| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
411
   |
Posted - 2015.06.04 22:26:22 -
[1] - Quote
Screenshots from SiSi
http://gyazo.com/08f9d8f3241777b7873a55e690bf3888 The descriptions
http://gyazo.com/08f9d8f3241777b7873a55e690bf3888 nothing on the attrib tab
http://gyazo.com/c87f5fdcd5941e09a639867b6628f1b6 they are listed on the market as Tracking Enhancers
Given the above I'm guessing that they are low slot items and will follow a similar set of fittings to other Tracking Enhancers?
Is there going to be a Dev Post in here soon about it? |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
9888
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 22:31:45 -
[2] - Quote
Ask in the test server subforum (check the sticies first obviously).
That's interesting though I'll keep an eye.
=]|[=
|
Christopher Mabata
The Interstellar Manipulation Consortium
387
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 22:42:27 -
[3] - Quote
I agree with Ralph, better put int the Test Server Feedback.
But this is interesting, very very interesting
GÖú Theory-Crafter GÖú Free Agent GÖú Immortal Space Pirate GÖú "Better the Devil you Know than the devil you don't" -Observing and dismantling F&I Discussion Threads since 2013Gäó
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
453
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 22:52:49 -
[4] - Quote
People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 22:54:56 -
[5] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.
Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
453
|
Posted - 2015.06.04 23:14:55 -
[6] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...
That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters?
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 00:06:52 -
[7] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters?
yes, tried to tell people befor the freighter changes that it would come with some serious nerf to "compensate" for the ability to fit module/rig
If they can add tracking modules without gimping the base stats on missiles it would be a good change. Frig/Cruisers dont realy have the room or need for tracking module and battleship/dread need could use some help with application. Its not like battleships/phoenix are OP with missiles, everyone would be using them so trading tank/dps (low or med slot) for application cant be that OP either :P |
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 00:15:35 -
[8] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...
let we hpope it won't be heavy missile nerf style |
Wynta
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 01:20:17 -
[9] - Quote
I agree that the main problem with Heavy Missile and HAM's are foundational problem that need to be addressed ouside of adding an additional modules. There are also problem with Missiles that arise from the Caldari Kinetic Lock and the huge weaknesses in the BC class.
I think at the very least this will open up the Drake Navy Issue to some use, it will allow the Cerberus to use Heavy and HAMs, and it will open up more RLML anti-frigate fits.
What needs to happen along with the implementation of these modules is a Heavy and HAM missile rework, and a mass caldari hull bonus rework. Either switch all the Kinetic lock bonuses with reload time bonuses that the jackdaw got, or give them simple 5% damage or rof bonuses instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage. |
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 01:23:30 -
[10] - Quote
Wynta wrote:I agree that the main problem with Heavy Missile and HAM's are foundational problem that need to be addressed ouside of adding an additional modules. There are also problem with Missiles that arise from the Caldari Kinetic Lock and the huge weaknesses in the BC class.
I think at the very least this will open up the Drake Navy Issue to some use, it will allow the Cerberus to use Heavy and HAMs, and it will open up more RLML anti-frigate fits.
What needs to happen along with the implementation of these modules is a Heavy and HAM missile rework, and a mass caldari hull bonus rework. Either switch all the Kinetic lock bonuses with reload time bonuses that the jackdaw got, or give them simple 5% damage or rof bonuses instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage.
it would also make torp boat much more viable outside of Stealth bomber/Golem |
|
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 01:35:35 -
[11] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters?
O suspect that on a case by case basis you will be correct and wrong. Some missiles will get punted hard like lights and cruises while others will probably end up only marginally worse with things like webs taking up most of the slack ie rockets and torps. In fact torps would probably remain unchanged.
These new modules - what will they affect? Both ev nd es?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 01:37:52 -
[12] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters? O suspect that on a case by case basis you will be correct and wrong. Some missiles will get punted hard like lights and cruises while others will probably end up only marginally worse with things like webs taking up most of the slack ie rockets and torps. In fact torps would probably remain unchanged. These new modules - what will they affect? Both ev nd es?
I have discussion with my corp, most feel that it may be same as tracking enchancer, so around 9% dps and 12-15% range for T2 |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
396
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 03:48:18 -
[13] - Quote
Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's.
Why?
Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships.
In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time.
For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me?
Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). *fingers crossed* |
elitatwo
Eve Minions
Poopstain Removal Team
685
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 03:54:37 -
[14] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Who's with me?
I am.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 03:59:10 -
[15] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's.
Why?
Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships.
In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time.
For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me?
Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). *fingers crossed*
consider that, as you said low slot would force pilot to make decision between raw dps or application dps. I am fine with this choice.
however, if they add mid-slot module as you ask. They will need to nerf missile to balance on fact every missile BS will immediate replace their TP with said module (Golem may be exception). |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 04:08:52 -
[16] - Quote
You already do have to make fitting decisions between raw dps and application, that's not the problem.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
396
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 04:10:46 -
[17] - Quote
unidenify wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's.
Why?
Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships.
In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time.
For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me?
Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). *fingers crossed* consider that, as you said low slot would force pilot to make decision between raw dps or application dps. I am fine with this choice. however, if they add mid-slot module as you ask. They will need to nerf missile to balance on fact every missile BS will immediate replace their TP with said module (Golem may be exception).
Just a point, I did not ask for a mid-slot module. I only stated that, without a low and mid-slot module, I am against missile-specific EWAR or TD's affecting missiles.
Also, the module would not have to infringe upon the TP, it might compliment the TP or work separately since CCP has free rein with how they would incorporate and design such a module, IF they design such a module. It is likely though that they will aim another Phoenix sized nerf bat at missiles if they do. In which case, I think I would like some time with this single module first, before my missiles once again gather dust in a hangar. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
556
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 05:01:32 -
[18] - Quote
I've never understood the need or desire for missile td. Just turn on an afterburner you floozies. It's proven that you can mitigate 44% of missile dps using simply one non-ewar module.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 05:41:01 -
[19] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:I've never understood the need or desire for missile td. Just turn on an afterburner you floozies. It's proven that you can mitigate 44% of missile dps using simply one non-ewar module.
then there are defender missile, and smartbomb. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
76
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 06:07:21 -
[20] - Quote
People who think missiles would need to be nerfed to compensate are seriously kidding themselves. Any nerf to a missiles making even fitting a single new module required to it to bring it the the current power level is a nerf to all shield tanked. All missile systems aside from LML are in a horrible place right now for anything not PVE due to ever worsening speed creep. This module seems to me like a simplified way to rectify this without having to do a balance pass on every ship or completely redesigning the missile system itself which would include re-balancing several hull bonuses as well.
As of now missile boats (nearly all shield tanked) can fit tank and damage which is not enormously more powerful of a tank compared to their drone/turret armor based counterparts. These ships have the option to sacrifice tank for damage, and mids are considered utility for damage application/cap/prop/etc. People have been asking for years for the option of sacrificing tank for application for missile boats. This is not unbalanced, it's balance that has been sorely lacking since inception.
All that aside, once they are in the game (and hopefully same patch) I am certain many hull bonuses and missile damage/applications stats will need to be tweaked downward. But that doesn't mean this hasn't been sorely needed for a long time nor that EVERY missile type must now be nerfed. All we need now is fire walling to be made impossible, and defender missiles moved to a midslot defense module and actually made effective for all incoming missiles until you're out of charges rather than simply on target and a waste of a high slot. |
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Get Off My Lawn
1036
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 07:16:39 -
[21] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:People who think missiles would need to be nerfed to compensate are seriously kidding themselves.
Whether it is necessary or not: people who think CCP would not add new modules to buff missiles without some corresponding kick in the teeth to missiles do not know CCP very well. It's always at least two steps forward, one step back, and often it's one step forward, two steps back.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Janeway84
Def Squadron
Pride Before Fall
167
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 07:24:49 -
[22] - Quote
Like the idea of missile tracking enhancers but Im against any nerf to missiles overall since they aren't that great.
Exception being light missiles.
Imo they should do like with drone tracking links, 1 low slot module and a midslot module and it would be fair for armor and shield tanked missile boats  |
Tappits
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
92
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 07:41:11 -
[23] - Quote
I hope there's an active mid slot version like Tracking computers then.
O and about god dam time. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
454
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 07:58:20 -
[24] - Quote
Problem with an active module is that missiles tend to bug out when you apply stat changing properties to them while they are in flight.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Tappits
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
92
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 08:20:02 -
[25] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Problem with an active module is that missiles tend to bug out when you apply stat changing properties to them while they are in flight.
Activate the mod 1st then... and if the mod goes offline while in flight the missiles go dud... |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
314
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:08:06 -
[26] - Quote
Wynta wrote:instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage.
Been reading this a lot lately and wondering where this comes from. taking a quick look through the official attributes for the Caldari ship line up and I do not see a bonus to kinetic damage listed anywhere.
Using EvE HQ, PYFA and EvE Droid as a reference it appears that there are no bonuses either as the Caldari ships all seem to have the same DPS output level no matter what damage type you put into the launchers/guns. Since all of these apps show the DPS boost other ships get that do have a bonus to a specific damage type(rattle and kinetic/thermal) I have to wonder if this is one of those popular misconceptions, or a relic from times past that is no longer true.
If you or anyone else has a link to any information that would help shed light on this I would appreciate you sharing it. Otherwise, from the available information I would have to surmise that this kinetic damage lock is a fairy tale.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:21:15 -
[27] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Wynta wrote:instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage. Been reading this a lot lately and wondering where this comes from. taking a quick look through the official attributes for the Caldari ship line up and I do not see a bonus to kinetic damage listed anywhere. Using EvE HQ, PYFA and EvE Droid as a reference it appears that there are no bonuses either as the Caldari ships all seem to have the same DPS output level no matter what damage type you put into the launchers/guns. Since all of these apps show the DPS boost other ships get that do have a bonus to a specific damage type(rattle and kinetic/thermal) I have to wonder if this is one of those popular misconceptions, or a relic from times past that is no longer true. If you or anyone else has a link to any information that would help shed light on this I would appreciate you sharing it. Otherwise, from the available information I would have to surmise that this kinetic damage lock is a fairy tale.
You need to look again
here is list of missiles boat that has kinetic bonus
hawk
Drake
osprey navy issue
Corax
Cerberus
Onyx
Rook |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1121
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:24:38 -
[28] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...
this :/
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:30:57 -
[29] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote:People who think missiles would need to be nerfed to compensate are seriously kidding themselves. Whether it is necessary or not: people who think CCP would not add new modules to buff missiles without some corresponding kick in the teeth to missiles do not know CCP very well. It's always at least two steps forward, one step back, and often it's one step forward, two steps back.
The stupidest part is how the missile ships are technically in a balanced state right now but will now require additionnal sacrifice to achive what they already do.
Missile boat already use all their slots and are balanced but not you will have to make sacrifice slot wise to get back to where you are application wise while losing raw dps, tank or utility. It's a net loss... |
t3hWarrior
Applied Anarchy
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:37:42 -
[30] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:Wynta wrote:instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage. Been reading this a lot lately and wondering where this comes from. taking a quick look through the official attributes for the Caldari ship line up and I do not see a bonus to kinetic damage listed anywhere. Using EvE HQ, PYFA and EvE Droid as a reference it appears that there are no bonuses either as the Caldari ships all seem to have the same DPS output level no matter what damage type you put into the launchers/guns. Since all of these apps show the DPS boost other ships get that do have a bonus to a specific damage type(rattle and kinetic/thermal) I have to wonder if this is one of those popular misconceptions, or a relic from times past that is no longer true. If you or anyone else has a link to any information that would help shed light on this I would appreciate you sharing it. Otherwise, from the available information I would have to surmise that this kinetic damage lock is a fairy tale.
I dont know if you are just dumb, blind, or just lazy, so here are ships that are locked to kinetic for you:
Ibis
Condor
Crow
Buzzard (lol)
Hawk
Corax
Flycatcher
Jackdaw
Osprey navy issue
Cerberus
Rook
Onyx
Tengu
Drake
Nighthawk
Leviathan
On the other hand, the ships that are not locked to kinetic:
Kestrel
Caracal
Caracal navy issue
Drake navy issue
Raven
Raven navy issue
Scorpion navy issue
Widow
Phoenix
did i miss anything? |
|
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1299
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 14:50:29 -
[31] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's.
Why?
Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships.
In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time.
For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me?
Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). *fingers crossed*
Since BCS are stacking penalized (as will be any misisle TE), the loss of dps needs to be more than offset by the increase in application. A small increase in range is not really going to be very useful in most cases.
I recall the last time CCP tried mucking about with missile stats via the modified tracking disruptor, aptly renamed Weapon Disruptor. It flatly did not work. I don't mean it was bad. It just didn't work. At all. Non-functional. Hopefully, someone finally figured out the relevant code.
The stats for range will have to be fairly strong for them to be useful. Like 33% increased range. Because 33% of 20km is not much. They can start by giving heavy missiles another 33% base range.
With application stats CCP will have to be more conservative.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
734
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 15:50:25 -
[32] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters? yes, tried to tell people befor the freighter changes that it would come with some serious nerf to "compensate" for the ability to fit module/rig If they can add tracking modules without gimping the base stats on missiles it would be a good change. Frig/Cruisers dont realy have the room or need for tracking module and battleship/dread need could use some help with application. Its not like battleships/phoenix are OP with missiles, everyone would be using them so trading tank/dps (low or med slot) for application cant be that OP either :P
Except the freighter "nerf" didnt really happen.
You can get almost same EHP and same cargo with the option to get a lot more of either.
And then there are virtually unkillable JFs with 1 mil ehp...
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:09:51 -
[33] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's.
Why?
Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships.
In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time.
For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me?
Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). *fingers crossed* Since BCS are stacking penalized (as will be any misisle TE), the loss of dps needs to be more than offset by the increase in application. A small increase in range is not really going to be very useful in most cases. I recall the last time CCP tried mucking about with missile stats via the modified tracking disruptor, aptly renamed Weapon Disruptor. It flatly did not work. I don't mean it was bad. It just didn't work. At all. Non-functional. Hopefully, someone finally figured out the relevant code. The stats for range will have to be fairly strong for them to be useful. Like 33% increased range. Because 33% of 20km is not much. They can start by giving heavy missiles another 33% base range. With application stats CCP will have to be more conservative.
30% for one module is quite significant number
15% is more reasonable in my opinion. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1122
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:18:18 -
[34] - Quote
unidenify wrote:
30% for one module is quite significant number
15% is more reasonable in my opinion.
TEs are 10/20
TCs are 15/15
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden
Workers Trade Federation
314
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:21:34 -
[35] - Quote
I hope they'll be midslot equipment inorder to make shield tankers sacrifice dps for tank, as we armor tankers got to.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:24:54 -
[36] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:I hope they'll be midslot equipment inorder to make shield tankers sacrifice dps for tank, as we armor tankers got to.
it will never happen
what will happen is that they will swap target painting out for said module
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1122
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:27:40 -
[37] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:I hope they'll be midslot equipment inorder to make shield tankers sacrifice dps for tank, as we armor tankers got to.
does that mean we can move some utility mods to the lows so you armor tankers have to give up tank for utility as we shield tankers do?
different tanks have different advantages and drawbacks that's what adds choice
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1347
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:48:01 -
[38] - Quote
Thank god all my missile ships have an abundance of low slots to play with to fit these.
Oh wait, they're all using BCUs to get a pisspoor paper DPS number....so now I'll be able to apply heehaw DPS. Fantastic. Like a cerberus with 2 BCUs and it's massive 379 Paper DPS.
Unless missiles get a DPS buff across the board. Likely. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
296
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 16:57:50 -
[39] - Quote
First.. yay for missile TE. 2nd.. missile nerfs incoming.
I am hoping the majority of the nerfs affect LM range/application. So as to bring their range down to 30ish km and MAYBE this will reduce some of the garm/orthrus and other kitey missile cancer that is so common nowadays. If garms want to orbit at 50km and missile spam, they will need the missile TE to get back up to prenerf range.
However if they nerf all missiles.. this will make missile ships even weaker. HAM ships for example have fairly low dps, and having to drop a BCU for MTE just to get back to the current normal stats is going to make them even weaker.
I dont think they could make heavies any worse.. but i wont rule it out completely. If they buff heavies, they will need to nerf RHML to compensate. Maybe lose a few missiles per clip if heavies get a damage/application buff.
Cruise might get a minor application nerf. Hopefully they tweak torps a bit and nerf bombers to compensate.
As to the kinetic lock.. you guys do realize that will never change in the t2 variations right? Maybe even some of the t1s. How would t2 gal resist profile look if caldari did omni damage? I for one am tired of gal being master race.. they dont need t2 omni resist profile too.
Gal do mainly therm/kinetic dmg, t2 caldari have resists in mainly therm and kinetic. Caldari do mainly kinetic and some thermal dmg and so gallente have high kinetic and slightly less thermal tank. If caldari suddenly do omni damage, then what do you think will happen to t2 gal resist profile?
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:02:36 -
[40] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it. Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now... That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters? yes, tried to tell people befor the freighter changes that it would come with some serious nerf to "compensate" for the ability to fit module/rig If they can add tracking modules without gimping the base stats on missiles it would be a good change. Frig/Cruisers dont realy have the room or need for tracking module and battleship/dread need could use some help with application. Its not like battleships/phoenix are OP with missiles, everyone would be using them so trading tank/dps (low or med slot) for application cant be that OP either :P Except the freighter "nerf" didnt really happen. You can get almost same EHP and same cargo with the option to get a lot more of either. And then there are virtually unkillable JFs with 1 mil ehp...
Yout talkin deadspace fit slaved armor freighters can get same EHP and cargo? What about the natural shield tankers that have most of their EHP in shield or structure? A Charon need 3 Cargo Extenders to reach the same cargo space it had before (3 extenders = 200k more cargo, 2 extenders = 40k less) |
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1347
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:04:39 -
[41] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Gal do mainly therm/kinetic dmg, t2 caldari have resists in mainly therm and kinetic. Caldari do mainly kinetic and some thermal dmg and so gallente have high kinetic and slightly less thermal tank. If caldari suddenly do omni damage, then what do you think will happen to t2 gal resist profile?
Nah because caldari still have hybrids and gallente have enough omnidamage i the shape of drone hulls the arguement could go both ways. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1122
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:11:24 -
[42] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Gal do mainly therm/kinetic dmg, t2 caldari have resists in mainly therm and kinetic. Caldari do mainly kinetic and some thermal dmg and so gallente have high kinetic and slightly less thermal tank. If caldari suddenly do omni damage, then what do you think will happen to t2 gal resist profile?
with your logic caldari should have omni resists do to the drones of gal ships
the kin lock is just bad and i'm glad CCP is slowly getting rid of it
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
297
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:19:27 -
[43] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Gal do mainly therm/kinetic dmg, t2 caldari have resists in mainly therm and kinetic. Caldari do mainly kinetic and some thermal dmg and so gallente have high kinetic and slightly less thermal tank. If caldari suddenly do omni damage, then what do you think will happen to t2 gal resist profile? with your logic caldari should have omni resists do to the drones of gal ships the kin lock is just bad and i'm glad CCP is slowly getting rid of it
This is true. Drones were buffed and made a primary weapon system later on in the game. So CCP still hasnt updated caldari resist profile. Course knowing CCPs hate of all things missile and caldari and love of all things gallente and drone, theyll probably buff galante resist profile and leave caldari alone /tinfoil
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1122
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 17:29:09 -
[44] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
This is true. Drones were buffed and made a primary weapon system later on in the game. So CCP still hasnt updated caldari resist profile. Course knowing CCPs hate of all things missile and caldari and love of all things gallente and drone, theyll probably buff galante resist profile and leave caldari alone /tinfoil
or more likely if they decide to remove the kin lock they will just leave resists alone since gameplay>lore
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
297
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 18:12:12 -
[45] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:
This is true. Drones were buffed and made a primary weapon system later on in the game. So CCP still hasnt updated caldari resist profile. Course knowing CCPs hate of all things missile and caldari and love of all things gallente and drone, theyll probably buff galante resist profile and leave caldari alone /tinfoil
or more likely if they decide to remove the kin lock they will just leave resists alone since gameplay>lore
Id like to see it happen. But looking at the most recent balance pass on recons, they initially made the rook RoF bonused, but then people wanted damage bonus instead for RLML. CCP tacked on kinetic damage bonus. So even fairly recently, they still havent shyed away from kinetic lock dmg bonuses.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
stoicfaux
5815
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 18:55:55 -
[46] - Quote
Any mid slot module would need to be as effective or more effective than a TP, i.e. 30% bonus for T2.
What I'm interested in is whether battleship missile boats can finally be free of the Tyranny that is Rigor/Flare rigs, thus opening up those rig slots for more interesting fits.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1125
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 18:59:02 -
[47] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Any mid slot module would need to be as effective or more effective than a TP, i.e. 30% bonus for T2.
What I'm interested in is whether battleship missile boats can finally be free of the Tyranny that is Rigor/Flare rigs, thus opening up those rig slots for more interesting fits.
no you will need to use Calefaction Catalyst to make up for the loss in DPS you have to take to fit the MGS needed to get your application back to what it was originally
evin if this does become a benefit to some BC/BB that have the lows to compensate its the frigs-cruisers that don't have many lows that are going to be hurt by this
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1348
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 18:59:07 -
[48] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Any mid slot module would need to be as effective or more effective than a TP, i.e. 30% bonus for T2.
What I'm interested in is whether battleship missile boats can finally be free of the Tyranny that is Rigor/Flare rigs, thus opening up those rig slots for more interesting fits.
If they have the lows so spare - so the typhoon, really. Maybe PvE ravens where the DC can be lost.
ed: And the bargy. I guess. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:01:12 -
[49] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Any mid slot module would need to be as effective or more effective than a TP, i.e. 30% bonus for T2.
What I'm interested in is whether battleship missile boats can finally be free of the Tyranny that is Rigor/Flare rigs, thus opening up those rig slots for more interesting fits.
How dare you expect to be able to use your rigs for something else than application? |
stoicfaux
5815
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:08:44 -
[50] - Quote
Guys, there are missile modules in both the TE and TC sections, so there will be a mid-slot item:
TC - Missile Guidance Computer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
TE - Missile Guidance Enhancer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
Also here's the description for the Missile TC:
"By predicting the trajectory of targets, it helps to boost the precision and range of missiles. This module can be loaded with scripts to increase its effectiveness in certain areas.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."
and for the Missile TE:
"Enhances the range and improves the precision of missiles.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized"
Again, none of them have stats yet.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1348
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:12:07 -
[51] - Quote
The one ship that will make hilariously abusive use of these is the RHML 'phoon. The rest....I feel like it is highly likely a case of robbing peter to pay paul. |
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:13:30 -
[52] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Guys, there are missile modules in both the TE and TC sections, so there will be a mid-slot item:
TC - Missile Guidance Computer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
TE - Missile Guidance Enhancer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
Also here's the description for the Missile TC:
"By predicting the trajectory of targets, it helps to boost the precision and range of missiles. This module can be loaded with scripts to increase its effectiveness in certain areas.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."
and for the Missile TE:
"Enhances the range and improves the precision of missiles.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized"
Again, none of them have stats yet.
I guess we can expect nerf on missiles then
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1125
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:16:03 -
[53] - Quote
unidenify wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Guys, there are missile modules in both the TE and TC sections, so there will be a mid-slot item:
TC - Missile Guidance Computer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
TE - Missile Guidance Enhancer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
Also here's the description for the Missile TC:
"By predicting the trajectory of targets, it helps to boost the precision and range of missiles. This module can be loaded with scripts to increase its effectiveness in certain areas.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."
and for the Missile TE:
"Enhances the range and improves the precision of missiles.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized"
Again, none of them have stats yet.
I guess we can expect nerf on missiles then
at this point we just have to hope its not to bad :/
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:18:24 -
[54] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:unidenify wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Guys, there are missile modules in both the TE and TC sections, so there will be a mid-slot item:
TC - Missile Guidance Computer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
TE - Missile Guidance Enhancer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
Also here's the description for the Missile TC:
"By predicting the trajectory of targets, it helps to boost the precision and range of missiles. This module can be loaded with scripts to increase its effectiveness in certain areas.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."
and for the Missile TE:
"Enhances the range and improves the precision of missiles.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized"
Again, none of them have stats yet.
I guess we can expect nerf on missiles then at this point we just have to hope its not to bad :/
best scenarios is heavy and torpedoes left alone while other 4 class get nerf. However, given that rhml exist, I will bet they nerf heavy further
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1125
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:21:57 -
[55] - Quote
unidenify wrote:
best scenarios is heavy and torpedoes left alone while other 4 class get nerf. However, given that rhml exist, I will bet they nerf heavy further
aye i can't imagine heavies (at least RHML) will make it out of this w/o some bruises i'm also worried about HAMs they are already in an awkward place and i feel they may get their teeth kicked in
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
399
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 19:26:41 -
[56] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Any mid slot module would need to be as effective or more effective than a TP, i.e. 30% bonus for T2.
What I'm interested in is whether battleship missile boats can finally be free of the Tyranny that is Rigor/Flare rigs, thus opening up those rig slots for more interesting fits.
How dare you expect to be able to use your rigs for something else than application?
Wait.... I thought missile ships wouldn't allow you to fit anything except Anti-EM and Rigors/Flares. I think I tried that once and got an error message saying that if I wanted variety in fits I should fly one of Fozzie's favorite ships instead... |
stoicfaux
5815
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:09:24 -
[57] - Quote
Also, for the sake of completeness, there are Missile Precision Scripts and Missile Range Scripts on sisi. No stats.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon
Clockwork Pineapple
322
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:15:58 -
[58] - Quote
So. Please fact check me.
LMs are fired by frigates and destroyers, and have no issue destroying frigates and destroyers.
Cruise Missiles are fired by Battleships, and have no issue destroying battleships.
Heavy Assault Missiles and Heavies are fired by Cruisers and Battlecruisers, and have issues applying damage to cruisers.
Maybe its time they addressed the bigger issue of ultra-fast cruisers instead of band-aiding missiles into the next absurd meta-stagnating and dominating weapon system. The current meta is already frustrating for old and new player alike, this will only make it worse. Turrets are in terrible shape, with a few exceptions; fixing the current meta would fix this problem, and the issue that HAMS and heavies have.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:21:20 -
[59] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Also, for the sake of completeness, there are Missile Precision Scripts and Missile Range Scripts on sisi. No stats.
Missile Precision make me think as if it will affect explosive radius
if so, question would be that, what is ideal combo between Target Painting and said Modules when use on Golem.
2x TP 2x MGE? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1125
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:35:18 -
[60] - Quote
unidenify wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Also, for the sake of completeness, there are Missile Precision Scripts and Missile Range Scripts on sisi. No stats.
Missile Precision make me think as if it will affect explosive radius if so, question would be that, what is ideal combo between Target Painting and said Modules when use on Golem. 2x TP 2x MGE?
no the question is how many lows/mids did i lose
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
|
|
stoicfaux
5815
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:41:40 -
[61] - Quote
unidenify wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Also, for the sake of completeness, there are Missile Precision Scripts and Missile Range Scripts on sisi. No stats.
Missile Precision make me think as if it will affect explosive radius if so, question would be that, what is ideal combo between Target Painting and said Modules when use on Golem. 2x TP 2x MGE?
Depends on the MGC/MGE bonus, and whether the Golem's TP bonus will be extended to include the MGC/MGE.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 20:52:10 -
[62] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:unidenify wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Also, for the sake of completeness, there are Missile Precision Scripts and Missile Range Scripts on sisi. No stats.
Missile Precision make me think as if it will affect explosive radius if so, question would be that, what is ideal combo between Target Painting and said Modules when use on Golem. 2x TP 2x MGE? Depends on the MGC/MGE bonus, and whether the Golem's TP bonus will be extended to include the MGC/MGE.
Not see what you mean?
TP affect target's signature radius, and MGC affect missile explosive radius (that is IF). Not see where it would have conflict as both affect 2 seperate variable in formula. |
Takeshi Kumamato
Blaze Orange Expeditions
Absence of Light
12
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 21:06:19 -
[63] - Quote
The addition of missile TC/TE will probably mean all current ships relying on rigs for damage application will decrease in effectiveness. Why? To make up for the lack of TC/TE for missiles, CCP has made rigs that affect explosion velocity and explosion radius non-stacking penalized. In order for CCP to introduce midslot/lowslot modules, they will need to change the two stats to be stacking penalized or else certain missile ships will be hilariously overpowered.
Currently, two t2 rigors give a 36% reduction in explosion radius. If they were to be stacking penalized, then they would give a 34% reduction instead. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1348
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:05:56 -
[64] - Quote
unidenify wrote:stoicfaux wrote:unidenify wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Also, for the sake of completeness, there are Missile Precision Scripts and Missile Range Scripts on sisi. No stats.
Missile Precision make me think as if it will affect explosive radius if so, question would be that, what is ideal combo between Target Painting and said Modules when use on Golem. 2x TP 2x MGE? Depends on the MGC/MGE bonus, and whether the Golem's TP bonus will be extended to include the MGC/MGE. Not see what you mean? TP affect target's signature radius, and MGC affect missile explosive radius (that is IF). Not see where it would have conflict as both affect 2 seperate variable in formula.
Reducing explosion radius is functionally the same as increasing target sig.
By rights, any reduction to Explo radius should be significantly and I mean SIGNIFICANTLY better than TP because the former only benefits one ship, the latter - everyone. |
stoicfaux
5815
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:27:20 -
[65] - Quote
unidenify wrote:Not see what you mean?
TP affect target's signature radius, and MGC affect missile explosive radius (that is IF). Not see where it would have conflict as both affect 2 seperate variable in formula.
A T2/PWNAGE TP with Skills V provides a 37.5% bonus. If a sig scripted MCG provides less than that, then you'll use TPs over MCGs until the stacking penalty makes an MCG better.
For example: if a TP provides a 37.5% bonus to target sig and a scripted MCG provides a 30% bonus to missile sig then here is the actual stacking penalized bonus value for each module type:
TP MGC
1 100.00% 37.50% 30.00%
2 86.91% 32.59% 26.07%
3 57.06% 21.40% 17.12%
4 28.30% 10.61% 8.49%
5 10.60% 3.97% 3.18%
6 3.00% 1.12% 0.90%
7 0.64% 0.24% 0.19%
8 0.10% 0.04% 0.03%
9 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%
10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
So you would use TP (37.5%), TP (32.59%), MGC (30%), MGC (26.07%), TP (21.4%), MGC (17.12%), TP (10.61%), MGC (8.49%) to maximize your missiles against a target.
The only real variables are whether you are fighting in the TP's falloff and whether you'll need to take advantage of the MGC's range buff.
However, (to actually answer your question) the Golem gets a TP bonus which makes the MGC much less appealing (hence why I would be curious if the Golem also received a buff to MGC,) giving us:
TP MGC
1 100.00% 56.25% 30.00%
2 86.91% 48.89% 26.07%
3 57.06% 32.10% 17.12%
4 28.30% 15.92% 8.49%
5 10.60% 5.96% 3.18%
6 3.00% 1.69% 0.90%
7 0.64% 0.36% 0.19%
8 0.10% 0.06% 0.03%
9 0.01% 0.01% 0.00%
10 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
So you would use TP (56.25%), TP (48.89%), TP (32.1%), MGC (30%), MGC (26.07%), MGC (17.12%), TP(15.92%), MCG (8.49%).
If you're the kind of person who currently runs a mission Golem with 4+ TPs (and I do,) then the MGC is very useful by allowing us to swap a 15.92% stacking penalized TP with a 30% MGC (and "very useful" == a tad imbalanced.) If you're intimidated by level 4 NPCs and run with 3 TPs or less, then the MGC isn't useful to you. (And it might actually be harmful if Rigor rigors become stacking penalized.)
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1125
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:56:31 -
[66] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:. (And it might actually be harmful if Rigor rigors become stacking penalized.)
or you know....
if missiles get their default expl rad/vel neffed
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
114
|
Posted - 2015.06.05 22:57:37 -
[67] - Quote
2 situations I can see where MGC have advantage over TP. Boost Torpedo range, or operate in 120+km range with cruise
2 scripted MGC would push Rage Torp into 70km, assume that Golem also have 2 flight time rig (also if CCP decide to left flight time rig alone with no stack penalty)
Then, for cruise fit Golem can easily reach beyond 200km with fury, 250+ with faction. It is at this point where you said, TP perform poor due to operate in fall off.
however, question is whatever Golem get bonus to MGE/MGC. I somehow doubt it. |
Arla Sarain
482
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 00:03:20 -
[68] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:I hope they'll be midslot equipment inorder to make shield tankers sacrifice dps for tank, as we armor tankers got to.
I too would like tackle and propmods to go into low slots. |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
413
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 00:15:20 -
[69] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Guys, there are missile modules in both the TE and TC sections, so there will be a mid-slot item: TC - Missile Guidance Computer (Compact, T1, and T2.) TE - Missile Guidance Enhancer (Compact, T1, and T2.) Also here's the description for the Missile TC: "By predicting the trajectory of targets, it helps to boost the precision and range of missiles. This module can be loaded with scripts to increase its effectiveness in certain areas. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized." and for the Missile TE: "Enhances the range and improves the precision of missiles. Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized" Again, none of them have stats yet. edit: Picture
Nice, the MGCs weren't up yet on SiSi when I created the thread(it was one of the things that I went looking for when we found the other) |
Arla Sarain
482
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 00:17:27 -
[70] - Quote
Sooo...
140km LML Coraxs? |
|
|
stoicfaux
5815
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 01:09:13 -
[71] - Quote
Okay, if we assume a 30% scripted MGC, then a 4TP Golem would go from 356% effective TP to 399% effective TP, which would make it a little easier to pop NPC cruisers with Fury ammo.
More interesting, any non-Golem missile hull that can fit 5 TP/MGCs (362.74% in first column, row 5) would match the effectiveness of the current 4 TP Golem (356.21% in the last column, row 4.) (e.g. Typhoon, Navy Typhoon, Raven, Navy Raven, etc. disregarding any hull bonuses.)
Cumulative Effect Golem Cumulative Effect
TP=37.5% MGC=30% TP=56.25% MGC=30%
TP+MGC Just TP Just MGC TP+MGC Just TP
1 137.50% 137.50% 130.00% 156.25% 156.25%
2 182.31% 182.31% 163.90% 232.64% 232.64%
3 237.01% 221.32% 191.95% 307.30% 307.30%
4 298.80% 244.81% 208.24% 399.49% 356.21%
5 362.74% 254.54% 214.87% 503.66% 377.45%
6 424.83% 257.40% 216.80% 589.87% 383.82%
7 469.91% 258.02% 217.22% 683.76% 385.20%
8 509.80% 258.12% 217.28% 741.80% 385.43%
TP+MGC is if you mix the optimal number of TPs and MGCs to minimize stacking penalties.
/spreadsheets, why'd it have to be spreadsheets...?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
724
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 11:41:29 -
[72] - Quote
This will be good.
CCP shall no doubt promptly delete the Rapid L/H Missile launchers any minute now.
Any minute now.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1128
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 11:59:50 -
[73] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:This will be good. CCP shall no doubt promptly delete the Rapid L/H Missile launchers any minute now. Any minute now.
q.q it's all missiles have
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Arla Sarain
484
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 13:12:26 -
[74] - Quote
I'll jump on the paranoia train.
Rocket and Missile ships will become obsolete unless they are Jackdaws.
With the upcoming Missile TEs/TCs, missiles of all kinds will get application nerfs the same way ACs did. You will need 1-2 of the new modules to bring them back to the previous levels. And in the same manner as TCs, none of the small ships will have any goddamn space to fit them, unless they arbitrarily have 6 mid slots.
For the time being drones will remain being the better missiles. If CCP doesn't nerf missiles, ABs will be even more s***; as if the 44% damage reduction gained from running on ABs against missiles actually mattered.
These modules aren't needed TBH. It seems like they are added solely because someone at CCP caved into the crowd that mindlessly wanted Missile TE/TCs cos turrets have them.  It's like they were begging to have mids/low removed or wasted on compulsory modules.
Inb4 "you have choice". Like, lose because you have a gimp fit or lose because you apply 30% of your paper DPS. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1350
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 14:38:15 -
[75] - Quote
And the paper dps is already weaksauce.
My money is on major range nerfs, than application to the long
range systems and vice versa for short.
Of course this doesn't change the fact there's few ships with slots to use these. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1128
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 14:44:06 -
[76] - Quote
Well all we can do now is voice our concerns and wait until the People at CCP are able to tell us more about them.
who knows maybe they have a great idea.... maybe
just hope this will be one of the times they listen this has become at least a little more common now 
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Alexis Nightwish
235
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 14:51:58 -
[77] - Quote
unidenify wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:unidenify wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Guys, there are missile modules in both the TE and TC sections, so there will be a mid-slot item:
TC - Missile Guidance Computer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
TE - Missile Guidance Enhancer (Compact, T1, and T2.)
Also here's the description for the Missile TC:
"By predicting the trajectory of targets, it helps to boost the precision and range of missiles. This module can be loaded with scripts to increase its effectiveness in certain areas.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."
and for the Missile TE:
"Enhances the range and improves the precision of missiles.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized"
Again, none of them have stats yet.
I guess we can expect nerf on missiles then at this point we just have to hope its not to bad :/ best scenarios is heavy and torpedoes left alone while other 4 class get nerf. However, given that rhml exist, I will bet they nerf heavy further
Well Fozzie's MO is such: Hear a bunch of people complaining that a ship is OP because of valid reasons. Nerf the weapon system said ship uses so that said ship is the only one that can really make use of it, and all other ships suffer for it.
References: Drake and medium missiles*, Tengu and medium rails, Ishtar and Sentries, and now Orthrus/Garmur (and to a lesser extent Caracal) and LMLs/RLMLs.
*Not sure if Fozzie did this one actually, and this nerf was so hard that even the Drake no longer uses them effectively.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1128
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 15:04:34 -
[78] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Well Fozzie's MO is such: Hear a bunch of people complaining that a ship is OP because of valid reasons. Nerf the weapon system said ship uses so that said ship is the only one that can really make use of it, and all other ships suffer for it.
References: Drake and medium missiles*, Tengu and medium rails, Ishtar and Sentries, and now Orthrus/Garmur (and to a lesser extent Caracal) and LMLs/RLMLs.
*Not sure if Fozzie did this one actually, and this nerf was so hard that even the Drake no longer uses them effectively.
the tengu was not the only reason med rails were the problem as they were broken on almost any ship that used them moa/eagle/tengu/prot
this nerf is more likely coming from the amount of people that were wining that "turrets get application mods so missiles need them to"
rather than just because of light missiles being op, and it is the missiles because again just like med rails they tend to be a bit on the powerful side no matter what missile ship you fit them to
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
299
|
Posted - 2015.06.06 16:24:24 -
[79] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Well Fozzie's MO is such: Hear a bunch of people complaining that a ship is OP because of valid reasons. Nerf the weapon system said ship uses so that said ship is the only one that can really make use of it, and all other ships suffer for it.
References: Drake and medium missiles*, Tengu and medium rails, Ishtar and Sentries, and now Orthrus/Garmur (and to a lesser extent Caracal) and LMLs/RLMLs.
*Not sure if Fozzie did this one actually, and this nerf was so hard that even the Drake no longer uses them effectively.
the tengu was not the only reason med rails were the problem as they were broken on almost any ship that used them moa/eagle/tengu/prot this nerf is more likely coming from the amount of people that were wining that "turrets get application mods so missiles need them to" rather than just because of light missiles being op, and it is the missiles because again just like med rails they tend to be a bit on the powerful side no matter what missile ship you fit them to
yea medium rails were pretty powerful. Putting them on a stabber netted you more dps than bonused artillery. Course artillery is not really dps related, but was still amusing, and easier to fit. Plus i heard 250's had close to blaster dps, but way more range.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
stoicfaux
5826
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 01:04:57 -
[80] - Quote
Whoops, the missile formulas have the missile explosion radius in the bottom, which means that a 30% MGC, would be the equivalent of a 43% target painter., i.e. 1 / (1 - .3) = 1.43. Meaning, a 30% reduction when looking at the (S/ E) part of the formula is : S / ((1-.3)E) = S / .7E = 1/.7 * S/E = 1.43 * S/E
By comparision, a PWNAGE TP provides 37.25% bonus (1.3725).
A 25% MGC would be a 33% TP, and a 20% MGC would be a 25% TP.
Hrm...
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
|
Nafensoriel
Armored Apocalypse
The Ancestors
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 01:14:40 -
[81] - Quote
I sit here wondering if the meta would be so drastically changed if these were introduced with no nerfs whatsoever.
A strong voice in the back of my head says no. We'd still be drones online but it MIGHT just make missiles more viable in pvp... Especially if they added a health script sufficient enough to break firewalls.
/edit
By balance I refer to larger weapons. Lights are still rather healthy. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
77
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 01:48:07 -
[82] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:I sit here wondering if the meta would be so drastically changed if these were introduced with no nerfs whatsoever.
A strong voice in the back of my head says no. We'd still be drones online but it MIGHT just make missiles more viable in pvp... Especially if they added a health script sufficient enough to break firewalls.
/edit
By balance I refer to larger weapons. Lights are still rather healthy.
Firewalls just simply need to go. Offensive systems should never have been allowed to work in a defensive manner.
Defender missiles also need to be reworked to effectively mimic flares to reduce incoming damage from missiles by altering incoming missile explosion velocity/radius for a duration after each cycle against you. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1134
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 01:55:38 -
[83] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Firewalls just simply need to go. Offensive systems should never have been allowed to work in a defensive manner.
Defender missiles also need to be reworked to effectively mimic flares to reduce incoming damage from missiles by altering incoming missile explosion velocity/radius for a duration after each cycle against you.
fire walls are fine missiles just need to be more resistant to them so that you need more than 8 or so that a missile has 99 resists in all but one type (so opposite of bombs)
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
77
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 04:33:22 -
[84] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:fire walls are fine missiles just need to be more resistant to them so that you need more than 8 or so that a missile has 99 resists in all but one type (so opposite of bombs)
That's pretty easily bypassed by having your command ships or specific doctrine ship fly between you and the hostiles equip with different smartbomb types. Not exactly hard to do since most command ships already do such a thing to handle l/m/h drones on fleet or annoying ecm bursting ceptors...
You can give them larger buffers requiring larger numbers of smartbombs to kill them, but that creates an issue of fleets taking more damage from friendly fire than the missiles themselves. So it begs the question, why should the ability of one offensive weapon be allowed to completely counter another even remain?
I'd rather smartbombs be relegated to their original design as (anti)close combat weapon systems and defender missiles given a reliable use/purpose in defending against incoming waves of missiles. Not asking for a buff to missiles here, just defense against them given to the module specifically designed to do so. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1135
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 09:17:04 -
[85] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
I'd rather smartbombs be relegated to their original design as (anti)close combat weapon systems and defender missiles given a reliable use/purpose in defending against incoming waves of missiles. Not asking for a buff to missiles here, just defense against them given to the module specifically designed to do so.
pretty sure smart bombs original design was to be anti drone witch is a weapon system
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Arla Sarain
492
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 10:03:07 -
[86] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Whoops, the missile formulas have the missile explosion radius in the bottom, which means that a 30% MGC, would be the equivalent of a 43% target painter., i.e. 1 / (1 - .3) = 1.43. Meaning, a 30% reduction when looking at the (S/ E) part of the formula is : S / ((1-.3)E) = S / .7E = 1/.7 * S/E = 1.43 * S/E By comparision, a PWNAGE TP provides 37.25% bonus (1.3725). A 25% MGC would be a 33% TP, and a 20% MGC would be a 25% TP. Hrm...
It will only end up being a 43% boost if the ratio ends up being the smallest of the 3 terms. The function looks for the minimum. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
736
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 17:50:12 -
[87] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Yout talkin deadspace fit slaved armor freighters can get same EHP and cargo? What about the natural shield tankers that have most of their EHP in shield or structure? A Charon need 3 Cargo Extenders to reach the same cargo space it had before (3 extenders = 200k more cargo, 2 extenders = 40k less)
You have the ability to select what they do and freighters are way safer than they were before because of it.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
stoicfaux
5828
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 18:18:41 -
[88] - Quote
Fyi, posted a thread for a googledocs spreadsheet with speculative values for the MGC/MGE and their effect on applied missile damage:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=428613&find=unread
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 20:50:48 -
[89] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Yout talkin deadspace fit slaved armor freighters can get same EHP and cargo? What about the natural shield tankers that have most of their EHP in shield or structure? A Charon need 3 Cargo Extenders to reach the same cargo space it had before (3 extenders = 200k more cargo, 2 extenders = 40k less)
You have the ability to select what they do and freighters are way safer than they were before because of it.
I agree it was a boost to armor freighters and jump freighters. The Caldari line got screwed by those changes, Charon with Bulkheads get less than 50% of the cargo space it used to have, with meta 13 (best deadspace) armor tank it have around same tank as a Providence that use no modules.
Have not undocked with my Charon since the changes, there is very little reason to ever use a freighter and even less reason to use a Caldari freighter. Before the changes all the freighters had something going for them, cargo/speed/align/ehp that changed for the worse and i suspect the "choice" we get from missile application modules would do the same |
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4456
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 02:26:51 -
[90] - Quote
Officer Missile Guidance modules for the win!
I for one welcome our new Missile Overlords. Oh wait, that's me! 
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4456
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 02:33:20 -
[91] - Quote
Instead of guidance and missile range, I'd rather see guidance and missile reload time. Hydraulic and rocket fuel rigs are already more than sufficient to fill this role (the former being stacking penalized). Now a 25-40% scripted reload time with a mid-slot module? Yeah, I'm all over that.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
116
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 03:31:53 -
[92] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Instead of guidance and missile range, I'd rather see guidance and missile reload time. Hydraulic and rocket fuel rigs are already more than sufficient to fill this role (the former being stacking penalized). Now a 25-40% scripted reload time with a mid-slot module? Yeah, I'm all over that.
that would make Rapid Launcher too powerful, only way to avoid it is nerf Rapid launcher really hard that it is mandatory to have 1 scripted mid slot to return to old stats |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
406
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 03:53:20 -
[93] - Quote
Unless there's a general buff to missiles, the nerf that will accompany these mods will only further the CCP goal of reducing Caldari ships to the craphole. Requiring a mid-slot to achieve the current level of meh will wreck most workable fits. Hopefully there's more going on behind the scenes.... |
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4456
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 06:06:53 -
[94] - Quote
unidenify wrote:that would make Rapid Launcher too powerful, only way to avoid it is nerf Rapid launcher really hard that it is mandatory to have 1 scripted mid slot to return to old stats
That would totally break my heart...
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Unless there's a general buff to missiles, the nerf that will accompany these mods will only further the CCP goal of reducing Caldari ships to the craphole. Requiring a mid-slot to achieve the current level of meh will wreck most workable fits. Hopefully there's more going on behind the scenes....
And here I was under the impression heavy missiles were getting a buff... Well, it's not like Caldari ships really have a lot of low slots to play with (or mids for that matter)... Guess we'll have to wait on the details.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
286
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 06:27:29 -
[95] - Quote
Obvious nerf incoming. As always when they introducing "new fitting oportunities". We will have to sacrifice one stat to buff another, to reach prenerf value. Caldari hulls have no enough lowslots (if those modules will be lows). Midslots? TPs and "new modules" = weaker tank. Cluster**** for all missiles caldari.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
299
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 14:33:02 -
[96] - Quote
Simple way to balance RHML and buffing HML. If Heavy missiles get a dmg/application buff, just drop a few missiles from clip of RHML. Overall clip damage remains the same and application is alittle better (which it should be tbh).
I will be very sad if CCP screws up the few missile ships i use by nerfing base stats to the point of NEEDING a missile TE/TC. I already fly a dual webbed, rigor fitted, crash boosted, TP wielding typhoon just to make heavies apply decently. If i gotta slap on a MTE/MTC too.. then im going to be running out of tank/dps real fast.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
286
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 20:55:56 -
[97] - Quote
MGEs are in trackng enhancers so low slots.
MGCs are in tracking computers so mid slots.
Low slots means lower dps for caldari. Both modules gaves range and application so for kitters fitting. Meh. Suddenly, I vote for 1 per year skill remap, I don't want to be missiles user anymore...I hope it's a joke just like new icons.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
655
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 02:26:04 -
[98] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:MGEs are in trackng enhancers so low slots.
MGCs are in tracking computers so mid slots.
Low slots means lower dps for caldari. Both modules gaves range and application so for kitters fitting. Meh. Suddenly, I vote for 1 per year skill remap, I don't want to be missiles user anymore...I hope it's a joke just like new icons.
We would have to see them in action imo. Lost dps can be made up for by decent application. High paper damage that hits less not always a good thing. Why for example we can have really good arguments over missile rigs current day eve. The ROF or damage boost ones could be nice. But....some flare and rigor could be just as good.
But that's me...I have always been more into application. To the point I have on turrets downsized the guns (as this tends to give tracking boosts). Or if its damage mod or te.....I liked te. Way I see it's like fighting/martial arts. you can have power out the ass in your strikes....they have to hit to actually do you any good. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
479
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 02:45:55 -
[99] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote:
Firewalls just simply need to go. Offensive systems should never have been allowed to work in a defensive manner.
Defender missiles also need to be reworked to effectively mimic flares to reduce incoming damage from missiles by altering incoming missile explosion velocity/radius for a duration after each cycle against you.
fire walls are fine missiles just need to be more resistant to them so that you need more than 8 or so that a missile has 99 resists in all but one type (so opposite of bombs)
The only issue I have with this design is that most ships have 1 damage type to their hulls, which most of them are kinetic. Which means just by having the threat of kinetic smartbombs, you force a fleet to nerf itself by 25% just so it can apply some form of damage. Meanwhile the firewallers can still stack up kinetic resistances so they don't kill each other. Now if the ships that had only bonuses to kinetic missiles also received a bonus to another damage type, that would be fairer as it still restricts the missile boat to certain damage profile for maximum efficiency while making the firewall fit 2 damage profile smartbombs. This would also effectively double the required size of a firewall to remain effective.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
286
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 06:15:13 -
[100] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:We would have to see them in action imo. Lost dps can be made up for by decent application.
Sure. Missiles are all about application, but buffing it and reducing the dps we will get same value with less tank. So without those mods overall dps will be worse (not to mention tank). I don't see we get torps golem with above and not overall dps reduction. This is how Fozz made changes. Like with freighters. I can see hull that will benefit, like said golem or jack, but overall lots of ships will be worse. Missiles already have, or should have worse dps beacuse of selected damage. Funny sentence when looking on caldari kinetic lock.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
|
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel
The Kadeshi
1514
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 08:46:24 -
[101] - Quote
If these modules come, missiles will be nerfed further to compensate for the bonuses of these modules. Fitting them will be mandatory to get back close to previous stats. Whoever wants these modules in the game, either hasn't been around with the last buff/nerf round or has and just blanks this fact out of the mind.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
1460
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 17:12:26 -
[102] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:MGEs are in trackng enhancers so low slots.
MGCs are in tracking computers so mid slots.
Low slots means lower dps for caldari. Both modules gaves range and application so for kitters fitting. Meh. Suddenly, I vote for 1 per year skill remap, I don't want to be missiles user anymore...I hope it's a joke just like new icons.
if your shooting a hull 1 size or more smaller than your ammo size ...
damage application outweighs raw dps, and range is largely irrelevant
there's still not going to be a situation where a BS firing CM's will alpha a frigate
that will remain the province of turret users
and like a lot of people, im expecting a major nerf to land at the same time as this .... 'buff' |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1136
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 02:58:37 -
[103] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:
We would have to see them in action imo. Lost dps can be made up for by decent application. High paper damage that hits less not always a good thing. Why for example we can have really good arguments over missile rigs current day eve. The ROF or damage boost ones could be nice. But....some flare and rigor could be just as good.
But that's me...I have always been more into application. To the point I have on turrets downsized the guns (as this tends to give tracking boosts). Or if its damage mod or te.....I liked te. Way I see it's like fighting/martial arts. you can have power out the ass in your strikes....they have to hit to actually do you any good.
except the current missile fits are anemic even with their current paper DPS after you dedicate all of the lows to BCU. I would like to say they make up for that by being able to select the damage type but to many of them are stuck with only one. this just makes it worse as it is much easier to tank against one damage type rather than 2
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1355
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 06:49:49 -
[104] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:
We would have to see them in action imo. Lost dps can be made up for by decent application. High paper damage that hits less not always a good thing. Why for example we can have really good arguments over missile rigs current day eve. The ROF or damage boost ones could be nice. But....some flare and rigor could be just as good.
But that's me...I have always been more into application. To the point I have on turrets downsized the guns (as this tends to give tracking boosts). Or if its damage mod or te.....I liked te. Way I see it's like fighting/martial arts. you can have power out the ass in your strikes....they have to hit to actually do you any good.
except the current missile fits are anemic even with their current paper DPS after you dedicate all of the lows to BCU. I would like to say they make up for that by being able to select the damage type but to many of them are stuck with only one. this just makes it worse as it is much easier to tank against one damage type rather than 2
This.
Even at selectable damage....caracal navy, 3 BCU and HML is a mighty....359 PAPER DPS |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
416
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 03:26:56 -
[105] - Quote
A Buff coming to missiles? 5% to HM? on 07 Show. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
286
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:49:38 -
[106] - Quote
Caldari 5 wrote:A Buff coming to missiles? 5% to HM? on 07 Show.
Any word about new modules? Can't find o7 on tube.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Reaper of Dreams
Reaper Industries and Science Inc
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:01:44 -
[107] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:A Buff coming to missiles? 5% to HM? on 07 Show. Any word about new modules? Can't find o7 on tube.
There will be a low and med slot Version, will be scriptable aswell. Also no nerf to missiles in this update.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
117
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:12:15 -
[108] - Quote
Reaper of Dreams wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:A Buff coming to missiles? 5% to HM? on 07 Show. Any word about new modules? Can't find o7 on tube. There will be a low and med slot Version, will be scriptable aswell. Also no nerf to missiles in this update.
wait, they will add those modules with no nerf to missile? (my guess is that they will nerf next patch after this patch based which perform too well) |
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
417
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:16:13 -
[109] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Caldari 5 wrote:A Buff coming to missiles? 5% to HM? on 07 Show. Any word about new modules? Can't find o7 on tube.
Not on Youtube yet to my knowledge, but the twitch replay is at http://www.twitch.tv/ccp/v/6066211 |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
286
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 09:03:54 -
[110] - Quote
Reaper of Dreams wrote:There will be a low and med slot Version, will be scriptable aswell. Also no nerf to missiles in this update.
Woot? No missile nerf? Xmas in june?
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
|
|
Arla Sarain
496
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 10:33:57 -
[111] - Quote
Nope. The nerf is too ABs. Their 44% damage reduction against missiles only made the victim die slower. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:43:21 -
[112] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Nope. The nerf is too ABs. Their 44% damage reduction against missiles only made the victim die slower.
I can't avoid 50% of the damage done to me by simply moving fast in any direction before resistances are even taken into effect! Oh god!
At least with guns it took a small amount of skill to watch your transversal, avoiding missile damage has always been as brainless as strapping on a prop mode and not holding still. You will never get pity from me with this whole "missiles always do damage" shtick when avoiding the majority of missile damage is determined by hull size, how fast you are, and then finally your resist profile. Meanwhile even large guns with proper positioning will blap small targets, something missiles will simply never do.
Anyway I called it - no missile buffs until after they see how this actually effects game play. We can all guess which hulls are going to see nerfs and which will finally see some love. I'm going to predict an end to kinetic locks on all remaining hulls in time.
As for the end to firewalls, kinda of called that one too, but I like the direction they are looking. Would rather it be inverse tho, I don't like the idea of an enemy fleet being able to dictate my damage choice in such a way. Better to force me to use 3 out of the 4 remaining damage types if I see EM smartbombs going off rather than being forced to fire into what is likely to be their highest resist profile or do literally no damage as my missiles hit the firewall. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
507
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 18:34:35 -
[113] - Quote
Sorry to interrupt this - forlorn missile circle jerk Caldari persecution complex Fozzie hating - indulgence session, but yeah it appears from the last o7 show that changes are coming in many ways. We will have to wait to see the whole set of the changes.
But to engage also in speculation is fun. Here is mine.
Since missile TC and TEs are on Sisi, and scripts for them. Most likely these will as some have already said result/necessitate some nerfing of base missile or rapid launcher stats. Light missiles will probably have to lose a little range. Otherwise we could some truly ridiculous range on some small hulls with specialized fits.
And even though just about all of you itt are commenting from a Caldari centered view point, ironically it may be a Minmatar missile boat, the Typhoon, that becomes a balancing terror. It already has an application bonus baked into the hull. Adding mods to it to exaggerate the power of its missiles may become a giggle inducing popular pursuit.
Almost no one has commented on some of the other missile changes mentioned. HMs are getting a 5% damage rebuff. This may be compensation for some measure of lost damage when people swap out a BCS for a missile tracking enhancer. Also it could just be a reevaluation of the HM damage stats.
Missiles of all kinds are apparently getting hp buffs. This may be an attempt to dissuade the use of firewalling. Why would CCP do this? While firewalling was a creative answer to no working dedicated ewar against the former ubiquitous Drake missile spam, it has never been elegant or involved an intended game mechanic. Smarties have always been in the game really as an anti drone module.
To introduce missile TC and TE means missile TDs must be coming as a combative ewar to buffed missiles. Has anyone itt looked at TD scripts on Sisi? Or looked at ewar modules on Sisi to see if there is something like this in the database? Because it surely is coming. This will bring a needed balance to an otherwise perilous outright missile buff without much in the way of base stat nerfing to missiles. It is a better way to counter an outright missile buff also since it involves more player actions and tactics. It simultaneously would buff a class of ships that don't get much use, the TD boats.
BTW, you all probably love to complain about Ishtars. The same o7 show said more is coming to the Ishtar. So show some appreciation to Fozzie et al. Hopefully whatever nerf is coming wont kill it. It has nowhere near the reign that the Drake had. And if somehow all this resurrects the Drake hegemony, rest assured it wont last very long.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Cleanse Serce
Lonesome Capsuleer
34
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 18:53:56 -
[114] - Quote
Question to CCP guys : Are you planning to implement a "Guidance Disruptor" eWar module ?
I'm sure you are.
Buffing missiles by their bonuses, by those new modules, by the Battlecruiser buff, and the Hit point to prevent Firewall need some kind of counter right ?
Also about the Ishtar.
I know this not the place to talk about Ishtars in a Guidance Enhancer dedicated thread.
Anyway, i got to make a disclaimer : I am not an Ishtar pilot at ALL, i've always hated drones in Eve Online, specially Sentries, not cause i concider them OverPowered, but because people kept telling me that drones were OP and that i had to train for those, L4 Dominix easy, Ishtars easy, etc, etc....
Whatever, i was just thinking about the Ishtar, and I realised that Ishtars were not only popular for the Sentries bonuses, but for the fact they are the only HAC combining multiple advantages.
- Agility / Speed
- Projection
- T2 bonuses
- Usefull and fleet-oriented bonuses.
What if Sentries were not the only reason Ishtars are so popular ?
I mean, look at the Zealot, he has good tank, good projection, but no agility, no speed.
Loot ak the Vagabon, Fast, agile, but projection is still the shortest of all HACs, unless you go 750mm but you'll have sacrifice some tank and have to use Tremor... PLUS he has a useless Bonus for fleet purposes : Shield Boost Bonus (suits well for solo/small gang though).
There's only the Eagle that can stands aside the Ishtar.
So stop nerf Ishtar, and rebuild/balance HACS as a whole maybe ? |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
1460
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 20:14:48 -
[115] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:
But to engage also in speculation is fun. .
Here is mine
TD's to affect missiles as originally planned many patches ago.
In-game effect you can hit for 0 damage with missiles against smaller targets
imo ... it's a miss
so a weapon system that ALWAYS only ever 'hit' it's target can now miss, but still does not get to do critical hits |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
Spaceship Bebop
507
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 20:38:41 -
[116] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote: TD's to affect missiles as originally planned many patches ago.
In-game effect you can hit for 0 damage with missiles against smaller targets
imo ... it's a miss
so a weapon system that ALWAYS only ever 'hit' it's target can now miss, but still does not get to do critical hits
So, the new TC TE mean it wont be for 0 damage.
But just as a turret user if the opposition brings enough TD or TD boats, and one of those lands on you, from a lucky falloff role of the dice, you are ******. What is wrong with that?
A few years ago they attempted to buff missiles. On the test server the op of missiles was so ermagherd apparent in that everything big and small, fast and tall, was dying so quickly to missiles that the whole effort was scrapped. The missile formula it appears has a very low range of tolerance between bad for a lots of pvp and so op it is ridiculous. Maybe they have found the tiny sweet spot since they appear to be determined to introduce this stuff now. Lets hope so.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1137
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 22:09:43 -
[117] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:
But to engage also in speculation is fun. .
Here is mine TD's to affect missiles as originally planned many patches ago. In-game effect you can hit for 0 damage with missiles against smaller targets imo ... it's a miss so a weapon system that ALWAYS only ever 'hit' it's target can now miss, but still does not get to do critical hits
when i hit a ship moving 0ms for 60 using a heavy missile or larger i call that a miss
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1137
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 22:17:08 -
[118] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote: Maybe they have found the tiny sweet spot since they appear to be determined to introduce this stuff now. Lets hope so.
odds are they are taking advantage of the faster releases and have not found the "sweet spot" but are going to gauge and adjust based on how they are used after these mods are released.
tbh i just hope all the missile types become competitive in some aspect of the game again.
but in the brief time that missiles get this buff along with the BC changes through back drake fleets anyone?
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
89
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 22:39:37 -
[119] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:
edit - I do like the one guys suggestion that defender missiles act like flares, and reduce damage application from missiles. Unfortunately it doesn't overcome what appears to be heavy coding issues or the necessity for a launcher slot on the target hull. Better to have the necessary cooperative play of dedicated ewar TD boats imo. Better just to delete defenders from the game. They've never worked well and apparently never will.
That was my idea. Glad you agree with it, missiles have needed an overhaul for a while as far as how they are coded. So this would simply be a part of that much needed patch. Getting jammed/losing lock should never cause a missile to do no damage, one would assume once fired all the stats it was fired with are now a part of that missile which includes the target lock.
So missiles would get calculated twice
1) When fired they are set with target, speed, duration of burn, hull bonused damage, exp velocity, and exp radius.
2) When they reach the target the target's sig radius, speed, and external factors are calleded and damage is calculated.
Think of the new defender missile as a point blank defense weapon that create a bubble like field as far as the code is concerned. Basically when the missile reaches it's intended target a check is made similar to a current warp disruption bubble. And likewise stacking multiple defender missile flares would just gives you more coverage, not a stronger disruption. And since this form of defense would be charge based and the defense points static would make this defensive module as unique as the weapon system it is meant to counter.
Consider the gameplay that can develop around this: a few ships are fit with these and fly slightly ahead of the fleet creating a chain of flares for their fleet to fly through for protection. Since it is a non-direct defense system it has the potential to be far more powerful than a directed TD could be against larger fleets. It gives it near infinite scaling! Yet the trade off is that it cannot near-perfectly cancel out a ship like a well placed TD can accomplish. Add to this reload times, so the ships launching these would need to communicate to insure coverage and fleet movement. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
729
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 00:36:28 -
[120] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:If these modules come, missiles will be nerfed further to compensate for the bonuses of these modules. Fitting them will be mandatory to get back close to previous stats. Whoever wants these modules in the game, either hasn't been around with the last buff/nerf round or has and just blanks this fact out of the mind.
Excellent.
Make the new "TCs" midslots. 
Hit them with the freighter one-two sneak trick.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
|
|
Fourteen Maken
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology
Enemy Spotted.
166
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 13:30:23 -
[121] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:First.. yay for missile TE. 2nd.. missile nerfs incoming.
I am hoping the majority of the nerfs affect LM range/application. So as to bring their range down to 30ish km and MAYBE this will reduce some of the garm/orthrus and other kitey missile cancer that is so common nowadays. If garms want to orbit at 50km and missile spam, they will need the missile TE to get back up to prenerf range.
However if they nerf all missiles.. this will make missile ships even weaker. HAM ships for example have fairly low dps, and having to drop a BCU for MTE just to get back to the current normal stats is going to make them even weaker.
I dont think they could make heavies any worse.. but i wont rule it out completely. If they buff heavies, they will need to nerf RHML to compensate. Maybe lose a few missiles per clip if heavies get a damage/application buff.
Cruise might get a minor application nerf. Hopefully they tweak torps a bit and nerf bombers to compensate.
As to the kinetic lock.. you guys do realize that will never change in the t2 variations right? Maybe even some of the t1s. How would t2 gal resist profile look if caldari did omni damage? I for one am tired of gal being master race.. they dont need t2 omni resist profile too.
Gal do mainly therm/kinetic dmg, t2 caldari have resists in mainly therm and kinetic. Caldari do mainly kinetic and some thermal dmg and so gallente have high kinetic and slightly less thermal tank. If caldari suddenly do omni damage, then what do you think will happen to t2 gal resist profile?
Light missiles are not cancerous now apart from the Garmur, and the Garmur itself is OP because of it's speed coupled with point range bonus and hefty missile bonuses to missile dps and velocity. Most Kestrels, Hookbills, and Breachers use rockets, condors and crows are not that common now because dps is so low as it is. Leave light missiles alone they are not a problem apart from the Garmur which needs to have its speed reduced and the point range bonus should only apply to either scram or disruptor but not both.
The module looks to me like it's for low slots which means you're unlikely to see them on anything smaller than a cruiser anyway, and they won't be nearly as effective on light missiles as they will on the problem missiles like HAM's, HML and up, for instance If I'm fitting a RLML Caracal and I have to chose between a bcu or a missile tracking enhancer I'll pick the bcu every time because my application is already good.... but if I'm fitting HAM's or Heavies I'll drop the BCU and fit one of these to help with application because that's going to make more difference than extra raw dps. So there's no need to nerf anything because the missiles this module affects are already in a bad place as it is.
I like it because it's a good way to buff the problem missiles without buffing lights/rapid lights, and it gives more fitting options for missile ships, but unless it gives a huge buff I don't think it will be enough on it's own for most heavy missiles. If there are no nerfs you might see more people use RHML which is a good thing because missile battleships have very little other use in pvp, it will also help Drakes and especially Cyclones and again this is whats needed, but Torps and HAM's will still need their fitting cost reduced to make viable pvp fits, Torps and Heavies also need better base dmg application even with this module fitted.
Not sure why you think cruise will get an application nerf? they're not even in the same league as turrets or drones for battleship pvp so why would they need a nerf? If the aim here is to ensure the same meta prevails there's no point introducing this module, you could drop it in game now without changing anything else and you still won't see much more large missile usage in pvp due to firewalling, delayed dps, and poor application. Larger fleets will always go for turrets or drones because missiles waste too much dps and can be almost completely negated by smart bombs, so give large missiles a place in small gang and solo by making them better than turrets and drones in these roles. |
Fourteen Maken
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology
Enemy Spotted.
166
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 14:35:10 -
[122] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:I'll jump on the paranoia train. Rocket and Missile ships will become obsolete unless they are Jackdaws. With the upcoming Missile TEs/TCs, missiles of all kinds will get application nerfs the same way ACs did. You will need 1-2 of the new modules to bring them back to the previous levels. And in the same manner as TCs, none of the small ships will have any goddamn space to fit them, unless they arbitrarily have 6 mid slots. For the time being drones will remain being the better missiles. If CCP doesn't nerf missiles, ABs will be even more s***; as if the 44% damage reduction gained from running on ABs against missiles actually mattered. These modules aren't needed TBH. It seems like they are added solely because someone at CCP caved into the crowd that mindlessly wanted Missile TE/TCs cos turrets have them. It's like they were begging to have mids/low removed or wasted on compulsory modules. Inb4 "you have choice". Like, lose because you have a gimp fit or lose because you apply 30% of your paper DPS.
They said in the o7 show they were not planning any nerfs to missiles, and they are actually buffing the dps on Heavies by 5% as well. I think you're all overestimating the power of these modules, we already have missile rigs that can do the same things and if they put stacking penalties across the rigs and modules there won't be a huge difference in the stats because the 3 rigs themselves will be less effective, and the 4th module will be so heavily penalized it probably won't be worth using except for specialized fits... and that's mostly what will change: more fitting options, more specialized fits and all of it at the cost of tank/dps/ewar so they don't become too OP.
I think it's a good change, a small buff that will mostly benefit larger missiles, and more fitting options because missile ships almost fit themselves atm. |
James Baboli
Novablasters
891
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 00:41:36 -
[123] - Quote
I am wary of the scripted togglable computer as it seems like a great way to let you do Time on Target salvos for double or triple alpha.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
93
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 04:47:35 -
[124] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:I am wary of the scripted togglable computer as it seems like a great way to let you do Time on Target salvos for double or triple alpha.
What?
Seriously, I'm trying to figure out what you mean here. It's simply damage application or range that can be increased by these. In the case of application (the only thing that can increase the damage dealt), you're talking about what we assume to be around a 30% increase to the base missile stats with stacking penalties. Missiles are still hard capped on their damage so they aren't going to magically crit you for anything more than that.
Basically the only way you're going to get hit for double/triple alpha is if you go from moving to not moving at all in a small ship and they're scripted precision. In which case, far worse will happen to you if you do that to a player using turrets since your size only effects their chance to hit, not their damage like with missiles. |
James Baboli
Novablasters
891
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 06:16:46 -
[125] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:James Baboli wrote:I am wary of the scripted togglable computer as it seems like a great way to let you do Time on Target salvos for double or triple alpha. What? Seriously, I'm trying to figure out what you mean here. It's simply damage application or range that can be increased by these. In the case of application (the only thing that can increase the damage dealt), you're talking about what we assume to be around a 30% increase to the base missile stats with stacking penalties. Missiles are still hard capped on their damage so they aren't going to magically crit you for anything more than that. Basically the only way you're going to get hit for double/triple alpha is if you go from moving to not moving at all in a small ship and they're scripted precision. In which case, far worse will happen to you if you do that to a player using turrets since your size only effects their chance to hit, not their damage like with missiles.
So, there is this lovely concept in real life called time on target. you first fire rounds at high, slow arcs, then progressively faster arcs so you can get multiple rounds on target from a single tube.
Same concept, with the midslot version scripted speed, off for the first volley, one on for the 2nd, and if you are fit for flight time, light 2 more and watch them all hit in a single rep cycle.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
418
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 06:33:42 -
[126] - Quote
The multiple Alpha thing can already be done to some extent with fast ships and slow missiles, especially if the speed of the ship is the same as the speed of the missiles, although its mostly a suicide run, fly directly at the enemy firing salvos the entire time, although most times you can only get a double alpha and not a triple. I've seen it done to good effect with MJDs, fire salvo MJD towards the enemy, fire slavo both landing at the same time. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
93
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 06:43:03 -
[127] - Quote
Basically what Caldari said is the only way I see that happening with the very slow, long range missiles. Rate of fire and flight duration typically already make it so only the faster firing launchers can even see two (occasionally a third) flights in the air at the same time. Scripting will not speed them up that much to allow for maybe 3/4 flights out of a few launchers at max range/very fast targets unless the target literally loops back towards you or stopping I cant imagine them hitting in fast enough succession as you suggest. At which point it was pilot error that would cause this, not gaming of a module/mechanic. |
James Baboli
Novablasters
891
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 07:15:31 -
[128] - Quote
I did not say it was well founded, as I have not done the math all the way out, but it definitely does make it more viable to get double alpha or better volleys.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
469
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 09:00:21 -
[129] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote:James Baboli wrote:I am wary of the scripted togglable computer as it seems like a great way to let you do Time on Target salvos for double or triple alpha. What? Seriously, I'm trying to figure out what you mean here. It's simply damage application or range that can be increased by these. In the case of application (the only thing that can increase the damage dealt), you're talking about what we assume to be around a 30% increase to the base missile stats with stacking penalties. Missiles are still hard capped on their damage so they aren't going to magically crit you for anything more than that. Basically the only way you're going to get hit for double/triple alpha is if you go from moving to not moving at all in a small ship and they're scripted precision. In which case, far worse will happen to you if you do that to a player using turrets since your size only effects their chance to hit, not their damage like with missiles. So, there is this lovely concept in real life called time on target. you first fire rounds at high, slow arcs, then progressively faster arcs so you can get multiple rounds on target from a single tube. Same concept, with the midslot version scripted speed, off for the first volley, one on for the 2nd, and if you are fit for flight time, light 2 more and watch them all hit in a single rep cycle.
Look up the PzH 2000, they have a system where they fire in increasingly shallower angles to allow several rounds to impact at or around the same time. Very interesting concept and definite tactical advantage if done right. It'd be tough to replicate in Eve, but it could be done as described.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
Get Off My Lawn
1115
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 09:59:58 -
[130] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:I am wary of the scripted togglable computer as it seems like a great way to let you do Time on Target salvos for double or triple alpha.
I'm still not seeing how the scripted computer affects this to the extent that I would be at all worried about it. How are people changing scripts that fast on a 30 second cycle-time module? Each volley of missiles is only going to be affected by status of the missile computer when you hit launch. Switching scripts after you launch a volley will not change the stats for it, nor will a switch have time to have any affect, unless the cycle time of the module is really fast.
Raven w/ three T2 BCU's, all Level V skills, ROF 6.53 seconds, 21 seconds time of flight, w/ 500mn MWD goes 1472 m/s, LMJD cycle time is 9 seconds
Volley 1 - 10,575 m/s times 6.53 seconds = roughly 69km out when second volley is launched, max range 222km
Turn on module as soon as Volley 1 fires, scripted for missile speed (assume 30% bonus to speed)
Volley 2 - 13,747 m/s times 6.53 seconds = roughly 89km out when third volley is launched (first volley is now roughly 138km out), max range roughly 288km
Volley 3 - etc
The only way to get volleys closer is to use your LMJD as soon as the second volley fires and jump towards the enemy. That might give you something approaching the old "cavalry" Raven and get volleys landing close enough to get 3 onto one target.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |