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)
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 289	Posted - 2015.06.19 13:16:39 - [1] - Quote This going to be so pretty disaster. Ewar modules on weapon system that takes time to apply damage (flight time)? Kinetic lock? You don't have to write devblog about it, simple answers are best: yes, no, we think about it... "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 290	Posted - 2015.06.20 09:15:40 - [2] - Quote I don't like the way this modules being implemented. Without promised ewar how do they estimate in what state missiles are? If they become OP, nerfbat will come and missiles guidance modules will be necessity ( and we will have tanking problems here). This isn't nerfing Ishtar by 2,5% at stat. I feel it's like "we don't know what to do with missiles, so let's introduce new modules and see what happen". S*** storm will happen. Rise admited somewhere that there's a thin line between missiles being underpowered and overpowered. For those who want "tracking disruptors" working on missiles. There's no such thing as "tracking" with missiles. What stat should be affected then? It's not that simple as with turrets tracking. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 290	Posted - 2015.06.20 10:59:38 - [3] - Quote As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 297	Posted - 2015.06.26 17:30:55 - [4] - Quote Altarica wrote: Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all Roll Easy to predict. When I read "meaningfull choices" or something like that I know it will be bad. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 304	Posted - 2015.06.30 11:23:46 - [5] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: 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? Thank you for the laugh, Arthur. It was laugh, but his missiles changes proposal crush Rise "balance package". I just realized that by learning missiles skills I learn for kinetic damage mostly. Weapon skills and supporting skills for only one type of damage. Whole "missiles have selectable damage" is lie. Using EM missiles with tengu is like using lasers on Moa. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 304	Posted - 2015.07.01 10:52:04 - [6] - Quote Alexiel Fireborn wrote: Tengu Accelerated Ejection subsystem gets a +5% missile damage bonus well , maybe 7.5% sounds much much better , sorry it`s my favorite ship :) Arthur just switch existing bonuses to all 4 damage types. I think if kinetic lock will be removed someday (hope so) and ships would keep current dmg bonuses some other stats must be nerfed. Tengu for example: +5% missile damage but +5 ROF (-2,5%) +5% velocity (-2,5%). So damage would be selectable but restrainted by other stats. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 307	Posted - 2015.07.01 18:29:32 - [7] - Quote Terra Chrall wrote: If rigs are now stacking penalized, can I change my vote to no we don't want these modules? For smaller ships rigs are what get used the most for range and application. If these now do less and I can't equip a new MGC/E this is a nerf to a system that didn't need a nerf. If you can get the balance right, i am all for the newness. I am a CCP supporter and promoter, I want to believe that you are making things better for missile users. Please prove my faith in you correct. This will end exactly as frighters change. I have two words for you: "meaningfull choices". Nerf from the begining, I told you all. They will gather intel about change from TQ, chewing the results (devs are really bad at statistics) so I pressume missiles will be usefull in 1,5 to 2 years. OF: anybody know how many devs taking care about balancing? Is it just Rise and Fozzman? Because both are losing it imo. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 307	Posted - 2015.07.01 19:46:37 - [8] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: We can blame Rise and Fozzie but the buck stops with Ytterbuim, even if he's not the one driving the agenda he should at least have stepped in to make changes before now. I don't know how is their key to balance ships. For example proposal change to Tempest hull. Ok I don't fly it, don't know in what place it is. So now we will have some change to BS hull, so what? How do they estimate the ship is balanced? Usage? Damage? We need whole class to look at from PvP perspective, all they can is tweak one perk per hull... State of missile ships? I fly Stratios or VNI lately, so much better damage selection not to mention application. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 307	Posted - 2015.07.02 06:25:35 - [9] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: 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. Painters are weak modules for fighting frigs. 30% out of almost nothing won't help anyway. So what was the field test? You killed them with 5 volleys instead of 6 now? Arla Sarain wrote: I think proper balancing of missiles cannot avoid doing a full analytical breakdown. Following the dumbfire "Ishtar treatment" where you do small changes every update won't cut it. The reality is that missiles have few real-time, reactive counters. That is burning away from the missiles and exploit their malleable effective range. That and ABs were the only real counters to missiles. Missiles in general are not weak - the apply damage always and at ranges reaching as far as railguns. You definitely cannot apply previous turret principles to balance missiles. Hence as the above post states, these upgrades are just a knee jerk reaction to the cries of "turrets have these modules - missiles should too" which is not a wise action. Fully agree. New modules takes tank slots? Why not give them range bonus like I would do with turrets...when the most usefull are webs and scrams when using missiles. If current missiles formula is bad, change it Rise. Don't bring more values to the equation you can't solve. If missiles will become 4th turret system I don't care. If I can choose from 4 same weapon systems (but different damage) it is meaningful choice. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 308	Posted - 2015.07.03 16:38:12 - [10] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: Who exactly benefits from all this? * Fits that use one flare/rigor rig and don't have the CPU/mid free for MGCs are unaffected. * Fits that use multiple TPs and no rigor/flare rigs are getting buffed slightly (MGC doesn't stack with TPs.) * Long range (sniping) missile fits that ran TPs in deep fallout will probably benefit from MGCs. * PvE fits that run with three Rigor rigs are nerfed (and will need to replace one of those Rigors with a Flare to minimize stacking penalty.) * Fits that need missile range over applied damage will benefit assuming they can fit enough MGC/MGEs without gimping themselves. Doesn't looks so bad. Balancing ship PvE wise is wrong, CCP don't give a s* about pve anyway. Soldarius wrote:** This thread went the same as the Recon thread. What happen in recon thread, at some point I've stopped following it? "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 313	Posted - 2015.07.14 06:27:40 - [11] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Right now, the HP buff is more impressive. Damage is more consistent on large rats because of that (nice stealth PVE buff). How HP buff increase damage? NPC defenders don't work? "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 318	Posted - 2015.07.22 19:08:42 - [12] - Quote Hakaari Inkuran wrote: Careful what you say, you might cause Rise to nerf target painters. I bet he will, because of meaningful choices ofc. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 318	Posted - 2015.07.23 07:58:37 - [13] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: Now, they could possibly introduce a HIGH SLOT module that buffs range. Missiles are more like drones than they are turrets, so do like with drones and allow a range mod to be fitted in the HS. This means certain missile boats will be able to increase range with the HS modules due to ultility highs, but will have to choose between utility and range. Other missile boats that don't have a free HS are typically used for brawl/kite fits anyway, to which they don't need the addl range. If CCP wishes to factor this in, then give some more missile boats utility highs. Why everybody want range on missiles? They need time to hit target, the bigger the longer. Delayed damage is huge problem, why eveybody using sentries? Range will push missiles into auxilla dps hulls. This is not straight: I lose some tank but gain some range. They started balance from a** side. They need to differ missiles range / launchers/ ammo. Then introduce new modules, maybe even prenerfed. Then tweaking them. "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 318	Posted - 2015.07.23 12:24:39 - [14] - Quote Tiberius Heth wrote: Unguided missiles are doing fine atm. and maybe it's time to remove guided-unguided names because they are both guided for short/long range. There are no unguided missiles in this game (bombs maybe). Lloyd Roses wrote: Fighting a turretboat in a sabre, I can get under the guns most of the time. Fighting a HML boat, I just can't. He's not dumb, so he loads precisions and even when you're in a small vessel they do hurt. A lot. Significantly more than the cruiser with OP turrets that just can't apply any damage. and I have problems to kill astero with my drake (precisions, full flight of drones in blackhole) What does that prove? Astero is OP or Sabre has weak tank? Depends on fit I guess. Maybe we need different approach here, which hulls would be OP if modules hit TQ without nerfs? "-What are you doing?" "-Docking."(...) -"It's not possible" -"No, it's necessary."

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.