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) |
Mario Putzo
1459
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:16:19 -
[451] - 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. |
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
474
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:20:25 -
[452] - Quote
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 |
Mario Putzo
1459
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:25:25 -
[453] - 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 |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:47:55 -
[454] - Quote
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".
But for heavy missiles, i would point out that you have tackle on those pesky small frigates.... They're dead anyways, regardless of 2 rigors 1 flare or 3 rigors. They're frigates. That are tackled.
Therefore, for heavy missiles (cruise is a different matter), better application for the edge cases where a ship is kiting or moving quickly through bubbles / across the grid, 2 rigors 1 flare is better, precisely because it does cover those no tackle edge cases slightly better.
Rise has not gotten back to us on the stacking penalties. There is still hope. At least we got the fleet warp changes delayed and potentialy revised... fingers crossed.
If there are no stacking penalties on rigs for each other or to these modules, then we will just have to wait and see how their performance is in REAL pvp. Here's hoping for the next expansion to throw a percentage point and a half on all the values for these. |
Mario Putzo
1459
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:59:20 -
[455] - 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.
|
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
159
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 20:41:46 -
[456] - Quote
I'm surprised that the rest of the launcher tiericide wasn't completed prior to this project. The light missile launchers were combined effectively which seemed to pave the way for the rest of the launchers but here we are many months later and not a peep about when the rest of the launchers will be completed. I don't suppose the remainder of the launcher Tiericide will be taking place in conjunction with these changes? If not then when? |
stoicfaux
6013
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 21:40:24 -
[457] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:t2 flare is better than t1 rigor unless target is extremely small for missile type, scrammed and highly immobile. Let me generalize/simplify the point that Kadesh Priestess is trying to make: * If you have one normal web on a target with no prop mod, then the first part of missile formula (MF1) will probably be dominant. * If the target has an AB, then you'll need three normal webs, or a 90% web, to get MF1 to be dominant. * If the target has an MWD, then you'll need two 90% webs to get MF1 to apply. However, at that point, both parts of the missile formula will be over 100%, at which point the 0th part of the formula is dominant, i.e. max(1, ...)
If you can reliably land enough webs to get MF1 to apply, then fit for Explosion Radius. If, not, then feel free to fit that Flare II over a Rigor I.
75% TPs (bonused TP + Warfare Link II + Mindlink) are a variable for another day.
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
1484
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 22:02:00 -
[458] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:afkalt wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:We killed a bunch of cruise Ravens during a Titan save fight in Fountain last winter. How were they performing, or was it too hard to tell? Genuinely curious. They hit really hard, but they melted. This was the fight: https://www.themittani.com/news/fountain-temptationI was focusing on repairing the friendly Titan most of that fight, so did not make it on too many killmails, but it was hands down the most fun I ever had in a large Eve brawl. When those Ravens first showed up, I thought they were going to take down the Titan.
Ah, I'd hoped they were shooting subcaps. Caps are glorious fury targets.
I shall hold out hope for a good subcap bash. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
711
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 23:44:46 -
[459] - Quote
Well, these modules are going to make my theoretical PvE Barghest fit obscene.
It's a shame the damn thing is so fugly that I kinda don't want to fly it. Why didn't it look like this: Link
That Spatula paddle thingy majig is so weird looking for a sub cap. Would have been a nice model for a Mordu "Light Carrier" but a battleship (that's supposed to be very fast) it is not. |
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
474
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 00:32:20 -
[460] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:t2 flare is better than t1 rigor unless target is extremely small for missile type, scrammed and highly immobile. Let me generalize/simplify the point that Kadesh Priestess is trying to make: * If you have one normal web on a target with no prop mod, then the first part of missile formula (MF1) will probably be dominant. * If the target has an AB, then you'll need three normal webs, or a 90% web, to get MF1 to be dominant. * If the target has an MWD, then you'll need two 90% webs to get MF1 to apply. However, at that point, both parts of the missile formula will be over 100%, at which point the 0th part of the formula is dominant, i.e. max(1, ...) If you can reliably land enough webs to get MF1 to apply, then fit for Explosion Radius. If, not, then feel free to fit that Flare II over a Rigor I. 75% TPs (bonused TP + Warfare Link II + Mindlink) are a variable for another day. You forgot to mention additional condition of shooting ship which is not just webbed, but has smaller sig than 2xt2 rigor rigged missile of the type you're using. With stacking penalized rigors, the target signatures of:
torps - 223m cruise missiles - 163m heavy missiles - 69m hams - 62m light missiles - 19.8m rockets - 9.9m
(faction ammo, all 5 skills, ship with no missile er bonuses, no drugs)
will be the breakpoints. If and only if target after all sig modifications (mwd sig blow, tps) has smaller sig radius than specified breakpoint - the 2nd part of formula MAY come into play (and will it come or not depends on target speed and your missile explosion velocity, besides things already mentioned). And only if all these conditions are met, then 3rd rigor is better than t2 flare.
But - from my perspective - if you're shooting 2x 90% webbed and scrammed interceptors with cruise missiles, or didn't bring a few TPs to shoot cruisers with torps (loltorps), you're doing it wrong, hence i asked for a specific example. But obviously this is far from 'real-world', thus no examples were provided.
I maintain my point - triple rigors even in current state are better only for solo HAM ships shooting hard-tackled frigs and maybe for phoenix doing some work on subcap hulls (i'm not into capitals so can't judge). For 99% of other 'real-world' cases t2 flare is just better.
Thus, unless you did something which belongs to these usecases, you will see significant drop of efficiency of triple-rigor fit. Otherwise - switch to 2 rigor + flare and it will be hard to see a difference. |
|
Pertuabo Enkidgan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
135
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 00:45:58 -
[461] - Quote
I propose making them baseline somehow, would really help, especially if you are flying a battleship.
Baseline as in a ship gets a module to defend itself. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
699
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 00:51:15 -
[462] - Quote
The question that everyone is asking themselves now would be 'can I bring a Drake now or what?'
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4470
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 11:09:04 -
[463] - Quote
The new values on MGCs and MGEs for missile velocity and flight time are fine; the new values for explosion radius and velocity need to revert to the old (original) values. Don't like the new icons (they're too big).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
568
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 15:04:11 -
[464] - 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.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
317
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 15:44:48 -
[465] - 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!
Ouch. Not cool. You should really put it back. This is like giving us the bowl but not putting in any porridge Rise. I came here for fixed missiles, and left wanting.
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1320
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 18:32:04 -
[466] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:t2 flare is better than t1 rigor unless target is extremely small for missile type, scrammed and highly immobile. Let me generalize/simplify the point that Kadesh Priestess is trying to make: * If you have one normal web on a target with no prop mod, then the first part of missile formula (MF1) will probably be dominant. * If the target has an AB, then you'll need three normal webs, or a 90% web, to get MF1 to be dominant. * If the target has an MWD, then you'll need two 90% webs to get MF1 to apply. However, at that point, both parts of the missile formula will be over 100%, at which point the 0th part of the formula is dominant, i.e. max(1, ...) If you can reliably land enough webs to get MF1 to apply, then fit for Explosion Radius. If, not, then feel free to fit that Flare II over a Rigor I. 75% TPs (bonused TP + Warfare Link II + Mindlink) are a variable for another day.
99.98% increase to sigRad. with heat, on a 10%/level ship such as the Hyena or Golem. TPs are stacking penalized btw. And because its a multiplier, unless said ship is either already naturally large (BS/cap/supercap) or has MWD running TPs will do little. 199% of almost nothing is still almost nothing. In other words, target painting a scrammed frigate is utterly useless.
Speaking of useless, I see the MGC range bonuses list in the OP are down to 5.5% now. I was hoping these might find a place on something like the Sacrilege. But with such a small bonus I'm not seeing it.
Current max range on faction heavy missiles is 62.9km. This increases to 77.5km (62.9*1.11*1.11) using a scripted MGC II with the current stats. For the record, we started at 9.5% flight time and velocity.
Missiles are not turrets. You cannot slap the same bonuses on the module and expect to get the same increase in performance either mathematically or perceptually.
In the case of missiles, you are not increasing damage at longer ranges by increasing range. All you're doing is allowing for dps to be applied at all. In addition, increasing range on cruise missiles won't do much because they have extremely long range to begin with. Most of the time the limiting factor is locking range, which requires a sensor booster.
Short range missiles will gain almost nothing from a mere 23% increase in range. You can afford to be generous here. 23% range is honestly not very much, especially when you are using HAMs, torps, or rockets.
41% was a bit much. 23% is too little. So I suggest bringing the missile velocity and flight time bonuses back up to 7.5%. Scripted, this will result in a 15% per category increase, and thus a 32.25% total increase; a shade under a third more range. This is the exact same bonus granted by using 2 range rigs, one each of Rocket Fuel Cache Partition, and Hydraulic Bay Thrusters. I would find this to be useful in most cases.
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.
I think the original application bonuses were fine. But for argument's sake, guess what the application rig bonuses are? 15%. The current values on the MGC will give 15% when scripted. So I think that value is a fair and useful value. It should stay.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 21:09:29 -
[467] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: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. I concur and eagerly look forward to CCP Rise's statement on the matter. Otherwise, Plan B[1]... [1] Which is start a mega whine thread about getting my missile skills refunded. Does your spreadsheet take into account the new values? |
stoicfaux
6024
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 22:27:38 -
[468] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:stoicfaux wrote: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. I concur and eagerly look forward to CCP Rise's statement on the matter. Otherwise, Plan B[1]... [1] Which is start a mega whine thread about getting my missile skills refunded. Does your spreadsheet take into account the new values? I've got a new one (completely new format) in the works.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
701
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 23:03:12 -
[469] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:...I've got a new one (completely new format) in the works.
You are awesome!
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 01:08:07 -
[470] - Quote
I have no idea how you can use a comparison between two modules for completely different weapon systems and come to the conclusion that one of them needs a change. I agree that the range bonuses needed to be toned down, but that should come from an analysis of the weapon system itself (at least give that as the reason). I would have liked to see the application statistics go through, but I was just curious what might have happened. Regardless, I think the whole weapon system needs a drastic change. |
|
Zola Kado
I solo lvl4
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 10:00:01 -
[471] - Quote
Please change Golem bonus from
10% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness
to
5 or 7,5% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion radius
Like other marauder weapon bonuses. |
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
474
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 11:14:12 -
[472] - Quote
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.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4476
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 11:31:54 -
[473] - Quote
Zola Kado wrote:Please change Golem bonus from... Get a Navy Raven...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
703
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 11:35:35 -
[474] - Quote
Zola Kado wrote:Please change Golem bonus from
10% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness
to
5 or 7,5% bonus to Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion radius
Like other marauder weapon bonuses.
That should be a per level bonus since you can just plug in implants that do the same. Those 5% tracking enhancers for missiles will not turn the tide on anything. And that tracking computer thing with the scripts are just a little nicer standard crash boosters.
The values need to be returned to the values from Thursday so they might have an effect and for the Empress bring heavy missile values back to 2011 - they rest of the weapons have already surpassed them in power.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1321
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 14:05:58 -
[475] - Quote
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.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
474
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 14:15:01 -
[476] - 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. wow u were fast with your edit |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4476
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 14:36:24 -
[477] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Dps rigs are indeed 10% bonus. Thank you for pointing out my error. But it doesn't really change anything. My point was that a single module has the same effect as 2 rigs. And the application and range rigs are all 15%. So the appropriate bonus for a scripted MGC should be 15% in each category. So 7.5% base. This assumes that missile don't suck to begin with (they do), and that they have excellent damage application (generally they don't). The missiles (rockets, light missiles) that could potentially benefit from the original values of MGCs and MGEs are hampered by the fact that the small ships that utilize them are going to be hard-pressed to find either a medium or low slot. Thus, the only ships that can really take advantage of these are the ones that have the poorest damage application, ie: Battlecruisers and Battleships. And let's not forget the rumoured anti-missile EW module.
And to keep this thread on-track, can we please dispense with the off-topic change requests for Golems, target painters and similar non-relevant ideas?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
570
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 14:49:00 -
[478] - 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.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4477
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 15:32:29 -
[479] - Quote
A Comprehensive Missile Balance Package (In addition to the proposed Aegis changes.)
Remove Kinetic Pigeon Holes GÇó Condor gets a +10% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Buzzard gets a +5% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Hookbill gets a +20% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Hawk gets a 10% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Corax gets a +5% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Flycatcher gets a +10% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles GÇó Cerberus gets a +5% damage bonus to light, heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Onyx gets a +5% damage bonus to light, heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Rook gets a +7.5% damage bonus to light, heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Navy Osprey gets a +10% damage bonus to light, heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Drake gets a +5% rate of fire bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles (it's already benefiting from the 5% heavy missile buff) GÇó Nighthawk gets a +7.5% damage bonus to heavy and heavy assault missiles GÇó Tengu Accelerated Ejection subsystem gets a +5% missile damage bonus
Nerf Light Missiles; Buff Rockets; Buff Heavy Missiles; Buff Torpedoes; Buff Heavy Assault Missiles GÇó Swap the explosion velocity bonus between rockets (+20m/sec) and light missiles (-20m/sec) GÇó In addition to the 5% damage buff to heavy missiles, decrease the explosion radius on all heavy missiles by -5m and increase the explosion radius on all heavy missiles by +10m/sec. GÇó All torpedoes receive a -33% reduction in explosion radius (which gives them slightly better damage application over cruise missiles) GÇó All heavy assault missiles receive a +20% increase to explosion velocity and -5m reduction in explosion radius
Nerf Bomber Capacity GÇó Reduce cargo capacity by 50-100m3 (torpedoes just received a huge volume reduction and their damage application is increasing quite significantly)
New Faction Missile Modules GÇó Mordu's Legion Ballistic Control System: 15% missile ROF, 7.5% missile damage GÇó Dread Guristas Ballistic Control System (updated): 12.5% missile ROF, 10% missile damage GÇó Mordu's Legion Missile Guidance Enhancer: 5% explosion velocity, 5% explosion radius, 15% missile velocity, -15% missile flight time GÇó Caldari Navy Missile Guidance Computer: 7.5% explosion radius, 7.5% explosion velocity, 7.5% missile velocity, 7.5% missile flight time GÇó Republic Fleet Missile Guidance Computer: 7.5% explosion radius, 7.5% explosion velocity, 7.5% missile velocity, 7.5% missile flight time
Mordus Legion Ship Changes GÇó All missile damage bonuses for Mordu's Legion ships change to ROF bonuses. This results in a slight nerf to the Orthrus when utilizing RLMLs and a slight buff to the Barghest when utilizing torpedoes or cruise missiles.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Mario Putzo
1460
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 15:58:31 -
[480] - 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.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |