|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1452
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
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 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 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, and the expansion of both tracking enhancers and tracking disruptors into the realm of missiles.
Light Missiles -Explosion velocity 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 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.
Tech Two Missiles -At the moment Fury missiles at Light and Heavy sizes have a faster explosion velocity than precision missiles, we'll be fixing this defect as part of the changes. -Remove ship penalties from tech two missiles (ship velocity and signature radius) Precision: Increase bonuses to explosion velocity and explosion radius, increase damage to match T1 missiles, reduce flight time slightly Fury: Increase damage, increase penalties to explosion radius and velocity Javelin: Just remove ship penalties Rage: Reduce range significantly, increase damage slightly
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 Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1453
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1453
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1453
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 13:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1462
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 14:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: -Explosion velocity reduced from 50 to 40
Ahemm... Psst it's Explosion Radius I'm sure?
:oops: Indeed.
Lili Lu wrote: Fozzie, are you guys considering any slight nerf to TD base strength? Because if not, everyone and his mother will be fitting TDs. It seems to me that the module could use little nerf, so as not to become the must have "multispec of doom", and to make the speicialized ships more desirable in fleets.
Yup it's something we're looking very closely at. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
85
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hi everyone!
We appreciate that any such threads are always bound to generate strong opinions for and against anything being discussed but I'm asking you to please consider if what you're posting is constructive before you click the post button.
If you feel that a post is breaking the rules, trolling/ranting and so on, please use the report button to let the moderators know to have a look.
Lastly, personal attacks against CCP employees are both against the rules and viewed very poorly and may well lead to forum privileges being revoked.
Thanks and fly safe.
PS: As a final note, please note the wording of CCP Fozzie's post; these are tentative plans and as such are subject to change/complete reversal as always. Please consider that before going off on the deep end! ISD Suvetar Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1527
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
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.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to let us know your opinions on these proposals. It's great to see so much passion from our customers, and I hope I'll be able to demonstrate from now to December and beyond how much I appreciate all your dedication.
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.
Also remember that nothing posted in this forum is ever set in stone at the time of posting. We are committed to making strong balance changes to your spaceships and we are willing to work with you all to realize that goal.
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.
Will the TE/TC/TD changes affect unguided missiles like HAMs and Torps? The plan is for them to affect all missiles, yes.
How about remote tracking links? It's possible that we may need to give remote tracking links slightly lower effects to missiles than to guns, but yes the plan is for them to have an effect.
Why are you expanding Tracking Disruptors instead of fi... Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1530
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1560
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 16:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Random McNally wrote: So far there are 74 pages of people either for or against the changes with various levels of whine. You stated that this post is a forum for people to discuss the "idea" of making HM changes. Are the "Yea's" counted against the "Nay's" with the "Yea's" making the change a "go"?
It's not as simple as a vote. We take all reasoned arguments into account but in the end Eve's balance is CCP's responsibility and we can't shirk that responsibility. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1615
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sycotic Deninard wrote:Guys, I hate to tell you this but Fozzie has stopped reading this thread Wanna bet?
Hi again everyone. I said before that I would read every post in this thread and I'm not backing down from that. (Well if someone necros it in a year or something I may miss it but you know what I mean) Thanks once again to everyone who is providing constructive feedback.
I wanted to address a few more concerns:
- Is it true that this change is being made to reduce lag?
Nope. Those of you who experience large fleet warfare on a regular basis know that the lag production from missile has been vastly reduced thanks to Team Gridlock's efforts behind the scenes. Although it would be possible for us to make missiles a problem again through design (If I were to increase the ROF of heavy missiles 10 times over CCP Veritas would probably poison my coffee), the game design department has received no pressure at all to nerf heavy missiles for any server performance reasons. Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games. . .. ... Hmmm
- What about NPCs that use TDs and Defenders?
This is an excellent question and I really should have been more clear about it in the OP. We won't be changing NPC TD effects in this pass. Any adjustments to how NPC ewar works would require a more comprehensive balance pass on NPCs themselves to ensure it doesn't break anything. So even if we go forward with the TD change, Sansha TDs would not touch your missiles.
- Why aren't you considering Delayed Damage/Firewalls/Defenders?
Another excellent question and the answer is that we have not forgotten them at all. Missiles are very different from turrets in a lot of ways and that's both a big part of their appeal and part of the reason that the arguments in this thread seems to be going in circles. Aspects like the delay on damage, vulnerability to firewalls, defenders, using their own formula instead of tracking and selectable damage types are all hard to put on paper since their importance changes greatly based on the specific ingame situation. "Bringing in line" may not have been the best choice of words since it can be misunderstood to mean that everything will be the same. Missiles will still have certain advantages and disadvantages inherent to their mechanics, and part of the compensation for those differences is the fact that even after this proposal heavy missiles would continue to be by far the best cruiser weapon for damage projection at mid to long range. I am not proposing making heavy missiles match guns in damage or range, I'm proposing reducing the advantage they have over guns slightly. That being said this is a tricky balance area since so much of their performance is dependent on all these other factors. We're not taking the challenges here lightly and that's one of the reasons we're reaching out to you all for your feedback on the proposal.
- Are you trying to make all weapons the same to make the game more simple?
No, far from it. TE/TC/TD effects are the least of the differences between missiles and guns, and we are committed to providing players with interesting and distinct choices thorough our designs. The goal here isn't to trivialize the choice of missiles or guns, it's to make those choices matter more. We would be failing if after our changes guns are the obvious choice to train for, we would be failing if after our changes missiles are the obvious choice to train for, and we would be failing just as much if after our changes the choice between missiles and guns does not matter. It's a delicate balance but we're going to keep working with you all until we get it right.
- Are the notes from the CSM 6 winter summit minutes a good guide for what will be done with Drakes long-term?
Nope. CSM minutes tend to be full of spitballing and random brainstorming that never makes it past an early design review. The idea to give the drake more range in exchange for its resist bonus is another one of those ideas that never made it past the brainstorming stage.
- Why don't you guys buff HAMs instead/as well?
Buffing HAMs slightly is an option on the table, but if we do it will likely be through fitting requirements instead of damage. The TE/TC change proposal would be a very significant buff to them and we don't want HAMs to get too out of control.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1616
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:34:00 -
[11] - Quote
Signal11th wrote: Although I for one appeciate you reading through this thread (more patience than I have) I do feel you're/CCP is going at this from the wrong angle, You should have just nerfed the two ships whihc cause the majority of the problems not the modules.
I spend all of my time in 0.0 and the only two times I use HM's are Ratting in my "Tengu" and PVP'ing in a "Drake BloB" never use them otherwise. kinda tells you where the problem lies.
I addressed that in my earlier response post, but it comes down to the fact that heavy missiles are so powerful that they don't provide a stable baseline from which to balance ship bonuses. Heavy missiles are so good that they'd be worth using on an unbonused ship in many cases.
So we're getting them into better shape, then we can build upon that with the bonuses for HM using ships. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1616
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 12:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote:" 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"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350
The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1651
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 18:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
James1122 wrote: However I was hoping that you could please comment a bit more on the hurricane changes, in particular around how hard these changes make it to fit a 1600plate + full rack of guns, especially when compared to the relative easy still in which you can fit a shield hurricane. I'm not sure if this is what you intended or if its just an unforeseen effect. But if you could shed some light on what you meant to happen here I would be grateful.
The problem here is a deeper issue around armor tanking. Ideally you would choose shield tanking for speed and damage and you would choose armor tanking for better HP and better utility through midslots. 1600mm plates requiring more PG than LSEs isn't inherently bad, but we need to make other changes to ensure that armor is a more viable option.
Errand Girl wrote:Fozzie, I'm kind of impressed you're still reading this monster. To be honest, I'm fairly surprised that I'm still reading it....
Can you let us know if your position on the HML changes has moved at all after 120+ pages and counting, or is the current plan still to implement what is shown in the OP?
I have a few changes to the proposal we're considering and testing internally. Once we get past that stage I'll take them to the CSM, then to you all. We have plenty of time before the winter expansion, so we're not going to rush anything. I plan to do this right. Accordingly, this dialogue between us here at CCP and you all in the playerbase on this issue will be measured in weeks or months, not days. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1651
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 19:03:00 -
[14] - Quote
bornaa wrote:-> Why are you nerfing the range of caldari main weapon system when the caldari race are the slowest and don't have any means to dictate range??? Range on weapons were the only thing that made balance because caldari ships are too slow. Please, include speed of ship in your balancing math!!! Good point, and we are keeping that in mind. Heavy missiles will still have much better damage projection at long range than turrets, and with TE/TDs their max range will be even higher than they are currently (with a tradeoff of lows or mids). Also keep in mind that the speed disadvantage of Caldari ships is often less than it appears on paper since they usually shield tank and armor tanking incurs speed and mass penalties.
bornaa wrote:I dont talk about speed after fittings... that you can change, ship in your race you can not. After fittings is all that ever matters.
bornaa wrote:-> Have you thought about increasing the speed of all missiles? I dont think it would make any major difference and missile users would love it. Yes indeed. It would be on a missile by missile basis instead of a blanket change, but this proposal for instance does include an increase to HM speed. Increasing that speed more is still on the table as an option.
bornaa wrote:-> Have you thought about making some diversity in gunnery weapons line?... like... make projectiles to do damage on the end of the cycle? and hybrids on one half of the cycle? It would be logical because "bullet" in the space have flight time... Interesting idea but it is beyond the scope of what we're working on here. Maybe someday.
bornaa wrote:-> How can TD affect unguided missiles when they are stupid and skills that affect the same things don't have affect??? Through Wibbly Wobbly Sciency Wiency... Stuff
bornaa wrote:-> Please make new E-war for missiles... dont use the same as the turrets use... make some diversity in this game... dont make some systems OP, again!!! The danger of making TDs OP is something we're very aware of. Many people have shown their concern here in this thread on that issue and we are not taking anything regarding ewar for granted.
bornaa wrote:-> Please think about all things that affect missiles and theirs real applied damage (flight time, smart bombs, exp speed, exp radius, defenders, ect...) before nerfing them!!! Yup. It's something we are definitely taking into account, and will continue to do so as we refine the proposal.
bornaa wrote:-> Will you look into Cruise missiles and Torps? They are ****** you know... like... how can Torps have the same range as HAMs... and are next (bigger) class of weapons... and all other large weapons have bigger range. They need a lot of work, but to keep things manageable we're going to wait until we're closer to the BS rebalance before messing directly with them. We can only do so much so quickly. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1052
|
Posted - 2012.09.22 12:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
I have had to clean some posts out of this thread, including trolling and personal attacks.
This is an official warning, do NOT make personal attacks on members of CCP staff, it will not be tolerated in any way. If you have questions or comments to make on this subject then post them in a polite and decent fashion. Breaching this rule will result in warnings and/or a ban for anyone involved.
These forums are for everyone to use, a valuable part of the EVE community and a place where all of us, including staff, should be able to come without having to worry about having childish personal insults slung at them. In future, please post sensibly, or do not post at all - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Lieutenant Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1692
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote: CCP is free to step in here and clear this up if they like. But until then I'll go with what they said previously and what my own objective reason tells me.
If only I had already answered that question we could have avoided this whole debate.
CCP Fozzie wrote:- Is it true that this change is being made to reduce lag?
Nope. Those of you who experience large fleet warfare on a regular basis know that the lag production from missile has been vastly reduced thanks to Team Gridlock's efforts behind the scenes. Although it would be possible for us to make missiles a problem again through design (If I were to increase the ROF of heavy missiles 10 times over CCP Veritas would probably poison my coffee), the game design department has received no pressure at all to nerf heavy missiles for any server performance reasons. Considering what causes the majority of lag nowadays if we wanted to design away more lag we'd have to nerf docking games. . .. ... Hmmm
I also wanted to once again let people know that I'm still reading, and that since I got back from the weekend I've been continuing to work on an adjusted proposal to pass to the CSM then on you all. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1693
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:52:00 -
[17] - Quote
MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop.
I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1694
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 19:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:MIrple wrote:CCP Foozie I understand you guys are taking on a huge project already, but with the changes coming is there any chance you might get around to BC this patch. I think that would make most of the arguments in this thread stop. I would absolutely love to, but there's no way we'd be able to get them done for this release. What about with a mini-release like inferno 1.2 and the attack frigs, etc.
Will depend on the actual release schedule but it's possible. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
ISD Suvetar
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
124
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
Hi,
Please don't keep posting the same thing over and over again as it derails the thread and will be considered as spam and dealt with appropriately.
Thanks and fly safe.
ISD Suvetar Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1726
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 11:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
Hey everyone. Spent part of the morning catching up on the posts here over the weekend. I'm planning on posting the 2.0 version of these missile changes here later today after I make sure that the CSM have enough time to get their feedback across. The basic preview of what you should expect is that we're separating the proposal into multiple parts so we can put some of it out in the winter and then re-evaluate the rest for subsequent patches.
BTW I want to make clear that we don't balance ships around the alliance tournament. It's a very different environment than normal TQ fighting. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1734
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 14:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. Spent part of the morning catching up on the posts here over the weekend. I'm planning on posting the 2.0 version of these missile changes here later today after I make sure that the CSM have enough time to get their feedback across. The basic preview of what you should expect is that we're separating the proposal into multiple parts so we can put some of it out in the winter and then re-evaluate the rest for subsequent patches.
BTW I want to make clear that we don't balance ships around the alliance tournament. It's a very different environment than normal TQ fighting. All I need to know is, do you love me?
I love all our players equally. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1746
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:21:00 -
[22] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1747
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:27:00 -
[23] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1757
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:45:00 -
[24] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1756
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:49:00 -
[25] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: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.
Fury HMLs will do less damage post-patch than they do now. The +35% number is compared to post-patch T1 missiles.
Currently before bonuses Fury Heavy Missiles do 192 damage, post patch they'll do 182. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1756
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 17:52:00 -
[26] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Can Missiles Please get either damage specific resistance or more structure to make firewalling less easy to remove most damage.
The velocity buff already makes firewalls a little less powerful, I wouldn't want to nerf them further at this time considering how difficult a really good firewall is to pull off today. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1757
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:01:00 -
[27] - Quote
Whenever I listed a change as unifying it means that the different sizes of missiles had slightly different penalties or bonuses in that stat compared to their T1 counterparts. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1760
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:16:00 -
[28] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Harvey James wrote:HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Also, does this essentially make guided missiles longer range short range weapons now.
I mean, I'm a little lost on this.
There's no buff to precision range, but a massive nerf to fury range putting it less than precision, which means that guided missiles will be doing less that 65km with both precision and fury.
Or again, did I miss something? please make us a pretty picture that shows the changes maybe with different colours and lines going up and down please :P It may help, lol I'm serious though. If fury is getting nerfed below precision range, then what's the deal with that? And will t1/navy stay long range. The notes are a bit confusing on this part
Post patch Furies and Precisions would have exactly the same range.
I'll get the numbers into a spreadsheet form for public viewing soon, probably should have thought to do that earlier. :oops: Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1760
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:22:00 -
[29] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:Are we trying to make precision the long range ammo, or are we trying to make t1/navy long range ammo with fury in last and precision in 3rd I guess is what I'm asking
Both precision and fury are closer range than T1 or faction. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1764
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:45:00 -
[30] - Quote
I put together a google spreadsheet with the numbers for the changed missiles, hopefully it makes things clearer:
NUMBERS!
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1766
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:47:00 -
[31] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:I'm gonna quote this cause it's the question/debate on my side that I really want answered so that I have a better understanding and/or perhaps CCP reconsiders the HML range nerf since they're giving a fury range nerf. Quote:
Well, even range fury/precision sounds like a fair balance, but I think the range nerf of heavy missiles might need to be compensated by a bit.
I feel if you're going to nerf fury range (which was the problem to begin with) to javelin range, then I don't see the need for anymore than a 5-10% range nerf.
Ignore this part as it's already answered (((Also, as I asked, will t1/CN be our long range ammo?))))
If so, I might suggest leaving their numbers alone, but perhaps nerfing the range of faction missiles.
So, it would be
t1 - mod damage, long range, mod application CN - higher damage, mid range, mod application Precision - low damage, short range, high application Fury- high damage, short range, low application
Like I said, if this is the goal I think you should consider taking away the direct hml range nerf and instead nerf the individual missiles. perhaps t1 would retain the 70km range??
The range of t1 missiles was a major part of the original balance concern, not furies. Furies got dropped down to help compensate for the buff to their damage. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1766
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 18:56:00 -
[32] - Quote
FYI first few people to bring a killmail where they participated in a primarily ragetorp supercap killing get a free beer from me at fanfest. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1766
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:00:00 -
[33] - Quote
To be clear, after these changes settle a bit we very well may revisit missiles depending on how they turn out. The days of balance and forget are over. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1766
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:05:00 -
[34] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:so are the torps/cruises going to be looked at more when you do the bs?
Very much yes. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1768
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:Will you be renaming the Guided missile precision skill?
We'll be changing the descriptions of the missiles formerly known as unguided.
They were already obviously guided, so it clears up an area of confusion as well. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1768
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie, seing you participating in those threads makes me happy I think that even with reduction cost we won't see a lot HAM users this WInter because of too short range. And without TE/TC for missiles there probably won't be good missile platform for PvE. While you are here, I see that CCP still want to force Cladari into kinetic damage (with new destroyer). Could you consider replacing Winmatar +Damage bonus to +Explosive Damage bonus? It will be fair trade-off for Matari pilots to get more DPS but being more predictable or doing less DPS but adapt to situation, just like with most Caldari ships.
Take a close look at the new Minmatar destroyer. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1772
|
Posted - 2012.10.01 19:21:00 -
[37] - Quote
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Sinigr Shadowsong wrote:Fozzie, seing you participating in those threads makes me happy I think that even with reduction cost we won't see a lot HAM users this WInter because of too short range. And without TE/TC for missiles there probably won't be good missile platform for PvE. While you are here, I see that CCP still want to force Cladari into kinetic damage (with new destroyer). Could you consider replacing Winmatar +Damage bonus to +Explosive Damage bonus? It will be fair trade-off for Matari pilots to get more DPS but being more predictable or doing less DPS but adapt to situation, just like with most Caldari ships. Take a close look at the new Minmatar destroyer. Oh, the changes that you're making to what was formerly known as guided missiles (i.e. fury/precision being same range and t1/faction being long range) Will this be happening with what was formerly known as unguided missiles? If so, will t1 and faction be getting range buffs to compensate? I ask because I find it to be a good balancing design for all missiles, just with some compensation here and there...
The bonuses of T2 missiles for longrange launchers and T2 missiles for shortrange launchers are different. They can be seen in the OP or on the spreadsheet. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1905
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:03:00 -
[38] - Quote
Hey everyone, I got back from GDC yesterday and have now caught up on the posts I missed here.
We don't have any new changes to the proposal to report at this time, but we're working on getting a testing window in place so we can get some changes out to you guys for hands on testing.
We very well may change the proposal further but odds are the next changes will happen after we get some test server feedback so people can try things out. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1905
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 12:17:00 -
[39] - Quote
Opertone wrote: I am afraid that messing with my torpedoes will make my Golem very sad. Now buff my damage output on torpedoes and I can forget about your horrible missile debuf idea.
This proposed change is a very significant buff to torpedoes. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1907
|
Posted - 2012.10.16 13:24:00 -
[40] - Quote
Noemi Nagano wrote: Fozzie, can you comment on the rumors spread by some you are attached to a certain political block and may have personal interest in this topic?
We base our balancing decisions on the good of the game, not the interest of any specific alliances. I'm one member of the whole design team that collectively signs off on any changes and we have an internal affairs department that is in charge of protecting against any unethical conduct.
If anyone has any specific concerns with evidence of bias they should contact the CCP IA department, but I can assure you that I'm not in the pocket of any ingame interests and I think my record so far supports that fact. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
1930
|
Posted - 2012.10.19 15:23:00 -
[41] - Quote
Yoshite McLulzypants wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Short Range Missiles Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles
Don't forget crash boosters when making this fix .
Crash has always affected the short range missiles. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2030
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 19:59:00 -
[42] - Quote
Want to try the most recent version of these changes out for yourself and see how it affects your play? Log onto Duality starting this Friday where all these changes will be live alongside a bunch of other Retribution content to test. I'll be online as much as possible to chat with you all about all these changes and we will be hoping for a new round of feedback from people who have tried the changes out! Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2040
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 12:31:00 -
[43] - Quote
OlRotGut wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Want to try the most recent version of these changes out for yourself and see how it affects your play? Log onto Duality starting this Friday where all these changes will be live alongside a bunch of other Retribution content to test. I'll be online as much as possible to chat with you all about all these changes and we will be hoping for a new round of feedback from people who have tried the changes out! Is version 2.0 the final changes , or rather, "most recent version"? The only reason I ask, was that there was more discussion post Version 2.0. So I wasn't sure what if anything got changed after that.
Duality will have the most recent posted changes, which is indeed the 2.0 version. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2054
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 18:07:00 -
[44] - Quote
Duality is online for you guys to test the 2.0 version of the changes. Go check them out! Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2054
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:12:00 -
[45] - Quote
Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ?
You're using Furies I assume? Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2054
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 19:21:00 -
[46] - Quote
Spc One wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Spc One wrote:I've tested out tengu.
Currently on TQ:
690 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 113 km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
Currently on Duality:
654 dps (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs) 46km range (All level 5 skills, missiles and subs)
That takes tengu to super garbage ship. I personally will not use it anymore or any of missile ships.
More than 50% less range ? really ? You're using Furies I assume? Yes, t-2, furies. Even now currently on TQ, turret ships are way better then missiles, after the missile nerf, missiles will become totally obsolete. No one will use them because even now with no changes, they suck so hard ... and after the patch / new expansion even more.
You'll notice that using any T1, faction or precision missile the range nerf is more moderate. The plan converts furies into shorter range missiles with a larger damage bonus compared to their T1 variants.
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2062
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 11:59:00 -
[47] - Quote
Hi everyone. Thanks to all of you who participated in testing on Duality this weekend. We're working to get you guys more and more access to the Retri changes so you can play with them more often.
Gonna answer a few questions that have been brought up more recently in the thread. I will mention that the discussion has devolved quite a bit recently and remind everyone that neither name calling nor hyperbole are generally very effective at swaying my opinion.
Why was the range of Fury missiles reduced? Our goals for T2 ammo is that each ammo type should have a specific and useful role to play, but that the T2 ammo should not completely obsolete the T1 and faction variants. For this proposal we have removed the ship penalties and increased the damage bonus for Fury missiles while reducing their range and increasing the penalties to precision. The goal for all T2 ammo is that it should be the ideal choice in some combat situations and not others, so that you should never be best served by only carrying one type of ammo. Switching to Fury missiles when hostiles are closer/larger and using T1/Faction missiles at longer ranges is normal and expected behavior. That being said, the exact numbers are of course up for discussion and if the 50% range is something that would put Fury missiles out of whack with their intended purpose and with their relative balance we may change those numbers. Don't expect a return to 90% range though.
Why not have one T2 longrange missile and one T2 shortrange missile with T1 in between for Cruise/heavy/Light missiles? This is the pattern used by turrets and by short-range missiles, and it was an option we considered for long-range missile launchers. However in the end we didn't see a good reason to homogenize missiles and turrets in that way. As well, since T1 missiles have comparable range to T2 longrange turret ammo, we would have had to nerf T1 missile range further to keep that system balanced and I don't think you folks want that.
Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
What about projectiles? There are a number of issues surrounding some Minmatar ships, some connected to the ships, some to the weapons and some to other modules. We've taken a first step by balancing the powergrid on the Hurricane, and the cruiser changes are going a long way towards providing strong competition to some popular Minmatar ships. We've got our eyes on more fixes to come, including tweaks to Tracking Enhancers.
Are you making these changes because you are part of a shadowy dev conspiracy to push the agenda of fat cat projectile conglomerates and stretching back to the original BoB BBQ in 1723? How do you know? Did someone break the blood oath? Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2063
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:29:00 -
[48] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Those much maligned tracking enhancers allow blaster boats to extend their range out to scramble or point range. The new Thorax, for example, can hit 18km with optimal + falloff while using Nuetrons, Null, and one tracking enhancer. A TE nerf would hurt blaster boats more then projectile boats - all while trying to deal with a Winmatar problem that is fading naturally anyways.
The TE problem includes how powerful some kiting shield tanked Null blasterboats are. We're not looking at it simply as a Minmatar issue, don't worry. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2064
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 12:58:00 -
[49] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Why are you nerfing Heavy missiles while Cruise missiles suck? Everyone knows it, Cruise missiles need help and that's a balance issue we are going to deal with. However we can only do so much at once and since medium weapon systems are so closely tied to the cruisers being rebalanced in Retribution we too this opportunity to bring some improvements to that area. We're going to buff Cruise missiles because leaving them as is would be stupid and everyone here knows it. I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri, just not all the love that's coming.
Will you be looking into the Raven as a platform? I am surprised you talk so much about Cruise Missiles and never mention the one ship that uses them.
We're going to rebalancing all of the battleships, including the Raven. Sorry for the confusion.
In case anyone has missed the overall plan from some earlier dev blogs, we're going to rebalance every ship in the game, sprinkled with some new ships here and there, and once we're done with that we're going to start right over again and rebalance every ship once more.
So unless a meteor hits CCP's offices or something you can always use this handy guide when in doubt. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2065
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 13:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Any plans to make projectiles use cap/neutable? Nope.
Harvey James wrote:Also when will you get to module tiercide? We're removing ship tiers because the lower tiers were just simply worse instead of different and this would make most ships useless. That problem is a lot less severe with modules (but I won't rule out changes to the balance between different meta levels of modules). Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2066
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 16:12:00 -
[51] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: I will note that these changes do represent a very significant buff to torps, so Caldari battleship pilots are getting some love in Retri
Where is this buff to torps that you keep talking about? All I see is you cutting the heart out of the entire Caldari line-up.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Change the Guided Missile Precision skill, as well as all associated implants and rigs to affect all subcap missiles Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2068
|
Posted - 2012.10.30 18:32:00 -
[52] - Quote
TripStarrR wrote:guys, is the tengu going to have its powergrid or cpu nurfed on November 4th as part of this re-balancing?
We don't have any changes to the Tengu fittings planned for December (or November) 4th. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2068
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 00:27:00 -
[53] - Quote
I'm Down wrote: To date, all we've seen on this issue is a clusterfuck mess from CCP showing incompetence on their own weapons systems.
I missed you old friend. <3 Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2073
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:13:00 -
[54] - Quote
Update to the plan everyone. Gonna call this version 2.1 since the change is a bit less significant than the last.
After consideration we agree that the range reduction to Fury missiles was too severe in the earlier versions so we are re-adjusting them to 75% of the flight time of T1. This means they will still have a shorter range than their current stats on TQ but that reduction will be much more moderate. The OP and spreadsheet have both been updated. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2075
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:30:00 -
[55] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies.
MIrple wrote:Is this just to Fury and not to Rage? Just Fury Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2075
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 17:43:00 -
[56] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:[quote=Maximus Andendare]At this rate all the nerfs will eventually disappear... This change does not affect the other heavy missiles, just the Fury variants of each long range missile. The general range nerf to HMs still applies and the 75% number is in relation to the post-patch T1 heavies. doesn't this go against the plan of making the damage and precision T2 missiles being the shorter range role like the turrets have and now making T1/faction role-less thus being a bad thing?
T1/Faction have 33% more range than the Rage missiles, and hit smaller and faster targets more easily.
The intent was never to make turret and missile ammo the same, since for instance longrange turret shortrange ammo gets bonuses to both damage and tracking, while those two attributes are split into two T2 missile lines. Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2081
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 00:39:00 -
[57] - Quote
Ajunta Pal wrote:And if CCP did all that hundreds if not thousands of subscribes would head over to their offices for some retribution.
Nobody ever needs to head over to our offices for Retribution.
We'll be making it available for download right into the comfort of your home on December 4th! Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2438
|
Posted - 2012.11.21 12:38:00 -
[58] - Quote
...And I'm finally caught up again.
TKL HUN wrote: I'm really happy that you are satisfied, but I'm not, and I think I'm not alone with this.
Anyway I asked CCP, but I think I won't get an answer.
If you want to stop using your missile sp after Retri that's well within your rights, although I would not recommend it. Either way I'll be the guy over there continuing to own people with my Drake.
Ludiah wrote: Well here's the problem with this. The Hurricane isn't a designated Arty ship. It's both a close combat AC ship, OR a long-range Atry ship. Unless you already plan on screwing us Hurricane pilots by removing that flexibility and forcing into a long-range platform. I haven't yet seen any reason for me to keep playing once the patch goes through if you are going to cripple the Hurricane like this. Additionally, the changes are out of proportion. The Arty PG requirements are being dropped by 10%. The Hurricane is losing 17% of it's overall PG.
By claiming that this change is a 'compensation' for dropping Arty PG requirements you've made a giant fool of yourself CCP Fozzy. Here's what you can do if you are REALLY serious about this being a 'compensation' (when you drop the ship PG by a larger amount than the Arty PG requirements you are obviously doing this for reasons OTHER than 'compensation') then go with a role penalty for the Hurricane when it's using Arty. Like the Destroyers used to have for Rate of Fire. Give a role bonus that causes Arty to use 10% (which is what the Arty PG requirements dropped by), or if you feel really vindictive (since I'm guessing that this change is because CCP Fozzy died one too many times to a Hurricane) then make it where Arty use 17% more PG (since that's how much the Hurricane PG is going to be nerfed by.
I doubt that CCP will do the right thing and only nerf the Arty PG usage on the Hurricane EVEN THOUGH they claimed that this overkill nerf was 'compensation' for something that wasn't really needed imho.
The Hurricane was initially designed as an Arty ship, and all that extra powergrid is part of why it's so overpowered when used with autocannons. So we're reducing the disparity between Auto and Arty PG and dropping the PG of the Hurricane so that Hurricane pilots have to make some choices about their fitting. Hurricane is still going to be a great ship. I advise trying it out after Retri and see what you think.
OldWolf69 wrote:This all is rly fun. Single thing for me to ask is WHEN we do get NEW content. Nope, i don't mean shady role ships noone will fly. No, i also don't mean nerfs. I mean palpable new content. Like what WH's were once back in time. Balance? ImBalance? Just have a look at the aggresion mechanics, or the risks for gankers, and you begin to laugh, like i did, and most of us also do. ***"We cannot match the GREATNESS of our ancestors"*** This could be the today's CCP motto. Because what we get is cheap nerf instead of new content. You may want to check out this dev blog for the changes being made to aggression and ganking in Retribution.
Desert Ice78 wrote:CCP Foozie,
Just to let you know, every time I come back to this thread I feel like I have died just a little bit more. This is an incredibly deep statement. It is true that every day we inch closer that that one basic inevitability. Our mortality colours every action, every thought of our adult lives and every day we die a little bit more. I find playing video games is a great way to take your mind off it though.
Faora Zod wrote:What amazes me about these changes is that
1. after trying them out on the test server they are crap, no more buying GTCs to turn into plexes to put up for sale to replace lost drakes and tengu,. Yeah for lost revenue for CCP! 2. One of the best things about the Drake is how quickly new players can train to use one, it is a simple good ship to use and actually helps draw new people into the game, before they have to train into something more complicated to fly. I see more and more people being turned off from Eve, less new players means more lost revenue!
I am sure that if these changes go into effect that I will not be the only one to let my accounts lapse and just move on to another game.
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
Buy the GTC! it is worth 2 months game time, a 30 dollar value for 35 dollars! Oh but you can split it into single months and sale them in game for ISK! oh wait or you can convert it in to another form of currency and buy pants! Lost a billion isk ship? That's okay buy a GTC and sale the plexes!
It is getting ridicules CCP, quit screwing **** up Wait, are these changes supposed to increase or decrease our profits? You lost me there and I want to make sure I'm part of the correct shadowy conspiracy. In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?!
OT Smithers wrote:One thing this alliance tournament has made perfectly clear.... Out of the 350 or so ships featured in this alliance tournament, there have been precisely zero Drakes, zero Tengus, zero Caracals, zero Cerbs. We've seen damn near every ship in the game EXCEPT the heavy missile ships that CCP Fozzie claims are so overpowered they need a special nerf while everything else in the game gets a buff. We have, however, seen ECM. Lots and lots of ECM ships. We've seen entire fleets built on damn near nothing else....
Game Designer | Team Game of Drones https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
1351
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 10:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
Unsticking, let's make some space for future threads. |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2969
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 09:06:00 -
[60] - Quote
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:"Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar Tracking mod and disruptor changes moved out of this release until the first set of changes settles a bit"
when this stuff come online?
I'll make a separate post when we're ready to discuss it again, but it's definitely not going to be included in the first major Retri point release. Still too soon to completely gauge the impact of the missile changes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2972
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 18:43:00 -
[61] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote: Didn-Št really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy? Doubt it.
Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2972
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:13:00 -
[62] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same time frame. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
Ah lovely numbers how I missed thee, any chance at seeing any more to dispel any other incorrect perceptions? Or better still just to see a hint at any trends since the ship changes have been done. If not I understand, time and all of that. But if I could ask for one random bone. How are the hurricane numbers fairing?
Hurricane dropped 3.9%. Now this is against a backdrop of increasing users so it's a bit worse than these numbers make it appear, but not that much worse. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
2972
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 19:43:00 -
[63] - Quote
Morgenholt Blue wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same time frame. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers.
Ah lovely numbers how I missed thee, any chance at seeing any more to dispel any other incorrect perceptions? Or better still just to see a hint at any trends since the ship changes have been done. If not I understand, time and all of that. But if I could ask for one random bone. How are the hurricane numbers fairing? Hurricane dropped 3.9%. Now this is against a backdrop of increasing users so it's a bit worse than these numbers make it appear, but not that much worse. How come the loki's powergrid wasn't nerfed with the canes? (Or maybe it was and I can't read?). I feel like arti lokis will just take the place of Tengus now.
We're keeping an eye on them. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
|