Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

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

Jump to first DEV post
Author
#3721 Posted: 2012.10.01 16:02
Gypsio III wrote:
Honestly, the Raven has never been renowned for tanking. You can get a vaguely respectable shield buffer on there, but it'll never compete with the Rokh's tank.

This is part of the torp-Raven problem - it's not entirely clear whether the problem is lack of torp range, difficulty of torp damage application or inadequacies in the torp platform (Raven). Part of the problem is that BS themselves have become slightly niche in the small-gang environment where missiles are generally best (excluding the HML Drake blobs, ofc) - small gangs want mobility and BS aren't really mobile, least of all the Raven... Lol

So more range for torps? Cut explosion radius to 400 m? Or an extra medslot for the Raven? Some combination of the three? No idea myself.


Well if we go with the new ship lines then the raven should be a attack ship so higher mobility and if they sort out the tank mods so large sh extenders only go on bs ships it might make it more desirable over drake blobs as it can do considerable dps with cruises especially with the new TE's TC's will help application of dps plus i think bs weapons will et looked at when they get to them
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Gallente Federation
#3722 Posted: 2012.10.01 16:13
Gypsio III wrote:
Honestly, the Raven has never been renowned for tanking. You can get a vaguely respectable shield buffer on there, but it'll never compete with the Rokh's tank.

This is part of the torp-Raven problem - it's not entirely clear whether the problem is lack of torp range, difficulty of torp damage application or inadequacies in the torp platform (Raven). Part of the problem is that BS themselves have become slightly niche in the small-gang environment where missiles are generally best (excluding the HML Drake blobs, ofc) - small gangs want mobility and BS aren't really mobile, least of all the Raven... Lol

So more range for torps? Cut explosion radius to 400 m? Or an extra medslot for the Raven? Some combination of the three? No idea myself.


I think both the raven and golem could probably go for an extra mid slot... Damage application is so difficult with torps and cruise that they need it for the target painters.

Expecially the raven which doesn't get a tanking bonus.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#3723 Posted: 2012.10.01 16:15
Harvey James wrote:
as it can do considerable dps with cruises


Cruise is another part of the Raven problem. Cruise is fundamentally broken and of no use whatsoever. With insta-probing and on-grid warps, range beyond 150 km is of very limited use. Inside 100 km, cruise DPS is thoroughly outclassed by BS turrets. There may be a slight paper DPS advantage somewhere around 140 km, but difficulty of Cruise application against sub-BS and flight time issues basically mean that there's no reason to fly a cruise Raven.

How do you fix that? Alter probing and warping mechanics so >150 km is more useful? Cut Cruise range to ~100 km and increase DPS? Does a "fixed" cruise-Raven just lead us from homogenous Drake gangs to Raven fleets, with fleet dynamics making it impossible to find a middle ground between useless and overpowered?
#3724 Posted: 2012.10.01 16:18
Gypsio III wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
as it can do considerable dps with cruises


Cruise is another part of the Raven problem. Cruise is fundamentally broken and of no use whatsoever. With insta-probing and on-grid warps, range beyond 150 km is of very limited use. Inside 100 km, cruise DPS is thoroughly outclassed by BS turrets. There may be a slight paper DPS advantage somewhere around 140 km, but difficulty of Cruise application against sub-BS and flight time issues basically mean that there's no reason to fly a cruise Raven.

How do you fix that? Alter probing and warping mechanics so >150 km is more useful? Cut Cruise range to ~100 km and increase DPS? Does a "fixed" cruise-Raven just lead us from homogenous Drake gangs to Raven fleets, with fleet dynamics making it impossible to find a middle ground between useless and overpowered?


mm.. missile velocity needs to significantly higher on cruises i suppose in exchange for flight time a slight dps increase im not sure once we have TE's TC's improving its applied dps
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Did he say Jump
#3725 Posted: 2012.10.01 16:34
So, you're going to nerf the hurricanes powergrid by around 15-17%? My Armor Hurricane with 220's and ham's doesnt even have 150 pwrg left over with perfect fitting skills, now you make your 1-6 boosting implants pointless if everyone has to get fitting implants so they can actually fit a standard fit, armor cane is already smacked around, it cant fit a 1600, mwd, 220's, and neuts if you t2 them, so now youre t2 plate buff is gonna be used less and then tung will still be the most used, and now youre nefing drakes..one of the crapiest battlecruisers for small scale combat, a Single Stabber fleet can take out 3 Heavy Missile Drakes if they dont fit webs, and the stabber doesnt even need links or reps to do it. You are now making the drake completely worthless, dont get me wrong, ive hated the drake since 2007, but it is still a terrible battlecruiser overall. Armor ships have every medium slot for utility and a stronger tank then shield, they can also "fit" slave implants and have a smaller signature radius, making missiles less efffective on them, where as turrets will hit shields for full dps.
A Buffer Myrm - More tank and dps then drake
Buffer Cane - More dps and tank then drake
Harbinger - It has a massive dps boost against drakes overall and the tank is still good
( all these stats are armor fit )
What does the drake have? Range? A Brick tank and NO utility mods? Mediocre damage that my sabre can do more then? A speed that a mwding megathron has? The signautre of my Nidhoggur? The Ehp of my cane?
Yes......nerf that battlecruiser!!!!! It is completely overpowered!!!
A Ham drake if fit right can break 1k dps, so can every other battlecruiser, in comparrion overall in shield battlecruisers, the drake has the best tank and the lowest dps
Myrm has Middle Tank and the BEST dps with the new drone damage modules
The hurricane has the best Speed, the Worst tank, and The second best dps...... why neut it?
If anyhting look at buffing Heavy Missiles damge, range decrease of 10% and a damaage boost of what, 10% with ham boost of 10% as well?

Also..... tracking disurptors can shut down any Turret based ship there is, why do the same to missile ships?
A perfect lvl 5 Battleship has issues tracking a Battlecruiser at 5km if it has even 1 tracking disruptor on it, just throw the Tracking Disruptor idea in the trash, Buff Damage, Nerf Range, Show Ham's some love, and dont nerf the Hurricane Powergrid, if anything, give the myrm a small boost, and nerf the drakes shield hitpoints and boost the powergrid? Its hard enough to get hams, mwd, and a lse on there with a meta 4 lse and you still need fitting mods, boot that enough so you dont need it. Tri rep myrm is op on tankin and still has good dps, so it doesnt need a buff, hype cant get neutrons with dual rep ( or ions if i remember correctly ) so why should the bc?

Nerf drake tank and range, buff powergrid minorly and damage by 10% for HM and HAM damage to bring it up to par with other bc's damage and tank.
Gallente Federation
#3726 Posted: 2012.10.01 16:46
Gypsio III wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
as it can do considerable dps with cruises


Cruise is another part of the Raven problem. Cruise is fundamentally broken and of no use whatsoever. With insta-probing and on-grid warps, range beyond 150 km is of very limited use. Inside 100 km, cruise DPS is thoroughly outclassed by BS turrets. There may be a slight paper DPS advantage somewhere around 140 km, but difficulty of Cruise application against sub-BS and flight time issues basically mean that there's no reason to fly a cruise Raven.

How do you fix that? Alter probing and warping mechanics so >150 km is more useful? Cut Cruise range to ~100 km and increase DPS? Does a "fixed" cruise-Raven just lead us from homogenous Drake gangs to Raven fleets, with fleet dynamics making it impossible to find a middle ground between useless and overpowered?


Their massive explosion radius and slow explosion velocity doesn't help either.

As a comparison

Torps
Rage
radius - 650
velocity - 61

Javelin
radius - 450
velocity - 71

Cruise
Fury
radius - 550
velocity - 78

Precision
radius - 270
velocity - 71

A cruise missile is over double the exp radius of a heavy missile, but not much lower than a torp.

I have personally noticed that in order for a fury cruise to do more damage than a precision cruise against any npc battleship requires 2 target painters, and that's not even for maximum potential.

This is the same as torps.
#3727 Posted: 2012.10.01 16:52
yep like i said they are going to look at bs weapons when they get to them as clearly the cruises should have higher exp velocity
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
C C P Alliance
#3728 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:21  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey again everyone. I've updated the OP with the version 2.0 of these proposals after the discussion in this thread, with the CSM and with our whole team here.

The main goal of the revisions is to ensure that we don't have too many balls in the air at once affecting the same modules. We're delaying the tracking mod and tracking disruptor changes until the first release settles and since those changes would have been a general buff to all missiles we're adjusting the severity of the HM nerf and making direct changes to the previously "unguided" missiles to compensate.

Google doc with the numbers for the affected missiles

Changes are underlined in the OP, and are:
We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf. The velocity of heavy missiles is also being increased by a larger amount, with flight time adjusting to keep the overall range change the same while ensuring higher applied damage in the real world and less wasted volleys. As well we are looking at making the Guided Missile Precision skill affect everything and dropping HAM PG requirements by 10% (Still a little bit higher than heavy missiles but closer).

I have also included some actual details in the T2 missile change section.

Finally Ytterbium has already announced some adjustments to light missile fittings to help balance the new destroyers, expect a slight decrease to the new Kestrel fittings to compensate.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#3729 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:25
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:

As a comparison

Torps
Rage
radius - 650.0
velocity - 91.5

Javelin
radius - 450.0
velocity - 106.5

T1/CN

radius - 450.0
velocity - 106.5

Cruise
Fury
radius - 412.5
velocity - 108.8

Precision
radius - 202.5
velocity - 133.1

T1/CN

radius - 225.0
velocity - 129.4



Figures updated to include skills (GMP and TNP). I included T1 too, since we already know that the T2 stats will be changing, even if we don't know what to.
Triumvirate.
#3730 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:26  |  Edited by: Frothgar
Its an interesting change. What sort of comparison (Damage/Range) are you looking at when compared to Rails/Beams. I'm worried that HMLs with short range ammo will still have more range, more damage, better fitting, and better damage application (Tracking/Explosion radius,Velocity)

Edit, Any chance for Rails/Beams to get an adjustment should HMLs still prove to be a no brainer at any range?
C C P Alliance
#3731 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:27  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Frothgar wrote:
Its an interesting change. What sort of comparison (Damage/Range) are you looking at when compared to Rails/Beams. I'm worried that HMLs with short range ammo will still have more range, more damage, better fitting, and better damage application (Tracking/Explosion radius,Velocity)


HMLs with short range ammo will have lower damage but higher range than long range turrets with short range ammo.

For comparison, a post-change HML with Furies will do less damage than a current HML with furies. Against a large stationary target a post-change HML with furies will do about the same damage as a current HML with DG faction missiles.

Frothgar wrote:
Edit, Any chance for Rails/Beams to get an adjustment should HMLs still prove to be a no brainer at any range?


Not going to take any options off the table.
#3732 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:28
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey again everyone. I've updated the OP with the version 2.0 of these proposals after the discussion in this thread, with the CSM and with our whole team here.

The main goal of the revisions is to ensure that we don't have too many balls in the air at once affecting the same modules. We're delaying the tracking mod and tracking disruptor changes until the first release settles and since those changes would have been a general buff to all missiles we're adjusting the severity of the HM nerf and making direct changes to the previously "unguided" missiles to compensate.

Changes are underlined in the OP, and are:
We're dropping the Tracking mod and disruptor changes to missiles from this release. We're adjusting the heavy missile change to only have a 10% damage nerf but also include a 12% explosion radius nerf. The velocity of heavy missiles is also being increased by a larger amount, with flight time adjusting to keep the overall range change the same while ensuring higher applied damage in the real world and less wasted volleys. As well we are looking at making the Guided Missile Precision skill affect everything and dropping HAM PG requirements by 10% (Still a little bit higher than heavy missiles but closer).

I have also included some actual details in the T2 missile change section.

Finally Ytterbium has already announced some adjustments to light missile fittings to help balance the new destroyers, expect a slight decrease to the new Kestrel fittings to compensate.


but all guns do have the shorter ranged guns using less pg and cpu why not the same for missile launchers?
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Triumvirate.
#3733 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:29
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Frothgar wrote:
Its an interesting change. What sort of comparison (Damage/Range) are you looking at when compared to Rails/Beams. I'm worried that HMLs with short range ammo will still have more range, more damage, better fitting, and better damage application (Tracking/Explosion radius,Velocity)


HMLs with short range ammo will have lower damage but higher range than turrets with short range ammo.


Specifically LR turrets like Rails/Beams/Arty I assume? They were so good that people generally compare them short range weapon systems.

In reference to your statement, sounds good. Now just some iterations on armor tanking would be <3
#3734 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:32
Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what?
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Triumvirate.
#3735 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:35
Really like the sound of "Unguided" missiles getting some love. Guided missile precision effecting things like HAMs and Torps sounds good (I gave up flying a sacrilige with HAMs when I did less damage to a scrammed Vaga with HAMs than I did with HMLs)
Northern Coalition.
#3736 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:36  |  Edited by: I'm Down
Take 2 on the missile changes is much more reasonable since you gave Furies an acutal use now.

But that said, it's actually a huge buff to HML Drakes that go to 0 on fleets with their massive EHP and the now much more massive damage from Fury.

You really need to remove the Resist bonus from the Drake this patch or else this will be a short term disaster. with a ~550 DPS 35km range Fury Drake.

Other than that, I really like take 2 changes due to the tradeoff of long range damage for more close range damage.
#3737 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:41
i find those patch notes confusing are you saying that rage and fury are getting buffs to damage and the Rage is getting even more range? if so why? surely the high damage HAMS need there range nerfed and even the t1 version as there is long range variant. this seems a step backwards
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please.
Gallente Federation
#3738 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:43
Well, at least my tengu will still be usable in lvl 4's for now...

Tnx CCP
C C P Alliance
#3739 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:45
Harvey James wrote:
Also the 35% dmg to rage is an increase of how much from what they are now? 35% or what?


35% above T1 missiles post-patch. I'll see about getting a public version of a spreadsheet with the numbers although those aren't all that casually readable either.

Rage HAMs are getting a range nerf compared to their current values.
Gallente Federation
#3740 Posted: 2012.10.01 17:46  |  Edited by: Nikolai Dostoyevski
Like where we're going with the new missile changes. 10% decrease in damage makes sense, especially given the increase in T2 missile damage where you can choose to take more damage at the expense of range. Good. My biggest problem with missiles has always been the ability to project damage out to 100km+, not the damage.

T3 battlecruisers and BSs get better with these changes. Battleships and T3 BCs with long range weapons should not be able to be outdistanced by heavy missiles.

Also, cheers for making HAMs a legitimate choice!
Forum Jump