EVE Search - Sticky:[Aegis] Missile balance package

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Aegis] Missile balance package

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 5096	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:06:18 - [1] - Quote Heyo It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about! This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package? Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated. Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before. Some specifics on the new modules: We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods. The numbers: Missile Guidance Enhancer I 10 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer 8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 6.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment. We would have liked to include disruption modules to go along with these enhancement modules but there are actually some technical hurdles we need to figure out and we didn't want to keep holding back on adding these in the mean time. Look for those sometime in the future. Let us know what you think! @ccp_rise

afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1421	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:08:14 - [2] - Quote CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare. Are these stacking penalised? Are rigs now stacking penalised? (I believe they are not atm) What wins the priority battle give them above? Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare.
Hanazava Karyna The Foundation Of Mammon 17	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:10:15 - [3] - Quote Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2902	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:12:17 - [4] - Quote I have to agree, CPU needs are kind of high considering launchers have high CPU needs as well as launcher rigging uses lots of CPU as well. Edit: Contrary to my past statements, you could also use this as an opportunity to remove the Caldari kinetic damage lock. Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
Jassmin Joy Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 308	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:13:26 - [5] - Quote Any thoughts on the effectiveness of SmartBombs on missiles and the ability to firewall them?
Kelron Renalard Know your Role EON Alliance 6	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:25:50 - [6] - Quote Quote: Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Does this include Heavy Assault Missile? I'm not sure about it.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1126	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:30:17 - [7] - Quote are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate? specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1422	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:33:28 - [8] - Quote Capqu wrote: are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate? specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below I don't think any small ships are going to be using these tbh, they have scant enough low slots as it is and the CPU in the mid modules is pretty damned oppressive. If that is reduced, might become an issue.
Saeka Tyr Sanctuary of Shadows Triumvirate. 35	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:46:21 - [9] - Quote Capqu wrote: are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate? specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below your idea is bad. missile boats are in a bad enough state as it is.

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 12966	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:47:08 - [10] - Quote Jassmin Joy wrote: Any thoughts on the effectiveness of SmartBombs on missiles and the ability to firewall them? Yes, but we haven't had a chance to post that thread quite yet. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/

Escobar Slim III YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS 137	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:47:19 - [11] - Quote posting in ccp rise thread he is my faverite.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1126	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:48:57 - [12] - Quote afkalt wrote: Capqu wrote: are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate? specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below I don't think any small ships are going to be using these tbh, they have scant enough low slots as it is and the CPU in the mid modules is pretty damned oppressive. If that is reduced, might become an issue. [Flycatcher, aa] Ballistic Control System II 5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Medium Shield Extender II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile [Empty High slot] Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst II 122 km range 220 dps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
M1k3y Koontz Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries 761	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:50:54 - [13] - Quote Ground floor! Looks like this will help some... fingers crossed HAMs are a viable weapon system with this. I still think all missiles could do with their velocity doubled and flight time halved, like the mordu ships' bonus. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Dora Adant Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:51:04 - [14] - Quote what about ewar? are you going to add those to? seems like a fairly important point, don't implement this without also implementing the counter next thing you know we're getting a missile dominated alliance tournament...
Harkin Issier Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore 30	Posted - 2015.06.19 12:56:46 - [15] - Quote CCP did you mix up Computers and Enhancers? Tracking Computers are weaker than Tracking Enhancers, but they can be scripted to perform better than the Enhancer in the scripted trait's effect. Currently you've listed the MGC to be FAR more effective (31% more) than the MGE, while retaining the ability to be scripted. Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 6.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Unless you're going to let the Enhancers be scripted?
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1126	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:02:20 - [16] - Quote [Talwar, tfi] Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II 5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I 110~km range 150 dps 10 mil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 760	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:02:23 - [17] - Quote Harkin Issier wrote: CCP did you mix up Computers and Enhancers? Tracking Computers are weaker than Tracking Enhancers, but they can be scripted to perform better than the Enhancer in the scripted trait's effect. Currently you've listed the MGC to be FAR more effective (31% more) than the MGE, while retaining the ability to be scripted. Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 6.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Unless you're going to let the Enhancers be scripted? or perhaps he listed the max values with scripts loaded.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1126	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:03:36 - [18] - Quote Saeka Tyr wrote: Capqu wrote: are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate? specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below your idea is bad. missile boats are in a bad enough state as it is. light missiles in a bad state? LOL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 760	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:04:40 - [19] - Quote Capqu wrote: [Talwar, tfi] Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II 5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I 110~km range 150 dps 10 mil That's damn spiffy for a T1 Ship. A bay of ammo will cost almost as much as the rest of the ship.
Kalen Pavle Cerberus Federation Gentlemen's.Club 29	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:05:28 - [20] - Quote What about kinetic locked ships, and the fact that missile application is still much worse than turret or sentry due to missile travel mechanics?
Samira Kernher Praetorian Auxiliary Force Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 1656	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:06:38 - [21] - Quote Really needs an anti-missile tracking disruptor to go with these additions. Also, it's so fitting that these missile modules are coming with the Aegis release. "Embrace those who would learn, defeat those who would make mockery of God's way. Through the penance of deeds, the sins of forefathers may eventually be washed away." -- His Royal Highness the Heir Yonis Ardishapur
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1095	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:09:51 - [22] - Quote rockets could do with lower volume torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?) and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 760	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:10:20 - [23] - Quote Kalen Pavle wrote: What about kinetic locked ships, and the fact that missile application is still much worse than turret or sentry due to missile travel mechanics? I'm guessing that kinetic lock is going to stay just like it is, as they enjoy the 'flavor' it provides. They are increasing damage on missiles, which will increase applied damage as well, in addition to giving you 2 new module types to improve application. There's also the Mordu ships with that funky bonus... seems like application is getting some fairly serious love with both recent changes and this package.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1406	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:14:33 - [24] - Quote Good god the amount of Drakes/Tengu's that are going to be flying everywhere... Also.. lets make Garmurs and Orthurus's even more absurd :-) Heavy's needed a buff, but the lack of a direct ewar counter on these is disturbing. Yaay!!!!
Aeon Veritas Lobach Inc. Easily Offended 6	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:15:03 - [25] - Quote Looks nice, but Harkin Issier has a point. Harkin Issier wrote: CCP did you mix up Computers and Enhancers? .... Also looking forward to have the matching EWAR implemented. Please also implement Remote Missile Guidance Computer and maybe change the Scimitar remote tracking computer bonus to missile guidance? Or a lower bonus to both... afkalt wrote: Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size) +1 for this General module tiericide thoughts
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 289	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:16:39 - [26] - Quote This going to be so pretty disaster. Ewar modules on weapon system that takes time to apply damage (flight time)? Kinetic lock? You don't have to write devblog about it, simple answers are best: yes, no, we think about it... "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 325	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:18:52 - [27] - Quote afkalt wrote: CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare. Are these stacking penalised? Are rigs now stacking penalised? (I believe they are not atm) What wins the priority battle give them above? Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size) Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare. Its the same cpu requirement for these mods as TE/TC. If you swap a bcu for an MTE then youll have MORE available CPU. I dont foresee fitting being an issue. I fly caldari/missile boats quite often, should be fine. Good changes IMO, and the mods dont seem overly strong, but enough to consider them useful in certain fits. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Matt Faithbringer The Scope Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:18:59 - [28] - Quote I see great future for bombers..
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 761	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:20:40 - [29] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: rockets could do with lower volume torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?) and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work. I don't know about the Rocket Volume thing, but your point on Torps is right on. They have absurd low range for a battleship weapon system, almost as bad as Blasters though with the right ammo you can reach out with falloff at least. Your point about Skirmish Links does not really hold water, considering Armor and Siege links work pretty good for mitigating damage too.
stoicfaux 5922	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:26:17 - [30] - Quote Normalized values in terms of how they affect the 2nd part of the missile formula 250.0% - 60% Web 156.3% - bonused PWNAGE TP (e.g. Golem) (skills V) 146.9% - MGC II @ 19% w/Precision Script 137.5% - PWNAGE TP (skills V) 135.3% - MGC I @ 15% w/Precision Script 125.0% - Rigor II 121.0% - MGC II @ 9.5% 120.0% - Flare II 117.6% - Rigor I 116.2% - MGC I @ 7.5% 115.0% - Flare I 113.9% - MGE II (6.5%) 110.5% - MGE I (5%) edit: Added T1 values. Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.