Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

Jump to first DEV post
Author
Dirt Nap Squad.
#1361 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:29
I still stand by my new module suggestion. To have the TD be able to disrupt ALL weapon systems with one mod is, IMO, too effective. (could be said for ECM, but you need racial jammers to be effective)

I am fine with the mod to have the same prereqs as the tracking disruptor, and recieve the same bonuses. Just have a different module. It will be better for the lore, more intuitive and would not make the TD OP.
Joint Venture Conglomerate
#1362 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:29
If tracking disruptors affect missiles will they be renamed?
Fear God and Thread Nought
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
#1363 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:30  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
Currently the concern I have with TD changes is that a single module shouldn't be so powerful against every form of weapon (save for drones, but come on).

I think making a separate TD module, (Someone suggested making a defender missile launcher the TD for missiles). I think implementing it like that would be much more reasonable. That way, a ship could fit TDs, Defender TDs, and not have the power of 2 super TDs that can disrupt the power of every type of weapon. If you knew you would be facing a missile boat, you could use Defender TDs, and if you knew you would be facing a turret boat, you could use normal TDs. It's when the combination of both are combined into one module that it just becomes unfair.

Basically this defender TD module would be a midslot launcher (Defender launcher) that can load 2 types of defenders. Fuel valve defenders which strike the rocket fuel area of a missile, reducing its flight time, and guidance system defenders, which emit a disruptive pulse upon colliding with the missiles that reduces their explosion velocity. The module would have limited ammo, of course, and would take the same time as a normal launcher to reload (thus switching disruption types instantly wouldn't be possible). This balances things a little moar.

Also, defenders just completely destroying other missiles would be unfair if they were made to be useful. Say in the lore that caldari designers were like "Uh, no, we just made our missiles armored so they can't be detonated any longer by defenders. "(Thats why heavies have less rocket fuel after the nerf! <_<)

As well, hopefully different ships could have a bonus to these defender TDs than the standard TD ships.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1364 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:32
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
"i'm ok with this change so everyone should be!"
this, my dear sir is called bigotry. and thank you for pointing out one of the differences between guns and missiles. you may be aware that there are other differences which are not at all as beneficial to the missiles as the one you named.

after reading most of this topic, i have the following to say: everybody in there throwing around random range and dps numbers is an idiot. paper dps do not matter. neither does paper range, neither does EHP or fitting requirements. it's the combination of all these things and a lot lot more that makes a ship balanced, underpowered or overpowered. the fact of the matter is, most heavy missile ships are underpowered where as the drake and tengu are overpowerd in specific situations. nerfing heavy missiles is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is NOT what needs to be done.

as for the tracking idea: all i have to say is that it's beyond stupid and i am baffled that CCP would even come up with something like that.



"I'm not ok with it and so no one should be".

HMLs are OP, their range&applied dps is too good, on top of that the Tengu and Drake themselves are also too good. If they weren't the Tengu and drake wouldn't be used as much and in case of the Tengu you'd see people using non-missile fits. The problem is that other missiles are below par (not counting cruise) so one way of solving that (and the best way imo) is to "nerf" HML and then give people the option to fit modules to boost ALL missile performance, which is what's happening.

Then have a look at the new proposed Caracal, range and rof bonus meaning all of a sudden HAMS become a more viable option now and when coupled with TE/TC they will really work quite well and HML will have the "if you want THAT much range then you'll have to accept low dps" just like other weapon systems.

HAMs will be the new kid on the block and they'll do well. Deal with it.


My only concern with this on the Drake is as currently the Drake should get its kin bonus changes to a ROF bonus or to a blanket missile damage. This would make the changes more balanced. If not guess we will just have to wait till the get the BC's on the board.
#1365 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:33  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
Bloodpetal wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Rommiee wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone?
We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.


Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ?

That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?


I obviously can't speak for that situation since I wasn't working here at the time, but I'd simply ask you to keep an open mind and judge these balance changes and the debate around them on their own merit.


To help Fozzie out...


Balance changes requires tweaking stats.

The Unified Inventory was a huge code undertaking from the FOUNDATION of EVE up to the highest levels of EVE codes. Making changes on a whim after work was done would've required whole amounts of weeks or more to be scrapped and redone. So, making changes there wasn't just a matter of punching a number in a spreadsheet and adjusting it.

Unified Inventory needed a lot of love when it came out, but it wasn't because they were ignoring you.




the issue with the univ. inv. is not only that most ppl think it sucks, its more the way it was done.

CPP first took it to sisi, so they can get feedback from users.

feedback showed that it was a really wrong idea, but that a significant amount of player would agree to get it on TQ if a certain number of issues were adressed AND CCP give it more time in sisi to improve it and check bugs.

in the end, CCPs ends rushing it on TQ "as it was", ths breaking one of the central tool of the game.

and today, it is still painfull to manage big amounts of items, pos etc...

so yes, CCP ignored the dozens of pages / thread regarding the issues of the new inventory when it was on sisi, then brought it on TQ, and continue to ignore players on this subject.

it is still, today, a pain to manage pos, a pain to manage big amounts of items, a pain to have the windows of inv cargo changing position when undocking.
and bugs still remains, like the cargo that still cannot retain their configuration when said to lock or unlock new added items.

all thoses points / issues were brought to CCP knowledge as soon as it entered sisi, several monthago , and they still sits here.

even if i know it will not happen, bringing back the old system would still, today, be an ergonomic and functional improvement.

i work since several years at making and developing software / operating system user interfaces, so i know what i'm talking about
Initiative Mercenaries
#1366 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:33  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Vilnius Zar wrote:

HAMs will be the new kid on the block and they'll do well. Deal with it.


I like HAMs, both in game and out (in real life, Tech2 HAM is called Bacon, and it is delicious). And i'm not against tweaking, but what ccp wants to do is too much too soon. I'm all for more stuff being useful and anything that causes even ONE GoonTear is at least worth considering (lol, take that mittens!). But we've seen this MULTI/OVER-NERF thing from ccp (pre-Fozzie) before and some of us are tired of it.

The pro-nerf people are being extremely short sighted. Slower more well thought out changes wouldn't have generated this kind of Threadnaught.
#1367 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:33
Aliventi wrote:
CCP Fozzie
[list wrote:

  • The damage per second of heavy missile ships like the Drake seems low, why are you making it even lower?
  • I believe the main source of disagreement here comes from comparisons between Heavy Missiles (a long range weapon platform) and short range weapons like autocannons or blasters.
    ...
    but the fact that people have gotten used to comparing Heavy Missiles with short range guns should be taken as one of the signs that Heavies are far too good.
    [/list]


    For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?



    I would like to see also!!!
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1368 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:35
    Aliventi wrote:


    For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


    Takeshi Yamato wrote:
    Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

    250mm Railgun II with Spike:
    DPS: 20
    Alpha: 92
    Optimal: 65 km
    Falloff: 15 km
    Cap/sec: -1.1
    PG: 187.2
    CPU: 31.5

    Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
    DPS: 21
    Alpha: 91
    Optimal: 54 km
    Falloff: 10 km
    Cap/sec: -3.8
    PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
    CPU: 27.8

    720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
    DPS: 17
    Alpha: 242
    Optimal: 54 km
    Falloff: 22 km
    Cap/sec: 0
    PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
    CPU: 24

    Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
    DPS: 23 (previously 29)
    Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
    Range: 63 km (previously 84)
    Cap/sec: 0
    PG: 94.5
    CPU: 41.3

    This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.



    #1369 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:35
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Good afternoon everyone. I know some people have been wondering if I'm still following the thread, so let me assure you that I have read every single post so far and I plan to keep that up.


    I feel for you man, truly i do...

    Was wondering about one thing, now that you are working on bringing missile systems in line with their turret based counterparts have you considered bringing Ballistic Control Systems in line with turret based damage mods aswell? As it is now BCSs requires 40 CPU to fit while all the turret based damage mods require only 30 CPU to fit.
    The Obsidian Front
    #1370 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:36
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders?
    We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.



    I had a horrible feeling that this was the case. It's a shame but are there any other possibilities like scrapping defender missiles for a point defense system based on turrets?

    It could simply be a chance based system of shooting missiles and drones down with a nice animation/effect in game. Either that or I would fully support there being two separate weapon disruption modules (ie. a Turret Disruptor and a Missile Disruptor).
    Amarr Empire
    #1371 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:37
    I wasn’t going to bother adding to the melee but since Fozzie says he reads all posts then here it comes.

    There a 2 different things here. 1 – HM/HAM effectiveness and 2 – ships that use them

    1 The HM nerf needs to happen (and I speak as a mostly HM Tengu user). HM has too much damage and range compared to other medium calibre long range weapon systems. It needs to be brought into line and HAMS need buffing to compare to other short range weapons. So Fozzie please don’t back down to the outcry, just have the courage to do the right thing for game balance.

    2 Some ships are correctly nerfed and others are incorrectly totally screwed over. But don’t let that be the deciding factor – these ships will be rightfully balanced to their desired performance. Sure it's going to take time but so be it. As an alternative you could consider an interim hot fix (gash fix?) to temporarily buff the dps/range of the nighthawk cerberus etc but personally I wouldn't. Do it right – balance the weapon then balance the ships accordingly.

    TD affecting missiles. I’m on the fence here. Id probably vote for reducing the TD effect on all weapons then buff the ships bonuses on the relevant EWAR ships to compensate, thus making the TD bonused ships really effective as force multipliers against all weapons.

    The nerfbat swings and the nerfbat hurts. I've felt it – I didn't quit, I adapted and moved on. The game needs to be balanced and just because it might hurt today CCP (and all of us) have to face up to the fact that balancing the sandbox is right for the long-term game interests.

    Goonswarm Federation
    #1372 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:38
    my power of two tengu alts :(
    Twitter: @EVEAndski

    TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. 
    #1373 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:39
    Spugg Galdon wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fixing defenders?
    We had been working on fixing defenders, but the issue was that they caused a very high amount of lag between their own CPU load and the changes in behavior they would cause.



    I had a horrible feeling that this was the case. It's a shame but are there any other possibilities like scrapping defender missiles for a point defense system based on turrets?

    It could simply be a chance based system of shooting missiles and drones down with a nice animation/effect in game. Either that or I would fully support there being two separate weapon disruption modules (ie. a Turret Disruptor and a Missile Disruptor).



    For missiles it would be ok but leave them drones alone. They can already be easily killed by anything : other drones, missiles, turrets and smartbombs. Additionally they can be webbed and then it's like instapop.
    #1374 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:40
    baltec1 wrote:
    Aliventi wrote:


    For those of us used to comparing these damage types, can you give us the numbers you are working with to prove that Heavy Missiles deserve the 20% nerf to be balanced?


    Takeshi Yamato wrote:
    Here are some raw numbers useful for understanding the proposed HML, beam laser and artillery changes:

    250mm Railgun II with Spike:
    DPS: 20
    Alpha: 92
    Optimal: 65 km
    Falloff: 15 km
    Cap/sec: -1.1
    PG: 187.2
    CPU: 31.5

    Heavy Beam Laser II with Aurora:
    DPS: 21
    Alpha: 91
    Optimal: 54 km
    Falloff: 10 km
    Cap/sec: -3.8
    PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
    CPU: 27.8

    720mm Artillery II with Tremor:
    DPS: 17
    Alpha: 242
    Optimal: 54 km
    Falloff: 22 km
    Cap/sec: 0
    PG: 223.2 (previously 248.5)
    CPU: 24

    Heavy Missile Launcher II with Caldari Navy Scourge:
    DPS: 23 (previously 29)
    Alpha: 189 (previously 237)
    Range: 63 km (previously 84)
    Cap/sec: 0
    PG: 94.5
    CPU: 41.3

    This is without any ship bonuses. My view on this is that a 25% range and a 20% dps nerf only seem ridiculous if one ignores just how much better HMLs were than other weapon systems.





    do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?
    wumbo
    Goonswarm Federation
    #1375 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:41
    Eli Green wrote:


    do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?


    Yes.
    Tactical Narcotics Team
    #1376 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:43
    baltec1 wrote:
    Eli Green wrote:


    do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?


    Yes.


    Also After the first volley travel time it is no longer a factor any longer as all missiles after that hit in there cycle time.
    #1377 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:44  |  Edited by: Eli Green
    baltec1 wrote:
    Eli Green wrote:


    do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?


    Yes.


    in this case then the nerf looks to be fine
    wumbo
    RAZOR Alliance
    #1378 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:48  |  Edited by: Soko99
    MIrple wrote:



    Show me any other t1 cruiser that can apply ~250 DPS at 60k + ranges in every damage type

    Also you get more damage in non kinetic missiles how is this bad?


    Stupid Forum draft.. Why does it keep replacing my posted message.. ARGH..


    Ok..


    Short version.

    1. You don't use all damage types.. Since you use what you get a bonus for.

    2. All level 5. Rapid Light missiles give you a DPS of about 140 with scourge, or 161 with navy scourge. at 63.3km.
    Light missiles give you 111 with regular scourge and 128 with Navy Scourge at the same 63.3km range.
    FAAAAR off your 250DPS..

    Even if you use HEAVY missiles. Which don't fit due to PG/CPU but ignoring all that. Your DPS is still only 221 (granted at a crazy 125+km range which is meaningless since the ship can only lock till 72ish). Once again.. No where near your 250.

    A rupture with 2 TE 3 Gyro pumps out 241 with phased plasma for a volley that's DOUBLE the missiles to a range of 52km. (and that's mid slots all empty and no rigs) and I have no clue on how to even maximize any other cruiser fit from Caldari since I'm primary a caldari pilot.
    Initiative Mercenaries
    #1379 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:49
    baltec1 wrote:
    Eli Green wrote:


    do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?


    Yes.


    Do they factor in firewalls?
    Joint Venture Conglomerate
    #1380 Posted: 2012.09.19 14:49
    MIrple wrote:
    baltec1 wrote:
    Eli Green wrote:


    do those numbers factor in the travel time of the HML though?


    Yes.


    Also After the first volley travel time it is no longer a factor any longer as all missiles after that hit in there cycle time.

    Travel time is a factor when the target dies though as missile users will often have in flight missiles that are wasted reducing their DPS.

    In PvE you can sometimes mitigate this by salvo counting but clearly this is a PITA and not applicable to many targets, especially in PvP.
    Fear God and Thread Nought
    Forum Jump