BOTH drones AND hybrids to use their ships.
Every one has to skill drones up to medium combat tech II if he wants to be competitive. Caldari have no use for Heavy and Sentry (except in Gurista ships), thats correct. But nothing different in the need for drone skills for anyone.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Infact, Caldari may be the ONLY race who can use effectively half it's ships with only one weapon system (amarr drone bays make them less good than caldari for this).
A Sentry-Dominix or Ishtar or a Myrm might want to have a word with you.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Start by defining inferior vs superior. Cruise Missiles DO are superior to turrets at long range.
Go and troll somewhere else, really. :) Enough proof found for my assumption you are nothing than a troll.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Skill for hybrids, and let these missiles be balanced. Missiles are NOT turrets, they will NEVER EVER be exactly like turrets, that would be the death of this game.
How so? How would it be the death of this game if missiles would perform like turrets? Really curious about your answer there :-)
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:51:00 -
[5164] - Quote
I still don't get why railguns and beam lasers haven't got a significant alpha buff yet. You can double their alpha and still artillery will be about twice as good in that field. But suddenly you might see more alpha fleets accepting caldari, gallente and amarr ships for epic battles...
Pinky
Also simplifying races to only have 1 trait in weapons is wrong... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:53:00 -
[5165] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:BTW, Caldari are ALREADY on TOP for long range damage dealing, either with HML on medium hull or with everything they have on large hull. I'm not convinced the large hull situation you describe is entirely accurate. They are almost certainly the quickest and easiest to be moderately successful with, but that's not really the same. As I said, I believe the reason missiles are hard to balance is because range/DPS is dictated not by ammo, but by hardpoint. Every other weapon DPS/range chart is a bell(ish) curve. Missiles are uniform then zero. Yes, there are short/long range turrets too, but much of their reach/power is dictated by ammo. This enforces the trade off which is ahrd to overcome/address balance against compared to missiles. I mentioned earlier it's possible to get a long range turret platform extremely close to a short range HML drakes damage whilst maintaining a massively longer range. Yes, the boat is only close in DPS at short ranges, however beyond the hard end point of the HAM it does 0 dps. This is possible because of ammo variations available to the gun platform to extend its range at a cost of DPS or vice versa. Comparing that turret ship to the "long range" HML drake, it kills it in terms of both DPS and range. Allowing different missiles to have different profiles would make things a lot easier to balance, perhaps easier is the wrong phrase - it would allow much more flexibility in terms of fine tuning the systems. Cruise are the best at long range. It's only the problem of long range bot being so useful anymore, and because of damage delay, but they definetely are the most powerful weapon at long range. Look at 100km range, and you'll see. In fact, it may very well be a lot sooner than 100km (excluding the Naga). And on top of that, they don't have to sacrifice their tank in range mod achieve it.
Now, as I said, stable damage over range are a caracteristic of missiles, and that would be sad to get rid of it only to simplify balancing and to comply to people unable to appreciate missiles strength. Difficulty is not a good reason for dumbing down the game. Missiles are not turrets, they are powerful at long range only because their damage don't fall with range. If you want damage depending on range, use turrets. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:55:00 -
[5166] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:smacktalk You are a hopeless troll.
Absolutely NOTHING in your post is argument, you only wrote smacktalk. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 10:58:00 -
[5167] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:smacktalk You are a hopeless troll. Absolutely NOTHING in your post is argument, you only wrote smacktalk.
Alone the fact you claim CMs to be best long range weapon is enough proof for your trolling. Thanks for not posting again :) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:00:00 -
[5168] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:But this "missiles are better in everything" stuff is just ridiculous bullshit. Thanks for again proving you are a troll, and nothing but a troll.
Then show me - medium long range turret that deals exactly the same dps as HMLs at 100 km - medium sized hull + medium long range turret combo that can deal damage at 150 km - medium long range turret that can hit orbiting frigate at 9 km as perfectly as heavy missiles do |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:01:00 -
[5169] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:smacktalk You are a hopeless troll. Absolutely NOTHING in your post is argument, you only wrote smacktalk. Alone the fact you claim CMs to be best long range weapon is enough proof for your trolling. Thanks for not posting again :) You misinterprete long range and the best : I precise it with long range being superior at 100km (though 80-90 maybe enough for most hull) and with the only drawback of damage delay which prove problematic at this range, though CM are not balanced yet, maybe their turn will come with BS balancing.
Patience is a vertu you should have learned in EVE, though caldari seem to be immune to this lesson because of the drake I guess. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:01:00 -
[5170] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Cruise are the best at long range.
!!!!!
Bouh Revetoile wrote: It's only the problem of long range bot being so useful anymore, and because of damage delay, but they definetely are the most powerful weapon at long range. .
I assume you meant "not being so useful anymore", in regards of long range. How does that fit to the OPness of the long range Drake which you see? :)
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Now, as I said, stable damage over range are a caracteristic of missiles, and that would be sad to get rid of it only to simplify balancing and to comply to people unable to appreciate missiles strength. Difficulty is not a good reason for dumbing down the game. Missiles are not turrets, they are powerful at long range only because their damage don't fall with range. If you want damage depending on range, use turrets.
Then dont complain you will get out-dpsed by missiles on long range. If you want long range big DPS, crosstrain to missiles. Simple as that, following just *your* logic ...
|
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:03:00 -
[5171] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:But this "missiles are better in everything" stuff is just ridiculous bullshit. Thanks for again proving you are a troll, and nothing but a troll. Then show me - medium long range turret that deals exactly the same dps as HMLs at 100 km - medium sized hull + medium long range turret combo that can deal damage at 150 km - medium long range turret that can hit orbiting frigate at 9 km as perfectly as heavy missiles do
Show me your combat alt first :) and then I give you relevant data over all 4 categories, med LR&SR, large LR&SR.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:03:00 -
[5172] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:But this "missiles are better in everything" stuff is just ridiculous bullshit. Thanks for again proving you are a troll, and nothing but a troll. Then show me - medium long range turret that deals exactly the same dps as HMLs at 100 km - medium sized hull + medium long range turret combo that can deal damage at 150 km - medium long range turret that can hit orbiting frigate at 9 km as perfectly as heavy missiles do HAHA. You are asking for facts, fool ! :D
And with this path, they start asking you to show a missile ship able to blap a frigate. This only argument make them deserve all OPness in the world. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:05:00 -
[5173] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Now, as I said, stable damage over range are a caracteristic of missiles, and that would be sad to get rid of it only to simplify balancing and to comply to people unable to appreciate missiles strength. Difficulty is not a good reason for dumbing down the game. Missiles are not turrets, they are powerful at long range only because their damage don't fall with range. If you want damage depending on range, use turrets.
Indeed it is, but it's causing problems for people. That, and they can bring the DPS to bear from 0-max range. Other systems cannot, however other systems can project damage further but not so well further in.
This is ALWAYS going to create a situation where a given system is superior in a role/application.
/Shrug, I'm genuinely ambivalent as a cruise missile toting mission bear to fund a (matari) PvP char. I'm still here because I find the debate interesting |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:07:00 -
[5174] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Then dont complain you will get out-dpsed by missiles on long range. If you want long range big DPS, crosstrain to missiles. Simple as that, following just *your* logic ...
Holy God ! Noemi, you just admited that missiles DO are superior to turrets at long range !
You may not be hopeless afterall.
BTW, I never questioned the fact that missiles should be the best at long range. I only want them to be less powerful than turrets at shorter range. and before you say it, no, current balance between HML and long range turrets is not enough. 10% damage nerf may be enough, but I'm sceptical, and yet I'm not crying, I'm just waiting for further testing. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:07:00 -
[5175] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:And with this path, they start asking you to show a missile ship able to blap a frigate. This only argument make them deserve all OPness in the world.
50k volley damage. I want that! |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:09:00 -
[5176] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:But this "missiles are better in everything" stuff is just ridiculous bullshit. Thanks for again proving you are a troll, and nothing but a troll. Then show me - medium long range turret that deals exactly the same dps as HMLs at 100 km - medium sized hull + medium long range turret combo that can deal damage at 150 km - medium long range turret that can hit orbiting frigate at 9 km as perfectly as heavy missiles do
All at once wont happen - might be able to eft-up the top two though. What DPS (post change) is the (I assume it is a drake) doing at 100km?
Does rather highlight my belief it's an ammo thing though.
It is a ferox I have in mind though |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:14:00 -
[5177] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Indeed it is, but it's causing problems for people. That, and they can bring the DPS to bear from 0-max range. Other systems cannot, however other systems can project damage further but not so well further in. This is ALWAYS going to create a situation where a given system is superior in a role/application. /Shrug, I'm genuinely ambivalent as a cruise missile toting mission bear to fund a (matari) PvP char. I'm still here because I find the debate interesting Unless all is the same, you cannot make everything to have similar performances in all conditions. There must be areas where something is better than something else.
For HML, turrets cannot project damage so much farther than HML, and if you start using rigs, HML have far superior range.
Cruise missiles simply outrange anything in game.
People have perception problems, though, I'm a bit naive and think they can be educated.
Perception here is that CM are useless because they are worse than turret before 100km. But don't tell me I think CM are fine : they do have problem of damage delay at these ranges, though I think this problem will be taken down when balance come to BS size hull. This whole thread is here now because of the Caracal in fact. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:19:00 -
[5178] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:But this "missiles are better in everything" stuff is just ridiculous bullshit. Thanks for again proving you are a troll, and nothing but a troll. Then show me - medium long range turret that deals exactly the same dps as HMLs at 100 km - medium sized hull + medium long range turret combo that can deal damage at 150 km - medium long range turret that can hit orbiting frigate at 9 km as perfectly as heavy missiles do All at once wont happen - might be able to eft-up the top two though. What DPS (post change) is the (I assume it is a drake) doing at 100km? Does rather highlight my belief it's an ammo thing though. It is a ferox I have in mind though
You already failed. Ferox does 210 dps at 97+ km with very bad tracking (Beam Zealot has higher dps) Drake does 462 dps at 120 km |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:22:00 -
[5179] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:For HML, turrets cannot project damage so much farther than HML, and if you start using rigs, HML have far superior range.
Eh? After the changes they VERY much can. And they can do horrible (pixel) DPS at short range too with a simple ammo swap.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cruise missiles simply outrange anything in game.
People have perception problems, though, I'm a bit naive and think they can be educated.
Perception here is that CM are useless because they are worse than turret before 100km. But don't tell me I think CM are fine : they do have problem of damage delay at these ranges, though I think this problem will be taken down when balance come to BS size hull. This whole thread is here now because of the Caracal in fact.
That's because on grid warping killed sniper fits |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:25:00 -
[5180] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:But this "missiles are better in everything" stuff is just ridiculous bullshit. Thanks for again proving you are a troll, and nothing but a troll. Then show me - medium long range turret that deals exactly the same dps as HMLs at 100 km - medium sized hull + medium long range turret combo that can deal damage at 150 km - medium long range turret that can hit orbiting frigate at 9 km as perfectly as heavy missiles do All at once wont happen - might be able to eft-up the top two though. What DPS (post change) is the (I assume it is a drake) doing at 100km? Does rather highlight my belief it's an ammo thing though. It is a ferox I have in mind though You already failed. Ferox does 210 dps at 97+ km with very bad tracking (Beam Zealot has higher dps) Drake does 462 dps at 120 km
So why is Mirple posting this?
MIrple wrote:Noemi,
I just got some numbers thought I would share them.
From an EFT that had the revelation proposed stats ported over
HML - CN Scourge - Drake Maxed skilled - 2x BCU
Explosion velocity 121 Explosion radius 105 Velocity - 6450 DPS - 332 @ 62.9K
HAM - CN Scourge - Drake Maxed skilled - 2x BCU
Explosion velocity 151 Explosion radius 93 Velocity - 3375 DPS - 462 @ 20.3K
The numbers look good to me the only thing I would say needs to be changed IMO is the speed of HAMS increased and the flight time decreased.
I can post the new Raven Torp Numbers as well if you like
Mirple
Who is wrong? |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:30:00 -
[5181] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Who is wrong?
Do you really think that 2x BCS is better than 3x BCS? Those numbers are without rigs.
134 km with CN Scourge.
[Drake, Draek]
Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:34:00 -
[5182] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Who is wrong? Do you really think that 2x BCS is better than 3x BCS? Those numbers are without rigs. 134 km with CN Scourge. [Drake, Draek] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I To be honest, you are missing the sensor booster for this range, though you can easily drop a hardener ; tank is hardly needed at these ranges, as is the warp disruptor BTW.
PS : though yes, 3BCS fit is hardly a fail fit IMO. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:36:00 -
[5183] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:To be honest, you are missing the sensor booster for this range, though you can easily drop a hardener ; tank is hardly needed at these ranges, as is the warp disruptor BTW.
Fixed already. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:43:00 -
[5184] - Quote
What kind of DPS and is that post changes? It doesnt look like it with the range changes to HML though I may be wrong.
I suspect as the range closes, the ferox DPS (on EFT) will rise above the drakes. Which is what I'm saying about the ammo, its too strong at higher distances and falls away at the closer range options.
I don't know if this is even a real issue, but a huge deal is made of the reach of HML and its damage but not so much about it not improving at shorter ranges either. The LR should probably lose some bite and if there was a short range variant not at the hardpoint level things would be easier to fine-tune. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:47:00 -
[5185] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:What kind of DPS and is that post changes? It doesnt look like it with the range changes to HML though I may be wrong.
I suspect as the range closes, the ferox DPS (on EFT) will rise above the drakes. Which is what I'm saying about the ammo, its too strong at higher distances and falls away at the closer range options.
I don't know if this is even a real issue, but a huge deal is made of the reach of HML and its damage but not so much about it not improving at shorter ranges either. The LR should probably lose some bite and if there was a short range variant not at the hardpoint level things would be easier to fine-tune. 10% damage mean around 10% dps ==> lose 46 dps mean this drake will do more than 400dps from 0 to 80 km post nerf. Missiles will also go faster than 9000m/s, faster than current Tengu/Cerberus.
PS : they could lose another 10% dps, and still outdps any counterpart by more than 30% at long range. But I'm not against missiles being that better than turrets at long range, though that should have a price : the dps at short range. PS2 : ie, that haven't a price currently. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:53:00 -
[5186] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:What kind of DPS and is that post changes? It doesnt look like it with the range changes to HML though I may be wrong.
414 and with stats on live server. Without drones and implants.
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I suspect as the range closes, the ferox DPS (on EFT) will rise above the drakes. Which is what I'm saying about the ammo, its too strong at higher distances and falls away at the closer range options.
4x MagStab 250mm Ferox does 368 dps at 21,1 km with Javelin. Ever tried 250s at that range? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:54:00 -
[5187] - Quote
And there is no point in making missiles the same as turrets. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:58:00 -
[5188] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:What kind of DPS and is that post changes? It doesnt look like it with the range changes to HML though I may be wrong.
I suspect as the range closes, the ferox DPS (on EFT) will rise above the drakes. Which is what I'm saying about the ammo, its too strong at higher distances and falls away at the closer range options.
I don't know if this is even a real issue, but a huge deal is made of the reach of HML and its damage but not so much about it not improving at shorter ranges either. The LR should probably lose some bite and if there was a short range variant not at the hardpoint level things would be easier to fine-tune. 10% damage mean around 10% dps ==> lose 46 dps mean this drake will do more than 400dps from 0 to 80 km post nerf. Missiles will also go faster than 9000m/s, faster than current Tengu/Cerberus.
Kicking 10% off I get it closer to 372, unless heat/implants are involved? From EFT all level V
Anyhow, I still believe the real challenge to balance one way or the other is that flat damage profile. Creates skew at either end of the spectrum that is hard to adjust for. Something that good that far out shouldn't be as effective point blank, equally it could stand to have scarier options at short ranges.
As much as it may be said adding different ammo types to assist in ML balance may be seen as homogenisation, I think it allows much greater flexibility to tweak the systems. There's no reason adding these needs to erode the key differences between missiles and turrets. Still always hits, still can't crit, still has a flat range/DPS profile just more of them, allowing for fine grained tuning at a given engagement range. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 12:06:00 -
[5189] - Quote
Fury Heavy Missiles. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 12:15:00 -
[5190] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Fury Heavy Missiles.
Still too broad a pattern I think and those have other oddities like basically being designed to be shooting at bigger, slower targets.
If you don't like the idea I'm hardly offended, but these debates will rage until the end of time as long as a system has uniform damage application from 0 to 3 figure ranges. You cannot tune that without screwing it up somewhere in the range/DPS profile.
Fake Edit: Something else I spotted in Mirples post is the HAMs have better exp velo and exp radius than HML now. Which is....weird. Cool, but weird. Is that accurate and a factor of GMP affecting those and the HML increased? |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
118
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 12:38:00 -
[5191] - Quote
The high dps profile for long range turrets at short range is an illusion. Even with short range ammo, only larger targets suffer this dps. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 13:01:00 -
[5192] - Quote
On paper or not, I'm still of the mind the crux of the difficulty in balancing missiles is their range/DPS profile. It is simply too broad to allow proper fine tuning when coupled with the hardpoint situation.
It's not dissimilar to being unable to balance HML hulls whilst the HML are a bit 'out there'. The ammo options for these systems we currently have is a significant contributor to those systems being 'out there'. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
226
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 13:02:00 -
[5193] - Quote
Missile Arming Time? Nahh... The ability to hit equally at short or long range for missiles is a unique ability of missiles balanced out with damage applied in an inferior way compared to guns. You can do things with guns that are impossible with missiles and you can do things with missiles that are impossible with guns.
Pinky |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 13:13:00 -
[5194] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Missile Arming Time? Nahh... The ability to hit equally at short or long range for missiles is a unique ability of missiles balanced out with damage applied in an inferior way compared to guns. You can do things with guns that are impossible with missiles and you can do things with missiles that are impossible with guns.
Pinky
Agreed. By all accounts though, people will be unhappy as long as these situations exist and can be exploited by pilots |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 13:23:00 -
[5195] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:If you don't like the idea I'm hardly offended, but these debates will rage until the end of time as long as a system has uniform damage application from 0 to 3 figure ranges.
So now medium long range turrets are too good?
I can't believe I just did that. Mentioned "medium long range turrets" and "too good" in same line. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
12
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 13:36:00 -
[5196] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:If you don't like the idea I'm hardly offended, but these debates will rage until the end of time as long as a system has uniform damage application from 0 to 3 figure ranges. So now medium long range turrets are too good? I can't believe I just did that. Mentioned "medium long range turrets" and "too good" in same line.
I'm unclear as to how or where I inferred that...
I said: "as long as a system has uniform damage application from 0 to 3 figure ranges" these debates will continue. i.e. so long as a missile system is as effective at 0,10,50,100,150 km ranges, you're GOING to have anomalous damage at one or more of those ranges compared to anything else. The only way to address that is: ammo.
Edit: Or don't address it and we accept it and cease the debate :) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
119
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 14:35:00 -
[5197] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I'm unclear as to how or where I inferred that...
I said: "as long as a system has uniform damage application from 0 to 3 figure ranges" these debates will continue. i.e. so long as a missile system is as effective at 0,10,50,100,150 km ranges, you're GOING to have anomalous damage at one or more of those ranges compared to anything else. The only way to address that is: ammo.
Edit: Or don't address it and we accept it and cease the debate :) There is nothing to adress here : missiles work the reverse of turrets : their dps is comparatively low at short range, but high at long range. This is by design. People complaining about this just don't have any clue about how things work. The only possible debate is on the proportion of these differences. And if you finally cannot agree on these proportions, you can tweak damage application and missile flight time to compensate.
That's the way CCP took : first, they reduce damage by 20%, and after, they reduce them by only 10%, but reduce damage application with it.
You cannot balance to make people happy, because people tend to want their system to be better, always. This is actually quite obvious in these forums with gallente blaster user wanting more range, amar wanting less cap consumption, minmatar wanting more dps and caldari wanting missiles to alpha frigates (all these are only examples, we don't care about what they want in fact). The best deal is when everyone feel screwed equaly. |
Lili Lu
556
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 15:19:00 -
[5198] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Missiles are better in everything /= overall balance
Caracal can do almost 300 dps at 200 km and you don't see where problem is...
Oh, and about combat record... You haven't posted with your "pvp main" yet. You havent even bothered to post one of your combat alts. So I again fail to see why I should bother with this complaint. But this "missiles are better in everything" stuff is just ridiculous bullshit. Thanks for again proving you are a troll, and nothing but a troll.
A troll poster is not someone who's posts you don't like, who disagrees with you, or uses sarcasm in disagreeing with you. FFS stop abusing that name. Look it up.
As for combat alts. FFS also, both of you post with characters that have a pvp presence. Especially you Noemi. I still am skeptical that that character you linked and asserted was yours is yours. His only post ever (in a recruitment thread) does not sound at all like you. Until you post on him and say "I am Noemi" all your statements betray you as someone with no experience of using turrets and no experience with pvp. Hell I could link anyone and say that's me.
OT Smithers wrote: T2 Fury Heavy Missiles are seeing their base damage reduced from 192 to 182; their maximum range reduced from 33km to 14km; their explosion velocity nerfed from 97 to 68; and their explosion radius increased from 215m to 241m (note: lower is better, so this too is a nerf).
T2 Heavy Precision Missiles are recieving a damage buff from 130 to 135; their base range reduced from 18.5km to 14km; their explosion velocity increased to 97; and their explosion radius increased from 112 to 125 (lower is better). Basically, the new improved Precision will hit small fast targets about as well as T1 faction HMs do today, except with maximum skills they will only reach out to about 20km against a stationary target -- so if you are pointed at 24km you aren't hitting it with Precision missiles.
The same sorts of changes apply to the other T2 missiles as well. Rage HAMs, for example, are seeing a slight reduction in range, and a solid nerf to explosion velocity (10% worse) and radius (20% worse).
The good news with all these T2 missiles is that with the ship penalities removed you can now fire them without crippling your own ship, the bad news is that you probably won't want to fire them anyway.
OT, actually a 10% damage reduction would be 192 to 173, and yes the harsher damage application stats and range (not surea bout your numbers, tbh) would mimic the bad tracking and range of Tech II long range turret high damage ammo.
Again not sure about your numbers with precision. I believe the damage buff was 5% and not as you state only 5 points. Also, you are focusing exclusively on base stats and not adding in skills. So those precisions with max range skills will have a full 100% range on top of that base range. I don't think even with someone with only a couple levels of MP or MB trained that they'll be stuck not reaching long-point range. Regardless, there is still the TC/TE effects coming, at whatever values the devs put on those effects.
I may be misreading the changes, but it appears to me that painter support will become quite desirable for missile users. This is a buff to a class of ships and an ewar that has been underappreciated and underused. Once the TC/TE/TD changes occur both the painter and TD boats will get more importance. Again, both ewars need more relevance. I'm almost certain they will have to nerf the base effects on those two mods and increase the specialized ship bonuses, like was done for ecm and ecm boats.
This development would be in keeping with CCP's long standing assertion that eve is not meant to be a solo game.
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 15:29:00 -
[5199] - Quote
I dont know why anyone bothers to read Noemi's posts anymore - the Devs dont. He is a troll. |
Lili Lu
556
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 15:43:00 -
[5200] - Quote
Lallante wrote:I dont know why anyone bothers to read Noemi's posts anymore - the Devs dont. He is a troll.
No he is not a troll. A troll is someone that hides their identity and posts a facetious argument that he does not really believe in in order to make the postion he is pretending to promote look as ridiculous as it's detractors believe.
Noemi very much believes this is all a terrible nerf of the only weapon system I'm convinced he has ever used, missiles. Thus, he is not a troll, and likewise anyone that has disagreed with him itt is not a troll either.
Troll is a much overused label in these forums. Just because someone disagrees and might use sarcasm in their posts does not a troll make. If Noemi were a troll, he would be the best troll ever, imo. I don't see trolls devoting soooooooo much time and energy to their troll posts. And usually the temptation to over exageration surfaces. Noemi may be wrong, but I cannot say he has over-exagerated to the extent of a troll and betrayed a hidden disbelief in his statements.
Trolling is mostly done for the laugh factor when one decides eventually to disclose their actual disbeleif in their promoted position after the co-promoters have stupidly adopted some of the flawed arguments the troll posted. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 17:35:00 -
[5201] - Quote
I agree, I am not a troll.
Lili, OT Smithers was right with the 5 points, and not 5%, at least thats what Fozzies spreadsheet says.
I called Bouh a troll because he brought up Cruise Missiles AGAIN, and I am sorry, but I cant assume someone is not either mentally challenged or a troll when he speaks of CM and PvP in the same context without telling how much they suck. I admit that was maybe a bit harsh.
Morrigan Le Sante said the same thing like I did - balance can only be there with new ammo types. If you want to keep the old ammo model for missiles you will always end up with the same old thing: either turret guys feel f*cked up coz missiles outdps them by such a big margin on long ranges or missile guys feel f*cked up coz their missiles do so small DPS on short (and not really hot DPS on long range then either). I dont know why no one supports Morrigan and me in this idea for more justice on all ranges.
If you dont like this idea then why dont you adapt and crosstrain? :) Is it a valid idea to crosstrain only from Caldari to other races and not vice versa? :)
Edit: ah and yes, the range of precision will be reduced to the same like fury - 13.975 k base. Explo velo will be increased, but so will the explo radius ... so just 5 points more base damage, the soft stat nerfs and buff will mostly negate each other and far less range. I dont like this product :) |
Lili Lu
557
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 17:48:00 -
[5202] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Lili, OT Smithers was right with the 5 points, and not 5%, at least thats what Fozzies spreadsheet says.
Yeah, I edited my post. I don't think there's any range nerf on percisions though.
Noemi Nagano wrote: I called Bouh a troll because he brought up Cruise Missiles AGAIN, and I am sorry, but I cant assume someone is not either mentally challenged or a troll when he speaks of CM and PvP in the same context without telling how much they suck. I admit that was maybe a bit harsh.
Cruise are not as bad as many think (afterall if they had 7 or 8 launchers on the two ships that use them they'd be borderline op Poeple don't buy navy ravens still for nothing). It's just that HMs were almost as good so why not use them at a lesser cost and with more mobility. And the two fleet BSs that are bonused for cruises tank differently, so noone would make a fleet out of them. As with Drakes, a fleet of all missile boats don't care about travel time for the most part.
Noemi Nagano wrote: Is it a valid idea to crosstrain only from Caldari to other races and not vice versa? :)
No. And many of us have cross-trained to Caldari. I have two other characters that trained Caldari as primary race or early on as crosstrain precisely for the ease of pve. And one went on to use it for pvp as well. In fact, I have Lili finishing off Caldari Cruiser 5 atm so she can fly all races of command ships (having trained every available leadership skill it just makes sense). When you get over 100 mil sp and haven't trained any capital but one race of carrier (I have no desire for dread or supercap) it's hard to avoid getting access to every race of subcap ships.
edit - From the op,
"Tech Two Missiles -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles -Fury: Increase damage bonus to +35%, reduce flight time to 50% of T1, unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes"
I see no reduction, nerf, in precision range, only a buff on "explosion velocity" not missile velocity. And there is no tieing of precision range to that of tech I missiles as for fury. I'm pretty sure Fozzie said he updated the op to incorporate the changes from his followup posts. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 17:58:00 -
[5203] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: Lili, OT Smithers was right with the 5 points, and not 5%, at least thats what Fozzies spreadsheet says. Yeah, I edited my post. I don't think there's any range nerf on percisions though.
Sorry to say so, but there you are wrong. Just take a look at that spreadsheet linked on page one, you will see the comparison.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtfS55wysRHHdGQzQjBoeVRSUFRQVjF3QV84S1d2SFE#gid=0
Lili Lu wrote:Cruise are not as bad as many think (afterall if they had 7 or 8 launchers on the two ships that use them they'd be borderline op Poeple don't buy navy ravens still for nothing). It's just that HMs were almost as good so why not use them at a lesser cost and with more mobility. And the two fleet BSs that are bonused for cruises tank differently, so noone would make a fleet out of them. As with Drakes, a fleet of all missile boats don't care about travel time for the most part..
All my opinion, ofc: for PvE they are ok. For PvP they are not atm. I still hope they will have a value sometime.
Lili Lu wrote:No. And many of us have cross-trained to Caldari. I have two other characters that trained Caldari as primary race or early on as crosstrain precisely for the ease of pve. And one went on to use it for pvp as well. In fact, I have Lili finishing off Caldari Cruiser 5 atm so she can fly all races of command ships (having trained every available leadership skill it just makes sense). When you get over 100 mil sp and haven't trained any capital but one race of carrier (I have no desire for dread or supercap) it's hard to avoid getting access to every race of subcap ships.
I agree with you here, have also the skills in ships which I dont use too much (Gallente in this char ;) ), simply because there is not so much left to do. When you said you crosstrained for Caldari for PvE one could get the impression though you dont like Caldaris PvP ability too much ;)
Lili Lu wrote: edit - From the op,
"Tech Two Missiles -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) -Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles -Fury: Increase damage bonus to +35%, reduce flight time to 50% of T1, unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes"
I see no reduction in precision range, only "explosion velocity" not missile velocity. And there is no tieing of precision range to that of tech I missiles as for fury.
I dont want to get into whats standing there or not. I am referring to the linked spreadsheet (which was posted by Fozzie). Many things dont really get clear with the text of the OP, for example the part with Furies damage bonus buff was something many people completely misunderstood :) so I just stick with that spreadsheet, the numbers seem to be a bit easier to compare :) |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 18:08:00 -
[5204] - Quote
so our trade offs have always been short range we are bad long range we are a little better. with this nerf why would we want to use missiles over almost any other system? I want to ask a Dev have you considered if this nerf will force us Missle pilots into an other weapons system to be able to stay competitive? And if we are forced into other weapons systems have you asked your selves if this is to much of a nerf. When something becomes so weak it's not worth using them the nerf went to far. Have you ever tried to get a Missle boat into a "shiny" incursion fleet? It really doesn't happen.
It's funny because all this talk about Missle being this supposed leader in range dps yet a Mach or nightmare will get chosen over a Missle sniper almost always. How do you intend to balance this to make the Missle pilot more desirerable in incursion fleets? Sorry for the rest of you but this is a legit concern this game isn't all about PVP some people play for other reasons. The buff to the other Missles doesn't off set the nerf to HML and how this will effect the tengu In these fleets. The tengu was about the only desirerable ship but gets beat out by the Loki for rolls like drone bunnies. And at that you had to fit a multi billion isk Tengu to compete.
you guys really need to think how you are going to fix this the buff to the other Missle like I said is simply to small to offset the HML nerf. We also got to look at the mission runners and the people who rat or do plexing. Also the drake as long been the goto ship for new players to get into missions and in some cases I would argue keep these players in the game by letting them be able to take part in the game.
If your simple going to reply saying pve concerns deserves no consideration I really do not want to hear it. I want to know if there is any plans to help off set what I have said might be to much of a nerf. |
Lili Lu
557
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 18:13:00 -
[5205] - Quote
Well, the spreadsheet could be in error, or the op not clear on the matter. I guess that is worth an answer from Fozzie.
Regardless, that is a spreadsheet of base stats. With two potential 50% skills affecting range, that means that range should be doubled for max skills, which would put it at 27,950m. When the TC/TE affect gets introduced there will be a benefit and it could very well make it worth using them. And of course there are rigs already, which will make them worth more in the consideration v tanking rigs.
These changes aren't happening in a vacuum. I have always thought the tanking abilities were the real problem with Drakes. These new forced fittings tradeoffs against tanking mods and rigs may ironically end up salvaging the resist bonus on the Drake. Fozzie already hinted that may be the case. We don't yet have any direct post on BC changes and probably won't til some time in the Spring of '13 I would guess.
I would be satisfied if these missile and mod changes force the fittings choices that end the op tanking of Drakes. Resist bonuses have a place. Amarr uses them too. But Amarr has always faced forced fitting choices since their weapons are so grid thristy or their cpu is so limited, and the damage mods directly conflict with the armor tanking mods. That this may finally happen with Caldari shield tanks is only appropriate in balancing. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
154
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 18:35:00 -
[5206] - Quote
Question? Could we have the skills on the NH band-aid changed for the patch.
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to assault missile launcher, heavy assault missile launcher and heavy missile launcher rate of fire and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to missile Kinetic damage and 5% bonus to heavy missile explosion velocity per level
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need
Changed to
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to assault missile launcher, heavy assault missile launcher and heavy missile launcher rate of fire and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to missile Kinetic damage and 5% bonus to heavy missile, heavy assault missile, and standard missile explosion velocity per level
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need
2nd Option
Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to assault missile launcher, heavy assault missile launcher and heavy missile launcher rate of fire and 5% bonus to all shield resistances per level
Command Ships Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to missile Kinetic damage and 5% bonus to assault missile launcher, heavy assault missile launcher and heavy missile launcher missile velocity velocity per level
Role Bonus: 99% reduction in Warfare Link module CPU need
This would be a temp fix until it can be looked at properly. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
120
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 19:19:00 -
[5207] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:so our trade offs have always been short range we are bad long range we are a little better. with this nerf why would we want to use missiles over almost any other system? I want to ask a Dev have you considered if this nerf will force us Missle pilots into an other weapons system to be able to stay competitive? And if we are forced into other weapons systems have you asked your selves if this is to much of a nerf. When something becomes so weak it's not worth using them the nerf went to far. Have you ever tried to get a Missle boat into a "shiny" incursion fleet? It really doesn't happen.
It's funny because all this talk about Missle being this supposed leader in range dps yet a Mach or nightmare will get chosen over a Missle sniper almost always. How do you intend to balance this to make the Missle pilot more desirerable in incursion fleets? Sorry for the rest of you but this is a legit concern this game isn't all about PVP some people play for other reasons. The buff to the other Missles doesn't off set the nerf to HML and how this will effect the tengu In these fleets. The tengu was about the only desirerable ship but gets beat out by the Loki for rolls like drone bunnies. And at that you had to fit a multi billion isk Tengu to compete.
you guys really need to think how you are going to fix this the buff to the other Missle like I said is simply to small to offset the HML nerf. We also got to look at the mission runners and the people who rat or do plexing. Also the drake as long been the goto ship for new players to get into missions and in some cases I would argue keep these players in the game by letting them be able to take part in the game.
If your simple going to reply saying pve concerns deserves no consideration I really do not want to hear it. I want to know if there is any plans to help off set what I have said might be to much of a nerf. HML will always be the best at long range. They only wont be better than cruise missiles.
And you don't balance weapons against pve, you balance the NPC against the different weapons. That have the advantage of not screwing pvp.
About the ammo for missiles with different range and damages, that is a bad idea because that would make missiles bad turrets. There is already a short range high damage ammo, and if anything about short damage of HML have to be done, it's the place to do it. You cannot make missiles as powerful as they are at long range (and even as they will be) and allow them to be as strong as they currently are at short range (almost as powerful than turret ). That would also remove the point of HAM. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2030
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 19:59:00 -
[5208] - Quote
Want to try the most recent version of these changes out for yourself and see how it affects your play? Log onto Duality starting this Friday where all these changes will be live alongside a bunch of other Retribution content to test. I'll be online as much as possible to chat with you all about all these changes and we will be hoping for a new round of feedback from people who have tried the changes out! Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:20:00 -
[5209] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:For HML, turrets cannot project damage so much farther than HML, and if you start using rigs, HML have far superior range. Eh? After the changes they VERY much can. And they can do horrible (pixel) DPS at short range too with a simple ammo swap..
i seriously doubt this. HML's still do more dps out to longer ranges and turrets struggle to track other medium ships closer than 20km, even with fast tracking ammo. ur targets would need to be mindlessly pressing 'approach' and burning with mwd's.
ill accept the HML nerf is too big if more caldari pilots use medium rails than HML's after this goes live.
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
I'm unclear as to how or where I inferred that...
i think u mean implied
Cazador 64 wrote:
It's funny because all this talk about Missle being this supposed leader in range dps yet a Mach or nightmare will get chosen over a Missle sniper almost always.
over what? a CNR? i should think so! there is no missile pirate faction ship with which to compare to the mach or nightmare. incursions are filled with low sig ships that can at least be vindi webbed for turrets. the nature of incursions are kinda prejudiced against missiles, so there is that. but, as someone else has mentioned, weapon balance should not be centered around pve. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:31:00 -
[5210] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:About the ammo for missiles with different range and damages, that is a bad idea because that would make missiles bad turrets.
No...it won't....at all.
Still not affected by tracking, selectable damage, equally effective at 0-max range...it has no reason to make them "bad turrets".
Just a tool to allow more fine tuning from devs.
Something pushing 350-400 dps from 0-xxxkm is NEVER going to sit well with all pilots and affords devs little ability to tune it other than with a broad brush approach which isn't ideal. |
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 20:45:00 -
[5211] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:For HML, turrets cannot project damage so much farther than HML, and if you start using rigs, HML have far superior range. Eh? After the changes they VERY much can. And they can do horrible (pixel) DPS at short range too with a simple ammo swap.. i seriously doubt this. HML's still do more dps out to longer ranges and turrets struggle to track other medium ships closer than 20km, even with fast tracking ammo. ur targets would need to be mindlessly pressing 'approach' and burning with mwd's.
As I said, post change, this isn't the case, hybrids can reach *much* further, if one is so inclined to EFT one up.
I doubt there will be much reduction of HML use, the dynamic has not changed enough and snipers are still all but worthless. There's just no percentage in being able to hit much passed HML range compared to the sacrifices.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
238
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 21:14:00 -
[5212] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:For HML, turrets cannot project damage so much farther than HML, and if you start using rigs, HML have far superior range. Eh? After the changes they VERY much can. And they can do horrible (pixel) DPS at short range too with a simple ammo swap.. i seriously doubt this. HML's still do more dps out to longer ranges and turrets struggle to track other medium ships closer than 20km, even with fast tracking ammo. ur targets would need to be mindlessly pressing 'approach' and burning with mwd's. As I said, post change, this isn't the case, hybrids can reach *much* further, if one is so inclined to EFT one up. I doubt there will be much reduction of HML use, the dynamic has not changed enough and snipers are still all but worthless. There's just no percentage in being able to hit much passed HML range compared to the sacrifices.
Medium Hybrids?
Maybe onFerox/Eagle, they STILL won't do the damage that a x2 BCS Drake will at that range, and EFT away. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 21:24:00 -
[5213] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:About the ammo for missiles with different range and damages, that is a bad idea because that would make missiles bad turrets. No...it won't....at all. Still not affected by tracking, selectable damage, equally effective at 0-max range...it has no reason to make them "bad turrets". Just a tool to allow more fine tuning from devs. Something pushing 350-400 dps from 0- xxxkm is NEVER going to sit well with all pilots and affords devs little ability to tune it other than with a broad brush approach which isn't ideal.
You do it well Morrigan, but some turret fetish guys here will not listen, whatever you tell them :) I agree with you, the problem lies within the different characteristics. But hard to tell those people who never used medium or large missiles in their entire Eve career ...
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 21:42:00 -
[5214] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: over what? a CNR? i should think so! there is no missile pirate faction ship with which to compare to the mach or nightmare. incursions are filled with low sig ships that can at least be vindi webbed for turrets. the nature of incursions are kinda prejudiced against missiles, so there is that. but, as someone else has mentioned, weapon balance should not be centered around pve.
Ok are you suggesting that people who do not PVP and focus their play around PVE and pay the same amount per month for their accounts have no rights to balanced game play? As I stated the Tengu would be the only ship that had any shot In hell for getting into the "shiny" fleets. Now with the proposed changes there will be no reason what so ever to not go with the other T3 ships and the instant damage will be more desirerable.
Do I have the option of cross training ? Sure I do but then I might as well start all over from the beginning as all my millions of Missle skills and month of training and paying money out of my pocket to keep my accounts active to be able to train these skills are now wasted. Is CCP willing to refund my sp so that I can continue to be competitive without spends months on end retraining?
So if we hold the don't balance around pve as a truth and hold the fact that CCP will not be offering a refund to us missile pilots. Do we not deserve the right to ask what CCP intends to do about this clearly imbalance in the game for Pilots like my self? My best option for income is incursions am I to resort back to LVL 4s? I would rather quit the game if CCP is unwilling to recognize that fact that this change will hurt a certain demographic of game players and yet they still push the patch through with no compensation. We see no changes to the, more power grid/CPU could help off set the changes. But we see nothing and like I have stated before when you nerf something to the point that it breaks the game for any demogrhic of players the the nerf is simply to much and should not be implemented....
If someone is willing to throw some numbers out at me to prove me wrong here I will gladly retract my state to but as it is this is the way I see it and I know I am not the only one ask any Tengu pilot I happen to have two of them. An other balance would be to I case the rate of which missiles travel by allot..
I did ask for no responded along the lines of this is all about PVP so keep This out of it please PVP doesn't concern me I pay the same per month as you do and I have a right to fair and balanced game play just as much as you do.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 21:49:00 -
[5215] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: <- some angry stuff ->
I hope you dont get me wrong, I understand your anger. And especially the part with the missile support skills, which are simply useless if one feels like crosstraining into one of the 3 turret systems, where we do find atm the best performance overall, but esp. also in highend PvE.
But Eve is not meant to be balanced around PvE. It would just not work, if they did. They could maybe change some of the PvE content so its closer to PvP, but still it would be hard to balance the game for both PvE and PvP. And one has to admit Caldari have an easier way from start in PvE. Which does not mean they are best, they are just best with low SP. But with a full trained char a Machariel or Vargur or the like is so much better than anything Caldari have, so I really feel with all those who think thats wrong.
Still we have to face it, CCP wont change anything just because of PvE.
Best regards. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:03:00 -
[5216] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: <- some angry stuff ->
I hope you dont get me wrong, I understand your anger. And especially the part with the missile support skills, which are simply useless if one feels like crosstraining into one of the 3 turret systems, where we do find atm the best performance overall, but esp. also in highend PvE. But Eve is not meant to be balanced around PvE. It would just not work, if they did. They could maybe change some of the PvE content so its closer to PvP, but still it would be hard to balance the game for both PvE and PvP. And one has to admit Caldari have an easier way from start in PvE. Which does not mean they are best, they are just best with low SP. But with a full trained char a Machariel or Vargur or the like is so much better than anything Caldari have, so I really feel with all those who think thats wrong. Still we have to face it, CCP wont change anything just because of PvE. Best regards. Wasn't CCP flaunting how much incursions are like PVP?. This still doesn't answer any questions it's basically. "your style of game play doesn't matter so your points are null and void" That's basically what I get from your response yet you do not refute any of my claims. Does CCP owe nothing to their PVE player base? I do not get any kind of discount per month my monthly subs I pay the same as you.
In your point of view CCP should ignore their high sec pve player base? if this is the case I might as well stop paying on all my accounts right now. Something needs to be put into place to off set this. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
300
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:10:00 -
[5217] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
OT, actually a 10% damage reduction would be 192 to 173, and yes the harsher damage application stats and range (not surea bout your numbers, tbh) would mimic the bad tracking and range of Tech II long range turret high damage ammo.
Again not sure about your numbers with precision. I believe the damage buff was 5% and not as you state only 5 points. Also, you are focusing exclusively on base stats and not adding in skills. So those precisions with max range skills will have a full 100% range on top of that base range. I don't think even with someone with only a couple levels of MP or MB trained that they'll be stuck not reaching long-point range. Regardless, there is still the TC/TE effects coming, at whatever values the devs put on those effects.
I just posted the numbers from the PDF file. And you are correct, I am posting the base numbers. Earlier in the thread I posted some numbers at level five -- based on my own math -- but I am too lazy to bother with that now. If I recall, based on my math, level 5 will give you a 6900m/sec missile velocity. With a 3.5 second flight time you are looking at a maximum missile travel distance of 24km. However, you cannot ignore acceleration (currently unknown) and target movement. This later varies, obviously, but this is more significant than you might think -- against a fast mover, the missile will immediately assume a pursuit course, and while it is always attempting to "cut the corner," over the course of it's 3.5 second flight time a fast target will have potentially travelled as much as 20km (at 5700m/sec). Obviously, due to cutting the corner, the missile will not travel that same added distance, but you can certainly see the effective range reduction.
It is certainly a safe bet to assume that you will NOT hit an orbitting fast target at long point range. You will, however, hit anything at any velocity within scramble range, as even the fastest ships cannot hold that speed and that orbot. Further, remember that the new and "improved" precision missiles are heavily nerfed, and no more capable of hitting small and fast targets than current T1 Heavies are today. So... within scram range your precisions will hit them, but they won't hurt them. Whether people will bother with them remains to be seen, but I suspect not. The engagement parameters are too limited.
Quote:I may be misreading the changes, but it appears to me that painter support will become quite desirable for missile users. This is a buff to a class of ships and an ewar that has been underappreciated and underused. Once the TC/TE/TD changes occur both the painter and TD boats will get more importance. Again, both ewars need more relevance. I'm almost certain they will have to nerf the base effects on those two mods and increase the specialized ship bonuses, like was done for ecm and ecm boats.
Respectfully, painters are already incredibly powerful. Most people in eve don't understand how their guns and weapons work, let alone the impact painters have on every aspect of weapon performance. So much so, that CCP could probably double their effect and most folks still wouldn't use them.
Quote:This development would be in keeping with CCP's long standing assertion that eve is not meant to be a solo game.
edit - ok OT. I guess you are meaning only Heavy precisions between the damage normalization to tech I and the overall base 10% base damage nerf (again without running all the math). However, precision lights it appears are getting a definite damage buff. But I don't see a range nerf in the op for precision, only for fury. The velocity and flight time on precision not being normalized to tech I heavys and then cut in half as with fury.
Exactly. Light Missiles are going to be nice after these changes. I think. Bit on the low side for DPS, maybe, but they are an odd weapon -- falling somewhere in between traditional medium and light weapons on the traditional scale. This obviously makes them tricky to balance.
In any case, these changes are coming. People will adapt as they always do. Tactics will change. Drakes will remain situationally useful, and the Caldari missile pilots will have to get by with that. They still wont have a working HAC, Command Ship, or Missile BS, and perhaps they never will, but that's just the way it goes. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
121
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:11:00 -
[5218] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:As I said, post change, this isn't the case, hybrids can reach *much* further, if one is so inclined to EFT one up.
I doubt there will be much reduction of HML use, the dynamic has not changed enough and snipers are still all but worthless. There's just no percentage in being able to hit much passed HML range compared to the sacrifices.
Post change, with rigs, drake (sans velocity bonus) will reach about 80km.
I tryed to fit a Brutix for sniping, and I very hardly reach 90+27km for 240dps. Though, there is *no* tank. Ferox could certainly reach farther, but dps would be even less. I didn't tryed harbinger, though beam are supposed to be worse than railguns at these ranges.
It's not *that* much IMO.
As for the missile balance never siting well for pilots, I think we don't care if they are balanced properly, ie they have their role in the grand scheme of things.
And why does missiles should do damage at close range comparable to turrets ? They compensate their lack of close range dps by damage application at this close range, and they have their long range niche anyway. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:19:00 -
[5219] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:
Ok are you suggesting that people who do not PVP and focus their play around PVE and pay the same amount per month for their accounts have no rights to balanced game play?
no, it would be more obvious, easier and more fair to change the incursion rats...lol
Cazador 64 wrote: Do I have the option of cross training ? Sure I do but then I might as well start all over from the beginning as all my millions of Missle skills and month of training and paying money out of my pocket to keep my accounts active to be able to train these skills are now wasted. Is CCP willing to refund my sp so that I can continue to be competitive without spends months on end retraining?
u can still use missiles after the patch. maybe if u didnt put every sp u had into missiles and branched out a bit u wouldnt be so hurt by this nerf. it wont take long at all to skill into T2 medium rails and ur tengu has subsystems that support rail fits. all is not lost. but lets face it, the reason ppl are so attached to missiles is because they thought they could get a weapons system that did everything with a minimal sp investment and they know rails are no where near as good.
Cazador 64 wrote: So if we hold the don't balance around pve as a truth and hold the fact that CCP will not be offering a refund to us missile pilots. Do we not deserve the right to ask what CCP intends to do about this clearly imbalance in the game for Pilots like my self? My best option for income is incursions am I to resort back to LVL 4s? I would rather quit the game if CCP is unwilling to recognize that fact that this change will hurt a certain demographic of game players and yet they still push the patch through with no compensation. We see no changes to the tengu to help balances this, more power grid/CPU could help off set the changes. But we see nothing and like I have stated before when you nerf something to the point that it breaks the game for any demogrhic of players the the nerf is simply to much and should not be implemented....
this isnt an imbalancing, its actually the balancing. tengu's with powercore multipliers have plenty of grid to fit rails. the fact that they can still use 100mn AB's whilst still using rails shows they could probably lose some grid. If HML's are on par with other weapon systems then rail tengu's will become the fashion after this nerf. it doesnt take long to skill to T2 rails.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
121
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:29:00 -
[5220] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:In any case, these changes are coming. People will adapt as they always do. Tactics will change. Drakes will remain situationally useful, and the Caldari missile pilots will have to get by with that. They still wont have a working HAC, Command Ship, or Missile BS, and perhaps they never will, but that's just the way it goes. T1 cruisers are gonna eclipse some HAC for some times anyway, though I'd like to know what are the problems of the raven if it's not damage application ?
For the SP whines : missiles SP won't be wasted. Oh, and I just remembered that there is some (huge) nullsec alliances who ask their members to skill for the drake. That's for the question of people crosstraining to caldari. And HML will definitely still work in pvp. |
|
OlRotGut
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:49:00 -
[5221] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Want to try the most recent version of these changes out for yourself and see how it affects your play? Log onto Duality starting this Friday where all these changes will be live alongside a bunch of other Retribution content to test. I'll be online as much as possible to chat with you all about all these changes and we will be hoping for a new round of feedback from people who have tried the changes out!
Is version 2.0 the final changes , or rather, "most recent version"?
The only reason I ask, was that there was more discussion post Version 2.0. So I wasn't sure what if anything got changed after that.
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:57:00 -
[5222] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:For the SP whines : missiles SP won't be wasted unless you are only doing pve. But EVE does have players who only PVE so they are wasted so again an other person who doesn't think my monthy payment is as good as theirs, and we have no rights to balanced gameplay
Daichi Yamato wrote:no, it would be more obvious, easier and more fair to change the incursion rats...lol OK what do you suggest? A change that will help balance out missiles during incursions so they are not completely worthless?
Daichi Yamato wrote: u can still use missiles after the patch. maybe if u didnt put every sp u had into missiles and branched out a bit u wouldnt be so hurt by this nerf.
Isn't EVE about specializations? This is to suggest that because I trained into missiles I should be punished in some way?[/quote]
Daichi Yamato wrote: it wont take long at all to skill into T2 medium rails and ur tengu has subsystems that support rail fits. all is not lost.
No just 4 months per Tengu pilot to be able to get the T2 and related skills to match what I have in missiles. Or a other $120 in cash to comp for CCP clearly not knowing how to balance a game.
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 22:57:00 -
[5223] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: but lets face it, the reason ppl are so attached to missiles is because they thought they could get a weapons system that did everything with a minimal sp investment and they know rails are no where near as good.
Wait what? You just told me to train into rails now you are trying to say missiles are the ultimate weapon systems? Have you ever flown missiles? People must not remember how badly the drake pilots got laughed at about two years ago.
Daichi Yamato wrote: this isnt an imbalancing, its actually the balancing. tengu's with powercore multipliers have plenty of grid to fit rails. the fact that they can still use 100mn AB's whilst still using rails shows they could probably lose some grid. If HML's are on par with other weapon systems then rail tengu's will become the fashion after this nerf. it doesnt take long to skill to T2 rails.
It most certainly is an imbalance and as I stated above 4 months of training time to get the T2 rails with related skills to match what most tengu pilots have in Missile SP. And again you just proved my point we are being forced into an other weapons system because our current one is being nerfed into oblivion, how is that not considered being over nerfed? I do not think you see what you are doing here. In one breath you are saying that missiles need to be brought into balance, but with the other you are suggesting changes weapon systems to compensate for the nerf. Making the other weapon systems more powerful then when compared to post nerf missile systems, which means that any system post nerf that is more powerful then the missile systems needs to be nerfed and brought into line with current other systems. (think about this before you respond please) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 23:16:00 -
[5224] - Quote
PVE...
Take it as you wish : either you lose the game by choosing the wrong path (and you can leave ; can I have your stuff ?), or be creative and look at what you will be able to do with these missiles buff. Yes, HML are not the only missile launchers in the game, but they are the only ones to be nerfed, all the others are buffed. Especially, you should have a look at some HAM tengu.
BTW, in french, we have an expression I'll try to translate for you : don't put all your eggs in the same bag, or don't complain when the bag fall.
PS : or you can also wait for this weekend and give a try to the futur HML tengu. I bet it won't be that screwed ; sure worse than before, it's a nerf after all, but not that bad. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 23:34:00 -
[5225] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:no, it would be more obvious, easier and more fair to change the incursion rats...lol OK what do you suggest? A change that will help balance out missiles during incursions so they are not completely worthless?
the most direct approach would be to blow up their sig radius a bit, and/or remove some smaller ships and put in a few larger ships. they do pretty decent dps regardless of their size. this would make incursions a bit more like missions, something that caldari missile ships excel at. but phrasing it as 'being more like missions' will probably be the undoing of this before it got any momentum.
Cazador 64 wrote: Isn't EVE about specializations? This is to suggest that because I trained into missiles I should be punished in some way?
no. specialising makes u stronger sooner, but branching out gives u versatility and adaptability. Eve is about both and neither. specialising is a gamble and as the saying goes 'don't put all ur eggs in one basket'. nerfing always hurts someone, but its those players that are able to adapt that bounce back better.
Cazador 64 wrote: No just 4 months per Tengu pilot to be able to get the T2 and related skills to match what I have in missiles. Or a other $120 in cash to comp for CCP clearly not knowing how to balance a game.
$120 u'd have been paying anyways. or would u unsub if u were sticking to missiles? is this toon just a mission alt that u made so u could get a powerful character with a single missile system that did everything and then switch training to ur main?
Cazador 64 wrote: Wait what? You just told me to train into rails now you are trying to say missiles are the ultimate weapon systems? Have you ever flown missiles? People must not remember how badly the drake pilots got laughed at about two years ago.
all my characters can use missiles yeah...have u flown turrets? in particular medium rails, beams or arties? currently, HML's are the 'ultimate' weapon systems. but if u find that this nerf is too much for u then u can train to rails and see how good HML pilots have had thing so far and why the needed a nerf so badly.
HML's are not bein nerfed into oblivion. they'll still perform better than other LR medium turrets. other weapon systems are not being made more powerful, they are getting a little grid relief; which, if u look at their grid requirements, are ridiculously high.
you also said: 'In one breath you are saying that missiles need to be brought into balance, but with the other you are suggesting changes weapon systems to compensate for the nerf.'
these are not in-congruent statements...whats the problem? as i've always said, this change is balanced, but if its too much for you then u can train into rails if you think they are going to be so much better |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
16
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 00:43:00 -
[5226] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: $120 u'd have been paying anyways. or would u unsub if u were sticking to missiles? is this toon just a mission alt that u made so u could get a powerful character with a single missile system that did everything and then switch training to ur main?
No I would not have unsubed I intended to use this time to Train up other things I wanted to do in eve not spend it on an other weapons system. I have two accounts both Caldari pilots both PVE. I do not have any desire to get into null or low sec as the politics and logistics of it do not appeal to me. For one reason I do not have the time to deal with it I do not want to spend all my online time doing CTA so I can protect a systems that I am not getting any benefit out of.
So these are my "mains" I started them and they had only the starter SP. This may not be the place for this statement but I think it's safe to assume some of the people are less sensitive to this nerf either because they bought their character or intend to just buy an other character that fits their needs. Or simply they made the better choice and didn't pick missiles. Being I do not support character buying I think it's borderline cheating.
I am not sure if I missed some patch in the last two years+ that made HML over powered? Because I strictly remember being ridiculed for picking missiles because of how inferior they were when compared to other weapons systems. So here we are two years later and everyone is crying for a HML nerf because they are to powerful. So when did I miss this patch that overpowered HML?? Or did the caldari pilot simply adjust and tweak and fine tune their play style to become superior?
I hear all this bullshit about yup you just need to adapt and adjust all the while you people are screaming for a nerf because you can't handle the HML pilot? Why are you not subject to the same scrutiny? Why can't we simply say hey the HML is a pretty good weapons system looks like you need to either adjust or learn to deal with it. Or simply train into the weapons system your self. Yet I / we (we being people like me yes they are out there) are expected to deal with a nerf that brings other weapon systems up and over being superior to missiles. When you look at the top 20 rank weapons sure HML is on the top but they are the ONLY weapons systems to represent the missile Caldari user excluding torps.
Every other weapons system has a greater representation so where is the balance? We are being told that HML is getting nerfed to bring them in line with other weapons systems yet missiles are the most underrepresented weapons system in the game if you look at the top 20. ( Source http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 ) So you speak of balance where is the balance? As I stated before the buffs being included will not off set the nerf to the HML What is CCP prepared to do when the missiles completely fall off the map of the top 20 most used weapon systems?
Let's be real here guys this change should not take place until CCP has a fix as to why missile systems are the most underrepresented weapons system in the game. For all you spreadsheet lovers you can not deny this claim. I think it is a fairly good trade off to hold the top stop in the most used weapons systems over all to off set being the most underused system in the top 20.. Who hows what this would look like if it went into the top 30 or 40 would we see even a smaller % of missile systems being used?
So lets take PVE off the table and focus only on PVP as you guys seem unwilling to look at it from a PVE point of view for some reasons your $15 a month trumps mine lets go right into PVP and use pure factual numbers here. I feel like a broken record here having to report it but I want to drill the point home.
TL:DL HML represents the top spot for the top 20 most used weapons systems and we are all logical people here we know there can only be one number one correct? Despite this the over all missiles systems are the most underrepresented weapons system in the game when we base it only on PVP. Where is the balance for missile to have a stronger representation in the top 20?
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 01:23:00 -
[5227] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:
I hear all this bullshit about yup you just need to adapt and adjust all the while you people are screaming for a nerf because you can't handle the HML pilot? Why are you not subject to the same scrutiny? Why can't we simply say hey the HML is a pretty good weapons system looks like you need to either adjust or learn to deal with it. Or simply train into the weapons system your self.
we aren't crying for a nerf. CCP announced these changes, and then pilots like urself started crying. all i'm doing is trying to explain why CCP are making these changes. Before this nerf i ALSO used HML's for blobs and HAMs on my drakes. after this nerf, i will still probably use these weapons. i'm actually looking forward to the hams a lot. just need to get on the damn test server.
Cazador 64 wrote:We are being told that HML is getting nerfed to bring them in line with other weapons systems yet missiles are the most underrepresented weapons system in the game if you look at the top 20. ( Source http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 )
yes, HML's are being nerfed to bring them in line with other medium long range weapons, namely medium beams, medium rails and medium projectiles. medium beams and rails are even less common than the other missile systems that u think are under represented.
all other missiles are being buffed because, like u say, they are somewhat lacking. so everything will be great (or at least better)
TL:DR everything is happening as it should be |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 05:19:00 -
[5228] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: Rage HAMs, for example, are seeing a slight reduction in range, and a solid nerf to explosion velocity (10% worse) and radius (20% worse).
I meant to say, that's probably to allow for the fact GMP will now affect these weapons.
Onictus wrote:Medium Hybrids?
Maybe on Ferox/Eagle, they STILL won't do the damage that a x2 BCS Drake will at that range, and EFT away.
No, they wont, post changes they will reach MUCH further. Problem is, as I've said in the post right before yours is that there's just no percentage in sniping in the current system. I didn't bother with the eagle though.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I tryed to fit a Brutix for sniping, and I very hardly reach 90+27km for 240dps. Though, there is *no* tank. Ferox could certainly reach farther, but dps would be even less. I didn't tryed harbinger, though beam are supposed to be worse than railguns at these ranges.
[Ferox, Test] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Experimental 10MN Afterburner I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M [empty high slot]
Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
233 dps with heat, 55k EHP, Ranges of 143+25. Would need either a sebo or a gang sebo but the range dwarfs HML post change. Even CN antimatter offers 403dps, though would need to be shooting a tackled critter range is 40+25. There's so much optimal overkill here you could probably optimize it better, it was a generic throw together fit. +1% PG implant needed.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:As for the missile balance never siting well for pilots, I think we don't care if they are balanced properly, ie they have their role in the grand scheme of things.
The existence of this debate suggests otherwise though eh? At at a minimum, CCP want it balanced.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:And why does missiles should do damage at close range comparable to turrets ? They compensate their lack of close range dps by damage application at this close range, and they have their long range niche anyway.
I never said they did, what I said it a uniform DPS profile unchanging over 0-xxxkm range is going to be close to impossible to balance across that range spectrum. I've not seen a decent rebuttal to this point. I don't buy the "it makes them bad turrets" arguement, I think it's weak because there's still a whole lot of defining characteristics which would remain distinct between weapon systems.
To take an extreme example, look at a raven firing cruise (even if they do suck) 0-250km+ 707dps. It's lowish in the sub 100km range, its way too high in the longer ranges. With (all but) a single ammo choice that's hard to balance correctly across the spectrum.
And if we need a decent arguement as to why - missiles are only so big therefore longer range needs more fuel so less explosive can fit and vice versa for short range ones
In any event, I really don't mind, as I've already been open about this character is a cruise toting mission bear funding another (projectile) character, I'm simply trying to suggest ways in which better balance might be achieved. In fact, to be selfish, the fury cruise changes are going to be fabulous for this character.
The feedback once people can get their hands on these will be interesting. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 05:21:00 -
[5229] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:We are being told that HML is getting nerfed to bring them in line with other weapons systems yet missiles are the most underrepresented weapons system in the game if you look at the top 20. ( Source http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 )
Eh?
RankWeapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51107 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II32665
And how many other medium weapons get a look in? |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
301
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 05:57:00 -
[5230] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote:In any case, these changes are coming. People will adapt as they always do. Tactics will change. Drakes will remain situationally useful, and the Caldari missile pilots will have to get by with that. They still wont have a working HAC, Command Ship, or Missile BS, and perhaps they never will, but that's just the way it goes. T1 cruisers are gonna eclipse some HAC for some times anyway, though I'd like to know what are the problems of the raven if it's not damage application ? For the SP whines : missiles SP won't be wasted. Oh, and I just remembered that there is some (huge) nullsec alliances who ask their members to skill for the drake. That's for the question of people crosstraining to caldari. And HML will definitely still work in pvp.
The Raven has NUMEROUS problems actually. It's simply a bad ship in every way. Fire up your EFT and try to come up with something worthwhile. Remember, you need an MWD and point; webs and / or a painter; tank; a Large cap booster (or at least a medium); and at least one large and one medium neut. If you don't have these things it's not a BS, it's a gimmick, a toy. Here's a Raven setup I threw together quickly:
[Raven, New Setup 1] Ballistic Control System I Ballistic Control System I Ballistic Control System I Power Diagnostic System II Damage Control II
Prototype 100MN MicroWarpdrive I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Large Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Large Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Hammerhead II x5
976 dps w/ drones (1121 dps heated) 855m/sec (1124 m/sec heated) 72.8K ehp (76.4 heated invul) resists 66 / 77 / 66 / 72
It's not terrible, but it's not good. It has no large neuts, no large cap booster, it's slow, it's got a BC tank, and even with the painter it's gonna have a hard time applying it's full damage. It's basically a really expensive Drake, except slower and without the damage projection.
Now for a quick Typoon:
[Typhoon, quick fit] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
100MN Digital Booster Rockets Warp Disruptor II Stasis Webifier II Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo Torpedo Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Torpedo 500W Infectious Power System Malfunction Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Large Anti-Explosive Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Processor Overclocking Unit I
Ogre II x5
1019 dps w/ drones (1143 dps heated) 1018 m/sec ( 1453 m/sec heated) 95K ehp resists: 80 / 67 / 62 / 64
This is the Minmatar equivalent of the Raven. It's FAR faster, it does more dps, it has 20K hore ehp, it fits a large neut, it fits a large cap booster. Like the Raven it will have a hard time applying it's damage, but that's okay.
THIS is that CCP considers 'balannced.' This is what has Caldari pilots upset. |
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 06:31:00 -
[5231] - Quote
^ The typhoon is a fearsome ship in PVP, the Raven however is lulzworthy and laughable, with their purpose being relegated to POS bashing and Capital Bashing, even they are not even close to best at that.
The Raven is slow, they lack fitting for PVP, they lack tank due to requiring painter,mwd,scram, and web. Leaving you with only 2 slots to tank. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 06:37:00 -
[5232] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:^ The typhoon is a fearsome ship in PVP, the Raven however is lulzworthy and laughable, with their purpose being relegated to POS bashing and Capital Bashing, even they are not even close to best at that.
The Raven is slow, they lack fitting for PVP, they lack tank due to requiring painter,mwd,scram, and web. Leaving you with only 2 slots to tank.
Yup. What they do have is reeeediculous range. Which they cannot effectively use in the current world
It would actually be pretty cool to seen proper sniper fits really viable again, these days it's all knife fights. For a different thread though |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 06:54:00 -
[5233] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:PVE...
Take it as you wish : either you lose the game by choosing the wrong path (and you can leave ; can I have your stuff ?), or be creative and look at what you will be able to do with these missiles buff. Yes, HML are not the only missile launchers in the game, but they are the only ones to be nerfed, all the others are buffed.
Please stop spreading this simplification which is so wrong that one even might call it a lie.
Cruise Missiles dont get buffed over all, and the buffs for other weapons are partly neglected by nerfs, so we cant really be sure about the end result. See, I could buff something on paper, but in game it would still not be on par with the best peers, so it would remain useless.
Remember one thing please: all other medium and large missile systems except HML are atm NOT on top in their league. They are mediocre or worse. Torps find use only in Bombers and the Phoon. No Caldari BS is able to compete in PvP with Torps. Cruises are worse in PvP. They dont suck completely in PvE, but are way behind the best. HAM doesnt suck completely, but its way behind the rest in its class.
We will see if those small buffs and nerfs will bring those systems which are atm NOT on par with the best back to life. I doubt it. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 07:03:00 -
[5234] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Cruise Missiles dont get buffed over all
Fury cruises do, more damage and better able to apply it. A range decrease, but really....has range EVER been an issue for the cruise boats?
CNR/SNI are going to like this for L4 running at the very least |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 07:09:00 -
[5235] - Quote
1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51143 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 32683 3 425mm AutoCannon II 28691 4 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21287 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 21179 6 425mm Railgun II 20686 7 200mm AutoCannon II 19103 8 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 17453 9 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 14913 10 150mm Light AutoCannon II 14410 11 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 12537 12 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 12433 13 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 11547 14 Light Neutron Blaster II 10947 15 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 10576 16 1400mm Prototype Siege Cannon 9095 17 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun 8406 18 1400mm 'Scout' Artillery I 7825 19 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7257 20 Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 7169
Projectile total171032 Hybrid total62162 Laser total42466 Missile total63680
Speaking of something is "out of line" and "needs balance" ...
And remember please, 12k of the missiles are not Caldari ships mostly, but Bombers which are pretty ok balanced over all 4 races. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 07:11:00 -
[5236] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Cruise Missiles dont get buffed over all Fury cruises do, more damage and better able to apply it. A range decrease, but really....has range EVER been an issue for the cruise boats? CNR/SNI are going to like this for L4 running at the very least Edit: Also remember HAMS are getting buffed by being affected by GMP (any word on rigors?)
You are right, Furies and Precisions will get buffed a fair bit for Cruises.
I remember that very well. It might make t1 HAMs viable. Rage HAMs will not be better though IMO.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:00:00 -
[5237] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Speaking of something is "out of line" and "needs balance" ...
And the fact that abilitiy to pick your fights is overrated.
Because people want to be able to pick their fights they use Minmatar ships.
And again, even Harbinger outdamaages Cane at 15+ km. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:11:00 -
[5238] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Speaking of something is "out of line" and "needs balance" ... And the fact that abilitiy to pick your fights is overrated. Because people want to be able to pick their fights they use Minmatar ships. And again, even Harbinger outdamaages Cane at 15+ km.
Jorma, where is your combat alt? This statement of yours shows you have not much clue of whats going on.
Projectiles have more kills than all three other systems together! Its so much out of line that really NO ONE with their brains set right can deny this fact ... but yeah, go on :)
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
17
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:42:00 -
[5239] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51143 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 32683 3 425mm AutoCannon II 28691 4 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21287 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 21179 6 425mm Railgun II 20686 7 200mm AutoCannon II 19103 8 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 17453 9 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 14913 10 150mm Light AutoCannon II 14410 11 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 12537 12 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 12433 13 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 11547 14 Light Neutron Blaster II 10947 15 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 10576 16 1400mm Prototype Siege Cannon 9095 17 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun 8406 18 1400mm 'Scout' Artillery I 7825 19 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7257 20 Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 7169 Projectile total171032 Hybrid total62162 Laser total42466 Missile total63680 Speaking of something is "out of line" and "needs balance" ... And remember please, 12k of the missiles are not Caldari ships mostly, but Bombers which are pretty ok balanced over all 4 races.
And this was my point. We have ONE missile system to represent the entire top 20 of all weapons system. I think it is pretty fair for it to be on top as missiles as a whole is way under represented when you total everything out. It is simply amazing how you can throw cold hard facts right in peoples face and they will deny it to the very end. Reminds me of the stubborn mule from family guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg
Everyone wanted to throw the we can't balance around PVE in my face so I come up with some PVP numbers and yet people do not recognize how much missiles are out of whack and way under powered and under used. I submitted to the whole we can't judge on PVE and yet I still see no rational explanation for this clearly blatant neglect for the Caldari pilot and no suggestions other then retraining has been given.
I said it once before it's total bullshit and no one is willing to step up to the plate swallow some pride and admit it.
Morrigan LeSante wrote: Eh?
RankWeapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51107 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II32665
And how many other medium weapons get a look in?
Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it.
Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 08:57:00 -
[5240] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:
Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it.
Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20.
While I basically agree with you, you should speak of "missile systems" and not "Caldari systems", because in fact some of the large systems listed will be used by Caldari hulls, namely the Rohk and Naga. The large missiles listed (yes, there are some - Torps meta 4 launchers) will be used by a Caldari hull too, the bomber. And ofc all the other bombers, which are basically pretty equal. No idea if the Phoon pilots will mostly use t2 Torp launchers or not, but for sure Ravens dont play a role in numbers.
But yes, I agree - missiles are way underrepresented. And so are Hybrids, and Lasers too. Thats what I said from the very start though - the problem in Eve is by no means Drake and HML atm. The problem is Winmatar and Projectiles. Everything else can be judged as soon as this way out of line issue has been solved. Instead one of the very few things which seems to work in numbers apart from Winmatar and projectiles will get nerfed. I really wonder who makes those decisions.
I bet a nice ammount of ISK that HML would not be on top of that list if Cruises, Torps and HAMs were all a viable PvP option on Caldari tech 1&2 combat hulls, means they would work on the Raven, Caracal and Drake and also on Cerberus and Nighthawk which would need a shipfix for many of those too. As a result we would see more missiles total, but way less HML and also less Drakes. And not a single nerf needed!
IMO, this incoming nerf will just make the number of missiles in the list smaller, but there wont be more balance nor more variation than before .. good job? I think not :) |
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
18
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 09:25:00 -
[5241] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:
Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it.
Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20.
While I basically agree with you, you should speak of "missile systems" and not "Caldari systems", because in fact some of the large systems listed will be used by Caldari hulls, namely the Rohk and Naga. The large missiles listed (yes, there are some - Torps meta 4 launchers) will be used by a Caldari hull too, the bomber. And ofc all the other bombers, which are basically pretty equal. No idea if the Phoon pilots will mostly use t2 Torp launchers or not, but for sure Ravens dont play a role in numbers. But yes, I agree - missiles are way underrepresented. And so are Hybrids, and Lasers too. Thats what I said from the very start though - the problem in Eve is by no means Drake and HML atm. The problem is Winmatar and Projectiles. Everything else can be judged as soon as this way out of line issue has been solved. Instead one of the very few things which seems to work in numbers apart from Winmatar and projectiles will get nerfed. I really wonder who makes those decisions. I bet a nice ammount of ISK that HML would not be on top of that list if Cruises, Torps and HAMs were all a viable PvP option on Caldari tech 1&2 combat hulls, means they would work on the Raven, Caracal and Drake and also on Cerberus and Nighthawk which would need a shipfix for many of those too. As a result we would see more missiles total, but way less HML and also less Drakes. And not a single nerf needed! IMO, this incoming nerf will just make the number of missiles in the list smaller, but there wont be more balance nor more variation than before .. good job? I think not :) Well said . But I'm willing to bet we won't get valid or logical responses someone will quote a small portion of what we said take it out of context and try to make it seem relevant. As to who makes the calls on how balance should work I'm not really sure my self but let's just remember the DEV'S play this game too.
And when I say Caldari I still mean the hulls and the Missles. And if they are revamping Missles now I don't expect them to get a revisit anytime in the next two years. I really don't think Im out of line saying CCP should officer caldari/Missles users a chance to refund sp in the space ship command Missles and shields trees if they are unable or unwilling to fix this problem.
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 09:26:00 -
[5242] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51143 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 32683 3 425mm AutoCannon II 28691 4 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21287 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 21179 6 425mm Railgun II 20686 7 200mm AutoCannon II 19103 8 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 17453 9 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 14913 10 150mm Light AutoCannon II 14410 11 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 12537 12 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 12433 13 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 11547 14 Light Neutron Blaster II 10947 15 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 10576 16 1400mm Prototype Siege Cannon 9095 17 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun 8406 18 1400mm 'Scout' Artillery I 7825 19 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7257 20 Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 7169 Projectile total171032 Hybrid total62162 Laser total42466 Missile total63680 Speaking of something is "out of line" and "needs balance" ... And remember please, 12k of the missiles are not Caldari ships mostly, but Bombers which are pretty ok balanced over all 4 races. And this was my point. We have ONE missile system to represent the entire top 20 of all weapons system. I think it is pretty fair for it to be on top as missiles as a whole is way under represented when you total everything out. It is simply amazing how you can throw cold hard facts right in peoples face and they will deny it to the very end. Reminds me of the stubborn mule from family guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsgEveryone wanted to throw the we can't balance around PVE in my face so I come up with some PVP numbers and yet people do not recognize how much missiles are out of whack and way under powered and under used. I submitted to the whole we can't judge on PVE and yet I still see no rational explanation for this clearly blatant neglect for the Caldari pilot and no suggestions other then retraining has been given. I said it once before it's total bullshit and no one is willing to step up to the plate swallow some pride and admit it. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Eh?
RankWeapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51107 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II32665
And how many other medium weapons get a look in?
Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it. Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20.
That's more melodrama than I can take at this time in the morning.
If 10% is game breaking for you, I respectfully suggest you're doing it wrong.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 09:33:00 -
[5243] - Quote
Choices and consequences... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 09:34:00 -
[5244] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote: That's more melodrama than I can take at this time in the morning.
If 10% is game breaking for you, I respectfully suggest you're doing it wrong.
@ Morrigan, I assume you mean the 10% damage nerf? If so, this would neglect the other soft stat nerfs for HML.
But yeah, we cant know if it will kill HML as a working PvP option or not. I think it wont be on top of the list anymore after this change, and I think missiles will be way less in numbers then too. With HML not being on top I can perfectly live. With no other new missile options coming up instead I can live too, but only because I dont rely on missiles :) for game balance it still sucks.
Anyway, we will all have to wait how it works. But dont say there was no one who was concerned before ;)
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 09:36:00 -
[5245] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Choices and consequences...
Is this your reply to the way out of line presence of Projectiles in eve-kill?
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 09:37:00 -
[5246] - Quote
Working weapon /= most used Broken weapon /= not as popular as something else
By your logic lasers and especially hybrids are broken.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Choices and consequences... Is this your reply to the way out of line presence of Projectiles in eve-kill?
My reply to "I'm not going to be pvp god anymore! REFUND!" whine. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 09:51:00 -
[5247] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Working weapon /= most used Broken weapon /= not as popular as something else
By your logic lasers and especially hybrids are broken..
Projectile total 171032 Hybrid total 62162 Laser total 42466 Missile total 63680
learn to count maybe? Lasers are last in the list of used systems here. Hybrids are about the same as Missiles. All those 3 together are less than Projectiles. If you say Hybrids are broken, you can say Missiles are too. Or do you think those 2.4% give Missiles the edge?
Projectiles are way out of line, all numbers show this. Do you really object to this fact? :) Please do :) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 10:03:00 -
[5248] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Projectiles are way out of line, all numbers show this. Do you really object to this fact? :) Please do :)
In what way projectiles are "way out of line"? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
109
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 10:10:00 -
[5249] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it.
Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20.
If you dont understand why "bad large missles" is NOT an argument to keep an overpowered medium missle then you dont understand balancing AT ALL.
Even if every caldari ship was completely useless except the drake, and every weapon system of every size crap except the HML, this would STILL not be a valid reason for not balancing the HML. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 10:15:00 -
[5250] - Quote
These stats don't reveal balance but the opposite ! We are in BALANCE thread. Go away with these UNBALANCE talk please.
Balance would be to remove the over abundance of something and promoting the underuse of the other things. This, and a lot of other things. NOTHING should be the best as you mean it to be : something so powerful it completely outclass it's peers. NOTHING.
If something is underpowered, it should be buffed, and if something is overpowered, it should be nerfed, independantly of anything else.
Cry for nerfing winmatar or projectiles if you want, but DO NOT defend HML OPness in a balance thread !
BTW, comparing the Typhoon to the Raven is a bit unfair : the Typhoon is more a BC than a BS... NO BS is faster than the phoon unless pirate/faction. And it's the first time I see someone complaining about armor tank being better at something than shield tank. This Raven is not trying to be useful BTW, it is trying to be a Typhoon. That approach won't ever work as these ships are the opposite by design : phoon is a minmatar versatile and fast brawler ; raven is a fleet long range sniper.
Try something more caldari, like firing torpedoes at 60km. With the rebalance, they *will* hurt anything larger than a BC. With tackle, they will hurt anything. And you'll better have not to fall in it's faction torpedoes range.
And remember : BS will be rebalanced soon.
Anyway, Raven problem is not a missile problem it seem. Better keep it for another thread.
To Noemi : you are playing with the words and not trying to understand what I'm saying. Missile systems are not missiles. I speak about the weapon system as a whole. You can use all the ammo of a weapon system, you are not stuck with one. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 10:18:00 -
[5251] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Projectiles are way out of line, all numbers show this. Do you really object to this fact? :) Please do :) In what way projectiles are "way out of line"? This, IMO, people are risk averse, so they want speed to GTFO, hence projectiles. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 10:25:00 -
[5252] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it.
Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20.
You are melting caldari and missiles. People do learn torp for bombers. People do learn caldari ships for a lot of ships : falcon anyone ? Want a BS ? Here is the Scorpion... You also have the Rokh ; ask PL about where does their Rokh skills come from.
And even after the nerf, tengu will still be a tengu, and drake will still be a drake, and you will have ham. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 12:23:00 -
[5253] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: Well said . But I'm willing to bet we won't get valid or logical responses someone will quote a small portion of what we said take it out of context and try to make it seem relevant.
if this is aimed at me let me know, and point out what i've taken out of context and how its been taken out of context. ill happily retract and edit.
Cazador 64 wrote: And when I say Caldari I still mean the hulls and the Missles.
caldari are well represented in that list. yeah large rails suck and only have two ships that they work on (sound familiar anyone?) but they do get a fair bit of use. so really u should have just said missiles as the problem, not caldari.
missiles are lacking. but its ok, they are getting a buff. (lucky u) the other weapon systems that are mostly absent from that list are only getting their fitting stats altered. so missile pilots should be thankful for that. Drones are also completely absent from that list, does that mean they should get enough of a buff to reach that list? or is using this list to figure whats OP'd and whats not a flawed practice?
as for the AC's, they already do the lowest dps. their popularity probably comes from being the most versatile weapon system, attached to the most versatile ships. or at least thats why i use them. you could try and take away plasma or emp ammo and see what would happen. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2040
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 12:31:00 -
[5254] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Want to try the most recent version of these changes out for yourself and see how it affects your play? Log onto Duality starting this Friday where all these changes will be live alongside a bunch of other Retribution content to test. I'll be online as much as possible to chat with you all about all these changes and we will be hoping for a new round of feedback from people who have tried the changes out! Is version 2.0 the final changes , or rather, "most recent version"? The only reason I ask, was that there was more discussion post Version 2.0. So I wasn't sure what if anything got changed after that.
Duality will have the most recent posted changes, which is indeed the 2.0 version. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
154
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 13:54:00 -
[5255] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51143 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 32683 3 425mm AutoCannon II 28691 4 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21287 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 21179 6 425mm Railgun II 206867 200mm AutoCannon II 19103 8 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 17453 9 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 14913 10 150mm Light AutoCannon II 14410 11 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 1253712 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 12433 13 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 11547 14 Light Neutron Blaster II 10947 15 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 1057616 1400mm Prototype Siege Cannon 9095 17 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun 840618 1400mm 'Scout' Artillery I 7825 19 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7257 20 Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 7169 Projectile total171032 Hybrid total62162 Laser total42466 Missile total63680 Speaking of something is "out of line" and "needs balance" ... And remember please, 12k of the missiles are not Caldari ships mostly, but Bombers which are pretty ok balanced over all 4 races. And this was my point. We have ONE missile system to represent the entire top 20 of all weapons system. I think it is pretty fair for it to be on top as missiles as a whole is way under represented when you total everything out. It is simply amazing how you can throw cold hard facts right in peoples face and they will deny it to the very end. Reminds me of the stubborn mule from family guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsgEveryone wanted to throw the we can't balance around PVE in my face so I come up with some PVP numbers and yet people do not recognize how much missiles are out of whack and way under powered and under used. I submitted to the whole we can't judge on PVE and yet I still see no rational explanation for this clearly blatant neglect for the Caldari pilot and no suggestions other then retraining has been given. I said it once before it's total bullshit and no one is willing to step up to the plate swallow some pride and admit it. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Eh?
RankWeapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51107 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II32665
And how many other medium weapons get a look in?
Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it. Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20. That's more melodrama than I can take at this time in the morning. If 10% is game breaking for you, I respectfully suggest you're doing it wrong.
I highlighted the Caldari Large Weapon systems. there are 4 in the top 20 or 20% of them yeah thats total crap. |
Bodega Cat
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 15:52:00 -
[5256] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
I highlighted the Caldari Large Weapon systems. there are 4 in the top 20 or 20% of them yeah thats total crap.
Missile systems are the important part, not hybrids. Hybrids requires cross training. The original point was to look at missile representation out of the list, and it is without a doubt compelling.
I would also think its fair for everyone to agree that torps are only on there due to the stipulation that bombers leverage them, and bombers come in all race/flavors. I won't go so far as to say we can eliminate them, but their context is certainly worth an *asterisk in the above argument due to those facts. They're kind of a niche thing. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
154
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:05:00 -
[5257] - Quote
Bodega Cat wrote:MIrple wrote:
I highlighted the Caldari Large Weapon systems. there are 4 in the top 20 or 20% of them yeah thats total crap.
Missile systems are the important part, not hybrids. Hybrids requires cross training. The original point was to look at missile representation out of the list, and it is without a doubt compelling to note the only thing really on there besides torps is HML. I would also think its fair for everyone to agree that torps are only on there due to the stipulation that bombers leverage them, and bombers come in all race/flavors. I won't go so far as to say we can eliminate them, but their context is certainly worth an *asterisk in the above argument due to those facts. They're kind of a niche thing.
So should we discount projectile as well as they are fitted on non mimmy hulls. I understand what you are saying but Hybrids are Caldari weapons no matter how much you want to argue against. If this is the case Drones are the Gallente weapon and I do not see sentry or heavy drones on the list. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
303
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:33:00 -
[5258] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
<<<EDIT for space>>>>
....But yes, I agree - missiles are way underrepresented. And so are Hybrids, and Lasers too. Thats what I said from the very start though - the problem in Eve is by no means Drake and HML atm. The problem is Winmatar and Projectiles. Everything else can be judged as soon as this way out of line issue has been solved. Instead one of the very few things which seems to work in numbers apart from Winmatar and projectiles will get nerfed. I really wonder who makes those decisions.
Minmatar ships and Autocannons are fine. They are NOT objectively overpowered. There are numerous reasons people fly Minmatar, but I think these are the top four:
1. They have a COMPLETE lineup of solid ships, from Frigate to Battleships. Every class, both T1 and T2, without exception, offers the player a solid option.
2. On paper and in EFT their DPS looks fantastic. People see 600dps from their Hurricane and they get all excited, not realizing that it is only doing that 600dps at 2km -- where they probably weren't hitting anyway. Minmatar ships fight in deep falloff.
3. Minmatar speed and agility allow pilots to engage or disengage more easily. The ability to fight in deep falloff means that they do not need to commit to the fight unless they so choose.
4. When we talk about racial choices we tend to think of people choosing between the four races. However, up until relatively recently the actual choice (among experienced pilots) was between Amarr and Minmatar. Prior to the Hybrid buff the Gallente had serious issues -- and in many ways these issues have still never been addressed. And the Caldari, well, that's the race people train out of.
Quote:I bet a nice ammount of ISK that HML would not be on top of that list if Cruises, Torps and HAMs were all a viable PvP option on Caldari tech 1&2 combat hulls, means they would work on the Raven, Caracal and Drake and also on Cerberus and Nighthawk which would need a shipfix for many of those too. As a result we would see more missiles total, but way less HML and also less Drakes. And not a single nerf needed!
IMO, this incoming nerf will just make the number of missiles in the list smaller, but there wont be more balance nor more variation than before .. good job? I think not :)
Possibly. Let's look at medium projectiles and compare them to medium missiles:
Medium Projectile Choices: 180mm AC - lowest fitting, best tracking, lowest range, lowest paper dps. lowest alpha 220mm AC - low fitting, good tracking, moderate range, moderate paper dps, low alpha 425mm AC - moderate fitting, moderate tracking, good range, highest paper dps, moderate alpha 650mm Arty - high fitting, poor tracking, second best range, medium paper dps, high alpha 720mm Arty - highest fitting, worst tracking, best range, medium paper dps, highest alpha
HAM Missiles - Highest fitting, poor "tracking," low range, moderate paper dps, high alpha Heavy Missiles - moderate fitting, moderate "tracking" high range, moderate paper dps, high alpha
When looked at in this way two things stand out. The first, obviously, is the huge range of weapons choices projectile users have available. They can custom tailor their weapons to match what they are trying to accomplish. They can go for better falloff, better range, better tracking, lower fitting costs... whatever they need, they have a weapon they can go to. This is obviously not true with missiles. There, the choice is between hitting far for a little less damage, or hitting close for a little more damage while paying a higher fitting and tracking cost to do it. Is it any wonder people pick the first option?
The second thing that jumps out is that even given all these choices, most players tend to go with something in the middle. They like the 425's, they like the heavy missiles. They want their ship fitted with the weapons that provide the most options -- the best mix of dps, tracking, and range. Other considerations, like better tracking and close range performance, are secondary.
Obviously all of this ignores the torp and cruise missile statement that you made. No matter how good cruise missiles or torpedos become, because CCP decided not to give the Caldari a T3 BC using missiles, they are not going to be used as much as the medium weapons and hulls. There are obviously lots of reasons for this. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:47:00 -
[5259] - Quote
Bodega Cat wrote:
Missile systems are the important part, not hybrids. Hybrids requires cross training. The original point was to look at missile representation out of the list, and it is without a doubt compelling to note the only thing really on there besides torps is HML.
right, and missiles are getting buffs. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
303
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 16:49:00 -
[5260] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: And when I say Caldari I still mean the hulls and the Missles. And if they are revamping Missles now I don't expect them to get a revisit anytime in the next two years. I really don't think Im out of line saying CCP should officer caldari/Missles users a chance to refund sp in the space ship command Missles and shields trees if they are unable or unwilling to fix this problem.
Perhaps, but they are not going to do this.
In any case, this is a done deal. CCP is going to do their thing, and their thing has ALWAYS been to **** Caldari players every chance they get. On the plus side the revised changes to the Caracal (announced this week) go some distance towards improving it. It's going to be faster, it's going to be lighter. It still won't have enough drones, but it does offer Caldari players, finally...
Well, I don't want to go into that here.
Suffice it to say that I am actually considering changing my training plans to improve my missile skills -- something that would have been unthinkable to me just a month ago. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:22:00 -
[5261] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:It still won't have enough drones
When Caldari pilots noticed that there's actually drones in game? All Tengu pilots have said that drones are just way too annoying and good thing is that they don't need them.
OT Smithers wrote:Suffice it to say that I am actually considering changing my training plans to improve my missile skills -- something that would have been unthinkable to me just a month ago.
I would still need more options to enhance missile performance through modules. You know like you get tracking computers and tracking enhancers for turrets. Currently there's nothing for missiles. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:49:00 -
[5262] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51143 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 32683 3 425mm AutoCannon II 28691 4 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21287 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 21179 6 425mm Railgun II 20686 7 200mm AutoCannon II 19103 8 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 17453 9 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 14913 10 150mm Light AutoCannon II 14410 11 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 12537 12 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 12433 13 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 11547 14 Light Neutron Blaster II 10947 15 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 10576 16 1400mm Prototype Siege Cannon 9095 17 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun 8406 18 1400mm 'Scout' Artillery I 7825 19 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7257 20 Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 7169
I highlighted the Caldari Large Weapon systems. there are 4 in the top 20 or 20% of them yeah thats total crap.
Its nice you did highlight weapon systems which can be fitted on large Caldari hulls and the Naga. What you missed is, they will also be fitted on other hulls, Gallente use hybrids a lot too ;) and Torps are fitted on bombers. Do you really think a single Caldari BS was fitted with meta 4 Torp launchers and doing a kill?
Meta 4 Torps are used because bombers might have a hard time fitting t2s, and because bomber pilots dont feel like training too much for missiles ... funny thing is Torps and 1400mm Arty meta 4 are the only non t2-systems there. Thats most probably because they are both used by pilots of other races (=not their signature weapon) or fitting issues (Torps with the bombers, 1400mm on non-Matar BS).
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:51:00 -
[5263] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51143 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II 32683 3 425mm AutoCannon II 28691 4 Heavy Pulse Laser II 21287 5 Mega Pulse Laser II 21179 6 425mm Railgun II 206867 200mm AutoCannon II 19103 8 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II 17453 9 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II 14913 10 150mm Light AutoCannon II 14410 11 Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher 1253712 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 12433 13 Heavy Neutron Blaster II 11547 14 Light Neutron Blaster II 10947 15 Neutron Blaster Cannon II 1057616 1400mm Prototype Siege Cannon 9095 17 425mm Prototype Gauss Gun 840618 1400mm 'Scout' Artillery I 7825 19 800mm Repeating Artillery II 7257 20 Dual 180mm AutoCannon II 7169 Projectile total171032 Hybrid total62162 Laser total42466 Missile total63680 Speaking of something is "out of line" and "needs balance" ... And remember please, 12k of the missiles are not Caldari ships mostly, but Bombers which are pretty ok balanced over all 4 races. And this was my point. We have ONE missile system to represent the entire top 20 of all weapons system. I think it is pretty fair for it to be on top as missiles as a whole is way under represented when you total everything out. It is simply amazing how you can throw cold hard facts right in peoples face and they will deny it to the very end. Reminds me of the stubborn mule from family guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsgEveryone wanted to throw the we can't balance around PVE in my face so I come up with some PVP numbers and yet people do not recognize how much missiles are out of whack and way under powered and under used. I submitted to the whole we can't judge on PVE and yet I still see no rational explanation for this clearly blatant neglect for the Caldari pilot and no suggestions other then retraining has been given. I said it once before it's total bullshit and no one is willing to step up to the plate swallow some pride and admit it. Morrigan LeSante wrote: Eh?
RankWeapons Kills 1 Heavy Missile Launcher II 51107 2 1400mm Howitzer Artillery II32665
And how many other medium weapons get a look in?
Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it. Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20. That's more melodrama than I can take at this time in the morning. If 10% is game breaking for you, I respectfully suggest you're doing it wrong. I highlighted the Caldari Large Weapon systems. there are 4 in the top 20 or 20% of them yeah thats total crap.
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:53:00 -
[5264] - Quote
Odd I typed out a reply and it came up as a blank post . |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
305
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 17:55:00 -
[5265] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it.
Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20.
If you dont understand why "bad large missles" is NOT an argument to keep an overpowered medium missle then you dont understand balancing AT ALL. Even if every caldari ship was completely useless except the drake, and every weapon system of every size crap except the HML, this would STILL not be a valid reason for not balancing the HML.
Correct. But it damn sure would be a good reason to delay balancing heavy missiles until you fixed some of these other issues. After all, the game has somehow been chugging along just fine with things just as they are now. The super-powered wtfpwn heavy missiles are not, in fact, particularly overpowered at all. By CCP's own admission they are hitting at best 10% harder than they should. Hardly game breaking.
This goes to the heart of the problem, and the reason this thread is rapidly headed for three-hundred pages. It's not the drake or heavy missiles, it's the relationship CCP has had with their Caldari players. Many Caldari players, thousands of paying customers, were already angry. Rather than address any of these player's issues and concerns, CCP has decided to f*ck with them some more.
I believe CCP is making a serious mistake ignoring these players and their concerns. I believe they need to do some serious damage control before this blows up in their faces. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
22
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:04:00 -
[5266] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Lallante wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: Ok fair enough but how many Caldari large systems "get a look in" ?? Oh thats right basically NONE. This is exactly what I mean how in your right mind are you going to try to make this a valid argument? We have one med weapon system and basically basically zero large (as stated those torps are not all Caldari) So if we remove HML from the top 20 by nerfing it into the ground then putting a bullet in its head for good measure Caldari missile ships have nothing at all Caldari gets zero "look ins" as you called it.
Let me ask you this how many of you are training into cruise or torp for caldari because of this so called buff? It will not even make a dent in these numbers and they will not even break the top 20.
If you dont understand why "bad large missles" is NOT an argument to keep an overpowered medium missle then you dont understand balancing AT ALL. Even if every caldari ship was completely useless except the drake, and every weapon system of every size crap except the HML, this would STILL not be a valid reason for not balancing the HML. Correct. But it damn sure would be a good reason to delay balancing heavy missiles until you fixed some of these other issues. After all, the game has somehow been chugging along just fine with things just as they are now. The super-powered wtfpwn heavy missiles are not, in fact, particularly overpowered at all. By CCP's own admission they are hitting at best 10% harder than they should. Hardly game breaking. This goes to the heart of the problem, and the reason this thread is rapidly headed for three-hundred pages. It's not the drake or heavy missiles, it's the relationship CCP has had with their Caldari players. Many Caldari players, thousands of paying customers, were already angry. Rather than address any of these player's issues and concerns, CCP has decided to f*ck with them some more. I believe CCP is making a serious mistake ignoring these players and their concerns. I believe they need to do some serious damage control before this blows up in their faces.
And this one hundred billion times over this !!
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
308
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:07:00 -
[5267] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
When Caldari pilots noticed that there's actually drones in game? All Tengu pilots have said that drones are just way too annoying and good thing is that they don't need them.
I would still need more options to enhance missile performance through modules. You know like you get tracking computers and tracking enhancers for turrets. Currently there's nothing for missiles.
A heavy missile ship has no way to remove other drones or fast tackle other than drones of it's own. The Drake, obviously, has these drones, and it's tough enough to ignore frigates and AFs for a little while at least. Cruisers like the Caracal do not have this option, they cannot kill enemy drones or frigates and they cannot tank them. A full flight of light drones would make the Caracal more versatile while not significantly adding to it's actual combat dps (as it is probably safe to assume that the Caracal pilot will usually be fighting at the limits of disruptor range or beyond.
I think the latest changes to the Caracal, the new speed and lowered mass, will make it a decent ship. It won't NEED those drones, but the addition of them would change it from decent to good. As it stands the Bellicose, thanks to it's higher speed and drones, is the better option in missile cruisers.
As for the other mods, the problem here is that missiles are currently "balanced" around not needing them. They do the damage they do with the assumption that players will fit so many BCUs, and in general they don't have the low or mid slots for added modules. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:07:00 -
[5268] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:In any case, this is a done deal. CCP is going to do their thing, and their thing has ALWAYS been to **** Caldari players every chance they get. Yeah, ALWAYS, like with the Merlin, the condor, and the Rokh, and ECM... Oh wait !
And loot at the future Caracal and Moa...
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:11:00 -
[5269] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:
Tl:DR CCP should not be nerfing Caldari Missile pilots until they have a fix on how they can implement other ways for Caldari missile Pilots to be useful. and nerf projectiles its logic
yeah, dnt nerf HML's until other missiles are more useful and there are concrete changes to caldari ships in the works...oh wait
edit- totally stole my trolling idea ^^ |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:13:00 -
[5270] - Quote
I would say that Projectile weapons are not to blame but Tracking Enhancers. The 30% bonus to falloff is to much. If these are fixed I think that Projectiles will fall back into the correct position.
As to the 4 weapon systems that Caldari BS can fit. Yes some are fit to BC and to Gallente Hulls. What I am trying to point out is Caldari do have great ships that can support hybrid guns. Try playing Gallente as only a drone race with no gunnery skills. It doesn't work. Caldari pilots need to train up their other weapon system that is a fact.
Fact the Scorp and the Rohk are great ships. Raven needs some work but having 2 working battle ships is not bad. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:14:00 -
[5271] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote:In any case, this is a done deal. CCP is going to do their thing, and their thing has ALWAYS been to **** Caldari players every chance they get. Yeah, ALWAYS, like with the Merlin, the condor, and the Rokh, and ECM... Oh wait ! And loot at the future Caracal and Moa...
The Rokh was not really hot until hybrids have been buffed. It is decent now, but the crosstrain issues with missiles to turrets have been mentioned often enough now that even you should have understood this problem.
And the new Moa? You must be kidding, again. Or your understanding of this game is even worse than I thought it is. The Moa is hardly a reason to go for Caldari. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:20:00 -
[5272] - Quote
MIrple wrote:I would say that Projectile weapons are not to blame but Tracking Enhancers. The 30% bonus to falloff is to much. If these are fixed I think that Projectiles will fall back into the correct position.
As to the 4 weapon systems that Caldari BS can fit. Yes some are fit to BC and to Gallente Hulls. What I am trying to point out is Caldari do have great ships that can support hybrid guns. Try playing Gallente as only a drone race with no gunnery skills. It doesn't work. Caldari pilots need to train up their other weapon system that is a fact.
Fact the Scorp and the Rohk are great ships. Raven needs some work but having 2 working battle ships is not bad.
One of them is ECM and the other a fleet ship. Where are the options other races do have? I dont see them, and so do my Caldari friends.
I never said btw that the hybrid ships for Caldari do all suck, but the signature weapon for Caldari is not mainly hybrids but missiles. And the missile options suck except Drake / HML and Tengu / HML. You cant ignore this fact or cure it with "but you have to train hybrids". I could as well say train for Drake and HML if you feel they are so much out of line. Whats happening on the server shows the Drake / HML is not so much out of line, else it would be the only thing you see. The numbers show there are way more projectile ships, so its safe to say the Drake doesnt seem to break this game.
With that TE bonus thing I do agree, I said from the start when it was introduced this would bring stuff out of line, simply because no one else has such a huge falloff. Its a bit like the problem we have with balancing missiles, which do have constant damage (on paper ;) ) over all their range.
We will see when this will get adressed .. and to Fozzie: read what OT Smithers said again and again - he is right. Be careful, you might start something which you cant stop anymore ...
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
156
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:21:00 -
[5273] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote:In any case, this is a done deal. CCP is going to do their thing, and their thing has ALWAYS been to **** Caldari players every chance they get. Yeah, ALWAYS, like with the Merlin, the condor, and the Rokh, and ECM... Oh wait ! And loot at the future Caracal and Moa... The Rokh was not really hot until hybrids have been buffed. It is decent now, but the crosstrain issues with missiles to turrets have been mentioned often enough now that even you should have understood this problem. And the new Moa? You must be kidding, again. Or your understanding of this game is even worse than I thought it is. The Moa is hardly a reason to go for Caldari.
The Hybrid buff happened a year ago. How long must we keep saying well they were **** until they got buffed its not like it just happened. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
308
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:27:00 -
[5274] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote:In any case, this is a done deal. CCP is going to do their thing, and their thing has ALWAYS been to **** Caldari players every chance they get. Yeah, ALWAYS, like with the Merlin, the condor, and the Rokh, and ECM... Oh wait ! And loot at the future Caracal and Moa...
Perception and history matter.
If you kick your dog every day for a year, it is NEVER going to stop flinching when you reach for it, even when this time you are trying to give in a bone. Here, however, we are not talking about pets, but people. Unlike pets, Caldari players can cancel their accounts and find someone who won't keep kicking them. They can also learn to trust again. Sadly, this time CCP has decided to give them another boot to the head.
Now you might not see the Caldari problem. I get that. And you are in great company, because CCP doesn't see the problem either. But trust me on this, whether you (or they) understand it or not, it's there, it's real, and it's serious. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:30:00 -
[5275] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
As to the 4 weapon systems that Caldari BS can fit. Yes some are fit to BC and to Gallente Hulls. What I am trying to point out is Caldari do have great ships that can support hybrid guns. Try playing Gallente as only a drone race with no gunnery skills. It doesn't work. Caldari pilots need to train up their other weapon system that is a fact.
Fact the Scorp and the Rohk are great ships. Raven needs some work but having 2 working battle ships is not bad.
this^
where all the other races have to skill various tanks and weapon systems to be effective, caldari have become used to getting everything from one weapon system and one tank system.
it is the norm to cross train to other races and to use other weapon systems. it gives u the versatility to adapt. u dont have to, as this is a sand box, but it'll give u an advantage. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
311
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:46:00 -
[5276] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:
Tl:DR CCP should not be nerfing Caldari Missile pilots until they have a fix on how they can implement other ways for Caldari missile Pilots to be useful. and nerf projectiles its logic
yeah, dnt nerf HML's until other missiles are more useful and there are concrete changes to caldari ships in the works...oh wait edit- totally stole my trolling idea ^^
I hear you my friend.
In any case, these changes are going to go live. My hope is that anger over this gets lost in the excitement of the other positive changes, and not too many people cancel.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
311
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:49:00 -
[5277] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Odd I typed out a reply and it came up as a blank post .
You need to ALWAYS copy your entire reply before posting it as the forums tend to eat them. Annoying, but there it is. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:54:00 -
[5278] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
Now you might not see the Caldari problem. I get that. And you are in great company, because CCP doesn't see the problem either. But trust me on this, whether you (or they) understand it or not, it's there, it's real, and it's serious.
Amen to that. Please listen to him Fozzie.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:58:00 -
[5279] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:And the new Moa? You must be kidding, again. Or your understanding of this game is even worse than I thought it is. The Moa is hardly a reason to go for Caldari. I said the future Moa.
And caldari definitly don't need more reason to skill for them, the falcon is certainly a good proportion of all alt in game already, and joining some alliances in nullsec, you *have to* skill for drake, tengu or rokh. |
Lili Lu
560
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 18:59:00 -
[5280] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote:In any case, this is a done deal. CCP is going to do their thing, and their thing has ALWAYS been to **** Caldari players every chance they get. Yeah, ALWAYS, like with the Merlin, the condor, and the Rokh, and ECM... Oh wait ! And loot at the future Caracal and Moa... Perception and history matter. If you kick your dog every day for a year, it is NEVER going to stop flinching when you reach for it, even when this time you are trying to give in a bone. Here, however, we are not talking about pets, but people. Unlike pets, Caldari players can cancel their accounts and find someone who won't keep kicking them. They can also learn to trust again. Sadly, this time CCP has decided to give them another boot to the head. Now you might not see the Caldari problem. I get that. And you are in great company, because CCP doesn't see the problem either. But trust me on this, whether you (or they) understand it or not, it's there, it's real, and it's serious.
OT please stop sounding like Damar. I don't want to see a tinfoil hat on you every time you post.
Caldari has been doing fine and will still be doing fine after this expansion. Since I started this game Caldari has never been on the bottom for pvp. It's never really been on the top (except for those two overused ships), but also not the bottom. Amarr was. Then Minmatar, yes minmatar, was before the projectile changes. Currently it is Gallente, even after the hybrid changes. And for pve Caldari has usually been first or at worst second.
But lots of changes have recently come and are set to happen. The new drone damage mods, ASBs, and beginnings of tiericide have been changing things. Micro jump drives are coming, the buffs to short range missiles, continued tiericide, TC?TE/TD changes, changes to RAHs, even some new ships. We really don't know the outcome at this time. However, the current kiting strategies may not be as powerful anymore. And ships that have been lost in worthless obscurity may come to the fore.
I hope that whatever the landscape looks like after all the changes are in (and there will be some winners and losers) it will be a more diverse landscape. It will be more evenly distributed. It will be less in need of radical overhauls and more in need of minor tweaking. And, anyway, it can never, and should never remain stagnant. The day that happens is the day subscriptions definitely start to decline. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:24:00 -
[5281] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:And the new Moa? You must be kidding, again. Or your understanding of this game is even worse than I thought it is. The Moa is hardly a reason to go for Caldari. I said the future Moa. And caldari definitly don't need more reason to skill for them, the falcon is certainly a good proportion of all alt in game already, and joining some alliances in nullsec, you *have to* skill for drake, tengu or rokh.
The future Moa? Compare it to the future Ruppy ... and Falcon was OP, agreed. It is not anymore for quite a while.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
122
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:33:00 -
[5282] - Quote
You certainly don't roam lowsec or nullsec if you think falcon is not heavily used.
Two hours ago, I saw a frigate gang with not one, and not even two but three (!) falcons !
I'm not saying they are OP. I'm saying there is caldari ships people crosstrain for. And a LOT of people does it.
PS : I forgot the Moa : the question is not to know what ship will be less OP than the other, only that the Moa, a caldari ship, and the caracal, also a caldari ship, will be, at least, great.
And the Merlin and Condor definitely are on top of the first round of rebalancing, Condor being a missile ship... |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
311
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:37:00 -
[5283] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote:In any case, this is a done deal. CCP is going to do their thing, and their thing has ALWAYS been to **** Caldari players every chance they get. Yeah, ALWAYS, like with the Merlin, the condor, and the Rokh, and ECM... Oh wait ! And loot at the future Caracal and Moa... The Rokh was not really hot until hybrids have been buffed. It is decent now, but the crosstrain issues with missiles to turrets have been mentioned often enough now that even you should have understood this problem. And the new Moa? You must be kidding, again. Or your understanding of this game is even worse than I thought it is. The Moa is hardly a reason to go for Caldari. The Hybrid buff happened a year ago. How long must we keep saying well they were **** until they got buffed its not like it just happened.
And a Caldari pilot who began training to use them ten months ago when they were fixed, would have only barely finished large hybrids a months ago now. He would now, ten months later, finally get to use the Gallente Naga.
In any case, even with the improvement to Hybrids, a Caldari pilot who switches to gunnery would be a fool to stick with Caldari. The Caldari Hybrid frigates are wicked, the rest of the lineup is less than impressive. Given the choice between a complete working lineup of ships, and training for a year to own a fleet of hangar queens, which would YOU select? You want a Vagabond or a Cerberus? You want a Zealot or an Eagle? Would you rather have the choice of one marginal BS, or three great ones?
I faced that choice years ago. Should I abandon Caldari and all the training I had invested, or switch races and fly non-broken ships. I considered sticking with it. I thought surely CCP would fix them. I figured there was no way in hell they would leave them that broken. Fortunately my wife convinced me to switch. Had she not done so, had I stuck with Caldari and continued spending my time and perfecting my skills...
I would STILL be waiting!
Years later, I would be waiting.
And while I waited, I would have gotten to watch CCP devote patch after patch towards making the already good PvP races better. Hell, I would still be waiting for them to remove the T2 ammo penalties that everyone else saw eliminated years ago. Even something that simple, I'd be waiting.
And PvP? The only reason I bother with this game? Up until last year I wouldn't have even had a frigate to use. I would have had the Drake, and every time the name Caldari even popped up on the forums a thousand people flooding the thread saying "Caldari are the PvE race! You have the Drake! Because of Falcon!"
But I didn't have to deal with that. I switched to one of the PvP races. I went with Minmatar, the flavor of the month, only it turned out to be the flavor of the decade. And I have never regretted the decision.
As a Minmatar pilot I might not have the best ship in every class, but it is ALWAYS better than anything the Caldari pilot is stuck with. I don't have one marginal battleship, I have three exceptional ones. My worst Battleship is better than the best the poor patiently waiting Caldari pilot has available. As a Minmatar pilot I have two great HACs, had I stayed with Caldari I wouldn't have any. I have the best cruisers and battlecruisers (and by god I have two of them), the best destroyer, great frigates, AFs, bombers, interceptors, my command ships are epic and my recons are the bane of Strategic cruisers.There are literally no holes in my ship lineup. I have got it made baby! Hell, last year when CCP handed out T3 BCs I actually got one, unlike those poor patient Caldari missile pilots. And all because I didn't wait for CCP to fix the Caldari.
So why should I care about those poor fools who trusted CCP and stuck with Caldari? CCP could delete them from the game and my hangar would look about the same. But I care because I like this game, and I think that there is a limit to how patient even Caldari players will be. I think continuing to #$% with a hundred thousand paying customers is insane. |
Lili Lu
560
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:42:00 -
[5284] - Quote
Noemi, do you even read any other thread in this subforum except this one? The future Moa is not going to be ****. On balance, the future Rupture and Maller look slightly weak in that class, imo. But on the whole the cruisers are starting to look fairly balanced. And, much more balanced than we currently have. And better than my estimation of the rebalanced frigates, where Caldari has been the clear winner.
I can see myself flying any race amongst the Cruisers and being satisfied with some utility. They will still have racial flair. So if you find you really like speeding around you will probably want to Minmatar, etc. but none of them is locked out of adaptation to a fleet role. If you want a speedy fleet Caldari has options. If you want a sniper fleet of cruisers every race has options there also, not just Caldari. Etc.
This is what I want the game to look like. The ability to field mixed fleets and not monoculture fleets. To not feel restricted to only one type of combat per race even if some are better suited than others. The Moa will fit fine into its role as a beefy combat cruiser. The Caracal will fit fine into a role as a fast attack ship. Neither will be told to go home. And it's looking the same for all the other races for all the roles as well.
When they get to the BCs, if they do as good or better of a job as they are on cruisers, it will be nice to see Prophecys and Feroxes et al having utility other than gimick bait tank or some such. And the same could occur with BSs and BS weapons. Seriously, please stop looking at the glass half empty. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
157
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 19:49:00 -
[5285] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:MIrple wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote:In any case, this is a done deal. CCP is going to do their thing, and their thing has ALWAYS been to **** Caldari players every chance they get. Yeah, ALWAYS, like with the Merlin, the condor, and the Rokh, and ECM... Oh wait ! And loot at the future Caracal and Moa... The Rokh was not really hot until hybrids have been buffed. It is decent now, but the crosstrain issues with missiles to turrets have been mentioned often enough now that even you should have understood this problem. And the new Moa? You must be kidding, again. Or your understanding of this game is even worse than I thought it is. The Moa is hardly a reason to go for Caldari. The Hybrid buff happened a year ago. How long must we keep saying well they were **** until they got buffed its not like it just happened. And a Caldari pilot who began training to use them ten months ago when they were fixed, would have only barely finished large hybrids a months ago now. He would now, ten months later, finally get to use the Gallente Naga. In any case, even with the improvement to Hybrids, a Caldari pilot who switches to gunnery would be a fool to stick with Caldari. The Caldari Hybrid frigates are wicked, the rest of the lineup is less than impressive. Given the choice between a complete working lineup of ships, and training for a year to own a fleet of hangar queens, which would YOU select? You want a Vagabond or a Cerberus? You want a Zealot or an Eagle? Would you rather have the choice of one marginal BS, or three great ones? I faced that choice years ago. Should I abandon Caldari and all the training I had invested, or switch races and fly non-broken ships. I considered sticking with it. I thought surely CCP would fix them. I figured there was no way in hell they would leave them that broken. Fortunately my wife convinced me to switch. Had she not done so, had I stuck with Caldari and continued spending my time and perfecting my skills... I would STILL be waiting! Years later, I would be waiting. And while I waited, I would have gotten to watch CCP devote patch after patch towards making the already good PvP races better. Hell, I would still be waiting for them to remove the T2 ammo penalties that everyone else saw eliminated years ago. Even something that simple, I'd be waiting. And PvP? The only reason I bother with this game? Up until last year I wouldn't have even had a frigate to use. I would have had the Drake, and every time the name Caldari even popped up on the forums a thousand people flooding the thread saying " Caldari are the PvE race! You have the Drake! Because of Falcon!" But I didn't have to deal with that. I switched to one of the PvP races. I went with Minmatar, the flavor of the month, only it turned out to be the flavor of the decade. And I have never regretted the decision. As a Minmatar pilot I might not have the best ship in every class, but it is ALWAYS better than anything the Caldari pilot is stuck with. I don't have one marginal battleship, I have three exceptional ones. My worst Battleship is better than the best the poor patiently waiting Caldari pilot has available. As a Minmatar pilot I have two great HACs, had I stayed with Caldari I wouldn't have any. I have the best cruisers and battlecruisers (and by god I have two of them), the best destroyer, great frigates, AFs, bombers, interceptors, my command ships are epic and my recons are the bane of Strategic cruisers.There are literally no holes in my ship lineup. I have got it made baby! Hell, last year when CCP handed out T3 BCs I actually got one, unlike those poor patient Caldari missile pilots. And all because I didn't wait for CCP to fix the Caldari. So why should I care about those poor fools who trusted CCP and stuck with Caldari? CCP could delete them from the game and my hangar would look about the same. But I care because I like this game, and I think that there is a limit to how patient even Caldari players will be. I think continuing to #$% with a hundred thousand paying customers is insane.
To max out your skill maybe 10 months but I dont think it takes 10 Months to get T2 large guns. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 20:04:00 -
[5286] - Quote
MIrple wrote: To max out your skill maybe 10 months but I dont think it takes 10 Months to get T2 large guns.
Supports on 5, specs for Large Blaster and Rails on 4 - 271 days. With optimized attributes it would be a fair bit less (just set something up in Evemon). Point is, many Caldari really didnt have gunnery stuff. And OT is right, if they had, then they would be flying something which works.
Best regards.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 20:05:00 -
[5287] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Noemi, do you even read any other thread in this subforum except this one? The future Moa is not going to be ****. On balance, the future Rupture and Maller look slightly weak in that class, imo. But on the whole the cruisers are starting to look fairly balanced. And, much more balanced than we currently have. And better than my estimation of the rebalanced frigates, where Caldari has been the clear winner..
I did some days ago, didnt seem like the Moa would be hot. If they changed something since my last visit I will check this later. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
157
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 20:10:00 -
[5288] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I did some days ago, didnt seem like the Moa would be hot. If they changed something since my last visit I will check this later.
Moa: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% bonus to shield resistances Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M (+1), 4 L, 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 850 PWG (+70), 380 CPU (+20) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2300(+425) / 1000(-329) / 1600(+76) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1500(+125) / 475s(-16.25s) / 3.15 (+0.35) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 190(+26) / 0.52 (-0.02) / 12220000 (+500000) / 5.9s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15 / 15 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 260(+7) / 7 Sensor strength: 17 Gravimetric (+1) Signature radius: 135 Cargo capacity: 450 (+200)
FYI |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
123
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 20:16:00 -
[5289] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:And a Caldari pilot who began training to use them ten months ago when they were fixed, would have only barely finished large hybrids a months ago now. He would now, ten months later, finally get to use the Gallente Naga.
In any case, even with the improvement to Hybrids, a Caldari pilot who switches to gunnery would be a fool to stick with Caldari. The Caldari Hybrid frigates are wicked, the rest of the lineup is less than impressive. Given the choice between a complete working lineup of ships, and training for a year to own a fleet of hangar queens, which would YOU select? You want a Vagabond or a Cerberus? You want a Zealot or an Eagle? Would you rather have the choice of one marginal BS, or three great ones?
I faced that choice years ago. Should I abandon Caldari and all the training I had invested, or switch races and fly non-broken ships. I considered sticking with it. I thought surely CCP would fix them. I figured there was no way in hell they would leave them that broken. Fortunately my wife convinced me to switch. Had she not done so, had I stuck with Caldari and continued spending my time and perfecting my skills...
I would STILL be waiting!
Years later, I would be waiting.
And while I waited, I would have gotten to watch CCP devote patch after patch towards making the already good PvP races better. Hell, I would still be waiting for them to remove the T2 ammo penalties that everyone else saw eliminated years ago. Even something that simple, I'd be waiting.
And PvP? The only reason I bother with this game? Up until last year I wouldn't have even had a frigate to use. I would have had the Drake, and every time the name Caldari even popped up on the forums a thousand people flooding the thread saying "Caldari are the PvE race! You have the Drake! Because of Falcon!"
But I didn't have to deal with that. I switched to one of the PvP races. I went with Minmatar, the flavor of the month, only it turned out to be the flavor of the decade. And I have never regretted the decision.
As a Minmatar pilot I might not have the best ship in every class, but it is ALWAYS better than anything the Caldari pilot is stuck with. I don't have one marginal battleship, I have three exceptional ones. My worst Battleship is better than the best the poor patiently waiting Caldari pilot has available. As a Minmatar pilot I have two great HACs, had I stayed with Caldari I wouldn't have any. I have the best cruisers and battlecruisers (and by god I have two of them), the best destroyer, great frigates, AFs, bombers, interceptors, my command ships are epic and my recons are the bane of Strategic cruisers.There are literally no holes in my ship lineup. I have got it made baby! Hell, last year when CCP handed out T3 BCs I actually got one, unlike those poor patient Caldari missile pilots. And all because I didn't wait for CCP to fix the Caldari.
So why should I care about those poor fools who trusted CCP and stuck with Caldari? CCP could delete them from the game and my hangar would look about the same. But I care because I like this game, and I think that there is a limit to how patient even Caldari players will be. I think continuing to #$% with a hundred thousand paying customers is insane. So, you REFUSED to use HALF the ships of your race, and you still complain ?
Hybrids are NOT gallente weapon, it's both gallente AND caldari. Merlin was always usable you know, but at this time, there was only the rifter in T1. Going to faction, the hookbill was always, or at least from what I can remember in my short EVE life, well rated (though that might be from the rocket rebalance about 2 years ago). For fleet, 2 years may be the birth time of the drake. Drake is on top since my EVE birth in fact, both for pve AND pvp. That is TWO YEARS. 20% of EVE history, and the last ones. There always was the Basilisk too, a great fleet logi. And that's even without ECM ships... And the tengu of course. Now, since last year (even more if you consider the time it was adverted), there was hybrids, and you didn't skilled for. I tend to think it's your fault if you followed the easy path and crosstrained for minmatar.
Stop pretended caldari are stick with nothing, that's pure falacy. Only the closeminded ones are stuck in their fantasy realm where caldari are good for nothing. In real EVE, it's plain wrong. Caldari pilots are *desired* for a lot of things.
Now, the problem IMO is more about your playstyle : you don't have the caldari mindset to use their ships maybe ?
But take the gallente, just to compare : do you want a diemost (yes, that's how it was called in the past) or a falcon ? I won't speek about nullsec warfare, because I would look like a crying caldari pilot.
You cannot say caldari are stick with nothing when you ignore half of their ships. And you cannot ask for missiles to do everything turrets do, and even more. Missiles are not turrets. You want brawling turret ship, caldari definitly don't are the goto race, but saying they have nothing is plain wrong. You just have to open your mind and look at blasters. Oh, and I don't think HAM were that bad, but HML always had been so much better... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 20:43:00 -
[5290] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The Rokh was not really hot until hybrids have been buffed. It is decent now, but the crosstrain issues with missiles to turrets have been mentioned often enough now that even you should have understood this problem.
And turret users have missile skills trained automatically. |
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 21:23:00 -
[5291] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: And a Caldari pilot who began training to use them ten months ago when they were fixed, would have only barely finished large hybrids a months ago now. He would now, ten months later, finally get to use the Gallente Naga.
In any case, even with the improvement to Hybrids, a Caldari pilot who switches to gunnery would be a fool to stick with Caldari. The Caldari Hybrid frigates are wicked, the rest of the lineup is less than impressive. Given the choice between a complete working lineup of ships, and training for a year to own a fleet of hangar queens, which would YOU select? You want a Vagabond or a Cerberus? You want a Zealot or an Eagle? Would you rather have the choice of one marginal BS, or three great ones?
I faced that choice years ago. Should I abandon Caldari and all the training I had invested, or switch races and fly non-broken ships. I considered sticking with it. I thought surely CCP would fix them. I figured there was no way in hell they would leave them that broken. Fortunately my wife convinced me to switch. Had she not done so, had I stuck with Caldari and continued spending my time and perfecting my skills...
I would STILL be waiting!
Years later, I would be waiting.
And while I waited, I would have gotten to watch CCP devote patch after patch towards making the already good PvP races better. Hell, I would still be waiting for them to remove the T2 ammo penalties that everyone else saw eliminated years ago. Even something that simple, I'd be waiting.
And PvP? The only reason I bother with this game? Up until last year I wouldn't have even had a frigate to use. I would have had the Drake, and every time the name Caldari even popped up on the forums a thousand people flooding the thread saying "Caldari are the PvE race! You have the Drake! Because of Falcon!"
But I didn't have to deal with that. I switched to one of the PvP races. I went with Minmatar, the flavor of the month, only it turned out to be the flavor of the decade. And I have never regretted the decision.
As a Minmatar pilot I might not have the best ship in every class, but it is ALWAYS better than anything the Caldari pilot is stuck with. I don't have one marginal battleship, I have three exceptional ones. My worst Battleship is better than the best the poor patiently waiting Caldari pilot has available. As a Minmatar pilot I have two great HACs, had I stayed with Caldari I wouldn't have any. I have the best cruisers and battlecruisers (and by god I have two of them), the best destroyer, great frigates, AFs, bombers, interceptors, my command ships are epic and my recons are the bane of Strategic cruisers.There are literally no holes in my ship lineup. I have got it made baby! Hell, last year when CCP handed out T3 BCs I actually got one, unlike those poor patient Caldari missile pilots. And all because I didn't wait for CCP to fix the Caldari.
So why should I care about those poor fools who trusted CCP and stuck with Caldari? CCP could delete them from the game and my hangar would look about the same. But I care because I like this game, and I think that there is a limit to how patient even Caldari players will be. I think continuing to #$% with a hundred thousand paying customers is insane.
Well written post my friend. See I am that Caldari pilot you speak of. When I started EVE I picked Caldari because I liked the lore of them. Missiles sounded cool so that's what I went with. Some months into the game I start seeing that my choice may have been the wrong one to make. I would always here how Caldari was not that great and they do not get much DEV attention.
But I did think hey this is an MMO and there is no way they will always be out of balance, no way will we sit on the bottom and continue to be bullied and kicked around, I thought man if I stick with this by the time the fixes come along I will be one of the few specialized in these ships and at least for a short while I could have some fun times while everyone scrambles to catch up and it would be GREAT.
But those changes never came I would not see this ever come to be and time after time I see nerfs or changes that will not even put me on the grid. Unlike you I didn't have someone to talk me into a different choice I wish I had. This was a very well written post the replies I have read on it are complete crap, these people know there is truth to this they will never admit it how ever they don't want the Winmatar to be nerfed.
The Minmatar, pilots have to be best at all lvls the drake held the top spot with HML Minmatar, held about everything else. But I would love to see a nerf to Minmatar pilots and their primary weapons systems I would bet everything I own not one of them would be on here saying "yeah we had this coming it was a much needed nerf and it's about time the Minmatar got brought in line with the other races" That would not happen you would have people just like me on here fighting tooth and nail for the changes not to happen It would be me X1000.
This was a great post and about as truthful as it gets. I know if this nerf hits to hard there will be my 3 accounts and an other 3 friends who will stop playing EVE at least until CCP stops favoring one race and brings balance into the game. The flinching dog analogy posted earlier was pretty fitting also. You know you here all these apologetics here defending this nerf all while saying Projectiles are perfectly in balance is almost mind blowing. While the exception of a very few people it's almost like you people can't come up with a rational thought between the lot of ya. Trying my hardest to not bash here but omfg some of you people can't really believe what spews out of your brains and onto these forums. You are confronted with factual number and yet you deny these numbers. I understand the numbers are of your side but really post like this one that I have quoted are far and few |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
312
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 23:04:00 -
[5292] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: Well written post my friend. See I am that Caldari pilot you speak of. When I started EVE I picked Caldari because I liked the lore of them. Missiles sounded cool so that's what I went with. Some months into the game I start seeing that my choice may have been the wrong one to make. I would always here how Caldari was not that great and they do not get much DEV attention.
<<< EDIT FOR LENGTH >>>
Thanks. I am sure that there are a lot of frustrated Caldari missile pilots who feels like you do. To you, and them, I would say this:
Don't cancel! Things ARE getting better.
A couple years ago Caldari pilots really did have basically nothing but the Drake. They didn't even have Frigates. Hybrids and Rockets were still broken. And if you wanted to PvP and you showed up in a Drake people would kinda laugh at you. That's not the case today.
Caldari Frigates are some of the best in the game. Their AFs are pure win. And they are only going to get better.
The proposed Caldari Destroyer is going to be pure evil.
The Caracal, well, I don't want to say too much, but I will say that with these latest changes once people realize what it can actually do it is going to be one of the most frightening ships on the field. And if it doesn't quite suit you no problem, you can spend a week or so training Minmatar cruisers to four and get a slightly different version of the same thing in the Bellicose.
The Drake is going to be FINE after all this. Trust me. It's not going to be everything it is today, but it's going to be fine. It's really not going to lose anything particularly important, and certainly not for small gang PvP. And who knows, the changes to HAMS (if they work out) will give you options you do not have today.
Finally, and this is important, the entire GAME is changing. CCP is radically improving the performace of T1 hulls, they are making the power and learning curve far smoother, and the cost of admission to PvP significantly less. You are going to regularly see gangs and fleets of T1 ships tearing it up, and the folks who insist on flying expensive T2 ships are going to find themselves paying a lot for a marginal increase in performance. The new players coming into the game are going to find a smooth road compared to what we faced. It's going to be great.
And I honestly believe that you will find that your missile skills weren't a waste after all. You might even find that your hope, that your patience would one day give you an edge, has finally been realized. And people like me who jumped ship are now somewhat left behind.
So don't cancel. Wait and see what happens. This is the biggest change in Eve's history. It's an exciting time. And if CCP forgets that they have a race called the Caldari just be there to remind them. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 23:18:00 -
[5293] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The Rokh was not really hot until hybrids have been buffed. It is decent now, but the crosstrain issues with missiles to turrets have been mentioned often enough now that even you should have understood this problem. And turret users have missile skills trained automatically.
I think what Noemi was getting at is that Caldari lacks good missile boats, thus if you went missile skills first (and later found out how few viable options you have), and tried to get into gunnery, its a long and painful process. On the other hand, if you started with hybrids/projectiles/lasers then you can far more easily cross train among the 3 turret classes and honestly, I can't think of a role that a gunboat can't do just as well or more often than not, better than a missile boat in our current environment. So if you started with turrets and cross-trained into missiles....I'm sorry but you're doing it wrong.
I feel this cause when I first started I basically trained missiles only as recommended by some vets as they said missiles are the best for PvE and good for getting your income started. So I trained up to a cruise Raven then a Tengu for L4s and yeah, missiles were really forgiving and good for PvE, but as mentioned, I found myself with not many PvP options. However now that I'm further down the road have Minmatar/Amarr trained, I found out that gunboats are better at damn near everything (traded my Tengu in for a Mach and its way better), and going from Laser to Projectile didn't take me long at all and right now, I don't feel the need to fly any missile boats (except maybe the dual-TD condor lulz) over gunboats.
However I still support the HM nerf (as it seems they overcompensated by making HAMs amazing) and the new Caracal/Bellicose looks pretty amazing with HAMs so it's not all lost, but I can see where Noemi is coming from. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 23:36:00 -
[5294] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: A couple years ago Caldari pilots really did have basically nothing but the Drake. And if you wanted to PvP and you showed up in a Drake people would kinda laugh at you.
Yes I remember trust me lol. I am glad I am not the only one that recalls these days.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 05:19:00 -
[5295] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:I think what Noemi was getting at is that Caldari lacks good missile boats, thus if you went missile skills first (and later found out how few viable options you have), and tried to get into gunnery, its a long and painful process. On the other hand, if you started with hybrids/projectiles/lasers then you can far more easily cross train among the 3 turret classes and honestly, I can't think of a role that a gunboat can't do just as well or more often than not, better than a missile boat in our current environment. So if you started with turrets and cross-trained into missiles....I'm sorry but you're doing it wrong.
Beam Harbinger? Beam Prophecy? 250mm Ferox? 250mm Brutix? 250mm Myrmidon? 720mm Cane? 720mm Cyclone?
Only cruiser/BC that can use medium long range turrets effectively is Zealot. |
androch
River-Rats in space The Ditanian Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 05:35:00 -
[5296] - Quote
you guys are assholes, stop nerfing the poor hurricane its becoming enough of a pain in the ass to fit and if nerfed any worse (this change will make it even less useful than the harbringer) |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 08:15:00 -
[5297] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:
I did some days ago, didnt seem like the Moa would be hot. If they changed something since my last visit I will check this later.
Moa: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% bonus to shield resistances Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M (+1), 4 L, 5 turrets, 2 launchers Fittings: 850 PWG (+70), 380 CPU (+20) Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2300(+425) / 1000(-329) / 1600(+76) Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1500(+125) / 475s(-16.25s) / 3.15 (+0.35) Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 190(+26) / 0.52 (-0.02) / 12220000 (+500000) / 5.9s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15 / 15 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 260(+7) / 7 Sensor strength: 17 Gravimetric (+1) Signature radius: 135 Cargo capacity: 450 (+200) FYI
Could be a good boat but it's not missiles. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 08:16:00 -
[5298] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote: I think what Noemi was getting at is that Caldari lacks good missile boats, thus if you went missile skills first (and later found out how few viable options you have), and tried to get into gunnery, its a long and painful process.
Exactly, and I wrote it more than once for those who are slow learners. Maybe it helps when someone else tells them the same :) so thanks for the support and:
Dato Koppla wrote: On the other hand, if you started with hybrids/projectiles/lasers then you can far more easily cross train among the 3 turret classes and honestly, I can't think of a role that a gunboat can't do just as well or more often than not, better than a missile boat in our current environment. So if you started with turrets and cross-trained into missiles....I'm sorry but you're doing it wrong.
+1, agree with you here.
Dato Koppla wrote: I feel this cause when I first started I basically trained missiles only as recommended by some vets as they said missiles are the best for PvE and good for getting your income started. So I trained up to a cruise Raven then a Tengu for L4s and yeah, missiles were really forgiving and good for PvE, but as mentioned, I found myself with not many PvP options. However now that I'm further down the road have Minmatar/Amarr trained, I found out that gunboats are better at damn near everything (traded my Tengu in for a Mach and its way better), and going from Laser to Projectile didn't take me long at all and right now, I don't feel the need to fly any missile boats (except maybe the dual-TD condor lulz) over gunboats
Yep, thats also how I feel: the PvE-OPness of Caldari is a myth, which was killed with the projectile-buff. The only thing Caldari/Missiles are better at is getting fast into l4 missions. Thats not a small thing, I agree, but its hardly gamebreaking.
Dato Koppla wrote: However I still support the HM nerf (as it seems they overcompensated by making HAMs amazing) and the new Caracal/Bellicose looks pretty amazing with HAMs so it's not all lost, but I can see where Noemi is coming from.
Again, we have to see .. if it turns out well I will be very pleased. But if it doesnt I fear there may be a really big wave coming .. thats all I am concerned about. Because for myself I did the same like you and OT Smithers did, trained other races in time. I am old enough to have my SP invested, and I have 3 more alts to use ... so no, I wont quit even if it will turn worse for missile users, nor will I depend on working missiles. For the game itself I hope we will have more useful missile options and ofc also more use for the gunnery-options which atm dont work too well (mainly mlrt :D ) ..
|
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 08:35:00 -
[5299] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Dato Koppla wrote:I think what Noemi was getting at is that Caldari lacks good missile boats, thus if you went missile skills first (and later found out how few viable options you have), and tried to get into gunnery, its a long and painful process. On the other hand, if you started with hybrids/projectiles/lasers then you can far more easily cross train among the 3 turret classes and honestly, I can't think of a role that a gunboat can't do just as well or more often than not, better than a missile boat in our current environment. So if you started with turrets and cross-trained into missiles....I'm sorry but you're doing it wrong. Beam Harbinger? Beam Prophecy? 250mm Ferox? 250mm Brutix? 250mm Myrmidon? 720mm Cane? 720mm Cyclone? Only cruiser/BC that can use medium long range turrets effectively is Zealot.
The 720mm Cane is actually very viable and used all the time actually but that's because of alpha win, the rest are pretty much never used yeah, but that can also be attributed to the tiering system which kinda gave the shaft to the Proph/Ferox/Brutix. The Myrm doesn't get a hybrid bonus so that's a no-brainer and the Cyclone suffers similar tiering problems which means its hard to shoehorn arties on it (although it's still amazing with ACs). Yes HMs being good is probably part of the reason why these ships never made it into a fleet doctrine like the Drake but the reasons I mentioned also contribute to the fail of medium LR guns. Also, if I'm not mistaken the Zealot is usually run with Pulses that can hit to 40km with Scorch.
Yeah, gunboats don't beat missile boats in medium long range weaponry, but I said I agreed with the HM nerf, their damage was definitely too good (my Tengu out ranged and out dpsed my Navy Raven which is ridiculous) but don't forget there are other reasons medium long range weapons aren't used other than HMs being better. I feel a big one is that LR weaponry at the medium/large level pretty much needs to be a fleet thing as the SR versions of these weapons tend to be able to hit out to around long point range which is the range where pretty much all non-fleet battles take place and the lower fitting, better tracking, damage etc means that you'd need to be outside that range to make LR weapons worth it, at which point you need alot of support (you need to be in a fleet) to make them work.
So yeah my point is that yes, HMs are unbalanced relative to other LR turrets, but on the whole LR turrets are ******. |
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
143
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 08:57:00 -
[5300] - Quote
Dear CCP,
please consider that there are also people using missiles on Non-Caldari platforms. The range reduction of heavy missiles will significantly impact those Non-Caldari platforms since they don't get a missile speed bonus. Even at current state it is almost impossible to hit a frigate orbiting you at 25 km with 5000 m/s with a heavy missile just because it outruns the missile. (Even with full missiles skills). Once TD will reduce the range of missiles even more missiles will get almost useless against fast moving ships. And today with Implants and Boosters even Cruisers like the Cynabal easily hit 5000 m/s not overheated.
In addition to this, I really do not understand the logic behand precision missiles. They are made to engage small + fast targets, but they have (and alwas had ) their range halved. What kind of logic is this? From my point of view, if precision missiles are dedicated to hit small and fast targets then they should be at least 50% faster as they currently are. This would at least solve the above mentioned problem a little bit.
Thank you for your attention, Med |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:00:00 -
[5301] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote: The 720mm Cane is actually very viable and used all the time actually but that's because of alpha win, the rest are pretty much never used yeah, but that can also be attributed to the tiering system which kinda gave the shaft to the Proph/Ferox/Brutix. The Myrm doesn't get a hybrid bonus so that's a no-brainer and the Cyclone suffers similar tiering problems which means its hard to shoehorn arties on it (although it's still amazing with ACs). Yes HMs being good is probably part of the reason why these ships never made it into a fleet doctrine like the Drake but the reasons I mentioned also contribute to the fail of medium LR guns. Also, if I'm not mistaken the Zealot is usually run with Pulses that can hit to 40km with Scorch.
All correct what you said here. Actually I dont wonder Jorma doesnt know this, because he seems to be an EFT-only warrior ..
Dato Koppla wrote:
So yeah my point is that yes, HMs are unbalanced relative to other LR turrets, but on the whole LR turrets are ******.
Its also the reversed fitting reqs for HAM-HML in comparison to LRMT-SRMT -> short range needs MORE grid for missiles, thats why people stay a bit away from it (and until now HAM are also not that good - hopefully will change, although I am not yet convinced ;) ) . The other way round would make so much more sense - if you dedicate to long range you could afford to drop tank. If you have to get close and personal it sucks if you have to.
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
404
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:11:00 -
[5302] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:OT Smithers wrote: A couple years ago Caldari pilots really did have basically nothing but the Drake. And if you wanted to PvP and you showed up in a Drake people would kinda laugh at you.
Yes I remember trust me lol. I am glad I am not the only one that recalls these days.
Those people were wrong five years ago, let alone two.
There's no shortage of idiots out there though. Just odd that most of them seem to fly Caldari. Well, they think they fly Caldari, they actually don't, because they don't have hybrid skills. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 09:35:00 -
[5303] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:OT Smithers wrote: A couple years ago Caldari pilots really did have basically nothing but the Drake. And if you wanted to PvP and you showed up in a Drake people would kinda laugh at you.
Yes I remember trust me lol. I am glad I am not the only one that recalls these days. Those people were wrong five years ago, let alone two. There's no shortage of idiots out there though. Just odd that most of them seem to fly Caldari. Well, they think they fly Caldari, they actually don't, because they don't have hybrid skills.
Although you will agree on hybrids were nothing one wanted to corsstrain before they were buffed. They sucked a lot, esp. when not in damage bonused Gallente hulls ...
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 10:33:00 -
[5304] - Quote
The problem at this points is crosstraining from one gun skill to an other is not as bad as going from missiles to guns. I mean at the very least ccp could offer some free remaps to help even things out. Its pretty obvious a cross train is needed to continue playing. If I even continue. We will see where this leads I have strong doughts about the future of the missile caldari pilot |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:06:00 -
[5305] - Quote
You cannot blaim others for not training gunnery. If anything the new T1 ships will have a greater use for missile ships and even though it takes time for you to get beter at gunnery I hope you have used the skillpoints to improve in other areas. It's all about choice and you cannot blaim others for your choice just because you thought caldari is a missile only race... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:21:00 -
[5306] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Dato Koppla wrote: The 720mm Cane is actually very viable and used all the time actually but that's because of alpha win, the rest are pretty much never used yeah, but that can also be attributed to the tiering system which kinda gave the shaft to the Proph/Ferox/Brutix. The Myrm doesn't get a hybrid bonus so that's a no-brainer and the Cyclone suffers similar tiering problems which means its hard to shoehorn arties on it (although it's still amazing with ACs). Yes HMs being good is probably part of the reason why these ships never made it into a fleet doctrine like the Drake but the reasons I mentioned also contribute to the fail of medium LR guns. Also, if I'm not mistaken the Zealot is usually run with Pulses that can hit to 40km with Scorch.
All correct what you said here. Actually I dont wonder Jorma doesnt know this, because he seems to be an EFT-only warrior ..
Take your Rifter and warp to 100km from sniper Zealot and then come back here and say it's fail ship.
Zealots are proper sniper HACs. It lost its role when tier 3 BCs were intoduced.
Oh, and I already knew about how fail medium long range turrets are. It doesn't matter what you say. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:28:00 -
[5307] - Quote
I'm pretty sure nobody said the Zealot is a fail ship..... Also, I'm sure there are sniper zealot fits but the more popular AB HAC fits are Pulse fit. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
125
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 11:53:00 -
[5308] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:The problem at this points is crosstraining from one gun skill to an other is not as bad as going from missiles to guns. I mean at the very least ccp could offer some free remaps to help even things out. Its pretty obvious a cross train is needed to continue playing. If I even continue. We will see where this leads I have strong doughts about the future of the missile caldari pilot And gallente should have free drone skills because they need them so much and it's too hard to learn to skill tree at the same time ?
Poor thing, but it's not christmas, and even for christmas I would hope a better gift... Patience is a vertu, and you will have something to wait for your skills to train up. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 12:00:00 -
[5309] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:I'm pretty sure nobody said the Zealot is a fail ship..... Also, I'm sure there are sniper zealot fits but the more popular AB HAC fits are Pulse fit.
It lost its sniper role when CCP added tier 3 BCs.
In case you still don't get it: There's no working medium long range turret platforms currently. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 12:24:00 -
[5310] - Quote
It also lost it's close range role when the harbinger was introduced and the tank role when the Legion was introduced... |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 12:57:00 -
[5311] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:It also lost it's close range role when the harbinger was introduced and the tank role when the Legion was introduced...
I would like to see that 40+ km HPL Harbinger... |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:05:00 -
[5312] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Dato Koppla wrote:I'm pretty sure nobody said the Zealot is a fail ship..... Also, I'm sure there are sniper zealot fits but the more popular AB HAC fits are Pulse fit. It lost its sniper role when CCP added tier 3 BCs. In case you still don't get it: There's no working medium long range turret platforms currently.
........ I never argued the Zealot lost it's sniper role to Tier 3 BCs, I was just commenting that you got defensive saying that someone posted that the Zealot is a fail ship when nobody did.
Yes I get it, you didn't bother reading my previous post as I agreed all medium LR turrets are crappy, and I also said nerfing the HMs will bring them in line with the other medium LR turrets....but somehow nerfing HMs to bring it line with something that basically nobody uses (except Arties) doesn't seem like the best balancing plan. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
235
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:18:00 -
[5313] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:It also lost it's close range role when the harbinger was introduced and the tank role when the Legion was introduced... I would like to see that 40+ km HPL Harbinger...
40+ km doesn't strike me as being close range - Maybe you meant to troll someone else? |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:25:00 -
[5314] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:It also lost it's close range role when the harbinger was introduced and the tank role when the Legion was introduced... I would like to see that 40+ km HPL Harbinger... 40+ km doesn't strike me as being close range - Maybe you meant to troll someone else?
I think hes referring to when I mentioned that Zealots are usually fit with Pulses/AB/Armor for fleets with 40km range, although you specifically mentioned close-range. Either Jorma doesn't have very good reading comprehension or we're completely missing what hes saying, probably the former =/ |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 13:44:00 -
[5315] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:I think hes referring to when I mentioned that Zealots are usually fit with Pulses/AB/Armor for fleets with 40km range, although you specifically mentioned close-range. Either Jorma doesn't have very good reading comprehension or we're completely missing what hes saying, probably the former =/
Try to create Pulse Zealot with less than 33 km optimal with Scorch. Good luck. You will need it. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
90
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:29:00 -
[5316] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Dato Koppla wrote:I think hes referring to when I mentioned that Zealots are usually fit with Pulses/AB/Armor for fleets with 40km range, although you specifically mentioned close-range. Either Jorma doesn't have very good reading comprehension or we're completely missing what hes saying, probably the former =/ Try to create Pulse Zealot with less than 33 km optimal with Scorch. Good luck. You will need it.
With LESS than 33km optimal? Why that's pretty hard, unless you don't bother training your HAC skill past 1.
Or did you mean more than 33km optimal? I didn't need your good luck or even have to put this fit together, just open pyfa, and link it.
[Zealot, AB HAC]
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Coreli C-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Armor Thermic Hardener II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Damage Control II
10MN Afterburner II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M Focused Medium Pulse Laser II, Scorch M
Medium Anti-EM Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
40km optimal, 70k EHP, 519m/s |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:29:00 -
[5317] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: And gallente should have free drone skills because they need them so much and it's too hard to learn to skill tree at the same time ?
Poor thing, but it's not christmas, and even for christmas I would hope a better gift... Patience is a vertu, and you will have something to wait for your skills to train up.
But it is Christmas for all Caldari we got a big ole FU from CCP Hybrids are better then missiles as it is why, and would you need free drone skills? Like no other ships use drones you know how those Drakes CNRs and SNIs have no drone bays after all.
Pinky Denmark wrote:You cannot blaim others for not training gunnery. If anything the new T1 ships will have a greater use for missile ships and even though it takes time for you to get beter at gunnery I hope you have used the skillpoints to improve in other areas. It's all about choice and you cannot blaim others for your choice just because you thought caldari is a missile only race...
So I should take it on the chin because I did train Missiles ? And I should be blamed and punished for not training gunnery ? I like your logic. There are over 2 months worth of support gunnery skills that are universal to anyone who didn't train missiles. If you can not see how it's much more easy to go from one gunnery skill to an other then I have no way to make you understand the predicament the Caldari pilot is in.
On top of and I do not know how many times I have to say this. If a nerf hits so hard that it will force people to cross train because there are so few options then the nerf should not take place until CCP has a better option then cross training. How often do you see the mim pilots cross train due to lack of options?
Gypsio III wrote:Those people were wrong five years ago, let alone two. There's no shortage of idiots out there though. Just odd that most of them seem to fly Caldari. Well, they think they fly Caldari, they actually don't, because they don't have hybrid skills.
We all know hybrids are the better choice so what does that tell you for the missiles? That they have very little options to be useful and the one use we did have if taking a nerf to put them in a place where people will have better options and no reason to fly Caldari missiles as all. Do you call this balanced? because I sure don't |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:37:00 -
[5318] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pinky Denmark wrote:It also lost it's close range role when the harbinger was introduced and the tank role when the Legion was introduced... I would like to see that 40+ km HPL Harbinger... 40+ km doesn't strike me as being close range - Maybe you meant to troll someone else? I think hes referring to when I mentioned that Zealots are usually fit with Pulses/AB/Armor for fleets with 40km range, although you specifically mentioned close-range. Either Jorma doesn't have very good reading comprehension or we're completely missing what hes saying, probably the former =/
I had the same impression about Jorma again and again. Apart from that he doesnt tell the name of his combat alt either.
Furthermore I agree with what you said about bringing HML in line with a currently unused bunch of guns - thats exactly what I said: better buff somehing which does not work than nerf something which does. HML per se is not OP at all, it just works well in 2 ships (Drake and Tengu) and it works also well, because the peers (MLRT) suck a bit at longer ranges (and, admitted, at closer ranges have tracking issues). I am pretty sure it would have been better to check what would happen if the natural counter to HML/Drake (the CM/Raven) and the MLRT peers would be buffed.
Anyway, we will have to see what Fozzie did. No way to change it right now, but hopefully it will be a better game/balance afterwards, and not just less missiles. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 16:47:00 -
[5319] - Quote
And Nomi doesn't know anything about what he is talking about.
And he still doesn't know what "power creep" means? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:07:00 -
[5320] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:And Nomi doesn't know anything about what he is talking about.
And he still doesn't know what "power creep" means?
I do know about that. But fixing some not working stuff has nothing to do with power creep. |
|
Lili Lu
563
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:07:00 -
[5321] - Quote
Holy ****, the whining still hasn't stopped. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:19:00 -
[5322] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:But fixing some not working stuff has nothing to do with power creep.
- CCP buffs medium long range turrets - Pro Caldari players whine about that their chosen weapon isn't superior anymore - CCP buffs Pro Caldari players' chosen weapon - Medium long range turrets are useless - CCP buffs medium long range turrets - Pro Caldari players whine...
Yeah, sounds like a power creep to me. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1057
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:26:00 -
[5323] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:
So I should take it on the chin because I did train Missiles ?
Yes, this game has a vast array of choices and skill paths, you have chosen one specific path and ONLY trained that path (hinting that it MIGHT actually be broken, otherwise you'd have trained some of the gunnery skills since Caldari have some gunnery boats too). Now that you've found out you're stuck because you didn't diversify you're angry.
Cazador 64 wrote:And I should be blamed and punished for not training gunnery ?
Yes, you had the choice to train things other than Missile skills, you've decided not to do that, now you're having to deal with the consequences of your actions.
Cazador 64 wrote:There are over 2 months worth of support gunnery skills that are universal to anyone who didn't train missiles. If you can not see how it's much more easy to go from one gunnery skill to an other then I have no way to make you understand the predicament the Caldari pilot is in.
Right, and theres a whole host of missile support skills that help you go from one missile type to another that people who didn't train missile skills would have to go through if the nerf fell in the other direction. Its jinfinitely easier to go from one missile type to another than it is from one gun type to another.
Cazador 64 wrote:If a nerf hits so hard that it will force people to cross train because there are so few options then the nerf should not take place until CCP has a better option then cross training
They've never done this and they shouldn't ever do it. Eve is about choices, you made some, now there are consequences to those choices, suck it up and take the 2 months and train gunnery skills, only do yourself a favor, train ALL of them so you don't get stuck behind another nerf, diversify your skill porfolio to the point that you effectively become nerf proof, and then you won't have to make such poor arguments next time.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 17:35:00 -
[5324] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:But fixing some not working stuff has nothing to do with power creep. - CCP buffs medium long range turrets - Pro Caldari players whine about that their chosen weapon isn't superior anymore - CCP buffs Pro Caldari players' chosen weapon - Medium long range turrets are useless - CCP buffs medium long range turrets - Pro Caldari players whine... Yeah, sounds like a power creep to me.
It depends what you do when you buff. What you describe sounds like power creep. And it sounds like a very bad job in balancing too. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2054
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:07:00 -
[5325] - Quote
Duality is online for you guys to test the 2.0 version of the changes. Go check them out! Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:13:00 -
[5326] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:It depends what you do when you buff. What you describe sounds like power creep. And it sounds like a very bad job in balancing too.
You mean like: Reduce base damage of long range turrets by 50%. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:19:00 -
[5327] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: Right, and theres a whole host of missile support skills that help you go from one missile type to another that people who didn't train missile skills would have to go through if the nerf fell in the other direction. Its jinfinitely easier to go from one missile type to another than it is from one gun type to another.
You seem to miss a missile pilot needs more skills for his systems than a gunnery pilot does .. I would gladly change the shape of my missile skilltree to the one which guns have.
And there is one missile system, and three gunnery systems, which you maybe did not see yet. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:25:00 -
[5328] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:It depends what you do when you buff. What you describe sounds like power creep. And it sounds like a very bad job in balancing too. You mean like: Reduce base damage of long range turrets by 50%.
Jorma, I make it official here: I will ignore your postings from now on. Its been too many times you just spread some stupid numbers and dont see the whole picture. Its pointless to discuss with someone who tries so very hard to not understand what this is all about :)
Now go back to playing EFT. Thanks. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:28:00 -
[5329] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Now go back to playing EFT. Thanks.
I. Don't. Use. EFT.
I use better programs for my skill plans and other stuff.
Why? Mostly because EFT calculates missile range incorrectly. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:45:00 -
[5330] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote: Yes, you had the choice to train things other than Missile skills, you've decided not to do that, now you're having to deal with the consequences of your actions.
Or Missiles could just as useful as projectiles EVE is about choices and all of them should be viable to some extent.
Grath Telkin wrote: Right, and theres a whole host of missile support skills that help you go from one missile type to another that people who didn't train missile skills would have to go through if the nerf fell in the other direction. Its jinfinitely easier to go from one missile type to another than it is from one gun type to another. .
Your logic and reasoning skills are astounding!!!! You clearly have NFC about missiles at all. Gunnery support skills cross over 3 different platforms and all races. Missiles covers only Missiles and there various sizes and the odd torp user outside of Caldari. Think before you post people or at least visit the wiki and find out how things work.
|
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1058
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:47:00 -
[5331] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: Right, and theres a whole host of missile support skills that help you go from one missile type to another that people who didn't train missile skills would have to go through if the nerf fell in the other direction. Its jinfinitely easier to go from one missile type to another than it is from one gun type to another.
You seem to miss a missile pilot needs more skills for his systems than a gunnery pilot does .. I would gladly change the shape of my missile skilltree to the one which guns have. And there is one missile system, and three gunnery systems, which you maybe did not see yet.
There are 5 gunnery support skills IF you don't count WU and AWU since they're universal and 6 missile support skills, one skill makes it impossible? I mean its not even a long skill that makes the difference, its a simple 9 day train. Stop acting like missile pilots spent tons of extra hours training skills, its simply a myth, and in actuality if you were smart and a good calari pilot you'd have long ago trained Hybrids, which have done really well since the buff.
You didn't, now you pay the price for pigeon holing yourself.
Also theres Rockets, Light missiles, HAMS, Heavies, Torps, Cruise, and FOF's, so I count more than 1 missile system, maybe you ddin't see it yet or maybe you just trained heavies and ignored the rest because Heavies are the most broken and theres no reason to train any other missile system. Maybe by bringing them back in line you'll see a few other missile types, epsecially with the missile support skill changes. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:50:00 -
[5332] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Now go back to playing EFT. Thanks. I. Don't. Use. EFT. I use better programs for my skill plans and other stuff. Why? Mostly because EFT calculates missile range incorrectly.
EVEHQ ! lol it doesn't matter the what program you use. The EFT warrior thing is along the lines of saying you are nothing but a spreadsheet junkie or theorycrafer take your pick and you do not really know how it all works out in game in a live scenario.
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:57:00 -
[5333] - Quote
I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:57:00 -
[5334] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:EVEHQ ! lol it doesn't matter the what program you use. The EFT warrior thing is along the lines of saying you are nothing but a spreadsheet junkie or theorycrafer take your pick and you do not really know how it all works out in game in a live scenario.
Pyfa and EVEMon actually.
And I do know how missiles work. Unlike some Pro Caldari players I can use all subcap weapon systems. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:59:00 -
[5335] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
There are 5 gunnery support skills IF you don't count WU and AWU since they're universal and 6 missile support skills, one skill makes it impossible? I mean its not even a long skill that makes the difference, its a simple 9 day train. Stop acting like missile pilots spent tons of extra hours training skills, its simply a myth, and in actuality if you were smart and a good calari pilot you'd have long ago trained Hybrids, which have done really well since the buff.
You didn't, now you pay the price for pigeon holing yourself.
Also theres Rockets, Light missiles, HAMS, Heavies, Torps, Cruise, and FOF's, so I count more than 1 missile system, maybe you ddin't see it yet or maybe you just trained heavies and ignored the rest because Heavies are the most broken and theres no reason to train any other missile system. Maybe by bringing them back in line you'll see a few other missile types, epsecially with the missile support skill changes.
And apply them to what ships? CNR / SNI for large lol yeah because those have been the goto ships and known for how well they handle them selves. Also everyone knows Caldari doesn't not have the better option for torp boats so you lose there. All of our HACS are a joke.
The funny thing is you are pretty much admitting missiles are worthless but you don't even see it. There is no reason missiles should not be as viable as any other weapon system out there. By you saying that cross training is needed you are making my case for me. You don't see Minm and projectiles having to cross train just so they are not worthless.
I was going to say some more but you are clearly either a troll or just to dense to understand how imbalanced gunnery is over missiles so it's not worth anymore of my time. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:00:00 -
[5336] - Quote
Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ?
Thanks for testing this out and posting the numbers . and what of the drake? I am about to test it all my self in a bit but I would like to know your findings also
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:03:00 -
[5337] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:You don't see Minm and projectiles having to cross train just so they are not worthless.
Want to try that Cane of yours against level 5 Harbinger at 20 km? I would be ready bet 200 million isk that Harbinger beats Cane at that range hands down. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:04:00 -
[5338] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:[quote=Spc One]Iand what of the drake?
Drake has 37.5% less range.
Drake, ( same fit as tengu with 3 caldari navy bcu's ):
DPS: 476 (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) Range: 30km (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
|
Gw3ndolin3
Vulcan Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:12:00 -
[5339] - Quote
ok first off missles sucked before the nerf lol. only good thing was ability to kite mobs out kill them at range . now with the inability to kill frigs, and reduced range solo missioning in missle boats will be next to imposibble. and as far as caldari pilots effecting ccp buffing nerfing thats a laugh, look at caldari pvp capable ships rofl. more like PL cried to there boy in ccp because of long range hml blob and out came the bat. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2054
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:12:00 -
[5340] - Quote
Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ?
You're using Furies I assume? Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:12:00 -
[5341] - Quote
Its pretty simple and easy to understand. If you have trained down gunnery and never trained missiles and you still have many viable options. How ever if you have trained missiles and not gunnery you have pigeon holed your self and should be punished for not training guns. Yah that's pure balance and everything is working as intended. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:15:00 -
[5342] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:blabla about skills Missiles and turrets takes about the same time when you train for one weapon system. Drones take about the same time too. There is drones on ships of all races, and there is missiles on ships of all races. That cannot be said of turrets.
You *decided* to skill for only one weapon system whereas your race of choice had two weapon systems, but you could do it (and don't talk about drones, caldari use drones as much as gallente use missiles : almost not ; drone 5 and your done unless you fly hybrid ships).
Gallantean pilot *have to* train for BOTH drones AND hybrids. Minmatar train for projectiles, missiles, drones, armor tank and shield tank. Haven't you been lucky ? Time to close the gap with the other races.
You *choose* to use an advantage of your race : specialize in missiles, knowing that, in your mind, there was only one useful weapon in this tree (in your mind, because it's wrong in facts).
Now, with your skillset, you will have not one weapon system, but five (I exclude CM, because of the Raven), though none of them will suit your personal preferances. And that would be CCP's fault ?
How would CCP be responsible for your choices ? CCP don't design the game for *you*.
Let's face it : only screwed pilots will be those who only use the HML drakes and tengu for pve purpose. All the others will have hopefuly working HAM, Torp, LM and rockets on top of working HML (yes, they will still work, they will only not be a short range weapon as well as a long range one anymore).
Why would you want a refund on missiles otherwise ? |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:15:00 -
[5343] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ? You're using Furies I assume? Yes, t-2, furies.
Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete. No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... and after the patch / new expansion even more. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2054
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:21:00 -
[5344] - Quote
Spc One wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ? You're using Furies I assume? Yes, t-2, furies. Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete. No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... and after the patch / new expansion even more.
You'll notice that using any T1, faction or precision missile the range nerf is more moderate. The plan converts furies into shorter range missiles with a larger damage bonus compared to their T1 variants.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:21:00 -
[5345] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I died to much to drake blobs guns should be the only viable pvp option we cried CCP responded and nerfed missiles *edited for TL:DR*
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:23:00 -
[5346] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles[...] No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... [...] That is plain wrong. There wouldn't be fleets of drakes if missiles didn't worked. There wouldn't be shitload of hookbills if missiles didn't worked. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:24:00 -
[5347] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete.
Beam Harbinger, 3x TE, 3x Draclira's Modified Heat Sink does 383 dps at 76 km with Aurora M (for missile users: that's T2 long range crystal)
~20 less than what Drake can do at similar ranges with more tank and T2 BCSs. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:24:00 -
[5348] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:My tengu is not OP anymore for pve. *cry* I can be childish too. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:25:00 -
[5349] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: Right, and theres a whole host of missile support skills that help you go from one missile type to another that people who didn't train missile skills would have to go through if the nerf fell in the other direction. Its jinfinitely easier to go from one missile type to another than it is from one gun type to another.
You seem to miss a missile pilot needs more skills for his systems than a gunnery pilot does .. I would gladly change the shape of my missile skilltree to the one which guns have. And there is one missile system, and three gunnery systems, which you maybe did not see yet. There are 5 gunnery support skills IF you don't count WU and AWU since they're universal and 6 missile support skills, one skill makes it impossible? I mean its not even a long skill that makes the difference, its a simple 9 day train. Stop acting like missile pilots spent tons of extra hours training skills, its simply a myth, and in actuality if you were smart and a good calari pilot you'd have long ago trained Hybrids, which have done really well since the buff.
you will maybe not understand how it works:
missiles need each system separately skilled. Not like with turrets where you can just pick small, then meds, then large. You will need a specific skill for med short range and another one for med long range. And so on ..
|
Lili Lu
563
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:28:00 -
[5350] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: Right, and theres a whole host of missile support skills that help you go from one missile type to another that people who didn't train missile skills would have to go through if the nerf fell in the other direction. Its jinfinitely easier to go from one missile type to another than it is from one gun type to another. .
Your logic and reasoning skills are astounding!!!! You clearly have NFC about missiles at all. Gunnery support skills cross over 3 different platforms and all races. Missiles covers only Missiles and there various sizes and the odd torp user outside of Caldari. Think before you post people or at least visit the wiki and find out how things work.
Ok, here's Grath http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=53846, and here's Cazador 64 . . well I can't find any pvp record on you. Also, Grath started eve in March of 2007. Cazador 64 started eve January of 2010. I don't know, but I would bet, Grath has more sp in missile support and spec skills than you have in gunnery support skills (of course not counting wu and awu) and specs, irrespective of pve v pvp activity in game.
Minmatar uses missile skills. And will be using them even more as rebalancing progresses. But I suppose you are only following this thread, just as you only train missile skills. Grath pointed out how your lack of diversifying you sp has and will continue to hurt you. It's like investing, you can put all you money in one stock . . .
There is a whole game here. You chose one path. The devs are responsible, paid, for trying to balance all paths. Have a tinfoil hat if you really think they for some reason care more for a mythical race of tribal quasi-criminal rebel ducttape users, and people who choose to play those, and hate a mythical race of corprate neo-fascist communal missile chuckers and the people that choose to play those characters. Of course maybe they secretly care more for a mythical race of slave-owning intolerant religious laser bumm warmers.
Anyway, I guess part of your desire in playing this game is to feel persecuted by adopting a narrow identity here. Have fun with that. Just don't expect the rest of us to validate or support you in that quest. This is a ******* god aweful long thread filled with a multitude of posts from people that have their primary identity (so many that choose this sole race identity seem to be Caldari, don't know why it attracts such types) now subject to rebalance. Meanwhile I could probably count on all my digits the number of Hurricane direct and quite possibly overly harsh nerf complaint posts.
You are not going to get any sp "refunded." You are not going to whine your way into cancelling this rebalance. You, along with everyone else in the game that gets on the test server, may come up with data as to how these changes might negatively impact the game as a whole. But I would bet that could be easier demonstrated regarding the Cane nerf. The game does not revolve around your heretofore op'd and/or overused drake and tengu HML boats. And if you want specifics go back to page one of this thread and read all the way to this page. |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:28:00 -
[5351] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ? You're using Furies I assume? Yes, t-2, furies. Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete. No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... and after the patch / new expansion even more. You'll notice that using any T1, faction or precision missile the range nerf is more moderate. The plan converts furies into shorter range missiles with a larger damage bonus compared to their T1 variants.
.. and terrible application of this short range damage too .. :)
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:31:00 -
[5352] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:you will maybe not understand how it works:
missiles need each system separately skilled. Not like with turrets where you can just pick small, then meds, then large. You will need a specific skill for med short range and another one for med long range. And so on ..
You know, there is specific skills for turrets too, for T2, the difference here is that you need the smaller ones to have the larger ones.
Anyway, in real EVE, training times for turrets and missiles are about the same. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:32:00 -
[5353] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: The plan converts furies into shorter range missiles with a larger damage bonus compared to their T1 variants.
Plan convers all missile boats to garbage.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:33:00 -
[5354] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I can be childish too.
Thats obvious, thanks.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:34:00 -
[5355] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ? You're using Furies I assume? Yes, t-2, furies. Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete. No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... and after the patch / new expansion even more. You'll notice that using any T1, faction or precision missile the range nerf is more moderate. The plan converts furies into shorter range missiles with a larger damage bonus compared to their T1 variants. .. and terrible application of this short range damage too .. :)
How is that different from T2 short range ammo for turrets? |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:37:00 -
[5356] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: How is that different from T2 short range ammo for turrets?
Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders. Also turrets do instant damage, while missiles have to fly to target first to apply damage. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:41:00 -
[5357] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:you will maybe not understand how it works:
missiles need each system separately skilled. Not like with turrets where you can just pick small, then meds, then large. You will need a specific skill for med short range and another one for med long range. And so on ..
You know, there is specific skills for turrets too, for T2, the difference here is that you need the smaller ones to have the larger ones. Anyway, in real EVE, training times for turrets and missiles are about the same.
For turrets you need to train the smaller specs to get bigger specs, right. For missiles you need different skills for the t1 system long range or short range, AND different specs for long or short t2. Evemon says there is a difference of 12 days between one gunnery tree all l5 and missiles all l5. And its not missiles which are trained up faster. Apart from that you can use gunnery support skills for 3 different trees. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:42:00 -
[5358] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
How is that different from T2 short range ammo for turrets?
at this point people are just bitching /complaining, the current state of the changes are sound, HAMs and close range missiles become more useful while only fury missiles and HMs in general get any worse.
I'm a caldari pilot since starting eve, however I dont NEED heavies to function, in fact, i have preferred HAMs since I started PvP because they have way enough range on most boats anyways. (maybe not the drake, however) |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:45:00 -
[5359] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: How is that different from T2 short range ammo for turrets?
Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders. Also turrets do instant damage, while missiles have to fly to target first to apply damage.
Stop making this argument people, no one ever uses defenders and if they do it is a waste of their slots. Smartbombing missiles does happen but not often enough to make missiles less useful in comparison to the fact that tracking disruptors don't effect them. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:50:00 -
[5360] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Spc One wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: How is that different from T2 short range ammo for turrets?
Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders. Also turrets do instant damage, while missiles have to fly to target first to apply damage. Stop making this argument people, no one ever uses defenders and if they do it is a waste of their slots. Smartbombing missiles does happen but not often enough to make missiles less useful in comparison to the fact that tracking disruptors don't affect them.
yep. and they never will work on missiles ..
|
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:50:00 -
[5361] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ? You're using Furies I assume? Yes, t-2, furies. Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete. No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... and after the patch / new expansion even more. You'll notice that using any T1, faction or precision missile the range nerf is more moderate. The plan converts furies into shorter range missiles with a larger damage bonus compared to their T1 variants.
With EVERY weapon system we have long range ammo and short range ammo
Somehow You guys decided that caldari main LONG RANGE weapon t2 ammo will be short range, maybe give us snipe ammo variant then? PRecision for example (yes i see cons of that)? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:52:00 -
[5362] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders.
Missiles can't be countered with tracking disruptors and neuts while turrets like pulse lasers can be rendered useless by well skilled Curse pilot.
Also"superior" dual neut 425mm Cane dies to Curse. Only way to that Cane pilot to survive is having friends when that Curse pilot has to disengage. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:54:00 -
[5363] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders. Also turrets do instant damage, while missiles have to fly to target first to apply damage. basically missiles can be turned off if enemy wants it. Please, read the thread. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:57:00 -
[5364] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Missiles can't be countered with tracking disruptors and neuts while turrets like pulse lasers can be rendered useless by well skilled Curse pilot.
Missiles will be tracking disrupted:
CCP Fozzie wrote: Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit
And projectiles also can't be neuted.
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Also"superior" dual neut 425mm Cane dies to Curse. Only way to that Cane pilot to survive is having friends when that Curse pilot has to disengage.
Because curse uses missiles... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:59:00 -
[5365] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Spc One wrote:Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders. Also turrets do instant damage, while missiles have to fly to target first to apply damage. basically missiles can be turned off if enemy wants it. Please, read the thread.
Please, train up missiles and use em in PvP in Caldari ships. :) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:00:00 -
[5366] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Please, train up missiles and use em in PvP in Caldari ships. :) Please, post with your pvp alt, or go doing some pvp. :-)
PS : we are gone back to page 100... -_-' |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:02:00 -
[5367] - Quote
right because everyone in EVE plays with one account.
Lili Lu wrote: Have a tinfoil hat if you really think they for some reason care more for a mythical race of tribal quasi-criminal rebel ducttape users, and people who choose to play those, and hate a mythical race of corprate neo-fascist communal missile chuckers and the people that choose to play those characters. Of course maybe they secretly care more for a mythical race of slave-owning intolerant religious laser bumm warmers.
Right because we have no good reason to think the DEVs have no vested interest in this game for their own play style. Its not like they have done things like this before. Never in EVE history have the DEVs done anything to favor one group of people over the other. I mean if they had the power to do this they would feed rare BPOs to a certain group of people so that they may have a advantage. But this is CCP and they would NEVER do anything like that ever.
Lili Lu wrote: You are not going to whine your way
Why not it worked to get the HML nerf to happen in the first place. People Whined HML got nerfed.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:11:00 -
[5368] - Quote
Spc One wrote:And projectiles also can't be neuted.
True, but TDs work.
Spc One wrote:Because curse uses missiles...
- Bonused tracking disruptors - Bonused medium neuts
That Cane will never get to range where it can deliver that godly 800 dps, which is a bit over 2 km btw before effect from tracking disruptors. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:11:00 -
[5369] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Please, train up missiles and use em in PvP in Caldari ships. :) Please, post with your pvp alt, or go doing some pvp. :-) PS : we are gone back to page 100... -_-'
you can see the combat record of an alt of mine, I will not post more of my alts. You have no first hand idea of missiles, which makes you not really someone whos opinion matters to me.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1058
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:11:00 -
[5370] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:right because everyone in EVE plays with one account. I play with a single account generally as my computer starts to hate me with more than one logged in. I have every single gunnery and missile skill you can have and their relative specs trained up.
I pvp in every ship in the game at one point or another, and I diversified my portfolio to make me relatively nerf proof for that exact reason: If you put all of your eggs in one basket eventually CCP changes the basket.
You didn't play before the tengu, you don't remember when people used to use other ships besides the Tengu to do plexes in, you don't rembmer the time when there was torp ravens (also as to your other snide comments I own a fairly well fit torp Golem thats sitting mothballed since Heavy Missiles outclass every single other missile system in game).
The thing you fail to realize is that there arre gradients to the other guns, some guns perform better in some situations than other guns, you need to make choices.
Missiles aren't like that, there is only ever ONE missile system you ever need train and that is simply Heavy Missiles. That fact alone stands to reason that the heavies need an adjustment.
Why? Are other missile systems so much trash that they don't work as some of you would have us believe? No, not really, not at all. Rockets are in a pretty good place right now, Standards could use SOME love but largely function as intended, HAMS are getting an adjustment they desperately need and Torps, which already function just fine will benefit greatly from the change too. That just leaves cruise, which actually function without much problem, but are stifled by a game environment that has seen the death of the sniper of the years, its not that the missile system doesn't work, precision cruise work just fine at killing even small targets, its that the game doesn't leave room for those kind of boat.
So tell me more about why you don't use a different system than heavies (even though all the other systems work) and how that somehow doesn't validate them as needing adjustment.. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:13:00 -
[5371] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:you can see the combat record of an alt of mine, I will not post more of my alts. You have no first hand idea of missiles, which makes you not really someone whos opinion matters to me.
I too can post records a a random highsec pvper. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:14:00 -
[5372] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:right because everyone in EVE plays with one account. I play with a single account generally as my computer starts to hate me with more than one logged in. I have every single gunnery and missile skill you can have and their relative specs trained up. I pvp in every ship in the game at one point or another, and I diversified my portfolio to make me relatively nerf proof for that exact reason: If you put all of your eggs in one basket eventually CCP changes the basket. You didn't play before the tengu, you don't remember when people used to use other ships besides the Tengu to do plexes in, you don't rembmer the time when there was torp ravens (also as to your other snide comments I own a fairly well fit torp Golem thats sitting mothballed since Heavy Missiles outclass every single other missile system in game). The thing you fail to realize is that there arre gradients to the other guns, some guns perform better in some situations than other guns, you need to make choices. Missiles aren't like that, there is only ever ONE missile system you ever need train and that is simply Heavy Missiles. That fact alone stands to reason that the heavies need an adjustment. Why? Are other missile systems so much trash that they don't work as some of you would have us believe? No, not really, not at all. Rockets are in a pretty good place right now, Standards could use SOME love but largely function as intended, HAMS are getting an adjustment they desperately need and Torps, which already function just fine will benefit greatly from the change too. That just leaves cruise, which actually function without much problem, but are stifled by a game environment that has seen the death of the sniper of the years, its not that the missile system doesn't work, precision cruise work just fine at killing even small targets, its that the game doesn't leave room for those kind of boat. So tell me more about why you don't use a different system than heavies (even though all the other systems work) and how that somehow doesn't validate them as needing adjustment..
I laughed pretty hard when they said you didn't know anything about game mechanics. |
Lili Lu
563
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:18:00 -
[5373] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: right because everyone in EVE plays with one account.
Of course people have more than one account. So, post with a character that has some pvp record if you want to comment on pvp use of weapons systems.
Cazador 64 wrote: Right because we have no good reason to think the DEVs have no vested interest in this game for their own play style. Its not like they have done things like this before. Never in EVE history have the DEVs done anything to favor one group of people over the other. I mean if they had the power to do this they would feed rare BPOs to a certain group of people so that they may have a advantage. But this is CCP and they would NEVER do anything like that ever.
Well, I would hardly equate an actual example of a sad misguided dev from 5 or 6 years ago favoring his in-game real person buddies, to a suspision that a group of present game designers could have some mentally ill desire to persecute a mythical race in the game.
Cazador 64 wrote: Why not it worked to get the HML nerf to happen in the first place. People Whined HML got nerfed.
I doubt it was complaints about HMs that got this change introduced to the game. If it was it would have happened a long time ago. It was probably fresh sets of eyes that asked why are there so many drakes and tengus being flown in this game while other ships in that same class are largely being ignored by the players. If you want to suspect "racial" favoritism on the part of the devs then it just as easily could be demonstrated by the immediate Myrm nerf but 3 years of Drake dominance for numbers of ships used.
Change has come. It calls for diversification and adaptation. There's only so many times you can run a blockade with a Tengu right? I've run a lot of missions in my day. But even I got sick and bored with it. Are there people who really want to spend the next 10 years running blockade in a Tengu over and over again? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1058
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:21:00 -
[5374] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Spc One wrote:And projectiles also can't be neuted. True, but TDs work. Spc One wrote:Because curse uses missiles... - Bonused tracking disruptors - Bonused medium neuts That Cane will never get to range where it can deliver that godly 800 dps, which is a bit over 2 km before effect from tracking disruptors.
This is also a lie, the cane can easily drop a curse, stop making things up that you've obviously never experienced before. Having killed curses by myself in a Cane I can tell you that you are infact wrong. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:24:00 -
[5375] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:This is also a lie, the cane can easily drop a curse, stop making things up that you've obviously never experienced before. Having killed curses by myself in a Cane I can tell you that you are infact wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLI-XhxWEsY |
Lili Lu
563
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:25:00 -
[5376] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Please, train up missiles and use em in PvP in Caldari ships. :) Please, post with your pvp alt, or go doing some pvp. :-) PS : we are gone back to page 100... -_-' you can see the combat record of an alt of mine, I will not post more of my alts. You have no first hand idea of missiles, which makes you not really someone whos opinion matters to me.
Noemi, Noemi.
The argument is that you should post with your alleged combat alt. I linked Grath's eve-kill above. That does not mean I am Grath and pvp as Grath. Until you post itt under ROU, and say "Hi guys it's me Noemi," I and others will not believe that you have any experience with turrets and pvp.
Do you understand yet? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
153
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:30:00 -
[5377] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:
With EVERY weapon system we have long range ammo and short range ammo
Somehow You guys decided that caldari main LONG RANGE weapon t2 ammo will be short range, maybe give us snipe ammo variant then? PRecision for example (yes i see cons of that)?
navy ammo is the snipe ammo.
precision is the high tracking short range ammo, see javelin ammo for rails. fury is the hail ammo of missiles. Who cares if it only hits at 40 now, you never fight outside of that and if you really really need to just suffer the PAINFUL loss of 20dps by using navy missiles. Or use javelin HAMs because they rule now. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:31:00 -
[5378] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Spc One wrote:And projectiles also can't be neuted. True, but TDs work. Spc One wrote:Because curse uses missiles... - Bonused tracking disruptors - Bonused medium neuts That Cane will never get to range where it can deliver that godly 800 dps, which is a bit over 2 km before effect from tracking disruptors. This is also a lie, the cane can easily drop a curse, stop making things up that you've obviously never experienced before. Having killed curses by myself in a Cane I can tell you that you are infact wrong.
While I dont agree with you on everything Grath, I think here you are correct - Jorma makes up stuff. Its the best to ignore him, simply not worth the time and effort to argue against his lies and bs-postings.
Best regards.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:33:00 -
[5379] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Please, train up missiles and use em in PvP in Caldari ships. :) Please, post with your pvp alt, or go doing some pvp. :-) PS : we are gone back to page 100... -_-' you can see the combat record of an alt of mine, I will not post more of my alts. You have no first hand idea of missiles, which makes you not really someone whos opinion matters to me. Noemi, Noemi. The argument is that you should post with your alleged combat alt. I linked Grath's eve-kill above. That does not mean I am Grath and pvp as Grath. Until you post itt under ROU, and say "Hi guys it's me Noemi," I and others will not believe that you have any experience with turrets and pvp. Do you understand yet?
I understand very well. And I said if you once and for all stay away from here as soon as I post with my alt I might really be tempted to do it. You said you wont, so wont I :) and honestly, I could care less about what *you* believe. You can believe in what you want. There are enough people here who seem to feel like I might have a point in what I am posting about and who dont think I have no credibility.
I will not continue this. Just not worth the time.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:36:00 -
[5380] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I understand very well. And I said if you once and for all stay away from here as soon as I post with my alt I might really be tempted to do it. You said you wont, so wont I :) and honestly, I could care less about what *you* believe. You can believe in what you want. There are enough people here who seem to feel like I might have a point in what I am posting about and who dont think I have no credibility.
I will not continue this. Just not worth the time.
So, Ryu isn't your combat alt after all. Who would have guessed? |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:39:00 -
[5381] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I understand very well. And I said if you once and for all stay away from here as soon as I post with my alt I might really be tempted to do it. You said you wont, so wont I :) and honestly, I could care less about what *you* believe. You can believe in what you want. There are enough people here who seem to feel like I might have a point in what I am posting about and who dont think I have no credibility.
I will not continue this. Just not worth the time.
You are avoiding the debate. You are fleeing. You are basicaly saying "I don't know how to counter your arguments nor how to convince you, so I use a falacious argument against your person to disqualify you from talking, and hence don't have to bother with the smart things you are saying." |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:54:00 -
[5382] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I understand very well. And I said if you once and for all stay away from here as soon as I post with my alt I might really be tempted to do it. You said you wont, so wont I :) and honestly, I could care less about what *you* believe. You can believe in what you want. There are enough people here who seem to feel like I might have a point in what I am posting about and who dont think I have no credibility.
I will not continue this. Just not worth the time.
You are avoiding the debate. You are fleeing. You are basicaly saying "I don't know how to counter your arguments nor how to convince you, so I use a falacious argument against your person to disqualify you from talking, and hence don't have to bother with the smart things you are saying."
fallacious* basically*
Anyways I dont see it this way at all |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 20:57:00 -
[5383] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:I understand very well. And I said if you once and for all stay away from here as soon as I post with my alt I might really be tempted to do it. You said you wont, so wont I :) and honestly, I could care less about what *you* believe. You can believe in what you want. There are enough people here who seem to feel like I might have a point in what I am posting about and who dont think I have no credibility.
I will not continue this. Just not worth the time.
You are avoiding the debate. You are fleeing. You are basicaly saying "I don't know how to counter your arguments nor how to convince you, so I use a falacious argument against your person to disqualify you from talking, and hence don't have to bother with the smart things you are saying." fallacious* basically* Anyways I dont see it this way at all
Nor do others. :) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:06:00 -
[5384] - Quote
I'm must be wrong then, if Noemi and Cazador, holder of truth, said so ! |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:11:00 -
[5385] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:I'm must be wrong then, if Noemi and Cazador, holder of truth, said so !
We are not the only ones here who dont agree with you in all points or disagree in most.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:15:00 -
[5386] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I'm must be wrong then, if Noemi and Cazador, holder of truth, said so ! We are not the only ones here who dont agree with you in all points or disagree in most. Indeed, though you don't seem to know what is an argumentation, or you would know that discrediting the interlocutor don't discredit its arguments. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:22:00 -
[5387] - Quote
It is fact that missile ships will be junk after this expansion and that's it.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
345
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:24:00 -
[5388] - Quote
Spc One wrote:It is fact that missile ships will be junk after this expansion and that's it. How would a drake be any less useful in the situations it sees the most use in now? |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:29:00 -
[5389] - Quote
ok a fter testing on duality all im gonna say is missles are stupid now and after a conflab getting figures not just from myself but others i can safely say this however construction time on my 2 cents on how missles should work and actualy be balanced.
for this there is 2 simple things close range and long range close range consists of rockets hams and torps long range is lights,heavy and criuse. those are then broken down further into 4 different sub catagorys t1, faction, presicion and dmg.
now my throughts and this is gonne be broad stroke but here gose.
T1: a balance between dps and range i aint going into this as this is the base of everything else.
faction: higher dmg than t1 10% but higher explosive radius 5% distance same as t1
High dmg: 35% more ddmg than t1's 65 - 70% increase in explosive radius and 25% less distance than t1
presiction ammo: less sig radius 5 - 10%, less dmg than t1 10 - 15% and a 20 - 25% increase in distance.
i know this is basic but tbh im putting this up with the descovery of t2 javlin hams fireing at 38k (further than t1) and hml furys only going to 41km range something wrong here i think ?
anyways what you think as i think this would give a better selection of what to use and when to use then and bring it in line with guns a lot more as that is what fozzie is trying to do and wont bugger up differance between t1, t2 and more with long and short range ammo. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:32:00 -
[5390] - Quote
Spc One wrote:It is fact that missile ships will be junk after this expansion and that's it. No matter how much you whine or complain or support this change.
I will personally not use any missile ships anymore and yes drone ships are also obsolete because of new AI. This is an empty quoting, with absolutly no argument, only stated beliefs.
Though you have an indication on the habbits of this player with the reference to NPC AI : he is concerned by pve. |
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:36:00 -
[5391] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Spc One wrote:It is fact that missile ships will be junk after this expansion and that's it. How would a drake be any less useful in the situations it sees the most use in now? Less dps and less range.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
345
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:39:00 -
[5392] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Spc One wrote:It is fact that missile ships will be junk after this expansion and that's it. How would a drake be any less useful in the situations it sees the most use in now? Less dps and less range. Range is still good, and DPS is comparable to what I get with other med systems and their midrange ammo variants (with less range). You've stated the fact of the situation, yes, but not a reason to use a same class equivalent ship with another weapons system. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
126
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:45:00 -
[5393] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Spc One wrote:It is fact that missile ships will be junk after this expansion and that's it. How would a drake be any less useful in the situations it sees the most use in now? Less dps and less range. Still enough compared to other medium long range weapons, and you can rig it ; and it earn some missile velocity, better for long range fights ; and HAM. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 21:52:00 -
[5394] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I'm must be wrong then, if Noemi and Cazador, holder of truth, said so ! We are not the only ones here who dont agree with you in all points or disagree in most. Indeed, though you don't seem to know what is an argumentation, or you would know that discrediting the interlocutor don't discredit its arguments.
I dont need to discredit your so called arguments Bouh. I showed you with numbers how you were wrong when you wanted numbers. Then you said "uh oh, nevermind, those numbers dont matter" .. I ripped all this BS apart you and others spread about the so called OP HML. HML are fine in some things and not so good in others. If HML/Drake were so OP like you claim, then Eve would be Drake/HML only. Eve-kill says Projectiles are number 1 weapons, with more kills than the other 3 together. Doesnt really fit to your picture, does it? Maybe its because your picture is wrong. And because you are wrong. Really, I dont need to discredit you or your arguments. Its been all done, and its been all said. Yours and others lies wont get true facts if you just repeat them again and again. :-) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
345
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:07:00 -
[5395] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I'm must be wrong then, if Noemi and Cazador, holder of truth, said so ! We are not the only ones here who dont agree with you in all points or disagree in most. Indeed, though you don't seem to know what is an argumentation, or you would know that discrediting the interlocutor don't discredit its arguments. I dont need to discredit your so called arguments Bouh. I showed you with numbers how you were wrong when you wanted numbers. Then you said "uh oh, nevermind, those numbers dont matter" .. I ripped all this BS apart you and others spread about the so called OP HML. HML are fine in some things and not so good in others. If HML/Drake were so OP like you claim, then Eve would be Drake/HML only. Eve-kill says Projectiles are number 1 weapons, with more kills than the other 3 together. Doesnt really fit to your picture, does it? Maybe its because your picture is wrong. And because you are wrong. Really, I dont need to discredit you or your arguments. Its been all done, and its been all said. Yours and others lies wont get true facts if you just repeat them again and again. :-) Looking at the top 20 weapons: Top 20 lists HML II as the top overall weapon for kills. The only other weapon type of the same class listed, 720 atrillery, has about a quarter of the kills. HML is clearly not balanced with it's peers.
|
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:26:00 -
[5396] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: How is that different from T2 short range ammo for turrets?
Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders. Also turrets do instant damage, while missiles have to fly to target first to apply damage. basically missiles can be turned off if enemy wants it.
You are also forgetting or not mentioning the biggest disadvantage of missiles. You have a cycle time plus the flight time of the missiles to the target. The end result is a true cycle time approximately twice that of the turret counterparts. That alone I would argue balances missiles. Otherwise, missiles will deal less damage than Turrets over time (dps).
I like using missiles and I don't have an issue with tracking disruption being applied. However, I do have an issue with a range and damage nerf. When turrets already have an advantage in those areas. For the following reasons:
1) Turrets have no travel time for shots. Thus their true cycle time is much lower than missiles (~2x faster) a) Missiles have the launcher cycle time + missile travel time
2) Turrets have a greater default range than missiles. Take a look at the absurd effective ranges for autocannons & pulse-lasers. Same with Artillery and railguns too... a) Missiles can only get bonuses to ROF and damage via ballistic control systems (minor at that). b) Turret's range and tracking speed can recieve significant boosts from tracking computers and tracking enhancers.
3) Turrets are immune to any form of interception once fired. a) Missiles can be intercepted or detroyed by Defender missiles or smartbombs b) Only way to stop turrets is to break the lock, use turret disruption and/or cap-warfare
4) Projectile weapons are the most OP weapons in the game wrt T2 and T1 variants. In addition can deal all damage types.
I am gonna add to this later... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:31:00 -
[5397] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I dont need to discredit your so called arguments Bouh. I showed you with numbers how you were wrong when you wanted numbers. Then you said "uh oh, nevermind, those numbers dont matter" .. I ripped all this BS apart you and others spread about the so called OP HML. HML are fine in some things and not so good in others. If HML/Drake were so OP like you claim, then Eve would be Drake/HML only. Eve-kill says Projectiles are number 1 weapons, with more kills than the other 3 together. Doesnt really fit to your picture, does it? Maybe its because your picture is wrong. And because you are wrong. Really, I dont need to discredit you or your arguments. Its been all done, and its been all said. Yours and others lies wont get true facts if you just repeat them again and again. :-) Your numbers was : a cane can defeat a drake, hence HML are not OP.
Oh, and these BC outpsing the drake at 25km by around 10% (never mind the drake have 50% more dps at long range).
And then, you admit that HML were the best medium long range weapon, and supported it because other missiles are bad, so they deserve to have one best weapon somewhere.
And of course there was the interlude with skills, the one where we explore how missiles are different from turrets, the one where we smacktalk, the one where we have to remind that pve don't lead weapon balance, the one with statistics as a proof, the one where we reming that caldari are not only missiles, and the one where we look for pvp alts. I must be missing some of them, but it's useless for the debate anyway. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:33:00 -
[5398] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I dont need to discredit your so called arguments Bouh. I showed you with numbers how you were wrong when you wanted numbers. Then you said "uh oh, nevermind, those numbers dont matter" .. I ripped all this BS apart you and others spread about the so called OP HML. HML are fine in some things and not so good in others. If HML/Drake were so OP like you claim, then Eve would be Drake/HML only. Eve-kill says Projectiles are number 1 weapons, with more kills than the other 3 together. Doesnt really fit to your picture, does it? Maybe its because your picture is wrong. And because you are wrong. Really, I dont need to discredit you or your arguments. Its been all done, and its been all said. Yours and others lies wont get true facts if you just repeat them again and again. :-) EVE kills says HML are number one weapon.
You cannot compare ONE weapon with SIX other weapons. Your ship can only have one or two weapon system at a time, unless very bad fit. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:40:00 -
[5399] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote: 1) Turrets have no travel time for shots. Thus their true cycle time is much lower than missiles (~2x faster) a) Missiles have the launcher cycle time + missile travel time
Travel time count only once. Then it's only cycle time, which may be low, but compensated by the second best alpha, after arties (which cycles slower)
Quote: 2) Turrets have a greater default range than missiles. Take a look at the absurd effective ranges for autocannons & pulse-lasers.
1) falloff != optimal range 2) HML are a medium size long range weapon, autocanon and pulse are not. 3) HML hit way farther than those two, unless you are considering large pulse and A/C.
Quote: 3) Turrets are immune to any form of interception once fired. a) Missiles can be intercepted or detroyed by Defender missiles or smartbombs b) Only way to stop turrets is to break the lock, use turret disruption and/or cap-warfare
Let me rephrase a) : Only way to stop missiles from hitting you is defender missiles (which are brocken) or smartbomb (which require at least one high slot and devoure your cap). You forgot "outtrack or outrange them" in b).
Quote: 4) Projectile weapons are the most OP weapons in the game wrt T2 and T1 variants. In addition can deal all damage types.
One OP system system is not a reason for another one to be OP. If you are concerned about projectile OPness, whine to nerf projectile turrets, not to leave HML OP.
All these explanations have already been done.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
345
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:42:00 -
[5400] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Spc One wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: How is that different from T2 short range ammo for turrets?
Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders. Also turrets do instant damage, while missiles have to fly to target first to apply damage. basically missiles can be turned off if enemy wants it. You are also forgetting or not mentioning the biggest disadvantage of missiles. You have a cycle time plus the flight time of the missiles to the target. The end result is a true cycle time approximately twice that of the turret counterparts. That alone I would argue balances missiles. Otherwise, missiles will deal less damage than Turrets over time (dps). I like using missiles and I don't have an issue with tracking disruption being applied. However, I do have an issue with a range and damage nerf. When turrets already have an advantage in those areas. For the following reasons: 1) Turrets have no travel time for shots. Thus their true cycle time is much lower than missiles (~2x faster) a) Missiles have the launcher cycle time + missile travel time 2) Turrets have a greater default range than missiles. Take a look at the absurd effective ranges for autocannons & pulse-lasers. 3) Turrets are immune to any form of interception once fired. a) Missiles can be intercepted or detroyed by Defender missiles or smartbombs b) Only way to stop turrets is to break the lock, use turret disruption and/or cap-warfare 4) Projectile weapons are the most OP weapons in the game wrt T2 and T1 variants. In addition can deal all damage types. I am gonna add to this later... 1) Missile travel time does not increase cycle time, it just imposes a delay between cycle completion and damage application. this is a one time cost when considering a single target as hits will occur at the same rate as the cycle time, not accounting for movement as Doppler effect can increase or decrease the rate of hits compared to cycle time.
2) Missiles have greater skill based advantages for range than turrets. Both skills provide a greater percentage boost as well as apply to the entire flight time allowing them to be multiplicative compliments of each other whereas turret skills affect optimal or falloff separately. Also missiles suffer no falloff degradation to damage.
3) Valid, but not widely used as those measures are largely ineffective and require certainty of enemy composition to be worth fitting over alternatives.
4) Maybe, but even in the midrage LR weapon group HML has more kills than Artillery in the top 20 |
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:44:00 -
[5401] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:I'm must be wrong then, if Noemi and Cazador, holder of truth, said so ! We are not the only ones here who dont agree with you in all points or disagree in most. Indeed, though you don't seem to know what is an argumentation, or you would know that discrediting the interlocutor don't discredit its arguments. I dont need to discredit your so called arguments Bouh. I showed you with numbers how you were wrong when you wanted numbers. Then you said "uh oh, nevermind, those numbers dont matter" .. I ripped all this BS apart you and others spread about the so called OP HML. HML are fine in some things and not so good in others. If HML/Drake were so OP like you claim, then Eve would be Drake/HML only. Eve-kill says Projectiles are number 1 weapons, with more kills than the other 3 together. Doesnt really fit to your picture, does it? Maybe its because your picture is wrong. And because you are wrong. Really, I dont need to discredit you or your arguments. Its been all done, and its been all said. Yours and others lies wont get true facts if you just repeat them again and again. :-) Looking at the top 20 weapons: Top 20 lists HML II as the top overall weapon for kills. The only other weapon type of the same class listed, 720 atrillery, has about a quarter of the kills. HML is clearly not balanced with it's peers.
Its also the only *missile* system which will be used in PvP by Caldari medium or large hulls. The Torps in that list are bombers (meta 4 ..) and Cruises and HAMs are not there. So yes, there are many HMLs used, but not because they rock so much but because they are the only option which does not suck for Caldari missile PvP above frig size.
Projectiles kills are more than missiles (#2) + hybrids + lasers together! So what is out of balance? Missiles? Thats the same logic which was used by Mr. George W. Bush when he invaded Iraq ...
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:53:00 -
[5402] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Its also the only *missile* system which will be used in PvP by Caldari medium or large hulls. The Torps in that list are bombers (meta 4 ..) and Cruises and HAMs are not there. So yes, there are many HMLs used, but not because they rock so much but because they are the only option which does not suck for Caldari missile PvP above frig size.
Projectiles kills are more than missiles (#2) + hybrids + lasers together! So what is out of balance? Missiles? Thats the same logic which was used by Mr. George W. Bush when he invaded Iraq ...
1) There is no HAM because they are obsoleted by HML. Can you invalidate this assertion ?
2) Raven may not be properly balance, but it's turn will come by the summer expansion.
3) As I said, a weapon can be OP, that's not a reason to leave another OP system alone. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
345
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:55:00 -
[5403] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Looking at the top 20 weapons: Top 20 lists HML II as the top overall weapon for kills. The only other weapon type of the same class listed, 720 atrillery, has about a quarter of the kills. HML is clearly not balanced with it's peers.
Its also the only *missile* system which will be used in PvP by Caldari medium or large hulls. The Torps in that list are bombers (meta 4 ..) and Cruises and HAMs are not there. So yes, there are many HMLs used, but not because they rock so much but because they are the only option which does not suck for Caldari missile PvP above frig size. Projectiles kills are more than missiles (#2) + hybrids + lasers together! So what is out of balance? Missiles? Thats the same logic which was used by Mr. George W. Bush when he invaded Iraq ... In the Med LR category, yes, HML's are out of balance. If we were seeing an overall nerf to missiles, which save the range of Fury we aren't, you might have a more compelling counter argument by pointing out all the different projectile variants listed. But this does help point out again what is being said about HML's. The combination of minmatar ships and weapons, OP as they all seem cannot produce a single combination that topples the numeric superiority of the drake + HML combo in a list where the Med LR weapon class across all platforms is under represented.
Edit: But all this is still placing too much stock in a single data source without a breakdown or various factors under which the kills were made. I'd be glad to just argue the evekill top 20 is more trending than proof and leave it at that. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:01:00 -
[5404] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Let me rephrase a) : Only way to stop missiles from hitting you is defender missiles (which are brocken) or smartbomb (which require at least one high slot and devoure your cap). You forgot "outtrack or outrange them" in b).
You can outrun/outrange missiles too. And you can outrun a missile in air, you never can do that with turrets.
About your - really stupid!! - argument about this Drake vs. Cane: you said a LONGRANGE Cane will not outdps a LONGRANGE Drake. I showed you how wrong you are, and didnt even count Drones in. Nor speed. You cant blame me for your stupid and wrong claim. If you think its ok to spread lies you have to face it if others discover them as such. So dont really blame me. I just corrected what you got wrong.
I didnt object btw to the fact HML are better than their peers. I object to the fact they are so much better in game that their out of line. There are plenty things in this game which are better than others. As long as there is just one missile system on top in the comparison of medium and large long and short range weapons I really dont think something is out of order in a gamebreaking way. You just dont like the idea of a missile system being better than turrets in something, thats all :) atm med short, and large long and short are dominated by turrets. Missiles dont play a role there, none at all. Its not out of order when missiles play a major role in the only remaining niche.
Drakes dont break this game. They never did, and they never will. And HML does not break this game either. And it never will. Projectiles as a whole seem to be pretty strong atm, and if one kind of weapon has more kills than the other 3 together one gets the impression there is something out of line. But - its not the Projectiles alone. Its the combination of them with the ships which give a bonus to them. And its also that quite stupid 30% bonus on TEs for falloff ...
Bouh, you said things like Cruise Raven is best DPS when everyone knows this might be true on paper. But amazingly in game the Raven is not there in PvP. You said Caldari should have trained Hybrids when you perfectly know turrets need different support skills than missiles. You then compared it with Gallentes need to skill for Drones when you perfectly know that EVERY race has to train Drones for PvP, and the only thing which Caldari will not need to do is the (admitted long) training for Heavy t2 and Sentry t2, because they simply dont have a ship to use them.
Minmatar need so many SP you said then, because they need to skill it all, missiles and Drones and Projectiles and Shield and Armor. When you perfectly know in the same time that next to no Minmatar ship atm relies on missiles, most of them dont even use them for their spare highslots but prefer something else there.
Thats how it is going with you, you say something which is wrong and you know how wrong it is. And then you blame me for reacting to all those stupid comments, great stuff.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:06:00 -
[5405] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: In the Med LR category, yes, HML's are out of balance. If we were seeing an overall nerf to missiles, which save the range of Fury we aren't, you might have a more compelling counter argument by pointing out all the different projectile variants listed. But this does help point out again what is being said about HML's. The combination of minmatar ships and weapons, OP as they all seem cannot produce a single combination that topples the numeric superiority of the drake + HML combo in a list where the Med LR weapon class across all platforms is under represented.
The problem with HML are not HML, but the absence of other working systems. Simple as that. If there was just one Projectile system which would work well, you would see 170k kills with it and no kills with the rest. A bit simplified, admitted. But I hope you get that point.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Edit: But all this is still placing too much stock in a single data source without a breakdown or various factors under which the kills were made. I'd be glad to just argue the evekill top 20 is more trending than proof and leave it at that.
I agree with you here, the data source might overrepresent null sec in comparison to other things (Zealot numbers seem to indicate that for example).
I would like to hear your honest opinion, Tyberius, as you seem to be a reasonable person: do you regularly PvP in lowsec and feel like Drakes are out of line and the only ships there? Or do you think other ships are there in similar numbers and doing their thing too?
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
98
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:11:00 -
[5406] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
1) There is no HAM because they are obsoleted by HML. Can you invalidate this assertion ?.
Its the other way round: there are only HML because HAM are so much inferior in the real game to their peers that it makes not much sense to use them outside of tournament environments. And they need too much PG. I would fully agree to the idea of exchanging PG of HML and HAM, since *this* would really bring them in line with turrets, where short range needs less PG than long range. Makes sense too, because you need tank close range, whereas longrange you can sacrifice a bit of it ..
Bouh Revetoile wrote: 2) Raven may not be properly balance, but it's turn will come by the summer expansion.
We have to see if it will get balanced.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: 3) As I said, a weapon can be OP, that's not a reason to leave another OP system alone.
As long as missiles win only one category and suck in the other 3 I dont agree with you. Its simple: fix the rest, then nerf the one which is in your perception out of line. I bet a nice ammount of ISK that a fix of Cruises, HAMs and Torps and the Caldari ships which use them so they are a viable alternative to their peers (=on par with the top) would lead to not that much more missiles in the list, but far less HML and more of the others. As it should be ..
|
Lili Lu
563
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:15:00 -
[5407] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I dont need to discredit your so called arguments Bouh. I showed you with numbers how you were wrong when you wanted numbers. Then you said "uh oh, nevermind, those numbers dont matter" .. I ripped all this BS apart you and others spread about the so called OP HML. HML are fine in some things and not so good in others. If HML/Drake were so OP like you claim, then Eve would be Drake/HML only. Eve-kill says Projectiles are number 1 weapons, with more kills than the other 3 together. Doesnt really fit to your picture, does it? Maybe its because your picture is wrong. And because you are wrong. Really, I dont need to discredit you or your arguments. Its been all done, and its been all said. Yours and others lies wont get true facts if you just repeat them again and again. :-)
I've been following that exchange Noemi. I think you are referring to Jorma. I think he has dismissed your citation to eve-kill top twenty. A source that I used to point out flaws in your arguments much earlier in this monster thread.
Eve-kill top twenty is about our only statistical source. You've been salivating since the first of the month at the big use of Zealots and said see the drake is not tops. Unfortunately for you now later in the month Drakes and Tengus have risen to their usual place. Although not at the former numbers where they were represented 2 or 3 to 1 on the next place ship they are back on top again.
But that's just it, you have to see the numbers and understand them. You just totalled up all projectile weapons and didn't differentiate sizes and types, didn't compare them to ships that can use them in the top-twenty, and didn't understand whether it was the weapon system itself or the mods often fit with them or the ship hull bonuses that promote their use.
1 Drake 89139 2 Maelstrom 73477 3 Zealot 68909 4 Tengu 68443 5 Tornado 55385 6 Hurricane 52761 7 Rokh 49749 8 Naga 42530 9 Loki 41803 (10 Huginn 28239) uses HML or Projectiles 16 Stabber FI 21654 17 Cynabal 20774
Here we are concerned with medium long range weapons. But for ***** and giggles lets throw in medium short range weapons also. 55K HML II, being used on two ships, Drake and Tengu. Then lets lump together 425 AC II 30k, 220 AC II 18k, 720 arty 13k, dual 180 AC II 7.5k. Now collectively those medium projectile guns outnumber HML IIs. However, those weapons are being fit on Cane, Loki, Huginn, SFI, and Cyn. 68.5k medium projectiles, 55k HML in total. But those medium projectiles are spread accross 4 or 5 ships. The HML use is spread accross 2 ships plus maybe some Huginn use. Raw totals don't tell the tale.
The heavy use of medium projectiles does not suggest that any one of them is too powerful. Some of those canes are fitting 425 ac, some are fitting 720 arty, etc, but mostly those ships are making good use of ac. Why? I argue it is because TEs are giving a 30% bonus on the falloff those guns use as opposed to the 15% optimal they don't care about. If it was purely the gun it would be one gun variant and it's numbers would be huge. But when the ship bonuses and the mods associted are working in concert with the general weapon type too well you get this kind of distributed numbers within the class of weapons.
I pointed out to you previously when you were salivating over the huge numbers of Zealots (which I knew wouldn't hold up against Drakes, lol) that it wasn't necessarilly heavy pulse IIs that put them there. The reappearance of Zealots was easilly traceable to the new tech II plates. The many Cynabal and Loki on that list are likely playing on falloff ship bonuses synergizing with TE 30% falloff. I don't see ac as needing a trim, but TEs yes, they need a trim. When you combine huge falloff compounding ship and mod bonuses with mobility advantages of course they are going to be used heavily.
Learn to analyze the numbers Noemi, not just cite to them. And also learn to understand the analysis of the weapons in isolation. You need to understand and engage in both to discern where the power differentials are coming from. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
345
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:16:00 -
[5408] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I would like to hear your honest opinion, Tyberius, as you seem to be a reasonable person: do you regularly PvP in lowsec and feel like Drakes are out of line and the only ships there? Or do you think other ships are there in similar numbers and doing their thing too?
I lack any decent sample of lowsec PvP experience, so can't answer this. |
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:21:00 -
[5409] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Spc One wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: How is that different from T2 short range ammo for turrets?
Turrets can't be smartbombed or destroyed with defenders. Also turrets do instant damage, while missiles have to fly to target first to apply damage. basically missiles can be turned off if enemy wants it. You are also forgetting or not mentioning the biggest disadvantage of missiles. You have a cycle time plus the flight time of the missiles to the target. The end result is a true cycle time approximately twice that of the turret counterparts. That alone I would argue balances missiles. Otherwise, missiles will deal less damage than Turrets over time (dps). I like using missiles and I don't have an issue with tracking disruption being applied. However, I do have an issue with a range and damage nerf. When turrets already have an advantage in those areas. For the following reasons: 1) Turrets have no travel time for shots. Thus their true cycle time is much lower than missiles (~2x faster) a) Missiles have the launcher cycle time + missile travel time 2) Turrets have a greater default range than missiles. Take a look at the absurd effective ranges for autocannons & pulse-lasers. 3) Turrets are immune to any form of interception once fired. a) Missiles can be intercepted or detroyed by Defender missiles or smartbombs b) Only way to stop turrets is to break the lock, use turret disruption and/or cap-warfare 4) Projectile weapons are the most OP weapons in the game wrt T2 and T1 variants. In addition can deal all damage types. I am gonna add to this later... 1) Missile travel time does not increase cycle time, it just imposes a delay between cycle completion and damage application. this is a one time cost when considering a single target as hits will occur at the same rate as the cycle time, not accounting for movement as Doppler effect can increase or decrease the rate of hits compared to cycle time. 2) Missiles have greater skill based advantages for range than turrets. Both skills provide a greater percentage boost as well as apply to the entire flight time allowing them to be multiplicative compliments of each other whereas turret skills affect optimal or falloff separately. Also missiles suffer no falloff degradation to damage. 3) Valid, but not widely used as those measures are largely ineffective and require certainty of enemy composition to be worth fitting over alternatives. 4) Maybe, but even in the midrage LR weapon group HML has more kills than Artillery in the top 20
1) Missile travel time doesn't affect cycle time directly. Yet it does affect the rate at which damage is dealt at range. That said, HMLs are the only missile system used in PvP. Cause missiles as a general rule suck balls to turrets. Everyone knows that! Why do you think Gallente (Blaster) and Minmatar (Projectile) fits are the most common in PvP?!
2) Missiles don't have traditional falloff. Missiles are affected by your speed. If you move away or transversally the damage I, for example, could deliver with HMLs is significantly reduced. In addition, missiles are affected more than turrets by target signature-radius.
3) There is this wonderful idea called espionage aka recon. Try using it!
4) Really?! Look again at the overall count by all weapons systems. Projectile weapons have more kills than HMLS, Lasers and Hybrids combined. You are telling me that HMLs are unbalanced cause they are the only missile system that even manages to make the list? If this keeps up I think we all know what everyone will be skilling up Projectile weapons!
The idea of balance is that weapons have relative strengths and weaknesses. Let's take a look at them shall we?
Autocannons are supposed to be very close range, high damage (dps) and omni-damage. Presently, autocannons have taken the middile ground and the highest DPS. Blasters are supposed to middle of close range with high damage: Thermal and Kinetic. Presently, blasters are the shortest ranged and eclipsed by autos. Pulse lasers are supposed to be the longest ranged of the CQC weapons with the lowest damage (EM & Therm), presently correct.
Rockets are extremely close range with sucky damage. HAMs have laughable range and good DPS. Torpedoes are close ranged but are essentially useless against anything smaller than BCs. So far we have godly Autos and worthless torps, HAMs and rockets. Now the longer range group!
Artillery are supposed to be high salvo damage and slowest ROF. Presently, arty has damage modifiers that are at least 4 points higher than the nearest competitor: aka OP. Railguns are supposed to medium damage and medium ROF. Presently, the railguns have an okay damage but are eclipsed by the former. Beam lasers are supposed to have the highest ROF and lowest salvo damage of long-range. At the moment that is going according to plan.
Light missiles have 'meh' damage and good range. The range is the only good thing. HMs have the best damage and range of the long-range missiles. YAY! Finally something that makes a Caldari pilot happy! Cruise missiles have good damage as long as your target is a BC are larger and good range. In short, cruise misiles and light misiles suck!
If you want a balance make missiles affected by tracking computers, tracking enhancers and ECM.
I hereby motion that all projectile weapons have to be nerfed by 50% to make things even. |
Unit757
XVIII Legion Angeli Mortis
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:26:00 -
[5410] - Quote
In terms of the HML in general, I support this slight nerf to them. I think the systems true effectiveness will come forth when battle cruiser re-balancing hits, and the drakes bonuses potentially change, whether that be positive, or negative. As for how it is now, and how they intend it to be, I see it more as a true long range weapon then the other medium sized turrets. Even after these changes, it's still going to project better damage, farther, then the others will. Yes, a 250mm railgun or a heavy beam laser will have better numbers using close range ammo, but in most cases your going to run into tracking issues. In order for a 250 to match it's range, your going to be losing serious DPS.
I own a few drakes, I rarely use them. In most cases, I'm more inclined to take a 250mm ferox over an HML drake, because of a turrets ability to pop small targets easier, given the right circumstances. But if I know I'll be looking at an engagement at +30, I will take the drake hands down.
I think later down the road, all of the medium long range weapons need a serious look at, not just HMLs, because right now it feels more like the other long range guns are more medium range, while the HML is the only noteworthy weapon able to project decent damage at ranges beyond 40km.
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
346
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:34:00 -
[5411] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote: You are also forgetting or not mentioning the biggest disadvantage of missiles. You have a cycle time plus the flight time of the missiles to the target. The end result is a true cycle time approximately twice that of the turret counterparts. That alone I would argue balances missiles. Otherwise, missiles will deal less damage than Turrets over time (dps).
I like using missiles and I don't have an issue with tracking disruption being applied. However, I do have an issue with a range and damage nerf. When turrets already have an advantage in those areas. For the following reasons:
1) Turrets have no travel time for shots. Thus their true cycle time is much lower than missiles (~2x faster) a) Missiles have the launcher cycle time + missile travel time 2) Turrets have a greater default range than missiles. Take a look at the absurd effective ranges for autocannons & pulse-lasers. 3) Turrets are immune to any form of interception once fired. a) Missiles can be intercepted or detroyed by Defender missiles or smartbombs b) Only way to stop turrets is to break the lock, use turret disruption and/or cap-warfare 4) Projectile weapons are the most OP weapons in the game wrt T2 and T1 variants. In addition can deal all damage types.
I am gonna add to this later...
1) Missile travel time does not increase cycle time, it just imposes a delay between cycle completion and damage application. this is a one time cost when considering a single target as hits will occur at the same rate as the cycle time, not accounting for movement as Doppler effect can increase or decrease the rate of hits compared to cycle time. 2) Missiles have greater skill based advantages for range than turrets. Both skills provide a greater percentage boost as well as apply to the entire flight time allowing them to be multiplicative compliments of each other whereas turret skills affect optimal or falloff separately. Also missiles suffer no falloff degradation to damage. 3) Valid, but not widely used as those measures are largely ineffective and require certainty of enemy composition to be worth fitting over alternatives. 4) Maybe, but even in the midrage LR weapon group HML has more kills than Artillery in the top 20 1) Missile travel time doesn't affect cycle time directly. Yet it does affect the rate at which damage is dealt at range. That said, HMLs are the only missile system used in PvP. Cause missiles as a general rule suck balls to turrets. Everyone knows that! Why do you think Gallente (Blaster) and Minmatar (Projectile) fits are the most common in PvP?! 2) Missiles don't have traditional falloff. Missiles are affected by your speed. If you move away or transversally the damage I, for example, could deliver with HMLs is significantly reduced. In addition, missiles are affected more than turrets by target signature-radius. 3) There is this wonderful idea called espionage aka recon. Try using it! 4) Really?! Look again at the overall count by all weapons systems. Projectile weapons have more kills than HMLS, Lasers and Hybrids combined. You are telling me that HMLs are unbalanced cause they are the only missile system that even manages to make the list? If this keeps up I think we all know what everyone will be skilling up Projectile weapons! The idea of balance is that weapons have relative strengths and weaknesses. Let's take a look at them shall we? Autocannons are supposed to be very close range, high damage (dps) and omni-damage. Presently, autocannons have taken the middile ground and the highest DPS. Blasters are supposed to middle of close range with high damage: Thermal and Kinetic. Presently, blasters are the shortest ranged and eclipsed by autos. Pulse lasers are supposed to be the longest ranged of the CQC weapons with the lowest damage (EM & Therm), presently correct. Rockets are extremely close range with sucky damage. HAMs have laughable range and good DPS. Torpedoes are close ranged but are essentially useless against anything smaller than BCs. So far we have godly Autos and worthless torps, HAMs and rockets. Now the longer range group! Artillery are supposed to be high salvo damage and slowest ROF. Presently, arty has damage modifiers that are at least 4 points higher than the nearest competitor: aka OP. Railguns are supposed to medium damage and medium ROF. Presently, the railguns have an okay damage but are eclipsed by the former. Beam lasers are supposed to have the highest ROF and lowest salvo damage of long-range. At the moment that is going according to plan. Light missiles have 'meh' damage and good range. The range is the only good thing. HMs have the best damage and range of the long-range missiles. YAY! Finally something that makes a Caldari pilot happy! Cruise missiles have good damage as long as your target is a BC are larger and good range. In short, cruise misiles and light misiles suck! If you want a balance make missiles affected by tracking computers, tracking enhancers and ECM. I hereby motion that all projectile weapons have to be nerfed by 50% to make things even. 1) Damage is dealt at the same rate as cycle time aside from Doppler effect with an initial delay. 2) Missiles also have a much lower tendency to miss completely. Especially at close range where LR turrets are useless. 3) There is a counter to than called variance in fleet composition. Sure your firewall is keeping our drakes out of the fight, to bad it's not working for every other ship we brought! Good job! 4) Yes really, look again for MEDIUM, LONG RANGE TURRETS. Count the number on the list. Combine them and see if they beat HML II. For the debate of whether HML is ballanced within it's class the number of people killed by 1400 Howitzers and 200mm autos is irrelevant. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:36:00 -
[5412] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: I would like to hear your honest opinion, Tyberius, as you seem to be a reasonable person: do you regularly PvP in lowsec and feel like Drakes are out of line and the only ships there? Or do you think other ships are there in similar numbers and doing their thing too?
I lack any decent sample of lowsec PvP experience, so can't answer this.
Thanks for this answer then, its nice someone is honest. I think atm the Drake is not overrepresented in lowsec or highsec PvP. I have yet to see proof for the opposite.
And Lili, I understand those numbers much better than you think I do :)
I also see that the projectile weapons will be used by many ships, and the HML by just 2. But IMO you do it wrong when you think its because of the OPness of those 2 ships with HML, its because other options for Caldari missile PvP (med & large size) just dont exist atm.
And balancing the flat damage "curve" of HML vs turrets will be a problem, whichever approach you take. I am sure there are better ways than the nerf we now have. There could have been worse ways though. But its not the end, TDs will really give trouble to missile users, and thats what bothers me most - I just dont see how missiles should ever be on par when the only system which actually is on par gets nerfed and some others receive a small buff (which might as well keep them in their underused role) but the next nerf is just incoming. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:38:00 -
[5413] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: The problem with HML are not HML, but the absence of other working systems. Simple as that. If there was just one Projectile system which would work well, you would see 170k kills with it and no kills with the rest. A bit simplified, admitted. But I hope you get that point.
That is completely wrong. People don't use 425mm railguns because 250mm are broken but because they are effective on the Rokh. People don't use HML because they don't have a BS but because they are more effective than any other medium size long range weapon : a Drake can even outdps a railgun Proteus !
The only long range medium size weapon used are artilleries, and that is only because of their alpha, useful to blap frigates at range, though, when you don't have the required number to blap your target, HML are better.
BTW, I showed you a Drake, a usable one, which outdps a hurricane at ALL ranges. You just discarded it, despite your absence of knowledge in low/nullsec warfare.
Oh, and as a side note : Drakes are 32% of our BC kills/loss this week. There is 12 BC. That's way above what it should be, even after removing the obsolete BC. In the stats, the Drake come second to Hurricane, and the trends confirm itselves. Drake are about one on three battlecruiser you can encounter in low or nullsec. Drake online you said ?
To further study these stats, we can see that Hurricanes are a little more than one on three BC too, that mean that the other 10 BC shares the last 33%.
And don't fool me, the hurricane is beyond, and it's being nerfed. Why does the drake shouldn't ?
PS : ever seen a torp typhoon ? I did. Do you know the Cyclone ? It does have missiles about one time on three. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:46:00 -
[5414] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: 1) Damage is dealt at the same rate as cycle time aside from Doppler effect with an initial delay.
I agree here. The only problem flight time might have is DPS in air which will never apply to a target (either because the target is dead or because the missile ship which fired them is no longer there).
Tyberius Franklin wrote: 2) Missiles also have a much lower tendency to miss completely. Especially at close range where LR turrets are useless.
Agreed on the first, the second depends a bit but is also not completely wrong :D
Tyberius Franklin wrote: 4) Yes really, look again for MEDIUM, LONG RANGE TURRETS. Count the number on the list. Combine them and see if they beat HML II. For the debate of whether HML is ballanced within it's class the number of people killed by 1400 Howitzers and 200mm autos is irrelevant.
Tyberius, I agree with you in medium long range HML are strong. But please dont forget the facts which are behind this: 1) the ship which uses them most is cheap to skill and fit and has good EHP 2) its the only missile system in the list apart from meta 4 Torps which are for bombers and for sure not used on Caldari PvP BS 3) the absence of all other missile systems in the list of working/viable stuff leaves all those missile skilled Caldari who want to PvP with HML and nothing but HML 4) PG reqs of HAM are higher than HML which means people who are risk averse and like to put more tank will gravitate even more to HML, having more range AND more tank unlike with the turret peers.
If PG reqs for HML and HAM would be exchanged and HAM would be working (which they maybe will, cant say for sure yet) then there might be a fair bit less HML and maybe some HAM in that list. And the numbers for HML would go down even more so if Torps and Cruises would work on Ravens in PvP. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:49:00 -
[5415] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:
You can outrun/outrange missiles too. And you can outrun a missile in air, you never can do that with turrets.
u think that a ship moving fast enough to out run a missile is gonna be hit by a turret?
and ur calling other ppl stupid...
take it u dnt realise that a missile ship that is being chased has a greater effective range as its pursuer is moving toward it. they also have a greater DPS if their pursuer is getting any closer.
this is how travel time is balanced. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:50:00 -
[5416] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:And balancing the flat damage "curve" of HML vs turrets will be a problem, whichever approach you take. I am sure there are better ways than the nerf we now have. There could have been worse ways though. But its not the end, TDs will really give trouble to missile users, and thats what bothers me most - I just dont see how missiles should ever be on par when the only system which actually is on par gets nerfed and some others receive a small buff (which might as well keep them in their underused role) but the next nerf is just incoming. You really thing that if we nerf the dps of drakes and tengu by 40% at long range (50km) everyone would be happy ? Because that's what would be needed to make them on par with med LR turrets. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:50:00 -
[5417] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Oh, and as a side note : Drakes are 32% of our BC kills/loss this week. There is 12 BC. That's way above what it should be, even after removing the obsolete BC. In the stats, the Drake come second to Hurricane, and the trends confirm itselves. Drake are about one on three battlecruiser you can encounter in low or nullsec. Drake online you said ?.
How can it be Drake online, when the Drake is second? About that Cane nerf, we will see what it does. If the Cane gets worse, a Minmatar pilot has other options though. In every shipclass.
A Caldari can go frigs, or ECM. Or snipe with Nagas and Rokhs, but for missiles its game over.
Because ...
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
PS : ever seen a torp typhoon ? I did. Do you know the Cyclone ? It does have missiles about one time on three.
.. neither the Phoon nor the Cyclone came to my mind as Caldari ships so far. Maybe I was wrong there. Or maybe you missed the point, again? :)
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:52:00 -
[5418] - Quote
Oh, and I forgot this unknowledgeable talk too : rockets do are used A LOT in low sec. And *I* know about this,because I encounter them regularly. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:53:00 -
[5419] - Quote
So just got off test did side by side with this pilot. This guy flies CNR Sniper boats in incursions. After this patch my CNR will be rendered useless for a Sniper boat in incursions. With T2 Ammo flight time on cruise got taken down to under 120KM
As a incursion sniper I am needed to hit past 150. So I fit tech 1 as there are no faction ammo on test atm and I was back out to a good range but the DPS was way down. Looking at everything I would have to switch to faction ammo effectively nerfing my DPS by over 100 points. This these numbers there will be no need for anyone to take a CNR into an incursion as a sniper ever..
Great job CCP not only did you take the HML out of pvp and pve you took the Caldari missiles sniper boats out of incursions also. Unless I missed something I will be canceling all my accounts and my rl friends will follow. and no i will not be giving away any of my stuff or isk. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:54:00 -
[5420] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:And balancing the flat damage "curve" of HML vs turrets will be a problem, whichever approach you take. I am sure there are better ways than the nerf we now have. There could have been worse ways though. But its not the end, TDs will really give trouble to missile users, and thats what bothers me most - I just dont see how missiles should ever be on par when the only system which actually is on par gets nerfed and some others receive a small buff (which might as well keep them in their underused role) but the next nerf is just incoming. You really thing that if we nerf the dps of drakes and tengu by 40% at long range (50km) everyone would be happy ? Because that's what would be needed to make them on par with med LR turrets.
No, that would be not needed. I gave an idea of how it could be, but you didnt answer (way before in this thread). Sorry, but I wont do all that work again. Numbers have been there. You said it would make missiles "bad turrets" .. and failed to explain why. |
|
Lili Lu
564
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:57:00 -
[5421] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: I would like to hear your honest opinion, Tyberius, as you seem to be a reasonable person: do you regularly PvP in lowsec and feel like Drakes are out of line and the only ships there? Or do you think other ships are there in similar numbers and doing their thing too?
I lack any decent sample of lowsec PvP experience, so can't answer this. Thanks for this answer then, its nice someone is honest. I think atm the Drake is not overrepresented in lowsec or highsec PvP. I have yet to see proof for the opposite. And Lili, I understand those numbers much better than you think I do :) I also see that the projectile weapons will be used by many ships, and the HML by just 2. But IMO you do it wrong when you think its because of the OPness of those 2 ships with HML, its because other options for Caldari missile PvP (med & large size) just dont exist atm. And balancing the flat damage "curve" of HML vs turrets will be a problem, whichever approach you take. I am sure there are better ways than the nerf we now have. There could have been worse ways though. But its not the end, TDs will really give trouble to missile users, and thats what bothers me most - I just dont see how missiles should ever be on par when the only system which actually is on par gets nerfed and some others receive a small buff (which might as well keep them in their underused role) but the next nerf is just incoming.
Yes, Tyberius is being honest in stating he lacks any sample of lowsec. The point I have have been making over and over agian to you is that both you and I do as well. So your statement is false, you do not know of drake overrepresentation or underrepresentation in lowsec. But CCP is able to sample usage.
Also, by your logic we should see two drone boats in that list. We don't. It is not because there are "only two working missile boats" that we see drakes and tengus up there. We don't see Myrms and Domis there because they might be "the only working drone boats." If it was just that every missile user crowded into these two ships they would not be at the top. Their unique weapon advantages and ship bonuses put them at the top. The lack of those explains the absense of Domis and Myrms.
As for TDs cry a river. Turrets have had that problem for a long time. My guess is the eventual numbers on the TC/TE bonuses and TD detraction will be more muted than we currently have for turrets. However, at this time caldari missile and mid-slot blessed frigs are laughing it up with unbonused TDs on turret frigs and destroyers. That will have to change as well. |
Lili Lu
564
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 23:59:00 -
[5422] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:So just got off test did side by side with this pilot. This guy flies CNR Sniper boats in incursions. After this patch my CNR will be rendered useless for a Sniper boat in incursions. With T2 Ammo flight time on cruise got taken down to under 120KM
As a incursion sniper I am needed to hit past 150. So I fit tech 1 as there are no faction ammo on test atm and I was back out to a good range but the DPS was way down. Looking at everything I would have to switch to faction ammo effectively nerfing my DPS by over 100 points. This these numbers there will be no need for anyone to take a CNR into an incursion as a sniper ever..
Great job CCP not only did you take the HML out of pvp and pve you took the Caldari missiles sniper boats out of incursions also. Unless I missed something I will be canceling all my accounts and my rl friends will follow. and no i will not be giving away any of my stuff or isk.
No it means you'll have a reason now to hope for the TC/TE/TD changes. Or to fit rigs for range. Start thinking past your current stale fitting habits. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:01:00 -
[5423] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: How can it be Drake online, when the Drake is second? About that Cane nerf, we will see what it does. If the Cane gets worse, a Minmatar pilot has other options though. In every shipclass.
A Caldari can go frigs, or ECM. Or snipe with Nagas and Rokhs, but for missiles its game over.
It's lowsec numbers, the place where Drake should be beaten hand on by the hurricane. Truth, the real one, the one people actually doing pvp see, is that the drake is very popular in lowsec, way more than most other BC.
Remember, the Hurricane is OP, but it's nerfed. But if the Hurricane is OP, then the Drake is too, because there is almost as many of them as there is Hurricanes.
And after the nerf, Drake pilots will instantly have HAM, and HML will still be better than any other medLR turrets (you can check, they are used too, just not so much, but no doubt a missile pilot will use HML for the job).
Wow, that kind of invalidate your "argument" ?
And remember, something OP deserve to be nerfed, whatever the other conditions. If something else need to be buffed to compensate, that is a whole other matter, but I never saw you supporting more buff to HAM, CM and Torps.
Quote: .. neither the Phoon nor the Cyclone came to my mind as Caldari ships so far. Maybe I was wrong there. Or maybe you missed the point, again? :)
This was about minmatar not skilling for missiles. A "truth" you wrote. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:02:00 -
[5424] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Yes, Tyberius is being honest in stating he lacks any sample of lowsec. The point I have have been making over and over agian to you is that both you and I do as well. So your statement is false, you do not know of drake overrepresentation or underrepresentation in lowsec. But CCP is able to sample usage.
Then why does CCP not see that Projectiles are over represented in pvp ? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
348
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:04:00 -
[5425] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: 2) Missiles also have a much lower tendency to miss completely. Especially at close range where LR turrets are useless.
Agreed on the first, the second depends a bit but is also not completely wrong :D Yes, admittedly one can try to minimize angular velocity but in all reality with PvP if you are fighting short rage with LR guns you either are up against a bad opponent or did something wrong and are likely to have issues pulling it off.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: 4) Yes really, look again for MEDIUM, LONG RANGE TURRETS. Count the number on the list. Combine them and see if they beat HML II. For the debate of whether HML is ballanced within it's class the number of people killed by 1400 Howitzers and 200mm autos is irrelevant.
Tyberius, I agree with you in medium long range HML are strong. But please dont forget the facts which are behind this: 1) the ship which uses them most is cheap to skill and fit and has good EHP 2) its the only missile system in the list apart from meta 4 Torps which are for bombers and for sure not used on Caldari PvP BS 3) the absence of all other missile systems in the list of working/viable stuff leaves all those missile skilled Caldari who want to PvP with HML and nothing but HML 4) PG reqs of HAM are higher than HML which means people who are risk averse and like to put more tank will gravitate even more to HML, having more range AND more tank unlike with the turret peers. If PG reqs for HML and HAM would be exchanged and HAM would be working (which they maybe will, cant say for sure yet) then there might be a fair bit less HML and maybe some HAM in that list. And the numbers for HML would go down even more so if Torps and Cruises would work on Ravens in PvP. The issue I have with this defense in that instead of looking at what HML's are now and trying to keep it we should instead be looking at what HAM's (and torp/cruise) should be and working towards that while putting HML in it's place. We have another balancing pass as well as Fozzie's confirmation that large systems are looking at some balance soon. As far as HML v HAM, soon we'll see if it's just that HAM is bad or if it's overshadowed by HML, OR if HML's advantages make it unimpeded in the areas where it currently shines. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:04:00 -
[5426] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: Or to fit rigs for range..
That will either lower my dps or tank even more and neither can take a hit even with lvl 5 skills. CCP did a great job making it look like it was only a HML nerf when it was a Cruise nerf as well.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:06:00 -
[5427] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote: How can it be Drake online, when the Drake is second? About that Cane nerf, we will see what it does. If the Cane gets worse, a Minmatar pilot has other options though. In every shipclass.
A Caldari can go frigs, or ECM. Or snipe with Nagas and Rokhs, but for missiles its game over.
It's lowsec numbers, the place where Drake should be beaten hand on by the hurricane. Truth, the real one, the one people actually doing pvp see, is that the drake is very popular in lowsec, way more than most other BC. Remember, the Hurricane is OP, but it's nerfed. But if the Hurricane is OP, then the Drake is too, because there is almost as many of them as there is Hurricanes. And after the nerf, Drake pilots will instantly have HAM, and HML will still be better than any other medLR turrets (you can check, they are used too, just not so much, but no doubt a missile pilot will use HML for the job). Wow, that kind of invalidate your "argument" ? And remember, something OP deserve to be nerfed, whatever the other conditions. If something else need to be buffed to compensate, that is a whole other matter, but I never saw you supporting more buff to HAM, CM and Torps. Quote: .. neither the Phoon nor the Cyclone came to my mind as Caldari ships so far. Maybe I was wrong there. Or maybe you missed the point, again? :)
This was about minmatar not skilling for missiles. A "truth" you wrote.
fix this posting of yours, please .. its unreadable. Maybe better so, though ..
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:09:00 -
[5428] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:fix this posting of yours, please .. its unreadable. Maybe better so, though ..
I can write in french if you prefer... Or was it the fail quote of mine ? I fixed the second. I can fix the first too. :p |
Lili Lu
564
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:11:00 -
[5429] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Yes, Tyberius is being honest in stating he lacks any sample of lowsec. The point I have have been making over and over agian to you is that both you and I do as well. So your statement is false, you do not know of drake overrepresentation or underrepresentation in lowsec. But CCP is able to sample usage. Then why does CCP not see that Projectiles are over represented in pvp ?
Maybe they don't because they aren't. Or maybe they think the direct Cane nerf is going to reduce those numbers. Or maybe because they are currently analyzing the TE falloff effect and ship falloff bonuses. In fact, one of the devs in a thread a couple months ago posted that he sort of regretted the 10% faloof ship hull bonuses.
We don't know what other changes are in store. But Drake and Tengu usage and HML activations were sitting hugely on top. The stats on HM performance were clearly outclassing other weapons in the same role. And their strengths were stepping on the ultility of other missile systems. And as the OP said they had to be brought back into line to make any sense of the rebalancing of ship bonus efforts. |
Lili Lu
564
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:13:00 -
[5430] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Or to fit rigs for range..
That will either lower my dps or tank even more and neither can take a hit even with lvl 5 skills. CCP did a great job making it look like it was only a HML nerf when it was a Cruise nerf as well.
Have you ever fit a sniper turret BS, especially one that armor tanks? Welcome to fitting choices. It no longer is an easy matter to figure out. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:16:00 -
[5431] - Quote
About projectiles, there is also the ship rebalancing.
Even without modifying projectiles, they are rebalancing minmatar ships. Rifter is not the top dog anymore for example.
PS : and the hurricane do have its nerf. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:17:00 -
[5432] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: The issue I have with this defense in that instead of looking at what HML's are now and trying to keep it we should instead be looking at what HAM's (and torp/cruise) should be and working towards that while putting HML in it's place. We have another balancing pass as well as Fozzie's confirmation that large systems are looking at some balance soon. As far as HML v HAM, soon we'll see if it's just that HAM is bad or if it's overshadowed by HML, OR if HML's advantages make it unimpeded in the areas where it currently shines.
I would be with you here if it was not the only working missile system at all in Caldari PvP med and large. And esp. because I am sure how much the HML numbers would go down as soon as there are options. But yeah, we cant change anything right now anyway.
To Lili just one thing: the fact I didnt post killmails in lowsec does not mean I dont have any lowsec experience. I have more toons than the 2 you know about :) IMO Drakes are not overrepresented there. Hop into a ship of your choice and go there, you might very well see I am correct with this. Btw you stated before you had recent lowec exp, but in your last post you say you dont - which of the two is correct? It cant be both, you know ..
About the Droneboats I agree, their role in eve-kill is not existing. Although ships which rely on Drones can do well in PvP, esp. very small scale. Myrm and Dominix are strong, same as a Phoon (although not mainly Drones) or a Vexor or Ishtar. I heard also of people using Rattlesnakes with some success, although I have to admit I never saw one doing really great stuff.
I dont object to a drone rework so they will work better esp. in lowsec (gate guns ..).
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:19:00 -
[5433] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:fix this posting of yours, please .. its unreadable. Maybe better so, though ..
I can write in french if you prefer... Or was it the fail quote of mine ? I fixed the second. I can fix the first too. :p
Yeah would be cool if you did. Would fit well to your Gallente char ;) but I meant the second, which I will check in a minute.
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:21:00 -
[5434] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:So just got off test did side by side with this pilot. This guy flies CNR Sniper boats in incursions. After this patch my CNR will be rendered useless for a Sniper boat in incursions. With T2 Ammo flight time on cruise got taken down to under 120KM
As a incursion sniper I am needed to hit past 150. So I fit tech 1 as there are no faction ammo on test atm and I was back out to a good range but the DPS was way down. Looking at everything I would have to switch to faction ammo effectively nerfing my DPS by over 100 points. This these numbers there will be no need for anyone to take a CNR into an incursion as a sniper ever..
Great job CCP not only did you take the HML out of pvp and pve you took the Caldari missiles sniper boats out of incursions also. Unless I missed something I will be canceling all my accounts and my rl friends will follow. and no i will not be giving away any of my stuff or isk.
i thought they didnt take u anyways.
train rokh? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:22:00 -
[5435] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:To Lili just one thing: the fact I didnt post killmails in lowsec does not mean I dont have any lowsec experience. I have more toons than the 2 you know about :) IMO Drakes are not overrepresented there. Hop into a ship of your choice and go there, you might very well see I am correct with this. Btw you stated before you had recent lowec exp, but in your last post you say you dont - which of the two is correct? It cant be both, you know . I showed you numbers of drake overrepresentation. Are you ignoring me ? Do you think I'm lying ? Do you know you can check these numbers yourself ?
I'm starting to think you don't do so much lowsec pvp. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:22:00 -
[5436] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: Have you ever fit a sniper turret BS, especially one that armor tanks? Welcome to fitting choices. It no longer is an easy matter to figure out.
No i fly shield fleets and as it is turret BS snipers out dps the caldari cruise snipers by a long shot. Fitting choices or not the end result will be noone will take a CNR sniper into an Incursion fleet period. There will be even less dps out of the CNR and less of a tank it simple will not work. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:25:00 -
[5437] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote: i thought they didnt take u anyways. train rokh?
So spend 4-5 months fixing what ccp broke ? to get the gun skills to what they need to be to be worth anything its an easy 4 months at least. I do not understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp every pilot should have a viable option to fly how they want to fly in EVE. I should not have to retrain new skills just to get back to where I was before the nerf. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:27:00 -
[5438] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I showed you numbers of drake overrepresentation. Are you ignoring me ? Do you think I'm lying ? Do you know you can check these numbers yourself ?
So how about the over representation of projectiles vs every other weapons system???
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1061
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:31:00 -
[5439] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Have you ever fit a sniper turret BS, especially one that armor tanks? Welcome to fitting choices. It no longer is an easy matter to figure out.
No i fly shield fleets and as it is turret BS snipers out dps the caldari cruise snipers by a long shot. Fitting choices or not the end result will be noone will take a CNR sniper into an Incursion fleet period. There will be even less dps out of the CNR and less of a tank it simple will not work.
Why are you flying a cruise CNR for incursion fleets? Certainly a range extended torp CNR (60+kmish if i remember right) would do you much better if you INSIST on flying a missile boat.
That said incurstions are a poor place for a Missile ship when you're comparason is the Machariel and the Nightmare. Turns out Turrent ships suck against Sansha plexes (they tracking disrupt) and up north where FOF's are your best friend. Sometimes if you use the wrong tool to do a job, you can still get the job done, just not as well as the right tool can.
Also fit up any other battle cruiser for long range, with the largest sized long ranged medium guns. Now do the same thing with a drake. Which ones (<-trick part of the question is here)needed fitting mods and couldn't squeeze on a tank and which ones still bricked out near 100k hp while doing the long range bit.
Tell me more about how HML's aren't out of whack. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:33:00 -
[5440] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Lili Lu wrote: Have you ever fit a sniper turret BS, especially one that armor tanks? Welcome to fitting choices. It no longer is an easy matter to figure out.
No i fly shield fleets and as it is turret BS snipers out dps the caldari cruise snipers by a long shot. Fitting choices or not the end result will be noone will take a CNR sniper into an Incursion fleet period. There will be even less dps out of the CNR and less of a tank it simple will not work. I checked it : T2 fit, only a Paladin can outdps a *Raven* at 150km, and it cap itself out rather fastly. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:35:00 -
[5441] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: I showed you numbers of drake overrepresentation. Are you ignoring me ? Do you think I'm lying ? Do you know you can check these numbers yourself ?
So how about the over representation of projectiles vs every other weapons system??? See ship rebalancing and hurricane nerf. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:37:00 -
[5442] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I checked it : T2 fit, only a Paladin can outdps a *Raven* at 150km, and it cap itself out rather fastly.
This simply isn't true almost every Turret boat will do the job. Factor in the Mach or NM and the CNR is not needed |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:40:00 -
[5443] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: I checked it : T2 fit, only a Paladin can outdps a *Raven* at 150km, and it cap itself out rather fastly.
This simply isn't true almost every Turret boat will do the job. Factor in the Mach or NM and the CNR is not needed
Besides, if a Pala can, a Mare can too. Well, I think I will put Bouh where Jorma is. Its just not worth the time. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:42:00 -
[5444] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: i thought they didnt take u anyways. train rokh?
So spend 4-5 months fixing what ccp broke ? to get the gun skills to what they need to be to be worth anything its an easy 4 months at least. I do not understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp every pilot should have a viable option to fly how they want to fly in EVE. I should not have to retrain new skills just to get back to where I was before the nerf.
this is CCP's game. they can 'break' it if they want. if u dnt like it then just leave already!
why is it such a hard concept to grasp, u can fly how u want, but u have to accept any disadvantages that come with such hardline play. perhaps if u were more flexible u would be able to fly any ship that u still thought was viable, like the mach or nightmare. u shot urself in the foot when u decided 'i will be caldari and missile only, nothing else'.
4 months is nothing in the scale of eve. if ur the kind of person who wants instant gratification i'd suggest u were playing the wrong game. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:47:00 -
[5445] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: I checked it : T2 fit, only a Paladin can outdps a *Raven* at 150km, and it cap itself out rather fastly.
This simply isn't true almost every Turret boat will do the job. Factor in the Mach or NM and the CNR is not needed Besides, if a Pala can, a Mare can too. Well, I think I will put Bouh where Jorma is. Its just not worth the time.
Sounds like a plan to me. Either way it still looks like this will be my last month in EVE Unless something drastic happens the CNR sniper is a dead ship for what I used it for. Lowing the range to 110KM would mean I would need to find a way to boost range up well over 45% Anything I would use to fix range IE : TE,Rigs ect would just gimp the DPS even more.
When I can currently fit a pretty decent dps sniper cnr (yes i do allot of fleets) and come after Patch my ship will not have a place in its previous roles they is called a nerf people. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:51:00 -
[5446] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote: i thought they didnt take u anyways. train rokh?
So spend 4-5 months fixing what ccp broke ? to get the gun skills to what they need to be to be worth anything its an easy 4 months at least. I do not understand why this is such a hard concept to grasp every pilot should have a viable option to fly how they want to fly in EVE. I should not have to retrain new skills just to get back to where I was before the nerf. this is CCP's game. they can 'break' it if they want. if u dnt like it then just leave already! why is it such a hard concept to grasp, u can fly how u want, but u have to accept any disadvantages that come with such hardline play. perhaps if u were more flexible u would be able to fly any ship that u still thought was viable, like the mach or nightmare. u shot urself in the foot when u decided 'i will be caldari and missile only, nothing else'. 4 months is nothing in the scale of eve. if ur the kind of person who wants instant gratification i'd suggest u were playing the wrong game. Your as worthless as the rest of them done with you too |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:52:00 -
[5447] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: Your as worthless as the rest of them done with you too
cry more. doors thataway --> |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 00:56:00 -
[5448] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Sounds like a plan to me. Either way it still looks like this will be my last month in EVE Unless something drastic happens the CNR sniper is a dead ship for what I used it for. Lowing the range to 110KM would mean I would need to find a way to boost range up well over 45% Anything I would use to fix range IE : TE,Rigs ect would just gimp the DPS even more.
When I can currently fit a pretty decent dps sniper cnr (yes i do allot of fleets) and come after Patch my ship will not have a place in its previous roles they is called a nerf people. My bad, I missed the Nightmare. Though, you are not talking about 150km fit if you think even a pirate BS can do a lot more than 500dps at this range. A 4 heatsink+2TE Paladin/Mare does 530dps at 150km. With Caldari Navy scourge, a 3BCS CNR do 600dps at 250km.
You are not saying everything, or you are either bad or dishonnest. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 01:04:00 -
[5449] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: Your as worthless as the rest of them done with you too
cry more. doors thataway --> **** off more |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 01:05:00 -
[5450] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Sounds like a plan to me. Either way it still looks like this will be my last month in EVE Unless something drastic happens the CNR sniper is a dead ship for what I used it for. Lowing the range to 110KM would mean I would need to find a way to boost range up well over 45% Anything I would use to fix range IE : TE,Rigs ect would just gimp the DPS even more.
When I can currently fit a pretty decent dps sniper cnr (yes i do allot of fleets) and come after Patch my ship will not have a place in its previous roles they is called a nerf people. My bad, I missed the Nightmare. Though, you are not talking about 150km fit if you think even a pirate BS can do a lot more than 500dps at this range. A 4 heatsink+2TE Paladin/Mare does 530dps at 150km. With Caldari Navy scourge, a 3BCS CNR do 600dps at 250km. You are not saying everything, or you are either bad or dishonnest. These ingame numbers off the test server or are you playing EFT warrior ? because you are way off dude |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 01:07:00 -
[5451] - Quote
Two questions remain : will the HML Drake be removed from its first place of 30km fleet BC ? And will the HAM Drake have a place for warp disruptor range engagements ?
My guess is no and yes.
In 30km fleet, no BC will be better : tank, gank, no tracking.
In warp disruptor range engagement, HAM drake will still be one of the heaviest BC (very heavy buffer tank + passive regen) and the freed PG will free the PG rig or PDS, and the GMP skill will allow it to apply full damage on cruisers and above. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 01:09:00 -
[5452] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:These ingame numbers off the test server or are you playing EFT warrior ? because you are way off dude Then enlighten me instead of being rude.
I too can say "I have the only truth, and those who don't trust me are only incompetents." |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 01:19:00 -
[5453] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: These ingame numbers off the test server or are you playing EFT warrior ? because you are way off dude
as far as i can see, cruise's T1 and faction ammo isnt being changed. EFT'ing or not, they should perform as before.
which is like 560dps at 250km with 3BCS or 590dps with 4BCS |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
38
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 02:12:00 -
[5454] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: These ingame numbers off the test server or are you playing EFT warrior ? because you are way off dude
as far as i can see, cruise's T1 and faction ammo isnt being changed. EFT'ing or not, they should perform as before. which is like 560dps at 250km with 3BCS or 590dps with 4BCS
Correct and im sitting on 688.5 DPS as a sniper boat in a cnr for incursions with my T2 ammo with 3BCS tech 2 that is still a nerf of 130dps that ill have to take to continue to fit the role I am currently in. As T2 ammo can no longer snipe in incursions.
At this point i'm not even bothering to fight to try to stay in the game. If i see a fix to were I can stay competitive ill stay in game if not Ill find an other MMO it's pretty simple. Yes the door is right there and at this point I don't care if I stay or go.
If i can see some compelling numbers to stay ill stay if not i't out. This is not the only MMO I would rather play EVE But I just happen to be in a position where this current change is going to break the way I play. The change to Large cruise was supposed to be a buff but in my case it turns out to be a nerf.
As far as the cross training 4-5 months not being a factor it is for me as that off sets other plans I had that didn't include cross training at this time. And being off set by 4-5 months on two accounts is a pretty big deal means By next may ill be back on my feet ? I just don't see its worth it. And this has nothing to do even with HML is about Cruise so I do not see a reason for the range nerf. I mean you guys are worried about PVP right well we all know cruise will not and prob never will effect PVP.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 03:49:00 -
[5455] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:You can outrun/outrange missiles too. And you can outrun a missile in air, you never can do that with turrets.
Try hitting Dramiel @ 9km with 1400s... |
Maggeridon Thoraz
Reconfiguration Nation Transmission Lost
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 04:24:00 -
[5456] - Quote
sorry for not going thru 273 pages and find out if the inderdictors yet have mentioned. i just took a look into teh table and rocktes get as well a range nerf, how will that affect the 2 inderdictors that are mostly fitted with rockets ? will you adjust the boni on these ships ? |
quasarabyss
There is no life in space
13
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 04:58:00 -
[5457] - Quote
Why would you invest in training for missiles, ever, after this patch?
1. Can you *prove* that HML's are overpowered? Against what ship x range x weapon? Is there a spreadsheet showing this? A couple of factors work against missiles already; a) the training for missiles does not assist with other weapon types, whereas the base skills in gunnery apply across multiple Hybrid weps/lazers/Projectiles. b) DPS comparisons - the missile boat clearly loses it's 5,10 or 15 seconds initially travelling that 500-150km. The other sniper ships apply damage instantly. c) getting effective dps from a drake or raven - I found that even with damage, rigor and catalyst rigs, the Drake and Raven dps is improved but still not fantastic. A CNR is a little better (ofc) but as soon as you rig it for improved *applied* dps there goes your rig slots. And I still like a couple TP's on there whenever possible.
As my initial character was Caldari I went with Missiles training initally, and I wish I could get those skill points back every time I log in to the game. Will new players be advised 'missiles are the least productive weapon type' when starting to plan an Eve character? After all, Missiles are already low dps at close range (I know, Tengu might be an exception), so if they become less effective at medium-long range then the question is: why would you invest in training for missiles, ever?
Once the very few advantages of missiles are gone, they will become a redundant item/skill/weapon of the game. Kind of like defender missiles are currently.
2. "Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit" Perhaps Tracking mods and disruptors should not apply to missiles at all, since the missile bay does not 'track' as such. You are making this 'intuitive for new players' remember? ... and, since missiles have on-board guidance, wouldn't a TD work on each individual missile?
3. Balancing the Game. Could you please outline what a 'Balanced' version of Eve looks like? What is the plan here, what are you and CCP actually aiming for ... or is it a litle bit here, a little bit there approach? If there is no such plan for a 'balanced' Eve, then it makes the missile changes random and arbitrary and poorly planned, in whatever form they take. If there's a plan let's see it.
4. Tengu's The Caldari have one ship that is clearly superior, but are way behind everywhere else. And besides, the thing still looks like a drake!
5. If missiles were so good.... The incursion runners would be using them.
In Eve and in RL there is always something stronger and weaker. Once you remove the 'overpowered' stuff from the game -tengus cruise missiles NM's mach's lazors hybrids projectiles vindi's rokh et al - there will still be something stronger and something weaker. IMO, overpowered ships are a player's reward for investing time and ISK.
Summary: I don't mind changes, but tell me the plan so I can train for the new best deal. (Insert witticism here) |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 05:20:00 -
[5458] - Quote
quasarabyss wrote:Why would you invest in training for missiles, ever, after this patch?
1. Can you *prove* that HML's are overpowered? Against what ship x range x weapon? Is there a spreadsheet showing this? A couple of factors work against missiles already; a) the training for missiles does not assist with other weapon types, whereas the base skills in gunnery apply across multiple Hybrid weps/lazers/Projectiles. b) DPS comparisons - the missile boat clearly loses it's 5,10 or 15 seconds initially travelling that 500-150km. The other sniper ships apply damage instantly. c) getting effective dps from a drake or raven - I found that even with damage, rigor and catalyst rigs, the Drake and Raven dps is improved but still not fantastic. A CNR is a little better (ofc) but as soon as you rig it for improved *applied* dps there goes your rig slots. And I still like a couple TP's on there whenever possible.
As my initial character was Caldari I went with Missiles training initally, and I wish I could get those skill points back every time I log in to the game. Will new players be advised 'missiles are the least productive weapon type' when starting to plan an Eve character? After all, Missiles are already low dps at close range (I know, Tengu might be an exception), so if they become less effective at medium-long range then the question is: why would you invest in training for missiles, ever?
Once the very few advantages of missiles are gone, they will become a redundant item/skill/weapon of the game. Kind of like defender missiles are currently.
2. "Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit" Perhaps Tracking mods and disruptors should not apply to missiles at all, since the missile bay does not 'track' as such. You are making this 'intuitive for new players' remember? ... and, since missiles have on-board guidance, wouldn't a TD work on each individual missile?
3. Balancing the Game. Could you please outline what a 'Balanced' version of Eve looks like? What is the plan here, what are you and CCP actually aiming for ... or is it a litle bit here, a little bit there approach? If there is no such plan for a 'balanced' Eve, then it makes the missile changes random and arbitrary and poorly planned, in whatever form they take. If there's a plan let's see it.
4. Tengu's The Caldari have one ship that is clearly superior, but are way behind everywhere else. And besides, the thing still looks like a drake!
5. If missiles were so good.... The incursion runners would be using them.
In Eve and in RL there is always something stronger and weaker. Once you remove the 'overpowered' stuff from the game -tengus cruise missiles NM's mach's lazors hybrids projectiles vindi's rokh et al - there will still be something stronger and something weaker. IMO, overpowered ships are a player's reward for investing time and ISK.
Summary: I don't mind changes, but tell me the plan so I can train for the new best deal.
I have come to find out You will not get any rational explanation for this nerf. You will get some arbitrary numbers thrown at you that have not actually been tested in game and given some hypothetical situations based on theorycrafting and spreadsheets. Or just the well its your fault for training missiles you should have know they were garbage but yet some how overpowered and needed to be nerfed so cross train projectiles.
The fact of the matter is there is no reason to train into missiles ever guns do it all better that if why you do not see the missiles boats in the high end incursion fleets even though missiles are the king on pve but yet worse then anything else out there. I agree with your post 100% if you trained guns you are lacking there is no reason to train missiles and noone would ever say hey you should have trained missiles. But if you trained missiles you are lacking in every aspect possible and get told well you should have diversified. Its all a bunch of **** CCP pulled this nerf out of their asses to appease the cry babies because **** all if projectiles don't rule every aspect of pvp missiles can not be on the top of that list. |
Opertone
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
175
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 05:49:00 -
[5459] - Quote
You folks miss the point. You've got to be one of Caldari to understand
Reason 1: Caldari population is the highest of all. Is it because of good looks, nice intro racial decription or some other aesthetics. Caldari is number one race.
Reason 2: Caldari ships mostly use missiles. Missiles are ideal training path that fits PVE and money making play style. For a long time missiles were the only way to go, because long range hybrids and optimal bonuses were too weak. Most pilots have missiles trained, with that in mind they are reluctant to waste training time on alternate weapon system, which may be used on a rare occasion. This is why 90% Caldari stick to missiles when they pilot caldari vessels.
Number one race multiplied by 90% missile users = you get high number of kills by missiles.
Reason 3: Before, missiles sucked at PvP too, Drake was carebears number one choice, everybody laughed at Caldari. Now that missiles were made viable option, raging caldari take their revenge. They bring the ships they like and fight the way they want to. Without the need to cross train to ever be invited to fleet.
Caldari ships are not close range and tackle type - there is no room for tackle and tank, thus they prefer DPS support role and Tank. Longer range missiles are better for longer range bombardment. For HACs, Cruisers and BCs Medium size leaves one option - Heavy Missile Launcher.
Caldari can not really go close range too well. LoL tanking, 0% EM hole, number 1 primary, heaviest incoming damage up close. This lies within the SHIP design, slot layout, etc. Caldari remain support craft.
Also Caldari BS fleet made of Raven = lol, best use for POS bash, or stupid single carrier blowing. They do not fit into 'all on one primary' doctrine of FLEET BS. As the target gets switched and dead by means of alpha, missiles have not reached anywhere yet. Bring enough raven and enemy targets will start to warp off before the volley hits them. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 06:19:00 -
[5460] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Or just the well its your fault for training missiles you should have know they were garbage but yet some how overpowered and needed to be nerfed so cross train projectiles.
Trolling much?
Cross training and dedicating training time to projectiles would be bad idea now since, you know, they are next on the list.
Even small things like tweaking stats of TE would have major hit to projectile performance.
Why train missiles after this patch? HAMs/rockets. We have to see what happens to torps, but we have to wait a bit longer. Heavy missiles are still a bit better than long range turrets so no worries there. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
233
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 07:07:00 -
[5461] - Quote
Opertone wrote:You folks miss the point. You've got to be one of Caldari to understand
Reason 1: Caldari population is the highest of all. Is it because of good looks, nice intro racial decription or some other aesthetics. Caldari is number one race.
Reason 2: Caldari ships mostly use missiles. Missiles are ideal training path that fits PVE and money making play style. For a long time missiles were the only way to go, because long range hybrids and optimal bonuses were too weak. Most pilots have missiles trained, with that in mind they are reluctant to waste training time on alternate weapon system, which may be used on a rare occasion. This is why 90% Caldari stick to missiles when they pilot caldari vessels.
Number one race multiplied by 90% missile users = you get high number of kills by missiles. You're operating under the gross assumption that #1. Caldari pilots train primarily for caldari ships #2. People never cross train
Both of these assumptions are unspeakably moronic because both of them are demonstrably untrue.
Opertone wrote:Reason 3: Before, missiles sucked at PvP too, Drake was carebears number one choice, everybody laughed at Caldari. Now that missiles were made viable option, raging caldari take their revenge. They bring the ships they like and fight the way they want to. Without the need to cross train to ever be invited to fleet. IIRC there havent been any major missile changes since they changed the missile damage formula back in 2008
Missiles sucked in PvP because of lag, lag would either cause the missiles to do no damage or cause the node to crash because of increased load etc etc etc.
Only after they basically fixed lag with TiDi did missiles start to become a problem because now theyre on equal footing with guns (lag wise) and theyre clearly a superior platform.
Opertone wrote:Caldari ships are not close range and tackle type - there is no room for tackle and tank, thus they prefer DPS support role and Tank. Longer range missiles are better for longer range bombardment. For HACs, Cruisers and BCs Medium size leaves one option - Heavy Missile Launcher. The Harpy, Hawk, Hookbill, and Moa would all like a word with you.
Opertone wrote:Caldari can not really go close range too well. LoL tanking, 0% EM hole, number 1 primary, heaviest incoming damage up close. This lies within the SHIP design, slot layout, etc. Caldari remain support craft. First off, allow me to introduce you to a little module I like to call "EM Ward Field II" it has a way of fixing that EM hole problem you mentioned. Just like the armor tankers have to fix that Explosive hole problem . . .
Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by them taking the most damage up close or being primary . . . they take no more damage than anyone else up close, and usually dont get primaried over anyone else because of their race . . .
Try flying a gallente ship that is supposed to armor tank, and still somehow cram damage mods and tracking enhancers on, and is slower because of the armor tank, and has no 5% resist bonus then come back and whine to me . . . I might take you more seriously. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
234
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 07:16:00 -
[5462] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:I have come to find out You will not get any rational explanation for this nerf. You will get some arbitrary numbers thrown at you that have not actually been tested in game and given some hypothetical situations based on theorycrafting and spreadsheets. Or just the well its your fault for training missiles you should have know they were garbage but yet some how overpowered and needed to be nerfed so cross train projectiles.
The fact of the matter is there is no reason to train into missiles ever guns do it all better that if why you do not see the missiles boats in the high end incursion fleets even though missiles are the king on pve but yet worse then anything else out there. I agree with your post 100% if you trained guns you are lacking there is no reason to train missiles and noone would ever say hey you should have trained missiles. But if you trained missiles you are lacking in every aspect possible and get told well you should have diversified. Its all a bunch of **** CCP pulled this nerf out of their asses to appease the cry babies because **** all if projectiles don't rule every aspect of pvp missiles can not be on the top of that list. yep, its confirmed, its more effective to fight a curse in a harbinger than a drake
Its confirmed that my blasters do more damage than HAMs at 20 km
Its confirmed that my rails do more damage than HMLs at 50 km
Its confirmed . . . no reason to use missiles . . .
seriously though, autocannons are totally OP at short ranges; theyre better than blasters in pretty much every way, but lets be honest, compare the HML to rails, beams or artillery . . . sure rails usually out range them but other than that, theyre at an advantage in pretty much every way over the other long range weapons |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 08:28:00 -
[5463] - Quote
Sigras wrote:First off, allow me to introduce you to a little module I like to call "EM Ward Field II" it has a way of fixing that EM hole problem you mentioned. Just like the armor tankers have to fix that Explosive hole problem . . . .
I agree with you about this. Caldari just can fix their EM hole. Winmatar t2 on the other hand dont even have one ..
Another thing about resistances: most Caldari missile ships are bonused on kinetic damage, its an easy way to hardcounter their DPS by fitting kinetic resistance. Because with everything else they just deal 25% less (which is not impressive at all ..), This is something one cant do vs. Projectiles, and only partly vs Hybrids and Lasers, although both of them have other issues. The fact you dont see an overuse of kin-resi modules shows pretty well how people are either 1) not able to adapt to a situation or 2) this situation is in fact not there.
Sigras wrote: Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by them taking the most damage up close or being primary . . . they take no more damage than anyone else up close, and usually dont get primaried over anyone else because of their race . . .
Agreed, Caldari get hardly ever primaried if not flying ECM or Logi, simply because they have weakest DPS per HP. Which is because they have both, DPS not on the high side (but admitted, with good range projection) AND high EHP. So one would be better of to kill higher DPS ships with less HP first.
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 08:35:00 -
[5464] - Quote
Sigras wrote: seriously though, autocannons are totally OP at short ranges; theyre better than blasters in pretty much every way, but lets be honest, compare the HML to rails, beams or artillery . . . sure rails usually out range them but other than that, theyre at an advantage in pretty much every way over the other long range weapons
At long ranges yes. Thats the dilemma we have with that flat damage curve. And with the stupid fitting reqs HML-HAM in comparison to all other SR-LR. Again: give HML different ammo for different ranges, make it 3, make it 4, whatever. A 3 or 4 stepped curve would be so much easier to balance. To find a fix for flight time issuesat high ranges would also be easier that way. Change the reqs, so HML are the ones which are harder to fit - HML Drake would no longer be the tankier of the 2. And you would see people actually use more HAMs, because right now they have to sacrifice tank to fit HAMs, and dont have to sacrifice tank to stay far out (which is less dangerous anyway ;) ) - so not hard to guess what people like better, in this risk averse universe? :)
I am pretty sure Eve could be brought to really good balance with just some minor general changes and some hulls completely repaired. Then Eve-kill would be about all weapons the same and not >50% projectiles and less than 50% for the rest.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 09:32:00 -
[5465] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Another thing about resistances: most Caldari missile ships are bonused on kinetic damage, its an easy way to hardcounter their DPS by fitting kinetic resistance. Because with everything else they just deal 25% less (which is not impressive at all ..), This is something one cant do vs. Projectiles, and only partly vs Hybrids and Lasers, although both of them have other issues. The fact you dont see an overuse of kin-resi modules shows pretty well how people are either 1) not able to adapt to a situation or 2) this situation is in fact not there.
Your theory has a massive flaw. If someone uses slots just to counter kinetic missile damage they're leaving other resists holes for you to exploit. Check new Caracal. Where do you see kinetic damage bonus? They have said they are planning to replace Drake's kinetic damage bonus with rof bonus. That's a direct buff to Drake's damage for all damage types.
What? You can't counter projectiles with resistances? Ever tried to shoot Barrage at Amarr T2 ships? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
234
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 09:38:00 -
[5466] - Quote
quasarabyss wrote:a) the training for missiles does not assist with other weapon types, whereas the base skills in gunnery apply across multiple Hybrid weps/lazers/Projectiles. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Seriously this has nothing to do with balance . . . Allow me to give you a ridiculous example to illustrate
If they came out with a new weapon system (plasma launchers) that take 2 years to train for, and none of the skills that affect them affect anything else They do 200 DPS per medium plasma launcher, using 175 PG, 25 CPU, no cap, no ammo, have an optimal of 20 km and track at .4 rads/second Does the fact that they take two years to train for make them any less overpowered?
Training time has nothing to do with balance.
quasarabyss wrote:c) getting effective dps from a drake or raven - I found that even with damage, rigor and catalyst rigs, the Drake and Raven dps is improved but still not fantastic. A CNR is a little better (ofc) but as soon as you rig it for improved *applied* dps there goes your rig slots. And I still like a couple TP's on there whenever possible. I find this argument is most common with people who go ratting a lot, and this is because the stupid rats fly straight toward you making your damage application 100% with turrets, but missiles still take their damage reduction
The thing is, nobody is that stupid in PvP the damage application of HMLs is way better than pulse lasers when fighting a well flown frigate.
quasarabyss wrote:Missiles are already low dps at close range (I know, Tengu might be an exception), so if they become less effective at medium-long range then the question is: why would you invest in training for missiles, ever? HAMs do (and will continue to do) more DPS than any other short ranged weapon at 20 km Rockets and lights are very effective in PvP Cruise and Torps still need work Havent had much time to mess around with the new HMLs so i cant comment on them.
quasarabyss wrote:4. Tengu's The Caldari have one ship that is clearly superior, but are way behind everywhere else. And besides, the thing still looks like a drake! The fact that all of their other ships suck is not a justification for making one ship overpowered.
quasarabyss wrote:5. If missiles were so good.... The incursion runners would be using them. This is an idiotic statement . . .
PvE has nothing to do with PvP; people use faction battleships and weird specific setups in incursions all the time, this doesnt make them good, and the things that they're not using arent necessarily bad. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
234
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 09:40:00 -
[5467] - Quote
quasarabyss wrote:In Eve and in RL there is always something stronger and weaker. Once you remove the 'overpowered' stuff from the game -tengus cruise missiles NM's mach's lazors hybrids projectiles vindi's rokh et al - there will still be something stronger and something weaker. First of all, this is erroneous . . . for example, starcraft
secondly, you dont want perfect balance, you want well crafted subtle imbalance. http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/perfect-imbalance |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
234
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 09:48:00 -
[5468] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:First off, allow me to introduce you to a little module I like to call "EM Ward Field II" it has a way of fixing that EM hole problem you mentioned. Just like the armor tankers have to fix that Explosive hole problem . . . . I agree with you about this. Caldari just can fix their EM hole. Winmatar t2 on the other hand dont even have one .. Neither do amarr T2 but nobody seems to complain about that, so it clearly isnt the issue. also you forgot to mention the insanely high thermal resist the caldari T2 ships get.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Another thing about resistances: most Caldari missile ships are bonused on kinetic damage, its an easy way to hardcounter their DPS by fitting kinetic resistance. Because with everything else they just deal 25% less (which is not impressive at all ..), This is something one cant do vs. Projectiles, and only partly vs Hybrids and Lasers, although both of them have other issues. The fact you dont see an overuse of kin-resi modules shows pretty well how people are either 1) not able to adapt to a situation or 2) this situation is in fact not there. First of all, most PvP fits are omni tanks anyway.
Secondly, missiles are miles ahead of lasers and hybrids because they at least can switch damage if theyre shooting at gallente T2, if the amarr are shooting at matari T2 or gallente are shooting at caldari T2 theyre just boned and might as well go home.
Lastly, the caldari ships are having their bonuses moved away from the kinetic, after the changes i believe the only remaining ships to have a kinetic only bonus will be the drake, the hookbill, the navy caracal, and the T2 ships (i may be wrong about this one) |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
234
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 09:55:00 -
[5469] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Sigras wrote:seriously though, autocannons are totally OP at short ranges; theyre better than blasters in pretty much every way, but lets be honest, compare the HML to rails, beams or artillery . . . sure rails usually out range them but other than that, theyre at an advantage in pretty much every way over the other long range weapons At long ranges yes. Thats the dilemma we have with that flat damage curve. And with the stupid fitting reqs HML-HAM in comparison to all other SR-LR. Again: give HML different ammo for different ranges, make it 3, make it 4, whatever. A 3 or 4 stepped curve would be so much easier to balance. To find a fix for flight time issues at higher ranges would also be easier that way. Its kinda funny, theyre trying to do this with the T2 ammo and people are complaining about that too. The short range high damage ammo creates a 2 tier damage curve and people are whining and complaining about it.
Noemi Nagano wrote:Change the reqs, so HML are the ones which are harder to fit - HML Drake would no longer be the tankier of the 2. And you would see people actually use more HAMs, because right now they have to sacrifice tank to fit HAMs, and dont have to sacrifice tank to stay far out with HML (which is less dangerous anyway ;) ) - so not hard to guess what people like better, in this risk averse universe? :) Very much this ^^
Basically they should just switch the PG requirements for HAM and HML |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 10:26:00 -
[5470] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Its kinda funny, theyre trying to do this with the T2 ammo and people are complaining about that too. The short range high damage ammo creates a 2 tier damage curve and people are whining and complaining about it.
I agree with you here, its one step. But its missing a bit the long range aspect ... well, we will see how it works. I am pretty sure it could have been fixed in a much better way, but we cant change anything atm anyway.
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Change the reqs, so HML are the ones which are harder to fit - HML Drake would no longer be the tankier of the 2. And you would see people actually use more HAMs, because right now they have to sacrifice tank to fit HAMs, and dont have to sacrifice tank to stay far out with HML (which is less dangerous anyway ;) ) - so not hard to guess what people like better, in this risk averse universe? :) Very much this ^^ Basically they should just switch the PG requirements for HAM and HML
Fozzie, read this? :)
|
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 10:28:00 -
[5471] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Secondly, missiles are miles ahead of lasers and hybrids because they at least can switch damage if theyre shooting at gallente T2, if the amarr are shooting at matari T2 or gallente are shooting at caldari T2 theyre just boned and might as well go home.)
Admitted.
Sigras wrote: Lastly, the caldari ships are having their bonuses moved away from the kinetic, after the changes i believe the only remaining ships to have a kinetic only bonus will be the drake, the hookbill, the navy caracal, and the T2 ships (i may be wrong about this one)
Ok, but that was not the case with the Drake so far, thats what I meant. I do see a movement from kin bonus to other DPS bonus ideas, and I like them.
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 13:04:00 -
[5472] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Has any one brought up the reload time? Missile Launchers take 10 seconds, while guns take 5 not to mention the instant swap for lens. Also incorrect. Lasers swap instantly, projectiles take 10sec only hybribs swap in 5 seconds.
my point is that if it is going to be "balanced" than reload time needs to be considered to, they should all have the same delay time, AND hold the same amount of rounds. Either that or each one of the weapon systems needs to have an advantage to it. Be it range, dps, instantly swapping damage type, or a variety of damage types. It isn't balanced unless everything is |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 14:03:00 -
[5473] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Onictus wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Has any one brought up the reload time? Missile Launchers take 10 seconds, while guns take 5 not to mention the instant swap for lens. Also incorrect. Lasers swap instantly, projectiles take 10sec only hybribs swap in 5 seconds. my point is that if it is going to be "balanced" than reload time needs to be considered to, they should all have the same delay time, AND hold the same amount of rounds. Either that or each one of the weapon systems needs to have an advantage to it. Be it range, dps, instantly swapping damage type, or a variety of damage types. It isn't balanced unless everything is
You do have a fair point there .. AFAIK AC run out of ammo way later than their missile peers. Lasers normally dont run out at all and range change is a breeze. Hybrids is somewhere in between. But yeah, too many people just focus on DPS and range and ignore everything else :)
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 14:04:00 -
[5474] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Onictus wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Has any one brought up the reload time? Missile Launchers take 10 seconds, while guns take 5 not to mention the instant swap for lens. Also incorrect. Lasers swap instantly, projectiles take 10sec only hybribs swap in 5 seconds. my point is that if it is going to be "balanced" than reload time needs to be considered to, they should all have the same delay time, AND hold the same amount of rounds. Either that or each one of the weapon systems needs to have an advantage to it. Be it range, dps, instantly swapping damage type, or a variety of damage types. It isn't balanced unless everything is Yeah, make everything the same is much better...
Or realize that 10s reload go with selectable damage, and ammo clip size go with alpha. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
127
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 14:05:00 -
[5475] - Quote
Interesting read : wikipedia : Balance_(game_design) |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
490
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 15:27:00 -
[5476] - Quote
Spc One wrote: Drake has 37.5% less range.
Drake, ( same fit as tengu with 3 caldari navy bcu's ):
TQ: DPS: 503 (All level 5 skills, missiles and battlecruiser 5) Range: 75km (All level 5 skills, missiles and battlecruiser 5)
Duality: DPS: 476 (All level 5 skills, missiles and battlecruiser 5) Range: 30km (All level 5 skills, missiles and battlecruiser 5)
...
I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ?
Fozzie : You're using Furies I assume?
SPC : Yes, t-2, furies. Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete. No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... and after the patch / new expansion even more.[/quote]
Fozzie : You'll notice that using any T1, faction or precision missile the range nerf is more moderate. The plan converts furies into shorter range missiles with a larger damage bonus compared to their T1 variants.
---
Drake 30km range Tengu 46km range for T2 heavy missiles ? CCP Fozzie, I'd like to know what you're on cause it apparently it is a seriously heavy trip. This will effectively remove missile ships out of the game except perhaps gate camping HAM Drakes. Seriously, get back to the drawing board because the shitstorm this will raise will be of epic proportions.
FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 15:44:00 -
[5477] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Onictus wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Has any one brought up the reload time? Missile Launchers take 10 seconds, while guns take 5 not to mention the instant swap for lens. Also incorrect. Lasers swap instantly, projectiles take 10sec only hybribs swap in 5 seconds. my point is that if it is going to be "balanced" than reload time needs to be considered to, they should all have the same delay time, AND hold the same amount of rounds. Either that or each one of the weapon systems needs to have an advantage to it. Be it range, dps, instantly swapping damage type, or a variety of damage types. It isn't balanced unless everything is Yeah, make everything the same is much better... Or realize that 10s reload go with selectable damage, and ammo clip size go with alpha.
Missiles and Projectiles have selectable damage like hybrids and lasers? I must have missed the other varieties when i was looking at the 4 i have to pick from.
Also for the balancing purpose you might as well add cap usage to the list, i can't believe that has been left out!
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
128
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 16:46:00 -
[5478] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:Drake 30km range Tengu 46km range for T2 heavy missiles ? CCP Fozzie, I'd like to know what you're on cause it apparently it is a seriously heavy trip. This will effectively remove missile ships out of the game except perhaps gate camping HAM Drakes. Seriously, get back to the drawing board because the shitstorm this will raise will be of epic proportions.
Yeah, it's like the OP short range ammo on medLR turrets, OP damage, and OP range too : 9km ! Tracking you said ? what's this ?! You can blap frigates anyway !
Or should HML be compared to large guns maybe ? |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 17:02:00 -
[5479] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: These ingame numbers off the test server or are you playing EFT warrior ? because you are way off dude
as far as i can see, cruise's T1 and faction ammo isnt being changed. EFT'ing or not, they should perform as before. which is like 560dps at 250km with 3BCS or 590dps with 4BCS Correct and im sitting on 688.5 DPS as a sniper boat in a cnr for incursions with my T2 ammo with 3BCS tech 2 that is still a nerf of 130dps that ill have to take to continue to fit the role I am currently in. As T2 ammo can no longer snipe in incursions.
sooo....dont use T2 unless its close range. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 17:04:00 -
[5480] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:Spc One wrote: Drake has 37.5% less range.
Drake, ( same fit as tengu with 3 caldari navy bcu's ):
TQ: DPS: 503 (All level 5 skills, missiles and battlecruiser 5) Range: 75km (All level 5 skills, missiles and battlecruiser 5)
Duality: DPS: 476 (All level 5 skills, missiles and battlecruiser 5) Range: 30km (All level 5 skills, missiles and battlecruiser 5)
...
I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ?
Fozzie : You're using Furies I assume? SPC : Yes, t-2, furies. Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete. No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... and after the patch / new expansion even more.
Fozzie : You'll notice that using any T1, faction or precision missile the range nerf is more moderate. The plan converts furies into shorter range missiles with a larger damage bonus compared to their T1 variants.
---
Drake 30km range Tengu 46km range for T2 heavy missiles ? CCP Fozzie, I'd like to know what you're on cause it apparently it is a seriously heavy trip. This will effectively remove missile ships out of the game except perhaps gate camping HAM Drakes. Seriously, get back to the drawing board because the shitstorm this will raise will be of epic proportions. [/quote]
The DEVs are very well aware of how bad they are screwing caldari missile users. They play this game for fun too. There is no way they don't know, its just they don't care, they are taking care of their projectile friends and that's all that matters.
They assume that enough people wont quit EVE because they think you have no other options and you'll fuss a bit but in the end you'll stay and keep feeding them cash. The only way they might care is if us caldari missile pilots walk away from eve and cancel our subs until we see s Fix.
The DEV posted asking us to try the changes we did they sucked we spoke they didn't reply. Why? For the reason stated Above they will not address concerns they will ignore it and gamble that you stay |
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 17:10:00 -
[5481] - Quote
missiles are the only weapons that can still deal any damage type with T2 ammo. half range or not, thats one hell of an advantage. |
Media freak
His Majesty's Privateers Warden.
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 17:15:00 -
[5482] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Onictus wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Has any one brought up the reload time? Missile Launchers take 10 seconds, while guns take 5 not to mention the instant swap for lens. Also incorrect. Lasers swap instantly, projectiles take 10sec only hybribs swap in 5 seconds. my point is that if it is going to be "balanced" than reload time needs to be considered to, they should all have the same delay time, AND hold the same amount of rounds. Either that or each one of the weapon systems needs to have an advantage to it. Be it range, dps, instantly swapping damage type, or a variety of damage types. It isn't balanced unless everything is Yeah, make everything the same is much better... Or realize that 10s reload go with selectable damage, and ammo clip size go with alpha. Missiles and Projectiles have selectable damage like hybrids and lasers? I must have missed the other varieties when i was looking at the 4 i have to pick from. Also for the balancing purpose you might as well add cap usage to the list, i can't believe that has been left out!
Missiles and Projectiles have selectable damage hybrids and lasers do not hybrids use some cap to shoot lasers use cap to shoot Missiles and Projectiles do not use cap Missiles and Projectiles take 10s to reload hybrids take 5 s to reload lasers are instant |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 17:17:00 -
[5483] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:
They assume that enough people wont quit EVE because they think you have no other options and you'll fuss a bit but in the end you'll stay and keep feeding them cash.
this is exactly what u will do.
Cazador 64 wrote: The DEV posted asking us to try the changes we did they sucked we spoke they didn't reply. Why? For the reason stated Above they will not address concerns they will ignore it and gamble that you stay
hes addressed the arguments in his updated thread. since then ppl have been making the same points and are still asking for their SP's back.
u'd accomplish more by just never flying caldari again. if devs see no one flying caldari ships or missiles then they'll have another look.
problem is, lots of ppl do fly caldari ships and lots of ppl use missiles. u'll never get ppl to stop because they're bloody good, even after this nerf. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 18:21:00 -
[5484] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Can CCP reimburse skillpoints to people who have trained missiles? In a MMO like Eve balance does change from time to time and skills will not be reimbursed unless their use is being removed from the game. If you believe that these changes make missiles useless then let us know why in as much detail as possible and if we agree the solution won't be to reimburse skills, it will be to adjust the proposal so that missiles are no longer made useless. Heavy missiles were the first medium weapon system I ever trained when I started playing Eve, and I have made excellent use of them through the years so I understand how good it feels to have skills invested in an extremely powerful weapon system. Most people who have been playing the game for a while can name a few times it has felt like their playstyle has been nerfed, because by definition the overpowered areas of the game tend to attract a lot of people. The four most heavily used medium weapons in the game are all Heavy Missile launcher variants, as well as seven of the top eleven. Whenever we need to change something this powerful it will always be painful because so many players will have done the smart thing and flocked to the best game mechanic. If it feels like CCP nerfs you a lot that's just a sign that you're doing it right and getting good at staying on top of the best trends so pat yourself on the back.
So whats up with the silent nerf to Cruise missile snipers forcing us into T1 or Faction to hit the range we once had in essence lowers the dps and there for is a nerf by relation. Also you speak of nerfing HML by there over use in PVP, so why are we seeing a HML nerf and not a projectile nerf?? We have provided numbers that projectiles dominate everything when you total everything out and all other systems missiles included only get a fraction of the use on the grand scheme of things.
Everyone knows DEVs play EVE so you can't claim ignorance you guys know full well how imbalanced projectiles and the Winmatar have been for years. And yet we face a Caldari missile nerf? Forgive some of us for not trusting what you say here.
CCP Fozzie wrote: Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone? We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Many pages of feedback have been given since test went live. You are not going to get any new feedback by waiting it's going to be the same page after page. When can we expect some feedback to the concerms stated? Or are you just biding time until it's to late to make any adjustments and this all goes live and we are basically SOL.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
129
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 18:41:00 -
[5485] - Quote
BS and cruise missiles will be rebalanced later, by summer.
Patience is a vertu you should have learned in EVE.
And if you are too stubborn to adapt during this time, we cannot do anything for you.
They have a plan... |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 18:55:00 -
[5486] - Quote
What about the nerf to the CNR Sniper Currently on test T2 missiles will only hit out to 110. If you are sniping incursions you need to be well over 50.
So we change to faction ammo and by forcing us into faction ammo it brings on a pretty heavy DPS nerf. I think all cruise missiles need work on damage buffs but leave the range alone. You have provided no data showing that a high dps T2 cruise at a unnerfed range implements any imbalance for why the nerf??
When we look at the other Incursion snipers Mach/NM the CNR is out classed as it is and this nerf will make it even worse. I would even suggest an other 5% buff to damage ontop of current changes and leave range alone. Unless you intend to release some cruise missile pirate ship to replace the missile sniper.
I mean you are already nerfing the HML out of use we need something to fall back on don't take the long range cruise our of it also. I would also like to know why the HML is getting the look when over all the projectiles far over shadows missiles lasers and hybrids??
http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 adding everything up gives a very clear example of how the projectile is the most favored over all. The excuse given for this nerf was that the HML was favored over other weapons systems you left out that it was on an individual level. How is this HML nerf going to bring everything into harmony and unison? Won't this just bring more favoritism to the projectiles? The HML enjoyed a slight advantage 10% dmg by your estimates and a decent range.
Now that the drake and tengu will no longer enjoy the benefits of being marginally "better" Pilots will have no reason to continue the use of them and they will look to the projectiles to compensate. Making the projectiles even more favored and over used.
|
Lili Lu
565
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 19:10:00 -
[5487] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: Drake 30km range Tengu 46km range for T2 heavy missiles ? CCP Fozzie, I'd like to know what you're on cause it apparently it is a seriously heavy trip. This will effectively remove missile ships out of the game except perhaps gate camping HAM Drakes. Seriously, get back to the drawing board because the shitstorm this will raise will be of epic proportions.
The DEVs are very well aware of how bad they are screwing caldari missile users. They play this game for fun too. There is no way they don't know, its just they don't care, they are taking care of their projectile friends and that's all that matters.
They assume that enough people wont quit EVE because they think you have no other options and you'll fuss a bit but in the end you'll stay and keep feeding them cash. The only way they might care is if us caldari missile pilots walk away from eve and cancel our subs until we see s Fix.
The DEV posted asking us to try the changes we did they sucked we spoke they didn't reply. Why? For the reason stated Above they will not address concerns they will ignore it and gamble that you stay
FFS. Have you any sense of turret use and balance? There you are complaining about high damage tech II ammo on a long range weapon. Open up eft, because I'm sure you've got no experience with tech II turrets, put the high damage tech II ammo in a turret, enjoy the much shorter optimal and wonderful falloff damage reduction. Harbinger w Gleam in Heavy Beam IIs, 9k optimal and 15k falloff with two TCs ! Cane w Quake in 720mm IIs, 6k optimal and 22k falloff ! You've got nothing to complain about in comparison.
Oh boo hoo my high damage tech II ammo can't reach almost the same distance as my normal long range ammo any longer what will I ever do this is so unfair to make it more even with turret ammo but still better range. It's so unfair that I can't keep my op damage at 70km, and my tech I ammo will still be outdamaging turret tech II ammo at that range
Please do cancel your sub. The game will be better off without your kind. Frankly you got spoiled over the years with op long range weapon system. New players won't be as childish as you. o/
edit - and there you go lumping all projectile weapons together, medium and large, long and short range. Learn to differentiate or GTFO |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
42
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 19:22:00 -
[5488] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:FFS. Have you any sense of turret use and balance? There you are complaining about high damage tech II ammo on a long range weapon. Open up eft, because I'm sure you've got no experience with tech II turrets, put the high damage tech II ammo in a turret, enjoy the much shorter optimal and wonderful falloff damage reduction. Harbinger w Gleam in Heavy Beam IIs, 9k optimal and 15k falloff with two TCs ! Cane w Quake in 720mm IIs, 6k optimal and 22k falloff ! You've got nothing to complain about in comparison. Oh boo hoo my high damage tech II ammo can't reach almost the same distance as my normal long range ammo any longer what will I ever do this is so unfair to make it more even with turret ammo but still better range. It's so unfair that I can't keep my op damage at 70km, and my tech I ammo will still be outdamaging turret tech II ammo at that range Please do cancel your sub. The game will be better off without your kind. Frankly you got spoiled over the years with op long range weapon system. New players won't be as childish as you. o/ edit - and there you go lumping all projectile weapons together, medium and large, long and short range. Learn to differentiate or GTFO
You should trained missiles then if your turrets are that under powered. If Projectiles are so bad off why are they so over used? Or are you that much of an ignoramus to see this?
better off without my kind? why because I pointed out how over used projectiles are? Stop raging all over my post if you don't like what I have to say you are more then welcome to not read them, because frankly I am sick of reading your garbage and filth that you post on here. How about you GTFO out your projectiles are over used and over powered and I am going to laugh in your face when they get nerfed next.
And this will be the last response i read form you anyhow shut you out like the rest of the idiots. |
Lili Lu
565
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 19:27:00 -
[5489] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: You should trained missiles then if your turrets are that under powered. If Projectiles are so bad off why are they so over used? Or are you that much of an ignoramus to see this?
better off without my kind? why because I pointed out how over used projectiles are? Stop raging all over my post if you don't like what I have to say you are more then welcome to not read them, because frankly I am sick of reading your garbage and filth that you post on here. How about you GTFO out your projectiles are over used and over powered and I am going to laugh in your face when they get nerfed next.
And this will be the last response i read form you anyhow shut you out like the rest of the idiots.
I don't give a **** whether you choose to block your ability to read my posts or not. But I'll keep reading yours and exposing your stupidity.
As for sp I've got 22 missile skills with 11.6 mil sp. I've got level 4 specs in every subcap missile system. And I've used those weapons. I've also got 28 gunnery skills with 14.2 mil sp there. I've used projectile and laser turrets of both long and short varieties at all subcap sizes. So I can safely say I have a better perspective on all this than you do.
edit - and because i have more than one turret system trained that perspective allows me to say yes, projectile use is over represented in the game. Unlike you though, that perspective also allows me to notice things other than the weapons systems themselves that can account for that use. TE overdone falloff buff, so many factors in the game atm favoring kiting, speed, and mobility which is the Minmatar forte, and not just the obvious advantages like capless and damage selection.
So, sorry to diappoint you. Unlike you I'm not wedded to some rl psychiatric self identification with a mythical race and their spaceships. I will be quite understanding if some changes are made to promote up other guns and trim back projectiles. And I will certainly be giving much better responses in whatever threads occur on that in the future than the petulant whine posts you are making here itt. o/ |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
238
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 20:34:00 -
[5490] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:You should trained missiles then if your turrets are that under powered. If Projectiles are so bad off why are they so over used? Or are you that much of an ignoramus to see this?
better off without my kind? why because I pointed out how over used projectiles are? Stop raging all over my post if you don't like what I have to say you are more then welcome to not read them, because frankly I am sick of reading your garbage and filth that you post on here. How about you GTFO out your projectiles are over used and over powered and I am going to laugh in your face when they get nerfed next.
And this will be the last response i read form you anyhow shut you out like the rest of the idiots. Edit: Looking into it I see you favor Projectiles your self and winmartar ships often LOL. Just get out please At this point im not sure if youre trolling or just an idiot . . .
Long range guns (beams, artillery, railguns) use two different types of ammo: Short range high damage (Gleam, Quake, Javelin) Long range low damage (Aurora, Tremor, Spike)
the other types of ammo are basically useless in a long range weapon
Now your missile launchers have the same options Short range high damage (Fury) Long range low damage (faction missiles)
but wait, theres more! you actually get a third type of missile that is useful Short range small target (Precision)
if youre gonna complain about the range of fury missiles, you have to compare it to the comparable alternative (gleam quake javelin)
Even Noemi Nagano understands this, you just seem to be a bit slow on the uptake |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
130
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 21:09:00 -
[5491] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Even Noemi Nagano understands this, you just seem to be a bit slow on the uptake
That's not enough pve, you know, where every missile ship should be balanced around the machariel... |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 23:10:00 -
[5492] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:
You should trained missiles then if your turrets are that under powered. If Projectiles are so bad off why are they so over used? Or are you that much of an ignoramus to see this?
better off without my kind? why because I pointed out how over used projectiles are? Stop raging all over my post if you don't like what I have to say you are more then welcome to not read them, because frankly I am sick of reading your garbage and filth that you post on here. How about you GTFO out your projectiles are over used and over powered and I am going to laugh in your face when they get nerfed next.
And this will be the last response i read form you anyhow shut you out like the rest of the idiots. Edit: Looking into it I see you favor Projectiles your self and winmartar ships often LOL. Just get out please
what a ridiculous post. u think if projectiles get nerfed we'll post like u!?! or will we look at our options and adapt accordingly?
the canes getting heavily nerfed and there is nothing even close to the magnitude of stupidity in ur posts from cane pilots.
for the umpteenth time. CCP make this game as they see fit. if its not to ur liking then clearly its not for u and u shouldnt spend anymore time, effort or money on it.
|
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 23:54:00 -
[5493] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:What about the nerf to the CNR Sniper Currently on test T2 missiles will only hit out to 110. If you are sniping incursions you need to be well over 50.
Srsly, Wtf? Last I checked 110 >>> 50 . Unless that's a typo and you meant 150, in which case make coherent arguments by not making basic errors on key points.
Quote: So we change to faction ammo and by forcing us into faction ammo it brings on a pretty heavy DPS nerf. I think all cruise missiles need work on damage buffs but leave the range alone. You have provided no data showing that a high dps T2 cruise at a unnerfed range implements any imbalance for why the nerf??
I've seen fairly credible arguments in this thread that Precision Cruise missiles will outperform Heavy Missiles in a lot of cases. Which hasn't been the case until now.
Fury Cruise are getting a Damage Buff.
So, yeah. T2 Cruise are getting a range nerf. Which means your single use-case is getting worse (T2 Cruise Sniper), but overall T2 missiles are getting better. This is a good thing (I mean lol T2 Precision? speed nerf on kiting ships).
Quote: When we look at the other Incursion snipers Mach/NM the CNR is out classed as it is and this nerf will make it even worse. I would even suggest an other 5% buff to damage ontop of current changes and leave range alone. Unless you intend to release some cruise missile pirate ship to replace the missile sniper.
Mach and NM also both cost a lot more than the CNR. But I'll accept the argument that balancing by price doesn't actually work (Titans, anyone?)
I also accept the argument that Cruise Missiles and Torps will need to be looked at as part of the BS rebalance. But like people waiting for the buff to T2 hulls, Armour Tanking, Damps, TDs, Drones etc etc you'll have to wait, it's coming Soon(tm).
But, eventually everybody in Eve needs to cross train. This Char is primarily specc'd as a (non-ECM) EWAR/Drone/Blaster pilot (look at my KB). At various stages those have been amongst the weekest skillsets in game; they have also been very strong. What ship have I been flying a lot of recently: the Drake. I had to reskill for it, but that's the nature of Eve.
Quote: I mean you are already nerfing the HML out of use we need something to fall back on don't take the long range cruise our of it also. I would also like to know why the HML is getting the look when over all the projectiles far over shadows missiles lasers and hybrids??
See a point made often above, about less Winmatar. Cane gets a direct Nerf, Stabber is probably the weakest CL, Ruppie is balanced against the other CCs, Cyclone gets nerfed by the ASB nerf, Frigs are shaken up and Dessies will have viable alternatives to the Thrasher.
Quote:http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 adding everything up gives a very clear example of how the projectile is the most favored over all. The excuse given for this nerf was that the HML was favored over other weapons systems you left out that it was on an individual level. How is this HML nerf going to bring everything into harmony and unison? Won't this just bring more favoritism to the projectiles? The HML enjoyed a slight advantage 10% dmg by your estimates and a decent range. Now that the drake and tengu will no longer enjoy the benefits of being marginally "better" Pilots will have no reason to continue the use of them and they will look to the projectiles to compensate. Making the projectiles even more favored and over used.
Actually, if anything, this change adds another viable alternative to Projectiles, at close range. Small/Med Projectiles are mostly used <30Km. At 20-30Km HAMs with Javelin now have a chance of competing with Projectiles. Between 5-10Km (ie within Web range) HAMs stand a good chance of outdamaging Projectiles. Rockets will also benefit from the changes (although less dramatically, but it will boost the damage of Rage Rockets).
Medium range: a HML Caracal blows any other T1 Cruiser out of the water and, for BCs, Drakes still out perform Arty canes (except when all you want is 'Alpha').
Indeed, Drakes will still be the only hull that can do >1200M/s, <9s align, >40K Ehp, with 3 Mid slots for tackle/EWAR. And still do >350DPS out to 60Km with a Med weapon system. Srlsy, try fitting any other T1 hull to do that.
I'd actually expect to see HMLs replaced by an increased use of Large Turrets. This will reflect the replacement of Drakes in roving gangs by Tier3 BCs (a trend you are already seeing), and the replacement of Drakes in fleets with Rokhs (another trend you are already seeing). |
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 00:43:00 -
[5494] - Quote
Having played around on the Duality server, these changes get my approval. Good work! |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
491
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 03:21:00 -
[5495] - Quote
Gotta love the fanboyz screaming it's their game they'll do what they want JUST LEAVE CCP FOZZIE ALONE ! *tear-streaked-mascara*
I couldn't care less. I'm just warning CCP the tears will require Noah to build them an Ark and I'm no sure that's wise for them to do right now.
Missiles as a medium-long range weapon system have always sucked as a weapon system in PVP due to time-to-target and were barely tolerable in PVE only due to their few advantages of all damage types and long range. With these changes combined with the other upcoming changes there will be NO medium-long range PVP engagements at all with missile ships. Heavy Missiles and above are also useless against frigates. With the upcoming PVE-blast-drones changes that is yet another reason to ditch all missile ships for turret ships. At least my medium/large guns can blow an incoming frigate away (or from my buddy) if our drones get blown away.
Anyhow, just look at the market. People understand this and are trying to get rid of their missile ships already. I'm not saying a nerf is out of place but this is ridiculous.
Finally, it IS strange that missiles are getting shafted with winmatar being the #1 PVP ship of choice. Priorities ?
FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
46
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 04:48:00 -
[5496] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:Gotta love the fanboyz screaming it's their game they'll do what they want JUST LEAVE CCP FOZZIE ALONE ! *tear-streaked-mascara* I couldn't care less. I'm just warning CCP the tears will require Noah to build them an Ark and I'm no sure that's wise for them to do right now. Missiles as a medium-long range weapon system have always sucked as a weapon system in PVP due to time-to-target and were barely tolerable in PVE only due to their few advantages of all damage types and long range. With these changes combined with the other upcoming changes there will be NO medium-long range PVP engagements at all with missile ships. Heavy Missiles and above are also useless against frigates. With the upcoming PVE-blast-drones changes that is yet another reason to ditch all missile ships for turret ships. At least my medium/large guns can blow an incoming frigate away (or from my buddy) if our drones get blown away. Anyhow, just look at the market. People understand this and are trying to get rid of their missile ships already. I'm not saying a nerf is out of place but this is ridiculous. Finally, it IS strange that missiles are getting shafted with winmatar being the #1 PVP ship of choice. Priorities ?
Careful now this thread is crawling with winmatar projectile lovers your just asking to get flamed. But I have to agree with you it is a BS patch. Only if the DEV flew Caldari missiles we would enjoy years of prosperity! |
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 05:10:00 -
[5497] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Louis deGuerre wrote:Gotta love the fanboyz screaming it's their game they'll do what they want JUST LEAVE CCP FOZZIE ALONE ! *tear-streaked-mascara* I couldn't care less. I'm just warning CCP the tears will require Noah to build them an Ark and I'm no sure that's wise for them to do right now. Missiles as a medium-long range weapon system have always sucked as a weapon system in PVP due to time-to-target and were barely tolerable in PVE only due to their few advantages of all damage types and long range. With these changes combined with the other upcoming changes there will be NO medium-long range PVP engagements at all with missile ships. Heavy Missiles and above are also useless against frigates. With the upcoming PVE-blast-drones changes that is yet another reason to ditch all missile ships for turret ships. At least my medium/large guns can blow an incoming frigate away (or from my buddy) if our drones get blown away. Anyhow, just look at the market. People understand this and are trying to get rid of their missile ships already. I'm not saying a nerf is out of place but this is ridiculous. Finally, it IS strange that missiles are getting shafted with winmatar being the #1 PVP ship of choice. Priorities ? Careful now this thread is crawling with winmatar projectile lovers your just asking to get flamed. But I have to agree with you it is a BS patch. Only if the DEV flew Caldari missiles we would enjoy years of prosperity! I fly Caldari just like you do Cazador. The difference is that I noticed the max speeds are increased. With good skills, modules and proper rigs you should be able to retain your previous range or at least increase your dps. I was taking out Lvl4 Security Mission Angel Cartel Battleships with rapid light missile launchers on a drake (for the hell of it). I ran my tests on Duality earlier this evening. I admit it takes some inventive thinking but we can still get our performance.
The higher speeds have the nice advantage of removing that annoying missile "slow-cruising" to the target. It also makes the hits I got on frigs and intercepts better than previous. Especially combined with the increased explosion velocity. Overall the raw damage we had was reduced. But we are not being made obsolete. If you are as experienced as I think you are, adapt. It is what everyone else has been forced to do recently.
To be honest, I prefer missiles but I have decent skills in lasers, hybrids and projectiles. So maybe I am a little less panicked and desperate as some of you... I will leave you with this thought: Humans are renowned for their ability to adapt, let's see some of that capability. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
240
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 06:49:00 -
[5498] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:Gotta love the fanboyz screaming it's their game they'll do what they want JUST LEAVE CCP FOZZIE ALONE ! *tear-streaked-mascara* I couldn't care less. I'm just warning CCP the tears will require Noah to build them an Ark and I'm no sure that's wise for them to do right now. I find it interesting that the people who argue and are usually correct argue about the facts, the people who are usually wrong attack the people who are correct.
Not saying thats whats happening here, but im just saying its a psychological trend
Louis deGuerre wrote:Missiles as a medium-long range weapon system have always sucked as a weapon system in PVP due to time-to-target and were barely tolerable in PVE only due to their few advantages of all damage types and long range. yeah . . . thats why nobody ever uses missiles as a medium-long range weapon system right? . . .
Louis deGuerre wrote:Finally, it IS strange that missiles are getting shafted with winmatar being the #1 PVP ship of choice. Priorities ? projectiles are the #1 weapon of choice at close ranges . . . nobody disputes that, but the hurricane is getting quite a nerf . . .
That being said, missiles are the #1 weapon of choice at all ranges greater than 30 km
I assume that the missile ships are getting the nerf first because its way easier to fix them than it is to fix projectiles vs blasters. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 07:06:00 -
[5499] - Quote
I'm a little confused, do the people who are vehemently supporting the changes like Lili and gang think that other medium LR turrets are crap? It seems so from the posts I've read though obviously I haven't read all of them.
and if they do, how can you support Fozzie using basically never used broken weapons as the basis to balance HMs as he mentioned in the OP.
Also, relax when you guys reply to this, I don't want a wall of flaming text, just a simple clarification. I agree with these changes as they serve their intended purpose, (bringing HMs down to the level of other medium LR weapons) I just think it's not the way to go about this. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 07:19:00 -
[5500] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:Missiles as a medium-long range weapon system have always sucked as a weapon system in PVP due to time-to-target and were barely tolerable in PVE only due to their few advantages of all damage types and long range. With these changes combined with the other upcoming changes there will be NO medium-long range PVP engagements at all with missile ships.
Caracal. And Tengu can claim back some of the range it loses thanks to it's 10% missile velocity per level bonus.
Louis deGuerre wrote:Heavy Missiles and above are also useless against frigates. With the upcoming PVE-blast-drones changes that is yet another reason to ditch all missile ships for turret ships. At least my medium/large guns can blow an incoming frigate away (or from my buddy) if our drones get blown away.
Go to C1 site with your Drake and try your drones. You will learn a lot about how NPCs aggro your drones. When you have gained enough experience you will not lose your drones anymore.
Oh, and new NPCs for missions are nowhere near sleepers when it comes to drone hate. Do you want to know what they hate even more? Ewar and logis.
If you don't have any other ways to do missions get a friend in a Rattler and few ewar (TPs are fine) modules just to tank and aggro everything. You will focus on destroying stuff.
Dato Koppla wrote:I'm a little confused, do the people who are vehemently supporting the changes like Lili and gang think that other medium LR turrets are crap? It seems so from the posts I've read though obviously I haven't read all of them.
Ferox with 4 magstabs does 210 at 97 km with Spike. Ferox with 4 magstabs does 181 at 75 km with CN Tungsten. No enough low slots for more damage mods or even a suitcase.
Compare those to 3x BCS Drake at both distances. Btw, it has a suitcase. |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 09:46:00 -
[5501] - Quote
well i got a thought if these changes go through lets all change to winmatar ships so they will by the logic of this thread be popular and also op so they get a heavy nerf then we change back to caldari ships when there actualy half decent again |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 10:28:00 -
[5502] - Quote
serras bang wrote:well i got a thought if these changes go through lets all change to winmatar ships so they will by the logic of this thread be popular and also op so they get a heavy nerf then we change back to caldari ships when there actualy half decent again
Cane is going to get nerfed at the same time heavy missiles do.
Do you see Cane pilots whining here? I don't and I know why: they are busy figuring out how to setup their ship in the future. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 10:29:00 -
[5503] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Dato Koppla wrote:I'm a little confused, do the people who are vehemently supporting the changes like Lili and gang think that other medium LR turrets are crap? It seems so from the posts I've read though obviously I haven't read all of them. Ferox with 4 magstabs does 210 dps at 97 km with Spike. Ferox with 4 magstabs does 181 dps at 75 km with CN Tungsten. No enough low slots for more damage mods or even a suitcase. Ferox with 4 magstabs does 368 dps at 13 km with Javelin (still less than what Drake can do at 70 km). Compare those to 3x BCS Drake at both distances. Btw, it has a suitcase. And all this is based on paper dps numbers so in game you have to be lucky to actually do that damage.
Wow is your reading ability really that bad? Just don't bother replying to my posts, it's a waste of both your time and especially mine.
Edit// Since this post is on the next page and Jorma only quoted the part of my post that he could manage to read, here's the original.
Dato Koppla wrote:I'm a little confused, do the people who are vehemently supporting the changes like Lili and gang think that other medium LR turrets are crap? It seems so from the posts I've read though obviously I haven't read all of them.
and if they do, how can you support Fozzie using basically never used broken weapons as the basis to balance HMs as he mentioned in the OP.
Also, relax when you guys reply to this, I don't want a wall of flaming text, just a simple clarification. I agree with these changes as they serve their intended purpose, (bringing HMs down to the level of other medium LR weapons) I just think it's not the way to go about this. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 10:41:00 -
[5504] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Wow is your reading ability really that bad? Just don't bother replying to my posts, it's a waste of both your time and especially mine.
Are you saying they should buff medium long range turrets?
Ever heard of power creep?
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 10:44:00 -
[5505] - Quote
Louis deGuerre wrote:Gotta love the fanboyz screaming it's their game they'll do what they want JUST LEAVE CCP FOZZIE ALONE ! *tear-streaked-mascara*
if emos can rage over their beloved HML's i will rage for my fozzie. for those who cry about paying as much as everyone else, if ur unhappy with a service, dnt pay dnt play - emo rage gwaaah- *mascara down my cheeks and tearing up my women's underwear*
Dato Koppla wrote:I'm a little confused, do the people who are vehemently supporting the changes like Lili and gang think that other medium LR turrets are crap? It seems so from the posts I've read though obviously I haven't read all of them.
and if they do, how can you support Fozzie using basically never used broken weapons as the basis to balance HMs as he mentioned in the OP.
Also, relax when you guys reply to this, I don't want a wall of flaming text, just a simple clarification. I agree with these changes as they serve their intended purpose, (bringing HMs down to the level of other medium LR weapons) I just think it's not the way to go about this.
yeah they are pretty bad and hardly ever used. but the reason they are so crap and hardly ever used is because HML's outperform them so much there is no point to use anything but HML's. nerfing the missiles will hopefully allow players using medium long range turrets to be more competitive. (honestly HML's are still looking much better tho, i dnt think they've completely brought them in line with other medium LR turrets). |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 10:49:00 -
[5506] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Are you saying they should buff medium long range turrets?
Ever heard of power creep?
^^that and HML's are effective at close and ranged combat, to give long ranged turrets the same abilities would require something very creative.
it would take more changes to get turrets upto the power of HML's than it would to get HML's down. more changes usually increases the chances of getting it wrong and creating more work for urself. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 10:54:00 -
[5507] - Quote
One more comparison for missile users: Tengu does 600+ dps at 100 km with heavy missiles. 'Mare does 562 dps at 100 km (also max effective targeting range) with Aurora. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
130
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 11:24:00 -
[5508] - Quote
For short medium range engagement (25-50km), medium turrets do works, just HML completely obsolete them, and now tier3 BC.
The problem for these weapons is not really the weapons by themselves, it's more the whole picture. Large turrets are superior to medium turrets in all their engagement range, and also have theirs, and tier3 BC now have these large turrets, combining cruisers agility with large turrets range and BS firepower, largely obsoleting medLR turrets who only have (still poor) tracking as an advantage against them.
Metagame still have to adapt to these tier3 BC IMO ; at least for this short medium range and small scale. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 11:38:00 -
[5509] - Quote
^^ This.
Tier3s will (continue to) dominate BC/Cruiser combat at ranges >40km (approx). Leaving Medium LR weapons only really effective between 20-40Km (approx).
HMLs will still be very good at these ranges. Medium Arty's will compete (largely due to Alpha, and the combination of Shield-Tanking+TEs). Beam Lazors will lose out to a Heavy Pulse Lazor + Scorch (going out to 30Km, depending on fit). [*] Rails will still be relatively useless at these ranges (and almost impossible to build a decent fit for). |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 14:03:00 -
[5510] - Quote
[/quote]
Missiles and Projectiles have selectable damage hybrids and lasers do not hybrids use some cap to shoot lasers use cap to shoot Missiles and Projectiles do not use cap Missiles and Projectiles take 10s to reload hybrids take 5 s to reload lasers are instant [/quote]
man i am glad you clarified this for me, after all these years of playing eve i had no idea projectiles and missiles didn't use cap and that hybrids and lasers do, Next time you log into eve count how many different types of standard HM there are than count the projectiles, crystals, and hybrid ammo types. In case you do not notice, they all do one of the 4 types of standard damage however each one of the guns has ammo or crystals that gives you a positive effect, as well as a negative effect to it. So which weapon systems have a wider range of selectable damage types? |
|
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 14:26:00 -
[5511] - Quote
Yeah I get that current HMs eclipse other medium LR weapons which is why they're used more, but it's not just HMs, Drakes having BS sized tank and good resists for logi, 100mn AB tengus being able to take advantage of range extremely well, also comes into play and a plethora of other things that have been already mentioned. Also a whole load of other reasons other than 'HMs are better' contribute to other medium LR weapons being basically never used like Tier 3 BCs, range on Scorch/Barrage etc.
I'm just not convinced that nerfing HMs will give other medium LR weapons a new lease on life, I feel it's more likely that the entire medium LR weapon group will remain crappy (although 720mm arty cane will still probably see some use as alpha is quite a powerful trait). I realize that buffing other medium LR weapons will result in power creep but honestly, look around the forums, there's some massive power creep going on in this balancing, I'm not saying it's the only solution, I'm not even saying that I think buffing other medium LR weapons will fix this problem because frankly i don't know. I just think this whole issue needs to be discussed further and looked at from another angle.
We have to let the metagame settle from these changes first before we know anything for certain, but in my opinion nothing much is going to change, HMs will still see similar use but slightly less than now, and all the other medium LR turrets will remain in a similar position. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 14:33:00 -
[5512] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:So which weapon systems have a wider range of selectable damage types?
Missiles.
Missiles: 4 damage types Projectiles: 4 damage types, mixed: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Weapons_guide#Standard_Ammunition_3
Lasers: EM and thermal only, difference between crystals: - more range means less damage - damage types go from almost 50/50 (Multifrequency) to pure EM (Radio), Scorch is ~89% EM and rest is thermal
Hybrids: Kinetic and thermal only. Difference between ammo: - more range means less damage - damage types used in different ammo varies, some have higher kinetic damage and some higher thermal damage |
Opertone
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
178
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 14:45:00 -
[5513] - Quote
Sigras wrote:[quote=Opertone]You folks miss the point. You've got to be one of Caldari to understand ] You're operating under the gross assumption that #1. Caldari pilots train primarily for caldari ships #2. People never cross train Both of these assumptions are unspeakably moronic because both of them are demonstrably untrue. Missiles sucked in PvP because of lag, lag would either cause the missiles to do no damage or cause the node to crash because of increased load etc etc etc. Only after they basically fixed lag with TiDi did missiles start to become a problem because now theyre on equal footing with guns (lag wise) and theyre clearly a superior platform. The Harpy, Hawk, Hookbill, and Moa would all like a word with you. First off, allow me to introduce you to a little module I like to call "EM Ward Field II" it has a way of fixing that EM hole problem you mentioned. Just like the armor tankers have to fix that Explosive hole problem . . . Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by them taking the most damage up close or being primary . . . they take no more damage than anyone else up close, and usually dont get primaried over anyone else because of their race . . . Try flying a gallente ship that is supposed to armor tank, and still somehow cram damage mods and tracking enhancers on, and is slower because of the armor tank, and has no 5% resist bonus then come back and whine to me . . . I might take you more seriously.
You do not even play the FFF... game. Quit your posting. You have not played as caldari character. Your POV is so out of this world. You are not even trying. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
290
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 14:55:00 -
[5514] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:well i got a thought if these changes go through lets all change to winmatar ships so they will by the logic of this thread be popular and also op so they get a heavy nerf then we change back to caldari ships when there actualy half decent again Cane is going to get nerfed at the same time heavy missiles do. Do you see Cane pilots whining here? I don't and I know why: they are busy figuring out how to setup their ship in the future.
The cane is getting a fitting nerf while at the same time having the fitting costs of arty being reduced.
This will allow them to fit for range and be able to out range a drake with no issues.
A fitting nerf is easy to counter. All you have to do is swap out some modules.
Dealing with a dps nerf on a ship that already didn't have that much dps is something else.
Now, a range nerf that puts it at the lowest range of all bc's isn't so easy to counter. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
91
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 14:58:00 -
[5515] - Quote
Many Caldari missile boats get a kinetic damage bonus and are thus pigeon holed into kinetic despite fully selectable damage. So no, projectiles get the 'best' range of selectable damage as they don't have this. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
131
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 15:01:00 -
[5516] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:^^ This.
Tier3s will (continue to) dominate BC/Cruiser combat at ranges >40km (approx). Leaving Medium LR weapons only really effective between 20-40Km (approx).
HMLs will still be very good at these ranges. Medium Arty's will compete (largely due to Alpha, and the combination of Shield-Tanking+TEs). Beam Lazors will lose out to a Heavy Pulse Lazor + Scorch (going out to 30Km, depending on fit). Rails will still be relatively useless at these ranges (and almost impossible to build a decent fit for). Infact, I tend to think that the drake is not so hurt by tier3 BC, because it already somewhat stand against BS, and it's HML really hurt these BC. In fact, tier3 BC will tend to prefer outranging the drakes than opposing them IMO, leaving HML range to the drake or BS.
So these changes could save the HAM drake and put the HML in the same situation than other medLR turrets, which could be seen as bad, but I think that in the end, if we want to save *all* the medLR weapons, we need to have them all in the same situation anyway.
Looking at the recent changes, it seem that cruisers, and most notably attack cruisers, with their new high speed, may be able to use these weapons ; then, the BC could take the same place destroyers have for frigates, on top of their cheap canon fodder role for large fleet.
About powercreep, I think we are not in it yet : indeed a lot of ships are far better than before, though I think it's only the power margin between all ships which is reduced. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
241
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 15:01:00 -
[5517] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:I'm a little confused, do the people who are vehemently supporting the changes like Lili and gang think that other medium LR turrets are crap? It seems so from the posts I've read though obviously I haven't read all of them.
and if they do, how can you support Fozzie using basically never used broken weapons as the basis to balance HMs as he mentioned in the OP.
Also, relax when you guys reply to this, I don't want a wall of flaming text, just a simple clarification. I agree with these changes as they serve their intended purpose, (bringing HMs down to the level of other medium LR weapons) I just think it's not the way to go about this. Its not that we believe the turrets are crap, its that we believe they are crap compared with the HML
Well that and the tier threes dont really help the situation either . . . but once again fixing them is much harder than bringing the HML in line with all the other long range turrets. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
241
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 15:06:00 -
[5518] - Quote
Opertone wrote:Sigras wrote:Opertone wrote:You're operating under the gross assumption that #1. Caldari pilots train primarily for caldari ships #2. People never cross train Both of these assumptions are unspeakably moronic because both of them are demonstrably untrue. Missiles sucked in PvP because of lag, lag would either cause the missiles to do no damage or cause the node to crash because of increased load etc etc etc. Only after they basically fixed lag with TiDi did missiles start to become a problem because now theyre on equal footing with guns (lag wise) and theyre clearly a superior platform. The Harpy, Hawk, Hookbill, and Moa would all like a word with you. First off, allow me to introduce you to a little module I like to call "EM Ward Field II" it has a way of fixing that EM hole problem you mentioned. Just like the armor tankers have to fix that Explosive hole problem . . . Secondly, I have no idea what you mean by them taking the most damage up close or being primary . . . they take no more damage than anyone else up close, and usually dont get primaried over anyone else because of their race . . . Try flying a gallente ship that is supposed to armor tank, and still somehow cram damage mods and tracking enhancers on, and is slower because of the armor tank, and has no 5% resist bonus then come back and whine to me . . . I might take you more seriously. You do not even play the FFF... game. Quit your posting. You have not played as caldari character. Your POV is so out of this world. You are not even trying. I love how you never offered a single counter point to any of the arguments made in my post, instead you just attacked my character . . . Let me guess, you must be running for US president this year . . .
Anyway, if you can scrape together an argument perhaps try posting that, Johnny Storm |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
131
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 15:08:00 -
[5519] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:The cane is getting a fitting nerf while at the same time having the fitting costs of arty being reduced.
This will allow them to fit for range and be able to out range a drake with no issues.
A fitting nerf is easy to counter. All you have to do is swap out some modules.
Dealing with a dps nerf on a ship that already didn't have that much dps is something else.
Now, a range nerf that puts it at the lowest range of all bc's isn't so easy to counter. Just swap out some modules, you can do it both for range AND dps. And your not so good dps is already and will still be the best of its peers at range.
BTW, outranging a drake in a BC is not without issues. Have you ever tried it ? I doubt it, your ship at this range will have nothing but guns, as opposed to the drake. Tier3 BC are another story. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 15:48:00 -
[5520] - Quote
tbh ccp has been extreamly heavy handed on missles and havent thought it through at all its camoflage fozzie said itll be closer to its real range and more intuative to new players.
im sorry but ive always known my range on missle by a simple calculation of equiped missles flightime and velocity minus 10% for target speed i dont see a problem here. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 16:10:00 -
[5521] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:The cane is getting a fitting nerf while at the same time having the fitting costs of arty being reduced.
This will allow them to fit for range and be able to out range a drake with no issues.
A fitting nerf is easy to counter. All you have to do is swap out some modules.
Dealing with a dps nerf on a ship that already didn't have that much dps is something else.
Now, a range nerf that puts it at the lowest range of all bc's isn't so easy to counter.
Cane does 278 dps at 82 km with Tremor. How is that going to outrange this?
[Drake, Draek]
Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
With current missile stats that's 414 dps at 134 km. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
31
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 16:59:00 -
[5522] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:The cane is getting a fitting nerf while at the same time having the fitting costs of arty being reduced.
This will allow them to fit for range and be able to out range a drake with no issues.
A fitting nerf is easy to counter. All you have to do is swap out some modules.
Dealing with a dps nerf on a ship that already didn't have that much dps is something else.
Now, a range nerf that puts it at the lowest range of all bc's isn't so easy to counter. Cane does 278 dps at 82 km with Tremor (T2 projectile locus, 3x TE). How is that going to outrange this? [Drake, Draek] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I With current missile stats that's 414 dps at 134 km.
although i agree thats stupid range the nerf t2's are recieving is still way over the top 80 - 90 km should suffice for any criuser or bc max even after boosters ect however how you get it to hit at that range dont quite add up but that not the point im running with your figures here (even though i think there a bit dodgy).
t2 heavy furry should still have a base of around 45k not a max after skills and ship bonuses ect.
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 17:08:00 -
[5523] - Quote
mm.. the missile rigs certainly add a lot of range especially T2 its definitely too much they need a nerf along with missile velocity and missile bombardment skills and then maybe adding TE's and TC's wouldn't brake missiles to OP range which they would if they were added atm. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 17:20:00 -
[5524] - Quote
serras bang wrote:although i agree thats stupid range the nerf t2's are recieving is still way over the top 80 - 90 km should suffice for any criuser or bc max even after boosters ect however how you get it to hit at that range dont quite add up but that not the point im running with your figures here (even though i think there a bit dodgy).
t2 heavy furry should still have a base of around 45k not a max after skills and ship bonuses ect.
Are you saying T2 high damage heavy missiles will have way too short range?
Let's look at high damage short range ammo for turrets. Level 5 skills, no implants, no modules/rigs to increase range: Heavy Beam Laser + Gleam: 7,5 + 10 km 720mm Howitzer + Quake: 7,5 + 21,9 km 250mm Railgun + Javelin: 13,5 + 15 km |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
48
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 18:33:00 -
[5525] - Quote
Sigras wrote: I love how you never offered a single counter point to any of the arguments made in my post, instead you just attacked my character . . .
That is what every projectile enthusiast has done in this entire thread. How can you people can not wrap your head around the fact HML was the only viable option for Caldari Missile pvp. We have posted the numbers of the top 20 most used weapons Projectiles dominate this list over every other weapons system out there. As well as projectile ships make up almost half of the top 20 ships we see on this list.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=invtype&id=12034
So giving the Caldari only two viable ships who used the same weapons system then nerfing that entire weapons system and in effect nerfing both ships and saying everything is balanced is bullshit and if you deny that your just a bigot. And before you try to flood the replies with these arguments yes the Cruise are seeing some love but there are still no good hulls to put them on. The Raven is not a very good hull when compared to other hulls. The use will go up for a short time as people test out the new changes but ultimately they will see that the projectiles and related hulls are still the better option as proven by the numbers provided to us thanks to eve-kill.
And while bringing HML into line with other like systems seems like a reasonable thing to do it will ultimately bring the use of hml and the drake/tengu way down and with no more real advantage they will fade out month after month. So for arguments sake i will concede saying that maybe it wont totally break. But will it push the tides more in the favor of projectiles and you will see even a larger gaps between projectiles and everyone else? You bet your ass it will.
And thus you will see less and less fleets accepting the Caldari missile boat PVE or PVP they will get hit on both ends. This is why it is a game breaking change for the Caldari missile users.
Few more points to make saying things along the lines of
You should have cross trained. Any personal attacks that are sure to be targeted at me. Pointing out grammatical errors Posting by EFT warriors. Or simply anyone who has not been on the test servers.
Will be taken at face value only. Also for the sake of argument this is intended to compare Missiles / Projectiles for this time I really do not care about laser or Hybrids as I pretty much even use in the top 20 your beef should be with projectiles not missiles. Also reader be wary of people posting in defense of laser or hybrids when they are projectile users
|
Lili Lu
568
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 19:53:00 -
[5526] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Sigras wrote: I love how you never offered a single counter point to any of the arguments made in my post, instead you just attacked my character . . .
. . . So giving the Caldari only two viable ships who used the same weapons system then nerfing that entire weapons system and in effect nerfing both ships and saying everything is balanced is bullshit and if you deny that your just a bigot. . . . but ultimately they will see that the projectiles and related hulls are still the better option as proven by the numbers provided to us thanks to eve-kill. And while bringing HML into line with other like systems seems like a reasonable thing to do it will ultimately bring the use of hml and the drake/tengu way down and with no more real advantage they will fade out month after month. So for arguments sake i will concede saying that maybe it wont totally break. But will it push the tides more in the favor of projectiles and you will see even a larger gaps between projectiles and everyone else? You bet your ass it will. . . . Posting by EFT warriors. Or simply anyone who has not been on the test servers. Will be taken at face value only. Also for the sake of argument this is intended to compare Missiles / Projectiles for this time I really do not care about laser or Hybrids as I pretty much even use in the top 20 your beef should be with projectiles not missiles. Also reader be wary of people posting in defense of laser or hybrids when they are projectile users
Bad Sigras bad. You see poor Cazador and Opertone are rl Caldari people in the real world and you are an evil bigot. How can CCP tolerate, indeed promote such real world biggotry. We should all go to Iceland and bring a lawsuit to protect the downtrodden Caldari. I want to be Caldari too so I can self identify as a self-righteous victim of biggotry.
As for the rest of your bullshit Cazador I've already told you I think projectiles (omg a weapon system I use, what am I doing) need some adjustment. About the only thing I can find some common ground with you on. But I'm not stupid like you so I'm not calling for some accross the board nerf to them.
Instead I would like to see a little more optimal on beam lasers. I would like to see the range bonus on TEs nerfed. Maybe make it 10% optimal and 25% falloff. TC can stay as they are. As things are right now TEs are better than TCs. They should have differing range bonus as shield tanks are going to have more agility and speed than armor tanks. This will bring ACs back in line. It will also aid amarr armor tanking and even out the mobility advantage v range between those types of ships.
It's already been pointed out to you how the Cane nerf while harsh and possibly overdone has elicited none of the **** quality or quantity posting you and Opertone have engaged in. Oh and noone is getting on here and accusing the Devs and other players of being "biggots" against poor persecuted Minmatar pilots Amarr rp-ers aren't even this crazy, they have fun in appropriate venues with it. Seriously, how these types of psychologically disordered people seem to gravitate into piloting Caldari and only Caldari ships is a mystery. |
Opertone
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
179
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 20:22:00 -
[5527] - Quote
Sigras wrote:You do not even play the FFF... game. Quit your posting. You have not played as caldari character. Your POV is so out of this world. You are not even trying. I love how you never offered a single counter point to any of the arguments made in my post, instead you just attacked my character . . . Let me guess, you must be running for US president this year . . . Anyway, if you can scrape together an argument perhaps try posting that, Johnny Storm
Arguments. It is just rubbish. Can't even bother to make counter arguments. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 20:34:00 -
[5528] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:although i agree thats stupid range the nerf t2's are recieving is still way over the top 80 - 90 km should suffice for any criuser or bc max even after boosters ect however how you get it to hit at that range dont quite add up but that not the point im running with your figures here (even though i think there a bit dodgy).
t2 heavy furry should still have a base of around 45k not a max after skills and ship bonuses ect.
Are you saying T2 high damage heavy missiles will have way too short range? Let's look at high damage short range ammo for turrets. Level 5 skills, no implants, no modules/rigs to increase range: Heavy Beam Laser + Gleam: 7,5 + 10 km 720mm Howitzer + Quake: 7,5 + 21,9 km 250mm Railgun + Javelin: 13,5 + 15 km
heavy missles are long range ammo not short hams are short range ecept it seams jav witch either out performs heavy in range or somes out about 2km under them |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
131
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 20:43:00 -
[5529] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:although i agree thats stupid range the nerf t2's are recieving is still way over the top 80 - 90 km should suffice for any criuser or bc max even after boosters ect however how you get it to hit at that range dont quite add up but that not the point im running with your figures here (even though i think there a bit dodgy).
t2 heavy furry should still have a base of around 45k not a max after skills and ship bonuses ect.
Are you saying T2 high damage heavy missiles will have way too short range? Let's look at high damage short range ammo for turrets. Level 5 skills, no implants, no modules/rigs to increase range: Heavy Beam Laser + Gleam: 7,5 + 10 km 720mm Howitzer + Quake: 7,5 + 21,9 km 250mm Railgun + Javelin: 13,5 + 15 km heavy missles are long range ammo not short hams are short range ecept it seams jav witch either out performs heavy in range or somes out about 2km under them Oh sure, Railguns, arties and beams are short range weapons too. It must be, otherwise, pulse would not ourange their short range ammo with scorch.
... |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 20:48:00 -
[5530] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:although i agree thats stupid range the nerf t2's are recieving is still way over the top 80 - 90 km should suffice for any criuser or bc max even after boosters ect however how you get it to hit at that range dont quite add up but that not the point im running with your figures here (even though i think there a bit dodgy).
t2 heavy furry should still have a base of around 45k not a max after skills and ship bonuses ect.
Are you saying T2 high damage heavy missiles will have way too short range? Let's look at high damage short range ammo for turrets. Level 5 skills, no implants, no modules/rigs to increase range: Heavy Beam Laser + Gleam: 7,5 + 10 km 720mm Howitzer + Quake: 7,5 + 21,9 km 250mm Railgun + Javelin: 13,5 + 15 km heavy missles are long range ammo not short hams are short range ecept it seams jav witch either out performs heavy in range or somes out about 2km under them Oh sure, Railguns, arties and beams are short range weapons too. It must be, otherwise, pulse would not ourange their short range ammo with scorch. ... PS : HML long range ammo is T1/faction ammo, because they don't need high damage long range ammo, as opposed to turrets.
so everyone gets long range high dmg ammo except from the race with the slowest and heviest ships ? ide really love to have your view on things it would be great for a few mineutes. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
208
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 20:55:00 -
[5531] - Quote
serras bang wrote:heavy missles are long range ammo not short hams are short range ecept it seams jav witch either out performs heavy in range or somes out about 2km under them.
but lets put it this way 720s with long range ammo 54 optimal and minmitar generaly play in fall of. 250 with long range ammo 97 km and 54k for armarr
so tbh t2s being under 40k or just under 40k is totaly and unterly wrong.
Yes, and?
Compare damage: Aurora vs Gleam Spike vs Javelin Tremor vs Quake
Long range ammo does less damage.
Oh, and by your logic my Coercer with 19,7 km optimal uses medium long range turrets. So, here you guys heard it first time: dual light pulse lasers are actually medium long range turrets. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 20:57:00 -
[5532] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:heavy missles are long range ammo not short hams are short range ecept it seams jav witch either out performs heavy in range or somes out about 2km under them.
but lets put it this way 720s with long range ammo 54 optimal and minmitar generaly play in fall of. 250 with long range ammo 97 km and 54k for armarr
so tbh t2s being under 40k or just under 40k is totaly and unterly wrong. Yes, and? Compare damage: Aurora vs Gleam Spike vs Javelin Tremor vs Quake Long range ammo does less damage. Oh, and by your logic my Coercer with 19,7 km optimal uses medium long range turrets. So, here you guys heard it first time: dual light pulse lasers are actually medium long range turrets.
sorry were did i say light lazers were med guns ?
but no funnaly enough fury light missles will hang around 20km however why should presicion light missles not be either further or the same as there t1 counterparts ? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
132
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 21:26:00 -
[5533] - Quote
serras bang wrote: sorry were did i say light lazers were med guns ?
but no funnaly enough fury light missles will hang around 20km however why should presicion light missles not be either further or the same as there t1 counterparts ?
edit: or the more so you setup that corcea with light beam 2 with aurora ammo you get 35km optimal.
What don't you understand in "short range high damage ammo" ?
I know it's a long suite of words, but it's pretty straight forward IMO, even for non native english speakers. :o |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 21:34:00 -
[5534] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote: sorry were did i say light lazers were med guns ?
but no funnaly enough fury light missles will hang around 20km however why should presicion light missles not be either further or the same as there t1 counterparts ?
edit: or the more so you setup that corcea with light beam 2 with aurora ammo you get 35km optimal.
What don't you understand in "short range high damage ammo" ? I know it's a long suite of words, but it's pretty straight forward IMO, even for non native english speakers. :o
hi dmg is not presicion ammo witch has the same max range as fury i also think you miss understand .
rage and fury is hi dmg but yet cannot lay full dmg on stationary ships of there size.
presicion and jav for small fast targets yet the presicion dosent have the range to gaurantee a hit on said ships.
i think it is you that should learn the difference of the missles and not go with gun terms. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:13:00 -
[5535] - Quote
serras bang wrote:tbh ccp has been extreamly heavy handed on missles and havent thought it through at all its camoflage fozzie said itll be closer to its real range and more intuative to new players.
im sorry but ive always known my range on missle by a simple calculation of equiped missles flightime and velocity minus 10% for target speed i dont see a problem here.
That rule of thumb only really works for a target orbiting you, or running directly away from you. And even then, not a very high speed target or a very low speed target.
For instance if you have a 3750m/s frig flying directly at you, you can start firing you missiles a little bit under 2 (Flight time x Missile Velocity).
Fozzie's point about "knowing the range of your missiles" is to do with the fact that missiles take time to accelerate up to their max speed. Now, he's drastically reduced that time. So, that actual range of your missiles used to be something like Flight time x ( Average velocity of your missiles - Average velocity of your target away from your missiles ). Fozzie's change has made "Average velocity of your missiles" roughly equivalent to the posted flight time of your missiles.
So, whereas before I'd been reduced to an ambiguous "a little bit under" 2 x (DeltaVT), it is now almost precisely that.
For instance if you have a 4300m/s frig flying directly at you, you can start firing your missiles at pretty well 2 (Flight time x Missile Velocity).
IMHO the more elegant solution would have been to make Missiles better at doing Relative Velocity calculations based on the projected flight path of the target vessel. But... that system is breakable in ways a straight tail-chase isn't (and would be a ***** to code, and would probably increase lag).
But, in any event, that wasn't the justification for the change, that was just a nice added extra. The justification for the change was that HMLs needed a little heavy handed nerf bat love. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:22:00 -
[5536] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote: sorry were did i say light lazers were med guns ?
but no funnaly enough fury light missles will hang around 20km however why should presicion light missles not be either further or the same as there t1 counterparts ?
edit: or the more so you setup that corcea with light beam 2 with aurora ammo you get 35km optimal.
What don't you understand in "short range high damage ammo" ? I know it's a long suite of words, but it's pretty straight forward IMO, even for non native english speakers. :o hi dmg is not presicion ammo witch has the same max range as fury i also think you miss understand . rage and fury is hi dmg but yet cannot lay full dmg on stationary ships of there size. presicion and jav for small fast targets yet the presicion dosent have the range to gaurantee a hit on said ships. i think it is you that should learn the difference of the missles and not go with gun terms.
Actually Precision is a Short Range High(er Applied) Damage ammo.
No other weapon system gets this type of Ammo.
Tracking ammo, I here you say..... it pretty well always does less damage than either Barrage or the High Damage type (except against Amarr T2 frigs). And it's usually classified as a "Medium Range High Tracking" ammo.
I haven't tested it yet. But (for targets which aren't ridculously fast interceptors orbiting between 24-30Km [which no Non-Destroyer weapon system should be able to hit]) it should do the job. But I would be interested to know how your testing of it has going.
Also, try killing a frig with any other medium range weapon system at under 30Km AT ALL.
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:23:00 -
[5537] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:serras bang wrote:tbh ccp has been extreamly heavy handed on missles and havent thought it through at all its camoflage fozzie said itll be closer to its real range and more intuative to new players.
im sorry but ive always known my range on missle by a simple calculation of equiped missles flightime and velocity minus 10% for target speed i dont see a problem here. That rule of thumb only really works for a target orbiting you, or running directly away from you. And even then, not a very high speed target or a very low speed target. For instance if you have a 3750m/s frig flying directly at you, you can start firing you missiles a little bit under 2 (Flight time x Missile Velocity). Fozzie's point about "knowing the range of your missiles" is to do with the fact that missiles take time to accelerate up to their max speed. Now, he's drastically reduced that time. So, that actual range of your missiles used to be something like Flight time x ( Average velocity of your missiles - Average velocity of your target away from your missiles ). Fozzie's change has made "Average velocity of your missiles" roughly equivalent to the posted flight time of your missiles. So, whereas before I'd been reduced to an ambiguous "a little bit under" 2 x (DeltaVT), it is now almost precisely that. For instance if you have a 4300m/s frig flying directly at you, you can start firing your missiles at pretty well 2 (Flight time x Missile Velocity). IMHO the more elegant solution would have been to make Missiles better at doing Relative Velocity calculations based on the projected flight path of the target vessel. But... that system is breakable in ways a straight tail-chase isn't (and would be a ***** to code, and would probably increase lag). But, in any event, that wasn't the justification for the change, that was just a nice added extra. The justification for the change was that HMLs needed a little heavy handed nerf bat love.
should be common seans that if a target is 50k away from you flying at over 1k ms if you have a max flight time of 44 if you start fireing its gonna hit him by time the missle feul has been used up as i said should be common seanse. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:26:00 -
[5538] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:serras bang wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote: sorry were did i say light lazers were med guns ?
but no funnaly enough fury light missles will hang around 20km however why should presicion light missles not be either further or the same as there t1 counterparts ?
edit: or the more so you setup that corcea with light beam 2 with aurora ammo you get 35km optimal.
What don't you understand in "short range high damage ammo" ? I know it's a long suite of words, but it's pretty straight forward IMO, even for non native english speakers. :o hi dmg is not presicion ammo witch has the same max range as fury i also think you miss understand . rage and fury is hi dmg but yet cannot lay full dmg on stationary ships of there size. presicion and jav for small fast targets yet the presicion dosent have the range to gaurantee a hit on said ships. i think it is you that should learn the difference of the missles and not go with gun terms. Actually Precision is a Short Range High(er Applied) Damage ammo. No other weapon system gets this type of Ammo. Tracking ammo, I here you say..... it pretty well always does less damage than either Barrage or the High Damage type (except against Amarr T2 frigs). And it's usually classified as a "Medium Range High Tracking" ammo. I haven't tested it yet. But (for targets which aren't ridculously fast interceptors orbiting between 24-30Km [which no Non-Destroyer weapon system should be able to hit]) it should do the job. But I would be interested to know how your testing of it has going. Also, try killing a frig with any other medium range weapon system at under 30Km AT ALL.
i dont use guns all that much and the smallest med guns even upto mid mid guns far as im aware do it fairly effectively. however im fairly confident that all med guns can lay full dmg on all criuser and bc ? |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:36:00 -
[5539] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Kai'rae Saarkus wrote: Also, try killing a frig with any other medium range weapon system at under 30Km AT ALL.
i dont use guns all that much and the smallest med guns even upto mid mid guns far as im aware do it fairly effectively. however im fairly confident that all med guns can lay full dmg on all criuser and bc ?
Because, Blasters and ACs are Medium Ranged Weapon Systems? (I'd consider an argument on Zealots with HPLs and Scorch).
But for clarifiction, I'm talking about Beam Lazors, Rail Guns and Artillery cannons. Which are (along with HMLs) the medium Mid-Range weapon systems.
Yup, and the conversation was re: Precision ammo. Which makes firing it at BCs and CCs irrelevent (because doing that would be - except for a few edge cases - a mistake).
serras bang wrote:should be common seans that if a target is 50k away from you flying at over 1k ms if you have a max flight time of 44 if you start fireing its gonna hit him by time the missle feul has been used up as i said should be common seanse.
My whole long explanation was to point at that ATM it's also wrong.
Whereas, in future it will be closer to being true. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:38:00 -
[5540] - Quote
Double post.
Edit: Apologies for all the double posts, but if it makes you happier you can read it as a back and forth in stereo. |
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
49
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:47:00 -
[5541] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: ... I think projectiles (omg a weapon system I use, what am I doing) need some adjustment. About the only thing I can find some common ground with you on. But I'm not stupid like you so I'm not calling for some accross the board nerf to them.
OFC you don't want your primary weapons system nerfed. See we have more common ground then you think.
Lili Lu wrote: Instead I would like to see a little more optimal on beam lasers.... TC can stay as they are.... They should have differing range bonus as shield tanks are going to have more agility and speed than armor tanks. This will bring ACs back in line. It will also aid amarr armor tanking and even out the mobility advantage v range between those types of ships.
So your fix for Projectiles is buffing other systems? right Lili Lu I would like to introduce you to powercreep
Lili Lu wrote: It's already been pointed out to you how the Cane nerf while harsh and possibly overdone......
Right as we have pointed out why the HML was harsh and overdone
Lili Lu wrote:Seriously, how these types of psychologically disordered people seem to gravitate into piloting Caldari and only Caldari ships is a mystery. Right I would like to repost this from my last thread.
Few more points to make saying things along the lines of
You should have cross trained. Any personal attacks that are sure to be targeted at me. (sure did call that one) Pointing out grammatical errors Posting by EFT warriors. Or simply anyone who has not been on the test servers.
Will be taken at face value only. Also for the sake of argument this is intended to compare Missiles / Projectiles for this time I really do not care about laser or Hybrids as I pretty much even use in the top 20 your beef should be with projectiles not missiles. Also reader be wary of people posting in defense of laser or hybrids when they are projectile users
I wasn't going to give you the time of day but you are that good of a troll I had to respond to this. Again you have added nothing of value to this thread you just continually barrage the Caldai pilots with insults and flame threads in an attempt to discredit them.
These are typical debate tactics when you really have no valid argument so you resort to what we call ad hominem and other tactics you attempt to use we like to call a red herring. Just to be clear ad hominem is when you attack an individual instead of the argument and you have proven to do this time and time again post after post.
red herring on the other hand is an attempt to introduce something non related to the topic. I made it clear my intent was to compare missile to projectiles when considering balance, yet you attempt to bring lasers and TC into the argument.
and you say my post are ridiculous I suggest you reread your own lol. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
21
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 22:52:00 -
[5542] - Quote
Actually, the easiest adjustment for Projectiles is simply to bring the falloff bonus of TEs in line with TCs. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 23:05:00 -
[5543] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:serras bang wrote:Kai'rae Saarkus wrote: Also, try killing a frig with any other medium range weapon system at under 30Km AT ALL.
i dont use guns all that much and the smallest med guns even upto mid mid guns far as im aware do it fairly effectively. however im fairly confident that all med guns can lay full dmg on all criuser and bc ? Because, Blasters and ACs are Medium Ranged Weapon Systems? (I'd consider an argument on Zealots with HPLs and Scorch). But for clarifiction, I'm talking about Beam Lazors, Rail Guns and Artillery cannons. Which are (along with HMLs) the medium Mid-Range weapon systems. All of which are truly awful at tracking unwebbed frigates below about 30km (YMMV a little). Yup, and the conversation was re: Precision ammo. Which makes firing it at BCs and CCs irrelevent (because doing that would be - except for a few edge cases - a mistake). serras bang wrote:should be common seans that if a target is 50k away from you flying at over 1k ms if you have a max flight time of 44 if you start fireing its gonna hit him by time the missle feul has been used up as i said should be common seanse. My whole long explanation was to point at that ATM it's also wrong. Whereas, in future it will be closer to being true.
but there is a point all med guns can lay full dmg on criusers fury heavy no longer can under the proposed changes. so again i make the point of missles being heavily over nerfed yeah ok maybe they needed a range nerf fine i can agree to it but at least replace it with a better system than it did as ive already posted before.
Fury and rage being more dmg and less range but not 50% of t1
presiction and jav being longer range but much lower dmg.
i.e this would give larger dmg for a shorter range on fury hml case criuser and above and allow for long range strike with lower dmg in case of prescion hml this would also act more like guns if that is the case.
T1 mid range and dmg T2 Fury and rage high dmg shorter range bad dmg aplication on smaller targets T2 precision and jave longer range ammo for less dmg but better dmg aplication smaller targets.
however the difference between long and short ranges should always be definitive jave hams should not be infringing on the fury ham range as much as it is. Or more importantly on the hml presicion ammo as much as it is as it stands now hml presicion is no good as javs have pirrty much same or better range and better dmg aplication with more dps. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 23:59:00 -
[5544] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Lili Lu wrote: ... I think projectiles (omg a weapon system I use, what am I doing) need some adjustment. About the only thing I can find some common ground with you on. But I'm not stupid like you so I'm not calling for some accross the board nerf to them. OFC you don't want your primary weapons system nerfed. See we have more common ground then you think. Lili Lu wrote: Instead I would like to see a little more optimal on beam lasers.... TC can stay as they are.... They should have differing range bonus as shield tanks are going to have more agility and speed than armor tanks. This will bring ACs back in line. It will also aid amarr armor tanking and even out the mobility advantage v range between those types of ships.
So your fix for Projectiles is buffing other systems? right Lili Lu I would like to introduce you to powercreep Lili Lu wrote: It's already been pointed out to you how the Cane nerf while harsh and possibly overdone......
Right as we have pointed out why the HML was harsh and overdone Lili Lu wrote:Seriously, how these types of psychologically disordered people seem to gravitate into piloting Caldari and only Caldari ships is a mystery. Right I would like to repost this from my last thread. Few more points to make saying things along the lines of You should have cross trained. Any personal attacks that are sure to be targeted at me. (sure did call that one) Pointing out grammatical errors Posting by EFT warriors. Or simply anyone who has not been on the test servers. Will be taken at face value only. Also for the sake of argument this is intended to compare Missiles / Projectiles for this time I really do not care about laser or Hybrids as I pretty much even use in the top 20 your beef should be with projectiles not missiles. Also reader be wary of people posting in defense of laser or hybrids when they are projectile users I wasn't going to give you the time of day but you are that good of a troll I had to respond to this. Again you have added nothing of value to this thread you just continually barrage the Caldai pilots with insults and flame threads in an attempt to discredit them. These are typical debate tactics when you really have no valid argument so you resort to what we call ad hominem and other tactics you attempt to use we like to call a red herring. Just to be clear ad hominem is when you attack an individual instead of the argument and you have proven to do this time and time again post after post. red herring on the other hand is an attempt to introduce something non related to the topic. I made it clear my intent was to compare missile to projectiles when considering balance, yet you attempt to bring lasers and TC into the argument. and you say my post are ridiculous I suggest you reread your own lol.
I have to say many things Cazador writes are pretty much to the point. Its basically the same what I experienced here :)
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 00:10:00 -
[5545] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Actually, the easiest adjustment for Projectiles is simply to bring the falloff bonus of TEs in line with TCs.
Would help, although the speed of Winmatar ships is also a strong part of this.
The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size.
Another idea would be to go for different range ammo, at least 3 different ... high dps short range, med range med dps, long range low dps. But I fear we wont see this coming :) |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 00:34:00 -
[5546] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Yeah I get that current HMs eclipse other medium LR weapons which is why they're used more, but it's not just HMs, Drakes having BS sized tank and good resists for logi, 100mn AB tengus...
I'm just not convinced that nerfing HMs will give other medium LR weapons a new lease on life, I feel it's more likely that the entire medium LR weapon group will remain crappy ...
We have to let the metagame settle from these changes first before we know anything for certain, but in my opinion nothing much is going to change, HMs will still see similar use but slightly less than now, and all the other medium LR turrets will remain in a similar position.
i agree with most of what was said here. medium LR turrets will still be out performed by HML's. however, the drake and tengu will be addressed during ship balancing later in the coming expansions. its just something we have to wait for.
Dato Koppla wrote:
Many Caldari missile boats get a kinetic damage bonus and are thus pigeon holed into kinetic despite fully selectable damage. So no, projectiles get the 'best' range of selectable damage as they don't have this.
this kinetic pigeon holing is being removed (except the new destroyer it seems) and missiles get full selectable T2 missiles, projectiles dont. missiles are definitely more selectable considering projectiles have to chose T1 ammo's to do thermal or EM damage (which also means a damage reduction)
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
133
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 00:38:00 -
[5547] - Quote
serras bang wrote: but there is a point all med guns can lay full dmg on criusers fury heavy no longer can under the proposed changes. so again i make the point of missles being heavily over nerfed yeah ok maybe they needed a range nerf fine i can agree to it but at least replace it with a better system than it did as ive already posted before.
Fury and rage being more dmg and less range but not 50% of t1
presiction and jav being longer range but much lower dmg.
i.e this would give larger dmg for a shorter range on fury hml case criuser and above and allow for long range strike with lower dmg in case of prescion hml this would also act more like guns if that is the case.
T1 mid range and dmg T2 Fury and rage high dmg shorter range bad dmg aplication on smaller targets T2 precision and jave longer range ammo for less dmg but better dmg aplication smaller targets.
however the difference between long and short ranges should always be definitive jave hams should not be infringing on the fury ham range as much as it is. Or more importantly on the hml presicion ammo as much as it is as it stands now hml presicion is no good as javs have pirrty much same or better range and better dmg aplication with more dps.
Fury will apply full damage on shield cruisers and any BC/BS ; speed damage reduction should be rather low, though I need to make the math to be sure.
And compared to turrets, long range ammo of short range turrets usualy outrange long range turret with T2 short range ammo.
@Cazador : in France, we would say what translate to "the hospital scoff at charity". Ad Hominem is all you did to me some pages ago. Hell, you even suspected the devs to want to nerf the caldari just for the sake of it ! And you never brought any argument, only unjustified fears and your pve CNR not in line with machariels in incursions.
Oh, and this statistical comparison, which is not an argument (no statistic could make an argument, only an indication of a potential problem) ; and then, people yet agree with you that projectiles do have a problem, but that is corrected by minmatar hull tweak, or that TE are the main projectile source of power against the other weapons (because power of a weapon exists only in relation to other weapons) because of the emphasys on falloff projectile greatly profit from.
And no, a fix to TE would not buff the others, the "buff" would only be relative : this is balance. When you nerf something, everything else is indirectly buffed, that's the magic, and that's not powercreep.
And finaly, all is in your phrase : medLR turrets CAN lay full damage on cruisers ; T2 HML ammo CAN too ; but neither of these systems is able to do it in standard situation (cruiser will try to fool your tracking at close range, and with missiles, you need a web/TP or the good target).
And finaly, to ALL caldari pilots around there, I beg you all : STOP SAYING CALDARI ONLY HAVE TWO VIABLE SHIPS FOR PVP ! That is a lie, or a fantasy, nothing more, that have been said countless of times. And if you only consider caldari missile ships, that's a falacy, because the caracal is rebalanced and will be a beast, and because the cerberus is known to be broken (there are others broken hull in fact).
But anyway, even if there was only one viable hull for HML, that wouldn't be a reason not to nerf them if they are OP (and they are). |
Lili Lu
568
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 00:40:00 -
[5548] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: OFC you don't want your primary weapons system nerfed. See we have more common ground then you think. I don't consider any weapon system my "primary weapon." So I really don't care, which is what I was saying. Why do you call any weapon system your primary weapon system. Grow a little.
Cazador 64 wrote: So your fix for Projectiles is buffing other systems? right Lili Lu I would like to introduce you to powercreep Reading comprehension not your strong point. The only "buff" I gave as an example was a small extension on laser optimal so that they have some advantage over projectiles. Medium arty has same optimal as medium beams but has more falloff. To extend laser optimal a little would give them some more comparative utility. It hardly buffs them in that no more damage is suggested. Besides since you seem to think my "primary weapon system" is projectiles why would I ever suggest this? What really needs to be done to "nerf" projectiles is a small nerf on TEs.
Cazador 64 wrote:Right as we have pointed out why the HML was harsh and overdone You didn't lose the ability to fit a tank and long range weapons. In nerfing cane grid to exclude 425s and 2 medium neuts, the cane also lost any reasonable ability to fit 720s, a mwd, and 1600 plate (or LSEs). And a cane with LSEs has always been a paper tank anyway, nothing like a Drake. Conversely the Drake can still fit it's tank and HMLs. It didn't get any direct nerf. You lost range which was necessary and 10% damage and your high damage tech II ammo no longer is going 90% of you tech I ammo range. You are all crying like spoiled children. Cane pilots haven't polluted this thread with anywhere near the whine.
Cazador 64 wrote: Right I would like to repost this from my last thread.
Few more points to make saying things along the lines of
You should have cross trained. Any personal attacks that are sure to be targeted at me. (sure did call that one) Pointing out grammatical errors Posting by EFT warriors. Or simply anyone who has not been on the test servers.
Will be taken at face value only. Also for the sake of argument this is intended to compare Missiles / Projectiles for this time I really do not care about laser or Hybrids as I pretty much even use in the top 20 your beef should be with projectiles not missiles. Also reader be wary of people posting in defense of laser or hybrids when they are projectile users
I wasn't going to give you the time of day but you are that good of a troll I had to respond to this. Again you have added nothing of value to this thread you just continually barrage the Caldai pilots with insults and flame threads in an attempt to discredit them.
These are typical debate tactics when you really have no valid argument so you resort to what we call ad hominem and other tactics you attempt to use we like to call a red herring. Just to be clear ad hominem is when you attack an individual instead of the argument and you have proven to do this time and time again post after post.
red herring on the other hand is an attempt to introduce something non related to the topic. I made it clear my intent was to compare missile to projectiles when considering balance, yet you attempt to bring lasers and TC into the argument.
and you say my post are ridiculous I suggest you reread your own lol. I've already crosstrained years ago skippy, and may have more sp in missiles than you do.
When you talk in terms of "biggotry", when Opertone says "I am Caldari", and all the other ridiculous identification of yourselves with a mythical race in a game, sorry, you open yourselves up to what I have written itt.
I don't give a crap about gramatical errors. Find a place where I made any deal out of a grammatical or spelling error.
I've flown and fit up about every ship in this game between Lili (amarr and minmatar, but also have trained gallente and finishing caldari cruiser 5 as we speak) and my other characters, two of which specialize in gallente and caldari. EFT has been used by both sides in this thread to provide numbers behind opinions. You can't seriously have a problem with eft, and you can label the pro nerf side as eft warriors if you want but it just makes you a hypocrite.
I have been on the test server in the past. But within the last 5 months i started experiencing eve and other problems on my desktop where i had the test server loaded. It took months and lots of pita remedies til i got eve running again there. I am reluctant to mess with what is working on that puter now for fear of experiencing computer problems again. I may try loading a test server client on my lappy. Will have to think about it though. Regardless, this nerf to HMs makes sense. You can't keep an op weapon system in the game. Cry about it.
Troll, omg, learn what that means you idiot. A troll is not simply someone who disagrees with you. Call me an idiot or whatever else you want, but ffs you only prove my calling you an idiot by calling me a troll. On second thought keep going on with calling me a troll. It keeps showing you don't know much.
I'm sure you will keep whining in the hope that getting this thread to 300 pages will somehow make Fozzie cave and leave HMs as they currently are. Btw, did you even read Fozzie's posts. He is a dev who has flown HM boats. He specifically stated they were his first set of ships used in eve. And you obviously are too butthurt to even notice that I have trained HM spec 4 and have used them on 3 characters. My characters also have gunnery specs at 4 though. So I know about both weapon systems. You clearly only know missiles. Doesn't say much for the strength of your opinions. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
208
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 06:40:00 -
[5549] - Quote
serras bang wrote:rage and fury is hi dmg but yet cannot lay full dmg on stationary ships of there size.
presicion and jav for small fast targets yet the presicion dosent have the range to gaurantee a hit on said ships.
Why should it have more range?
None of the T2 long range ammo for turrets have good tracking. In fact there's tracking penalty in every T2 long range ammo. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 07:55:00 -
[5550] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:rage and fury is hi dmg but yet cannot lay full dmg on stationary ships of there size.
presicion and jav for small fast targets yet the presicion dosent have the range to gaurantee a hit on said ships. Why should it have more range? None of the T2 long range ammo for turrets have good tracking. In fact there's tracking penalty in every T2 long range ammo.
I imagine because it has to fly to its target and flying to a 'ceptor orbiting at silly-km/s is going to require to flying for a decent duration, even it its only going ~20km out as the crow flies.
Unless I misread it/have outdated information there's a good chance you'll be better off using HAMS with range rigs in almost all circumstances More damage, better able to hit small targets. Less range but bleh, not much less than precision HM. HAM drake has been turned into a (bigger) demon. Hell rage HAMs will even hit cruisers better than vanilla HMLs |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 09:02:00 -
[5551] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I imagine because it has to fly to its target and flying to a 'ceptor orbiting at silly-km/s is going to require to flying for a decent duration, even it its only going ~20km out as the crow flies. Unless I misread it/have outdated information there's a good chance you'll be better off using HAMS with range rigs in almost all circumstances More damage, better able to hit small targets. Less range but bleh, not much less than precision HM. HAM drake has been turned into a (bigger) demon. Hell rage HAMs will even hit cruisers better than vanilla HMLs
Or you could use range rigs for heavy missiles too. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 09:14:00 -
[5552] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:I imagine because it has to fly to its target and flying to a 'ceptor orbiting at silly-km/s is going to require to flying for a decent duration, even it its only going ~20km out as the crow flies. Unless I misread it/have outdated information there's a good chance you'll be better off using HAMS with range rigs in almost all circumstances More damage, better able to hit small targets. Less range but bleh, not much less than precision HM. HAM drake has been turned into a (bigger) demon. Hell rage HAMs will even hit cruisers better than vanilla HMLs Or you could use range rigs for heavy missiles too.
Of course, but with the sig changes you're really going to have to use [some] rigors instead.
Also you seem to have mistaken my post for a complaint as opposed to an observation about why an argument can be made about precision having greater flight time |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
241
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 09:23:00 -
[5553] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:How can you people can not wrap your head around the fact HML was the only viable option for Caldari Missile pvp. We have posted the numbers of the top 20 most used weapons Projectiles dominate this list over every other weapons system out there. As well as projectile ships make up almost half of the top 20 ships we see on this list. http://eve-kill.net/?a=invtype&id=12034 how can you not wrap your head around the fact that the fact that battleship missiles suck is not a justification for HMLs being overpowered?
I agree, CCP needs to fix battleship missiles, but that has NOTHING to do with HMLs
also rockets work just fine ATM, dont know about standards . . .
Cazador 64 wrote:Will be taken at face value only. Also for the sake of argument this is intended to compare Missiles / Projectiles for this time I really do not care about laser or Hybrids as I pretty much even use in the top 20 your beef should be with projectiles not missiles. Also reader be wary of people posting in defense of laser or hybrids when they are projectile users Ok, instead of 4 weapon systems (hybrids, lasers, missiles, projectiles) you should be comparing two sets of 4 weapon systems separately.
#1 Blasters, Pulse Lasers, Autocannons, HAMs - here i completely agree with you, HAMs need a buff (switch the PG requirements with HMLs) and Autocannons are totally overpowered and need a serious nerf especially when compared with blasters . . . we have no problems here.
#2 Rails, Beam Lasers, Artillery, HML - out of these four weapon systems and only these four weapon systems which is the overpowered one? clearly the HML takes not only the cake, but the plate and table it was on too. Rails are still the ones in need of a buff here, and the HML needs its power reigned in.
TL;DR I understand that the autocannon needs a nerf, but for the love of God, stop using that as justification for the HML to stay how it is, theyre not even in the same class. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
241
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 09:25:00 -
[5554] - Quote
Opertone wrote:Sigras wrote:Opertone wrote:
You do not even play the FFF... game. Quit your posting. You have not played as caldari character. Your POV is so out of this world. You are not even trying.
I love how you never offered a single counter point to any of the arguments made in my post, instead you just attacked my character . . . Let me guess, you must be running for US president this year . . . Anyway, if you can scrape together an argument perhaps try posting that, Johnny Storm Arguments. It is just rubbish. Can't even bother to make counter arguments. the lack of ability to come up with a cohesive argument on your part does not constitute a problem with my argument. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
241
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 09:38:00 -
[5555] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size. Could you please elaborate on this cause youve said it a few times now and each time it confuses me . . . the cruise raven already does way more DPS than a 1400 tempest, a 425 megathron or a tachyon apoc at better ranges (way better for all but the apoc)
So i dont exactly know what you mean here, the cruise raven with 3 BCS does 490 DPS or so at max range (250 km) with caldari navy missiles the 1400 Tempest with 3 gyrostabs does 360 DPS or so at 124 + 57 km with tremor the 425 megathron with 3 magstabs does 370 DPS or so at 130 + 30 km with spike the Tachyon apoc with 3 heatsinks does 401 DPS or so at 230 + 41 km with aurora
do you want the raven to do even more damage or something? im not sure what more you want. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 09:46:00 -
[5556] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size. Could you please elaborate on this cause youve said it a few times now and each time it confuses me . . . the cruise raven already does way more DPS than a 1400 tempest, a 425 megathron or a tachyon apoc at better ranges (way better for all but the apoc) So i dont exactly know what you mean here, the cruise raven with 3 BCS does 490 DPS or so at max range (250 km) with caldari navy missiles the 1400 Tempest with 3 gyrostabs does 360 DPS or so at 124 + 57 km with tremor the 425 megathron with 3 magstabs does 370 DPS or so at 130 + 30 km with spike the Tachyon apoc with 3 heatsinks does 401 DPS or so at 230 + 41 km with aurora do you want the raven to do even more damage or something? im not sure what more you want.
Change/fix the raven so it works in TQ and not just on paper?
I don't think there's any serious debate that the raven is a pretty damned terrible ship for ship based PvP |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
133
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 09:56:00 -
[5557] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Change/fix the raven so it works in TQ and not just on paper? I don't think there's any serious debate that the raven is a pretty damned terrible ship for ship based PvP Granted ; by the next summer, all BS will be reworked. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 10:03:00 -
[5558] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Change/fix the raven so it works in TQ and not just on paper? I don't think there's any serious debate that the raven is a pretty damned terrible ship for ship based PvP Granted ; by the next summer, all BS will be reworked.
Yup, although if only sniping was properly viable, it would be a cracking hull |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
61
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 10:04:00 -
[5559] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size. Could you please elaborate on this cause youve said it a few times now and each time it confuses me . . . the cruise raven already does way more DPS than a 1400 tempest, a 425 megathron or a tachyon apoc at better ranges (way better for all but the apoc) So i dont exactly know what you mean here, the cruise raven with 3 BCS does 490 DPS or so at max range (250 km) with caldari navy missiles the 1400 Tempest with 3 gyrostabs does 360 DPS or so at 124 + 57 km with tremor the 425 megathron with 3 magstabs does 370 DPS or so at 130 + 30 km with spike the Tachyon apoc with 3 heatsinks does 401 DPS or so at 230 + 41 km with aurora do you want the raven to do even more damage or something? im not sure what more you want. Change/fix the raven so it works in TQ and not just on paper? I don't think there's any serious debate that the raven is a pretty damned terrible ship for ship based PvP
i guess the biggest problem is the non-existence of engagements beyond 150 km (i dare to say 100 km - ignoring some rather rare sniping games) because of current minimal warp distances, ongrid probing and the big delay in damage application due to cruise missile flight times. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
133
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 10:31:00 -
[5560] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i guess the biggest problem is the non-existence of engagements beyond 150 km (i dare to say 100 km - ignoring some rather rare sniping games) because of current minimal warp distances, ongrid probing and the big delay in damage application due to cruise missile flight times. There is room for 100-120km engagement IMO, and tier3 BC, with their agility, use it ; the problem here is more about the logi : you don't have the firpower at 100km to break through logi protective power.
For the flight time, I think CCP will go the road of HML : Cruise Missiles speed will rise and flight time will fall. I cannot really think to their dps being buff, or very small buff, because that would really be a high dps at longer range. |
|
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 11:07:00 -
[5561] - Quote
In my opinion the damage nerf for heavy missiles was ok, but i'm not too sure about the range reduction for the T2 missiles... The way i see it missiles and turrets are 2 completely different systems and the way we have been going so far is to make them more and more similar.
Turrets should be able to completely rule at short range and if the long range guns have tracking problems that make them almost useless then i see a problem there that needs to be fixed. And in exchange for that missiles should rule in the long range, but so far there is no viable way to use that trademark range of the missiles or long range turrets and i have an idea for that too.
I would like to see the Defender missiles fixed, also there should be defender missile launcher module that can be fitted to high slot without the need for launcher slot so any ship could use it.
And then i'd like warp disruption effect chance added to EVERY long range turret and missile ammunition, this would make sniper setups and long range engagements possible and finally long range turrets could be viable also. The warp disruption effect would be chance based each time you succesfully hit and would last for few seconds, this should not completely warp disrupt the target all the time so you might get a chance to warp away, but with 2 snipers you would be screwed. The sniped could try to either run out of snipers weapon/targeting range or rush face to face with the attacker since this does not shutdown MWD, and get under the long range guns. Missiles should be able to warp disrupt much better since the added flight time as a warning time to the target. Also the damage inbalance at long ranges would need fixing but missiles would be the winner there. Warp disruption could also be countered by fitting single Warp Core Stabilizer as the disrupt strength would not exceed 1.
What do you think about this, it's very raw, but it would make missiles viable on long range role, it would also make long range guns viable and even Raven could actually become viable at pvp too. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
893
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 11:19:00 -
[5562] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i guess the biggest problem is the non-existence of engagements beyond 150 km (i dare to say 100 km - ignoring some rather rare sniping games) because of current minimal warp distances, ongrid probing and the big delay in damage application due to cruise missile flight times. I think a much larger problem than on grid probing and warp distances is that all long range weapons systems save for artillery are borderline unfittable at battleship level, requiring horribly gimped fits to even get the turrets on there to begin with and even if you do manage to fit them they all have such uniformly awful tracking that you can't hit anything that isn't either huge, completely stationary or super far away.
But yes, there are a huge number of factors that contribute to the general non-viability of sniper setups in 90% of all circumstances, particularly in space where you can't use bubbles. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 12:45:00 -
[5563] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i guess the biggest problem is the non-existence of engagements beyond 150 km (i dare to say 100 km - ignoring some rather rare sniping games) because of current minimal warp distances, ongrid probing and the big delay in damage application due to cruise missile flight times. There is room for 100-120km engagement IMO, and tier3 BC, with their agility, use it ; the problem here is more about the logi : you don't have the firpower at 100km to break through logi protective power. For the flight time, I think CCP will go the road of HML : Cruise Missiles speed will rise and flight time will fall. I cannot really think to their dps being buff, or very small buff, because that would really be a high dps at longer range.
criuse t2 barely gose 55km |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 12:48:00 -
[5564] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote: but there is a point all med guns can lay full dmg on criusers fury heavy no longer can under the proposed changes. so again i make the point of missles being heavily over nerfed yeah ok maybe they needed a range nerf fine i can agree to it but at least replace it with a better system than it did as ive already posted before.
Fury and rage being more dmg and less range but not 50% of t1
presiction and jav being longer range but much lower dmg.
i.e this would give larger dmg for a shorter range on fury hml case criuser and above and allow for long range strike with lower dmg in case of prescion hml this would also act more like guns if that is the case.
T1 mid range and dmg T2 Fury and rage high dmg shorter range bad dmg aplication on smaller targets T2 precision and jave longer range ammo for less dmg but better dmg aplication smaller targets.
however the difference between long and short ranges should always be definitive jave hams should not be infringing on the fury ham range as much as it is. Or more importantly on the hml presicion ammo as much as it is as it stands now hml presicion is no good as javs have pirrty much same or better range and better dmg aplication with more dps.
Fury will apply full damage on shield cruisers and any BC/BS ; speed damage reduction should be rather low, though I need to make the math to be sure. And compared to turrets, long range ammo of short range turrets usualy outrange long range turret with T2 short range ammo. @Cazador : in France, we would say what translate to "the hospital scoff at charity". Ad Hominem is all you did to me some pages ago. Hell, you even suspected the devs to want to nerf the caldari just for the sake of it ! And you never brought any argument, only unjustified fears and your pve CNR not in line with machariels in incursions. Oh, and this statistical comparison, which is not an argument (no statistic could make an argument, only an indication of a potential problem) ; and then, people yet agree with you that projectiles do have a problem, but that is corrected by minmatar hull tweak, or that TE are the main projectile source of power against the other weapons (because power of a weapon exists only in relation to other weapons) because of the emphasys on falloff projectile greatly profit from. And no, a fix to TE would not buff the others, the "buff" would only be relative : this is balance. When you nerf something, everything else is indirectly buffed, that's the magic, and that's not powercreep. And finaly, all is in your phrase : medLR turrets CAN lay full damage on cruisers ; T2 HML ammo CAN too ; but neither of these systems is able to do it in standard situation (cruiser will try to fool your tracking at close range, and with missiles, you need a web/TP or the good target). And finaly, to ALL caldari pilots around there, I beg you all : STOP SAYING CALDARI ONLY HAVE TWO VIABLE SHIPS FOR PVP ! That is a lie, or a fantasy, nothing more, that have been said countless of times. And if you only consider caldari missile ships, that's a falacy, because the caracal is rebalanced and will be a beast, and because the cerberus is known to be broken (there are others broken hull in fact). But anyway, even if there was only one viable hull for HML, that wouldn't be a reason not to nerf them if they are OP (and they are).
go do your calculation the explosive radius of t2 furry even on a tengu with 2 tech 2 rigors is 115 now you put the same on the cara witch has problems with tank unless you got for full passive tank and even fittinf 2 t1 rigors (if at all possible) wukk have a much more bloted explosive radius and reduce the tank you can have but lets give no tank and no rigors it then cannot work in close range combat due to mids with utility (something we have to cope with granted) but it also has a much higher explosiveradius than the t1 criusers of 125 sig radius. |
Signal11th
Amarr Empire
807
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 12:49:00 -
[5565] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::Edit: I've updated this post with the 2.0 versions of this proposal. Changes are underlined and can be found described in this post. Some big sets of responses to questions about the original proposal can be found here and here.:Google doc with numbers for the affected missiles.Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread.
96 likes from a thread of over 5.5k.......... God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 13:11:00 -
[5566] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size. Could you please elaborate on this cause youve said it a few times now and each time it confuses me . . . the cruise raven already does way more DPS than a 1400 tempest, a 425 megathron or a tachyon apoc at better ranges (way better for all but the apoc) So i dont exactly know what you mean here, the cruise raven with 3 BCS does 490 DPS or so at max range (250 km) with caldari navy missiles the 1400 Tempest with 3 gyrostabs does 360 DPS or so at 124 + 57 km with tremor the 425 megathron with 3 magstabs does 370 DPS or so at 130 + 30 km with spike the Tachyon apoc with 3 heatsinks does 401 DPS or so at 230 + 41 km with aurora do you want the raven to do even more damage or something? im not sure what more you want.
and no anything above about 170 for any weapon after mods ect is stupid but as you have pointed out there the raven int the biggest problem look at the armarr ship 230 optimal with a further 41 km giving a massive 271 km fireing range and similar dmg to the raven |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 13:28:00 -
[5567] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size. Could you please elaborate on this cause youve said it a few times now and each time it confuses me . . . the cruise raven already does way more DPS than a 1400 tempest, a 425 megathron or a tachyon apoc at better ranges (way better for all but the apoc) So i dont exactly know what you mean here, the cruise raven with 3 BCS does 490 DPS or so at max range (250 km) with caldari navy missiles the 1400 Tempest with 3 gyrostabs does 360 DPS or so at 124 + 57 km with tremor the 425 megathron with 3 magstabs does 370 DPS or so at 130 + 30 km with spike the Tachyon apoc with 3 heatsinks does 401 DPS or so at 230 + 41 km with aurora do you want the raven to do even more damage or something? im not sure what more you want. and no anything above about 170 for any weapon after mods ect is stupid but as you have pointed out there the raven int the biggest problem look at the armarr ship 230 optimal with a further 41 km giving a massive 271 km fireing range and similar dmg to the raven
Difference, of course, is that the raven can hit effectively at the entire scope of its range.
How do tachs fare at 5km ranges? |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
61
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 13:55:00 -
[5568] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:i guess the biggest problem is the non-existence of engagements beyond 150 km (i dare to say 100 km - ignoring some rather rare sniping games) because of current minimal warp distances, ongrid probing and the big delay in damage application due to cruise missile flight times. I think a much larger problem than on grid probing and warp distances is that all long range weapons systems save for artillery are borderline unfittable at battleship level, requiring horribly gimped fits to even get the turrets on there to begin with and even if you do manage to fit them they all have such uniformly awful tracking that you can't hit anything that isn't either huge, completely stationary or super far away. But yes, there are a huge number of factors that contribute to the general non-viability of sniper setups in 90% of all circumstances, particularly in space where you can't use bubbles.
you dont need to exclude large arties. they are grid hungry bastards. especially 1400mm (who takes puny 1200mm anyway? :P ) without maxed powergrid skills and advanced weapon upgrades lvl V it's nearly impossible to fit a full rack without a fitting mod. any form of propulsion or tank comes on top of that. what makes arties worth it is the phenomenal alpha strike.
giving sniper fits a big tank would be a horrible idea. there has to be a tradeoff for the range you gain. imo snipers will never be more than a niche, otherwise some very basic game mechanics need to be changed, which most certainly would screw over any form of short range combat. |
Signal11th
Amarr Empire
807
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 13:55:00 -
[5569] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:serras bang wrote:Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size. Could you please elaborate on this cause youve said it a few times now and each time it confuses me . . . the cruise raven already does way more DPS than a 1400 tempest, a 425 megathron or a tachyon apoc at better ranges (way better for all but the apoc) So i dont exactly know what you mean here, the cruise raven with 3 BCS does 490 DPS or so at max range (250 km) with caldari navy missiles the 1400 Tempest with 3 gyrostabs does 360 DPS or so at 124 + 57 km with tremor the 425 megathron with 3 magstabs does 370 DPS or so at 130 + 30 km with spike the Tachyon apoc with 3 heatsinks does 401 DPS or so at 230 + 41 km with aurora do you want the raven to do even more damage or something? im not sure what more you want. and no anything above about 170 for any weapon after mods ect is stupid but as you have pointed out there the raven int the biggest problem look at the armarr ship 230 optimal with a further 41 km giving a massive 271 km fireing range and similar dmg to the raven Difference, of course, is that the raven can hit effectively at the entire scope of its range. How do tachs fare at 5km ranges?
aye but if you're firing at targets at 5km with Tach's you really need to kill your FC. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!"-á I came second and won a toaster. |
Jazboc
Boa Innovations Solar Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 14:20:00 -
[5570] - Quote
So dear CCP. I apritiate your work, your ideas and wishes to make game the best for us players...But this next patch you intend to give out, will defenetly not make game better for us. What you want to do with expansions is to improve game mechanic, make game more endzojable, more fun to play and to get more new players interested into game itself...Atleast thats what i hope or was hoping you intend to achive....Well that new patch and new AI and all its ok. But why would you make drones useless? Why would you want to change something that wasent broken at all? Why such a strong nerf on missiles? Can you imagine somone skilling up from very beggining of the game the missile skills only and now you will make all those boats useless? Think it up agin before u let it go live to be honest... |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 14:53:00 -
[5571] - Quote
serras bang wrote:and no anything above about 170 for any weapon after mods ect is stupid but as you have pointed out there the raven int the biggest problem look at the armarr ship 230 optimal with a further 41 km giving a massive 271 km fireing range and similar dmg to the raven
Someone doesn't know how falloff works but what you can expect from missile user...
Oh, and maximum targeting range is 250 km. It's hard coded so there's no way around it.
If there's no limit Raven would be able to shoot to 330 km or something like that.
Morrigan LeSante wrote:How do tachs fare at 5km ranges?
If target doesn't move and has massive sigradius (= capital) I'd say quite well. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
25
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 15:50:00 -
[5572] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: If target doesn't move and has massive sigradius (= capital) I'd say quite well.
You do love a stupid fringe case don't you |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
135
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 15:52:00 -
[5573] - Quote
Signal11th wrote: aye but if you're firing at targets at 5km with Tach's you really need to kill your FC.
He certainly would be easier to hit anyway. xD |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 16:08:00 -
[5574] - Quote
Jazboc wrote:So dear CCP. I apritiate your work, your ideas and wishes to make game the best for us players...But this next patch you intend to give out, will defenetly not make game better for us. What you want to do with expansions is to improve game mechanic, make game more endzojable, more fun to play and to get more new players interested into game itself...Atleast thats what i hope or was hoping you intend to achive....Well that new patch and new AI and all its ok. But why would you make drones useless? Why would you want to change something that wasent broken at all? Why such a strong nerf on missiles? Can you imagine somone skilling up from very beggining of the game the missile skills only and now you will make all those boats useless? Think it up agin before u let it go live to be honest...
ive spent nearly 2 year training only call and missle specilising in long range bombardment guess im fecked. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 16:12:00 -
[5575] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:and no anything above about 170 for any weapon after mods ect is stupid but as you have pointed out there the raven int the biggest problem look at the armarr ship 230 optimal with a further 41 km giving a massive 271 km fireing range and similar dmg to the raven Someone doesn't know how falloff works but what you can expect from missile user... Oh, and maximum targeting range is 250 km. It's hard coded so there's no way around it. If we forget that limit for now Raven would be able to shoot to 330 km or something like that. Morrigan LeSante wrote:How do tachs fare at 5km ranges? If target doesn't move and has massive sigradius (= capital) I'd say quite well.
oh i know how fallof works and try getting missles and targeting to 250 also try catching that armarr snipper ship in a caldari ship especialy after the changes witch make caldari ships the slowest and heaviest of all the ships in nearly every catagory. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
135
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 17:31:00 -
[5576] - Quote
serras bang wrote:oh i know how fallof works and try getting missles and targeting to 250 also try catching that armarr snipper ship in a caldari ship especialy after the changes witch make caldari ships the slowest and heaviest of all the ships in nearly every catagory. Probe'n Warp ? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 17:42:00 -
[5577] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:serras bang wrote:Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size. Could you please elaborate on this cause youve said it a few times now and each time it confuses me . . . the cruise raven already does way more DPS than a 1400 tempest, a 425 megathron or a tachyon apoc at better ranges (way better for all but the apoc) So i dont exactly know what you mean here, the cruise raven with 3 BCS does 490 DPS or so at max range (250 km) with caldari navy missiles the 1400 Tempest with 3 gyrostabs does 360 DPS or so at 124 + 57 km with tremor the 425 megathron with 3 magstabs does 370 DPS or so at 130 + 30 km with spike the Tachyon apoc with 3 heatsinks does 401 DPS or so at 230 + 41 km with aurora do you want the raven to do even more damage or something? im not sure what more you want. and no anything above about 170 for any weapon after mods ect is stupid but as you have pointed out there the raven int the biggest problem look at the armarr ship 230 optimal with a further 41 km giving a massive 271 km fireing range and similar dmg to the raven Difference, of course, is that the raven can hit effectively at the entire scope of its range. How do tachs fare at 5km ranges? aye but if you're firing at targets at 5km with Tach's you really need to kill your FC.
And a cruise Raven fighting in 5km is also not better off than any other ship. Since its got normally paper EHP it will be even worse. Besides, for CM and Torps its the same, fitting reqs are changed in comparison to turrets.
About that other question, dont remember who posted it, I really will not go more into why the Raven sucks in Eve, and why the numbers seem to mislead some people here. If someone thinks the Raven is good then please train for one and use it in PvP. But let me know before where I can find you.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 18:15:00 -
[5578] - Quote
serras bang wrote:ive spent nearly 2 year training only call and missle specilising in long range bombardment guess im fecked.
You made a choice and now you want your SP back because you didn't cross train?
serras bang wrote:oh i know how fallof works and try getting missles and targeting to 250 also try catching that armarr snipper ship in a caldari ship especialy after the changes witch make caldari ships the slowest and heaviest of all the ships in nearly every catagory.
Then you also know that Apoc will have around 75% chance to hit if it can track its target with Aurora. And that tracking speed is... well, bad to put it nicely.
605 dps 341 km 1012 m/s 12s align 250 km targeting range 138 scan res
[Raven, Raven fit]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot]
Large Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Large Core Defense Field Extender I
Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise Missiles CM-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-706
Noemi Nagano wrote:If someone thinks the Raven is good then please train for one and use it in PvP. But let me know before where I can find you.
I don't have to train anymore since I can fly Raven right now if I had one. Oh, and I don't remember where I'm so I can't tell location of my main. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
238
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 18:22:00 -
[5579] - Quote
serras bang wrote:[quote=Kai'rae Saarkus]
i dont use guns all that much and the smallest med guns even upto mid mid guns far as im aware do it fairly effectively. however im fairly confident that all med guns can lay full dmg on all criuser and bc ?
My dual prop Stabber would like to have a word about that. I've sig tanked 425mm Hurricanes with it.
But no, the long range turrets have a hard time with equal size targets in close, if you load short range T2 ammo you may hit a battleship, but that is about it.
For example, Jav with a 250mm rail tracks like a 1200mm arty. Under 20km you have to do some creative driving to hit at all.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
135
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 18:42:00 -
[5580] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:About that other question, dont remember who posted it, I really will not go more into why the Raven sucks in Eve, and why the numbers seem to mislead some people here. If someone thinks the Raven is good then please train for one and use it in PvP. But let me know before where I can find you.
It's sad, because that would be very useful to show you knowledge and add smart and relevant data to the thread. But I guess that would be too much of a gift for the ignorant masses of non caldari players who want to nerf HML.
Besides, the Raven can sport the exact same tank than the standard alphafleet Maelstrom. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
136
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 18:49:00 -
[5581] - Quote
Onictus wrote: For example, Jav with a 250mm rail tracks like a 1200mm arty. Under 20km you have to do some creative driving to hit at all.
Not javelin, spike. Infact, 1200mm arties have twice the tracking of spike 250mm railguns. Though, 250mm railguns with javelin have more than twice the tracking of 1200mm arties. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
241
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 19:17:00 -
[5582] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Sigras wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:The easiest adjustment to balance HML would by the way to make Raven and Cruises work in PvP. Cruise Ravens could then slaughter HML Drakes (which would be only fair) and still not kill all others, since they are BS size. Could you please elaborate on this cause youve said it a few times now and each time it confuses me . . . the cruise raven already does way more DPS than a 1400 tempest, a 425 megathron or a tachyon apoc at better ranges (way better for all but the apoc) So i dont exactly know what you mean here, the cruise raven with 3 BCS does 490 DPS or so at max range (250 km) with caldari navy missiles the 1400 Tempest with 3 gyrostabs does 360 DPS or so at 124 + 57 km with tremor the 425 megathron with 3 magstabs does 370 DPS or so at 130 + 30 km with spike the Tachyon apoc with 3 heatsinks does 401 DPS or so at 230 + 41 km with aurora do you want the raven to do even more damage or something? im not sure what more you want. Change/fix the raven so it works in TQ and not just on paper? I don't think there's any serious debate that the raven is a pretty damned terrible ship for ship based PvP My point is that theyre all awful except for the tempest which has alpha strike; its not just the cruise raven that's broken.
Lets be honest, when is the last time you saw a rail mega/rail rokh/beam abaddon/beam apoc in combat? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
136
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 19:25:00 -
[5583] - Quote
Sigras wrote: Lets be honest, when is the last time you saw a rail mega/rail rokh/beam abaddon/beam apoc in combat?
In fact, railguns Rokh are a fleet comp of a nullsec powerblock. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
241
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 19:26:00 -
[5584] - Quote
Jazboc wrote:So dear CCP. I apritiate your work, your ideas and wishes to make game the best for us players...But this next patch you intend to give out, will defenetly not make game better for us. What you want to do with expansions is to improve game mechanic, make game more endzojable, more fun to play and to get more new players interested into game itself...Atleast thats what i hope or was hoping you intend to achive....Well that new patch and new AI and all its ok. But why would you make drones useless? Why would you want to change something that wasent broken at all? Why such a strong nerf on missiles? Can you imagine somone skilling up from very beggining of the game the missile skills only and now you will make all those boats useless? Think it up agin before u let it go live to be honest... This is wrong . . . CCP's objective should not be to make the game more "fun" but more balanced.
Allow me to give you a ridiculous example:
If CCP decided to give 10,000,000 isk to new players when they started the game, this might make it more "fun" for them, but would completely destroy the economy of Eve. Allowing people to buy SP may be more "fun" to some people, but would ruin the progression of the game.
CCP believes that the HML is overpowered, so theyre bringing it into balance with the rest of the long range turrets. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 19:46:00 -
[5585] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:ive spent nearly 2 year training only call and missle specilising in long range bombardment guess im fecked. You made a choice and now you want your SP back because you didn't cross train? serras bang wrote:oh i know how fallof works and try getting missles and targeting to 250 also try catching that armarr snipper ship in a caldari ship especialy after the changes witch make caldari ships the slowest and heaviest of all the ships in nearly every catagory. Then you also know that Apoc will have around 75% chance to hit if it can track its target with Aurora. And that tracking speed is... well, bad to put it nicely. 605 dps 341 km 1012 m/s 13s align 250 km targeting range 138 scan res [Raven, Raven fit] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Large Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Large Core Defense Field Extender I Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise Missiles CM-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-706 Noemi Nagano wrote:If someone thinks the Raven is good then please train for one and use it in PvP. But let me know before where I can find you. I don't have to train anymore since I can fly Raven right now if I had one. Oh, and I don't remember where I'm so I can't tell location of my main.
yeah, best would be if you forgot also where your alt is and stop posting here. Postings like yours simply show you have no clue about Eve. :)
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
32
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 19:49:00 -
[5586] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:ive spent nearly 2 year training only call and missle specilising in long range bombardment guess im fecked. You made a choice and now you want your SP back because you didn't cross train? serras bang wrote:oh i know how fallof works and try getting missles and targeting to 250 also try catching that armarr snipper ship in a caldari ship especialy after the changes witch make caldari ships the slowest and heaviest of all the ships in nearly every catagory. Then you also know that Apoc will have around 75% chance to hit if it can track its target with Aurora. And that tracking speed is... well, bad to put it nicely. 605 dps 341 km 1012 m/s 13s align 250 km targeting range 138 scan res [Raven, Raven fit] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Large Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Large Core Defense Field Extender I Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise Missiles CM-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-706 Noemi Nagano wrote:If someone thinks the Raven is good then please train for one and use it in PvP. But let me know before where I can find you. I don't have to train anymore since I can fly Raven right now if I had one. Oh, and I don't remember where I'm so I can't tell location of my main.
furry criuse missles will be around 55 - 60 km after patch ironicaly jav torps will outrange em and tbh i still think your number are wrong but i will run them anyways persides whos gonna shell out on t2 rigs for pvp in the first place ? or 5% implants ?
if your gonna give numbers with implants for one ship give them with implants for all other ships |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
241
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 19:53:00 -
[5587] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Sigras wrote: Lets be honest, when is the last time you saw a rail mega/rail rokh/beam abaddon/beam apoc in combat?
In fact, railguns Rokh are a fleet comp of a nullsec powerblock. now that I think about it, thats right, but theyre usually used with javelin ammo @ < 50 km
with the new cruise missiles, they'll also have a viable short range option to compete. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 21:02:00 -
[5588] - Quote
serras bang wrote:if your gonna give numbers with implants for one ship give them with implants for all other ships
There's no implants to help with fact that turret ship loses damage in falloff. MR-706 doesn't help much with crap tracking speed. |
Arronicus
Serenity Prime Kraken.
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 00:06:00 -
[5589] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:ive spent nearly 2 year training only call and missle specilising in long range bombardment guess im fecked. You made a choice and now you want your SP back because you didn't cross train? serras bang wrote:oh i know how fallof works and try getting missles and targeting to 250 also try catching that armarr snipper ship in a caldari ship especialy after the changes witch make caldari ships the slowest and heaviest of all the ships in nearly every catagory. Then you also know that Apoc will have around 75% chance to hit if it can track its target with Aurora. And that tracking speed is... well, bad to put it nicely. 605 dps 341 km 1012 m/s 13s align 250 km targeting range 138 scan res [Raven, Raven fit] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Cruise Missile [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Large Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Large Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Large Core Defense Field Extender I Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise Missiles CM-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-706 Noemi Nagano wrote:If someone thinks the Raven is good then please train for one and use it in PvP. But let me know before where I can find you. I don't have to train anymore since I can fly Raven right now if I had one. Oh, and I don't remember where I'm so I can't tell location of my main. furry criuse missles will be around 55 - 60 km after patch ironicaly jav torps will outrange em and tbh i still think your number are wrong but i will run them anyways persides whos gonna shell out on t2 rigs for pvp in the first place ? or 5% implants ? if your gonna give numbers with implants for one ship give them with implants for all other ships
I use 5% implants for pvp, and t2 rigs. I'm not even that rich. A t2 damage rig on my nagas, or a t2 damage rig on my stealth bombers. Neither of those are really that rare. That being said, that's not a very good fit for that ship, I'll agree. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 01:00:00 -
[5590] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:
I use 5% implants for pvp, and t2 rigs. I'm not even that rich. A t2 damage rig on my nagas, or a t2 damage rig on my stealth bombers. Neither of those are really that rare. That being said, that's not a very good fit for that ship, I'll agree.
Basically, 5%s will be ok in lowsec and highsec. t2 rigs are ok for medium and small ships, for large non faction ships i think they are not a reasonable choice in PvP.
|
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 02:14:00 -
[5591] - Quote
even a lot of the ppl in null sec i know, often fly with complete set of implants worth 2bil+
u dnt get podded much in fleet fights, but i couldn't afford it lol |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
384
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 02:39:00 -
[5592] - Quote
serras bang wrote:furry criuse missles
|
Joe Kizonya
The Night Crew The Night Crew Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 03:05:00 -
[5593] - Quote
Okay, I know that this thread has been up for a bit now, but I just found out about it.
While I completely agree with CCP in the fact that, at the moment, HML's are overpowered, I believe this is the wrong way of balancing them.
I like the idea of the tracking computers and tracking enhancers now affecting missiles, but I disagree with most of the other changes.
Yes the changes would fix the issues of overpowered missiles in large fleets, where target painters, webs, and other e-war are plentiful, but they will pretty much remove HML fits for things like tengu's and drakes (yes I know they are over used, but right now they are also the only good missile platforms) from small gang and worm hole operations. It will affect both k-space, and w-space combat, in both PVP and PVE.
The thought is to take the HML and change it from competing with the large class weapon platforms, and move it into its proper place of anti-cruiser/battle cruiser medium sized guns.
As it sits in its current state, the HML's damage output is to high compared to all the other medium class long range platforms. so nurfing the damage would be a good idea, but also increasing its explosion radius, moves it from being useful against BC sized ships, to MWD BC/Battleship classes. Removing 25% damage output, places the HML within a reasonable variation on DPS with artillery projectiles loaded with close range t1 ammo, so that is a good start, but that turret can actually land its damage on a target. Yes in a small gang or solo, you may need to pilot your ship to reduce transversal, but you can hit a cruiser that is moving at say 200m/s with almost full damage. Now take that same stat and move it to the HML with proposed changes. While on paper they do close to the same DPS output, it is not possible for a that missile to hit that target for full damage, unless you have a few target painters on it, and that is with it moving at only 200m/s.
The solution I came up with, was redoing the ammo for missiles.
All other weapon types have multiple range ammo types that decrease in damage as they get farther away, why shouldn't missiles. Even if they are similar to projectiles with 4 different damage types, and 2 ranges and damage outputs for each.
If the long range missile had a smaller explosion radius, it would be more effective against smaller ships at longer range, and would also take the place of the precision missile for the possible anti frig/destroyer for larger fleets. Have the closer range missile with a slightly larger explosion radius, so they are more meant to apply damage to a cruiser or a battle cruiser. Much like using EMP in an artillery platform. The longer range missile would also of course do less damage than the close range missile. This change would also allow the T2 versions of the missiles, to be both close range and high damage, and allow the second to be a long range version much to simulate all the other long range T2 ammo's.
The close range missile (fury's) would of course get an explosion radius nurf to be more along the lines of the other T2 charges, but only around 50% perhaps (the turrets lose 25% of their tracking, but that makes them still able to hit a slow moving BC for almost full damage) as well as the given damage increase. This would make them still useful against BC sized ships that are webbed or target painted.
The long range T2 missile would be given a slightly larger explosion radius over the long range T1 ammo, but also output much higher DPS. this would mean that it would be the sniping missile of choice against cruiser sized platforms, and would be able to hit with about 80% of the damage output against that cruiser sized ships compared to the t1 close range missile, but from its long range set up.
This method of change still leaves this weapon as a viable choice for a long range medium sized damage platform, or as a mid range kiting platform, making it still useful in small gang/solo PVP, as well as make them just as useful in PVE as all the other long range, medium class guns.
As for the changes to HAM's, I can say I look forward to them being useful in small gang PVP, and I do like the proposed changes from what I can see. They should also be mainly useful against the cruiser and battle cruiser class of ships, not meant to only achieve full damage against a battleship. So the increase in DPS and the reduction in explosion radius would put them in the same category as the auto-cannons and pulse lasers for useability. The only other suggestion I would make would be increase the velocity to achieve the ranges, not the flight time. As they are, they seem to slow to apply damage to a target and can actually be out run completely by a boosted MWD'ing cruiser if the ship using them has no bonus to velocity of the missiles.
I'm sorry for the very long post on this idea, but if you did read through all of it, let me know what you think of this idea.
Thanks for reading.
- Joe
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
191
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 03:57:00 -
[5594] - Quote
You never seen Ravens in fleet fights due to cruise missile having poor damage application and the time it takes to travel, along with counting volleys.
While with turret ships you can alpha strike right away and know that the target is dead.
While with cruises you waste precious seconds confirming the death of the target. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
210
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 05:16:00 -
[5595] - Quote
Arronicus wrote:That being said, that's not a very good fit for that ship, I'll agree.
It lacks tank but then again could you show me tanked sniper. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 08:08:00 -
[5596] - Quote
Totally, it's not like there are any missile hulls with range bonuses |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
139
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 09:54:00 -
[5597] - Quote
Missiles time to target... I'm doubtful about this argument : CML on Raven have the same velocity than HML on a tengu ; tengu work fine in fleets ; hence, CML flight time shouldn't be a problem, at least for range <110km. |
TripStarrR
Bladerunners
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 10:21:00 -
[5598] - Quote
wts 100mn tengu :( i am sad because anyone stupid enough to spend 2bil+ on a missile boat (mememe) deserved to have a bit of fun running rings round stuff then die when that rapier/loki decloaks on top of them.
while i understand the problems with the drake i think it is sad to see the end of the 100mn tengu. it was a special ship and i enjoyed flying them and killing them. |
Alara IonStorm
3364
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 10:51:00 -
[5599] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Totally, it's not like there are any missile hulls with range bonuses Not range, velocity.
A Cruise Missile moves at the same velocity as a Heavy Missile, with the bonus they cover 50% more ground then the Drake hitting targets 50% farther in the same time. Cruise Missiles have a 50% effective range increase over the Drake with an option to go farther.
People who talk about Cruise Missiles should realize they only have one point of reference and that is the Raven and the Raven sucks. That and people wonder why it isn't a Fleet ship when Tier 3 Battleships pretty much rule that area, Abbadon, Mael, Rokh. Raven is the only Cruise Missile Ship and in comparison to the 1-5th the cost Drake...
* Not much more HP then a resist bonused Drake. * Caps out easy with an MWD, many Drake fits are stable or near so. * 6 Launchers instead of the 7 the Drakes has and the Drake can use Fury Realistically further pumping up its Dmg. * 40% the Scan Res of a Drake. * Same number of Mids.
Yeah Cruise Missiles are the problem. Really though it is the missing launcher that ball kicks it the most.
Honestly if they gave the Raven 7 Launchers, 7 Mids / 4 Lows, Little bit more Scan Res Cruise Missiles would be looked at in a whole new light I guarantee it. The change to Fury and precision was enough, now they just need to fix the one ship that can use these things realistically. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
139
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 10:55:00 -
[5600] - Quote
Now, I made some calculation for FURY HML :
missile damage formula Da = D*min(1, Ts/Mer , (Ts/Mer * Mev/Tv )^(ln(drf)/ln(5,5))
calculation For simplification : Mvf = ln(drf)/ln(5,5) Which give for Fury HML : Mvf = 0,105454
target : cruisier, armor tanked (no rig), small sig (125m) Ts = 125 m D = 100 (for % calculation) Mev = 97*1,25 (skills) = 121,25 m/s Mer = 241 * 0,75 (skills) = 180,7 m
considering target speed : Tv1 = 225m/s (thorax speed, no armor rig, no speed mod) Tv2 = 240 m/s (rupture speed (fastest cruiser), no armor rig, no speed mod)
Da1 = 100* min(1 ; 0,69 ; ( 15156,25 / 40657,5 ) ^ 0,105454 Da1 = 100* min(1 ; 0,69 ; 0,9011) Da1 = 69
Da2 = 100* min(1 ; 0,69 ; ( 15156,25 / 43368 ) ^ 0,105454) Da2 = 100* min(1 ; 0,69 ; 89,5) Da2 = 69
As you can see, cruiser speed does not contribute to damage reduction against FURY HML
Now, consider Fury damage : Fd = 182 Hence, fury applyed damage are : Fad = 182*0,69 Fad = 125,58 Versus Standard HML 135 damage, it is, indeed, worse. Though, the ships who actually have 125m signature radius or less are not that much, and signature is more often above 130. List of cruisers below 130m sig radius : Omen, Auguror, Osprey, Exequror, Bellicose, Scythe, Stabber
In fact, you start applying more damage with Fury than with regular HML with a signature radius of 133m.
For Fury damage to become better than Caldari navy damage, you need a target with a sig radius of 153m.
You can remember though that a LOT of ships shield tank : LSE = +25m ; 3 shield rigs = +35% ==> 3 shield rigs = +40m
Hence, For ANY shield tanked cruiser, FURY HM apply more damage than caldari navy HM. Hence, For ANY OTHER cruiser, ONE TP will allow FURY HM to apply more damage than caldari navy HM !
I used new missiles values (those of the spreadsheet), and old cruisers values (sig/speed). With new cruiser values, speed rise, but not enough I think to become the important factor, and sig will keep its place. Though, unless shield tank is modified, you fury will still be the best ammo for any shield tanked cruiser. For armor tanked cruisers, a TP make them the best.
I don't know about you, but a T2 ammo working on 80% of your target is pretty VERY good IMO. For everything else, there is Caldari Navy HM.
|
|
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
111
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 10:56:00 -
[5601] - Quote
I see Bouh and that other pilot who does not exist are still hanging with the Cruise Raven. Again I tell you, both of you .. train for one if you didnt do so already, buy one, hop into it and go for PvP with it. You will see how those great Pyfa/EFT/whatever numbers will let you perform on the server. If you dont then better stop speaking about how good it is/will be, because you seriously dont have a clue. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
139
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 10:57:00 -
[5602] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Totally, it's not like there are any missile hulls with range bonuses Not range, velocity. A Cruise Missile moves at the same velocity as a Heavy Missile, with the bonus they cover 50% more ground then the Drake hitting targets 50% farther in the same time. Cruise Missiles have a 50% effective range increase over the Drake with an option to go farther. People who talk about Cruise Missiles should realize they only have one point of reference and that is the Raven and the Raven sucks. That and people wonder why it isn't a Fleet ship when Tier 3 Battleships pretty much rule that area, Abbadon, Mael, Rokh. Raven is the only Cruise Missile Ship and in comparison to the 1-5th the cost Drake... * Not much more HP then a resist bonused Drake. * Caps out easy with an MWD, many Drake fits are stable or near so. * 6 Launchers instead of the 7 the Drakes has and the Drake can use Fury Realistically further pumping up its Dmg. * 40% the Scan Res of a Drake. * Same number of Mids. Yeah Cruise Missiles are the problem. Really though it is the missing launcher that ball kicks it the most. Honestly if they gave the Raven 7 Launchers, 7 Mids / 4 Lows, Little bit more Scan Res Cruise Missiles would be looked at in a whole new light I guarantee it. The change to Fury and precision was enough, now they just need to fix the one ship that can use these things realistically. I think you forget the old habbit. In the past, sniping was 150-200km range, and then, flight time become a problem, but not before IMO. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
139
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 11:01:00 -
[5603] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I see Bouh and that other pilot who does not exist are still hanging with the Cruise Raven. Again I tell you, both of you .. train for one if you didnt do so already, buy one, hop into it and go for PvP with it. You will see how those great Pyfa/EFT/whatever numbers will let you perform on the server. If you dont then better stop speaking about how good it is/will be, because you seriously dont have a clue. Ok, so you are speaking about solo/small gang brawling ; hence, you are refering to a Torp Raven ; hence, you are encountering Torp problem to apply damage to anything smaller than a BS.
GMP skill applying to Torp seem a relevant buff to me. I don't know if it will be enough, though BS rebalance is not there yet.
And no, no long range weapon work for solo/small gang work, unless very specific, and even then, only arties work, because of alpha, so CML are not really the only screwed system there. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2062
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 11:59:00 -
[5604] - Quote
Hi everyone. Thanks to all of you who participated in testing on Duality this weekend. We're working to get you guys more and more access to the Retri changes so you can play with them more often.
Gonna answer a few questions that have been brought up more recently in the thread. I will mention that the discussion has devolved quite a bit recently and remind everyone that neither name calling nor hyperbole are generally very effective at swaying my opinion.
Why was the range of Fury missiles reduced? Our goals for T2 ammo is that each ammo type should have a specific and useful role to play, but that the T2 ammo should not completely obsolete the T1 and faction variants. For this proposal we have removed the ship penalties and increased the damage bonus for Fury missiles while reducing their range and increasing the penalties to precision. The goal for all T2 ammo is that it should be the ideal choice in some combat situations and not others, so that you should never be best served by only carrying one type of ammo. Switching to Fury missiles when hostiles are closer/larger and using T1/Faction missiles at longer ranges is normal and expected behavior. That being said, the exact numbers are of course up for discussion and if the 50% range is something that would put Fury missiles out of whack with their intended purpose and with their relative balance we may change those numbers. Don't expect a return to 90% range though.
Why not have one T2 longrange missile and one T2 shortrange missile with T1 in between for Cruise/heavy/Light missiles? This is the pattern used by turrets and by short-range missiles, and it was an option we considered for long-range missile launchers. However in the end we didn't see a good reason to homogenize missiles and turrets in that way. As well, since T1 missiles have comparable range to T2 longrange turret ammo, we would have had to nerf T1 missile range further to keep that system balanced and I don't think you folks want that.
Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
What about projectiles? There are a number of issues surrounding some Minmatar ships, some connected to the ships, some to the weapons and some to other modules. We've taken a first step by balancing the powergrid on the Hurricane, and the cruiser changes are going a long way towards providing strong competition to some popular Minmatar ships. We've got our eyes on more fixes to come, including tweaks to Tracking Enhancers.
Are you making these changes because you are part of a shadowy dev conspiracy to push the agenda of fat cat projectile conglomerates and stretching back to the original BoB BBQ in 1723? How do you know? Did someone break the blood oath? Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
210
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:00:00 -
[5605] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:I see Bouh and that other pilot who does not exist are still hanging with the Cruise Raven. Again I tell you, both of you .. train for one if you didnt do so already, buy one, hop into it and go for PvP with it.
Yeah, because PvP should be solo iWin pwnage.
If you want to do solo PvP in BS then you are already doing something wrong.
Go to nullsec with your Mach and see how long you can keep pwning. |
Zarnak Wulf
Imperial Outlaws
676
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:21:00 -
[5606] - Quote
Those much maligned tracking enhancers allow blaster boats to extend their range out to scramble or point range. The new Thorax, for example, can hit 18km with optimal + falloff while using Nuetrons, Null, and one tracking enhancer. A TE nerf would hurt blaster boats more then projectile boats - all while trying to deal with a Winmatar problem that is fading naturally anyways. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2063
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:29:00 -
[5607] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Those much maligned tracking enhancers allow blaster boats to extend their range out to scramble or point range. The new Thorax, for example, can hit 18km with optimal + falloff while using Nuetrons, Null, and one tracking enhancer. A TE nerf would hurt blaster boats more then projectile boats - all while trying to deal with a Winmatar problem that is fading naturally anyways.
The TE problem includes how powerful some kiting shield tanked Null blasterboats are. We're not looking at it simply as a Minmatar issue, don't worry. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
237
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:33:00 -
[5608] - Quote
This is good news - Blasters and autocannons will finally regain some vital drawbacks - now you just need to double the alpha on rails and beams ;-) |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
160
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:35:00 -
[5609] - Quote
I'm just wondering why the new caldari destroyer is 25% slower than the caracal when they are both running MWDs... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
139
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:36:00 -
[5610] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:I'm just wondering why the new caldari destroyer is 25% slower than the caracal when they are both running MWDs... Not the good thread for this, though this is a valid concern. |
|
Alara IonStorm
3366
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:43:00 -
[5611] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I think you forget the old habbit. In the past, sniping was 150-200km range, and then, flight time become a problem, but not before IMO.
I didn't forget, Rokh's the Caldari Sniper BS the Raven doesn't need to be.
Cruise Missiles firing to 120 at the same time it takes a Drake to fire to 75km is fine, that is a good range. Leave the Sniping to the Tier 3 Battlcriusers and Rokh's. People should stop focusing on the Sniper aspect being being blindsighted by the long Flight Time.
The problem isn't so much the missiles as the one terrible ship that fires them. |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
304
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:44:00 -
[5612] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Are you making these changes because you are part of a shadowy dev conspiracy to push the agenda of fat cat projectile conglomerates and stretching back to the original BoB BBQ in 1723? How do you know? Did someone break the blood oath?
It's on EVElopedia. "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
Alara IonStorm
3368
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:47:00 -
[5613] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
Will you be looking into the Raven as a platform? I am surprised you talk so much about Cruise Missiles and never mention the one ship that uses them. It really dose have a terrible overall configuration. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2064
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:58:00 -
[5614] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
Will you be looking into the Raven as a platform? I am surprised you talk so much about Cruise Missiles and never mention the one ship that uses them.
We're going to rebalancing all of the battleships, including the Raven. Sorry for the confusion.
In case anyone has missed the overall plan from some earlier dev blogs, we're going to rebalance every ship in the game, sprinkled with some new ships here and there, and once we're done with that we're going to start right over again and rebalance every ship once more.
So unless a meteor hits CCP's offices or something you can always use this handy guide when in doubt. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Alara IonStorm
3368
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 13:13:00 -
[5615] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:We're going to rebalancing all of the battleships, including the Raven. Sorry for the confusion. In case anyone has missed the overall plan from some earlier dev blogs, we're going to rebalance every ship in the game, sprinkled with some new ships here and there, and once we're done with that we're going to start right over again and rebalance every ship once more. So unless a meteor hits CCP's offices or something you can always use this handy guide when in doubt. Sorry I wasn't clear. I know you are rebalancing every ship but you often mention Cruise Missiles as a broken system currently. It however it dosn't seem that broken when you look at the one hull that uses them the Raven is short 1-2 Launchers or a Second Damage Bonus in comparison to its peers as well as a bunch of other poor traits.
So what I meant was will you be looking into the Missiles or the one Hull that uses them primarily? Which one do you think is the more major issue and how will that affect plans for the second Battleship Missile Boat you said you would be converting the Phoon into. Will it be balanced around a six launcher only system.
I know this area of balance is a ways off so I am not trying to demand answers when you're probably not there yet but anything you have would be appreciated. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
160
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 13:41:00 -
[5616] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We're going to rebalancing all of the battleships, including the Raven. Sorry for the confusion. In case anyone has missed the overall plan from some earlier dev blogs, we're going to rebalance every ship in the game, sprinkled with some new ships here and there, and once we're done with that we're going to start right over again and rebalance every ship once more. So unless a meteor hits CCP's offices or something you can always use this handy guide when in doubt. Sorry I wasn't clear. I know you are rebalancing every ship but you often mention Cruise Missiles as a broken system currently. It however it doesn't seem that broken when you look at the one hull that uses them the Raven. It is short 1-2 Launchers or a Second Damage Bonus in comparison to its peers, 1 Launcher more on the Drake as well it has a bunch of other poor traits. So what I meant was will you be looking into the Missiles or the one Hull that uses them primarily? Which one do you think is the more major issue and how will that affect plans for the second Battleship Missile Boat you said you would be converting the Phoon into? Will the Phoon be Cruise Capable and how is it expected to compete with the Raven in that category? Will Battleships be balanced around a six launcher only system while balancing the Drake around a 7th Launcher System? I know this area of balance is a ways off so I am not trying to demand answers when you're probably not there yet but anything you have would be appreciated.
Raven needs +1 mid -1 high +1 launcher, and a lot more fitting.
Then its good! |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 13:43:00 -
[5617] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hi everyone. Thanks to all of you who participated in testing on Duality this weekend. We're working to get you guys more and more access to the Retri changes so you can play with them more often.
Gonna answer a few questions that have been brought up more recently in the thread. I will mention that the discussion has devolved quite a bit recently and remind everyone that neither name calling nor hyperbole are generally very effective at swaying my opinion.
Why was the range of Fury missiles reduced? Our goals for T2 ammo is that each ammo type should have a specific and useful role to play, but that the T2 ammo should not completely obsolete the T1 and faction variants. For this proposal we have removed the ship penalties and increased the damage bonus for Fury missiles while reducing their range and increasing the penalties to precision. The goal for all T2 ammo is that it should be the ideal choice in some combat situations and not others, so that you should never be best served by only carrying one type of ammo. Switching to Fury missiles when hostiles are closer/larger and using T1/Faction missiles at longer ranges is normal and expected behavior. That being said, the exact numbers are of course up for discussion and if the 50% range is something that would put Fury missiles out of whack with their intended purpose and with their relative balance we may change those numbers. Don't expect a return to 90% range though.
Why not have one T2 longrange missile and one T2 shortrange missile with T1 in between for Cruise/heavy/Light missiles? This is the pattern used by turrets and by short-range missiles, and it was an option we considered for long-range missile launchers. However in the end we didn't see a good reason to homogenize missiles and turrets in that way. As well, since T1 missiles have comparable range to T2 longrange turret ammo, we would have had to nerf T1 missile range further to keep that system balanced and I don't think you folks want that.
Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
What about projectiles? There are a number of issues surrounding some Minmatar ships, some connected to the ships, some to the weapons and some to other modules. We've taken a first step by balancing the powergrid on the Hurricane, and the cruiser changes are going a long way towards providing strong competition to some popular Minmatar ships. We've got our eyes on more fixes to come, including tweaks to Tracking Enhancers.
Are you making these changes because you are part of a shadowy dev conspiracy to push the agenda of fat cat projectile conglomerates and stretching back to the original BoB BBQ in 1723? How do you know? Did someone break the blood oath?
Any plans to make projectiles use cap/neutable? Also when will you get to module tiercide? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
139
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 13:48:00 -
[5618] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Raven needs +1 mid -1 high +1 launcher, and a lot more fitting.
Then its good! There's something called fitting choices. No ship should be able to fit everything it want without problems, and Torps have fitting comparable to LR turrets (LR and SR system fitting are reversed between missiles and turrets).
PG/CPU are meaningless if you don't have any choice to make. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2065
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 13:57:00 -
[5619] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Any plans to make projectiles use cap/neutable? Nope.
Harvey James wrote:Also when will you get to module tiercide? We're removing ship tiers because the lower tiers were just simply worse instead of different and this would make most ships useless. That problem is a lot less severe with modules (but I won't rule out changes to the balance between different meta levels of modules). Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Mangone
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 14:01:00 -
[5620] - Quote
Sigras wrote: My point is that theyre all awful except for the tempest which has alpha strike; its not just the cruise raven that's broken.
Lets be honest, when is the last time you saw a rail mega/rail rokh/beam abaddon/beam apoc in combat?
Oh look at that railrokhs on field and on winning side.
http://kb.the-ink.com/index.php/kill_related/38890/
Or this.. Even more railrokhs. And your alliance is on losing side on that which means your alliance has been fighting against these railrokhs.
http://kb.the-ink.com/index.php/kill_related/38769/
|
|
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 14:04:00 -
[5621] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Those much maligned tracking enhancers allow blaster boats to extend their range out to scramble or point range. The new Thorax, for example, can hit 18km with optimal + falloff while using Nuetrons, Null, and one tracking enhancer. A TE nerf would hurt blaster boats more then projectile boats - all while trying to deal with a Winmatar problem that is fading naturally anyways. The TE problem includes how powerful some kiting shield tanked Null blasterboats are. We're not looking at it simply as a Minmatar issue, don't worry.
Can we fix Armour tanking first? Please.
ATM shield tanked Gallente blaster boats are pretty well the only effective way to fly them. We need a lower (than 1600mm) EHP , higher manoeuvrability Armour tanking option. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
140
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 14:40:00 -
[5622] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Can we fix Armour tanking first? Please.
ATM shield tanked Gallente blaster boats are pretty well the only effective way to fly them. We need a lower (than 1600mm) EHP , higher manoeuvrability Armour tanking option. It's an active armor tanking system we need for this, and a working reactive armor hardener. Plate with no penalty is nonsense. |
Mangone
Ad Astra Vexillum The Unthinkables
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 14:41:00 -
[5623] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:even a lot of the ppl in null sec i know, often fly with complete set of implants worth 2bil+
u dnt get podded much in fleet fights, but i couldn't afford it lol
They sure use expensive implants in null and they sure do get podded with them eventually..
http://kb.the-ink.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=37328 |
Lili Lu
569
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 15:10:00 -
[5624] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:We're going to rebalancing all of the battleships, including the Raven. Sorry for the confusion. In case anyone has missed the overall plan from some earlier dev blogs, we're going to rebalance every ship in the game, sprinkled with some new ships here and there, and once we're done with that we're going to start right over again and rebalance every ship once more. So unless a meteor hits CCP's offices or something you can always use this handy guide when in doubt. Sorry I wasn't clear. I know you are rebalancing every ship but you often mention Cruise Missiles as a broken system currently. It however it doesn't seem that broken when you look at the one hull that uses them the Raven. It is short 1-2 Launchers or a Second Damage Bonus in comparison to its peers, 1 Launcher more on the Drake as well it has a bunch of other poor traits. So what I meant was will you be looking into the Missiles or the one Hull that uses them primarily? Which one do you think is the more major issue and how will that affect plans for the second Battleship Missile Boat you said you would be converting the Phoon into? Will the Phoon be Cruise Capable and how is it expected to compete with the Raven in that category? Will Battleships be balanced around a six launcher only system while balancing the Drake around a 7th Launcher System? I know this area of balance is a ways off so I am not trying to demand answers when you're probably not there yet but anything you have would be appreciated.
The Raven is not the only hull that uses cruises. People fly cruise phoons in pve (granted not popular either). And HML Drakes and Tengus were not overshadowing Ravens due to number of launchers alone. There was also the op damage HMs were putting out as a medium ranged weapon. That is being addressed with this nerf. As Fozzie states they can't piece meal some change onto large weapons or hulls. The raven will have to wait til they get done with cruisers and BCs.
And of course the arguably op tanks on Drakes and Tengus. Those may be getting addressed indirectly with the coming TC/TE/TD changes. Forcing fitting choices that armor/turret boats already face onto missile boats will constrain both the easy and stale damage and tanking patterns on Drakes and Tengus. It may mean these ships won't need a further harsh Cane nerf (but imo BC hp and shield regen in general need a snip).
I think your questions are valid to ask. But as you recognize, they are currently busy still finishing the frigs and cruisers, and you are unlikely to get any detailed answers itt. Anyway, with these medium weapon and tech II missile adjustments people might want to reevaluate ravens and some weapon systems they wrote off as compartively weak to HMLs. |
Lili Lu
569
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 15:22:00 -
[5625] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Those much maligned tracking enhancers allow blaster boats to extend their range out to scramble or point range. The new Thorax, for example, can hit 18km with optimal + falloff while using Nuetrons, Null, and one tracking enhancer. A TE nerf would hurt blaster boats more then projectile boats - all while trying to deal with a Winmatar problem that is fading naturally anyways. The TE problem includes how powerful some kiting shield tanked Null blasterboats are. We're not looking at it simply as a Minmatar issue, don't worry. Can we fix Armour tanking first? Please. ATM shield tanked Gallente blaster boats are pretty well the only effective way to fly them. We need a lower (than 1600mm) EHP , higher manoeuvrability Armour tanking option.
They could give auguror type armor hp per level bonuses on Gallente ships instead of active armor bonuses. I don't thinke even 10% repper bonuses will make active armor any more viable with MARs and LARs unlike it may be doing with the Incursus. Fitting multiple reppers and even multiple cap injectors is a ***** on grid and unless I'm missing something that problem v benefit is not as great with ASBs. Although there were some announced changes to ASBs have there been any numbers provided?
Or, I would like to see something creative like making regenerative platings or membranes better than they currently are. Maybe a slight buff to hp % provided and some very slow actual regen mechanic that would have no combat effect but would allow ss'd self healing while roaming in places without easy station access (wormholes and sov nullsec).
WIth the new tech II plates stats it looks like the harsh mobility penalties are not going anywhere. And since I don't think they can buff hull bonuses enough to fix all the problems associated with active armor tanking for pvp. So, maybe there will be some new things to fix the armor problems. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 15:25:00 -
[5626] - Quote
part of the issue with armour tanking is you can't use oversized reppers unlike shield boosters where you can. aswell as the long duration cycle time. |
Alara IonStorm
3370
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 15:32:00 -
[5627] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: The Raven is not the only hull that uses cruises. People fly cruise phoons in pve (granted not popular either).
That is why I put realistically. I've tried a Cruise Phoon for PvE, okay but nothing to write home about.
Lili Lu wrote: And HML Drakes and Tengus were not overshadowing Ravens due to number of launchers alone. There was also the op damage HMs were putting out as a medium ranged weapon. That is being addressed with this nerf. As Fozzie states they can't piece meal some change onto large weapons or hulls. The raven will have to wait til they get done with cruisers and BCs.
Yes they have stated quite a few times that they want to see the Drake removed as fleet option and I think they should be looking into the other LR weapons system bringing them up to Drake Dmg Lvl's. The Tengu has its own thing with a 5% and 7.5% Dmg Bonus going on that can be looked at instead along with 100mn AB's.
Lili Lu wrote: Anyway, with these medium weapon and tech II missile adjustments people might want to reevaluate ravens and some weapon systems they wrote off as compartively weak to HMLs.
Not comparative to Heavy Missiles but the other Battleships that is where the problem lies. I don't think Drakes are the problem, Harbingers are, Ferox's are, the Cane needing 2 Dmg Bonuses to be considered a ship in the Drakes shadow is.
Looking at the new Cruisers not one of them is a real big fleet option or even a mid range 40-50KM option that doesn't use missiles and I am willing to bet the Ferox the Ferox is going to become a bralwer completely wiping out the T1 Medium Rail Line. They are not trying to Nerf Missiles in line, they are trying to drag Cruiser Guns out of Fleet warfare except perhaps on things like HAC's with the rebalance.
This nerf isn't to heavy handed but I think they should not have addressed this problem this way. I think they should have worked to create more ships like the Drake then solved the problems with the Fleet Battleships that don't stack up. The Apoc's and Ravens and Amarr fitting Beams instead of Scorch, letting the Tempest take over for the Mael so it can be an Active Tanked Ship primarily. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
167
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 15:48:00 -
[5628] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri
Where is this buff to torps that you keep talking about? All I see is you cutting the heart out of the entire Caldari line-up. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:03:00 -
[5629] - Quote
Mangone wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:even a lot of the ppl in null sec i know, often fly with complete set of implants worth 2bil+
u dnt get podded much in fleet fights, but i couldn't afford it lol They sure use expensive implants in null and they sure do get podded with them eventually.. http://kb.the-ink.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=37328
pvp just dont happen in null |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
210
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:03:00 -
[5630] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Not comparative to Heavy Missiles but the other Battleships that is where the problem lies. I don't think Drakes are the problem, Harbingers are, Ferox's are, the Cane needing 2 Dmg Bonuses to be considered a ship in the Drakes shadow is.
Looking at the new Cruisers not one of them is a real big fleet option or even a mid range 40-50KM option that doesn't use missiles and I am willing to bet the Ferox the Ferox is going to become a bralwer completely wiping out the T1 Medium Rail Line. They are not trying to Nerf Missiles in line, they are trying to drag Cruiser Guns out of Fleet warfare except perhaps on some HAC's with the rebalance.
This nerf isn't to heavy handed but I think they should not have addressed this problem this way. I think they should have worked to create more ships like the Drake then solved the problems with the Fleet Battleships that don't stack up. The Apoc's and Ravens and Amarr fitting Beams instead of Scorch, letting the Tempest take over for the Mael so it can be an Active Tanked Ship primarily.
I like cheap fleet options in the game. People say the Drake is the problem, I want 5 or 6 more "problems" in the Cruiser / BC lineup using all types of guns and I want the Battleships that don't work to take cues from the ones that do.
Do you mean they should buff medium long range turrets instead of nerfing heavy missiles?
Few problems with that idea: - No one would use medium short range weapons anymore - Medium long range weapons would compete against large short range weapons. You would get BS range, cruiser/BC damage, cruiser/BC sig in same package kinda like downgraded version of tier 3 BCs except you could actually tank your ship. - This would cause more work for CCP.
serras bang wrote:pvp just dont happen in null
Pressing solo iWin pwn button /= PvP |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2066
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:12:00 -
[5631] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri
Where is this buff to torps that you keep talking about? All I see is you cutting the heart out of the entire Caldari line-up.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:18:00 -
[5632] - Quote
so Fozzie you realize to get TE/TC changes you will have to rebalance the majority of missiles again? |
Lili Lu
569
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:23:00 -
[5633] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:so Fozzie you realize to get TE/TC changes you will have to rebalance the majority of missiles again? Not really. It all depends on the numbers associated with the TC and TE effects. My guess is this was the reason it was delayed. The last time missiles were reworked the first iteration put on the test server was a disaster and missiles were wtfpwning everything and anything. They don't have a wide tolerance band between underperforming and overpowered. Hopefully, Fozzie and the team can get some right bonus values placed on the tracking mods such that they don't flip into the op category.
edit - I suspect the effects will have to be comparitively weak in relatino to the numerical values that those mods currently have with turrets. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
162
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:24:00 -
[5634] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Desert Ice78 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri
Where is this buff to torps that you keep talking about? All I see is you cutting the heart out of the entire Caldari line-up. CCP Fozzie wrote:Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles
Any chance you could give us a percentage increase on how better attribute X would be for each type of missile (or add it to the google doc) so people could stop complaining about the tiny range nerf on rage missiles and instead party about the explosion radius bonus on all their close range missiles?
(is it 25% with the one skill or is there other stuff contributing now as well?) |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:30:00 -
[5635] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Harvey James wrote:so Fozzie you realize to get TE/TC changes you will have to rebalance the majority of missiles again? Not really. It all depends on the numbers associated with the TC and TE effects. My guess is this was the reason it was delayed. The last time missiles were reworked the first iteration put on the test server was a disaster and missiles were wtfpwning everything and anything. They don't have a wide tolerance band between underperforming and overpowered. Hopefully, Fozzie and the team can get some right bonus values placed on the tracking mods such that they don't flip into the op category. edit - I suspect the effects will have to be comparitively weak in relatino to the numerical values that those mods currently have with turrets.
Don't kid yourself even with these changes some of the missiles are OP if you then add TE/TC even with small bonus they will be very much OP. the missile rigs and skills also have too high a bonus atm |
Lili Lu
569
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:31:00 -
[5636] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Lili Lu wrote: The Raven is not the only hull that uses cruises. People fly cruise phoons in pve (granted not popular either).
That is why I put realistically. I've tried a Cruise Phoon for PvE, okay but nothing to write home about. Yes, but the fleet phoon is rather nice. More fitting and an extra low slot will do that.
Alara IonStorm wrote:Lili Lu wrote: And HML Drakes and Tengus were not overshadowing Ravens due to number of launchers alone. There was also the op damage HMs were putting out as a medium ranged weapon. That is being addressed with this nerf. As Fozzie states they can't piece meal some change onto large weapons or hulls. The raven will have to wait til they get done with cruisers and BCs. Yes they have stated quite a few times that they want to see the Drake removed as fleet option and I think they should be looking into the other LR weapons system bringing them up to Drake Dmg Lvl's. The Tengu has its own thing with a 5% and 7.5% Dmg Bonus going on that can be looked at instead along with 100mn AB's. I'm sure the subsystems and fitting stats for tech IIIs will be reevaluated. But that might be behind BS and maybe even tech II in the rebalancing schedule (?). |
Lili Lu
569
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:36:00 -
[5637] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Harvey James wrote:so Fozzie you realize to get TE/TC changes you will have to rebalance the majority of missiles again? Not really. It all depends on the numbers associated with the TC and TE effects. My guess is this was the reason it was delayed. The last time missiles were reworked the first iteration put on the test server was a disaster and missiles were wtfpwning everything and anything. They don't have a wide tolerance band between underperforming and overpowered. Hopefully, Fozzie and the team can get some right bonus values placed on the tracking mods such that they don't flip into the op category. edit - I suspect the effects will have to be comparitively weak in relatino to the numerical values that those mods currently have with turrets. Don't kid yourself even with these changes some of the missiles are OP if you then add TE/TC even with small bonus they will be very much OP. the missile rigs and skills also have too high a bonus atm Yeah, just looking at the range effects, I posted before itt or in another thread that the range skills are skewed. Gunnery has two 5% range skills (and one of those is for falloff so really only half a range skill). Missiles have two 10% range skills.
Also, they have traditionally handed out 10% range bonuses for missile hulls, while only giving 7.5% to turret hulls. Except for the odd 10% also range bonuses for Caldari hulls with guns. That has always been rather crazy, to give a hull that will be fit with the longest range guns a 10% per level bonus while other shorter guns have to live with at most a 7.5% per level range bonus. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
162
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:47:00 -
[5638] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
Yeah, just looking at the range effects, I posted before itt or in another thread that the range skills are skewed. Gunnery has two 5% range skills (and one of those is for falloff so really only half a range skill). Missiles have two 10% range skills.
Missile damage skills are skewed too. 3% bonus to rate of fire per level rather than the 4% per level rapid firing from gunnery has, and only 2% per level to damage with warhead upgrades (which is a 5x skill) in conjunction to the 3% surgical strike gives (which is a 4x skill). Not to mention missiles having to train two tracking skills to grind through, one that is 2x and one that is 5x, rather than gunnery having only motion prediction at 2x. |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession Brothers of Apocrypha.
51
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:56:00 -
[5639] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote: Add that to the google doc so it says "guided missile precision skill now gives 25% better explosion radius at level 5 to XYZ blah blah" so people stop moaning about the range nerf on rages
But if you look at the Doc again you will see that they increased the base explosion radius for those rage missiles so the 25% from level V of GMP just merely counter acts the base increase with maybe a slight decrease of the old base numbers. But you can still claim there is a small damage increase traded for the range decrease.
So you will still have people moaning, I myself wonder if the dps bump on Rage Hams is worth the loss range. I am leaning towards no because you can't apply any dps if until you get in to range.
But I am reserving any real judgement till I see the TE/TC elements hopefully to come. Until then I will most likely just load up on T1 faction ammo where the GMP buff does lend a nice helping hand.
Just saying |
Lili Lu
569
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:58:00 -
[5640] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Lili Lu wrote:
Yeah, just looking at the range effects, I posted before itt or in another thread that the range skills are skewed. Gunnery has two 5% range skills (and one of those is for falloff so really only half a range skill). Missiles have two 10% range skills.
Missile damage skills are skewed too. 3% bonus to rate of fire per level rather than the 4% per level rapid firing from gunnery has, and only 2% per level to damage with warhead upgrades (which is a 5x skill) in conjunction to the 3% surgical strike gives (which is a 4x skill). Not to mention missiles having to train two tracking skills to grind through, one that is 2x and one that is 5x, rather than gunnery having only motion prediction at 2x. Vive la difference I suppose. Still, the TC and TE percintages will probably end up much lowere for missiles than they currently are for turrets. |
|
Alara IonStorm
3371
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 17:09:00 -
[5641] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Do you mean they should buff medium long range turrets instead of nerfing heavy missiles?
Few problems with that idea: - No one would use medium short range weapons anymore - Medium long range weapons would compete against large short range weapons. You would get BS range, cruiser/BC damage, cruiser/BC sig in same package kinda like downgraded version of tier 3 BCs except you could actually tank your ship. - This would cause more work for CCP.
I disagree with that sentiment. I don't think tracking or the maximum damage should be improved but at longer ranges, long range weapons should be better IMO instead of Short Range with T2 Ammo.
I don't want to see Damage buffs but better bonuses that make some ships long range oriented, instead they removed one even though for other reasons it wasn't used as such. What I want to see is the Ammunition System cleaned up so not as much Damage is lost at long range, Short Range guns should always do more Damage at close range and they should always track better. I want to see them fit easier as well.
I think if you get in a knife fight with LR Weapons you should lose but outside that they should be king and I don't think they should be harder to fit so close range ships preform better in tank, the difference should be damage. Beams should do better then Scorch at Scorch Range and Worse inside at Multi Range.
As for Medium LR Weapons competing with Battleship Short range Weapons, well Battleship Short Range weapons should be for Short Ranges. Scorch Battleships should be able to hit out far enough in addition to doing high damage close up but Scorch as a dedicated Fleet Weapon should be a thing of the past IMO and Beam Fleets should be the new standard like 1400mm Maels and 425mm Rokh's and that means working with fitting and cap use and bonuses to make that happen. Not saying Nerf Scorch, just make the advantages in Range and Damage clear. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
110
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 17:39:00 -
[5642] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why was the range of Fury missiles reduced? Our goals for T2 ammo is that each ammo type should have a specific and useful role to play, but that the T2 ammo should not completely obsolete the T1 and faction variants. For this proposal we have removed the ship penalties and increased the damage bonus for Fury missiles while reducing their range and increasing the penalties to precision. The goal for all T2 ammo is that it should be the ideal choice in some combat situations and not others, so that you should never be best served by only carrying one type of ammo. Switching to Fury missiles when hostiles are closer/larger and using T1/Faction missiles at longer ranges is normal and expected behavior. That being said, the exact numbers are of course up for discussion and if the 50% range is something that would put Fury missiles out of whack with their intended purpose and with their relative balance we may change those numbers. Don't expect a return to 90% range though.
I think this would be a good move, HML do seem to be relatively short post patch while longer then the hams when I logged onto test I felt compelled to use hams over the HML. Do not get me wrong that is a good thing Hams need love, however I felt like HML was going through an identity crisis and didn't know where or what they wanted to be. I slightly less range nerf would be great I would like to also see a slightly faster travel time integrated into the improve acceleration times.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
I loved the damage increase with the T2 cruise but the range nerf felt a bit harsh here. When you are looking at long range cruise for over 150km (this is important for incursions) Taking the faction ammo option to continue to be able to snipe with cruise at these ranges would mean the cruise CNR and SNI sniper boats would end up taking a nerf to dps in this area. It is hard enough as it is to get your sniper CNR / SNI into an incursion fleet, being forced into T1 or faction ammo mean a nerf how ever as I noticed on test my DPS was down between 100-150. I think the T2 ammo should continue to out preform T1 and faction after all some of us did take the month ++ to train them proper buff Cruise dmg leave range alone. Continue with buff to torps.
CCP Fozzie wrote: What about projectiles? There are a number of issues surrounding some Minmatar ships, some connected to the ships, some to the weapons and some to other modules. We've taken a first step by balancing the powergrid on the Hurricane, and the cruiser changes are going a long way towards providing strong competition to some popular Minmatar ships. We've got our eyes on more fixes to come, including tweaks to Tracking Enhancers.
We will see how this pans out it's clear to everyone that Projectiles are way out of whack hence the overuse of them. Would love to see more balance across all four weapons systems. Im not sure TE are the only issue here though. The cane was a good start but I think all the hulls need to be looked at.
CCP Fozzie wrote: We're going to rebalancing all of the battleships, including the Raven. Sorry for the confusion.
In case anyone has missed the overall plan from some earlier dev blogs, we're going to rebalance every ship in the game, sprinkled with some new ships here and there,
Pirate Caldari based cruise missile BS to compete with the Mach and NM please. And to top it off I understand changes take time how ever until we see some fixes to the Caldari BS The nerf while possible not game breaking will leave the Caldari *MISSILE* pilot wanting until that happens. A revamp to the BS line along with cruise / torp will hopefully bring everything closer to being balanced. When can we expect these changes to be completed?
Looking forward to more feedback from DEVs as this progresses. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
210
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 18:03:00 -
[5643] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:I disagree with that sentiment. I don't think tracking or the maximum damage should be improved but at longer ranges, long range weapons should be better IMO instead of Short Range with T2 Ammo.
Then everyone would use heavy missiles.
HML Drake outdamages 250mm Ferox at any range. Even with Javelin you're doing only 368 dps at 13 km. |
Alara IonStorm
3371
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 18:09:00 -
[5644] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Then everyone would use heavy missiles.
HML Drake outdamages 250mm Ferox at any range. Even with Javelin you're doing only 368 dps at 13 km.
Literally just said they should redue the bonuses and Ammo System. Ferox is missing a gun and should have its tank bonus done into a Dmg bonus. Just said that. Why are you even mentioning the current failed Rail Ferox when the entire post is about rebalancing it...
I want these weapons and the ships that use them around par at those ranges and Heavy Missile Range shortened so it needs a range bonus to hit out as far as the Ferox. So no, they would not all use Heavy Missiles they would use all different weapons. Arty = Volley, Beams = Damage, Rails = Range, Missiles a balanced combination of all with time to hit. |
TripStarrR
Bladerunners
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 18:12:00 -
[5645] - Quote
guys, is the tengu going to have its powergrid or cpu nurfed on November 4th as part of this re-balancing? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2068
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 18:32:00 -
[5646] - Quote
TripStarrR wrote:guys, is the tengu going to have its powergrid or cpu nurfed on November 4th as part of this re-balancing?
We don't have any changes to the Tengu fittings planned for December (or November) 4th. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 18:35:00 -
[5647] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:The Raven is not the only hull that uses cruises. People fly cruise phoons in pve (granted not popular either). And HML Drakes and Tengus were not overshadowing Ravens due to number of launchers alone. There was also the op damage HMs were putting out as a medium ranged weapon. That is being addressed with this nerf. As Fozzie states they can't piece meal some change onto large weapons or hulls. The raven will have to wait til they get done with cruisers and BCs.
And of course the arguably op tanks on Drakes and Tengus. Those may be getting addressed indirectly with the coming TC/TE/TD changes. Forcing fitting choices that armor/turret boats already face onto missile boats will constrain both the easy and stale damage and tanking patterns on Drakes and Tengus. It may mean these ships won't need a further harsh Cane nerf (but imo BC hp and shield regen in general need a snip).
I think your questions are valid to ask. But as you recognize, they are currently busy still finishing the frigs and cruisers, and you are unlikely to get any detailed answers itt. Anyway, with these medium weapon and tech II missile adjustments people might want to reevaluate ravens and some weapon systems they wrote off as compartively weak to HMLs. Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.
That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari. |
Lili Lu
569
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 19:19:00 -
[5648] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote: Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.
That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari. _________________________________________________________________________________________ On somewhat related topic is the ancillary shield boosters going to get a reduced reload time? Cause that 60-seconds is ridiculously long! Almost makes the things not worth using for PvE or PvP. I would suggest either the 12-sec time of shield boosters or slightly longer but no more than 15-seconds. In a fight that 15-seconds will feel like an hour.
As I mentioned in a message via Duality to CCP Fozzie. The powergrid and CPU requirements for Torps & CMs and HMs and HAMs need to be flopped. Longer range weapon system should have the larger of the two power-requirements. That is not the case presently.
Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I said hp values on BCs, not just shield hp. That would include armor hp on armor tankers. The way I see it the hp values on the current tier 1 BCs were fine. There was no BC overuse and Cruiser bypass prior to the introduction of the tier 2 BCs. Of course the Caldari and Minmatar BCs will have more relative shield hp and the converse for the Amarr and Gallente.
As for breaking shields. I didn't call for breaking shields. What I was referencing is the skewed shield regen time with all BCs. You can get some utterly ridiculous regen fits on Drakes for pve purposes. Why is this? Well if your shield hp is as much as a Geddon's (a BS, even if an armor tanking one) but your regen time is almost as good as a Cruisers you have a massive regen overtank for level 3s and even for level 4s and other pve content. A Ferox can tank a level 4 if fit for it (the damage of course will be abysmal) and has been so able for many years even with one less mid and lesser base shield hp. But other BCs are not so blessed. BCs in pve terms should be level 3 boats. Most races have to train BS to put together a level 4 tank and sufficient level 4 damage in the same ship.
In pvp, as I said, prior to the tier 2 BCs, Cruisers were not automatic dog food. Presently Cruisers are being buffed. I think what we just saw with the Cane is something that indicates where BCs are going. They will stay stronger than but are not going to be miles ahead of the new Cruisers. BCs are going to be weaker relative to BSs. Tier 2 BCs are crowding out smaller hulls or under pricing too many larger hulls. Smaller hulls are getting buffed atm. The underpircing of BSs with BCs will apparently be addressed with some varying nerfs to tier 2 BCs. Already there was mention of nerfing mobility and possibly fittings with tier 3 BCs.
In short, too many of you folks that relied on the Drake to do everything are going to have to adjust and discover other ships. You will still have appropriate shield tanks, as the armor BCs will have appropriate armor tanks. But I would bet no longer will you have the same tanking abilities you currently enjoy with shield BCs when they get to BCs. And as Fozzies last post suggests this will be due to restored utility with cruisers and BSs. This will be good for the game, as a whole, even if some currently over used BC or Tech III hulls stand to lose some amount of their current utility. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
211
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 19:26:00 -
[5649] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.
That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari.
Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods Armor Harbinger has 58,5k EHP with MWD, point, web, two damage mods and just enough (well, with 3 ACRs) grid for short range turrets (HPL) and is painfully slow. Oh, and it needs 6% CPU implant to fit...
If you want to talk about resists, check T1 armor resists, especially kinetic and explosive. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
111
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 21:19:00 -
[5650] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: They are rebalancing ships class by class. They have to rebalance T1 BSs first before they can do anything to pirate BSs. Oh, and you seem to forget Rattlesnake. Just wait till they fix it.
Hrmm Oh you mean the drone boat. The statement was made they are adding new ships, I simply gave an idea that a Caldari Cruise Missile BS pirate faction to compete with the NM and Mach. I know what the Rattler is and it is a different type of ship then the Mach or NM.
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods
Please Link this fit because with all lvl 5 skills I do not get a drake to 97.3 K EHP and taking up two mid slots. |
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
128
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 21:42:00 -
[5651] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Why not have one T2 longrange missile and one T2 shortrange missile with T1 in between for Cruise/heavy/Light missiles? This is the pattern used by turrets and by short-range missiles, and it was an option we considered for long-range missile launchers. However in the end we didn't see a good reason to homogenize missiles and turrets in that way. As well, since T1 missiles have comparable range to T2 longrange turret ammo, we would have had to nerf T1 missile range further to keep that system balanced and I don't think you folks want that.
Instead, you Homogenize their damage even though they are 2 completely different weapon platforms.
Quote: Are you making these changes because you are part of a shadowy dev conspiracy to push the agenda of fat cat projectile conglomerates and stretching back to the original BoB BBQ in 1723? How do you know? Did someone break the blood oath?
You still have not answered the player grip:
Why don't you start with just the Range nerf, then change the problematic ships, then come back and balance with DPS and other nerfs later............IF NEEDED!!!
Range alone is a huge nerf to missiles, that you just do not get. It is a nerf to damage projection, kiting, and other factors all on it's own.
Anyone with half a clue knows that the only threat a drake fleet at 0 presents is their amount of EHP vs the grind to kill them faster than they slowly kill you.... nobody thinks their range at 0 is stupendous... just their tank.
Again, nobody has ever said that damage was the issue with the drake, and the tengu is an issue with bonuses/fittings. So why are you going so overboard on nerfs when the huge range nerfs would more than likely be enough. Stop with the bullcrap answer of "out of whack" when history shows that you are wrong and why missiles are the damage they are currently. |
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 22:22:00 -
[5652] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods Please Link this fit because with all lvl 5 skills I do not get a drake to 97.3 K EHP and taking up two mid slots.
Well color me shocked Cazador asking for eft proof Lol, back to fitting advice for unimaginitive Drake pilots.
I'm not sure exactly what Jorma is looking at. I do think he overstates the case, because I think he uses tech II extender rigs to get there. My stab at it was: highs - 7 HML II with scourge fury meds - 2 x LSE (one tech II and one meta 4), Invuln II, Meta em hardener, Meta 4 TP, Meta 10 mn MWD lows - Meta 4 damage control, 3 BCS II rigs - 3 CDFE (one tech I, 2 tech II)
At all level 5 skills it all fits without implants and has 95,956 ehp. Now with not much in a fitting implant you could swap some of the meta mods to tech II and increase the tank.
To be more reasonable though I would drop the tech II rigs. And if you went with two BCSs you could replace one with a power diagnostic. This frees up both cpu and grid for tech II tanking mods in place of meta mods. So with 2 LSE II, both hardeners tech II, and a PDS II and even with 3 tech I CDFEs you can get 97.5k ehp to fit without fitting implants. The DPS drop goes from 445 to 396 on current tranquility HM damage.
So Jorma's point stands because the performance of turret boats can't even reach this with long range ammo and any even halfway similar tank. The above fits stack up very much more favorably to any attempt at a long range Harby or Hurricane for both ranged dps and tank at any range. You would have to go back to the first half of this thread to read the extensive proof on the Drake advantages over other ships with long range medium weapons for tank and dps at range. And even at short range there is littel dps advantage with turret tech II high damage ammo with such short optimals (~10km at best) and dismal tracking. It is precisely what this whole nerf is about. |
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 22:38:00 -
[5653] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: Again, nobody has ever said that damage was the issue with the drake, and the tengu is an issue with bonuses/fittings. So why are you going so overboard on nerfs when the huge range nerfs would more than likely be enough. Stop with the bullcrap answer of "out of whack" when history shows that you are wrong and why missiles are the damage they are currently.
Because if you strip down to the medium long range weapons on a Drake, Harby, or Cane (I won't include the Brutix here because it is tier 1) you can't create anywhere near the same damage at 60-70kkm as you can with a drake all with possibly double the tank for the drake. HMLs are simply better than heavy beams and 720 artys and of course 250mm rails. Even with short range tech II ammo in the turrets the dps advantage is much less than the HM tech II advantage over tech II range turret ammo. Tech II turret ammo that has a 10k optimal and a tracking disadvantage.
Even after the new stats the HML tech II fury will outrange tech II turret ammo by quite a bit.
I don't disagree that the tengu subsystem stats and bonuses are "out of whack" and that Drake tanks are "out of whack". Resist bonuses are precarious things. One could envision a rebalanced and possibly buffed Prophecy and Legion (if they retain resist bonuses) being similarly precarious ships. But the weapon systems are "out of whack" and that is why this nerf is happening. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 22:41:00 -
[5654] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.
That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari. Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods Armor Harbinger has 58,5k EHP with MWD, point, web, two damage mods and just enough (well, with 3 ACRs) grid for short range turrets (HPL) and is painfully slow. Oh, and it needs 6% CPU implant to fit... If you want to talk about resists, check T1 armor resists, especially kinetic and explosive. I can get Prophecy to 97,6k EHP but it's not what you'd call a cheap fit.
now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
129
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 23:24:00 -
[5655] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:I'm Down wrote: Again, nobody has ever said that damage was the issue with the drake, and the tengu is an issue with bonuses/fittings. So why are you going so overboard on nerfs when the huge range nerfs would more than likely be enough. Stop with the bullcrap answer of "out of whack" when history shows that you are wrong and why missiles are the damage they are currently. Because if you strip down to the medium long range weapons on a Drake, Harby, or Cane (I won't include the Brutix here because it is tier 1) you can't create anywhere near the same damage at 60-70kkm as you can with a drake all with possibly double the tank for the drake. HMLs are simply better than heavy beams and 720 artys and of course 250mm rails. Even with short range tech II ammo in the turrets the dps advantage is much less than the HM tech II advantage over tech II range turret ammo. Tech II turret ammo that has a 10k optimal and a tracking disadvantage. Even after the new stats the HML tech II fury will outrange tech II turret ammo by quite a bit. I don't disagree that the tengu subsystem stats and bonuses are "out of whack" and that Drake tanks are "out of whack". Resist bonuses are precarious things. One could envision a rebalanced and possibly buffed Prophecy and Legion (if they retain resist bonuses) being similarly precarious ships. But the weapon systems are "out of whack" and that is why this nerf is happening.
My god, you're a broken record....
not everything is about the homoginized DPS at range. There are many other factors that go into missiles while bringing them comparably closer to those others by making the change to range. Stop ignoring the other factors with missiles that make them suck next to turrets.
You also say more range for fury.... what about massing increase in tracking for all LR turret CR ammo.
this is why you do balance is small doses with a plan for further change if need that can be implemented quickly... rather than huge swaths that force you to figure out how you broke something by going way too far in the other direction. It's common sense implementation to go in small doses knowing what the next step can be with coding already written if needed rather than huge changes.
You seem to be skipping over the fact that I'm not saying ignore all the proposed changes, but rather do them in waves to see if they are all truly needed. Stop being such a political animal with your posting and actually represent what's being said rather than brown nosing the devs.
The player base keeps screaming for a "plan" from CCP rather than irrational changes with no logical next steps...
To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
141
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 23:31:00 -
[5656] - Quote
serras bang wrote:now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game. Fleet drake don't need web nor point ; solo/small gang drake indeed need point, but web is optionnal ; indeed, it's fit is not a solo/small gang one, but it's a valid fleet fit (though not standard).
As for ehp, if you want to discuss its utility as a tool to evaluate a ship endurance to damage, it certainly could be interesting, though if you are talking about EVE ingame ehp value, I'm afraid you are a lot more ignorant than you seemed so far. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 23:55:00 -
[5657] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote:now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game. Fleet drake don't need web nor point ; solo/small gang drake indeed need point, but web is optionnal ; indeed, it's fit is not a solo/small gang one, but it's a valid fleet fit (though not standard). As for ehp, if you want to discuss its utility as a tool to evaluate a ship endurance to damage, it certainly could be interesting, though if you are talking about EVE ingame ehp value, I'm afraid you are a lot more ignorant than you seemed so far.
not really eft has said many of me ehp values are over 100k yet i get barely 60 in game |
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 00:25:00 -
[5658] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote:now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game. Fleet drake don't need web nor point ; solo/small gang drake indeed need point, but web is optionnal ; indeed, it's fit is not a solo/small gang one, but it's a valid fleet fit (though not standard). As for ehp, if you want to discuss its utility as a tool to evaluate a ship endurance to damage, it certainly could be interesting, though if you are talking about EVE ingame ehp value, I'm afraid you are a lot more ignorant than you seemed so far. not really eft has said many of me ehp values are over 100k yet i get barely 60 in game
Serras, the fitting screen in game and eft calculate the same fitting ehp differently. The point is though that any 50k Harbinger or Cane ehp from eft will also be less on the fitting screen also. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2068
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 00:27:00 -
[5659] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
I missed you old friend. <3 Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
70
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 00:42:00 -
[5660] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm Down wrote: To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
I missed you old friend. <3
Forget this thread, let's talk ECM nerf. |
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
209
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 01:01:00 -
[5661] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Lili Lu wrote:I'm Down wrote: Again, nobody has ever said that damage was the issue with the drake, and the tengu is an issue with bonuses/fittings. So why are you going so overboard on nerfs when the huge range nerfs would more than likely be enough. Stop with the bullcrap answer of "out of whack" when history shows that you are wrong and why missiles are the damage they are currently. Because if you strip down to the medium long range weapons on a Drake, Harby, or Cane (I won't include the Brutix here because it is tier 1) you can't create anywhere near the same damage at 60-70kkm as you can with a drake all with possibly double the tank for the drake. HMLs are simply better than heavy beams and 720 artys and of course 250mm rails. Even with short range tech II ammo in the turrets the dps advantage is much less than the HM tech II advantage over tech II range turret ammo. Tech II turret ammo that has a 10k optimal and a tracking disadvantage. Even after the new stats the HML tech II fury will outrange tech II turret ammo by quite a bit. I don't disagree that the tengu subsystem stats and bonuses are "out of whack" and that Drake tanks are "out of whack". Resist bonuses are precarious things. One could envision a rebalanced and possibly buffed Prophecy and Legion (if they retain resist bonuses) being similarly precarious ships. But the weapon systems are "out of whack" and that is why this nerf is happening. My god, you're a broken record.... not everything is about the homoginized DPS at range. There are many other factors that go into missiles while bringing them comparably closer to those others by making the change to range. Stop ignoring the other factors with missiles that make them suck next to turrets. You also say more range for fury.... what about massive ncrease in tracking for all LR turret CR ammo. this is why you do balance is small doses with a plan for further change if need that can be implemented quickly... rather than huge swaths that force you to figure out how you broke something by going way too far in the other direction. It's common sense implementation to go in small doses knowing what the next step can be with coding already written if needed rather than huge changes. You seem to be skipping over the fact that I'm not saying ignore all the proposed changes, but rather do them in waves to see if they are all truly needed. Stop being such a political animal with your posting and actually represent what's being said rather than brown nosing the devs. The player base keeps screaming for a "plan" from CCP rather than irrational changes with no logical next steps... To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
I don't know how to break this to you, but everything you say is wrong CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 01:11:00 -
[5662] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: My god, you're a broken record.... One man's broken record is another's welcome loop on the best part of the song I guess. Anyway, to call someone a broken record for having an opposing viewpoint that you yourself throw the same argument against makes you a broken record as well.
I'm Down wrote: not everything is about the homoginized DPS at range. There are many other factors that go into missiles while bringing them comparably closer to those others by making the change to range. Stop ignoring the other factors with missiles that make them suck next to turrets. Both weapon systems have disadvantages. And so do drones. What would you have all the missile disadvantages removed but the other system disadvantages stay? Disadvantages are there to make players figure out how to overcome them or compensate for them, or accept them and manuever for engagement where those disadvantages matter less or not at all.
I'm Down wrote: You also say more range for fury.... what about massive ncrease in tracking for all LR turret CR ammo. Long range turret tech II ammo has (and only a relatively recent development) only a 25% better tracking. Long range turrets have bad tracking, at range it doesn't matter much. At 10km or less for medium long range guns with tech II high damage ammo they still track anything orbiting very poorly even if 25% better than base ammo. That is why people talk about getting under the guns. How can you not know this? But it is one of those situations where if you want that higher damage to apply you are looking at a larger ship that is probably webbed as well. This ammo is not meant to hit small ships in close for that higher damage (unlike precision). Come to think of it, were I to be on your level I would be calling for elimination of precision I guess, just as on the other side people even more extreme than you (yeah they exist ) are asking for no range limitation on precisions.
I'm Down wrote: this is why you do balance is small doses with a plan for further change if need that can be implemented quickly... rather than huge swaths that force you to figure out how you broke something by going way too far in the other direction. It's common sense implementation to go in small doses knowing what the next step can be with coding already written if needed rather than huge changes.
You seem to be skipping over the fact that I'm not saying ignore all the proposed changes, but rather do them in waves to see if they are all truly needed. Stop being such a political animal with your posting and actually represent what's being said rather than brown nosing the devs.
The player base keeps screaming for a "plan" from CCP rather than irrational changes with no logical next steps...
To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems. I don't perceive the player base as screaming for anything. And if collectively it has been asking for anything it was for precisely what is happening, tiericide, the making of formerly unused ships desireable and overused ships less so so that there are not obvious and prevalent winner and loser ships.
Just because they are not doing it in the same steps as you might does not make it any less valid. I'm glad they are doing this HML rebalance. It is functioning as an interim Drake nerf. I was complaining before this thread they absolutley had to do something to end the Drakes and Tengus Online pattern that had taken hold for years. I was hardly brown-nosing any of them when I was doing that complaining for an interim nerf on Drakes. That it came about this way is somewhat of a surprise. And they did it not for any complaining on my or other's part but because the weapon imbalance was getting in the way of the hull rebalancing. |
Joe Kizonya
The Night Crew The Night Crew Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 02:16:00 -
[5663] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Now, I made some calculation for FURY HML :
While yes your calculations are rather extensive, and the numbers tell one story, when use of the HML is applied in the actual game under current game mechanics (missiles having a smaller explosion radius) I can't think of a single caldari pilot that would say that on a cruiser with 0 velocity, their DPS doesn't increase with the addition of a target painter. And that brings me back to my point. Currently HML's have no chance of doing full damage against a cruiser (even one fitted with LSE) unless there is additional e-war (practically impossible to fit on a small shield fleet of around 5 people, while still keeping, tank, point, prop, with a possible cap booster). So decreasing the over all damage out put (again something I agree with) AND increasing the explosion radius, reduces the effectiveness of these modules twice for small gang shield tanked missile users.
As for my earlier proposition of a 50% penalty to the fury's, I only stated that because the T2 turret penalty is only 25% to tracking speed. 72% seemed like a little bit high in comparison to the 25% to turrets, but perhaps that is an actual balanced number chosen by CCP.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why not have one T2 longrange missile and one T2 shortrange missile with T1 in between for Cruise/heavy/Light missiles? This is the pattern used by turrets and by short-range missiles, and it was an option we considered for long-range missile launchers. However in the end we didn't see a good reason to homogenize missiles and turrets in that way. As well, since T1 missiles have comparable range to T2 longrange turret ammo, we would have had to nerf T1 missile range further to keep that system balanced and I don't think you folks want that.
Again though, under the proposed changes, the missiles would be dealing roughly the same amount of damage as the long range turrets, but compared to the long ranged turrets with close range ammo loaded. That means you are giving missiles a distinct advantage in damage out put over turrets in this class. So why would it be worth it to use the long range T2 turret ammo, when you can get a decent bonus to damage using missiles.
This result can be confirmed with the current 1400 howitzer, and the cruise missile launchers. And before you all start going on about how cruise missiles suck in comparison for sniping, I know they aren't currently used. But the reason for that is not because of the module, it is because the platform (the raven) doesn't have the same bonuses to the damage as the sniping turret ships do. There for the end result is less DPS out of the ship. This issues has already been addressed as needing to be fixed so we can put that aside and just compare the weapons.
With all skills set to 5 With no bonuses from a ship or implants, a single1400 with Quake deals 38 DPS, and with Tremor deals 22 DPS
With no bonuses from ship or implants, a single cruise launcher loaded with faction missiles (not even t2) deals that same 38 DPS
There for, if the explosion radius of all missiles are fixed to make them able to apply a similar to amount of damage on a regular sized ship for their size (medium=cruiser/BC, small=frig/destroyer, large=BS) as a turret can, changing the ammo type would finish balancing missiles to be more on par with current turret sniping stats.
In addition doing something like I suggested earlier, with turning the t1 version of the long range class HM into a lower damage, smaller explosion radius missile for anti-tackle, and adding a t2 long range ammo for sniping. Along with keeping a semi-sorter ranged t1 version (much like the range of the fury) with a regular damage out put, and keeping the short range T2 (the fury) with a penalty to explosion radius and bonus to damage, further diversifies the types of ammo one would need for different roles/situations like has been stated as to being wanted before.
Making these changes would fix the HML from being competing with the large class of guns, back down to the medium class of gun, as well as make all the other missiles more useful for different rolls.
CCP Fozzie, if there is a reason as to why this may not work, other than we don't want to nurff the HML completely down to the same usefulness of the other medium long range weapon platforms, I would really like to know what that reason may be. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
129
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 03:43:00 -
[5664] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm Down wrote: To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
I missed you old friend. <3
Fozzie, I'd waste time throwing numbers and reason at you devs like I did in years past if you'd waste time doing your job properly. We'll see who caves first. |
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 04:33:00 -
[5665] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm Down wrote: To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
I missed you old friend. <3 Fozzie, I'd waste time throwing numbers and reason at you devs like I did in years past if you'd waste time doing your job properly. We'll see who caves first.
Lol, wtf?
Anyway, you need not bother. You think no numbers and even a little reason were thrown about in this almost 300 page thread already? Get working on your threat to induce the cave I guess. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
333
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 04:58:00 -
[5666] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
Not exactly.
Minmatar BS pilots are getting love. Until Caldari pilots have a missile BS worth flying, fixing torps does nothing for them.
|
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
129
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 05:07:00 -
[5667] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm Down wrote: To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
I missed you old friend. <3 Fozzie, I'd waste time throwing numbers and reason at you devs like I did in years past if you'd waste time doing your job properly. We'll see who caves first. Lol, wtf? Anyway, you need not bother. You think no numbers and even a little reason were thrown about in this almost 300 page thread already? Get working on your threat to induce the cave I guess.
you do realize a boxing match has 2 participants right? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 05:29:00 -
[5668] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Hrmm Oh you mean the drone boat. The statement was made they are adding new ships, I simply gave an idea that a Caldari Cruise Missile BS pirate faction to compete with the NM and Mach. I know what the Rattler is and it is a different type of ship then the Mach or NM.
So you want to fly BSs without good drone skills and kill everything with missiles?
Cazador 64 wrote:Please Link this fit because with all lvl 5 skills I do not get a drake to 97.3 K EHP and taking up two mid slots.
Sorry, got EHP a bit wrong. 93,7k EHP so still a lot more than armor Harbinger. Oh and EHP in EVE is "worst case". EHP in fitting tools is closer to real EHP.
[Drake, Draek]
Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603
serras bang wrote:now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.
Let's help you out too... 75,8k EHP. Still more than armor Harbinger.
[Drake, Draek]
Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603 |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 05:59:00 -
[5669] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.
That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari. Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods Armor Harbinger has 58,5k EHP with MWD, point, web, two damage mods and just enough (well, with 3 ACRs) grid for short range turrets (HPL) and is painfully slow. Oh, and it needs 6% CPU implant to fit... If you want to talk about resists, check T1 armor resists, especially kinetic and explosive. I can get Prophecy to 97,6k EHP but it's not what you'd call a cheap fit. now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game.
No they are not. And at that it is not an easy thing to get cap stable.
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 06:09:00 -
[5670] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
Not exactly. Minmatar BS pilots are getting love. Until Caldari pilots have a missile BS worth flying, fixing torps does nothing for them.
Yeah this is true while changes are going to happen to the BS sometime down the line. any buffs to cruise I will take but it won't make then viable in most situations. Also T3 BC for missiles I think it needed as well.
Going onto test I like the DMG on the T2 cruise I just think until they are ready to fix the Hulls they need to not be nerfing the range on them so hardcore. Buffing the dmg and leaving the range or at least a range that can be used to snipe incursions 170km+ they are currently over 200KM at this current moment you might see some people attempt to use them but they will not be a viable option for pvp. They might see some more incursion love and that wouldn't be terrible. If and when the BS fixes come around retake a look if its needed.
But from the sounds of it they are going to relook at some of the winter changes. From this point on I would suggest ignoring certain people and just worry about what the DEV has to say. Its getting to the point that these people are not even making an argument any more they are just making personal attacks on the Caldari Missile users and are no longer feeding useful information about the patch.
I think CCP needs to intervene at this point in the thread to make an attempt to keep the thread clear from the brute force personal attacks we have received from a handful of players. |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 07:00:00 -
[5671] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm Down wrote: To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
I missed you old friend. <3 Forget this thread, let's talk ECM nerf.
dt's on missles nough said |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
33
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 07:04:00 -
[5672] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Hrmm Oh you mean the drone boat. The statement was made they are adding new ships, I simply gave an idea that a Caldari Cruise Missile BS pirate faction to compete with the NM and Mach. I know what the Rattler is and it is a different type of ship then the Mach or NM. So you want to fly BSs without good drone skills and kill everything with missiles? Cazador 64 wrote:Please Link this fit because with all lvl 5 skills I do not get a drake to 97.3 K EHP and taking up two mid slots. Sorry, got EHP a bit wrong. 93,7k EHP so still a lot more than armor Harbinger. Oh and EHP in EVE is "worst case". EHP in fitting tools is closer to real EHP. [Drake, Draek] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x5 Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603 serras bang wrote:now fit the drake with point and web and tell us how it is also btw EFT Effective hps arent close to what they are in game. Let's help you out too... 75,8k EHP. Still more than armor Harbinger. [Drake, Draek] Internal Force Field Array I Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot] Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Hobgoblin II x5 Zainou 'Gypsy' Electronics EE-603
this second one i would bet isnt cap stable although not heavily important in pvp but is in pve you all still seem to miss that point of ships still have to be fiesable for pve also so please stop basing everything on pvp first and fore most.
as for fozzie and not having a go but i feel one of the reasons for takeing the t2 furry nerf down to 25 - 35% of t1 is simple caldari have the slowest and heaviest of all the ships we need some of the extra range we are loseing on missles to help compensate for this as it means we cannot kite as effectively. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 07:24:00 -
[5673] - Quote
serras bang wrote:this second one i would bet isnt cap stable although not heavily important in pvp but is in pve you all still seem to miss that point of ships still have to be fiesable for pve also so please stop basing everything on pvp first and fore most.
Cap stable (ugh) PvE Drake for you:
[Drake, Draek]
Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
10MN Afterburner II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Heavy Missile [Empty High slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Purger I Medium Core Defense Field Purger I Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
Hobgoblin II x5
serras bang wrote:as for fozzie and not having a go but i feel one of the reasons for takeing the t2 furry nerf down to 25 - 35% range loss over t1 is simple caldari have the slowest and heaviest of all the ships we need some of the extra range we are loseing on missles to help compensate for this as it means we cannot kite as effectively.
I don't know about furry missiles, but Furies will be still longer range than T2 short range ammo for long range turrets.
7,5 km optimal for HBL+Gleam M. Talking about some long ranges... For comparison HPL+Conflag M (high damage, worst tracking, short range crystal for pulse lasers) has exactly the same optimal: 7,5 km. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 08:15:00 -
[5674] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:HML Drake outdamages 250mm Ferox at any range. Even with Javelin you're doing only 368 dps at 13 km.
Not entirely accurate. A ferox can outrange it today, it will massively outrange it after the expansion, therefore at long ranges it outdamages the drake
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 08:31:00 -
[5675] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Not entirely accurate. A ferox can outrange it today, it will massively outrange it after the expansion, therefore at long ranges it outdamages the drake
Nobody will ever fly quad TC Ferox.
Especially when MWD Drake is ten times faster and in range of faction missiles in no time. And that 176 dps at 143 km sounds really good when Drake does 400+ dps at same range. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 08:36:00 -
[5676] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Not entirely accurate. A ferox can outrange it today, it will massively outrange it after the expansion, therefore at long ranges it outdamages the drake Nobody will ever fly quad TC Ferox. Especially when MWD Drake is ten times faster and in range of faction missiles in no time. And that 176 dps at 143 km sounds really good when Drake does 400+ dps at same range.
You don't need 4, 2 and a rig will see you out to 143+25 at over 200 dps.
And the drake isn't going to be doing that in a months time either so it's an entirely moot point |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 08:46:00 -
[5677] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Not entirely accurate. A ferox can outrange it today, it will massively outrange it after the expansion, therefore at long ranges it outdamages the drake Nobody will ever fly quad TC Ferox. Especially when MWD Drake is ten times faster and in range of faction missiles in no time. And that 176 dps at 143 km sounds really good when Drake does 400+ dps at same range. You don't need 4, 2 and a rig will see you out to 143+25 at over 200 dps. And the drake isn't going to be doing that in a months time either so it's an entirely moot point
That Drake is still ten times faster, has 3 times the tank. 200 dps isn't going to help. And of course the fact that you can't hit a Claw orbiting you at 10km with those 250s. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 08:54:00 -
[5678] - Quote
It doesnt need to be faster, one can easily sort out the ferox to happily kite it all day.
51k ehp, over 1km/s...out ranges it by a huge amout in the expansion. So long as neither party flees (a standing assumption in all solo long range engegements, the drake dies, every single day. Because it can't get to to to apply its damage. It could offer 100000000000 dps, doesnt matter because it's out of range.
Oh noes, not an interceptor, it'll be terrified, terrified of the new battlecrusier sized blast of HML |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 09:04:00 -
[5679] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:51k ehp, over 1km/s...
Sniper fit Ferox with MWD doesn't have mid slots for tank...
[Ferox, bad sniper fit]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M [Empty High slot]
Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II Medium Hybrid Collision Accelerator I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 09:20:00 -
[5680] - Quote
You're doing it wrong. It doesnt need to be so silly.
[Ferox, die drake die] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Damage Control II
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction 10MN Digital Booster Rockets Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M [empty high slot]
Medium Hybrid Locus Coordinator II Medium Ancillary Current Router II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
That has TWICE the range of an expansion HML drake, unless the drake rigs for it and EVEN then, there are options to tweak above and a drake rigged for pure range does shocking damage to anything smaller than a BC thanks to sig changes.
So to address my original point, a drake WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT 'outdamage a ferox at all ranges' after the exansion.
So stop saying it will |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
813
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 09:44:00 -
[5681] - Quote
^ Can we have fits without T2 rigs? I'm not shitposting. |
TheLast Poofighter
Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity
4
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 10:04:00 -
[5682] - Quote
Will these changes also apply to npc missiles? |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
30
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 10:08:00 -
[5683] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ Can we have fits without T2 rigs?
Probably, doesnt change much on the ferox. 126km+falloff still 52k ehp.
Edit: Assuming you meant T1 rigs as opposed to none. |
Brent Newton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 11:00:00 -
[5684] - Quote
Yeah this is probably my last straw with eve. Me and my accounts are probably going to have to say goodbye. I run L5 missions and use a tengu and was training for a nighthawk, so this will effect me pretty heavily. I will always love eve, but figuring out a new 5billion isk fit on a new ship does not appeal to me at the moment. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 11:16:00 -
[5685] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:That has TWICE the range of an expansion HML drake, unless the drake rigs for it and EVEN then, there are options to tweak above and a drake rigged for pure range does shocking damage to anything smaller than a BC thanks to sig changes. So to address my original point, a drake WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT 'outdamage a ferox at all ranges' after the exansion. So stop saying it will
Morrigan, nice effort you put here, and I agree with you basically. But you can also consider to stop wasting your time, because Jorma will continue to tell lies, he always does. He claimed other stuff (and all of it was wrong) before, and even when people showed him numbers he continued his utter BS. There are just people which you have to ignore :) he will just go to the next and then to the next and return to "Drakes out-DPS Ferox at any range" when you finally thought he dropped it :D |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 11:34:00 -
[5686] - Quote
Well to be perfectly fair (I try to be) it's one hell of a lot closer right now but I see little point in worry about what is about to change (basically) next month and look to the future
I guess the statement could be altered to "a drake will outdamage a ferox up to the max range of the drake", but then one could replace "drake" with "blaster-boat" and remain factually accurate
It's still going to be the superior 'all-purpose' hull, its fitting is just...better. But again, this is a hull thing magnified by the HML. With luck the later BC changes will help this out and we have to hope the HML changes make that easier for the Devs. |
Tom Gen
EyEs.FR Dominatus Atrum Mortis
1
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 11:56:00 -
[5687] - Quote
what about T3 ships. If the flag is not allowing you to eject, you will not be able anymore to protect your Skills.
T3 functionnment:
While a T3 cruser is destroyed, the pilot may loose one level of skill in the subsystem skill group.
The bypass to avoid that was to be able to eject before destruction (a very good feature from my point of view).
With the new flagging system, everyone engaging with T3 will be subject to this skill loss because the pilot won't be able to eject anymore.
I found that silly !!! There won't be anymore much engagement with Strategic Cruser
Please CCP take this feature out !!! Leave us the right to eject
Thanks. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
25
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 11:59:00 -
[5688] - Quote
Tom, Crimewatch thread perhaps?
And, are we seriously considering a Rail Ferox? Wow. This thread is full of the awesome.
Edit: on further review, a rail ferox with 10mn Digital Booster rockets, and Tech II rigs..... wow. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 12:18:00 -
[5689] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Edit: on further review, a rail ferox with 10mn Digital Booster rockets, and Tech II rigs..... wow.
So swap it for a poverty spec fit if you want, makes little difference
Edit: It's no less silly than the notion that a 60km ranged boat can out damage a sniper hull 'at all ranges' |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
141
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 12:29:00 -
[5690] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:rodyas wrote:^ Can we have fits without T2 rigs? Probably, doesnt change much on the ferox. 126km+falloff still 52k ehp. Edit: Assuming you meant T1 rigs as opposed to none. If you want to play silly games, you could have had used the Harpy which also outrange the Drake (even the current one), but also any other small and medium LR hull. edit : except other rail caldari hull of course.
It's a ******* caldari ship with an insane range bonus, of course it outrange the drake. But that don't mean HML will be useless. You can always take some borderline scenarios to emphasize a ship strength.
And yet, damage along range and according to damage application have to be balanced.
For my numbers, they are correct, so if it's different from what you remember, either the formula is wrong, you misread/misinterpreted my numbers or your memories are wrong.
For the Raven, I EFT warriored a little and saw that with cruise missiles+3BCS it have better damage than 425mm Rokh at 70km and above. Its tank is better than an alphaMaelstrom, and it have heavy+medium neutralizers. That is with rigor+flare rigs and CNCM. It's resist are those of a Maelstrom. It also have better agility and velocity than any of these tier3 BS. With precision + rigs, it have comparable damage application than fury HML.
These stats are better than any gallente ship for large fleet duty, and the only advantage gallente can have is armor tank, if this is an advantage.
So I'm a bit puzzled about all the hate against the Raven. Indeed current Torp are bad for damage application and the 6 medslot mean you cannot have the utility you would need to use this weapon, though for cruise missiles, the ship perform well compared to the other long range BS, and outperform them all in dps above 70km. Of course, the tengu is plain better.
As all those who know the Raven problem prefer to keep their secrets for them, I guess I'll remain ignorant.
Here is the fit, just in case : [Raven, test_cruise]
6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile) Heavy Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II
100MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Large Shield Extender II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II
3x Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Signal Amplifier II
Large Core Defense Field Extender I Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
[Statistics - all5]
Effective HP: 101-á774 (Eve: 82-á201) Tank Ability: 88,74 DPS Damage Profile - Omni-Damage (EM: 25,00%, Ex: 25,00%, Ki: 25,00%, Th: 25,00%) Shield Resists - EM: 75,87%, Ex: 77,36%, Ki: 72,83%, Th: 63,78% Armor Resists - EM: 57,50%, Ex: 23,50%, Ki: 36,25%, Th: 53,25%
Capacitor (Stable at 70,24%)(MWD and neutra inactive)
Volley Damage: 3-á597,15 DPS: 517,66 |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
814
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 12:30:00 -
[5691] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Tom, Crimewatch thread perhaps?
And, are we seriously considering a Rail Ferox? Wow. This thread is full of the awesome.
Edit: on further review, a rail ferox with 10mn Digital Booster rockets, and Tech II rigs..... wow.
You are talking to a race of people who thrive on 5 billion isk tengus. They don't know what real is anymore. I'm not shitposting. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 12:32:00 -
[5692] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:It's a ******* caldari ship with an insane range bonus, of course it outrange the drake. But that don't mean HML will be useless. You can always take some borderline scenarios to emphasize a ship strength.
And yet, damage along range and according to damage application have to be balanced.
I never suggested otherwise, I merely refuted an epic over exaggeration. Maybes I got trolled
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 12:53:00 -
[5693] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:I was complaining before this thread they absolutley had to do something to end the Drakes and Tengus Online pattern that had taken hold for years.
This is just wrong imho. I havent seen tengu and drake online. Sure there is tengu fleets and theres drake fleets. But also theres just asmuch armor hac fleets with zealots there are loki and legion fleets. Then there is t3 fleets with oracles, nagas, tornados and talos. There are cane fleets. There are mael fleets. There is apoc fleets. There is rokh fleets etc you name it. They all out there. Just because goons and some other big alliances uses drake blobs doesnt mean theyre only used doctrines..
Tengu is mostly uber PVE cruiser if something.. Maybe HML's shoot bit far compared to other long range systems but still it doesnt make tengu and drake online. I remember few years back everyone was saying that drake sucks and caldari is only for carebears...
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 13:39:00 -
[5694] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Drakes and Tengus need a high amount of EHP. Especially in shield! In case you forgot our armor values are crap. So if you do break our shields we are toast.
That said most people use armor-tanked ships (Amarr or Gallente) or the dual (jack-of-all-trades) 'Winmatar' for PvP. Furthermore, if you look on Battleclinic most PvP ships are armor tanked regardless. Caldari ships are solely and only shield tanked. Therefore it is logical that our shields be the strongest in the game. Shields have the advantage of being the only type able to be truly passive. That said, shields are also more susceptible to volley damage than armor tanks as our resists on EM and Thermal are the lowest (~0-25% EM & ~20-25% TH depending on ship bonuses). No armor T1 ship have a 0% resistence hole. In short, no matter what you say, if you fly an armor-tank your resistences will always be higher overall than mine with a caldari. Drake has 97,3k EHP with TP, MWD, long range weapons (HML) and three damage mods Armor Harbinger has 58,5k EHP with MWD, point, web, two damage mods and just enough (well, with 3 ACRs) grid for short range turrets (HPL) and is painfully slow. Oh, and it needs 6% CPU implant to fit... If you want to talk about resists, check T1 armor resists, especially kinetic and explosive. I can get Prophecy to 97,6k EHP but it's not what you'd call a cheap fit.
Funny numbers you pull out. Dual LSE drake with 2 invuls, dcu and rigs is around 90-100k EHP ingame
My HML drake with TP and MWD have only 75k EHP ingame with pretty awesome shield skills, 1 LSE , 2 invuls, dcu, em and extender rigs. |
Koen L
Order Carebears Solar Citizens
15
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 14:49:00 -
[5695] - Quote
You should try balancing this with a bit more fine tuning. These nerfs for me look like sledgehammering equiped elefants hitting a glashouse. Please try more fine tuning, reduce the nerfs within a range of 5% to max 10%. Make a second step with the overnext expansion sets if it is really necessary. Do not take away chocolate from too many people at once. I love my chocolate. I will hate you when you take it away from me.
GÖ½ When your ship gets blown to bits GÖ¬ GÖ½ And you lose your Faction fits GÖ¬ \Gÿ+/ Don't worry GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ½ GÖ¬ GÖ½ GÖ¬ Be Happy \Gÿ+/ |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 14:53:00 -
[5696] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:That has TWICE the range of an expansion HML drake, unless the drake rigs for it and EVEN then, there are options to tweak above and a drake rigged for pure range does shocking damage to anything smaller than a BC thanks to sig changes. So to address my original point, a drake WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT 'outdamage a ferox at all ranges' after the exansion. So stop saying it will
Ever heard of web or TP?
And your 300+ mil fail fit is so bad I don't even know where to start.
Btw, why should tank rigged Drake have same range as range bonused, sniper fit Ferox? |
EgoMan
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 14:59:00 -
[5697] - Quote
Holy crap man, I just came back to eve today after a 4 month break and this sucks.... I thought they just buffed missle in the last year so that they wouldnt suck anymore and now they're gonna nerf them again? Makes no sense at all.... Must be greasing the squeeky wheel again. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:12:00 -
[5698] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:That has TWICE the range of an expansion HML drake, unless the drake rigs for it and EVEN then, there are options to tweak above and a drake rigged for pure range does shocking damage to anything smaller than a BC thanks to sig changes. So to address my original point, a drake WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT 'outdamage a ferox at all ranges' after the exansion. So stop saying it will Ever heard of web or TP? Drake has two utility mid slots. And your 300+ mil fail fit is so bad I don't even know where to start. Btw, why should tank rigged Drake have same range as range bonused, sniper fit Ferox?
I never said it should - you posted an utter falsehood and were called on it.
And it doesnt need to be named/T2 rigs either TII/poverty kit does fine too.
And it IS a fail fit, yes - one which STILL outdamages the drake at certain ranges - you know, that thing you said cant happen?
Here's reminder for everyone:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
HML Drake outdamages 250mm Ferox at any range.
One last try. NO. IT. DOESN'T.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:23:00 -
[5699] - Quote
And you seem to forget that with rigs Drake does 414 dps at 125 km while your fail fit Ferox does 198 dps at 120 km. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:25:00 -
[5700] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:And you seem to forget that with rigs Drake does 414 dps at 125 km while your fail fit Ferox does 198 dps at same range.
Really? In December? Really?
How much does it do then? And at what range? |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:27:00 -
[5701] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:And you seem to forget that with rigs Drake does 414 dps at 125 km while your fail fit Ferox does 198 dps at same range. Really? In December? Really? How much does it do then? And at what range?
414 - 414 * 0.10 125 - 125 * 0.25
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:29:00 -
[5702] - Quote
So, its not outranging a ferox. So its not outdamaging it AT ALL RANGES, is it?
No. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:33:00 -
[5703] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:So, its not outranging a ferox. So its not outdamaging it AT ALL RANGES, is it?
No.
Are you saying they already released next expansion? |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
36
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:36:00 -
[5704] - Quote
It cant outrange it today either. You're still talking rubbish to show the drake is overpowered.
I get it the hull IS overpowered and I've never said otherwise, hell right at the start oif this thread I said it is a problem hull, but that's absolutely no excuse for making sensationalist stuff up to further an agenda. |
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:36:00 -
[5705] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. I said hp values on BCs, not just shield hp. That would include armor hp on armor tankers. The way I see it the hp values on the current tier 1 BCs were fine. There was no BC overuse and Cruiser bypass prior to the introduction of the tier 2 BCs. Of course the Caldari and Minmatar BCs will have more relative shield hp and the converse for the Amarr and Gallente.
As for breaking shields. I didn't call for breaking shields. What I was referencing is the skewed shield regen time with all BCs. You can get some utterly ridiculous regen fits on Drakes for pve purposes. Why is this? Well if your shield hp is as much as a Geddon's (a BS, even if an armor tanking one) but your regen time is almost as good as a Cruisers you have a massive regen overtank for level 3s and even for level 4s and other pve content. A Ferox can tank a level 4 if fit for it (the damage of course will be abysmal) and has been so able for many years even with one less mid and lesser base shield hp. But other BCs are not so blessed. BCs in pve terms should be level 3 boats. Most races have to train BS to put together a level 4 tank and sufficient level 4 damage in the same ship.
In pvp, as I said, prior to the tier 2 BCs, Cruisers were not automatic dog food. Presently Cruisers are being buffed. I think what we just saw with the Cane is something that indicates where BCs are going. They will stay stronger than but are not going to be miles ahead of the new Cruisers. BCs are going to be weaker relative to BSs. Tier 2 BCs are crowding out smaller hulls or under pricing too many larger hulls. Smaller hulls are getting buffed atm. The underpircing of BSs with BCs will apparently be addressed with some varying nerfs to tier 2 BCs. Already there was mention of nerfing mobility and possibly fittings with tier 3 BCs.
In short, too many of you folks that relied on the Drake to do everything are going to have to adjust and discover other ships. You will still have appropriate shield tanks, as the armor BCs will have appropriate armor tanks. But I would bet no longer will you have the same tanking abilities you currently enjoy with shield BCs when they get to BCs. And as Fozzies last post suggests this will be due to restored utility with cruisers and BSs. This will be good for the game, as a whole, even if some currently over used BC or Tech III hulls stand to lose some amount of their current utility.
Okay! I wasn't entirely certain where you were going with that in your previous post. Thanks for the clarifications. I agree that ships need balance but my concern is overcompensating. As caldari ships are the least used in PvP as a whole: Drake and Tengu present exceptions. All I want is to be able to have a fair chance against the other pilots.
As an aside, I do agree with you on the pricing and incentives for T2 BCs vs BS. I really don't have any incentive for battleships if I can train a T2 BC, getting much more capability. The same could be said for T3 Cruisers; which are ridiculously strong.
Again thanks for the courteous reply Lili! |
Alara IonStorm
3374
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:38:00 -
[5706] - Quote
I love how the Ferox a broken Tier 1 Ship with no Damage Bonus, 2 less slots and 1 less weapon is apparently being used in an argument for how much damage a Drake should do.
How bout waiting until the Tier System is gone to compare anything. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 15:45:00 -
[5707] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:I love how the Ferox a broken Tier 1 Ship with no Damage Bonus, 2 less slots and 1 less weapon is apparently being used in an argument for how much damage a Drake should do.
How bout waiting until the Tier System is gone to compare anything.
Not to even mention that medium rails are broken. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 16:11:00 -
[5708] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote: Okay! I wasn't entirely certain where you were going with that in your previous post. Thanks for the clarifications. I agree that ships need balance but my concern is overcompensating. As caldari ships are the least used in PvP as a whole: Drake and Tengu present exceptions. All I want is to be able to have a fair chance against the other pilots.
That is wrong. |
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
5
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 16:28:00 -
[5709] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote: Okay! I wasn't entirely certain where you were going with that in your previous post. Thanks for the clarifications. I agree that ships need balance but my concern is overcompensating. As caldari ships are the least used in PvP as a whole: Drake and Tengu present exceptions. All I want is to be able to have a fair chance against the other pilots.
That is wrong. No it isn't wrong. Look at the kill boards and see what ships are used in roaming fleets. I would know since I spend most of my time evading some of you flying T2 gallente and minmatar ships in null. So, yea, I do know thanks. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 16:47:00 -
[5710] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Look at the kill boards and see what ships are used in roaming fleets.
Caldari (frigates, cruisers, BCs), Minmatar (frigates, cruisers, BCs), Amarr (T2, mostly ceptors), Gallente (frigates) |
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:01:00 -
[5711] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:And you seem to forget that with rigs Drake does 414 dps at 125 km while your fail fit Ferox does 198 dps at 120 km.
This sounds weird as drake can only target around 70k. So are you saying you can make drakes targeting range go upto 125k with rigs? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:04:00 -
[5712] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:And you seem to forget that with rigs Drake does 414 dps at 125 km while your fail fit Ferox does 198 dps at 120 km. This sounds weird as drake can only target around 70k. So are you saying you can make drakes targeting range go upto 125k with rigs?
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronics_and_Sensor_Upgrades:Sensor_Boosters |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
142
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:06:00 -
[5713] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote: Okay! I wasn't entirely certain where you were going with that in your previous post. Thanks for the clarifications. I agree that ships need balance but my concern is overcompensating. As caldari ships are the least used in PvP as a whole: Drake and Tengu present exceptions. All I want is to be able to have a fair chance against the other pilots.
That is wrong. No it isn't wrong. Look at the kill boards and see what ships are used in roaming fleets. I would know since I spend most of my time evading some of you flying T2 gallente and minmatar ships in null. So, yea, I do know thanks. Yeah, and I spent some time fighting them in lowsec. Ever heard of falcon ? Merlin ? Condor ? Hookbill ? Fleets of Naga ? Fleets of Rokh ? Drake obviously, as any BC roam without its contingent of drake is not really complete... You can even see some ASB-blaster ferox sometimes. Oh, and I almost forgot the tengu...
Gallente ? In null sec ? Haha ! Or do you mean Lachesis/Arazu ?
Indeed, sometimes you can see a gallente fleet, but that's more like an event than a serious thing.
And don't think I'm saying gallente are useless or have no viable ships, it's just armor is not on a good mood these days, and gallente ships are not minmatar nor caldari : they don't have that much mobility nor they have damage projection or shield tank for the current mindset to like them.
So yes, it's wrong. Just ask for ANY pvp activity, and you can find a decent caldari ship to use. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:09:00 -
[5714] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:That has TWICE the range of an expansion HML drake, unless the drake rigs for it and EVEN then, there are options to tweak above and a drake rigged for pure range does shocking damage to anything smaller than a BC thanks to sig changes. So to address my original point, a drake WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT 'outdamage a ferox at all ranges' after the exansion. So stop saying it will Ever heard of web or TP? Drake has two utility mid slots. And your 300+ mil fail fit is so bad I don't even know where to start. Btw, why should tank rigged Drake have same range as range bonused, sniper fit Ferox? Keko Khaan wrote:Funny numbers you pull out. Dual LSE drake with 2 invuls, dcu and rigs is around 90-100k EHP ingame
My HML drake with TP and MWD have only 75k EHP ingame with pretty awesome shield skills, 1 LSE , 2 invuls, dcu, em and extender rigs. Like I said in another post I got tank number for Drake wrong: 93,7k EHP with: - experimental MWD - 2x T2 invuls - T2 EM Ward Field - T2 LSE - meta 4 TP - meta 4 DC - 3x T2 BCS - 3x T1 CDFE
That is pretty much same as my HML TP drake fit execpt i got:
75k EHP ingame
- experimental MWD - 2x T2 invuls - T2 Warp disruptor - T2 LSE - meta 4 TP - T2 DCU - 3x T2 BCS - 2x T1 CDFE - 1x T1 Anti-EM screen
Ingame you need 2 x LSE to get +90k EHP.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2073
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:13:00 -
[5715] - Quote
Update to the plan everyone. Gonna call this version 2.1 since the change is a bit less significant than the last.
After consideration we agree that the range reduction to Fury missiles was too severe in the earlier versions so we are re-adjusting them to 75% of the flight time of T1. This means they will still have a shorter range than their current stats on TQ but that reduction will be much more moderate. The OP and spreadsheet have both been updated. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:25:00 -
[5716] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update to the plan everyone. Gonna call this version 2.1 since the change is a bit less significant than the last. After consideration we agree that the range reduction to Fury missiles was too severe in the earlier versions so we are re-adjusting them to 75% of the flight time of T1. This means they will still have a shorter range than their current stats on TQ but that reduction will be much more moderate. The OP and spreadsheet have both been updated. The new stats should get ported into our next testing release on Duality which we expect to happen in the near future. Thanks as always to everyone helping us refine these changes.
Christ you're going backwards all the time soon it will be only 5% please don't hurt me!!!!!
How in the hell will you be able to implement TE/TC changes? |
Maximus Andendare
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:28:00 -
[5717] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update to the plan everyone. Gonna call this version 2.1 since the change is a bit less significant than the last. After consideration we agree that the range reduction to Fury missiles was too severe in the earlier versions so we are re-adjusting them to 75% of the flight time of T1. This means they will still have a shorter range than their current stats on TQ but that reduction will be much more moderate. The OP and spreadsheet have both been updated. The new stats should get ported into our next testing release on Duality which we expect to happen in the near future. Thanks as always to everyone helping us refine these changes. At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear...
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:28:00 -
[5718] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update to the plan everyone. Gonna call this version 2.1 since the change is a bit less significant than the last. After consideration we agree that the range reduction to Fury missiles was too severe in the earlier versions so we are re-adjusting them to 75% of the flight time of T1. This means they will still have a shorter range than their current stats on TQ but that reduction will be much more moderate. The OP and spreadsheet have both been updated. The new stats should get ported into our next testing release on Duality which we expect to happen in the near future. Thanks as always to everyone helping us refine these changes.
Is this just to Fury and not to Rage? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2075
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:30:00 -
[5719] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies.
MIrple wrote:Is this just to Fury and not to Rage? Just Fury Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:37:00 -
[5720] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Maximus Andendare]At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies.
doesn't this go against the plan of making the damage and precision T2 missiles being the shorter range role like the turrets have and now making T1/faction role-less thus being a bad thing? |
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:42:00 -
[5721] - Quote
Yes i know what sebos do.. For some reason sniping sebo drake didnt come in my mind tbh. Ive used dual sebo drake on gates tho.. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2075
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:43:00 -
[5722] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Maximus Andendare]At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies. doesn't this go against the plan of making the damage and precision T2 missiles being the shorter range role like the turrets have and now making T1/faction role-less thus being a bad thing?
T1/Faction have 33% more range than the Rage missiles, and hit smaller and faster targets more easily.
The intent was never to make turret and missile ammo the same, since for instance longrange turret shortrange ammo gets bonuses to both damage and tracking, while those two attributes are split into two T2 missile lines. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:45:00 -
[5723] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Yes i know what sebos do.. For some reason sniping sebo drake didnt come in my mind tbh. Ive used dual sebo drake on gates tho..
christ 125km HM drake is ludicrous and shouldnt be able to get half that range how unbalanced is that? needs the classic CCP nerfhammer not this plastic floppy mallet treatment its now getting instead |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:46:00 -
[5724] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Maximus Andendare]At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies. doesn't this go against the plan of making the damage and precision T2 missiles being the shorter range role like the turrets have and now making T1/faction role-less thus being a bad thing? T1/Faction have 33% more range than the Rage missiles, and hit smaller and faster targets more easily. The intent was never to make turret and missile ammo the same, since for instance longrange turret shortrange ammo gets bonuses to both damage and tracking, while those two attributes are split into two T2 missile lines.
yes but missiles don't miss either |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:48:00 -
[5725] - Quote
And a more important question is how are you ever going to get TE/TC's in when all the missiles will still be over-ranged after this rebalance? |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
166
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:53:00 -
[5726] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:And a more important question is how are you ever going to get TE/TC's in when all the missiles will still be over-ranged after this rebalance?
They are not over ranged, their T1 and faction ammo is their long range ammo. Their T2 ammo is their short range ammo. Just like turrets have long and short range ammo. After these changes they are quite balanced... |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:56:00 -
[5727] - Quote
So the range on a T2 Fury Missile from a drake will be around 40k I dont see this as being game breaking. That IMO seems pretty fair to me. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
88
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 18:00:00 -
[5728] - Quote
MIrple wrote:So the range on a T2 Fury Missile from a drake will be around 40k I dont see this as being game breaking. That IMO seems pretty fair to me.
Come on nearly 300 pages so far and the same argument goes on me: missiles are clearly OP in range compared to all turrets and any other reasonable measure possible. you: errr... no there not leave my missiles alone now!!!!!!! or i'll ragequit
|
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 18:24:00 -
[5729] - Quote
MIrple wrote:So the range on a T2 Fury Missile from a drake will be around 40k I dont see this as being game breaking. That IMO seems pretty fair to me.
True enough as for not game breaking, but not so much for fairness. Regardless, I think it's more like 46km (63km x .75). Basically, it will pull the Drakes that want to use fury within reasonable lach and huginn range (without all the top-end faction and offgrid loki bonuses, which mechanic is slated for removal). Of course this will all depend on what the new TC and TE %s are set at. I imagine they will have to be pretty weak, like 10-15% on range, so that we have the fury drakes sitting within 60km. Of course faction missile drakes will still probably be sitting at 70km or so, only they will have to sacrifice mod slot(s) and/or rig slot(s) to get that former range back. Thus eating into tank/ehp and/or damage.
I'm not sure that this is sufficient in an of itself to remove Drakes from constituting a fleet comp (unlike all other tech I BC currently not sufficiently tanky for making a serious fleet comp, and the Cane is being emasculated already). So we will probably have to wait for the general BC rebalancing for some meaningful nerf on Drake tanking before that happens. And we get a game again for BSs, and tech II and tech III cruisers to be the necessary expenditure for serious sov fleet warfare (no more cheap drake blobbage).
These changes do though, in concert with buffed 1600 tech II plates, tilt the balances toward the current BS standards, Baddons, Napocs, Maels, and AHACs. And then further when the BS changes come we may have viable missile BS and Gallente BS additions and new possibly mized fleet comps. So, all in all the current Drake strategies will still probably get used, just they won't be as powerful as they are now, being reeled in closer and with less damage potential. And, we may see new use of HAMs on Minmatar BCs as well as on Drakes for closer range BC gangs.
As for Tengus and the 100mn Tengu stuff, they may take longer to get their adjustments.
This all is a work in progress, and even though I think the original proposal was the best, I can live with the current 25% range, 10% damage, and 75% fury range changes. At least something is being done indeed "soon" to end the 3 year reign of the Drake at the top of eve-kill.
edit - and another guy in response to an earlier post of mine brought out the old story of how it wasn't so long ago that he was told to go home with his drake. I think if he engages in honest reflection he will have to admit that it was 3 years ago and that that occurred because so many Drake addicts were bringing purger rigged and spr loaded lowslot draeks to pvp fights thinking they would tank a player fleet like they do npcs, doing no damage worth anything for their fleet mates and being the last to diaf as they discovered that regen wouldn't save them from 30 angry duders on the other side. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 18:34:00 -
[5730] - Quote
Looking at what was posted above me I don't know how to get a handle on the drake. 80K EHP is to high for a BC that is only half trying to fit a tank it should come in somewhere between the 55k ~75K when max tanked. Maybe reduce the PG on it but then HAMS will be tough to fit Maybe up the PG/ CPU on HML? I don't know it will be interesting to see what comes out after the BC round. But with missiles as they are now I think the tank just needs a slight adjustment on the drake. |
|
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 18:38:00 -
[5731] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Harvey James wrote:And a more important question is how are you ever going to get TE/TC's in when all the missiles will still be over-ranged after this rebalance? They are not over ranged, their T1 and faction ammo is their long range ammo. Their T2 ammo is their short range ammo. Just like turrets have long and short range ammo. After these changes they are quite balanced...
I wouldn't quite say "quite" balanced. Missiles will still have a good amount more damage at ranges beyond ~15-25km than other medium long range ship weapons depending on the ship and fittings.
I would say "more" balanced though. And that may be enough, when ship rebalancing comes to BCs, to result in more equal numbers among BC usage stats. |
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 18:45:00 -
[5732] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Looking at what was posted above me I don't know how to get a handle on the drake. 80K EHP is to high for a BC that is only half trying to fit a tank it should come in somewhere between the 55k ~75K when max tanked. Maybe reduce the PG on it but then HAMS will be tough to fit Maybe up the PG/ CPU on HML? I don't know it will be interesting to see what comes out after the BC round. But with missiles as they are now I think the tank just needs a slight adjustment on the drake.
Agreed for the most part. It will all depend on how these changes, the coming TC/TE changes, and ship changes impact the easy fitting choices Drakes currently enjoy in realtion to other BCs (e.g. no more simply just fit 3 CDFE rigs, etc.).
If people go to HAM Drakes they may find that they also will need grid and a slot for a cap injector (something other ships regularly have to consider) since they will find themselves more often within the range of a neut, etc. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon
166
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 19:05:00 -
[5733] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Warde Guildencrantz wrote:Harvey James wrote:And a more important question is how are you ever going to get TE/TC's in when all the missiles will still be over-ranged after this rebalance? They are not over ranged, their T1 and faction ammo is their long range ammo. Their T2 ammo is their short range ammo. Just like turrets have long and short range ammo. After these changes they are quite balanced... I wouldn't quite say "quite" balanced. Missiles will still have a good amount more damage at ranges beyond ~15-25km than other medium long range ship weapons depending on the ship and fittings. I would say "more" balanced though. And that may be enough, when ship rebalancing comes to BCs, to result in more equal numbers among BC usage stats.
These are the problems:
prophecy sucks ferox is almost good enough but needs same amount of slots as drake brutix is almost good enough but needs a bit better tank to make it more useful tank-wise than a talos cyclone has split weapons system myrm doesnt have enough bandwidth harb is too slow with full armor fit
cane is good, drake is good. Range comparison with long range weapons are more reasonable now, missiles still higher. Maybe if medium rails were a bit more useful in terms of damage, there would be a good weapon for comparison. Considering the insane alpha on arties, its understandable their range isn't as great. Beams however I think should be looked at because they are rarely used in their medium form.
People complaining about the drake having too much tank, if the prophecy was useful, it would have a similar tank. A boosting ASB cyclone has more tank than a drake. Dual rep myrm has a beast tank. The only time the drake's tank becomes crazy is when you crap fit it and put like a single ewar module and everything else tank, which (for some crap reason!) is the standard way people fit drakes in blobs. This is why people think they are OP, in blobs they have like 1 ewar mod (a disruptor) and huge tank. If you did that in a fleet of prophecies, they would have 80k tank as well, but its simply the drake's damage projection (now fixed up quite a bit) that made it more prominent in comparison. It doesn't need a tank nerf, really just projection nerf (which is what it got). |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 19:33:00 -
[5734] - Quote
MIrple wrote:So the range on a T2 Fury Missile from a drake will be around 40k I dont see this as being game breaking. That IMO seems pretty fair to me.
fury on a drake will be closer to around 35k as a tengu drops to 44km |
Maximus Andendare
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 19:41:00 -
[5735] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies. Fozzie, I appreciate the response, and I think you guys are doing great work with tiericide. I wonder, though, how you intend to balance HMLs when you reintroduce the idea for TC/TEs to affect them.
Part of your original "sale" for the nerfs was essentially that HMLs would be nerfed, but you could choose less tank/gank to increase the range/tracking to what you had before, and part of that cost would be increased susceptibility to TDs. That, to me, seemed balanced. As balanced as the choice is for every other pilot in the game that uses turrets for their damage application.
By continuing to whittle away at the nerfs--and I'm not saying there didn't need to be some adjustment--how can you look ahead and think that the introduction of TC/TEs won't break or overbuff HMLs and create much of the same problems that existed before these nerfs?
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
37
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 19:46:00 -
[5736] - Quote
OMFG what a way to kill missles what is the ******* point of them now remove caldari ships from the game |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 19:49:00 -
[5737] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies. Fozzie, I appreciate the response, and I think you guys are doing great work with tiericide. I wonder, though, how you intend to balance HMLs when you reintroduce the idea for TC/TEs to affect them. Part of your original "sale" for the nerfs was essentially that HMLs would be nerfed, but you could choose less tank/gank to increase the range/tracking to what you had before, and part of that cost would be increased susceptibility to TDs. That, to me, seemed balanced. As balanced as the choice is for every other pilot in the game that uses turrets for their damage application. By continuing to whittle away at the nerfs--and I'm not saying there didn't need to be some adjustment--how can you look ahead and think that the introduction of TC/TEs won't break or overbuff HMLs and create much of the same problems that existed before these nerfs?
I agree with what you said. I like where the missile balance is atm but if/when they introduce TE/TC it will break the balance that was created. One way I can see it working is if TE/TC would effect exp velocity/radius and if it could make it so missiles flew faster but for a shorter time so as not to drastically increase the range of HML. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 19:50:00 -
[5738] - Quote
serras bang wrote:OMFG what a way to kill missles what is the ******* point of them now remove caldari ships from the game
The numbers you posted are incorrect check them again. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 20:23:00 -
[5739] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
As all those who know the Raven problem prefer to keep their secrets for them, I guess I'll remain ignorant.
Here is the fit, just in case :
Bouh, this is my very last answer to you in this thread about this topic (Raven/PvP): go skill for it and use it. And then maybe get a small clue about how those magic numbers feel on the server in Caldari missile PvP. You will then maybe also see why this game is *not* Drake online, even if the numbers look so nice ...
|
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 20:27:00 -
[5740] - Quote
serras bang wrote: fury on a drake will be closer to around 35k as a tengu drops to 44km
serras bang wrote:OMFG what a way to kill missles what is the ******* point of them now remove caldari ships from the game OMFG Serras, read more closely. |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 20:29:00 -
[5741] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:serras bang wrote: fury on a drake will be closer to around 35k as a tengu drops to 44km serras bang wrote:OMFG what a way to kill missles what is the ******* point of them now remove caldari ships from the game OMFG Serras, read more closely.
yep ok my fault i never read properly sorry fozzie thought it said reduced by 75% mpt reduced to 75% |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
39
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 20:36:00 -
[5742] - Quote
much better iteration of missles there fozzie keep up the good work. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
145
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 21:18:00 -
[5743] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh, this is my very last answer to you in this thread about this topic (Raven/PvP): go skill for it and use it. And then maybe get a small clue about how those magic numbers feel on the server in Caldari missile PvP. You will then maybe also see why this game is *not* Drake online, even if the numbers look so nice ...
Cool, See you in six months...
Or, you could enlighten everybody with your expertise in missiles and the Raven, and explain things to everybody. I am really interested in learning what these problems are in fact, and by the time you answer this question always the same way, you have been better answering it for real one or two times. |
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 21:38:00 -
[5744] - Quote
Hey Noemi,
Just wanted to post about eve-kill. It was my arguments using eve-kill stats early on against your arguments. Then you started latching onto the same source when the heavy use of Zealots was manifesting early in the month. But here we are at the end of October and well, Drakes and Tengus back in their usual places, as I predicted.
1 Drake 116441 2 Maelstrom 99206 3 Tengu 82116 4 Zealot 73939 5 Rokh 73727 6 Tornado 69141 7 Hurricane 66027 8 Naga 49695
Also, lookey there. Even if the heavy missile boats drop in usuage by whatever amount after the nerf, there would still be two other Caldari ships in the top 8. So while presently, half the top 8 ships are Caldari, even if the nerf totally knocks the two HM boats out Caldari will have appropriate representation.
Anyway, I don't think these changes will totally pull either ship out of the top 20. And as the whole process progresses the focus should shift off of Caldari's and missiles' place and frankly more to Amarr and especially Gallente.
Say hi to ROU, when you next see him.
LiLu |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
503
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 22:04:00 -
[5745] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update to the plan everyone. Gonna call this version 2.1 since the change is a bit less significant than the last. After consideration we agree that the range reduction to Fury missiles was too severe in the earlier versions so we are re-adjusting them to 75% of the flight time of T1. This means they will still have a shorter range than their current stats on TQ but that reduction will be much more moderate. The OP and spreadsheet have both been updated. The new stats should get ported into our next testing release on Duality which we expect to happen in the near future. Thanks as always to everyone helping us refine these changes.
Nice to see you think that one over.
FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
112
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 00:46:00 -
[5746] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote: Just wanted to post about eve-kill. It was my arguments using eve-kill stats early on against your arguments. Then you started latching onto the same source when the heavy use of Zealots was manifesting early in the month. But here we are at the end of October and well, Drakes and Tengus back in their usual places, as I predicted.
1 Drake 116441 2 Maelstrom 99206 3 Tengu 82116 4 Zealot 73939 5 Rokh 73727 6 Tornado 69141 7 Hurricane 66027 8 Naga 49695
Also, lookey there. Even if the heavy missile boats drop in usuage by whatever amount after the nerf, there would still be two other Caldari ships in the top 8. So while presently, half the top 8 ships are Caldari, even if the nerf totally knocks the two HM boats out Caldari will have appropriate representation.
I was not the first here who responded to your first use of Eve-kill and what it really shows. You have been explained before what you can see in this numbers and what not. Its pointless to go through this again, you have showed in other postings you are intelligent enough to understand, so if you refuse to admit that here I can see your intentions :)
Apart from that, it has been also explained to you why there are 2 missile hulls showing so much - every single Caldari missile user will have to use them if he wants to be competitive. Its pretty revealing you just take the top 8 and not top 20 too, and also ignore top 20 for weapons :) but yeah, I know how you play the game. Just dont assume I will play by your rules.
And - my and others "whining" (how you called it) or better solid argument seemed to work, the changes will get overworked again. So no, you did not win, not for now, and not for later ;)
PS: ROU will love to post here if you accept your part of the deal :D
|
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 01:02:00 -
[5747] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: I was not the first here who responded to your first use of Eve-kill and what it really shows. You have been explained before what you can see in this numbers and what not. Its pointless to go through this again, you have showed in other postings you are intelligent enough to understand, so if you refuse to admit that here I can see your intentions :)
Yeah you tried. But you have no evidence for what you say, that it just shows nullsec use. Some percentage of it's stats come from nullsec use. But neither of us can say what percentage. Thus your assertion that it is all nullsec numbers is without foundation. I don't pretend or profess to know what the percentages are for nullsec v other security levels of space. Because, Eve-kill is open to all corps and alliances no matter what region of space they inhabit. It is what it is, whatever it is, and whatever it is is about our only representative sample of ship usage available to the public.
Noemi Nagano wrote: Apart from that, it has been also explained to you why there are 2 missile hulls showing so much - every single Caldari missile user will have to use them if he wants to be competitive. Its pretty revealing you just take the top 8 and not top 20 too, and also ignore top 20 for weapons :) but yeah, I know how you play the game. Just dont assume I will play by your rules.
What rules are you referring to? The top 20 for weapons has no medium long range weapon anywhere near the numbers of HMLs. To what are you referring? Oh, I bet I know, you want to lump in all projectiles, large long range, large short range, medium long range, medium short range, and even small short range and then compare that collective number against HML II. You keep making the same mistake. And quite possibly the lack of other missiles on that list is partially an artifact of the op'd measuring up of HMs to other missiles. Oh well, we will see when the changes come into the game. I think there will be some HAM use entering the top twenty. And when BSs and BS weapons are rebalanced we could see other missiles on the list as well. Time will tell.
Noemi Nagano wrote: And - my and others "whining" (how you called it) or better solid argument seemed to work, the changes will get overworked again. So no, you did not win, not for now, and not for later ;)
PS: ROU will love to post here if you accept your part of the deal :D
Pfft. "Accept?" What deal? You tried to deflect mine and other's disbelief of your pvp alt claim. Noone, and definitely not I, ever "agreed" to your demand that if you posted with your alleged character that has some pvp record that we would ever "leave this thread" to your unchallenged flawed arguments and whining. Your attempt at a requirement to post with ROU only shows that you can't post with that character.
Regardless, I really don't care if you were somehow able to. The only thing I did say it would do concerning me is prove me wrong in my assertion that you have no pvp experience. Come on Noemi, don't you want to put at least that egg on my face. Post with ROU "I am Noemi Nagano" At least you will be able to make your posts with some evidence that you know something about missiles and guns in pvp and aren't just blowing out your ass. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
117
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 01:33:00 -
[5748] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Update to the plan everyone. Gonna call this version 2.1 since the change is a bit less significant than the last. After consideration we agree that the range reduction to Fury missiles was too severe in the earlier versions so we are re-adjusting them to 75% of the flight time of T1. This means they will still have a shorter range than their current stats on TQ but that reduction will be much more moderate. The OP and spreadsheet have both been updated. The new stats should get ported into our next testing release on Duality which we expect to happen in the near future. Thanks as always to everyone helping us refine these changes.
Great Work Foozie !!!!!!!!! I look forward to testing the new changes this does seem allot more reasonable. Once tested I am sure you will get feed back from the people who have logged onto test and tried it out, not just the EFT warriors and projectile junkies. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
117
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 01:43:00 -
[5749] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Hey Noemi, Just wanted to post about eve-kill. It was my arguments using eve-kill stats early on against your arguments. Then you started latching onto the same source when the heavy use of Zealots was manifesting early in the month. But here we are at the end of October and well, Drakes and Tengus back in their usual places, as I predicted. 1 Drake 116441 2 Maelstrom 99206 3 Tengu 82116 4 Zealot 73939 5 Rokh 73727 6 Tornado 69141 7 Hurricane 66027 8 Naga 49695 Also, lookey there. Even if the heavy missile boats drop in usuage by whatever amount after the nerf, there would still be two other Caldari ships in the top 8. So while presently, half the top 8 ships are Caldari, even if the nerf totally knocks the two HM boats out Caldari will have appropriate representation. Anyway, I don't think these changes will totally pull either ship out of the top 20. And as the whole process progresses the focus should shift off of Caldari's and missiles' place and frankly more to Amarr and especially Gallente. Say hi to ROU, when you next see him. LiLu
Why not post the entire top 20 and see most of them are Winmatarr ships ? In fact just shy of 50% make up this list. And the same thing happens with weapons systems and projectiles. At any rate the cane was just a start to the bombardment of nerfs that are coming to a projectile winmatarr ship near you.
The fact is DEV made the right call with rebalancing the nerf, they listened to the people who went onto test and tried the changes for them self and made adjustments. Fozzie you made the right call I commend you for taking the time to read the forums and make the right call. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
132
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 02:08:00 -
[5750] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Hey Noemi, Just wanted to post about eve-kill. It was my arguments using eve-kill stats early on against your arguments. Then you started latching onto the same source when the heavy use of Zealots was manifesting early in the month. But here we are at the end of October and well, Drakes and Tengus back in their usual places, as I predicted. 1 Drake 116441 2 Maelstrom 99206 3 Tengu 82116 4 Zealot 73939 5 Rokh 73727 6 Tornado 69141 7 Hurricane 66027 8 Naga 49695 Also, lookey there. Even if the heavy missile boats drop in usuage by whatever amount after the nerf, there would still be two other Caldari ships in the top 8. So while presently, half the top 8 ships are Caldari, even if the nerf totally knocks the two HM boats out Caldari will have appropriate representation. Anyway, I don't think these changes will totally pull either ship out of the top 20. And as the whole process progresses the focus should shift off of Caldari's and missiles' place and frankly more to Amarr and especially Gallente. Say hi to ROU, when you next see him. LiLu Why not post the entire top 20 and see most of them are Winmatarr ships ? In fact just shy of 50% make up this list. And the same thing happens with weapons systems and projectiles. At any rate the cane was just a start to the bombardment of nerfs that are coming to a projectile winmatarr ship near you. The fact is DEV made the right call with rebalancing the nerf, they listened to the people who went onto test and tried the changes for them self and made adjustments. Fozzie you made the right call I commend you for taking the time to read the forums and make the right call.
If you're having to test dps, range, speed, tank, etc e on a drake on sisi then you must be pretty new or inexerienced in combat.
Combat heavy players know the ins and outs of range, speed, and dps pretty well just from years of experience to know how most fights will go. The reason I hate "sisi testers" is that most of them use impractical setups that you almost never see in game. They also almost always center around solo or very small group combat vs unorganized opponents. How is any of that accurate testing... please do tell?
If anything, it makes the feedback thread horribly innaccurate and full of sisi consensus, not real eve consensus on mechanical flaws in designs. This is why almost every patch we hear "but we tested on sisi.... who knew the live server would be different" quotes from some devs and usually the older more chill devs saying... "you know we can't test this **** accurately on sisi"
So please, for the love of god stop quoting Sisi like it's god.
Beyond that, Every step Fozzie has taken has been a revision towards the original missiles minus some range so far.... how many more revisions til he realizes maybe range was enough to start with.... I'm sorta convinced the devs won't let me win this fight on principle alone since I've called them so many hurtful names. |
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
117
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 09:28:00 -
[5751] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: The reason I hate "sisi testers" is that most of them use impractical setups that you almost never see in game.
Sorta Like the EFT warriors except with real numbers ok I fail to see your point here.
I'm Down wrote: So please, for the love of god stop quoting Sisi like it's god.
request denied
I'm Down wrote: I'm sorta convinced the devs won't let me win this fight on principle alone since I've called them so many hurtful names.
Unless I am reading you wrong you seem to be attributing these changes to something you have said or did. If that is the case then thanks for the laugh. I do not think I have read anything useful of yours. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 12:03:00 -
[5752] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Hey Noemi, Just wanted to post about eve-kill. It was my arguments using eve-kill stats early on against your arguments. Then you started latching onto the same source when the heavy use of Zealots was manifesting early in the month. But here we are at the end of October and well, Drakes and Tengus back in their usual places, as I predicted. 1 Drake 116441 2 Maelstrom 99206 3 Tengu 82116 4 Zealot 73939 5 Rokh 73727 6 Tornado 69141 7 Hurricane 66027 8 Naga 49695 Also, lookey there. Even if the heavy missile boats drop in usuage by whatever amount after the nerf, there would still be two other Caldari ships in the top 8. So while presently, half the top 8 ships are Caldari, even if the nerf totally knocks the two HM boats out Caldari will have appropriate representation. Anyway, I don't think these changes will totally pull either ship out of the top 20. And as the whole process progresses the focus should shift off of Caldari's and missiles' place and frankly more to Amarr and especially Gallente. Say hi to ROU, when you next see him. LiLu
That list doestn really tell much. Only thing it tells is that big null alliances uses alot drakes, maels, tengus, zealots, rokhs, nados and canes. You understand what happens if there fleet of 500 drakes getting 30kills/fight each...
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
145
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 12:09:00 -
[5753] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Sorta Like the EFT warriors except with real numbers ok I fail to see your point here.
EFT Numbers are real numbers. Sisi is good to test the "enough", "too bad" and the like, the relative things the numbers hardly tell and the analogic things like piloting. Though, numbers never lie, and in the case of missiles it's even more true, as missile damage formula do not rely on your piloting.
Damage nerf to HML is needed though IMO, at least to allow medLR turret to survive. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
145
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 12:24:00 -
[5754] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:That list doestn really tell much. Only thing it tells is that big null alliances uses alot drakes, maels, tengus, zealots, rokhs, nados and canes. You understand what happens if there fleet of 500 drakes getting 30kills/fight each...
Just look at any pvp corp killboard. You will then see that the Drake and the Hurricane hold the top place. HML Drake and AC/dualneut Hurricanes are way too versatile. But above all, I think it's their ability to kill frigates which make them so popular even in lowsec. On top of that, the hurricane is a cruiser with BC tank/gank and unkitable, and the drake is a BC with uber tank and cruiser gank, at every usable range.
Cane is being nerfed, and I hope that will be enough ; drake is not, because nerfing it may kill HAM drake whereas nerfing HML hit the real strength of the ship : versatily (both in damage,damage application and range, they are all overall too good with HML) and frigate imunity. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 13:02:00 -
[5755] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies. Fozzie, I appreciate the response, and I think you guys are doing great work with tiericide. I wonder, though, how you intend to balance HMLs when you reintroduce the idea for TC/TEs to affect them. Part of your original "sale" for the nerfs was essentially that HMLs would be nerfed, but you could choose less tank/gank to increase the range/tracking to what you had before, and part of that cost would be increased susceptibility to TDs. That, to me, seemed balanced. As balanced as the choice is for every other pilot in the game that uses turrets for their damage application. By continuing to whittle away at the nerfs--and I'm not saying there didn't need to be some adjustment--how can you look ahead and think that the introduction of TC/TEs won't break or overbuff HMLs and create much of the same problems that existed before these nerfs?
1. caldari ships are slow and bulky
2. as he already said for pvp he inteands us to use faction ammo (witch with range and dmg reduction and dmg aplication nerf is probably what will happen).
3. hml fury take both a base dmg nerf and that explosive radius need 2 missle rigs to get into criuser sig radius
4. thel fury although 75% velocity of t1 probably works out closer to about a 30% range nerf |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 13:16:00 -
[5756] - Quote
1. caldari ships are slow and bulky
2. as he already said for pvp he inteands us to use faction ammo (witch with range and dmg reduction and dmg aplication nerf is probably what will happen).
3. hml fury take both a base dmg nerf and that explosive radius need 2 missle rigs to get into criuser sig radius
4. thel fury although 75% velocity of t1 probably works out closer to about a 30% range nerf[/quote]
Yes a explosion radius of 180 is so much larger then a cruiser. Esp if its running its MWD
Smallest cruiser sig is 108 and that is the scythe most are 120 and larger and if its a shield boat it will get even larger with LSE and rigs |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
145
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 13:17:00 -
[5757] - Quote
serras bang wrote:3. hml fury take both a base dmg nerf and that explosive radius need 2 missle rigs to get into criuser sig radius
That is wrong. I made the maths. Feel free to look in this threadnaught to find them (page ~280). Basicaly, for anything above 150m sig radius, Fury HML are the best ammo to use. That mean any shield buffered cruiser, and every BC and above. Get a TP, and this is the ultimate ammo to use unless you need *even more* range or face a destroyer or frigate.
I personnaly think it's too much for a T2 ammo, and that almost negate the damage nerf, but well... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
216
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 13:18:00 -
[5758] - Quote
serras bang wrote:1. caldari ships are slow and bulky
Not compared to armor tanked Amarr ships.
serras bang wrote:3. hml fury take both a base dmg nerf and that explosive radius need 2 missle rigs to get into criuser sig radius
Or just use a target painter... |
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:18:00 -
[5759] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote: That list doestn really tell much. Only thing it tells is that big null alliances uses alot drakes, maels, tengus, zealots, rokhs, nados and canes. You understand what happens if there fleet of 500 drakes getting 30kills/fight each...
You sound like Noemi. All I'm going to do is copy and paste something I wrote in response to Noemi's similar unfounded assertion. Enjoy,
"But you have no evidence for what you say, that it just shows nullsec use. Some percentage of it's stats come from nullsec use. But neither of us can say what percentage. Thus your assertion that it is all nullsec numbers is without foundation. I don't pretend or profess to know what the percentages are for nullsec v other security levels of space. Eve-kill is open to all corps and alliances no matter what region of space they inhabit. It is what it is, whatever it is, and whatever it is is about our only representative sample of ship usage available to the public, whether that sample is lightly skewed, heavily skewed, or trully representative. It would be nice if it broke down kills by security or region of space. Maybe some day it will."
|
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 20:25:00 -
[5760] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: Why not post the entire top 20 and see most of them are Winmatarr ships ? In fact just shy of 50% make up this list. And the same thing happens with weapons systems and projectiles. At any rate the cane was just a start to the bombardment of nerfs that are coming to a projectile winmatarr ship near you. The fact is DEV made the right call with rebalancing the nerf, they listened to the people who went onto test and tried the changes for them self and made adjustments. Fozzie you made the right call I commend you for taking the time to read the forums and make the right call.
Because posting the entire top twenty is effort.
Anyway you keep trying to satisfy yourself that I am some Minmatar chauvanist like you are a Caldari chauvanist. You are mistaken. I don't care if there are future adjustments to Minmatar weapons. I don't self identify in this game or rl like some of you appear to do with any in-game race. I outgrew any in-game affiliation within my first year, and started crosstraining and even got a second account for the other two races of ships.
As I've said multiple times in this thread I think it is the overdone TE buff that is the source of the Minmatar strengths in the current game. Maybe that will be addressed. But if and when doesn't matter for this thread in that you could be entirely correct that projectiles need a nerf and it would not invalidate any of the nerf on missiles or the coming direct nerfs to the Drake. Enjoy. |
|
MeowMix1
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:08:00 -
[5761] - Quote
As all of you in your infinite wisdom, or lack thereof, failed to heed my prior post, I demand CCP to truly balance this game instead of this questionable piecemeal approach.
1) Lower ROF of all guns by 25% 2) Reduce Marauder bonus of 100% to 50% 3) All rats should be able to jam, scram, web and neut and bounties reduced by at least 90% 4) All missions, except for l1 maybe, should be moved out of high-sec 5) No more mining in high-sec (just like Jita was depleted) 6) Re-nerf Incursions 7) Make WHs less profitable
Basically, the only legitimate way to make ISK in game should be to sell PLEX.
Everyone should applaud these changes as it would increase CCPGÇÖs profitability as well as getting rid of all those bots, because you know all miners and mission runners are bots. |
OlRotGut
40
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 21:45:00 -
[5762] - Quote
All i gotta say is that the HAM tengu was freaking crazy on Duality last week.
loved it.
|
Lili Lu
570
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 22:14:00 -
[5763] - Quote
MeowMix1 wrote:As all of you in your infinite wisdom, or lack thereof, failed to heed my prior post, I demand CCP to truly balance this game instead of this questionable piecemeal approach.
1) Lower ROF of all guns by 25% 2) Reduce Marauder bonus of 100% to 50% 3) All rats should be able to jam, scram, web and neut and bounties reduced by at least 90% 4) All missions, except for l1 maybe, should be moved out of high-sec 5) No more mining in high-sec (just like Jita was depleted) 6) Re-nerf Incursions 7) Make WHs less profitable
Basically, the only legitimate way to make ISK in game should be to sell PLEX.
Everyone should applaud these changes as it would increase CCPGÇÖs profitability as well as getting rid of all those bots, because you know all miners and mission runners are bots.
Here you go Noemi and Cazador, that is what you call a troll post and troll poster.
Thanks Meow for being such a great example for those two. They haven't understood what the word means. Now they do. |
MeowMix1
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 22:30:00 -
[5764] - Quote
I'm not trolling! I really expect CCP to do that! Everyone I've spoken to agrees with me. Everyone knows Marauders are overpowered and what sort of loser (except yours truly) stays in high-sec? And, what about Missile flight time? Guns hit faster than light in EVE! 25% reduction to ROF is only fair.
Don't you want CCP to be profitable?
You sound like a troll yet again Lili. |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.01 23:42:00 -
[5765] - Quote
And if CCP did all that hundreds if not thousands of subscribes would head over to their offices for some retribution. If ship insurance worked then i could tolerate options 4 and 5. Profitability that isn't already going to be nerfed shouldn't be. All rats having a CHANCE to do those things in #3 would also be acceptable. Option 1 and 2 are ******** though...guns (turrets) aren't that much better than missiles and in some situations are much much worse, and Marauder's aren't overpowered, the bonus brings them to the equivalent of 8 turrets/launchers while being able to fit drone links salvagers and tractors...something they need to do to fulfill their role (reduced to 75% would make them no better than the T1 versions)
Ok, I'm done feeding the troll, you can dynamite that bridge now... |
MeowMix1
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 00:07:00 -
[5766] - Quote
Marauders are overpowered. A 50% vs. 100% bonus means 6 weapon turrets with reduced ammo usage and they still have their superior T2 resists.
CCP already saw the wisdom of moving l5 out of high-sec, over the objection of many players.
Rats are way too easy now even in WH and Incursions plus their bounties are excessive.
Missile flight time! CCP does strive for balance and no power creep. Besides, guns defy physics in EVE. How can they hit faster than light?
I can't believe you are not all for these changes! Don't you want to see EVE continue. How can it if CCP doesn't make profits? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2081
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 00:39:00 -
[5767] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:And if CCP did all that hundreds if not thousands of subscribes would head over to their offices for some retribution.
Nobody ever needs to head over to our offices for Retribution.
We'll be making it available for download right into the comfort of your home on December 4th! Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Xamiakas
Galactic Industries Inc. BRABODEN
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 00:45:00 -
[5768] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ajunta Pal wrote:And if CCP did all that hundreds if not thousands of subscribes would head over to their offices for some retribution. Nobody ever needs to head over to our offices for Retribution. We'll be making it available for download right into the comfort of your home on December 4th!
a month or two later that is .. soz guys but so far nothing you ever say actually happens the way you say it would :D
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 01:44:00 -
[5769] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:It has come to my attention that CCP Fozzie is in Pandemic Legion, that's why and only reason he wants to nerf heavy missiles so -A- can't fight back with tengus. Same with instalocking hurricanes. If heavy missiles have been good and working since game came out it is really stupid to change them now. This only shows that Pandemic Legion wants to change game mechanics by putting their own people into CCP. CCP Fozzie i hope you don't change heavy missiles attributes, if you do whole eve will know that PL is cheating for changing game mechanics. Confirming, "CCP Fozzie" on the left in this video and yes he is Pandemic Legion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E749hM9V530&t=5m05s |
Mirel Dystoph
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 02:04:00 -
[5770] - Quote
Spc One wrote:PAPULA wrote:It has come to my attention that CCP Fozzie is in Pandemic Legion, that's why and only reason he wants to nerf heavy missiles so -A- can't fight back with tengus. Same with instalocking hurricanes. If heavy missiles have been good and working since game came out it is really stupid to change them now. This only shows that Pandemic Legion wants to change game mechanics by putting their own people into CCP. CCP Fozzie i hope you don't change heavy missiles attributes, if you do whole eve will know that PL is cheating for changing game mechanics. Confirming, "CCP Fozzie" on the left in this video and yes he is Pandemic Legion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E749hM9V530&t=5m05s Nope, he isn't (anymore) https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Raivi "Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise."-á |
|
MeowMix1
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 02:05:00 -
[5771] - Quote
Spc One wrote:PAPULA wrote:It has come to my attention that CCP Fozzie is in Pandemic Legion, that's why and only reason he wants to nerf heavy missiles so -A- can't fight back with tengus. Same with instalocking hurricanes. If heavy missiles have been good and working since game came out it is really stupid to change them now. This only shows that Pandemic Legion wants to change game mechanics by putting their own people into CCP. CCP Fozzie i hope you don't change heavy missiles attributes, if you do whole eve will know that PL is cheating for changing game mechanics. Confirming, "CCP Fozzie" on the left in this video and yes he is Pandemic Legion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E749hM9V530&t=5m05s
Well here we have a player (actually, guy who does commentaries and is in commentary booth) who is changing heavy missiles like he pleases and no one is remotely upset |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
359
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 02:16:00 -
[5772] - Quote
MeowMix1 wrote:Spc One wrote:PAPULA wrote:It has come to my attention that CCP Fozzie is in Pandemic Legion, that's why and only reason he wants to nerf heavy missiles so -A- can't fight back with tengus. Same with instalocking hurricanes. If heavy missiles have been good and working since game came out it is really stupid to change them now. This only shows that Pandemic Legion wants to change game mechanics by putting their own people into CCP. CCP Fozzie i hope you don't change heavy missiles attributes, if you do whole eve will know that PL is cheating for changing game mechanics. Confirming, "CCP Fozzie" on the left in this video and yes he is Pandemic Legion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E749hM9V530&t=5m05s Well here we have a player (actually, guy who does commentaries and is in commentary booth) who is changing heavy missiles like he pleases and no one is remotely upset Because many agree with what he is trying to do and also he is a CCP employee, not just a player anymore. While he may be the dev representation in this thread I doubt the opinions on HML's are his alone. He does after all have people to whom he must answer for his work. |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 02:28:00 -
[5773] - Quote
Hey Fozzie, I just had some ideas that might make Auto-Targeting Missiles more favorable.
a) Include in their description target prioritization (e.g. 1 frigates 2 drones 3 cruisers etc ) b) if they don't already, have them target jammers/dampers/pointers then by appropriate size class then by range (meaning with light auto-targeting missiles a scraming frigate at 5km will be targeted over a BC that is simply attacking and with heavy auto targeting missiles a jamming cruiser will be targeted over both of the above)
Both those changes would help quite a bit. Change a) would help people understand how they are going to function, change b) would make it so the missiles don't uselessly attack a frigate at 5km when you need them to attack a scramming interceptor at 8km or attack a mostly harmless cruiser at 5km when you are being jammed by a BS |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 04:54:00 -
[5774] - Quote
MeowMix1 wrote:Spc One wrote:PAPULA wrote:It has come to my attention that CCP Fozzie is in Pandemic Legion, that's why and only reason he wants to nerf heavy missiles so -A- can't fight back with tengus. Same with instalocking hurricanes. If heavy missiles have been good and working since game came out it is really stupid to change them now. This only shows that Pandemic Legion wants to change game mechanics by putting their own people into CCP. CCP Fozzie i hope you don't change heavy missiles attributes, if you do whole eve will know that PL is cheating for changing game mechanics. Confirming, "CCP Fozzie" on the left in this video and yes he is Pandemic Legion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E749hM9V530&t=5m05s Well here we have a player (actually, guy who does commentaries and is in commentary booth) who is changing heavy missiles like he pleases and no one is remotely upset
Aw, poor meowmix. Don't worry, there are plenty of narrow sighted people itt that have been upset with the changes. But, more importantly, don't you read? Here, from the OP:
"In a MMO like Eve balance does change from time to time and skills will not be reimbursed unless their use is being removed from the game. If you believe that these changes make missiles useless then let us know why in as much detail as possible and if we agree the solution won't be to reimburse skills, it will be to adjust the proposal so that missiles are no longer made useless. Heavy missiles were the first medium weapon system I ever trained when I started playing Eve, and I have made excellent use of them through the years so I understand how good it feels to have skills invested in an extremely powerful weapon system. Most people who have been playing the game for a while can name a few times it has felt like their playstyle has been nerfed, because by definition the overpowered areas of the game tend to attract a lot of people. The four most heavily used medium weapons in the game are all Heavy Missile launcher variants, as well as seven of the top eleven. Whenever we need to change something this powerful it will always be painful because so many players will have done the smart thing and flocked to the best game mechanic. If it feels like CCP nerfs you a lot that's just a sign that you're doing it right and getting good at staying on top of the best trends so pat yourself on the back."
Bolded and underlined the parts that explain Fozzie and what he and the his team are doing. Also, I doubt that your lot knows this because for the most part you tend to be newer players in eve, but PL was one of the first alliances to use Drake and Tengu fleets. They are usually on the cutting edge of fleet comps. And also innovators of strategies and fleet comps against those that become popular and widely used like drakes and Tengus became. PL could just as easily fly Drakes and Tengus all the time like others do. They have the skills, probably at higher levels than the others.
As so many more experienced Drake apologists like to point out, there are counters to Drake fleets, but none of those counters have been strong enough to quash the now multi-year phenomenon of Drake fleets. Part of that probably has to do with cost/benefit considerations. And cost is quite comparatively low with drakes as opposed to their counters. Conversely, Tengus do not have such a favorable cost factor. A common component to the two fleet comps though is the HML II. It simply had become patently obvious to CCP that HMLs were so much better than other long range medium weapons systems, and so much more used for that very reason. That is why this nerf is happening. I'm sure PL doesn't give a ****. And certainly since T20, Fozzie, as with all devs, have no desire to be found still favoring their former alliance (which this doesn't anyway in the case of PL).
Though, I doubt any of you freaks will stop with your tinfoil conspiracy theories. They give you too much comfort. But I just thought I'd challenge your cognitive dissonance a little. |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 05:24:00 -
[5775] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:Hey Fozzie, I just had some ideas that might make Auto-Targeting Missiles more favorable.
a) Include in their description target prioritization (e.g. 1 frigates 2 drones 3 cruisers etc ) b) if they don't already, have them target jammers/dampers/pointers then by appropriate size class then by range (meaning with light auto-targeting missiles a scraming frigate at 5km will be targeted over a BC that is simply attacking and with heavy auto targeting missiles a jamming cruiser will be targeted over both of the above)
Both those changes would help quite a bit. Change a) would help people understand how they are going to function, change b) would make it so the missiles don't uselessly attack a frigate at 5km when you need them to attack a scramming interceptor at 8km or attack a mostly harmless cruiser at 5km when you are being jammed by a BS
That's all well and good. But two things I'd say in response.
One, the team has hinted there are changes coming for ECM. I used to hate ecm. But I've come to recognize that it and damping are necessary mechanics in the game to keep logistical support challenged. I do think the current ecm is still too powerful. Not sure of course what they have planned. It could be years from introduction anyway.
But instead of another nerf to ecm, which CCP has failed to get right twice already, I'd rather they added some buffs to counters. A set of new skills that characters could train to increase racial sensor integrity would do this. Another skill or rig maybe to increase the strength of eccm modules when fitted would be another. Other things might be to have an eccm decrease the cycle time on a jam even if it fails to prevent the jam. Lastly, eccm modules could give a discreet whole number bonus to sensor strength in addition to a percentage increase. This might make them worth consideration for fitting on smaller ships, where currently the base sensor strength is so abysmal that they make no sense.
The other conseideration would be, ok you suggest some buffing to missiles in combatting ecm. Drones can combat ecm as well, depending on the activation state of the drones prior to their owner's ship getting jammed. But this still leave turret users as SOL against ecm. Again here maybe a new skill, call it manual targeting or whatever, some percent chance to gain back limited use of turrets if the ship is jammed. Probably still with terrible penalties to tracking and range but at least some ability to do something other than sit with thumb in ******* for twenty seconds, and then another twenty seconds, . . .
Just throwing these out there since you went far afield. Regardless, chalk it up as another strength of missiles v turrets that currently in game some missile boats have an option if faced with ecm. (this of course brings up the "unguided" missiles as well). |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
133
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 06:58:00 -
[5776] - Quote
Players are upset b/c he's incompetent and irrational in his order for changes within the game... something CCP has a history of "18 months"
His logic for why he's changing them in this order, or to this degree also do not make sense.
And his smug nature and tendency to avoid people who combat his viewpoints rather than face their concerns head on and not with vague offput answers doesn't help either.
If heavy missiles were so OP, how did the cerb, the nighthawk, the Sac, and a **** ton of other ships go so underutilized for all this time. There are literally 2 ships causing the problems, and one of those ships' problems is mostly unrelated to the weapon system itself. How does it make sense to attack the weapon platform when literally 2 out of ~10 ships are the only problems.
Literally, by his definition, Kinetic damage bonus is the weakest in game... so how does a Sac with a 25% RoF bonus.... the 2nd best possible damage bonus in game appear so weak within it's class using HML's.... How does a Cerb with it's double damage bonus look so weak within it's class...etc.
And yeah, this is the same Dev throwing more drones on ships that have no logical connection to drone warfare simply b/c he can't figure out a better way to balance them and he can't justify that maybe not all ships get the same slot count when offensive numbers don't look right.
At this rate, he'll beat Seleene's epic failures. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
522
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 07:58:00 -
[5777] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:Literally, by his definition, Kinetic damage bonus is the weakest in game... so how does a Sac with a 25% RoF bonus.... the 2nd best possible damage bonus in game appear so weak within it's class using HML's....
Maybe it's because the Sacrilege has a damage bonus only to HAMs.
The Nighthawk has always been gimped due to fitting issues.
The Cerberus has more range than is realistically useful in 99% of situations (who needs 189km range on HMLs?) . Essentially the ship has only 3 useful bonuses.
Does this answer your question how these ships are not overpowered despite HMLs being supposedly overpowered? |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 09:45:00 -
[5778] - Quote
1425mm AutoCannon II1580 2Heavy Missile Launcher II1070 3200mm AutoCannon II854 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II801 5425mm Railgun II734 6150mm Light AutoCannon II723 71400mm Howitzer Artillery II547 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II519 9Light Neutron Blaster II517 10Neutron Blaster Cannon II501 11Mega Pulse Laser II475 12650mm Artillery Cannon II387 13720mm Howitzer Artillery II378 14Heavy Pulse Laser II335 15Dual 180mm AutoCannon II320 16Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher308 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II301 18Light Ion Blaster II300 19800mm Repeating Artillery II288 20425mm Prototype Gauss Gun265
This is Right off eve kill NOV 2 2012 5:44 AM est This is clear cut proof 425mm Autocannon II are grossly Over powered and need to be nerfed right away !!. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
|
Colt Blackhawk
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 09:59:00 -
[5779] - Quote
Quote:1425mm AutoCannon II1580 2Heavy Missile Launcher II1070 3200mm AutoCannon II854 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II801 5425mm Railgun II734 6150mm Light AutoCannon II723 71400mm Howitzer Artillery II547 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II519 9Light Neutron Blaster II517 10Neutron Blaster Cannon II501 11Mega Pulse Laser II475 12650mm Artillery Cannon II387 13720mm Howitzer Artillery II378 14Heavy Pulse Laser II335 15Dual 180mm AutoCannon II320 16Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher308 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II301 18Light Ion Blaster II300 19800mm Repeating Artillery II288 20425mm Prototype Gauss Gun265 This is Right off eve kill NOV 2 2012 5:44 AM est This is clear cut proof 425mm Autocannon II are grossly Over powered and need to be nerfed right away !!. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20
ACs need a nerf and Minmatar arty alpha too. Miss RAILGUNS here completely. Really asking myself how long it will take that CCP sees they need a buff? They would really deserve it. I never understand the issue with the Tengu. Yes they are really good but for pure PVP and gate camping the Loki is far better. And suprinsingly nobody whines about it. Tengu actually get an uber nerf but whats with Loki? Minmatar actually have a gate camp monopol with best alpha PLUS best scan resolution. You want a good gate camp? -> You need Minmatar ships. 1vs1 Lokis are fearsome like hell and will eat most Legions, Tengus and Proteus. Seems CCP wants to castrate caldari and forgets Minmatar. When you are really starting some balancing (okay a little nerf to HMs is okay) then don-¦t forget ACs, arty aplha and the Loki. Sorry but actually that-¦s too hard for caldari. The Tengu and drake (not counting in frigs here, caldari ones are great) were the only one caldari PVP ships. Now they will have... erm wolfpack only and a hard to fit HAM caracal, while drake will be the new maller with this nerf. Great tank and no damage. It would be good to switch the drakes ship bouses to the same the caracal will have when you introduce the new missile stuff. You are already nerfing cane (good job) so change also drake bonuses. Otherwise Drake will be dead.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
808
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 10:14:00 -
[5780] - Quote
Getting better cruise missiles for next expansion would be pretty awesome, to be honest. PvP will see quite a bunch of ships ressurected 14 |
|
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
39
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 10:34:00 -
[5781] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote:Quote:1425mm AutoCannon II1580 2Heavy Missile Launcher II1070 3200mm AutoCannon II854 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II801 5425mm Railgun II734 6150mm Light AutoCannon II723 71400mm Howitzer Artillery II547 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II519 9Light Neutron Blaster II517 10Neutron Blaster Cannon II501 [...]
ACs need a nerf and Minmatar arty alpha too. Miss RAILGUNS here completely. Really asking myself how long it will take that CCP sees they need a buff?
I highlighted two things for you. |
Colt Blackhawk
The Forsworn Protectorate Imperial Protectorate
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 10:47:00 -
[5782] - Quote
Ups. But even with the 425mm, railguns are underrepresented. But what I see is that half of the s... in the list is Minmatar weapons.
Edit: about cruise missiles. They are even unnerving in PVE because of flight time. With that flight time nobody will really use it good in PVP. Forget it. Completely. CCP can buff the hell out of the dmg on cruises. The flight time makes them bah. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 11:48:00 -
[5783] - Quote
So sweat : another two days set of statistics which absolutely don't mean anything relevant.
PS : please, don't do it one more time on the second of december, it's a very bad joke. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 12:04:00 -
[5784] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote:ACs need a nerf
Because even HPL Harbinger outdamages 425mm Cane at 15+ km? That's 1 damage bonus vs. 2 damage bonuses.
They are already planning tweaks to TEs. Depending on how they nerf TEs this could be a big hit to AC performance. |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 12:45:00 -
[5785] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:1425mm AutoCannon II1580 2Heavy Missile Launcher II1070 3200mm AutoCannon II854 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II801 5425mm Railgun II734 6150mm Light AutoCannon II723 71400mm Howitzer Artillery II547 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II519 9Light Neutron Blaster II517 10Neutron Blaster Cannon II501 11Mega Pulse Laser II475 12650mm Artillery Cannon II387 13720mm Howitzer Artillery II378 14Heavy Pulse Laser II335 15Dual 180mm AutoCannon II320 16Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher308 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II301 18Light Ion Blaster II300 19800mm Repeating Artillery II288 20425mm Prototype Gauss Gun265 This is Right off eve kill NOV 2 2012 5:44 AM est This is clear cut proof 425mm Autocannon II are grossly Over powered and need to be nerfed right away !!. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 Ok, Cazador. You really need to preface your citation with the qualifier that it is less than two days worth of data for the whole month of 30 days. Since the patch isn't coming til Dec 4 or thereabouts, I highly doubt this coming month's stats will differ much from all the prior months for the last 3 years. It will be HML II and Drakes back on top by the end of the month. Need Moar Data Points
As for 425mm AC II, you apparently missed the Cane nerf. We will see how they and the Drake do in December. Regardless as I, Takeshi or Jorma are saying, and the devs have hinted, a TE nerf may be coming sometime "soon" after December. This will cut into AC power and usage.
The biggest point is this data (by the end of the month) will do absolutely nothing to invalidate the HM nerf. CCP cannot balance the game on one months data. You have to have been following these stats over multiple months. And in that view they have been very consistent that HML IIs have been walking all over any other weapon and certainly well over any other MEDIUM LONG RANGE WEAPON.
To respond to a nerf with "oh yeah well his weapon should be nerfed even more" is really rather weak argumentation. And, again you are mixing apples and oranges also. 425mm AC are short range weapons. |
Major Killz
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
104
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 13:02:00 -
[5786] - Quote
The change is NOT going to hurt the autocannon-shield-Hurricane, but artillery WILL be MUCH more difficult to fit. [SMUG]-áSORRY for party rocking! v0v
|
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
52
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 13:57:00 -
[5787] - Quote
Major Killz wrote:The change is NOT going to hurt the autocannon-shield-Hurricane, but artillery WILL be MUCH more difficult to fit.
despite of course the across the board reduction in arty fitting \o/ Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
188
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 13:58:00 -
[5788] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:Major Killz wrote:The change is NOT going to hurt the autocannon-shield-Hurricane, but artillery WILL be MUCH more difficult to fit. despite of course the across the board reduction in arty fitting \o/
pwned :)
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:02:00 -
[5789] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:Major Killz wrote:The change is NOT going to hurt the autocannon-shield-Hurricane, but artillery WILL be MUCH more difficult to fit. despite of course the across the board reduction in arty fitting \o/
You will need rigs or a RCU in the lows plus downgrading your LSE to make 720's fit with no other mods in the highs. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
41
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:25:00 -
[5790] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote:Quote:1425mm AutoCannon II1580 2Heavy Missile Launcher II1070 3200mm AutoCannon II854 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II801 5425mm Railgun II734 6150mm Light AutoCannon II723 71400mm Howitzer Artillery II547 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II519 9Light Neutron Blaster II517 10Neutron Blaster Cannon II501 11Mega Pulse Laser II475 12650mm Artillery Cannon II387 13720mm Howitzer Artillery II378 14Heavy Pulse Laser II335 15Dual 180mm AutoCannon II320 16Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher308 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II301 18Light Ion Blaster II300 19800mm Repeating Artillery II288 20425mm Prototype Gauss Gun265 This is Right off eve kill NOV 2 2012 5:44 AM est This is clear cut proof 425mm Autocannon II are grossly Over powered and need to be nerfed right away !!. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 ACs need a nerf and Minmatar arty alpha too. Miss RAILGUNS here completely. Really asking myself how long it will take that CCP sees they need a buff? They would really deserve it. I never understand the issue with the Tengu. Yes they are really good but for pure PVP and gate camping the Loki is far better. And suprinsingly nobody whines about it. Tengu actually get an uber nerf but whats with Loki? Minmatar actually have a gate camp monopol with best alpha PLUS best scan resolution. You want a good gate camp? -> You need Minmatar ships. 1vs1 Lokis are fearsome like hell and will eat most Legions, Tengus and Proteus. Seems CCP wants to castrate caldari and forgets Minmatar. When you are really starting some balancing (okay a little nerf to HMs is okay) then don-¦t forget ACs, arty aplha and the Loki. Sorry but actually that-¦s too hard for caldari. The Tengu and drake (not counting in frigs here, caldari ones are great) were the only one caldari PVP ships. Now they will have... erm wolfpack only and a hard to fit HAM caracal, while drake will be the new maller with this nerf. Great tank and no damage. It would be good to switch the drakes ship bouses to the same the caracal will have when you introduce the new missile stuff. You are already nerfing cane (good job) so change also drake bonuses. Otherwise Drake will be dead.
disagree with yah here last test on duality i built a ham cara i had no fitting issues what so ever infact i stuggled on what i should be fitting on the last low slot so i would have to disagree with you here. |
|
MeowMix1
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:27:00 -
[5791] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Aw, poor meowmix. Don't worry, there are plenty of narrow sighted people itt that have been upset with the changes. But, more importantly, don't you read?
I know you are not supposed to feed the trolls but let's give Lili the benefit of the doubt one more time.
I totally agree with the original proposed Missile nerfs and other changes. I just don't think they go far enough. CCP has stated time and time again that they are opposed to power creep and want the game totally balanced. They admonish players to be bold.
All I want from CCP is to be bold! Get rid of carebears (I'm a carebear myself) and bots and make at least non-capital ships balanced. Also, I want to see CCP's profits increase from sale of PLEX.
Why are you against such simple changes that are for the good of the game?
PS I have been an active player since March 2009 and run missions in Golem, Rattlesnake and Tengu. All the changes I want are totally contrary to the way I play the game and are to my detriment. How about what you are advocating? |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
133
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:35:00 -
[5792] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:I'm Down wrote:Literally, by his definition, Kinetic damage bonus is the weakest in game... so how does a Sac with a 25% RoF bonus.... the 2nd best possible damage bonus in game appear so weak within it's class using HML's.... Maybe it's because the Sacrilege has a damage bonus only to HAMs. The Nighthawk has always been gimped due to fitting issues. The Cerberus has more range than is realistically useful in 99% of situations (who needs 189km range on HMLs?) . Essentially the ship has only 3 useful bonuses. Does this answer your question how these ships are not overpowered despite HMLs being supposedly overpowered?
No, b/c you go by his definition... a ship with one uber damage bonus with an OP weapon system should matter... hence the omni ROF bonus. Saying 3 useful bonuses on the Cerb is like saying 3 useful bonuses on the Zealot.... oh wait.
In neither case does the ship even appear slightly OP. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
41
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:38:00 -
[5793] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:1425mm AutoCannon II1580 2Heavy Missile Launcher II1070 3200mm AutoCannon II854 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II801 5425mm Railgun II734 6150mm Light AutoCannon II723 71400mm Howitzer Artillery II547 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II519 9Light Neutron Blaster II517 10Neutron Blaster Cannon II501 11Mega Pulse Laser II475 12650mm Artillery Cannon II387 13720mm Howitzer Artillery II378 14Heavy Pulse Laser II335 15Dual 180mm AutoCannon II320 16Prototype 'Arbalest' Torpedo Launcher308 17Heavy Neutron Blaster II301 18Light Ion Blaster II300 19800mm Repeating Artillery II288 20425mm Prototype Gauss Gun265 This is Right off eve kill NOV 2 2012 5:44 AM est This is clear cut proof 425mm Autocannon II are grossly Over powered and need to be nerfed right away !!. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 Ok, Cazador. You really need to preface your citation with the qualifier that it is less than two days worth of data for the whole month of 30 days. Since the patch isn't coming til Dec 4 or thereabouts, I highly doubt this coming month's stats will differ much from all the prior months for the last 3 years. It will be HML II and Drakes back on top by the end of the month. Need Moar Data Points As for 425mm AC II, you apparently missed the Cane nerf. We will see how they and the Drake do in December. Regardless as I, Takeshi or Jorma are saying, and the devs have hinted, a TE nerf may be coming sometime "soon" after December. This will cut into AC power and usage. The biggest point is this data (by the end of the month) will do absolutely nothing to invalidate the HM nerf. CCP cannot balance the game on one months data. You have to have been following these stats over multiple months. And in that view they have been very consistent that HML IIs have been walking all over any other weapon and certainly well over any other MEDIUM LONG RANGE WEAPON. To respond to a nerf with "oh yeah well his weapon should be nerfed even more" is really rather weak argumentation. And, again you are mixing apples and oranges also. 425mm AC are short range weapons.
yes a cane is being nerfed but only to the point of having same pg and cpu in line with other bc witch you know is the argument for the missle nerf. but anyways we will keep it to current and not start an arguement.
what the above shows is t2 hml launchers and t1 torps a hugh amount of the rest is dominated by minmatar so 2 out of 20 are missle launchers and acs do claim the top by a fair amount.
i have no doubt this will change and am not putting this up against a defence but it is down on paper as everything else is down on paper (seams the way people like it paper stats) so you know it kinda invaladates the point of hml being over powerd. especialy when you look at the gap between 1 and 2 then at gap between 2 and 3 |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:49:00 -
[5794] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:So sweat : another two days set of statistics which absolutely don't mean anything relevant.
PS : please, don't do it one more time on the second of december, it's a very bad joke.
I love it how when Lili Lu posts some statistics that has missiles/drake seemingly in top of the usage as backing their arguments, but when Cazador 64 does this it's suddenly completely irrelevant
Wonder if someone's here are flying minnies & using ac's... |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
49
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 14:53:00 -
[5795] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:So sweat : another two days set of statistics which absolutely don't mean anything relevant.
PS : please, don't do it one more time on the second of december, it's a very bad joke. I love it how when Lili Lu posts some statistics that has missiles/drake seemingly in top of the usage as backing their arguments, but when Cazador 64 does this it's suddenly completely irrelevant Wonder if someone's here are flying minnies & using ac's...
More likely that a trend after 30 days means a LOT more than the 2 day one presented?
Naaaaaaaaah it's totally a conspiracy......
psssst: Same thing happened last month. |
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
321
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 15:05:00 -
[5796] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:Colt Blackhawk wrote:Quote: 1425mm AutoCannon II1580 2Heavy Missile Launcher II1070 3200mm AutoCannon II854 4220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II801 5425mm Railgun II734 6150mm Light AutoCannon II723 71400mm Howitzer Artillery II547 8125mm Gatling AutoCannon II519 9Light Neutron Blaster II517 10Neutron Blaster Cannon II501 [...]
ACs need a nerf and Minmatar arty alpha too. Miss RAILGUNS here completely. Really asking myself how long it will take that CCP sees they need a buff? I highlighted two things for you.
That's 734 out of 7855. Or 9.3% of total. Yeah, Rails are just fine...
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
186
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 15:09:00 -
[5797] - Quote
It also doesn't show how many of those AC kills are supported by dual medium neuts (a specific fit targeted by the 'cane nerf).
Since this set of changes hits the Dual-neut 425 AC 'cane and the HML Drake pretty much equally, I don't think we are looking at any serious bias here. If anything it might make the Cyclone a more popular choice for PvP. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 15:14:00 -
[5798] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:So sweat : another two days set of statistics which absolutely don't mean anything relevant.
PS : please, don't do it one more time on the second of december, it's a very bad joke. I love it how when Lili Lu posts some statistics that has missiles/drake seemingly in top of the usage as backing their arguments, but when Cazador 64 does this it's suddenly completely irrelevant Wonder if someone's here are flying minnies & using ac's... More likely that a trend after 30 days means a LOT more than the 2 day one presented? Naaaaaaaaah it's totally a conspiracy...... psssst: Same thing happened last month.
While I agree the stats after 2 days are not really a hot thing the point is dear Lili missed to post the end of the month weapons list and the entire top 20 ships in last month. And not only me thinks this is not a smart way to use stats .. when its so obvious what you try to hide :D |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 15:16:00 -
[5799] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:So sweat : another two days set of statistics which absolutely don't mean anything relevant.
PS : please, don't do it one more time on the second of december, it's a very bad joke. I love it how when Lili Lu posts some statistics that has missiles/drake seemingly in top of the usage as backing their arguments, but when Cazador 64 does this it's suddenly completely irrelevant Wonder if someone's here are flying minnies & using ac's... More likely that a trend after 30 days means a LOT more than the 2 day one presented? Naaaaaaaaah it's totally a conspiracy...... psssst: Same thing happened last month.
Still for some reason some people went with canes instead of drakes that have about half the ehp and sucky effective range compared to OP Drake and HM's.
Yes, i do agree HM's are currently slightly OP when you look at the stats, but take Drake & Tengu out of the game and they wouldn't be used anywhere, why? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 15:23:00 -
[5800] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:So sweat : another two days set of statistics which absolutely don't mean anything relevant.
PS : please, don't do it one more time on the second of december, it's a very bad joke. I love it how when Lili Lu posts some statistics that has missiles/drake seemingly in top of the usage as backing their arguments, but when Cazador 64 does this it's suddenly completely irrelevant Wonder if someone's here are flying minnies & using ac's... I'll try to put it simply : you took TWO DAYS of statistics.
It happens that, by an extraodinary coincidence, Goons and the NC. decided to fight yesterday night. I'm sure that was only to make your stats wrong and unuasable, but here we are : they happily blow eachother up, and as there was on the the field some fleets of Rokh, Abaddon, Mael, Drakes, Zealots and a few hurricanes, here are your statistics. Of course, you know that rapier are part of a lot of BS fleets, hence some more projectiles to the set.
Here is a BR for you : http://dog-net.org/brdoc/?br=http%3A%2F%2Feve-kill.net%2F%3Fa%3Dkill_related%26kll_id%3D15046836&Nulli_Secunda=red&Northern_Coalition_=red&Intrepid_Crossing=red&RAZOR_Alliance=blue&Fidelas_Constans=blue&Fatal_Ascension=blue&Goonswarm_Federation=blue&Executive_Outcomes=blue&Mordus_Angels=blue&Get_Off_My_Lawn=blue&Circle_Of_Two=blue&SpaceMonkey_s_Alliance=blue&Gentlemen_s_Agreement=blue&Tactical_Narcotics_Team=blue&C_NVICTED=blue&The_Retirement_Club=red#assign
Oh, and did you see the ships rebalance occuring these days ? They are nerfing the hurricane, and the other ships (T1 cruisers and frigates) are gonna be on the level of the winmatar ships. Isn't it somewhat what you wanted ?
You know, you should learn to use statistics before trying to use them. It's a sharp sword. |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 16:10:00 -
[5801] - Quote
RankShips Kills Weapon Used 1 Hurricane 4909 425 AC or 720 2 Drake 4790 HML or HAM 3 Rokh 4734 425 R or Neutron 4 Huginn 1977 425 AC and HML 5 Naga 1843 425 R or Neutron 6 Tornado 1810 800's or 1400's 7 Sabre 1529 Small AC 8 Cynabal 1529 425 AC 9 Hound 1370 Trops 10 Thrasher 1319 Small AC or Arty 11 Oracle 1295 Large Pulse or Beams 12 Talos 1048 425 R or Neutron 13 Nyx 983 Fighter Bomber 14 Stabber FI 970 425 AC ? 15 Maelstrom 967 1400's 16 Rapier 842 425 AC and HML? 17 Zealot 830 Med Pulse or Beam 18 Tengu 819 HML or HAM 19 Jaguar 778 Small AC 20 Merlin 742 Small Rail or Blaster
I put this here to make a little more sense of the whole aguement. While after 3 days 425's are on top a few more ships use these weapons then HML but with fewer ships the HML is still second. Not making any assumptions just putting the info out there. I think after the TE changes it will make the numbers more congruent. |
ROU Psychopath
EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 16:12:00 -
[5802] - Quote
Now Lili, how does that egg feel?
Best regards, Noemi |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 16:40:00 -
[5803] - Quote
ROU Psychopath wrote:Now Lili, how does that egg feel?
Best regards, Noemi It feels great Noemi. Now I have to hold my face over a frying pan and scramble that egg up. You finally did it. Do you feel better too. \o/ See, it wan't that bad.
So you get off on ganking noobs in Jita from Minmatar ships. Anyway, why haven't you been posting from ROU for the whole thread? Anyway, I'm sure you will not stop posting your displeasure with this nerf all the way to the day it hits tranquility. Here's to another 300 pages of this thread |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 16:43:00 -
[5804] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: While I agree the stats after 2 days are not really a hot thing the point is dear Lili missed to post the end of the month weapons list and the entire top 20 ships in last month. And not only me thinks this is not a smart way to use stats .. when its so obvious what you try to hide :D
See, you're learning Noemi. A day and half of stats in isolation mean next to nothing. We'll see how things are looking later in the month. And we'll have to remember the continued trend that has been displayed over many months, indeed years.
As for the lack of posting all top 20 on my previous post, Noemi, it was already presented as somehow invalidating what I said, and countered by me. -
Lili Lu wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: Why not post the entire top 20 and see most of them are Winmatarr ships ? In fact just shy of 50% make up this list. And the same thing happens with weapons systems and projectiles. At any rate the cane was just a start to the bombardment of nerfs that are coming to a projectile winmatarr ship near you. The fact is DEV made the right call with rebalancing the nerf, they listened to the people who went onto test and tried the changes for them self and made adjustments. Fozzie you made the right call I commend you for taking the time to read the forums and make the right call. Because posting the entire top twenty is effort. Anyway you keep trying to satisfy yourself that I am some Minmatar chauvanist like you are a Caldari chauvanist. You are mistaken. I don't care if there are future adjustments to Minmatar weapons. I don't self identify in this game or rl like some of you appear to do with any in-game race. I outgrew any in-game affiliation within my first year, and started crosstraining and even got a second account for the other two races of ships. As I've said multiple times in this thread I think it is the overdone TE buff that is the source of the Minmatar strengths in the current game. Maybe that will be addressed. But if and when doesn't matter for this thread in that you could be entirely correct that projectiles need a nerf and it would not invalidate any of the nerf on missiles or the coming direct nerfs to the Drake. Enjoy.
Maybe you need to read the thread more Noemi. I wasn't ducking anything. I have no skin in projectiles. I have them trained, but I also have tech II lasers, and tech II missiles of all kinds trained (no capital size for either though). I have not been arguing that there isn't something collectively advantageous and overused with some projectile guns. But the mistakes you HM apologists make is to lump all projectile guns together and also to think that somehow the collective strength of them absolves the op status of HMs. Projectiles will see some adjustments I suspect. It could be specific gun stats adjusted or more likely a rethinking of the overdone TE buff of a while back. I really don't care, sorry to deflate your hope for my as irrational anger as yours to some possible impending projectile nerf.
Anyway, because it is something I care about, statistics and analysis of them, let me link something about analyzing polling data in the presidential election in the US. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/in-nevada-obama-ryan-and-signs-of-a-new-democratic-leaning-normal/#more-36829 It's somewhat similar to eve-kill killmail stats. They are in essence data that has to be analyzed, like polling data. The more data you have, the better your conclusions and predictions are. I would love it if Eve-kill would give us more raw information, more complete information, and more ability to break down the information for analysis. Maybe in the future it will. Until then we have to deal with it as it is. And the simple point is that one day's data in isolation tells you very little.
edit - and won't a projectile nerf hurt ROU? Do we have a butthurt ROU to look forward to when the projectile nerf that he called for in fact comes as well? Maybe you will by that time understand that games change in response to overuse of overly advantaged items or paths. HMs were too far out in front for usage and parameters on damage and range compared to other medium long range weapons. The nerf was bound to happen. But other missiles are getting buffs. Change in action. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 16:56:00 -
[5805] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:edit - and won't a projectile nerf hurt ROU? Do we have a butthurt ROU to look forward to when the projectile nerf that he called for in fact comes as well? Maybe you will by that time understand that games change in response to overuse of overly advantaged items or paths.
Not just projectiles. I can see a Sleipnir nerf too when they get to that far with rebalancing. But that's far in the future so let's not get to that yet. |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 17:02:00 -
[5806] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Lili Lu wrote:edit - and won't a projectile nerf hurt ROU? Do we have a butthurt ROU to look forward to when the projectile nerf that he called for in fact comes as well? Maybe you will by that time understand that games change in response to overuse of overly advantaged items or paths. Not just projectiles. I can see a Sleipnir nerf too when they get to that far with rebalancing. But that's far in the future so let's not get to that yet.
Possibly. Although I suspect with combat command ships there will likley be more buffing of the underperforming ships. There is a general acknowledgment that sp and isk investment being rather high for these ships that they should perform like a Sleip and not like the others.
With current rebalancing we are seeing buffs and not just nerfs. This class of ships seems more akin to the recent frig and cruiser situations, and less like the current tier 2 and 3 BC situations, imo. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 17:37:00 -
[5807] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: Why not post the entire top 20 and see most of them are Winmatarr ships ? In fact just shy of 50% make up this list. And the same thing happens with weapons systems and projectiles. At any rate the cane was just a start to the bombardment of nerfs that are coming to a projectile winmatarr ship near you. The fact is DEV made the right call with rebalancing the nerf, they listened to the people who went onto test and tried the changes for them self and made adjustments. Fozzie you made the right call I commend you for taking the time to read the forums and make the right call. Because posting the entire top twenty is effort. Anyway you keep trying to satisfy yourself that I am some Minmatar chauvanist like you are a Caldari chauvanist. You are mistaken. I don't care if there are future adjustments to Minmatar weapons. I don't self identify in this game or rl like some of you appear to do with any in-game race. I outgrew any in-game affiliation within my first year, and started crosstraining and even got a second account for the other two races of ships. As I've said multiple times in this thread I think it is the overdone TE buff that is the source of the Minmatar strengths in the current game. Maybe that will be addressed. But if and when doesn't matter for this thread in that you could be entirely correct that projectiles need a nerf and it would not invalidate any of the nerf on missiles or the coming direct nerfs to the Drake. Enjoy. Maybe you need to read the thread more Noemi.
Maybe *you* need to read what you quote here and who you want to adress .. but maybe its also just that egg in your face. |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:15:00 -
[5808] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Maybe *you* need to read what you quote here and who you want to adress .. but maybe its also just that egg in your face. Noemi. I know who I was quoting. I linked that quote to show you someone else had already posted the same retort and that it was no big deal. Anyway, I'm glad you're so glad about finally putting the egg I invited you to put on my face. I cooked up some lunch and am enjoying some chai spiced tea now.
Honestly, I don't know why people use npc corp alts to post on the forums. People should lend more weight to their arguments by posting with a character that has some pvp history if what you are posting about involves pvp. If one is posting in the industry sub forum of whatever it doesn't matter. Or if one has a comedy alt for GD flaming that's fine too. But in a thread such as this, concerning the alterations to ships and weapons used in (or at least primarilly balanced around) pvp, then post with a character that has some pvp history.
Thanks for doing it Noemi. Feel free to keep posting with ROU, even though Noemi is more pleasant to look at. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:17:00 -
[5809] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Thanks for doing it Noemi. Feel free to keep posting with ROU, even though Noemi is more pleasant to look at.
I always had the impression you were more into girls, yeah .. ;)
So, all of you enjoy the testserver, and hopefully this game will be a better one after the patch for all races :) .
Best regards.
|
Malango
Astro Defence Industry
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 22:48:00 -
[5810] - Quote
CCP are F***ing over PVE'ing carebear lazytown watchers in every way they can. that way if they drive out all the lazytown watchers it just leaves the PVP'ers who will buy plex off CCP to fund their fun, because they're to awesome to waste time with PVE when they're part of a big fancy alliance.
they've ruined drones for pve and missiles. SO for gallante and caldari pilots that leave railguns which suck more than any weapon in game!
I'm a drone pilot and with the new update coming i'll struggle to mission to fund my pvp. I'm trying my best to train large blasters now, as all that's left to fly for me fly as I refuse to use rails is the kronos or vindi being gallante, as i need the web bonus to kill the frigs as my drones will be useless.
I already run 2 alts and pay with RL cash as my isk goes on ships and pvp and pve.
If CCP make pve to hard for me I'll leave. I enjoy low sec pvp but if i can't pve there's no point.
But at least eve will be free of lazytown watchers and eve will just be blobs vs blobs in null, wooo....... |
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 22:53:00 -
[5811] - Quote
291 pages ! and 5809 posts
CCP must be doing something VERY wrong to balancing weapons and missiles.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
359
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 22:57:00 -
[5812] - Quote
Spc One wrote:291 pages ! and 5809 posts
CCP must be doing something VERY wrong to balancing weapons and missiles.
Another interpretation:
CCP must be doing something very right if so many were so completely reliant on HML's. |
Malango
Astro Defence Industry
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 23:02:00 -
[5813] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Spc One wrote:291 pages ! and 5809 posts
CCP must be doing something VERY wrong to balancing weapons and missiles.
Another interpretation: CCP must be doing something very right if so many were so completely reliant on HML's.
I'm being F'd in the A, and i have one mil sp in missiles! lol |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
359
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 23:09:00 -
[5814] - Quote
Malango wrote:I'm being F'd in the A, and i have one mil sp in missiles! lol Then the HML change won't have too great an impact on your overall performance. |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 23:48:00 -
[5815] - Quote
Malango wrote:CCP are F***ing over PVE'ing carebear lazytown watchers in every way they can. that way if they drive out all the lazytown watchers it just leaves the PVP'ers who will buy plex off CCP to fund their fun, because they're to awesome to waste time with PVE when they're part of a big fancy alliance.
they've ruined drones for pve and missiles. SO for gallante and caldari pilots that leave railguns which suck more than any weapon in game!
I'm a drone pilot and with the new update coming i'll struggle to mission to fund my pvp. I'm trying my best to train large blasters now, as all that's left to fly for me fly as I refuse to use rails is the kronos or vindi being gallante, as i need the web bonus to kill the frigs as my drones will be useless.
I already run 2 alts and pay with RL cash as my isk goes on ships and pvp and pve.
If CCP make pve to hard for me I'll leave. I enjoy low sec pvp but if i can't pve there's no point.
But at least eve will be free of lazytown watchers and eve will just be blobs vs blobs in null, wooo.......
I agree with you completely, one way or the other CCP is going to get people to buy GTCs it is funny how everyone bitched and moaned over the NEXstore and Pay to Win options but not pointing out how EVE is already pay to win with the GTCs and plexes, I can either pay 15 dollars a month or buy a GTC for 35, split into two months and sell one of them? Yeah pretty sure that puts a dollar value on isk makng it to where you can spend RL money to get isk. |
Malango
Astro Defence Industry
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 00:03:00 -
[5816] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Malango wrote:I'm being F'd in the A, and i have one mil sp in missiles! lol Then the HML change won't have too great an impact on your overall performance.
Nope being all out drones I'm buggered also as the rats will target and kill my drones.
drone pilots have it worse than HML pilots! much worse. |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 00:08:00 -
[5817] - Quote
Spc One wrote:291 pages ! and 5809 posts
CCP must be doing something VERY wrong to balancing weapons and missiles.
Yes because all 5809 posts were negative . . .
Don't ever change HM addicts. This is the end, your only friend, the end. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 00:31:00 -
[5818] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Spc One wrote:291 pages ! and 5809 posts
CCP must be doing something VERY wrong to balancing weapons and missiles.
Yes because all 5809 posts were negative . . . Don't ever change HM addicts. This is the end, your only friend, the end.
This simply isn't true you must make up at least 25% of these post with your trash, dogging on HML because they are the only real competition to your projectiles. And yet again you add nothing to the argument you are just here to rag on people and pick fun. And in my book that is what a troll is.
Spc One wrote:291 pages ! and 5809 posts
CCP must be doing something VERY wrong to balancing weapons and missiles.
If you can manage to sort through the garbage post ignore everything Lili Lu you will see the valid arguments that have been made, and in my opinion these 5809 post are the reason the HML are not taking as big of a hit as initially proposed. We are lucky enough to have the DEVs take the time to really sort through these post and make valid determinations and adjustments as needed. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
41
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 02:18:00 -
[5819] - Quote
Malango wrote:CCP are F***ing over PVE'ing carebear lazytown watchers in every way they can. that way if they drive out all the lazytown watchers it just leaves the PVP'ers who will buy plex off CCP to fund their fun, because they're to awesome to waste time with PVE when they're part of a big fancy alliance.
they've ruined drones for pve and missiles. SO for gallante and caldari pilots that leave railguns which suck more than any weapon in game!
I'm a drone pilot and with the new update coming i'll struggle to mission to fund my pvp. I'm trying my best to train large blasters now, as all that's left to fly for me fly as I refuse to use rails is the kronos or vindi being gallante, as i need the web bonus to kill the frigs as my drones will be useless.
I already run 2 alts and pay with RL cash as my isk goes on ships and pvp and pve.
If CCP make pve to hard for me I'll leave. I enjoy low sec pvp but if i can't pve there's no point.
But at least eve will be free of lazytown watchers and eve will just be blobs vs blobs in null, wooo.......
erm chill mate funding an acount aint that hard i payed for a years worth of plex in about 3 months and plexed that 3 months also mission aint all that hard and continue not to be unless some unknown ramp up in diffuculty is comeing |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 04:37:00 -
[5820] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: This simply isn't true you must make up at least 25% of these post with your trash, dogging on HML because they are the only real competition to your projectiles. And yet again you add nothing to the argument you are just here to rag on people and pick fun. And in my book that is what a troll is.
If you can manage to sort through the garbage post ignore everything Lili Lu you will see the valid arguments that have been made, and in my opinion these 5809 post are the reason the HML are not taking as big of a hit as initially proposed. We are lucky enough to have the DEVs take the time to really sort through these post and make valid determinations and adjustments as needed.
Good god, how many times have I tried to tell you I don't identify as a projectile only user like you identify as a HM only user.
Glad though that you are so mad at my posting, and that you still don't know what a troll is. The truth hurts. And definitions for words I guess are a challenge to you. Sarcasm /= troll Some of you are such easy targets for sarcasm because you identify yourself with a fictional race in a video game.
And as for the subsequent watering down of the nerf adjustments, nbd. I'm hardly butthurt about them. You however still seem butthurt about the whole thing. My 11 mil sp in missiles are still happy with along with the 14 mil in gunnery. Someday you will chill out and have a larger perspective on the game also. |
|
Acac Sunflyier
Burning Star L.L.C.
260
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 09:23:00 -
[5821] - Quote
Wait, is this google doc before or after skills? Like, are you assuming all lvl 5? There just isn't anything intresting on the front page of the GD anymore. Yawn! |
Acac Sunflyier
Burning Star L.L.C.
260
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 09:33:00 -
[5822] - Quote
Why are faction missiles getting better range for heavies over t2 when t2 needs more skills and everything to use? If the goal is to bring it in line with other t2 ammo and weapons, why can't the t2 ammo for missiles be better than faction missiles just as t2 ammo is better than faction ammo? There just isn't anything intresting on the front page of the GD anymore. Yawn! |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 09:43:00 -
[5823] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Good god, how many times have I tried to tell you I don't identify as a projectile only user like you identify as a HM only user.
The point is though, that there are people who like to fly one race only. May it be for RP or whatever. I agree on the fact many Caldari pilots feel like HML only users. Now there is still 2 ways to interprete this data, and since you, Lili, are so fond of doing analysis of data you should maybe be able to do that too ;) ..
so, here we go. The first way is to say HML must be OP, thats why everyone uses them. There is a small part in it which is not completely wrong, because HML are indeed not a bad weapon system at all. Thats your interpretation of this all. Apart from the reaction you and/or others argued also with numbers, mostly EFT/Pyfa/whatever numbers, and also Eve-kill stats. Those numbers showed (in your opinion) everything which was needed to backup your point.
But there is also a second way. And that second way is the one you seem to forget about or which you dont want to let come to your mind. The sad fact is, all those missile using Caldari pilots had *no other option* than to go for HML, with Torps and Cruises being less than useful in anything but PvE, and even there they are no longer top of the list for a really long time (rework of pirate faction ships & Projectile buff). And with the Tengu, their own t3 obsoleted the Caldari Marauder and missile faction BS choices too. But again, not only because it was so good (and agreed, it is!), but also because the others were not.
HAM was not a really good option either, so Caldari medium and large missile PvP was just that - HML. Note the fact, that Caldari pilots even accepted the handicap to use a system which had only kinetic damage bonus in their hulls, because it *still* was better than the rest. And again, not because it was so OP. But because the other options sucked so hard.
Me and others see that this point is a really valid one too, and we also backed up our claims with facts. EFT, Pyfa, whatever. And Eve-kill stats. But apart from those stats I also looked at the game itself. And found that, YES: HML/Drake is the king of long range medium engagement. But first: this is not, what his game is all about, and second: HML/Drake is not the king of anything else. And funny, Caldari missile except HML/Drake and Tengu is not the king of anything else either. And its correct, it does not need to be king. But if its everywhere else far from being on par, then how can it be balance if this one thing will get killed too?
I do know that Hybrids have been buffed not just yesterday, and Caldari had also the option to go there. Still, Caldari have been told for ages that Hybrids suck (which they did for a long time) and if they went gunnery, for sure they chose something else. Besides crosstraining is harder for missile to for example projectiles than any gunnery to any other gunnery.
So thats what makes Caldari upset. They have been kicked in the balls numerous times, been buttraped without lubes again and again with "changes" which were in fact just nerfs. But this time they feel like someone wants to not just kick but also cut em off.
Now some of those changes have been taken back a bit, and most probably there will have to be more adjustments later on, but this feeling of "they will take everything I still have" is what made this thread so big.
Again, I do see some people here do have the best intentions and want to end up in a well balanced/well imbalanced game. But to understand the concerns of so many is important too, which ever your intention is. If its not just trolling, then ignoring those concerns would be indeed the best bet.
OT Smithers said this again and again. And he also showed (like I did) he is no HML-only pilot. In fact I am less a "one system only" pilot with my main than you are, Lili, since I seem to have more SP in both gunnery and missiles than you with my main, although I do know you need far less than even you to be diversified enough normally.
So as a resume, no Lili, I dont agree with your analysis of this data. I agree your analysis might be true for some, and might be one reason for this thread, but its for sure not the only one, or even the most important one.
Best regards. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 09:44:00 -
[5824] - Quote
Acac Sunflyier wrote:Wait, is this google doc before or after skills? Like, are you assuming all lvl 5?
I think its assuming all l0. Else the nerf would be way out of line ;) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 10:24:00 -
[5825] - Quote
"I'm poor Caldari Drake/Tengu pilot and I'm forced to use HMLs!"
Try to fly: Light missile Vengeance HML Sac HML Legion without being laughed at.
Amarr pilots are forced to use short range missiles. Unless you want to ignore 50% of your missile damage bonuses. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1384
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 11:56:00 -
[5826] - Quote
So, after all this bloobloo Tengu and Drake got buffed
awesome
Shiva Furnace - recruiting again! |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 13:10:00 -
[5827] - Quote
Roime wrote:So, after all this bloobloo Tengu and Drake got buffed
awesome
How so? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 13:38:00 -
[5828] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Roime wrote:So, after all this bloobloo Tengu and Drake got buffed
awesome
How so?
HAMs
You wanted Tengu that can compete against pirate battleships. You will get 1000 dps Tengu. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 13:56:00 -
[5829] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:But there is also a second way. And that second way is the one you seem to forget about or which you dont want to let come to your mind. The sad fact is, all those missile using Caldari pilots had *no other option* than to go for HML, with Torps and Cruises being less than useful in anything but PvE, and even there they are no longer top of the list for a really long time (rework of pirate faction ships & Projectile buff). And with the Tengu, their own t3 obsoleted the Caldari Marauder and missile faction BS choices too. But again, not only because it was so good (and agreed, it is!), but also because the others were not.
You keep saying this, though you forget a few points : - There could be only one option, the option have to be good enough to be used at all. Look at medium railguns and gallente for an example of a "no other alternative" and "not used anyway" thing. Gallente have no other alternative than medium railguns for a medium weapon able to hit farther than 15km. Drones are not an option, because the myrmidon only have 75MBps bandwidth, and that mean even less dps than railguns. - HAM are not broken as is. Tehy are not outstanding, though they are not that broken IMO, and the buff they are receiving will put them a but further ; their problem is only HML which are so much better they are pointless. - Hybrids receive a buff a YEAR ago. Should each and every caldari pilot receive a registered letter to inform them ? Are they all that much stupid they cannot even consider using something else than missiles ? A year is way more than enough to train a weapon to very good effectiveness, so time to skill is not an excuse. - I still would like to read an *argument* for the Raven being so bad at 70-100km with cruise missiles. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 14:20:00 -
[5830] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
You keep saying this, though you forget a few points : - There could be only one option, the option have to be good enough to be used at all. Look at medium railguns and gallente for an example of a "no other alternative" and "not used anyway" thing. Gallente have no other alternative than medium railguns for a medium weapon able to hit farther than 15km. Drones are not an option, because the myrmidon only have 75MBps bandwidth, and that mean even less dps than railguns. - HAM are not broken as is. Tehy are not outstanding, though they are not that broken IMO, and the buff they are receiving will put them a but further ; their problem is only HML which are so much better they are pointless. - Hybrids receive a buff a YEAR ago. Should each and every caldari pilot receive a registered letter to inform them ? Are they all that much stupid they cannot even consider using something else than missiles ? A year is way more than enough to train a weapon to very good effectiveness, so time to skill is not an excuse. - I still would like to read an *argument* for the Raven being so bad at 70-100km with cruise missiles.
Your first "point" is? Well, I think you meant something like "it could be also one thing, HML are just too good". Thats what Lili said. And I spoke about this enough in my other answer. So I dont object to HML being good, but I object to they are gamebreaking OP. And I cant see any proof of any of you guys for that claim they are gamebreaking OP. Because they are not :)
Your claim about HAMs will have to be seen. If they are better than the rest of med SR, then ofc HML should not be better than the rest of LR anymore. If they are not, then not. Simple as that :) btw, I would be most happy if there would finally be more choice for Caldari missile PvP. It makes me happy to think of a universe where LR&SR large and med missiles are all viable in PvP on Caldari hulls, where one can really choose what to take for which job. And not be a one trick pony anymore.
Your hybrid argument - has been told how and why it works.
Your Raven - just friggin train the ship and use it. Then you see its issues. I am no longer in the mood to explain to a guy who is not willing to accept the simple truth in a thing which he has absolutely NO first hand experience with.
And about that other guy with no combat alt, I really dont care about you :) And that egg goes to your face too, not only Lilis (who took it like a good sport, btw). |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 15:27:00 -
[5831] - Quote
Why it's so important to have battleship that can own everyone?
Why it's so important to have OP weapon system? |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 15:50:00 -
[5832] - Quote
Why is it so important to understand what this is all about?
Why is it so important to get a clue?
Why is it so important to keep on posting here?
Why has the liquid soap been invented, and by whom? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 16:11:00 -
[5833] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Your first "point" is? Well, I think you meant something like "it could be also one thing, HML are just too good". Thats what Lili said. And I spoke about this enough in my other answer. So I dont object to HML being good, but I object to they are gamebreaking OP. And I cant see any proof of any of you guys for that claim they are gamebreaking OP. Because they are not :)
Your claim about HAMs will have to be seen. If they are better than the rest of med SR, then ofc HML should not be better than the rest of LR anymore. If they are not, then not. Simple as that :) btw, I would be most happy if there would finally be more choice for Caldari missile PvP. It makes me happy to think of a universe where LR&SR large and med missiles are all viable in PvP on Caldari hulls, where one can really choose what to take for which job. And not be a one trick pony anymore.
Your hybrid argument - has been told how and why it works.
Your Raven - just friggin train the ship and use it. Then you see its issues. I am no longer in the mood to explain to a guy who is not willing to accept the simple truth in a thing which he has absolutely NO first hand experience with.
And about that other guy with no combat alt, I really dont care about you :) And that egg goes to your face too, not only Lilis (who took it like a good sport, btw). First, I won't spend six month only to prove your point. Dude, think a little will you ?
And you didn't understand my first point. HML are not use because there is no other alternative but because they are the best alternative caldari have. This mean they are OP, because railguns Rokh are working.
As for your stupid argument of turret being the "best" in large and small size, it's plain stupid. There is no such thing as the "best", only "too good", if any, or the best *in a defined scenario*. And right now, HML are too good in too many scenarios, and still are the best in their own field (dps at long range)
But again, the most important part is : NOTHING SHOULD EVER BE SO GOOD THEY OBSOLETE ALL THE OTHER WEAPONS OF THEIR CLASS.
Maybe you will understand in capslock ? |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
522
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 16:12:00 -
[5834] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:Roime wrote:So, after all this bloobloo Tengu and Drake got buffed
awesome
How so? HAMs You wanted Tengu that can compete against pirate battleships. You will get 1000 dps Tengu.
The Tengu's missile subsystem is due to a nerf by the way. It has effectively a +100% dps bonus. The next highest dps increase any other subsystem offers is +66%.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 16:17:00 -
[5835] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:The Tengu's missile subsystem is due to a nerf by the way. It has effectively a +100% dps bonus. The next highest dps increase any other subsystem offers is +66%.
T3s are probably the last class of ships they rebalance before moving to capitals. I'd say summer 2014... |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 16:44:00 -
[5836] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: First, I won't spend six month only to prove your point. Dude, think a little will you ?
So you agree to my point? Why do you ask then all the time? The Raven sucks in PvP. Simple as that. There is no other explanation needed. But if you actually *did* spend some time to train missile PvP you would maybe see how wrong you are with most of your other stuff.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
As for your stupid argument of turret being the "best" in large and small size, it's plain stupid.
Thanks for sticking with personal attacks, I like that. Seems like you ran out a bit?
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
But again, the most important part is : NOTHING SHOULD EVER BE SO GOOD THEY OBSOLETE ALL THE OTHER WEAPONS OF THEIR CLASS.
Maybe you will understand in capslock ?
If that would be the case, then I would agree. Shame for you its *not* the case. HML on Drakes are really good in certain things, and suck in others. Same applies to most of the top 20 ships in Eve-kill. As long as there are no viable missile alternatives its not a problem there are many HML Drakes, and you will see they will get far less as soon as other options are there (maybe starting with HAM Drakes in the next patch).
Bouh, you are beyond all hope. Really. You talk about ships which you cant even sit inside, nor use their weapons. And sorry to say so, but that fact shines through with every single posting you do here. Either stay out of missile discussion or get those skills up. Simple as that.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 16:51:00 -
[5837] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: First, I won't spend six month only to prove your point. Dude, think a little will you ?
So you agree to my point? Why do you ask then all the time? The Raven sucks in PvP. Simple as that. There is no other explanation needed. But if you actually *did* spend some time to train missile PvP you would maybe see how wrong you are with most of your other stuff. There is. I'm among those people who like to understand things, though you are obviously not among those who understand them nor like to explain them.
PS : "believe me" is not an argument, and you never brought one argument against cruise raven effectiveness beyond 70km. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 16:55:00 -
[5838] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:
But again, the most important part is : NOTHING SHOULD EVER BE SO GOOD THEY OBSOLETE ALL THE OTHER WEAPONS OF THEIR CLASS.
Maybe you will understand in capslock ?
If that would be the case, then I would agree. Shame for you its *not* the case. HML on Drakes are really good in certain things, and suck in others. Same applies to most of the top 20 ships in Eve-kill. As long as there are no viable missile alternatives its not a problem there are many HML Drakes, and you will see they will get far less as soon as other options are there (maybe starting with HAM Drakes in the next patch). Bouh, you are beyond all hope. Really. You talk about ships which you cant even sit inside, nor use their weapons. And sorry to say so, but that fact shines through with every single posting you do here. Either stay out of missile discussion or get those skills up. Simple as that. What do you not understand in "of the same class" ?
HML are medLR weapons, and they do obsolete medLR turrets. Hence, they are OP. Indeed HML are worst than AC for a brawl, but THEY ARE NOT A SHORT RANGE TURRET.
Now, will you try to argue that turret are better than HML ? Because of the 10% dps advantage they have before 25km ? Completely ignoring turrets tracking ? Go on. We already had this conversation plenty of times. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 17:48:00 -
[5839] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:The Raven sucks in PvP.
Since you prefer solo PvP, what's the name of battleship that can solo? |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 18:58:00 -
[5840] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: First, I won't spend six month only to prove your point. Dude, think a little will you ?
And you didn't understand my first point. HML are not use because there is no other alternative but because they are the best alternative caldari have. This mean they are OP, because railguns Rokh are working.
As for your stupid argument of turret being the "best" in large and small size, it's plain stupid. There is no such thing as the "best", only "too good", if any, or the best *in a defined scenario*. And right now, HML are too good in too many scenarios, and still are the best in their own field (dps at long range)
But again, the most important part is : NOTHING SHOULD EVER BE SO GOOD THEY OBSOLETE ALL THE OTHER WEAPONS OF THEIR CLASS.
Maybe you will understand in capslock ?
WOW just wow you really don't have a ******* clue do you ?
Bouh Revetoile wrote: : NOTHING SHOULD EVER BE SO GOOD THEY OBSOLETE ALL THE OTHER WEAPONS OF THEIR CLASS. THEY ARE SO OVERUSED BY CALDARI **************MISSILE*********** DO YOU UNDERSTAND MISSILE PILOTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER VIABLE MISSILE PLATFORM FOR THE CALDARI MISSILE PILOT DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? MAYBE CAPS WILL HELP YOU !!!
good god between you and Lu I have never seen a more arrogant pair of people. I am starting to think you two are the same person because I can not see how on this entire earth you would have such an astounding amount of ignorance between two different people in the same place at the same time.
We are looking at a bigger picture here when you focus on MISSILES you have no other option thats worth a damn in PVP. So they appear to be over used because no one is going to use Cruise for PVP one because they suck and two the platforms that fir them suck this is not something that is debated everyone knows this to be a truth. No one is saying Caldari do not have an option with hybrids but this is all about MISSILES If you have more viable Caldari MISSILE platforms you would see a more even spread across the board.
You are seeing this all wrong maybe it's because you got owned by the drake blob one to many times, but it is not the fact that they are so OP they obsolete all other weapons, its that when looking at the entire MISSILE platform everything else sucks so bad there is no other option. So nothing should be so Underpowered within a weapons system they only have ONE viable option.
And don't try to throw torps in there we know a very small % are caldari based I would bet 80% of those are Hound / MIM torp boats.
Oh did I mention we are talking about MISSILES ?
EDIT: Oh and http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 still trending bad for Tengu number 17 I do not see them breaking top 10 but I will keep an eye on it and keep posting every few days. Still do not see any Missile Caldari BS on this list hrmm. And from these stats the canes needed a nerf. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:09:00 -
[5841] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: THEY ARE SO OVERUSED BY CALDARI **************MISSILE*********** DO YOU UNDERSTAND MISSILE PILOTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER VIABLE MISSILE PLATFORM FOR THE CALDARI MISSILE PILOT DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? MAYBE CAPS WILL HELP YOU !!!
Go back to your incursion please, and eat some of your missiles.
Hybrid buff, ever heard of this ? That was a year ago.
So here we are again : caldari players are even more fanatic than any amarr NPC could be, and they are stuck in their mind with using missiles only. OR, maybe they only didn't heard about the hybrid buff and CCP should have had sent them all a letter.
PS for statistics : observing is the good first thing to do. Then, it will be time to analyse. No cruise missiles in the stats, so what are the problems of cruise missiles ? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:13:00 -
[5842] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:THEY ARE SO OVERUSED BY CALDARI **************MISSILE*********** DO YOU UNDERSTAND MISSILE PILOTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER VIABLE MISSILE PLATFORM FOR THE CALDARI MISSILE PILOT DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? MAYBE CAPS WILL HELP YOU !!!
Rapid light missile Caracal? Hawk? One of the best AFs btw. Hookbill? |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:15:00 -
[5843] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Go back to your incursion please, and eat some of your missiles.
Hybrid buff, ever heard of this ? That was a year ago.
So here we are again : caldari players are even more fanatic than any amarr NPC could be, and they are stuck in their mind with using missiles only. OR, maybe they only didn't heard about the hybrid buff and CCP should have had sent them all a letter.
And also you are yet again blabbing your mouth about hybrids. LOL and I found where someone gave you a basic run down of why the raven sucks its here .
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Totally, it's not like there are any missile hulls with range bonuses Not range, velocity. A Cruise Missile moves at the same velocity as a Heavy Missile, with the bonus they cover 50% more ground then the Drake hitting targets 50% farther in the same time. Cruise Missiles have a 50% effective range increase over the Drake with an option to go farther. People who talk about Cruise Missiles should realize they only have one point of reference and that is the Raven and the Raven sucks. That and people wonder why it isn't a Fleet ship when Tier 3 Battleships pretty much rule that area, Abbadon, Mael, Rokh. Raven is the only Cruise Missile Ship and in comparison to the 1-5th the cost Drake... * Not much more HP then a resist bonused Drake. * Caps out easy with an MWD, many Drake fits are stable or near so. * 6 Launchers instead of the 7 the Drakes has and the Drake can use Fury Realistically further pumping up its Dmg. * 40% the Scan Res of a Drake. * Same number of Mids. Yeah Cruise Missiles are the problem. Really though it is the missing launcher that ball kicks it the most. Honestly if they gave the Raven 7 Launchers, 7 Mids / 4 Lows, Little bit more Scan Res Cruise Missiles would be looked at in a whole new light I guarantee it. The change to Fury and precision was enough, now they just need to fix the one ship that can use these things realistically. I think you forget the old habbit. In the past, sniping was 150-200km range, and then, flight time become a problem, but not before IMO.
And yet here you are still asking why it sucks this is pretty much the basics of it. And here spend 10 bucks http://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Phonics-Reading-Comprehension-Grade/dp/1933863943 And learn some damn reading comprehension please.
|
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:17:00 -
[5844] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:THEY ARE SO OVERUSED BY CALDARI **************MISSILE*********** DO YOU UNDERSTAND MISSILE PILOTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER VIABLE MISSILE PLATFORM FOR THE CALDARI MISSILE PILOT DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? MAYBE CAPS WILL HELP YOU !!! Rapid light missile Caracal? Hawk? One of the best AFs btw. Hookbill?
Yup and those are just overloading the top 20 over all the other better options out there right? You see so many of these great combos used so often that they are never even breaking top 20 ever. So again my point still stands.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 19:43:00 -
[5845] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Yup and those are just overloading the top 20 over all the other better options out there right? You see so many of these great combos used so often that they are never even breaking top 20 ever. So again my point still stands.
Logic fail : if a usable weapon system had to be in the top 20, there could only be 20 good weapon systems at one time, and all the others wouldn't be usable. That's obviously wrong...
For the Raven, I was affraid you bring these "arguments" back.
* Cruise missile velocity is higher than HML velocity, and the same than tengu HML velocity. If it's not a problem for tengu or drake, it shouldn't be a problem for the Raven.
* Raven can have the same or a better tank than a fleet Maelstrom, with the same resists.
* Raven have the same stability than all other BS.
* Raven is faster than an armor abaddon, a Rokh or a Maelstrom.
* Raven cruise dps at 70km is better than tengu, Drake, Rokh, Maelstrom or Abaddon.
* Cruise Raven can have a heavy and a medium neutralizers.
If it's not a single thing, it's a combination of things, or something else. My bet is that the Tengu and the Drake obsolete it completely because of their whole caracteristics. Though, IMO, HML having comparable performances with CML is high on the list of these obsoleting reasons. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 20:03:00 -
[5846] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Yup and those are just overloading the top 20 over all the other better options out there right? You see so many of these great combos used so often that they are never even breaking top 20 ever. So again my point still stands.
Logic fail : if a usable weapon system had to be in the top 20, there could only be 20 good weapon systems at one time, and all the others wouldn't be usable. That's obviously wrong... For the Raven, I was affraid you bring these "arguments" back. * Cruise missile velocity is higher than HML velocity, and the same than tengu HML velocity. If it's not a problem for tengu or drake, it shouldn't be a problem for the Raven. * Raven can have the same or a better tank than a fleet Maelstrom, with the same resists. * Raven have the same stability than all other BS. * Raven is faster than an armor abaddon, a Rokh or a Maelstrom. * Raven cruise dps at 70km is better than tengu, Drake, Rokh, Maelstrom or Abaddon. * Cruise Raven can have a heavy and a medium neutralizers. If it's not a single thing, it's a combination of things, or something else. My bet is that the Tengu and the Drake obsolete it completely because of their whole caracteristics. Though, IMO, HML having comparable performances with CML is high on the list of these obsoleting reasons.
My bet is you should really just *fly* the thing, and then come back. CM Ravens suck for *way* longer in PvP than HML Drakes have really been used in PvP in numbers. You need to get a clue of a topic before you start examining stuff. You, Bouh, have no idea of missiles first hand. You cant fly a single medium or large Caldari combat ship. You throw around numbers (sometimes random made up stuff, sometimes you try to stick with formulas ..) and dont see how much you fail to get the point: missile ships in PvP do different on the server than they do in theory. In theory you can sometimes get the best numbers (like with HML Drakes!) but on the server it will somehow not work like you thought it would. Welcome to missile PvP. Thats also the reason why Eve is NOT Drake online. There are plenty of other ships which are used everywhere, and esp. in lowsec PvP (where fleet doctrines are not really an issue, and where anyone who likes to pew pew tries to use whats best for the job) the Drake is NOT OVERREPRESENTED AT ALL.
If you feel like getting into missile PvP, train for missiles, use them, and then (or better *then*, or even better THEN!!) you should come back and ask again. Not before.
Its a bit like telling a blind person about colours, and how they look. You just know black, and nothing else. How could we possibly explain to you anything? But you are lucky - you can do something to get over this blind state of yours. Dont wait any longer. Change your training queue now, and see the light.
But seriously, dont come back to missile threads before you did so.
Apart from that, even Lili did not say the Raven was viable or was obsoleted by HML Drake. She has too much reputation to lose with such a statement ;)
Best regards.
PS: What I mean here, Bouh, is not you should "believe" in something. I tell you more than that. You simply will not understand this thing if you dont get into it. And the fact you ask here for the 100th time when you have been given plenty of reasonable answers before just shows how right I am. |
Eanorian
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 20:08:00 -
[5847] - Quote
The nerf to HM Fury explosion velocity seems too much.
With all level V skills it wont hit a NPC battleship for even near full damage, not to mention PVP targets that move alot faster |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 20:18:00 -
[5848] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:My bet is you should really just *fly* the thing, and then come back. CM Ravens suck for *way* longer in PvP than HML Drakes have really been used in PvP in numbers. You need to get a clue of a topic before you start examining stuff. You, Bouh, have no idea of missiles first hand. You cant fly a single medium or large Caldari combat ship. You throw around numbers (sometimes random made up stuff, sometimes you try to stick with formulas ..) and dont see how much you fail to get the point: missile ships in PvP do different on the server than they do in theory. In theory you can sometimes get the best numbers (like with HML Drakes!) but on the server it will somehow not work like you thought it would. Welcome to missile PvP. Thats also the reason why Eve is NOT Drake online. There are plenty of other ships which are used everywhere, and esp. in lowsec PvP (where fleet doctrines are not really an issue, and where anyone who likes to pew pew tries to use whats best for the job) the Drake is NOT OVERREPRESENTED AT ALL.
If you feel like getting into missile PvP, train for missiles, use them, and then (or better *then*, or even better THEN!!) you should come back and ask again. Not before.
Its a bit like telling a blind person about colours, and how they look. You just know black, and nothing else. How could we possibly explain to you anything? But you are lucky - you can do something to get over this blind state of yours. Dont wait any longer. Change your training queue now, and see the light.
But seriously, dont come back to missile threads before you did so.
Apart from that, even Lili did not say the Raven was viable or was obsoleted by HML Drake. She has too much reputation to lose with such a statement ;)
Best regards.
PS: What I mean here, Bouh, is not you should "believe" in something. I tell you more than that. You simply will not understand this thing if you dont get into it. And the fact you ask here for the 100th time when you have been given plenty of reasonable answers before just shows how right I am. Either you understand missiles and you can try to explain, or you don't.
And just look at any lowsec pvp killboard. You *will* see drakes, and a *lot* of them. They most probably be the second most represented ship, just behind the hurricane. It's not like if I was *actually* fighting in lowsec. I prove you they do are overrepresented.
Now, the problem you are talking (years ago) most probably refer to missile velocity posing problem in fleet because of ships warping before they were hit by the missiles. Though, fleet fights these times were at far greater ranges than now (mind you, I heard it was the Megathron the best fleet ship at this time). But things evolved blablabla. You must know the story.
Finaly, in current EVE, missile flight time is not the problem.
But you don't care anyway, and I'm strating to doubt you can even understand these consideration (the whole picture, as you call it, though you certainly not look at the same picture).
May I ask you to stop trying to ban people from the conversation and actually take part to the discussion ? I know it's hard to debate and actually use arguments instead of using ad hominem to discredit them, though that's what smart people do when they debate.
As a side note, asking me skill up and try myself is a bit stupid, or dishonest, because it would take me some months to do so and would not prove anything.
PS : if you think missiles do differently in TQ than in theory, then you really don't understand anything at the theory. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 20:22:00 -
[5849] - Quote
Eanorian wrote:The nerf to HM Fury explosion velocity seems too much.
With all level V skills it wont hit a NPC battleship for even near full damage, not to mention PVP targets that move alot faster That's wrong. I did the maths some 30 pages ago. No one said the formula was wrong, so I think it's not. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 21:11:00 -
[5850] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: [instead of using ad hominem to discredit them, though that's what smart people do when they debate.
I love how everyone is trying to throw the use of ad hominem around ever since I used it lol. It is quite funny especially when it is used improperly.
She is using logic and reason to discredit you not ad hominem used in the since of a fallacy, In some cases a ad hominem argument is a legitimate rhetorical tool. Saying you do not have room to speak on missiles because you have no prior experience in the subject, therefor are not qualified to have a credible input on said subject fits this type off attack and makes it a valid argument to use. It is just good debating.
Had she said your argument on Missiles is not valid because you **** small children and have an IQ lower then 75, and you enjoy the company of ***** there for no one should listen to you. THAT'S ad hominem its an attack in you not the subject.
She directly attacks the subject at hand and gives factual information by stating the reasons you are not qualified to address missile changes as you have no prior experience in them. Like I said that's just good debating.
How ever ironically accusing her of using ad hominem against you in her attempt to discredit you when in fact she did not, That was your attempt to use ad hominem against her, and further more all the times when you bring up the hybrid turrets buff as a viable option for caldari missile pilots on post that specially state it's about missiles and not other weapons systems that is what we call a red herring .
Both tactics are often used when the other side of the debate has nothing to strike back with.
EDIT: And on of the first rules of debating and choosing when to debate on a subject is you should consider topics you know something about and are prepared to deal with thoughtfully and use A well-supported argument. Throwing out hypothetical situations and made up numbers just makes you look bad.
I support her request for you to stop your arguments until you have a solid understanding and first hand experience on the subject you are trying to debate. Or at the very least make people aware of your unsupported attacks so that they might have the common since to just roll their eyes when they see your name at the header of the post and just sigh and skip what you have said. |
|
Eanorian
Elite Aeronautic Developer Syndicate Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 21:32:00 -
[5851] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Eanorian wrote:The nerf to HM Fury explosion velocity seems too much.
With all level V skills it wont hit a NPC battleship for even near full damage, not to mention PVP targets that move alot faster That's wrong. I did the maths some 30 pages ago. No one said the formula was wrong, so I think it's not.
couldnt find your math.
either way im switching to HAM; was just a bit curious about the explosion velocity nerf . |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
41
|
Posted - 2012.11.03 22:52:00 -
[5852] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Yup and those are just overloading the top 20 over all the other better options out there right? You see so many of these great combos used so often that they are never even breaking top 20 ever. So again my point still stands.
Logic fail : if a usable weapon system had to be in the top 20, there could only be 20 good weapon systems at one time, and all the others wouldn't be usable. That's obviously wrong... For the Raven, I was affraid you bring these "arguments" back. * Cruise missile velocity is higher than HML velocity, and the same than tengu HML velocity. If it's not a problem for tengu or drake, it shouldn't be a problem for the Raven. * Raven can have the same or a better tank than a fleet Maelstrom, with the same resists. * Raven have the same stability than all other BS. * Raven is faster than an armor abaddon, a Rokh or a Maelstrom. * Raven cruise dps at 70km is better than tengu, Drake, Rokh, Maelstrom or Abaddon. * Cruise Raven can have a heavy and a medium neutralizers. If it's not a single thing, it's a combination of things, or something else. My bet is that the Tengu and the Drake obsolete it completely because of their whole caracteristics. Though, IMO, HML having comparable performances with CML is high on the list of these obsoleting reasons.
really ?
a criuse raven has more dps at 70k than a hml tengu ? what are you smokeing with a 2 bill fit and t2 fury yeah it has about 100 more dps on paper but not in reality with t1 (virtualy only usable criuse currently) it is less or about the same dps than the tengu.
pluss for missions a tengu has a stronger tank
there is many many issues to work out with a raven before a tengu nerf such as tank and dps if a raven could fit 2 invulns a nice sb an sba an em specific and therm specific hardner and then have room for a tp without having to drop its three bcus in lows then maybe just maybe itll be a fiesable bs |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 06:28:00 -
[5853] - Quote
serras bang wrote:a criuse raven has more dps at 70k than a hml tengu ? what are you smokeing with a 2 bill fit and t2 fury yeah it has about 100 more dps on paper but not in reality with t1 (virtualy only usable criuse currently) it is less or about the same dps than the tengu.
Of course Tengu has more dps if you shoot frigates.
serras bang wrote:pluss for missions a tengu has a stronger tank
there is many many issues to work out with a raven before a tengu nerf such as tank and dps if a raven could fit 2 invulns a nice sb an sba an em specific and therm specific hardner and then have room for a tp without having to drop its three bcus in lows then maybe just maybe itll be a fiesable bs
Does Tengu have room for all those? Btw, Tengu dies if you stop moving. The thing with Tengu's tank is that speed and sig plays a big role. Only T3 that can tank 1000+ omni dps and stay completely still is Loki. |
Noemi Nagano
State War Academy Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 09:00:00 -
[5854] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Does Tengu have room for all those? Btw, Tengu dies if you stop moving. The thing with Tengu's tank is that speed and sig plays a big role. Only T3 that can tank 1000+ omni dps and stay completely still is Loki.
Thats so wrong in so many ways :D
you seem to have even less clue of whats going on than I thought.
The only thing which is correct there: a Tengu can speed/sig tank and cover the rest with very few modules. And for some situations that will be best choice. But all the rest of your statement is wrong. 3,5k unheated perma tank vs. omni res is possible with an active Tengu for example with a still reasonable price tag.
But you are the only one here left without a combat record Jorma, so no wonder you dont know anything about Eve. Go back and play Pyfa little boy :) |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 10:42:00 -
[5855] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote: In some cases a ad hominem argument is a legitimate rhetorical tool.
The only time an ad hominem can not be a fallacy is when hypocrisy is involved.
And even though I didn't used the word, I denounce the use of it way before you did.
Even though I had not use missiles, I have faced them a lot, and I have a way better comprehension of the maths involved than you, so what does disquilify me from emiting arguments against missiles ?
Infact, this is more a genetic fallacy.
Quote:The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.
You are trying to discredit my arguments instead of countering them, because either you are lazy or don't have any counter argument. Whatever the name of this, it's definitly fallacious. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 10:51:00 -
[5856] - Quote
Here the maths of future fury HM.
About the Raven, I made a mistake : the "thundercat" have more dps than the Raven ; though the Raven still outdps a 100MN AB tengu, a fleet Rokh and a fleet Maelstrom. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
127
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 10:58:00 -
[5857] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: In some cases a ad hominem argument is a legitimate rhetorical tool.
The only time an ad hominem can not be a fallacy is when hypocrisy is involved. And even though I didn't used the word, I denounce the use of it way before you did. Even though I had not use missiles, I have faced them a lot, and I have a way better comprehension of the maths involved than you, so what does disquilify me from emiting arguments against missiles ? Infact, this is more a genetic fallacy. Quote:The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. You are trying to discredit my arguments instead of countering them, because either you are lazy or don't have any counter argument. Whatever the name of this, it's definitly fallacious.
Sigh you clearly do not understand any of these terms. It is pointless and a waste of time trying to carry on any further with you. Did you really just link a wiki page to debate terminology? That in it self makes it very clear you are just trying to sound smarter then you really are.
You have proven nothing in any of your postings ever, You provide "proofs" based on your so called personal experience and none of your views are widely regarded as anywhere close to being true IE: your take on the Raven at very best you could almost say your take on missiles and Ravens is almost faith based, as in you hold them as being absolute truths without proof or evidence to back up your claims / beliefs.
The nerf got toned down to a reasonable level and will still be effective in blowing your ass outta the sky, so any continued arguments with you are just tedious and mind numbing.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 11:00:00 -
[5858] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote:3,5k unheated perma tank vs. omni res is possible with an active Tengu for example with a still reasonable price tag.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/loadout/20661-Tengu-4000-DPS-Tank.html
No wonder you think HMLs suck... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 11:24:00 -
[5859] - Quote
Cazador 64 wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cazador 64 wrote: In some cases a ad hominem argument is a legitimate rhetorical tool.
The only time an ad hominem can not be a fallacy is when hypocrisy is involved. And even though I didn't used the word, I denounce the use of it way before you did. Even though I had not use missiles, I have faced them a lot, and I have a way better comprehension of the maths involved than you, so what does disquilify me from emiting arguments against missiles ? Infact, this is more a genetic fallacy. Quote:The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. You are trying to discredit my arguments instead of countering them, because either you are lazy or don't have any counter argument. Whatever the name of this, it's definitly fallacious. Sigh you clearly do not understand any of these terms. It is pointless and a waste of time trying to carry on any further with you. Did you really just link a wiki page to debate terminology? That in it self makes it very clear you are just trying to sound smarter then you really are. You have proven nothing in any of your postings ever, You provide "proofs" based on your so called personal experience and none of your views are widely regarded as anywhere close to being true IE: your take on the Raven at very best you could almost say your take on missiles and Ravens is almost faith based, as in you hold them as being absolute truths without proof or evidence to back up your claims / beliefs. The nerf got toned down to a reasonable level and will still be effective in blowing your ass outta the sky, so any continued arguments with you are just tedious and mind numbing. Perfect example of arguments and logic...
You couldn't be trolling better. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 13:48:00 -
[5860] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:a criuse raven has more dps at 70k than a hml tengu ? what are you smokeing with a 2 bill fit and t2 fury yeah it has about 100 more dps on paper but not in reality with t1 (virtualy only usable criuse currently) it is less or about the same dps than the tengu. Of course Tengu has more dps if you shoot frigates. serras bang wrote:pluss for missions a tengu has a stronger tank
there is many many issues to work out with a raven before a tengu nerf such as tank and dps if a raven could fit 2 invulns a nice sb an sba an em specific and therm specific hardner and then have room for a tp without having to drop its three bcus in lows then maybe just maybe itll be a fiesable bs Does Tengu have room for all those? Btw, Tengu dies if you stop moving. The thing with Tengu's tank is that speed and sig plays a big role. Only T3 that can tank 1000+ omni dps and stay completely still is Loki.
tengu has more dps period and a tengu dose not die if it stops moveing go build a mission tengu and actualy use it in missions. and yes a tengu has room for all that and rigs to help for explosive rad rigs.
i dont even have a ab on me mission tengu and it hasnt came close to losing its tank with just sitting there and popping things |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 15:20:00 -
[5861] - Quote
sorry but he has a massively bloated sig and tbh no way to get out when his tank breaks that is such a bad fit |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
335
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 15:33:00 -
[5862] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Hybrid buff, ever heard of this ? That was a year ago.
So here we are again : caldari players are even more fanatic than any amarr NPC could be, and they are stuck in their mind with using missiles only. OR, maybe they only didn't heard about the hybrid buff and CCP should have had sent them all a letter.
PS for statistics : observing is the good first thing to do. Then, it will be time to analyse. No cruise missiles in the stats, so what are the problems of cruise missiles ?
And around and around and around we go.
If you want to ignore the hundreds of posts that have explained this already, that's fine, but don't then assume that no explanation is avaialable.
Hybrids were buffed a year ago. If a Caldari pilot stopped whatever he had been training prior to that buff, and instead immediately began training for those hybrid turrets, including gunnery support skills, he would have finished a few months ago now.
The Minmatar pilot spends seven or eight months training gunnery support and projectiles and he can fly an entire fleet worth of marvelous ships. I know because I fly Minmatar. The same could also be said of Amarr or (today) Gallente. But Caldari?
His seven or eight months gets him the Drake and a bunch of clowns on the forums telling him he should devote ANOTHER seven or eight months towards training gunnery skills so he can add the Rokh to his ship lineup. How in the world is that a reasonable thing to suggest? And why in the hell would a Caldari player do that? Why not instead train projectiles or lasers and have a complete fleet of ships at his diisposal?
The Caldari pilot who was silly enough to follow your suggestion would have invested months and hundreds of dollars, and at the end of this weapons marathon he would be able to pilot.... what? One decent ship? Maybe two? You think the Rokh is WORTH devoting that time for? You think the Moa is that nice? Are you freaking high?
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
335
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 15:40:00 -
[5863] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Yup and those are just overloading the top 20 over all the other better options out there right? You see so many of these great combos used so often that they are never even breaking top 20 ever. So again my point still stands.
Logic fail : if a usable weapon system had to be in the top 20, there could only be 20 good weapon systems at one time, and all the others wouldn't be usable. That's obviously wrong... For the Raven, I was affraid you bring these "arguments" back. * Cruise missile velocity is higher than HML velocity, and the same than tengu HML velocity. If it's not a problem for tengu or drake, it shouldn't be a problem for the Raven. * Raven can have the same or a better tank than a fleet Maelstrom, with the same resists. * Raven have the same stability than all other BS. * Raven is faster than an armor abaddon, a Rokh or a Maelstrom. * Raven cruise dps at 70km is better than tengu, Drake, Rokh, Maelstrom or Abaddon. * Cruise Raven can have a heavy and a medium neutralizers. If it's not a single thing, it's a combination of things, or something else. My bet is that the Tengu and the Drake obsolete it completely because of their whole caracteristics. Though, IMO, HML having comparable performances with CML is high on the list of these obsoleting reasons.
Post this great Raven fit please!
I want to see a full rack of cruise missiles, heavy neut, speed, cap booster, MWD, long point, and tank. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
50
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 16:00:00 -
[5864] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Cazador 64 wrote:Yup and those are just overloading the top 20 over all the other better options out there right? You see so many of these great combos used so often that they are never even breaking top 20 ever. So again my point still stands.
Logic fail : if a usable weapon system had to be in the top 20, there could only be 20 good weapon systems at one time, and all the others wouldn't be usable. That's obviously wrong... For the Raven, I was affraid you bring these "arguments" back. * Cruise missile velocity is higher than HML velocity, and the same than tengu HML velocity. If it's not a problem for tengu or drake, it shouldn't be a problem for the Raven. * Raven can have the same or a better tank than a fleet Maelstrom, with the same resists. * Raven have the same stability than all other BS. * Raven is faster than an armor abaddon, a Rokh or a Maelstrom. * Raven cruise dps at 70km is better than tengu, Drake, Rokh, Maelstrom or Abaddon. * Cruise Raven can have a heavy and a medium neutralizers. If it's not a single thing, it's a combination of things, or something else. My bet is that the Tengu and the Drake obsolete it completely because of their whole caracteristics. Though, IMO, HML having comparable performances with CML is high on the list of these obsoleting reasons. Post this great Raven fit please! I want to see a full rack of cruise missiles, heavy neut, speed, cap booster, MWD, long point, and tank.
This was posted earlier in this thread to show how ravens don't suck......it didnt really have the intended effect but works here
In summary the "not bad raven" jams the rokh for god knows how long and STILL pops. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
335
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 16:11:00 -
[5865] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Noemi Nagano wrote:My bet is you should really just *fly* the thing, and then come back. CM Ravens suck for *way* longer in PvP than HML Drakes have really been used in PvP in numbers. You need to get a clue of a topic before you start examining stuff. You, Bouh, have no idea of missiles first hand. You cant fly a single medium or large Caldari combat ship. You throw around numbers (sometimes random made up stuff, sometimes you try to stick with formulas ..) and dont see how much you fail to get the point: missile ships in PvP do different on the server than they do in theory. In theory you can sometimes get the best numbers (like with HML Drakes!) but on the server it will somehow not work like you thought it would. Welcome to missile PvP. Thats also the reason why Eve is NOT Drake online. There are plenty of other ships which are used everywhere, and esp. in lowsec PvP (where fleet doctrines are not really an issue, and where anyone who likes to pew pew tries to use whats best for the job) the Drake is NOT OVERREPRESENTED AT ALL.
If you feel like getting into missile PvP, train for missiles, use them, and then (or better *then*, or even better THEN!!) you should come back and ask again. Not before.
Its a bit like telling a blind person about colours, and how they look. You just know black, and nothing else. How could we possibly explain to you anything? But you are lucky - you can do something to get over this blind state of yours. Dont wait any longer. Change your training queue now, and see the light.
But seriously, dont come back to missile threads before you did so.
Apart from that, even Lili did not say the Raven was viable or was obsoleted by HML Drake. She has too much reputation to lose with such a statement ;)
Best regards.
PS: What I mean here, Bouh, is not you should "believe" in something. I tell you more than that. You simply will not understand this thing if you dont get into it. And the fact you ask here for the 100th time when you have been given plenty of reasonable answers before just shows how right I am. Either you understand missiles and you can try to explain, or you don't. And just look at any lowsec pvp killboard. You *will* see drakes, and a *lot* of them. They most probably be the second most represented ship, just behind the hurricane. It's not like if I was *actually* fighting in lowsec. I prove you they do are overrepresented. Now, the problem you are talking (years ago) most probably refer to missile velocity posing problem in fleet because of ships warping before they were hit by the missiles. Though, fleet fights these times were at far greater ranges than now (mind you, I heard it was the Megathron the best fleet ship at this time). But things evolved blablabla. You must know the story. Finaly, in current EVE, missile flight time is not the problem. But you don't care anyway, and I'm strating to doubt you can even understand these consideration (the whole picture, as you call it, though you certainly not look at the same picture). May I ask you to stop trying to ban people from the conversation and actually take part to the discussion ?I know it's hard to debate and actually use arguments instead of using ad hominem to discredit them, though that's what smart people do when they debate. As a side note, asking me skill up and try myself is a bit stupid, or dishonest, because it would take me some months to do so and would not prove anything. PS : if you think missiles do differently in TQ than in theory, then you really don't understand anything at the theory.
Yes, you will see Drakes in low sec. It's a good ship. You won't see as many of them as, for example, Hurricanes, but you will see quite a few. But let's look deeper as to why you see so many....
If a Minmatar pilot wants a great cruiser he would probably grab a Rupture. The Caldari pilot doesn't have a good T1 cruiser, so he hops in his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants a Command ship he will hop into his Sliepner The Caldari pilot has only his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants a tankier brawling BC he hops into his Cyclone The Caldari pilot has his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants a Battleship he can hop into his Phoon or Tempest or Mael The Caldari pilot has his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants something fast and deadly, he can hop into his Vagabond The Caldari pilot has only his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants to snipe and alpha things at range he can grab a Muninn The Caladri pilot has his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants a kick-ass faction cruiser he can hop into his Cynabol The Caldari pilot, well, he has his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants an amazing navy cruiser he can grab himself an SFI The Caldari pilot has his Drake.
If a Minmatar pilot wants a great Faction Battleship he can build himself a Mach The Caldari pilot can't do that, he has his Drake
And I could go on. But you should get the point. And given what I said above, by all rights you aught to see more Drakes than anything else, but you don't. And the reason is that, while Drakes are a good ship, they are not anywhere near as good as some of the folks in this thread have tried to make out. People like me, who can fly them and even like them, usually have a better option.
THIS is what has Caldari players so angry. They don't have **** right now, it's all pretty much crap, and CCP is nerfing them even more. Were this not enough they also have to listen to a bunch of people shouting them down every time they ask for some freaking balance. People with thirty ships in their own hangers saying dumbass things like, "Well, if you spent an extra half year training, you could grab yourself a Moa or even a Rokh!"
With the exception of the Tengu, in the history of Eve the following words have never, even once, been spoken:
"I wish I had trained Caldari instead!" |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 16:24:00 -
[5866] - Quote
serras bang wrote:sorry but he has a massively bloated sig and tbh no way to get out when his tank breaks that is such a bad fit
And for some weird reason you think that's my fit... |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 16:26:00 -
[5867] - Quote
to put smithers point in another way how many turret users have botherd or feel like (with the exception of those that mission a lot) they wanna train yet another system that encompus a few ship for the few ships they can uctively use in it ?
and why should missle specalists like some who have posted here be bent over and given the shaft stick because they have trained for the niche of true snipping ? |
GeneralDouchbag
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 16:30:00 -
[5868] - Quote
What about citadel missiles??? I find it quite sad that a nyx can outrun them.
I need Citadel buffs! D: |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 16:31:00 -
[5869] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:His seven or eight months gets him the Drake and a bunch of clowns on the forums telling him he should devote ANOTHER seven or eight months towards training gunnery skills so he can add the Rokh to his ship lineup. How in the world is that a reasonable thing to suggest? And why in the hell would a Caldari player do that? Why not instead train projectiles or lasers and have a complete fleet of ships at his diisposal
Ok, mr OG Smith
How long your Rifter survives against blaster Harpy? |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
51
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 17:25:00 -
[5870] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:His seven or eight months gets him the Drake and a bunch of clowns on the forums telling him he should devote ANOTHER seven or eight months towards training gunnery skills so he can add the Rokh to his ship lineup. How in the world is that a reasonable thing to suggest? And why in the hell would a Caldari player do that? Why not instead train projectiles or lasers and have a complete fleet of ships at his diisposal Ok, mr OG Smith How long your Rifter survives against blaster Harpy?
Frig vs AF....that's just a dumb comparison any way you cut it. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 17:33:00 -
[5871] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:His seven or eight months gets him the Drake and a bunch of clowns on the forums telling him he should devote ANOTHER seven or eight months towards training gunnery skills so he can add the Rokh to his ship lineup. How in the world is that a reasonable thing to suggest? And why in the hell would a Caldari player do that? Why not instead train projectiles or lasers and have a complete fleet of ships at his diisposal Ok, mr OG Smith How long your Rifter survives against blaster Harpy? Frig vs AF....that's just a dumb comparison any way you cut it.
Well...
Rifter wins against Retribution Rifter wins against Vengeance Rifter wins against Enyo Rifter wins against Ishkur |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
336
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 17:58:00 -
[5872] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:His seven or eight months gets him the Drake and a bunch of clowns on the forums telling him he should devote ANOTHER seven or eight months towards training gunnery skills so he can add the Rokh to his ship lineup. How in the world is that a reasonable thing to suggest? And why in the hell would a Caldari player do that? Why not instead train projectiles or lasers and have a complete fleet of ships at his diisposal Ok, mr OG Smith How long your Rifter survives against blaster Harpy?
Answer #1: At least five YEARS or so. Prior to the rocket and hybrod fix the Caldari didn't even have a frigate. You might not remember that, but I can assure you that Caladri pilots damkn sure do.
Answer #2: You are comparing a T2 Assault Frigate to a T1 Frigate.
In any case, there is no question that today Caldari frigates are very nice. In fact, my current favorite frigate (for whatever that's worth) is the rail Harpy. However, every race now has solid frigates. Something that could not be said for most of this game's history. Is your point that Caldari players should be content to fly frigates?
CCP has earned the distrust of Caldari players. Again, they have EARNED it. Even now, with this winter update, they are still at it. They're nerfing missiles, nerfing ECM, and gleefully talking up even more nerfs coming down the line. Their originally proposed changes to the Moa and Caracal were a joke.
And yeah, now at least Fozzie is mentioning that the other Caldari ships are a wreck, one of their main weapons systems is a disaster, and he'd like to fix them one day. But first, first, he really needs to spend more development time *******ing the Caldari players. He can squeeze in some more Caldari nerfs. There's always time for that.
It's like a morale thing at CCP headquarters or something -- every time they feel a bit down they take a steaming crap on the most broken race in the game.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
336
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 18:00:00 -
[5873] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:His seven or eight months gets him the Drake and a bunch of clowns on the forums telling him he should devote ANOTHER seven or eight months towards training gunnery skills so he can add the Rokh to his ship lineup. How in the world is that a reasonable thing to suggest? And why in the hell would a Caldari player do that? Why not instead train projectiles or lasers and have a complete fleet of ships at his diisposal Ok, mr OG Smith How long your Rifter survives against blaster Harpy? Frig vs AF....that's just a dumb comparison any way you cut it. Well... Rifter wins against Retribution Rifter wins against Vengeance Rifter wins against Enyo Rifter wins against Ishkur
Dude... wat?
The Rifter isn't even that great as a T1 Frigate these days. Let alone against any of those AFs. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 18:14:00 -
[5874] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:The Rifter isn't even that great as a T1 Frigate these days. Let alone against any of those AFs.
Rifter can render Retribution's lasers useless with neut. Rifter can tank Ishkur's drones and Vengeance's rockets. Rifter can, yeah, it just can beat Enyo. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 19:47:00 -
[5875] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Post this great Raven fit please!
I want to see a full rack of cruise missiles, heavy neut, speed, cap booster, MWD, long point, and tank. Already posted. No cap booster, the Maelstrom perform fine without one, so I thought a Raven, having capless weapons too, didn't need one ; long point, in a LR fleet BS... Funny you.
Do you know the Raven have the same number of midslot than the Maelstrom ?
As for the skill training : With missiles, caldari ALREADY have some great ships, drake and tengu being quite good at everything ; learning something else would bring them ANOTHER line of ships. Of course, frigates still don't exists, but nevermind.
With hybrids, as caldari pilot, you would earn some frigates (strangely though, caldari defenders here tend to ignore their ships despite them being among the best in their class), Eagle, Naga, Ferox, Rokh. And yes, ALL these ships are fairly good in the ASB era combined with blasters (and blasters + range bonus = kiting blaters win).
With ECM, you have another 4 more ships.
Of course you can train another race of ship and have more than only four, though no race is one weapon only, and even minmatar need to train some other skill trees (like armor tank on top of shield, and missiles). And minmatar ships are not Caldari ships. Even though there is only one ladder of power for some people here, caldari hybrid ships do have their strength. Indeed, if you are only looking for fotm, go for winmatar, but don't cry about caldari having less options than the others, it's wrong, and they don't need more time to train for all their things. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
148
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 20:07:00 -
[5876] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Yes, you will see Drakes in low sec. It's a good ship. You won't see as many of them as, for example, Hurricanes, but you will see quite a few. But let's look deeper as to why you see so many....
If a Minmatar pilot wants a great cruiser he would probably grab a Rupture. The Caldari pilot doesn't have a good T1 cruiser, so he hops in his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants a Command ship he will hop into his Sliepner The Caldari pilot has only his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants a tankier brawling BC he hops into his Cyclone The Caldari pilot has his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants a Battleship he can hop into his Phoon or Tempest or Mael The Caldari pilot has his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants something fast and deadly, he can hop into his Vagabond The Caldari pilot has only his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants to snipe and alpha things at range he can grab a Muninn The Caladri pilot has his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants a kick-ass faction cruiser he can hop into his Cynabol The Caldari pilot, well, he has his Drake
If a Minmatar pilot wants an amazing navy cruiser he can grab himself an SFI The Caldari pilot has his Drake.
If a Minmatar pilot wants a great Faction Battleship he can build himself a Mach The Caldari pilot can't do that, he has his Drake
And I could go on. But you should get the point. And given what I said above, by all rights you aught to see more Drakes than anything else, but you don't. And the reason is that, while Drakes are a good ship, they are not anywhere near as good as some of the folks in this thread have tried to make out. People like me, who can fly them and even like them, usually have a better option.
THIS is what has Caldari players so angry. They don't have **** right now, it's all pretty much crap, and CCP is nerfing them even more. Were this not enough they also have to listen to a bunch of people shouting them down every time they ask for some freaking balance. People with thirty ships in their own hangers saying dumbass things like, "Well, if you spent an extra half year training, you could grab yourself a Moa or even a Rokh!"
With the exception of the Tengu, in the history of Eve the following words have never, even once, been spoken:
"I wish I had trained Caldari instead!" Jeez ! You mean, Caldari are bad at trying to be minmatar ?! Wow ! Amazing !
I have a scoop : caldari ships are not minmatar ships, but they do have strengths. Your list is largely exagerated BTW, you only emphazised minmatar strengths here and even forgot some caldari ships. The same list could be made to emphasize caldari strengths.
Question though : why does every caldari defender here compare caldari ships to the so called "winmatar" ships ? Why don't you compare your caldari ships to amarr or gallente ships ? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 20:27:00 -
[5877] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:If a Minmatar pilot wants a Command ship he will hop into his Sliepner The Caldari pilot has only his Drake
Vulture or for pure boosting 6 gang link OGB Tengu |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 20:55:00 -
[5878] - Quote
Giving my answers in underline.
OT Smithers wrote: Yes, you will see Drakes in low sec. It's a good ship. You won't see as many of them as, for example, Hurricanes, but you will see quite a few. But let's look deeper as to why you see so many.... OT, it doesn't surprise me that you are echoing Noemi. But I've already pointed out the problem with this line of argument. It is anecdotal. Anecdotally I see more Drakes than Canes in lowsec. We could both be right, or wrong. It could depend what part of lowsec, what time of day, so many factors. The point is netiher of us can take a trully unbiased random sample of lowsec tier 2 BC use. Unless that were to happen, such a statment as you made has no factual value. It is purely opinion.If a Minmatar pilot wants a great cruiser he would probably grab a Rupture. The Caldari pilot doesn't have a good T1 cruiser, so he hops in his Drake In FW I see lots of Caracals. Few Moas. A fair number of BBs. Anyway, with the rebalancing the Rupture is now appearing rather weak for the future. But at least the rebalancing with roles make pretty much all the cruisers rather more even. If a Minmatar pilot wants a Command ship he will hop into his Sliepner The Caldari . . . Drake A Nighthawk is still better for pve than a Drake. For pvp the relative lack of a midslot and current fitting make the Nighthawk a problem. They haven't got to command ships yet. Sleipnir has been king of this category though for pvp, but in the future If a Minmatar pilot wants a tankier brawling BC he hops into his Cyclone The Caldari . . . Drake Not sure what you are saying here. They are both BCs. And both can tank very well with current game circumstances. But Cyclone may drop out of it's present usage because ASBs are getting nerfed. Regardless, I think we would both agree anecdotally that Drakes still outnumber Cyclones in lowsec. And noone is making a nullsec blob of Cyclones afaikIf a Minmatar pilot wants a Battleship he can hop into his Phoon or Tempest or Mael The Caldari . . .Drake Here I have to flat out disagree. Rokhs are getting usage in Nullsec. And in lowsec I rarely see any BSs. If you want to revise that statement to missile BS then yes, why fly a Raven (don't want to get into that argument though) when you can fly a much cheaper Drake.If a Minmatar pilot wants something fast and deadly, he can hop into his Vagabond The Caldari . . . Drake Fast is not the Caldari forte. It's those pesky racial predispositions in the game. If someone wants "fast(est)" then they really should be training Minmatar. It's just the way the game is.. Meanwhile though, every race has something that is deadly, even if not presently very evenly distributed. That is why there is rebalancing going on though. If a Minmatar pilot wants to snipe and alpha things at range he can grab a Muninn The Caladri . . . Drake Actually again I don't agree. You can get a better sniper out of a Cerb (more distance) and almost as much alpha as a drake. It's just that again the Drake is cheaper and has 7 launchers to the Cerb's 5 even without the rof bonus of the cerb. Meanwhile the Muninn has 5 guns to the Cane's 6, as well as the range bonus. Arty needs a range bonus to snipe unlike current HMs. Sniping Canes are sorta fail. With rebalancing and this current nerf, the sniping Cerb will look better. If a Minmatar pilot wants a kick-ass faction cruiser he can hop into his Cynabol. If a Minmatar pilot wants an amazing navy cruiser he can grab himself an SFI. The Caldari . . . Drake True enough. But the Caldair pilot also has two pirate faction cruisers. Unfortunately, they each require another weapon system to have been trained, unlike the Cyn or SFI for a minmatar pilot. SFI is getting way more use (anecdotally) than the Cyn. With my fw alt I'm seeing lots of CNI. But it may just be an artifact of their cheapness due to the former ease of lp farming. Faction ships appear to be last in line for rebalancing. They can't do everything at once.If a Minmatar pilot wants a great Faction Battleship he can build himself a Mach The Caldari . . . Drake Again this is an artifact of needing to train a differnt weapon system for the pirate ships that have a Caldari component. But here I think you are wrong on the whole. There are plenty of Navy Ravens. Granted almost none of them are bewing used in pvp. But they are quite prolific (anecdotally)And I could go on. But you should get the point. And given what I said above, by all rights you aught to see more Drakes than anything else, but you don't. And the reason is that, while Drakes are a good ship, they are not anywhere near as good as some of the folks in this thread have tried to make out. People like me, who can fly them and even like them, usually have a better option. We must be playing different games. I see Drakes everywhere. And the eve-kill stats have been supporting this (again without addressing the disagreement we have about nullsec and lowsec use)THIS is what has Caldari players so angry. They don't have **** right now, it's all pretty much crap, and CCP is nerfing them even more. Were this not enough they also have to listen to a bunch of people shouting them down every time they ask for some freaking balance. People with thirty ships in their own hangers saying dumbass things like, "Well, if you spent an extra half year training, you could grab yourself a Moa or even a Rokh!" running out of room, will give answer on this in another post. With the exception of the Tengu, in the history of Eve the following words have never, even once, been spoken: "I wish I had trained Caldari instead!" Not true. I suppose you just don't hang with many folks from 2006 or 2007 that started as Amarr or Minmatar (anecdotal disagreement once again) |
Lili Lu
575
|
Posted - 2012.11.04 21:33:00 -
[5879] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: THIS is what has Caldari players so angry. They don't have **** right now, it's all pretty much crap, and CCP is nerfing them even more. Were this not enough they also have to listen to a bunch of people shouting them down every time they ask for some freaking balance. People with thirty ships in their own hangers saying dumbass things like, "Well, if you spent an extra half year training, you could grab yourself a Moa or even a Rokh!"
OT, training a gunnery tree is indeed a *****. But frankly, those that have avoided and been able to avoid it have been far too lucky. And I do not think it is half a year, but I could be wrong in that (I didn't do it all at one shot). Regardless, one could decide to go with meta 4 tech I guns for quite a while. It's not impossible. I pvp'd and pve'd with them for a time, until I trained tech II. Only elite assholes will turn you away. This is a game. People just need to find the right buddies.
But turning to my purpose for this post, I want to address your use of the phrase "Caldari players." At one point it may have had more meaning. Back when the learning skills were in the game, you started with a pitance of attribute strength and total starting sp, and your rolled race affected your starting attributes. I started in that environment as the worst ass stink in the game Amarr (I liked the idea of lasers ). Even so, very early I recognized the importance of cross-training. Meanwhile 3 charsima Achura were flooding into the game and having a grand time getting into level 4 income making much faster with Drakes.
But enough about me , the important thing is that much of those mechanics are gone and have been for a while. Anyone that has so far been able to get away with training Caldari Drake and Tengu and HMs only has been enjoying an anomaly. One that will be closing even more as this process continues I bet. This game has always been about diversifying. Sure it's good to concentrate in something (master it) but to think that that one area of mastery will/should be rewarded in perpetuity is misguided. One will always need to have some diversification in one's sp portfolio to survive.
I've been saying this for years in almost every post I put on the S&M threads. Every character should have two races of ships trained. And in so doing by extension, every character is going to have to have two general weapon systems trained. And aeven smarter stretegy is to have two races that tank differntly trained even though is necessitates more sp investment as well.
Being diversified gives a player options. Options for pve. Amarr laser boats love to kill bloods and sanshas and are good at it, but the poor missioner that only has lasers if he for whatever reason finds himself getting loaded with anagel or gurista missions. More importantly for pvp, especially with the rise of logi supported and even monoculture fleets, if tank only one way you run the risk of being left out if your gang or alliance is running the other tanking modality.
Being diversified also gives one perspective on the game. This usually makes one a better poster. If you can not just see the performance of another races ships and weapons in eft or pyfa but also have actually used them you come to "know" the benefits and drawbacks of both races and weapons systems in relation to each other. Then you are better at seeing actual imbalances. Returning to me, I have had Lili trained in tech II lasers and projectiles but also all missiles at all sizes for subcaps (and tech II drones through heavys and sentrys as well). Lili's first tech II weapons system was HAMs (other than tech II light and medium drones). I have another character that has tech II hybrids and missiles also (Gallente and Caldari being a rather easier pair to cross-train). I've run pve in drakes, and pvp in drakes (and falcons ). I know very well how strong the ship and the weapon system is and it informs my support of the present HM nerf.
Lastly, being diversified is the best, only insurance one has in the game, from being stuck in the suck. Whether that suck is real or perceived. A strategy of only training one weapon system and race (not even to BS) and expecting to be able to do everything in game with that is a fail strategy (even if up til now it has been possible to do for HMs and Drake/Tengu). Such a strategy should not be reinforced, encouraged, or salvaged. |
Dato Koppla
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
93
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 00:04:00 -
[5880] - Quote
Arguments here have gotten too long winded so I'm lazy to join in, but just wanted to drop by and say:
Protip: Don't bother reading Jorma's posts, he has no idea what's going on, not in this thread, any other thread, or just EvE in general. |
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
337
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 00:31:00 -
[5881] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Jeez ! You mean, Caldari are bad at trying to be minmatar ?! Wow ! Amazing !
In terms of versatility and fleet effectiveness, yes.
Quote:I have a scoop : caldari ships are not minmatar ships, but they do have strengths. Your list is largely exagerated BTW, you only emphazised minmatar strengths here and even forgot some caldari ships. The same list could be made to emphasize caldari strengths.
Write it up and post it.
Quote:Question though : why does every caldari defender here compare caldari ships to the so called "winmatar" ships ? Why don't you compare your caldari ships to amarr or gallente ships ?
Easy answer: I fly Minmatar. For the most part I just listed off the ships in my hangar.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
337
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 00:37:00 -
[5882] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:OT, training a gunnery tree is indeed a *****. But frankly, those that have avoided and been able to avoid it have been far too lucky. And I do not think it is half a year, but I could be wrong in that (I didn't do it all at one shot). Regardless, one could decide to go with meta 4 tech I guns for quite a while. It's not impossible. I pvp'd and pve'd with them for a time, until I trained tech II. Only elite assholes will turn you away. This is a game. People just need to find the right buddies. But turning to my purpose for this post, I want to address your use of the phrase "Caldari players." At one point it may have had more meaning. Back when the learning skills were in the game, you started with a pitance of attribute strength and total starting sp, and your rolled race affected your starting attributes. I started in that environment as the worst ass stink in the game Amarr (I liked the idea of lasers ). Even so, very early I recognized the importance of cross-training. Meanwhile 3 charsima Achura were flooding into the game and having a grand time getting into level 4 income making much faster with Drakes. But enough about me , the important thing is that much of those mechanics are gone and have been for a while. Anyone that has so far been able to get away with training Caldari Drake and Tengu and HMs only has been enjoying an anomaly. One that will be closing even more as this process continues I bet. This game has always been about diversifying. Sure it's good to concentrate in something (master it) but to think that that one area of mastery will/should be rewarded in perpetuity is misguided. One will always need to have some diversification in one's sp portfolio to survive and find wide enjoyment in the game. I've been saying this for years in almost every post I put on the S&M threads. Every character should have two races of ships trained. And in so doing by extension, every character is going to have to have two general weapon systems trained. And an even smarter stretegy is to have two races that tank differntly trained even though is necessitates more sp investment as well. Being diversified gives a player options. Options for pve. Amarr laser boats love to kill bloods and sanshas and are good at it, but the poor missioner that only has lasers if he for whatever reason finds himself getting loaded with anagel or gurista missions. More importantly for pvp, especially with the rise of logi supported and even monoculture fleets, if tank only one way you run the risk of being left out if your gang or alliance is running the other tanking modality. Being diversified also gives one perspective on the game. This usually makes one a better poster. If you can not just see the performance of another races ships and weapons in eft or pyfa but also have actually used them you come to "know" the benefits and drawbacks of both races and weapons systems in relation to each other. Then you are better at seeing actual imbalances. Returning to me, I have had Lili trained in tech II lasers and projectiles but also all tech II missiles at all sizes for subcaps (and tech II drones through heavys and sentrys as well). Lili's first tech II weapons system was HAMs (other than tech II light and medium drones). I have another character that has tech II hybrids and missiles also (Gallente and Caldari being a rather easier pair to cross-train). I've run pve in drakes, and pvp in drakes (and falcons ). I know very well how strong the ship and the weapon system is and it informs my support of the present HM nerf. Lastly, being diversified is the best, only insurance one has in the game, from being stuck in the suck. Whether that suck is real or perceived. A strategy of only training one weapon system and race (not even to BS) and expecting to be able to do everything in game with that is a fail strategy (even if up til now it has been possible to do for HMs and Drake/Tengu). Such a strategy should not be reinforced, encouraged, or salvaged. And going back to your second sentence, no, Caladari is not in the doldrums right now. Minmatar may be in the best position, but it is Gallente that one could most say has "****" right now. Caldari has been the major benficiary so far in the ship rebalancing. That they may be losing the hands down favorites for BC and Cruiser sized ships is not relegating them behind Gallente. When CCP has gone through a whole pass on the ships and mods we shall see. And as Fozzie says, they will start all over again.
Excellent post. |
Calembo DeLuna
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 04:33:00 -
[5883] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:
Lastly, being diversified is the best, only insurance one has in the game, from being stuck in the suck. Whether that suck is real or perceived. A strategy of only training one weapon system and race (not even to BS) and expecting to be able to do everything in game with that is a fail strategy (even if up til now it has been possible to do for HMs and Drake/Tengu). Such a strategy should not be reinforced, encouraged, or salvaged. And going back to your second sentence, no, Caladari is not in the doldrums right now. Minmatar may be in the best position, but it is Gallente that one could most say has "****" right now. Caldari has been the major benficiary so far in the ship rebalancing. That they may be losing the hands down favorites for BC and Cruiser sized ships is not relegating them behind Gallente. When CCP has gone through a whole pass on the ships and mods we shall see. And as Fozzie says, they will start all over again.
What you are advocating is to pigeonhole everyone into diversification as the only viable style of play. Which IMO goes counter to sandbox game design philosophy. A sandbox game like EVE should encourage both styles of play - diversification and deep specialization - with their respective unique rewards. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 05:28:00 -
[5884] - Quote
Training for Drake/Tengu and heavy missiles doesn't take long even if you go for level 5 spec. So I wouldn't speak about deep specialization. |
Vemi Valentino
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 10:37:00 -
[5885] - Quote
I'm a new player, just subbed yesterday. So I have my doubts that I will be able to make a strong statement, that will sway 3 different races + some of my own. But I can say that in my opinion, I'm already feeling like there is very little love for the Caldari.
In personal experience I can say it doesn't make sense to hype missiles for a racial spec, and then only give us second lvl ships for it. Example, Ferox (turrets) Drake (missiles) Naga (turrets). This jumps out at me as odd, since turrets are 2 of 3 ships, including our highest tier and first tier.
If 66% of our ships (give or take) are turret ships, then why should we bother with missiles. But wait, lets nerf that 33%.
When I ask about Caldari pvp, what is the one thing I get told. "Caldari are great for ECM" While I'm sure this is true, what is the other indisputable fact about fleet warfare, that even a noob as I has picked up. ECM/Jamming ships, are targeted first. So we are expected to die first, and be support characters in PVP.
So to sum up my 15 day experience. 1. Limited ships that have missiles as an option, with bias towards turrets. 2. Caldari are expected to be ECM players and get targeted/die first 3. Despite nerfs/inbalance, I still really like this game. 4. If I have to start training Minmitar ships to do dmg, I will.
Like I said, I am new so my opinion is different than people with extensive pvp experience, but I think it's important to add a new players opinion to the mix. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
45
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 11:24:00 -
[5886] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:OT Smithers wrote: THIS is what has Caldari players so angry. They don't have **** right now, it's all pretty much crap, and CCP is nerfing them even more. Were this not enough they also have to listen to a bunch of people shouting them down every time they ask for some freaking balance. People with thirty ships in their own hangers saying dumbass things like, "Well, if you spent an extra half year training, you could grab yourself a Moa or even a Rokh!" OT, training a gunnery tree is indeed a *****. But frankly, those that have avoided and been able to avoid it have been far too lucky. And I do not think it is half a year, but I could be wrong in that (I didn't do it all at one shot). Regardless, one could decide to go with meta 4 tech I guns for quite a while. It's not impossible. I pvp'd and pve'd with them for a time, until I trained tech II. Only elite assholes will turn you away. This is a game. People just need to find the right buddies. But turning to my purpose for this post, I want to address your use of the phrase "Caldari players." At one point it may have had more meaning. Back when the learning skills were in the game, you started with a pitance of attribute strength and total starting sp, and your rolled race affected your starting attributes. I started in that environment as the worst ass stink in the game Amarr (I liked the idea of lasers ). Even so, very early I recognized the importance of cross-training. Meanwhile 3 charsima Achura were flooding into the game and having a grand time getting into level 4 income making much faster with Drakes. But enough about me , the important thing is that much of those mechanics are gone and have been for a while. Anyone that has so far been able to get away with training Caldari Drake and Tengu and HMs only has been enjoying an anomaly. One that will be closing even more as this process continues I bet. This game has always been about diversifying. Sure it's good to concentrate in something (master it) but to think that that one area of mastery will/should be rewarded in perpetuity is misguided. One will always need to have some diversification in one's sp portfolio to survive and find wide enjoyment in the game. I've been saying this for years in almost every post I put on the S&M threads. Every character should have two races of ships trained. And in so doing by extension, every character is going to have to have two general weapon systems trained. And an even smarter stretegy is to have two races that tank differntly trained even though is necessitates more sp investment as well. Being diversified gives a player options. Options for pve. Amarr laser boats love to kill bloods and sanshas and are good at it, but the poor missioner that only has lasers if he for whatever reason finds himself getting loaded with anagel or gurista missions. More importantly for pvp, especially with the rise of logi supported and even monoculture fleets, if tank only one way you run the risk of being left out if your gang or alliance is running the other tanking modality. Being diversified also gives one perspective on the game. This usually makes one a better poster. If you can not just see the performance of another races ships and weapons in eft or pyfa but also have actually used them you come to "know" the benefits and drawbacks of both races and weapons systems in relation to each other. Then you are better at seeing actual imbalances. Returning to me, I have had Lili trained in tech II lasers and projectiles but also all tech II missiles at all sizes for subcaps (and tech II drones through heavys and sentrys as well). Lili's first tech II weapons system was HAMs (other than tech II light and medium drones). I have another character that has tech II hybrids and missiles also (Gallente and Caldari being a rather easier pair to cross-train). I've run pve in drakes, and pvp in drakes (and falcons ). I know very well how strong the ship and the weapon system is and it informs my support of the present HM nerf. Lastly, being diversified is the best, only insurance one has in the game, from being stuck in the suck. Whether that suck is real or perceived. A strategy of only training one weapon system and race (not even to BS) and expecting to be able to do everything in game with that is a fail strategy (even if up til now it has been possible to do for HMs and Drake/Tengu). Such a strategy should not be reinforced, encouraged, or salvaged. And going back to your second sentence, no, Caladari is not in the doldrums right now. Minmatar may be in the best position, but it is Gallente that one could most say has "****" right now. Caldari has been the major benficiary so far in the ship rebalancing. That they may be losing the hands down favorites for BC and Cruiser sized ships is not relegating them behind Gallente. When CCP has gone through a whole pass on the ships and mods we shall see. And as Fozzie says, they will start all over again.
tbh most people that cross train look at the pirate ships and caldari pirate ships are drone and missle (caldari/galente hybrid ships) bassed thus nerfing missle reduce its effectiveness. so you point here is cut out if you think of that i have played for nearly 2 years 1 and a half of that of actualy training (took 6 month breake) and even after that my missle skills aint maxed and i still aint able to train all tech 2 ship so there is another whole point that you brung up partialy negated.
simple put missle systems only work for itself it dosent have skill that transfer to other weapons so yes i think missles users should be rewarded in some way for specilising more so than others especialy when you think to max a particular gun system takes less sp investmant than maxing missles. |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
52
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 11:25:00 -
[5887] - Quote
ECM is primaried because its an utterly, utterly ungodly, nasty dangerous thing to leave flying about. Think of it as flattery
[Falcon uses turrets ] |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
149
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 11:46:00 -
[5888] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:--Jeez ! You mean, Caldari are bad at trying to be minmatar ?! Wow ! Amazing !
In terms of versatility and fleet effectiveness, yes.
Too bad, you've gone one word too far.
Caldari ships are definitly VERY effective in fleet. Just look at the number of caldari fleet composition : Rokh fleet, Tengu fleet, Drake fleet ; and add to this some fleet support ships : fleet Scorpion, Basilisk.
Take a look at gallente, and do this count. Gallente, as opposed to Caldari, are always second choice ships except for the Lachesis/Arazu.
Quote:Quote: --I have a scoop : caldari ships are not minmatar ships, but they do have strengths. Your list is largely exagerated BTW, you only emphazised minmatar strengths here and even forgot some caldari ships. The same list could be made to emphasize caldari strengths.
Write it up and post it.
Strongest shield, the two mightest weapon system at long range, and the best EWAR are the strength of the caldari. Here some of your arguments : If I want a BC that can stand in a blob against battleship, caldari have the drake. Minmatar have nothing more than a welp hurricane. If I want a robust and high dps BS for long range, caldari have the Rokh. Minmatar have nothing but alpha. If I want the BEST force multiplyer in game, Caldari have the Falcon. Minmatar have nothing. If I want an awesome shield frigate lineup, caldari is the goto race. Minmatar are only second choices next to caldari for frigate fights. If I want to snipe, nothing is better than a Cerberus, an Eagle or a Naga. Minmatar only have alpha. Want to brawl ? resist bonused ASB + range bonused blasters = win. In fact, I tend to think that as soon the a target is scram/webed, then any more caldari ship is better than a minmatar ship. Caldari are masters of "stand and hit" doctrine, and they have a rather good agility. That's not the "hit and gtfo" of the minmatar, but it's up to you to use the weapon you have or those you prefer. Quote: -- Question though : why does every caldari defender here compare caldari ships to the so called "winmatar" ships ? Why don't you compare your caldari ships to amarr or gallente ships ?
Easy answer: I fly Minmatar. For the most part I just listed off the ships in my hangar.
Then, try the comparison with a race wich is not considered OP. That may add some perspective to your judgement about caldari being weak. Also : [quote=Calembo DeLuna]to pigeonhole everyone into diversification Best quote of the thread. Thank you so much. :D |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
149
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 11:47:00 -
[5889] - Quote
Vemi Valentino wrote:I'm a new player, just subbed yesterday. So I have my doubts that I will be able to make a strong statement, that will sway 3 different races + some of my own. But I can say that in my opinion, I'm already feeling like there is very little love for the Caldari.
In personal experience I can say it doesn't make sense to hype missiles for a racial spec, and then only give us second lvl ships for it. Example, Ferox (turrets) Drake (missiles) Naga (turrets). This jumps out at me as odd, since turrets are 2 of 3 ships, including our highest tier and first tier.
If 66% of our ships (give or take) are turret ships, then why should we bother with missiles. But wait, lets nerf that 33%.
When I ask about Caldari pvp, what is the one thing I get told. "Caldari are great for ECM" While I'm sure this is true, what is the other indisputable fact about fleet warfare, that even a noob as I has picked up. ECM/Jamming ships, are targeted first. So we are expected to die first, and be support characters in PVP.
So to sum up my 15 day experience. 1. Limited ships that have missiles as an option, with bias towards turrets. 2. Caldari are expected to be ECM players and get targeted/die first 3. Despite nerfs/imbalance, I still really like this game. 4. If I have to start training Minmitar ships to do dmg, I will.
Like I said, I am new so my opinion is different than people with extensive pvp experience, but I think it's important to add a new players view to the mix. Come on. Your beloved drake will still be dreadful, only less OP with HML. You may have to look at HAM to do a lot of things. In fact, that nerf is increasing your options. |
Foolish Bob
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 13:16:00 -
[5890] - Quote
Calembo DeLuna wrote: What you are advocating is to pigeonhole everyone into diversification as the only viable style of play. Which IMO goes counter to sandbox game design philosophy. A sandbox game like EVE should encourage both styles of play - diversification and deep specialization - with their respective unique rewards.
We do live in a sandbox and the game does reward specialisation. In fact it can be fairly argued that it goes further and punishes diversification. You're just missing what it is that is being specialised. This is not like an RPG where you become the best killer of monsters +5 you can be by training monster killing +5. Existence in New Eden is defined by the profession you as a player choose to pursue, and whether or not you choose to maximise the skills you need to be that profession is up to you. Further, it is axiomatically true that specialisation in any profession that isn't mission running or mining requires a diversified set of skills in order to "perfect" your trade. In fact, for the PVP professions a diversified skill set is not sufficient, because (as is hyped most often) a low SP character has every chance of defeating a high SP character if, for instance, the high SP character is just terrible at flying (like me). So, rather what you're asking for is this
Quote: In a game centred around Darwinian adaptation in all levels, I wish to fix my character into only one mode of playing in order to achieve the goals of my chosen profession and not suffer a disadvantage to someone who is capable of adapting to his situation
And that I disagree with. Mission running should no more be about "train caldari, learn missiles get profit" than PVP should be about "train minmater, learn projectiles, win", and if these changes go some way towards that then I'm all for it.
Note that I'm not saying that missiles don't need some form of iteration. A while ago I lost an af to a tornado whilst under fire from a manticore. This is to be expected (because I'm terrible) but the part that made no sense to me was that I was ignoring the ship with BS class missile weapons with a bonus to help it hit smaller targets and was only (rightly) concerned about the ship with BS class turret weapons with no bonus to hit smaller targets. I don't know in which direction the change for that needs to be made, but it's an odd emergent behaviour to be sure.
In terms of the broad changes, the stated goal is to remove the ability to compare long range missiles to short range guns as a design philosophy, and once that's settled to take a look at ship bonuses. I'd say these changes achieve the first point, so success. Am I worried about CCP's ability to deliver the other side of that goal? Of course, but if I were in their shoes I'd want to make changes to single dependant variables at a time too (given how horrifically complex the system is) so it'd be hypocritical of me to expect them to do all the things all at once. Still, chop chop, though. |
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
339
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 17:44:00 -
[5891] - Quote
Calembo DeLuna wrote:Lili Lu wrote:
Lastly, being diversified is the best, only insurance one has in the game, from being stuck in the suck. Whether that suck is real or perceived. A strategy of only training one weapon system and race (not even to BS) and expecting to be able to do everything in game with that is a fail strategy (even if up til now it has been possible to do for HMs and Drake/Tengu). Such a strategy should not be reinforced, encouraged, or salvaged. And going back to your second sentence, no, Caladari is not in the doldrums right now. Minmatar may be in the best position, but it is Gallente that one could most say has "****" right now. Caldari has been the major benficiary so far in the ship rebalancing. That they may be losing the hands down favorites for BC and Cruiser sized ships is not relegating them behind Gallente. When CCP has gone through a whole pass on the ships and mods we shall see. And as Fozzie says, they will start all over again.
What you are advocating is to pigeonhole everyone into diversification as the only viable style of play. Which IMO goes counter to sandbox game design philosophy. A sandbox game like EVE should encourage both styles of play - diversification and deep specialization - with their respective unique rewards.
The other counter argument is that every race should offer a complete lineup of effective and deadly ships and weapons. No one should ever be told, "Oh, well you fly Caldari, so if you want a working PvP (Insert ship type here) you need to train an entirely different race."
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
340
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 18:35:00 -
[5892] - Quote
Vemi Valentino wrote:I'm a new player, just subbed yesterday. So I have my doubts that I will be able to make a strong statement, that will sway 3 different races + some of my own. But I can say that in my opinion, I'm already feeling like there is very little love for the Caldari.
In personal experience I can say it doesn't make sense to hype missiles for a racial spec, and then only give us second lvl ships for it. Example, Ferox (turrets) Drake (missiles) Naga (turrets). This jumps out at me as odd, since turrets are 2 of 3 ships, including our highest tier and first tier.
If 66% of our ships (give or take) are turret ships, then why should we bother with missiles. But wait, lets nerf that 33%.
When I ask about Caldari pvp, what is the one thing I get told. "Caldari are great for ECM" While I'm sure this is true, what is the other indisputable fact about fleet warfare, that even a noob as I has picked up. ECM/Jamming ships, are targeted first. So we are expected to die first, and be support characters in PVP.
So to sum up my 15 day experience. 1. Limited ships that have missiles as an option, with bias towards turrets. 2. Caldari are expected to be ECM players and get targeted/die first 3. Despite nerfs/imbalance, I still really like this game. 4. If I have to start training Minmitar ships to do dmg, I will.
Like I said, I am new so my opinion is different than people with extensive pvp experience, but I think it's important to add a new players view to the mix.
No one expects Caldari pilots to fly ECM -- and CCP is nerfing the crap out of ECM in this update anyway.
The only thing you, as a Caldari player, will be shoehorned into is the Drake. The Drake will be your main combat ship because it is your only combat ship. This might change down the road, but for now that's how it is. Post update, it will be the "kinder, gentler" pastel Drake. It won't suck, but if it ever was the king of the BC's (and I think that title belongs to the Cane myself) it certainly won't be after this. The Cane has always been Steak and Lobster; the Drake Oatmeal with brown sugar and cream. CCP is taking away the brown sugar and cream, replacing it with aspartame and skim milk, and telling you it's still just as good as steak. Sure it is CCP.
But that's what you will have.
In any case, nerf or not, I would advise ANY new player to drop missiles immediately and switch to gunnery -- and consider another race altogether. Not because of this nerf -- these changes are a net improvement for missile users -- but because of the return on investment. The other races have complete lineups of exceptional ships and weapons. The Caldari simply do not. Nor should you wait for CCP to fix them. That would be foolish. CCP isn't even bothering to fix all of the missiles in this missile update. How incredible is that? Caldari players have been waiting for years for this, and CCP couldn't even finish the job with missiles with all the Caldari nerfs they had planned.
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
158
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 18:44:00 -
[5893] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Vemi Valentino wrote:I'm a new player, just subbed yesterday. So I have my doubts that I will be able to make a strong statement, that will sway 3 different races + some of my own. But I can say that in my opinion, I'm already feeling like there is very little love for the Caldari.
In personal experience I can say it doesn't make sense to hype missiles for a racial spec, and then only give us second lvl ships for it. Example, Ferox (turrets) Drake (missiles) Naga (turrets). This jumps out at me as odd, since turrets are 2 of 3 ships, including our highest tier and first tier.
If 66% of our ships (give or take) are turret ships, then why should we bother with missiles. But wait, lets nerf that 33%.
When I ask about Caldari pvp, what is the one thing I get told. "Caldari are great for ECM" While I'm sure this is true, what is the other indisputable fact about fleet warfare, that even a noob as I has picked up. ECM/Jamming ships, are targeted first. So we are expected to die first, and be support characters in PVP.
So to sum up my 15 day experience. 1. Limited ships that have missiles as an option, with bias towards turrets. 2. Caldari are expected to be ECM players and get targeted/die first 3. Despite nerfs/imbalance, I still really like this game. 4. If I have to start training Minmitar ships to do dmg, I will.
Like I said, I am new so my opinion is different than people with extensive pvp experience, but I think it's important to add a new players view to the mix. No one expects Caldari pilots to fly ECM -- and CCP is nerfing the crap out of ECM in this update anyway. The only thing you, as a Caldari player, will be shoehorned into is the Drake. The Drake will be your main combat ship because it is your only combat ship. This might change down the road, but for now that's how it is. Post update, it will be the "kinder, gentler" pastel Drake. It won't suck, but if it ever was the king of the BC's (and I think that title belongs to the Cane myself) it certainly won't be after this. The Cane has always been Steak and Lobster; the Drake Oatmeal with brown sugar and cream. CCP is taking away the brown sugar and cream, replacing it with aspartame and skim milk, and telling you it's still just as good as steak. Sure it is CCP. But that's what you will have. In any case, nerf or not, I would advise ANY new player to drop missiles immediately and switch to gunnery -- and consider another race altogether. Not because of this nerf -- these changes are a net improvement for missile users -- but because of the return on investment. The other races have complete lineups of exceptional ships and weapons. The Caldari simply do not. Nor should you wait for CCP to fix them. That would be foolish. CCP isn't even bothering to fix all of the missiles in this missile update. How incredible is that? Caldari players have been waiting for years for this, and CCP couldn't even finish the job with missiles with all the Caldari nerfs they had planned.
Please point out how the gallente line has such a complete line up. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
149
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 22:38:00 -
[5894] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:No one expects Caldari pilots to fly ECM -- and CCP is nerfing the crap out of ECM in this update anyway.
The only thing you, as a Caldari player, will be shoehorned into is the Drake. The Drake will be your main combat ship because it is your only combat ship. This might change down the road, but for now that's how it is. Post update, it will be the "kinder, gentler" pastel Drake. It won't suck, but if it ever was the king of the BC's (and I think that title belongs to the Cane myself) it certainly won't be after this. The Cane has always been Steak and Lobster; the Drake Oatmeal with brown sugar and cream. CCP is taking away the brown sugar and cream, replacing it with aspartame and skim milk, and telling you it's still just as good as steak. Sure it is CCP.
But that's what you will have.
In any case, nerf or not, I would advise ANY new player to drop missiles immediately and switch to gunnery -- and consider another race altogether. Not because of this nerf -- these changes are a net improvement for missile users -- but because of the return on investment. The other races have complete lineups of exceptional ships and weapons. The Caldari simply do not. Nor should you wait for CCP to fix them. That would be foolish. CCP isn't even bothering to fix all of the missiles in this missile update. How incredible is that? Caldari players have been waiting for years for this, and CCP couldn't even finish the job with missiles with all the Caldari nerfs they had planned.
So that's it, you ignore half the caldari ships.
I told it many times : caldari have more options for big fleets than any other race, the only fleet setup excluding them being armor close range fleet. This old idea of caldari being bad at pvp is obsolete for some years now, get over it.
And just compare them to amarr or gallente, just to go back on earth, and to understand what most ships can do.. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.05 23:08:00 -
[5895] - Quote
I've been for a spin on the test server and if anything the rebalancing seems incomplete. Caracals now output almost 90% of the dps of a Drake if you fit them right and have a longer range whilst being cheaper. It's true that they have no real tank, but hey cheap snipers shouldn't really have any tank.
That's the trade off in eve. The more dps you need to output brings you closer and closer to your opponent. Whilst the carcal has been nicely rebalanced I would have liked to have seen the same rof and velocity bonus applied to the drake to compensate for the missile nerf.
The Caldari have a ranged combat fighting style as per the eve back story and are also shield tankers. so it makes sense that their weapons of choice should be long ranged and their ships should have solid shield tanking abilities (the Drake fits the bill perfectly for this). Balancing them to the point that their weapons perform to the same degree as other races weapon systems makes your choice of weapon utterly pointless. It might be called a missile, an autocannon or a laser but if it has similar range and outputs similar dps to your opponents then what's the point? Where can you get an edge? In eve we all live and die by whatever edge we can get yet the endless rebalancing mitigates the effects of fighting styles and tactics. We might as well all equip our ships with fuzzy, buck rogers style energy beams and fire them all day. Whilst we're at it we might as well assign every frigate and every cruiser the same stats as any other one. The end result will be the same.
Anyhow I am not convinced that that this rebalancing is being done to any sort of mathematical algorithm which could prove that all ships and weapons are balanced. The case in point being how the original damage nerf was 20% and after much postin on the forum by opponents of this it's now 10%. If the rebalancing was being done to a formula that outputted a value of 20% changing it to 10% would still result in an unbalanced game. This suggests that the rebalancing is done by feel not by simulation or mathematical analysis. In which case the developers only stop working when the game feels right to them. This would further suggest that eve will never, ever, ever be a balanced game.... |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
54
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 07:41:00 -
[5896] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:CCP is nerfing the crap out of ECM in this update anyway.
Eh? I missed that, do you have a link?
|
Qaidan Alenko
State War Academy Caldari State
597
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 08:00:00 -
[5897] - Quote
@ Morrigan
Quote:ECM *Reduce Optimal Range and Falloff of all ECM modules by 10% *Add to the Optimal Range and Falloff bonus on ECM range bonused ships by 2.5% for the Blackbird, Kitsune and Tengu Obfuscation Manifold (bringing it to 12.5%) and 5% for the Scorpion (bringing it to 25%) *Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)
Source: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=168820&find=unread Go ahead,,,, Get your Wham on!!!
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
54
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 08:13:00 -
[5898] - Quote
Ta.
It's not too bad at least |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 09:33:00 -
[5899] - Quote
MIrple wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Vemi Valentino wrote:I'm a new player, just subbed yesterday. So I have my doubts that I will be able to make a strong statement, that will sway 3 different races + some of my own. But I can say that in my opinion, I'm already feeling like there is very little love for the Caldari.
In personal experience I can say it doesn't make sense to hype missiles for a racial spec, and then only give us second lvl ships for it. Example, Ferox (turrets) Drake (missiles) Naga (turrets). This jumps out at me as odd, since turrets are 2 of 3 ships, including our highest tier and first tier.
If 66% of our ships (give or take) are turret ships, then why should we bother with missiles. But wait, lets nerf that 33%.
When I ask about Caldari pvp, what is the one thing I get told. "Caldari are great for ECM" While I'm sure this is true, what is the other indisputable fact about fleet warfare, that even a noob as I has picked up. ECM/Jamming ships, are targeted first. So we are expected to die first, and be support characters in PVP.
So to sum up my 15 day experience. 1. Limited ships that have missiles as an option, with bias towards turrets. 2. Caldari are expected to be ECM players and get targeted/die first 3. Despite nerfs/imbalance, I still really like this game. 4. If I have to start training Minmitar ships to do dmg, I will.
Like I said, I am new so my opinion is different than people with extensive pvp experience, but I think it's important to add a new players view to the mix. No one expects Caldari pilots to fly ECM -- and CCP is nerfing the crap out of ECM in this update anyway. The only thing you, as a Caldari player, will be shoehorned into is the Drake. The Drake will be your main combat ship because it is your only combat ship. This might change down the road, but for now that's how it is. Post update, it will be the "kinder, gentler" pastel Drake. It won't suck, but if it ever was the king of the BC's (and I think that title belongs to the Cane myself) it certainly won't be after this. The Cane has always been Steak and Lobster; the Drake Oatmeal with brown sugar and cream. CCP is taking away the brown sugar and cream, replacing it with aspartame and skim milk, and telling you it's still just as good as steak. Sure it is CCP. But that's what you will have. In any case, nerf or not, I would advise ANY new player to drop missiles immediately and switch to gunnery -- and consider another race altogether. Not because of this nerf -- these changes are a net improvement for missile users -- but because of the return on investment. The other races have complete lineups of exceptional ships and weapons. The Caldari simply do not. Nor should you wait for CCP to fix them. That would be foolish. CCP isn't even bothering to fix all of the missiles in this missile update. How incredible is that? Caldari players have been waiting for years for this, and CCP couldn't even finish the job with missiles with all the Caldari nerfs they had planned. Please point out how the gallente line has such a complete line up.
Theres nothing wrong with gallente. Except maybe rails..
Theres alot awesome gallente boats.. Let me name some of them for you..
Lachesis Arazu Proteus (small gang) Oneiros Ares Taranis Keres Nemesis Enyo Ishkur Phobos Deimos (small gang) Ishtar (pve) Myrmidon (bait/solo triple rep) Brutix (gank/small gang) Hyperion (bait/triple rep) Megathron (small gang/blaster) Dominix (pve/pvp) Thanatos Nyx Moros Erebus |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 10:06:00 -
[5900] - Quote
serras bang wrote:[quote=Lili Lu][quote=OT Smithers]
tbh most people that cross train look at the pirate ships and caldari pirate ships are drone and missle (caldari/galente hybrid ships) bassed thus nerfing missle reduce its effectiveness. so you point here is cut out if you think of that i have played for nearly 2 years 1 and a half of that of actualy training (took 6 month breake) and even after that my missle skills aint maxed and i still aint able to train all tech 2 ship so there is another whole point that you brung up partialy negated.
simple put missle systems only work for itself it dosent have skill that transfer to other weapons so yes i think missles users should be rewarded in some way for specilising more so than others especialy when you think to max a particular gun system takes less sp investmant than maxing missles.
Tbh i trained caldari for PVE and i trained minmatar for PVP. Then i trained gallente t2 frigs and gallente bs for more PVP. Next i will train amarr hacs and bs's for even more PVP.
|
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor
1134
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 11:02:00 -
[5901] - Quote
Nerfing heavy missiles isn't really going to address any balance issue - it's just going to make missioning in Tengus more irritating and less efficient (not, you understand, actually more difficult - just more boring, which runs contrary to the idea of a game, which one plays to have fun), which will make the game less fun for people who mission in Tengus. Mane 614
|
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 11:11:00 -
[5902] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote: Theres alot awesome gallente boats.. Let me name some of them for you..
Lachesis Arazu Proteus (small gang) Oneiros Ares Taranis Keres Nemesis Enyo Ishkur Phobos Deimos (small gang) Ishtar (pve) Talos Myrmidon (bait/solo triple rep) Brutix (gank/small gang) Hyperion (bait/triple rep) Megathron (small gang/blaster) Dominix (pve/pvp) Thanatos Nyx Moros Erebus
Theres alot awesome Caldari boats.. Let me name some of them for you.. Rook Falcon (because of falcon) Tengu Basilisk Kitsune Manticore Harpy Hawk Hookbill Merlin Griffin Onyx Cerberus (Long range small gang) Naga Drake Vulture (those bonus' and tank are really quite good, even if the ship has paper DPS) Ferox (ASB Ferox's are slow, but good brawlers) Scorpion Rokh Wyvern |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
150
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 11:14:00 -
[5903] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote: Lachesis Arazu Proteus (small gang) Oneiros Ares Taranis Keres Nemesis Enyo Ishkur Phobos Deimos (small gang) Ishtar (pve) Talos Myrmidon (bait/solo triple rep) Brutix (gank/small gang) Hyperion (bait/triple rep) Megathron (small gang/blaster) Dominix (pve/pvp) Thanatos Nyx Moros Erebus
I know very well which gallente ships are good. Though, now, pick you can see in a nullsec fleet. BTW, 6 of them are frigates, and the caldari fanatics here don't want to hear anything about frigates, caldari certainly have too many good options in the frigate lineup.
Gallente have plenty of solo options, though they are not minmatar in anyway and they lack fleet options (at least in the current metagame/mindset of people), and the list OT made could be full of "no ship available" if you appy it to gallente or amarr. Caldari have many options too, both for fleet or solo/small gang. The only problem is caldari pilots being fanatics considering hybrids turrets as heresy and ECM as not offensive enough. They really miss their race choice IMO and should have opted for Amarr.
Of course, they will moan about the oportunity of skilling turrets if it's only to have half the ships you can have by crosstraining, but that's the case for everyone : amarr learning missiles for 2 or 3 ships would be better crosstraining caldari, and anyone training drones would be better crosstraining gallente. But this is completely ocluding all the secondary skills needed when you crosstrain : another type of armor, another weapons, and all the ships of course ; it's always shorter to learn your race secondary weapon than to crosstrain, always ; that's not surprising then, that if you train more skills, you have more options. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
341
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 17:47:00 -
[5904] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
Please point out how the gallente line has such a complete line up.
Frigates:
You have arguably the best T1 frigate in the game. You have two of the best AFs in the game (Ishkur and Enyo). You have an exceptional pirate faction frigate in the Comet. The Taranis and Ares are the best interceptors in the game.
Destroyers:
The Cat is considered by some to be the best destroyer in the game. It is certainly competetive with the Thrasher.
Cruisers:
The Vexor today is arguably the best T1 (non-faction) cruiser in the game, and post update it will be un-freaking-real. The Thorax is, of course, deadly. The Navy Vexor is like the conventional Vexor on PCP. The Ishtar, with the right skills, is one of the most versatile and deadly HACs in the game. The Phobos, Oneiros, Arazu, and Lachesis all have well deserved reputations for excellence. And the Proteus, obviously, is fantastic.
Battlecruisers:
The Myrmidon is one of the deadliest BCs in the game -- in the right hands. There are literally a dozen different viable fits, so you never know what you are going up against. If I had better drone skills this would be my BC of choice. The Brutix is a solid and dangerous ship. The Talos is the best T3 BC in the game, and if that's not enough with a week's training a Gallente pilot can fly the Naga.
Battleships:
Hyperion, Megathron, Domi... do I really need to elaborate? If you want more grab a Mega or Domi Navy issue.
So where, exactly, are the gaping holes? This is a solid lineup of ships. Gallente have some issues of course, the biggest (in my opinion) being medium railgun related. Further, drones and gate guns do not mix well. But whatever.
I am no expert on Gallente ships. I know that the people who use them more than me have a laundry list of issues they would like to see addressed, and I believe them. But let's not get silly and try to claim that they have an incomplete broken lineup of ships -- particularly when compared to the Caldari. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
341
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:00:00 -
[5905] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:I've been for a spin on the test server and if anything the rebalancing seems incomplete. Caracals now output almost 90% of the dps of a Drake if you fit them right and have a longer range whilst being cheaper. It's true that they have no real tank, but hey cheap snipers shouldn't really have any tank.
That's the trade off in eve. The more dps you need to output brings you closer and closer to your opponent. Whilst the carcal has been nicely rebalanced I would have liked to have seen the same rof and velocity bonus applied to the drake to compensate for the missile nerf.
The Caldari have a ranged combat fighting style as per the eve back story and are also shield tankers. so it makes sense that their weapons of choice should be long ranged and their ships should have solid shield tanking abilities (the Drake fits the bill perfectly for this). Balancing them to the point that their weapons perform to the same degree as other races weapon systems makes your choice of weapon utterly pointless. It might be called a missile, an autocannon or a laser but if it has similar range and outputs similar dps to your opponents then what's the point? Where can you get an edge? In eve we all live and die by whatever edge we can get yet the endless rebalancing mitigates the effects of fighting styles and tactics. We might as well all equip our ships with fuzzy, buck rogers style energy beams and fire them all day. Whilst we're at it we might as well assign every frigate and every cruiser the same stats as any other one. The end result will be the same.
Anyhow I am not convinced that that this rebalancing is being done to any sort of mathematical algorithm which could prove that all ships and weapons are balanced. The case in point being how the original damage nerf was 20% and after much postin on the forum by opponents of this it's now 10%. If the rebalancing was being done to a formula that outputted a value of 20% changing it to 10% would still result in an unbalanced game. This suggests that the rebalancing is done by feel not by simulation or mathematical analysis. In which case the developers only stop working when the game feels right to them. This would further suggest that eve will never, ever, ever be a balanced game....
Shhhh! Don't tell everyone!
But yeah, that's why I find this whole crusade to nerf the Drake so silly. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
159
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:10:00 -
[5906] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:I've been for a spin on the test server and if anything the rebalancing seems incomplete. Caracals now output almost 90% of the dps of a Drake if you fit them right and have a longer range whilst being cheaper. It's true that they have no real tank, but hey cheap snipers shouldn't really have any tank.
That's the trade off in eve. The more dps you need to output brings you closer and closer to your opponent. Whilst the carcal has been nicely rebalanced I would have liked to have seen the same rof and velocity bonus applied to the drake to compensate for the missile nerf.
The Caldari have a ranged combat fighting style as per the eve back story and are also shield tankers. so it makes sense that their weapons of choice should be long ranged and their ships should have solid shield tanking abilities (the Drake fits the bill perfectly for this). Balancing them to the point that their weapons perform to the same degree as other races weapon systems makes your choice of weapon utterly pointless. It might be called a missile, an autocannon or a laser but if it has similar range and outputs similar dps to your opponents then what's the point? Where can you get an edge? In eve we all live and die by whatever edge we can get yet the endless rebalancing mitigates the effects of fighting styles and tactics. We might as well all equip our ships with fuzzy, buck rogers style energy beams and fire them all day. Whilst we're at it we might as well assign every frigate and every cruiser the same stats as any other one. The end result will be the same.
Anyhow I am not convinced that that this rebalancing is being done to any sort of mathematical algorithm which could prove that all ships and weapons are balanced. The case in point being how the original damage nerf was 20% and after much postin on the forum by opponents of this it's now 10%. If the rebalancing was being done to a formula that outputted a value of 20% changing it to 10% would still result in an unbalanced game. This suggests that the rebalancing is done by feel not by simulation or mathematical analysis. In which case the developers only stop working when the game feels right to them. This would further suggest that eve will never, ever, ever be a balanced game.... Shhhh! Don't tell everyone! But yeah, that's why I find this whole crusade to nerf the Drake so silly.
I to can list all the ships of a race and say they are good. If you look at fleets though most of the ships you listed are lacking. AF and frigs might be around but in fleet warfare how often do you see a Gall boat. I see from the 20 most used ships.
Kills 1 Drake 25800 2 Hurricane 18242 3 Tornado 11986 4 Rokh 9386 5 Rifter 8934 6 Naga 8765 7 Capsule 8014 8 Nyx 7209 9 Oracle 6689 10 Sabre 6511 11 Huginn 5768 12 Tengu 5560 13 Talos 5544 14 Thrasher 5527 15 Cynabal 5471 16 Abaddon 4578 17 Incursus 4569 18 Manticore 4232 19 Hound 4104 20 Loki 4101
We have 3 ships there but yes keep telling me that Gallente are great ships now cause they are used so often. Caldari have 5 Amarr have 2 Mimmy have 8 and then there is 1 pirate and pods. So when Caldari have 5 ships in the top 5 and gall have 3 how then is gall so far superior? |
Sean Parisi
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:20:00 -
[5907] - Quote
The missile changes do not bother me for the most part. Majority of missiles are getting a buff from what I can see. Assuming that tracking computers will eventually effect missiles - then i will gladly put those on my ship to compensate for the range lost due to the nerf. This flexibility will allow missiles to be implemented in a more diverse way. For example allowing torpedo boats to increase their total range. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
153
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 21:30:00 -
[5908] - Quote
MIrple wrote:We have 3 ships there but yes keep telling me that Gallente are great ships now cause they are used so often. Caldari have 5 Amarr have 2 Mimmy have 8 and then there is 1 pirate and pods. So when Caldari have 5 ships in the top 5 and gall have 3 how then is gall so far superior? This.
Gallente war doctrine focus on solo/small gang brawling, not huge fleet fights facing each other to shoot target one by one.
Minmatar are similar to the gallente in this respect, but with more verstility.
Amarr and Caldari are more focus on organised fleets.
That's why you see a lot a caldari ships in fleet doctrines (they are rather effective for this) and why you don't like them (solo/small gang pvp is not their primary strength, though that don't mean they cannot do it).
OT, caldari ships simply don't fit your playstyle, but stop saying they are bad because they are not minmatar or gallente ships.
Little Dragon Khamez wrote: Anyhow I am not convinced that that this rebalancing is being done to any sort of mathematical algorithm which could prove that all ships and weapons are balanced. The case in point being how the original damage nerf was 20% and after much postin on the forum by opponents of this it's now 10%. If the rebalancing was being done to a formula that outputted a value of 20% changing it to 10% would still result in an unbalanced game. This suggests that the rebalancing is done by feel not by simulation or mathematical analysis. In which case the developers only stop working when the game feels right to them. This would further suggest that eve will never, ever, ever be a balanced game....
Considering piloting and metagame, the ONLY result an algorithm would give to you would be "make all the ship the same". Balance is not a mathematical thing, because player tactics and piloting cannot be simulated or measured nor can be versatility or unexpetedly powerful edge cases. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
342
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 22:13:00 -
[5909] - Quote
MIrple wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:I've been for a spin on the test server and if anything the rebalancing seems incomplete. Caracals now output almost 90% of the dps of a Drake if you fit them right and have a longer range whilst being cheaper. It's true that they have no real tank, but hey cheap snipers shouldn't really have any tank.
That's the trade off in eve. The more dps you need to output brings you closer and closer to your opponent. Whilst the carcal has been nicely rebalanced I would have liked to have seen the same rof and velocity bonus applied to the drake to compensate for the missile nerf.
The Caldari have a ranged combat fighting style as per the eve back story and are also shield tankers. so it makes sense that their weapons of choice should be long ranged and their ships should have solid shield tanking abilities (the Drake fits the bill perfectly for this). Balancing them to the point that their weapons perform to the same degree as other races weapon systems makes your choice of weapon utterly pointless. It might be called a missile, an autocannon or a laser but if it has similar range and outputs similar dps to your opponents then what's the point? Where can you get an edge? In eve we all live and die by whatever edge we can get yet the endless rebalancing mitigates the effects of fighting styles and tactics. We might as well all equip our ships with fuzzy, buck rogers style energy beams and fire them all day. Whilst we're at it we might as well assign every frigate and every cruiser the same stats as any other one. The end result will be the same.
Anyhow I am not convinced that that this rebalancing is being done to any sort of mathematical algorithm which could prove that all ships and weapons are balanced. The case in point being how the original damage nerf was 20% and after much postin on the forum by opponents of this it's now 10%. If the rebalancing was being done to a formula that outputted a value of 20% changing it to 10% would still result in an unbalanced game. This suggests that the rebalancing is done by feel not by simulation or mathematical analysis. In which case the developers only stop working when the game feels right to them. This would further suggest that eve will never, ever, ever be a balanced game.... Shhhh! Don't tell everyone! But yeah, that's why I find this whole crusade to nerf the Drake so silly. I to can list all the ships of a race and say they are good. If you look at fleets though most of the ships you listed are lacking. AF and frigs might be around but in fleet warfare how often do you see a Gall boat. I see from the 20 most used ships. Kills 1 Drake 25800 2 Hurricane 18242 3 Tornado 11986 4 Rokh 9386 5 Rifter 8934 6 Naga 8765 7 Capsule 8014 8 Nyx 72099 Oracle 6689 10 Sabre 6511 11 Huginn 5768 12 Tengu 5560 13 Talos 554414 Thrasher 5527 15 Cynabal 5471 16 Abaddon 4578 17 Incursus 456918 Manticore 4232 19 Hound 4104 20 Loki 4101 We have 3 ships there but yes keep telling me that Gallente are great ships now cause they are used so often. Caldari have 5 Amarr have 2 Mimmy have 8 and then there is 1 pirate and pods. So when Caldari have 5 ships in the top 5 and gall have 3 how then is gall so far superior?
Dude, seriously, I don't want to debate this with you. I listed the Gallente ships that I thought were good -- as in I wouldn't hesitate to fly them myself. If you disagree with my opinion, cool. You don't have to fly them.
And frankly, I don't give a flying $#E% what null sec mega-blob FCs consider viable for their fleets. That's not how I play the game. I am a pirate. I don't have a dozens or hundreds of people as back up, and every possible fleet role filled in triplicate. Five or six people in my gang is a damn good night, and we are usually fighting outnumbered. We don't always win, but I think we do okay.
When I look at a ship I look at what that ONE ship can do. Can it get in there, get the kill, and get out. And I look at it as a single ship because when there are only a few of you on field, and fifteen of them, your ship better be able to handle it on its own. In my opinion there are many Gallente ships that fit the bill, and that offer plenty of advantages a pilot can exploit. And more, there are bloody few Gallente hulls that are complete crap -- something that cannot be said for the Caldari.
I understand that some folks (you perhaps) think that the Gallente have serious problems. If you are a Gallente pilot and you feel this way, I will take you at your word. You probably fly them more than me and know their weaknesses and problems better than I do. Again, I take you at your word here, and support you in seeing these things corrected. But I wish you would extend this same courtesy to the folks who are saying these same things about the ships they are familiar with.
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 01:29:00 -
[5910] - Quote
glad to see we've all moved on |
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 03:36:00 -
[5911] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:glad to see we've all moved on
Yeah it is nice to see people bitching about who has the better ships now since there has not been an update or change to the topic in what 8 weeks or so, seems the Missile changes are going through even with the time people have spent discussing it. Way to listen CCP |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 05:30:00 -
[5912] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:glad to see we've all moved on Yeah it is nice to see people bitching about who has the better ships now since there has not been an update or change to the topic in what 8 weeks or so, seems the Missile changes are going through even with the time people have spent discussing it. Way to listen CCP
This is all because Drake fanatics like to discuss this in cycles. It all started with how Caldari pilots need OP weapon system to be competetive. And then someone mentioned how this will be done to help PL and after that discussion started all from start: "we need a OP weapon system to own everything". Because nobody has mentioned PL lately these fanatics started shouting how they need Drake, Tengu and Raven to be solo pwning machines and how all other Caldari ships suck because they are "too small" to solo bbq pwn anything or use weapon system designed by heretics. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 06:39:00 -
[5913] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Keko Khaan wrote: Theres alot awesome gallente boats.. Let me name some of them for you..
Lachesis Arazu Proteus (small gang) Oneiros Ares Taranis Keres Nemesis Enyo Ishkur Phobos Deimos (small gang) Ishtar (pve) Talos Myrmidon (bait/solo triple rep) Brutix (gank/small gang) Hyperion (bait/triple rep) Megathron (small gang/blaster) Dominix (pve/pvp) Thanatos Nyx Moros Erebus
Theres alot awesome Caldari boats.. Let me name some of them for you.. Rook Falcon (because of falcon) Tengu Basilisk Kitsune Manticore Harpy Hawk Hookbill Merlin Griffin Onyx Cerberus (Long range small gang) Naga Drake Vulture (those bonus' and tank are really quite good, even if the ship has paper DPS) Ferox (ASB Ferox's are slow, but good brawlers) Scorpion Rokh Wyvern
Funny thing that we allready talked about this list earlier in this thread. Anyways i think those are mostly good ships. Alltho few ships there i dont agree..
Rook - Useless combat recon (falcon and scorp does it better) Ferox - Omg a ferox.. Run!!! Cerberus - Can be ok but still kinda meh.. Missile sniper? Eh.. |
Terik Deatharbingr
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
254
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 06:58:00 -
[5914] - Quote
MIrple wrote:
I to can list all the ships of a race and say they are good. If you look at fleets though most of the ships you listed are lacking. AF and frigs might be around but in fleet warfare how often do you see a Gall boat. I see from the 20 most used ships.
Kills 1 Drake 25800 2 Hurricane 18242 3 Tornado 11986 4 Rokh 9386 5 Rifter 8934 6 Naga 8765 7 Capsule 8014 8 Nyx 7209 9 Oracle 6689 10 Sabre 6511 11 Huginn 5768 12 Tengu 5560 13 Talos 5544 14 Thrasher 5527 15 Cynabal 5471 16 Abaddon 4578 17 Incursus 4569 18 Manticore 4232 19 Hound 4104 20 Loki 4101
We have 3 ships there but yes keep telling me that Gallente are great ships now cause they are used so often. Caldari have 5 Amarr have 2 Mimmy have 8 and then there is 1 pirate and pods. So when Caldari have 5 ships in the top 5 and gall have 3 how then is gall so far superior?
One question. When a new player joins eve, more often then not, are they not told to train a drake as it is a solid mission ship? Therefore would an intelligent alliance, knowing that more people are trained to fly drakes....think that a drake fleet would make sense as they can get larger numbers. Add that fact that the t2 heavy launchers can be trained much quicker than cross training a different weapon type, especially if they already have some missiles skills for a stealth bomber.
So with that in mind, would that not skew the numbers for many people that don't even enjoy flying caldari. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 07:09:00 -
[5915] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:One question. When a new player joins eve, more often then not, are they not told to train a drake as it is a solid mission ship? Therefore would an intelligent alliance, knowing that more people are trained to fly drakes....think that a drake fleet would make sense as they can get larger numbers. Add that fact that the t2 heavy launchers can be trained much quicker than cross training a different weapon type, especially if they already have some missiles skills for a stealth bomber.
So with that in mind, would that not skew the numbers for many people that don't even enjoy flying caldari.
It's low SP friendly ship. Other tier 2 BCs are great for level 3s. The thing with Drake is currently its superior tank + range advantage over other tier 2 BCs. Why would you want to use for example HPL Harbinger when its range is inferior compared to Drake's range?
Currently Drake is extremely boring to use. I would pick any AF over Drake for PvE. |
Terik Deatharbingr
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
254
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 07:22:00 -
[5916] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:One question. When a new player joins eve, more often then not, are they not told to train a drake as it is a solid mission ship? Therefore would an intelligent alliance, knowing that more people are trained to fly drakes....think that a drake fleet would make sense as they can get larger numbers. Add that fact that the t2 heavy launchers can be trained much quicker than cross training a different weapon type, especially if they already have some missiles skills for a stealth bomber.
So with that in mind, would that not skew the numbers for many people that don't even enjoy flying caldari. It's low SP friendly ship. Other tier 2 BCs are great for level 3s. The thing with Drake is currently its superior tank + range advantage over other tier 2 BCs. Why would you want to use for example HPL Harbinger when its range is inferior compared to Drake's range? Currently Drake is extremely boring to use. I would pick any AF over Drake for PvE.
Agreed....trust me....I've ran 3's in a myrm, brutix and drake on one toon.....and prophecy and harbinger on this toon.....and it's sadly pathetic. The drake is the only ship I don't have to constantly warp out in. Bottom line is while it's much, MUCH quicker to train perfect armor tanking skills, it is inferior for solo pve. I even tested it with a billion isk fit drake and a billion isk fit harbinger....I could handle most lvl 4's in the drake....and pretty much nothing in the harby because there's no tank or their is no dps....and when I say no dps....I'm mean zilch because you have to sacrifice tracking and therefore don't hit anything. And now their main concern is to nerf the drake because it's "OP" and then take a slot away from my harbinger! yay! Anyone want to buy a harbinger? lol |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 07:39:00 -
[5917] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Agreed....trust me....I've ran 3's in a myrm, brutix and drake on one toon.....and prophecy and harbinger on this toon.....and it's sadly pathetic. The drake is the only ship I don't have to constantly warp out in. Bottom line is while it's much, MUCH quicker to train perfect armor tanking skills, it is inferior for solo pve. I even tested it with a billion isk fit drake and a billion isk fit harbinger....I could handle most lvl 4's in the drake....and pretty much nothing in the harby because there's no tank or their is no dps....and when I say no dps....I'm mean zilch because you have to sacrifice tracking and therefore don't hit anything. And now their main concern is to nerf the drake because it's "OP" and then take a slot away from my harbinger! yay! Anyone want to buy a harbinger? lol
You are doing something wrong if you have to warp out in level 3s in Myrm or Harbinger. Tank or damage isn't a problem. Getting to range to apply that damage is a problem at least for Harbinger.
You need Hull Upgrades V for T2 armor hardeners. You don't need level 5 skills for T2 shield hardeners.
For example my Drake can run any BR/Sansha level 3 with only one invul running. Yes, that's BC5 Drake but that shouldn't matter. |
Terik Deatharbingr
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
254
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 08:16:00 -
[5918] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
You are doing something wrong if you have to warp out in level 3s in Myrm or Harbinger. Tank or damage isn't a problem. Getting to range to apply that damage is a problem at least for Harbinger.
You need Hull Upgrades V for T2 armor hardeners. You don't need level 5 skills for T2 shield hardeners.
For example my Drake can run any BR/Sansha level 3 with only one invul running. Yes, that's BC5 Drake but that shouldn't matter.
Not so much in the Myrm....but in the harby i have just from trying to balance damage and tracking versus tank. I can't stand seeing those white messages pop up.
Yes, you need hull upgrades to 5...but that and repair systems both to lvl 5 is an 18 day train, without remapping or implants....
now, granted a passive tank can be very effective in roughly 8 days, to use all tech II mods for active shield tanking, it would take you 24, not including the fact that you'd have an extra 2 days to be able to do both passive and active. Obviously I left out damage specific compensation skills as they just cancel each other out. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 08:38:00 -
[5919] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Yes, you need hull upgrades to 5...but that and repair systems both to lvl 5 is an 18 day train, without remapping or implants....
now, granted a passive tank can be very effective in roughly 8 days, to use all tech II mods for active shield tanking, it would take you 24, not including the fact that you'd have an extra 2 days to be able to do both passive and active. Obviously I left out damage specific compensation skills as they just cancel each other out.
T2 active shield hardeners: Tactical shield manipulation level 4, rank 4 skill T2 X-large shield booster: Shield operation level 5, rank 1 skill T2 Large shield extender: Shield upgrades level 4, rank 2 skill
Without implants and int and mem at 17, you can't get close to 24 days.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
154
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 09:27:00 -
[5920] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Dude, seriously, I don't want to debate this with you. I listed the Gallente ships that I thought were good -- as in I wouldn't hesitate to fly them myself. If you disagree with my opinion, cool. You don't have to fly them.
And frankly, I don't give a flying $#E% what null sec mega-blob FCs consider viable for their fleets. That's not how I play the game. I am a pirate. I don't have a dozens or hundreds of people as back up, and every possible fleet role filled in triplicate. Five or six people in my gang is a damn good night, and we are usually fighting outnumbered. We don't always win, but I think we do okay.
When I look at a ship I look at what that ONE ship can do. Can it get in there, get the kill, and get out. And I look at it as a single ship because when there are only a few of you on field, and fifteen of them, your ship better be able to handle it on its own. In my opinion there are many Gallente ships that fit the bill, and that offer plenty of advantages a pilot can exploit. And more, there are bloody few Gallente hulls that are complete crap -- something that cannot be said for the Caldari.
I understand that some folks (you perhaps) think that the Gallente have serious problems. If you are a Gallente pilot and you feel this way, I will take you at your word. You probably fly them more than me and know their weaknesses and problems better than I do. Again, I take you at your word here, and support you in seeing these things corrected. But I wish you would extend this same courtesy to the folks who are saying these same things about the ships they are familiar with.
That's it. Caldari just don't fit your playstyle sthe same way gallente are bad in blobfests. And yet, even though it's not missiles, since the hybrid buff, caldari have good options for solo brawling, and they became even better with ASB. Of course, it's still not minmatar nor gallente, but they shouldn't be underestimated. |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 14:13:00 -
[5921] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:glad to see we've all moved on Yeah it is nice to see people bitching about who has the better ships now since there has not been an update or change to the topic in what 8 weeks or so, seems the Missile changes are going through even with the time people have spent discussing it. Way to listen CCP This is all because Drake fanatics like to discuss this in cycles. It all started with how Caldari pilots need OP weapon system to be competetive. And then someone mentioned how this will be done to help PL and after that discussion started all from start: "we need a OP weapon system to own everything". Because nobody has mentioned PL lately these fanatics started shouting how they need Drake, Tengu and Raven to be solo pwning machines and how all other Caldari ships suck because they are "too small" to solo bbq pwn anything or use weapon system designed by heretics.
not really the case tbh if the inital change went through that ccp had then missle ship would not have been used for very much and pvp is not the end all of ships. some of the cal pilot were here to defend against the nerfs with pvp in mind some were here defending missles as pve pilts only some of us were here defending them on all fronts thinking about the revamp of our ships and why they cannot kite any more ect. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 14:17:00 -
[5922] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:One question. When a new player joins eve, more often then not, are they not told to train a drake as it is a solid mission ship? Therefore would an intelligent alliance, knowing that more people are trained to fly drakes....think that a drake fleet would make sense as they can get larger numbers. Add that fact that the t2 heavy launchers can be trained much quicker than cross training a different weapon type, especially if they already have some missiles skills for a stealth bomber.
So with that in mind, would that not skew the numbers for many people that don't even enjoy flying caldari. It's low SP friendly ship. Other tier 2 BCs are great for level 3s. The thing with Drake is currently its superior tank + range advantage over other tier 2 BCs. Why would you want to use for example HPL Harbinger when its range is inferior compared to Drake's range? Currently Drake is extremely boring to use. I would pick any AF over Drake for PvE. Agreed....trust me....I've ran 3's in a myrm, brutix and drake on one toon.....and prophecy and harbinger on this toon.....and it's sadly pathetic. The drake is the only ship I don't have to constantly warp out in. Bottom line is while it's much, MUCH quicker to train perfect armor tanking skills, it is inferior for solo pve. I even tested it with a billion isk fit drake and a billion isk fit harbinger....I could handle most lvl 4's in the drake....and pretty much nothing in the harby because there's no tank or their is no dps....and when I say no dps....I'm mean zilch because you have to sacrifice tracking and therefore don't hit anything. And now their main concern is to nerf the drake because it's "OP" and then take a slot away from my harbinger! yay! Anyone want to buy a harbinger? lol
you could go with smaller med guns if tracking is a problem or you know use drones on the frigs just lie a drake has to |
Connall Tara
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
52
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 14:43:00 -
[5923] - Quote
on one hand... arguably my best battlecruiser option is being nerfed, thats sad.
on the other hand i'm getting 4 buffed cruisers, a new destroyer, buffed frigates and the prospect of a good ferox in the future.
the caracal is looking deadly, the moa is looking dependable and reliable, the blackbird is still the blackbird, the osprey now has some purpose...
the new caldari dessie looks joyous, the new caldari frigates are near enough top of the line and i can now credibly fly things other than minmatar in the other fleets.
am i happy to trade the drake in favour of all this? FRACK YES \o/
Fly reckless cohost and all round bad pilot o7 |
Terik Deatharbingr
Redhogs Circle-Of-Two
254
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 14:49:00 -
[5924] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Yes, you need hull upgrades to 5...but that and repair systems both to lvl 5 is an 18 day train, without remapping or implants....
now, granted a passive tank can be very effective in roughly 8 days, to use all tech II mods for active shield tanking, it would take you 24, not including the fact that you'd have an extra 2 days to be able to do both passive and active. Obviously I left out damage specific compensation skills as they just cancel each other out. T2 active shield hardeners: Tactical shield manipulation level 4, rank 4 skill T2 X-large shield booster: Shield operation level 5, rank 1 skill T2 Large shield extender: Shield upgrades level 4, rank 2 skill Without implants and int and mem at 17, you can't get close to 24 days.
T2 shield boost amplifier - Shield Upgrades lvl 5, rank3 skill |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 14:50:00 -
[5925] - Quote
serras bang wrote:you could go with smaller med guns if tracking is a problem or you know use drones on the frigs just lie a drake has to
I have to use drones to kill frigates that get under my FMPLs on Omen while I can hit frigates perfectly fine with 425s on Cane with exactly the same character. With Drake, while it takes some time I can still kill them with heavy missiles. |
Nightfox BloodRaven
A Better Corp Name
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 18:12:00 -
[5926] - Quote
Wow look at all the delicious tears.. I fly a drake and I think is OPed as well... These changes will certainly be refreshing as new tactics, new fleet composition will be developed.. Only lazy ppl complain cuz they want a One size fits all ship.. lol what the hell is the point of that? One or two ships should not be good at everything....or else all you would see is tengus and drakes... boring... if u dont like Heavy Missile changes dont use them..
Motto of eve is adapat or perish if you dont like it or cant handle it go play WOW. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 21:06:00 -
[5927] - Quote
Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:Wow look at all the delicious tears.. I fly a drake and I think is OPed as well... These changes will certainly be refreshing as new tactics, new fleet composition will be developed.. Only lazy ppl complain cuz they want a One size fits all ship.. lol what the hell is the point of that? One or two ships should not be good at everything....or else all you would see is tengus and drakes... boring... if u dont like Heavy Missile changes dont use them..
Motto of eve is adapat or perish if you dont like it or cant handle it go play WOW.
wows boreing players are idiots. |
Kalel Nimrott
EG CORP Talocan United
75
|
Posted - 2012.11.07 22:50:00 -
[5928] - Quote
This thread is cake. |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 03:52:00 -
[5929] - Quote
I like cake...this isn't cake....
Currently I'm not against most of the changes that are in place, the T2 missile changes are a bit harsh on the fury/rage...I would compensate by adding a REALLY long range missile (+50% range) that does crap damage (-30%) and can only hit at size or above, and a long range (+20% range) that does slightly more damage (+5%) and can only hit at size or above. More options is good. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
159
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 04:58:00 -
[5930] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:
am i happy to trade the drake in favour of all this? FRACK YES \o/
Honestly, I'm kind of sad that part of the Caldari ship lineup won't be as useful, but at the same time I really want this series of events to be those that remove focus from battlecruisers in PvP. Note that they wouldn't not be viable anymore, but simply that particular ship class stops being the only thing people ever fly, forever. I'd be happy if EVE's PvP had more emphasis on frigates and cruisers in no particular order, definitely, and that destroyers see regular use helping out cruiser+ gangs in stopping the likely deadly wolf packs of frigates with the new logistics hulls going around. |
|
MinefieldS
1 Sick Duck Standss on something
165
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 05:03:00 -
[5931] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125. The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.
Did the Minmatar engineers just became stupid overnight and they can't make good powergrids anymore or what? If I buy a hurricane now are they going to sneak into my hangar and cut some wires or steal a lot of ducttape?
You see, we've got this great bomber called B-52, but it's just overkill. It bombs our enemies into **** and that's unbalanced and unfair. We want to give our enemies a chance, that's why we're gonna cut off 2 of the engines so it will carry 20% less bombs and it'll sort of fly tilted. This will also help alleviate the problem of B-52's engines not wearing out fast, because Pratt & Whitney needs to sell more engines and buy more villas. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
836
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 05:35:00 -
[5932] - Quote
^ What CCP is doing is more like you showing up at work, boss shows up. Tells you, you are fired and to pack your things. You respond with how you own a bomber and will come back with it and bomb him. He calls the cops and you most likely get arrested with a few years of jail to look forward to. I'm not shitposting. |
Angry Mustache
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 08:34:00 -
[5933] - Quote
:/ OT does have some valid points, right now, only 2 missile ships are currently on the Eve-kill top 20 ships, Drake and tengu, and both are up for nerfs. Also there are only 2 missile launchers in the top 20 Weapons list, HML 2 and Meta 4 torps.
Although caldari have 5 ships in the top 20, Naga and Rokh are gun boats, and i'm willing to bet the manticore gets more kills from Bombs than torps.
Missile skills cost just as SP much as gun skills do, and cover a much smaller spectrum of usage. Lights don't do much damage, rockets need ranged bonused hulls to use, HAM's are hard to fit, Torps have damage application problems, and cruises are objectively not very good. Nerfing HML's probably would not cause Missile trained Caldari players to pick up ravens, I wouldn't, I would train for the much better minmatar or amarr battleships.
Arguably a player, especially newer ones, would benefit much more from training gunnery skills than missile skills, when gunnery support skills cover a wide spectrum of ships and turrets, while really only HML's and torps are used out of the launchers.
I find it intresting how projectiles have more kills on the top 20 than every other weapon system combined, with 5 of the top 10 being some variant of autocannon. Perhaps CCP should look into those next.
|
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
28
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 08:41:00 -
[5934] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Daichi Yamato wrote:glad to see we've all moved on Yeah it is nice to see people bitching about who has the better ships now since there has not been an update or change to the topic in what 8 weeks or so, seems the Missile changes are going through even with the time people have spent discussing it. Way to listen CCP This is all because Drake fanatics like to discuss this in cycles. It all started with how Caldari pilots need OP weapon system to be competetive. And then someone mentioned how this will be done to help PL and after that discussion started all from start: "we need a OP weapon system to own everything". Because nobody has mentioned PL lately these fanatics started shouting how they need Drake, Tengu and Raven to be solo pwning machines and how all other Caldari ships suck because they are "too small" to solo bbq pwn anything or use weapon system designed by heretics. not really the case tbh if the inital change went through that ccp had then missle ship would not have been used for very much and pvp is not the end all of ships. some of the cal pilot were here to defend against the nerfs with pvp in mind some were here defending missles as pve pilts only some of us were here defending them on all fronts thinking about the revamp of our ships and why they cannot kite any more ect.
I'm fairly certain CCP stopped reading this thread a while ago. The only reason it's not locked is so the mods don't need to play what-a-mole with the spawn threads. The change is happening, the arguments have been heard and (mostly) listened to (on both sides). (Compare the present change with the proposed one, it is much less harsh).
In any event, it's still entertaining from time to time. But not actually productive. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
158
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 13:34:00 -
[5935] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote::/ OT does have some valid points, right now, only 2 missile ships are currently on the Eve-kill top 20 ships, Drake and tengu, and both are up for nerfs. Also there are only 2 missile launchers in the top 20 Weapons list, HML 2 and Meta 4 torps.
Although caldari have 5 ships in the top 20, Naga and Rokh are gun boats, and i'm willing to bet the manticore gets more kills from Bombs than torps.
Missile skills cost just as SP much as gun skills do, and cover a much smaller spectrum of usage. Lights don't do much damage, rockets need ranged bonused hulls to use, HAM's are hard to fit, Torps have damage application problems, and cruises are objectively not very good. Nerfing HML's probably would not cause Missile trained Caldari players to pick up ravens, I wouldn't, I would train for the much better minmatar or amarr battleships.
Arguably a player, especially newer ones, would benefit much more from training gunnery skills than missile skills, when gunnery support skills cover a wide spectrum of ships and turrets, while really only HML's and torps are used out of the launchers.
I agree that HML's are better than other medium weapons and probably needs the nerf, but can CCP give missile users something else worth using before proceeding with the HM nerf.
I find it intresting how projectiles have more kills on the top 20 than every other weapon system combined, with 4 of the top 5 being some variant of autocannon (first place belonging to HML2) . Perhaps CCP should look into those next. - LM are buffed (10% damage, PG buff for the launchers ; - rockets are buffed (GMP skill will apply to them) ; - HAM are buffed (PG reduction + GMP skill) ; - Torps are buffed (GMP skill).
So, ALL your concerns but rocket range are dealt with at the same time HML are nerfed. High damage missiles are indeed nerfed for their range, though those missiles should be situational, and they will still be very useful for a wide array of situations considering the range they still retain. Rockets for their part can benefit from rigs to earn almost the 50% range bonus bonused hull have.
Then, in the 5 caldari ships in the top 20 (1/4 ships of the top twenty, seem pretty balance to me in the first place), caldari have the same number of turret and missiles ship. Isn't it a balanced result in term of effectiveness ? There's a lot more turret ships than missile ships, so it's pretty normal that there is more turret ships in the top 20 in the first place.
Finaly, projectiles : just look at 1) the hurricane nerf and 2) the ship rebalance. CCP is rebalancing projectile weapons by rebalancing the ship using them (or by rebalancing all the other ships around them if you prefer). Just look at the rifter vs merlin/incursus/punisher to taste how it's looking like. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
349
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 15:45:00 -
[5936] - Quote
Connall Tara wrote:on one hand... arguably my best battlecruiser option is being nerfed, thats sad.
on the other hand i'm getting 4 buffed cruisers, a new destroyer, buffed frigates and the prospect of a good ferox in the future.
the caracal is looking deadly, the moa is looking dependable and reliable, the blackbird is still the blackbird, the osprey now has some purpose...
the new caldari dessie looks joyous, the new caldari frigates are near enough top of the line and i can now credibly fly things other than minmatar in the other fleets.
am i happy to trade the drake in favour of all this? FRACK YES \o/
Me as well. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
349
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 15:48:00 -
[5937] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
I'm fairly certain CCP stopped reading this thread a while ago. The only reason it's not locked is so the mods don't need to play what-a-mole with the spawn threads. The change is happening, the arguments have been heard and (mostly) listened to (on both sides). (Compare the present change with the proposed one, it is much less harsh).
In any event, it's still entertaining from time to time. But not actually productive.
Agreed. But it's still fun to discuss this stuff. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
349
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 15:57:00 -
[5938] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Angry Mustache wrote::/ OT does have some valid points, right now, only 2 missile ships are currently on the Eve-kill top 20 ships, Drake and tengu, and both are up for nerfs. Also there are only 2 missile launchers in the top 20 Weapons list, HML 2 and Meta 4 torps.
Although caldari have 5 ships in the top 20, Naga and Rokh are gun boats, and i'm willing to bet the manticore gets more kills from Bombs than torps.
Missile skills cost just as SP much as gun skills do, and cover a much smaller spectrum of usage. Lights don't do much damage, rockets need ranged bonused hulls to use, HAM's are hard to fit, Torps have damage application problems, and cruises are objectively not very good. Nerfing HML's probably would not cause Missile trained Caldari players to pick up ravens, I wouldn't, I would train for the much better minmatar or amarr battleships.
Arguably a player, especially newer ones, would benefit much more from training gunnery skills than missile skills, when gunnery support skills cover a wide spectrum of ships and turrets, while really only HML's and torps are used out of the launchers.
I agree that HML's are better than other medium weapons and probably needs the nerf, but can CCP give missile users something else worth using before proceeding with the HM nerf.
I find it intresting how projectiles have more kills on the top 20 than every other weapon system combined, with 4 of the top 5 being some variant of autocannon (first place belonging to HML2) . Perhaps CCP should look into those next. - LM are buffed (10% damage, PG buff for the launchers ; - rockets are buffed (GMP skill will apply to them) ; - HAM are buffed (PG reduction + GMP skill) ; - Torps are buffed (GMP skill). So, ALL your concerns but rocket range are dealt with at the same time HML are nerfed. High damage missiles are indeed nerfed for their range, though those missiles should be situational, and they will still be very useful for a wide array of situations considering the range they still retain. Rockets for their part can benefit from rigs to earn almost the 50% range bonus bonused hull have. Then, in the 5 caldari ships in the top 20 (1/4 ships of the top twenty, seem pretty balance to me in the first place), caldari have the same number of turret and missiles ship. Isn't it a balanced result in term of effectiveness ? There's a lot more turret ships than missile ships, so it's pretty normal that there is more turret ships in the top 20 in the first place. Finaly, projectiles : just look at 1) the hurricane nerf and 2) the ship rebalance. CCP is rebalancing projectile weapons by rebalancing the ship using them (or by rebalancing all the other ships around them if you prefer). Just look at the rifter vs merlin/incursus/punisher to taste how it's looking like.
I jumped into these threads with one goal only in mind: I wanted to see CCP, for once, actually put some thought into how they were treating Caldari players.
The initial proposed HML nerf was ridiculous. Thanks to player comments CCP has changed this. The new numbers are reasonable in my opinion. The initial changes to the T2 missiles were ludicrous as well. Thanks to player comments CCP has revised some of them. The proposed "buff" to the Moa was laughable when compared to the other ships. Thanks to player comments CCP has corrected this. The proposed Caracal was sub-par. Thanks to player comments CCP has corrected this.
In my opinion, at this point Caldari players have little to complain about with THIS update. They are making out very well overall, and that's how it should be. There is still a lot of work to be done with the remaining Caldari ship and weapon's lineup. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 16:44:00 -
[5939] - Quote
I am glad that ccp are listening a bit and the proposed nerfs aren't as extreme as originally proposed, but crucially we're still getting them after many people have intelligently posted superb reasons as to why this balancing is unfair.
I am not a caldari player and in the wake of this I wouldn't want to be. Other people have posted comments about the caldari tears following copiously on this thread. My response to that is that if projectile weapons had a nerf as severe as the original proposal Minmatar space would turn into one giant wet sponge. I'd have enough tears to bath in... So the caldari bashing is a bit unfair.
The people who are supporting the nerf are probably the players that don't have the chops the take a drake down in pvp and that's always the way, bad players who cant get an edge want to take other people's advantages away from them.
My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice.
The missile nerf doesn't bother me, I fly Amarr, but I have sympathy for the Caldari which last time I checked was the most popular race for new players, by nerfing the caldari 'weapon of choice' ccp is making the game poorer for their newer players. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
160
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 16:53:00 -
[5940] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice. Again, weapon of choice for caldari is *hybrids* as well as missiles. Have you ever seen a gallente spiting on blasters or railguns because caldari can use them too ? No, because it's stupid (and because drones can't make it alone).
You know, caldari and gallente were only one race in the past, that's why they share the hybrid guns.
What is silly though is that caldari are supposed to be pragmatic soldiers... |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 16:54:00 -
[5941] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:The initial proposed HML nerf was ridiculous. Thanks to player comments CCP has changed this. The new numbers are reasonable in my opinion.
If this isn't optimal then how about small buff to heavy missiles: +50% to velocity +100% to explosion velocity +50% to damage |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 17:08:00 -
[5942] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice. Again, weapon of choice for caldari is *hybrids* as well as missiles. Have you ever seen a gallente spiting on blasters or railguns because caldari can use them too ? No, because it's stupid (and because drones can't make it alone). You know, caldari and gallente were only one race in the past, that's why they share the hybrid guns. What is silly though is that caldari are supposed to be pragmatic soldiers...
Strange thing is though in the tutorials that the new players are strongly encouraged to do an agent mission is called 'weapon of choice' and for the Caldari the tutorial is all about missiles.
All soldiers are pragmatic. The caldari are pragmatic enough to learn the fighting style of another race lol as their own isn't good enough. All I'm saying is that the reality of playing eve should match the back story as portrayed in the official canon.
Sorry for my bad english, it's not my first language. |
Kai'rae Saarkus
Ganja Labs Exodus.
30
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 06:05:00 -
[5943] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice. Again, weapon of choice for caldari is *hybrids* as well as missiles. Have you ever seen a gallente spiting on blasters or railguns because caldari can use them too ? No, because it's stupid (and because drones can't make it alone). You know, caldari and gallente were only one race in the past, that's why they share the hybrid guns. What is silly though is that caldari are supposed to be pragmatic soldiers... Strange thing is though in the tutorials that the new players are strongly encouraged to do an agent mission is called 'weapon of choice' and for the Caldari the tutorial is all about missiles. All soldiers are pragmatic. The caldari are pragmatic enough to learn the fighting style of another race lol as their own isn't good enough. All I'm saying is that the reality of playing eve should match the back story as portrayed in the official canon. Sorry for my bad english, it's not my first language.
That's not the point: CCP needs a tutorial mission on every weapon system, Caldari got missiles because it doesn't really fit any other race.
Rails suck, which needs looking at, and dedicated Medium rail boats suck (Ferox / Eagle), and those need looking at. But having to train (at least) two weapon trees is a fact of life for every race in Eve. Caldari has gotten away with training only one for too long; Minnie is getting away with only really training one ATM ( the Tiericide Minnie Missile boat line is working to solve it). |
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 06:20:00 -
[5944] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice. Again, weapon of choice for caldari is *hybrids* as well as missiles. Have you ever seen a gallente spiting on blasters or railguns because caldari can use them too ? No, because it's stupid (and because drones can't make it alone). You know, caldari and gallente were only one race in the past, that's why they share the hybrid guns. What is silly though is that caldari are supposed to be pragmatic soldiers... Strange thing is though in the tutorials that the new players are strongly encouraged to do an agent mission is called 'weapon of choice' and for the Caldari the tutorial is all about missiles. All soldiers are pragmatic. The caldari are pragmatic enough to learn the fighting style of another race lol as their own isn't good enough. All I'm saying is that the reality of playing eve should match the back story as portrayed in the official canon. Sorry for my bad english, it's not my first language. That's not the point: CCP needs a tutorial mission on every weapon system, Caldari got missiles because it doesn't really fit any other race. Rails suck, which needs looking at, and dedicated Medium rail boats suck (Ferox / Eagle), and those need looking at. But having to train (at least) two weapon trees is a fact of life for every race in Eve. Caldari has gotten away with training only one for too long; Minnie is getting away with only really training one ATM ( the Tiericide Minnie Missile boat line is working to solve it). So the Golem and Widow gets a bonus to hybrids, I wasn't aware of that. |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
129
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 09:16:00 -
[5945] - Quote
Nightfox BloodRaven wrote:Wow look at all the delicious tears.. I fly a drake and I think is OPed as well... These changes will certainly be refreshing as new tactics, new fleet composition will be developed.. Only lazy ppl complain cuz they want a One size fits all ship.. lol what the hell is the point of that? One or two ships should not be good at everything....or else all you would see is tengus and drakes... boring... if u dont like Heavy Missile changes dont use them..
Motto of eve is adapat or perish if you dont like it or cant handle it go play WOW.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=1457406
HAHA |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
129
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 09:19:00 -
[5946] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice. Again, weapon of choice for caldari is *hybrids* as well as missiles. Have you ever seen a gallente spiting on blasters or railguns because caldari can use them too ? No, because it's stupid (and because drones can't make it alone). You know, caldari and gallente were only one race in the past, that's why they share the hybrid guns. What is silly though is that caldari are supposed to be pragmatic soldiers...
Blasters is to Rails As Cruise is to Torps.
God you just don't give up and, But it's ok I love jumping on here and making you look stupid time and time again.
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
58
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 12:19:00 -
[5947] - Quote
Can someone explain to me why I would take nearly a year out my training plan to train a system I didnt use and didnt (dont..?) need? When I started playing hybrids were 'lolbrids', I used missiles (quickly up to cruise) extensively, those have a lot of support skills...a hybrid buff a year ago isn't suddenly going to make me drop my missile plans and pick up hybrids 'just in case'. Yes, it was on the pad when I get done with missiles...but come on.
It's not like we're talking about hulls where where a switch as just a jita purchase away...its a YEAR out a training plan. A YEAR. I don't think it is entirely reasonable to expect people to drop everything just because something broken was fixed.
The argument would hold more weight if gunnery didnt take a long time to train.
Yes, cross training is good, however when you're halfway through a training plan, you don't just jump ship because the worlds worst weapon is no longer terrible and train that up for "a rainy day".
Mind you, the people hurt by a HML nerf would only need to go to medium hybrids so it's less horrible than going to large.
Can we at least stop pretending that pilots magically gain skills when systems change? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:09:00 -
[5948] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:The argument would hold more weight if gunnery didnt take a long time to train.
And the fact that there's no "one size fits all" turret? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
161
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:10:00 -
[5949] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Can someone explain to me why I would take nearly a year out my training plan to train a system I didnt use and didnt (dont..?) need? When I started playing hybrids were 'lolbrids', I used missiles (quickly up to cruise) extensively, those have a lot of support skills...a hybrid buff a year ago isn't suddenly going to make me drop my missile plans and pick up hybrids 'just in case'. Yes, it was on the pad when I get done with missiles...but come on.
It's not like we're talking about hulls where where a switch as just a jita purchase away...its a YEAR out a training plan. A YEAR. I don't think it is entirely reasonable to expect people to drop everything just because something broken was fixed.
The argument would hold more weight if gunnery didnt take a long time to train.
Yes, cross training is good, however when you're halfway through a training plan, you don't just jump ship because the worlds worst weapon is no longer terrible and train that up for "a rainy day".
Mind you, the people hurt by a HML nerf would only need to go to medium hybrids so it's less horrible than going to large.
Can we at least stop pretending that pilots magically gain skills when systems change? Mind you, training everything to 4 certainly don't take you a year. And training some skills to 3 only to use some ships don't even take you a month.
A plan never survive the battlefield.
For Cazador, I don't even understood what you were saying. Indeed blasters and railguns are both hybrids guns, so why no caldari use blasters ? |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
58
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 13:56:00 -
[5950] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Can someone explain to me why I would take nearly a year out my training plan to train a system I didnt use and didnt (dont..?) need? When I started playing hybrids were 'lolbrids', I used missiles (quickly up to cruise) extensively, those have a lot of support skills...a hybrid buff a year ago isn't suddenly going to make me drop my missile plans and pick up hybrids 'just in case'. Yes, it was on the pad when I get done with missiles...but come on.
It's not like we're talking about hulls where where a switch as just a jita purchase away...its a YEAR out a training plan. A YEAR. I don't think it is entirely reasonable to expect people to drop everything just because something broken was fixed.
The argument would hold more weight if gunnery didnt take a long time to train.
Yes, cross training is good, however when you're halfway through a training plan, you don't just jump ship because the worlds worst weapon is no longer terrible and train that up for "a rainy day".
Mind you, the people hurt by a HML nerf would only need to go to medium hybrids so it's less horrible than going to large.
Can we at least stop pretending that pilots magically gain skills when systems change? Mind you, training everything to 4 certainly don't take you a year. And training some skills to 3 only to use some ships don't even take you a month. A plan never survive the battlefield. For Cazador, I don't even understood what you were saying. Indeed blasters and railguns are both hybrids guns, so why no caldari use blasters ?
Of course not, but to get it to a comparable level as my current CML skills requires quite a few up to 5.
So again, why would I deviate from my current plan "just in case" when a weapon system was lifted out of the gutter? One could just as easily point out that there's nothing stopping turret users training missiles and enjoying the madness that is cruises
Regardless, no matter the situation, my main point being:
Can we at least stop pretending that pilots magically gain skills when weapon systems change? |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:14:00 -
[5951] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice. Again, weapon of choice for caldari is *hybrids* as well as missiles. Have you ever seen a gallente spiting on blasters or railguns because caldari can use them too ? No, because it's stupid (and because drones can't make it alone). You know, caldari and gallente were only one race in the past, that's why they share the hybrid guns. What is silly though is that caldari are supposed to be pragmatic soldiers...
also says in the back story that caldari changed to missles cause they were more effective and that caldari also relly on shields exlusively the point is if the ships followed the back story as caldari has adopted the missle docterine.
caldari would have ht emost advanced missle and shield systems one of these are true about missles (just but slowly getting there) and the shield not so much as minmatar ships recieve shield boost bonuses when the caldari dose not on there t1's
ow i know your gonna argue about passive and active and blah blah blah but i do ask you who has the mopst advanced shield systems in reality especialy when you look at the minmatar t2's witch in generaly has em resist base and generaly more resists throughout. to the point of only really needing a single invuln i hope ccp looks at this and adjusts t2 ship resist values accordingly. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
161
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 15:48:00 -
[5952] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Of course not, but to get it to a comparable level as my current CML skills requires quite a few up to 5. So again, why would I deviate from my current plan "just in case" when a weapon system was lifted out of the gutter? One could just as easily point out that there's nothing stopping turret users training missiles and enjoying the madness that is cruises Not just in case of a nerf, but because that open you some oportunities ?
How many players do you think have trained Torps only to fly bombers ? I'd rather had a stealth frigate with 3 Neutron Canons instead of these torps, though torps do have their strengths, like no tracking and rather long range.
If your current plan is to master missiles, fine for you, though don't complain you can't do turret things, and don't complain when your weapon system is nerfed because it was OP.
What I mean here is that 1) missiles as a whole will be better than ever, and even HML will still be the best medLR weapon ; 2) missiles are not turrets, so any time you face something you can't do with missiles but you would be able to do with turrets, just consider training turrets, because that's why they exists in the first place.
@serras : caldari shield definitly are superior ; they have NO contender in this field. If you can tank a maelstrom some way, you can tank the rokh the same way, but better. T2 resist may be unfair, as they have their hole pluged (the same goes for amarr), though caldari always have more midslots than minmatar, and there base shield HP are higher, so they are able to compensate for this. As for the missiles, they do are better than turret *for long range combat*. That is the caldari doctrine. Why do you think they kept hybrid guns ? Are they completely stupid ? Or do hybrid guns still retain some qualities despite not being the best in their doctrine ? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
178
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:09:00 -
[5953] - Quote
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice. Again, weapon of choice for caldari is *hybrids* as well as missiles. Have you ever seen a gallente spiting on blasters or railguns because caldari can use them too ? No, because it's stupid (and because drones can't make it alone). You know, caldari and gallente were only one race in the past, that's why they share the hybrid guns. What is silly though is that caldari are supposed to be pragmatic soldiers... Strange thing is though in the tutorials that the new players are strongly encouraged to do an agent mission is called 'weapon of choice' and for the Caldari the tutorial is all about missiles. All soldiers are pragmatic. The caldari are pragmatic enough to learn the fighting style of another race lol as their own isn't good enough. All I'm saying is that the reality of playing eve should match the back story as portrayed in the official canon. Sorry for my bad english, it's not my first language. That's not the point: CCP needs a tutorial mission on every weapon system, Caldari got missiles because it doesn't really fit any other race. Rails suck, which needs looking at, and dedicated Medium rail boats suck (Ferox / Eagle), and those need looking at. But having to train (at least) two weapon trees is a fact of life for every race in Eve. Caldari has gotten away with training only one for too long; Minnie is getting away with only really training one ATM ( the Tiericide Minnie Missile boat line is working to solve it).
Small rails are fantastic.
|
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
189
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 16:18:00 -
[5954] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: Small rails are fantastic.
For exactly the same reason that medium rails are failtastic.
It makes perfect sense to trade damage for range, and the amount of tradeoff works perfectly for small rails, but for medium rails the benefit to having *that much* range (especially on rail-bonused hulls) is small enough that the sacrifice of damage is excessive.
In my opinion the only ships where medium rails make sense at all are the ones with damage bonuses that are traditionally considered "blaster boats".
Their slower speed makes the reach of rails more important, and the damage bonus brings the damage up to a barely acceptable level.
Of course, this is completely off topic for this thread, but after almost 300 pages there isn't anything on topic left to say. |
Lili Lu
581
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:20:00 -
[5955] - Quote
serras bang wrote: ow i know your gonna argue about passive and active and blah blah blah but i do ask you who has the mopst advanced shield systems in reality especialy when you look at the minmatar t2's witch in generaly has em resist base and generaly more resists throughout. to the point of only really needing a single invuln i hope ccp looks at this and adjusts t2 ship resist values accordingly.
Serras, why do you post so much when you haven't played or figured out this game enough to understand basic things like tech II resists. The tech II ship resists are based on resisting the damage of the racial opposing faction. For Caldari that is Gallente. Gallente has had a thermal primary and kinetic secondary focus (see the drone types). This is why Caldari tech II have a very high thermal resist, high kinetic, usual explo high(ish) shield base resist, and then no reason for an em resist, and thus they retain the em hole.
Concurrently, Minmatar racial opponent is the Amarr. They do mainly em and secondarily thermal. Thus the Minmatar tech II ships were given a very high em resist, some bonus also on thermal, and then their shields have the already high base kinetic and explo resists. Their resulting hole is the minor 40% kinetic level.
There is no evil CCP anti-caldari bias sitting behind this. The resists will not change. Start fitting an em hardener in addition to an invuln. Be thankful you aren't flying Gallente and getting screwed by the virtual elimination of kinetic damage bonuses from Caldari ships while your Gallente ships will still be retaining a worthless kientic resist focus that will be easily avoided by missile boats with general damage bonuses. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:38:00 -
[5956] - Quote
The whole point of my earlier post was simply to state that there's a back story in eve and that new players will most likely read some of it. If they follow the back-story and fit their caldari ships for rails and missiles as (opposed to being pragmatic and flying some other races ships or using non racial weapons ) then they will be worse off in pvp and have very little fun.
Is it so wrong to think that a game like eve which is supported by canon should have game mechanics that reflect the canon? It looks like Eve is getting divorced from it's backstory...
If any weapon weapon is overpowered in eve online it's the projectiles both long and short range... Nerf them and collect the minmatar tears in charity buckets. |
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia pwn-O-graphy
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:12:00 -
[5957] - Quote
Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:16:00 -
[5958] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks!
the coming missle nerf nowere near makes a tengu useless |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
363
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:18:00 -
[5959] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:19:00 -
[5960] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:serras bang wrote: ow i know your gonna argue about passive and active and blah blah blah but i do ask you who has the mopst advanced shield systems in reality especialy when you look at the minmatar t2's witch in generaly has em resist base and generaly more resists throughout. to the point of only really needing a single invuln i hope ccp looks at this and adjusts t2 ship resist values accordingly. Serras, why do you post so much when you haven't played or figured out this game enough to understand basic things like tech II resists. The tech II ship resists are based on resisting the damage of the racial opposing faction. For Caldari that is Gallente. Gallente has had a thermal primary and kinetic secondary focus (see the drone types). This is why Caldari tech II have a very high thermal resist, high kinetic, usual explo high(ish) shield base resist, and then no reason for an em resist, and thus they retain the em hole. Concurrently, Minmatar racial opponent is the Amarr. They do mainly em and secondarily thermal. Thus the Minmatar tech II ships were given a very high em resist, some bonus also on thermal, and then their shields have the already high base kinetic and explo resists. Their resulting hole is the minor 40% kinetic level. There is no evil CCP anti-caldari bias sitting behind this. The resists will not change. Start fitting an em hardener in addition to an invuln. Be thankful you aren't flying Gallente and getting screwed by the virtual elimination of kinetic damage bonuses from Caldari ships while your Gallente ships will still be retaining a worthless kientic resist focus that will be easily avoided by missile boats with general damage bonuses.
as you have said a minor kin hole witch is 40% i bilieve why then bassed on what you have said dont minmatar then have a completely 0% resists to kinetic if they never have to worry about it ? my point being is that certian thing like this dont add up i get that fact that t2 ships are wieghted to there faction rivals so then in turn minmatar should have a 0% kinetic resist ?
and im sure ccp will think og that and possibly give a blanket 40% resist to gall ships on the whole when they get to tech 2 however i would like them to readress the ships resists so that they all add up to the same |
|
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia pwn-O-graphy
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:25:00 -
[5961] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable.
Really?
Did you try it on the test server?
1. -10% damage 2. 10-20% exposion velocity nerf 3. 12% explosion radius nerf 4. 15% velocity nerf
etc etc...
All in one 30% damage nerf for cruiser sized and more damage nerf for frig sized targets.
Just do the math with the radiuses and the target speeds, sig radiuses etc etc....
We tried it, and well.... No comment
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
163
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:29:00 -
[5962] - Quote
serras bang wrote: as you have said a minor kin hole witch is 40% i bilieve why then bassed on what you have said dont minmatar then have a completely 0% resists to kinetic if they never have to worry about it ? my point being is that certian thing like this dont add up i get that fact that t2 ships are wieghted to there faction rivals so then in turn minmatar should have a 0% kinetic resist ?
and im sure ccp will think og that and possibly give a blanket 40% resist to gall ships on the whole when they get to tech 2 however i would like them to readress the ships resists so that they all add up to the same
I think it works on the idea that you get a 75% bonus to your idea resist so in Mimmys case 75% EM I understand what you are saying with this as Caldari and Gall have the larges holes but Amar also have a pretty even spread on their HAC as well. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:31:00 -
[5963] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Of course not, but to get it to a comparable level as my current CML skills requires quite a few up to 5. So again, why would I deviate from my current plan "just in case" when a weapon system was lifted out of the gutter? One could just as easily point out that there's nothing stopping turret users training missiles and enjoying the madness that is cruises Not just in case of a nerf, but because that open you some oportunities ? How many players do you think have trained Torps only to fly bombers ? I'd rather had a stealth frigate with 3 Neutron Canons instead of these torps, though torps do have their strengths, like no tracking and rather long range. If your current plan is to master missiles, fine for you, though don't complain you can't do turret things, and don't complain when your weapon system is nerfed because it was OP. What I mean here is that 1) missiles as a whole will be better than ever, and even HML will still be the best medLR weapon ; 2) missiles are not turrets, so any time you face something you can't do with missiles but you would be able to do with turrets, just consider training turrets, because that's why they exists in the first place. @serras : caldari shield definitly are superior ; they have NO contender in this field. If you can tank a maelstrom some way, you can tank the rokh the same way, but better. T2 resist may be unfair, as they have their hole pluged (the same goes for amarr), though caldari always have more midslots than minmatar, and there base shield HP are higher, so they are able to compensate for this. As for the missiles, they do are better than turret *for long range combat*. That is the caldari doctrine. Why do you think they kept hybrid guns ? Are they completely stupid ? Or do hybrid guns still retain some qualities despite not being the best in their doctrine ?
never did say that guns were stupid just mainly correcting someone else that said hybrids were the caldari mains witch aint true thats all and the shields was my lil ramble thats all. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
163
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:31:00 -
[5964] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable. Really? Did you try it on the test server? 1. -10% damage 2. 10-20% exposion velocity nerf 3. 12% explosion radius nerf 4. 15% velocity nerf etc etc... All in one 30% damage nerf for cruiser sized and more damage nerf for frig sized targets. Just do the math with the radiuses and the target speeds, sig radiuses etc etc.... We tried it, and well.... No comment
So your ship is now on par with the other 3 races T3 sounds pretty right to me. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:39:00 -
[5965] - Quote
MIrple wrote:serras bang wrote: as you have said a minor kin hole witch is 40% i bilieve why then bassed on what you have said dont minmatar then have a completely 0% resists to kinetic if they never have to worry about it ? my point being is that certian thing like this dont add up i get that fact that t2 ships are wieghted to there faction rivals so then in turn minmatar should have a 0% kinetic resist ?
and im sure ccp will think og that and possibly give a blanket 40% resist to gall ships on the whole when they get to tech 2 however i would like them to readress the ships resists so that they all add up to the same
I think it works on the idea that you get a 75% bonus to your idea resist so in Mimmys case 75% EM I understand what you are saying with this as Caldari and Gall have the larges holes but Amar also have a pretty even spread on their HAC as well.
not so much of a problem with armarr as they are armour tankers and lets face it an armour repper can be a bi***h to fit. |
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia pwn-O-graphy
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:39:00 -
[5966] - Quote
MIrple wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable. Really? Did you try it on the test server? 1. -10% damage 2. 10-20% exposion velocity nerf 3. 12% explosion radius nerf 4. 15% velocity nerf etc etc... All in one 30% damage nerf for cruiser sized and more damage nerf for frig sized targets. Just do the math with the radiuses and the target speeds, sig radiuses etc etc.... We tried it, and well.... No comment So your ship is now on par with the other 3 races T3 sounds pretty right to me.
Admit it, caldari ships are .... well I don't want to say it, cuz I'm a gentlemen.
There are 2 useable caldari ships right now: tengu, and falcon.
But let's just think about a HML drake.... my wolf will have more dps than a tier2 bc???
It's a joke.... what else do you want to nerf on caldari? |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:41:00 -
[5967] - Quote
MIrple wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable. Really? Did you try it on the test server? 1. -10% damage 2. 10-20% exposion velocity nerf 3. 12% explosion radius nerf 4. 15% velocity nerf etc etc... All in one 30% damage nerf for cruiser sized and more damage nerf for frig sized targets. Just do the math with the radiuses and the target speeds, sig radiuses etc etc.... We tried it, and well.... No comment So your ship is now on par with the other 3 races T3 sounds pretty right to me.
sis test last time it was up on duality with the 2.0 nerf and tbh with my current missle boat wasnt to bad(sept range) and i was useing t2 furry and although yeah cost a few more volleys but didnt kill it ( sept range) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
363
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:44:00 -
[5968] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable. Really? Did you try it on the test server? 1. -10% damage 2. 10-20% exposion velocity nerf 3. 12% explosion radius nerf 4. 15% velocity nerf etc etc... All in one 30% damage nerf for cruiser sized and more damage nerf for frig sized targets. Just do the math with the radiuses and the target speeds, sig radiuses etc etc.... We tried it, and well.... No comment And yet the tengu is still the best all around PvE T3.
1. Fury only got a 5% damage nerf, Precision got a buff. 2. T1/Faction explosion velocity is the same as before. Precision explosion velocity got a buff. 3. You can always use HAM's to get the old explosion radius, conversely you can use the newly buffed precision for frigs. 4. All HML got a velocity buff, not a nerf. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
363
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:49:00 -
[5969] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote: Admit it, caldari ships are .... well I don't want to say it, cuz I'm a gentlemen.
There are 2 useable caldari ships right now: tengu, and falcon.
But let's just think about a HML drake.... my wolf will have more dps than a tier2 bc???
It's a joke.... what else do you want to nerf on caldari?
What is the range on that wolf compared to the drake? How do the 2 stack up when using HAM's? |
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia pwn-O-graphy
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:51:00 -
[5970] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable. Really? Did you try it on the test server? 1. -10% damage 2. 10-20% exposion velocity nerf 3. 12% explosion radius nerf 4. 15% velocity nerf etc etc... All in one 30% damage nerf for cruiser sized and more damage nerf for frig sized targets. Just do the math with the radiuses and the target speeds, sig radiuses etc etc.... We tried it, and well.... No comment And yet the tengu is still the best all around PvE T3. 1. Fury only got a 5% damage nerf, Precision got a buff. 2. T1/Faction explosion velocity is the same as before. Precision explosion velocity got a buff. 3. You can always use HAM's to get the old explosion radius, conversely you can use the newly buffed precision for frigs. 4. All HML got a velocity buff, not a nerf.
I'm really happy that you are satisfied, but I'm not, and I think I'm not alone with this.
Anyway I asked CCP, but I think I won't get an answer. |
|
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia pwn-O-graphy
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:53:00 -
[5971] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote: Admit it, caldari ships are .... well I don't want to say it, cuz I'm a gentlemen.
There are 2 useable caldari ships right now: tengu, and falcon.
But let's just think about a HML drake.... my wolf will have more dps than a tier2 bc???
It's a joke.... what else do you want to nerf on caldari?
What is the range on that wolf compared to the drake? How do the 2 stack up when using HAM's?
Who cares about the range if I can get in range with a wolf in 5 seconds (and finish off a drake)?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
363
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:58:00 -
[5972] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote: Admit it, caldari ships are .... well I don't want to say it, cuz I'm a gentlemen.
There are 2 useable caldari ships right now: tengu, and falcon.
But let's just think about a HML drake.... my wolf will have more dps than a tier2 bc???
It's a joke.... what else do you want to nerf on caldari?
What is the range on that wolf compared to the drake? How do the 2 stack up when using HAM's? Who cares about the range if I can get in range with a wolf in 5 seconds (and finish off a drake)? It matters because the drake doesn't need to waste time getting in range. That and an HML drake would still do better against the wolf than a beam harbinger/prophecy or a rail brutix/ferox once the wolf got in range. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
363
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:59:00 -
[5973] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable. Really? Did you try it on the test server? 1. -10% damage 2. 10-20% exposion velocity nerf 3. 12% explosion radius nerf 4. 15% velocity nerf etc etc... All in one 30% damage nerf for cruiser sized and more damage nerf for frig sized targets. Just do the math with the radiuses and the target speeds, sig radiuses etc etc.... We tried it, and well.... No comment And yet the tengu is still the best all around PvE T3. 1. Fury only got a 5% damage nerf, Precision got a buff. 2. T1/Faction explosion velocity is the same as before. Precision explosion velocity got a buff. 3. You can always use HAM's to get the old explosion radius, conversely you can use the newly buffed precision for frigs. 4. All HML got a velocity buff, not a nerf. I'm really happy that you are satisfied, but I'm not, and I think I'm not alone with this. Anyway I asked CCP, but I think I won't get an answer. You already have your answer on the OP. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:00:00 -
[5974] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Admit it, caldari ships are .... well I don't want to say it, cuz I'm a gentlemen.
There are 2 useable caldari ships right now: tengu, and falcon.
But let's just think about a HML drake.... my wolf will have more dps than a tier2 bc???
It's a joke.... what else do you want to nerf on caldari? Hum... Maybe use short range weapon ? I know, terrible, how could anyone use a weapon with less than 50km range ?! Completely insane and surreal ! |
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia pwn-O-graphy
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:02:00 -
[5975] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote: Admit it, caldari ships are .... well I don't want to say it, cuz I'm a gentlemen.
There are 2 useable caldari ships right now: tengu, and falcon.
But let's just think about a HML drake.... my wolf will have more dps than a tier2 bc???
It's a joke.... what else do you want to nerf on caldari?
What is the range on that wolf compared to the drake? How do the 2 stack up when using HAM's? Who cares about the range if I can get in range with a wolf in 5 seconds (and finish off a drake)? It matters because the drake doesn't need to waste time getting in range. That and an HML drake would still do better against the wolf than a beam harbinger/prophecy or a rail brutix/ferox once the wolf got in range.
Did u calculated in the ROF of the HML? But anyway, more drake kills for me in frigates or cruisers. |
TKL HUN
Jugis Modo Utopia pwn-O-graphy
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:04:00 -
[5976] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Admit it, caldari ships are .... well I don't want to say it, cuz I'm a gentlemen.
There are 2 useable caldari ships right now: tengu, and falcon.
But let's just think about a HML drake.... my wolf will have more dps than a tier2 bc???
It's a joke.... what else do you want to nerf on caldari? Hum... Maybe use short range weapon ? I know, terrible, how could anyone use a weapon with less than 50km range ?! Completely insane and surreal !
Mate, I used a pulse legion for running missions before I started to train my alts, so I know short range.
And as I said, I don't care about the range. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
363
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:05:00 -
[5977] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Did u calculated in the ROF of the HML? But anyway, more drake kills for me in frigates or cruisers. ROF won't matter because the other 4 ships won't reliably hit a competent wolf pilot in his chosen engagement range when fitted with LR weapons. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:29:00 -
[5978] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Dear CCP,
I trained 2 alts to fly a tengu, for mission and complex/anom running.
Half a year on both accs - cruiser lvl5, subsystems lvl5, missile skills + the other skills needed.
I would like to ask only 1 question:
Will you let me reallocate these skill points which are WASTED with the coming missile nerf?
I really hope so...
Thanks! Nope. The SP isn't wasted unless you choose to waste it by not using it, in which case that isn't CCP's fault. HML's and the tengu are still very usable. Really? Did you try it on the test server? 1. -10% damage 2. 10-20% exposion velocity nerf 3. 12% explosion radius nerf 4. 15% velocity nerf etc etc... All in one 30% damage nerf for cruiser sized and more damage nerf for frig sized targets. Just do the math with the radiuses and the target speeds, sig radiuses etc etc.... We tried it, and well.... No comment And yet the tengu is still the best all around PvE T3. 1. Fury only got a 5% damage nerf, Precision got a buff. 2. T1/Faction explosion velocity is the same as before. Precision explosion velocity got a buff. 3. You can always use HAM's to get the old explosion radius, conversely you can use the newly buffed precision for frigs. 4. All HML got a velocity buff, not a nerf.
fury hml tengus explosive rad only raises by about 10 not a killer by any means. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:03:00 -
[5979] - Quote
TKL HUN wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:TKL HUN wrote:Admit it, caldari ships are .... well I don't want to say it, cuz I'm a gentlemen.
There are 2 useable caldari ships right now: tengu, and falcon.
But let's just think about a HML drake.... my wolf will have more dps than a tier2 bc???
It's a joke.... what else do you want to nerf on caldari? Hum... Maybe use short range weapon ? I know, terrible, how could anyone use a weapon with less than 50km range ?! Completely insane and surreal ! Mate, I used a pulse legion for running missions before I started to train my alts, so I know short range. And as I said, I don't care about the range. Well, so have you ever heard about HAM ? You know, it's missiles, like HML, but short range, like pulse, but like if beams where HML. Have you ever used beams ? I'm pretty sure you still prefer HML above beams... |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:22:00 -
[5980] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Well, so have you ever heard about HAM ? You know, it's missiles, like HML, but short range, like pulse, but like if beams where HML. Have you ever used beams ? I'm pretty sure you still prefer HML above beams...
Zealot with t-2 beams and T-2 AMMO gets 92km range and if you fit some tracking computers and enhancers you get like 125km range on a T-2 CRUISER.
|
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:29:00 -
[5981] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Zealot with t-2 beams and T-2 AMMO gets 92km range and if you fit some tracking computers and enhancers you get like 125km range on a T-2 CRUISER. Ever heard of the Cerberus ? Ever heard of missiles rigs ? Missiles also have range rigs. Compare dps at range then.
Or better, just read the thread. |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:32:00 -
[5982] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Spc One wrote:Zealot with t-2 beams and T-2 AMMO gets 92km range and if you fit some tracking computers and enhancers you get like 125km range on a T-2 CRUISER. Ever heard of the Cerberus ? Ever heard of missiles rigs ? Missiles also have range rigs. Compare dps at range then. Or better, just read the thread. Then compare zealot with range rigs and tracking enhancers. You'll get even more range like 180km.
When this nerf hits, zelot will be 1000x better than tengu.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:35:00 -
[5983] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Spc One wrote:Zealot with t-2 beams and T-2 AMMO gets 92km range and if you fit some tracking computers and enhancers you get like 125km range on a T-2 CRUISER. Ever heard of the Cerberus ? Ever heard of missiles rigs ? Missiles also have range rigs. Compare dps at range then. Or better, just read the thread. Then compare zealot with range rigs and tracking enhancers. You'll get even more range like 180km. When this nerf hits, zelot will be 1000x better than tengu. Just look the dps of your awesome zealot, and the tracking too ; you know what tracking is right ?
And then, consider this : a weapon don't have to completely obsolete its pears to be balanced. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
363
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:36:00 -
[5984] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Spc One wrote:Zealot with t-2 beams and T-2 AMMO gets 92km range and if you fit some tracking computers and enhancers you get like 125km range on a T-2 CRUISER. Ever heard of the Cerberus ? Ever heard of missiles rigs ? Missiles also have range rigs. Compare dps at range then. Or better, just read the thread. Then compare zealot with range rigs and tracking enhancers. You'll get even more range like 180km. When this nerf hits, zelot will be 1000x better than tengu. I don't know why are you people comparing tengu or drake with RIGS leave rigs alone and compare range with only skills and hull bonuses. Ok, lets do that. What kind of tank can you get out of that beam Zealot you created? Also how much DPS are you getting at that range? |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:39:00 -
[5985] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Just look the dps of your awesome zealot, and the tracking too ; you know what tracking is right ?
And then, consider this : a weapon don't have to completely obsolete its pears to be balanced.
Because you need tracking at 180km
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:56:00 -
[5986] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: Just look the dps of your awesome zealot, and the tracking too ; you know what tracking is right ?
And then, consider this : a weapon don't have to completely obsolete its pears to be balanced.
Because you need tracking at 180km What's the point of your ship then ? A helios would kill it... |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
118
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 01:05:00 -
[5987] - Quote
helios would get instapoped at 180km in 1 seconds.
|
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 10:31:00 -
[5988] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Spc One wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Spc One wrote:Zealot with t-2 beams and T-2 AMMO gets 92km range and if you fit some tracking computers and enhancers you get like 125km range on a T-2 CRUISER. Ever heard of the Cerberus ? Ever heard of missiles rigs ? Missiles also have range rigs. Compare dps at range then. Or better, just read the thread. Then compare zealot with range rigs and tracking enhancers. You'll get even more range like 180km. When this nerf hits, zelot will be 1000x better than tengu. Just look the dps of your awesome zealot, and the tracking too ; you know what tracking is right ? And then, consider this : a weapon don't have to completely obsolete its pears to be balanced.
Bouh, could you please fix your attitude... i bet i'm not the only one getting tired of it. You have some valid points but could there be less ridiculing way to convey your thoughts? |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
178
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 10:58:00 -
[5989] - Quote
You've moved up to beam zealots as a comparison?
Holy **** the level of bad in this thread is reaching critical levels.. ****.. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 11:08:00 -
[5990] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Bouh, could you please fix your attitude... i bet i'm not the only one getting tired of it. You have some valid points but could there be less ridiculing way to convey your thoughts? Things have been debated here a lot, and then people come, bringing arguments already debated 50 pages ago. I know it's not so easy to go in such a thread, but what's the point comming here if it is to ignore everything said before ?
Perhaps I shouldn't answers all these people saying insanities like caldari are worth nothing whereas they are the second most used race in the game and it's certainly not because of people stupidity but more probably because of their (sometimes over)effectiveness. If only people coming didn't had these insanity in mind, like caldari having two ships worth flying, may be I would be less sarcastic, but we see these since page ONE !
In the case of Spc One, the debate relate to the innate differences between missiles and turrets (turrets don't have a hard range limit), ignore everything missiles can do (like fitting rig to extend their range by ~50% and apply full dps at their max range and still leave fitting for tank), and talk about irreal situation and ships (like a 180km sniping zealot insta poping an helios with beams, in the era of 150km on grig warp and tier3 BC).
All these have been discussed in the previous 50 pages, and in the previous pages too. So I admit I'm a bit sarcastic, but I wouldn't have this oportunity if people were actually reading the thread to avoid posting the same insanities we see since the first page. |
|
Dalis Car
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 12:12:00 -
[5991] - Quote
The Drake and Tengu are not the only ships to use HML II so I would hope the impact on other ships (which were already pretty useless) has been fully thought through before this proposal?
One distinction which is consistently lost in the years of "nerf missiles" debates is the rebalancing efforts which have already taken place since Eve's conception.
1. There is only one flavour of HML launcher - e.g. there are not a 650mm and 720mm variant depending on preference of tank v gank 2. The ammo variants do not balance range vs damage in the way other medium "range" weapons do e.g. there is not an EMP ammo to increase damage at short range - your DPS is your DPS 3. Missiles take a long time to reach their target - e.g. the concept of a sniping Cerberus is and always has been laughable 4. A rocket launcher with defender missiles on your would be target can seriously impact your DPS. 5. There are a lot of additional SPs to be trained if you wish your missiles to be effective.
Did the Drake & Tengu need a nerf - definitely Should a balance look at all impacts across all ships and should this balance look at changes holistically - indubitably. Do the proposed changes do this - only CCP can answer this but the evidence for them doing so is poor. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 12:14:00 -
[5992] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Then compare zealot with range rigs and tracking enhancers. You'll get even more range like 180km.
How about 210km with T1 cruiser?
[Caracal, 210km HM]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-705 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005
|
Angry Mustache
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 14:15:00 -
[5993] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Spc One wrote:Then compare zealot with range rigs and tracking enhancers. You'll get even more range like 180km. How about 210km with T1 cruiser? [Caracal, 210km HM] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Sensor Booster II Sensor Booster II Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-705 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005 Don't want to use T2 rigs? Fine, it still has 193km range.
What's the point of linking useless fits in a forum fight... I guess the "sniping zealot" fit (at least the one i tried to throw together in EFT) was equally useless. this just proves long range missiles have long range on a range bonused ship :/ do note it takes 25 seconds for the missiles to arrive.
HML's do have the problem of "when all you have is a hammer", 1 fitting size, 1 T1 ammo type. When all you have is a hammer, that hammer better hit hard enough to cover all the deficiencies.
I do wonder if increasing ammo selection for T1 missiles would have fixed the problem of HML's far more surely than this bludgeon of a nerf. perhaps moving precision and fury to t1 missiles, then adding 2 new missiles at T2 (say, a missile with really high explosion velocity but a huge sig and a missile that flies fast but does less damage.) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 15:27:00 -
[5994] - Quote
Last time I checked missiles are only weapon with true selectable damage type. |
Angry Mustache
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 16:15:00 -
[5995] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Last time I checked missiles are only weapon with true selectable damage type.
well the problem being that there are only a handful of "true" damage selectable missile ships, the raven and variants being the most prominent. the only other 2 are the rook and SNI. note that the raven series uses the massively terrible cruise missiles, torp golems being used for a very narrow purpose.
But every other Caldari missile ship is kinetic bonused. Drake, Tengu, Harpy, Caracal/navy caracal, crow, kestrel, manticore, cerberus, onyx, Nighthawk.
Switching to non-kinetic ammo costs these ships anywhere from 25 to 37.5% of their DPS, resulting in lower DPS unless the enemy has a huge resist hole (for which they deserve to die anyways).
It's a better state than amarr and gallente, who are basically locked to EM/thermal, but a far cry from minmatar, who's ship bonuses are to the weapon themselves, instead of the ammo they shoot, allowing them to exploit resists that are not their racial damage type.
But the patch notes do indicate that CCP is moving away from kinetic bonus on missile ships to launcher bonuses, which is good, but meanwhile, drakes and tengus get to shoot kinetic damage from gimped launchers.
But the main point of moving fury and precision to T1 is so that launchers become easier to balance, until the player trains T2 launchers, there is no "high damage ammo" or "close range ammo", necessitating a 1-size fits all "do everything ammo" which must be very powerful to make up for the lack of versatility. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 16:19:00 -
[5996] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Last time I checked missiles are only weapon with true selectable damage type.
Drones have selectable damage types.
Missiles have a flight time and are destructible though, just as drones... they are missiles after all so it makes sense. So of course they would need some sort of ability to balance things. But the thing was that this "ability" wasn't very useful since many ships had damage bonuses only for kinetic damage types. Luckily this seems to be finally changing.
Also when you complain about the missiles still being able to do very minimal damage to frigates, while guns have tracking problems consider that the guns are able to insta pop that frigate if he makes a piloting error etc this is a fact even though many claims that good pilot wont ever let that happen but i beg to disagree, anything can happen. Also missiles always hit them but usually frigates have the speed advantage to escape or have his/her friends arrive before being worried about that small damage taken.
These are all traits to 2 completely different weapon systems and they shouldn't be too similar to each other and have their various advantages and disadvantages. Instead of warheads maybe some missile types could carry something else... being a long range platform and used mostly by Caldari it could spark some interest to long range pvp again, no guns would be able to do that and it would give missiles more specialization and reason to train. But this can also cause problems when trying to balance them.
The way we are currently going and with future (TE, TC, TD affecting missiles) it looks like that while we are balancing these systems we are just making them more similar to each other and i don't like this at all. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:15:00 -
[5997] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:But every other Caldari missile ship is kinetic bonused. Drake, Tengu, Harpy, Caracal/navy caracal, crow, kestrel, manticore, cerberus, onyx, Nighthawk.
Switching to non-kinetic ammo costs these ships anywhere from 25 to 37.5% of their DPS, resulting in lower DPS unless the enemy has a huge resist hole (for which they deserve to die anyways).
Caracal: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155001
Kestrel: Frigate skill bonuses: 5% Bonus to Missile damage per level 10% Bonus to Missile velocity per level https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=144693
Where are these kinetic bonuses you talk about?
Harpy is turret ship.
When I use lasers and change to explosive or kinetic damage I lose 100% of my dps. When I use hybrids and change to EM or explosive damage I lose 100% of my dps. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:50:00 -
[5998] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Angry Mustache wrote:But every other Caldari missile ship is kinetic bonused. Drake, Tengu, Harpy, Caracal/navy caracal, crow, kestrel, manticore, cerberus, onyx, Nighthawk.
Switching to non-kinetic ammo costs these ships anywhere from 25 to 37.5% of their DPS, resulting in lower DPS unless the enemy has a huge resist hole (for which they deserve to die anyways). Caracal: Cruiser skill bonuses: 5% bonus Rapid Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Launcher rate of fire 10% bonus to Light, Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile Velocity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155001Kestrel: Frigate skill bonuses: 5% Bonus to Missile damage per level 10% Bonus to Missile velocity per level https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=144693Where are these kinetic bonuses you talk about? Harpy is turret ship. When I use lasers and change to explosive or kinetic damage I lose 100% of my dps. When I use hybrids and change to EM or explosive damage I lose 100% of my dps.
I'm pretty sure he like most of us here know about those new ship balancings and this indeed is the right direction to go, but right now in the game most have just bonus for kinetic damage. And with the ship balancing that is 2 T1 ships fixed while all the rest will likely have to wait their turn for a long time.
Oh, and he likely mistaked Harpy for Hawk which has bonus for kinetic damage only.
Your last argument is kind of funny :) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 17:57:00 -
[5999] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Oh, and he likely mistaked Harpy for Hawk which has bonus for kinetic damage only.
Your last argument is kind of funny :)
At least you can choose damage type and decide if you want to use unbonused damage type.
With lasers and hybrids that's not even possible. If you find a laser crystal with explosive damage or a hybrid ammo with EM damage I'd like to know about it. |
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 18:08:00 -
[6000] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Johnson Oramara wrote:Oh, and he likely mistaked Harpy for Hawk which has bonus for kinetic damage only.
Your last argument is kind of funny :) At least you can choose damage type and decide if you want to use unbonused damage type. With lasers and hybrids that's not even possible. If you find a laser crystal with explosive damage or a hybrid ammo with EM damage I'd like to know about it.
That is the advantage of the missiles in addition to their long reach, should they not have it? If you want to have freely choosable damage type then go with missiles but you have delayed damage projection and likely sig radius problems with some situations. Or then choose the appropriate gun type that deals most of the wanted damage type and pick your targets.
Also with the 10 second reload time while in battle is rarely worth it unless you are sure what is the opponents weakest resist.
Try to see missiles as completely different weapon system and not just compare it straight to guns. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
218
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 18:57:00 -
[6001] - Quote
Tengu competes against BSs in BS ranges (~100km) dealing 700+ dps at that range. Why someone would use turret BSs when one ship can do it better even without drones? Tengu deals 1000+ dps at 50km with HAMs.
You sure you don't see a problem here? |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 20:19:00 -
[6002] - Quote
Guys this attempt to compare missiles with guns is just like someone trying to compare apples with oranges. All we know for sure is that they are both fruit.
It's normal to expect missiles and guns to behave differently and personally I think missiles are currently under-powered not over-powered. A weapon that takes ages to deliver damage to a target had better hit hard. Missiles don't hit hard enough.
I also support the idea that we should have a variety of missile ammunitions., short ranged high damage, long range weaker damage. This is true for other weapon types such as lasers, hybrids and projectiles so why not for missiles.
|
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 20:27:00 -
[6003] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tengu competes against BSs in BS ranges (~100km) dealing 700+ dps at that range. Why someone would use turret BSs when one ship can do it better even without drones? Tengu deals 1000+ dps at 50km with HAMs.
You sure you don't see a problem here?
I never said i was against the HM damage nerf, in fact i'm quite fine with it and with the guided missile precision at L5 some are even getting much needed buff for damage application but i'd like to lower the range reduction for T2 missiles, after all range should be the number one strength with missiles.
With tengu the problem is the ship, it shouldn't be able to output that much dps, it's rivaling cruise Golem. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
219
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 20:35:00 -
[6004] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:A weapon that takes ages to deliver damage to a target had better hit hard. Missiles don't hit hard enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSoFCC26KGw |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:24:00 -
[6005] - Quote
Yeay showing me a video of a fight in a T3 ship does not prove your point...
T3 vessels are not typical if we only look at extremes we will never attain balance, most missile users do not fly around in T3 ships on account of their expensive nature. When I have been arguing against the proposed nerf I have specifically been thinking of the T1 missile biased ships like the Caracal and the Drake both of which are underpowered in comparison to ships in the same class belonging to other races. Once again we're back to apples and oranges... |
Giribaldi
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:37:00 -
[6006] - Quote
CCP Fozzie I disagree with reducing the DMG of heavy missiles and all of the above mention penaltie 2 heavy missiles... if u insist on doing it then buff hams so that they have a 15% long range or increases there range from what they are now to 32km (with lvl 5 skills) so that that ppl are incouraged 2 use hams for close heavies for kiting... if u reduce the damage of heavies the tengu will match the drake in dps most importanly because tengu has less missile slots then the drake... so u need 2 give a 10% buff 2 heavy missile bonus 2 the tengu (not the subsystem but the ship itself)... an other note is that drakes have always been more of a kitting ship so making them good with hams would make them match other ships... if u reduce range of hams 2 aprox 18km (max skills) and increase dmg output of them by 15% to match the dps of other close range bc's ull make the drake wanted and more balanced for close range battle verus long range battle... but keeping in mind making that change will still keep drakes popular for kiting with heavy missiles... that is all |
Executus Primus
Black Phoenix Legion The Fourth District
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 23:50:00 -
[6007] - Quote
The premise HMLs get rebalanced on is sort of flawed. They are compared to other long range weapons, for instance artillery of minmatar ships.
That premise is flawed because the plattforms these weapons operate on are vastly different. The only reason to use long range weapons in an engagement is when you can at least hope to dictate range.
Now we know how that works, we know the T3 sniping BCs, we know the beam zealots and zealots with long range pulse and mwd, we even know arty ruptures and canes. However the only enemy a drake can dictate range against is BSes. That "awesome range" advantage is pretty much useless if the enemy is in your face in a few seconds, ESPECIALLY considering that the damage is not instantly applied (ie no hit, warp off tactics).
So you cant really compare a hurricane with a drake. A AC hurricane wont reallly have any problems with the drake "range superiority" because it can just get in, dictate range and do superior dps (the problem here is probably more that the drake has a better dps/TANK package than the cane).
I acknowledge that the drake works due to fleet mechanics of concentrated fire while people chase, however that is a unique situation to blob fleets that could have been solved by looking at the drakes tank and dps range. Besides that situation got somewhat mitigated already with the introduction of t3 BCs. By lowering the HML dps you not only make HML supbar do close range fits (which one could argue it should be), but ALSO subpar to any other long range mechanic due to:
* slow ass plattform (can never dictate range, you cant really use the range to your advantage) * no instant damage (you cant snipe, you cant really use the range to your advantage)
So HMLs are pretty much pointless now for both ranged and close range engagements. Personally i am cool with that, because i never liked the drake.
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:35:00 -
[6008] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Last time I checked missiles are only weapon with true selectable damage type. well the problem being that there are only a handful of "true" damage selectable missile ships, the raven and variants being the most prominent. the only other 2 are the rook and SNI. note that the raven series uses the massively terrible cruise missiles, torp golems being used for a very narrow purpose. But every other Caldari missile ship is kinetic bonused. Drake, Tengu, Harpy, Caracal/navy caracal, crow, kestrel, manticore, cerberus, onyx, Nighthawk. Switching to non-kinetic ammo costs these ships anywhere from 25 to 37.5% of their DPS, resulting in lower DPS unless the enemy has a huge resist hole (for which they deserve to die anyways). It's a better state than amarr and gallente, who are basically locked to EM/thermal, but a far cry from minmatar, who's ship bonuses are to the weapon themselves, instead of the ammo they shoot, allowing them to exploit resists that are not their racial damage type. But the patch notes do indicate that CCP is moving away from kinetic bonus on missile ships to launcher bonuses, which is good, but meanwhile, drakes and tengus get to shoot kinetic damage from gimped launchers. But the main point of moving fury and precision to T1 is so that launchers become easier to balance, until the player trains T2 launchers, there is no "high damage ammo" or "close range ammo", necessitating a 1-size fits all "do everything ammo" which must be very powerful to make up for the lack of versatility.
might wanna cheack some of these facts mate the kestral has always been effective with all missle damages. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 00:39:00 -
[6009] - Quote
Giribaldi wrote:CCP Fozzie I disagree with reducing the DMG of heavy missiles and all of the above mention penaltie 2 heavy missiles... if u insist on doing it then buff hams so that they have a 15% long range or increases there range from what they are now to 32km (with lvl 5 skills) so that that ppl are incouraged 2 use hams for close heavies for kiting... if u reduce the damage of heavies the tengu will match the drake in dps most importanly because tengu has less missile slots then the drake... so u need 2 give a 10% buff 2 heavy missile bonus 2 the tengu (not the subsystem but the ship itself)... an other note is that drakes have always been more of a kitting ship so making them good with hams would make them match other ships... if u reduce range of hams 2 aprox 18km (max skills) and increase dmg output of them by 15% to match the dps of other close range bc's ull make the drake wanted and more balanced for close range battle verus long range battle... but keeping in mind making that change will still keep drakes popular for kiting with heavy missiles... that is all
the cara surpases the drake (havent tested t2 ham cause i cant) and tbh i think the drake is goo maybe lose its range or dmg bonus and go full tank but thats about it. |
Angry Mustache
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 03:24:00 -
[6010] - Quote
serras bang wrote: the cara surpases the drake (havent tested t2 ham cause i cant) and tbh i think the drake is goo maybe lose its range or dmg bonus and go full tank but thats about it.
I dont even understand what this means? the drake ATM has a resist bonus and a Kinetic damage bonus, while caracal has kinetic damage and range. There are rumors of plans to change drake to ROF and range, but rumors are rumors.
The caracal is in a bad spot right now, as it lacks the PG and slots to fit anything resembling a tank when HML fit. the winter changes improved that, but crippled it's main weapon system too.
serras bang wrote: might wanna cheack some of these facts mate the kestral has always been effective with all missle damages.
kestrels have a 5% bonus to all missile damage and a 10% bonus to kinetic, shooting non-kinetic ammo still costs you ~15% of your DPS. the bigger problem being that the kestrel needs to fit a micro aux power core just to have 4 launchers and a prop mod, giving it just 1 low and 3 meds to work with. As such it has a too thin a tank to PVP, and destroyers run L1 missions better anyways.
|
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
219
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 07:21:00 -
[6011] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Yeay showing me a video of a fight in a T3 ship does not prove your point...
T3 vessels are not typical if we only look at extremes we will never attain balance, most missile users do not fly around in T3 ships on account of their expensive nature. When I have been arguing against the proposed nerf I have specifically been thinking of the T1 missile biased ships like the Caracal and the Drake both of which are underpowered in comparison to ships in the same class belonging to other races. Once again we're back to apples and oranges...
What experienced mission runner says to rookie who wants to run pve content? "Train Drake and then Tengu."
Drake underpowered? Show me 400 dps 73k EHP rail Ferox. |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
184
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 07:50:00 -
[6012] - Quote
Executus Primus wrote:>snip<
...... By lowering the HML dps you not only make HML supbar do close range fits (which one could argue it should be), but ALSO subpar to any other long range mechanic due to:
* slow ass plattform (can never dictate range, you cant really use the range to your advantage) * no instant damage (you cant snipe, you cant really use the range to your advantage)
Most of the drone boats in game would like a word with you. o.0 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
219
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 09:33:00 -
[6013] - Quote
Drake slow?
Drake: 1038 m/s Harbinger: 978 m/s |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
904
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 11:32:00 -
[6014] - Quote
Fit???
OGB links number and ship?
Boosters
Now if with all this you shouldn't be able to kill a couple ships solo or someone should die to the first couple frigs showing up on grid, then what would be the point of training for such expensive ship? I only see a problem on this vid, that Legion horribly lacks of dps but has a very nasty tank. brb |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
904
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 11:39:00 -
[6015] - Quote
Giribaldi wrote:CCP Fozzie I disagree with reducing the DMG of heavy missiles and all of the above mention penaltie 2 heavy missiles... if u insist on doing it then buff hams so that they have a 15% long range or increases there range from what they are now to 32km (with lvl 5 skills) so that that ppl are incouraged 2 use hams for close heavies for kiting... if u reduce the damage of heavies the tengu will match the drake in dps most importanly because tengu has less missile slots then the drake... so u need 2 give a 10% buff 2 heavy missile bonus 2 the tengu (not the subsystem but the ship itself)... an other note is that drakes have always been more of a kitting ship so making them good with hams would make them match other ships... if u reduce range of hams 2 aprox 18km (max skills) and increase dmg output of them by 15% to match the dps of other close range bc's ull make the drake wanted and more balanced for close range battle verus long range battle... but keeping in mind making that change will still keep drakes popular for kiting with heavy missiles... that is all
Hurricane with 425mm autos 2TE+ long range ammo can keep you disrupted at max range with links (40km) and still apply dmg, with top skills and getting closer (about 30km) will make you cry because there's nothing you can do but send ammo that will never hit the target.
HAMs hitting at 25+ on bonused hulls? -HELL YEAH !! brb |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 11:48:00 -
[6016] - Quote
Executus Primus wrote:The premise HMLs get rebalanced on is sort of flawed. They are compared to other long range weapons, for instance artillery of minmatar ships.
That premise is flawed because the plattforms these weapons operate on are vastly different. The only reason to use long range weapons in an engagement is when you can at least hope to dictate range.
Now we know how that works, we know the T3 sniping BCs, we know the beam zealots and zealots with long range pulse and mwd, we even know arty ruptures and canes. However the only enemy a drake can dictate range against is BSes. That "awesome range" advantage is pretty much useless if the enemy is in your face in a few seconds, ESPECIALLY considering that the damage is not instantly applied (ie no hit, warp off tactics).
So you cant really compare a hurricane with a drake. A AC hurricane wont reallly have any problems with the drake "range superiority" because it can just get in, dictate range and do superior dps (the problem here is probably more that the drake has a better dps/TANK package than the cane).
I acknowledge that the drake works due to fleet mechanics of concentrated fire while people chase, however that is a unique situation to blob fleets that could have been solved by looking at the drakes tank and dps range. Besides that situation got somewhat mitigated already with the introduction of t3 BCs. By lowering the HML dps you not only make HML supbar do close range fits (which one could argue it should be), but ALSO subpar to any other long range mechanic due to:
* slow ass plattform (can never dictate range, you cant really use the range to your advantage) * no instant damage (you cant snipe, you cant really use the range to your advantage)
So HMLs are pretty much pointless now for both ranged and close range engagements. Personally i am cool with that, because i never liked the drake.
Try fitting a plate on a BC, and then compare it to the drake. Beside, you know, there must be a fastest ship. And drake blob don't really care about the non instant damage, so is it really a problem ?
BTW, if you've read the thread, you'd know that a current drake (3BCS, working fit) can have only marginaly less dps than a cane at short range (like 5%@20km) but don't suffer the INSANE tracking problem the arty cane will have at this range. 2BCS fit is a little more to the advantage of the cane : dps difference is now between 10 and 15% @20km. Really, for that dps difference, below 20km, I take a drake above an arty cane any day. Then, farther than 25km, the drake even outdps a beam harbinger.
With 10% damage nerf, turrets will earn around 5km dps advantage, leaving the future drake king of medLR weapon between 30 and 50km (more if you add range rigs, then it's more like 75km).
Then there's fury HM : you can perfectly use them against any shield cruiser and larger, and your damages are higher than before with faction ammo...
What is fun is that current drake with fury HM only have 1 or 2% less dps than a arty cane at 20km.
About damage selection for missiles : there's complaint about the kin only bonus for some missiles boats. Though, what is overlooked is how this damage difference work : comparison must be done on the non resisted part of damage, the damage part that actually hit the ship.
Consider a rather standard shield tank (1 invul + EM rig) on a cane : resists are (EM54,72;TE51;KI63,25;EX69,38). Applyed damage are (EM45;TE49;KI37;EX31).
Call D your base damage (non bonused type), so kin damage will be D*1,25. Apply these damage for each type, applyed damage will be D*Bonus*non resisted part. We then have the damage modifier for each ammo type D*(EM 0,45 ; TE 0,49 ; KI 0,46 ; EX 0,31). Hence, for a EM riged+invul shield tank, you are better firing with inferno missiles despite the kinetic bonus, though the difference is marginal, and if you stick to kinetic, you will be better when hiting on armor. When T2 ships come into play, then you have true damage selection.
So, as you can see, 25% damage bonus is not enough for scourge to be always better than all the others. That give you incentive to use you racial damage type but you still have the opportunity swap ammo, and this opportunity is hell of a good idea. Ships can't always plug their hole, and if you know theere's a hole, you can exploit it. For everything else, there's your standard kinetic ammo.
Mind you, minmatar damage selection is worse than caldari damage selection. They don't have pure damage selection and are always hampered by some explo/kin damage. These non pure damage can seem rather low, though that can be enough to make no difference between an ideal ammo and a less ideal one. That make their ammo only good to exploit unpluged holes.
So yes, this kinetic bonus is here to alleviate your damage selection, because otherwise your ship would be able to exploit the tinest little hole a ship can have, and considering you even have T2 ammo with selectable damage, it's a rather big advantage. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 11:50:00 -
[6017] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Yeay showing me a video of a fight in a T3 ship does not prove your point...
T3 vessels are not typical if we only look at extremes we will never attain balance, most missile users do not fly around in T3 ships on account of their expensive nature. When I have been arguing against the proposed nerf I have specifically been thinking of the T1 missile biased ships like the Caracal and the Drake both of which are underpowered in comparison to ships in the same class belonging to other races. Once again we're back to apples and oranges... What experienced mission runner says to rookie who wants to run pve content? "Train Drake and then Tengu." Drake underpowered? Show me 400 dps 73k EHP rail Ferox. I'm going to help you a bit: 4x MagStab Ferox does 368 paper dps at 13km with Javelin.
That last line says it all... Dude I do not need your help.
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 11:52:00 -
[6018] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:serras bang wrote: the cara surpases the drake (havent tested t2 ham cause i cant) and tbh i think the drake is goo maybe lose its range or dmg bonus and go full tank but thats about it.
I dont even understand what this means? the drake ATM has a resist bonus and a Kinetic damage bonus, while caracal has kinetic damage and range. There are rumors of plans to change drake to ROF and range, but rumors are rumors. The caracal is in a bad spot right now, as it lacks the PG and slots to fit anything resembling a tank when HML fit. the winter changes improved that, but crippled it's main weapon system too. serras bang wrote: might wanna cheack some of these facts mate the kestral has always been effective with all missle damages.
kestrels have a 5% bonus to all missile damage and a 10% bonus to kinetic, shooting non-kinetic ammo still costs you ~15% of your DPS. the bigger problem being that the kestrel needs to fit a micro aux power core just to have 4 launchers and a prop mod, giving it just 1 low and 3 meds to work with. As such it has a too thin a tank to PVP, and destroyers run L1 missions better anyways.
it was still effective and persides after winter the kestral will have no such handicap even if the dps is lower than what it was. and if it had 4 launchers an mwd it was and is capable of 2.4k ms without overheat that alone is good enough to stay out of the way of most close range guns and fitting even a civi booster is enough for it to survive dps at the extream ranges it can operate on. and fyi i never had probs with it in pve as an ab kestral spitting missles at 30km when i first started was more than enough.
and i have tested the cara the cara has no fitting issues (except what to use all the slots for) and produces around 400 dps with hams at around 45 - 50 km ide say that a pritty good spot for th cara to be in and fyi it produces that dps with all dmg types. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
219
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 12:45:00 -
[6019] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Hurricane with 425mm autos 2TE+ long range ammo can keep you disrupted at max range with links (40km) and still apply dmg, with top skills and getting closer (about 30km) will make you cry because there's nothing you can do but send ammo that will never hit the target.
Your 3xTE Cane does 100-200 dps at 40km. Scary.
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:That last line says it all... Dude I do not need your help.
Ferox: - 400 dps at 50 km - 70k EHP
Fit, now! |
Luwc
Easy Co. Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 12:55:00 -
[6020] - Quote
dear ccp , - give the corax more PG . its pathetic . ( a combat fit flycatcher does better lol ) - nerf the algos ( way too op just look at the fitting possibilites and overall damage-tank ) - reset torpedo changes ( makes the Raven one of the most useless ships ingame ) - new UI is annoying as **** ( at least make it optional ) - Hurricane is overnerfed ( please stop balancing things that dont need to be balanced )
ty. |
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 13:33:00 -
[6021] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tengu competes against BSs in BS ranges (~100km) dealing 700+ dps at that range. Why someone would use turret BSs when one ship can do it better even without drones? Tengu deals 1000+ dps at 50km with HAMs.
You sure you don't see a problem here? 1000+dps at 50km range with HAMs? To achieve that you would need 4 faction BCUs and the rigs would all need to be missile velocity/travel travel time rigs and you would not have enough PG left to fit any tank in the mids. Tengu does have issues but exaggerating to such a level just weakens your argument.
Issue with T3s is that they boost better than Command Ships thus making them obsolete. Perform better than HACs when configured for that role (albeit at a considerable increase in cost, however cost isn't a factor for a lot of eve players and therefore should not be a balancing offset).
I don't think T3s need a major overhaul, just a slight nerf to their per level stats so that when configured for a particular role, they perform on par with the T2 counterpart of that role. That way what you're paying for when you buy a T3 is customizability, not superiority.
Anyway, getting off track. I think lowering the nerf to HMLs was the right thing, HMLs are too strong ATM but the initial proposed nerf was too much. I think the updated proposal is a lot more reasonable. Unsure about the Hurricane nerf. Maybe a tad too heavy. Armor canes are already pretty rare, they'd be non-existant after this nerf I think. Downgrading to 220s for nano canes isn't too bad, we'll have to wait and see I guess. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 13:58:00 -
[6022] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Anyway, getting off track. I think lowering the nerf to HMLs was the right thing, HMLs are too strong ATM but the initial proposed nerf was too much. I think the updated proposal is a lot more reasonable. Unsure about the Hurricane nerf. Maybe a tad too heavy. Armor canes are already pretty rare, they'd be non-existant after this nerf I think. Downgrading to 220s for nano canes isn't too bad, we'll have to wait and see I guess. This problem is not related to cane not being OP but armor tanking being BAD. Amarr and, to some extent, gallente have this exact problem too. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 14:09:00 -
[6023] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Anyway, getting off track. I think lowering the nerf to HMLs was the right thing, HMLs are too strong ATM but the initial proposed nerf was too much. I think the updated proposal is a lot more reasonable. Unsure about the Hurricane nerf. Maybe a tad too heavy. Armor canes are already pretty rare, they'd be non-existant after this nerf I think. Downgrading to 220s for nano canes isn't too bad, we'll have to wait and see I guess. This problem is not related to cane not being OP but armor tanking being BAD. Amarr and, to some extent, gallente have this exact problem too. Actually given the popularity of shield canes, there was a fun niche strategy of baiting some ships with an armor cane into web/scram range and then completly destroying them as they realise you'r armor/brawl fitted. WIll be a bit sad to see that disappear due to fitting nerf.
I don't feel everything needs to be blamed on armor tanking, it's getting old and it's getting applied to places where it shouldn't. Active armor tanking needs a lot of work, but I still find armor buffer to be extremely strong. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
110
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 14:16:00 -
[6024] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Anyway, getting off track. I think lowering the nerf to HMLs was the right thing, HMLs are too strong ATM but the initial proposed nerf was too much. I think the updated proposal is a lot more reasonable. Unsure about the Hurricane nerf. Maybe a tad too heavy. Armor canes are already pretty rare, they'd be non-existant after this nerf I think. Downgrading to 220s for nano canes isn't too bad, we'll have to wait and see I guess. This problem is not related to cane not being OP but armor tanking being BAD. Amarr and, to some extent, gallente have this exact problem too. Actually given the popularity of shield canes, there was a fun niche strategy of baiting some ships with an armor cane into web/scram range and then completly destroying them as they realise you'r armor/brawl fitted. WIll be a bit sad to see that disappear due to fitting nerf. I don't feel everything needs to be blamed on armor tanking, it's getting old and it's getting applied to places where it shouldn't. Active armor tanking needs a lot of work, but I still find armor buffer to be extremely strong.
the only thing that will change is you wont be able to use 2 medium neuts.. |
NextDarkKnight
Fury Lords Intergalactic Brotherhood
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 20:18:00 -
[6025] - Quote
I don't get to post that often but I was reading about the changes CCP was making to missiles. I started reading and it makes me think that CCP's best and brightest minds are changing the missile system to operate like gun based weapons. While, I can understand they are trying really to simplify the roles in the game but this approach can't fix everything.
Now, I am mostly a PVE player. I picked to skill up the missile system because it seemed like an easy way to make isk in the game running missions and exploring wormhole space. My most profitable and riskie situation is to engage PVE forces around 70 to 100k while taking massive incoming damage. In reading some of the posts, the Drake range for PVE encounters are being reduced? Which reminds me of my short PVP experience.
From a PVP prospective, the Drake seams on paper a great PVP ship. Yet in practice I found the missile boat to be extremely slow and the locking time to be close to the lock time of a battleship. With shield extenders it's the size of a battleship (one big target). Trying to move it and get in to range to lock a ship solo or in a small gang made for a very frustrating experience. I have since started cross training for other ships for PVP because frankly the missile system is meant purely for PVE.
Now from a PVP defense purpose, I think that CCP started out right by having a nice high slot item for a missile defense system. Yet in practice it wasn't completely implemented with the defender missiles (Our lazy Eve minds would of loved for this to be auto fire). A long time ago the defender missiles should have been upgraded to a laser based missile defense system. This is a sci-fi game and missiles should and never be treated like guns (CCP Really.. "Tracking Disruptors to effect missiles"). Hell, in the 80s people dreamed up "Star Wars" like systems what would disable enemy missiles in flight. Really is it so much to get a solution like a "Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System" instead of turning missiles into guns? Activate your highslot and it will target and damage hostile missile with in it's range.
I'm sorry but changes to missiles are welcome, but slowly making them a similar weapon system to guns it not the answer. They are different.. They should stay different. Please, Make a missile defense program that highlights what is awesome about the missile system. You could even make a new ship class based on a true missile defense program. Having a few well-placed ships that could knock down most of the DPS from an incoming missile blob I'm sure will be a welcome thing in here. Saying the heavy missiles need to be a new short range item and all missiles be effected by "gun based defenses countermeasures" is just down right lazy.
Edit : Hell, You could even have a Aegis Drone which can knock down some incoming missiles. Anyways, not that my post will be read 300 pages in but hopefully some one will share my view point. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 20:56:00 -
[6026] - Quote
I read your post, despite being 300 pages in and wholeheartedly agree with your opinion. MIssiles are not guns and if a TD can affect missiles it should at best only have a minor effect on telemetary sent by the firing ship. FOF missiles (which are pretty much useless) should be immune. I personally think that for a TD to have any chance of working on a missile they should have to target the actual missile in flight, but that would be too hard to implement and impractical. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
219
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 21:22:00 -
[6027] - Quote
Missiles without any counter is also bad idea. |
RangerGord
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 23:27:00 -
[6028] - Quote
NextDarkKnight wrote:A long time ago the defender missiles should have been upgraded to a laser based missile defense system. This is a sci-fi game and missiles should and never be treated like guns (CCP Really.. "Tracking Disruptors to effect missiles"). Hell, in the 80s people dreamed up "Star Wars" like systems what would disable enemy missiles in flight. Really is it so much to get a solution like a "Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System" instead of turning missiles into guns? Activate your highslot and it will target and damage hostile missile with in it's range.
They are different.. They should stay different. Please, Make a missile defense program that highlights what is awesome about the missile system. You could even make a new ship class based on a true missile defense program. Having a few well-placed ships that could knock down most of the DPS from an incoming missile blob I'm sure will be a welcome thing in here. Saying the heavy missiles need to be a new short range item and all missiles be effected by "gun based defenses countermeasures" is just down right lazy.
Edit : Hell, You could even have a Aegis Drone which can knock down some incoming missiles. Anyways, not that my post will be read 300 pages in but hopefully some one will share my view point.
Totally this... (and when I first found the Defender Missiles, that is what I thought they did, unfortunately they weren't useful enough to bother training the skill past lvl 1)
And another thought along this same line, in order to have an appropriate effective missile defense system, they would need the actual model of the missile itself to accurately reflect the position of the logical missile. For those that don't understand what I'm trying to say, currently the missiles apply the damage to a target while the displayed missile is still enroute (sometimes as far away as half distance). So even if they came out with a proper missile defense system, they would have to fix other aspects of the game engine.
|
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:27:00 -
[6029] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Missiles without any counter is also bad idea.
They do have a counter, Defender missiles.
But no one is bothering to use them so maybe missiles were never really that big threat, or people just don't bother fitting them when they just drop in a neut instead... heck, most boats in eve wont even be able to fit the launchers for them. And they aren't really working too well either so they would need some sort of fix.
Maybe change them to some sort of new anti missile module like NextDarkKnight suggested. Having TD to counter all guns and missiles just doesn't feel right. Having different counters for both adds some more variety in battles, you would have to make a decision to add counter to guns or missiles. If you chose TD and was jumped by missile boat with TD it would be your worst nightmare, or if you chose the counter for missiles it would be a bad day for the missile boat. More variety = good.
If we are just going to ignore the true and also the most logical counter for missiles (Defenders) and they will be affected by TE, TC and TD too why not just continue this simplifying by adding drones to that mix too? Not a good idea and feels plain dumb? well i feel the same thing about them affecting missiles. |
NextDarkKnight
Fury Lords Intergalactic Brotherhood
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:41:00 -
[6030] - Quote
Thanks for reading my post, I think defender missile need to seek out all hostile missiles and auto repeat. Thank time dilation because it can now be a true reality if enough people get on board with it. |
|
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 02:41:00 -
[6031] - Quote
I agree with NextDarkKnight.
I would prefer the a anti-missile system to be a laser-based system and a defender-missile system. Defender missiles are broken. They could be fixed as everyone knows. However, many races ships can't fit them. With a few T2 exceptions to that rule: ex. Amarr.*
Having a turret-like interceptor system and missile-interceptor system to knock out hostile missiles would make sense. Gallente ships use turrets only. Amarr ships with the exception of T2 variants use turrets only. Minmatar use turrets and launchers. Caldari presently are canonically extremely missile inclined. As such, having two different and complimentary counters to missiles would add diversity and reflect the racial preferences.
On a different subject, I am strongly dislike the proliferation of hybrid turrets among caldari ships. It doesn't fit into the Caldari canon well at all. Those ships should be uniquely different but still missile systems. If you want to use hybrids that is what Gallente are for.
*Footnote: I am ignoring the new Destroyers for the sake of this post. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
163
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 03:19:00 -
[6032] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Missiles without any counter is also bad idea.
Have you tried moving? This'll seriously cut the DPS of T2 damage missiles. I think that's kind of a counter.
Kenshi Hanshin wrote: On a different subject, I strongly dislike the proliferation of hybrid turrets among caldari ships. It doesn't fit into the Caldari canon well at all. Caldari make use of and are masters of missiles. That should be reflected in their ships and and ship-bonuses. In other words, Caldari ships should be uniquely different but still missile systems. If you want to use hybrids that is what Gallente are for.
The amount of sloth that oozes from this post causes me to shrink away from it in revulsion.
Caldari use hybrids and missiles. It's like how Gallente use hybrids and drones. Notice how both factions have specialized missile/drone ships but also have ones that primarily use hybrids. Not to mention, that Caldari and Gallente were, in the lore, which you seem to be a rabid supporter of, were for a long time the same political entity. You could say that this is a hint that they have shared ancestry.
If you only want to use Caldari missile ships, by all means go ahead. But don't complain when you can't join in on some fleets, because you don't have a ship that'll properly perform in that role (ie. snipers- Notice how long it takes missiles to hit things at range. Hybrid boats can at least be fit to snipe. The Moa may not really be an optimal choice yet but that's because medium railguns are horribad. Once that's fixed, well, I think they may be mobile mini-Rokhs.) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
220
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 05:31:00 -
[6033] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Missiles without any counter is also bad idea. Have you tried moving? This'll seriously cut the DPS of T2 damage missiles. I think that's kind of a counter.
Yes, I have. Have you ever tried plated Abaddon?
About defender missiles: Um, noob question, but how can I fit launchers to my Harbinger? |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
184
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 07:09:00 -
[6034] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Aglais wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Missiles without any counter is also bad idea. Have you tried moving? This'll seriously cut the DPS of T2 damage missiles. I think that's kind of a counter. Yes, I have. Have you ever tried plated Abaddon? About defender missiles: Um, noob question, but how can I fit launchers to my Harbinger?
Heh.
I have seen the idea of scrapping defender missiles, and replacing it with a laser (ammoless) anti missile system that would be placed on a mid slot, just like TD's, brought up many times. I think personally it would be ideal. You choose when you are fitting if you have the room, weather to put on a TD vs turrets, an AMS (anti missile system) vs Missiles, or both if you are truly mid slot rich. |
NextDarkKnight
Fury Lords Intergalactic Brotherhood
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 13:34:00 -
[6035] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:[quote=Aglais][quote=Jorma Morkkis]Missiles without any counter is also bad idea. I have seen the idea of scrapping defender missiles, and replacing it with a laser (ammoless) anti missile system that would be placed on a mid slot, just like TD's, brought up many times. I think personally it would be ideal. You choose when you are fitting if you have the room, weather to put on a TD vs turrets, an AMS (anti missile system) vs Missiles, or both if you are truly mid slot rich.
Yeah, but not a mid slot item. A high slot item to stay in tune with missiles. You pick from a high slot utility item like a neut or decrees your DPS. The counter of course for the missile boats will not to let anti-missile boats between you and the target ship.
(crosses fingers) |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 14:16:00 -
[6036] - Quote
NextDarkKnight wrote:Zyella Stormborn wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:[quote=Aglais][quote=Jorma Morkkis]Missiles without any counter is also bad idea. I have seen the idea of scrapping defender missiles, and replacing it with a laser (ammoless) anti missile system that would be placed on a mid slot, just like TD's, brought up many times. I think personally it would be ideal. You choose when you are fitting if you have the room, weather to put on a TD vs turrets, an AMS (anti missile system) vs Missiles, or both if you are truly mid slot rich. Yeah, but not a mid slot item. A high slot item to stay in tune with missiles. You pick from a high slot utility item like a neut or decrees your DPS. The counter of course for the missile boats will not to let anti-missile boats between you and the target ship. (crosses fingers)
Good idea put id prefer mid slots as highs are usually consumed by guns. It would mean less guns for some ships.. Or then give more high slots to 8 turret ships... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 14:41:00 -
[6037] - Quote
As I understand it such a system would have to be a high slot item as I've always been told (I am sorry if I am wrong about this) that high slot items were mounted on the exterior of the hull, with mid slots being buried within the hull and low slots deep inside the ship etc. Sorry if I am not making myself that clear but english is a bit hard for me on times as I am not a native speaker. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 14:52:00 -
[6038] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Good idea put id prefer mid slots as highs are usually consumed by guns. It would mean less guns for some ships.. Or then give more high slots to 8 turret ships...
Mid slot you say?
Some of my Amarr ships will like it a lot (for example Armageddon, Coercer).
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:As I understand it such a system would have to be a high slot item as I've always been told (I am sorry if I am wrong about this) that high slot items were mounted on the exterior of the hull, with mid slots being buried within the hull and low slots deep inside the ship etc. Sorry if I am not making myself that clear but english is a bit hard for me on times as I am not a native speaker.
Armor plates deep inside the ship... Makes totally sense. |
unterkernon
Excrutiating Dirge Black Legion.
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 15:23:00 -
[6039] - Quote
just a quick prop: didn't read all 300 pages ..so maybe someone have similar or same idea already
at least anti missile scripts for TD? or different module for missiles disruptors* or something with require some micro management.. just plz don't try to solve the thing with oke.. td's gone affect missiles from now on .. to do that press f1
|
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 15:26:00 -
[6040] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Good idea put id prefer mid slots as highs are usually consumed by guns. It would mean less guns for some ships.. Or then give more high slots to 8 turret ships... Mid slot you say? Some of my Amarr ships will like it a lot (for example Armageddon, Coercer). Little Dragon Khamez wrote:As I understand it such a system would have to be a high slot item as I've always been told (I am sorry if I am wrong about this) that high slot items were mounted on the exterior of the hull, with mid slots being buried within the hull and low slots deep inside the ship etc. Sorry if I am not making myself that clear but english is a bit hard for me on times as I am not a native speaker. Armor plates deep inside the ship... Makes totally sense.
Well coercer has one mid too much anyways.. Besides its ammar all you need is armor plate and lasors |
|
NextDarkKnight
Fury Lords Intergalactic Brotherhood
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 16:05:00 -
[6041] - Quote
Also, Since we are on the subject.. and not to derail that missile should not be like guns and defense has always should be a high slot item. Once was a time you could bookmark missiles in flight. Not that it would have any tactical purposes with the new bookmarking system. I'm sure RvB would add some interesting tackle options if managed correctly :p
Just a general reminder for some of the great unique options missiles use to have which was removed. and for way way back.. missile I believe use to have a little splash damage which I remind you could be added as a specialized missile type. |
nikon56
UnSkilleD Inc. Reverberation Project
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 16:07:00 -
[6042] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote:I agree with NextDarkKnight.
I would prefer the a anti-missile system to be a laser-based system and a defender-missile system. Defender missiles are broken. They could be fixed as everyone knows. However, many races ships can't fit them. With a few T2 exceptions to that rule: ex. Amarr.*
Having a turret-like interceptor system and missile-interceptor system to knock out hostile missiles would make sense. Gallente ships use turrets only. Amarr ships with the exception of T2 variants use turrets only. Minmatar use turrets and launchers. Caldari presently are canonically extremely missile inclined. As such, having two different and complimentary counters to missiles would add diversity and reflect the racial preferences.
On a different subject, I strongly dislike the proliferation of hybrid turrets among caldari ships. It doesn't fit into the Caldari canon well at all. Caldari make use of and are masters of missiles. That should be reflected in their ships and and ship-bonuses. In other words, Caldari ships should be uniquely different but still missile systems. If you want to use hybrids that is what Gallente are for.
*Footnote: I am ignoring the new Destroyers for the sake of this post. agreed on the "defender" needed an upgrade
the best solution imao would be a laser based module that can destroy incoming missiles.
or better, any hostile missiles, maybe bringin a new role for fleet as a missile destroyer ship, packed only with thoses (like some are actually packed with damps / TD ) to protect a fleet from incoming missiles.
actually, defender are just useless, they don't kill enought of the incoming, need you to perfect time them, doesn't autorepeat, useless under 15-20KM (while most of the current engagement happens below this range) cause you cannot react fast enought to launch them.
at least make them autolaunch when an incoming missile is detected.... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
221
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 16:09:00 -
[6043] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Well coercer has one mid too much anyways.. Besides its ammar all you need is armor plate and lasors
"Who needs webs or points?" Spoken like a true Caldari.
What about Geddon then? You will need slots for prop mod, point and cap booster and... oh nose all slots are already used. |
NextDarkKnight
Fury Lords Intergalactic Brotherhood
13
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 16:18:00 -
[6044] - Quote
nikon56 wrote:Kenshi Hanshin wrote:I agree with NextDarkKnight.
I would prefer the a anti-missile system to be a laser-based system and a defender-missile system. Defender missiles are broken. They could be fixed as everyone knows. However, many races ships can't fit them. With a few T2 exceptions to that rule: ex. Amarr.*
Having a turret-like interceptor system and missile-interceptor system to knock out hostile missiles would make sense. Gallente ships use turrets only. Amarr ships with the exception of T2 variants use turrets only. Minmatar use turrets and launchers. Caldari presently are canonically extremely missile inclined. As such, having two different and complimentary counters to missiles would add diversity and reflect the racial preferences.
agreed on the "defender" needed an upgrade the best solution imao would be a laser based module that can destroy incoming missiles. or better, any hostile missiles, maybe bringin a new role for fleet as a missile destroyer ship, packed only with thoses (like some are actually packed with damps / TD ) to protect a fleet from incoming missiles. actually, defender are just useless, they don't kill enought of the incoming, need you to perfect time them, doesn't autorepeat, useless under 15-20KM (while most of the current engagement happens below this range) cause you cannot react fast enought to launch them. at least make them autolaunch when an incoming missile is detected....
This sounds all good and great.. but until some one from CCP gets to Storyboard this and sells it and gets a design team on it.. We are all just talking about nothing. I want missiles (though somewhat useless) to have really nice level of depth and not to be converted into another turret based design. |
Ludiah
GOTTEG Mining and Industrial Union
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:08:00 -
[6045] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.
Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG.
By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by.
I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho. |
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:34:00 -
[6046] - Quote
Aglais wrote:Caldari use hybrids and missiles. It's like how Gallente use hybrids and drones. Notice how both factions have specialized missile/drone ships but also have ones that primarily use hybrids. Not to mention, that Caldari and Gallente were, in the lore, which you seem to be a rabid supporter of, were for a long time the same political entity. You could say that this is a hint that they have shared ancestry.
If you only want to use Caldari missile ships, by all means go ahead. But don't complain when you can't join in on some fleets, because you don't have a ship that'll properly perform in that role (ie. snipers- Notice how long it takes missiles to hit things at range. Hybrid boats can at least be fit to snipe. The Moa may not really be an optimal choice yet but that's because medium railguns are horribad. Once that's fixed, well, I think they may be mobile mini-Rokhs.) Perhaps I wasn't clear with respect to my remark. If you look at Caldari BSs the only one truly useable for PvP is the Rokh. Which is a hybrid system. Missiles will be excellent for damage projection come this winter. The issue is that the bonuses on the Raven make it ill-suited for PvP. Though that may be mostly or at least partially due to the issues with Torps and CMs.
That said, I am well aware of the background. I do understand the point you are making. No, I am not a sloth and have quite good hybrid weapon skills, for the amount of time that I have been playing Eve, and use them regularly. |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
187
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:50:00 -
[6047] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Well coercer has one mid too much anyways.. Besides its ammar all you need is armor plate and lasors
If only this were true.
The reason for mid slot is, that is where all of the EWAR and ECCM goes for slot layout. Putting it on a high slot would mean 70% of the ships in game could not mount the system without losing a gun. And the AMS would not completely negate missile boats, it would have a chance at each missile shot of picking it off is all, lowering the incoming damage a bit.
|
nahjustwarpin
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 19:02:00 -
[6048] - Quote
Ludiah wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons. Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG. By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by. I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho.
start flying something else than a hurricane and you'll realize why it needs to be nerfed |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
913
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 19:25:00 -
[6049] - Quote
Ludiah wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here. Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm. The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons. Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG. By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by. I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho.
If I pick your comments about pg requirements and ship loss:
-17pg requirement for Arty = +17% PG available
-10% base pg available means you still have left +7% PG than before changes. Not sure this is exactly what you wanted to say but it's what it looks like.
brb |
Sycotic Deninard
Polaris Breach Corp
23
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 20:59:00 -
[6050] - Quote
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tengu competes against BSs in BS ranges (~100km) dealing 700+ dps at that range. Why someone would use turret BSs when one ship can do it better even without drones? Tengu deals 1000+ dps at 50km with HAMs.
You sure you don't see a problem here? 1000+dps at 50km range with HAMs? To achieve that you would need 4 faction BCUs and the rigs would all need to be missile velocity/travel travel time rigs and you would not have enough PG left to fit any tank in the mids. Tengu does have issues but exaggerating to such a level just weakens your argument. SNIP
Well, this isn't entirely true... Here is an incursion fit that I will be using come patch day... Please note: This is a PVE fit NOT a PvP fit and its only designed to be used in Assault/HQ incursion fleets.
[Tengu, Incursions - DPS HAMS (Passive)] Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor
6x Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II (Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile)
Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender Pithum A-Type Explosive Deflection Amplifier 2x Pithum A-Type EM Ward Amplifier Pithum A-Type Kinetic Deflection Amplifier Domination Target Painter
4x Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Medium Rocket Fuel Cache Partition II Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
As you can see, this has plenty of tank with excellent resists (at least 80% accross the board) and best of all.... its all passive (meaning that even when I'm nueted by the Outunis, Deltrolls and Niarjas), I still retain my tank. To achieve that kind of DPS ALSO requires +6% Missile implants which a lot of regular incursion runners use.
I agree with what you are saying in general however, this is an example of an extreme fit that to be honest most people won't be using. The point Im making is that it is possible to acheive that amount of DPS in a Tengu. |
|
Johnson Oramara
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 00:31:00 -
[6051] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Good idea put id prefer mid slots as highs are usually consumed by guns. It would mean less guns for some ships.. Or then give more high slots to 8 turret ships... Mid slot you say? Some of my Amarr ships will like it a lot (for example Armageddon, Coercer).
And how is that different in any way from trying to fit TD in there?
Please feel free to reply to my posts, you haven't done so yet, only thing you have been doing now is attacking and nitpicking others in some minor almost irrelevant things to this current topic... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
223
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 12:36:00 -
[6052] - Quote
Johnson Oramara wrote:Please feel free to reply to my posts, you haven't done so yet, only thing you have been doing now is attacking and nitpicking others in some minor almost irrelevant things to this current topic...
I already did...
Defender missiles are kinda bad counter since you can't fit launchers to ships with "launcher hardpoints: 0". |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
60
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 12:56:00 -
[6053] - Quote
I see Jorma is still ignoring what doesn't suit and reporting pre-nerf stats (with a current shelf life of ... oohhh....3 weeks) to prove that hulls are overpowered when arguing with people talking about post-nerf things.
"oh look how far the caracal can shoot today!" "look, it has a ROF bonus too!"
Note that both of these sit in mutually exclusive patch sets, but don't let that dissuade you arguing to hell and back people who are unhappy with these changes
He even claimed a raven was not a bad PvP boat and linked a video where a raven jammed out another battleship for AGES and STILL popped...yeah, what a showcase. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
223
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 13:09:00 -
[6054] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:I see Jorma is still ignoring what doesn't suit and reporting pre-nerf stats (with a current shelf life of ... oohhh....3 weeks) to prove that hulls are overpowered when arguing with people talking about post-nerf things. "oh look how far the caracal can shoot today!" "look, it has a ROF bonus too!" Note that both of these sit in mutually exclusive patch sets, but don't let that dissuade you arguing to hell and back people who are unhappy with these changes He even claimed a raven was not a bad PvP boat and linked a video where a raven jammed out another battleship for AGES and STILL popped...yeah, what a showcase.
Translation: "Because cruise missiles and torpedoes suck we need our OP heavy missiles."
I'm still waiting that 400 dps rail Ferox fit you claimed exists. |
Kasel Duval
Deep Horizons Travelers Yulai Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 13:10:00 -
[6055] - Quote
how about this: RENAMING+SOME NEW LAUNCHERS (split by ammo type used): LML==>Small warhead launcher RL==>Rapid fire small warhead launcher RLML==>anti-frigate cruiser launcher:cruiser's better cpu performance enable faster data-crunching for the improved guidance sistem,bigger load of ammo make this module a deadly anti-frigate system, because of change to the old light missile damage need some rof tweak ( shouldgenerate low-end dps for a cruiser)
HML==>medium warhead launcher HAM==>rapid fire medium warhead launcher (NEW!)==>anti-cruiser battleship launcher: yes this is like the anti-frigate version, but spew assault missile and heavy missile, cons are similar to anti-frigate version
CML==>large warhead launcher TML==>rapid fire large warhead (NEW!)==>anti-battleship citadel launcher (capital ship module) tired of drake blob? Battleships still hate you? This will **** some faces, cons: like all the rest of the family of this kind of module exspect low dps for a capital (just for looks: make it look like like a crazy big, 16 tubes RLML)
CCL==>XL warhead launcher CTL==>rapid fire XL warhead launcher
all launchers use both short and long range kind of ammo (example small,rapid small,anti-frigate warhead launcherc can use rocket and light missile),affect rof and the use of the skill guided missile precision,implant and similar rigs
-warhead launchers:improved guidance computer, takes time to give precision to missile so slow rof. Affected by all missile skil; -anti- launchers:the improved guidance computer takes less time to give precision to missile than warhead launchers thanks to the bigger resources of the ship so medium rof.Easy fitting, affected by all missile skills; -rapid fire launchers: the computer use an approximative guidance sytem to predict enemy trajectory, improved rof, can't use guided missile precision skill, implant and similar rigs to affect the warhead, you can improve performance with exsplosion speed
AMMO REBALANCE:
ammunition performance rating (1=worst 6=best): ammo range dmg ex rad ex vel t1 long 6 2 5 5 precision 5 1 6 6 rage 4 3 4 4 t1 short 2 5 2 2 javelin 3 4 3 3 fury 1 6 1 1 (note:obtain those result will require a lot of tweaking to the ammunition ) Do something like this will make missiles similar to guns for range choice and dmg/range progression
|
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
60
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 13:31:00 -
[6056] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:I see Jorma is still ignoring what doesn't suit and reporting pre-nerf stats (with a current shelf life of ... oohhh....3 weeks) to prove that hulls are overpowered when arguing with people talking about post-nerf things. "oh look how far the caracal can shoot today!" "look, it has a ROF bonus too!" Note that both of these sit in mutually exclusive patch sets, but don't let that dissuade you arguing to hell and back people who are unhappy with these changes He even claimed a raven was not a bad PvP boat and linked a video where a raven jammed out another battleship for AGES and STILL popped...yeah, what a showcase. Translation: "Because cruise missiles and torpedoes suck we need our OP heavy missiles." I'm still waiting that 400 dps rail Ferox fit you claimed exists.
I dont and have never said I did use heavys. Nor did I say *my* application of cruises sucks. I said they suck in PvP. And they do.
Nor did I claim to have a 400dps ferox. You however claimed a drake has more dps than a ferox at any range. I proved this fundamentally untrue after the patch and you ignored it/went rather quiet. You are, of course at liberty to show me a drake capable of outranging a ferox post expansion. I'll not hold my breath though...
in fact I've said repeatedly throught this thread that HML probably need tuned down, you however are firing out falsehoods and lies to further that agenda. at least I'm being balanced in the debate.
My post was merely a note to others debating with you that it is...futile. Because you neither listen nor acknowledge that any viewpoint other than your own is correct and you want to see missiles nerfed into the dirt - and that's fine - but lying to further it is poor form. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
223
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 13:59:00 -
[6057] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:My post was merely a note to others debating with you that it is...futile. Because you neither listen nor acknowledge that any viewpoint other than your own is correct and you want to see missiles nerfed into the dirt - and that's fine - but lying and deliberately mixing pre and post expansion facts to muddy the waters to further your belief is poor form.
In what reality HML Draek will have less range than pulse/beam Harbinger after the patch?
Also, if you want to snipe with missiles, maybe Draek isn't the best ship for the job... Ever heard of Cerberus? |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:10:00 -
[6058] - Quote
Link my post where I used the word "Harbinger" in that context.
I don't. It was your quote (re: Drakes and Ferox), not mine, so please don't expect me to explain it to you.
See, more water mudding/point ignoring.
Carry on, it's mildly amusing. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
223
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:26:00 -
[6059] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Link my post where I used the word "Harbinger" in that context.
I don't. It was your quote (re: Drakes and Ferox), not mine, so please don't expect me to explain it to you.
See, more water mudding/point ignoring.
Carry on, it's mildly amusing.
What's the point then?
Other than "we need to have OP missiles". |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 14:33:00 -
[6060] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Morrigan LeSante wrote:Link my post where I used the word "Harbinger" in that context.
I don't. It was your quote (re: Drakes and Ferox), not mine, so please don't expect me to explain it to you.
See, more water mudding/point ignoring.
Carry on, it's mildly amusing. What's the point then? Other than "we need to have OP missiles".
The point? That you are firing out falsehoods, misleading numbers, mixing pre and post patch numbers and other proven lies* to further your hatred for missiles.
*I'll stand corrected on this when you find a retri fit where a drake outranges a ferox.
You're well entitled to your opinion and HML DO need tuned, however that is no excuse for the above. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
223
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 15:10:00 -
[6061] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:You're well entitled to your opinion and HML DO need tuned, however that is no excuse for the above.
http://drkx.eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=7721288
That isn't reason to say "don't nerf heavy missiles because they are already bad". |
Morrigan LeSante
The Lost and Forgotten Troopers
61
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 16:00:00 -
[6062] - Quote
I didn't say they were, but please - continue with distractions and misdirections from the post you quoted ...
As I say, you ignore relevant comments and tend to reply with with "yeah but what about THIS!?" |
Dibblerette
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
103
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 00:34:00 -
[6063] - Quote
Can't wait to see what kinds of new setups will become viable come Dec. 4th!
My only problems are: I started EFT-warrioring a blap-phoenix before reading the "subcap only" part of missile changes
Going to have to remember what different lasers look like in space.
I can't wait until you hit the capital ships/interceptors! My Nano-Niddy and Taranis are dusty! |
Cazador 64
Nightmare Logistics
131
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 10:59:00 -
[6064] - Quote
Nerf 425 MM Auto cannons http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 Logic |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
223
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 11:28:00 -
[6065] - Quote
800* dps at 3,9 km? Scary especially since even Brutix does more at 4,5 km with better tracking.
* = 6x425mm + 2xHAML |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 11:51:00 -
[6066] - Quote
This all is rly fun. Single thing for me to ask is WHEN we do get NEW content. Nope, i don't mean shady role ships noone will fly. No, i also don't mean nerfs. I mean palpable new content. Like what WH's were once back in time. Balance? ImBalance? Just have a look at the aggresion mechanics, or the risks for gankers, and you begin to laugh, like i did, and most of us also do. ***"We cannot match the GREATNESS of our ancestors"*** This could be the today's CCP motto. Because what we get is cheap nerf instead of new content. |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 15:38:00 -
[6067] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:This all is rly fun. Single thing for me to ask is WHEN we do get NEW content. Nope, i don't mean shady role ships noone will fly. No, i also don't mean nerfs. I mean palpable new content. Like what WH's were once back in time. Balance? ImBalance? Just have a look at the aggresion mechanics, or the risks for gankers, and you begin to laugh, like i did, and most of us also do. ***"We cannot match the GREATNESS of our ancestors"*** This could be the today's CCP motto. Because what we get is cheap nerf instead of new content.
Do you get bored if pointless new ships don't get rolled out every half a year or something? |
Maratega
FREE GATES HUN Reloaded
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 17:08:00 -
[6068] - Quote
Since HML will be more popular, please make possible use with Auto-targeting missiles!
And what about with defender missiles? They are useless. Rebalance that too! Or just remove, and remove from NPC use of defender missiles. That would compensate some from the nerf, and make your customers happier.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
223
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 17:38:00 -
[6069] - Quote
Maratega wrote:And what about with defender missiles? They are useless. Rebalance that too! Or just remove, and remove from NPC use of defender missiles. That would compensate some from the nerf, and make your customers happier.
I agree. Also make it so that smartbombs don't affect missiles that fly through. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
171
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 20:48:00 -
[6070] - Quote
CCP Foozie,
Just to let you know, every time I come back to this thread I feel like I have died just a little bit more. I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
|
Giribaldi
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 00:08:00 -
[6071] - Quote
Im going to restate my previose post on page 301...
what i think needs to be done is bring heavy missle range up to par with med guns range sniping mods... I dont have eft open atm but well use examples for the mean time... 720mm arties tw reach 75km with long range t2 ammo heavies need to tobe nerfed to the same range with movement of ship calculate so prrob raw range wih max skills being 87km to compensate for movement and the fact that there missiles they should go further...max skills being the obviose factor in my calculations... Then increase heavies dps to do 10-15% more dmg then all mid class long range weaponsfor the sheer fact that there instant ..missiles have to travel... Which should bring them down from i think 320dps to 180 not sure thou but u see where im going with this... Then second stage... Ham range needa to be 18-20 km max skills (not inculdig rigs or implants in any factor of my calculation in post).. Increase dmg of present dps to match others but have them do 5% more for the fact that once again flight time... I think its a start... May or may not be balanced... Im on my phone so number crunching and fit testing is not optional... (all calcs are done with t2 rage ammo ie 18kmwith rage 23-25 faction/t1 27-29 lr t2 ammo... Also making there pg match heavy missiles would be perfect to... Seeing as srguns have way less pg usage then therenlr companions... Thx |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
224
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 02:43:00 -
[6072] - Quote
Giribaldi wrote:Im going to restate my previose post on page 301...
what i think needs to be done is bring heavy missle range up to par with med guns range sniping mods... I dont have eft open atm but well use examples for the mean time... 720mm arties tw reach 75km with long range t2 ammo heavies need to tobe nerfed to the same range with movement of ship calculate so prrob raw range wih max skills being 87km to compensate for movement and the fact that there missiles they should go further...max skills being the obviose factor in my calculations... Then increase heavies dps to do 10-15% more dmg then all mid class long range weaponsfor the sheer fact that there instant ..missiles have to travel... Which should bring them down from i think 320dps to 180 not sure thou but u see where im going with this... Then second stage... Ham range needa to be 18-20 km max skills (not inculdig rigs or implants in any factor of my calculation in post).. Increase dmg of present dps to match others but have them do 5% more for the fact that once again flight time... I think its a start... May or may not be balanced... Im on my phone so number crunching and fit testing is not optional... (all calcs are done with t2 rage ammo ie 18kmwith rage 23-25 faction/t1 27-29 lr t2 ammo... Also making there pg match heavy missiles would be perfect to... Seeing as srguns have way less pg usage then therenlr companions... Thx
Would using Ferox and 250mm as point where to balance missiles be better?
Ferox can hit to 97,2 + 15 km with 250mm and Spike before TC/TE and implants. Add 10% because you will lose that otherwise because missiles have to accelerate to max velocity.
So range for ship without range bonus like a Drake before any range rigs or implants would be: 112,2 + 11,22 km = 123,42 km |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
167
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 10:27:00 -
[6073] - Quote
Giribaldi wrote:Im going to restate my previose post on page 301...
what i think needs to be done is bring heavy missle range up to par with med guns range sniping mods... I dont have eft open atm but well use examples for the mean time... 720mm arties tw reach 75km with long range t2 ammo heavies need to tobe nerfed to the same range with movement of ship calculate so prrob raw range wih max skills being 87km to compensate for movement and the fact that there missiles they should go further...max skills being the obviose factor in my calculations... Then increase heavies dps to do 10-15% more dmg then all mid class long range weaponsfor the sheer fact that there instant ..missiles have to travel... Which should bring them down from i think 320dps to 180 not sure thou but u see where im going with this... Then second stage... Ham range needa to be 18-20 km max skills (not inculdig rigs or implants in any factor of my calculation in post).. Increase dmg of present dps to match others but have them do 5% more for the fact that once again flight time... I think its a start... May or may not be balanced... Im on my phone so number crunching and fit testing is not optional... (all calcs are done with t2 rage ammo ie 18kmwith rage 23-25 faction/t1 27-29 lr t2 ammo... Also making there pg match heavy missiles would be perfect to... Seeing as srguns have way less pg usage then therenlr companions... Thx In fact, for HML to do only 10-15% more dps than medLR weapons at range, you would need to NERF their dps GREATLY. Because even post patch, you still are looking at a 40-50% dps advantage at long range. |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 15:23:00 -
[6074] - Quote
Aglais wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:This all is rly fun. Single thing for me to ask is WHEN we do get NEW content. Nope, i don't mean shady role ships noone will fly. No, i also don't mean nerfs. I mean palpable new content. Like what WH's were once back in time. Balance? ImBalance? Just have a look at the aggresion mechanics, or the risks for gankers, and you begin to laugh, like i did, and most of us also do. ***"We cannot match the GREATNESS of our ancestors"*** This could be the today's CCP motto. Because what we get is cheap nerf instead of new content. Do you get bored if pointless new ships don't get rolled out every half a year or something? *** Tbh, i don't care bout the new ships. I care about the lack of real content. Adding ships means adding tools. Not quite what one would expect as content.
|
Giribaldi
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 20:01:00 -
[6075] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Giribaldi wrote:Im going to restate my previose post on page 301...
what i think needs to be done is bring heavy missle range up to par with med guns range sniping mods... I dont have eft open atm but well use examples for the mean time... 720mm arties tw reach 75km with long range t2 ammo heavies need to tobe nerfed to the same range with movement of ship calculate so prrob raw range wih max skills being 87km to compensate for movement and the fact that there missiles they should go further...max skills being the obviose factor in my calculations... Then increase heavies dps to do 10-15% more dmg then all mid class long range weaponsfor the sheer fact that there instant ..missiles have to travel... Which should bring them down from i think 320dps to 180 not sure thou but u see where im going with this... Then second stage... Ham range needa to be 18-20 km max skills (not inculdig rigs or implants in any factor of my calculation in post).. Increase dmg of present dps to match others but have them do 5% more for the fact that once again flight time... I think its a start... May or may not be balanced... Im on my phone so number crunching and fit testing is not optional... (all calcs are done with t2 rage ammo ie 18kmwith rage 23-25 faction/t1 27-29 lr t2 ammo... Also making there pg match heavy missiles would be perfect to... Seeing as srguns have way less pg usage then therenlr companions... Thx In fact, for HML to do only 10-15% more dps than medLR weapons at range, you would need to NERF their dps GREATLY. Because even post patch, you still are looking at a 40-50% dps advantage at long range.
Thats what im saying... Bro... Im saying if the max long range weopon with sr ammo equivalent to rage does 100 dps then the drake should do 110-115... Long range ammo 75dps then drake does 86 (my math is wrong im geussing the number) but thatsbwhat i mean... Cus of travel time they should do more dmg for the fact that within the time it takes to hit u v hit me twice... U could warp off and avoid my first salvo all together... Just saying |
Gerald Mardiska
Dysfunctional Nocturnal Rejects Insane Asylum
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 03:32:00 -
[6076] - Quote
so my drake is going to the grave....... |
Vartan Sarkisian
Inner Visions Of Sound Mind
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 14:47:00 -
[6077] - Quote
I guess we'll have to see what the changes are, if the nerf is so severe that everyone abandons drakes and tengus then I guess we'll be seeing a missile buff to undo the missile nerf that happens this time.
personally I understand the range nerf if it is so far beyond what other similar modules do, but the 20% damage, on a system that isn't instant damage is the thing that concerns me the most. but sell off all your heavy missiles no, or they will be collecting dust as no one uses them anymore. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
229
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 18:25:00 -
[6078] - Quote
Vartan Sarkisian wrote:I guess we'll have to see what the changes are, if the nerf is so severe that everyone abandons drakes and tengus then I guess we'll be seeing a missile buff to undo the missile nerf that happens this time.
personally I understand the range nerf if it is so far beyond what other similar modules do, but the 20% damage, on a system that isn't instant damage is the thing that concerns me the most. but sell off all your heavy missiles no, or they will be collecting dust as no one uses them anymore.
You could say that... HML Tengu: 700+ dps @ 100 km 250mm Tengu: 329 dps @ 23 km / 188 dps @ 168 km
|
DarkMasterAnt
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.16 21:04:00 -
[6079] - Quote
Just had a look at those numbers, is it just me or does this fix just make heavy missiles a crappier version of hams now?
This isnt fixing the problem, its just bringing the two weapon systems closer together on their capabilities.... Leaving caldari with no long range missile boat for medium weapons |
Kenshi Hanshin
BloodLust Enterprises Apocalypse Now.
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 01:39:00 -
[6080] - Quote
DarkMasterAnt wrote:Just had a look at those numbers, is it just me or does this fix just make heavy missiles a crappier version of hams now?
This isnt fixing the problem, its just bringing the two weapon systems closer together on their capabilities.... Leaving caldari with no long range missile boat for medium weapons The Cruiser balances may help to alleviate that.
See the re-balanced bonuses for the Caracal. The Caracal will be a long-range missile boat with bonuses to missile velocity and rate of fire.
The Drake will lose some range but that can be easily regained with a good fitting skills (tank) and the use of rigs for range.
The real question is whether the Caldari will get a dedicated missile boat of some worth for the BC or BS sizes. The drake is good as is, should stay that way. ASBs were and are the salvation for those who want to use shield tanks in PvP. The real questions are: how will CMs and Torps be changed and what will the new Caldari Battleship bonuses be post re-balance? Keeping in mind that excluding the Rohk, they are a laughing stock (wrt PvP capability). |
|
DarkMasterAnt
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 07:36:00 -
[6081] - Quote
Kenshi Hanshin wrote: The Cruiser balances may help to alleviate that.
Thats all well and good, but it doesnt really take away the fact that the t2 hulls (Cerberus and Nighthawk) are both already terrible ships which will only be made worse by a heavy missile nerf. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 09:15:00 -
[6082] - Quote
Giribaldi wrote:Im going to restate my previose post on page 301...
what i think needs to be done is bring heavy missle range up to par with med guns range sniping mods... I dont have eft open atm but well use examples for the mean time... 720mm arties tw reach 75km with long range t2 ammo heavies need to tobe nerfed to the same range with movement of ship calculate so prrob raw range wih max skills being 87km to compensate for movement and the fact that there missiles they should go further...max skills being the obviose factor in my calculations... Then increase heavies dps to do 10-15% more dmg then all mid class long range weaponsfor the sheer fact that there instant ..missiles have to travel... Which should bring them down from i think 320dps to 180 not sure thou but u see where im going with this... Then second stage... Ham range needa to be 18-20 km max skills (not inculdig rigs or implants in any factor of my calculation in post).. Increase dmg of present dps to match others but have them do 5% more for the fact that once again flight time... I think its a start... May or may not be balanced... Im on my phone so number crunching and fit testing is not optional... (all calcs are done with t2 rage ammo ie 18kmwith rage 23-25 faction/t1 27-29 lr t2 ammo... Also making there pg match heavy missiles would be perfect to... Seeing as srguns have way less pg usage then therenlr companions... Thx
hml with tech 2 ammo will be aroun 55 - 60 km so less than your med long range ammo yes its true even with hml navy ammo most will only see about 75 - 80km this would have been much much less if initial nerfing had went through.
as for others in this thread missles are a unique system and are more sp inteansive to train them all than another races guns.
also you gotta take into acount not just weapons but also ships caldari may have long ranged highest dps at ranged weapons but there are are the slowest balancing weapons against each others if you do not take into the account of there ships.
yes weapons should have balance yet missles are not the longest range weapon system out there (sure can be with highly specilised fits) but in general not close but all weapon styles should have there advantage to ofset the kinds of ships they use atm only caldari ships hold this the others compliment the ships they are being used on. |
marVLs
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 09:48:00 -
[6083] - Quote
Can someone check how much DPS would have Raven Navy on All 5 with 4xCN BCU and T2 Cruise Launchers (Fury missiles) with 3xRigor Rigs(2x tech1 + 1x tech2)? And how big is expl radius?
Thanks for that |
Malakai Krughar
Industrial DeResolution SiNTaX err0r
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.17 17:35:00 -
[6084] - Quote
Hello,
I am very fond of the HAM and HM launchers. They are fun, easy to use and do decent damage. I personally think HM's are a little under powered but accept this due to their decent range (which only really a tengu can utilise).
I strongly suggest that your creative team/think tank sit down and gather as much information about the current use of HM's and HAM's, the various ship setups they are utilised in,the role of these ships play in pvp, fleet, wh's etc... before making any changes.
C |
Endo Pryde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 07:22:00 -
[6085] - Quote
I will try to leave my opinions in a way that makes them easy to read and mark down without taking too much of your time to read them:
The missile changes are excellent: Heavy Missiles ARE overpowered while HAMs and Torpedoes struggle to deal full damage against enemies of the same size category.
However, it is true that Heavy Missiles are lacking in range upgrades besides ship bonuses. I wouldn't complain if you keep them this way, but if you do decide to add a range mod here is my suggestion: Create a low-slot module that increases missile flight time by 20% for the T2 variant, yet adds no bonus to missile velocity. Most missile ships have few low slots, so a large increase is necessary to put them on par with other sniping setups, but it should NOT increase missile velocity for two main reasons:
-First, this will allow a small ship with a MWD to close on the sniper if he flies smartly. A big enough stack of velocity bonuses would make it impossible to avoid the missile-sniper's firepower even when the opponent "deserves" to avoid it.
-Second, it would prevent the dominance of large-scale by fleets of missile snipers. In these types of fleets, dependable damage is key, and it is the long delay in damage that keeps cruise missiles from being overpowered in these engagements, at least until players come up with a fleet doctrine that compensates for the delay.
I also agree with you about the hurricane: Autocanes aren't overpowered because they can fit a full rack of guns, they're overpowered because they can fit a full rack of guns AND two medium energy neuts, while other ships must choose between full-sized guns with small neuts, or smaller guns with medium neuts. |
Endo Pryde
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 07:30:00 -
[6086] - Quote
serras bang wrote:[quote=Giribaldi]Im going to restate my previose post on page 301... as for others in this thread missles are a unique system and are more sp inteansive to train them all than another races guns.
In order to train T2 large guns you must first train T2 medium and T2 small of that type, but with missiles you can skip over the lower tiers and train T2 torpedoes or cruise missiles directly. For this reason, missiles are LESS skill point intensive than other weapon systems. |
Rokokoko
STEEL CITY. Tribal Band
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 07:39:00 -
[6087] - Quote
marVLs wrote:Can someone check how much DPS would have Raven Navy on All 5 with 4xCN BCU and T2 Cruise Launchers (Fury missiles) with 3xRigor Rigs(2x tech1 + 1x tech2)? And how big is expl radius?
Thanks for that
Its does 800 dps with a 223 radius according to my updated version of eft |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 09:38:00 -
[6088] - Quote
Endo Pryde wrote:serras bang wrote:[quote=Giribaldi]Im going to restate my previose post on page 301... as for others in this thread missles are a unique system and are more sp inteansive to train them all than another races guns.
In order to train T2 large guns you must first train T2 medium and T2 small of that type, but with missiles you can skip over the lower tiers and train T2 torpedoes or cruise missiles directly. For this reason, missiles are LESS skill point intensive than other weapon systems.
True, but not going into tech2 if you were to train all 5s for projectile including support skills it takes a lot less time to train into hybrid or laser. Also, for missiles, our short range weapons systems and long range weapon systems are separate skill paths. For instance, if I want to have "large" missile skills I need to train both cruise and torp for t1 equivalent, where as with projectiles its just large projectile turrets.
Also note, large turret specializations is a 5x skill, torps/cruise t2 is a 8x skill.... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 12:57:00 -
[6089] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:True, but not going into tech2 if you were to train all 5s for projectile including support skills it takes a lot less time to train into hybrid or laser. Also, for missiles, our short range weapons systems and long range weapon systems are separate skill paths. For instance, if I want to have "large" missile skills I need to train both cruise and torp for t1 equivalent, where as with projectiles its just large projectile turrets.
Also note, large turret specializations is a 5x skill, torps/cruise t2 is a 8x skill.... We don't care about this. No skill training time requirement should make your weapon system OP compared to the others. Eventually, everyone will have everything. We don't want everyone using the same broken weapon eventually, we want diversity. |
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 21:12:00 -
[6090] - Quote
Yea, yea, don't chew me out, I'm not the one who brought up the topic of skills.
Yes, Heavy Missiles are overpowered compared to other medium long range weapons. Too much dps, too long of a range. And HAMs are underpowered vs smaller ships...you can't shoot frigates for crap without a "specialized" fitting....I think they are right on target for cruiser and up though. By crap I mean that without web/TP AND rigs you are going to use 3x or more the ammo on frigates, without any of those its going to be 10x+. I'm pretty sure HAMs will be fixed with some of the changes.
Overall I think the problem is more the ships using the weapon system than the weapon system itself. Tengu's have ungodly bonuses to missiles...but then again I think it should...T3 cruisers SHOULD compete with battleships (compete, not dominate) On the other hand, Drakes have a silly stupid tank, making it so heavy missiles become useful in PvP despite the delayed damage.
I'm all for the current round of nerfs, and I know from the numbers that this round isn't going to break my PvE setup - not even close. Heck, I might even be able to switch from HMLs to HAMs for effective PvE...it all depends on how much the changes improve HAMs ability to hit frigates. |
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.18 23:43:00 -
[6091] - Quote
What amazes me about these changes is that
1. after trying them out on the test server they are crap, no more buying GTCs to turn into plexes to put up for sale to replace lost drakes and tengu,. Yeah for lost revenue for CCP! 2. One of the best things about the Drake is how quickly new players can train to use one, it is a simple good ship to use and actually helps draw new people into the game, before they have to train into something more complicated to fly. I see more and more people being turned off from Eve, less new players means more lost revenue!
I am sure that if these changes go into effect that I will not be the only one to let my accounts lapse and just move on to another game.
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
Buy the GTC! it is worth 2 months game time, a 30 dollar value for 35 dollars! Oh but you can split it into single months and sale them in game for ISK! oh wait or you can convert it in to another form of currency and buy pants! Lost a billion isk ship? That's okay buy a GTC and sale the plexes!
It is getting ridicules CCP, quit screwing **** up |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 01:38:00 -
[6092] - Quote
Also note, large turret specializations is a 5x skill, torps/cruise t2 is a 8x skill....[/quote] We don't care about this. No skill training time requirement should make your weapon system OP compared to the others. Eventually, everyone will have everything. We don't want everyone using the same broken weapon eventually, we want diversity.[/quote] *** Lulzy, lulzy. OP compared to 3 kinds of broken tools? Since when working right equals being OP? I just love the "OP" statement. Consider it a direct result of poor content and weak solutions for situations, since it usually reffers to solving a set of conditions set like they are by CCP, not by the tools personal ability. Once again, why not have a different coloured Ibis? 4 colours, 4 races? Same for the weapons. No OP, no sh*t, no sandbox...no EvE? *** Outta curiousity, why does noone comment how missile nerf will hit the player used Guristas ships? |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
354
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 04:18:00 -
[6093] - Quote
One thing this alliance tournament has made perfectly clear....
Out of the 350 or so ships featured in this alliance tournament, there have been precisely zero Drakes, zero Tengus, zero Caracals, zero Cerbs. We've seen damn near every ship in the game EXCEPT the heavy missile ships that CCP Fozzie claims are so overpowered they need a special nerf while everything else in the game gets a buff.
We have, however, seen ECM. Lots and lots of ECM ships. We've seen entire fleets built on damn near nothing else. They failed. Amazingly, they failed basically every time they were tried. Which means, in CCP Fozzie's opinion, it also desperately needs to be nerfed.
What can we conclude from all this? Bloody little, beyond this: these guys, who put billions of isk on the line for a chance to compete, and who can fly basically any ship or weapons system they like, do NOT agree that HMLs are overpowered. If they did they would be using them.
Something to think about.
|
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 10:36:00 -
[6094] - Quote
Quote:We don't care about this
We? Who? You are so...mmm...Jormish %)
And what do you expect, coming with arguments like: - PVP ravens - 140 km sniping HML cerberus (hey guys, don't die, just wait half a minute, and i will deal some damage) - 1000dps 50km ham tengu with SE and no prop mod Ah, it's pretty good idea to compare HML tengu with 250mm tengu. Can fit - must use, huh?:)
Quote:do NOT agree that HMLs are overpowered
Tengu/drake fleets are overpowered. And I believe, it's the only thing ccp want to fix. Not because weapon system is powerful, but cuz main problem with HM damage application is covered in blobs.
Some kind of anti-missile module will solve the problem. AOE field around your ship, partially disrupting missile navigation systems, huh? Low power, but cumulative effect. Anyway I can't imagine, that this is new idea. They just don't want to create such a counter: server will drop down... |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
46
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 12:09:00 -
[6095] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:One thing this alliance tournament has made perfectly clear....
Out of the 350 or so ships featured in this alliance tournament, there have been precisely zero Drakes, zero Tengus, zero Caracals, zero Cerbs. We've seen damn near every ship in the game EXCEPT the heavy missile ships that CCP Fozzie claims are so overpowered they need a special nerf while everything else in the game gets a buff.
We have, however, seen ECM. Lots and lots of ECM ships. We've seen entire fleets built on damn near nothing else. They failed. Amazingly, they failed basically every time they were tried. Which means, in CCP Fozzie's opinion, it also desperately needs to be nerfed.
What can we conclude from all this? Bloody little, beyond this: these guys, who put billions of isk on the line for a chance to compete, and who can fly basically any ship or weapons system they like, do NOT agree that HMLs are overpowered. If they did they would be using them.
Something to think about.
love this point however there was caldari missles ships last turnment most of the field was infact dominated with minmatar ships just like it had been for a while and really guys lets end the debate.
yes drake have a badass tank so what ? yes tengus have great dps so what how many other caldari ships have you seen being used on a regular bassis except 2 bill isk CNRS
simply put the stregnth of a missle systems was it long range as caldari shield generaly dosent fair to well. amd missle even its tech 2 varients have always produced less dps than its gunnery counterparts. want prof ?
kestral 50 - 60 km 100 dps there or there about (with close to max skills) galenty drone boat (the 5 drone one) 150 dps near enough
this is with my mear 1.5 mill sp in guns compaired to 6.6 in missles and i wasnt even useing tech 2 hybrids in this
torp raven around 1k dps (with rage) vindicator 1600 dps
see the numbers speack for it self guns prodice more dps than missle yes over a shorter range but heh that why missles have its range all you guys gotta do is get close. |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 12:29:00 -
[6096] - Quote
I think all the hate comes from a precise kind of players, unhappy to see Sheeps got sharp Teeths. "Lol, i'm the uber-awesome 2004 player" won't count much against the noob drake blob, isn't it? Except the range argument, wich is understandable, we all know there's no valid reason for the dmg nerf, do we, Mr. Fozzy? But everyone must give his part on this game's advance, no matter if's a good or bad part. Noone will look closer at the results anyway, lol. Last 8 years proved it, by going a bit down every year. ***Bring The Awesomeness Back*** <-that's what we should ask, not hate some tools like weapons. Pixel weapons. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
171
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:11:00 -
[6097] - Quote
serras bang wrote:simply put the stregnth of a missle systems was it long range as caldari shield generaly dosent fair to well. amd missle even its tech 2 varients have always produced less dps than its gunnery counterparts. want prof ?
kestral 50 - 60 km 100 dps there or there about (with close to max skills) galenty drone boat (the 5 drone one) 150 dps near enough
this is with my mear 1.5 mill sp in guns compaired to 6.6 in missles and i wasnt even useing tech 2 hybrids in this
torp raven around 1k dps (with rage) vindicator 1600 dps
see the numbers speack for it self guns prodice more dps than missle yes over a shorter range but heh that why missles have its range all you guys gotta do is get close. Lol comparison between pirate BS and tier2 BS. xD Why don't you compare a machariel to a drake while you are at this kind of funny comparisons ?
And the drones... lol.
Alliance tournament now : there was tengus in it, some fleets. Fun fact : in the Open Tournament, tengus have been banned MANY times. You cannot see a banned ship in the Open Tournament.
Second thing about the tournament : the buble of death : go too far, and your ship explode. A ship relying on kiting is at huge disadvantage. ECM ? The teams relying ONLY on them indeed died ; the teams who bring some dps to actually kill their ennemies with ECM support did very well. Anyway, the tournament's rules hugely favour gallente and minmatar, exactly like blob warfare hugely favor amarr and caldari.
For the skills we don't care, "we" refer to those people who care about balancing ships between themselves. If skills mattered, we would need titans back to blapping everything.
And finaly, as already said, the only fact that the drake can compete at "close" range with HML, and moreover, that HML are often prefered over HAM brawling duty clearly show there is a problem. And as HML are sometimes even better than some Large LR weapon systems, then you cannot denny there is a problem. We could indeed buff everything, though we would call this powercreep, and it's bad.
Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ? |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:23:00 -
[6098] - Quote
I've been a regular contributor to this thread throughout the 300+pages and am strongly opposed to the missile nerf in any form. I cant add anything of any substance to the previous arguments though, I think the topic has been exhausted. I was around (albeit with a different toon) the last time that the missiles got nerfed a few years back and still belive that this prior nerf was a mistake.
If this nerf goes through, it wont matter what weapon system you choose to train, it won't matter how many sp you have in a given range of skills as we will have lost all diversity in the game. Why choose a weapon system at all if the result is that you will dish out the same damage as someone else at an equivalent skill level. What if the systems of eve become so finly balanced that hybrids perform the same as projectiles and projectiles perform the same as lasers and lasers perform the same as missiles. It makes choosing a training path pointless. We all might as well have a single skill we can dump our sp into called 'Shipboard Weapons' which allows you to fire and use any weapon in the game. This quest for 'balance' in a 'by feel' way risks destroying the game.
As for the drake so what if it is a bit tanky, anyone can take a drake down if they know their enemy, how about using some ewar and get the jammers on it, it can't fire **** then and without it's missiles it's dps is 0 and a flight of 5 drones a mere nuisance to a decently fit BC. It's possible to overwhelm the average passive recharged+hardener+rigged fit drake with a Welp Hurricane ffs. If they try to up the regen it's usually at the expense of hardeners which leaves the ship vulnerable to EM.
|
Apteko
CreoMine Corporation Solar Citizens
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 17:17:00 -
[6099] - Quote
Quote:"we" refer to those people who care about balancing ships between themselves.
What? You're not welcome.^) So no "we" please, thank you.
Quote:And finaly, as already said, the only fact that the drake can compete at "close" range with HML, and moreover, that HML are often prefered over HAM brawling duty clearly show there is a problem.
They are not prefered at "close" range. People just got pg problems with HAMLs or don't want to lose a month to train them. Not because HMLs are OP, but cuz HAMs were broken.
And if you can't kill HM drake with Harb or Cane at "close" range...then...
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ?
Ah...ofc. There is no PVP Ravens because no one tried them ever. It's too fat, to be serious, really.
Anyway. You feel competent enough to have such opinion. So please tell us, what is main problem with "delayed damage"? |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
358
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 18:57:00 -
[6100] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote:simply put the stregnth of a missle systems was it long range as caldari shield generaly dosent fair to well. amd missle even its tech 2 varients have always produced less dps than its gunnery counterparts. want prof ?
kestral 50 - 60 km 100 dps there or there about (with close to max skills) galenty drone boat (the 5 drone one) 150 dps near enough
this is with my mear 1.5 mill sp in guns compaired to 6.6 in missles and i wasnt even useing tech 2 hybrids in this
torp raven around 1k dps (with rage) vindicator 1600 dps
see the numbers speack for it self guns prodice more dps than missle yes over a shorter range but heh that why missles have its range all you guys gotta do is get close. Lol comparison between pirate BS and tier2 BS. xD Why don't you compare a machariel to a drake while you are at this kind of funny comparisons ? And the drones... lol. Alliance tournament now : there was tengus in it, some fleets. Fun fact : in the Open Tournament, tengus have been banned MANY times. You cannot see a banned ship in the Open Tournament. Second thing about the tournament : the buble of death : go too far, and your ship explode. A ship relying on kiting is at huge disadvantage. ECM ? The teams relying ONLY on them indeed died ; the teams who bring some dps to actually kill their ennemies with ECM support did very well. Anyway, the tournament's rules hugely favour gallente and minmatar, exactly like blob warfare hugely favor amarr and caldari. For the skills we don't care, "we" refer to those people who care about balancing ships between themselves. If skills mattered, we would need titans back to blapping everything. And finaly, as already said, the only fact that the drake can compete at "close" range with HML, and moreover, that HML are often prefered over HAM brawling duty clearly show there is a problem. And as HML are sometimes even better than some Large LR weapon systems, then you cannot denny there is a problem. We could indeed buff everything, though we would call this powercreep, and it's bad. Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ?
It is true that Tengus have been banned by several teams in quite a few matches. However, even in matches when they weren't banned none have been fielded. Nor have they fielded the Drake. The Myrmidon and Brutix? Yes! But the Drake? Not a one. Nor have they fielded the Cerberus, the Caracal, or any other dedicated HML platform.
This is the Open Tournament, which means teams of some of the best PILOTS in the game (rather than teams from the biggest null sec alliances). They can fly anything they like. No one has banned the Drake from any match. No one has banned the Nighthawk. No one has banned the Cerb or Caracal. And so far no one has even tried to use one. The reason is simple:
The HML Drake is a fine ship and heavy missiles are a fine weapon. But they are, in fact, nothing special in the game. On the forums, where EFT Warriors theorycraft their way to virtual glory, they are the ship all the cool kids love to hate. But in the real game world, where real pilots put their isk on the line, they are nothing more than a solid reliable choice.
The Drake is the Honda Minivan of virtual spaceships.
As for Cruise Ravens.... the reason no one uses the Raven in ANY form is that it's a piece of crap. It's slow, bad resists and terrible tank, severe fitting issues, mis-alocated slot layout. It's just bad. And cruise missiles themselves are fine for what they can do, it's just that what they can do is not useful in the game. |
|
Arya Greywolf
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 19:57:00 -
[6101] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:42:00 -
[6102] - Quote
Arya Greywolf wrote:Faora Zod wrote:
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.
Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up. |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 23:41:00 -
[6103] - Quote
Arya Greywolf wrote:Faora Zod wrote:
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.
Lol nope not overdosing on anything, just frustrated with the direction this game is going, but i assume you must have been ready for a nap since you only quoted part of what i said |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 23:46:00 -
[6104] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Arya Greywolf wrote:Faora Zod wrote:
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument. Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up.
Did you just read what this person said or my full post? Try and look beyond the HML nerf, look at the whole picture people. People bitched and moaned about how the pants money was going to be away for EVE to be a pay to win game, when it has already been for years. Real Life money buys GTCs, you convert them to plexes, put them up for sale buy the universe. It isn't to hard to see if you look at it. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
368
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 23:53:00 -
[6105] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Arya Greywolf wrote:Faora Zod wrote:
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument. Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up. Did you just read what this person said or my full post? Try and look beyond the HML nerf, look at the whole picture people. People bitched and moaned about how the pants money was going to be a way for EVE to be a pay to win game, when it has already been for years. Real Life money buys GTCs, you convert them to plexes, put them up for sale buy the universe. It isn't to hard to see if you look at it. The issue is that plex are useless without buyers. Buyers need to earn isk. Nerfing people's ability to earn isk nerfs plex buyers and causes plex prices to fall which entices fewer GTC buyers to but and convert to plex to sell. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 01:59:00 -
[6106] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote:simply put the stregnth of a missle systems was it long range as caldari shield generaly dosent fair to well. amd missle even its tech 2 varients have always produced less dps than its gunnery counterparts. want prof ?
kestral 50 - 60 km 100 dps there or there about (with close to max skills) galenty drone boat (the 5 drone one) 150 dps near enough
this is with my mear 1.5 mill sp in guns compaired to 6.6 in missles and i wasnt even useing tech 2 hybrids in this
torp raven around 1k dps (with rage) vindicator 1600 dps
see the numbers speack for it self guns prodice more dps than missle yes over a shorter range but heh that why missles have its range all you guys gotta do is get close. Lol comparison between pirate BS and tier2 BS. xD Why don't you compare a machariel to a drake while you are at this kind of funny comparisons ? And the drones... lol. Alliance tournament now : there was tengus in it, some fleets. Fun fact : in the Open Tournament, tengus have been banned MANY times. You cannot see a banned ship in the Open Tournament. Second thing about the tournament : the buble of death : go too far, and your ship explode. A ship relying on kiting is at huge disadvantage. ECM ? The teams relying ONLY on them indeed died ; the teams who bring some dps to actually kill their ennemies with ECM support did very well. Anyway, the tournament's rules hugely favour gallente and minmatar, exactly like blob warfare hugely favor amarr and caldari. For the skills we don't care, "we" refer to those people who care about balancing ships between themselves. If skills mattered, we would need titans back to blapping everything. And finaly, as already said, the only fact that the drake can compete at "close" range with HML, and moreover, that HML are often prefered over HAM brawling duty clearly show there is a problem. And as HML are sometimes even better than some Large LR weapon systems, then you cannot denny there is a problem. We could indeed buff everything, though we would call this powercreep, and it's bad. Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ?
well tbh what would you like me to comapr the raven to ? as there is no pirate ship the relys on missles however im beating that counterpart gun boat produce over the 1k dps and the reason i compair them is for the fact there used or shall we compair em to the mach as that is also a mission running bs ? witch produces over the 1k dps and has a nice flight of drones ? |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 11:17:00 -
[6107] - Quote
Why is there noone claiming Matari boats speed is OP? If a caldari should not be able to shoot at 100km, why should a Matari be able to run away like he does? Imbalance, such a....tendentious word... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
171
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 11:20:00 -
[6108] - Quote
serras bang wrote:well tbh what would you like me to comapr the raven to ? as there is no pirate ship the relys on missles however im beating that counterpart gun boat produce over the 1k dps and the reason i compair them is for the fact there used or shall we compair em to the mach as that is also a mission running bs ? witch produces over the 1k dps and has a nice flight of drones ? And you are now gone back to pve concerns...
I don't have anything against pve, though you cannot balance ships between themselves for pve, because that would cause massive imbalance for pvp. I already explain it, but I'm afraid this thread memory is not more than 20 pages.
PS : and again, if a ship is underperforming, whine for it to be buffed instead of whining for your OP weapon system to still be OP. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
171
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 14:38:00 -
[6109] - Quote
Apteko wrote:And if you can't kill HM drake with Harb or Cane at "close" range...then...
OPness is not invulnerability. Maybe you want some definitions ? Fact that HML *obsolete* ALL the weapons we can compare it to is meaningful. Medium arties are not dead yet, but it's only because of their alpha, allowing to blap frigates and larger targets if you have enough people, though that take you lokis to do it, and HML can too blap target if you have enough people. missiles are the second best alpha weapon, with between 2 and 3 times the alpha of beams and railguns.
Apteko wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ? Ah...ofc. There is no PVP Ravens because no one tried them ever. :) It's too fat, to be serious, really. Anyway. You feel, that you're competent enough to have such opinion. So please tell us, what is main problem with "delayed damage"? Again no arguments, but a question. It's easy to ask questions. It's a bit more disdainful when you know the answer.
As for the delayed damage, if you had read what I've written, you would know that I think there is NO problem with delayed damage in the current metagame. Drake and Tengus use HM which have the same or less speed than cruise missiles, and they use them at the range everyone fight : 50 to 80 km. So, if Tengu and Drake don't have problems with delayed damage at these range, why would it be different for the Raven ?
No one ever answered this question, and all I had was "train for a Raven, and test it", which basicaly translate to "GTFO, leave us alone with your ambarassing questions". |
Matzumisi
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 16:59:00 -
[6110] - Quote
Making TD affect missiles might be a tricky idea, because unlike turrets, for which it does matter in which direction the target and attacker are going (e.g. angular velocity) missiles don't care about the direction. So in a case when attacker is "chasing" the target, when angular velocities are relatively low compared to the speed of the ships, missiles won't do much damage, whereas turrets are not affected by speed in general but by angular component of it. L-size turrets can hit even a frig if it's angular velocity is 0 rad and deal full damage, no matter how fast the frig goes, no matter how small it's signature is; missiles won't get a full hit even on a stationary target if it's signature is low enough. On the other hand, the user of missiles doesn't have to think about the component of angular velocity brought by his ship and can go in whatever direction he wants to, as his movements do not affect the dps landed on the target (except for range and chase-down parts). |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 18:02:00 -
[6111] - Quote
serras bang wrote:well tbh what would you like me to comapr the raven to ? as there is no pirate ship the relys on missles however im beating that counterpart gun boat produce over the 1k dps and the reason i compair them is for the fact there used or shall we compair em to the mach as that is also a mission running bs ? witch produces over the 1k dps and has a nice flight of drones ?
In case you didn't know: T1 < Navy < Pirate
So there's nothing new about the fact that pirate BSs are better than T1.
Yes, Mach does 1,1k dps... at 3,69 km with bad tracking. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
435
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 18:23:00 -
[6112] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Final question : the only answer to what is the origin of cruise missile problem are "lol cruise missiles" and "delayed damage". Considering the uselessness of the first answer, and the fact that the second would imply that HM which are slower than CM suffer from this problem too to the point they are not used for this reason (clearly wrong, as battleclinic stats says), should I consider nobody knows why they are bad ? or that they are not bad in fact and it's only HML which are better ?
HMLs do obsolete cruise to a certain degree, but it's undeniable that cruise is bad. But it's also a problem with the Raven hull.
In solo/small-gang where delayed missile damage is of little consequence, the Raven is fat and slow, unsuitable for environments where mobility is important, while cruise damage is difficult to apply to BS-light opponents. Tier 3 BCs and HML Drake have a much more useful combination of ranged DPS and survivability here.
In fleet, Cruise Raven DPS, ease of DPS application and tank are generally inferior to other weapons in the important range zones. The extra range of Cruise beyond 150 km is basically unusable because of instant probing and on-grid warping. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 18:25:00 -
[6113] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Arya Greywolf wrote:Faora Zod wrote:
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument. Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up. Did you just read what this person said or my full post? Try and look beyond the HML nerf, look at the whole picture people. People bitched and moaned about how the pants money was going to be a way for EVE to be a pay to win game, when it has already been for years. Real Life money buys GTCs, you convert them to plexes, put them up for sale buy the universe. It isn't to hard to see if you look at it.
Sigh, I have read every post in this thread from post #1 and I understand your argument, I am however free to disagree... |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
172
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 18:46:00 -
[6114] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:HMLs do obsolete cruise to a certain degree, but it's undeniable that cruise is bad. But it's also a problem with the Raven hull.
In solo/small-gang where delayed missile damage is of little consequence, the Raven is fat and slow, unsuitable for environments where mobility is important, while cruise damage is difficult to apply to BS-light opponents. Tier 3 BCs and HML Drake have a much more useful combination of ranged DPS and survivability here.
In fleet, Cruise Raven DPS, ease of DPS application and tank are generally inferior to other weapons in the important range zones. The extra range of Cruise beyond 150 km is basically unusable because of instant probing and on-grid warping. Raven is not more fat than most other cruisers (I don't talk about the typhoon, it's special case and not representative of the majority of BS).
I already posted a Raven fit : the Raven have the same ehp than a Maelstrom, and more dps at 70km than Maelstrom, Rokh and Pulse Abaddon (hellcat). The Raven is the fastest of all these, and the most agile. Capacitor stability is the same than Maelstrom. The Raven have a heavy neutralizer. The Raven cannot be outtracked at close range, and with some TP on a support ship, they hit cruisers fine.
What I think is that HML Drake and Tengu obsolete the CML Raven. Drake is basically 70% of the Raven for a fraction of its price but is faster, and tengu is plain better. |
ConranAntoni
Empyrean Warriors The Obsidian Front
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:04:00 -
[6115] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Gypsio III wrote:HMLs do obsolete cruise to a certain degree, but it's undeniable that cruise is bad. But it's also a problem with the Raven hull.
In solo/small-gang where delayed missile damage is of little consequence, the Raven is fat and slow, unsuitable for environments where mobility is important, while cruise damage is difficult to apply to BS-light opponents. Tier 3 BCs and HML Drake have a much more useful combination of ranged DPS and survivability here.
In fleet, Cruise Raven DPS, ease of DPS application and tank are generally inferior to other weapons in the important range zones. The extra range of Cruise beyond 150 km is basically unusable because of instant probing and on-grid warping. Raven is not more fat than most other cruisers (I don't talk about the typhoon, it's special case and not representative of the majority of BS). I already posted a Raven fit : the Raven have the same ehp than a Maelstrom, and more dps at 70km than Maelstrom, Rokh and Pulse Abaddon (hellcat). The Raven is the fastest of all these, and the most agile. Capacitor stability is the same than Maelstrom. The Raven have a heavy neutralizer. The Raven cannot be outtracked at close range, and with some TP on a support ship, they hit cruisers fine. What I think is that HML Drake and Tengu obsolete the CML Raven. Drake is basically 70% of the Raven for a fraction of its price but is faster, and tengu is plain better.
You are literally ********. Ravens are bad and Drake's only get qq'ed about as their ease of use and freedom of range.
I mean I literally **** myself laughing when you tried to make a Raven sound good. Quit eve.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 21:35:00 -
[6116] - Quote
Funny how some missile users still think Ferox can alpha that Dramiel orbiting @ 5km. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
172
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 23:51:00 -
[6117] - Quote
ConranAntoni wrote:You are literally ********. Ravens are bad and Drake's only get qq'ed about as their ease of use and freedom of range.
I mean I literally **** myself laughing when you tried to make a Raven sound good. Quit eve.
Still less argumentative than my dog asking for food... |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
435
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 01:30:00 -
[6118] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I already posted a Raven fit..
Post it again. |
CaptainFalcon07
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
43
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 02:34:00 -
[6119] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: I already posted a Raven fit..
Post it again.
Raven is poor for PVP due to missile flight time for the ranges it engages. You have a wait a good 10-15 seconds for the missiles to hit, while for turrets they hit instantly and deactivate the moment that the target is destroyed, therefore you don't waste vollies. Damage application of cruise missiles are poor without any rigs.
On Top of that Cruise missile DPS is poor especially compounded with that fact that the Raven can only fit 6 launchers while other battleships have 7-8 turrets.
If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs?
Oh and I have Caldari BS V and Cruise Missiles V, so I can tell you first hand why its only good for mission running. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 03:52:00 -
[6120] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote:well tbh what would you like me to comapr the raven to ? as there is no pirate ship the relys on missles however im beating that counterpart gun boat produce over the 1k dps and the reason i compair them is for the fact there used or shall we compair em to the mach as that is also a mission running bs ? witch produces over the 1k dps and has a nice flight of drones ? And you are now gone back to pve concerns... I don't have anything against pve, though you cannot balance ships between themselves for pve, because that would cause massive imbalance for pvp. I already explain it, but I'm afraid this thread memory is not more than 20 pages. PS : and again, if a ship is underperforming, whine for it to be buffed instead of whining for your OP weapon system to still be OP.
ok few things i dont care for pvp and why should all ships be balanced for pvp when it can quite easily upset pve and pve players find out they have to change there style completely and perhaps even change race of ships and possibly weapons ?
and secondly many people see minmatar weapons system being op especialy were alpha is concerned but all we see is a few ships getting nerfed not the entirerty of the weapons. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 05:19:00 -
[6121] - Quote
Why not train other weapon systems?
If you only train missiles and Caldari ships you will run out of useful stuff after 2 or 3 years. If you don't care about pvp you're not going to get podded often. So there's no reason to stop training because of clone prices. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 07:05:00 -
[6122] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Why not train other weapon systems?
If you only train missiles and Caldari ships you will run out of useful stuff after 2 or 3 years. If you don't care about pvp you're not going to get podded often. So there's no reason to stop training because of clone prices.
if thats best you can come up that people dont train other weapon systems and thus other weapon systems shouldnt be changed or nerfed due to sp and clones dont pvp. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:44:00 -
[6123] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Why not train other weapon systems?
If you only train missiles and Caldari ships you will run out of useful stuff after 2 or 3 years. If you don't care about pvp you're not going to get podded often. So there's no reason to stop training because of clone prices. if thats best you can come up that people dont train other weapon systems and thus other weapon systems shouldnt be changed or nerfed due to sp and clones dont pvp.
What exactly you want to be changed in other weapons?
Only thing I can think of is damage of blasters. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 08:49:00 -
[6124] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:serras bang wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Why not train other weapon systems?
If you only train missiles and Caldari ships you will run out of useful stuff after 2 or 3 years. If you don't care about pvp you're not going to get podded often. So there's no reason to stop training because of clone prices. if thats best you can come up that people dont train other weapon systems and thus other weapon systems shouldnt be changed or nerfed due to sp and clones dont pvp. What exactly you want to be changed in other weapons? Only thing I can think of is damage of blasters. But of course blasters should have highest dps (exactly like they do now).
hows about the alpha on projectiles to begins with ? reduce charge dmg increase rof half the alpha same dps ? |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:20:00 -
[6125] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Why is there noone claiming Matari boats speed is OP? If a caldari should not be able to shoot at 100km, why should a Matari be able to run away like he does? Imbalance, such a....tendentious word...
Well said
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
173
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 09:45:00 -
[6126] - Quote
Here a fleet Raven : [Raven, test_cruise]
6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile) Heavy Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II
100MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Large Shield Extender II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II
3x Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Signal Amplifier II
Large Core Defense Field Extender I Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs? First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?
And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha.
Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet.
@serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS.
As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem).
With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 10:15:00 -
[6127] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Here a fleet Raven : [Raven, test_cruise] 6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile) Heavy Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II 100MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Large Shield Extender II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II 3x Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Signal Amplifier II Large Core Defense Field Extender I Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs? First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha. Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet. @serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS. As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem). With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right.
you also gotta think about the explosive radius witch cant hit the broad side of a criuser or bc properly (not to sure about the broad side of a bs) but im guessing seing you aint useing tigor rigs anything bellow a buffer shield tanked bc this raven or any others will not lay full dmg on it.
you have also got the fact that caldari ships are now the slowest and heaviest of all the ships so it can no longer kite properly pulling it so itll have a further disatvantage into gun range on a faster ship is bad why i bet you ask ?
well every caldari pilot learns after shield are gone your screwd witch means a blaster, pulse, artie fit ship is on to of you your screwd as your shields plumet witch also heppend very very quickly if your webbed.
thinking of all of the above i think anyone can work out why missle users have been fighting tooth and nail to keep as much range as possible on there ships. |
Skahd Hii
Funkwagen Broadcasting
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 11:15:00 -
[6128] - Quote
Should you not introduce a new module that improves the flight-time and/or max-velocity and/or explosion-radius and/or explosion-velocity of missile based weapons? Somewhat the missile equivalent of a tracking enhancer. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 11:24:00 -
[6129] - Quote
Skahd Hii wrote:Should you not introduce a new module that improves the flight-time and/or max-velocity and/or explosion-radius and/or explosion-velocity of missile based weapons? Somewhat the missile equivalent of a tracking enhancer.
no and niether should td's be applied to em |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 11:55:00 -
[6130] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Here a fleet Raven : [Raven, test_cruise] 6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile) Heavy Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II 100MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Large Shield Extender II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II 3x Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Signal Amplifier II Large Core Defense Field Extender I Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs? First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha. Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet. @serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS. As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem). With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right.
Not to take away from your points. You made several but the issue with Caldari battle ships goes beyond the raven and the crippled dps aplication of Torps and cruisers. While when you compare them along side each other, lets compare your ship to my ship
Your theoretic Ship My theoretic Ship
Those are our Signature radius numbers.
You are in a Raven Battleship, I'm in an Archon Carrier. R.I.P. Vile Rat |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 12:00:00 -
[6131] - Quote
Ioci wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Here a fleet Raven : [Raven, test_cruise] 6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile) Heavy Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II 100MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Large Shield Extender II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II 3x Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Signal Amplifier II Large Core Defense Field Extender I Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
CaptainFalcon07 wrote:If the Raven is so great, how come you never ever see a Raven used in fleet fights or non-terrible gangs? First, I'm not saying the Raven is "great", I'm saying the Raven is not bad and may even have some qualities. In fact, that is exactly the question I am asking here : why the Raven is so bad ? Common answer is damage delay, though, again, cruise missile speed is the same than HML Tengu, and faster than HML Drake ; Fleet engagement range is often from 50 to 80km. If damage delay is not a problem with Drake or Tengu, why would it be with Raven ?And even with only 6 launchers, this Raven have the same dps than a standard Nulli fleet Rokh at 70km and a better alpha. Now, neither you or me have a fleet of Raven at disposal to test it. My hypothesis for the no use of the Raven are : 1) it is obsoleted by Tengu and Drake for missile warfare ; 2) Its reputation come from the old time of real long range warfare where damage delay was a real problem ; 3) damage application is still too low (I doubt it though, its better than LR turrets) ; 4) no alliance FC had the idea yet. @serras : I already told it. If we balance thing for pvp and not for pve, it's because that would bring massive imbalance for pvp whereas we can balance pve by tweaking NPC without ANY effect on pvp balance. There is also huge particularities in pve, like fit that tend to be massively pimp, and the fact there is no missile pirate BS. As for projectiles turret, and most notably arties being OP, I tend to agree (IMO, projectiles shouldn't be capless). Though that don't mean HML shouldn't be nerfed. And for now, the ships rebalance seem to solve a lot of problems, and the new Caracal don't seem to have any problem (those who tested it liked it it seem). With HML, you also need to shift paradigm : long range weapons never did a lot of dps at range except with HML. If you want dps, you need to go for HAML. HAML are being hugely buffed. Some don't believe it will be enough ; I think it will ; only tests will say who is right. Not to take away from your points. You made several but the issue with Caldari battle ships goes beyond the raven and the crippled dps aplication of Torps and cruisers. While when you compare them along side each other, lets compare your ship to my ship Your theoretic ShipMy theoretic ShipThose are our Signature radius numbers. You are in a Raven Battleship, I'm in an Archon Carrier.
dunno were or how you got a 3k sig radius on a raven from. |
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 12:11:00 -
[6132] - Quote
MWD = 500% sig rad penalty R.I.P. Vile Rat |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 12:15:00 -
[6133] - Quote
really thats why the speed was only at 121 witch says the mwd wasnt activ thus haveing no sig bloom |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2438
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 12:38:00 -
[6134] - Quote
...And I'm finally caught up again.
TKL HUN wrote: I'm really happy that you are satisfied, but I'm not, and I think I'm not alone with this.
Anyway I asked CCP, but I think I won't get an answer.
If you want to stop using your missile sp after Retri that's well within your rights, although I would not recommend it. Either way I'll be the guy over there continuing to own people with my Drake.
Ludiah wrote: Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG.
By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by.
I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho.
The Hurricane was initially designed as an Arty ship, and all that extra powergrid is part of why it's so overpowered when used with autocannons. So we're reducing the disparity between Auto and Arty PG and dropping the PG of the Hurricane so that Hurricane pilots have to make some choices about their fitting. Hurricane is still going to be a great ship. I advise trying it out after Retri and see what you think.
OldWolf69 wrote:This all is rly fun. Single thing for me to ask is WHEN we do get NEW content. Nope, i don't mean shady role ships noone will fly. No, i also don't mean nerfs. I mean palpable new content. Like what WH's were once back in time. Balance? ImBalance? Just have a look at the aggresion mechanics, or the risks for gankers, and you begin to laugh, like i did, and most of us also do. ***"We cannot match the GREATNESS of our ancestors"*** This could be the today's CCP motto. Because what we get is cheap nerf instead of new content. You may want to check out this dev blog for the changes being made to aggression and ganking in Retribution.
Desert Ice78 wrote:CCP Foozie,
Just to let you know, every time I come back to this thread I feel like I have died just a little bit more. This is an incredibly deep statement. It is true that every day we inch closer that that one basic inevitability. Our mortality colours every action, every thought of our adult lives and every day we die a little bit more. I find playing video games is a great way to take your mind off it though.
Faora Zod wrote:What amazes me about these changes is that
1. after trying them out on the test server they are crap, no more buying GTCs to turn into plexes to put up for sale to replace lost drakes and tengu,. Yeah for lost revenue for CCP! 2. One of the best things about the Drake is how quickly new players can train to use one, it is a simple good ship to use and actually helps draw new people into the game, before they have to train into something more complicated to fly. I see more and more people being turned off from Eve, less new players means more lost revenue!
I am sure that if these changes go into effect that I will not be the only one to let my accounts lapse and just move on to another game.
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
Buy the GTC! it is worth 2 months game time, a 30 dollar value for 35 dollars! Oh but you can split it into single months and sale them in game for ISK! oh wait or you can convert it in to another form of currency and buy pants! Lost a billion isk ship? That's okay buy a GTC and sale the plexes!
It is getting ridicules CCP, quit screwing **** up Wait, are these changes supposed to increase or decrease our profits? You lost me there and I want to make sure I'm part of the correct shadowy conspiracy. In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?!
OT Smithers wrote:One thing this alliance tournament has made perfectly clear.... Out of the 350 or so ships featured in this alliance tournament, there have been precisely zero Drakes, zero Tengus, zero Caracals, zero Cerbs. We've seen damn near every ship in the game EXCEPT the heavy missile ships that CCP Fozzie claims are so overpowered they need a special nerf while everything else in the game gets a buff. We have, however, seen ECM. Lots and lots of ECM ships. We've seen entire fleets built on damn near nothing else....
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
435
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 12:45:00 -
[6135] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Here a fleet Raven : [Raven, test_cruise]
6x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile) Heavy Energy Neutralizer II Medium Energy Neutralizer II
100MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Large Shield Extender II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II
3x Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II Signal Amplifier II
Large Core Defense Field Extender I Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst I Large Warhead Flare Catalyst I
You'd probably want a cap booster on that to support the neuts and MWD. Still, let's assume that you can get away without it. The Flare rig is definitely stupid though.
Mobility isn't particularly important. In gang but without links your Raven has 110k EHP, tanks 365 DPS from a single best-named LST. 539 DPS to 134 km lock range with 3597 volley.
Compare an Abaddon. EHP is highly dependent on the exact fit, but something like the old PL type fit gives 143k EHP with a best-named LRAR giving a 377 DPS tank. 649 DPS to 58/16 km with 2995 volley, or 815 DPS Navy close up.
Compare Rokh. 144k EHP, tanks 466 DPS from a single best-named LST. 541 DPS to 62/39 km with 3031 volley, or 451 DPS at 93/39 km with 2525 volley.
So yeah, it has the lowest EHP and the lowest RR tank. Its raw DPS is vastly inferior to the Abaddon's close up and offers no advantage over the Rokhs until about 100 km, even before considering the greater difficulty of cruise damage application relative to rails at that range, particularly when everyone has sig-reduction links. Full damage type selectivity and delayed damage are more difficult to quantify, but I don't think they fundamentally change its inferiority. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
173
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 13:19:00 -
[6136] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:You'd probably want a cap booster on that to support the neuts and MWD. Still, let's assume that you can get away without it. The Flare rig is definitely stupid though.
Mobility isn't particularly important. In gang but without links your Raven has 110k EHP, tanks 365 DPS from a single best-named LST. 539 DPS to 134 km lock range with 3597 volley.
Compare an Abaddon. EHP is highly dependent on the exact fit, but something like the old PL type fit gives 143k EHP with a best-named LRAR giving a 377 DPS tank. 649 DPS to 58/16 km with 2995 volley, or 815 DPS Navy close up.
Compare Rokh. 144k EHP, tanks 466 DPS from a single best-named LST. 541 DPS to 62/39 km with 3031 volley, or 451 DPS at 93/39 km with 2525 volley.
So yeah, it has the lowest EHP and the lowest RR tank. Its raw DPS is vastly inferior to the Abaddon's close up and offers no advantage over the Rokhs until about 100 km, even before considering the greater difficulty of cruise damage application relative to rails at that range, particularly when everyone has sig-reduction links. Full damage type selectivity and delayed damage are more difficult to quantify, but I don't think they fundamentally change its inferiority. I'm not pretending to be a specialist, and indeed you may have trouble using the neutra without a cap booster, though one heavy neut cycle will leave any cruiser or frigate dry. Now, if the missiles rigs are not optimals, replace them by something better. I didn't intend to artificially grow some stats and I was afraid of damage application to be a problem.
Your dps comparison with the Rokh is wrong though : navy antimatter at 70km have a little less dps than the Raven (25% falloff mean 95%dps), so dps is largely the same at this range, moreover if you consider damage selection. The Rokh though only lose dps as the range increase whereas the Raven don't. I persist : the Raven have a better dps than the fleet Rokh at 70km and beyond.
As for the tank, indeed it's worse than Abaddon and Rokh, though you ignored the Maelstrom which have the exact same tank than this one shield rig Raven.
In the end, the Raven trade tank for dps vs the Rokh, range vs the Abaddon, and trade alpha for dps versus the Maelstrom. It is also cheaper than all of these.
Maybe it's advantages are not enough for what it trade (tank (resist) or alpha), but that would mean that the meta exclude anything without either resist bonus or artillery bonus, not that the Raven is bad.
PS : and if you consider it's only a tier 2 BS, it's pretty good IMO. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
155
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 13:53:00 -
[6137] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:What amazes me about these changes is that
1. after trying them out on the test server they are crap, no more buying GTCs to turn into plexes to put up for sale to replace lost drakes and tengu,. Yeah for lost revenue for CCP! 2. One of the best things about the Drake is how quickly new players can train to use one, it is a simple good ship to use and actually helps draw new people into the game, before they have to train into something more complicated to fly. I see more and more people being turned off from Eve, less new players means more lost revenue!
I am sure that if these changes go into effect that I will not be the only one to let my accounts lapse and just move on to another game.
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
Buy the GTC! it is worth 2 months game time, a 30 dollar value for 35 dollars! Oh but you can split it into single months and sale them in game for ISK! oh wait or you can convert it in to another form of currency and buy pants! Lost a billion isk ship? That's okay buy a GTC and sale the plexes!
It is getting ridicules CCP, quit screwing **** up
Hahaha, this is so funny. Some people don't have any idea what they are talking about. - Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
Well sh't bro, guess what balancing is! Not having "the two best ships" is per definition balance.
-There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Yes there is. And where there are two ships that dominate the game, they are clearly broken in one form or another.
Nice try tho, threatening CCP with decrease in profit. How do you get all this inside info from CCP? /sarcasm |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 15:02:00 -
[6138] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Mobility isn't particularly important. In gang but without links your Raven has 110k EHP, tanks 365 DPS from a single best-named LST. 539 DPS to 134 km lock range with 3597 volley.
Compare an Abaddon. EHP is highly dependent on the exact fit, but something like the old PL type fit gives 143k EHP with a best-named LRAR giving a 377 DPS tank. 649 DPS to 58/16 km with 2995 volley, or 815 DPS Navy close up.
Compare Rokh. 144k EHP, tanks 466 DPS from a single best-named LST. 541 DPS to 62/39 km with 3031 volley, or 451 DPS at 93/39 km with 2525 volley.
So yeah, it has the lowest EHP and the lowest RR tank. Its raw DPS is vastly inferior to the Abaddon's close up and offers no advantage over the Rokhs until about 100 km, even before considering the greater difficulty of cruise damage application relative to rails at that range, particularly when everyone has sig-reduction links. Full damage type selectivity and delayed damage are more difficult to quantify, but I don't think they fundamentally change its inferiority.
I wonder why especially Abaddon and Rokh have better tank than Raven...
For those who think Raven is slow: I'd like to see Abaddon kiting Raven. |
Karig'Ano Keikira
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 15:05:00 -
[6139] - Quote
Well, rokh vs raven, i think problem is following: - raven has a bit more paper DPS on long range, however it has significant delay to apply that damage and will most certainly do less real DPS vs anything smaller then battleship; combine them into a fleet and you have same problem as all missile fleets - damage delay becomes serious problem; drakes can battle this by having significant DPS and EHP advantage over other battlecruisers in fleet situation and long range, but raven hardly has (and it lacks EHP and mobility vs other battleships) - therefore raven performs better at short range (where other battleships shred it) or ultra long range where it can outrange other ships, but in reality ultra long range battle are virtually nonexistant and even there sniper turret ships might be better due to lack of problem with high damage delay, volley counting and lost volleys - similar problem applies to HMs - realistically speaking, they are OP atm and after nerf they will still be paper-better then comparable turrets, but in reality might becomes worse then turrets |
Lili Lu
583
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 15:21:00 -
[6140] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:...And I'm finally caught up again. ...
Nice answers Fozzie, but really don't waste your time reading this thread anymore. It's all been whi . . uh, said hundreds of times and your efforts would be better spent working on the next set of ships.
Btw, in case you read this post even though I'd rather you continue on ship work, here's my wish list
- nerf BC shield regen accross the board and then proceed from there. - nerf unbonused tracking disrupters some more - stand firm on introducing the TE/TC/TD change to affect missiles, but again make their effects less dramatic than for turrets. - tweak probing or do away with the eccm + sig radius probing difficulty mechanic since it does not look like your fix vs the off-grid booster mechanic will be appearing anytime soon. And, btw, consider adding a (one) link slot for Destroyers when you do get the fix. Small ship gangs will no longer have a loki flying with them. Some tanked up (as much as they can be, heh) and link providing destroyers will be welcome for those gangs. - please don't obsolete tech I cruisers again with the new medium fw plex ship restrictions. Tech II and III cruisers can go into majors fine like they do now. - do something to reduce the armor and skirmish rig and module conflict self nerfing phenomenon. Otherwise shield tank kiting will remain dominant.
And lastly, thanks for the new sensor skills. People that whine about the skill training time are just whiners. This game frankly needs more skills. Especially skills like those that are adding something that people got along ok without for years but now that they are available will want. They are not mandatory for success, but they will be quite nifty.
Speaking as a 6 year old character that refuses to train supercaps, which are a scourge on the game imo, one begins to have to search too much for things to train. Skill loading the game some more is probably the best route to retaining people who have been in the game a long time. |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
120
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 16:11:00 -
[6141] - Quote
I just want to know what's happening with the bc's and above the drake needs to lose a mid i wonder whether it will lose a high aswell in exchange for a low as that high isn't very useful and i don't think the other bc's will have 8 highs anymore. As for CS i would think they would have that extra high advantage then at 18 slots im not sure they will want to give them extra tanking slots aswell as improve their EHP. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
173
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 16:22:00 -
[6142] - Quote
Karig'Ano Keikira wrote:Well, rokh vs raven, i think problem is following: - raven has a bit more paper DPS on long range, however it has significant delay to apply that damage and will most certainly do less real DPS vs anything smaller then battleship; combine them into a fleet and you have same problem as all missile fleets - damage delay becomes serious problem; drakes can battle this by having significant DPS and EHP advantage over other battlecruisers in fleet situation and long range, but raven hardly has (and it lacks EHP and mobility vs other battleships) - therefore raven performs better at short range (where other battleships shred it) or ultra long range where it can outrange other ships, but in reality ultra long range battle are virtually nonexistant and even there sniper turret ships might be better due to lack of problem with high damage delay, volley counting and lost volleys - similar problem applies to HMs - realistically speaking, they are OP atm and after nerf they will still be paper-better then comparable turrets, but in reality might becomes worse then turrets Significant ? More significant than a Tengu ? No. It have the exact same delay than a Tengu. So, if damage delay is a problem for the Raven, why isn't it for the Tengu ?
Explosion radius ? With one rigor rig, you have almost the same application than fury heavy missiles. They have no problem hitting BC and up, and if you add some target painters, cruisers are not problem anymore.
And I said it : the Raven is faster and more agile than any fleet tier 3 BS. |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 16:24:00 -
[6143] - Quote
Dear CCP Fozzy, I know very good what you mean. Still, you also know VERY good what i mean. Let's not mix things. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
435
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 16:25:00 -
[6144] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I'm not pretending to be a specialist, and indeed you may have trouble using the neutra without a cap booster, though one heavy neut cycle will leave any cruiser or frigate dry. Now, if the missiles rigs are not optimals, replace them by something better. I didn't intend to artificially grow some stats and I was afraid of damage application to be a problem.
Your dps comparison with the Rokh is wrong though : navy antimatter at 70km have a little less dps than the Raven (25% falloff mean 95%dps), so dps is largely the same at this range, moreover if you consider damage selection. The Rokh though only lose dps as the range increase whereas the Raven don't. I persist : the Raven have a better dps than the fleet Rokh at 70km and beyond.
As for the tank, indeed it's worse than Abaddon and Rokh, though you ignored the Maelstrom which have the exact same tank than this one shield rig Raven.
In the end, the Raven trade tank for dps vs the Rokh, range vs the Abaddon, and trade alpha for dps versus the Maelstrom. It is also cheaper than all of these.
Maybe it's advantages are not enough for what it trade (tank (resist) or alpha), but that would mean that the meta exclude anything without either resist bonus or artillery bonus, not that the Raven is bad.
PS : and if you consider it's only a tier 2 BS, it's pretty good IMO. PPS : I forgot an important thing : against a BS, you can use fury cruise missiles to reach 576dps and 4000 alpha damage.
I'm no nullsec fleet specialist either, but I think I have a not-entirely-terrible idea of it. If we're talking about bulk fleet use comparable to Drakes, then the neuts will be useful for certain targets - logis and capitals, probably, along the lines of dual-neut welpcanes? They'll need a cap booster. Rigs probably should be extenders or resist rigs to increase RR efficiency; problems of Cruise damage application can be addressed via Rapiers, although note that both painters and webs will be required, in contrast to only webs for turrets, and you're in more trouble when your Rapiers get volleys, relative to turret BS.
I ignored the Maelstrom because it seems to have fallen from favour in null fleets. Well, it's not on the eve-kill top 20, anyway.
DPS - the raw DPS difference is small relative to EHP difference and you're still neglecting the greater difficulty of application of cruise damage at the 70-100 km range. The Rokh fit uses only 2 MFS relative to 3 BCS on the Raven, with a signal amp and TE being used instead - adding a third MFS cuts lock range but eliminates a Raven's raw DPS advantage within 100 km. But my understanding is that the Rokh's gang lock range of 160 km is more useful than a third damage mod. Note that the Raven locks to just 134 km with a SigAmp in gang.
I don't think cost really comes into it. SP requirements, yes, but not cost, at least not on the difference between t2 and t3 BS. Similarly, "Pretty good for a t2 BS" doesn't really mean anything.
Your comment about the meta excluding things with resist bonus - yes, important observation I think.
So I'll update your fit for cap booster and rigs. I'll also drop an Invuln for a thermic hardener, to match the Rokh's fit:
[Raven, hmmmm] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Signal Amplifier II
Prototype 100MN MicroWarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Thermic Dissipation Field II EM Ward Field II
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Cruise Missile Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Energy Neutralizer II
Large Core Defense Field Extender I Large Core Defense Field Extender I Large Core Defense Field Extender I
So (in gang), 107k EHP, 518 DPS (CN) or 576 DPS (Fury) to 134 km lock range. No, this is unattractive, it's just too fragile and its too difficult to apply its DPS. You have to drop the cap booster and add an invuln (128k), but then frankly it's still too fragile and you can't rely on the neuts for more than a minute or so.
But this does enable us to put an answer together to the question of what a usable null fleet Raven would look like. With the upcoming Fury changes, Fury damage goes 630 DPS, although given the difficulty of application of this, I'm not sure it's of much use outside EFT. The Raven is too fragile - it won't get a resist bonus, but shifting a highslot to a medslot would be feasible. Then it simply needs a lot more CN cruise DPS to make up for its deficiencies in tank. Around 15-20% more at a guess, either via raw DPS or a seventh launcher (16.7%). |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
435
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 16:32:00 -
[6145] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Explosion radius ? With one rigor rig, you have almost the same application than fury heavy missiles. They have no problem hitting BC and up, and if you add some target painters, cruisers are not problem anymore.
And I said it : the Raven is faster and more agile than any fleet tier 3 BS.
CN Cruise with 1x rigour: radius 191.25, velocity 103.5 Fury Heavy: radius 161.25, velocity 145.5
So, your definition of "almost the same" involves having an explosion radius 19% greater and an explosion velocity 29% less.
Do you begin to see your problem?
The mobility differences are basically inconsequential. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
173
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 17:50:00 -
[6146] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:So (in gang), 107k EHP, 518 DPS (CN) or 576 DPS (Fury) to 134 km lock range. No, this is unattractive, it's just too fragile and its too difficult to apply its DPS. You have to drop the cap booster and add an invuln (128k), but then frankly it's still too fragile and you can't rely on the neuts for more than a minute or so.
But this does enable us to put an answer together to the question of what a usable null fleet Raven would look like. With the upcoming Fury changes, Fury damage goes 630 DPS, although given the difficulty of application of this, I'm not sure it's of much use outside EFT. The Raven is too fragile - it won't get a resist bonus, but shifting a highslot to a medslot would be feasible. Then it simply needs a lot more CN cruise DPS to make up for its deficiencies in tank. Around 15-20% more at a guess, either via raw DPS or a seventh launcher (16.7%). My point were not to say the Raven is best fleet ship. There can only be a very limited number of "best" fleet ships and for example there is no gallente BS in this list. What I mean is that the Raven is by no mean obsolete. "Not good enough" is far from "bad". The only thing against it is the lack of a resistance bonus, and it's far from the only one in this case.
IMO, it's simple : the Tengu does everything a Raven can do, but better. It have better tank, more and easier to apply dps, and it have a smaller signature. There is no reason to use a Raven over a Tengu except for the price and neutralizer. |
Lona Brant
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 18:04:00 -
[6147] - Quote
missiles suck in pvp compared to guns
just a few points
1. way more time for logistics to switch to the attacked target
2. can be smartbombed in large engagements
3. very fast ships cant be hit by em at all
4. no alpha to breack logi repairing a ship
a few points really needed on medium missile size - hams need to be better able to hit small stuff then HM, now its just the opposite - hams need lower PG to be fitted on tengus/Drakes without decreasing its tank drasticly
-HM you either nerf in damage OR range both is just too much
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
173
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 18:30:00 -
[6148] - Quote
Lona Brant wrote:4. no alpha to breack logi repairing a ship Haha ! Missiles have the second best alpha, just behind artilleries. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 18:31:00 -
[6149] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:The Raven is too fragile
Not, if you compare it to Apoc...
500+ million hull and it has less EHP and dps than Raven. Don't even bother trying this on regular Apoc...
[Apocalypse Navy Issue, yeah...]
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Explosive Membrane II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I
Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Standard L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Standard L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Standard L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Standard L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Standard L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Standard L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Standard L Tachyon Beam Laser II, Imperial Navy Standard L
Large Processor Overclocking Unit I Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Ancillary Current Router I |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 01:42:00 -
[6150] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote: Explosion radius ? With one rigor rig, you have almost the same application than fury heavy missiles. They have no problem hitting BC and up, and if you add some target painters, cruisers are not problem anymore.
And I said it : the Raven is faster and more agile than any fleet tier 3 BS.
CN Cruise with 1x rigour: radius 191.25, velocity 103.5 Fury Heavy: radius 161.25, velocity 145.5 So, your definition of "almost the same" involves having an explosion radius 19% greater and an explosion velocity 29% less. Do you begin to see your problem? The mobility differences are basically inconsequential.
tbh it would be more as you compairing cn criuse to furry not criuse fury to hml fury :P |
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
840
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 02:16:00 -
[6151] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?! So, would you say that current cyno mechanics and ease of hot-drops is... fun?
I had a talk with CCP Zulupark not so long ago (when he visited Moscow) and he basically said that 'portaling doesn't happen all that often' and 'works as intended'. Moreover, he confessed that he even hadn't been able to convince all the others that cynoes should have a spool-up timer, which is one of the most obvious things cynoes lack at the moment. Is the majority of CCPers really that clueless?
How exactly this corresponds with your claims of making the game fun for everyone? Should you ask me, I'd say that current fubar cyno mechanics is the biggest fun-breaker. 14 |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 03:40:00 -
[6152] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?! So, would you say that current cyno mechanics and ease of hot-drops is... fun? I had a talk with CCP Zulupark not so long ago (when he visited Moscow) and he basically said that 'portaling doesn't happen all that often' and 'works as intended'. Moreover, he confessed that he even hadn't been able to convince all the others that cynoes should have a spool-up timer, which is one of the most obvious things cynoes lack at the moment. Is the majority of CCPers really that clueless? How exactly this corresponds with your claims of making the game fun for everyone? Should you ask me, I'd say that current fubar cyno mechanics is the biggest fun-breaker. *** Dear CCP Fozzy. ^ is very true. But let's take it in a different manner. WHY would be the fun of 10% players who don't use missiles more important than the fun of the 50% using them? Because that 10% yells loud on forums, with a sh*tload of forum alts? Because most devs are still at the level they think they are "cool kids"? And yeah, a interesting game makes people pay. Question is, wich people, and what game? The most vocal ones are usually old players, wich use with isk payed plex, so NO rl cash into game. This is also a thing we know, you know too, but no dev admits it. Young players usually unsubscribe, when their way to advance gets broken. Now, there will be arguments like "not every young player is Caldari". And it's true. Just MOST of the real new players, wich are not the 100'th alt of some 7 years old player. True, they choose Caldari because the advancement is fairly fast, and not based on BROKEN stuff, like railguns and other things. (Wich, btw, "work as intended"). Why would i pay for a wrong choice? If i can pick the right one? Sometimes this all is sooo pathetic. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 05:24:00 -
[6153] - Quote
Do you really think buff to rockets, HAMs and torps is a bad thing? Do you really think removing ship penalties from T2 missiles is a bad thing?
Caldari isn't "the right choice". |
Lockheed19
ColdBlueAnt Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 08:28:00 -
[6154] - Quote
Quote:"...-Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius)..."
I now have a small wet patch. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
366
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 09:51:00 -
[6155] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:. This same argument comes up every year about a different ship/module, and it's always incorrect. Tournament environments are very different than normal pvp and pve activity, and balancing based on tournaments is a mistake. We balance based on the normal gameplay, then adjust the tournament rules to create a fun event. Not the other way around.
I am not sure there is any such animal as "normal" gameplay Fozzie.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
366
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 09:57:00 -
[6156] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Gypsio III wrote:So (in gang), 107k EHP, 518 DPS (CN) or 576 DPS (Fury) to 134 km lock range. No, this is unattractive, it's just too fragile and its too difficult to apply its DPS. You have to drop the cap booster and add an invuln (128k), but then frankly it's still too fragile and you can't rely on the neuts for more than a minute or so.
But this does enable us to put an answer together to the question of what a usable null fleet Raven would look like. With the upcoming Fury changes, Fury damage goes 630 DPS, although given the difficulty of application of this, I'm not sure it's of much use outside EFT. The Raven is too fragile - it won't get a resist bonus, but shifting a highslot to a medslot would be feasible. Then it simply needs a lot more CN cruise DPS to make up for its deficiencies in tank. Around 15-20% more at a guess, either via raw DPS or a seventh launcher (16.7%). My point were not to say the Raven is best fleet ship. There can only be a very limited number of "best" fleet ships and for example there is no gallente BS in this list. What I mean is that the Raven is by no mean obsolete. "Not good enough" is far from "bad". The only thing against it is the lack of a resistance bonus, and it's far from the only one in this case. IMO, it's simple : the Tengu does everything a Raven can do, but better. It have better tank, more and easier to apply dps, and it have a smaller signature. There is no reason to use a Raven over a Tengu except for the price and neutralizer. PS : 2 or 3 TP, and signature radius don't matter anymore ; and you still have precision CM if that is really critical ; 2 or 3 TP won't ruin your setup and allow you to hit AHAC.
Any time you start a balance argument by offereing the "It's a fleet ship" argument you have already surrendered. You can assemble a mythical blob of damn near anything and imagine a scenario in which it might work. The Raven is no exception. But that doesn't make it balanced. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
174
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 10:35:00 -
[6157] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Any time you start a balance argument by offereing the "It's a fleet ship" argument you have already surrendered. You can assemble a mythical blob of damn near anything and imagine a scenario in which it might work. The Raven is no exception. But that doesn't make it balanced. So how do you prove a ship is inbalanced ? By looking at battleclinic stats and then consider the only balanced ships are on the top of the list ?
BTW, the Hyperion don't agree with you. |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 10:57:00 -
[6158] - Quote
Am i the only one feeling a "imbalanced" EvE won't work? And would be completely boring? Remove inutile stuff, drop in new stuff. Keep the game in movement. "The eye wich chooses the easy path closes forever" said a wise man... somewhere in time.A man called Muad'dib. Or not exactly what we would call now a "man". But this won't matter much. He was right and that's all. |
EatThis
Templar Corps Rogue Trader Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 12:16:00 -
[6159] - Quote
MISSILES !!!
Question about in lineing the missiles with other turrets in the game !!!
Turret Roles: CLOSE range guns (Blasters, Pulse, Autocannons) PWG usage is smaller compared to LONG range guns (Railgun, Beam, Artilery).
Missile Roles: Except Rockets/Light is the opposite !!!
WHY trying to in line missiles if the basic of missiles is different ??? That means you need to sacrifice your tank to bo able to fit close range missiles FAIL.
I agree that missiles need to change but do it right if you trying to inline them with other guns !!!
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
366
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 12:23:00 -
[6160] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote:Any time you start a balance argument by offereing the "It's a fleet ship" argument you have already surrendered. You can assemble a mythical blob of damn near anything and imagine a scenario in which it might work. The Raven is no exception. But that doesn't make it balanced. So how do you prove a ship is inbalanced ? By looking at battleclinic stats and then consider the only balanced ships are on the top of the list ? BTW, the Hyperion don't agree with you.
My apologies for not being clearer.
A ship is "balanced" when it is comparable to and competetive with the other ships in it's class. This is complicated, obviously, since all ships (of a class) will not and should not be equal in all areas. However, the fundamental principle is that an advantage in one area should be offset by a disadvantage in another. How great these advantages and disadvantages should be is dependent upon some kind of subjective value assigned to the various attributes and play testing.
For example, if ship A is slower than ship B, then "balance" demands that ship A possess some compensating advantage. Perhaps it offers more tank, perhaps it does better DPS, perhaps it's more versatile, etc. But in all cases the two are compared against each other as individuals.
When we assign the fleet concept to balance and examine it more carefully, we discover that even there it is imbalance which rules the day. An individual ship which is inferior to its individual competetors remains inferior as an individual hull when gathered into a fleet. A hundred Rifters will kill a battleship, but they will not kill a hundred battleships. And even were this not the case, this is unfair to the folks who have only the Rifter to choose.
Common sense then demands we balance one ship against all the others in the same class.
When comparing the Raven to its opponents we see that it is typically slower, with less tank, less versatility, fewer drones, and lower (and delayed) DPS. It is difficult or impossible to fit with the modules that experience has shown to be necessary for a battleship. Its ONLY compensating advantage is the ability to hit and do moderate damage to large slow targets at range slightly better than other battleships -- in every other category it fails spectacularly.
|
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
438
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 14:25:00 -
[6161] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
When comparing the Raven to its opponents we see that it is typically slower, with less tank, less versatility, fewer drones, and lower (and delayed) DPS. It is difficult or impossible to fit with the modules that experience has shown to be necessary for a battleship. Its ONLY compensating advantage is the ability to hit and do moderate damage to large slow targets at range slightly better than other battleships -- in every other category it fails spectacularly.
Bouh will probably jump on this because a good chunk of it is wrong or inconsequential, so I'll pre-empt him.
I don't think mobility is important on a fleet BS - c.f. Abaddon and Rokh, both of which are less mobile than the Raven(?). And it's got 75 m drone bay, same as many others - and more than the Rokh, but drone bay size isn't particularly important in fleet either. Mobility and drones are important in solo/small-gang environments, but BS are largely obsolete there anyway, so I'm not sure it really matters. Fitting a Cruise Raven is trivial, and it's more flexible than most other options - more medslots for ewar, utility highs, full damage-type selection, flexibility of range.
But ultimately, none of this really matters, as the dominant factors are tank (EHP and RR), DPS and DPS application and projection. And as you rightly state, the Cruise Raven has serious deficiencies in the combination of those figures which precludes it from being a serious fleet option. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
174
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 15:22:00 -
[6162] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:But ultimately, none of this really matters, as the dominant factors are tank (EHP and RR), DPS and DPS application and projection. And as you rightly state, the Cruise Raven has serious deficiencies in the combination of those figures which precludes it from being a serious fleet option. Only deficiency of the Raven is tank, which is due to the lack of a resist bonus and the fact it is a tier 2 BS. It does have a good dps and damage projection though, the only problem being smaller targets.
Again, I think it's not a bad fleet ship, it's only that the Tengu obsolete it. This and the resist bonus synergizing with logi. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 15:33:00 -
[6163] - Quote
EatThis wrote:MISSILES !!!
Question about in lineing the missiles with other turrets in the game !!!
Turret Roles: CLOSE range guns (Blasters, Pulse, Autocannons) PWG usage is smaller compared to LONG range guns (Railgun, Beam, Artilery).
Missile Roles: Except Rockets/Light is the opposite !!!
WHY trying to in line missiles if the basic of missiles is different ??? That means you need to sacrifice your tank to bo able to fit close range missiles FAIL.
I agree that missiles need to change but do it right if you trying to inline them with other guns !!!
Drake with HAML, MWD, point and web: 68,5k* EHP * - you need to use Medium Ancillary Current Router I rig if you don't have money to get 3% PG implant.
Drake with HML, MWD, point and web: 68,5k* EHP * - you need to use Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I rig if you don't have money to get 3% CPU implant. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
438
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 17:11:00 -
[6164] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Gypsio III wrote:But ultimately, none of this really matters, as the dominant factors are tank (EHP and RR), DPS and DPS application and projection. And as you rightly state, the Cruise Raven has serious deficiencies in the combination of those figures which precludes it from being a serious fleet option. Only deficiency of the Raven is tank, which is due to the lack of a resist bonus and the fact it is a tier 2 BS. It does have a good dps and damage projection though, the only problem being smaller targets. Again, I think it's not a bad fleet ship, it's only that the Tengu obsolete it..
This statement suggests that if the Tengu was removed from the game, Cruise Raven fleets would appear. This is absurd. The cruise Raven's clear inferiority to Abaddons and Rokhs makes it a bad fleet ship. You can't just imagine those other ships away. |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
438
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 17:16:00 -
[6165] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Drake with HAML, MWD, point and web: 68,5k* EHP * - you need to use Medium Ancillary Current Router I rig if you don't have money to get 3% PG implant.
You mean 83k EHP, and you won't need a PG implant after the HAML PG change. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 17:37:00 -
[6166] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:You mean 83k EHP, and you won't need a PG implant after the HAML PG change.
If we talk about named/T2 mods only, no.
[Drake, Draek]
Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II [Empty High slot]
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hobgoblin II x5
And yet again this thread is turning into fitting advice thread... |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
367
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 22:07:00 -
[6167] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:OT Smithers wrote:
When comparing the Raven to its opponents we see that it is typically slower, with less tank, less versatility, fewer drones, and lower (and delayed) DPS. It is difficult or impossible to fit with the modules that experience has shown to be necessary for a battleship. Its ONLY compensating advantage is the ability to hit and do moderate damage to large slow targets at range slightly better than other battleships -- in every other category it fails spectacularly.
Bouh will probably jump on this because a good chunk of it is wrong or inconsequential, so I'll pre-empt him. I don't think mobility is important on a fleet BS - c.f. Abaddon and Rokh, both of which are less mobile than the Raven(?). And it's got 75 m drone bay, same as many others - and more than the Rokh, but drone bay size isn't particularly important in fleet either. Mobility and drones are important in solo/small-gang environments, but BS are largely obsolete there anyway, so I'm not sure it really matters. Fitting a Cruise Raven is trivial, and it's more flexible than most other options - more medslots for ewar, utility highs, full damage-type selection, flexibility of range. But ultimately, none of this really matters, as the dominant factors are tank (EHP and RR), DPS and DPS application and projection. And as you rightly state, the Cruise Raven has serious deficiencies in the combination of those figures which precludes it from being a serious fleet option.
Mobility might or might not be important in a BS fleet. This would depend upon tactics. Whether or not your fleet or gang (or even you as an individual) exploited the advantages you have is irrelevant, you COULD have done so. The potential was there.
What the Raven can do is project moderate and delayed damage a great distance, in every other measure it falls short of the other BSs in the game. |
Ubat Batuk
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 23:04:00 -
[6168] - Quote
The missiles nerf is totally ******. A drake already has such a low DPS! balancing of what? little DPS with LESSER DPS? Have you tried a nighthawk for example? train forever and a damn low DPS. You are just making it a nightmare for people doing missions. How intelligent you people are with all these ridiculous nerfs? just focus your time expanding the game with new features instead of getting people pissed. Of course it's a lot easier to set a configuration parameter than develop and test new stuff! Do you not understand that people get pissed and stop playing? You are disenfranchising people in favour of some groups... You are just making Caldari ships not viable. Or perhaps every ship should cost 1-3b to be effective. Remember that PLEX greed is going to bite back at you badly...
I demand all my accounts missiles skills to be refunded.
It's becoming just like Dust beta, at first it was incredibly fun and later it became a nightmare to play due all nerfs and I got so pissed that I had to stop playing.
|
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 00:12:00 -
[6169] - Quote
Missile Nerf? Not for everybody !
I was hopeless about Raven being good one day, but it's seems it's happenning finally.
Just tested a quite expensive CNR on Buck. But as long as it require way less Skill Points... maybe should be looked closer.
What i saw was : - Cruise Fury kick some big asses with or without a TP. (BS / BC at full applied damage) - Cruise Precision, FINALLY useful, Full or nearly full damage applied on Frigates with 1 TP (depending their speed) where Cruise standard was not optimal and Heavy missile not fittable.
Raven Navy Issue : (CNR) -Cruise launcher II x7 -Federation navy 425mm just for fancy purposes.
-Meta 7+ X-L Shield Booster -Shield Boost Amp II (or 100 AB II ) -Heavy Cap booster II -PWNAGE (TP) -Invul II and or meta 4.
-Caldari BCS *4 -Damage control
-Rigor catalyst II -Flare Catalyst II -Defense capacitor safeguard II
Drones T2
Implant +5% Result : with skill not all to 5, you've got about 960-1040 dps with fury on most ships. High repair output during 8mn uninterrupted (900+ehp/4s). You can also reduce the dps to increase surivability.
TLDR Delayed damage greatly reduced (for a 30km target, the damage apply when the missile ejects) (1/4 - 1/2 of cycle) You still can learn to play missiles and switch target before a volley waste. Precision Cruise come closer to Heavy fury Fury Cruise hits hard on targets over 300m sig radius. Cruise still outperform Heavy in damage raw numbers. Kill first or Die fit possibility
Obviously it's not a pvp fit. not sure it can be a pvp ship too. |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 02:23:00 -
[6170] - Quote
Obviously ppl don't understand what's about. It's not about the one missile's nerf, of about the buff on the other. Is about the fact they just sell us changed rules as new content. I don't care about the maths or the fits or other such things. Expansions are "Nerf"-pansions. NEVER ask a nerd to develop a complicated thing. He will try to randomise all untill is all broken. |
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 04:19:00 -
[6171] - Quote
[quote=CCP Fozzie]
Wait, are these changes supposed to increase or decrease our profits? You lost me there and I want to make sure I'm part of the correct shadowy conspiracy. In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?!]
Just because you are denying the conspiracy does not mean there is not one, that is how shadow conspiracies work! CCP is a business, and the whole idea of a business is to make a profit, otherwise it a charity/nonprofit org. So yeah Fozzie you guys are trying to get us to spend money.
You would think that instead of trying to keep our interest in playing eve you would actually give us something new and interest in the game, rather than change what we already have and call it balancing.
Instead of wasting your time "balancing" the missile system, why don't you guys get to work on making us faction Battlecruiers? Who wouldn't want a CN Farox (a CN Drake would be even more awesome but useless with these "balanced" Missiles), or a Angel Cyclone, or Sansha Harbinger. or Come up with NEW skills to help the raging players who whine about the Drake/Tengu's to keep range.
Want to solve the ability of tengus and Drakes to keep range? slow them down! Fix the 3 different sized AB and MWD to where they can only fit on the ships they are intended for, 1mn on frigs and destroyers, 10mn on cruisers and Bcs, and 100 mn's on Battleships and bigger. makes alot more since than changing the HML since it would work on all the races ships.
There are other and better ways to keep us interested than "balancing" the ships we already have.
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 04:51:00 -
[6172] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Faora Zod wrote:What amazes me about these changes is that
1. after trying them out on the test server they are crap, no more buying GTCs to turn into plexes to put up for sale to replace lost drakes and tengu,. Yeah for lost revenue for CCP! 2. One of the best things about the Drake is how quickly new players can train to use one, it is a simple good ship to use and actually helps draw new people into the game, before they have to train into something more complicated to fly. I see more and more people being turned off from Eve, less new players means more lost revenue!
I am sure that if these changes go into effect that I will not be the only one to let my accounts lapse and just move on to another game.
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
Buy the GTC! it is worth 2 months game time, a 30 dollar value for 35 dollars! Oh but you can split it into single months and sale them in game for ISK! oh wait or you can convert it in to another form of currency and buy pants! Lost a billion isk ship? That's okay buy a GTC and sale the plexes!
It is getting ridicules CCP, quit screwing **** up Hahaha, this is so funny. Some people don't have any idea what they are talking about. - Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses. Well sh't bro, guess what balancing is! Not having "the two best ships" is per definition balance. -There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it. Yes there is. And where there are two ships that dominate the game, they are clearly broken in one form or another. Nice try tho, threatening CCP with decrease in profit. How do you get all this inside info from CCP? /sarcasm
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 05:25:00 -
[6173] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:The missiles nerf is totally ******. A drake already has such a low DPS! balancing of what? little DPS with LESSER DPS? Have you tried a nighthawk for example? train forever and a damn low DPS. You are just making it a nightmare for people doing missions. How intelligent you people are with all these ridiculous nerfs? just focus your time expanding the game with new features instead of getting people pissed. Of course it's a lot easier to set a configuration parameter than develop and test new stuff! Do you not understand that people get pissed and stop playing? You are disenfranchising people in favour of some groups... You are just making Caldari ships not viable. Or perhaps every ship should cost 1-3b to be effective. Remember that PLEX greed is going to bite back at you badly...
I demand all my accounts missiles skills to be refunded.
It's becoming just like Dust beta, at first it was incredibly fun and later it became a nightmare to play due all nerfs and I got so pissed that I had to stop playing.
Do you realize that Nighthawk is "broken"? Do you know what "power creep" means?
Since it seems to be quite difficult for some... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_creep |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
242
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 07:58:00 -
[6174] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wait, are these changes supposed to increase or decrease our profits? You lost me there and I want to make sure I'm part of the correct shadowy conspiracy. In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?!
Just because you are denying the conspiracy does not mean there is not one, that is how shadow conspiracies work! CCP is a business, and the whole idea of a business is to make a profit, otherwise it a charity/nonprofit org. So yeah Fozzie you guys are trying to get us to spend money. You would think that instead of trying to keep our interest in playing eve you would actually give us something new and interest in the game, rather than change what we already have and call it balancing. Instead of wasting your time "balancing" the missile system, why don't you guys get to work on making us faction Battlecruiers? Who wouldn't want a CN Farox (a CN Drake would be even more awesome but useless with these "balanced" Missiles), or a Angel Cyclone, or Sansha Harbinger. or Come up with NEW skills to help the raging players who whine about the Drake/Tengu's to keep range. Want to solve the ability of tengus and Drakes to keep range? slow them down! Fix the 3 different sized AB and MWD to where they can only fit on the ships they are intended for, 1mn on frigs and destroyers, 10mn on cruisers and Bcs, and 100 mn's on Battleships and bigger. makes alot more since than changing the HML since it would work on all the races ships. There are other and better ways to keep us interested than "balancing" the ships we already have.
Look at it this way, theyre adding 4 new battlecruisers to the game, and a whole new weapon platform!
New Battlecruisers Brutix Harbinger Prophecy Ferox
Where they really in the game before? really? How often did you see any of these ships flying around? why? because they're totally eclipsed by the current drake and hurricane, this will no longer be the case.
New Weapon Platform HAM
Once again, how many times have you seen a ship sporting these flying around? After the change, you may have some new viable equipment to equip
Also maybe we can try out the sacrilege again, maybe after the HAM changes it wont totally suck anymore!!
Oh look, we have new stuff to play with . . . |
Onyx Nyx
Euphoria Released Verge of Collapse
107
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 08:00:00 -
[6175] - Quote
So Guided Missile Precision is finally worth training for dedicated bomber pilots? I kill kittens, and puppies and bunnies. I maim toddlers and teens and then more. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
368
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 09:26:00 -
[6176] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:The missiles nerf is totally ******. A drake already has such a low DPS! balancing of what? little DPS with LESSER DPS? Have you tried a nighthawk for example? train forever and a damn low DPS. You are just making it a nightmare for people doing missions. How intelligent you people are with all these ridiculous nerfs? just focus your time expanding the game with new features instead of getting people pissed. Of course it's a lot easier to set a configuration parameter than develop and test new stuff! Do you not understand that people get pissed and stop playing? You are disenfranchising people in favour of some groups... You are just making Caldari ships not viable. Or perhaps every ship should cost 1-3b to be effective. Remember that PLEX greed is going to bite back at you badly...
I demand all my accounts missiles skills to be refunded.
It's becoming just like Dust beta, at first it was incredibly fun and later it became a nightmare to play due all nerfs and I got so pissed that I had to stop playing.
Some points:
1. Missiles overall are getting BETTER. The changes to HAMs, Rockets, Torpedos, and Light Missiles are significant.
2. The HML nerf is perhaps a little excessive, but whatever.
3. In my experience most of the pilots I see are fighting parked on a gate or station. Very rarely are they fighting in the open field, motoring around and really using the Drake's mobility and the range of HMs to their best advantage. In the kind of fighting most people do, they will be far better served by the improved HAMs anyway -- so for these people this patch will be a huge buff.
4. Now that CCP has adjusted the numbers a bit, the post patch Caracal is going to be extremely effective. I think it is finally going to be the cruiser the Caldari have been waiting all these years for. Because it was a Caldri ship people had to make some noise to get it, but there it is.
5. Every Caldari pilot understands how you feel about CCP. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
368
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 09:27:00 -
[6177] - Quote
Onyx Nyx wrote:So Guided Missile Precision is finally worth training for dedicated bomber pilots?
Yes. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
167
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 11:54:00 -
[6178] - Quote
*chucks two cents into the thread*
Great to see T2 drawbacks finally gone. What took so long?
I get the feeling that the dev's flew against my long range Caracal fleets in FW, fighting as Gallente, and are somehow a bit upset about that :)
Agreed that Heavy Missiles were over powered, we used them a lot for just that reason, because a Moa is not a Thorax.
A -10% DPS is fine. The explosion radius though, thats going to hurt. The main threat - and what is used against us in FW - is stabbers, often fleet issue variants. So we fight low signature, fast, stabbers, that frankly eat us alive when they get in range when using something like a Caracal.
I'd rather see a -15% DPS decrease, but also a decrease in explosion radius to help us counter the winmitar.
It wouldn't be so bad if the web drones at light and medium sizes, were... actually any good. They barely tickle the speed and stacking issues mean that beyond 7 of them, they are useless. Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 12:42:00 -
[6179] - Quote
Look at it this way, theyre adding 4 new battlecruisers to the game, and a whole new weapon platform!
New Battlecruisers Brutix Harbinger Prophecy Ferox
Where they really in the game before? really? How often did you see any of these ships flying around? why? because they're totally eclipsed by the current drake and hurricane, this will no longer be the case.
New Weapon Platform HAM
Once again, how many times have you seen a ship sporting these flying around? After the change, you may have some new viable equipment to equip
Also maybe we can try out the sacrilege again, maybe after the HAM changes it wont totally suck anymore!!
Oh look, we have new stuff to play with
Yes I have seen these ships and HAMs in use, bingers more than the other 3 but they are used. They are not new material at all, just repainted and sold as new. HAMs are used all the time, look at the legion and sacrilege. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
175
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 13:49:00 -
[6180] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:This statement suggests that if the Tengu was removed from the game, Cruise Raven fleets would appear. This is absurd. The cruise Raven's clear inferiority to Abaddons and Rokhs makes it a bad fleet ship. You can't just imagine those other ships away. This is an assumption. When the Drake is used in fleet, why does the Raven couldn't ? You can buy 3 Raven for the price of 2 Rokh or Abaddon.
As I showed, the Raven definitly have some advantages against the other BS, if you exclude Abaddon and Rokh (the only 2 BS with resist bonus which are very powerful, if not OP, for blob warfare), the Raven is among the best for a 70km range fleet and above. You can of course use a Minmatar ship to profit from alpha, but that will be the only advantage you can take over a Raven at these ranges.
That was for OT too : only the Abaddon and Rokh have a better tank than the Raven, and no ship outdps it beyond 70km (well, in fact, you may be able to do a tachyon fit which do it, though you will trade everything else).
A lot of reason make a ship used for fleet or not, and one of them is faith, because obviously stats are not enough ; and nobody have any faith in the Raven.
I'm not saying the Raven is best choice for fleet but people are too stupid to see it, I'm only saying the Raven is not a bad fleet ship, far from it, and it even have some particularities which could make it desirable (missiles in themselves, neutralizer capacity, price).
Ask yourselves, what qualities a Megathron, a Hyperion, a Maelstrom, a Tempest, a Dominix, a Typhoon, an Apocalypse or an Armageddon have against a Raven, especially for fleet ? |
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
167
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 14:28:00 -
[6181] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Gypsio III wrote:This statement suggests that if the Tengu was removed from the game, Cruise Raven fleets would appear. This is absurd. The cruise Raven's clear inferiority to Abaddons and Rokhs makes it a bad fleet ship. You can't just imagine those other ships away. This is an assumption. When the Drake is used in fleet, why does the Raven couldn't ? You can buy 3 Raven for the price of 2 Rokh or Abaddon. As I showed, the Raven definitly have some advantages against the other BS, if you exclude Abaddon and Rokh (the only 2 BS with resist bonus which are very powerful, if not OP, for blob warfare), the Raven is among the best for a 70km range fleet and above. You can of course use a Minmatar ship to profit from alpha, but that will be the only advantage you can take over a Raven at these ranges. That was for OT too : only the Abaddon and Rokh have a better tank than the Raven, and no ship outdps it beyond 70km (well, in fact, you may be able to do a tachyon fit which do it, though you will trade everything else). A lot of reason make a ship used for fleet or not, and one of them is faith, because obviously stats are not enough ; and nobody have any faith in the Raven. I'm not saying the Raven is best choice for fleet but people are too stupid to see it, I'm only saying the Raven is not a bad fleet ship, far from it, and it even have some particularities which could make it desirable (missiles in themselves, neutralizer capacity, price). Ask yourselves, what qualities a Megathron, a Hyperion, a Maelstrom, a Tempest, a Dominix, a Typhoon, an Apocalypse or an Armageddon have against a Raven, especially for fleet ?
The problem with the Raven for PvP, is the speed of the darn thing, the DPS it does, the time to target - which at these ranges means if you're facing a fleet with logistics, they have plenty of time to react.
And in terms of using it in a fleet with logistics support, the lack of resistances mean the amount it can tank is basically worthless.
The reason sniping can work with minmitar, is the high alpha, but also the instant impact of it. You just don't get that with the Raven.
The Rokh beats it in PvP in every scenario. I'd rather pay 3 times more for something that works. If the Raven had the capacitor and a lot more speed, then maybe it might work as a fat kiter, but right now, it is only good for PvE.
This is probably a good time to point out the fact the ship stars out with 0 EM resistance to its primary tank. That is at least one mid slot and one rig right there. Urggghhh Raven. Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
167
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 14:43:00 -
[6182] - Quote
Raven Cruise Missile DPS with Fury Kinectic, Three Ballistic Controls, 576 DPS. 200+km range.
A Navy Caracal can do 420 DPS right now, before the nerf (Which is why its getting the damage nerf) with a smaller signature, way way faster speed, and still hit at 100+km
So really... really, why bother with a Raven? If you're going to go for long range kiting or sniping, there is the Naga, which hits better, instantly, and does almost twice the DPS. Oh and can actually move around while cap stable (Unlike the Raven).
Cruise Missiles suck (And still will after the Missile tweaks). Ravens suck. (And we can only hope they get improved dramatically).
I will never take out a battleship that does less damage than something half its size (And when you take into account the damage cruise missiles do against smaller targets, that is absolutely the case). Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
443
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 14:55:00 -
[6183] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
As I showed, the Raven definitly have some advantages against the other BS, if you exclude Abaddon and Rokh (the only 2 BS with resist bonus which are very powerful, if not OP, for blob warfare)...
You're just being silly, you can't exclude the Rokh and Abaddon. You can't just pretend that they don't exist, and even if you could, you couldn't persuade your opponents also. All you're doing is saying that a ship is okay if we ignore all the ones better than it.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Ask yourselves, what qualities a Megathron, a Hyperion, a Maelstrom, a Tempest, a Dominix, a Typhoon, an Apocalypse or an Armageddon have against a Raven, especially for fleet ?
Most (yeah yeah Maelstrom) of these ships share something in common in fleet with the Raven - they're not used either, because they're inferior to the Rokh and Abaddon. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 16:45:00 -
[6184] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:The problem with the Raven for PvP, is the speed of the darn thing, the DPS it does, the time to target - which at these ranges means if you're facing a fleet with logistics, they have plenty of time to react.
And in terms of using it in a fleet with logistics support, the lack of resistances mean the amount it can tank is basically worthless.
Go and try Abaddon. That speed! Even Dramiel pilots have trouble catching this beast.
You're always free to show us Geddon/Apoc that has more tank than Raven. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
176
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 17:01:00 -
[6185] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:You're just being silly, you can't exclude the Rokh and Abaddon. You can't just pretend that they don't exist, and even if you could, you couldn't persuade your opponents also. All you're doing is saying that a ship is okay if we ignore all the ones better than it. Most (yeah yeah Maelstrom) of these ships share something in common in fleet with the Raven - they're not used either, because they're inferior to the Rokh and Abaddon. I'm not excluding these two BS, but you are excluding all the others.
Hearing you, the only way to make a ship viable for fleet is to give it a resist bonus. There is only two ships with resist bonus, and they are those you define as the best and the only usable ships for fleet.
There is 9 other BS than the 3 we are talking about, and none of them have a resist bonus. Though, they are not useless because of this.
There can only be one best ship in a defined use case, but we cant argue then that all the others are complete junk.
What I argue with the Raven is that it definitely have some unrivaled qualities. The problem it may face is that these qualities are not favoured by the metagames these days.
@Moonaura : you obviously haven't read any of the last 5 pages. What you are saying is plain wrong. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
168
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:25:00 -
[6186] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:[quote=Gypsio III]
What I argue with the Raven is that it definitely have some unrivaled qualities. The problem it may face is that these qualities are not favoured by the metagames these days.
@Moonaura : you obviously haven't read any of the last 5 pages. What you are saying is plain wrong.
Did the last 5 pages say it sucked, if not, I'm not sure what it's unrivalled qualities are. Cruise missiles damage sucks. Torpedos damage is great on paper, but in reality, only hits Battleships with their MWD but not actually moving, to do anything like close to full DPS.
- Its fitting sucks. Two high slots on a sniper? Pointless.
- Two high slots in close range, more useful, but with awful fitting you are unable to really fit to take advantage of them
- If you want to tank with it, at least one rig has to be fix the EM hole in addition to an EM module in the mid, so thats -1 mid slot and that doesn't address the other resistances at all.
- Absolutely no tank bonuses on the ship at all, not even active tank bonuses.
- Its speed, its one of the slowest Battleships, like all Caldari ships, its a racial trait (We're supposed to have good agility, but CCP have consistently given this agility bonuses to Gallente ships like the Talos and Oneiros instead in recent buffs due to all the tears about blasters).
- Torpedos. Absolutely the worst weapon platform in EvE. Slow. Cargo hold hungry and does only a fraction of its damage against moving and smaller signature targets and doesn't do the same damage that gunnery variants have.
If it had say, a bonus to its tank, or a bonus to explosion radius, it might be useful. If there we're missile low slot modules to tweak the explosion issues, then we might have something.
Your main benefit then is, its cheap? Well there is a reason its cheap. And its because it sucks. At least in PvP. There is zero demand for it.
Its a PvE boat, one that has long since been surpassed by the Rattlesnake, Gila, Golem and Raven CNR.
The T1 Raven needs a massive overhaul in the battleship review.
I'd love to find a use for them. 100% Caldari focused fleet PvP and FW: Join us.
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment
Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just excited to fly Caldari? |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:35:00 -
[6187] - Quote
I agree that the Caldari battleships needs some love and the the Raven description is just plain wrong, but aren't these ships lined up for some tiericide treatment in any case? I might be wrong on the last point, but either way they should be rebalancd to behave as a new player who has read some of the eve chronicles and backstory might expect them too.
Coming back to the main thread, missiles have always been underpowered as evidenced by an earlier post in which someone said that they offered the second best alpha in the game next to artiliieries. Thing is though, doesn't this mean that artillary weapons are over powered as after all we're looking for balance here. Artillary weapons don't have to wait as long as missiles to apply damage in any case so are doubly overpowered.
I don't mind them being over powered, but I think that missiles should be buffed to be their equal, not further nerfed to be the most inferior of all weapon systems.
As for the whole caldari shield question the most advanced shield systems belong to the minmater not the caldari as is claimed in the Eve backstory, you've only got to look at the Maelstrom for that with it's 8000 HP and 7.5% bonus to shield boosting per level. It can deploy power at sizeable range with it's projectiles and is in real terms everything that the Raven should be but is not.
It's the new players I feel sorry for. They might like the look of a caldari character as most new players tend to and if they try and play out the racial stereotype and train rails and missiles they will all die horribly and be ***** slapped hard across the cluster by people who know better. It' probably wont be much fun for them and will increase the rate of churn that CCP currently has when it comes to new players, joining, trying and quitting.
My final point is that nerfs cost ccp money in terms of lost subscriptions. No one who has trained hard for a skill or an ability to use a weapon likes to see it nerfed without an equivalent buff elsewhere. i.e. my heavy missiles don't do as much damage, are not as versatile against different size targets as they used to be and are incapable of going as far. I might forgive this if all launchers had an increase in ROF to make up for it or enlarged capacities so I don't have to reload as often.
I will most probably forgive the proposed Drake nerf in which it loses it's sheild resist bonus but gets a ROF bonus for the missiles etc. I may even get to like it if it has an increase to passive regen (I'd lovbe to see that) but then again this latter point wont happen as we all know Caldari have the most advanced shield systems of anyone, so no need. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:43:00 -
[6188] - Quote
To add to my previous post, none of the bonuses on any of the Caldari Battleships make any sense at all from a tactical perspective with the exception of the scorpion which as all of its bonuses in EM. Compare them to Gallente Battleships and their bonuses have a versatile tactical value for the ships intended role as do the Amarr and the Minmatar. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:46:00 -
[6189] - Quote
it is a bit strange they changed arties to be high alpha low ROF they should switch that with cruise missiles really might make them more desirable after all they have massive explosive warheads on them instead of smaller chunks of metal. And of course the excessive flight time of cruises are its main issue it should get the velocity treatment HM's are getting. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:47:00 -
[6190] - Quote
The drake nerfs don't bother me. It is far to good as a nano kiter, and heavy missiles are far to good in letting it do that role. But will it be much good for anything in the future?
It could still do great damage close range with HAMs, but the resistance nerf means its not as good anymore as a Ferox if you plan on using logistics backup.
We do have a use for the Raven, I tell a lie, as a smart bomber. But we can't use this in Faction Warfare defence, because Caldari Faction get all pissy about you hitting the warp in gate and landing beacon with smart bombs and give uber negative faction standings as a result.
So there is that... 100% Caldari focused fleet PvP and FW: Join us.
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment
Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just excited to fly Caldari? |
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:49:00 -
[6191] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:To add to my previous post, none of the bonuses on any of the Caldari Battleships make any sense at all from a tactical perspective with the exception of the scorpion which as all of its bonuses in EWAR. Compare them to Gallente Battleships and their bonuses have a versatile tactical value for the ships intended role as do the Amarr and the Minmatar.
The resistance bonus that many of the Caldari ships get is a big deal. This is what really enables the force multiplier effect of logistics ships when used in a Caldari fleet. The better the resistances, the more a ship can technically tank. It makes a profound difference.
So instead of one large shield transfer being placed on you, lower resistances mean you now need two, etc.
The Rokh right now, is perfect. I hope CCP don't change a damn thing with it. 100% Caldari focused fleet PvP and FW: Join us.
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment
Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just excited to fly Caldari? |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:55:00 -
[6192] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:To add to my previous post, none of the bonuses on any of the Caldari Battleships make any sense at all from a tactical perspective with the exception of the scorpion which as all of its bonuses in EWAR. Compare them to Gallente Battleships and their bonuses have a versatile tactical value for the ships intended role as do the Amarr and the Minmatar. The resistance bonus that many of the Caldari ships get is a big deal. This is what really enables the force multiplier effect of logistics ships when used in a Caldari fleet. The better the resistances, the more a ship can technically tank. It makes a profound difference. So instead of one large shield transfer being placed on you, lower resistances mean you now need two, etc. The Rokh right now, is perfect. I hope CCP don't change a damn thing with it.
To be fair I hadn't thought of that as I tend to work in small gangs and solo, I was thinking that a ship that is obviously a sniper wouoldnt need a resist bonus as it wasn't meant to get close too close to the enemy. But you're right and I retract my statement as incorrect, so that just leaves the Raven out of the Caldari ships as being tactically inferior. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:56:00 -
[6193] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Gypsio III wrote:You're just being silly, you can't exclude the Rokh and Abaddon. You can't just pretend that they don't exist, and even if you could, you couldn't persuade your opponents also. All you're doing is saying that a ship is okay if we ignore all the ones better than it. Most (yeah yeah Maelstrom) of these ships share something in common in fleet with the Raven - they're not used either, because they're inferior to the Rokh and Abaddon. I'm not excluding these two BS, but you are excluding all the others. Hearing you, the only way to make a ship viable for fleet is to give it a resist bonus. There is only two ships with resist bonus, and they are those you define as the best and the only usable ships for fleet.
Clearly, there is a reason why resistances is so valuable in fleets. And trust me, it is, by far 'the' stat that makes a great fleet ship. Why? Because of the effect logistics have on ships with high resistances. Higher resistances, the less logistics you need to tank an enemy fleet.
This is why it is being taken away from the Drake. 100% Caldari focused fleet PvP and FW: Join us.
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment
Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just excited to fly Caldari? |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:59:00 -
[6194] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Moonaura wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:To add to my previous post, none of the bonuses on any of the Caldari Battleships make any sense at all from a tactical perspective with the exception of the scorpion which as all of its bonuses in EWAR. Compare them to Gallente Battleships and their bonuses have a versatile tactical value for the ships intended role as do the Amarr and the Minmatar. The resistance bonus that many of the Caldari ships get is a big deal. This is what really enables the force multiplier effect of logistics ships when used in a Caldari fleet. The better the resistances, the more a ship can technically tank. It makes a profound difference. So instead of one large shield transfer being placed on you, lower resistances mean you now need two, etc. The Rokh right now, is perfect. I hope CCP don't change a damn thing with it. To be fair I hadn't thought of that as I tend to work in small gangs and solo, I was thinking that a ship that is obviously a sniper wouoldnt need a resist bonus as it wasn't meant to get close too close to the enemy. But you're right and I retract my statement as incorrect, so that just leaves the Raven out of the Caldari ships as being tactically inferior.
Agreed, a sniper boat shouldn't need shield resistances. The raven doesn't need them. But the problem is, apart from Alpha arty, sniping is dead.
Kiting is more useful in smaller gangs, even battleship gangs. But I can't see how the Raven as it stands can fill that role. CCP certainly don't want to make it a torp boat - they are talking of making the Typhoon that boat instead.
What it needs is more DPS, even better missile velocity bonus than now and an explosion signature bonus so it can hit stuff smaller than a battleship. 100% Caldari focused fleet PvP and FW: Join us.
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment
Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just excited to fly Caldari? |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 19:06:00 -
[6195] - Quote
I think my general grief is this:
The missile changes do absolutely nothing to improve Battleship missile boats except the removal of T2 drawbacks.
They need more: More damage for Cruise missiles.
Less damage for Torpedos but with far better explosion radius and explosion velocity. 100% Caldari focused fleet PvP and FW: Join us.
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment
Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just excited to fly Caldari? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 19:26:00 -
[6196] - Quote
Moonaura wrote: If you want to tank with it, at least one rig has to be fix the EM hole in addition to an EM module in the mid, so thats -1 mid slot and that doesn't address the other resistances at all. For close range this is a must. You should learn to tank...
105k EHP: 1x T2 LSE 2x T2 Invul 1x T2 EM Ward Field 3x T1 CDFE 75,9/63,8/72,8/77,4
97,2k EHP: 1x T2 LSE 2x T2 Invul 1x T2 EM Ward Field 1x T1 Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer 2x T1 CDFE 77,9/63,8/72,8/77,4
Actually if you wanted to get resists as high as possible you should use that one rig slot for anti-thermal rig, not anti-em. |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
171
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 19:45:00 -
[6197] - Quote
I learnt to post with my actual player account... so tanking should be possible. 100% Caldari focused fleet PvP and FW: Join us.
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment
Is that a rocket in your pocket, or are you just excited to fly Caldari? |
Ubat Batuk
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 20:16:00 -
[6198] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote:The missiles nerf is totally ******. A drake already has such a low DPS! balancing of what? little DPS with LESSER DPS? Have you tried a nighthawk for example? train forever and a damn low DPS. You are just making it a nightmare for people doing missions. How intelligent you people are with all these ridiculous nerfs? just focus your time expanding the game with new features instead of getting people pissed. Of course it's a lot easier to set a configuration parameter than develop and test new stuff! Do you not understand that people get pissed and stop playing? You are disenfranchising people in favour of some groups... You are just making Caldari ships not viable. Or perhaps every ship should cost 1-3b to be effective. Remember that PLEX greed is going to bite back at you badly...
I demand all my accounts missiles skills to be refunded.
It's becoming just like Dust beta, at first it was incredibly fun and later it became a nightmare to play due all nerfs and I got so pissed that I had to stop playing. Do you realize that Nighthawk is "broken"? Do you know what "power creep" means? Since it seems to be quite difficult for some... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_creep
Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... |
Ubat Batuk
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 20:19:00 -
[6199] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Faora Zod wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wait, are these changes supposed to increase or decrease our profits? You lost me there and I want to make sure I'm part of the correct shadowy conspiracy. In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?!
Just because you are denying the conspiracy does not mean there is not one, that is how shadow conspiracies work! CCP is a business, and the whole idea of a business is to make a profit, otherwise it a charity/nonprofit org. So yeah Fozzie you guys are trying to get us to spend money. You would think that instead of trying to keep our interest in playing eve you would actually give us something new and interest in the game, rather than change what we already have and call it balancing. Instead of wasting your time "balancing" the missile system, why don't you guys get to work on making us faction Battlecruiers? Who wouldn't want a CN Farox (a CN Drake would be even more awesome but useless with these "balanced" Missiles), or a Angel Cyclone, or Sansha Harbinger. or Come up with NEW skills to help the raging players who whine about the Drake/Tengu's to keep range. Want to solve the ability of tengus and Drakes to keep range? slow them down! Fix the 3 different sized AB and MWD to where they can only fit on the ships they are intended for, 1mn on frigs and destroyers, 10mn on cruisers and Bcs, and 100 mn's on Battleships and bigger. makes alot more since than changing the HML since it would work on all the races ships. There are other and better ways to keep us interested than "balancing" the ships we already have. Look at it this way, theyre adding 4 new battlecruisers to the game, and a whole new weapon platform! New BattlecruisersBrutix Harbinger Prophecy Ferox Where they really in the game before? really? How often did you see any of these ships flying around? why? because they're totally eclipsed by the current drake and hurricane, this will no longer be the case. New Weapon PlatformHAM Once again, how many times have you seen a ship sporting these flying around? After the change, you may have some new viable equipment to equip Also maybe we can try out the sacrilege again, maybe after the HAM changes it wont totally suck anymore!! Oh look, we have new stuff to play with . . .
So how about no matter what ship you take it's the same? i don't like that.
|
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 20:34:00 -
[6200] - Quote
Raven tanking is not as good as Rokh, but can be compared to Abaddon.
Skill needed to fit a proper T2 raven is outrageous low Price of hull is 1:2 (Rokh/Aba) DPS is greater in any case. Don't say nothing has changed apart drawsback. T2 cruise are Buffed !
So what you've got for the price of 1xRokh hull ?
-T2 fitted raven -implant +3% -2 free high slots -more iskies for exotic dancers
A platform that :
PRO - never miss - 0 to 220 km range full damage - 0 to 170 km range heavy damage - 0 to 100 km range Fast anti-frig damage - cheap and "rather" expandable
CON - Bad platform advertising - No pure alpha strike as it's on paper. - Effective EHP a bit lower - Missile flight time calculations to make it effective
As always it depends the situation
- VS high alpha fleet, Raven would be fast orbiting at close range, Alpha Fury Missiles Strike could happen within 30km
- VS MWD Drakes and above : between 2 and 5km signature radius using 1 or 2 TP ==> Fury 100% damage even at 900m/s
- VS MWD or AB Tengu : 100% damage with TP and Precision/Fury Cruise.
Raven has Range/ROF bonuses. How can be that worse than unbonussed abaddon ? I'm sure if some experts FCs would take a look after Dec 4th, it could result something very interesting. |
|
Lili Lu
588
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 20:36:00 -
[6201] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 20:36:00 -
[6202] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:Sigras wrote:Faora Zod wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wait, are these changes supposed to increase or decrease our profits? You lost me there and I want to make sure I'm part of the correct shadowy conspiracy. In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?!
Just because you are denying the conspiracy does not mean there is not one, that is how shadow conspiracies work! CCP is a business, and the whole idea of a business is to make a profit, otherwise it a charity/nonprofit org. So yeah Fozzie you guys are trying to get us to spend money. You would think that instead of trying to keep our interest in playing eve you would actually give us something new and interest in the game, rather than change what we already have and call it balancing. Instead of wasting your time "balancing" the missile system, why don't you guys get to work on making us faction Battlecruiers? Who wouldn't want a CN Farox (a CN Drake would be even more awesome but useless with these "balanced" Missiles), or a Angel Cyclone, or Sansha Harbinger. or Come up with NEW skills to help the raging players who whine about the Drake/Tengu's to keep range. Want to solve the ability of tengus and Drakes to keep range? slow them down! Fix the 3 different sized AB and MWD to where they can only fit on the ships they are intended for, 1mn on frigs and destroyers, 10mn on cruisers and Bcs, and 100 mn's on Battleships and bigger. makes alot more since than changing the HML since it would work on all the races ships. There are other and better ways to keep us interested than "balancing" the ships we already have. Look at it this way, theyre adding 4 new battlecruisers to the game, and a whole new weapon platform! New BattlecruisersBrutix Harbinger Prophecy Ferox Where they really in the game before? really? How often did you see any of these ships flying around? why? because they're totally eclipsed by the current drake and hurricane, this will no longer be the case. New Weapon PlatformHAM Once again, how many times have you seen a ship sporting these flying around? After the change, you may have some new viable equipment to equip Also maybe we can try out the sacrilege again, maybe after the HAM changes it wont totally suck anymore!! Oh look, we have new stuff to play with . . . So how about no matter what ship you take it's the same? i don't like that.
I agree, that would not be balance, that would be uniformity, I've posted along those lines many times during this thread. I don't mind any ship or weapon system having an edge, even a large edge as long as it has a corresponding disadvantage to go along with it. Like a superhero having a special weakness, now that would be balance. These changes do not represent that but are rather an attempt to make everything the same. This is uniformity... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 21:30:00 -
[6203] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard...
Oh, you use Drakes... Most likely multiple Drakes doing multiple level 4s at the same time.
T1 battlecruisers were never meant for running level 4s. |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 00:09:00 -
[6204] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining.
You should start thinking like a NEW player who has only been playing a couple of months, do you really think with the way the market is now that a newbie is going to be able to afford the couple of hundred million it takes to fit a buy and fit a BS to do level 4s? Best day of my eve life was when i soloed my first level 4 in a Drake, i knew i was here to stay. If they are wanting to keep this game fun and interesting like CCP Fozzie claims it needs to stay fun and interesting for NEW players too. You slow down how fast it takes them to feel like the accomplished something on their own and they are going t o lose interest. |
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 00:39:00 -
[6205] - Quote
Nope, you're wrong. New players won't stop playing because their Drake can't solo a Lvl4.
when i was "young", i had choice : Skill further than battlecruiser, or stick with this low dps high tanking s**t I loved the drake, but... it was not meant to solo L4 anyway.
Tried with a Scorpion, lost it. Tried with a Rokh and 425mm. Almost lost it (WTF my Beautiful Police Stick has terrible dps/range/capacitor !) Then finally, i resigned myself to buy and fit a Raven. I hated the design but it worked pretty well. You just can't AFK with this bird. But it's perfect to do L4, as long as you don't want to rush them with your ex-80M isk ship.
What i love with CCP, that they know the word NERF / Balanced. Your stuff isn't obsolete after every patches and everybody's happy. (not counting guys flying a ship they know it would be nerfed someday (aka Drake) ) |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 01:19:00 -
[6206] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining. You should start thinking like a NEW player who has only been playing a couple of months, do you really think with the way the market is now that a newbie is going to be able to afford the couple of hundred million it takes to buy and fit a BS to do level 4s? Best day of my eve life was when i soloed my first level 4 in a Drake, i knew i was here to stay. If they are wanting to keep this game fun and interesting like CCP Fozzie claims it needs to stay fun and interesting for NEW players too. You slow down how fast it takes them to feel like the accomplished something on their own and they are going t o lose interest.
would also help if caldari actualy had a good bs for missions in the first place. |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 01:28:00 -
[6207] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:I agree that the Caldari battleships needs some love and the the Raven description is just plain wrong, but aren't these ships lined up for some tiericide treatment in any case? I might be wrong on the last point, but either way they should be rebalancd to behave as a new player who has read some of the eve chronicles and backstory might expect them too.
Coming back to the main thread, missiles have always been underpowered as evidenced by an earlier post in which someone said that they offered the second best alpha in the game next to artiliieries. Thing is though, doesn't this mean that artillary weapons are over powered as after all we're looking for balance here. Artillary weapons don't have to wait as long as missiles to apply damage in any case so are doubly overpowered.
I don't mind them being over powered, but I think that missiles should be buffed to be their equal, not further nerfed to be the most inferior of all weapon systems.
As for the whole caldari shield question the most advanced shield systems belong to the minmater not the caldari as is claimed in the Eve backstory, you've only got to look at the Maelstrom for that with it's 8000 HP and 7.5% bonus to shield boosting per level. It can deploy power at sizeable range with it's projectiles and is in real terms everything that the Raven should be but is not.
It's the new players I feel sorry for. They might like the look of a caldari character as most new players tend to and if they try and play out the racial stereotype and train rails and missiles they will all die horribly and be ***** slapped hard across the cluster by people who know better. It' probably wont be much fun for them and will increase the rate of churn that CCP currently has when it comes to new players, joining, trying and quitting.
My final point is that nerfs cost ccp money in terms of lost subscriptions. No one who has trained hard for a skill or an ability to use a weapon likes to see it nerfed without an equivalent buff elsewhere. i.e. my heavy missiles don't do as much damage, are not as versatile against different size targets as they used to be and are incapable of going as far. I might forgive this if all launchers had an increase in ROF to make up for it or enlarged capacities so I don't have to reload as often.
I will most probably forgive the proposed Drake nerf in which it loses it's sheild resist bonus but gets a ROF bonus for the missiles etc. I may even get to like it if it has an increase to passive regen (I'd lovbe to see that) but then again this latter point wont happen as we all know Caldari have the most advanced shield systems of anyone, so no need.
so basicaly what your saying here is minmatar have the fastest, most alpha and the most advanced shield systems i so wanna call op here but i dont have to cause they were enslaved by armarr but seriously. if minmatar have the highest alph and the fastest ships something should be lacking in my opinion they should have an inferior shield to a race that uses ONLY shield. the most advanced shield systems dont belong on a race that cant decide if there armour or shield tankers. |
Lili Lu
588
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 02:10:00 -
[6208] - Quote
serras bang wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining. You should start thinking like a NEW player who has only been playing a couple of months, do you really think with the way the market is now that a newbie is going to be able to afford the couple of hundred million it takes to buy and fit a BS to do level 4s? Best day of my eve life was when i soloed my first level 4 in a Drake, i knew i was here to stay. If they are wanting to keep this game fun and interesting like CCP Fozzie claims it needs to stay fun and interesting for NEW players too. You slow down how fast it takes them to feel like the accomplished something on their own and they are going t o lose interest. would also help if caldari actualy had a good bs for missions in the first place. Yeesh, kids these days. The Raven was the primier level 4 boat for many years. It's fine as a level 4 ship. Much better than a Drake. |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 02:51:00 -
[6209] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:serras bang wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining. You should start thinking like a NEW player who has only been playing a couple of months, do you really think with the way the market is now that a newbie is going to be able to afford the couple of hundred million it takes to buy and fit a BS to do level 4s? Best day of my eve life was when i soloed my first level 4 in a Drake, i knew i was here to stay. If they are wanting to keep this game fun and interesting like CCP Fozzie claims it needs to stay fun and interesting for NEW players too. You slow down how fast it takes them to feel like the accomplished something on their own and they are going t o lose interest. would also help if caldari actualy had a good bs for missions in the first place. Yeesh, kids these days. The Raven was the primier level 4 boat for many years. It's fine as a level 4 ship. Much better than a Drake. edit - and most people do have to spend a couple hundred million for a BS. Unless, as you seem to expect, Faora, that every new player should train Caldari and fly a drake. But that's not a balanced game. Which is my whole point.
No i don't expect new players to want to train straight into a Drake, but I do think the best choice for a new player is to train into a Battlecruiser no matter the race, I might be bias in my view, but than again I am not a fan of Battleships I find them to be to big and slow for my taste but to each their own. Honestly i quit using a Drake for lvl 4s as soon as I could fly a Cerb, the RoF was much better, than i upgrade that to a Nighthawk which i still think is one of the best mission/plexing ships you can get. But still that is my view on PVE, PVP is a totally different subject, and game play for me. Guns all the way |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
5
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 03:06:00 -
[6210] - Quote
Something else that I have been thinking about is how our actually weapon systems work in the real world. Missiles do more damage and have better range than guns, granted bullets move faster and it takes a lot more of then to take a target down they are still an effective way to blow **** up. Hell if you think about it the range on lasers should be Infinity since all lasers really are is light, granted the damage should weaken the further the light travels, but still there is no limit really to how far light can travel. AND we are in space, which means even less friction, ..... That is what you guys should be doing Fozzie is increase every things range and take in to account the amount of resistance that s placed on the speed projectile.
FREE OUR MARKET, REMOVE THE PLEX! |
|
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
207
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 03:39:00 -
[6211] - Quote
serras bang wrote: would also help if caldari actualy had a good bs for missions in the first place.
........
You lost a lot of credibility here. Raven was absolute king of L4's for years. Mach and Vargur are considered by many to be the best nowadays (many also think a nerf will probalby eventually hit the Mach), But navy Raven is still right up there, and may even return to top or 2nd place after the incoming update.
If you like playing it safer, the Navy Issue Scorpion is an absolutely absurd omni tank, and still blasts through L4's fast enough.
Tengu's and Drakes can do them, but were never meant to do L4's as well (or at least as fast) as they currently can.
~Z |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
370
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 08:40:00 -
[6212] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: I'm not excluding these two BS, but you are excluding all the others.
Hearing you, the only way to make a ship viable for fleet is to give it a resist bonus. There is only two ships with resist bonus, and they are those you define as the best and the only usable ships for fleet.
There is 9 other BS than the 3 we are talking about, and none of them have a resist bonus. Though, they are not useless because of this.
There can only be one best ship in a defined use case, but we cant argue then that all the others are complete junk.
What I argue with the Raven is that it definitely have some unrivaled qualities. The problem it may face is that these qualities are not favoured by the metagames these days.
@Moonaura : you obviously haven't read any of the last 5 pages. What you are saying is plain wrong.
Well said and true.
Only a fool would say that the Raven could not possibly have some use, and that a fleet could never be designed around it.
The basic idea behind sound tactics is to apply your strengths against your enemies weaknesses more effectively than he applies his strengths against your weaknesses. This job becomes much easier when you have more strengths to potentially exploit. In the case of the Raven, well, it has basically only one: it can shoot a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way.
Obviously this can this be exploited.
But secondary questions are important: Is this advantage worth the cost? How easy is it to set up a scenario in which this advantage can be utilized, and assuming everything goes perfectly how well does it actually work? How easy is it to counter, and what can you then do in response? Before you throw billions of isk worth of battleships onto the field it's probably a good idea to have thought all that through.
People have done just that, and they didn't like the answers. Which is why you see Ravens (and a dozen other Caldari hulls) decorating hangars.
|
OT Smithers
BLOMI
370
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 08:51:00 -
[6213] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining.
Every other race has functioning command ships and HACs. But then you knew that. And in any case, when we are talking Caldari mission battleships those are broken as well. You need the faction battleships to do the job. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 09:15:00 -
[6214] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining. Every other race has functioning command ships and HACs. But then you knew that. And in any case, when we are talking Caldari mission battleships those are broken as well. You need the faction battleships to do the job.
Please, show us Zealot/Sacrilege that can solo level 4s. Yeah, Sac has the tank (dual reps) but in that configuration it doesn't have much damage...
Ever got your Zealot webbed by spider drones?
Would like to see that Damnation too that can put out more than 200 dps and tank level 4s at the same time. |
Matzumisi
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 10:09:00 -
[6215] - Quote
[Sacrilege, sacr hams copy 2] Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II Damage Control II Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
10MN Afterburner II Large Peroxide Capacitor Power Cell Target Painter II Cap Recharger II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Rage Heavy Assault Missile Salvager II
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Warhead Calefaction Catalyst II
Hobgoblin II x3
Just a fast switch from another fit. Enough speed, tank and damage to do lvl 4. Did i use it to run lvl 4? yes. Do i use it now? Nope, i use tengu. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 10:48:00 -
[6216] - Quote
I would be ready to bet that my beam Baddon would beat those in completion times.
Yes, I'm fully aware that even Geddon is better for pve than Baddon. |
Gunner
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 11:43:00 -
[6217] - Quote
WTB Tracking Disruptor II BPO |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 12:47:00 -
[6218] - Quote
Meolyne wrote:Nope, you're wrong. New players won't stop playing because their Drake can't solo a Lvl4.
when i was "young", i had choice : Skill further than battlecruiser, or stick with this low dps high tanking s**t I loved the drake, but... it was not meant to solo L4 anyway.
Tried with a Scorpion, lost it. Tried with a Rokh and 425mm. Almost lost it (WTF my Beautiful Police Stick has terrible dps/range/capacitor !) Then finally, i resigned myself to buy and fit a Raven. I hated the design but it worked pretty well. You just can't AFK with this bird. But it's perfect to do L4, as long as you don't want to rush them with your ex-80M isk ship.
What i love with CCP, that they know the word NERF / Balanced. Your stuff isn't obsolete after every patches and everybody's happy. (not counting guys flying a ship they know it would be nerfed someday (aka Drake) ) *** If you cannot do lvl4's in a Drake like it is now, you do it wrong. Very wrong. Lol, Caldari should train up to a BS to do lvl4? Then Matari should train up to BS to do dmg. How does this sound? And how many unsubscribes and ragequits would a such measure bring? But must admit on one thing. CCP knows the word NERF. Badly the word Balanced not quite so well.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
178
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 12:57:00 -
[6219] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: People have done just that, and they didn't like the answers. Which is why you see Ravens (and a dozen other Caldari hulls) decorating hangars.
I don't know what people did, though you are definitely ignoring a lot of the Raven strengths. Range is not its only strength. Just look at the fit I showed : it's the king at 70km and beyond, and with the buff CM are receiving, it will only be better.
Problem is the MOTO in blob warfare is "resistance". Why ? Because that multiply the strength of your logistic ships. Should someone find a way to counter these logistic ships, or a nerf hit this combo (logi+resist), and this paradigm fall, leaving the place for something else. |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 12:57:00 -
[6220] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:serras bang wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining. You should start thinking like a NEW player who has only been playing a couple of months, do you really think with the way the market is now that a newbie is going to be able to afford the couple of hundred million it takes to buy and fit a BS to do level 4s? Best day of my eve life was when i soloed my first level 4 in a Drake, i knew i was here to stay. If they are wanting to keep this game fun and interesting like CCP Fozzie claims it needs to stay fun and interesting for NEW players too. You slow down how fast it takes them to feel like the accomplished something on their own and they are going t o lose interest. would also help if caldari actualy had a good bs for missions in the first place. Yeesh, kids these days. The Raven was the primier level 4 boat for many years. It's fine as a level 4 ship. Much better than a Drake. edit - and most people do have to spend a couple hundred million for a BS. Unless, as you seem to expect, Faora, that every new player should train Caldari and fly a drake. But that's not a balanced game. Which is my whole point. *** Maybe CCP must fix things and ppl could fly other race ships? And do a real balance? Simply refuse to understand why breaking good things equals improving bad things, except there's a idiotic solution needed. |
|
serras bang
Lucien Coven
48
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 12:59:00 -
[6221] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:serras bang wrote: would also help if caldari actualy had a good bs for missions in the first place.
........ You lost a lot of credibility here. Raven was absolute king of L4's for years. Mach and Vargur are considered by many to be the best nowadays (many also think a nerf will probalby eventually hit the Mach), But navy Raven is still right up there, and may even return to top or 2nd place after the incoming update. If you like playing it safer, the Navy Issue Scorpion is an absolutely absurd omni tank, and still blasts through L4's fast enough. Tengu's and Drakes can do them, but were never meant to do L4's as well (or at least as fast) as they currently can. ~Z
no cause even a cnr with an invuln and a em hardners still dosent pull the resists above 70% i.e bad and a raven has to be mission specific tanked with causes problem in other missions were you encounter all dmg.
theres a few things the raven but especialy the cnr needs the cnr need its mid that is taken up by a cap recharger to go to tank witch means it needs an increase in cap. and it would also be nice to get a low that generaly have to house a cap flux to change to a mid so we can mount a tp on it or perhaps an ab. so really the ravens need some work before there considerd mission worthy again. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
178
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 13:09:00 -
[6222] - Quote
serras bang wrote: no cause even a cnr with an invuln and a em hardners still dosent pull the resists above 70% i.e bad and a raven has to be mission specific tanked with causes problem in other missions were you encounter all dmg.
Haha, a few page more, and we will hear that shield need a buff because of the unfair EM hole... |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 13:24:00 -
[6223] - Quote
You won't see a removal of the EM hole on caldari ships. What would then the hisec gankers do? |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 14:18:00 -
[6224] - Quote
Just a few (UTOPIAN) thoughts on em resistance and shields.
To me it would only seem logical that the Caldari (more or less specializing in/relying on shields on the majority of their ships) would have found a way no close the em hole in the shields.
The logic is that if the Minmatar can do it like they have on the T2 ships, then the Caldari should also be able to do it. And the Minmatar is not even specializing in shields to the same extent as the Caldari since Minmatar has both shield tanked and armor tanked ships.
I know that the T2 resists are based on countering the damage of the racial enemy, but I think it would still be logical that the Caldari would have found a way to close the em hole in the shields.
Therefore, a general em resist on all Caldari ships (only Caldari) would seem logical to me. Of course, the level of such resists should be fairly balanced.
I know very well that this is probably not going to happen since EVE is not always a game built on logic.
There are probably many who will disagree, but anyway these are just my (UTOPIAN) thoughts.
|
Lili Lu
588
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:20:00 -
[6225] - Quote
OMG this thread So many posts by folks who are either too new to the game to understand how it developed or too uncaring to try to figure out the design paradigms and backstory that go into the game.
Look, Caldari shields aren't going to totally lose their em hole. I already posted this, but I guess it hasn't sunk in to Serras and the last couple posters. The tech II resists are focused on two damage types as determined based on the preferred primary and secondary damage infliction by the opposing faction, Thus:
Amarr tech II resists - pirmary bonus explo, secondary bonus kinetic (btw this leaves the base em and therm holes on shield and no help for the low thermal on armor);
Caldari tech II resists - primary bonus to thermal, secondary to kinetic (Gallente used to have more thermal bonuses, and the highest drone damage comes from thermal drones, then of course there is high kentic resists against gallnete hybrids);
Gallente tech II resists - primary bonus to kinetic, secondary to thermal (Caldari have had a fair number of kinetic missile bonused ships, which appears to be getting quickly reduced and may disappear, and of course the kinetic resists are useful against Caldari hybrid damage);
Minmatar tech II resists - primary bonus to em, secondary to thermal (Amarr lasers are em heavy with a thermal component secondary. This results in the on first glance anomalous Minmatar tech II em shield resists, while for tech II armor leaving the base large kinetic and explo holes).
Odd looking but entirely consistent things thus happen with the tech II resists. A minmatar tech II trying to construct an armor tanbk is left with two huge holes to fill (10% explo and 20% kinetic), ditto a tech II AMarr ship that might want to shield tank (e.g. Curse). Concurrently both races have rather much more advantageous resists in their preferred tanking modality, Minmatar shields left with a 40% kinetic hole and Amarr armor left with a 35% thermal hole.
Caldari tech II shields gain a huge thermal resist and the kinetic resist gets even better. They are left with explo at 50% and em at 0%. This is no big deal ffs. All it takes is one em hardener to even that picture out and start slapping on invulns to your heart's content. Anyone whining about tech II resists is simply not getting how they are constructed and needs to adjust to the fact that noone is going to get a wonderful exactly even and very high base resist on their tech II ships. Everyone is going to have a hole somewhere and conversely a joke damage that they can sluff off with a laugh. For Caldari tech II that is thermal. So don't fear the ogres, heh.
Turning to the level 4 discussion:
Level 4s should not be about being lazy, warping into a room, sitting like a lump, not caring about triggers, and just target, press f1, and wait for the target to slowly die to HMs. Risk aversion is all well and good, but it has gone overboard with the Drake level 4 phenomenon. Prepare uranus for the eventual BC shield regen nerf anyway. Learn that damage application is a tank. A much more thrilling and rewarding tank as well. That is what the raven-kind (yes even the base raven) are about. That is why prior to the Drake they were on top of the pve food chain. Stop expecting cruise missiles to kill frigates and cruisers even in missions. You have a drone bay. Train some drone skills for tech II medium and light drones and have those doing most of the damage against the small stuff. Cruises are still very good weapons against BC and BS mission rats.
Command ships are divided between a 3 booster class or a combat focused class. The combat focused ones are all currently underwhelming (yes, it is not just the Nighthawk) except for the Sleipnir. If you have been reading all the dev blogs and other threads in F&ID there are big changes coming to command ships. I can't be arsed atm to provide a link, find it for yourself. Suffice to say "soon" (probably a year or a little more) they will be more uniform in role. That is both classes with have the native ability to fit multiple links it's just that their combat focus will remain different. And I would bet they may all gain in beefiness except for the Damnation which is already true beast in ehp and the ability to bask in logistic love.
As for the fellow that posted the Sacrilege and Damnation mission fits, kudos. That is creativity. That is what this game seems to sorely lack atm. And it is what I did years ago in missions. I started out flying Amarr (and Minmatar). I encountered the porblem of how to survive the level 4 AE bonus room. My solution at the time was to use a Sacrilege because at that time HAMs had much more range. Then HAM range was heavily ner uh rebalanced to be in line with other short range medium weapons. So I then constructed a Damantion for it (range bonus ftw). Of course not too long after I said I'm going to use that Damnation in pvp instead, soz . . .
The game is not predicated on providing you with a perfect ship that can do everything. To the extent the Drake was almost able to do everything it was a sad mistake. One that is being rectified partially with this nerf to HMs. Pray it is not rectified further Although, I think, it will be when the rebalancing hits BCs. Adapt, discover the new ship possibilities of this whole rebalancing project, and adapt. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
233
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 16:41:00 -
[6226] - Quote
I'm still "new to the game" but I can still remember when you stopped outside of Sankkasen VII - M10 and counted ships, 7 out of 10 were Ravens or CNRs. Rest were Navy Scorps and Golems + few odd Amarr/Minmatar BS here and there. |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 17:09:00 -
[6227] - Quote
@Lili Lu I acknowledge that the T2 resists are based on countering the damage of the racial enemy/opposing faction and that the closing of the em hole in the shields is very unlikely to happen. This was stated in my previous post.
Although this is fully in line with game mechanics / development, I personally just do not think that it is fully logical that a shield based race has not closed the hole in the defense it relies upon most GÇô especially when shield em resist does exist GÇô though granted this is T2 resist. This is just my personal opinion, and it is not likely to change anything.
However, as with everything in eve we just have to live with it and adapt to it if you want to play the game. |
Lili Lu
589
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 17:30:00 -
[6228] - Quote
Unseen Spectre wrote:@Lili Lu I acknowledge that the T2 resists are based on countering the damage of the racial enemy/opposing faction and that the closing of the em hole in the shields is very unlikely to happen. This was stated in my previous post.
Although this is fully in line with game mechanics / development, I personally just do not think that it is fully logical that a shield based race has not closed the hole in the defense it relies upon most GÇô especially when shield em resist does exist GÇô though granted this is T2 resist. This is just my personal opinion, and it is not likely to change anything.
However, as with everything in eve we just have to live with it and adapt to it if you want to play the game.
Ah, but those Minmatar are very closely guarding that secret on em resistance. Meanwhile the Minmatar haven't figured out how to gain more base kinetic or explo resists on their shields and armor, even though when they fight their own pirates they are often hit with that damage.
My kingdom for the lack of better spies . . . |
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
20
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 17:35:00 -
[6229] - Quote
CNR no needs to fit specific damage resistance if you're flying it T2 (+ Caldari BCS) It has 9 Virtual Cruise Launchers + 1 large turret This is overkill with cruise fury. My missiles does 510 damage each on TQ, and 580 on Retribution. (no resistance) Precision Cruise will come handy as they're much better than skilled Fury Heavy on drake.
It's also much more expensive than T2 drake. but... it's still the king of close/snipe, excluding pirate ships. |
Unseen Spectre
Shadow Eye Ops
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 18:16:00 -
[6230] - Quote
@Lili Lu Well the Minmatar probably stole the technology from the Caldari anyway by abducting the Caldari scientists who knew how to make em shield resists work :) And since they are relying on both armor and shield tanking ships the Minmatar obviously have not found a way to make a standard serial implementation cost efficient enough to their shield tanking ships. Jokes aside, it is clear that we are of different opinions on this issue, but I am sure that whatever we think CCP is going to choose design the game as they see fit. Have a nice day :) |
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.24 23:05:00 -
[6231] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:
Maybe CCP must fix things and ppl could fly other race ships? And do a real balance? Simply refuse to understand why breaking good things equals improving bad things, except there's a idiotic solution needed.
What are you thinking?!?! We MUST stay races specific in our training! The Idea of someone spending a couple of months train all the racial cruisers to 3 than Battle Cruisers to 5, that is just unheard of, what is next people training missiles, guns and drones?!?!? |
serras bang
Lucien Coven
48
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 02:55:00 -
[6232] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:serras bang wrote: no cause even a cnr with an invuln and a em hardners still dosent pull the resists above 70% i.e bad and a raven has to be mission specific tanked with causes problem in other missions were you encounter all dmg.
Haha, a few page more, and we will hear that shield need a buff because of the unfair EM hole...
never did say that i said give it more cap so we can use the mid thats taken up with a cap booster with another invuln problem solved and as i said moveint the utility hi or enoug cap to move a low to a med slot for a tp wouldnt so amiss either but i can only hope and prey for another mid. |
OldWolf69
GRIM MARCH SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 04:54:00 -
[6233] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:
Maybe CCP must fix things and ppl could fly other race ships? And do a real balance? Simply refuse to understand why breaking good things equals improving bad things, except there's a idiotic solution needed.
What are you thinking?!?! We MUST stay races specific in our training! The Idea of someone spending a couple of months train all the racial cruisers to 3 than Battle Cruisers to 5, that is just unheard of, what is next people training missiles, guns and drones?!?!? *** This wants to be irony, or simple lack of understanding of what i mean?
|
Ajunta Pal
Sith Wannabies Annonymous
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 06:42:00 -
[6234] - Quote
sounds more like sarcasm... |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
370
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 08:08:00 -
[6235] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:OT Smithers wrote: People have done just that, and they didn't like the answers. Which is why you see Ravens (and a dozen other Caldari hulls) decorating hangars.
I don't know what people did, though you are definitely ignoring a lot of the Raven strengths. Range is not its only strength. Just look at the fit I showed : it's the king at 70km and beyond, and with the buff CM are receiving, it will only be better. Problem is the MOTO in blob warfare is "resistance". Why ? Because that multiply the strength of your logistic ships. Should someone find a way to counter these logistic ships, or a nerf hit this combo (logi+resist), and this paradigm fall, leaving the place for something else.
Since you refuse to listen to the people who CAN fly it, go one and experience the wonders of this bad boy for yourself. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 10:43:00 -
[6236] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Since you refuse to listen to the people who CAN fly it, go one and experience the wonders of this bad boy for yourself.
Why should battleships be solo pwning machines? |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
181
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 11:35:00 -
[6237] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:Since you refuse to listen to the people who CAN fly it, go one and experience the wonders of this bad boy for yourself. Once again...
I don't have 6 months to lose only to prove something to uncreative caldari pilots... And I don't have a fleet at disposal to prove that a Raven fleet do work.
My point stand : the Raven do have clear advantages for 70km+ ranges, which are usefull ranges, and damage delay is not a problem, or it would be one too with Drake and Tengu. CML dps is NOT BAD. In fact, it's the BEST at 70km and beyond. Tank is NOT BAD. In fact, you need triple plated BS to have something better (6% better with the Armageddon, not that much), or resist bonus.
And still, nobody was able to tell me why so much hate on the Raven. Of course it don't deserve cheering, but, by far, it's not a bad ship.
So why is it not used ? IMO, because of reputation about damage delay (old time concern, but habits take time to change,a lot of time) ; because of the Tengu being better (same dps, better application, enough range, better resists, same or better ehp, more speed or a lot less signature ; there's no reason to fly a CML Raven when you can fly a Tengu, and people already have HML skills because of the omnipotence of the Drake) ; because FC are pissed off with HML Drake doing everything (I saw it) ; because alliances have too many isks ; because caldari pilots are bad and uncreative ; because of blob warfare emphasizing resistance ; because as much as shield can be OP compared to armor, that trend reverse with BS which don't have any mobility to start with (though ASB solve this, but habits take time to change,a lot of time) ; oh, and I forgot torp damage application. |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 12:03:00 -
[6238] - Quote
OldWolf69 wrote:Faora Zod wrote:OldWolf69 wrote:
Maybe CCP must fix things and ppl could fly other race ships? And do a real balance? Simply refuse to understand why breaking good things equals improving bad things, except there's a idiotic solution needed.
What are you thinking?!?! We MUST stay races specific in our training! The Idea of someone spending a couple of months train all the racial cruisers to 3 than Battle Cruisers to 5, that is just unheard of, what is next people training missiles, guns and drones?!?!? *** This wants to be irony, or simple lack of understanding of what i mean?
Maybe it is a little bit of both since you are directly clear on your statement.
My point is, every player has the same options as everyone else, the only real difference is when you create your toon your beginning skills are different. We all choose the path we want to take in this game, be it pirate, industrialist, mission runner or what have you. If everyone who bitches about how other people play this game would realize that they can do the samething as everyone else, than there would be no real reason for "balancing" of the ships. For example, I wanted to have access to all Subcaps, so what did i do, i spent my training time doing just that training the damn skills to do it. We all make this game what we want it to be, it is just up to each of us to choose the path we take.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 15:13:00 -
[6239] - Quote
Best point yet, as we can all train any skills we like and fly anything we would want in time what's the point of the balancing? As previously mentioned I have no problem with OP ship designs, they make the game interesting and as far as I can tell every ship has a unique set of weaknesses that a skilled opponent can exploit. Intuitively missiles should be the highest alpha but they are not, lasers should be the longest ranged weapons but they are not. Most pvp these days revolves around blasters and autocannons as these weapon systems are overpowered. We need buffs in Rails and Missiles to counter this not silly nerfs designed to turn missiles into lasers/hybrids. There is no point to balance if every weapon and ship performs the same and has no meaningful advantage over another weapon system. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 17:44:00 -
[6240] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:lasers should be the longest ranged weapons but they are not.
Are you saying Cane does more damage with 425s than Harbinger with HPL and Scorch at 20km? |
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 18:20:00 -
[6241] - Quote
No I am not. I am saying that lasers should be the longest ranged weapons but are not. Think about it, Lasers are coherent light and in real life only suffer from attenuation of the beam over distance due to things like atmospheric particles getting in the way. In space this is greatly reduced so beam attenuation should be effectively meaningless in a fighting grid of 250km. Lasers should therefore hit for full damage at long ranges, longer than missiles or artilarly are capable of delivering. |
Cage Man
Evil Guinea Pigs
27
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 18:46:00 -
[6242] - Quote
Had some time to play on Buckingham this weekend and I noticed with the missile changes and CCP not releasing the changes to the range mods to affect missiles, my torps on my navy raven's range have dropped from 39km to 32 km take into account acceleration standard torps don't even get to 30km anymore |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
209
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 21:07:00 -
[6243] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:No I am not. I am saying that lasers should be the longest ranged weapons but are not. Think about it, Lasers are coherent light and in real life only suffer from attenuation of the beam over distance due to things like atmospheric particles getting in the way. In space this is greatly reduced so beam attenuation should be effectively meaningless in a fighting grid of 250km. Lasers should therefore hit for full damage at long ranges, longer than missiles or artilarly are capable of delivering.
Erm... going by that argument, they would all do full damage at long ranges, since gravity in space is so small as to be almost inconsequential unless you are fighting in orbit around a planet, and there is no atmosphere or other friction of any measurable means to slow things down.
Also... its a sci-fi video game, not a real-physics science adventure. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 21:36:00 -
[6244] - Quote
Damnation No mods, only Guns and Navy Ammo. I used this ship because it had no bonus and enough of both missile and turret to compare. (and I can fly it)
5 x T2 HML + Navy Missiles: dps 95.4 5 x Meta 4 HAM + Navy Missiles: dps 119.8 (I don't have HAM spec) 4 x T2 720 Howi + -50% optimal, dps based republic ammo 105.6 4 x T2 Heavy Beam Laser with Navy multi: dps 132.5
I don't have Warhead upgrades but I do have Surgical strike to 4 so that gave the Howi and Beam numbers more dps. If I had a 5th turret the 2 guns would have shut HML down either way. HAM would have held up against the 2 range based turret weapons. Due to the ammo choices, HAM reflect range on the 2 ranged based turret choices. They all come in around 15 km.
My conclusion, the weapons systems are not balanced. Missiles are under powered and that under powered nature was lost to a benefit lost when the whole velocity, explosion radius thing was introduced.
I'm going to say it again, this wasn't done to us. It was done to balance Line of Site Dust missiles but they needed both combat systems to be compatible. Either hard wired Missile boats need role bonus or they are getting shafted. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
228
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 22:54:00 -
[6245] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Damnation No mods, only Guns and Navy Ammo. I used this ship because it had no bonus and enough of both missile and turret to compare. (and I can fly it)
5 x T2 HML + Navy Missiles: dps 95.4 5 x Meta 4 HAM + Navy Missiles: dps 119.8 (I don't have HAM spec) 4 x T2 720 Howi + -50% optimal, dps based republic ammo 105.6 4 x T2 Heavy Beam Laser with Navy multi: dps 132.5
I don't have Warhead upgrades but I do have Surgical strike to 4 so that gave the Howi and Beam numbers more dps. If I had a 5th turret the 2 guns would have shut HML down either way. HAM would have held up against the 2 range based turret weapons. Due to the ammo choices, HAM reflect range on the 2 ranged based turret choices. They all come in around 15 km.
My conclusion, the weapons systems are not balanced. Missiles are under powered and that under powered nature was lost to a benefit lost when the whole velocity, explosion radius thing was introduced.
I'm going to say it again, this wasn't done to us. It was done to balance Line of Site Dust missiles but they needed both combat systems to be compatible. Either hard wired Missile boats need role bonus or they are getting shafted.
lol
So bad... |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 22:57:00 -
[6246] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ocih wrote:Damnation No mods, only Guns and Navy Ammo. I used this ship because it had no bonus and enough of both missile and turret to compare. (and I can fly it)
5 x T2 HML + Navy Missiles: dps 95.4 5 x Meta 4 HAM + Navy Missiles: dps 119.8 (I don't have HAM spec) 4 x T2 720 Howi + -50% optimal, dps based republic ammo 105.6 4 x T2 Heavy Beam Laser with Navy multi: dps 132.5
I don't have Warhead upgrades but I do have Surgical strike to 4 so that gave the Howi and Beam numbers more dps. If I had a 5th turret the 2 guns would have shut HML down either way. HAM would have held up against the 2 range based turret weapons. Due to the ammo choices, HAM reflect range on the 2 ranged based turret choices. They all come in around 15 km.
My conclusion, the weapons systems are not balanced. Missiles are under powered and that under powered nature was lost to a benefit lost when the whole velocity, explosion radius thing was introduced.
I'm going to say it again, this wasn't done to us. It was done to balance Line of Site Dust missiles but they needed both combat systems to be compatible. Either hard wired Missile boats need role bonus or they are getting shafted. lol So bad...
Thanks for the troll. Next time I will full blue fit, run stats with T2 Super cap fleet bonus for the epeen value. I think you missed the point. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
228
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 23:16:00 -
[6247] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ocih wrote:Damnation No mods, only Guns and Navy Ammo. I used this ship because it had no bonus and enough of both missile and turret to compare. (and I can fly it)
5 x T2 HML + Navy Missiles: dps 95.4 5 x Meta 4 HAM + Navy Missiles: dps 119.8 (I don't have HAM spec) 4 x T2 720 Howi + -50% optimal, dps based republic ammo 105.6 4 x T2 Heavy Beam Laser with Navy multi: dps 132.5
I don't have Warhead upgrades but I do have Surgical strike to 4 so that gave the Howi and Beam numbers more dps. If I had a 5th turret the 2 guns would have shut HML down either way. HAM would have held up against the 2 range based turret weapons. Due to the ammo choices, HAM reflect range on the 2 ranged based turret choices. They all come in around 15 km.
My conclusion, the weapons systems are not balanced. Missiles are under powered and that under powered nature was lost to a benefit lost when the whole velocity, explosion radius thing was introduced.
I'm going to say it again, this wasn't done to us. It was done to balance Line of Site Dust missiles but they needed both combat systems to be compatible. Either hard wired Missile boats need role bonus or they are getting shafted. lol So bad... Thanks for the troll. Next time I will full blue fit, run stats with T2 Super cap fleet bonus for the epeen value. I think you missed the point.
You missed the point.
I meant that your logic/reasoning is bad, not your skills/isk use
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 23:35:00 -
[6248] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:No I am not. I am saying that lasers should be the longest ranged weapons but are not. Think about it, Lasers are coherent light and in real life only suffer from attenuation of the beam over distance due to things like atmospheric particles getting in the way. In space this is greatly reduced so beam attenuation should be effectively meaningless in a fighting grid of 250km. Lasers should therefore hit for full damage at long ranges, longer than missiles or artilarly are capable of delivering. Erm... going by that argument, they would all do full damage at long ranges, since gravity in space is so small as to be almost inconsequential unless you are fighting in orbit around a planet, and there is no atmosphere or other friction of any measurable means to slow things down. Also... its a sci-fi video game, not a real-physics science adventure.
Eve is a sci fi adventure as opposed to a real physics adventure, but nevertheless I like some science in my sci-fi otherwise why bother with the highly technical nature of Eve as it currently stands. We might as well all a join a buck rogers mmo where we all fire generic energy beams at each other with no explanation of the science behind them. Anyhow my earlier post was a response to someone else's question and you may have read it out of context.
To return to the subject at hand, missile nerfs, my point was that we shouldn't expect eve weapon systems to behave the same as another because if we do so we lose all of the diversity in the game. This is uniformity not balance. And as such too much balance makes choosing a weapon system unimportant. It wont matter what you choose to train or use if say for instance heavy missiles hit the same dps at the same ranges as lasers/projectiles/hybrids etc. We wont actually be using a different weapon all we will be getting is a different graphical effect and animation. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 23:40:00 -
[6249] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
You missed the point.
I meant that your logic/reasoning is bad, not your skills/isk use
I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
All weapons can be compared at base. Everything above base is opened to everyone in the game. It can be nullified.
You can't nullify the effect a base change has when you have a Drake or a Raven because they are a fixed purpose ship. The only alternative you have is to get rid of it. As a long range weapons platform, the Drake is not in line with the other ships of its type. It is crippled by HML dps or lack of dps. No matter how you 'trick it out' it will not 'trick out' as well as other ships at the same level. You only have one option open with the Drake. Bring more of them. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
182
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 23:47:00 -
[6250] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Damnation No mods, only Guns and Navy Ammo. I used this ship because it had no bonus and enough of both missile and turret to compare. (and I can fly it)
5 x T2 HML + Navy Missiles: dps 95.4 5 x Meta 4 HAM + Navy Missiles: dps 119.8 (I don't have HAM spec) 4 x T2 720 Howi + -50% optimal, dps based republic ammo 105.6 4 x T2 Heavy Beam Laser with Navy multi: dps 132.5
I don't have Warhead upgrades but I do have Surgical strike to 4 so that gave the Howi and Beam numbers more dps. If I had a 5th turret the 2 guns would have shut HML down either way. HAM would have held up against the 2 range based turret weapons. Due to the ammo choices, HAM reflect range on the 2 ranged based turret choices. They all come in around 15 km.
My conclusion, the weapons systems are not balanced. Missiles are under powered and that under powered nature was lost to a benefit lost when the whole velocity, explosion radius thing was introduced.
I'm going to say it again, this wasn't done to us. It was done to balance Line of Site Dust missiles but they needed both combat systems to be compatible. Either hard wired Missile boats need role bonus or they are getting shafted.
Your analysis is uncomplete, and your conclusion is bad and dishonnest.
First, Surgical strike 4 give your T2 turret 12% more dps than HML even before considering any weapon difference. Remove this skill, and oh, magic : T2 720mm ==> 94,3 !
As for HAML, I don't know about your HAM skills, but if no T2, that mean 5% damage (assuming skill at 4) + at least 6% rof from specialization = 13% dps. HAML dps = 135,4.
The numbers, which are low expectations based on your skills, prove that HML have a better dps than T2 arties with short range ammo and that HAM have more dps than even beams with short range ammo.
So, what we should conclude is that your missiles skills are bad and that you are dishonnest if you try to prove something with such a bad comparison.
But enough numbers, they are pointless anyway, because your analyzis is very incomplete : you completely obsured the fact that turret damage decrease with range ! And you also obscured the turret tracking.
For your analyzis to be complete, you need a study of dps along range for these turrets. You would have seen that HML outdps turrets for a good part of its effective range. To be comprehensive, your analyzis should also have compared short range weapons (yes, because you use HAM, a short range weapon, so you need these other SR turret for point of comparison).
My advice : either stop being dishonnest, or learn how to make a comparison.
To balance EVE, we need all things to have a niche where they can shine. That is balanced OPness. medium size LR weapons are not balance at the moment, because, as Ocith didn't show, HML outclass medLR turrets at most ranges (between 25 and 70km, and we could also say between 0 and 70km, because you really don't want to shoot at something closer than 25km with a medLR turret).
For the real science EVE : range is not only the potential damage of your weapon, but also the accuracy of your weapon. Calculate a trajectory between moving objects when the target have unpredictable movements is not that easy. You also need to consider the fact that your laser beam is not a perfect cylinder but a cone ; the farther away, the more spreaded the energy of the beam will be.
PS : acceleration of missiles have been modifyed for Retribution so missile range will be a lot closer from expected range than before. |
|
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 00:12:00 -
[6251] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Ocih wrote:Damnation No mods, only Guns and Navy Ammo. I used this ship because it had no bonus and enough of both missile and turret to compare. (and I can fly it)
5 x T2 HML + Navy Missiles: dps 95.4 5 x Meta 4 HAM + Navy Missiles: dps 119.8 (I don't have HAM spec) 4 x T2 720 Howi + -50% optimal, dps based republic ammo 105.6 4 x T2 Heavy Beam Laser with Navy multi: dps 132.5
I don't have Warhead upgrades but I do have Surgical strike to 4 so that gave the Howi and Beam numbers more dps. If I had a 5th turret the 2 guns would have shut HML down either way. HAM would have held up against the 2 range based turret weapons. Due to the ammo choices, HAM reflect range on the 2 ranged based turret choices. They all come in around 15 km.
My conclusion, the weapons systems are not balanced. Missiles are under powered and that under powered nature was lost to a benefit lost when the whole velocity, explosion radius thing was introduced.
I'm going to say it again, this wasn't done to us. It was done to balance Line of Site Dust missiles but they needed both combat systems to be compatible. Either hard wired Missile boats need role bonus or they are getting shafted. Your analysis is uncomplete, and your conclusion is bad and dishonnest. First, Surgical strike 4 give your T2 turret 12% more dps than HML even before considering any weapon difference. Remove this skill, and oh, magic : T2 720mm ==> 94,3 ! As for HAML, I don't know about your HAM skills, but if no T2, that mean 5% damage (assuming skill at 4) + at least 6% rof from specialization = 13% dps. HAML dps = 135,4. The numbers, which are low expectations based on your skills, prove that HML have a better dps than T2 arties with short range ammo and that HAM have more dps than even beams with short range ammo. So, what we should conclude is that your missiles skills are bad and that you are dishonnest if you try to prove something with such a bad comparison. But enough numbers, they are pointless anyway, because your analyzis is very incomplete : you completely obsured the fact that turret damage decrease with range ! And you also obscured the turret tracking. For your analyzis to be complete, you need a study of dps along range for these turrets. You would have seen that HML outdps turrets for a good part of its effective range. To be comprehensive, your analyzis should also have compared short range weapons (yes, because you use HAM, a short range weapon, so you need these other SR turret for point of comparison). My advice : either stop being dishonnest, or learn how to make a comparison. To balance EVE, we need all things to have a niche where they can shine. That is balanced OPness. medium size LR weapons are not balance at the moment, because, as Ocith didn't show, HML outclass medLR turrets at most ranges (between 25 and 70km, and we could also say between 0 and 70km, because you really don't want to shoot at something closer than 25km with a medLR turret). For the real science EVE : range is not only the potential damage of your weapon, but also the accuracy of your weapon. Calculate a trajectory between moving objects when the target have unpredictable movements is not that easy. You also need to consider the fact that your laser beam is not a perfect cylinder but a cone ; the farther away, the more spreaded the energy of the beam will be. PS : acceleration of missiles have been modifyed for Retribution so missile range will be a lot closer from expected range than before.
I made it a point of mentioning I didn't have warhead. You failed to mention that when Missile balance was added, they were added under a different formula that didn't account for velocity, tracking disruption or any of the things missiles suffer under now. Missiles are too restricted and HML will become extinct with this patch. It's a nerfed now as Black Ops with such a limited game value it will be worth more in its reproc.
As you can see, my skills don't depend on Missiles. I didn't buy a Damnation for the OP dps. I knew what I was getting. I'd say my view point is as neutral as it can be. I have in fact drawn from this that Amarr is still the best option I had and have available. I still think missiles got shorted for Dust because in a Line of Sight game, a missile would be over powered. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 04:40:00 -
[6252] - Quote
Ocih wrote:Damnation No mods, only Guns and Navy Ammo. I used this ship because it had no bonus and enough of both missile and turret to compare. (and I can fly it)
5 x T2 HML + Navy Missiles: dps 95.4 5 x Meta 4 HAM + Navy Missiles: dps 119.8 (I don't have HAM spec) 4 x T2 720 Howi + -50% optimal, dps based republic ammo 105.6 4 x T2 Heavy Beam Laser with Navy multi: dps 132.5
I don't have Warhead upgrades but I do have Surgical strike to 4 so that gave the Howi and Beam numbers more dps. If I had a 5th turret the 2 guns would have shut HML down either way. HAM would have held up against the 2 range based turret weapons. Due to the ammo choices, HAM reflect range on the 2 ranged based turret choices. They all come in around 15 km.
My conclusion, the weapons systems are not balanced. Missiles are under powered and that under powered nature was lost to a benefit lost when the whole velocity, explosion radius thing was introduced.
I'm going to say it again, this wasn't done to us. It was done to balance Line of Site Dust missiles but they needed both combat systems to be compatible. Either hard wired Missile boats need role bonus or they are getting shafted.
All level 5s: 5x T2 HAML with CN Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile: 179 @ 27,8 km 5x T2 HML with CN Mjolnir Heavy Missile: 143 @ 122 km 4x 720mm with RF EMP: 116 @ 15 + 21,9 km 4x Heavy Beam Laser with IN Multifrequency: 145 @ 15 + 10 km 4x 250mm with CN Antimatter: 138 @ 18 + 15 km |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 10:47:00 -
[6253] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Ocih wrote:Damnation No mods, only Guns and Navy Ammo. I used this ship because it had no bonus and enough of both missile and turret to compare. (and I can fly it)
5 x T2 HML + Navy Missiles: dps 95.4 5 x Meta 4 HAM + Navy Missiles: dps 119.8 (I don't have HAM spec) 4 x T2 720 Howi + -50% optimal, dps based republic ammo 105.6 4 x T2 Heavy Beam Laser with Navy multi: dps 132.5
I don't have Warhead upgrades but I do have Surgical strike to 4 so that gave the Howi and Beam numbers more dps. If I had a 5th turret the 2 guns would have shut HML down either way. HAM would have held up against the 2 range based turret weapons. Due to the ammo choices, HAM reflect range on the 2 ranged based turret choices. They all come in around 15 km.
My conclusion, the weapons systems are not balanced. Missiles are under powered and that under powered nature was lost to a benefit lost when the whole velocity, explosion radius thing was introduced.
I'm going to say it again, this wasn't done to us. It was done to balance Line of Site Dust missiles but they needed both combat systems to be compatible. Either hard wired Missile boats need role bonus or they are getting shafted. All level 5s: 5x T2 HAML with CN Mjolnir Heavy Assault Missile: 179 @ 27,8 km 5x T2 HML with CN Mjolnir Heavy Missile: 143 @ 122 km 4x 720mm with RF EMP: 116 @ 15 + 21,9 km 4x Heavy Beam Laser with IN Multifrequency: 145 @ 15 + 10 km 4x 250mm with CN Antimatter: 138 @ 18 + 15 km
These look like EFT figures, meaning they are based on the Tranquility now systems, not the Buckingham now systems, correct me if I am wrong.
As I tried to stress in the original test, the variations aren't game breaking by them selves. The ships that are pigeon holed to missiles simply need their bonuses looked at. If the changes as is go through, those ships are in need of attention. Even the tracking disruptor hitting a missile, I got an image of Iron Man in one kicking out flares when the raptors were on him. He he wasn't hit by the missile but he was impacted by their explosion. If you look at tracking disruption of missile in the that perspective it makes more sense. I just feel bad for the poor old Raven and Drake. Abaddon took a lot of thunder from the Apoc but Rokh intro didn't create a beefed up Raven, it wiped out the entire missile doctrine. I don't even want to think about dreads and the Caldari plight.
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
183
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 11:57:00 -
[6254] - Quote
Ocih wrote: I'd say my view point is as neutral as it can be. Your view point is that missiles are bad and you did whatever you needed for your numbers to support your thesis or you didn't realize how bad your argumentation was. I would say this is a lie, but I'm not sure if you are concious about it.
As I said, your analysis is completely flawed an worth absolutely nothing.
And considering how used missiles are, the addition of explosion radius and velocity did not kill them, obviously. Do you really play the game ?
And finaly, HML will still, after the patch, be the best medium LR option between 30-35km and their max range.
PS : missiles are not affected by tracking disruption. |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 13:01:00 -
[6255] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Ocih wrote: I'd say my view point is as neutral as it can be. Your view point is that missiles are bad and you did whatever you needed for your numbers to support your thesis or you didn't realize how bad your argumentation was. I would say this is a lie, but I'm not sure if you are concious about it. As I said, your analysis is completely flawed an worth absolutely nothing. And considering how used missiles are, the addition of explosion radius and velocity did not kill them, obviously. Do you really play the game ? And finaly, HML will still, after the patch, be the best medium LR option between 30-35km and their max range. PS : missiles are not affected by tracking disruption.
Missiles are used because you kind of need to use more to do the same thing? Nerf Missiles, more missiles get used. Um, yea? It isn't important anymore. You are more concerned with attacking me than what I have to say because you don't like what I have to say.
club em in to the ground. Any alliance(s) that had a missile doctrine already changed it. We will see how "used" they are in a week. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
183
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 14:08:00 -
[6256] - Quote
I'm not concerned by attacking you but your argumentation, which was *very bad* and partial. You made numbers lying, and I don't like this, but I have nothing against you personnaly. :-) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 15:02:00 -
[6257] - Quote
Ocih wrote:As I tried to stress in the original test, the variations aren't game breaking by them selves. The ships that are pigeon holed to missiles simply need their bonuses looked at. If the changes as is go through, those ships are in need of attention. Even the tracking disruptor hitting a missile, I got an image of Iron Man in one kicking out flares when the raptors were on him. He he wasn't hit by the missile but he was impacted by their explosion. If you look at tracking disruption of missile in the that perspective it makes more sense. I just feel bad for the poor old Raven and Drake. Abaddon took a lot of thunder from the Apoc but Rokh intro didn't create a beefed up Raven, it wiped out the entire missile doctrine. I don't even want to think about dreads and the Caldari plight.
First of all: where on earth you got the idea that TDs will affect missiles after 4th?
Do you mean by any chance that 1000 dps HAM Tengu? Yeah, I agree with you there that some ships need a nerf after this change.
Yes, heavy missiles aren't the only missile type in game. "But those HAMs have very bad range!" |
Ocih
Space Mermaids Somethin Awfull Forums
306
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 15:25:00 -
[6258] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:I'm not concerned by attacking you but your argumentation, which was *very bad* and partial. You made numbers lying, and I don't like this, but I have nothing against you personnaly. :-)
You get that little bug in the back of your head? You know something stinks in Denmark, you just can't put a finger on it. Watching for 7 years, seeing Missiles get targeted for 'rebalance' over and over. Not willing or inclined to believe they were that unbalanced at launch. Asking why they keep going back to them to take another chunk out of them. I might not have all the pieces but I ain't buying it. Something isn't right. By the time I figure it out it will be too late of course.
As for the 1K HAM Tengu, I'm sure if a person wanted to pony up a few billion to pimp any of the T3 they could get numeric dps of that level. The same thing would stop it. Poor range and bubble bath EHP. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 15:31:00 -
[6259] - Quote
Ocih wrote:As for the 1K HAM Tengu, I'm sure if a person wanted to pony up a few billion to pimp any of the T3 they could get numeric dps of that level. The same thing would stop it. Poor range and bubble bath EHP.
That's possible after the change. After. After.
T2 launchers, CN BCSs, implants, good skills. |
NextDarkKnight
Fury Lords Intergalactic Brotherhood
15
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 15:52:00 -
[6260] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Lili Lu wrote:Ubat Batuk wrote: Of course, so let's further reduce the DPS... so it will take me 2 hours for a Level 4 mission! This is r etard... No it's called train a ******* BS and large weapons like every other race to do a level 4, and stop whining. You should start thinking like a NEW player who has only been playing a couple of months, do you really think with the way the market is now that a newbie is going to be able to afford the couple of hundred million it takes to buy and fit a BS to do level 4s? Best day of my eve life was when i soloed my first level 4 in a Drake, i knew i was here to stay. If they are wanting to keep this game fun and interesting like CCP Fozzie claims it needs to stay fun and interesting for NEW players too. You slow down how fast it takes them to feel like the accomplished something on their own and they are going t o lose interest.
Man, it took forever to kill anything but man that was a sweet day for myself as well. PVE will take a major hit with this next expansion. I wonder if CCP will move some of the NPC spawns closer now that the range is being nerfed so hard. Are we still goign to see NPCs spawn at 110km or will they get a 5~10% spawn range decress as well? Damn you Drake for being so damn slow at everything.
|
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 16:11:00 -
[6261] - Quote
I rarely get a mission where rats are 110 km from me. And if they are they get to my 70+ km optimal by the time I've killed everything else. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
371
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 18:26:00 -
[6262] - Quote
Ultimately it comes down to this:
These changes are going live. Good or bad, this is what we are getting. Missiles will not be as bad as some fear, nor will they (in practice) be as good as some here claim.
The HML Drake, because it is a solid and relatively versatile ship, and because Caldari pilots (as always) don't have a lot of choice anyway, will continue to see some use. Since CCPs real goal here had more to do with changing null sec mega-blob warfare than "balance," hopefully these changes will be enough. If not, more nerfs are on the way.
The Drake's real strength is a combination of it's mobility and ability to apply damage at all ranges. However, very few pilots actually take advantage of this as it is today. Assuming they are willing to leave docking range or their gate, they drive up to the target or orbit at 20km and blast away. For these pilots these changes will be a HUGE buff, as now their HAMs will actually work. Result?
Post patch, HAM Drakes are going to be scary. And they should be. Assuming they can catch you that is.
Post patch, HML Drakes will remain fine. I would have no problems or concerns flying one. I prefer the Cane (as a pirate I cherish agility and speed over pretty much anything else), but the Drake will remain a solid choice.
Post patch, HML Caracals (and the new Bellicose) are going to be wicked. You will have to FLY it, and if you screw up you are probably going to die in a fire, but I am so confident about where this ship is headed that I am currently improving my missile skills to take advantage of it.
Post patch, Rocket boats are going to be far more dangerous than they are today -- and they are already scary now. If you are a Caldari frigate pilot, get Frigate, AF, and GMP to level five, grab yourself a Hawk or Hookbill, and watch your enemies melt. |
Darthkill
Fearless Bandits SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 19:29:00 -
[6263] - Quote
To CCP Fozzie
With the missile changes, will there be a slight buff to nighthawks by making the 5% bonus to missile explosion velocity affect Heavy Assault Missiles?
Might give them abit of help till they get the rebalance they deserve? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 19:47:00 -
[6264] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:The HML Drake, because it is a solid and relatively versatile ship, and because Caldari pilots (as always) don't have a lot of choice anyway, will continue to see some use. Since CCPs real goal here had more to do with changing null sec mega-blob warfare than "balance," hopefully these changes will be enough. If not, more nerfs are on the way.
No, PL doesn't need CCPs help. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
371
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 20:19:00 -
[6265] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:OT Smithers wrote:The HML Drake, because it is a solid and relatively versatile ship, and because Caldari pilots (as always) don't have a lot of choice anyway, will continue to see some use. Since CCPs real goal here had more to do with changing null sec mega-blob warfare than "balance," hopefully these changes will be enough. If not, more nerfs are on the way. No, PL doesn't need CCP's help.
I was not suggesting that CCP makes changes to BENEFIT any alliance.
They do, however, play as members of those alliances. That much is very clear, and if you doubt it you need look no further than the current Alliance Tournament and listen to their discussions. In any case, it is clear that these changes are certainly not based on any observable or objective Drake or HML imbalance in small gang PvP. It's not like Drakes are dominating low sec combat, right? They dominate in one place only: mega-alliance blobs. That's what CCP wants to correct. |
Angry Mustache
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.11.26 22:38:00 -
[6266] - Quote
If it means anything people have already decreased their usage of HML's.
Canes and 425's have dethroned Drakes and HML's as the number 1 killers for the month of November.
In other news Minmatar ships still make up 9/20 of the to killers, and 8/20 of the most used weapons are projectiles. |
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 01:48:00 -
[6267] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:I rarely get a mission where rats are 110 km from me. And if they are they get to my 70+ km optimal by the time I've killed everything else.
In the last bonus room of an Angel mission (i forgot the name sorry, but there's only one mission bonus room anyway), you WANT to be at 110km + . In the L4 epic arc, you want to snipe sometimes too.
when you see Elite BS rushing on you, trust me, you will love to forget Angular / transversal velocity.
In fact, when i run L4+ in high DPS missile boat, I always kill the most dangerous threat first. Then help my drones to finish.
It's just a way of doing it. There are no wrong way to do it. (maybe close orbiting with 1400 arties)
For others posts like "lazer compared to IRL.."
So, with Frenquency lazers, Shields (energy blocking) would have 100% resist
Kinetic Projectiles (unlimted range too), by nature, would smash some iron Missiles, (guidance for some time, then unlimited straight path) would be Nukes everytimes. EMP + Kinetic + Thermal + Explosive AND AOE (like old Torps in Eve)
So i bet in the future, humanity will employ missiles in space. Smartbombing is fictionnal, they can't miss a target, could have internal jammer, random trajectory, and are deadly.
But eve is sometimes fictionnal, and the best weapon is not the most realistic atm. |
Lili Lu
595
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 01:50:00 -
[6268] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: it is clear that these changes are certainly not based on any observable or objective Drake or HML imbalance in small gang PvP. It's not like Drakes are dominating low sec combat, right? They dominate in one place only: mega-alliance blobs. That's what CCP wants to correct.
OT, I already had this argument with Noemi. You see, my experience of low sec is that Drakes outnumber Canes. The important point is that neither of us can take a representative sample or see the comprehensive ship usage. So your implied assertion that Canes outnumber Drakes in lowsec is not provable. CCP may/probably has the ability to see raw ship use in lowsec and apparently they aren't concerned about Drakes only being a nullsec phenomenon.
Angry Mustache wrote:If it means anything people have already decreased their usage of HML's.
Canes and 425's have dethroned Drakes and HML's as the number 1 killers for the month of November.
In other news Minmatar ships still make up 9/20 of the to killers, and 8/20 of the most used weapons are projectiles.
Careful there mustache. The last Drake defender to salivate when Drakes were not sitting on the top spot had to swallow it when they managed to regain the top spot by the end of the month. Canes could go the same way the Zealots did and manage to lose out by November 30.
Regardless, even if Drakes don't overtake Canes by the end of the month, there are two problems with your argument: one, the gap between the first place Canes and the second place Drakes will be a mere couple thousand, unlike the majority of the monthly stats the last 3 years where Drakes outnumbered the second place ship two or more to one; second, the Cane is going to lose its current fitting abilities (see direct Cane nerf in the OP) and arguably is taking a harder hit than Drakes especially since the HM nerf has been watered down already, and thus will not be retaining any top place it may have at the end of the month.
Your concern about Minmatar and projectiles in general is valid. That has been a longstanding trend in the eve-kill stats. My theory is that the overdone TE falloff buff is most responsible for this, and also the overdone projectile alpha emphasis (although ac is really what shows up the most). Both of these can be trimmed and other weapon systems might gain some comparative stature in response.
We will see. This is all a lengthy process. And they already know it will be a continuous process even after the first full pass through all the ship classes. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 05:39:00 -
[6269] - Quote
Meolyne wrote:In the last bonus room of an Angel mission (i forgot the name sorry, but there's only one mission bonus room anyway), you WANT to be at 110km + .
Why? Because of sentries? |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
242
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 12:44:00 -
[6270] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:If it means anything people have already decreased their usage of HML's.
Canes and 425's have dethroned Drakes and HML's as the number 1 killers for the month of November.
In other news Minmatar ships still make up 9/20 of the to killers, and 8/20 of the most used weapons are projectiles. This Just In
Theyre also nerfing the 425 cane in this thread . . . |
|
Gypsio III
Chemikals Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
444
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 13:00:00 -
[6271] - Quote
There's also been some hints about tweaking Tracking Enhancers. And the stronger hint that the t2 BCs will be losing slots. I'm not sure that the shield Hurricane would work very well with three medslots...?
Put it this way, if CCP isn't happy with the Drake being excessively popular, flexible and being used as a fleet doctrine, then they're unlikely to be particularly impressed by the same thing with the Hurricane. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
235
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 14:01:00 -
[6272] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:There's also been some hints about tweaking Tracking Enhancers. And the stronger hint that the t2 BCs will be losing slots. I'm not sure that the shield Hurricane would work very well with three medslots...?
Or Damnation with 5 lowslots... |
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
211
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 17:17:00 -
[6273] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Gypsio III wrote:There's also been some hints about tweaking Tracking Enhancers. And the stronger hint that the t2 BCs will be losing slots. I'm not sure that the shield Hurricane would work very well with three medslots...? Or Damnation with 5 lowslots...
!!! Bite your tongue!!!!
lol, gods I hope they don't do that to my Damnation. I think you are correct though, in that they are talking about removing 1 slot from all of the t2 BC's. Their changes to the Command ships I have a feeling will be a bit more comprehensive, and more than just "remove a slot, change the command bonus, walk away". They are aware of the focus they will have as an alpha target when they are on grid, hopefully they will design accordingly. I personally think they may try to put the other Commands up in the Damnation's range of tankability. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
232
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 18:03:00 -
[6274] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Gypsio III wrote:There's also been some hints about tweaking Tracking Enhancers. And the stronger hint that the t2 BCs will be losing slots. I'm not sure that the shield Hurricane would work very well with three medslots...? Or Damnation with 5 lowslots... !!! Bite your tongue!!!! lol, gods I hope they don't do that to my Damnation. I think you are correct though, in that they are talking about removing 1 slot from all of the t2 BC's. Their changes to the Command ships I have a feeling will be a bit more comprehensive, and more than just "remove a slot, change the command bonus, walk away". They are aware of the focus they will have as an alpha target when they are on grid, hopefully they will design accordingly. I personally think they may try to put the other Commands up in the Damnation's range of tankability.
Tier 2, not tech 2. |
kraiklyn Asatru
T.R.I.A.D
38
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 19:20:00 -
[6275] - Quote
I think one of the reason minmatar ships, and thus projectile weapons have been so popular is due to the rifter generation. When I started playing and wanted to start PvP evryones first remark was. Get a rifter. As a result I still fly exclusively minmatar ships. This no longer happens since the rifter is now one of the weakest frigates. Skills do influence what people fly even far after a nerf or buff. |
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 20:19:00 -
[6276] - Quote
kraiklyn Asatru wrote:I think one of the reason minmatar ships, and thus projectile weapons have been so popular is due to the rifter generation. When I started playing and wanted to start PvP evryones first remark was. Get a rifter. As a result I still fly exclusively minmatar ships. This no longer happens since the rifter is now one of the weakest frigates. Skills do influence what people fly even far after a nerf or buff.
Indeed. I and others have said, most of the Caldari popularity is the result of the extinct Perception bonus Achura once had. It was never about Missiles. You came to EVE for years, people told you to roll Caldari Achura and once in game, people told you to skill up Missiles. Then came the missile revamp that gave them variables to hit and the system doesn't scale in any way shape or form. Lights are good, Mediums are 'meh, Large are bad and extra large are comical. People who made a logical choice 5 years ago are now stuck with outdated skills. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
374
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 05:41:00 -
[6277] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:There's also been some hints about tweaking Tracking Enhancers. And the stronger hint that the t2 BCs will be losing slots. I'm not sure that the shield Hurricane would work very well with three medslots...? Put it this way, if CCP isn't happy with the Drake being excessively popular, flexible and being used as a fleet doctrine, then they're unlikely to be particularly impressed by the same thing with the Hurricane.
CCP isn't happy with the Drake as the go-to hull for mega-fleet warfare. The Cane, despite it's tremendous popularity, will never suffer this problem. It doesn't offer the attributes that make it good for that kind of warfare.
And in any case CCP never really nerfs Minmatar, or not seriously. CCP nerfs Caldari. |
OT Smithers
BLOMI
374
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 05:43:00 -
[6278] - Quote
kraiklyn Asatru wrote:I think one of the reason minmatar ships, and thus projectile weapons have been so popular is due to the rifter generation. When I started playing and wanted to start PvP evryones first remark was. Get a rifter. As a result I still fly exclusively minmatar ships. This no longer happens since the rifter is now one of the weakest frigates. Skills do influence what people fly even far after a nerf or buff.
I agree, but it goes beyond this. Here's some other factors:
1. Most Eve players don't really understand how their guns work or what things like optimal and falloff really mean. They see huge DPS numbers from projectiles and believe that's what they are doing at falloff.
2. Minmatar have decent to exceptional PvP ships in every class from frigates to T2 BSs. No exceptions.
3. Minmatar have arguably the best pirate faction ships in the game.
4. Speed matters. It is, in my opinion, perhaps the most valuable asset a ship can have. Minmatar typically have the fastest ships.
5. CCP removed the T2 penalties on projectile ammo years ago.
Now take that and consider their opponents:
* The Gallente, until recently, had serious problems largely based upon broken hybrids and a reliance on drones. They were never as bad off as the Caldari, but they were close. Today they have a solid lineup of excellent ships in every category, but still suffer from issues with medium hybrids and drones.
* The Amarr have been a solid non-Minmatar choice for years. Solid, but unspectacular. I think it is here that your Rifter statement most correctly applies. Like the Minmatar, they too saw T2 ammo penalties removed years ago.
* The Caldari, until a year ago with the Hybrid fix, had basically one non-ECM combat ship: the Drake. And most people laughed at that. They were considered the PvE only race for a reason -- that's what they were. Even today they have as many broken and useless hulls as every other race in the game combined. Further, in order to use their complete ship lineup a player is forced to train two separate weapon systems. They have no choice, and if you are going to train direct fire weapons anyway, there was absolutely no practical reason to stick with the broken race. They are still, years fter everyone else, waiting to see their T2 ammo penalties removed.
Most Caldari pilots did the same thing I did. As soon as they realized how farked they were, they switched to another race and never looked back. I chose Minmatar, not for the Rifter, but for the dozens and dozens of exceptional hulls. It doesn't matter what class of ship I pick, I not only will have something good, but I will almost always have multiple choices. What's not to love?
Had I stuck with Caldari all those years ago... had I trusted CCP to actually fix their game.... I would STILL be waiting. Maybe next year the Caldari will have a working HAC, right? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
236
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 07:23:00 -
[6279] - Quote
Buff to rockets, HAMs and torps is now a nerf? Ok... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 08:52:00 -
[6280] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
1. Most Eve players don't really understand how their guns work or what things like optimal and falloff really mean. They see huge DPS numbers from projectiles and believe that's what they are doing at falloff.
I don't think point no1 is fair as evidenced by this thread a great deal of people fully understand how their guns work and have a deeply ingrained knowledge of fall off and optimal range/tracking etc and how that effects their ability to project power within the range of their weapon system.
I do agree with all of your other points though. |
|
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
242
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 09:17:00 -
[6281] - Quote
OT, i have a few problems with your thoughts on the balance of things in game; most of what you said i completely agree with but there are a few errors in your logic . . .
OT Smithers wrote:Minmatar have arguably the best pirate faction ships in the game. This argument is completely moot as they only have half the needed pirate faction ships . . . you could say the same about gallente yet nobody flies their ships.
OT Smithers wrote:CCP removed the T2 penalties on projectile ammo years ago. The penalty for T2 ammo happened around a year ago years implies more than one year.
OT Smithers wrote:* The Gallente, until recently, had serious problems largely based upon broken hybrids and a reliance on drones. They were never as bad off as the Caldari, but they were close. Today they have a solid lineup of excellent ships in every category, but still suffer from issues with medium hybrids and drones. Yeah because the deimos and ishtar are great HACs ooh yeah! and dat battleship lineup is to die for
OT Smithers wrote:* The Caldari, until a year ago with the Hybrid fix, had basically one non-ECM combat ship: the Drake. And most people laughed at that. They were considered the PvE only race for a reason -- that's what they were. Even today they have as many broken and useless hulls as every other race in the game combined. Further, in order to use their complete ship lineup a player is forced to train two separate weapon systems. They have no choice, and if you are going to train direct fire weapons anyway, there was absolutely no practical reason to stick with the broken race. They are still, years fter everyone else, waiting to see their T2 ammo penalties removed. You realize that every race has to train two weapon systems right? The Ishtar, Arbitrator, Vexor, Sacrilige, Typhoon and all of the stealth bombers would like a word with you if you disagree.
I guess my main problem with 90% of this thread is that just because every other ship this race has is underpowered, doesnt mean that one of their ships can be overpowered.
Yes, many of the caldari ships need an overhaul (oh look theyre doing that right now) but that doesnt justify any of their other ships being overpowered.
I recently heard a different argument using this logic; they said that "its ok that the Nyx is clearly the best supercarrier and the Moros usually the best dreadnaught because the gallente have terrible subcaps" . . . OR "its ok that the Nidhogger, Hel and Naglfar are the worst caps, the minmatar have the best subcaps" . . .
This is clearly wrong and illustrates my point perfectly. |
Kali Starchaser
X Soldiers Of Fortune X
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 10:10:00 -
[6282] - Quote
All my months of training for being able to solo T4 missions just got kicked in the nuts by the nerf to HM and Draketank.. Now I have to start over focusing on a new 'viable ship' and I am ticked off. If I knew heavy missiles were about to be useless I wouldn't have spent all that time training for them and would have worked on other skills. |
Ultimate Gunpower
Knysna Grim Reapers Absolute Darkness
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 13:09:00 -
[6283] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:kraiklyn Asatru wrote:I think one of the reason minmatar ships, and thus projectile weapons have been so popular is due to the rifter generation. When I started playing and wanted to start PvP evryones first remark was. Get a rifter. As a result I still fly exclusively minmatar ships. This no longer happens since the rifter is now one of the weakest frigates. Skills do influence what people fly even far after a nerf or buff. I agree, but it goes beyond this. Here's some other factors: 1. Most Eve players don't really understand how their guns work or what things like optimal and falloff really mean. They see huge DPS numbers from projectiles and believe that's what they are doing at falloff. 2. Minmatar have decent to exceptional PvP ships in every class from frigates to T2 BSs. No exceptions. 3. Minmatar have arguably the best pirate faction ships in the game. 4. Speed matters. It is, in my opinion, perhaps the most valuable asset a ship can have. Minmatar typically have the fastest ships. 5. CCP removed the T2 penalties on projectile ammo years ago. Now take that and consider their opponents: * The Gallente, until recently, had serious problems largely based upon broken hybrids and a reliance on drones. They were never as bad off as the Caldari, but they were close. Today they have a solid lineup of excellent ships in every category, but still suffer from issues with medium hybrids and drones. * The Amarr have been a solid non-Minmatar choice for years. Solid, but unspectacular. I think it is here that your Rifter statement most correctly applies. Like the Minmatar, they too saw T2 ammo penalties removed years ago. * The Caldari, until a year ago with the Hybrid fix, had basically one non-ECM combat ship: the Drake. And most people laughed at that. They were considered the PvE only race for a reason -- that's what they were. Even today they have as many broken and useless hulls as every other race in the game combined. Further, in order to use their complete ship lineup a player is forced to train two separate weapon systems. They have no choice, and if you are going to train direct fire weapons anyway, there was absolutely no practical reason to stick with the broken race. They are still, years fter everyone else, waiting to see their T2 ammo penalties removed. Most Caldari pilots did the same thing I did. As soon as they realized how farked they were, they switched to another race and never looked back. I chose Minmatar, not for the Rifter, but for the dozens and dozens of exceptional hulls. It doesn't matter what class of ship I pick, I not only will have something good, but I will almost always have multiple choices. What's not to love? Had I stuck with Caldari all those years ago... had I trusted CCP to actually fix their game.... I would STILL be waiting. Maybe next year the Caldari will have a working HAC, right?
Nice Post, not 100% correct but still I get your point and agree. Caldari is really a race that I would not say is on top of the PvP food chain. The fact that the drake is a decent hull does not mean that it overpowers every other BC out there, actually far from it. The only time it will own is at range and as such the only nerf that should have been done is to the range of heavy missiles and nothing else.
The fact that it seems to be a more popular ship I feel is attributed to the fact that there are more Caldari pilots then any other race, not 100% sure of the stats but I would put some money on that.
With the proposed nerf they will make all the other hulls even worse then before. The poor tengu will have pathetic dps but maybe the HAM variation may be good due to increased range but still not ideal.
I have spent years trainging Caldari despite the struggle and this is the reward for years of subscription and ISK sunk into an emty hole. Like yourself I am too moving on to Winmitar :) see what I did there... But with that said I am keeping a keen eye on CCP and deciding if their efforts to null and void my skills will cause me to cancel my subs on all my accounts...
It is not fair that missiles get nailed and all the other weapons stay as potent as they are. 1 vs 1 a drake is a fair mathc to a cain, myrm, brutix provided both parties have relatively similar skills. You cannot comapre a maxed toon on missiles in a fight which he/she wins 1 vs 1 against another player with lesser skills. Yes maxed skills gives very high dps on HMLs but maxed on hybrids, lazers or projectiles the DPS is just as impressile...
Another thing is that a drake is a noobish pvp ship and is relatively easy to fly and that was half the appeal not the overwhelming dps. It was cap stable, with decent buff and ok dps so you could switch all the mods on and wait for the beep :) just like a microwave.
Anyway I have had my say before and at least they took the dps nerf down from 20% to 10% but I can't say I am overly happy about this.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
237
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 14:42:00 -
[6284] - Quote
Ultimate Gunpower wrote:It is not fair that missiles get nailed and all the other weapons stay as potent as they are. 1 vs 1 a drake is a fair match to a cain, myrm, brutix provided both parties have relatively similar skills. You cannot comapre a maxed toon on missiles in a fight which he/she wins 1 vs 1 against another player with lesser skills. Yes maxed skills gives very high dps on HMLs but maxed on hybrids, lazers or projectiles the DPS is just as impressive...
226 dps with bad tracking and 6% medium hybrid implant and mindlink... Impressive?
[Ferox]
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Internal Force Field Array I
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M 250mm Railgun II, Spike M [Empty High slot]
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering EG-605 Zainou 'Deadeye' Medium Hybrid Turret MH-806 Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink
|
Lili Lu
598
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 15:04:00 -
[6285] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:OT Smithers wrote:
1. Most Eve players don't really understand how their guns work or what things like optimal and falloff really mean. They see huge DPS numbers from projectiles and believe that's what they are doing at falloff.
I don't think point no1 is fair as evidenced by this thread a great deal of people fully understand how their guns work and have a deeply ingrained knowledge of fall off and optimal range/tracking etc and how that effects their ability to project power within the range of their weapon system. I do agree with all of your other points though. No OT is right in this point, although I disagree with about all his other points in that post. Most of the people itt whining about minmatar don't understand the dps loss to falloff with projectile weapons. They look at base (within optimal) dps numbers and blindly apply them to all ranges of optimal plus falloff. Minmatar's biggest advantage is speed. With micro jump drives and other changes that could become less of a trump card.
OT is wrong that Gallente somehow are doing better than Caldari atm. Minmatar is on top atm, but Caldari is second and from what has been done of rebalancing may be on top going forward (until they introduce the TD effects on missiles and maybe restore some balance) And Amarr is living on a few ships atm, Abaddon, Navy Apoc, Zealot, and Oracle. But of course the point is that all this will change as they rebabalance ships. BC rebalancing is going to be huge. People will not like losing tier 2 and 3 power. But it has to be done for the good of the game. It will make all those newly buffed Cruisers more relavant again. And of course when they get to tech II cruisers it will be very interesting.
Don't worry though, at least we'll all get to complain about the new imbalances as things settle out, and have those addressed within a year, or less, hopefully. Unlike what has been the situation. Where the tier 2 BCs were introduced. Caldari pilots complained massivley about the Myrm, got it harshly nerfed immediately, and then proceeded to enjoy 4 years of dominance in that class. Crocodile tears . . |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
200
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 18:51:00 -
[6286] - Quote
Kali Starchaser wrote:All my months of training for being able to solo T4 missions just got kicked in the nuts by the nerf to HM and Draketank.. Now I have to start over focusing on a new 'viable ship' and I am ticked off. If I knew heavy missiles were about to be useless I wouldn't have spent all that time training for them and would have worked on other skills. Like none of the skills you just trained would be transferrable to something else.
Take 3 weeks, get Caldari BS 4 and Cruise Missile or torpedo 4 and do the same thing in a Raven (which is in many ways better for L4 missions than the Drake and shares all the same fitting skill recommendations).
Or maybe get a Caldari Navy Scorpion and get the shield resist bonus and a full 8 midslots for tank! (Is this the only ship with 8 mids?)
Shifting out of the Drake is hardly a big deal and most of the training time you have to put into doing it properly carries over well to other ships. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
237
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 18:59:00 -
[6287] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:Or maybe get a Caldari Navy Scorpion and get the shield resist bonus and a full 8 midslots for tank! (Is this the only ship with 8 mids?)
Widow. At least from subcaps. In Widow those midslots are used for something else though... |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 03:24:00 -
[6288] - Quote
So I noticed we are having to wait for the "balancing" of the EW effects on missiles, is there going to be a new thread to make our points of the pros and cons of it or do we get to discuss it here?
I am taking it that since there is only 5 days now until the expansion, that these "balancing" suggestions are final since there has not been an update in awhile.Still think it is BS for people to ***** and moan over how another player plays this game when they can train to do the same thing. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
237
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 04:09:00 -
[6289] - Quote
Yeah, it's good thing that in EVE we can choose. In other MMOs there's always one class that is good at everything. Also good thing is that we don't have anything like that in EVE. |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
245
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 05:04:00 -
[6290] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:So I noticed we are having to wait for the "balancing" of the EW effects on missiles, is there going to be a new thread to make our points of the pros and cons of it or do we get to discuss it here?
I am taking it that since there is only 5 days now until the expansion, that these "balancing" suggestions are final since there has not been an update in awhile.Still think it is BS for people to ***** and moan over how another player plays this game when they can train to do the same thing. so your solution to something totally overpowered is to have everyone train to do that?
why do we even have different ships then? that suggestion is idiotic. |
|
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 10:57:00 -
[6291] - Quote
CCP FOZZIE wrote:
Short Range Missiles Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles Reduce HAM launcher PG requirements by 10%
IS this going live? If so thankyou! Does that mean we can improve hams through the use of all rigs now? (The fitting buff is very appreciated too mate) "Were not elitists, were just tired of fail" - The Sorn |
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
92
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 11:20:00 -
[6292] - Quote
Minmatar gets a lot of love because people are risk adverse and Minny ships generally have the most speed and maneuverability in fights. Now personally I use not just Minmatar but the other races too but for any cruisers / bc`s I always seem to want to emulate the Minmatar philosophy, great speed with good range and mediocre tank.
Yea I could go full Amarrian style and go brick tank and laser dps, but then I'm very slow and lumbering with too much reliance on capacitor.
I could go full Gallente and go for close range OK-ish tank amazing damage, but then I have to travel very far to actually apply real dps , getting picked off a lot in the process. (Drones can be very hit and miss, used correctly there excellent but il leave that out for now)
Then there's the Caldari way, long range with missiles or railguns. It can work ok, but still every time I much prefer the Minmatar style.
Its partly what the person likes to do, partly what there skills will allow, and certainly in larger warfare in eve a lot to do with what the FC calls for. There are a lot of variations but that's my general take on the situation. "Were not elitists, were just tired of fail" - The Sorn |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 12:19:00 -
[6293] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Faora Zod wrote:So I noticed we are having to wait for the "balancing" of the EW effects on missiles, is there going to be a new thread to make our points of the pros and cons of it or do we get to discuss it here?
I am taking it that since there is only 5 days now until the expansion, that these "balancing" suggestions are final since there has not been an update in awhile.Still think it is BS for people to ***** and moan over how another player plays this game when they can train to do the same thing. so your solution to something totally overpowered is to have everyone train to do that? why do we even have different ships then? that suggestion is idiotic.
Actually it is not Idiotic, Only an idiot does not understand that lowering the "OP DPS" of the missiles is not an actual representation of how munitions really work in the real world. If you look at the actual real world application of munitions you would understand that 1. Lasers should have the longest range 2. Hybrids and Projectiles should have the greatest ROF 3. Missiles should do more damage.
That is the REAL "balancing" of the weapons, not nerfing the damage to missiles.
As for being able to fly multi-racial ships, only an idiot would not understand the value to both PVP and PVE of being able to switch up the game.
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
242
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 13:34:00 -
[6294] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:
Actually it is not Idiotic, Only an idiot does not understand that lowering the "OP DPS" of the missiles is not an actual representation of how munitions really work in the real world.
This isn't the "Real World". This is EvE where space is actually a liquid medium, the speed of light is infinately faster and lots of other wierd **** happens. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 15:14:00 -
[6295] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Actually it is not Idiotic, Only an idiot does not understand that lowering the "OP DPS" of the missiles is not an actual representation of how munitions really work in the real world. If you look at the actual real world application of munitions you would understand that 1. Lasers should have the longest range 2. Hybrids and Projectiles should have the greatest ROF 3. Missiles should do more damage.
That is the REAL "balancing" of the weapons, not nerfing the damage to missiles.
As for being able to fly multi-racial ships, only an idiot would not understand the value to both PVP and PVE of being able to switch up the game.
EVE Online != Real World
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_creep |
Lili Lu
599
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:40:00 -
[6296] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:[quote=Sigras] Actually it is not Idiotic, Only an idiot does not understand that lowering the "OP DPS" of the missiles is not an actual representation of how munitions really work in the real world. If you look at the actual real world application of munitions you would understand that 1. Lasers should have the longest range 2. Hybrids and Projectiles should have the greatest ROF 3. Missiles should do more damage.
That is the REAL "balancing" of the weapons, not nerfing the damage to missiles.
As for being able to fly multi-racial ships, only an idiot would not understand the value to both PVP and PVE of being able to switch up the game.
Most of what you post I roll my eyes at. However, you are correct about the design incongruities with "real" weapon characteristics. Lasers should have the most range and best tracking, but the least damage. Missiles the most alpha. etc.
But as has been pointed out, the game is not a simulator. The design has a history. And any alterations are constrained by that history. If you absolutely can't stomach the perceived inconsistencies of varying levels between the game and the "real world", well then you know what to do. One has to look at the gameplay balance as the developers are doing. They don't want everyone eventually flying drakes, which was happening, and to a lesser extent everyone flying tier 2 BCs even.
As for your question about the tracking mod changes to affecting missiles. Yes, I suspect there will be a new thread when they actually present a definite proposal on those changes. We will get to argue anew about whether there should be more modules, more scripts, more or less strength on the effects, etc. |
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.30 17:54:00 -
[6297] - Quote
Each race has is specificities. Eve Online will die the day every races will be identical. It would become a "more skilled, the better" game. Aka vet' lover. and vet is a rare ressource.
Chimera is the shield tan-King Thanatos is the PVE rat lover Archon is the Armor tan-King Nidhoggur is the Logistic-King Disney's new imperial super-cruiser toy.
sames sort of things applies on other ships. Just pick what you prefer. If you trained HML for PVE drake and now crying, i say Go for a raven, invest 1.5b, 1 month more skills into missiles, and take a look at your new Ultra-DPS CNR (1000dps Cruise, 1600dps Torp) Over tanked PVE Golem Incursion Tank Anchor Scorp/Rattle..
Drake was not meant to do L4, why you're still crying ? No never wasted any single skill. they're all useful someday.
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
11
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 00:33:00 -
[6298] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Faora Zod wrote:[quote=Sigras] Actually it is not Idiotic, Only an idiot does not understand that lowering the "OP DPS" of the missiles is not an actual representation of how munitions really work in the real world. If you look at the actual real world application of munitions you would understand that 1. Lasers should have the longest range 2. Hybrids and Projectiles should have the greatest ROF 3. Missiles should do more damage.
That is the REAL "balancing" of the weapons, not nerfing the damage to missiles.
As for being able to fly multi-racial ships, only an idiot would not understand the value to both PVP and PVE of being able to switch up the game.
Most of what you post I roll my eyes at. However, you are correct about the design incongruities with "real" weapon characteristics. Lasers should have the most range and best tracking, but the least damage. Missiles the most alpha. etc. But as has been pointed out, the game is not a simulator. The design has a history. And any alterations are constrained by that history. If you absolutely can't stomach the perceived inconsistencies of varying levels between the game and the "real world", well then you know what to do. One has to look at the gameplay balance as the developers are doing. They don't want everyone eventually flying drakes, which was happening, and to a lesser extent everyone flying tier 2 BCs even. As for your question about the tracking mod changes to affecting missiles. Yes, I suspect there will be a new thread when they actually present a definite proposal on those changes. We will get to argue anew about whether there should be more modules, more scripts, more or less strength on the effects, etc.
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
11
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 00:41:00 -
[6299] - Quote
Meolyne wrote:Each race has is specificities. Eve Online will die the day every races will be identical. It would become a "more skilled, the better" game. Aka vet' lover. and vet is a rare ressource.
Chimera is the shield tan-King Thanatos is the PVE rat lover Archon is the Armor tan-King Nidhoggur is the Logistic-King Disney's new imperial super-cruiser toy.
sames sort of things applies on other ships. Just pick what you prefer. If you trained HML for PVE drake and now crying, i say Go for a raven, invest 1.5b, 1 month more skills into missiles, and take a look at your new Ultra-DPS CNR (1000dps Cruise, 1600dps Torp) Over tanked PVE Golem Incursion Tank Anchor Scorp/Rattle..
Drake was not meant to do L4, why you're still crying ? No never wasted any single skill. they're all useful someday.
Can use please share with me a link to a DEV blog or something that says what ships are meant to do lvl 4 missions. I have read this several times and have yet to have a LVL 4 agent present a ship restricting for any subcap. BTW i love the suggestion of people investing 1.5bil into a mission ship, i would have loved to have had a bil 4 months into the game. |
Lili Lu
599
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 02:36:00 -
[6300] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote: BTW i love the suggestion of people investing 1.5bil into a mission ship, i would have loved to have had a bil 4 months into the game. He meant if you want to invest 1.5 bil to then upgrade from base raven to navy raven. You do not need to invest that in a tech II fit base raven which can run level 4s fine, better than your drake because it will kill stuff faster.
As for the the type of ship required for level 4s, with sufficient skills and investment you could run some in an assault frig for the hell of it.
The point though about Drakes is that they have an op tank and have always done just enough dps to make it possible, even for relatively low skilled pilots. Conversely, you cannot do that with a Harby. The Harby cannot both tank a level 4 and put out enough damage to do them with any reasonable investment in sp and isk. The Myrm can be setup to tank them, but the dps is left even less than that of a Drake, considering the sp investment. You may be able to run some angel level 4s in a passive recharge Cane, as long as you avoid getting webbed.
Basically, it has been only Caldari pilots that can get away with doing level 4s with a low skilled BC. That is not balance. Or don't you understand that? Regardless, losing 10% damage will make the overly risk averse missioners spend more time to run level 4s in the Drake. Which is a good thing. Once the BC base shield regen is nerfed it will be even more mind numbing to try to run them in a drake. Enjoy the coming balance, and train a BS like everyone else. |
|
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
11
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 03:04:00 -
[6301] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Faora Zod wrote: BTW i love the suggestion of people investing 1.5bil into a mission ship, i would have loved to have had a bil 4 months into the game. He meant if you want to invest 1.5 bil to then upgrade from base raven to navy raven. You do not need to invest that in a tech II fit base raven which can run level 4s fine, better than your drake because it will kill stuff faster. As for the the type of ship required for level 4s, with sufficient skills and investment you could run some in an assault frig for the hell of it. The point though about Drakes is that they have an op tank and have always done just enough dps to make it possible, even for relatively low skilled pilots. Conversely, you cannot do that with a Harby. The Harby cannot both tank a level 4 and put out enough damage to do them with any reasonable investment in sp and isk. The Myrm can be setup to tank them, but the dps is left even less than that of a Drake, considering the sp investment. You may be able to run some angel level 4s in a passive recharge Cane, as long as you avoid getting webbed. Basically, it has been only Caldari pilots that can get away with doing level 4s with a low skilled BC. That is not balance. Or don't you understand that? Regardless, losing 10% damage will make the overly risk averse missioners spend more time to run level 4s in the Drake. Which is a good thing. Once the BC base shield regen is nerfed it will be even more mind numbing to try to run them in a drake. Enjoy the coming balance, and train a BS like everyone else.
No i understand perfectly well what you can do in a low skilled Drake AND I am already trained to fly ALL the SubCaps, I just am not fond of Battleships ROF and Speed is to slow for my taste.Still though you did not answer my request for a LINK FROM A DEV THAT SAYS DRAKES ARE NOT MEANT FOR RUNNING LEVEL 4 MISSIONS. So your argument is pointless to me with out anything backing the claim. As for the other races ships, you can do them in a Brutix or Cyclone maybe in a prophecy i don't fly Amarr to often so i can't say. Still though the patch notes are up, CCP has only half ass listened to people, DPS and Flight time is still getting lowered to please all the butt hurt players who don't know how to use a sensor damp. We will see how it all ends u |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
375
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 03:10:00 -
[6302] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote: No i understand perfectly well what you can do in a low skilled Drake AND I am already trained to fly ALL the SubCaps, I just am not fond of Battleships ROF and Speed is to slow for my taste.Still though you did not answer my request for a LINK FROM A DEV THAT SAYS DRAKES ARE NOT MEANT FOR RUNNING LEVEL 4 MISSIONS. So your argument is pointless to me with out anything backing the claim. As for the other races ships, you can do them in a Brutix or Cyclone maybe in a prophecy i don't fly Amarr to often so i can't say. Still though the patch notes are up, CCP has only half ass listened to people, DPS and Flight time is still getting lowered to please all the butt hurt players who don't know how to use a sensor damp. We will see how it all ends u
So basically because sensor damps exist HML's don't need to be in line with other LR medium weapons? Also what Brutix fit comes anywhere near being remotely as lvl 4 capable as a Drake? Or even a Cyclone fit for that matter that has the same range tank and DPS a Drake can pull off. |
Mr Li
East Khanid Trading Khanid Trade Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 08:30:00 -
[6303] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Ocih wrote:As I tried to stress in the original test, the variations aren't game breaking by them selves. The ships that are pigeon holed to missiles simply need their bonuses looked at. If the changes as is go through, those ships are in need of attention. Even the tracking disruptor hitting a missile, I got an image of Iron Man in one kicking out flares when the raptors were on him. He he wasn't hit by the missile but he was impacted by their explosion. If you look at tracking disruption of missile in the that perspective it makes more sense. I just feel bad for the poor old Raven and Drake. Abaddon took a lot of thunder from the Apoc but Rokh intro didn't create a beefed up Raven, it wiped out the entire missile doctrine. I don't even want to think about dreads and the Caldari plight. First of all: where on earth you got the idea that TDs will affect missiles after 4th? Do you mean by any chance that 1000 dps HAM Tengu? Yeah, I agree with you there that some ships need a nerf after this change. Yes, heavy missiles aren't the only missile type in game. "But those HAMs have very bad range!"
Please don't give CCP any ideas about this, HAM Tengu is just so much fun lol. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 10:32:00 -
[6304] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Faora Zod wrote: BTW i love the suggestion of people investing 1.5bil into a mission ship, i would have loved to have had a bil 4 months into the game. He meant if you want to invest 1.5 bil to then upgrade from base raven to navy raven. You do not need to invest that in a tech II fit base raven which can run level 4s fine, better than your drake because it will kill stuff faster. As for the the type of ship required for level 4s, with sufficient skills and investment you could run some in an assault frig for the hell of it. The point though about Drakes is that they have an op tank and have always done just enough dps to make it possible, even for relatively low skilled pilots. Conversely, you cannot do that with a Harby. The Harby cannot both tank a level 4 and put out enough damage to do them with any reasonable investment in sp and isk. The Myrm can be setup to tank them, but the dps is left even less than that of a Drake, considering the sp investment. You may be able to run some angel level 4s in a passive recharge Cane, as long as you avoid getting webbed. Basically, it has been only Caldari pilots that can get away with doing level 4s with a low skilled BC. That is not balance. Or don't you understand that? Regardless, losing 10% damage will make the overly risk averse missioners spend more time to run level 4s in the Drake. Which is a good thing. Once the BC base shield regen is nerfed it will be even more mind numbing to try to run them in a drake. Enjoy the coming balance, and train a BS like everyone else.
This. I'm already waiting that dual rep Harby fit to be posted.
Faora Zod wrote:No i understand perfectly well what you can do in a low skilled Drake AND I am already trained to fly ALL the SubCaps, I just am not fond of Battleships ROF and Speed is to slow for my taste.
AC Mach. Although it's up for nerf too in the future.
You did also say you don't like ROF of BSs. Well, if you use faction ammo you will hate AC Mach (talking about burning money ). |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
245
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 10:45:00 -
[6305] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:No i understand perfectly well what you can do in a low skilled Drake AND I am already trained to fly ALL the SubCaps, I just am not fond of Battleships ROF and Speed is to slow for my taste.Still though you did not answer my request for a LINK FROM A DEV THAT SAYS DRAKES ARE NOT MEANT FOR RUNNING LEVEL 4 MISSIONS. So your argument is pointless to me with out anything backing the claim. As for the other races ships, you can do them in a Brutix or Cyclone maybe in a prophecy i don't fly Amarr to often so i can't say. Still though the patch notes are up, CCP has only half ass listened to people, DPS and Flight time is still getting lowered to please all the butt hurt players who don't know how to use a sensor damp. We will see how it all ends u the point is that you can do these things in a drake easily, at range, with high damage. take any other battlecrusier and you only get one of those things . . . maybe two . . . i challenge you to show me a battlecruiser besides the drake that can come close to matching its damage and tank with a long range weapon
You think the brutix or cyclone can match the drake's damage and tank at 80 km? go ahead and try it i get about half the tank for the same amount of damage with faction mods at 15 km for the cyclone and worse for the brutix . . . but you go ahead and believe what you want . . . |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
184
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 11:06:00 -
[6306] - Quote
Sigras wrote:the point is that you can do these things in a drake easily, at range, with high damage. take any other battlecrusier and you only get one of those things . . . maybe two . . . i challenge you to show me a battlecruiser besides the drake that can come close to matching its damage and tank with a long range weapon
You think the brutix or cyclone can match the drake's damage and tank at 80 km? go ahead and try it i get about half the tank for the same amount of damage with faction mods at 15 km for the cyclone and worse for the brutix . . . but you go ahead and believe what you want . . . [Myrmidon, PBPL_6200]
6x 200mm Railgun II (Spike M)
3x Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
4x Shield Power Relay II 2x Power Diagnostic System II
3x Medium Core Defense Field Purger I
3x Bouncer II
650dps omni tank 350dps@50km
But this discussion is pointless. I said it countless of times : if pve is imbalanced, fix the NPC, not the ships ; that way you won't screw all pvp environment...
@Faora Zod : with 3 month of skills, you can hop in a BS and do a lvl4. It's risky, but you can do it. If you are that much risk averse, you will still be able to do it in your precious Drake. Do NOT talk about ANY isk efficiency with a Drake in lvl4 mission until you want to prove how hypocritical you are. Oh, if you don't like BS for lvl4, just skill up and use a Tengu, you know, the ultimate pve ship. Guess what ? The Tengu will still be the ultimate pve ship... |
Sigras
Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N
245
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 12:11:00 -
[6307] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Sigras wrote:the point is that you can do these things in a drake easily, at range, with high damage. take any other battlecrusier and you only get one of those things . . . maybe two . . . i challenge you to show me a battlecruiser besides the drake that can come close to matching its damage and tank with a long range weapon
You think the brutix or cyclone can match the drake's damage and tank at 80 km? go ahead and try it i get about half the tank for the same amount of damage with faction mods at 15 km for the cyclone and worse for the brutix . . . but you go ahead and believe what you want . . . [Myrmidon, PBPL_6200] 6x 200mm Railgun II (Spike M) 3x Large Shield Extender II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 4x Shield Power Relay II 2x Power Diagnostic System II 3x Medium Core Defense Field Purger I 3x Bouncer II
650dps omni tank 350dps@50km But this discussion is pointless. I said it countless of times : if pve is imbalanced, fix the NPC, not the ships ; that way you won't screw all pvp environment... @Faora Zod : with 3 month of skills, you can hop in a BS and do a lvl4. It's risky, but you can do it. If you are that much risk averse, you will still be able to do it in your precious Drake. Do NOT talk about ANY isk efficiency with a Drake in lvl4 mission until you want to prove how hypocritical you are. Oh, if you don't like BS for lvl4, just skill up and use a Tengu, you know, the ultimate pve ship. Guess what ? The Tengu will still be the ultimate pve ship... I agree with you, pointless discussion is pointless, but you realize that ship does 12% less DPS at 25km shorter range right? After the change it will be in the same range but now your bouncers will get shot by drones meaning you cant just plant them and kite . . . hardly the same thing . . . |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
11
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 12:54:00 -
[6308] - Quote
So there is not any posts from a DEV stating that Drakes and or any other BCs are not meant to run Level 4s.... it is just like we have never seen a DEV say, we don't want everyone flying Drakes or canes it is just a bunch of players bitching about how others play this game. Do you people really think the DEVs actually give a **** what we use? Until a DEV actually states you are suppose to do level 4 missions in a BS your arguments are pointless. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
184
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 14:23:00 -
[6309] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:So there is not any posts from a DEV stating that Drakes and or any other BCs are not meant to run Level 4s.... it is just like we have never seen a DEV say, we don't want everyone flying Drakes or canes it is just a bunch of players bitching about how others play this game. Do you people really think the DEVs actually give a **** what we use? Until a DEV actually states you are suppose to do level 4 missions in a BS your arguments are pointless. No dev ever said it indeed, though, considering how missions are designed, we can guess what they expected us to use when they designed it.
And still, you are boring with your noob Drake, because the argument doesn't make any sense : noobs will still be able to run lvl4 missions, even in a Drake, and nobody cares, and nobody cares if their income drop by 10% because of this dps nerf, or even 50% for that matter, because there is an insanely high number of other solutions to make these lvl4 missions and because forcing them to use something else than a Drake for this is doing them a favor. Seriously, how can someone entice noobs to do lvl4 missions in a Drake ?! |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
462
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 14:41:00 -
[6310] - Quote
If BCs were meant to be running level fours you'd be seeing all of them but the drake buffed. Probably your biggest hint that CCP thinks the Drake needs a nerf is the fact that CCP is nerfing it.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Mission#General_Combat_Mission_Hints |
|
Deacon Abox
Genstar Inc Villore Accords
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:56:00 -
[6311] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Lili Lu wrote:As for the the type of ship required for level 4s, with sufficient skills and investment you could run some in an assault frig for the hell of it.
The point though about Drakes is that they have an op tank and have always done just enough dps to make it possible, even for relatively low skilled pilots. Conversely, you cannot do that with a Harby. . .
Basically, it has been only Caldari pilots that can get away with doing level 4s with a low skilled BC. That is not balance. Or don't you understand that? Regardless, losing 10% damage will make the overly risk averse missioners spend more time to run level 4s in the Drake. Which is a good thing. Once the BC base shield regen is nerfed it will be even more mind numbing to try to run them in a drake. Enjoy the coming balance, and train a BS like everyone else. No i understand perfectly well what you can do in a low skilled Drake AND I am already trained to fly ALL the SubCaps, I just am not fond of Battleships ROF and Speed is to slow for my taste.Still though you did not answer my request for a LINK FROM A DEV THAT SAYS DRAKES ARE NOT MEANT FOR RUNNING LEVEL 4 MISSIONS. So your argument is pointless to me with out anything backing the claim. As for the other races ships, you can do them in a Brutix or Cyclone maybe in a prophecy i don't fly Amarr to often so i can't say. Still though the patch notes are up, CCP has only half ass listened to people, DPS and Flight time is still getting lowered to please all the butt hurt players who don't know how to use a sensor damp. We will see how it all ends u Lol, who the **** are you? Your ******** question is not a prerequisite for posting a response to your butthurt. Yes, you see it is you who are butthurt. Lili has been playing since 2006. Where's the butthurt?
Now if you want to look at me, a noob that started within the year, then ok you could accuse me of butthurt that my Brutix, Myrm, Cyclone, and Cane can't do what a Drake does to run level 4s. But I'll just laugh back at you. Lol, you said people can run them with Brutix, Cyclone, and Prophecy. Those are all tier 1 BCs. The fitting sucks. You can't marry top tier long range weapons and sufficient tank on any of those ships without ridiculous fitting help and maxed skills. So no, you can't run them in those ships, unless maybe a max skilled character with shiney mods and a lot of patience still in order to complete them. It's all about balance. You keep avoiding that issue.
Benny basically told you where you are wrong. Scream more to the devs for one of them to say explicitly tech I BCs were not meant to run level 4s. None of us have to address your red herring question. Cry more that your drake is becoming less level 4 worthy.
As for damps, I use them a lot in pvp. I love damping drakes. My damp boats are getting buffed. I'll love damping drakes even more. But to dismiss the balancing considerations for pvp that caused the Drake and Cane nerfs itt and soon in-game by saying just use a damp is disingenuous of you. Anyway, fit HAMs on your drake and get close then damps mean **** all.
The devs hinted at normalizing BCs at 17 slots. That means the Drake is scheduled for a further nerf (as with all tier 2 and 3 BCs). I will love your tears when that comes too. For a character that has been playing since 2008 and presumably can field more than a tech I BC stop all your sobbing. If you don't like BSs then post for a speed up for addressing HACs lackluster performance. They are rather weak. I don't see a point to training for them. But they along with tech IIIs should satisfy you for the time being or be your focus for posting suggestions (since you don't like BSs). |
Meolyne
los tabarnakos Ouate de Phoque
21
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 16:59:00 -
[6312] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:So there is not any posts from a DEV stating that Drakes and or any other BCs are not meant to run Level 4s.... (Sum up in the link below)
Basically, it's not CCP's job to tell you what you have to do. It's a (sandbox?) game. You're free to do what you like. Devs are here to prevent you doing things ultra-imbalanced.
Id Est : Carrier in Level 4 (=> gates / Police on TQ) Titan in Empire (Anti-cyno Police) Battleships in scripted Level 1 (=>gates) Bot Miner HighSec Pod killing with rookie ships (oh wait !!) Escape CONCORD Technetium/Dysprodium Conglomerate (incoming) Titan DD 400km insta-popping weapon. (In fact, the dev who imagined that should have played Karazhan
But under-balanced things are not forbidden. Use at your own risk, hire Healers. (AKA logistics)
ie : Frigate in Level 2 Destroyers in level 3... T1 Cruiser Class (BC is a cruiser class skilled ship) in Level 4...
SEMI-L;DR : So, i've looked around, a tutorial for Eve Online. When i've started with EVE, somebody told me : Go for a drake if you want L4. I said : oh can you link your fit. Here we go. T2 invul, L5 engineer, T2 Heavies missiles. Then i read low-end fitting for raven. T1 invul, T1 cruise, L4 engineer. Yeah it was only 500dps, Active tanking, counter-afking playstyle (i've lost one because my neighbourg rung the bell)
My low skilled char was not able to tank or DPS fast enough a whole pocket in a drake. BUT, when doing in group, it's a good L4 discovery ship.
==> If you want to know what ship is designed for, in PVE terms... please take a look at this pic. Mission Level Ship Design you can also read the wiki for the first time maybe. link
Alternatively you can watch the (lol) movie Battleship (2012). You'll find out why a BS is for
EDIT : Benny OHU : WTF You stole my link ! Lol, writing this kind of messages during day work took a long time. You got my vote for being faster than me |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
11
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 19:06:00 -
[6313] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Faora Zod wrote:Lili Lu wrote:As for the the type of ship required for level 4s, with sufficient skills and investment you could run some in an assault frig for the hell of it.
The point though about Drakes is that they have an op tank and have always done just enough dps to make it possible, even for relatively low skilled pilots. Conversely, you cannot do that with a Harby. . .
Basically, it has been only Caldari pilots that can get away with doing level 4s with a low skilled BC. That is not balance. Or don't you understand that? Regardless, losing 10% damage will make the overly risk averse missioners spend more time to run level 4s in the Drake. Which is a good thing. Once the BC base shield regen is nerfed it will be even more mind numbing to try to run them in a drake. Enjoy the coming balance, and train a BS like everyone else. No i understand perfectly well what you can do in a low skilled Drake AND I am already trained to fly ALL the SubCaps, I just am not fond of Battleships ROF and Speed is to slow for my taste.Still though you did not answer my request for a LINK FROM A DEV THAT SAYS DRAKES ARE NOT MEANT FOR RUNNING LEVEL 4 MISSIONS. So your argument is pointless to me with out anything backing the claim. As for the other races ships, you can do them in a Brutix or Cyclone maybe in a prophecy i don't fly Amarr to often so i can't say. Still though the patch notes are up, CCP has only half ass listened to people, DPS and Flight time is still getting lowered to please all the butt hurt players who don't know how to use a sensor damp. We will see how it all ends up Lol, who the **** are you? Your ******** question is not a prerequisite for posting a response to your butthurt. Yes, you see it is you who are butthurt. Lili has been playing since 2006. Where's the butthurt? uh oh Lil has me by a year his opinion must matter more than mine Now if you want to look at me, a noob that started within the year, then ok you could accuse me of butthurt that my Brutix, Myrm, Cyclone, and Cane can't do what a Drake does to run level 4s. But I'll just laugh back at you. Lol, you said people can run them with Brutix, Cyclone, and Prophecy. Those are all tier 1 BCs. The fitting sucks. You can't marry top tier long range weapons and sufficient tank on any of those ships without ridiculous fitting help and maxed skills. So no, you can't run them in those ships, unless maybe a max skilled character with shiney mods and a lot of patience still in order to complete them. It's all about balance. You keep avoiding that issue.I do? I believe I am the one who he agrees with on what the real balancing of the weapon systems should be, you might want to go back a bit and read that part of the conversation. Benny basically told you where you are wrong. Scream more to the devs for one of them to say explicitly tech I BCs were not meant to run level 4s. None of us have to address your red herring question. Cry more that your drake is becoming less level 4 worthy. Benny posted a link and what does it say over in the right hand column under alternative ships to use for level 4s? OMG Battlecruisers! Of course i also realize that the list is more in line for newer players which is why it says alternatives instead of being listed as a primary ship. As for damps, I use them a lot in pvp. I love damping drakes. My damp boats are getting buffed. I'll love damping drakes even more. But to dismiss the balancing considerations for pvp that caused the Drake and Cane nerfs itt and soon in-game by saying just use a damp is disingenuous of you. Anyway, fit HAMs on your drake and get close then damps mean **** all. Good! you are successful in using them for what they meant for, getting long range ships to get closer to you so you can shoot them. The devs hinted at normalizing BCs at 17 slots. That means the Drake is scheduled for a further nerf (as with all tier 2 and 3 BCs). I will love your tears when that comes too. For a character that has been playing since 2008 and presumably can field more than a tech I BC stop all your sobbing. If you don't like BSs then post for a speed up for addressing HACs lackluster performance. They are rather weak. I don't see a point to training for them. But they along with tech IIIs should satisfy you for the time being or be your focus for posting suggestions (since you don't like BSs).
I wouldn't consider losing 1 slot on my Drake much of a nerf. Do you think this is my main toon? Jeez you are new arn't you? who in their right mind would troll a forum with their main? LOL
|
Beast Branded
Solaris Project Border World Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 13:27:00 -
[6314] - Quote
So let me get this Straight.... the Kestrel is a long range missile frig > the Corax is going to be a long range missile Destroyer > Caracal > Drake? > Raven > Phoenix > Leviathan
this entire bloodline has had only one advantage. they hit really hard from Long Ranges... the Cons: are the weak tank, slow hulls, that are useless fits when any enemies get in close..
there should be a Caldari (Missile & Range) Style BC in retribution.. not for blobbing but for the simple fact that's what makes the caldari different... IMO.... i always thought the drake had it's range bonus unrewarded as con to it's Combat Capabilities.... that AND the ironic fact that it cannot dictate the range (SLOW as fek)
a 5% bonus multiplies to 20%-25% at levels 4 and 5... the drake get a resist and kinetic bonus(weak).... But, it's design was fulfilled Perfectly (a general medium between Cruiser and Battleship).... it's master at long range and versatile to adapt to field duty (solo L3 Missions)....
Actually now thinking about it... nerf Missiles... But the Drake/ Caracal needs something more to compensate in return.. 10% range, omni-damage, ROF... Speed, something... hell even a 7.5% to active Shield boosting/ resist would be acceptable.. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 13:44:00 -
[6315] - Quote
Drake is slow? Compared to what? Plated Harbinger? |
Opertone
Aurora Empire Fuzzy Nut Attack Squirrels
194
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 13:52:00 -
[6316] - Quote
missile nerf really sucks, it is unnecessary |
Faora Zod
Don't mess with this DoJo
15
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 00:16:00 -
[6317] - Quote
Watch what you say, the Drake hates will think you are Butt hurt over the nerfs. You know the 10% damage reduction isn't really that bad, the range is what is bull **** since it is what makes up for the ROF, and Alpha of the guns. Oh well, hopefully the Devs will give us back some of the range in a later patch after these changes have been in place for awhile and every one just starts using some other ship besides Drakes and Tengus. |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
186
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 00:52:00 -
[6318] - Quote
Beast Branded wrote:So let me get this Straight.... the Kestrel is a long range missile frig > the Corax is going to be a long range missile Destroyer > Caracal > Drake? > Raven > Phoenix > Leviathan
this entire bloodline has had only one advantage. they hit really hard from Long Ranges... the Cons: are the weak tank, slow hulls, that are useless fits when any enemies get in close..
there should be a Caldari (Missile & Range) Style BC in retribution.. not for blobbing but for the simple fact that's what makes the caldari different... IMO.... i always thought the drake had it's range bonus unrewarded as con to it's Combat Capabilities.... that AND the ironic fact that it cannot dictate the range (SLOW as fek)
a 5% bonus multiplies to 20%-25% at levels 4 and 5... the drake get a resist and kinetic bonus(weak).... But, it's design was fulfilled Perfectly (a general medium between Cruiser and Battleship).... it's master at long range and versatile to adapt to field duty (solo L3 Missions)....
Actually now thinking about it... nerf Missiles... But the Drake/ Caracal needs something more to compensate in return.. 10% range, omni-damage, ROF... Speed, something... hell even a 7.5% to active Shield boosting/ resist would be acceptable.. Drake will still hit *very* hard at long range. And the Caracal will be a beast. |
Azriel X
Fyght Club SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 04:44:00 -
[6319] - Quote
I find it absolutely awesome that as I'm reading this article page by page, I'm selling all of my drakes and as of yet, for 4million below market value no one wants them...
I see missile boats as the young little Timmy with a crutch... and all that's happening over time is he's getting ***** slapped and knee-capped with a '45.
It's O.K. though, its not like I can't just use my cruise missile boats with super duper effectiveness...Oh.. wait |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 08:33:00 -
[6320] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Watch what you say, the Drake hates will think you are Butt hurt over the nerfs. You know the 10% damage reduction isn't really that bad, the range is what is bull **** since it is what makes up for the ROF, and Alpha of the guns. Oh well, hopefully the Devs will give us back some of the range in a later patch after these changes have been in place for awhile and every one just starts using some other ship besides Drakes and Tengus.
Yes, we hate Drakes. I am actually true hater since I own two Drakes and I don't have plans on selling them because they will be awesome HAM boats after BC rebalance. |
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
122
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 11:30:00 -
[6321] - Quote
Azriel X wrote: I'm selling all of my drakes and as of yet, for 4million below market value no one wants them...
Well, drake will become relic of the past and no one will buy them, same goes for nighthawk and tengu. Those ships will become obsolete.
|
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
42
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 12:07:00 -
[6322] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Drake will still hit *very* hard at long range. And the Caracal will be a beast.
Drake never hit very hard. It's a cheap ship with decent long range damage that doesn't require a lot of skills for decent performance, that's why it's used en masse. It can be a cool kiter in nano fit, it can be an immovable brick with tank fit, but the one attribute it never had was definitely damage. That remains unchanged in Retribution - the only major difference is that you'll need to get much closer to use the ranged weapons, which makes the nano fit a lot more vulnerable - that means a drake blob will be vulnerable to being torn to shreds by alpha battleships. Overwhelming numbers will still work, of course, it's just that losses will tend to be higher.
Quote:SEMI-L;DR : So, i've looked around, a tutorial for Eve Online. When i've started with EVE, somebody told me : Go for a drake if you want L4.
I don't know who keeps on suggesting that, but Drake is downright horrible for L4s - and that's coming from someone who loves caldari missile ships and who uses Drake as the primary vessel in wars. Sure, you can use it to run them, but completion times are attrocious, it's like using a freighter to transport a 1m3 cargo 60 jumps away.
Spc One wrote:Azriel X wrote: I'm selling all of my drakes and as of yet, for 4million below market value no one wants them...
Well, drake will become relic of the past and no one will buy them, same goes for nighthawk and tengu. Those ships will become obsolete.
Stop panicking and adapt, nothing's going to be obsolete. In fact, as primarily a Tengu/Drake pilot, I'm trully looking forward to Retribution, as now instead of one, I'll have two viable weapon systems <3 |
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
186
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 12:22:00 -
[6323] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Drake never hit very hard. It's a cheap ship with decent long range damage that doesn't require a lot of skills for decent performance, that's why it's used en masse. It can be a cool kiter in nano fit, it can be an immovable brick with tank fit, but the one attribute it never had was definitely damage.
You forgot half my sentence : "at long range". Even with 10% less damage, the Drake will have the best dps above 35km, and it will be a LOT more at 50km.
Hence, if the Drake have the best dps at long range by a large margin, we can say it hit very hard. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
379
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 13:08:00 -
[6324] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Drake never hit very hard. It's a cheap ship with decent long range damage that doesn't require a lot of skills for decent performance, that's why it's used en masse. It can be a cool kiter in nano fit, it can be an immovable brick with tank fit, but the one attribute it never had was definitely damage.
You forgot half my sentence : "at long range". Even with 10% less damage, the Drake will have the best dps above 35km, and it will be a LOT more at 50km. Hence, if the Drake have the best dps at long range by a large margin, we can say it hit very hard.
Drakes never had the best dps at 35km, except against mwding ships at battlecruiser and above.
Basically, this thread is 300 pages of eft warrioring where people have literally no idea how missiles apply damage. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 13:11:00 -
[6325] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Drake never hit very hard. It's a cheap ship with decent long range damage that doesn't require a lot of skills for decent performance, that's why it's used en masse. It can be a cool kiter in nano fit, it can be an immovable brick with tank fit, but the one attribute it never had was definitely damage.
You forgot half my sentence : "at long range". Even with 10% less damage, the Drake will have the best dps above 35km, and it will be a LOT more at 50km. Hence, if the Drake have the best dps at long range by a large margin, we can say it hit very hard. Drakes never had the best dps at 35km, except against mwding ships at battlecruiser and above. Basically, this thread is 300 pages of eft warrioring where people have literally no idea how missiles apply damage.
Can you prove that I can shoot that Dramiel oribiting my Ferox at 30km with Spike? |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
379
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 13:15:00 -
[6326] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Drake never hit very hard. It's a cheap ship with decent long range damage that doesn't require a lot of skills for decent performance, that's why it's used en masse. It can be a cool kiter in nano fit, it can be an immovable brick with tank fit, but the one attribute it never had was definitely damage.
You forgot half my sentence : "at long range". Even with 10% less damage, the Drake will have the best dps above 35km, and it will be a LOT more at 50km. Hence, if the Drake have the best dps at long range by a large margin, we can say it hit very hard. Drakes never had the best dps at 35km, except against mwding ships at battlecruiser and above. Basically, this thread is 300 pages of eft warrioring where people have literally no idea how missiles apply damage. Can you prove that I can shoot that Dramiel oribiting my Ferox at 30km with Spike?
Why are you shooting spike at 30km?
(And yes, you can, since there is a set chance for you to hit for maximum damage) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 13:20:00 -
[6327] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Drake never hit very hard. It's a cheap ship with decent long range damage that doesn't require a lot of skills for decent performance, that's why it's used en masse. It can be a cool kiter in nano fit, it can be an immovable brick with tank fit, but the one attribute it never had was definitely damage.
You forgot half my sentence : "at long range". Even with 10% less damage, the Drake will have the best dps above 35km, and it will be a LOT more at 50km. Hence, if the Drake have the best dps at long range by a large margin, we can say it hit very hard. Drakes never had the best dps at 35km, except against mwding ships at battlecruiser and above. Basically, this thread is 300 pages of eft warrioring where people have literally no idea how missiles apply damage. Can you prove that I can shoot that Dramiel oribiting my Ferox at 30km with Spike? Why are you shooting spike at 30km? (And yes, you can, since there is a set chance for you to hit for maximum damage)
250s with Spike have trouble tracking Dramiel @ 70km, how do you think I would be able to hit at 30km.
It seems that you don't know how tracking works. It's not as simple as you think. |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
380
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 13:44:00 -
[6328] - Quote
Maybe you shouldnt use spike. Using non-terrible ammo, you can apply between 50 and 100 dps on a dram with a perfect orbit, and if he hits approach on you, you can blap him. At 75km for instance, spike is awful, and you should use lead. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 14:38:00 -
[6329] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Maybe you shouldnt use spike. Using non-terrible ammo, you can apply between 50 and 100 dps on a dram with a perfect orbit, and if he hits approach on you, you can blap him. At 75km for instance, spike is awful, and you should use lead.
Why on earth Dramiel pilot would hit approach? That would be extremely stupid thing to do.
54km + 15 with Lead by the way. Around 30% chance to hit if you can track it. While that Dramiel doesn't have any problems hitting that tanked Ferox if it can get under those 250s. |
Seranova Farreach
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
26
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 16:18:00 -
[6330] - Quote
Frothgar wrote:Its an interesting change. What sort of comparison (Damage/Range) are you looking at when compared to Rails/Beams. I'm worried that HMLs with short range ammo will still have more range, more damage, better fitting, and better damage application (Tracking/Explosion radius,Velocity)
Edit, Any chance for Rails/Beams to get an adjustment should HMLs still prove to be a no brainer at any range?
quit crying, missle ships are shield ships anyway and have no room for tackle usually.
|
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 18:05:00 -
[6331] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:Frothgar wrote:Its an interesting change. What sort of comparison (Damage/Range) are you looking at when compared to Rails/Beams. I'm worried that HMLs with short range ammo will still have more range, more damage, better fitting, and better damage application (Tracking/Explosion radius,Velocity)
Edit, Any chance for Rails/Beams to get an adjustment should HMLs still prove to be a no brainer at any range? quit crying, missle ships are shield ships anyway and have no room for tackle usually.
Drake has one slot for point and one for web/painter. |
Buzzy Warstl
The Strontium Asylum
206
|
Posted - 2012.12.03 18:42:00 -
[6332] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:So there is not any posts from a DEV stating that Drakes and or any other BCs are not meant to run Level 4s.... it is just like we have never seen a DEV say, we don't want everyone flying Drakes or canes it is just a bunch of players bitching about how others play this game. Do you people really think the DEVs actually give a **** what we use? Until a DEV actually states you are suppose to do level 4 missions in a BS your arguments are pointless. And there won't be, ever.
You can use any ship in the game for whatever you want to, though your results may vary.
I can solo L4 missions in a Drake *right now*. I don't do it because there are better ships for the task.
If you have the skills to solo L4 missions in a Drake you have the skills for a better ship.
Plunk down a couple of hundred Misk to fly one of those ships and it will pay for itself in less time than you've spent complaining about the Drake being nerfed (and even the nerfed Drake should be able to run L4's, the technique and fitting will be a bit different is all). |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1351
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 10:36:00 -
[6333] - Quote
Unsticking, let's make some space for future threads. |
|
Krom Thomson
Dark Neutron Star Zombie Mayhem
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 20:51:00 -
[6334] - Quote
so were can i put in for reinbursment for the last 10 months of training since you just F*U*C*K*E*D my accounts form of dps to shi*t all? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
390
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 20:54:00 -
[6335] - Quote
Krom Thomson wrote:so were can i put in for reinbursment for the last 10 months of training since you just F*U*C*K*E*D my accounts form of dps to shi*t all? Right after the nano pilots, SC pilots, 90% web Gallente pilots, Cruise trained SB pilots... Yeah, let us know how that works out. |
Meera Delonier
The Evocati
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 21:10:00 -
[6336] - Quote
So basically the largest ship to fit medium moduals can no longer fit a full rack of them... they have to use smaller sized medium moduals with larger?
Seriously this is how you fixed this? .................................................. ahh.............. uh....... like ......... |
jonny330
Ivy Mike's Munitions Expulsion Services
15
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 18:09:00 -
[6337] - Quote
Something I don't understand, they refer to the Heavy missiles as the long range medium missiles and HAMs as the short range, but they've decreased the range of the heavy missiles. |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY Tribal Conclave
231
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 18:44:00 -
[6338] - Quote
I got to say that I used to have a HAM Legion that was somewhat good... now it is a bad ship... Please read this! > New POS system (Block Built) Please read this! > Refining and Reprocess Revamp |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
401
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 03:13:00 -
[6339] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote:I got to say that I used to have a HAM Legion that was somewhat good... now it is a bad ship... This makes no sense as HAM's got buffed overall. |
Lyradex Fane
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.24 13:13:00 -
[6340] - Quote
This... Is bullshit. You make it so I can't fit a plate, 5 425's, an a fricking AFTERBURNER onto a hurricane? But you buff the DRAKE AGAIN? Seriously frustrating. So clearly, you just want drake blob fleets. |
|
Mr Floydy
The Xenodus Initiative. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
48
|
Posted - 2012.12.24 13:17:00 -
[6341] - Quote
Lyradex Fane wrote:This... Is bullshit. You make it so I can't fit a plate, 5 425's, an a fricking AFTERBURNER onto a hurricane? But you buff the DRAKE AGAIN? Seriously frustrating. So clearly, you just want drake blob fleets.
You sir, have crap fitting skills. |
ApolloF117 HUN
The Fifth Seal
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 08:00:00 -
[6342] - Quote
"Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit"
when this stuff come online? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2969
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 09:06:00 -
[6343] - Quote
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:"Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit"
when this stuff come online?
I'll make a separate post when we're ready to discuss it again, but it's definitely not going to be included in the first major Retri point release. Still too soon to completely gauge the impact of the missile changes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Colt Blackhawk
Forced Penetration Hopeless Addiction
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 09:43:00 -
[6344] - Quote
Missile changes were great. *irony off* Light missiles still don-¦t even scratch a boosted ab dram and the hm nerf was too much. Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
*irony on again*: Yes we need more missile nerf. |
Morgenholt Blue
Red Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 09:54:00 -
[6345] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote:Missile changes were great. *irony off* Light missiles still don-¦t even scratch a boosted ab dram and the hm nerf was too much. Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
*irony on again*: Yes we need more missile nerf.
Yeah heavy missile damage nerf was over the top. The range nerf is fine though. |
Colt Blackhawk
Forced Penetration Hopeless Addiction
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 10:06:00 -
[6346] - Quote
Quote: Yeah heavy missile damage nerf was over the top. The range nerf is fine though.
Agreeing. The drake is now what the maller once was: BAIT only. Althogh I really didn-¦t see drake for weeks now. And I live in lowsec only :P |
Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
92
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 10:34:00 -
[6347] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote:Missile changes were great. *irony off* Light missiles still don-¦t even scratch a boosted ab dram and the hm nerf was too much. Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
*irony on again*: Yes we need more missile nerf.
HAM Drake sure. Was never big on Drakes to begin with though, it's a boring ship, so very much of it is either passive or turned on and left on. The only thing you ever watch is that you don't cap out leaving an MWD on when you shouldn't.
As for the buffed light missiles against a linked AB dram, that's a pretty specific reference to a single situation and is hardly a case for buffing light missiles further, if it didn't work before AND still doesn't then you're no worse off. We shouldn't make lights overpowered because of this one instance where they are weak, incidentally they are bad at very high speeds as well (5km/s and above). Sometimes the situation just calls for turrets is all. |
Colt Blackhawk
Forced Penetration Hopeless Addiction
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 11:20:00 -
[6348] - Quote
HAM DRAKE??? Frig fodder. Drake was always frig fodder but ham drake is really one of the easiest targets for frigs. HAM Drake has bad scan res plus really bad range plus really bad speed, so it is usable only in special situations where also a Torpedo Raven would fit in. Already wondering how CCP will fix the raven The only solution would be to give it a superior scan res to other battleships. So It can target and shoot the primary faster than other bs in fleet to hit simultaneously with the rest of fleet. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
397
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 13:06:00 -
[6349] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote:HAM DRAKE??? Frig fodder. Drake was always frig fodder but ham drake is really one of the easiest targets for frigs. HAM Drake has bad scan res plus really bad range plus really bad speed, so it is usable only in special situations where also a Torpedo Raven would fit in. Already wondering how CCP will fix the raven The only solution would be to give it a superior scan res to other battleships. So It can target and shoot the primary faster than other bs in fleet to hit simultaneously with the rest of fleet.
A ham drake using only the launchers does about 60 dps to a webbed ab frig. (140 including drones)
Not a lot true.. But enough to kill a frig before it can even dent the shields on the drake. |
Lorginir
20
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 13:18:00 -
[6350] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote:HAM DRAKE??? Frig fodder. Drake was always frig fodder but ham drake is really one of the easiest targets for frigs. HAM Drake has bad scan res plus really bad range plus really bad speed, so it is usable only in special situations where also a Torpedo Raven would fit in. Already wondering how CCP will fix the raven The only solution would be to give it a superior scan res to other battleships. So It can target and shoot the primary faster than other bs in fleet to hit simultaneously with the rest of fleet. What make you think they will make any good changes for raven or any other caldari ship? Caldari sucked badly before CCP nerfed last usable missile system in game and I hardly doubt it will ever change. When so-called 'rebalancing' will be finished Winmatars will be masters of missile technologies. Licensed 07.06.2010 R.I.P 10.06.2012 |
|
Colt Blackhawk
Forced Penetration Hopeless Addiction
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 17:33:00 -
[6351] - Quote
Quote:A ham drake using only the launchers does about 60 dps to a webbed ab frig. (140 including drones)
Not a lot true.. But enough to kill a frig before it can even dent the shields on the drake.
??? Close range to a HAM drake??? Long point, kill the drones and stay out of the short range of his missiles. Even javelin ammo with max skills (and many people forget that hams can be skill intensive for max range) will have problems to arrive the frig. Passive shield tank will mostly prevent the drake from getting killed by ONE frig but the frig will point the drake infinitely while waiting for friends.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2972
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:43:00 -
[6352] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote: Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
627
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:03:00 -
[6353] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Colt Blackhawk wrote: Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
they will see an increase when you allow the tracking modifiers to work on missiles, better nerf missiles a little extra before that Christmas wish list https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134275 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
113
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:09:00 -
[6354] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same time frame. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
Ah lovely numbers how I missed thee, any chance at seeing any more to dispel any other incorrect perceptions? Or better still just to see a hint at any trends since the ship changes have been done. If not I understand, time and all of that. But if I could ask for one random bone. How are the hurricane numbers fairing?
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2972
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:13:00 -
[6355] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same time frame. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
Ah lovely numbers how I missed thee, any chance at seeing any more to dispel any other incorrect perceptions? Or better still just to see a hint at any trends since the ship changes have been done. If not I understand, time and all of that. But if I could ask for one random bone. How are the hurricane numbers fairing?
Hurricane dropped 3.9%. Now this is against a backdrop of increasing users so it's a bit worse than these numbers make it appear, but not that much worse. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Morgenholt Blue
Red Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:33:00 -
[6356] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same time frame. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
Ah lovely numbers how I missed thee, any chance at seeing any more to dispel any other incorrect perceptions? Or better still just to see a hint at any trends since the ship changes have been done. If not I understand, time and all of that. But if I could ask for one random bone. How are the hurricane numbers fairing? Hurricane dropped 3.9%. Now this is against a backdrop of increasing users so it's a bit worse than these numbers make it appear, but not that much worse.
How come the loki's powergrid wasn't nerfed with the canes? (Or maybe it was and I can't read?). I feel like arti lokis will just take the place of Tengus now. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2972
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:43:00 -
[6357] - Quote
Morgenholt Blue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same time frame. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
Ah lovely numbers how I missed thee, any chance at seeing any more to dispel any other incorrect perceptions? Or better still just to see a hint at any trends since the ship changes have been done. If not I understand, time and all of that. But if I could ask for one random bone. How are the hurricane numbers fairing? Hurricane dropped 3.9%. Now this is against a backdrop of increasing users so it's a bit worse than these numbers make it appear, but not that much worse. How come the loki's powergrid wasn't nerfed with the canes? (Or maybe it was and I can't read?). I feel like arti lokis will just take the place of Tengus now.
We're keeping an eye on them. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
113
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:46:00 -
[6358] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hurricane dropped 3.9%. Now this is against a backdrop of increasing users so it's a bit worse than these numbers make it appear, but not that much worse.
Thank you most kindly for the info *bows*
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
414
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 20:22:00 -
[6359] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Colt Blackhawk wrote: Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
The question really isn't the dropped usage from hmls or Drakes, but rather hmls on drakes.
If you looked at those numbers, what would they be?
I ask this because hmls are still relatively effective when used on caracals, navy caracals, rooks, tengus, etc. etc...
Soo, in my mind this could effectively mean that the drop in hml launchers is directly relative to the drake.
Also, we're only 1 month into the changes, so I feel that these numbers aren't yet settled on what the final numbers. will be.
Once many of these existing drakes have been destroyed I'm afraid they're not going to get replaced.
Also, there are probably plenty of players who are training out of a drake and just haven't reached a capable skill lvl to be able to fly anything else.
Hell, before these changes I was running around telling many players that if they were going to train missiles then there was no point in training past a tengu and past heavy missiles.
Now..... Well, all I can say is that my over 8mil sp in missiles is going waisted because the only missile boat I currently own is actually a cloaky scanner ship that just happens to have launcher hard points...
While CCP has made cruise and torps more effective, they're still not that effective. In pve I can take out targets approaching using large turrets without the use of any tracking mods. However, in a cruise or torp boat I need at least 2 target painters to put max effective dps on a BATTLESHIP, and that's with high support skills.
Personally, I'm wondering if missiles just need to be taken back to the drawing board and just redesigned in a way to make them more competitive when compared to turrets in both pvp and pve.
I don't know what to do as far as changing them in this manner, but then again, I'm not the game designer and shouldn't be responsible for figuring it out. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:02:00 -
[6360] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Colt Blackhawk wrote: Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers. The question really isn't the dropped usage from hmls or Drakes, but rather hmls on drakes. If you looked at those numbers, what would they be? I ask this because hmls are still relatively effective when used on caracals, navy caracals, rooks, tengus, etc. etc... Soo, in my mind this could effectively mean that the drop in hml launchers is directly relative to the drake. Also, we're only 1 month into the changes, so I feel that these numbers aren't yet settled on what the final numbers. will be. Once many of these existing drakes have been destroyed I'm afraid they're not going to get replaced. Also, there are probably plenty of players who are training out of a drake and just haven't reached a capable skill lvl to be able to fly anything else. Hell, before these changes I was running around telling many players that if they were going to train missiles then there was no point in training past a tengu and past heavy missiles. Now..... Well, all I can say is that my over 8mil sp in missiles is going waisted because the only missile boat I currently own is actually a cloaky scanner ship that just happens to have launcher hard points... While CCP has made cruise and torps more effective, they're still not that effective. In pve I can take out targets approaching using large turrets without the use of any tracking mods. However, in a cruise or torp boat I need at least 2 target painters to put max effective dps on a BATTLESHIP, and that's with high support skills. Personally, I'm wondering if missiles just need to be taken back to the drawing board and just redesigned in a way to make them more competitive when compared to turrets in both pvp and pve. I don't know what to do as far as changing them in this manner, but then again, I'm not the game designer and shouldn't be responsible for figuring it out.
Good points well made, I am of the opinion that sooner or later missiles of all varieties will be phased out. Full stop, no more missiles. This is the second major missile nerf I've had to put up with since joining the community of New Eden. Now I just tell noobs, to 'just train guns'. As for missiles there's no ******* point. Every missile boat I own from frigate to BS underperforms when compared to an equivalent gun toting ship which is sad considering that I have 5 million sp in missiles and roughly the same in gunnery.
Ho Ho there we go.
|
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
417
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:15:00 -
[6361] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Colt Blackhawk wrote: Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers. The question really isn't the dropped usage from hmls or Drakes, but rather hmls on drakes. If you looked at those numbers, what would they be? I ask this because hmls are still relatively effective when used on caracals, navy caracals, rooks, tengus, etc. etc... Soo, in my mind this could effectively mean that the drop in hml launchers is directly relative to the drake. Also, we're only 1 month into the changes, so I feel that these numbers aren't yet settled on what the final numbers. will be. Once many of these existing drakes have been destroyed I'm afraid they're not going to get replaced. Also, there are probably plenty of players who are training out of a drake and just haven't reached a capable skill lvl to be able to fly anything else. Hell, before these changes I was running around telling many players that if they were going to train missiles then there was no point in training past a tengu and past heavy missiles. Now..... Well, all I can say is that my over 8mil sp in missiles is going waisted because the only missile boat I currently own is actually a cloaky scanner ship that just happens to have launcher hard points... While CCP has made cruise and torps more effective, they're still not that effective. In pve I can take out targets approaching using large turrets without the use of any tracking mods. However, in a cruise or torp boat I need at least 2 target painters to put max effective dps on a BATTLESHIP, and that's with high support skills. Personally, I'm wondering if missiles just need to be taken back to the drawing board and just redesigned in a way to make them more competitive when compared to turrets in both pvp and pve. I don't know what to do as far as changing them in this manner, but then again, I'm not the game designer and shouldn't be responsible for figuring it out. Good points well made, I am of the opinion that sooner or later missiles of all varieties will be phased out. Full stop, no more missiles. This is the second major missile nerf I've had to put up with since joining the community of New Eden. Now I just tell noobs, to 'just train guns'. As for missiles there's no ******* point. Every missile boat I own from frigate to BS underperforms when compared to an equivalent gun toting ship which is sad considering that I have 5 million sp in missiles and roughly the same in gunnery. Ho Ho there we go.
I was going to type some big, long speech about how missiles are lacking in comparison, but instead I'll just state the just of the speech.
Missiles still require modules for effectiveness even when traversal isn't an issue. Missiles take time to reach their target. Missiles are null and void if you're destroyed or you or your target warp away. Even when pitted against a ship class equal in size to the relevant missiles, modules for effectiveness are still required. Missiles can be destroyed mid air, thus reducing dps even against a stationary target.(granted, defender missiles suck and aren't used in pvp)
At a certain point, the velocity of your target will negate any missile damage. While this is also the case for turrets when considering tracking, if you took two ships, both travelling at 5000m/s and flying parallel, the turrets can still engage while missiles won't be able to catch the target. (yes, this is a stretch as an example, it's mearly an attempt at removing tracking from the equation while still factoring velocity.)
Another consideration to this is, if tracking is considered such as a fast ship orbitting a stationary ship, turrets can reduce the effects of tracking by using modules, as well as can missiles. HOWEVER, turrets can also use tactical movements to reduce the effects of tracking even more, while missiles cannot.
You get the point... Missiles underperform for many reasons while turrets only need to consider two things. Tracking and range. |
killorbekilled TBE
Initiated
186
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:19:00 -
[6362] - Quote
you forgot missiles dont require cap, they have a choice of all damage types, they have no fall off or optimal :) |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
417
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:39:00 -
[6363] - Quote
killorbekilled TBE wrote:you forgot missiles dont require cap, they have a choice of all damage types, they have no fall off or optimal
Not requiring cap is a non-factor.
I say this because any ship that I've flown that uses missiles still has cap issues. For example, I have flown both a nightmare and a Golem.
My Golem uses torps while my nightmare uses Tachyons. Yet, even though my Golem doesn't require cap for it's torp launchers, it still has the same cap problems that I face on my nightmare, if not more.
The choice of damage types is a non-factor in pvp, which is where the unperforming aspects of missiles becomes a problem. 1) because if I don't know what I'm about to face, swapping ammo types is redundant. 2) many ships have a bonus to one specific damage type 3) often in pvp, players will omni-tank their ships much like sleepers. 4) often times as well in pvp, players will have more resists stacked into their weak spot than in other spots. (for instance, while my nightmare is EM weak, however, when I omni-tank my em is stronger than my thermal resists. 5) Reloading mid fight to TEST a target's resistance towards another damage type is probably more of a waist of dps than it helps.
No, missiles do not have an optimal or falloff, but as a player who has used both turrets and missiles, I can easily say that optimal range has never been a problem. |
Krom Thomson
Dark Neutron Star Zombie Mayhem
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:21:00 -
[6364] - Quote
Lyradex Fane wrote:This... Is bullshit. You make it so I can't fit a plate, 5 425's, an a fricking AFTERBURNER onto a hurricane? But you buff the DRAKE AGAIN? Seriously frustrating. So clearly, you just want drake blob fleets. just wondering um were is this so called drake buff? but i do understand were your coming from with the cane they fu'cked it up as bad as they did heavy missiles |
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
468
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 01:58:00 -
[6365] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Colt Blackhawk wrote: Didn-¦t really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
Personally, I still fly drakes, but only when I land at a station where I have nothing else. I dont plan on replacing them, and once I lose them all, I wont be flying drakes.
Id also like to know the number for drakes in pvp, since what highsec missioners do is not really something I care about. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:51:00 -
[6366] - Quote
I would like to know the criteria that CCP is basing it's balancing decisions on. We're all stabbing at the dark with our suggestions because we don't have perfect knowledge. CCP have that and should share it so that we fully informed can comment on their balancing ideas. |
Dhuras
The Classy Gentlemans Corporation Moist.
13
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 18:45:00 -
[6367] - Quote
I remember people were talking about how heavy missiles could hit small targets far too easy, making them OP or whatever, problem is, if you compare the explosion velocity and radius of HM's and HAM's, it now such that HM's can't hit anything smaller than a cruiser for ****.
at base, T1 HMs get explosion radius: 140 explosion velocity: 81
while t1 HAMs get explosion radius: 125 explosion velocity: 101
In pvp there is now no reason to ever use HM's. HAMs hit out far enough you can kite with them, do more damage and can hit smaller targets better. HM's have better range sure but there's no point using them over HAMs to kite since you can do that with HAMs fine and sniping is moot since the damage is not instantaneous. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
494
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 01:06:00 -
[6368] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:killorbekilled TBE wrote:you forgot missiles dont require cap, they have a choice of all damage types, they have no fall off or optimal Not requiring cap is a non-factor. I say this because any ship that I've flown that uses missiles still has cap issues. For example, I have flown both a nightmare and a Golem. My Golem uses torps while my nightmare uses Tachyons. Yet, even though my Golem doesn't require cap for it's torp launchers, it still has the same cap problems that I face on my nightmare, if not more. The choice of damage types is a non-factor in pvp, which is where the unperforming aspects of missiles becomes a problem. 1) because if I don't know what I'm about to face, swapping ammo types is redundant. 2) many ships have a bonus to one specific damage type 3) often in pvp, players will omni-tank their ships much like sleepers. 4) often times as well in pvp, players will have more resists stacked into their weak spot than in other spots. (for instance, while my nightmare is EM weak, however, when I omni-tank my em is stronger than my thermal resists. 5) Reloading mid fight to TEST a target's resistance towards another damage type is probably more of a waist of dps than it helps. No, missiles do not have an optimal or falloff, but as a player who has used both turrets and missiles, I can easily say that optimal range has never been a problem. Edit... Also, when it comes to optimal/falloff. The aggressor dictates the range... So, reguardless of whether you're using missiles or turrets, you're either going to dictate the range of the fight, or have to find a way to counter the aggressor having the upper hand on range dictation.
this is quite the fail post.
cap cost is a huge factor for turrets. u cant cap out missile launchers with neuts
1, 3 + 4) choice of damage is also huge in pvp. when u come up against certain enemies u can swap damage type to suit their weakest resist or second weakest. As oppose to a laser turret against an armour loki or Hybrids against Gallente T2 which can do F*all. and selectable damage types are also very useful for PvE. Missiles even have more versatile damage types than projectiles.
2) much fewer now, and it has been implied more caldari ships will be replacing the kinetic dam boost for a RoF bonus.
5) selecting damage type is a gamble made with ur knowledge and experience. unless u have logi, swapping mid fight will likely be worse than powering through with an IMPERFECT (but not useless) damage type.
How has range never been an problem? why are u even talking about why range needs to be dictated in the fight in the first place if range is never a problem? I don't know what u mean by aggressor, but range is dictated by speed and otherwise outmaneuvering ur opponent . if i attack ur Drake with my Mega, how on earth will i dictate range? (btw, scrams and webs are a way to manipulate speed)
What were u on when u wrote this post?
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
418
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 04:43:00 -
[6369] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
this is quite the fail post.
cap cost is a huge factor for turrets. u cant cap out missile launchers with neuts
Yes, launchers can still fire without cap, however, without cap most boats that can fit missiles will drop like flies, unless you're considering launchers on armor tanks or passive shield tanks..
Quote:1, 3 + 4) choice of damage is also huge in pvp. when u come up against certain enemies u can swap damage type to suit their weakest resist or second weakest. As oppose to a laser turret against an armour loki or Hybrids against Gallente T2 which can do F*all. and selectable damage types are also very useful for PvE. Missiles even have more versatile damage types than projectiles.
Damage selection is awesome in pve. However, pve is a non-factor. The relevance of comparison is directed solely at pvp. Now, in pvp have damage selection is a good thing. However, once the fight begins swapping damage types mid fight is often times less helpful and more harmful.
Quote:2) much fewer now, and it has been implied more caldari ships will be replacing the kinetic dam boost for a RoF bonus. Yes, however, for missile boats rof buffs means less damage per volley and more waisted volleys which equals isk. Reduced volley damage will hurt us more than a rof buff will help us. Also, in CCP's great wisdom they decided to make the new destroyers have damage specific bonuses, so it's obvious they're not getting away from this design.
Quote:5) selecting damage type is a gamble made with ur knowledge and experience. unless u have logi, swapping mid fight will likely be worse than powering through with an IMPERFECT (but not useless) damage type.
At least we agree that swapping damage types mid fight is more likely to hurt than help. I would probably prefer to have two damage types mixed into one missile than to be stuck with a single damage type that is underperforming, yet swapping damage types will hurt just as much if not more
Quote:How has range never been an problem? why are u even talking about why range needs to be dictated in the fight in the first place if range is never a problem? I don't know what u mean by aggressor, but range is dictated by speed and otherwise outmaneuvering ur opponent . if i attack ur Drake with my Mega, how on earth will i dictate range? (btw, scrams and webs are a way to manipulate speed)
What were u on when u wrote this post?
The agressor is the person who initiates the fight.. In other words, they warp in on you. When a missile boat warps in on a turret boat they rely heavily on knowledge of the ship they're attacking. The must know that ship's tracking capabilities and optimal ranges. This can be difficult since they don't know how the ship is fitted. A turret boat need now worry so much about this information. They simply warp in at what is there optimal range. Obviously there's the matter of whether your ship can take on the intended target or not, but this same consideration must be made for missiles.
Sure, not many people are going to take on a target to which they're unsure whether they'll win or not, but my considerations in these posting are equally pitted ships. Assuming the two ships are equally matched, than there are many factors that give the turret boat a distinct advantage and very few factors that would give the missile boat an advantage. Most of the factors that would help the missile pilot are specifically oriented towards pilot skill. The turret pilot has the general advantages of turrets over missiles, as well as factoring pilot skill. Even without skill, the turrets are given an advantage from the start.
Like I've stated before, I have flown both a Golem and a Nightmare. Without factoring anything but weapon systems, the Nightmare has outperformed the Golem 10 fold. Sure, the Nightmare has other advantages such as stronger sensors, but again, I'm only comparing the weapon systems. The Nightmare can perfectly hit targets in missions as long as they're on the approach and/or have low traversal. In the case of the Golem I needed to have at least 2 target painters with both cruise and torps in order for the missiles to perform well even against other battleships. To add to this, I had every support skill for missiles to lvl 5. In my Nightmare I'm using navy guns and have very few support skills to lvl 5, yet it outperforms.
Now, the tengu was the best missile boat for lvl 4 missions and pvp by far. That said, the hmls on a tengu still underperform when compared to turrets.
HOWEVER, I will agree that the tengu, as well as other SCs, are OP. The point of my statement is mearly to state that even the best missile boat doesn't compare to turret boats until you factor in the rest of its capabilities such as dps, tank, and the ability to fit a 100mn AB. However, I'm sure all SCs will be nerfed when CCP gets there. The tengu will be balanced down to the capabilities of other SCs which will likely hurt the tengu quite severly. Odds are once this happens we're probably more likely to see Ham and turret tengus than hml tengus.
I've blabbed on too long now, but the point is missiles don't compare to turrets. Which is why, even with my over 8mil sp in missiles, I have cross trained into Amarr with lasers, and don't even own anymore missile boats. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:05:00 -
[6370] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
Yes, launchers can still fire without cap, however, without cap most boats that can fit missiles will drop like flies, unless you're considering launchers on armor tanks or passive shield tanks..
you mean like every other actively tanked ship in eve? (yes, even with turrets..) and who could think of a passive tanked missle boat anyway.... never heard of those.
Joe Risalo wrote:
The agressor is the person who initiates the fight.. In other words, they warp in on you. When a missile boat warps in on a turret boat they rely heavily on knowledge of the ship they're attacking. The must know that ship's tracking capabilities and optimal ranges. This can be difficult since they don't know how the ship is fitted. A turret boat need now worry so much about this information.
i underlined the section where you took the wrong turn. as i understood your statement, you need to consider the tracking and the range of the enemy out of defensive reasons (?) as to not get hit and so forth. why exactly does this not concern turret ships? they do not want to get hit either. in addition they have to mind their own tracking and range. i don't see the big advantage of turrets here.
Joe Risalo wrote:
They simply warp in at what is there optimal range. Obviously there's the matter of whether your ship can take on the intended target or not, but this same consideration must be made for missiles.
sounds to me like the only turret ships you encountered so far in your active tanked drake/Golem (why would you use a golem for pvp?) are sniper tier3 bc/ battleships.
Joe Risalo wrote: Sure, not many people are going to take on a target to which they're unsure whether they'll win or not, but my considerations in these posting are equally pitted ships. Assuming the two ships are equally matched, than there are many factors that give the turret boat a distinct advantage and very few factors that would give the missile boat an advantage. Most of the factors that would help the missile pilot are specifically oriented towards pilot skill. The turret pilot has the general advantages of turrets over missiles, as well as factoring pilot skill. Even without skill, the turrets are given an advantage from the start.
i dare you to list all those advantages and disadvatages. let's start right now from the top of my head:
advantages turrets: - generally more dps compared to missiles - the concept of falloff disadvantages: - the issue of tracking - the concept of falloff - dmg can be avoided completly by outrunning the tracking speed
advantages missiles: - no tracking to be minded - no chance of missing a target -> as long as in range, some dmg is always applied, even to small targets disadvantages: - generally less dps compared to turrets - no blapping of smaller targets at range - it is possible to destroy missiles
so far both systems have a strong and a weak side.
Joe Risalo wrote: Like I've stated before, I have flown both a Golem and a Nightmare. Without factoring anything but weapon systems, the Nightmare has outperformed the Golem 10 fold. Sure, the Nightmare has other advantages such as stronger sensors, but again, I'm only comparing the weapon systems. The Nightmare can perfectly hit targets in missions as long as they're on the approach and/or have low traversal. In the case of the Golem I needed to have at least 2 target painters with both cruise and torps in order for the missiles to perform well even against other battleships. To add to this, I had every support skill for missiles to lvl 5. In my Nightmare I'm using navy guns and have very few support skills to lvl 5, yet it outperforms.
well large missiles need to be looked at, which will happen at the time battelships get a look at. two target painters as a support module isn't that much asked, when you think about turret ships often use tracking enhancers and tracking computers to make range and tracking competitive enough for the general pvp environment, especially at the battlecruiser lvl and bigger, just think about the horrible tracking of medium and large laser turrets. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
373
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 11:19:00 -
[6371] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Yes, launchers can still fire without cap, however, without cap most boats that can fit missiles will drop like flies, unless you're considering launchers on armor tanks or passive shield tanks..
You mean like active shield tanked Veng, Sac, Damnation? |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
494
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 14:02:00 -
[6372] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: The Nightmare can perfectly hit targets in missions as long as they're on the approach and/or have low traversal.
everything ur saying is pretty specific to missions. Ur nightmare would struggle to hit player targets because they wouldn't just fly straight towards u.
Quote:Now, in pvp have damage selection is a good thing. However, once the fight begins swapping damage types mid fight is often times less helpful and more harmful.
a good use of scouts an d-scan allows u to chose the optimum damage type before the fight. good scouts will also prevent u from being the one who is warped in on all the time. sitting in space and waiting for them to come to u is a very bad idea
Quote:Also, in CCP's great wisdom they decided to make the new destroyers have damage specific bonuses, so it's obvious they're not getting away from this design
that did suck, and atm the drake looks to be keeping its kinetic bonus but it is still useful to have other damage types to chose from, even when its un bonused. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
418
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 14:48:00 -
[6373] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
you mean like every other actively tanked ship in eve? (yes, even with turrets..) and who could think of a passive tanked missle boat anyway.... never heard of those.
Ok, Your knowledge of Eve is extremely lacking, but I'm going to bite anyway. A Drake is a passive tanked shield boat. There are 5 types of tank. - active armor - active shield - buffer armor - buffer shield - passive shield
Soo, I'm gonna say pretty much everyone who has flown Caldari..
Quote: i underlined the section where you took the wrong turn. as i understood your statement, you need to consider the tracking and the range of the enemy out of defensive reasons (?) as to not get hit and so forth. why exactly does this not concern turret ships? they do not want to get hit either. in addition they have to mind their own tracking and range. i don't see the big advantage of turrets here.
I don't know if this is your intended purpose, but when you speak, I bet lost. But yes, as a missile boat Pilot you do. Example.. If I were to face a ship that I was equally pitted against in Every way (tank, dps, etc. etc.) only he had turrets and I had missiles. I would need to warp in directly on top of him and take advantage of his tracking, and remove as much flight time off of my missiles as possible to give me an advantage.
Quote: sounds to me like the only turret ships you encountered so far in your active tanked drake/Golem (why would you use a golem for pvp?) are sniper tier3 bc/ battleships.
HUH?? ANY ship fittings turrets wants to be in their optimal. So, if they warp in on me, they want me in their optimal. If I warp in on them using a missile boat, I want to do my best to not be in their optimal.
See, these comments you're making give me the feeling that you have no idea what you're talking about and are either here just for the sake of argument/trolling, or have a very bad understanding of Eve and the way weapon systems work.
Quote: i dare you to list all those advantages and disadvatages. let's start right now from the top of my head:
advantages turrets: - generally more dps compared to missiles - the concept of falloff disadvantages: - the issue of tracking - the concept of falloff - dmg can be avoided completly by outrunning the tracking speed
advantages missiles: - no tracking to be minded - no chance of missing a target -> as long as in range, some dmg is always applied, even to small targets disadvantages: - generally less dps compared to turrets - no blapping of smaller targets at range - it is possible to destroy missiles
so far both systems have a strong and a weak side.
Yes, both systems have strong and weak points, but the strong point of turrets devistate the weak points of missiles. Oh, and missiles do not always hit. Unless you wanna consider a target outrunning your flight time, or if you'd like to consider message such has "Your scourge fury cruise missiles hit the target for 0 damage."
So, lets do a list of positives and negatives
Turrets Positives Instant damage cheap ammo 2 damage types in a shot Falloff (damage selection for projectiles) Can hit targets better when tracking isn't an issue Can land damage for higher than normal dps
Negatives Falloff Tracking Limited to two damage types (exluded as a negative with projectiles) can land hits for less than normal dps
Missiles Positives No Tracking Damage Selection No Optimal Same damage on every volley (assuming the target maintains current settings)
Negatives No falloff flight time Can be outrun by ships within range Acceleration time Damage selection is null and void when a pvp battle begins(unless your target has logistics) While tracking isn't an issue, target travel distance is, because if he's close to your max range and orbitting, you may not hit them. Exp velocity can be outrun Require target painters even against stationary targets or other situations where tracking would be a non-factor to turrets Can be destroyed mid flight (granted defenders suck and smart bombs are difficult)
Now, I put no falloff as a negative for missiles because we don't have that extra breathing room. If they're not within range, then they're not within range. At least with turrets you can still do some damage.
Quote:well large missiles need to be looked at, which will happen at the time battelships get a look at. two target painters as a support module isn't that much asked, when you think about turret ships often use tracking enhancers and tracking computers to make range and tracking competitive enough for the general pvp environment, especially at the battlecruiser lvl and bigger, just think about the horrible tracking of medium and large laser turrets. However, now that they slapped the crap out of heavies, there isn't a missile system that is comperable to turrets.
Sure, target painter support isn't that much to ask, but there are 3 things wrong with target painters. 1) Their cycle times are all whacked out in comparison to missile cycle times, which means missile pilots must waist time between target swaps waiting for the target painters to off line 2) They have a optimal/falloff 3) WE always require them, even against stationary targets. (Even in pvp when a target is webbed to almost a full stop, missiles still require target painters.)
Yes, tracking is pvp is always a factor, but there are many times where turret boats can shine with no tracking |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
418
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 15:01:00 -
[6374] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:
everything ur saying is pretty specific to missions. Ur nightmare would struggle to hit player targets because they wouldn't just fly straight towards u.
I used that as an example because mission running is what I do, however, it still applies to pvp. In situations where tracking is low or the target is stationary, you require little to no tracking mods in order to hit that target. Missiles require target painters reguardless of whether or not the target is even moving, and in certain circumstances will even require a web because the target is outrunning the missiles.
Quote:a good use of scouts an d-scan allows u to chose the optimum damage type before the fight. good scouts will also prevent u from being the one who is warped in on all the time. sitting in space and waiting for them to come to u is a very bad idea
I agree, however, just because you know what ship is coming doesn't mean you'll pick the right damage type to use. Like I had stated, often times players will build up their resist hole and make it even stronger than the other resistances.
Quote:that did suck, and atm the drake looks to be keeping its kinetic bonus but it is still useful to have other damage types to chose from, even when its un bonused.
Agreed, but that's only if your target has a massive resist hole.
Most of the time the damage specific bonuses are 25% more damage at lvl 5. That said, your target would need to have a significantly weaker resists to another damage type in order for them to be preferred over kinetic.
I'm not sure if there's more factor to this math than what I'm thinking but basically, if you're target has a 50% kinetic resist, in order for another damage type to outperform the target would need a resist hole that is less that 25% resist. So, the other resistance for the damage type you're using would need to be over 25% weaker than their kinetic resists.
This is why attempting to swap damage types may be more detrimental then helpful.
That said, there are time where you may be able to dictate this. Such as, if a ship is flying fast and using high dps, then you may be able to assume that his resistances are low. Knowing what ship they're flying you might be able to swap to a damage type for his weakest resists and find a soft spot. Normally this is only the case though for small, fast moving ships that have little room for tank if they wish to have good dps and utility, and is not often the case the larger the ship gets. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 16:46:00 -
[6375] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: a lot of stuff that shows me he does not understand my posts.
please read my posts again with an ironic tone and a pinch of sarcasm now and then. if i had no clue about the difference of missiles and turrets or how a drake is usually tanked i would not write in this thread ;)
so now i'm making it strait and clear: all your considerations about enemy tracking and (optimal)range do also apply, when you fly a turret ship. thats nothing specific for missile ships and thereby no disadvantage. thats just flying your ship smartly.
no falloff on missiles is a moot argument, because missiles have a bigger range, which is comparable to optimal and falloff and then some. additionally with no falloff there is no dmg reduction @ range.
that turret ships always fight in optimal is some idealisation on your part. it may be partly true for lasers because they have only a-little-more-then-nothing falloff.
you are the only person i know who thinks selectable dmg-type is something bad for pvp. swapping ammo is also something to be considered for turrets. think about lasers, where you need to switch between the different crystals for adjusting the optimal, although this is not a big deal since the swap is instantly. when using blasters you have 5 seconds between eg.: antimatter and null (-> try to stay in optimal with blasters a whole fight long ^^) when using projectiles the change needs 10 seconds to take place. nevertheless it is thought to be one of the big advantages of projectiles. how come (sarcasm alert)?
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
420
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:05:00 -
[6376] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: a lot of stuff that shows me he does not understand my posts.
please read my posts again with an ironic tone and a pinch of sarcasm now and then. if i had no clue about the difference of missiles and turrets or how a drake is usually tanked i would not write in this thread ;) so now i'm making it strait and clear: all your considerations about enemy tracking and (optimal)range do also apply, when you fly a turret ship. thats nothing specific for missile ships and thereby no disadvantage. thats just flying your ship smartly. no falloff on missiles is a moot argument, because missiles have a bigger range, which is comparable to optimal and falloff and then some. additionally with no falloff there is no dmg reduction @ range. that turret ships always fight in optimal is some idealisation on your part. it may be partly true for lasers because they have only a-little-more-then-nothing falloff. you are the only person i know who thinks selectable dmg-type is something bad for pvp. swapping ammo is also something to be considered for turrets. think about lasers, where you need to switch between the different crystals for adjusting the optimal, although this is not a big deal since the swap is instantly. when using blasters you have 5 seconds between eg.: antimatter and null (-> try to stay in optimal with blasters a whole fight long ^^) when using projectiles the change needs 10 seconds to take place. nevertheless it is thought to be one of the big advantages of projectiles. how come (sarcasm alert)?
Well, you need to work on your sarcasm, cause it doesn't come across.
That said, i'm going to quickly break down comments on your post.
Turret pilots can use pilot skill for both offensive and defensive actions. With missiles, movement doesn't give you any offensive advantages, only defensive.
No falloff on missiles is not a moot argument. Take a look at the thread you're commenting on. Heavy missiles have had their range greatly reduced, putting them at the bottom of the list on range when compared to the turret boats OPTIMAL range. Beam lasers were pretty much tied while projectile and hybrid could outrange significantly.(at least with long range weapon systems)
I do not think selectable damage types is bad in pvp. I do, however, feel that only having one damage type is bad, but, I mostly feel that swapping damage types mid fight more often than not is more detrimental to your cause than helpful.
The reason why I say falloff isn't that important is because players will do their best to stay in optimal, and keep their opponent from being in their optimal.
This is hard to do for turrets since they have different optimals with each ammo type.
However, as the attacker I get to dictate the initial range of the fight and my opponent must either try to counter me, or change to an ammo fit for the range.
In a missile boat, I can warp in at just about any range. However, as long as the turret pilot has at least one ammo type that can reach me at optimal. I will never have the advantage. His volley will hit first, even though I was the first one to engage.
The further away I try to come in at with a missile boat, the longer it will take me to establish dps. Often times, giving too much range will allow your target to run out of range before your first volley even reaches them.
When it comes to missiles you pretty much need to warp in at 0 and pray your target isn't fitted for close range combat. The only time you have another option is when you know you can outrange your intended target even if they had long range weapons.
However, even that is difficult to do now because missiles are getting their ranges nerfed. (at least that's the way it seems based on heavy missiles) |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Random Rule Conform Corpname A Point In Space
87
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:50:00 -
[6377] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
Turret pilots can use pilot skill for both offensive and defensive actions. With missiles, movement doesn't give you any offensive advantages, only defensive.
what do you mean with offensive advantages? the ability to succesfully hit the target? i'd rather see an advantage in not having to mind an optimal and only having to care about the targets velocity. stay in range and spew missiles like a pro.
Joe Risalo wrote:
No falloff on missiles is not a moot argument. Take a look at the thread you're commenting on. Heavy missiles have had their range greatly reduced, putting them at the bottom of the list on range when compared to the turret boats OPTIMAL range. Beam lasers were pretty much tied while projectile and hybrid could outrange significantly.(at least with long range weapon systems)
thats just wrong.
720mm howitzer artillery II : 34,5 km optimal range without ammo, 7,5 km with quake and 54 km with tremor 250mm Railgun II: 36km without ammo, 9 km with javelin, 64,8 with spike (lolrails...) heavy beam II: 30km without ammo, 7,5km with gleam and 54km with aurora heavy missiles: T1: 62 km, T2 Fury: 47 km (lvl5 support skills)
t1 ammo of rails and arties (and beams) which are worth using reduce the base optimal range further. so the sniper-ammo of rails and arties and beams are the ones that outrange the high dmg variant of heavy missiles. but they do less dmg. the only thing that comes as far as faction/T1 heavies are rails with spike, which is like never used.
|
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 00:38:00 -
[6378] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: HUH?? ANY ship fittings turrets wants to be in their optimal. So, if they warp in on me, they want me in their optimal. If I warp in on them using a missile boat, I want to do my best to not be in their optimal.
negative. u must consider ur own weapons AND ur opponents. taking the example of a stabber and a thorax, the stabber has a higher tracking and lower optimal than the thorax, so ur logic would suggest that it wants to get in as close as possible. This would doom the Stabber however, as it just could not take that kind of punishment and come out on top. In fact what the stabber should be doing is kiting out to 10-15km and using the longer fall off of its auto cannons to hit from range AND nullifying the Thorax's guns because of their short range (low fall off). in fact most of the time AC's fight in fall off.
like wise with missiles, although fighting as close as possible will reduce the travel times of missiles, the main advantage of missiles is that their damage is unaffected by range, in fact the only thing to consider is whether its in range or not. so a HAM drake with a range of roughly 18km, should try to keep that 18km distance for as long as possible. there are very few comparable BC's that can deal anywhere near as much damage as a Drake at that range. This goes ten-fold when heavy missiles are considered. No medium turret can project damage as well as a heavy missile launcher beyond 50km. This why missiles are considered very useful for ranged fights, so useful in fact they got nerfed.
Quote: I used that as an example because mission running is what I do, however, it still applies to pvp. In situations where tracking is low or the target is stationary, you require little to no tracking mods in order to hit that target. Missiles require target painters reguardless of whether or not the target is even moving, and in certain circumstances will even require a web because the target is outrunning the missiles.
there are very few cases when ur target will be moving so slowly or altogether stationary, so this point does not apply to PvP. it really doesn't.
Missile launchers don't always require target painters either. Just look at the sig radius of stabbers and the unmodified explosion radius of HAMs. they do 80% damage (thats good!) with no GMP skilling or full damage with GMP V. if the target is moving then things are different yes, but that is the same for turrets, which also benefit from painters.
Quote:I agree, however, just because you know what ship is coming doesn't mean you'll pick the right damage type to use. Like I had stated, often times players will build up their resist hole and make it even stronger than the other resistances.
this is where knowledge of the ship and ur opponent come in. if u know hes the type to plug resist holes (cause not everyone does) then u go for the secondary damage type which will be lower than normal. its a gamble for sure, but the chances of picking the worst possible damage type is small, and u'll still do decent damage with 2nd or even 3rd best. |
Daichi Yamato
Swamp Bucket Swamp Bucket Empire
495
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 01:10:00 -
[6379] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm not sure if there's more factor to this math than what I'm thinking but basically, if you're target has a 50% kinetic resist, in order for another damage type to outperform the target would need a resist hole that is less that 25% resist. So, the other resistance for the damage type you're using would need to be over 25% weaker than their kinetic resists.
the math is close. but not as linear as ur making out. because: damage received = damage dealt* (1-resist%) u need to take ur thinking and apply it from the perspective of damage done rather than damage resisted.
for example;
if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 20% i deal 80 damage if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 40% i deal 60 damage
notice that despite the resistance being twice as high, i dnt do half the damage.
instead:
if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 20% i deal [((1-0.2)*100) = 0.8*100] = 80 damage if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 60% i deal ((1-0.6)*100) = 0.4*100 = 40 damage
so NOW we are doin half the damage
and here is a quick look at some higher resists 100 damage at 80% resist = 20 100 damage at 90% resist = 10 so despite there being only 10% between these two, 80% is actually half as resistant (or takes twice as much damage) as 90% resist
adding in a kinetic damage bonus: Taking an omni shield tank-
a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 40% resist would do 75dps a drake doing 100 therm dps against 20% resist would do 80dps a drake doing 100 em dps against 0% resist does 100dps
so against most T1 shield tankers, u would be better off using thermal or em missile over bonused kinetic missiles. and this is at level V
Taking an omni armour tank-
a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 25% resist would do 93.75 dps a drake doing 100 explosive dps against 10% resist would do 90 dps a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 35% resist (gallente T1) would do 81.25
so against most armour tankers, the kinetic damage is more useful, however, against Gallente T1 (like a myrmidon) explosive damage is more useful. u can also notice in any case, that choosing the wrong damage type does not condemn the drake too much anyways. just try to avoid using EM against armour tankers and explosive against shield tankers. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
420
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 04:36:00 -
[6380] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm not sure if there's more factor to this math than what I'm thinking but basically, if you're target has a 50% kinetic resist, in order for another damage type to outperform the target would need a resist hole that is less that 25% resist. So, the other resistance for the damage type you're using would need to be over 25% weaker than their kinetic resists.
the math is close. but not as linear as ur making out. because: damage received = damage dealt* (1-resist%) u need to take ur thinking and apply it from the perspective of damage done rather than damage resisted. for example; if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 20% i deal 80 damage if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 40% i deal 60 damage notice that despite the resistance being twice as high, i dnt do half the damage. instead: if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 20% i deal [((1-0.2)*100) = 0.8*100] = 80 damage if i do 100 damage that is resisted at 60% i deal ((1-0.6)*100) = 0.4*100 = 40 damage so NOW we are doin half the damage and here is a quick look at some higher resists 100 damage at 80% resist = 20 100 damage at 90% resist = 10 so despite there being only 10% between these two, 80% is actually half as resistant (or takes twice as much damage) as 90% resistadding in a kinetic damage bonus: Taking an omni shield tank- a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 40% resist would do 75dps a drake doing 100 therm dps against 20% resist would do 80dps a drake doing 100 em dps against 0% resist does 100dps so against most T1 shield tankers, u would be better off using thermal or em missile over bonused kinetic missiles. and this is at level V Taking an omni armour tank- a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 25% resist would do 93.75 dps a drake doing 100 explosive dps against 10% resist would do 90 dps a drake doing 125 kinetic dps against 35% resist (gallente T1) would do 81.25 so against most armour tankers, the kinetic damage is more useful, however, against Gallente T1 (like a myrmidon) explosive damage is more useful. u can also notice in any case, that choosing the wrong damage type does not condemn the drake too much anyways. just try to avoid using EM against armour tankers and explosive against shield tankers.
Yes, but in most cases it's best to just take the loss in damage than to attempt 10 seconds worth of reloading to a damage type that may or may not do more damage. |
|
Radamant Nemess
Leteci prasici
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:19:00 -
[6381] - Quote
I came back to the game few weeks ago after several months long break. Retribution was in place, so i checked the web for changes. Saw that heavy missiles got assraped, so wanted to check it out. Truth is - not much difference really. So i can`t shoot at 120km, its about 82km now. Dps is 511 with regular, t1 scourge heavy missiles, don`t remember what it was pre retribution, but i still do lvl 4`s with almost same efficiency. Time to complete missions is insignificantly longer and that`s it... Speed/sig tank with nice resists is still in place, so nothing changed there. Seriously, i can`t understand the whole shitstorm about hm nerf? |
Zhantii
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 14:21:00 -
[6382] - Quote
Thats nice to know the past 2 weeks training HMLs have just been wasted time :/ |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 14:53:00 -
[6383] - Quote
Zhantii wrote:Thats nice to know the past 2 weeks training HMLs have just been wasted time :/
EDIT : so after all the screams of players using HML's saying 20% was way to much you suddenly change it to what many have proposed, after you ppl said you had a very long discussion about these changed and thought them throu.....
Seems to me you just want to change soemthing and dont care what it is, just get a change out ><
Ummmmmm these changes have been live since December 6th, 2012... |
Zhantii
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 14:57:00 -
[6384] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Zhantii wrote:Thats nice to know the past 2 weeks training HMLs have just been wasted time :/
EDIT : so after all the screams of players using HML's saying 20% was way to much you suddenly change it to what many have proposed, after you ppl said you had a very long discussion about these changed and thought them throu.....
Seems to me you just want to change soemthing and dont care what it is, just get a change out >< Ummmmmm these changes have been live since December 6th, 2012...
Lol sorry about that then, feel like i cant read now, maybe i do need to sleep after 20+ hours awake :P Thanks for letting me know :)
|
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 15:10:00 -
[6385] - Quote
Zhantii wrote:Goldensaver wrote:Zhantii wrote:Thats nice to know the past 2 weeks training HMLs have just been wasted time :/
EDIT : so after all the screams of players using HML's saying 20% was way to much you suddenly change it to what many have proposed, after you ppl said you had a very long discussion about these changed and thought them throu.....
Seems to me you just want to change soemthing and dont care what it is, just get a change out >< Ummmmmm these changes have been live since December 6th, 2012... Lol sorry about that then, feel like i cant read now, maybe i do need to sleep after 20+ hours awake :P Thanks for letting me know :) Haha, no worries then. Just thought you should know that this was a while ago :P |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 .. 213 :: [one page] |