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 [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1480	Posted - 2015.06.27 08:38:38 - [391] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: So... anyone else fail to see why you'd run the newly nerfed mods over a target painter? I sure can't. The only time I can see them as worthwhile is if you already have TPs provided to your gank so the module ends up being better after the stacking penalty stacks too high on TPs. Thing is, unless you're shooting like...fury cruise at frigates, the sig bloom by the time the stacking hurts is almost iirelevent. Unless I miss my guess, it is early. Plus extra painters offers offer contingency against losses. I'm genuinely staggered, staggered that the reason is "They give a bigger percentage bonus on the mod than the turret equivalent" as if the systems are in any way whatsoever comparable like that. To even have that mindset, the very notion that such a comparison is valid blows my mind. Surgical strike is 50% more effective than warhead upgrades, by this "logic" should that be buffed too? Rapid firing vs rapid launch is 33% stronger....So when can we expect rises here, I mean if turrets and missiles are somehow to be compared like for like? Of course not, because this notion is ludicrous, so why in gods name are you using that logic for the new mods?
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 568	Posted - 2015.06.27 09:08:55 - [392] - 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.
Gregor Parud Ordo Ardish 1408	Posted - 2015.06.27 09:13:58 - [393] - Quote Armour Torp Typhoon with a row of MGC and painters is going to be scary.
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 393	Posted - 2015.06.27 09:16:37 - [394] - Quote Gregor Parud wrote: Armour Torp Typhoon with a row of MGC and painters is going to be scary. Not so much with the new stats and stacking penalties. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2476	Posted - 2015.06.27 09:29:21 - [395] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: So I've been trying to keep stacking penalties in the discussion as much as possible when it comes to these modules, since it seemed ambiguous at first how they'd apply, especially considering that currently missile rigs are exempt from these penalties. I was hoping that a lack of stacking penalties wouldn't make the modules too overpowered, especially for the ganky crap I pull off, but also that stacking wouldn't be so oppressive that people would be forced to use the new modules just to stay in the same place as before. Seeing both stacking penalties AND stat decreases at once seems like a very big swing. Having one or the other may have left more fitting options open -- but having both nerfs will render current application fits less powerful and force new fits to dedicate more slots to their cause. In shorthand: New powerful mods + new stacking penalties: Good New nerfed mods + old non-penalized stacking: Good New powerful mods + old non-penalized stacking: Overpowered New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered With no due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. I base this on the fact you fit your bombers with ISK, not sense, have demonstrated absolutely zero workin in the above "analysis" and are generally more concerned with tawdry self-aggrandisement than keeping stackin penalties in the discussion. Really, bombers with 'application' fits aren't going to benefit much from even very powerful MGC's or MGE's. This is because bombers either kill things or do not. There is no solo or fleet option where anything except massed EWAR (read: damps) and massed DPS actually does anything. it's an ambush ship, and in your case, you ambush haulers, so any ideas you have around whether torpedoes are balanced now or could become unbalanced with these modules is entirely irrelevant. The real discussion being had by real adults is centred around ships like the Orthrus, Cerberus, Caracal and Sacs, Prohpecies, Cyclones (the real HAM boats), or Typhoons. This is because, MGC/MGE's or not, you are either fitting these modules to go with long-rane HML kite fits (Orthrus, Cerb, Caracal) or HAM boats (All the above, but now include Sac and Cyclone) or you stretch up to Typhoons, which is one of the only boats which has the CPU and midslots spare to begin abusing these. The real complain with the new, nerfed modules is that they will be useless. No. They will just not be worthwhile. I haven't read anywhere that the current missile performance will be nerfed before introducing the MGC/MGE, thus requiring these modules to pull it back up. Secondly, if the rigor rigs and flare catalyst rigs are stacking penalised with the MGC/MGE, this also does not actually nerf missiles. It just means that you can't take what you have now, strip out tank or gank, and get uber application fits. So you get stackin penalties? Big deal. it's just like BCU's and bay loading rigs, which cost you CPU. Or, you can sit down in PYFA or EFT, and maybe remove the rior rigs and replace them with something else by virtue of having an MGC or MGE. Maybe it works out better to have tank in your rigs vs stackin penalised invuls, which you've replaced with an MGC. I don't know. But unless people show examples, then simplistic crap like the above doesn't do anything for the debate around balance. it just puts an opinion on the table. - - - - For anyone not crippled in the logic department, say CCP Rise, who is reading this far down the balance discussion, here's my concerns. 1) Wolf-Rayets. What crazy crack pipe is TF smoking? The RLML Cerb crack pipe, where RLML fits in Wolf Rayet wormholes look like: 6 x RLML MWD 3 x MGC's SeBo's 3 x BCU 1 x MGE Bay Thruster rig T2 Calefaction C6 Wolf Rayet you will be getting 1621 DPS, with no need for a tank, you're shooting at 140km with perfect precision! 2) Black Holes C4 Black Hole (cause no one lives C5-C6 much) Cruise Phoons packing 2 MGC's and 2 MGE's. Riht now you get 152m explosion radius and 223m/s explosion velocity. With those EWAR mods on, and 3 rigor rigs you'll get that down to 120m / 275m/s. That's....light missile territory, with 688 DPS cruise missiles (200km range) on a battleship. Not bad, you have to admit, but getting a bit broken. Let alone a shield Barghest with souped up lows and rigs. Right now C4 BH it's 29km/s velocity. With MGE's you''ll top 32km/s, and better than 230m radius, 200m/s explosion velocity. But, finally, the Torp Cavalry Raven is back on the cards!!!1! Fully tricked out, you can et the torp Raven in a C4 BH to HML-levels of application, without going over the top. All you need, really, are webs, and you've suddenly got 1200 DPS out to 70km with pretty much decent application vs cruisers. Arguably it's what the Raven needs, but we're talking torp Ravens. I remain to be convinced that we need these modules AT ALL, given the above edge cases. Sure, it's not like C6 W-R Cerbs will blot out the sun in nullsec (least until you make the supercarriers into the hypothesised broadcasters of system effects....pls do this, it would be awesome) but W-R fighting is already basically who can bring a bunch of RLML damping ships to the hole first, very boring and lame game play. So, please at least run these through your calculators, CCP Rise, and consider whether it's a good idea. Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Kalen Pavle Quam Singulari Triumvirate. 37	Posted - 2015.06.27 09:42:57 - [396] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: /snip Wormhole bonuses are not relevant to balance. They are pretty much all broken. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get missiles balanced for CCP is to remove one half of the missile application formula. Either make us fit to counter speed or make us fit to counter their signature radius. CCP is obviously not capable of making a missile system that has to fight against both sig and speed in order to apply damage.
Kadesh Priestess This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep 471	Posted - 2015.06.27 09:57:04 - [397] - Quote probag Bear wrote: Alexis Nightwish wrote: CCP thinks it's fine to nerf something as long as there are modules/rigs that will get you back up to where you were before the nerf. Ignore the part where you have to sacrifice something else in your fit to obtain what you had. If this speculation is true, and rigs are being stacking penalized, It will be mathematically impossible to ever get missile application bonuses as high as those currently achievable on TQ Currently: 2 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst II + 1 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst I give -45.6% explosion radius. As proposed: 2 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst II + 1 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst I + 6 tracking scripted Missile Guidance Computer II would give -43.4% explosion radius Wingspan is being generous when he says "New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered". Application bonuses are not only explosion radius. 2 t2 rigors, 1 t1 rigor on tq: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.15) = +83.8% application 2 MGCs scripted for accuracy: (1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87) = +75.9% 2 MGCs and single t2 rigor: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)+ù(1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +104% 3 MGCs: (1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.57)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +108.8% Thus, 2 MGCs with additional rig/mgc already exceed old rigor spam values. Mario Putzo wrote: 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. I wish CCP did separate damage mods, +20% damage and +20% rof instead of current mix 10/10.5 on a single module.
Elyia Suze Nagala Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2015.06.27 10:34:56 - [398] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: We would have liked to include disruption modules to go along with these enhancement modules but there are actually some technical hurdles we need to figure out and we didn't want to keep holding back on adding these in the mean time. Look for those sometime in the future. Let us know what you think! Disruptor? What it this madness? You don't need disruptors, you need to make Defender Missiles worth a damn to use. Seriously, they are like the least utilized weapon in the game.
Elyia Suze Nagala Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2015.06.27 10:44:09 - [399] - Quote ....either that or racial AAA Guns.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1481	Posted - 2015.06.27 10:45:55 - [400] - Quote You seem to be forgetting all the ships go faster in a BH, which will mitigate the damage.

Ylein Kashuken SQUIDS. 0	Posted - 2015.06.27 11:03:03 - [401] - Quote I have to ask why do you want to make ewar mods against missiles when we have ways already. It's called ecm and damps. Missiles have worse dmg application from all possible weapon types, they are easy to mitigate by speed and sig tanking. Needs many many seconds to actually hit target so why making some mods that will reduce their range or make bigger explosion radius. I'm light missile user in FW and rail guns with insta dmg are just better in every way. Usually it takes 6-7 second for my missiles to hit target and enemy does 3-4 rail weapon cycles in that time, dealing more dmg to me than I do to him with 1 volley! If you want to implement some missile distributors then you should look at missile dmg formula and do complete overhaul, maybe add area dmg again so we can have some reason to use missiles. Because as I say, one AB frigate will mitigate huge chunk of LM dps and I cannot imagine how this will look like when enemy has some way how to manipulate my missile stats like explosion radius or velocity.
Zekora Rally Negative Density Whatever. 19	Posted - 2015.06.27 11:55:24 - [402] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: For anyone not crippled in the logic department, say CCP Rise, who is reading this far down the balance discussion, here's my concerns. 1) Wolf-Rayets. What crazy crack pipe is TF smoking? The RLML Cerb crack pipe, where RLML fits in Wolf Rayet wormholes look like: 6 x RLML MWD 3 x MGC's SeBo's 3 x BCU 1 x MGE Bay Thruster rig T2 Calefaction C6 Wolf Rayet you will be getting 1621 DPS, with no need for a tank, you're shooting at 140km with perfect precision! 2) Black Holes C4 Black Hole (cause no one lives C5-C6 much) Cruise Phoons packing 2 MGC's and 2 MGE's. Riht now you get 152m explosion radius and 223m/s explosion velocity. With those EWAR mods on, and 3 rigor rigs you'll get that down to 120m / 275m/s. That's....light missile territory, with 688 DPS cruise missiles (200km range) on a battleship. Not bad, you have to admit, but getting a bit broken. Let alone a shield Barghest with souped up lows and rigs. Right now C4 BH it's 29km/s velocity. With MGE's you''ll top 32km/s, and better than 230m radius, 200m/s explosion velocity. But, finally, the Torp Cavalry Raven is back on the cards!!!1! Fully tricked out, you can et the torp Raven in a C4 BH to HML-levels of application, without going over the top. All you need, really, are webs, and you've suddenly got 1200 DPS out to 70km with pretty much decent application vs cruisers. Arguably it's what the Raven needs, but we're talking torp Ravens. I remain to be convinced that we need these modules AT ALL, given the above edge cases. Sure, it's not like C6 W-R Cerbs will blot out the sun in nullsec (least until you make the supercarriers into the hypothesised broadcasters of system effects....pls do this, it would be awesome) but W-R fighting is already basically who can bring a bunch of RLML damping ships to the hole first, very boring and lame game play. So, please at least run these through your calculators, CCP Rise, and consider whether it's a good idea. Every other ship is going to be moving almost twice as fast so it ends up balancing itself out. I'm a firm believer that If blackholes do indeed make a huge difference in missile damage application, more people would move in but a good 99% of them are still empty.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony 6	Posted - 2015.06.27 12:13:18 - [403] - Quote Kadesh Priestess wrote: 2 t2 rigors, 1 t1 rigor on tq: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.15) = +83.8% application 2 MGCs scripted for accuracy: (1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87) = +75.9% 2 MGCs and single t2 rigor: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)+ù(1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +104% 3 MGCs: (1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.57)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +108.8% Thus, 2 MGCs with additional rig/mgc already exceed old rigor spam values. But ....... 2 Guidance Computers? Then where does my tank go?? If I sacrifice 2 midslots I really don't want to slap on rigs as well. Oh and by the way, is anyone actually using "Precision" missiles? Because contrary to the advertisement on the package they are not very precise at all and ... well ... I don't like to resort to black/white thinking but Presicion Missiles = EPIC FAIL. They can't even hit or reach (range issues) the shipclass they're supposed to hit?!? Auto Targetting missiles? ROFL Defender Missiles? Worst spent 640 skillpoints ever. So basically, there's Faction and there's Fury. Not to mention locked in Kinetic in several cases. So, while you're at it ..... give the Precision some love? following this thread, it's pretty clear TP owns this new Guidance Computer. As for the Guidance Enhancers (lowslot), is there any benefit in using them over Ballistic Control Units? I am all in favour of low/midslots since I might finally be able to pick and choose a rig for my boat; but assuming we NEED at least two of those just to hit the shipsize the missile is designed for is somewhat skewed. If the bonusses are worth it, hell, why not-- but please do keep in mind we're not all flying these big ass fleetfights where the target is 5x Target Painted. I need my mids for tank and tackle; I need my lows for ... oh wait Caldari don't have lows (LOL) ... I guess what I'm trying to say is: I can spare one or two slots but I expect to feel a different flavour when I do. I was really looking forward to some new, SURPRISING Heavy Missile P*wnmobiles; the kind of vessel you cannot predict beforehand if it'll be HAMs, RLMLs or Heavies -- with the possibility of building a custom "Gotcha MoFo LoLLL" Torpedo boat that could hit Battlecruisers surprisingly well at uncharacteristic ranges... Options, options, options ..... not even released and already but a dream. A missed opportunity for new and exciting experiments. Someone else a couple of posts ago coined the idea of releasing somewhere between the first and the current stats, and I second that motion. Don't pre-nerf it. Let it roll off the assembly line and see what happens. Another 2 cents from yours truly (cents not stacking penalized :-)
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 307	Posted - 2015.06.27 12:20:59 - [404] - Quote Whew! Dodged a bullet there rise! Non-rapid launchers almost became viable, cant have that. Good thing you nerfed those application stats because missile and turret application already have parity right now, right? So obviously turret and missile mods need to be equal too. While you're at it i hope you made sure rigor and flare rigs now have stacking penalties when you added stacking penalties to the modules. But knowing these things, its probably going to be a cute little bug on the test server monday. Protip: when it happens just say it was intentional all along.
Kadesh Priestess This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep 471	Posted - 2015.06.27 12:51:22 - [405] - Quote Hakaari Inkuran wrote: While you're at it i hope you made sure rigor and flare rigs now have stacking penalties when you added stacking penalties to the modules. But knowing these things, its probably going to be a cute little bug on the test server monday. Protip: when it happens just say it was intentional all along. Due to how dogma works, it's impossible to have stacking penalties on regular modules and have them absent on rigs. Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Kadesh Priestess wrote: 2 t2 rigors, 1 t1 rigor on tq: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.15) = +83.8% application 2 MGCs scripted for accuracy: (1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87) = +75.9% 2 MGCs and single t2 rigor: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)+ù(1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +104% 3 MGCs: (1+0.15)++(1GêÆ0.15)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.15+ù0.57)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +108.8% Thus, 2 MGCs with additional rig/mgc already exceed old rigor spam values. But ....... 2 Guidance Computers? Then where does my tank go?? If I sacrifice 2 midslots I really don't want to slap on rigs as well. I wasn't doing balance conclusions. I just showed that dude had his math completely wrong. If doing balance conclusions, however, i think that application of most missile classes is good enough already. Rockets (hard tackle, often with web) HAMs (often because of hard tackle too) LMLs and RLMLs (application + range they provide is OP for frigs and antisupport ships) RHMLs on ships like barghests look good as well Especially if you consider promised link changes (which will make facing +20% velocity -34% sig linked ships less likely). Link nerf will be the biggest boost to missile application. There're few missile types which might be lacking: Torps (need more range imo, except for bombers) HMLs (need much better application, all other LR med weapons were boosted since HM tengus were popular) - but if they're boosted, it's important to double-check efficiency of RHML Cruise (they probably need just minor application improvement, but in their current form they are probably too okayish) If stats of guidance mods were kept the same - it would make good missiles look better, and worse missiles still would be bad. Thus i think balance tweaks to make HMs viable again need to be done specifically on heavy missiles and/or their launchers, not on modules which apply to all missile types. This is my personal opinion ofc, i'm not fan of "missiles should always apply 100%" like one dude said here. I would rather prefer LR turrets missing more often vs ships which are smaller than their gun class, rather than missiles getting perfect application vs frigs at 100km.
Inferno Bourbon ComCon Gaming Community Desman Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:06:48 - [406] - Quote So I log on to Sisi to see these new modules myself. And missile track comp(mid slot one) requires Gunnery skills. Really?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1482	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:11:31 - [407] - Quote It's weird. People keep saying cruise are ok, I've fought in every area of space and I've never even seen one launched.
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 307	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:13:58 - [408] - Quote Kadesh Priestess wrote: Due to how dogma works, it's impossible to have stacking penalties on regular modules and have them absent on rigs Hooray! So instead of three rigor rigs, i can put on three rigor rigs and a scripted mgc for 15% more exp velocity and like 3% better explosion radius. New meta guys break out the ravens! Full srp on me! But oh wait thats actually worse explosion radius because the rigs get hit with a penalty. Oh well good thing i have better exp velocity to make up for losing a mid slot, 35 cpu, and the exp radius hit. Rise, buff these modules again. Yeesh.
stoicfaux 6009	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:15:49 - [409] - Quote [blink]FFS, people! CCP Rise didn't say he was making Rigors/Flares stacking penalized. He said that the MGC/MGE modules on Sisi didn't have their attributes stacking penalized yet, and it would be corrected in the next Sisi build.[/blink] The modules will stack with each other. They will NOT stack with Rigors/Flares or implants or skills that affect explosion radius/velocity and flight time/speed. FYI, the MGC/MGE modules are NOT fully implemented on Sisi: * neither module shows the flight time bonus * they still show the pre-nerf values * the MGC Precision script modifies: "aoeCloudSizebonus", "aoeVelocityBonus", "explosionDelayBonus", and "missileVelocityBonus"... * the MGC II requires Trajectory Analysis which is a Gunnery skill... * and apparently, the attributes on the MGC/MGE aren't stacking penalized yet. /it's_like_the_35_second_reload_applies_to_people's_brains_as_well... Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1482	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:19:38 - [410] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: FYI, the MGC/MGE modules are NOT fully implemented on Sisi: * neither module shows the flight time bonus * they still show the pre-nerf values * the MGC Precision script modifies: "aoeCloudSizebonus", "aoeVelocityBonus", "explosionDelayBonus", and "missileVelocityBonus"... * the MGC II requires Trajectory Analysis which is a Gunnery skill... * and apparently, the attributes on the MGC/MGE aren't stacking penalized yet. Yet good enough to tell they were OP though. Apparently. Johnnie Cochran couldn't defend it.

stoicfaux 6010	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:20:03 - [411] - Quote Kadesh Priestess wrote: Due to how dogma works, it's impossible to have stacking penalties on regular modules and have them absent on rigs. Damage controls don't stack with shield hardeners or shield resist rigs. Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
HiddenPorpoise Expendable Miscreants 382	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:20:41 - [412] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: [blink]FFS, people! CCP Rise didn't say he was making Rigors/Flares stacking penalized. He said that the MGC/MGE modules on Sisi didn't have their attributes stacking penalized yet, and it would be corrected in the next Sisi build.[/blink] There's a quirk in the code that means unless you can activate your rigs somehow (this is how DCs avoid stacking) they will count in penalties.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 1147	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:23:00 - [413] - Quote adding stacking penalties to rigs rarely seen the most popular rigs in the game aka cdfes and trimarks still don't penalize what an absolute joke https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 308	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:26:47 - [414] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: [blink]FFS, people! CCP Rise didn't say he was making Rigors/Flares stacking penalized. He said that the MGC/MGE modules on Sisi didn't have their attributes stacking penalized yet, and it would be corrected in the next Sisi build.[/blink] The modules will stack with each other. They will NOT stack with Rigors/Flares or implants or skills that affect explosion radius/velocity and flight time/speed. FYI, the MGC/MGE modules are NOT fully implemented on Sisi: * neither module shows the flight time bonus * they still show the pre-nerf values * the MGC Precision script modifies: "aoeCloudSizebonus", "aoeVelocityBonus", "explosionDelayBonus", and "missileVelocityBonus"... * the MGC II requires Trajectory Analysis which is a Gunnery skill... * and apparently, the attributes on the MGC/MGE aren't stacking penalized yet. /it's_like_the_35_second_reload_applies_to_people's_brains_as_well... Missile platforms tend to have application issues when devoting all rigs to application. This is why there should be no stacking penalties on the application side with these modules. Most missile platforms cant spare midslots for application and the lowslot variants are pitiful just like te's. These modules would be ok with the smaller percentages if they had no stacking penalties. At least then you'll get something decent for devoting 5 slots on your ship to applying your outrunnable damage.
Kadesh Priestess This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep 471	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:29:53 - [415] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: [blink]FFS, people! CCP Rise didn't say he was making Rigors/Flares stacking penalized. He said that the MGC/MGE modules on Sisi didn't have their attributes stacking penalized yet, and it would be corrected in the next Sisi build.[/blink] It's possible to put rigs/modules into different stacking penalty chains, but dogma doesn't support what you want. To make MGCs stacking penalizable, target attribute (aoeCloudSize) has to be set as penalizable. It will automatically make any modifications on it subject for stacking penalization, except for modifications coming from penalization immune categories (ships, implants, skills, subsystems). Rigs belong to Modules category and obviously it cannot be marked as immune for stacking penalization (even if rigs are moved to its own category - remember tracking rigs being in separate stacking penalty chain, allowing to blap frigs in machs easy? it would be even worse if rigs were marked so). There's possibility to put them into different stacking penalty chains (currently they're in the same postPercent chain); it's possible to move rigs to, let's say postMul and have rigs penalized only against each other, but it's not possible to have them unpenalized at all. Regarding rigs efficiency: TQ 2 t2 rigors + t1 rigor: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.15) = +83.8% accuracy TQ 2 t2 rigors + t2 flare: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2)+ù(1+0.2) = +87.5% Penalized 2 t2 rigors + t1 rigor: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +65.5% Penalized 2 t2 rigors + t2 flare: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.2) = +81.6% Thus with just 3 t2 rigs you're reaching pretty much old efficiency of triple rigors.
Kitty Bear Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance 1481	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:31:43 - [416] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: /it's_like_the_35_second_reload_applies_to_people's_brains_as_well... with 99.99% Ti-Di
Kadesh Priestess This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep 471	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:33:27 - [417] - Quote stoicfaux wrote: Kadesh Priestess wrote: Due to how dogma works, it's impossible to have stacking penalties on regular modules and have them absent on rigs. Damage controls don't stack with shield hardeners or shield resist rigs. Damage control stacks with reactive hardener and iirc wolf-rayet armor resist bonus (preMul stacking penalty chain) and resist mods stack against each other in postPercent stacking penalty chain. This is however bad example, because you can't have several DCs fitted thus outcome is not obvious. That's why i asked to find some rigs which are not stacking penalized against each other at all, while modules which affect the same target attribute are stacking penalized. Hint: you won't find these. Because dogma doesn't support this scenario by its design.
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 308	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:41:32 - [418] - Quote I will trust kadesh's statements over stoic's on this matter, until ccp proves otherwise by rise coming in to explain the code magic he did to make sure comps and tes will ignore rigs when deciding if they're second or fourth in the stacking penalty line. Anyway, its looking like barely anything will change for missile ships except having to spend another slot just to stay where they currently stand.
stoicfaux 6010	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:44:13 - [419] - Quote HiddenPorpoise wrote: stoicfaux wrote: [blink]FFS, people! CCP Rise didn't say he was making Rigors/Flares stacking penalized. He said that the MGC/MGE modules on Sisi didn't have their attributes stacking penalized yet, and it would be corrected in the next Sisi build.[/blink] There's a quirk in the code that means unless you can activate your rigs somehow (this is how DCs avoid stacking) they will count in penalties. That would make things "interesting." Do you happen to have a source for that? Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1482	Posted - 2015.06.27 13:44:23 - [420] - Quote Hakaari Inkuran wrote: I will trust kadesh's statements over stoic's on this matter, until ccp proves otherwise by rise coming in to explain the code magic he did to make sure comps and tes will ignore rigs when deciding if they're second or fourth in the stacking penalty line. Anyway, its looking like barely anything will change for missile ships except having to spend another slot just to stay where they currently stand. My golem already has 6 slots dedicated to application. It'll stand in Jita, on the market.



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

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