Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

2 Pages12Next page
 

CSM Feedback Request: Missile SP Rebalance, Missile Hull Progression, and Module Tiericide

Author
The Predictables
#1 Posted: 2013.11.09 09:34  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
I'm not sure if there's been any discussion from this within the CSM, so I wanted to ask.

In the Dev Blog announcing the Gunnery Tiericide, it was stated that the CSM was consulted on the change. I wanted to know if it was discussed how removing this differentiator between Missiles and Gunnery would affect the missiles weapon system, and if upcoming changes, or plans for a Missiles Tiericide and/or skill rebalance were discussed to offset this.

The requirement to train a gunnery system Weapon Specialization to 5 before training the next size weapon system meant that it it would take longer to reach the next size weapon, but you would be trained fully (generalized). Because Missiles didn't have this requirement, it was possible to specialize in a specific missile system faster, but at the cost of more SP. For example, to reach full specialization for small missiles versus small hybrids:

Quote:
Light Missiles V (x2) - 520,000 SP
Light Missile Specialization V (x3) - 768,000 SP
Rockets V (x1) - 256, 000 SP
Rocket Specialization V (x3) - 768,000 SP

Total: 2,312,000 SP


Versus

Quote:
Small Hybrid Turret V (x1)- 256,000 SP
Small Railgun Specialization V (x3) - 768,000 SP
Small Blaster Specialization V (x3) - 768,000 SP

Total: 1,792,000 SP


Now that this requirement is being removed, why are the training times not being unified? This Post from the Dev Blog feedback goes into more detail on the imbalance. More information and discussion on this in a post in the Features & Ideas Discussion thread.

In addition to this, consider that the support skills for Gunnery apply to 2-3 of the weapon systems (Hybrids, Energy Turrets, Projectiles), where the missile support skills only apply to missiles.

There are others voicing the same concerns in this thread, and it wasn't addressed:

Kasumi 'Goto wrote:
If someone training missiles wants all 3 tiers and there long and short range variants they have to spend aprox. 2.5 mill more in SP. This is weeks of training turret users don't have to spend for a single turret system. This gives them weeks of time to train other skills such as support skills for turrets. CCP's attitude towards missiles is very discouraging



Chris Winter wrote:
Missile training time is now (even more) awful compared to gunnery than it was before.


CCP Ytterbium did confirm there is nothing planned for fixing this at the moment.
The Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2006"
The Predictables
#2 Posted: 2013.11.09 09:37  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
In addition to this, the ship progression for missile users is very poor, and is about to become worse in Rubicon. Now that the Gallente Roden Shipyards are being switched to a full hybrid line, missile users are losing more ship options that we previously had (Ares, Lachesis, Eris) and these are being replaced with nothing. In races other than Caldari, there is no progression to go from T1 to T2 ships in any meaningful way. I've outlined these concerns in this post around the new Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher changes, because it really doesn't seem like CCP has a solid plan for missiles. There was talk of new modules for missiles coming, but nothing solid yet.

Ransu Asanari wrote:
I'd also like to see a proper progression for missile ships, because they are all over the place right now, and really feel like the ugly stepchild.


Caldari have a lineup of missile ships but are stuck with mostly kinetic damage bonuses. You could call if half a progression since it's split with Hybrids. The progression does have T1, T2, and T3 ships.

Minmatar don't really have a progression for missiles, and I pity the new pilot who tries it. For T1 ships - Breacher, Bellicose, Cyclone, Typhoon. But once you get to T2, you only have the Hound and the Claymore, which are very specialized roles. I was hoping the Claw in the Interceptors rebalance would be switched to missiles, and there are no HACs or AFs which use missiles in the lineup either. I am happy we got rid of the split weapon system requiring an effective pilot to train both missiles and projectiles, but it should have been replaced by something.

Amarr have the Khanid lineup and the Legion, but no T1 missile ships, so no real progression for a new player - you're effectively forced into training Energy Turrets first. I am looking forward to the new Malediction and Heretic in Rubicon.

Gallente had Roden ships (again only T2), but now that it's being changed to be hybrids in Rubicon, that's another option removed for missile ships (No Ares, Lachesis, Eris). I was hoping to see a full missile lineup in Roden with bonuses for either Hybrids or Missiles to give people the option to choose the weapon system, but that didn't happen.

All races having stealth bombers using different torpedo damage types, even when there's no progression to get to them.


So to be able to use missile ships, you have to train all races, which is an expensive proposition, and needing multiple races is usually only needed for pirate faction ship bonuses. Speaking of which, I'm hoping when the pirate ship rebalance happens, the Worm and will be as useful as a Daredevil or Dramiel. Since Blood Raiders, Sansha, and now Sisters of EVE ships are bonused to Energy Turrets, and Guristas are mostly used as drone boats, there might be some opportunity here as well.
The Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2006"
RvB - RED Federation
#3 Posted: 2013.11.09 11:23  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
So why should it all be the same?
The Predictables
#4 Posted: 2013.11.09 11:32
Aivo Dresden wrote:
So why should it all be the same?


I'm asking for it to be different, not just worse in general. I'm pretty sure that's implicit in the concept of balancing.
The Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2006"
RvB - RED Federation
#5 Posted: 2013.11.09 11:37
It's not worse. With missiles you have selectable damage types, you can completely ignore transversal / tracking and you do full damage over the entire range of your missile.

All of this goodness comes at a price.
The Predictables
#6 Posted: 2013.11.09 11:50
The majority of missile ships only get bonuses to one damage type. Caldari ships get bonus to kinetic, and some Minmatar ships like the Talwar get bonuses to Explosive. So its not as big of an advantage as you think. Only a few ships like the Caracal get a bonus to damage/velocity which would allow them to take advantage of the selectable damage type.

And missiles don't do full damage over the entire range of the missiles - it's more complex than that. Guns have a miss chance, missiles may always hit, within range (can be outrun or firewalled) but the damage they do is variable depending on the relative speed and signature radius of the ship, and the explosion radius of the missiles. In order to apply your full damage, you have to target paint or web ships. The damage is also delayed depending on the missile speed.

So I'm not sure what we're arguing here. Missiles are already "different", and CCP is removing some of those differences, which I'm saying is making missiles worse - from an SP investment, and having ships that a new player can fly in a progression.
The Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2006"
RvB - RED Federation
#7 Posted: 2013.11.09 12:01
Being able to select the damage you want to do is a huge advantage. I know how missile damage application works, and let me tell you that aside from a few hypothetical situations or 1 in a 100 encounters, you have not a single worry about range, speed, transversal, tracking, ...

I'm just saying that these are very useful and undeniable advantages over turret users. It makes the missile system much more flexible compared to the turret system. You run in to a brawler? No problem. Run in to a kiter? No problem either. Your missiles will still hit and do their full damage over that entire range. Then on top of that, you can of course select the damage type you want to do depending on the ship your fighting, exploit that natural resistance.

I like the 2 systems are different, and missiles do have some considerable advantages. I don't see the point in making 2 systems completely the same training or skill wise, when they are far from the same ingame. There's no reason they should be the same either.
Exiled Ones
#8 Posted: 2013.11.09 12:49
Well, the unification of treatment of both close and longer range missile systems has already happened a litle bit when skills like Guided Missile Precision and Target Navigation Prediction to affect unguided variants as well. It would not really hurt to make missiles of certain size require one skill, like it is with guns already. I, for example, would like to use torps on my CNR but the sheer thought of having to train Torpedoes V just to gain access to T2 variants makes me uneasy, I have to train other useful skills too.
The Gorgon Empire
#9 Posted: 2013.11.09 14:14
i would say that total refound of sp from support gunnery skills and splitting them into weapon specific (i.e. energy weap sharp shooting) would be fair. but now it's fckup
Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn
♡♡♡
#10 Posted: 2013.11.09 16:02  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
zbaaca wrote:
i would say that total refound of sp from support gunnery skills and splitting them into weapon specific (i.e. energy weap sharp shooting) would be fair. but now it's fckup


I say it never was.
It is bullshit to assume like so many people do that a total multiplier of 27x is okay for all tiers of a gun-type+support skills vs a multiplier of 26x for just cruise missiles and missile support.
Mind you a maxed 8x multiplier equals 2 mill SP or month under absolute perfect attribute+implants training conditions, or 2x is a week.
And in the real world if you start with missiles you don't cherry-pick, you go through the weapon tiers.
It's light missiles, HAM's nowadays, and cruises, not to mention target painting being a crucial factor for missile users at a total multiplier of 12x of intel/mem.
It is just a lot higher investment inside and outside of missile skills.
I posted a nice wall of text about it here. I dedicated a wall of text to this topic too.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=292493&find=unread

Good post Ransu.
I intended to address hull progression further in my post I did with not so little words since the little ones were busting my family jewels.
Flying Dangerous
#11 Posted: 2013.11.09 17:07
People bring up "Missiles are more powerful than gunnery in this way. This means missiles should take longer to train." Unfortunately, those two things are very different issues. Missiles are more powerful than gunnery in some ways and less powerful than gunnery in other ways. Once you factor everything in, from damage types, reload times, optimal, tracking, fall off, etc, you will find that CCP Ytterbium, Fozzie, and Rise are doing a good job making sure everything is balanced across the board. This means that for all intensive purposes missiles should be treated as just another weapon system. As just another weapon system that is no more or less powerful than gunnery the training times should match up exactly.

Now that doesn't mean that the longer training times for missiles did not once upon a time serve a purpose. Right now on TQ, and this will not be true once Rubicon hits, Turrets skills were better for generalization while missiles were better for specialization. Turrets required you pick up every size level to V in order to get the next size up to T2. This was balanced by quicker training times. Missiles did not have to pick up each sequential size of launcher to pick up to pick up a larger size T2 launcher. This was balanced by having longer training times if you wanted to train more than one type of launcher. In other words, turret skills were better for generalization (getting more types of turrets quicker), while missiles were quicker for specialization (pick a size and you will likely get that size launcher quicker than you could with turrets). People argued that this was balanced. In fact, it was.

Now that Rubicon changes turret training times it throws that balance out the window and we need to do something to fix it. The simplest solution is to just bring missile skills training times in line with turrets, and refund excess SP. I personally would like to see turrets skills broken up in to short and long range skills like missiles with half the current training time. Think of small projectile turrets taking 10 days to train to V split in to two skills, small auto-cannons and small artillery, each taking 5 days to train to V. This, combined with a readjust of missile SP, would truly bring pure balance to turret and missile training.
"tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me
#12 Posted: 2013.11.09 17:36  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
Aivo Dresden wrote:
Being able to select the damage you want to do is a huge advantage. I know how missile damage application works, and let me tell you that aside from a few hypothetical situations or 1 in a 100 encounters, you have not a single worry about range, speed, transversal, tracking, ...

I'm just saying that these are very useful and undeniable advantages over turret users. It makes the missile system much more flexible compared to the turret system. You run in to a brawler? No problem. Run in to a kiter? No problem either. Your missiles will still hit and do their full damage over that entire range. Then on top of that, you can of course select the damage type you want to do depending on the ship your fighting, exploit that natural resistance.

I like the 2 systems are different, and missiles do have some considerable advantages. I don't see the point in making 2 systems completely the same training or skill wise, when they are far from the same ingame. There's no reason they should be the same either.


That isn't true by far Aivo.
Missiles do much worse when it comes to tracking then guns do if you take the effort to find the math on all this it is easily found.
Missiles take severe reductions in damage as soon as a propulsion mod is activated, they don't do full damage on their intended hull class with unmodified speeds.
I am not a math guru on that particular topic so don't hear me saying missiles should apply full damage against their intended hull size but it "probably" should in most cases.
All in all damage application is horrid, and a tech2 cruiser (cerberus) ripping through frigates does not represent "missiles".
I know a good bit of pirates that never bothered with missiles for years, and I can't blame them.

The universal damage application story is mostly a myth in practice.
If you fly most Caldari ships with anything other then kinetic missiles, there is no point you might as well fit tractor beams and salvagers.
Lets look at Amarr the other decent line up with missiles and actual universal damage, they are all pigeonholed into the shortest ranged missile variants.
The closest thing in EvE to universal damage application are: Drones, projectile weapons, missiles.
Clinging to kinetic bonus hulls being universal damage applicants is like claiming minmatar are hybrid platforms.
Just because you can doesn't mean there is a point to it at all, yes in PvP you can be forced into it but PvP is more about opportunity and assessment.
So if you should load up Mjolnir's it is because someone (not you) picked a hopeless fight and not because you stomp noobs for breakfast in your EM damage "insert" caldari ship.


Edit:
Aliventi I disagree extremely with what you say.
If you trained HM like I did before its nerf, and effectively end up with something completely broken then its just SP lost.
The double unlock you get from gunnery skills makes for an extreme unlikeliness that flavors of the month will collapse SP invested like mortgage stock.
Just like Torpedoes actually meant something before the cruise buff, broken but not yet obsolete.
Missiles have not been "just another weapon-system" for a very very long time.
I jumped into EvE years ago and it was "good for PvE, except for HML" to quote everyone I knew engaged in PvP as a primary activity.
Mind you that "HML" was what was carrying missile skills at the time and me along with others embraced its nerf until it was pushed through at the last moment as the NERF to rule all nerfs (and bind them all ofc).
Yes Lights and rockets got a buff, but at that point missiles were in a shidhole unimaginable only to be helped a little later on with the ship bonus changes which also brought Caldari hybrid platforms back from the grave.
I came back a year or 2 later and it hasn't changed, missiles in general are still as consistent as swiss cheese.
And has never been "Just another weapon-system" since I played EvE.
Flying Dangerous
#13 Posted: 2013.11.09 18:55
Marcus Walkuris wrote:

Edit:
Aliventi I disagree extremely with what you say.
If you trained HM like I did before its nerf, and effectively end up with something completely broken then its just SP lost.
The double unlock you get from gunnery skills makes for an extreme unlikeliness that flavors of the month will collapse SP invested like mortgage stock.
Just like Torpedoes actually meant something before the cruise buff, broken but not yet obsolete.
Missiles have not been "just another weapon-system" for a very very long time.
I jumped into EvE years ago and it was "good for PvE, except for HML" to quote everyone I knew engaged in PvP as a primary activity.
Mind you that "HML" was what was carrying missile skills at the time and me along with others embraced its nerf until it was pushed through at the last moment as the NERF to rule all nerfs (and bind them all ofc).
Yes Lights and rockets got a buff, but at that point missiles were in a shidhole unimaginable only to be helped a little later on with the ship bonus changes which also brought Caldari hybrid platforms back from the grave.
I came back a year or 2 later and it hasn't changed, missiles in general are still as consistent as swiss cheese.
And has never been "Just another weapon-system" since I played EvE.

If you look at the numbers missiles are in a good place when compared to turrets. Simple as that. CCP knows what they are doing. They know how each change is affecting the meta and balance. They have done a great job so far. People are going to be mad or happy about this nerf or that buff. How this or that appears unbalanced. If you take a look at the base numbers they work out really well. I know there are a lot of feeling and emotions involved with balance. It is hard to argue with cold hard numbers.
"tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me
RvB - RED Federation
#14 Posted: 2013.11.09 19:15  |  Edited by: Aivo Dresden
I like the way missiles are and I like the way gunnery are. I don't see a reason to give them the same structure, just for the sake of making it the same. They both have different advantages and disadvantages. I like the variety.

I'm just trying to understand where this desperate need to make everything the same comes from. I'd be almost tempted to think its impatience and jealousy. "Player XXX had to train 400k SP less for his turrets than I had to train for my missiles. It's not fair."

You know at some point most people will train both anyway, so what difference does it make?

EDIT: Also Marcus Walkuris, I do think I specifically said, 'aside for a few hypothetical situations or a 1 in 100 fight'. You fire a rocket at a frigate, 99.999 % of the times it'll do it's full damage.
The Predictables
#15 Posted: 2013.11.09 20:16
There is definitely some rebalancing/Tiercide that needs to occur. I hope the CSM takes a look at this and pushes it forward.
#16 Posted: 2013.11.09 22:29  |  Edited by: Marcus Walkuris
Aivo Dresden wrote:

I'm just trying to understand where this desperate need to make everything the same comes from. I'd be almost tempted to think its impatience and jealousy. "Player XXX had to train 400k SP less for his turrets than I had to train for my missiles. It's not fair."

You know at some point most people will train both anyway, so what difference does it make?

EDIT: Also Marcus Walkuris, I do think I specifically said, 'aside for a few hypothetical situations or a 1 in 100 fight'. You fire a rocket at a frigate, 99.999 % of the times it'll do it's full damage.


Sorry if I sounded harsh its my mothers side I guess I'm kind of a Spanish or Italian stereo-type although I'm not from the area.

My point is that I don't see at all how SP equality changes gameplay.
The personal experience you inquire me to share with you I will tell you gladly.
I invested into missiles for PvE to fund PvP, I want a healthy backbone for any future ISK consuming behavior.
I am not saying that I bleed ISK out of every orifice, merely that I have little spare time for gaming and I need to optimize.
Personally I don't consider myself newb nor veteran by far, but I do suffer from newb choices.
Missiles really are a thorn in my eye, and I am in a hurry to optimize.
Im well past my rush into a BS (actually I took it slow), it is more about being a compulsive min/maxer.
I enjoy this though don't judge, and please don't tell me how easy it is to make ISK in EvE I am well aware.

Edit: Not to be confusing. I am on no hurry to rush into gunnery I am quite committed to maxing out missiles at this point and have just about for the relevant launcher sizes.
I have an alt training on dual training to be a cruiser and frig blasta masta, obviously not missile based.
Flying Dangerous
#17 Posted: 2013.11.10 01:25  |  Edited by: Aliventi
Aivo Dresden wrote:
I like the way missiles are and I like the way gunnery are. I don't see a reason to give them the same structure, just for the sake of making it the same. They both have different advantages and disadvantages. I like the variety.

I'm just trying to understand where this desperate need to make everything the same comes from. I'd be almost tempted to think its impatience and jealousy. "Player XXX had to train 400k SP less for his turrets than I had to train for my missiles. It's not fair."

You know at some point most people will train both anyway, so what difference does it make?

If it were 400k over the 6 types of missile skills it wouldn't be much of an issue. However it is 2.3+ mil SP. Here are some numbers:

Quote:
Some by the numbers:
For equivalent effectiveness of small turrets you need to train:
Rockets (256k SP) + Light Missiles(512k SP) = 768k SP - small projectile turret (256k SP) = 512k UNNEEDED SP

For equivalent effectiveness of medium turrets you need to train:
Heavy Missiles (768k SP) + Heavy Assault Missiles (768k SP) = 1536k SP - Medium projectile turret (768k SP) = 768k UNNEEDED SP

For equivalent effectiveness of large turrets you need to train:
Cruise Missiles (1280k SP) + Torpedos (1024k) = 2304k SP - large projectile turret (1280k SP) = 1024k UNNEEDED SP

Totals: Missile Launcher Skill to V is 4608k SP and Gunnery Turret skill to V is 2304k SP. Each Gunnery Turret SP is worth 2 Missile Launcher SP.

Total up to this point is 2,304,000 unneeded SP just to be as effective as a someone who trained a each level of turret skill to V.
At 2250 SP/hr (remapped Perception/Willpower with no implants) that is 42.66 days worth of additional unneeded training.
At 2700 SP/hr (Remapped Perception/Willpower with +5 implants) that is 35.55 days worth of additional unneeded training.

35+ days, in reality probably closer to 42.66 days as few are rich enough to PvP with +5 implants, to reach equivalent effectiveness is more than a non-issue. At a certain point the conventional wisdom will be "Skip missiles altogether. You get more for your SP from gunnery." They will be right when they say this. The exchange rate will be 1 gunnery SP is worth 2 missile SP. 2.304 mil turret SP will be worth 4.608 mil missile SP. You could train the base skills of 2 types of turrets to V for what it takes to train all 6 of the base missile skills to V. It is more than a trivial amount of SP and investment. That is why it needs to change.

Also, not everyone wants to train every type of turret and missile launcher. There are very specialized skillsets (incursions, mission runners, ratters) that only want whatever the FOTM best type of turret/launcher is. They will likely get one large turret to V and never train another one because they have no use for the extra SP.
"tbh most people don't care about removing local from highsec. They want it gone from nullsec. I want to be able to solo roam hunt without everyone knowing I am there without them actually seeing me jump through the gate. Effortless intel is bad." ~Me
The Initiative.
#18 Posted: 2013.11.10 10:49
Missiles are more properly compared to Drones.
Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras  Mangala Solaris  Mike Azariah  Steve Ronuken
James Arget  Xander Phoena  Sugar Kyle  corbexx  mynnna  progodlegend  Psychotic Monk  Jayne Fillion
#19 Posted: 2013.11.10 11:29
Malcanis wrote:
Missiles are more properly compared to Drones.


Ohhh interesting, elaborate.
The Initiative.
#20 Posted: 2013.11.10 13:10
Marcus Walkuris wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Missiles are more properly compared to Drones.


Ohhh interesting, elaborate.


The original conception was that the core weapon system was turrets, and that missiles and drones were support weapon systems. Both support weapon types had ships that specialised in them, but far fewer than turrets. This was reflected in the way that the skills were organised (missile skills look more like drone skills than gunnery skills).

I don't want to make a "what is is what must be" type argument, just wanted to shed a little light on the reason for the way things are.

With respect to the OP, players get very attached to their favorite ships, and converting a much loved gunboat into a missile platform will make a lot of people unhappy. I'm certainly happy to support a proposal that we could do with a few more missile platforms, especially pirate ships.

However it's not true at all to say that missile users don't have an excellent range of ships available to them, nor is it true that CCP have ignored missile users. Each of the tiercide phases has added an excellent option for missile users, either by making a previously horrible missile ship excellent (eg: Kestrel, Cerb, Navy Scorp, to name but a few) or converting what was previously a gunboat into a missile platform (Eg: Claymore, Cyclone). Missile specialists have done extremely well over the past few months, and they will continue to do so.

Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras  Mangala Solaris  Mike Azariah  Steve Ronuken
James Arget  Xander Phoena  Sugar Kyle  corbexx  mynnna  progodlegend  Psychotic Monk  Jayne Fillion
2 Pages12Next page
Forum Jump