Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
stoicfaux
5828
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 18:07:52 -
[1] - Quote
ACHTUNG! This is all highly speculative and subject to silencing by CCP's ISD's little known Elite Delta Force's Goon Squad's "Maintaining Internal Informational Integrity Moderation Untergruppe."[1]
As you may or may not know, there are Missile Guidance Computers and Enhancers on Sisi. Meaning, TCs and TEs for missiles appear to be in the pipeline. They are just placeholders without any attributes right now, but change is rumored to be in the making. The MGC/MGE appear to affect missile explosion radius and missile velocity.
In the interests of OCD, lack of patience, preparing for the future, and being totally bored while recovering from surgery, I have taken the liberty of creating a googledocs Spreadsheet to help toy with the possible effects of a missile specific TC/TE.
googledocs link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AxQeNMdFTrE84V7CrkzAUdI8x08EqOGcU84aRcwgQg8/edit?usp=sharing
The first worksheet (tab at the bottom) is for optimizing a mix of TPs and MGC/MGEs (see comment "a" below.) The "golem, typhoon, etc." worksheets calculate the Applied Missile Damage of a couple of current (TP only) and possible future (TP+MGC) fits.
Biggest findings so far are: a) TPs and MGC/MGEs affect different attributes, but have the same effect on the Missile Damage Formula, so they suffer from stacking penalties independently. Meaning 2 TPs + 2 MGC will be significantly less stacking penalized than 4 TPs or 4 MGC/MGEs.
b) For purposes of comparison, you can "convert" a MGC/MGE's effect into an equivalent TP thusly: 1 / (1 - MGC/E bonus). For example a "30%" MGC would be equivalent to a 1 / (1 - .3) = 1 / .7 = 1.43 aka a 43% TP. By comparison a Skill V PWNAGE TP provides a 37.5 bonus.
Keywords: missile tc, missile te, missile nerfs, missile pass, omg the sky is falling.
[1] The existence of which was revealed by a top secret CCP org chart found in some of the Snowden documents.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1177
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 18:50:36 -
[2] - Quote
the thought of that almost makes me want to use missiles again
also wonder if you turn on/change scripts does the current volley do the whole disappear thing?
@ChainsawPlankto
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16097
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 20:02:24 -
[3] - Quote
Just as I nail my phoenix fit CCP does this to me
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
16507
|
Posted - 2015.06.07 20:41:49 -
[4] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Just as I nail my phoenix fit CCP does this to me
Never forget that CCP are the greatest trolls of all.
Never.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
stoicfaux
5837
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 02:22:51 -
[5] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Just as I nail my phoenix fit CCP does this to me Good News! Hypothetically, if the MGC has a 30% bonus, then a Phoenix with 4 MGCs, 3 Rigors, and 3 bonused TPs + 60% web (from a Rapier or Hyena) can one volley a 34k ehp shield tanked MWD'ing Ishtar with Citadel Cruise missiles in siege mode. (Ishtar has just 32k ehp if you fire 1 EM missile and two explosive ones.)
I've added a tab for the Phoenix on the spreadsheet.
Obviously, CCP will need to nerf Citadel Cruise missiles and the Phoenix when MGCs are released.
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
33
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 03:59:15 -
[6] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:[
Obviously, CCP will need to nerf Citadel Cruise missiles and the Phoenix when MGCs are released.
That is whats going to happen, not only to Citadel Cruise but all missiles. These numbers are usefull to show how much larger expl radius missiles will get (1 scripted MGC to get back to current is a good estimate) |
unidenify
Plundering Penguins
116
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 04:08:32 -
[7] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Just as I nail my phoenix fit CCP does this to me Never forget that CCP are the greatest trolls of all. Never.
I hate to jump ahead because it is entire possible that CCP decide to make MGC/MGE affect explosive velocity |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1184
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 04:29:06 -
[8] - Quote
the other thing I immediately thought was that their stats would be much lower than predicted. I imagine the mid version at 15% and the low at 8% or something.
having it do something for exp velocity is also possible.
or perhaps a whole rework of the missile formula!?
@ChainsawPlankto
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16098
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 06:49:50 -
[9] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:baltec1 wrote:Just as I nail my phoenix fit CCP does this to me Good News! Hypothetically, if the MGC has a 30% bonus, then a Phoenix with 4 MGCs, 3 Rigors, and 3 bonused TPs + 60% web (from a Rapier or Hyena) can one volley a 34k ehp shield tanked MWD'ing Ishtar with Citadel Cruise missiles in siege mode. (Ishtar has just 32k ehp if you fire 1 EM missile and two explosive ones.) I've added a tab for the Phoenix on the spreadsheet. Obviously, CCP will need to nerf Citadel Cruise missiles and the Phoenix when MGCs are released.
Well I can see myself dropping the two webs for these new MGCs and possibly abanding the torps depending if they get nerfed or not. The hardest part was getting it to roam and hopefully CCP wont cripple the missiles.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 10:13:07 -
[10] - Quote
Given *CCP* I fully expect if these are introduced that all missiles will be nerfed to the point that at least two of these are needed to get back to the stats we have.
(yes I am a pessimist but, CCP prove me wrong I dare you) |
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1089
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 10:24:19 -
[11] - Quote
Some speculations regarding RHML Barghs for a fleet:
1700m/s cold, 180k ehp.
860dps with CN, 105m / 122m/s, 2.3k volley (x25) out to 94km. With 2 Enhancers roughly: 860dps, 86m / 155m/s, 2.3k volley out to 130(?)km, around 1.2k per volley applied to a linked, untackled ishtar (?)
Doesn't look bad imho.
(ship toasted that into the wrong thread, taking he 15% ones) |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1352
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 10:40:07 -
[12] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:the other thing I immediately thought was that their stats would be much lower than predicted. I imagine the mid version at 15% and the low at 8% or something.
having it do something for exp velocity is also possible.
or perhaps a whole rework of the missile formula!?
But that would be a terrible idea because the new mods ONLY affect the firing ship - why would you EVER replace a TP with a module which gives less gain to less people?
No, unfortunately, I'm very much on the side of "missiles are about to get nerfed so hard they're not going to be able to sit down for two years".
There are so few ships who even have the slots to fit these as it is and there's absolutely no way we'll just see a blanket missile buff mod without some compensating nerfs to the missiles themselves. So I'll have to fit these mods to get back to where it was - in slots I don't have on ships with already questionable DPS in the main.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. |
Arla Sarain
493
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 10:43:54 -
[13] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
I doubt you are wrong too. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2165
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 10:48:41 -
[14] - Quote
Predicting that the next module tiericide round will be the other missile launchers and mods. Seems inconceivable that this would finally get introduced without taking a look at the base modules. Nerf incoming I reckon.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1352
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 10:51:21 -
[15] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Predicting that the next module tiericide round will be the other missile launchers and mods. Seems inconceivable that this would finally get introduced without taking a look at the base modules. Nerf incoming I reckon.
And a huge one.
I mean, how could you balance these mods so that a typhoon isn't a monstrosity (it's the only hull with slots to carry this) yet a normal ship is effective? You can't, so it'll be made so the typhoon is ok and the rest are more use reprocessed.... |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2165
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 11:10:46 -
[16] - Quote
Actually, I wonder if that's why the LMLs were done first in tiericide while all the others were left for later. Effects on larger missile launchers will be greater I guess.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Dato Koppla
Konvict Cartel The Asylum.
850
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 12:28:55 -
[17] - Quote
This would throw so many things out of whack. I do have the same fear as the others though, bring in missile enhancers, only to nerf the actual weapons to hell and back making them even worse than they currently are. |
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 13:33:05 -
[18] - Quote
Thinking more about it, this could go the same way that the introduction of Drone Damage Amps has.
Drone ships were (fairly) well balanced until the introduction of the DDA's now despite several nerfs (which only seem to affect ships without drone bonues) we are still Ishtar and Domi Online.
If it goes the same way we may have a couple of years of glorious missile dominance of the meta.
< I've had a lot of coffee this morning>
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1353
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 13:50:21 -
[19] - Quote
Drone ships had the slots for the amps. Missile boats almost universally do not have the lows for that module.
Unless the mod alone is better than a second/third BCU - seems pretty unlikely, then they're not going to be on many ships (exceptions exist but are exceptions).
The mids compete with tank and target painters. Given target painters are fleet assist modules I'd need to have some STUPID good incentive to use the mod over them (unless painters too, are getting the nerf bat).
I suppose one could swap rigor rigs for a mod and push the tank down to rigs...but that's only really going to maintain the status quo, +/- a few percentage points.
I'm deeply, deeply, skeptical. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 14:03:53 -
[20] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Drone ships had the slots for the amps. Missile boats almost universally do not have the lows for that module.
Unless the mod alone is better than a second/third BCU - seems pretty unlikely, then they're not going to be on many ships (exceptions exist but are exceptions).
The mids compete with tank and target painters. Given target painters are fleet assist modules I'd need to have some STUPID good incentive to use the mod over them (unless painters too, are getting the nerf bat).
I suppose one could swap rigor rigs for a mod and push the tank down to rigs...but that's only really going to maintain the status quo, +/- a few percentage points.
I'm deeply, deeply, skeptical. Heres your incentive. Painters cap their benefits after 4 /5. You're in a fleet. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1353
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 14:11:35 -
[21] - Quote
Well that many ships and you start wanting dedicated painters to allow you to boost the buffer of the DPS ships.
Plus there's the whole....fleet/missiles/LOL thing going on. |
stoicfaux
5845
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 15:14:38 -
[22] - Quote
The conundrums I see (and as seen by others in this thread:)
a) TDs will affect MGCs (and MGEs?). Will that make TDs the new ECM? And it would be "omni" ECM without the hassle of having to pick/guess/refit the flavor of racial ECM to use.
b) Avoiding stacking penalties. TPs and MGC/MGEs (and webs as well) affect the missile damage formula in mostly the same way, but since they don't stack with other, the multipliers can potentially be insane. (E.g. CCP wasn't amused with Dreads and Titans blapping sub-caps, IIRC.)
c) Ships with lots of mids or (mids + lows) can potentially benefit greatly from the reduced stacking penalties, e.g. a Typhoon with a mix of TPs/MGCs/MGEs could potentially apply missile damage as effectively as a 4 Bonused TP Golem. Balancing ships with a plethora of mids/lows versus ships with limited mids/lows can potentially be difficult. If you nerf missiles to keep the Typhoon under control, then you potentially screw over missile frigates and cruisers that have fewer slots.
d) However, if you nerf the missile bonuses on larger hulls (those with more slots) then you are making the use of a certain amount of MGC/MGE modules "mandatory" to get back up to par (which is a net negative.) Plus, "mandatory" fitting of a MGC/MGE forces you to be vulnerable to TDs.
e) How do you balance Solo versus Fleet work? Solo folks are most likely to use whichever module provides the best bonus. Probably not an issue.
Fleets, however, would probably benefit from having bonused TP (and/or web) hulls (e.g. Hyena, Rapier, (and Loki)) working with MGC/MGE equipped missile ships.
* Do players want to be "forced" into that kind of fleet management? Is the EVE GUI adequate (i.e. provides enough ease and/or information) for FCs to coordinate fleet TP usage? Meaning, the GUI got a few tweaks to make managing Logistics targets easier, is something equivalent necessary for TPs?
* Are TP hull bonuses now too powerful? What about ranged Web bonuses? I.e. are there unintended consequences or synergies that will need be balanced?
f) TPs are affected by skills. MGCs/MGEs probably won't be. It's a 14-20+ day slog with optimized attributes and/or implants to get Signature Focusing to V to maximize the TP bonus. Do you balance MGC/MGE values against "All Skills V" TPs?
g) Faster Missiles. The Mordu's Legion ships' 200% missile velocity bonus has put a bit of a dint in the "missiles are bad because of Delayed Damage" argument. Is CCP's goal to encourage faster missiles to encourage greater use? If CCP is too focused on missile velocity, then they may overlook edge cases (i.e. abuse) involving battleship or capital missiles clobbering small ships.
h) Short range missiles reaching out to long ranges. The risk here is that certain hulls (those with lots of mids/lows) could make long range missiles "obsolete." A Raven with its 50% missile velocity bonus and seven mids could possibly do something edge-case-y with torpedoes, i.e. are we creating a new "Sentry Ishtar" but with missiles situation?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1089
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 15:51:34 -
[23] - Quote
The synergy with TPs and missiles is similar to that of TP and artillery or sentries for example. Those two ramp up with already negligible tracking issues at common engagement ranges and swing right through to *all damage instantly* territory, while missiles at best would come very close at the cost of delayed damage, wasted volleys and potentially more matching damage on the upside.
For cases like precision or navy cruises against HACs, with 2 webs, 2 paints on a primary it's going to take a lot of that damage already, I doubt that gap will change a lot. For large scales, I doubt that even the fastest missile doctrine could really compete well against turret fleets.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1353
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 15:54:58 -
[24] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:For large scales, I doubt that even the fastest missile doctrine could really compete well against turret fleets.
Not least because effective target swapping to annoy logi isn't remotely effective...borderline impossible really.
Even at 10km/s at 100km you've a full 10 seconds to broadcast before the firsts rounds even hit. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16098
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 16:21:03 -
[25] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:For large scales, I doubt that even the fastest missile doctrine could really compete well against turret fleets.
Not least because effective target swapping to annoy logi isn't remotely effective...borderline impossible really. Even at 10km/s at 100km you've a full 10 seconds to broadcast before the first rounds even hit.
Also firewalls.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
301
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 16:55:05 -
[26] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:afkalt wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:For large scales, I doubt that even the fastest missile doctrine could really compete well against turret fleets.
Not least because effective target swapping to annoy logi isn't remotely effective...borderline impossible really. Even at 10km/s at 100km you've a full 10 seconds to broadcast before the first rounds even hit. Also firewalls.
This. Kind of nullifies a missile doctrine when you can firewall 70-100% of the enemy fleets dps. To counter this... MJD to get around the firewall (unless set up encircling the fleet, or if every ship has SB). But still a lot of hassle that turret ships have no problems with.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
stoicfaux
5859
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 18:59:06 -
[27] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:This. Kind of nullifies a missile doctrine when you can firewall 70-100% of the enemy fleets dps. To counter this... MJD to get around the firewall (unless set up encircling the fleet, or if every ship has SB). But still a lot of hassle that turret ships have no problems with. Yes, but... firewalls were a thing before the missile speed buff, no? Add in the Mordu's Legion missile velocity bonus, and you just might have missiles that can "skip" over the firewalling ships due to the EVE servers' 1 second tick.
A large smartbomb has a 12km diameter. Light, Heavy and Cruise missiles on Mordu's Legion ships with their 200% missile velocity bonus have a speed of 16.9km/s 19.4 km/s and 21.1km/s respectively. Has anyone tested whether the server will check whether the smartbomb will "intercept" missiles (which would be calculation heavy, i.e. TiDi unfriendly) or whether the server just "skips" the missiles from point A to point B every second? (Skipping would mean that the missile could effectively "hop" over the 12k smartbomb area and not be destroyed.)
If these fast missiles do skip, and since the Mordu's Legion ships haven't crashed the server, modules that buff missile speed combined with potentially retro-fitting the Mordu fast missile bonus to other hulls could be an interesting option for CCP's missile pass.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16104
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 20:32:24 -
[28] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: Yes, but... firewalls were a thing before the missile speed buff, no?
Firewalls were a bigger reason for the retirement of drakefleets than the nerfs to the hull.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 20:55:43 -
[29] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: Yes, but... firewalls were a thing before the missile speed buff, no?
Before and after, if missiles ships are used in large scale and the other side have time to get/field firewall ships you can put money on it beeing used
stoicfaux wrote: A large smartbomb has a 12km diameter. Light, Heavy and Cruise missiles on Mordu's Legion ships with their 200% missile velocity bonus have a speed of 16.9km/s 19.4 km/s and 21.1km/s respectively.
With 19.4km/s speed and 12km smartbomb range you have around 60% chance for missiles to be registered within smartbomb range while passing (not counting if the smartbomb is active that tick or not. For 16.9km/s the chance is 71%, again not accounting for taking dmg but only "stopping" within smartbomb range for the server tick it passes. This is for 200% velocity bonused missiles, normal missiles are almost guaranteed to be withing smartbomb range atleast 1 server tick when passing |
stoicfaux
5861
|
Posted - 2015.06.10 21:58:02 -
[30] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote: With 19.4km/s speed and 12km smartbomb range you have around 60% chance for missiles to be registered within smartbomb range while passing (not counting if the smartbomb is active that tick or not. For 16.9km/s the chance is 71%, again not accounting for taking dmg but only "stopping" within smartbomb range for the server tick it passes. This is for 200% velocity bonused missiles, normal missiles are almost guaranteed to be withing smartbomb range atleast 1 server tick when passing
That's two one dimensional thinking, i.e. the worst case scenario where the missile launcher, the firewall ship, and the target are on the same plane line.
If we go 3D, then: volume of 19.4km sphere = 3,823km3 volume of 12.0km sphere = 905km3 Which gives a (3,823 - 905) / (3,823) = 76% chance of the missile getting through in the random angle case.
With 3xmissile velocity rigs (substituting for the MGC/MGE for now,) we're looking at 29.8km/s for cruise/heavy missiles on a Mordu ship. 2D worst case: 40% chance to block. 3D best case: (13,856.3 - 905) / 13,856.3 = 93% chance to get through.
Obviously, the "realistic" case would be somewhere in between. Someone better at maths could probably compute a probability chart based on how far "off plane" the firewall ship is.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |