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)
Mario Putzo 1434	Posted - 2015.06.19 16:16:03 - [1] - Quote HMs do not need a direct damage increase. They need you to revert the 12% reduction in explosion radius done in 2012 sometime. Thats it. Presently even with application mods in Rigs, HMs are losing nearly 40% of their DPS in application vs Turrets who lose only around 30% (arties 35%) using only 1 Tracking Comp + Tracking Speed. Just remove the explosion radius change, so HMs can hit similar application numbers. Their peak DPS and Alpha are fine.
Mario Putzo 1434	Posted - 2015.06.19 16:59:42 - [2] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: HMs do not need a direct damage increase. They need you to revert the 12% reduction in explosion radius done in 2012 sometime. Thats it. Presently even with application mods in Rigs, HMs are losing nearly 40% of their DPS in application vs Turrets who lose only around 30% (arties 35%) using only 1 Tracking Comp + Tracking Speed. Just remove the explosion radius change, so HMs can hit similar application numbers. Their peak DPS and Alpha are fine. The new application modules will specifically help address this issue, as long as you are willing to fit at least one. Sure they do, but it still leaves a fitting gap. HMs are so bad in application that you still lose 40% of your damage when you cram your rig slots full of Rigors and Flares. So the new Guidance Comp lets you move 3 Rigs into 1 mid to hit the same 40%. Turret ships are still sitting at ~30% application with a lone TC. To hit this similar number you still need to dedicated 2 more slots to application (low or rig) or consume another mid slot with a second GC. Reverting the 12% reduction to explosion radius translates into about an 8% increase in applied DPS. This means using 1GC (or 3 Rigs, or any combination there of) puts HMs at 32-33% Damage loss, which is right around par with the turret ships who also only need use 1 application mod. (all numbers vs AB caracal.) I extensively discussed this some time ago using all kinds of fancy damage graphs and math, im not going to be assed to look for the thread though. More over 5% increase to raw damage on HMs is only going to step on the toes of Arties in terms of Alpha damage, it really is a nonsensical change, and in fact makes Arties more or less redundant in usage simply because of the range coverage of missiles vs that of arties, not to mention selectable damage type, and the fact you can now increase missile velocity to have your alpha strike apply much faster than today.
Mario Putzo 1434	Posted - 2015.06.19 17:16:40 - [3] - Quote Leonardo Adami wrote: Wtf us wrong this community !?!?!? CCP finally decides to give missiles some love and most of y'all just wanna whine and b*tch about everything or cry for more...this is eve htfu and stop with all the qq. Oh and while you're at it how about Thank You CCP. Thanks CCP for Power Creep! 6 months from now when they have to buff medium arty damage because they decided a 5% increase to HMs was a good idea you can come back an +1 this post. HMs do not need a raw damage bonus. They need the 12% reduction to explosion radius redacted.
Mario Putzo 1437	Posted - 2015.06.25 13:38:29 - [4] - Quote I still believe redeacting the changes made to Heavy Missile explosion radius is better than adding a flat 5% to base missile damage. This is only going to step on the toes of Medium Arties. HMs do not need higher Alpha, they need better application resulting in more reliable DPS. Redact that change + new modules and suddenly you have 4 mid sized weapon systems ALL sitting around the same % of DPS being applied. Please stop pushing damage levels higher and higher and calling it ~balance~. (drones still be comfortably ahead in terms of effective range and applied DPS though, but drones are ****** anyway across the board.) Say no to power creep.
Mario Putzo 1438	Posted - 2015.06.25 16:25:55 - [5] - Quote Deacon Abox wrote: afkalt wrote: Deacon Abox wrote: Poranius Fisc wrote: Hanazava Karyna wrote: Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. It's called ECM Which is not missile specific. What don't you get? He didn't say missile specific /pendant Besides, if missiles get TD, guns should be smartbomb-able. I mean if we're making them all the same and fair and equal ;) Firewalling missiles with smarties is being made more difficult, all the way to possibly so difficult that it is done away with. Are you not following all the changes that are being made? Not really true. Firewalling will still exist, and you can use it as a defensive advantage by using Smartbombs "force" missile chuckers into using the matching damage type...to which you fit your tanks to super tank against that type. Added HP will help missiles make it through, but you are still going to mitigate a lot of DPS.
Mario Putzo 1439	Posted - 2015.06.26 14:33:50 - [6] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Small update for you on the new modules. First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build. Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer). I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out. Thanks for all the feedback so far! Nice, So instead of needing only 3 application mods to match applied DPS from turrets using 1 Tracking Computer I only need 4 when using heavy missiles against an AB cruiser. Pretty much right back where we are currently using all three rig slots for application purposes. Even more reason to change that 5% HM damage change to redaction of the 12% Explosion Radius change you made 2 years ago.
Mario Putzo 1442	Posted - 2015.06.26 16:57:01 - [7] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: Soldarius wrote: stoicfaux wrote: Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly... That's a really interesting concept. Faction Missile Guidance mods would obviously come from Caldari Navy, and as you say perhaps Mordu's Legion as well. And the Minmatar versions would use the SKIN system to have the missile impacts leave rust splotches on the enemy hulls. Paintball in space?
Mario Putzo 1442	Posted - 2015.06.26 17:31:01 - [8] - Quote afkalt wrote: So basically they're pointless for application now. Le Sigh. You shouldn't be shocked. After all this is the balance team who has spent 3 years now attempting to balance drones as a weapon system...yet steadfastly refuse to take the most obvious step in doing so (match them to size appropriate hulls). The same folks who nerfed Heavy Missiles into obscurity because ONE ship that used them was heavily popular, not because it used missiles, but because it was cheap as ** to replace when lost. The same balance crew who have created a glaring gap in intership size balance by making Cruisers essentially the end all be all of cost efficient fleet setups, the same team who claim to be wary of "Power Creep" yet at every turn continue to facilitate changes based on creeping power. Truth be told, Missiles for the most part don't even need these modules, they would be nice to have so you could make a choice, use a rig slot, or use a mid slot, or use a low slot. But in terms of necessity the only actual change missiles need is reverting the Explosion Radius change made to heavy missiles. When Cruise Missiles can hit Cruisers for nearly the same applied % Damage as Heavy Missiles, it doesn't take a degree in mathematics to recognize the issue. Funny thing (ha ha). Missiles Cruisers using HMLs are the best counter to Cruiser Drone Boats fielding sentries. Or they would be if Heavy Missiles weren't **. Is there a place we can petition Seagull to find new balance team?
Mario Putzo 1444	Posted - 2015.06.26 17:58:08 - [9] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Hello Small update for you on the new modules. First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build. Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer). I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out. Thanks for all the feedback so far! Nice, So instead of needing only 3 application mods to match applied DPS % from turrets using 1 Tracking Computer I only need 4 when using heavy missiles against an AB cruiser. Pretty much right back where we are currently using all three rig slots for application purposes. Even more reason to change that 5% HM damage change to redaction of the 12% Explosion Radius change you made 3 years ago. Lets not also forget Turrets have more raw DPS , Turrets apply damage instantly, and turrets can not be blapped off grid losing 100% of damage. Will missiles be getting this as well? Since everything needs to be uniform? Sorry but your statement is flawed, if it is intentional or now, I cannot say. But you cannot say that missiles need X to match turrets against a cruiser. At WHAT RANGE? At long range the turrets indeed have a MUCH easier time to hit an AB cruiser, but at point blank range the missiles are FAR FAR superior (both are not great but missiles at least do SOME damage while turrets simply miss everything). When you compare turrets and missiles you need to state the complete engagement envelope. Inside 10KM missile win, unless webs are applied, at which point that drops to inside 5KM, Above 10KM Turrets win all the way out to max range. This is true across all Long Range Turrets, with their only draw back being at that point changing ammo to adjust for range. A couple months back i provided numerous examples, graphs, math in a missile discussion thread comparing Heavy Missiles to Long Range Turrets of all types it is no contest, feel free to check through my post history to locate that thread. Average DPS loss for turrets through application vs AB Cruiser (At worst possible Transversal) = ~30% for Beams and Rails, 35% for Arty, and 44% for Heavy missiles, using 3x Rigs for Missiles, and 1 TC+TS for Turrets. (and Drone Boats crush them all in terms of Range, Application, Peak DPS)
Mario Putzo 1458	Posted - 2015.06.27 07:15:04 - [10] - Quote The main problem is you are putting all these bonuses on 1 module. Effectively increasing your Explosion Radius and Explosion Velocity is a 2 for 1. TCs Optimal or Tracking Speed. a 1 for 1. It should be Explosion Radius and Missile Velocity Why these. Explosion Radius is essentially optimal range. If a signature is snakker than then explosion radius it will not take full damage due to how the "spheres" fit together, if a ship is smaller than the explosion radius it does not receive full damage because the explosion passes it in a smaller area. If the Radius is smaller the explosion is more concentrated thus "hitting" the signature for more effective damage. Missile Velocity is chosen simply because it cuts down on the longevity of applying DPS, faster it flies the quicker it gets there. This limits ships ability to effective kite missiles in a longer range orbit since speeds should exceed capabilities of ship speeds. Meaning the range is a "true" range and not one that will shrink if another ship can kit the speed long enough. Midslots 8%/9%/10% Scripts 100% to Explosion Radius 100% to Missile Velocity These numbers effectively represent the use of 1.5 Rig Slots (with 1 script) Represnting a Combo of 100% Application Rig, and 50% Range rig (or vice versa). Low Slots should be 10/11/12 Representing roughly 1.2 effective rig slots This allows for near seamless optioning between 1 mid or 1 low or 1 rig with 1 med being weighted slightly higher than other due to fitting, it being an active module, it taking up a mid slot (most missile ships are shielded) And of course secondarily Do not add 5% to heavy missile damage, this will only step on the toes of Arties. Again as ive been stating for a long time, revert the +12% explosion radius change to heavy missiles, this is really all you need to do for heavy missiles.
Mario Putzo 1458	Posted - 2015.06.27 15:34:53 - [11] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: Here's something to lighten the mood: Gunship Pr0n! Oooo I hope they do the Bismark next.
Mario Putzo 1458	Posted - 2015.06.27 18:20:20 - [12] - Quote Thats a lot of math to arrive at the conclusion that using 3 of the same mod under stacking penalties is going to afford less of a benefit than using 3 mods without a stacking penalty, and that mixing mods under a stacking penalty won't suffer as much as a hit compared to doing the same mixed mods without a stacking penalty... There are 2 things that need to happen here. 1) Are the new modules effectively offering a comparable alternative to current Rig options. That answer is a resounding no with adjusted numbers. 2) Are the new modules effectively allowing Missile boats to hit similar application values as Turrets for the same fitting cost. That answer is and always has been a resounding no. To solve 1: The combined benefit of new module bonuses must be equal to or greater than the benefit provided by a single rig slot. This can be done 1 of 2 ways, Create one module for Range Boosting, 1 module for Application boosting, or split the values to apply Explosion Velocity OR Explosion Radius AND Missile Flight Time OR Missile Velocity. Effectively representing 2 Rigs slots, but at halved value (from the proposal) To solve 2: The valuation of bonuses needs to be higher so Missiles ships are required to fit the same number of modules for the same effect OR The base valuations of missiles themselves need to be adjusted to facilitate the use of less overall modules needed to achieve the same effect. Why do this for 1: If Mid slot and Low Slot options are not effectively comparable to rig slots, then it is quite obvious they will not be used, they are inferior to bonus, and there are simply better alternatives to use in these slots comparatively. Why do this for 2: Missile ships should not need 3-4 modules to effectively represent the same application compared to Turret options which amount to 1TC+Script. It is simple functionality in what world would anyone choose to use a missile boat over a turret boat, when they need to dedicate more fitting slots to achieve the same application. These modules will be very nice to have assuming they are implemented correctly. The 2 goals in this should be. 1) Provide modules that facilitate options for fitting 2) Increase missile application to a comparable level of Turrets. If you can not make those things happen collectively. Then there is no reason to create these modules.
Mario Putzo 1458	Posted - 2015.06.27 18:49:08 - [13] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: Kadesh Priestess wrote: numbers/waffling/more numbers Rigors and Flares are not stacking penalized now, and people are still not using whole classes of missiles. There was no need to go to all that trouble because you will never convince anyone that it's worth sacrificing a slew of mids for a tiny bit more range/application when you can get similar results with rigs. At this stage all we need to know is: 1) Will rigors and flares be stacking penalized? 2) Will rigors and flares also be stacking penalized with the new modules? If the answer to these two questions are yes then Missiles got nerfed again, there is no debate. Which makes me laugh because CCP still can't figure out drones, and the number 1 counter to drone boats is missile boats...
Mario Putzo 1458	Posted - 2015.06.27 18:57:39 - [14] - Quote Kadesh Priestess wrote: By the way, i'm curious, what are 'real' pvp situations you talked about, where 3rd rigor matters more than t2 flare? Pretty much all of them since Flares have no relative impact in situations where a targets speed is lower than the MVF, or the Sig is larger than the explosion radius both scenarios in which Rigors have a heavier weight in determining overall outcome. Even with stacking penalties 3x Rigor will have more universal damage application than 2 and 1 Flare. Because...EVE is not a vacuum and math like you did is mostly irrelevant in terms of overall usage.
Mario Putzo 1459	Posted - 2015.06.27 19:16:19 - [15] - Quote Kadesh Priestess wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Kadesh Priestess wrote: By the way, i'm curious, what are 'real' pvp situations you talked about, where 3rd rigor matters more than t2 flare? Pretty much all of them since Flares have no relative impact in situations where a targets speed is lower than the MVF, or the Sig is larger than the explosion radius both scenarios in which Rigors have a heavier weight in determining overall outcome. Even with stacking penalties 3x Rigor will have more universal damage application than 2 and 1 Flare. Because...EVE is not a vacuum and math like you did is mostly irrelevant in terms of overall usage. Well, i just wanted to have couple of such specific realistic examples to confirm that you're right. Not generic words 'all of them'. Any situation where you are shooting missiles at another ship. Explosion Radius is counted in both aspects of the missile damage calculation, Explosion Velocity is not. You can not account for everything, so it is best to be prepared for anything. Who knows maybe some Newbro Group will third party in a pile of Webbing Frigs and poof, your Flares are a wasted module.
Mario Putzo 1459	Posted - 2015.06.27 19:25:25 - [16] - Quote Kadesh Priestess wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Any situation where you are shooting missiles at another ship. Explosion Radius is counted in both aspects of the missile damage calculation, Explosion Velocity is not. Sorry, but with such level of argumentation (when you ignore the fact that strengths of bonuses are different) i don't think there's any point to continue this discussion. o7 Not sure how i ignored the fact the bonuses are different, Flares only apply to the speed variable of the equation. Rigors apply to the Sig variable, and the speed variable. Assuming you have no webs and no painters you get a 2% increase to application against like sized targets. If you are running a missile fleet without any webs or painters...well im not sure what to say to that but cherry picking situations and looking at stuff in a vacuum is cool for some folks I guess. o7
Mario Putzo 1459	Posted - 2015.06.27 19:59:20 - [17] - Quote Kasia en Tilavine wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: Kadesh Priestess wrote: o7 o7 If i may point out that you vehemently ask everyone to consider things in practice rather than just the raw math of it, then you say that 3 rigors are better than 2 rigors and a flare because "you will have tackle, therefore speed isn't a concern". Im sorry if that is what you got from what I said, but it isn't what I said. What I said was Rigors will ALWAYS be applicable in all cases of the missile equation, Flares WILL NOT. Therefore when you click that undock button Rigors are statistically the best option to have because they will ALWAYS have an impact. Sure Math wise you can say 2+1 offers a bit more application in certain situations, but at the same time in other situations they do nothing for you at all and are effectively a "wasted" module slot. Unless you tote around rigs in your cargo hold to swap in and out depending on an engagement situation fitting straight Rigors will always be the better option because they apply to all sizes of ships, tackled or not tackled, painted or not painted.
Mario Putzo 1460	Posted - 2015.06.29 15:58:31 - [18] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Kadesh Priestess wrote: Soldarius wrote: There is precedent to this value. 2 missile dps rigs (1 each of Bay Loading Accelerator and Warhead Calefaction Catalyst), give the same dps increase as a single Ballistic Control System II. Guess what that value is? 15% per rig. t1 rigs are 10% and you can't fit 2 t2. Also 2 t2 would be much stronger than single BCS. 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 is correct, you should be getting a combined effect that represents one full rig, with the additional .5 of a rig being the benefit for using "fitting" room (CPU). However i would take it one step further and actually just remove the Range benefit entirely to a second module. To me it seems like an unneeded adjustment for 1, and is probably the reason these modules look wonky numbers wise compared to TC's and TE's. This would give us 1 module type with the following. 7.5% ER and 7.5% EV Scripted either 15% ER and 7.5% EV (100% increase to ER script) 7.5% ER and 15% EV (100% increase to EV script) This allows a player to option between the 2 application variables depending on the nature of the engagement. Is the target being measured in the Sig/ER calculation, use the ER script Is the target being measured in the Speed/EV calculation, use the EV script. This functions much more closely to TCs and TEs. In the sense ER is your Missiles Optimal Range, the smaller the better - The smaller the explosion radius the more likely a target is going to be hit by the "shockwave" caused by the missile compared to TC the larger your optimal range, the more likely you are to score a hit vs a target EV is your Missiles Tracking Speed. the larger the better - The faster the "shockwave" moves the more likely a target is going to take damage inside the radius. compared to TC the faster your tracking speed the more likely you are to score a more direct hit vs a target. The other module of course would be for missile range. 7.5% Flight Time + 7.5% Velocity 15% Flight Time + 7.5% Velocity (100% flight time) 7.5% Flight Time + 15% Velocity (100% Velocity). Granted in almost all situations people would just use 100% Velocity Scripts because you net the same benefit, and your missiles move faster. Which makes scripting kind of ineffective because there isn't a single time when Flight time would be better...Unless of course CCP also added in Missile Guidance Disruption, that cause missiles to get "lost" on route to a target thus reducing flight time, and making increasing of flight time more desired than increasing speed depending on the situation. Other options for disrupting the applied damage from missiles already exist, they are of course called After Burners Skirmish Fleet Boosts and Halo implants. But thats probably a discussion for another day.
Mario Putzo 1460	Posted - 2015.06.29 16:22:29 - [19] - Quote =( Don't change my Naga!
Mario Putzo 1465	Posted - 2015.07.01 05:55:06 - [20] - Quote GreyGryphon wrote: The problem with changing missile stats is that their effectiveness against intended targets and unintended targets is closely related. There is also little difference between explosion radius or explosion velocity outside of shooting much smaller targets. I don't have room to explain why here, but I have tried to explain this in my forum post on the missile damage equation. Not in all cases the DRF and MVF keep things in check. Frigates take a pile less damage than cruisers in most cases and ER is a stat you can play with for the most part. VS Heavy Missiles (Frig v Cruiser) Sig difference ~83% smaller Speed difference 73% Faster Roughly 62 % less damage received Now this of course ONLY applies to ER and EV factors. a 5% increase to damage is a flat 5% increase no matter what size you are or how fast you are moving. Another stat that will always result in more damage is adding explosion velocity, increasing EV by 5% will increase damage by 5% on anything that checks with EV. Explosion Radius however will not increase everything by 5%. because ER is check with EV in 1 of 2 equations its value can be freely adjusted with minimal consequence on smaller objects. For example with the above, reducing heavy missiles from 140 m> 125m will result in about 9% more applied damage vs cruisers, it only results in ~3.4% more damage against frigates. It will have either no impact or minimal impact on BC or BS depending on the target and their sig and speed. This means CCP can tweak damage application to a desired point vs Cruisers, while having a minimal impact on Frigates/Dessie or anything above it. At least less then their proposed 5% flat increase to damage. Which is why reverting the change to Heavy Missile Explosion Radius > Adding 5% to Damage. In addition of course to stepping on toes of medium arty. 5% damage is 5% damage, a change to ER still is dependent on your relative size, and your relative speed.
Mario Putzo 1467	Posted - 2015.07.01 18:19:35 - [21] - Quote I have faith that this is just part of an engineered meta shift to Minmatar. Nerfs to DDAs, Nerfs to Missiles. Its all just a ruse...get ready to go.. V E R T I C A L Good play CCP. In Rust we Trust.
Mario Putzo 1470	Posted - 2015.07.03 15:17:42 - [22] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Okay everyone so officially, for the record, application rig bonuses will be stacking penalized with both each other and with the new application modules. I'm sorry I couldn't get that made clearer sooner, and I was hoping it would be in the patch notes. Missiles must have been OP for CCP to decide to nerf them again.
Mario Putzo 1470	Posted - 2015.07.03 15:24:19 - [23] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: Chance Ravinne wrote: Okay everyone so officially, for the record, application rig bonuses will be stacking penalized with both each other and with the new application modules. I'm sorry I couldn't get that made clearer sooner, and I was hoping it would be in the patch notes. so, if you didn't want to suffer poor application and fit more than one application rig; you now have to sacrifice a low or mid slot in order to get the same application stats you have now? Less actually, since the mids and rigs are stacked against each other, and the fact these new mods do not represent the same application value rigs have, basically you get nothing out of using the new mods.
Mario Putzo 1471	Posted - 2015.07.03 16:36:51 - [24] - Quote Soldarius wrote: This thread went the same as the Recon thread. What do ya mean by that. Heavy Missiles are getting a net 1% damage increase from where we are today. You should be thankful.
Mario Putzo 1474	Posted - 2015.07.04 23:01:56 - [25] - Quote Sierra Spurgeon wrote: i would think this is a good time to fix defender missiles a bit. the e-war for missiles is missiles They can't even do regular missiles right. CCP: Hey guys missiles suck so we going to provide some options to make them better with these changes. Most of EVE: Right on awesome! now I only need 2 modules to match the effective % damage application as Turrets + TC OneGuy(probably): But DRAEKS!!!1111one! AND TURETS! CCP: DID HE SAY DRAEKS!!!1111one! AND TURETS! CCP: Based on feedback we have decided to make all missiles worse than they are today... Most of EVE: Um what, why? so now i need to use 4 slots to match a TC? CCP: Was AFK. Most of EVE: Here is a bunch of math that shows your change is stupid and is a net nerf to all missile users. CCP: Has left the conversation. CSM: Confirming missiles suck...more.
Mario Putzo 1478	Posted - 2015.07.05 18:55:26 - [26] - Quote Best thing they could do is change ECM to a scripted module that does Script A) By jamming the guidance system of missiles they do not take the optimal path to a target -x% flight time from missiles thus reduced range Script B) By jamming the host ships sensor network the control range of drones is decreased -x% drone control range. ECM Burst modules will remain as target breakers. But thats a topic for a different discussion i think. Still waiting on CCP to let us know the details behind why Missile enhancement mods need to be the same as Turret enhancing mods, when the systems do not function the same, and Turrets are already well ahead in application as is. Not that I expect any correspondence 2 days ahead of the patch.
Mario Putzo 1478	Posted - 2015.07.05 19:03:17 - [27] - Quote Markos Cerrilus wrote: And if you can script those missiles for increased velocity on a cerb you wouldn't? Thats why they can't balance these modules properly. The missile RANGE increase has nothing to do with application calculation. Rise claims to want to mirror the bonuses from TC's but Optimal Range on TC's directly impacts application, they are not the same thing. IMO the flight time/velocity portion shouldn't even exist, since it is contrary to what an application module is intended for. If anything it should be a second module entirely because it has 0 impact on application values.
Mario Putzo 1478	Posted - 2015.07.05 21:02:46 - [28] - Quote Just an hourly (or so) reminder these changes suck. What does it mean to you. As a shield missile ship in order to keep the same application you get from rigs today, you must choose. Less DPS, or Less tank. This is not only about application, this is a direct impact on all shield missile ships. Or you must sacrifice further any utility slots all ready marginalized by limited slots due to shield tanking. Less Tank + Same Application Less Gank + Same Application Less Utility + Same Application Is this ultimately necessary? Where is the abort button?
Mario Putzo 1482	Posted - 2015.07.06 20:33:52 - [29] - Quote SirSoda Dominic wrote: Hanazava Karyna wrote: Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. smart bombs Will be much less effective moving forward with HP values on Missiles increasing and them receiving resistances based on their type of damage. Still work, but you will need to be much more coordinated and hope you bring enough variants in damage type to skirt the resistances of incoming missiles. That being said you can always use Smartbombs to entice the missile chucker into using that type (IE EM Smartbomb = EM missile to resist damage) then over tank to that resist (IE Over tank EM damage). But Damps, ECM, Defenders (can be ok if you don't use them like a ****.) ph and of course a simple AB will mitigate something crazy awesome like 40% of missile damage on its own, don't get webbed!
Mario Putzo 1494	Posted - 2015.07.07 19:37:53 - [30] - Quote Post nerf nerf? No more missile flight time or am I missing something? LOOOL. Get yer **** together CCP. But because I like repeating myself. Drop the Missile Range Bonus, it is not equatable to Optimal Range. Actually you know what. Invite me to Iceland for the weekend, and I will balance these mods Saturday morning, and you can buy me steak Saturday night.
Mario Putzo 1496	Posted - 2015.07.09 20:23:55 - [31] - Quote Application bonus is kind of lack luster...I think that it should scale from 8% T1 > 10%T2. The range bonus is solid, maybe even a bit to strong, time will tell but I can for see some interesting "brawling" missile ships with Javelins out to 44KM+ (depending if you have native range bonus or not). Anyhow, its obvious why these were pre-nerfed. Having the increase to absolute range attached to application modding is pretty ********. (Oh and PSA for yall...Heavy Missiles still suck.)
Mario Putzo 1501	Posted - 2015.07.11 19:52:13 - [32] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Telinchei wrote: Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves... You seem to be the first. NOBODY ELSE IS. For missile range, they rock....sadly the problems with missiles were never about range.
Mario Putzo 1504	Posted - 2015.07.30 01:29:07 - [33] - Quote https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f38ok/major_bug_with_missile_volleys_completely/ how about we fix this too. not only do missiles deal less damage against like sized targets straight up than turrets...they also have worse accuracy despite "apparently" hitting 100% of the time...about that. Quote: Situation: Orthrus has 55km optimal (in-game). Target is sitting at 47km from the orthrus. Both ships are at 0.0 m/s not moving. Orthrus dumps its 20 missile volleys into the target. Typhoon takes 11 hits. Logs from both sides confirms only 11 hits have been taken.

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.