Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
946
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 19:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Can we get a look at this relationship please. BC's feel very underwhelming compared to cruisers. Especially the terrible terrible drake.
Perhaps Rapid Medium Launchers?
I know in CCP Rise's post about Rapid Heavies https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=284479 he said moving rapid lights up one step.
Quote:With that out of the way we can talk about the launchers themselves. The idea here is pretty basic in being basically a copy of the Rapid Light Missile launcher group but stepped up one class. Doing this hopefully accomplishes a few goals: Expands the fitting options for battleship sized missile users (currently there's not as much flexibility as turret systems get) Opens up new tactics for battleship sized missile users Adds continuity with medium sized missile systems
I think that Rapid Mediums would give mid tier weapon users the same flexibility as Cruiser and Battleship launcher sizes offer. Where Rapid lights are effective against smaller ships, there is nothing similar in battlecruiser sized combat. I think this would also benefit underused Shield missile ships (Drake for example) at the battlecruiser hull size.
In addition you do present a new option against the clearly popular drone doctrines. I think part of the issue with the Ishtar and Gila seemingly being really strong is because an over nerfing to heavy missiles (which I still don't understand).
The fact that an Ishtar can out DPS and effectively out tank a Drake is kind of absurd no? |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
282
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 19:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
We do have rapid heavy launchers. They are for battleships. Just like rapid lights are for cruisers and battlecruisers. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
946
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 19:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:We do have rapid heavy launchers. They are for battleships. Just like rapid lights are for cruisers and battlecruisers.
Im saying there should be some for medium missiles as well. Sorry if that didn't come out clear. |
Hopelesshobo
Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade
282
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 20:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:We do have rapid heavy launchers. They are for battleships. Just like rapid lights are for cruisers and battlecruisers. Im saying there should be some for medium missiles as well on battlecruisers. Sorry if that didn't come out clear. I guess maybe just lower the fitting requirements on the existing rapid heavy launchers, would work too.
So you want to have a battleship sized weapon, on a cruiser/battlecruiser while they retain their current tank. This isn't op or anything. Also, Heavy and Heavy Assaults are both medium sized armaments. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 20:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Rapid lights are in a pretty good place right now and they see quite a bit of use. I think CCP found a pretty good niche to fill with these weapons. Rapid heavies are still a little meh, but I don't think that's a symptom of the module being poorly balanced, rather I think its that heavy missiles were nerfed a little too much.
Introducing rapid mediums isn't something I'd like to see for the time being. Rapid missile launchers do a lot of DPS relative to the launchers they derive from and creating a short ranged weapon with extremely high DPS and damage application would likely upset the meta a little too much.
Missiles are in need of some attention, though. CCP has balanced most of the other weapon systems and most of them find use now. Drones are still being fine tuned and it will likely be a few balance iterations until CCP irons out issues with sentry drones, the Ishtar and carriers, so I wouldn't hold your breath on any attention coming to missiles before the next few content updates.
Personally, I'd like to see attention turned to the following. I don't have time right now to make a complete argument for any of the changes that I propose, but for the most part I feel they are pretty defensible. In none of the proposals to I suggest a huge buff, but more of a small change. Things like 5-10% here and there to help push things back into the middle.
1. Missiles still don't have a low or mid slot equivalent to the tracking enhancer or tracking computer. I'm willing to sacrifice missile immunity to tracking destabilizers to get them, though some people probably aren't.
2. The target painter isn't particularly well balanced with respect to the stasis webifier. It's a hard issue, given that the TP has so much range over the web, but given that webs have an implicit benefit of possible range control in some engagements I think it warrants a balance change to reflect that disparity.
3. Rockets don't really have enough of a DPS advantage to offset their short range. I don't think they need a big buff, just a little bit to offset the comparative range advantage of light missiles.
4. Heavy missiles probably need a small DPS buff. The nerf to both their application and DPS was pretty heavy handed, and I think it's time to undo a little bit of the DPS hit.
5. The short ranged launchers all take too much grid and CPU. All of the other short ranged weapon systems have the advantage of lower fitting costs relative to the long range ones. HAMs and torpedoes are pretty big offenders in this category. A small change here might let players diversify their fittings a little bit, and help bring new roles for existing ships.
6. The damage application characteristics of cruise missiles and torpedoes are essentially inverted. Cruise missiles are a long range weapon system, yet they apply their DPS significantly better than torpedoes.
7. Torpedoes should probably have a little more range. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
287
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 21:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hmm, I completely misread the OP and would have moved on if it weren't for the other posts. I though you were talking about all BCs, not just missile based ones (except for the topic) and I thought you wanted something like rapids for turrets too, to make them more viable for others besides the drake -¦-¦ Guess I was wrong.
That said and aside. I would not want a new module tier like medium missiles. HM and HAM are the medium size. No rapids needed for that class except lights. BCs aren't their own size class and neither are destroyers - so you can guess I am opposed to this. You also haven't included the CS which are also BC. And this would fix only 1/4th of them, if it really is a fix. - well 1/3 when you exclude the drone boats. Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID Takahashi Alliance
850
|
Posted - 2014.08.04 21:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:We do have rapid heavy launchers. They are for battleships. Just like rapid lights are for cruisers and battlecruisers. Im saying there should be some for medium missiles as well on battlecruisers. Sorry if that didn't come out clear. I guess maybe just lower the fitting requirements on the existing rapid heavy launchers, would work too. How about some Welterweight missiles or some Bantam weight missiles...
Light. Heavy. Cruise.
Small. Medium. Large.
Frigate. Cruiser. Battleship.
There really is no need for yet more subdivisions. http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |
Pearl Canopus
30
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 11:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
-1 I'm against new modules. But I support a new balance pass for missiles proposed by Bullet Therapist. Range and DPS should be in line and better balanced over all sizes. I'm really sure there are not big changes needed.
BTW: I'm running a Drake in PvE and I'm satisfied with. I'm new in PvE business and a Drake is beginner friendly... |
Valleria Darkmoon
Convicts and Savages Shadow Cartel
297
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 12:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote: 2. The target painter isn't particularly well balanced with respect to the stasis webifier. It's a hard issue, given that the TP has so much range over the web, but given that webs have an implicit benefit of possible range control in some engagements I think it warrants a balance change to reflect that disparity.
4. Heavy missiles probably need a small DPS buff. The nerf to both their application and DPS was pretty heavy handed, and I think it's time to undo a little bit of the DPS hit.
A couple of things on both of these:
2. While it's true that webs are generally going to be the superior choice for increasing applied dps with missiles, target painters have implications beyond missile use. Increasing signature allows turrets to track more easily, reduces lock time for anyone who has not locked yet or has lost lock etc and generally makes a ship more susceptible to damage from any source. For that reason a buff to TPs to make them roughly equivalent to a web for missile damage application probably makes them extremely strong on these other fronts. It bears pointing out here that TPs have no direct counter to mitigate their effects as well.
- ECM > ECCM - Damps > Sebo/rsebo - TD > TE and TC, proper flying, missiles - TP > Halo set and Ragnarok fleet booster
Secondly, as you pointed out TPs vastly out range webs, which is exactly why they should be less beneficial. Going to within web range carries with it the inherent risk of being hard tackled yourself as well as the significantly increased difficulty of applying the web if your target is set on not being caught. The fact that they are harder to use as well as riskier suggests they ought to be more powerful. Since this is in fact the case I see little issue with the current setup.
4. Don't forget their projection was brought down a little ways as well. HMLs need either higher dps or better application either would go a long way but HMLs probably had too much attention paid to them to bring about the end of the Drake era.
Incidentally, I would like to see the Typhoon's missile application bonus apply to rapid heavies as well, the damage bonus lists rapid heavies but the application bonus doesn't. Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification. |
epicurus ataraxia
Lazerhawks
891
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 23:31:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rapid mediums I am afraid would currently bring things back to the point where rapid lights were before they were rebalanced to prevent cruisers being a little too powerful, if they were to be introduced, they would in all likelihood not be all that useful with that in mind.
I agree with the comments that Heavy missiles are not in a good place, they were over reduced in effectiveness during the great Drake rebalance, and whilst other medium systems were improved they have been left even more out of balance than ever before.
So I personally have no great wish to see rapid mediums, as I do not like the mechanic in any way. i understand their value, but I choose to avoid fitting rapids where I can. I would welcome however a reasoned rational, rebalance of heavy missiles.
It is overdue and I hope this will be addressed soon. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
8466
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 23:38:00 -
[11] - Quote
Just make the Naga into a missile ship again, then it can use rapid heavies. It would actually be viable, imo.
It's not like anyone uses the damn thing right now since it's outclassed by the Talos in every respect. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |
Jessica Danikov
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
372
|
Posted - 2014.08.05 23:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
Let's have Rapid Torpedo Launchers for the Phoenix.
Because Blap dreads need to come back. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
946
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 00:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:Let's have Rapid Torpedo Launchers for the Phoenix.
Because Blap dreads need to come back.
They should. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
116
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 00:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote: 2. The target painter isn't particularly well balanced with respect to the stasis webifier. It's a hard issue, given that the TP has so much range over the web, but given that webs have an implicit benefit of possible range control in some engagements I think it warrants a balance change to reflect that disparity.
4. Heavy missiles probably need a small DPS buff. The nerf to both their application and DPS was pretty heavy handed, and I think it's time to undo a little bit of the DPS hit.
A couple of things on both of these: 2. While it's true that webs are generally going to be the superior choice for increasing applied dps with missiles, target painters have implications beyond missile use. Increasing signature allows turrets to track more easily, reduces lock time for anyone who has not locked yet or has lost lock etc and generally makes a ship more susceptible to damage from any source. For that reason a buff to TPs to make them roughly equivalent to a web for missile damage application probably makes them extremely strong on these other fronts. It bears pointing out here that TPs have no direct counter to mitigate their effects as well. - ECM > ECCM - Damps > Sebo/rsebo - TD > TE and TC, proper flying, missiles - TP > Halo set and Ragnarok fleet booster Secondly, as you pointed out TPs vastly out range webs, which is exactly why they should be less beneficial. Going to within web range carries with it the inherent risk of being hard tackled yourself as well as the significantly increased difficulty of applying the web if your target is set on not being caught. The fact that they are harder to use as well as riskier suggests they ought to be more powerful. Since this is in fact the case I see little issue with the current setup. 4. Don't forget their projection was brought down a little ways as well. HMLs need either higher dps or better application either would go a long way but HMLs probably had too much attention paid to them to bring about the end of the Drake era. Incidentally, I would like to see the Typhoon's missile application bonus apply to rapid heavies as well, the damage bonus lists rapid heavies but the application bonus doesn't.
Yes, I agree with your statements concerning both TPs and HMLs. I didn't write it, but I was thinking that hopefully in the future CCP might consider expanding their module lineup with respect to tanking styles.
Hull tanking has had some attention paid to it and it has found a few niche roles, which I think is nice, but sig tanking outside of link bonuses and the halo set it isn't really that big of a thing. Its powerful in the right circumstances, and I know people do use halo sets, but personally I haven't seen it that much. That's all anecdotal so I'd leave that out of the argument until someone introduced real hard numbers. Perhaps a target painter buff could correlate with the introduction of a module designed to reduce the signature radius of a ship. We'll see. I feel like an equivalent to tracking enhancers and computers for missiles would go a long way toward providing players with a damage application solution and if that happens it might be that a buff to target painters wouldn't be necessary at all.
BTW Thank you for the constructive feedback. I like toying with balance ideas in my own mind and it always makes me happy to hear fresh perspectives. Other than yes or no.
|
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
116
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 00:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sorry, double post |
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
525
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 00:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
Rapid light missile launchers shoot light missiles.
Rapid heavy missile launchers shoot heavy missiles.
What would a rapid medium missile launcher shoot? There's no such thing as medium missiles... |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
260
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 00:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Just make the Naga into a missile ship again, then it can use rapid heavies. It would actually be viable, imo.
It's not like anyone uses the damn thing right now since it's outclassed by the Talos in every respect. So giving it the worst weapons in the current meta will somehow improve this? And it has tank going for it if that's anything on an ABC. |
Maeltstome
Twisted Insanity. The Kadeshi
561
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:09:00 -
[18] - Quote
BC's and Destroyers (middle-of-the-park hull sizes) should recieve a baked in range bonus ON TOP of the bonuses they already have.
In the case of the Drake, Cyclone, Talwar and Corax, that would mean a SIGNIFICANT bonus to HAM and Rocket range respectively... along the lines of 50%.
This also would apply to the Gun boats - Pump a baked in 50% range increase to Falloff to the Brutix/Hurricane and Optimal to the Ferox/Harbinger and they will be able to reach out and touch faith HAC's and T3's at long range... not a bad thing in the current climate.
Ferox's would be scary - and i like that. |
Maeltstome
Twisted Insanity. The Kadeshi
561
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Just make the Naga into a missile ship again, then it can use rapid heavies. It would actually be viable, imo.
It's not like anyone uses the damn thing right now since it's outclassed by the Talos in every respect.
Except that's a total lie - Naga are hugely popular for blobbing Ishtar's to death for no cost. Naga's have unparalelled range and use shields to tank in fleets - that is huge in low-HP gangs due to remote reps landing at the start of a cycle with shield reps. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |