EVE Search - Missiles vs. Turrets should be balanced in PVE as well as PVP.

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Missiles vs. Turrets should be balanced in PVE as well as PVP.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Vision Threads	Posted - 2008.07.30 16:38:00 - [1] Edited by: Vision Threads on 30/07/2008 16:39:14 The raven is the de facto PVE ship. It is by far the most widely-used ship both for missions and for ratting. When one ship becomes so clearly the best ship for large segments of the game, it's time to look into it. Happily the PVP rebalancing of missiles should accomplish that nicely. One reason for the raven's popularity is that its damage bonuses apply equally to every damage type. But if you're fighting, say, Guristas (weak to kinetic), then why aren't rails just as good an option? Because of the poor effectiveness of rails against NPC frigates, cruisers and fast-moving, close-range NPC battleships when compared to missiles. Because of turret tracking, basically. Everyone is now realizing how unbalanced cruise missiles are for PVP. There's no reason that a cruise missile should have such an easy time hitting a post-speed-nerf MWD HAC when, say, large artillery track them so poorly. Both cruises and large artillery are "long range" BS-class weapons. The same thing applies to PVE. A big reason that ravens dominate PVE is because cruise missiles are so effective versus NPC frigates, cruisers, and fast battleships. When I'm ratting, why can I so easily one-volley any frigate that's on me? A rokh couldn't rack those frigates. It's just as imbalanced in PVE as it is in PVP. And I'm not even going to go into the smaller missile ships that dominate PVE: The caracal and the drake. But they benefit from the exact same imbalances. This is one more reason that missiles need to be looked at. Just like missile ships shouldn't be the I-Win ships for PVP, they also shouldn't be the king of PVE. Let the balancing commence.
Kazuma Saruwatari Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 16:51:00 - [2] Originally by: Vision Threads This is one more reason that missiles need to be looked at. Just like missile ships shouldn't be the I-Win ships for PVP, they also shouldn't be the king of PVE. Let the balancing commence. Hold the soap! Practically half of EVE plays PvE. Thats 15k of the normally 30k on at any one time. Thats 100+k users from the 200+k total subscriptions currently active. (numbers may be off, going off with what I remember) You even change a little bit of how such PvE runs for half of EVE, you'd have people responding with whines, and their wallets. CCP isnt stupid. Changing missiles to be inneffective in PvE (of which they've been strong at for so long, they're a standard) as well as PvP (as a response to speed nerfs) would basically kill half of EVE, and put CCP without half its income. Bit extreme, but you see the point here. Dont touch PvE, do touch PvP. -
Elaine Celeste	Posted - 2008.07.30 16:52:00 - [3] Shhh, nobody's crying about Ravens being too good in pve because, well, npc rats don't really cry all that much. But yeah, since the raven is pretty much the best npc killer out there it's just about time to nerf it, since, according to CCP, if everybody does it, it must be nerfed. Eve: Bricks in space CELESTE LOTTERIES
Vision Threads	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:17:00 - [4] Heh, I'd like to see the solution whereby CCP diminishes the effectiveness of cruise missiles versus cruisers in PVP but leaves that exact same capability alone for PVE. Similarly heavy missiles versus frigates. How in the world do you think that a drake is going to be hot stuff for running level 3 misions with tons of frigates, but magically not be able to hit any frigates in PVP. There's just no way to have cake and eat it too. It's going to be pretty nice to dock in Torrinos without seeing a dozen ravens flying in and out of the station. To be able to go ratter-hunting and find something other than ravens. Finally that monoculture will be broken and this game will have some variety. I'm really looking forward to these missile nerfs, despite having caldari BS 4.
Maeltstome Minmatar Suicidal Office Clerks	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:30:00 - [5] Imo, explosion radius should be heftier for penalties - and increase the sig on missiles. I've been intended to write a thread on this to highlight it: So many carebears whien about the latest PVP trend, but eve PVE is basically raven or GTFO. My caldari pilot can perma run his shield booster and is effective to 100k with his cruise missiles. I'm not kidding when i say it's a play Afk ship. Show some balls dev dudes, and prove that equality isn't just abut when it suits the forum wh*res - this should have been looked at a long time ago. ------- [12:07] w33Daz: a trained 1 skill fur 24 mins n it took 2 days aff drones lvl 5 [12:07] w33Daz: A WIS LIKE WTF
Kenji Kikuta	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:38:00 - [6] Edited by: Kenji Kikuta on 30/07/2008 17:40:34 Missile boats are typically given a boost only to missile kinetic damage. Examples are: Kestrel (frigate) Hawk (af) Caracal (cruiser) Cerberus (hac) Drake (battlecruiser) Nighthawk (commandship). Why this rule doesn't apply to the Raven/Golem I have no idea. Changing the general damage boost to only apply for kinetic missiles would make the pride of Caldari ships, i.e. raven hull ships, still very viable for their nemesis (Guristas). Imo, as it should be.
khosta	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:45:00 - [7] Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari Hold the soap! Practically half of EVE plays PvE. Thats 15k of the normally 30k on at any one time. Thats 100+k users from the 200+k total subscriptions currently active. (numbers may be off, going off with what I remember) You even change a little bit of how such PvE runs for half of EVE, you'd have people responding with whines, and their wallets. CCP isnt stupid. Changing missiles to be inneffective in PvE (of which they've been strong at for so long, they're a standard) as well as PvP (as a response to speed nerfs) would basically kill half of EVE, and put CCP without half its income. Bit extreme, but you see the point here. Dont touch PvE, do touch PvP. Woaah hold it there soldier. Are you suggesting that because a large percent of people use missiles that it is reasonable they should be overpowered relative to other less used weapon types?
Kazuma Saruwatari Caldari	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:51:00 - [8] Originally by: khosta Woaah hold it there soldier. Are you suggesting that because a large percent of people use missiles that it is reasonable they should be overpowered relative to other less used weapon types? considering where its used (PvE. Seriously, think about it. Not everyone playing EVE is a blood-on-hands PvPer. Heck, some people dont even touch anything related to weapons unless its aimed at a rat), and its use to begin with. Yes. You realize how finicky people are when you change their favorite toy into something even 1% less than it was? Whilst I totally see, and support, the idea that Ravens shouldnt be the be-all-end-all in PvE, we're basically talking about roughly half of CCP's potential income here. Thats a big issue in itself. -
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:07:00 - [9] this is really just a matter of, if you **** in my cherrios, im gonna pee in your wheaties. But I totally see where the OP is coming from, When anything becomes the "De Facto" method of doing anything it needs to be changed right? This is why CCP nerfed speed the first time, Why they nerfed NOS, And why they are nerfing speed again. So CCP really needs to stick to their guns. The thing i love most about missiles, is that the only counter for them requiures a empty highslot missile launcher hardpoint, Where as every other form of weapon countering (TD's, RSD, ECM) is midslots, and they actually work.
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:15:00 - [10] Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari Originally by: khosta Woaah hold it there soldier. Are you suggesting that because a large percent of people use missiles that it is reasonable they should be overpowered relative to other less used weapon types? considering where its used (PvE. Seriously, think about it. Not everyone playing EVE is a blood-on-hands PvPer. Heck, some people dont even touch anything related to weapons unless its aimed at a rat), and its use to begin with. Yes. You realize how finicky people are when you change their favorite toy into something even 1% less than it was? Whilst I totally see, and support, the idea that Ravens shouldnt be the be-all-end-all in PvE, we're basically talking about roughly half of CCP's potential income here. Thats a big issue in itself. so your basically saying that they are more important than everyone else, that they are untouchable, and their demands must be met. Actually this does sound quite right, looking at the proposed changes. The big issue i see, is that missile boats were primarily used for missions and ratting due to their nature. Now with these changes, its a huge boost to missile users, while it gives the shaft to close range ships.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:17:00 - [11] If you nerf the missiles, will you take away the wrecking chance you get from turrets then? Counter to missile is speed, wich still works. You can also use ecm, and damps. And FOF`s will only target the nearest hostile... So, yeah missiles are so overpowered. Turrets: Insta damage, wrecking shots, anything in low transversal velocity gets hit. Missile: Delayed damage, no wrecking shots, instead they have a steady amount of damage, speed above 4km/sec = no damage, no need to check transversal velocity. Try to realise that missiles and turrets are not the same. There are pro and cons with both weapon systems.
Vision Threads	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:22:00 - [12] Heh what a surprise Burn Eden doesn't like the idea of a raven nerf.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:28:00 - [13] Edited by: Pohbis on 30/07/2008 18:33:20 Domi + AB + Web + Blasters + Drones There's your King of PvE. Nerf drones in PvE ( seriously, do a search for domi, missions and AFK )
Vengal Seyhan Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:30:00 - [14] I'm going to stick my out and say : Raven? Why bother. Go the Domi I think it's acutally quicker to run missions than the Raven. I fly Gallente because I couldn't ever bear to train Caldari. Before I even joined up I saw the huge agglomeration of colour (pilots in space) in Caldari space and I'm inherently averse to doing what the majority do. It's why I picked Minmatar to start with, it's why I went Gallente after I'd had a play around with the game. I play the game of the challenge, within reasonable limits... too much challenge isn't fun, but neither is zero. And arguing that you can't change missiles because the customers would vote with their wallets is total *******s. If CCP actually think like that the game is dead, because the favoured masses will vote themselves endless bread and circuses, and then Rome will be invaded by barbarians and burn. Hell, they're putting their money where their mouth is with the speed nerf and the other 50% of the playing community, the PvPers.
Aypse Aypse's Holiday	Posted - 2008.07.30 23:21:00 - [15] The OP has a good point, go into any mission running hub and do a scan. CNRs and Ravens will compose >75% of the battleships doing lvl4s. Why is this? Clearly the Raven/CNR has become the de facto PVE ship. When we consider that CCP has committed themselves to nerfing any ship that becomes THE ship of choice, it seems clear that CCP needs to act on this. The Raven combines a superior tank that can permatank all but the extremes of lvl4 missions. Faction tanks and low risk PVE has become the norms. Its time to tone down the Raven's tank and increase the combat abilities of the Rats. Not only that, but the Raven's ability to choose a damage type & never suffer from tracking issues on the rats that pose a threat (BC & BS) gives it a huge advantage over the other race's battleship options. Its time to tone down the Raven's damage ouput to compensate for the other race's difficulties in tracking. These changes will all the other race's BS to compete on an even and fair playing field. Anything less and we continue the currently disturbing trend of the Raven being the de facto PVE ship. Reducing the mechanics that reward blobbing: Eve-O Forum Link
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.30 23:37:00 - [16] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 30/07/2008 23:37:16 Yes, they're awesome PvE machines. Not that anyone cares about PvE, but oh well. Originally by: Vision Threads Everyone is now realizing how unbalanced cruise missiles are for PVP. Not really, no. Look, you know what happens to a cruise raven when it finds itself in a fight vs any other BS? It gets melted while the other guy laughs at the lolDPS it has. As a trade-off, it does better vs smaller ship classes - we can discuss wether it needs a nerf to this or that (maybe sig raidus of cruises?), but claiming cruises are overpowered for PvP is just funny. And if you think you'll be one-volleying frigs with cruises, I lol at you. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Deja Thoris Invicta.	Posted - 2008.07.31 00:13:00 - [17] Oops, it seems theres been an outbreak of foot in mouth disease at CCP.
Vision Threads	Posted - 2008.07.31 00:51:00 - [18] Edited by: Vision Threads on 31/07/2008 00:52:15 Don't get me wrong guys. I'm not really trying to argue that the raven needs to be nerfed because of its PVE power. Sure, the raven is too good at PVE. But who cares about PVE, really? I don't...but boy the whining anti-nano carebears do. I'm simply pointing out that when missiles are nerfed because of their newly-increased PVP power, it's going to bring the raven down the level of turret battleships as far as PVE goes. You have to appreciate the the delicious irony: an indirect result of all the anti-nano carebear whining is going to be the nerfing of their precious ravens and drakes. Unless of course CCP would rather leave ravens and drakes as imbalanced cruiser and frigate killing machines.
Jack Gilligan THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.07.31 01:12:00 - [19] After you nerf missiles, which already are the worst weapon to use in pvp into the worst in pve, why not go after Caldari ECM boats next? Since you clearly want to see a whole race (and the most popular one, mind you) not have any role whatsoever, why don't we start nerfing Amarr armor tanks, lasers, Gallente drone damage, and Minmatar speed (oops already in the works) so we end up with 4 races worth of ships that basically do nothing worthwhile. BTW, I do my PVE in Amarr ships. Why? No need to expend ammo. Their tanks are just as good if not BETTER than Caldari shield tanks. --- My opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my corp or alliance.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:07:00 - [20] best ew, best logistics, best pve and a few decent pvp ships.... yeah I think caldari will survive if missiles are balanced a bit. just if you do change something make it a balance not a complete killing of the weapon system like nanos. missiles always hit/constant damage - turrets get wrecking/misses missiles can hit point blank - turrets can hit if low transversal missiles can choose damage type - turrets can choose range by ammo missiles have longest natural range - turrets can increase range with mods missiles have no effective counter - turrets have falloff missiles are easier to get into - turrets can increase tracking with mods missiles take time to hit target - they use not cap (minmatar pay for that too) t2 missile ammo - t2 turret ammo missiles have good damage at all ranges - turrets have good damage at close range missiles have better specialization skills (mainly the range ones and decreased sig radius one) Anyone got any things to add for either side? theres already a slight imbalance towards missiles there, not anything to completely freak out over, but then a few more special missiles come in: assault launchers; a long range anti frig weapon for cruisers... i don't see any equivalent among the turrets. cruise missiles have 300m sig radius, it's only bs sized weapon with this.
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:08:00 - [21] after the speed nerf ravens/amarr bs will also become the kings of pvp :) who cares about movement, speed and mwd deavtivating scramblers, just stay there and melt ships!
Euriti Gallente SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:11:00 - [22] Edited by: Euriti on 31/07/2008 07:11:34 Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari Originally by: Vision Threads This is one more reason that missiles need to be looked at. Just like missile ships shouldn't be the I-Win ships for PVP, they also shouldn't be the king of PVE. Let the balancing commence. Hold the soap! Practically half of EVE plays PvE. Thats 15k of the normally 30k on at any one time. Thats 100+k users from the 200+k total subscriptions currently active. (numbers may be off, going off with what I remember) You even change a little bit of how such PvE runs for half of EVE, you'd have people responding with whines, and their wallets. CCP isnt stupid. Changing missiles to be inneffective in PvE (of which they've been strong at for so long, they're a standard) as well as PvP (as a response to speed nerfs) would basically kill half of EVE, and put CCP without half its income. Bit extreme, but you see the point here. Dont touch PvE, do touch PvP. Well everybody does it so according to CCPs logic the nerfbat must be brought in to action! Also for a good measure I'll throw in "adapt or die lolol".
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Imperial Servants	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:26:00 - [23] Missile boats might be the king og PvE solo, but if you get a friend to help tank, a Geddon far out performs a raven (getting on par with angels/minmatar). That is my experience anyways.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:36:00 - [24] Ever heard about the Dominix ? It's the tier 1 Gallente battleship. It's awesome in PvP and PvE and costs less than the Raven. Try it out ... you'll be surprised. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Forge Lag	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:37:00 - [25] Edited by: Forge Lag on 31/07/2008 07:41:19 Yeah you can get to Raven levels in PvE with turret boat. You just need three of them to cover all angles and they must be tier3 or faction. Besides, permaboosting Ravens are just result of lazyness, with the superior mobility granted by missiles (from 90km sniping to tight orbits to gate runs), your buffer and baseline shield regen will see you through most missions. Once we see cruise ravens in tight orbits pwning blasters we will know it went too far. Edit: Dominix cannot buffer tank anything and mobility with sentries is either non-existent or will cost you and to get the amazing DPS people speak about it has all the issues of gun ship except it gets mobility issues on top and the tank is severely compromised.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:40:00 - [26] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic after the speed nerf ravens/amarr bs will also become the kings of pvp :) who cares about movement, speed and mwd deavtivating scramblers, just stay there and melt ships! LOL Explosion velocity, explosion radius, signature radius, flight time, velocity. Learn those missile mechanics, they are why missiles are not king of PvP now, and they'll be the reasons missiles won't be king of PvP after the change. The nano-ships go from taking no damage to taking some damage from missiles, true, but the web-nerf will ensure that every single webbed ship will take less damage from missiles, and once scrams shut off MWDs and some people will start fitting ABs, that's even less sig radius for missiles to do damage.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2008.07.31 08:03:00 - [27] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl torp raven melting cruisers is fine /sarcasm And would you care to explain in which scenario a torp Raven would melt a cruiser, and any other short range BS wouldn't?
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.31 08:08:00 - [28] Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 31/07/2008 08:09:09 Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 31/07/2008 08:08:59 Originally by: Pohbis Originally by: Kalintos Tyl torp raven melting cruisers is fine /sarcasm And would you care to explain in which scenario a torp Raven would melt a cruiser, and any other short range BS wouldn't? orbit at 500m? Guns hit for 0 dmg. Hell even BC will be hit for 0dmg.
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2008.07.31 08:18:00 - [29] Edited by: Pohbis on 31/07/2008 08:24:55 Originally by: Kalintos Tyl orbit at 500m? Guns hit for 0 dmg. Hell even BC will be hit for 0dmg. A normal torp with all lvl 5 skills has an explosion radius of 450. What speed is your cruiser doing? AB? MWD? Sitting still? And how much dmg is it doing orbiting at 500m?
Opertone Caldari SIEGE. The Border Patrol	Posted - 2008.07.31 08:37:00 - [30] in my opinion the performance of guns in PVE should be improved, current damage formula has too many penalties such as signature radius, optimal, tracking fall-off and these do not combine together too well. there is no need to reduce the effectiveness of missiles

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.