| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
730
   |
Posted - 2013.12.04 04:28:00 -
[1] - Quote
Since the infamous "heavy missile nerf", missile players have been wandering around in the dark wilderness. It's long overdue to finally let these folks back in from the cold... The previous nerf cut too far and too deep, to the point where heavy missiles have all but disappeared from PvP. It's not just the damage that was nerfed, but the range and application. I don't think anyone would argue that the range wasn't excessive, and that perhaps it needed a bit of a damage adjustment. But to also adjust damage application basically neutered these.
So I have a simple proposal for heavy missiles (stats are based on Faction variant):
GÇó Increase the damage from 155 to 160 (original = 172)
GÇó Reinstate the explosion radius to 125
GÇó Increase the explosion velocity to 85 (original = 81)
The range nerf remains intact (revised flight time, missile velocity). As for the rest, these are relatively minor changes that primarily improve damage application. To keep heavy missiles balanced with heavy assault missiles, I would also propose the following for heavy assault missiles (again, based on the Faction variant):
GÇó Decrease the explosion radius to 100 (original = 125)
GÇó Increase the explosion velocity to 115 (original = 101)
Comments welcome.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Gigan Amilupar
No Code of Conduct
Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
83
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 06:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Hmm, well, I'm a bit concerned about changing the explosion radius on heavies to 125 from their current 140, that seems almost like it could be a bit excessive considering the damage boost and the explosion velocity boost. I say this because explosion radius factors in twice into the missile damage equation, so I feel like that much of a buff would be a bit much.
http://eve.beyondreality.se/pics/MissileFormula.png
That's the missile damage formula (stolen shamelessly from Tippis' Rants). So I'm thinking that maybe a more middling change from 140 to 130-132 might be better. That said, I'd love to see some metrics on the application if anyone wants to run them.
Also, about the buff to HAMs your suggesting...why? My understanding is that they are performing well, so do they really need the buff? Their application already is (and would still be with the changes) better then heavies, so I don't think that they would overlap with them too much, that is, I think there would still be a definable choice between range and application. Anyways, I'm curious to see what others have to say.
+1 for being an interesting topic. |
Cardano Firesnake
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 06:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
I agree. Aplying damage is really horrible with this stuff ;-) |
Seranova Farreach
Lion Squadron
475
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 07:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
all missiles need another look.
rapid launchers need their reload times looked at for sure.
all other launchers need their stats looked at too.
and finally Citadel cruise/torps need a complete overhaul |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
733
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 07:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gigan Amilupar wrote:Hmm, well, I'm a bit concerned about changing the explosion radius on heavies to 125 from their current 140, that seems almost like it could be a bit excessive considering the damage boost and the explosion velocity boost. I say this because explosion radius factors in twice into the missile damage equation, so I feel like that much of a buff would be a bit much.
The 125m explosion radius was the original pre-nerf value. So with my proposal, heavy missiles still have the range hit, lose most of the damage, claw back the explosion radius and gain a slight bit to explosion velocity. It makes them marginally better and not quite so anemic. The changes to HAMs are to ensure they offer better damage application for short-range (PvP) targets, which they should. Don't forget: missiles don't have any damage application modules other than rigs and implants.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
157
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 10:33:00 -
[6] - Quote
Only damage application needs to be improved in my opinion. Start with a 10% buff to the explosion radius and explosion velocity of all heavy missiles. See how that plays out, and make further buffs if necessary. CCP's balance changes seem to often be too extreme with too many variables being changed at once. That leads to overpowered elements becoming underpowered and vice versa (something that happens in EVE far too often). It's a practice that needs to stop. |
Kane Fenris
NWP
135
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 11:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
i agree that HM need something done.
the proposed changes sound good but may be OP the marging of balance of HM is very thin.
but its worth the shot in 1.1 a nerf in 1.2 is easy.... |
Swiftstrike1
Interfector INC.
Fade 2 Black
376
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 11:28:00 -
[8] - Quote
Heavy missiles definitely need a slight buff. Don't think HAMs do though.
When HMs were nerfed, it was explained that the purpose of the nerf was to bring them in line with other long range medium weapon platforms. That was fine. The problem is that the aforementioned other long range medium weapon platforms subsequently received a buff due to the fact that they were terrible. This buff to long range medium turrets invalidated the reason for having nerfed the HMs in the first place.
Fleet Bookmarks
New Gravimetric Sites
Med Clones 2.0 |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
733
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 11:50:00 -
[9] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Heavy missiles definitely need a slight buff. Don't think HAMs do though.
When HMs were nerfed, it was explained that the purpose of the nerf was to bring them in line with other long range medium weapon platforms. That was fine. The problem is that the aforementioned other long range medium weapon platforms subsequently received a buff due to the fact that they were terrible. This buff to long range medium turrets invalidated the reason for having nerfed the HMs in the first place.
HAMs need a slight adjustment to damage application, because there's almost no difference between a revised heavy missile and a heavy assault missile. Current:
GÇó Heavy missile: 140m EX radius, 81m/sec EX velocity
GÇó Heavy assault missile: 125m EX radius, 101m/sec EX velocity
Proposed:
GÇó Heavy missile: 125m EX radius (original, pre-nerf), 85m/sec EX velocity
GÇó Heavy assault missile: 115m EX radius (revised), 110m/sec EX velocity (revised)
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Naomi Anthar
161
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 12:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Swiftstrike1 wrote:Heavy missiles definitely need a slight buff. Don't think HAMs do though.
When HMs were nerfed, it was explained that the purpose of the nerf was to bring them in line with other long range medium weapon platforms. That was fine. The problem is that the aforementioned other long range medium weapon platforms subsequently received a buff due to the fact that they were terrible. This buff to long range medium turrets invalidated the reason for having nerfed the HMs in the first place. HAMs need a slight adjustment to damage application, because there's almost no difference between a revised heavy missile and a heavy assault missile. Current: GÇó Heavy missile: 140m EX radius, 81m/sec EX velocity GÇó Heavy assault missile: 125m EX radius, 101m/sec EX velocity Proposed: GÇó Heavy missile: 125m EX radius (original, pre-nerf), 85m/sec EX velocity GÇó Heavy assault missile: 115m EX radius (revised), 110m/sec EX velocity (revised)
So even tho HAMs are absolutely ok and they work well, you want to buff them just ... just because if you buff heavies difference in ex radius and velocity will be same ?
WAY TO GO. Sorry man that is broken logic. HAMs dont need buffs, actually other way if at all any change.
Maybe heavy missiles need buff but you basically don't want slight buff to make them useful - you buff almost everything.
Keep in mind that nerfs to heavy missiles was done FOR SOME REASON. It was justified - maybe too harsh , but justified.
And if you go another look at missiles at all - then i agree that for example Citadel missiles could use some buffs. But Light missiles and rockets ? HELL NO buff , only nerfs especially for infamous light missiles. |
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
735
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 12:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:So even tho HAMs are absolutely ok and they work well, you want to buff them just ... just because if you buff heavies difference in ex radius and velocity will be same ?
WAY TO GO. Sorry man that is broken logic. HAMs dont need buffs, actually other way if at all any change.
Maybe heavy missiles need buff but you basically don't want slight buff to make them useful - you buff almost everything.
Keep in mind that nerfs to heavy missiles was done FOR SOME REASON. It was justified - maybe too harsh , but justified.
Who said HAMs were ok? The prevalent use of RLMLs prior to change in Rubicon clearly suggests otherwise.
GÇó Odyssey... Heavy missiles are perceived as "OP". Solution: Range is nerfed 22%, damage 10% and explosion radius increased 12%. Heavy assault missiles are left unchanged, and light missiles buffed by 10%. Result: HMs disappear almost entirely from PvP, HAMs retain their niche role for WH space/PvE and players switch to RLMLs en masse for PvP. Drakes are all but abandoned.
GÇó RubiconGǪ Rapid light missile launchers are now perceived as "OP". Solution: Introduce a radical change a week prior to Rubicon that gives them a 'burst' mode that strips 79% (not a typo!) of ammo capacity, doubles their fitting requirement and replaces it with a 40-second reload time. Result: Missiles basically disappear from PvP, aside from rockets on frigates and light missile launchers on destroyers. Caracals are all but abandoned.
My proposal is fairly straight-forward.
1. Adjust the damage application of heavy missiles; retain the range and some of the damage nerf.
2. Improve the damage application for heavy assault missiles as an alternative for short-range combat in PvP.
3. Reinstate the old rapid light missile launchers, improve damage application but reduce damage to pre-Odyssey buff.
As has been clearly demonstrated, you can't simply buff or nerf one system without adversely affecting the others. You need to make heavy missiles better, you need to make heavy assault missiles preferable to heavy missiles for use in PvP - and you need to reduce the effectiveness of light missiles/rapid missile launchers against cruisers and larger targets.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
160
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 14:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:HAMs dont need buffs, actually other way if at all any change.
Err...are you serious? I get someone arguing that HAMs don't need a buff, but you would have to be out of your mind to think they are actually overpowered and in need of a nerf. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |