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 [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 568	Posted - 2015.06.20 08:11:03 - [1] - Quote I have felt for a long time that heavies just needed more raw damage. I would quote my own posts but that's a lot of work for no reason. Thanks to the balance team for taking this route with heavies. Indeed they might even need another small damage boost in a while. As far as the missile mids and lows go I'm not sold on the idea but reserve criticism for later. 5% of one application stat or another is not the same as turret mids which give crazy **** like 15% to multiple stats. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 568	Posted - 2015.06.27 09:08:55 - [2] - Quote Because copout logic is easy and accessible. It also requires less supporting evidence. See the classic argument of "my feelings > logic therefore I am correct" Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 568	Posted - 2015.06.28 15:04:11 - [3] - Quote My experience with these mods against sleepers in c3's sees 1x t2 computer + 1x painter result in nearly double the base damage being shot downfield over unbonused missiles. I used to run double painters but I'd still say these do make an appreciable difference with -19% sigR and +19% eV making heavies at least much more competent at dismissing the small and medium targets. For things like golems I'd expect you to still want painters, for things like typhoon then it might be computers all the way due to a native bonus being pushed further not to mention a missileTC being like 60% of the effectiveness of a painter + being a free flare rig at the same time. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 570	Posted - 2015.06.29 14:49:00 - [4] - Quote They're a bit funny to use. I fit one to my tengu for pvp and couldn't really see the difference. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 570	Posted - 2015.07.02 00:21:07 - [5] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: chuckle How do you balance weapons when ship hulls have huge weapon bonuses/modifiers? There's a reason why every balancing blog nowadays uses the term "effective guns," "effective launchers," and/or "effective drones." I, for one, am quite looking forward to watching CCP try to balance Rapid Launchers after the Jackdaw's reload bonus gets applied to a cruiser/BC/BS hull. Why would they ever do that? Personally I think the new modules are great and they're more effective than painters against frigates and destroyers. I've been experimenting quite a bit with heavies since the changes launched on sisi and I will say that I approve. It remains to be seen whether or not heavy missile boats will become worth the buy&fly for the average joe (I don't see it happening) but this is a massive first step in the right direction. If or when CCP decides to introduce missile specific ewar they can damned well script ecm aswell so that I can be a furious ******* to as many people as possible. You get blanket ewar? So do I. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 570	Posted - 2015.07.02 11:34:39 - [6] - Quote You could always ask for something more modest like changing the DRF of some missile types to be less penalising especially against their own weight class of target? Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 570	Posted - 2015.07.02 14:14:19 - [7] - Quote afkalt wrote: I think it would be more reasonable to not NERF the existing modules because of these new ones. "Hey guys, new mods, they'll really help the application problem." >>Fantastic, nice one...a few reservations on specific hulls but looking good. Good job guys! "LOL J/K. We're nerfing the mods before live and nerfing the rigs you currently have. Because :turrets: LOOOOOOOL" Thanks. Thanks a lot. I've been very vocal about missiles needing a buff for a long long time. I think this is an improvement overall and a stacking penalty on rigs only mission runners fit is hardly a thing to write home about. Unless you have some real life - actually used - examples to support what you're saying? Or as the famous saying goes "do you have a single piece of evidence to back that up?" I just don't buy it. Unless you're fitting a t2 flare to every ship you fly in pvp I just don't see the issue. And those rigs share stacking penalties with tracking xomoutrrs for turrets too unless I am completely mistaken Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 570	Posted - 2015.07.02 14:42:57 - [8] - Quote The midslot pulls double duty as a 18% flare and as a budget tp... while I'd like the cerb to drop a low and gain a mid that doesn't seem likely to happen. Stacking penalties only mean like 4% of the modifier for the second module ergo your 20% rigor drops to 19.2% or so. Not a very big deal. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 571	Posted - 2015.07.05 01:39:32 - [9] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: GreyGryphon wrote: 2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease). 2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors. 6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web... I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 571	Posted - 2015.07.05 11:01:02 - [10] - Quote Yes so rni and typhoon will get a lot of mileage from these mids. By stretching native bonuses further. Not to forget the golem also gets an explosion velocity bonus too I think so you could fit one and pvp with it in rhml configurations. Phoenix? Yes. Some missile cruisers, most missile BC and up will have more to gain from these than a target painter and certainly any calnavy ship will get a lot from them. It's entirely up for debate whether you're better off fitting something else to anything non-caldari though. Kind of like fitting a flare instead of a rigor to a rocket ship for reasons that are immediately obvious. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 572	Posted - 2015.07.08 07:57:46 - [11] - Quote Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them? Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 575	Posted - 2015.07.12 08:29:13 - [12] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: The 5% bonus to HMLs was a nice start, but the dps still feels slightly underwhelming . I think another 5% boost to their DPS and they should be in a better place. HML are really more about volley than raw DPS. I've found the changes to be adequate in a number of scenarios particularly when shooting sleepers or running 3/10s with my cerb. Also it's worth noting that lowsec caracal fleets vs armour doctrines haven't been explored yet where 1 TP fleet painter and 1x MGC per ship could be useful. These modules haven't been considered for large scales yet either. Take something uncommon like the navy drake. I'll update my pyfa to Aegis and run some hypotheticals then report here. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 575	Posted - 2015.07.12 09:30:23 - [13] - Quote And here is a cerberus fit. It's just a sample, not to be taken literally. [Cerberus, Cerberus ASB HML] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II Large Shield Booster II Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II I'd still really like the cerb to get another mid, even at the sacrifice of a high if necessary. The cerb has got very good damage but an awkward slot layout and that makes it hard to want to use. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 582	Posted - 2015.07.16 23:49:08 - [14] - Quote Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened? Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 586	Posted - 2015.07.18 19:07:58 - [15] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all. If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you. There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 586	Posted - 2015.07.19 04:18:53 - [16] - Quote For the moment then I would posit that you use TD against turret ships to reduce their dps if you can't do anything else. Woe the day when missiles get their equivalent even though you'll barely see them. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 588	Posted - 2015.07.21 07:58:34 - [17] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something. There are scant few ships that would sacrifice mids for the MGC is the common complaint. Whether that's actually true is a matter for debate. ps give the cerb another mid. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 588	Posted - 2015.07.25 08:41:52 - [18] - Quote Most missiles are balanced around having bleed on a single-webbed AB target of the same size. At least that's what I see. If you can apply 2 webs to a target then things get exciting (also you no longer have a need for mgc unless the enemy are overloaded on links or oversized AB). A fairly capable fleet of hml could conceivably consist of a pair of huginns with 1tp 1web and any damage bonused ship with a single mgc in the mid per ship. If you wanted to get really pedantic there are other things you could add but for a basic missile fleet this is functional. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 588	Posted - 2015.07.25 17:12:56 - [19] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: Most missiles are balanced around having bleed on a single-webbed AB target of the same size. At least that's what I see. If you can apply 2 webs to a target then things get exciting (also you no longer have a need for mgc unless the enemy are overloaded on links or oversized AB). A fairly capable fleet of hml could conceivably consist of a pair of huginns with 1tp 1web and any damage bonused ship with a single mgc in the mid per ship. If you wanted to get really pedantic there are other things you could add but for a basic missile fleet this is functional. That's putting a whole lot of faith into a small amount of ships for the application of the entire fleet. You'd be better off dropping the MGC and having everyone fit a TP. And still get speed tanked once the sigR portion of the formula reaches 1? Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 588	Posted - 2015.07.26 03:55:19 - [20] - Quote And that depends entirely on the level of engagement. If we presume this fight takes place in lowsec then every missile ship is fitting a point and a tp. That's 1/3rd of your slots on the generous ships. Prop mod that's either half or 1 slot left. I'd rather invest in a couple of dedicated boats at that point. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 589	Posted - 2015.07.30 12:30:34 - [21] - Quote How much is there left to say? Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 590	Posted - 2015.07.31 14:05:04 - [22] - Quote SFM Hobb3s wrote: Just wish CCP would just get over with it and fix the base application stats of heavy missiles. The new modules are lousy, and not really viable for use on any ship platform intended for using heavy missile launchers. They're fleet modules that relieve effort from individuals in having to paint their own targets (and lost painter hits due to server ticks) not to mention that their benefit scales infinitely across the whole distance of the missiles flight time while painters suffer fall off to 0% in time. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 590	Posted - 2015.08.01 05:38:03 - [23] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: It's odd. At first glance, these things are pretty lousy, yeah. But, if CCP runs through a missile weapons pass and is generous in certain areas where they are hurting, these modules will make a bit better sense. Having a module that isn't a rig providing range is potentially a pretty sweet deal on it's own, it's just so damn hard to justify the cost in fitting and slot layout on more than a handful of ships and fits. Notably, if FoF's were more often used for instance, these can be good substitute for TP's, but again in really only a pinch. I still feel like MGE's just need to be scraped, as they are way down at the bottom of the food chain where low slot mods are concerned, and buffing them enough to be much more useful might actually make them too OP anyways. I also still feel like CCP should at least consider whether or not these modules should be refocused towards providing a benefit (like range) that the other mid and low slot modules just don't offer rather than making them senselessly compete for a place on the fitting window. That kind of friction is what's really hurting these modules; they aren't necessarily too weak per say, just too much weaker than other options that we've been using for years already. Well I'll agree with you that I'd have more use from the MGE if it gave mostly just range and very little application. There would be viable builds opened up from like that torp battleships etc. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 642	Posted - 2015.09.07 11:59:00 - [24] - Quote afkalt wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: 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. The answer is likely yes.. However, it's a open ended question, because it's a pre-determined fleet build which likely had ships for dedicated TPs, even if un-bonused. Also, TPs are stacking penalized. Which means at a certain number of TPs on a target, 3-4?, localized modifiers become the only viable option. My money is on no. For various reasons, but I think no... You realise you can just load up the system it took place in and look for yourself? It was live on TQ btw. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,16s, ref 20250918/1556
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.