EVE Search - Fixing the Phoenix

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Fixing the Phoenix

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zvaarian the Red Evil Leprechaun Brigade 207	Posted - 2013.12.10 20:33:00 - [31] - Quote XvXTeacherVxV wrote: Zvaarian the Red wrote: People keep saying stuff like this about missiles in general and my response is always the same. Don't make massive changes all at once. When they nerfed heavy missiles for instance they nerfed damage 10%, explosion radius 12%, and range ~20%. When you nerf something that brutally it can quickly go from overpowered to underpowered. So yeah, if you buff citadel missiles in the same way you could quite possibly get an overpowered weapon. But really, you do not need to make such massive changes all at once. Buff explosion velocity and radius a mere 5% if you are concerned about this, and then see what happens. Then buff again if it's not enough, or revert the changes if such a change suddenly makes them overpowered (I can't imagine they would be). This isn't rocket science. Totally agree. I think it's weird the way most changes seem to occur in increments of 5%. They might have better luck if they changed something by 1% each time they patched until it was just right. 5% is generally a good number to use as it is large enough to generally make an impact yet small enough that the impact is not massive. 1% is simply too small, and requires too many incremental changes to be worth the trouble. That is why 5% increments are so common in balancing throughout the industry.
XvXTeacherVxV The Cult Reborn 64	Posted - 2013.12.10 20:36:00 - [32] - Quote Zvaarian the Red wrote: XvXTeacherVxV wrote: Zvaarian the Red wrote: People keep saying stuff like this about missiles in general and my response is always the same. Don't make massive changes all at once. When they nerfed heavy missiles for instance they nerfed damage 10%, explosion radius 12%, and range ~20%. When you nerf something that brutally it can quickly go from overpowered to underpowered. So yeah, if you buff citadel missiles in the same way you could quite possibly get an overpowered weapon. But really, you do not need to make such massive changes all at once. Buff explosion velocity and radius a mere 5% if you are concerned about this, and then see what happens. Then buff again if it's not enough, or revert the changes if such a change suddenly makes them overpowered (I can't imagine they would be). This isn't rocket science. Totally agree. I think it's weird the way most changes seem to occur in increments of 5%. They might have better luck if they changed something by 1% each time they patched until it was just right. 5% is generally a good number to use as it is large enough to generally make an impact yet small enough that the impact is not massive. 1% is simply too small, and requires too many incremental changes to be worth the trouble. That is why 5% increments are so common in balancing throughout the industry. My point is that they could do a 6 or 7% bonus if they felt it was what was required, and then fine tune from there as need. There's no need to stick to 5/10/15/20 just because they're nice even increments of 5. Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE
Zvaarian the Red Evil Leprechaun Brigade 207	Posted - 2013.12.10 21:01:00 - [33] - Quote XvXTeacherVxV wrote: Zvaarian the Red wrote: XvXTeacherVxV wrote: Zvaarian the Red wrote: People keep saying stuff like this about missiles in general and my response is always the same. Don't make massive changes all at once. When they nerfed heavy missiles for instance they nerfed damage 10%, explosion radius 12%, and range ~20%. When you nerf something that brutally it can quickly go from overpowered to underpowered. So yeah, if you buff citadel missiles in the same way you could quite possibly get an overpowered weapon. But really, you do not need to make such massive changes all at once. Buff explosion velocity and radius a mere 5% if you are concerned about this, and then see what happens. Then buff again if it's not enough, or revert the changes if such a change suddenly makes them overpowered (I can't imagine they would be). This isn't rocket science. Totally agree. I think it's weird the way most changes seem to occur in increments of 5%. They might have better luck if they changed something by 1% each time they patched until it was just right. 5% is generally a good number to use as it is large enough to generally make an impact yet small enough that the impact is not massive. 1% is simply too small, and requires too many incremental changes to be worth the trouble. That is why 5% increments are so common in balancing throughout the industry. My point is that they could do a 6 or 7% bonus if they felt it was what was required, and then fine tune from there as need. There's no need to stick to 5/10/15/20 just because they're nice even increments of 5. Sure. But the 5% is used for a reason. Like I said it's because 5% is big enough to have an impact and small enough that that impact isn't massive. Of course with CCP they nerf things in 30% increments so it's neither here nor there.
Soldarius Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore 403	Posted - 2013.12.10 23:22:00 - [34] - Quote Phoenix problem is easily fixed by buffing citadel torps and cruises missiles' explosion velocity by 10%. This would bump torps from 20 to 22 m/s, and cruises from 29 to 32m/s, allowing them to hit moving capital ships a little more effectively. The below figures are before resists are applied. A seiged Phoenix piloted by an all 5 character with no damage mods or rigs vs a ship of 2920m sigRad moving at 88m/s (unfit Archon with all 5s and no links), would increase it's applied dps from 4055 to 4461dps out to 59km. A Moros under the same conditions currently does 6219 dps at about 22km, and will out dps the Phoenix from 12km out to 40km. This makes the Moros the dread of choice because of it's broad engagement profile when compared to the Phoenix. Increasing the Phoenix's dps will also indirectly broaden it's preferred range compared to the Moros. If the 10% buff proves a little low, it can be bumped up another couple percent from it's original value. This won't make citadel torp/cruise OP vs subcaps. They still have a very large explosion radius. The above mentioned torp Phoenix vs a ship moving at 100m/s and having sigRad of 400m will currently volley for 7500-8500 damage for roughly 440-490dps. This is no better than an AHAC, and in some cases worse. Cruises do much better vs subcaps; approximately 13000 per volley and roughly 550 dps. A seiged or triaged dread or carrier will take no more damage than it would have before the buff. With the proposed change, torps would volley for about 9000 raw damage and 500dps, while cruises would volley for about 14000 and do 600 dps, still well within subcap dps repping and buffer ranges. Again, all of this is before resists are considered. CCP... DO EEEEET! Free Ripley Weaver!
Zvaarian the Red Evil Leprechaun Brigade 208	Posted - 2013.12.10 23:44:00 - [35] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Phoenix problem is easily fixed by buffing citadel torps and cruises missiles' explosion velocity by 10%. This would bump torps from 20 to 22 m/s, and cruises from 29 to 32m/s, allowing them to hit moving capital ships a little more effectively. The below figures are before resists are applied. A seiged Phoenix piloted by an all 5 character with no damage mods or rigs vs a ship of 2920m sigRad moving at 88m/s (unfit Archon with all 5s and no links), would increase it's applied dps from 4055 to 4461dps out to 59km. A Moros under the same conditions currently does 6219 dps at about 22km, and will out dps the Phoenix from 12km out to 40km. This makes the Moros the dread of choice because of it's broad engagement profile when compared to the Phoenix. Increasing the Phoenix's dps will also indirectly broaden it's preferred range compared to the Moros. If the 10% buff proves a little low, it can be bumped up another couple percent from it's original value. This won't make citadel torp/cruise OP vs subcaps. They still have a very large explosion radius. The above mentioned torp Phoenix vs a ship moving at 100m/s and having sigRad of 400m will currently volley for 7500-8500 damage for roughly 440-490dps. This is no better than an AHAC, and in some cases worse. Cruises do much better vs subcaps; approximately 13000 per volley and roughly 550 dps. A seiged or triaged dread or carrier will take no more damage than it would have before the buff. With the proposed change, torps would volley for about 9000 raw damage and 500dps, while cruises would volley for about 14000 and do 600 dps, still well within subcap dps repping and buffer ranges. Again, all of this is before resists are considered. CCP... DO EEEEET! It certainly would be a start at least.
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 998	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:03:00 - [36] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Phoenix problem is easily fixed by buffing citadel torps and cruises missiles' explosion velocity by 10%. No, it's entirely the wrong solution. There is no damage application problem against supercaps or sieged capitals (with the exception of the mysterious nano-Phoenix!), and any application problem against non-sieged capitals is trivially solved by getting a subcap to web the thing. The whole problem with the Phoenix is that the Moros and Naglfar outdamage it by far against stationary objects and structures, while simultaneously being more effective against moving objects. Since an effective blap Phoenix isn't going to happen, the solution must be more raw DPS. And lots of it. Enough to make the Phoenix be a more attractive choice than the Moros and Naglfar against capitals, commensurate with its deficiencies against subcaps.
XvXTeacherVxV The Cult Reborn 68	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:06:00 - [37] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Soldarius wrote: Phoenix problem is easily fixed by buffing citadel torps and cruises missiles' explosion velocity by 10%. No, it's entirely the wrong solution. There is no damage application problem against supercaps or sieged capitals (with the exception of the mysterious nano-Phoenix!), and any application problem against non-sieged capitals is trivially solved by getting a subcap to web the thing. The whole problem with the Phoenix is that the Moros and Naglfar outdamage it by far against stationary objects and structures, while simultaneously being more effective against moving objects. Since an effective blap Phoenix isn't going to happen, the solution must be more raw DPS. And lots of it. Enough to make the Phoenix be a more attractive choice than the Moros and Naglfar against capitals, commensurate with its deficiencies against subcaps. At this point I'll support any kind of change that gets it out of people's hangars. Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE
Zvaarian the Red Evil Leprechaun Brigade 210	Posted - 2013.12.11 00:38:00 - [38] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Soldarius wrote: Phoenix problem is easily fixed by buffing citadel torps and cruises missiles' explosion velocity by 10%. No, it's entirely the wrong solution. There is no damage application problem against supercaps or sieged capitals (with the exception of the mysterious nano-Phoenix!), and any application problem against non-sieged capitals is trivially solved by getting a subcap to web the thing. The whole problem with the Phoenix is that the Moros and Naglfar outdamage it by far against stationary objects and structures, while simultaneously being more effective against moving objects. Since an effective blap Phoenix isn't going to happen, the solution must be more raw DPS. And lots of it. Enough to make the Phoenix be a more attractive choice than the Moros and Naglfar against capitals, commensurate with its deficiencies against subcaps. Your refer to the Phoenix having a broader engagement profile, but a dual TC Moros outdamages the Phoenix against sieged capitals and supercaps apart from a worthless 10 km window around 55 km. And within about 3 km ofc, because of tracking. Citadel Torpedoes can be speed tanked by capital ships, so yes damage application is an issue. And really a torp Phoenix has comparable DPS to an autocannon Naglfar or a pulse laser Revelation, with much better range and much better alpha damage. It really is damage application versus the turret dreads that ruins the Phoenix (especially with torps), not sure why you don't get that. Turret dreads can hit webbed or TP'd battleships for full or near full damage. The Phoenix simply can not, especially with torpedoes. A torp Phoenix can't even hit a stationary battleship for full damage. So turret dreads need to be nerfed in terms of their sub-cap damage or the Phoenix needs some serious love in that area. One or the other.
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 998	Posted - 2013.12.11 14:40:00 - [39] - Quote Zvaarian the Red wrote: Citadel Torpedoes can be speed tanked by capital ships, so yes damage application is an issue. And really a torp Phoenix has comparable DPS to an autocannon Naglfar or a pulse laser Revelation, with much better range and much better alpha damage. It really is damage application versus the turret dreads that ruins the Phoenix (especially with torps), not sure why you don't get that. Turret dreads can hit webbed or TP'd battleships for full or near full damage. The Phoenix simply can not, especially with torpedoes. A torp Phoenix can't even hit a stationary battleship for full damage. So turret dreads need to be nerfed in terms of their sub-cap damage or the Phoenix needs some serious love in that area. One or the other. Just because EFT says it can be done doesn't mean it's important. The speed-tanking thing obviously doesn't apply to sieged/triaged capitals, and against moving capitals (a relative rarity in the smaller fights where you'd actually use a Phoenix because of missile flight time issues) it's trivially solved by a single web. It's not an issue of any significance at all. The much better range that you refer to is basically a myth. A dual TE Naglfar outdamages a Phoenix within 35 km on paper. In reality, the greater freedom of damage type selection of the Naglfar and the loss of damage from the Phoenix because of flight time means that the Phoenix's advantage is probably compressed into a 10 km window around 50-60 km, which is basically worthless. The Revelation is terrible, it's almost as obsolete as the Phoenix - bad DPS, bad range, bad damage types. The Phoenix will never be comparable to turret dreads at damage application thing against subcaps. As Fozzie or maybe Rise alluded to, the nature of missiles means that the boundary between "useless" and "lol OP" is far too fine. Nobody wants unavoidable, 140k volleys smacking down on a ship trying to orbit at 500 m. Since we're not going to get a viable blap Phoenix, (nor do we need one, frankly, given that Moros and Naglfar are already rather effective there) the only role left is that of capital/structure killer. This is even what the description says that it's good at, but it's clearly wrong, as a cursory look at Moros/Naglfar damage and range shows. However, to be used, it has to be considerably better at hitting capitals than the Moros and Naglfar. You mention nerfing the Moros and I'm very sympathetic to that - the range of capital blasters is far too high, and is a powerful contributor to the uselessness of the Revelation. Since torp damage application against capitals isn't a problem, the only way to achieve this is via raw damage, and changing the kinetic-only bonus to omni. If you still want more damage against subcaps, well, the magnitude of the damage increase required to make the Phoenix relevant is such that you'll also see a good increase against subcaps.
Arthur Aihaken The.VOID 955	Posted - 2013.12.19 06:37:00 - [40] - Quote I happen to like missiles. Just fix them and stop making excuses why the problem is unsolvable... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Roime Imperial Collective 3993	Posted - 2013.12.19 08:23:00 - [41] - Quote Missiles, causing nothing but balancing problems and lag since their introduction. .
Komodo Askold No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 92	Posted - 2013.12.19 08:54:00 - [42] - Quote Perhaps what capital missiles need is a 'softening' on the factors by which they lose damage when comparing their explosion velocity and radius with the target's own. On a topic I created with a rather extreme idea (removing target radius for missile application), I got several posts noticing me that the main problem of missiles, and concretely capital missiles, is that their damage drops too quickly with a small variation on target's radius and speed. Perhaps it could work to soften the damage drop curves. One must have in mind, though, that it works on the other direction: a small reduction in target's speed and/or increase of its signature radius might mean a big increase of the damage done to it.
seth Hendar I love you miners 264	Posted - 2013.12.19 09:11:00 - [43] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: Fixing the Phoenix would mean addressing the problems with missiles. Instead we'll probably see CCP40sec (formerly CCP Rise) "balance" the Phoenix into the same oblivion as the Drake. The next expansion, "Oblivion" sees the balancing off all Caldari/missile ships right out of the game. this would explain why they made half the matar ship missiles then
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1005	Posted - 2013.12.19 09:13:00 - [44] - Quote That's the Damage Reduction Factor - decreasing that softens the falloff of missile damage. But any realistic change to that for citadel missiles will achieve nothing - the Moros and Naglfar will still be superior in both blapping and at antistructure/capital work.
Jherik League of xX420BLAZEITSWAGGOTXx. Nulli Secunda 8	Posted - 2013.12.19 15:21:00 - [45] - Quote didnt realize there was already a thread up. I think we can generally agree that the Pheonix isnt broken when it comes to shooting large stationary objects in space, such as a pos or a station. It is generelly understood to be at a severe disadvantage to its fellow dreads when it comes to shooting subcaps however. Until now. Introducing to New Eden, the Rapid Torpedo Launcher making the phoenix blap dread capable is as simple as introducing a Rapid Torpedo Launcher into the game Take the 540 damage a faction torp does now with the 840% damage mod of t2 siege that goes to 3780 x 3 launcers to 13608 x 25% for dread V to to 17010 alpha strike before whatver damage mods you throw on it. As far as Rate of fire using the standard convention of reducing the ROF of the base module to the rapid variant by slightly more than half the ROF of a rapid torp launcher would be around 7 seconds or about 5.25 seconds with Dread V. This would allow the phoenix to pump out about 3240 dps to everything BS sized. i know the other dreads do far more dps than that but this will apply damage much better. and since you all hate the whole 40 second reload time why not simply half it. its a dread its supposed to do alot of damage and simply stealth remove citidel cruise missiles from the game and set up and office pool on how long it takes players to notice.
XvXTeacherVxV The Cult Reborn 79	Posted - 2013.12.19 17:31:00 - [46] - Quote Since the 40second change this game needs less rapid launchers, not more. Can you see the rapier?: http://imgur.com/aFelCpv,GH6lqDE


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,08s, ref 20250617/2204
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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