Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

320 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

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

Jump to first DEV post
Author
C C P Alliance
#1 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:30  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
:Edit: I've updated this post with the 2.1 versions of this proposal. Major changes are underlined and can be found described in this post. Some big sets of responses to questions about the original proposal can be found here and here.:

Google doc with numbers for the affected missiles.

Hello everyone! we've got another F&I balance thread for you all, covering tentative plans for missiles in the Winter expansion plus a hurricane fittings nerf that doesn't really need it's own thread.

I'd like to start off by reminding people that everything in these F&I threads is open to changes, however there are some significant balance issues being dealt with here that will need to be solved in one way or another. There are also some details that remain to be ironed out but we wanted to get these ideas out to you all as early as possible.

I'll start off with the orphan announcement. In the Attack Cruiser thread we also announced changes to medium gun fittings. We're going to be changing the hurricane at the same time but I wanted that thread to stay dedicated to the specific cruiser balance instead of getting derailed so we're moving that here.
Since we planning to reduce the powergrid needs of all medium artillery by 10% across the board, we are also planning to subtract 225 PG from the Hurricane, leaving it with a base powergrid of 1125.
The upshot is that fitting a full rack of 720s with a MWD and LSE and full mids and lows will require a RCUII and either an ACR or PG implant. Also fitting a standard shield autocane with neuts and LSE will require dropping a few guns down to 220mm.
The hurricane will likely receive significantly more changes when we get to battlecruisers in the balance pass, but this is designed as a compensation for the drop in Arty PG and to help alleviate the problem of Arty ships having so much free PG when they use autocannons.

The meat of this thread however is about missiles. There's a number of missile changes we have planned for the Winter, including the already announced buff to light missiles, a buff to unguided missiles especially HAMs, a nerf to heavy missile range and damage to put them in line with other long range cruiser weapons, a rework of all T2 missiles so they become usable.

All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.

Short Range Missiles
Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles
Reduce HAM launcher PG requirements by 10%

Light Missiles
-Decrease all Light Missile Launcher fitting requirements by 2pg and 4cpu
-Explosion radius reduced from 50 to 40
-Damage increased by 10% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant light missiles, including FOF.

Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 35%
-Base velocity increased by 14.66%

-In total, base range reduced by ~25%
-Damage decreased by 10% (rounded to closest digit)
-Explosion radius increased by 12%

-Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.

Tech Two Missiles
-Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius)
-Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity to +20%, increase damage to match T1 missiles
-Fury: Increase damage bonus to +35%, reduce flight time to 75% of T1, unify penalties to explosion radius (+72%) and velocity (-16%) across the sizes

-Javelin: Just remove ship penalties
-Rage: Increase damage bonus to +35%, Unify flight time to match T1, unify velocity penalty (-16.7%), unify penalty to explosion velocity (-14%), increase penalty to explosion radius (+72%)

Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit

Feedback Response #1 Below:

I will ask everyone to please keep your feedback and your interactions with each other civil. Remember that this is the Features and Ideas forum, not the wild untamed expanse of General Discussion or the brutal gladiatorial pit of CAOD. This is the section of the forums where intellectual equals meet in mutual admiration to calmly and rationally discuss potential changes to the game, muse casually about overnight interest rates, and sip tea with our pinky extended.
Feedback is always more useful when it includes details about the problems you foresee from a specific change.
  • "I don't agree with change X because I believe it will have effect Y for reasons A, B and C" is excellent and very persuasive feedback and I thank the large numbers of you who have provided this kind of feedback so far.
  • "DIE IN A FIRE" is an example of significantly less useful feedback. It doesn't tell us which changes you object to, or what the reasons for your position are. In fact it even makes it hard to tell whether you actually object to the content of the change or are just experiencing an unusually strong craving for S'mores.

I'm going to cover a few of the themes I'm seeing in the feedback so far in a Q&A format. I don't have any adjustments to the proposal to announce at this time, but there are a few tweaks I'm mulling over at the moment.

  • 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. Once upon a time Heavy Missiles were the only medium missile system, and therefore shared features from both close range and long range weapons. Later Heavy Assault Missiles were introduced and were quite good, but Heavy Missiles still overshadowed them since they did similar damage at close range and HMs had the advantage of steller long range performance. There are legitimate problems with many long range weapon systems at the medium size, 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.

  • Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
  • It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles. But doing that rebalance requires a stable foundation to build upon, and the truth is that Heavy Missiles were skewing the balance of everything they touched. The fact that the Drake is so dominant at long range damage when it has no range bonus, and the weakest damage bonus we give ships (5% per level to just one damage type) makes balancing through the ships themselves unfeasible. Once we get Heavy Missiles to some semblance of balance we can begin the work of making sure each individual ship is viable without having to go back and redo our work right away to compensate for a midstream weapon change.

  • Why nerf things when you could buff things instead?
  • When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be concious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance.

  • It seems obvious that these changes are biased in favour of the Goons! Is that true?
  • Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.

  • It seems obvious that these changes are biased against the Goons! Is that true?
  • Nope, we make balance decisions based on the ships and modules themselves not political blocs in game.

  • Can CCP reimburse skillpoints to people who have trained missiles?
  • In a MMO like Eve balance does change from time to time and skills will not be reimbursed unless their use is being removed from the game. If you believe that these changes make missiles useless then let us know why in as much detail as possible and if we agree the solution won't be to reimburse skills, it will be to adjust the proposal so that missiles are no longer made useless. Heavy missiles were the first medium weapon system I ever trained when I started playing Eve, and I have made excellent use of them through the years so I understand how good it feels to have skills invested in an extremely powerful weapon system. Most people who have been playing the game for a while can name a few times it has felt like their playstyle has been nerfed, because by definition the overpowered areas of the game tend to attract a lot of people. The four most heavily used medium weapons in the game are all Heavy Missile launcher variants, as well as seven of the top eleven. Whenever we need to change something this powerful it will always be painful because so many players will have done the smart thing and flocked to the best game mechanic. If it feels like CCP nerfs you a lot that's just a sign that you're doing it right and getting good at staying on top of the best trends so pat yourself on the back.

  • 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.
#2 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:31
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

I lived to see the day!
RvB - RED Federation
#3 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:32
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
-Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect:
Max flight time
Explosion radius and explosion velocity
-Make TDs affect Missiles
Tracking speed script lowers explosion velocity and explosion radius
Optimal range script lowers flight time

My pilgrim approves of this.
Unsettled.
#4 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:33
EDIT: Third in an awesome thread!
.
#5 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:34
Daneel Trevize wrote:
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

I lived to see the day!

Did you? How many more times will you be podded before this takes effect? Big smile
  - 
Shadow Rock Alliance
#6 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:37
Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.

But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)

Drakes will be even more op than now...

/me is sad
Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar.
The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.
WAFFLES.
#7 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:38
Due to the powergrid reduction of lasers as well, do you think the harbinger requires a pg nerf as well?
#8 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:38
Hmm, doesn't this missile/TE change mean TEs really need considering for a nerf/reduction of the last buff they got?
C C P Alliance
#9 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:40
DeBingJos wrote:
Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.

But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)

Drakes will be even more op than now...

/me is sad


The "less shields more gank" thing was a discussion at a previous CSM summit, not a finalized design.
Pandemic Legion
#10 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:40
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 30%
-Base velocity increased by 6.66%
-In total, base range reduced by ~25%
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.

Is that only heavy missiles, or also heavy assault missiles?
Pandemic Legion
#11 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:40  |  Edited by: Seleene
Posting in a Fozzie thread. Love Fozzie long time. Cool

RIP Drake blob. Straight
Mercenary Coalition Boss
CCP Game Designer
CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman
Pandemic Legionnaire

Follow Seleene on Twitter!
WAFFLES.
#12 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:40  |  Edited by: Heimdallofasgard
DeBingJos wrote:
Ok, the cane got a nerf and it deserved it.

But why does the Drake get a buff? (less shields, more gank)

Drakes will be even more op than now...

/me is sad


20% reduction in heavy missle damage is far from a drake buff
#13 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:41  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
Edit: NM, the note was about TDs not TCs, all seems right.
C C P Alliance
#14 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:42
Pisov viet wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 30%
-Base velocity increased by 6.66%
-In total, base range reduced by ~25%
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.

Is that only heavy missiles, or also heavy assault missiles?


Just heavy missiles.
Shadow Rock Alliance
#15 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:42
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)

Just noticed this! Holy crap CCP, 20% nerf to damage and 25% nerf to range?!



What?What?What?
Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar.
The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.
C C P Alliance
#16 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:43
Daneel Trevize wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Optimal range script lowers flight time
Eh?


I clarified the OP, thanks. That was talking about the disruption scripts from the TD.
WAFFLES.
#17 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:44
DeBingJos wrote:
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)

Just noticed this! Holy crap CCP, 20% nerf to damage and 25% nerf to range?!



What?What?What?


Nerf drakes erryday! Big smile
RvB - RED Federation
#18 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:46
Noo, my Sleeper "kite outside of their 80km neut range" Tengu!
But I seriously look forward to the change. Just have to adjust!
Gallente Federation
#19 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:47
Mother of god.
http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514
http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
A Band Apart.
#20 Posted: 2012.09.18 13:49
Time to stock up on some Pilgrims and curses and go hunting Drakes.Twisted
320 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump