| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm.
Black Flag Society
245
   |
Posted - 2014.05.07 16:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
Without a rewrite of the missie formula this is the best they can do. It should be noted to all missile users out there that it is now confirmed that missiles are bad and to change a single stat means rebalancing on multiple other items. The citadel missiles themselves are obviousky broken and this hopefuly fix them a bit.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm.
Black Flag Society
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 17:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:I suspect the people that think this is a major buff don't use phoenixes and are assuming only a cruel god would nerf them at this point.
Right now the biggest weakness they have is that they need 2 rapiers on grid to so much as touch battleships. Now carriers sig tank them. There was always a running joke of carriers speed tanking them but they almost never did. Now we need carriers to light micros to hit them for full damage which I'd call way worse.
And when capitals are rebalanced (ie next) you don't suppose that carriers won't get a sig increase? Is it also too much to ask that a phoenix equip 1 target painter like most normal missile boats?
A web is substantial its true but a tp reaches further and is more consistent. Perhaps we will see triage and siege modes grant extra sig as well therefore pushing any cap that wishes to retaliate against the sieged phoenix into a position where it is taking more damage?
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm.
Black Flag Society
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 22:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Angry Mustache wrote:Hey fozzie, ran some EFT tests with the new numbers, and they still aren't very rosy.
After patch, a all LV5 character will have torps at 2250 explosion radius, 52.5 explosion velocity.
Against linked carriers moving at full speed, the new torps are still only able to apply 60% of their nominal damage, while certainly better than the 50% now, it's still pretty pathetic. The explosion radius change means against linked armor carriers (using an archon for example) it's not possible to even hit a carrier standing still for full damage, because the sig of the carrier is now below the sig for the torps.
So the situation arises that you can't hit a triage carrier for full damage because you can't paint them to boost their sig.
Crash booster? Thats like 600 less Er right there
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Capital Storm.
Black Flag Society
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.08 01:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Salient points to remember are yes that missiles choose the worst of the two evaluations
also that Ev where considered is more greatly modified by reducing the target velocity.
Let's look at that above example with some more realistic figures: A cerberus with HAM vs a hawk
cerb hams are 93.8er/152ev vs the hawks 41sr/336tv
the cerb only applies about 140 dps to this hawk (before resist), without a prop mod. Turn on the hawks AB and it does a pitiful 62 dps to our hawk before resists.
HAMs in this scenario suffer multiple problems first being Sr/Tr is 94/41 ie about 0.48, and Ev/Tv being 152/336 (or 152/824) giving us again about 0.45 (or about 0.18). Then you 0.48*0.45 or 0.48*0.18 and you get 0.22 or 0.08. A mere 22% or 8% of the HAM cerbs 600+ dps is being applied to the hawk.
Now throw a web on the hawk. Then apply a TP in a vacuum. Now apply them both. Look at what happens to the numbers. Now apply an improved crash booster. Now switch to RLML. Now switch to HML. All sorts of exciting things start popping up
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 23:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:To be honest the whole explosion radius thing is really contrived; a missile hits a stationary target head on, in the face, what do you think will happen?... (Ok, I suppose you could argue 50% of the blast is radiated away, unless of course it's a 'directed' warhead...) Really wish the missile system proposed 10 years ago had actually come off (large missiles, very low agility at launch, difficulty hitting manoeuvring, i.e. agile, targets up close) Edit: for reference to the above, the '2nd' attempt at a missile system (1st being release): http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=79439 (see TomB's comments on 'Big end note')
I'm not really sure I understand what I'm looking at in those old forum notes.
Obviously several new mechanics and missile systems have been introduced since then not to mention the "kestrel with cruise launchers" is by todays standards patently ridiculous.
It's really not a matter of the ammo being fired as it is the mechanics behind it. Although it would be nice to give missiles better stats to drive home their application of damage over fluctuating power there is a couple of salient points to consider.
1. Missiles cannot be tanked in any kind of falloff range. If you're in range you're taking damage.
2. The only ways to buff missile damage in a practical sense is to either apply webs and/or TP. TP have very long range while webs not so much. Turrets can fight while running away but for missiles the faster you run the faster your target moves to catch up and by association the less dps you apply on the way in.
Missiles as a platform are a fleet level weapon and are designed to be used in conjuntion with both TP and webs which conveniently enough are available on bonused EWAR ships for minmatar (who otherwise generally lack application bonuses on missiles with the exception being typhoon [disclaimer, while web provides a greater net multiplier to damage a TP phoon is more effective than a raven with TPs especially on smaller targets.])
Caldari we hold as having large EHP values and missiles as a weapon platform giving caldari an edge in shield based attrition fleet models, while minmatar by comparison are better for using alpha to crack enemies and push them away.
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 22:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Rapid heavy launchers aren't terrible but the heavy missiles themselves sure are
LP store weapon cost rebalance |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
293
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 11:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Freddie Merrcury wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Freddie Merrcury wrote:... I'm just amused watching the arguments from the Fozzie shills about why this wasn't a colossal waste of time Fozzie shills - Brilliant!! I wonder who else would've endorsed this waste of time. I wonder what kind of person would ignore the overwhelming majority of experienced Phoenix pilots saying these changes weren't going to be even an upgrade, let alone satisfactory for overall dread balance. Shifting the garbage pile around and putting a pretty new banana peel on top doesn't make it any less trash. I'm just sorry for the people that waste time on the skill training. I know I am.
From comments like this I sort of feel that maybe CCP just made a change to see how it would play out and that in spite of the people saying this or that any increase in usage (and any associated victories) could be considered an *effective* change even if it's not immediately popular or makes sense.
Compare with some of the other changes they've made throughout the rebalance, I'd say that they sit on 8/10 for performance generally with a couple of things here or there that are just no good and maybe only because there's not really any place for them anymore (like mine layers or such).
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015
T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346
LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
293
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Provide some ideas if you have them instead of just complaining. See the RLML thread, i offer some ideas for ccp to work with. What can be done with phoenix'? I don't fly them literally so i cannot offer advice beyond mathematics.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=348015
T3 OHing subsystem review and rebalance
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=290346
LP faction weapon store costs rebalancing
|
| |
|