Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:53:33 -
[361] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:What about scripting and/or overheating on MGCs?
Scripting is good. Overheating could be more complicated compared to turret tracking is, due to delayed damage from travel. Are only the missiles that hit while overheat is on affected or are the bonuses applying when the missile fires? Would you need/want to get your missiles in the air before overheating MGC so that you are not wasting heat damage? |
Kallen Kozukie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:57:57 -
[362] - Quote
Damage was never the problem with missiles, flight time, firewalls and APPLICATION was.
The 5% damage bonus to heavys is near useless, we live in cruisers online atm, applying that damage is near impossible in the kitey meta we find ourselves in.
I don't see why the missile modules need to be similar to tracking comps for turrets at all, it's not like you can outrun turret fire, it's not like turrets lose application the same way missiles do.
I was excited for this release, and then CCP killed my enthusiasm rather quickly.
People get excited when they see thier missile boat does X damage in eft, but not many realize the actual damage output is FAR lower than the paper dps numbers on EFT, the speed of all ships has gone up so much you would be better served throwing rocks out of your viewport.
The things missles need to be competitive is 1. velocity - Travel time is far too ridiculous with missles, drop the flight time if you have to to keep similar ranges, but they NEED more velocity, this would also help counter firewalls by lowering the amount of time there is to react and start smart bombing
2. application - I can understand the need to perhaps tone down the distance bonus on the new mods sure, but the application is really needed on all types of missles, even lights have a hard time applying full damage to frigs, and they are MEANT to destroy frigs, there is no choice of missle in PVP, everyone runs navy's to try and mitigate damage loss, while keeping damage numbers up. Turrets dont have this problem, you have long range ammo that does slightly less dps on paper, and short range ammo that tends to do more. you see a lot more variety from turrets because they basically apply the same if you fly the ship well. |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:03:16 -
[363] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: This is very true. Another solution that i think would be very acceptable would be to separate the range and application bonus's on MGE into two separate lines of modules. You get more range, or more application. Then when the tiericide hits TE's, they can also be separated. More range, or more application. With modules getting buffed values for either. But now obviously not having both.
Hmmm, that idea has merit, though I wonder how many people like the fact that adding 1 low slot boosts range and tracking and would not want it split? If you fit 2 it should be no net difference as you just fit one for range, one for application. But for those wanting more of only one stat and wanting to use a low..... more module, more choices..... Edit: Or make the low slot modules script-able too?
Possibly. The flavor argument is that it is not an active module, cannot be scripted, and thus gives a generic improvement to all applicable stats. With the midslot module being active, scriptable, and more powerful, but taking up a significantly more valuable slot. Lets be honest here, even on armor tank ships, mids are more valuable than lows, there are lists upon lists of things that would be desirable in a mid. PVP fits rarely see TE's, because armor ships can run rigs for application or just pilot better. Missile ships do not have this advantage.
I think a larger big picture question here is "how does CCP want missiles to perform?"
Consider a theoretical turret with "x"km optimal, 0 falloff, and tracking such that it applies full dps at 50% of its total range. And a missile with "x"km total range. The target that these two weapons are shooting at is applying maximum angular velocity. The application slope of the turret goes from 0% application to 100% at half its range, with the remaining half its range gaining an application buffer, such that if its application or the speed of the opponent turns counter to its favor, it would still apply full damage.
Should the missile apply damage based on the equivalent turrets application at half its range or even more? Then the missile would do full damage across the entire range regardless of piloting skill. Everyone agrees that this would be OP. Then what? 25%? And how much is the application buffer 'worth' to the balancing considerations? Missile explosion radius cannot be made to shrink as the missile travels to give missiles an equivalent to this... or can it?
How about calculating a generic average damage that the turret can do across its entire engagement range and basing the missile damage off that? Conceptually "on grid" if this ship was slowly spiraling inwards towards the turret ship, the total damage applied to the target from "x" range down to 0 should be the same for both the turret and the missile. This provides a balance between the piloting and variability in turret application and the consistent but lower dps of missiles.
How then does eve weapon systems stack up? Do missiles apply a net average of turret dps across their entire engagement range? Its almost impossible to tell, piloting, webs, TP's, fitting, piloting, falloff, piloting, and player actions commonly referred to as piloting make balancing skill based combat systems against build based RTS like systems nearly impossible.
As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle. |
Tosawa Komarui
Exit-Strategy Exit Strategy..
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:36:45 -
[364] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:[quote=Terra Chrall][quote=Kasia en Tilavine]
As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
if they are either op or useless, then they are not working, and need a complete redesign on how they work mechanically |
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:43:23 -
[365] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves.
Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1946
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:51:30 -
[366] - Quote
Chan'aar wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves. Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place.
"Meaningful choices"
... |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:53:53 -
[367] - Quote
Chan'aar wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves. Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place. Yes and no. The issue is two fold. Current missile application could use base stat increases. Missile velocity too but with flight time trade off since range is not the real issue. Tweaking base application stats should be done even with the new modules. The new modules then allow choices for low/med/rig slots to be used for improving the stats you need for your setup.
If you want more range or application right now, you can fit some rigs. That is your only choice. Now you have more more options. If you go with a mid over a rig, you might fit a damage rig or fitting rig instead.
The modules are a good thing regardless. But they are not the full solution in my mind. |
Voodoo Solitaire
Is it Cake
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:08:18 -
[368] - Quote
Dear Rise, Fozzie et al, This balancing business is reaching the end of the road. Why come up with new stats for the missile mods in the first place if they then need to be nerfed so quickly? You're clearly guessing what at what you think might be 'balanced'. But true balance, in this game, is unattainable. And boring. You would be better off aiming at a series of subtle, cyclical imbalances to keep the game fun. A balanced, flat game would be boring as it simply wouldn't matter what anyone flew any more. I'm not sure I relish the prospect of years of watching CCP people fine tuning numbers by lesser and lesser degrees.
So, you should have let the original stats stay as they were and trusted your initial instincts. Put the (unadjusted) mods live on TQ and watch people enjoy missiles as they become fun again. If they turn out to be OP then you can nerf them later. Just like you did with drone hulls, remember? |
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy The Bastion
62
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:08:58 -
[369] - Quote
So instead of it having slightly higher stats than turrets (because, you know missiles have delay damage, can be firewalled, can be speed tanked, have kinetic lock on most of the ships), it gets worse stats than the equivalent turret computer. Having a drake/nighthawk fleet was fun for one day I guess. |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
73
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:24:59 -
[370] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:probag Bear wrote:CCP Rise wrote: First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.
Is this part implying that the bonuses from Warhead Rigor/Flare Catalysts are also stacking penalized now? Because if so, these changes will literally destroy the viability of non-light missiles, whichever way you look at it. No, no, read it again. CCP Rise is referring to the modules (MGC/MGE) being stacking penalized.
My big concern is that it could be read either as "the modules are now stacking penalized" or "explosion radius/velocity is now stacking penalized".
If it's the former, eh, it makes a newly-introduced module weaker; it doesn't affect current capability of missile ships (and it's a very understandable change).
If it's the latter though, capital and large-missile boats are completely destroyed, and most medium-missile boats are heavily nerfed. |
|
Alexis Nightwish
293
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 22:55:47 -
[371] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:stoicfaux wrote:probag Bear wrote:CCP Rise wrote: First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.
Is this part implying that the bonuses from Warhead Rigor/Flare Catalysts are also stacking penalized now? Because if so, these changes will literally destroy the viability of non-light missiles, whichever way you look at it. No, no, read it again. CCP Rise is referring to the modules (MGC/MGE) being stacking penalized. My big concern is that it could be read either as "the modules are now stacking penalized" or "explosion radius/velocity is now stacking penalized". If it's the former, eh, it makes a newly-introduced module weaker; it doesn't affect current capability of missile ships (and it's a very understandable change). If it's the latter though, capital and large-missile boats are completely destroyed, and most medium-missile boats are heavily nerfed. I've never heard of modules that stack-penalize with each other, but do not stack-penalize with rigs that have the same effect, so I can't imagine that Flares and Rigors won't be screwed over.
CCP thinks it's fine to nerf something as long as there are modules/rigs that will get you back up to where you were before the nerf. Ignore the part where you have to sacrifice something else in your fit to obtain what you had.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
471
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 23:10:53 -
[372] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Wow. Harsh backlash with the nerf there Rise.
Everyone was hoping that T2 Rigor/Flare rigging missile ships wouldn't be a necessity after this. The MGC were way to strong when you originally posted them, but now the MGC II is useless compared to its competition. The pwnage. This is not 100% true. PWNAGE is +37.5%, but it is applied often with stacking. It is in same stacking penalty chain with MWD sig blow and shield rig blow, for example, thus vs ship which burns using MWD you will have +32.6% actual sig blow (and if they're shield rigged - even less), and MGC is stronger with +35.3%.
Besides, it gives you option to have range when necessary.
Besides, it gives you option to stack both sig blow from TPs (from tp-bonused ships like vigils) and accuracy bonuses on missiles, compared to just TPs (what people usually do here).
Overall i think people expected these modules to 100% solve missile application bonuses automagically, but while i understand that, i think proper 'fix' would be to change base missile stats - not all of missile ships will be able to fit these, and with old stats they would be a must-have, thus making balancing around them pretty hard (missiles would be superstrong on ships which can afford to spam MGC's and weak on the ships which can't). |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
695
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 23:33:38 -
[373] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:These stats are much better.
No they are not.
CCP Rise, I am very disappointed by those new values and you know how passionate I am about missiles, which has something to do with me being present when missile damage was a boolean value - yes or no (in range or not).
I still stand by my post that missiles should always apply 100% - reistance of shield or armor or hull resistance damage at missile speed x flight time. Turrets have more range, more damage and wrecking shots.
As soon as missile speed x flight time is reached a missiles disappears into the void of space - the end.
If a turret reaches optimal + 2x falloff it can still vaporize a ship and turret range is ALWAYS optimal + 2x falloff, regardless of speed of hunter-hunted.
Missile range is an average of speed x flight time and in 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all cases all parties are moving.
It escapes me why a long range weapon NEEDS a short range application mod to work (stasis web anyone?).
Since you are from the US you may want to take CCP Fozzie and CCP Tuxford to a trip to the home of the brave and let the US Navy show of some missiles and show you how they work. You can ask a Colonel what will happen to a motorcycle rider if you accidently drop a Tomahawk tatical missiles on him.
Here's a hint, the medicial examiner will only have carbon ash to work with and no the motorcycle cannot outrun anything.
And here are acceptable values for explosion velocity for all missiles: 299.792.458 m/s and 0.000000000000001m explosion radius. With those values most of the missiles problem will be solved.
That will help kiting with missiles and everyone will be pleased.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
HiddenPorpoise
Expendable Miscreants
380
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:35:43 -
[374] - Quote
I suppose the biggest question is: why would I use a MGC that's going to cost my rigor a stacking penalty when I could save 19 CPU and boost everyone elses' targeting with a painter? |
Sumeragy
Revolution of Chaos Nemesis Enterprises.
11
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:46:21 -
[375] - Quote
Well +1 on the old Stats. I was testing the new Modules on Sisis and its fun to fly Missile Ships again. I hope you will look on the Range of Torp Missiles so they get buffed in Range to match the other Turret close Combat Weapons.
To the New stats: I think that Range should stay as it was because i think the more OP stat is the Missile Explosiv Radius. That Missiles can apply their damage better and also always hit might kill Frigates to fast. The Range itself doesn-Št matters that much but that it was easy for my to kill frigates in a mission and even whit one shot, might be the grater Danger to this Modules. Keep the Range and nerv only the Explosiv Radius Bonuses. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:51:28 -
[376] - Quote
Rise wouldn't it not make more sense to leave the script and module values at the original stats but introduce a negative modifier to each script to compensate? IE 100% Increase to Explo velocity -25% missile velocity as an example. Something to give, as you said, options to people with downsides to keep it balanced.
You either apply damage perfectly, have range, or have the ability to hit a very fast target. These are the types of situations missiles have issues with and the MGE/MGC have the opportunity to expand the weapon system rather than contract it as you have currently done. Additionally if you gave the MGE/MGC a longer cycle time like drone omnis it would encourage smart play rather than an omnibus style weapon enhancement. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
171
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 01:58:04 -
[377] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
Small update for you on the new modules.
First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.
Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).
I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out.
Thanks for all the feedback so far!
Massive blunt nerf before they even got near TQ and they look weaker than missile rigs already. I mean why would i want to waste a mid slot and 35 CPU on a module that gives me +11% flight time, and +11% missile velocity when I can use a far less valuable rig slot and no fitting cost for a straight +20% missile velocity? Missile speed is more important than overall range in nearly every scenario so I'm going to stick with rigs if I want range. The damage application is more complicated but I understand the rule of thumb here is that there's no point buffing explosion velocity past a certain point so it's almost always best to fit rigors rather than flares, which makes me wonder is '-20% explosion radius' better or '-15% explosion radius +15% explosion velocity'? It's moot anyway because I'm certain rigs + target painters will be better than any number of these modules for damage application especially in gangs, and the low slot modules I mean come on whats the point of these even existing now? I'd rather fit a nano.
Either way we're back to square one: rigs and pwnage, so this achieves little or nothing and missiles remain bad apart from stealth bombers and light missiles. Some said in the reveal thread this would be 1 step forward 2 steps back type of deal and I'm sorry now that I disagreed because they are right, you're going to give missiles this and then introduce missile ewar as if missiles need more problems. I'm disappointed, this won't drag missiles out of the wilderness and if they bring in ewar now it will be the final nail in the coffin.
If you must reign in the power just remove the weird double bonuses and do it like this:
Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG, 15% bonus to explosion radius and 12.5% bonus to missile velocity
much cleaner and only slightly more effective than the current rig options, anyone saying missiles will somehow jump from practically unused to OP with a slight buff like that at the cost of tank/ewar/tackle is off their meds and should be ignored until they get a run on TQ. Frankly even if they were right and missiles suddenly became OP most people would be glad to see a change for a while and it would be easy to correct unlike some of the other cancers in the game. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
171
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 02:24:12 -
[378] - Quote
Also I just checked and missile damage application rigs were not stacking penalized before this... if you introduce stacking penalties on rigs now in exchange for these weak ass modules you've nerfed missiles again, especially large missiles. How can you justify that?
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4463
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 02:55:24 -
[379] - Quote
I would comment, but it would just further illustrate what has been several years of disappointing implementations regarding missiles.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1169
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 03:33:59 -
[380] - Quote
Altarica wrote:[quote=afkalt] Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all
I knew it!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1169
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 03:41:00 -
[381] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Chan'aar wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves. Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place. "Meaningful choices" ...
Every Eve player should probably just go sit in the corner in the fetal position rocking back and forth whenever a developer starts talking about "meaningful choices." Especially where missiles or drones are concerned.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
264
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 04:08:04 -
[382] - Quote
So I've been trying to keep stacking penalties in the discussion as much as possible when it comes to these modules, since it seemed ambiguous at first how they'd apply, especially considering that currently missile rigs are exempt from these penalties.
I was hoping that a lack of stacking penalties wouldn't make the modules too overpowered, especially for the ganky crap I pull off, but also that stacking wouldn't be so oppressive that people would be forced to use the new modules just to stay in the same place as before.
Seeing both stacking penalties AND stat decreases at once seems like a very big swing. Having one or the other may have left more fitting options open -- but having both nerfs will render current application fits less powerful and force new fits to dedicate more slots to their cause.
In shorthand:
- New powerful mods + new stacking penalties: Good
- New nerfed mods + old non-penalized stacking: Good
- New powerful mods + old non-penalized stacking: Overpowered
- New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
432
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 04:35:09 -
[383] - Quote
Straight from one extreme to the other in typical ccp fashion.
The tracking enhancers seem quite bad. Their bonuses get squashed by stacking penalties and as such they end up being fairly useless. Most missile ships are quite low on slots as it is and with the current stats it just isnt worth it to fit a guidance until you have 4 BCUs.
Case in point, you get essentially the same range from a single scripted guidance computer as you do with two of the lowslot guidance enhancers. Obviously this ignores the tracking bonus but you can easily swap scripts and far outclass them in that regard too, not to mention the effects of overheating. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1947
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 04:40:33 -
[384] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Chan'aar wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves. Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place. "Meaningful choices" ... Every Eve player should probably just go sit in the corner in the fetal position rocking back and forth whenever a developer starts talking about "meaningful choices." Especially where missiles or drones are concerned.
We will have meaningful choice to fit those mods on our ship granting us meaningful choice with single damage type bonus.
Dem kinetic locked missile boats will be such meaningful choice to use now I just can't even. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13520
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 05:00:54 -
[385] - Quote
So... anyone else fail to see why you'd run the newly nerfed mods over a target painter? I sure can't.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 05:24:57 -
[386] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:So I've been trying to keep stacking penalties in the discussion as much as possible when it comes to these modules, since it seemed ambiguous at first how they'd apply, especially considering that currently missile rigs are exempt from these penalties. I was hoping that a lack of stacking penalties wouldn't make the modules too overpowered, especially for the ganky crap I pull off, but also that stacking wouldn't be so oppressive that people would be forced to use the new modules just to stay in the same place as before. Seeing both stacking penalties AND stat decreases at once seems like a very big swing. Having one or the other may have left more fitting options open -- but having both nerfs will render current application fits less powerful and force new fits to dedicate more slots to their cause. In shorthand:
- New powerful mods + new stacking penalties: Good
- New nerfed mods + old non-penalized stacking: Good
- New powerful mods + old non-penalized stacking: Overpowered
- New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered
Could you backup your claims with numbers that show that this is exactly the case? I'd like to see a number of current missile pvp ships with fittings that will be overpowered with the additon of said new modules in their old form without having to sacrifice something in return. Feel free to use any missile ship and it would be nice if you stuck to their original sized weapon systems and not rapid launchers. For example: Caracal, Typhoon, Raven, Bellicose, Tengu, Sacrilege, etc... |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
74
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 05:52:54 -
[387] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:CCP thinks it's fine to nerf something as long as there are modules/rigs that will get you back up to where you were before the nerf. Ignore the part where you have to sacrifice something else in your fit to obtain what you had.
If this speculation is true, and rigs are being stacking penalized,
It will be mathematically impossible to ever get missile application bonuses as high as those currently achievable on TQ
Currently: 2 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst II + 1 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst I give -45.6% explosion radius.
As proposed: 2 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst II + 1 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst I + 6 tracking scripted Missile Guidance Computer II would give -43.4% explosion radius
Wingspann is being generous when he says "New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered". |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1947
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 06:06:22 -
[388] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:So... anyone else fail to see why you'd run the newly nerfed mods over a target painter? I sure can't.
The only time I can see them as worthwhile is if you already have TPs provided to your gank so the module ends up being better after the stacking penalty stacks too high on TPs. |
Mario Putzo
1458
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 07:15:04 -
[389] - Quote
The main problem is you are putting all these bonuses on 1 module. Effectively increasing your Explosion Radius and Explosion Velocity is a 2 for 1.
TCs Optimal or Tracking Speed. a 1 for 1.
It should be Explosion Radius and Missile Velocity
Why these. Explosion Radius is essentially optimal range. If a signature is snakker than then explosion radius it will not take full damage due to how the "spheres" fit together, if a ship is smaller than the explosion radius it does not receive full damage because the explosion passes it in a smaller area. If the Radius is smaller the explosion is more concentrated thus "hitting" the signature for more effective damage.
Missile Velocity is chosen simply because it cuts down on the longevity of applying DPS, faster it flies the quicker it gets there. This limits ships ability to effective kite missiles in a longer range orbit since speeds should exceed capabilities of ship speeds. Meaning the range is a "true" range and not one that will shrink if another ship can kit the speed long enough.
Midslots 8%/9%/10% Scripts 100% to Explosion Radius 100% to Missile Velocity
These numbers effectively represent the use of 1.5 Rig Slots (with 1 script) Represnting a Combo of 100% Application Rig, and 50% Range rig (or vice versa).
Low Slots should be 10/11/12
Representing roughly 1.2 effective rig slots
This allows for near seamless optioning between 1 mid or 1 low or 1 rig with 1 med being weighted slightly higher than other due to fitting, it being an active module, it taking up a mid slot (most missile ships are shielded)
And of course secondarily
Do not add 5% to heavy missile damage, this will only step on the toes of Arties. Again as ive been stating for a long time, revert the +12% explosion radius change to heavy missiles, this is really all you need to do for heavy missiles. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
699
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 07:29:33 -
[390] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:...And of course secondarily
Do not add 5% to heavy missile damage, this will only step on the toes of Arties. Again as ive been stating for a long time, revert the +12% explosion radius change to heavy missiles, this is really all you need to do for heavy missiles.
*cough*.. and add explosion velocity.
Don't forget that you want to kite with heavy missiles. If you need to web someone for your long range gun to work you have a bad gun.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |