Balance from Another Angle [Standard, Heavy, & Cruise Missiles]

[prometheus]

UPDATE 04/12/13
Although there have been a bunch of torp/hml/ham/ship changes lately, I think this argument is still quite valid.

Before I begin, there are a couple reasons I'm posting this.
- CCP has stated they're going to redevelop imbalanced ships (for better or worse)
- I don't want to see huge nerfs to specific hulls, when I think some items are the main issues
- I'm not guaranteed a CSM spot this year, so I can't guarantee fighting for anything. However, some people of influence may or may not read FHC

Right so I'm going to start right from the top and point out a single ship specific changes I'd like to see happen:

We all know the Nighthawk has its issues, and we all know its bonuses should probably include HAMs.
However, the explosion velocity bonus is pretty awesome, and damn useful.
So I'd like to see the Cerberus' 10% missile flight time bonus (HAC bonus) removed, and replaced with the Nighthawks 10% explosion velocity bonus.
Before you comment (or rage), continue reading the rest of the post and see how it would all fit together.

Okay, with that out of the way lets get down to it.
In my opinion, HMLs are a little bit imbalanced. They're easily the longest range *long range* weapon in the medium class, don't suffer from tracking problems, and aren't technically bound by any specific damage type. No other unbonused long range weapon can match the damage output or range achieved by the weapon system. I think this has more to do with the weapon system imbalance, than with the ships inherit issues.
For the sake of consistency & balance, the other long range missile platforms are coming along for the ride as well.
Somewhat irrelevant now since they were nerfed quite heavily. Ideally that nerf would be redacted and these changes put through instead.

My solution is simple, logical, and would apply to Standard, Heavy, & Cruise missiles:

First, T2 ammo would be changed to reflect every other T2 ammo types.
Precision would become a long range variant (ie: spike/tremor/aurora), losing its *precision* bonus & speed penalty, but gaining the range of *current* vanilla T1 ammo (3750 Velocity, 10s Flight time for HMLs). To compensate, it would have a somewhat high explosion velocity & but also low signature (designed to be aided by TPs).

Fury would become a closer range variant (ie: javelin/hail/gleam), losing its signature penalty, but gaining a slight nerf to range (3750 Velocity, 4s Flight time for HMLs).
The ammo would also have a high signature but low explosion velocity (designed to be aided by webs).

Secondly, all T1 ammo would get a range nerf. They would lose 50% of their Flight Time, but gain 25% to Velocity (4688 Velocity, 5s Flight time for HMLs).
This may seem like a bit much, but these numbers are still very very good when compared to beams & railguns. Even moreso, when you factor in what the ships that fit these, don't tend to sacrifice fitting.

That's about it. I think this is a far better approach than redesigning ships (like the Drake) or whatever.
They still are capable of relatively crazy ranges, but will require the use of rigs and/or implants to do so. Hell, maybe another slot2 or slot3 drug could be introduced that affects missile range since turrets get that already.

Anyways, here are some examples for fits that they are currently used on (all 5, no implants, no rigs):
A ship without a range bonus to SMLs (like the Condor) would achieve 26.4km of (absolute) range with T1 ammo, & 42.2km with T2 range ammo.
A ship with a range bonus to SMLs (like the Crow) would achieve 39.6km of (absolute) range with T1 ammo, & 63.3km with T2 range ammo.

A ship without a range bonus to HMLs (like the Drake) would achieve 44.8km of (absolute) range with T1 ammo, & 71km with T2 range ammo.
A ship with a range bonus to HMLs (like the new Cerberus) would achieve 79.1km of (absolute) range with T1 ammo, & 126km with T2 range ammo.

A ship without a range bonus to Cruises (like the Scorpion) would achieve 105.5km of (absolute) range with T1 ammo, & 168.8km with T2 range ammo.
A ship with a range bonus to Cruises (like the Raven) would achieve 158.2km of (absolute) range with T1 ammo, & 253.1km with T2 range ammo.

Now keep in mind that some missile ships do need a good bit of work.
Basically, the SML/Cruise systems are pretty underwhelming. That can be adjusted with damage or whatever, but I feel that range exploitation is a far trickier & more dangerous thing.
The desired effect is that once these ships are actually balanced nicely, and start getting used, we don't have an imbalanced weapon system to deal with.
And surely, potential for fewer Drake blobs wouldn't be a terrible thing either.
Furthermore, the increased velocity could make certain ships (ie: Cerberus/Raven) a little more threatening in long range applications.

So once again to clarify in case I wasn't clear before.
The following items need fixes in addition to the missile changes:
- SMLs need a fix when it comes to fitting
- Cruise missiles need better base stats for explosion velocity and/or radius (should simply mirror torps)

So... thoughts, concerns?

edit: fixed explosion velocity/radius shit, you were right sponk

[Sponk]

In my opinion, HMLs are a little bit imbalanced. They're easily the longest range *long range* weapon in the medium class, don't suffer from tracking problems, and aren't technically bound by any specific damage type. No other unbonused long range weapon can match the damage output or range achieved by the weapon system. I think this has more to do with the weapon system imbalance, than with the ships inherit issues.

It's also the relative fitting difference between HAMs and HMLs, which are the exact opposite of short-ranged guns vs long-ranged guns.

My solution is simple, logical, and would apply to Standard, Heavy, & Cruise missiles:

I thought about this and you have the t2 ammo the wrong way around, especially when considered in an ecosystem that has HAMs.


I suggest this change instead:

Precision: better e.radius and range. Worse e.velocity and damage. Good for plinking at long range, and dangerous to small ships, especially when webbed. Long-range AB frigates still lol at you.

Fury: better e.velocity and dps. Worse e.radius and range. Still punishing DPS, but you must get closer than before, and still best vs larger ships (unless you use rigs, in which case HAMs start becoming a not-terrible alternative since those rigs could be +DPS rigs) Webbing your target doesn't do as much extra damage as it would with HAMs, but that's the price you pay for the range flexibility of HMLs instead.

[prometheus]

You could be right about precision/fury being backwards, although my reasoning is that a lower explosion velocity would make more sense against a webbed target (close range) than the other way around.
However, this can be looked at both ways, as I've not come up with or estimated what the appropriate numbers for explosion velocity/radius would be for those damage types.

You're right about the fitting difference, but I don't think anyone looks at the fitting attributes of these weapons systems and thought them to be imbalanced.
I think the only one would be SMLs being pretty high for frigates. Torps are relatively high, but the ships that have issues fitting them tend to plenty have grid/cpu issues to begin with (ie; Raven).

[Sponk]

You could be right about precision/fury being backwards, although my reasoning is that a lower explosion velocity would make more sense against a webbed target (close range) than the other way around.

Um, when I said

Precision: better e.radius and range. Worse e.velocity and damage.

worse e.radius is a higher number.
worse e.velocity is a lower number.

Just making sure.

[Cue1*]

While I like where you're going with this, I feel like it's going to just do more to push missiles away from PvP. If there's basically no difference between a T2 gun and a T2 launcher, except flight time for missiles, why would anyone use missiles? I think the unique factor of missile T2 ammo is one of the only things that keeps them usable for PvP.

[Sponk]

Personally, the velocity buff + flight time nerf is quite OK with me, irrespective of his other changes.

[prometheus]

You could be right about precision/fury being backwards, although my reasoning is that a lower explosion velocity would make more sense against a webbed target (close range) than the other way around.

Um, when I said

Precision: better e.radius and range. Worse e.velocity and damage.

worse e.radius is a higher number.
worse e.velocity is a lower number.

Just making sure.

That is correct.
What I was saying is that it made more sense to me for that value to be negated by webs & close range, rather than be a given @ longer range.
But like I said, both values play off each other and would need to be tested and would largely be dependent on what the values would become.

While I like where you're going with this, I feel like it's going to just do more to push missiles away from PvP. If there's basically no difference between a T2 gun and a T2 launcher, except flight time for missiles, why would anyone use missiles? I think the unique factor of missile T2 ammo is one of the only things that keeps them usable for PvP.

I disagree with you here. T2 *range* missile types aren't used very much.
The Fury/Rage variants see usage because they are cheaper than faction and work well when brawling or attacking larger craft than ones ship.
The Javelin types also see usage, and actually have a slightly niche (albeit a small one), but are downplayed because of the speed penalty.

However, the PRECISION type missiles are next to useless. Even on ships that get a bonus to explosion velocity and such, because faction missiles do more damage, they hit harder and out further than precision types ever could.
This reasoning tells me that there is no purpose for that style of missile, or for why long range missiles should be any different from every other long rage weapon type.

Your argument could be applied to turrets as well, because why would anyone use something like Spike/Aurora/Tremor, when faction Iron/Radio/Lead is available?

[Shiroi Okami]

Sounds like a fair enough solution for HMLs, but I disagree on applying the same logic to SMLs and cruise. Both of the latter need several changes to be even remotely viable, their range is not really a concern. I'm not entirely sure about ~25km range for furies though, would blur the line between hams and hmls a lot.

[prometheus]

Sounds like a fair enough solution for HMLs, but I disagree on applying the same logic to SMLs and cruise. Both of the latter need several changes to be even remotely viable, their range is not really a concern. I'm not entirely sure about ~25km range for furies though, would blur the line between hams and hmls a lot.

SML & Cruise need other work as well, that's agreed, but there is no point in singling them out to be different.
Both those systems have really really good range & are quite effective, but because they are less popular they go unnoticed.
I'm thinking ahead to any potential ship balance changes that CCP could throw at us. I'd rather have a solid & predictable weapon system to base ship designs off of, than relying on ship bonuses to make the weapon systems viable.
For example; a Raven with Cruise missiles can reach beyond maximum lock range, without any mods. If Cruise missiles suddenly became useful, that would be a bit silly imo

As for the Fury/HAM ranges, I don't think it's that big a concern. The difference in damage is quite high, and that's before you bring Rage HAMs into the fold.

[Mfume]

I disagree with you less on the basis of stats and on the basis that missiles and missile using ships (the ones actually worth using) have been thoroughly countered in the metagame. Stats-wise, I very much agree with you; it seems imbalanced. But you can't separate the ships from the weapons, they don't work in a vacuum. And how things are playing out on TQ, the marauding Drake Snakes aren't quite so unbeatable that I feel it justifies a nerf to HMLs.

[Shin_getter]

Man, it is like if you leave the game to players, the relentless pressure is for performance to converge into a singularity. It is not as missile ships are "unbalanced" but simply different, and thus people want it changed.

I would rather have missiles move down a path of stronger differentiation with gunnery. I would massively increase alpha (reduce rof), lower missile velocity (increase flight time) and have missile ships operate by the "close range to fire, move away to avoid counter fire" strategy. Range control and movement on both sides should be a important factor in all weapons performance. Now slow missiles will require good performance in other characteristics to make it worth using, and different organization to optimize its use.

It is harder to get it "balanced" with such a design, but differentiation is more important then "balance" (within reason) imo.

[Shiroi Okami]

I disagree with you less on the basis of stats and on the basis that missiles and missile using ships (the ones actually worth using) have been thoroughly countered in the metagame. Stats-wise, I very much agree with you; it seems imbalanced. But you can't separate the ships from the weapons, they don't work in a vacuum. And how things are playing out on TQ, the marauding Drake Snakes aren't quite so unbeatable that I feel it justifies a nerf to HMLs.

The drake is still the single most used this in the game though, but a huge margin.

And I agree with you Prom, I just wasn't sure if you thought this would be a 'fix' for SML and cruise because it would add some close range viability.

Shin if HMLs and up were any slower they wouldn't hit shit at range.

[Shin_getter]

Shin if HMLs and up were any slower they wouldn't hit shit at range.

That is the point. If you are moving around the grid fast and not chasing, you will out run missiles and not get hit. If all you are doing is orbiting a gate or something, missiles are vastly more effective since their effective range is greatly increased. If there is a lot of movement, more tactics can exist.

Now, the idea isn't fully fleshed out and the numbers aren't there yet, however I can explain where it came from.

Much of Eve is built around ww1-style battleship imagery, and battleship combat is actually tactically quite terrible, especially if there isn't even line of sight, armor distribution, gunnery arcs and torpedoes to worry about. Two blobs line up and shoot each other until one side explodes is about right.

Modern fighter missile combat is something Eve can learn from. In such combat, missiles are one shot kill weapons and much of fighter combat is movement and positioning so that your missiles can hit the enemy while you can outrun incoming missiles. (dodging does not work well until missiles run out of fuel and is coasting on momentum) This is something that rewards complicated, individual maneuvering (yellow boxed? heat that mwd and point the other way) at long range that can not be done by guns (orbit anchor with ab works too well).

If Eve is to be more tactically interesting, the important thing is to have weapons that is utterly overpowered when it is in its optimal operating situation, and pretty useless otherwise. If every weapon system have similar performance profiles, tactics become boring.

Once you accept the idea that missiles ought to be possible to "outrun" in normal combat situations as opposed to guns with a delay, an entire different way of viewing required performance parameters can be put in. You can design all sorts of different ammo with different velocity/fuel/damage/signature performance around this idea.

[Rudolf Miller]

I'd like to re-up a velocity buff and a flight time nerf. Making missiles hit their targets faster would be a boon to their use after the overall range nerf. The only issue which should be less of an issue by now is how fast the physics engine can process the missiles velocity.

Otherwise, I like the idea.

[prometheus]

@Shin, missiles already take a shit load of time to reach their targets.
People don't use them for sniping simply because it's faster to use a gun that can do multiple cycles on multiple targets long before the first volley of missiles arrive.

[Shin_getter]

Yes, missile travel time is a weakness. BECAUSE it has a WEAKNESS we can give it massive STRENGTH in other areas. That is balance. If you systematically removed weaknesses (eg. blasters have no range, lets give it near autocannon levels of falloff!) then the game just converges and become blend over time.

People don't use them because they don't have massive superior performance in other areas to make up for their weakness. A cruise raven does so so dps, is ineffective against small targets, have no alpha on top of its long long missile flight time and its range isn't even that amazing compared to rokh/apoc, not that battleship snipers have a role today.

However, something like the calvary raven worked, despite torpedoes are so bloody slow that the raven can match speed with it. Massive range and damage application made it work.

Also consider the drake: Historically it has been considered bad in pvp due to missile travel times. Without missile travel times and the wasted dps, it would simply be OP with its damage projecting profile in a number of applications, and it is a fine, solid ship despite missile travel time right now.

Sure, something with EXTREME properties in different areas often can not be mainstream and works only in niche environments, but that is fine, really.
-----
I really wish want to be game designers tried to balance things by working around weaknesses by adding strength as opposed to making everything work the same way.

[prometheus]

You're quite wrong there.

SML, HML, & Cruise missiles actually have more range AND more dps than the other systems.
The only aspects which they lack, are in alpha which they are only trumped by Artillery, and *tracking* which they are beat by Rails.

Sniping with missiles isn't used, because it is too slow. Not necessarily because it is too weak (which it isn't).

It currently takes a Raven, with 3x missile velocity rigs & cruise missiles, more than 20 seconds to initially hit its target from 250km.
There isn't really anything wrong with that, because after it's first hit it's more consistent and more damaging than the others, but in that first 20 seconds you can fire off at least 3 vollies from a Tachyon Abaddon, or 4 from a Rokh.
Giving them MORE damage at the cost of a LONGER delay is really quite stupid. The changes I've proposed shave about 5 seconds off that time, whereas you want to increase it.

[Shin_getter]

Okay, I should explain what role I envision by "missiles so slow you can outrun".

I don't see those used as primary damage dealers like snipers, but a "Zoning" and "control of space" tool to push opponent out of a patch of space. The damage/alpha must be significant enough that evasion is actually necessary. Being something you can evade after it has been fired, you can really push the damage number up and up without breaking the game.

At least that is the idea: interactions like long range webs can really break the idea. Long range webs are generally bad for the game though, so its probably better to just hit it with a big nerfbat.

[Shin_getter]

Cruise missiles actually have more range AND more dps than the other systems.
The only aspects which they lack, are in alpha which they are only trumped by Artillery, and *tracking* which they are beat by Rails.

They don't really do that much damage because most fights do not stay at sniper ranges and you are more likely to load antimatter or phased plasma in a fight then radio or spike.

If the problem is simply missile travel times, one would expect raven to be pretty good in small scale conflict where things do not get alpha-ed off the map and amount of wasted dps can be controlled by salvo counting (assuming you have other dps to finish off targets if you counted wrong). This does not happen.

SML and HML do get used and I find them mostly fine for what they do.

[prometheus]

For engagements from about 120km - 250km (with aid of Fury at the lower end), *Sniper* Ravens still do the most dps out of all *Sniper* fit battleships.
This does not include drones, implants, or damage rigs. The changes wouldn't change any of this, and would actually increase their DOT since the initial blows would happen sooner.