EVE Search - Sticky:[Aegis] Missile balance package

Check My IP Information

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 [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4458	Posted - 2015.06.21 07:52:47 - [1] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. Yay, finally! Here are a few specific questions, suggestions and comments: GÇó Are any of these modules stacking penalized with each other and/or rigs? (apologies if this was previously asked and answered, but I didn't see anything when I read through this initially) GÇó In addition to Faction modules, will we be exploring the addition of Officer modules as well? And if so, for Faction and Officer modules, can we mix the stats up a bit, ie: Minmatar bonuses would trend more towards explosion velocity and missile velocity with Caldari explosion radius and flight time; Officer bonuses would be geared more towards explosion radius and missile velocity. GÇó Can the explosion radius bonus for cruise missiles and torpedoes be switched so that torpedoes can be given serious consideration once again? The volume reduction is awesome but I think a bit of TLC for torpedoes would go a long way towards balancing torpedoes out with cruise missiles. GÇó Can Officer weapons (only) be allowed to utilized T2 ammunition as well as T1 and Faction? Their rarity and associated cost would tend to preclude mass use in any event. GÇó Can we look at allowing defender missiles in rapid light and rapid heavy launchers? While not a complete solution for defender missiles, I believe this could be a first step towards addressing some of the shortcomings. GÇó Is there any possibility of moving the slot 6 cruise missile and torpedo damage implants to slot 7 such that those of us who fly missile ships can actually utilize a full set of low, mid or high-grade implants? GÇó The Barghest. It's too freaking huge. Can we please reduce the size by 1/3 so it doesn't clip absolutely everything and anything? Also, as it currently stands - even with the +9.375% damage bonus the lack of a damage application bonuses places it almost at the bottom of the heap with most T1 missile battleships in terms of actual applied damage. Can we look at giving it a special role bonus such as a fixed missile reload time (say 25%) to balance this out a bit? Morudu's Legion SKINs...? (hint, hint) All in all, +1 for the missile package. For those of us who trained heavily into missiles, this is a welcome addition regardless. PS. +1 to the kinetic damage lock removal suggestion. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4458	Posted - 2015.06.22 03:33:29 - [2] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: 156.25% PWNAGE 50% Bonus (e.g. Golem) 148.89% PWNAGE 50% 146.91% MGC II w/ Prec 140.77% MGC II w/ Prec 132.10% PWNAGE 50% 126.77% MGC II w/ Prec 115.92% PWNAGE 50% If I understand this correctly, you're stating 2 target painters followed by 2 missile guidance computers (scripted) should be the new meta on Golems vs. 3-4 target painters, yes? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Jormungand Corporation 4458	Posted - 2015.06.24 03:42:07 - [3] - Quote I can't wait for the inevitable drone\|projectile\|laser\|hybrid whine threads once these are released... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4460	Posted - 2015.06.26 02:33:30 - [4] - Quote With this change torpedoes are finally a viable alternative to cruise missiles. Now we just need to revise the explosion radius for torpedoes to less than cruise missiles and we'll be good to go. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4461	Posted - 2015.06.26 03:03:27 - [5] - Quote afkalt wrote: I'm wary, I think there are a few hulls that are going to be a little bit OTT with these and CCP never nerf problem hulls, they rinse the entire weapon system instead. These modules really allow you rob Peter by paying Paul, so there's definite tradeoffs. More likely se'll see fits that previously had 4x BCUs run a passive MGC instead since that will easily offset the +2.5% damage of the 4th BCU. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4463	Posted - 2015.06.26 11:18:56 - [6] - Quote Skyler Hawk wrote: These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 30% boost to tracking on a turret. Actually, the current velocity bonus (there is no range bonus) for a scripted MGC on SiSi is only 21%. And this is stacking penalized. Heavy use of these will seriously cut into any shield tank, tackle or EW. You can't make a direct comparison between missiles and guns, because it's apples to oranges (or grapes to sour grapes). afkalt wrote: Remember there are a couple of boats with enough ancillary mids to make these a really viable proposition to get around TP stacking. I'm looking at you, HAMcriledge and RHMLPhoon and some odd bhargy fits. Typhoons don't get any kind of range bonus to begin with, so best case scenario is that 2-3 of these put them on par with the Ravens in terms of missile range. That really precludes any kind of effective shield tank for a Typhoon, so I think these modules are really going to be a catch-22 in terms of tradeoffs and sacrifices. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4463	Posted - 2015.06.27 02:55:24 - [7] - Quote I would comment, but it would just further illustrate what has been several years of disappointing implementations regarding missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4470	Posted - 2015.06.28 11:09:04 - [8] - Quote The new values on MGCs and MGEs for missile velocity and flight time are fine; the new values for explosion radius and velocity need to revert to the old (original) values. Don't like the new icons (they're too big). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4476	Posted - 2015.06.29 11:31:54 - [9] - Quote Zola Kado wrote: Please change Golem bonus from... Get a Navy Raven... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4476	Posted - 2015.06.29 14:36:24 - [10] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Dps rigs are indeed 10% bonus. Thank you for pointing out my error. But it doesn't really change anything. My point was that a single module has the same effect as 2 rigs. And the application and range rigs are all 15%. So the appropriate bonus for a scripted MGC should be 15% in each category. So 7.5% base. This assumes that missile don't suck to begin with (they do), and that they have excellent damage application (generally they don't). The missiles (rockets, light missiles) that could potentially benefit from the original values of MGCs and MGEs are hampered by the fact that the small ships that utilize them are going to be hard-pressed to find either a medium or low slot. Thus, the only ships that can really take advantage of these are the ones that have the poorest damage application, ie: Battlecruisers and Battleships. And let's not forget the rumoured anti-missile EW module. And to keep this thread on-track, can we please dispense with the off-topic change requests for Golems, target painters and similar non-relevant ideas? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4477	Posted - 2015.06.29 15:32:29 - [11] - Quote A Comprehensive Missile Balance Package (In addition to the proposed Aegis changes.) Remove Kinetic Pigeon Holes GÇó Condor gets a +10% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Buzzard gets a +5% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Hookbill gets a +20% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Hawk gets a 10% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Corax gets a +5% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Flycatcher gets a +10% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Cerberus gets a +5% damage bonus to light, heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Onyx gets a +5% damage bonus to light, heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Rook gets a +7.5% damage bonus to light, heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Navy Osprey gets a +10% damage bonus to light, heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Drake gets a +5% rate of fire bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles (it's already benefiting from the 5% heavy missile buff) GÇó Nighthawk gets a +7.5% damage bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Tengu Accelerated Ejection subsystem gets a +5% missile damage bonus Nerf Light Missiles; Buff Rockets; Buff Heavy Missiles; Buff Torpedoes; Buff Heavy Assault Missiles GÇó Swap the explosion velocity bonus between rockets (+20m/sec) and light missiles (-20m/sec) GÇó In addition to the 5% damage buff to heavy missiles, decrease the explosion radius on all heavy missiles by -5m and increase the explosion radius on all heavy missiles by +10m/sec. GÇó All torpedoes receive a -33% reduction in explosion radius (which gives them slightly better damage application over cruise missiles) GÇó All heavy assault missiles receive a +20% increase to explosion velocity and -5m reduction in explosion radius Nerf Bomber Capacity GÇó Reduce cargo capacity by 50-100m3 (torpedoes just received a huge volume reduction and their damage application is increasing quite significantly) New Faction Missile Modules GÇó Mordu's Legion Ballistic Control System: 15% missile ROF, 7.5% missile damage GÇó Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System (updated): 12.5% missile ROF, 10% missile damage GÇó Mordu's Legion Missile Guidance Enhancer: 5% explosion velocity, 5% explosion radius, 15% missile velocity, -15% missile flight time GÇó Caldari Navy Missile Guidance Computer: 7.5% explosion radius, 7.5% explosion velocity, 7.5% missile velocity, 7.5% missile flight time GÇó Republic Fleet Missile Guidance Computer: 7.5% explosion radius, 7.5% explosion velocity, 7.5% missile velocity, 7.5% missile flight time Mordus Legion Ship Changes GÇó All missile damage bonuses for Mordu's Legion ships change to ROF bonuses. This results in a slight nerf to the Orthrus when utilizing RLMLs and a slight buff to the Barghest when utilizing torpedoes or cruise missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4481	Posted - 2015.06.29 19:30:21 - [12] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: =( Don't change my Naga! Haha! Fourteen Maken wrote: Before anything is done mordu's legion ships should be nerfed... I stopped reading at about this point. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4484	Posted - 2015.06.29 22:08:21 - [13] - Quote scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote: The uses for a Torpedo Naga are, I am sure, quite obvious. Ganking Tornados comes to mind... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4488	Posted - 2015.06.30 05:37:10 - [14] - Quote GreyGryphon wrote: Do you mean +30/-30 m/s for rockets and light missiles? That torpedo buff would be reverted very quickly because it is too strong. I would honestly love to see a missile buff, but buffing medium and large missiles would cause more problems than they solve. When you buff missiles too much, they hit everything too well. The damage function needs to change. I do not think a missile Naga is a good idea when the only way to effectively apply missile damage is with a web or two. Also, increasing explosion velocity does not help as much as you would think. No, I meant basically switch the explosion velocity bonus between rockets and light missiles (I believe the difference is -¦20m/s, but I could be mistaken). Rockets get slightly better damage application to encourage more use and it's a slight nerf to light missiles. The "buff" is actually just a slight rollback from the original heavy missile nerf and improved damage application for heavy assault missiles so that there's a reasonable short-range alternative to rapid light missile launchers. As for large missiles, torpedoes are already seeing a volume decrease - this is simply to address the poor damage application vs. cruise missiles. And yes, while this does benefit bombers - I did propose a capacity nerf to offset this somewhat. An increase to explosion velocity is always beneficial, and adjusting it has less adverse effects than tweaking raw damage, rate of fire or explosion radius. I believe the bonus I indicated for the Naga was missile velocity, so basically it delivers raw damage over range. The Naga overshadows the Rokh, and I'd really rather see the bonuses from the Naga switched to the Rokh so it becomes a dedicated sniper and the Naga a support missile gunboat. For the sake of discussion, let's assume we don't want the Naga to overshadow any of the other existing missile platforms. It would probably make more sense to give it some bonuses along these lines: GÇó 10% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile velocity GÇó 10% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile flight time This gives it the longest large missile base range which could lead to some interesting fleet/bombardment options. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4489	Posted - 2015.06.30 07:07:14 - [15] - Quote So CCP Rise, Aegis is out in just over a week. Any chance on joining the discussion or relenting on some of the stat nerfs? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4491	Posted - 2015.07.02 01:49:23 - [16] - Quote 2 years, and once again - nothing's changed. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4494	Posted - 2015.07.07 17:08:18 - [17] - Quote Quote: "The bonuses from missile guidance modules and missile rigs to explosion radius and explosion velocity are now stacking penalized." And the hits just keep on coming... -10 for this whole missile "balance" package. Have we not previously established that CCP Fail completely sucks when it comes to any kind of balance? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4507	Posted - 2015.07.16 17:17:22 - [18] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global. CCP Rise needs to stick to the NPE and away from balancing, particularly missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4507	Posted - 2015.07.16 17:19:54 - [19] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus You can fix these by rolling the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses for both modules back to their pre-nerf values. Which was indicated (ignored), then requested again (and subsequently ignored again) with the nerf. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4507	Posted - 2015.07.16 17:29:59 - [20] - Quote Torpedoes need a better application bonus: they should have an explosion radius smaller than cruise missiles. Actually, just see my comprehensive missile balance list that I posted earlier in this thread... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4513	Posted - 2015.07.17 01:50:32 - [21] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened? Good one. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4513	Posted - 2015.07.18 00:08:51 - [22] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: And before getting in the thread I was trying to bit some of this stuff on the backend so I don't want you guys to give up hope yet! *Just remember that we're still waiting* for a rapid launcher fix for swapping ammunition...** Look, this was basically a missile nerf for everything but torpedoes (capacity doubled) and heavy missiles (+5% damage increase which was offset by stacking penalties for rigors and flares). The missile modules themselves are borderline useless, because you have to effectively run twice as many to get the same benefit (which doesn't even take into consideration the stacking penalty nerf). Missile guidance enhancers are completely useless since they provide almost zero benefit while taking up a valuable low slot (Caldari ships have almost none to spare and you won't see these on any armor-based missile setups, either). The original values were fine, but then these got halved - and then we had the stacking penalties snuck-in the day the patch notes were released. It's becoming borderline absurd how these 'balance' packages are being introduced... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4514	Posted - 2015.07.19 16:25:12 - [23] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp. They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them... they're great for range, but that's it. This is basically what the general consensus has been, yes. And I'm not even sure they're that great for range; is it really worth a mid slot to pick up 10% flight time and 10% velocity with an active module? On a Golem I think you'd be better off with a passive T2 hydraulic rig that gets you a flat 20% velocity and use the mid for a target painter, stasis web, large micro jump drive, etc. I can't even see how a MTC would be beneficial on smaller ships as the mids are even more crucial there. Extra range is borderline useless without any kind of appreciable damage application, and you're going to consistently lose volleys to lead time unless you're running one or the Mordu ships. Those that said this was going to be a missile nerf from the outset basically called it. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4514	Posted - 2015.07.19 16:30:02 - [24] - Quote Tiberius Heth wrote: Missiles have too many advantages, not necessarily quantifiable ones, to only look at stats and go "make them on par". And of course this is why Drakes with heavy missiles dominate fleet engagements... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4514	Posted - 2015.07.20 01:51:02 - [25] - Quote Tiberius Heth wrote: Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand. Missiles do not work at all of their ranges equally well. I would point out the rationale why, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. So if you truly believe this, then feel free to venture solo into low-sec with a Navy Drake. Let us know where to send flowers to next of kin... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4517	Posted - 2015.07.20 17:19:46 - [26] - Quote MGEs are worse than a T1 rigor, T1 flare or meta target painter (regardless of hull bonuses). If you're going to drop a 4th T2 BCU it will be to utilize a T2 DCU as opposed to anything else. In fact, I'm not even sure the application benefits of a T2 MGE offset a 4th T2 BCU. MGCs only benefit is in a missile-based gang environment where you have a TP-bonused hull already painting targets, you're not utilizing rigors or flares in your rig slots (for whatever reason), you have no free low slots and can spare a mid slot for a scripted MCG to enhance your damage application. Really, though - a single T1 rigor is worth more than a scripted T2 MCG since a straight explosion radius bonus is worth more than a combination of explosion radius and explosion velocity. MGEs and MGS really have one application: range extension. This is not really advantageous for torpedoes outside of a Barghest because the velocity of torpedoes is abysmally slow (and I'm not sure there's any application where you'd want to snipe with torpedoes as opposed to cruise missiles). While you can utilize Javelins to boost range, you're actually more effective with cruise launchers and Precision ammunition. And you don't typically need to boost cruise missile range (even with Fury ammunition). Range benefits really seem geared towards light missiles (and rapid light missile launchers), assault missiles and some applications of heavy missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4517	Posted - 2015.07.21 06:09:08 - [27] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: I just wish I knew what they are thinking. "Did we honestly let CCP Rise touch missiles again?" I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4519	Posted - 2015.07.22 21:58:58 - [28] - Quote Tiberius Heth wrote: Yes, all turret ships have a tracking bonus and all turrets have high tracking and aren't at all helped by increased tracking or range. If you start to use that sort of logic then we might as well state that missiles do just fine vs non-AB and non-moving targets. Your (not so) hidden agenda is showing. Yes, can we please dispense with the missile vs. gunnery debate? Drones are simply more Op than both... Missiles Pros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage and can apply any damage type. Not affected by transversal or radial target velocity. Looks cool. Ideal against structures (big, stationary). Cons: Can never deal critical damage (maximum is 100%), adversely affected by target velocity (target can outrun or drastically reduce damage by accelerating), lead time to impact (can cause lost volleys and target can maneuver to reduce damage) and can be destroyed by 'firewalling' (smartbombs). Medium and large missiles have trouble applying damage against smaller classes of ships without the use of target painters, stasis webs or missile enhancements (guidance computers, rigors and flares). Fleets and Incursions: Due to missile lead time, they are typically not well-suited for large fleet engagements or incursions where they cannot apply instant damage. Exceptions: FoF (auto-targeting) missiles are ECM-immune at the expense of about 20% less raw damage. However, they will always (and only) lock onto and attack the closest target, so this can be challenging against multiple adversaries and drones. Defender missiles are unfortunately just crap at present. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4519	Posted - 2015.07.22 23:32:21 - [29] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Missiles Pros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage.... Don't forget, missiles actually have issues applying damage to target of their same class. IE, fury torps will not hit a BS for full damage, regardless of movement, without the aid of a module. Emphasis on "some damage". I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4519	Posted - 2015.07.23 00:58:03 - [30] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: stop using missiles designed to shoot bigger things than you. javlin or faction /t1 all do full dmg for sig with a base battleship. Javelin torpedoes provide range - not damage application (so Faction torpedoes are your best option). And Precision cruise missiles still have better damage application than any torpedo - regardless of raw damage. Explosion radius excels over explosion velocity in any scenario regardless (see missile formula). Of course beggars can't be choosers, so given a choice of either or none I'd take anything... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4519	Posted - 2015.07.23 01:04:07 - [31] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: The math doesn't show it, but in game application does. BUT, since the math doesn't show it, everyone assumes it's a non-factor. 1. If you outrun (or outmaneuver) the missile, it does no damage. 2. If you accelerate to full velocity you can usually mitigate in excess of 25% of potential damage. This is before things like microwarpdrives, afterburners or micro jump drives. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4519	Posted - 2015.07.23 03:37:44 - [32] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: If you count 0 damage as some damage, you would be correct. Seriously, even if a missile is fast enough to catch the target, they can actually outrun the exp velocity as well. Not many things worse than seeing a ticker for "You volley of missiles hit for 0 damage" It does happen. Even if a target's velocity exceeds the missile explosion velocity there will still be some damage if the missile makes contact. How much will depend on the target signature vs. the missile explosion radius. Sometimes that's effectively zero. Lady Rift wrote: javs have the same application numbers as navy/t1 which is why I included them. He keeps using rage torps as examples of how much torps miss/get dmg reduced. Correct. Except Faction torpedoes do more damage so you'll see more applied damage vs. Javelins (and typically more than Rage, unless the target is ballooned and stationary). I love torpedoes - but they're so godawful slow... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4519	Posted - 2015.07.23 20:49:29 - [33] - Quote Time to avert ones eyes from this train wreck... To make these modules more feasible, they should be adjusted as follows: Missile Guidance Enhancer II Explosion Velocity Bonus 7.5% (was 5.5%) Explosion Radius Bonus -7.5% (was -5.5%) Missile Velocity Bonus 15% (was 6%) Flight Time Bonus 0% (was 6%) Missile Guidance Computer Explosion Velocity Bonus 9.5% (was 7.5%) Explosion Radius Bonus -9.5% (was -7.5%) Missile Velocity Bonus 10% (was 5.5%) Flight Time Bonus 0% (was 5.5%) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4519	Posted - 2015.07.23 21:11:15 - [34] - Quote afkalt wrote: I take it you mean elite? That's a hell of a bling when this will compete just as well (in my experience). Except we're discussing missiles and missile application. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4521	Posted - 2015.07.24 01:03:02 - [35] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Sounds good. Now all the need to do is to convince CCP that the Ishtar is underpowered and needs a lot of help that might help them to buff missile application. Let's please leave the Ishtar out of this... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4523	Posted - 2015.07.29 00:06:19 - [36] - Quote So, what's the consensus? Missiles still suck and drones are Op, yes? Once again CCP Fall threw us a bone... laced with strychnine. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4526	Posted - 2015.07.30 00:20:05 - [37] - Quote Back to our own private discussion (since no one from CCP is chiming in)... Other than freeing up slots for Hyperspacial rigs, is there really any other use for the MGC? Especially on a ship like the Golem which arguably has a fairly decent TP bonus. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4526	Posted - 2015.07.30 05:24:40 - [38] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: how about we fix this too. not only do missiles deal less peak damage against like sized targets, less applied damage against like sized targets compared to similar sized turrets...they also have worse accuracy (against larger targets!) despite "apparently" hitting 100% of the time...about that. Except 11/20 isn't even remotely close to 100% - not by a long shot... This seems to be primarily affecting rapid launchers. Wait, who introduced these again? Could it be they're simply firing too fast, which wasn't a problem with the original RLMLs and the first iteration of RHMLs? It's too bad no one ever entertained the idea of slowing them down, increasing ammunition capacity and reducing reload time. Oh wait, we did... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4527	Posted - 2015.07.30 07:40:25 - [39] - Quote Kasia en Tilavine wrote: Lolololol this is hilarious. How long until ccp responds? Days? Weeks? This is an interesting glitch. I would like to know more about why. It kind of looks like something to do with travel time and the server tick. More sconce needs to be done. Hey, did I mention we're still waiting for the rapid launcher ammunition swap fix? But since this isn't a 'design' issue, I suspect we'll see a much faster response. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4527	Posted - 2015.07.30 08:43:00 - [40] - Quote Kasia en Tilavine wrote: What "rapid launcher ammo swap fix"? Exactly. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4527	Posted - 2015.07.30 14:13:26 - [41] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I have had the issue with torps and cruise missiles on my Golem, as well as with lights on a jackdaw. It seems to be extremely random. I ran all 6 rooms of angel extravaganza and didn't see the issue once, but then I ran Rogue Drone Harassment which is only one room, and watched it happen 5 times. This was with a cruise Golem in Bastion, which obviously doesn't have any range issues. Apparently this might be linked to grouping launchers. Individual volleys for the time being? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4527	Posted - 2015.07.30 20:47:29 - [42] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: The reddit post mentions edge of missile range (and with the Mordu velocity bonus that's a pretty big edge.) Which is what I was going by. Does this affect Mordu ships more than others? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4527	Posted - 2015.07.30 21:42:55 - [43] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: According to the general consensus of the reddit discussion, yes. They are drawing on the assumption that the Mordus ships' rather abnormal projection buff is why they are more susceptible to the problem. It's believed that since the velocity buff/flight time nerf means missiles will fly faster but last shorter, that translates to a much wider distance loss if you were to lose a second of flight time, making it more noticeable on a Mordus ship. I wonder if this is being exacerbated or otherwise affected by the MGC or MGE. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4527	Posted - 2015.07.30 21:53:46 - [44] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Not so sure of that, given the MGC/MGE is a relatively new module addition where as these issues have mostly been observed prior to and continue to happen regardless of the modules' presence. It doesn't seem to matter if you are using them or not, and I doubt they are to blame either. And I completely forgot that the vast majority of missile players aren't using them... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.02 01:34:37 - [45] - Quote Kasia en Tilavine wrote: Under some more stress tests, the MGC seems to have a small niche on suplimentary dps sniper ships like talwars and kite caracals. If they're willing to go OS prop/ no tank type of setups. Quite possibly. Also setups where you need to utilize your rigs to expand your power grid, where you're limited to 2 rigs or only have 350 configuration (examples). I would add the caveat that I don't see MGCs being utilized that much outside of T2 or T3 hulls because you simply don't have the free mid slots and/or can afford to really give up tank. Two precision-scripted MGCs will net you ~30% explosion radius/~30% explosion velocity, which is roughly equivalent to a pair of T2 rigors and a T2 flare (roughly, mind you - as I realize a setup with rigs provide slightly more damage application). Arguably the MGCs are more cost effective than the T2 rigs, so this is another consideration. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.02 06:22:04 - [46] - Quote Kasia en Tilavine wrote: But this is hilariously niche, and leaves you dead if you come up against a turret boat that can track you. Very niche. Like "rare" PvE niche... Just for kicks I took the Tengu configuration from SirLiv's video and tweaked it a bit (Obfuscation Manifold, 3x Faction BCUs/~+6% DPS and a T2 Warhead Calefaction rig to get another ~+5% DPS as this setup only has 3 lows; I dumped T1 Hyperspacials in the remaining slots, swapped the MWD for a Deadspace passive kinetic amplifier and went with Faction HMLs to reduce the power grid requirement). With Ascendancy/Missile implants and full missile skills it was warping along at 9 AU/s and putting out just shy of 600 DPS (600+ DPS pverheated). Faction launchers make a huge difference for FoF missiles as they have a higher rate of fire (even with T2 HMLs/Heavy Missile Specialization V) and hold +5 more rounds of ammunition. As expected, it worked quite well running pretty much any type of standard HS combat site (then again, it worked fine with rigors prior to MGCs too...). Downside is a huge EM hole and a lot of shiny tied up in a fit with a very low rate of return (not even sure running HS combat sites rates above mining). There's no way I'd sacrifice two mid slots on a Tengu and pooch the tank other than shts and giggles. And we're still talking PvE - nevermind PvP! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.*
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.02 09:15:26 - [47] - Quote BN0216 Lim wrote: For an instance, my Golem has 2 TPs, 2 MGCs and 2 T2 Rigors. But this is not just enough for my PVE situation. I mostly run vanguard incursions which the Sansha frigs takes the major portion of targets and far more stronger than elite frigs in mission. But even with MGCs, TPs and Rigors, the precision missiles lack of damage(which makes it worthless compared to turret ships), others lack of expR. The only aspect you could change is switching to RHMLs utilizing Precision ammo, but you take a huge range hit. The 35-second reload time could be a deal killer as well. Joe Risalo wrote: It's a bit weird that introducing a module, that was intended to help missiles, has instead caused their blemishes to stand out; Kinda like when you're staining wood and it causes the imperfections to show... Yes. Yes it is. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.02 15:29:35 - [48] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: So, you'd have a Fury cruise missile with Say 150km range, flying say 1750km/s. I assume there's a typo in there somewhere. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.02 16:50:31 - [49] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I just gave it as a general example to say that you can leave missile velocity alone, then kill flight time and instead just go with a max range, which alleviates the issue of missile acceleration. Sure, I'd love 1750km/s. Insta-volley! Or did you mean 1750m/s (which would be a tad on the slow side, even for torpedoes) or 17500m/s (which would be a bit faster than your typical cruise missile)? But back to your idea... Rather than scrapping explosion velocity and nixing flight time, I'd rather see increased missile velocity have an effect on target inertia or velocity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.03 01:00:43 - [50] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: Eh, Joe's lack of understanding of how the damage formula works doesn't inspire confidence and thus support. I'm inclined to agree. Nothing against Joe, but stoicfaux has a very comprehensive understanding of how the missile formula works, and he's right that simply eliminating a few variables will not only ignore the problem but cause numerous new ones. A while back I played around with the missile DRF values and a slight increase (~10%) to missile explosion velocity and it solved (at least on paper) the majority of the problems with missiles applying damage to stationary or slow-moving targets, so I think stoicfaux is on the right track with his assessment and suggestion. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.03 03:57:14 - [51] - Quote I found an alternative use for the MGC in a Golem configuration, but it requires a bit of abstract thinking to make it work. First and foremost, this is a PvE configuration for optimizing L4s. Second, to get the most out of this setup you need to run Ascendancy and +5 missile implants. Third, missile V skills are key. Bear in-mind that you can probably get away with some +3 implants and IV skills, but your mileage will really vary depending on mission. Golem 4x Faction* Cruise Launchers (Caldari Navy or Dread Guristas) Mjolnir/Inferno/Scourge/Nova Auto-targeting Cruise Missiles Bastion Module I 3x Small Tractor Beam II Mobile Tractor Unit 1x Gist C-Type 500MN Microwarpdrive 2x Gistum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field 1x Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster (I prefer the Gistum A-Type, but $$) 3x Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script 2x Faction Ballistic Control Unit (Caldary Navy or Dread Guristas) 2x Ballistic Control Unit II** 2x Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II 15x Salvage Drone I Faction launchers are key as they have a higher ROF and hold more ammunition Upgrading to Faction BCUs will yield another ~1-2% DPS) With my skills, implants and setup my Golem puts out just over 800 DPS utilizing FoF ammunition (just over 1000 DPS with Faction). The FoF cruise missiles have an explosion radius of 132m and explosion velocity of just over 193m/sec, which will single-volley most cruisers and frigates. I have them grouped in banks of 2 and stagger to ensure minimal ammunition wastage. Even though FoF missiles do about 20% less actual DPS, there is no delay in either locking targets or waiting for launcher cycles to finish - so the actual damage application is fairly close. Plus, not having to use target painters means I don't have to manually lock targets and can instead use the Golem's 11-target capacity to focus solely on salvage. Ascendancy implants yield a 2.94 AU/s warp speed which makes a noticeable difference. For missile-based L4 ships, it's really Golem, Golem and then Golem. You have over twice the cargo capacity with half the ammunition usage, higher warp speed and as good if not better damage application than a Navy Raven (due to changes to stacking penalties for rigors). The ability to tank and AFK most missions speaks for itself, and this is before we even touch base on the salvage capabilities. Gistum gear is the most effective in terms of power consumption and ensures you can pretty much run cap stable, although it is a bit pricier (Golem hulls are over $1.2-billion so make your own determination what you're comfortable spending). I rarely need to use Bastion but it's always there as a last recourse. The only thing you need to watch with FoF missiles is that they will only go after the closest target. So you'll often see groups of NPCs clustered together at the same range alternating by a few meters to shift damage around. When this happens, just switch to Faction missiles and blast 'em. I never use Fury ammunition because what you gain in raw DPS you lose to significantly less damage application, lower ammunition capacity with T2 launchers and a slower ROF. Comments welcome. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.*
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.03 06:30:03 - [52] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I suppose I'm having problems understanding exp velocity. I get radius, as well as missile velocity and flight time, including acceleration. It seems that exp velocity doesn't actually represent what someone with common sense would think exp velocity means. If you can modify exp velocity and it actually have an effect on an immobile target; Then yes, you are correct in saying that I do not understand the formula, as it would appear the exp velocity factor in the formula is gibberish. It appears that y'all are basically explaining that exp velocity is not actually exp velocity, but instead some random damage modifier that is dictated by Unicorns, dwarfs, elves, and other forms of make believe....Just saying.. It's Dark Elves, actually. Here's a condensed version of how the missile formula is applied. Missiles start @ 100% damage and go down from there. It actually works a bit differently than I describe, but this is the gist of it. 1. If the target is moving <= explosion velocity, then explosion velocity is essentially disregarded (skip to step 2). Otherwise, missile damage is tentatively reduced by a ratio that corresponds to how much faster the target is moving. 2. Next we look at the target's signature as compared to the explosion radius. This is adversely affected by any signature bloom from a MWD or target painters. If the target's modified signature falls below the explosion radius, missile damage is further reduced and applied (skip to step 4). Otherwise, continue to step 3. 3. Claw back. This is the interesting part. If the target's modified signature exceeds the explosion radius, missile damage is increased. This can actually increase missile damage back to 100% (but no more than 100%) since it also offsets any shortfall in explosion velocity against the target velocity (this is why rigors and explosion radius are more powerful in the equation). 4. Missile DRF (damage reduction factor) is applied. Basically the formula is this: damage = D * min (1,S/E,(S/EVe/Vt)^ln(drf)/ln(5.5)) Here's a good article that describes everything in greater detail. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.*
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4530	Posted - 2015.08.03 09:36:22 - [53] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I was going to say that Bastion will increase your fof range, but holy crap, I didn't realize they could go so far. They out-range everything else.. out of bastion they hit 233km with my stats/skills, and hit like 290km or so in bastion. lol... it's funny that these modules have apparently given a somewhat fix to fofs, but makes other missile types show their flaws Yes, 233km sounds about right with a +5 missile projection implant. You can actually hit out to over 400km with the Barghest, although I'm honestly not sure the target would even be on grid... elitatwo wrote: #1: Whom do I have to 'offer' myself to to get a blue tagged response here? #2: Why does CCP hate Caldari so much? #3: Now that one interceptor can disband all sov-sec and sov-sec is fixed, can we focus back to important things like missiles? #4: Why do missile modules take so much cpu? #5: Can I bring my Drake again? 1. Good luck with that. 2. I believe it's missiles in general, with Caldari taking the unfortunate hit. 3. I suspect that the 'Gong Show' that is FozzieSov will drag on well into 2016... 4. Because they suck. Not that the majority of feedback was really given any consideration... 5. Since the heavy missile nerf all other weapon systems have been substantially buffed, so... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4531	Posted - 2015.08.03 18:56:00 - [54] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: I'm beginning to think the "...what do you guys think?" part in CCP's usual feedback threads are rhetorical. I figure some PR guy has the rest of CCP on a tight leash, which would be normally understandable, but I'm starting to wonder what is the point then of these "Here's what we have planned for (insert future expansion name)" threads; simply to brace us for impending impact? Yes... But what do you think about that? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4531	Posted - 2015.08.04 22:56:24 - [55] - Quote So let's see what we have to look forward to in Galatea... GÇó Dominix re-design GÇó Camera kill-shot update (but no new cool explosions) GÇó Previously-announced fleep warp mechanics And what's not in Galatea... GÇó Update to the MGC and MGE GÇó Proper missile rebalance package I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4531	Posted - 2015.08.05 00:20:33 - [56] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. Except most of us aren't happy with the numbers. But here's what you can do to fix them. Missile Guidance Enhancer I ... 5%(+0.5) Ev, 5% Er Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer ... 6% Ev (+1.0), 6% (+0.5) Er Missile Guidance Enhancer II ... 7.5% (+2.0) Ev, 7.5% (+1.5) Er Mordus Legion Guidance Enhancer ... 10% Ev, 10% Er, 7.5% Mv, 7.5% Ft Missile Guidance Computer I ... 6% (+1.0) Ev, 6% (+1.0) Er Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer ... 7.5% (+1.5) Ev, 7.5% (+1.5) Er Missile Guidance Computer II ... 8.5% (+1.0) Ev, 8.5% (+1.0) Er Caldari Navy Guidance Computer ... 10% Ev, 10% Er, 6% Mv, 6% Ft Dread Guristas Guidance Computer ... 10% Ev, 10% Er, 6% Mv, 6% Ft I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4536	Posted - 2015.08.05 15:57:55 - [57] - Quote BN0216 Lim wrote: I think you are confusing the role bonus of Barghest which the actual range bonus would be as same as a Raven or a Golem. It increases 200% of velocity, but decrease 50% of flight time = (1+2) x (1-0.5) = 1.5 which is equivalent to 50% increase of velocity of Ravens. But anyhow, I don't need 223km or 400km missiles. I don't need an AFK golem. I need... nothing with this ***. I'm definitely not. I won't go into details how you can get 400km+ out of a Barghest - but it involves implants, rigs and utilizing both your lows and mids with MGEs and MGCs. The rig and slot configuration is different with the ships you mention, so even with the Golem's Bastion bonus it still falls short of the Barghest. You can probably get close to the same range with either of the Ravens, but you're going to seriously impair DPS in the process. There's also the huge difference in velocity, which really precludes using anything other than a Barghest (since you're looking at upwards of a half minute to reach these ranges otherwise). In any event, I was merely illustrating that you could get this range - not that it was necessarily feasible or even practical. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.*
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4554	Posted - 2015.08.12 03:45:31 - [58] - Quote These modules are officially useless. After spending several weeks trying to get them to work on just about every level across multiple hulls, I'm officially giving up. Here are a few points to ponder (feel free to experiment to draw your own conclusions): GÇó Stacking penalties. The new stacking penalties have almost no impact on previous fits. T2 ships like the Cerberus and Golem only have 2 rig slots anyway, and most setups with three rig slots typically featured a pair of T2 rigors and a single T1 or T2 flare (depending on calibration available). These penalties serve only to deter running more than two of the new missile modules, which is kind of a joke when low slots are typically a premium on any ship - let alone missile-based hulls. GÇó Rigors rule. Based on the current missile formula, rigors still reign supreme. Unlike flares (which cease having any effect once you reach or exceed a target's velocity), reducing your missile explosion radius below the target's signature has a retroactive effect on target velocity. A scripted MGC II gives you 15% explosion radius, 15% explosion velocity, requires CPU and is an active module. Against a stationary target or one where the base missile velocity already matches or exceeds target velocity - the MGC is worth less than a T2 rigor. The benefit from a passive MGE II is even more marginal, as it yields a whopping 5.5% explosion radius and 5.5% explosion velocity. Against a moving target, this is even less beneficial than a single T1 rigor. Heck, even a T1 flare provides more damage application than a MGE II. And again, it's not like low slots grow on trees (especially on ships like the Cerberus, Tengu or Golem). GÇó Flight time. I honestly have no idea why this variable was even included - because it's borderline useless. Anyone that flies missile ships knows that unless it's a free hull bonus, you run hydraulic rigs to increase your missile velocity (and subsequent range). This not only reduces the frequency of lost volleys in transit, but increases the difficulty to outrun your missiles. Flight time and rocket fuel cache rigs do neither. So would you run a scripted MGC II just to give you +11% missile velocity? GÇó Fitting requirements and tradeoffs. I won't even comment on the excessively high CPU requirements for these modules, but I'll once again point out that low slots are almost an endangered species on most missile-based ships. MGEs are a lost cause, so I'm going to skip over these entirely. Since a comparison has already been made between rigs and MGCs, let's look at target painters, stasis webs and warp scramblers. There is absolutely zero reason to run a MGC over a target painter, and outside of PvE stasis webs and warp scramblers are going to be far more important modules. In fact, almost anything is more valuable than a mid-slot MGC (any capacitor or shield augmentation, for example). What's to be done? These modules (and the "missile rebalance" package is an unmitigated disaster, and the only solution is to apply fire in liberal quantities... This need to be entirely scrapped and redesigned from the ground up. 1. Missiles operate at a fundamentally different level than drones or guns, so trying to make them behave in a similar fashion is an effort in futility (they need something unique). That being said, it should also be pointed out that T2 launchers do not benefit in the same manner with respect to specialization that T2 guns do (T2 gunnery specialization augments Faction ammunition, but T2 missile specialization has no effect on Faction ammunition). There's also the higher skill requirements, but I digress... 2. Missile formula (provided it can be found in the Legacy code, it's due for an update). 3. Kinetic pigeon-holing. Nuff said. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4556	Posted - 2015.08.12 04:08:45 - [59] - Quote Missile Rebalance GÇó Switch back to the old icons (no disrespect to the art department, but the new ones are not as nice as the originals) GÇó Missile Guidance Computers (MGC) and Missile Guidance Enhancers (MGE) are scrapped, and become the following new passive modules with the same fitting requirements: - Missile Cache (MC), mid-slot (stacking penalized). Increases launcher ammunition capacity by 5/10/15%/20% (Meta, I, II, Faction). - Missile Fire Control (MFC), low-slot (stacking penalized). Decreases launcher reload time by 10/15/20%/25% (Meta, I, II, Faction). GÇó This means the only way to apply missile damage is through rigs, implants, target painters, stasis webs or warp scramblers (or any combination thereof). No missile disruption modules or missile disruption tracking scripts. GÇó The missile formula is tweaked as follows, to allow for "critical" damage. This means that if a ship has a target 'dead to rights', then (and only then) missiles can apply up to 10% more critical damage. This will typically mean both exceeding the target velocity and falling under the target signature. - old forumla = base damage * min[1, S/E, (S/EVe/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)] - new forumla = base damage min[1.1, S/E, (S/EVe/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)] GÇó All kinetic pigeon-holing dies a horrible death. There are too many ships to list, but the Drake instead receives a 25% bonus to ROF instead of a 50% bonus to kinetic damage. GÇó The explosion velocity bonus between rockets and light missiles is swapped. All other missiles receive a 10% increase to their base explosion velocity. GÇó All missile hit points are increased by an additional 50% GÇó All missile flight time is reduced by 25% and missile velocity subsequently increased by 25% GÇó Changes to various implants that allow missile users to also utilize all 6 Faction implants without impacting damage. This change obsoletes a few missile implants and introduces two new ones, which also bringing small missile implants on par with their gunnery counterparts. GÇó The following implants are shuffled around: - Zainou 'Snapshot' Light Missiles LM-901 through LM-906 become LM-601 through LM-606 (slot 6) - Zainou 'Snapshot' Rockets RD-901 through RD-906 become RD-601 through RD-606 (slot 6) - Zainou 'Deadeye' implants MB-701 through MB-706 become MB-801 through MB-806 (slot 8) - Zainou 'Deadeye' implants MP-701 through MP-706 become MP-901 through MP-906 (slot 9) - Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF FR-1001 through FR-1006 become FR-901 through FR-906 (slot 9) - Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise (CM-601 through CM-606) and Zainou 'Snapshot' Torpedo (TD-601 through TD-606) become CM-701 through CM-706 and TD-601 and TD-606, respectively (slot 7) GÇó New missile implants are added (players now have a choice of more damage or the previous rate of fire) - Zainou 'Snapshot' Warhead WH-701 through WH-706, adds a 1-6% increase to all missile damage GÇó Thus, missile implants are now categorized as follows: - Slot 6: CPU Efficiency, Light Missiles, Rockets - Slot 7: Heavy Missiles, Heavy Assault Missiles, Cruise Missiles, Torpedoes - Slot 8: Missile Bombardment, Guided Missile Precision, Defender Missiles - Slot 9: Missile Projection, Target Navigation Prediction, FOF Explosion Radius - Slot 10: Ballistic Smartlink, Rapid Launch, Warhead GÇó Reintroduction of Faction FOF (auto-targeting) missiles for FW (only) LP redemption. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.*
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4558	Posted - 2015.08.12 07:23:41 - [60] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: I find the range bonuses they give to be pretty spectacular. They're essentially just like tracking computers. Almost exclusively used to boost range and not really used to boost tracking as they aren't better than a web. Seems okay. Even though it is a bit "meh" How do you figure exactly? A T2 hydraulic rig will basically get you the same range increase as a scripted MCG II. Passively. The rig is actually worth more since as it's fully applied to missile velocity. On anything larger than a cruiser you don't need to boost the range, most missile-based cruisers already have decent range and I can't see a MGC replacing a mid or low slot on a frigate or destroyer. Unless I'm missing something? The only place I can see these modules being of any (limited) benefit are on Phoenix dreadnoughts and Leviathan titans since they're going to be far cheaper than rigor or flare rigs. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4561	Posted - 2015.08.12 14:42:18 - [61] - Quote Barrogh Habalu wrote: Can you elaborate on that? Unless I'm reading it wrong, specialization skills affect rate of fire of T2 launchers regardless of charge used. Yes they do, but unlike T2 guns - T2 launchers are still slower than Faction launchers (even with specialization V). There's also the difference in ammunition capacity, so utilizing Faction ammunition in Faction launchers will still deliver more overall damage. With T2 guns, you have an identical rate of fire and identical ammunition capacity to Faction guns - so the T2 guns apply more overall damage utilizing Faction ammunition. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4561	Posted - 2015.08.12 17:32:10 - [62] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: If you could put a exp radius and exp velocity script, or flight time and velocity script, then these modules might actually be useful. Except explosion radius always trumps explosion velocity, so given a choice the answer is obvious. The primary reason to fit flare rigs is that you lack the calibration for a third rigor rig. With the new stacking penalties, a T1 flare will almost always provide more benefit than a T1 rigor (this was not the case previously). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4562	Posted - 2015.08.12 18:46:01 - [63] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Honestly, I say just get rid of the things and rework rigs and TPs. I think target painters and rigs are fine and don't need any adjustment (target painters already had a balance pass). I think the +5% damage to all heavy missiles and reduction in torpedo size were good improvements. I'm not even necessarily opposed to the stacking penalties that were introduced, as they have minimal impact. I hate these new missile guidance modules. They had potential with the original values, were still promising with the stacking penalties but were subsequently nerfed into the ground with the final unceremonious release. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4562	Posted - 2015.08.12 19:08:36 - [64] - Quote BN0216 Lim wrote: Simply, long story short, changing expR to expV, sigR to Target speed and vice versa in the existing formula would be the result of this suggestion. And we might need more values changed - ship bonuses, base stat values, etc. These variables are already in the missile formula. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4564	Posted - 2015.08.13 05:23:38 - [65] - Quote BN0216 Lim wrote: This is almost same as the existing formula except sigR/expR term does not exist anymore and the sigR term in the last formula is now given as a max function. The reason that explosion radius is more prominent in the formula (and why it should be) is two-fold. First, no matter what - you will never (ever) be able to boost missile explosion velocity beyond potential target velocity. Even the use of stasis webs would not be able to entirely accomplish this against a fast ship. Second, there are numerous modules that have signature penalties that benefit missile explosion radius, including but not limited to: shield extenders, microwarpdrives, field extender rigs, hyperspacial rigs and inertial stabilizers. One of the main methods to counter small signatures is through the use of target painters. Under your proposed formula, these would become effectively useless - not including rendering inert several target painter-bonused hulls and numerous tactics and strategies. Another consideration is that rigors currently cost more in terms of calibration (since they have more value), so this would not only completely destroy their market value - but create untold problems with how to remove unremovable rigs from ships or reimburse players in the tens of millions to destroy and replace these with flares. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4565	Posted - 2015.08.13 09:08:15 - [66] - Quote BN0216 Lim wrote: is not going to happen by modifying the base stats of missiles. Applying missile velocity + explosion velocity would be an alternative solution. (This idea comes from the situation of firing something on moving object, e.g. throwing a ball in a moving train) While I appreciate that you're trying to participate in the discussion - it's clear that with this suggestion you don't have a lot of experience with missiles and/or understand the radically different missile-based hull bonuses. Mordu's Legion ships have between 2-4x the missile velocity of comparable ships - which means you'd never fly anything else. There is a simple and straightforward solution to address the majority of deficiencies in missiles: GÇó Swap the explosion radius bonus between light missiles and rockets, and buff the explosion velocity on all medium and large missiles by 10%. This will improve (but not completely resolve) issues with applying damage to stationary or non-afterburning targets. GÇó Rather than buffing missile damage, change the minimum value in the missile formula from 1.0 to 1.1 to extend missiles the potential to deliver "critical" damage. This would be in scenarios where both the target signature radius and target velocity have been exceeded, and will typically only effect stationary or large targets. GÇó Missile guidance computers and enhancers need to be reworked. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4571	Posted - 2015.08.14 14:27:39 - [67] - Quote These modules still need to be buffed, but... ...with a set of +5 missile implants, they do show promise in one configuration. Scorpion Navy Issue 2x Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II (FoF) 4x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Fury or Faction) Auto Targeting System II 500MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability II Pith C-Type Large Shield Booster 4x Missile Guidance Computer II (4x Precision/2 Range scripts) 4x Ballistic Control Unit II Damage Control II 3x Large Hyperspacial Velocity Optimizer II ..... One of the drawbacks with missiles is that they're slow. Not artillery slow, but cruise missiles are second last in terms of rate of fire. And unless you're running a missile velocity-bonused hull, they take a lot longer to reach their targets. Combined with the lead time to target, it means you're looking at 1-2 cycles after your last volley has launched before you can confidently switch targets (NPC ships have a wicked tendency to generate a last-second repair cycle while missiles are in-transit). The Scorpion Navy Issue features a rate of fire bonus which gets the cycle time of most cruise missile launchers down to around the 6-second mark. On paper it's less damage as a whole, but applied quicker. While this consumes higher quantities of ammunition, it's much more satisfying seeing damage applied more rapidly to targets (even if it's slightly less damage). The Scorpion Navy Issue features 8 mid slots in addition to a set of shield resistance bonuses, and combined with an extra low and high utility slot it's actually the perfect setup. First and foremost, this setup sports a significant tank at around 100k EHP. Second, it allows you to run four scripted MGCs without really sacrificing much. Third, this frees up the rigs to increase the warp speed (with Ascendancy implants) to over 4.5 AU/s - so it gets around really quick. One thing that is immediately apparent is that I'm running two different missile systems on this. The cruise launchers are designated for taking out larger targets with Fury ammunition while the rapid heavy launchers are setup with auto-targeting missiles to take out anything that ventures too close (and with the MGCs all running precision scripts, they are very effective at this). The auto targeting system is present in a passive mode to extend the number of target acquisitions to 10, and in a pinch it can be activated to automatically target anything hostile within 60km. Last but not least, the Scorpion Navy Issue sports 75mbit of drone bandwidth which is enough for a mix of light and heavy drones to harass targets. By running a set of range-scripted MGCs it increases the optimal engagement from 60km to 100km. The Scorpion Navy Issue also features an insane targeting range, so you can lock and hit almost everything with minimal maneuvering and without requiring modules or rigs to boost sensor strength. The fit I'm running is over 1000 DPS, and while I can honestly say that I don't think it's necessarily any faster at completing missions than a Golem, Barghest or Raven Navy Issue - it's a heck of a lot more fun seeing volleys of missiles launched at 2-6 second intervals (regardless of velocity missiles all seem to take the same 1-1.5 second launch animation). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4571	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:22:19 - [68] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I question why you wouldn't just rock a full set of cruise launchers. Why the rapid heavies? With RoF bonus of the ship, combined with high RoF on RHML, they're firing at an insane rate, which is costing you more in ammo than it's worth, not to mention the long reload. Also, past 1 or 2 MGC, you're better off with target painters, though, if you're shooting at multiple targets at once, I can see where MGCs would be beneficial. I would also like to know how beneficial that 3rd and 4th MGC are when you're fitting a full set of precision scripts. I don't think they give much in the way of bonus at that point. Lastly, this fit provides no PVP capability, outside of dps. There's no argument that use can be found for these modules in PVE, though it's situational and/or ship/missile specific, but in PVP they have almost no merit as they're not worth the fitting costs for the limited engagement ranges missiles are forced into. Pest control. Combined with the missile implants, I believe the last two precision-scripted MGCs yield about 25%. I'm going off memory, but I believe it gets the heavy missile explosion radius down to around 60m. And yes, it's a rather insane rate of fire - but the two rapid launchers literally melt anything small that ventures within 40km. I've only run a few missions with it so far, but I alternate between 2 precision/2 range and 4 precision depending on the mission. For ones like "Damsel in Distress" and "Stop the Thief" where you're dealing with lots of small ships and short ranges, 4 precision scripts is the way to go. No argument - it burns through ammunition quite a bit faster. And even with 2 range scripts you lose a few volleys between targets with the rapid launchers. The tradeoff is that you can use your drones to apply full DPS to larger targets and not worry about micromanaging them against smaller targets where cruise missiles aren't anywhere near as effective. Auto-targeting missiles are really critical with the high-rate of fire, because you just can't track, lock and apply damage fast enough otherwise. This also frees up one's attention span to focus entirely on applying damage with the cruise launchers and drones. It's simply a lot of fun to fly with this setup. Getting around is insanely quick (this includes acceleration gates), it's cap stable if you drop down to a medium Deadspace shield booster, you can lock 10 targets out to over 100km and you dictate standard or extended range for engagements. Neither the Raven or the Typhoon has the tank to pull this off, and you lose quite a bit of damage application if you have to drop down to MGEs for either. The Typhoon does have the same explosion velocity bonus as the Golem, but this doesn't apply to any missile systems outside cruise or torpedoes. You could probably come close by swapping out a hyperspacial rig for a rigor without too much of a hit to warp speed (especially with Ascendancy implants), so there's certainly some flexibility there. I also agree that there's limited PvP value with this particular configuration, and you'd almost certainly change things as it's heavily-geared towards PvE. For example: I'd drop two BCUs in favor of two passive MGEs, replace the hyperspacial rigs with field extender rigs, run all rapid heavy missile launchers, swap the auto targeting system for a neutralizer and replace the four MGCs with a capacitor booster, tackle, web and ancillary shield boosters. Entirely different application, of course. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4572	Posted - 2015.08.14 23:15:27 - [69] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I'm wondering though, If you took off the cruise and just went with pure RHMLs, all ungrouped and just let the FoF go crazy, what would that look like. Ungrouping them would reduce the ammo consumption a bit, but may also cause issues with target swapping as ranges change. Fireworks. You potentially lose quite a bit with a RoF bonus on rapid launchers, but on the flip side it does spew them out at a really rapid pace. That's why I've left it at 2 launchers - it's enough at this speed to deal with frigates, destroyers and most cruisers at short ranges - and the 35-second reload time isn't as readily apparent when you're also running cruise launchers. I also find that if I occasionally use FoF in the cruise launchers the rapids often take out the shields and armor and then the cruise delivers the finishing blow. With 2 missile systems and different rates of fire, FoF missiles also seem a bit more effective at adjusting to NPC spawns at different ranges. So while you're waiting for the next cruise volley to cycle the rapids get 2-3 volleys into the next target. The main benefit of all this is that it doesn't feel slow, you're not counting volleys for the most part and gameplay generally seems much more engaging. Having eight mid slots and being able to script range with a pair of MGCs really helps, as the Scorpion isn't exactly a speedy ship by any means. It really eliminates a lot of unnecessary maneuvering, and against large targets you can actually just run all four MGCs scripted for range. I would really consider this particular setup a niche application though. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4572	Posted - 2015.08.14 23:36:09 - [70] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I despise volley counting despite always having to count. I really wish CCP would rebalance all missile systems on RoF compared to velocity and range of said missiles, so that you never have more than one volley in the air at any given time. I lose more than a few volleys in this setup utilizing FoF missiles. However, it's a riot to pilot this setup and FoF missiles are cheap to manufacture. So I don't count - and I don't care. Cry havoc and let slip the drones of war! You can easily lose volleys even with range-bonused Mordu's Legion ships, and part of this is the 1-1.5 second launch cycle that missiles seem to go through regardless of velocity - so I'm not entirely sure this can ever be mitigated 100%. I really can't express how refreshing gameplay is with this particular setup. Yes, it's not the most efficient - but it always feels like I'm doing something. Which is a far cry from counting missile volleys, waiting for lengthy missile cycles or reload times. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4572	Posted - 2015.08.15 00:05:58 - [71] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I think I might fit my Golem with RHMLs and FoF just for the hell of it... Might be nice to sit there and not have to do anything for a while. Just remember that rapid launchers don't receive the inherent missile velocity bonus, so you'll want to range script it for certain. The Barghest is best in this role (+200% missile velocity, +10% higher DPS) - but even then I still find myself waiting for long reloads. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4579	Posted - 2015.08.17 18:12:28 - [72] - Quote So Galatea is out next week. The new missile modules still suck (that is to say, they are extremely undesirable). Is anyone really using these over rigors, flares, hydraulic rigs and target painters beyond theorycrafting? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4581	Posted - 2015.08.18 00:51:38 - [73] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Galatea? The next release stated for August 25. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4582	Posted - 2015.08.18 01:48:45 - [74] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Yeah, I finally figured that out. Just don't know what's in it other than more skins.. Maybe it was on o7 show.. There's a cool Blood Raven SKIN. Is it ironic that the art department has done more for missiles this month than certain devs? (pretty sure the art department was largely on vacation too) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4582	Posted - 2015.08.18 03:10:58 - [75] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Btw, again Art delivers. You guys haven't dissapointed me yet! The Art and Mac team are definitely on my Christmas card/gift basket list this year. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4588	Posted - 2015.08.18 14:47:40 - [76] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: As far as I can see the most effective still is in order for sig radius bonus, painters > rigors > scripted modules. It confounds me why the new scripted modules are quite significantly worse than painters given that painters help everyone in your fleet not just yourself. You're not the only one confounded and confused... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4592	Posted - 2015.08.18 20:38:54 - [77] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Why would we trade application and/or range rigs for MGCs, when that leaves us with less utility, seeing as how rig slots are generally unneeded for anything else. stoicfaux summed it up best: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5847341#post5847341 I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4593	Posted - 2015.08.19 02:40:58 - [78] - Quote This is exactly the kind of update I was expecting... "unstickied". I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4622	Posted - 2015.09.03 18:46:54 - [79] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: In my playing, the only time MGCs have outperformed TPs is when firing fof missiles. Oddly enough, it gave fof much needed love, but is fail for everything else. That said, you'll notice I only mention MGCs... the MGE is useless in all manners. This is more or less my take on them as well. I did find that when range-scripted these do make torpedoes a more viable option for PvE, but only on certain ships and missions (cruise missiles still reign supreme overall). On Golems two precision-scripted MGCs can replace two of three or four TPs that one typically finds - allowing Hyperspacial rigs to be used for boosting warp speed. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4622	Posted - 2015.09.03 19:17:25 - [80] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: the problem with that is, MGCs still give less effect that TPs, especially on the Golem with its TP bonus. However, there's also the issue with range. Torps can have decent range with bastion, but not enough to make up for immobility. I typically fit 2x t2 range rigs in order to give me about 80km range with Javs. You can't use range scripts on MGC or else you lose application, which in the case of torps, is extremely important. Yes, but the damage application with two meta TPs and two precision-scripted MGCs is greater than four Faction TPs - without the use of rigors or flares, either (you can one-shot frigates using T2 Fury ammunition, V skills and missile implants). The problem with torpedoes is that they're just so freakin' slow. Even with hydraulics, range-scripted MGCs and Bastion you're hard-pressed to get the speed above 6km/sec. So shooting out to targets @80km with Javelin torpedoes is literally like watching paint dry. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken Chig 4622	Posted - 2015.09.03 19:47:50 - [81] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Agreed.. I hate torp velocity. My point on the scripts though is, if you're going for range, stick with rigs, as you'll need the mids for application, when using torps. Surprisingly enough, you don't need as much damage application with torpedoes because they do a lot more damage than cruise missiles. What I found is that a pair of MGCs to alternate between range-boosting and damage application in conjunction with a pair of target painters worked best. I've since switched back to cruise missiles because even with the slower rate of fire I almost never have to maneuver around and am rarely forced to use Bastion. If torpedoes were twice as fast as cruise missiles - then we'd be talking. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4622	Posted - 2015.09.04 15:08:05 - [82] - Quote Nafensoriel wrote: Using RHML in PVE is more thought engaging than cruise or torps. You do have to volley count especially at ranges in excess of 50km. That fit handles reloads just fine and can wipe out several battleships before it needs to reload. With a 3km/s gecko or 2km/s+ faction drone you don't really have to wait to apply full 1900 nearly perfectly applied damage to anything within 50km. Yes, but that's paper DPS under optimal conditions. It doesn't take into account things like mission travel time, launcher reload time, drone transit time - or just in-game maneuvering. Your Rattlesnake fit doesn't have a MWD or MJD for getting around, so with a 100MN afterburner you will rarely be able to apply maximum damage with your RHMLs or Geckos. Without a tracking script Geckos can't consistently hit frigates and even with MGCs you're going to burn through a lot Fury ammo against smaller ships. I'll take my 1200+ DPS/4.48 AU/s Golem and stack it up against this Rattlesnake fit any time. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4622	Posted - 2015.09.04 15:28:11 - [83] - Quote Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4622	Posted - 2015.09.04 17:48:09 - [84] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Maybe they ought to drop the current stats off the MGEs and throw in a sort of Mordus Legion style velocity buff/flight time nerf. It wouldn't really help Mordus ships and the like that already have ridiculous velocity, but that would make me think about dropping a BCS on a torp ship...maybe. Bad idea, I know, but the current MGEs are just as bad an idea to begin with, might as well roll around in the mud and see if another bad idea happens to be better. I would have preferred if they just stuck with a bonus to missile velocity instead of missile velocity and flight time. It would make both the MGC and particularly the MGE infinitely more valuable, and then they could buff the values on the MGE since it would be stacking-penalized. Range is almost never the issue - it's the slow application of damage due to missile velocity. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4622	Posted - 2015.09.04 21:07:43 - [85] - Quote The only ship that can really pull off torpedoes in PvE is the Golem, and this is mainly because you have to sacrifice so much to extend range to be somewhat on par with cruise missiles - so damage application is essential. At best, torpedoes will pop the occasional Elite rattleship in one less volley at a slighter faster rate. At worst, you lose any DPS gain by being out of position and having to either maneuver or switch missiles. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4623	Posted - 2015.09.05 01:08:22 - [86] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4623	Posted - 2015.09.06 03:54:10 - [87] - Quote I thought the bug with scripting MGCs had been squashed? ie: When you load a script into the MGC then unload it, it doesn't revert to the default values of the MGC (it retains the scripted value) You have to dock or refit the MGC to clear the values. Also, even though most of us aren't exactly thrilled (perhaps that's an understatement) with the MGC and MGEs, will we be seeing any Faction versions anytime soon? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4623	Posted - 2015.09.06 10:08:53 - [88] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss. I liked the original RLML and first draft of the RHML. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Chig 4624	Posted - 2015.09.06 17:27:35 - [89] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I dislike the idea of missile TDs. Pretty much this. We already have damps and ECM as counters, in addition to the potential to actually outrun missiles under certain conditions. This doesn't even include smartbombs, Defender missiles and time to impact. While missiles do deliver fixed damage - they also can't hit for critical damage, either. So if the current iteration of MGCs and MGEs are more or less fixed in stone (and I think it's unlikely we'll see any changes at this point), missile TDs will just nerf missiles again. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 4628	Posted - 2015.09.07 10:32:29 - [90] - Quote afkalt wrote: So....quick question - RHML were dominant in terms of DPS in the AT - did ANY of those ship losses have the new mods? Interesting question. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

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.