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) |

Not that Forumguy
Hedion University Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 07:37:45 -
[211] - Quote
Missile buff yay ! :-) |

Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4458
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 07:52:47 -
[212] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. Yay, finally! Here are a few specific questions, suggestions and comments:
GÇó Are any of these modules stacking penalized with each other and/or rigs? (apologies if this was previously asked and answered, but I didn't see anything when I read through this initially) GÇó In addition to Faction modules, will we be exploring the addition of Officer modules as well? And if so, for Faction and Officer modules, can we mix the stats up a bit, ie: Minmatar bonuses would trend more towards explosion velocity and missile velocity with Caldari explosion radius and flight time; Officer bonuses would be geared more towards explosion radius and missile velocity. GÇó Can the explosion radius bonus for cruise missiles and torpedoes be switched so that torpedoes can be given serious consideration once again? The volume reduction is awesome but I think a bit of TLC for torpedoes would go a long way towards balancing torpedoes out with cruise missiles. GÇó Can Officer weapons (only) be allowed to utilized T2 ammunition as well as T1 and Faction? Their rarity and associated cost would tend to preclude mass use in any event. GÇó Can we look at allowing defender missiles in rapid light and rapid heavy launchers? While not a complete solution for defender missiles, I believe this could be a first step towards addressing some of the shortcomings. GÇó Is there any possibility of moving the slot 6 cruise missile and torpedo damage implants to slot 7 such that those of us who fly missile ships can actually utilize a full set of low, mid or high-grade implants? GÇó The Barghest. It's too freaking huge. Can we please reduce the size by 1/3 so it doesn't clip absolutely everything and anything? Also, as it currently stands - even with the +9.375% damage bonus the lack of a damage application bonuses places it almost at the bottom of the heap with most T1 missile battleships in terms of actual applied damage. Can we look at giving it a special role bonus such as a fixed missile reload time (say 25%) to balance this out a bit? Morudu's Legion SKINs...? (hint, hint)
All in all, +1 for the missile package. For those of us who trained heavily into missiles, this is a welcome addition regardless.
PS. +1 to the kinetic damage lock removal suggestion.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2242
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 09:50:07 -
[213] - Quote
Missiles need more than just these changes while they are a welcome addition to the meta.
Missiles need to be fully effective against bare hulls of the appropriate class. (100% application of HM vs unfitted unboosted cruiser for example) Missiles need to be fast enough to easily catch a MWD propelled ship of the appropriate class.
These are basic requirements that would be the design brief for anyone making a missile for shooting at cruisers for example. If it barely is faster than a cruiser under MWD, it's effective range vs that cruiser in anything except a head to head situation is massively reduced. I.E. Overtake velocity is important. If the explosion velocity is lower than the bare hulls speed (no prop mod) then the missile won't be effective vs cruisers. If the explosion radius is larger than cruisers, it also won't be effective.
So start from scratch on missile stats with those basic common sense design elements in mind, implants boosts & fittings will then be what mitigates damage, and these new modules, tp's & webs will then be what counteracts the implants, boosts & fittings. Damage may need reworking or it may not, but you have to start from a common sense position or you'll never get a good balance. |

Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 11:08:23 -
[214] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Missiles need more than just these changes while they are a welcome addition to the meta.
Missiles need to be fully effective against bare hulls of the appropriate class. (100% application of HM vs unfitted unboosted cruiser for example) Missiles need to be fast enough to easily catch a MWD propelled ship of the appropriate class.
These are basic requirements that would be the design brief for anyone making a missile for shooting at cruisers for example. If it barely is faster than a cruiser under MWD, it's effective range vs that cruiser in anything except a head to head situation is massively reduced. I.E. Overtake velocity is important. If the explosion velocity is lower than the bare hulls speed (no prop mod) then the missile won't be effective vs cruisers. If the explosion radius is larger than cruisers, it also won't be effective.
So start from scratch on missile stats with those basic common sense design elements in mind, implants boosts & fittings will then be what mitigates damage, and these new modules, tp's & webs will then be what counteracts the implants, boosts & fittings. Damage may need reworking or it may not, but you have to start from a common sense position or you'll never get a good balance.
That is assuming Cruiser weapons were made to hit cruisers and not designed to do as much dmg on BC/BS from a smaller/cheaper hull :P
From my understanding the long range missiles are for engaging same size (frig vs frig, cruiser vs cruiser) while short range missiles are to hit 1-2 sizes above yourself (frig vs destroyer/cruiser, cruiser vs BC/BS |

Predator BOA
Bastards Of Anarchy System Inc. Drop the Hammer
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 11:11:53 -
[215] - Quote
Gday CCP Rise
With the new Missile Guidance Enhancer and Missile Guidance Computer coming in next month. Is there going to be new skill books for them to train up in or are they going to be link to existing skills in the game?
|

159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 11:25:40 -
[216] - 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.
So, rather than you guys delivering a full package, you decide to go for half a thing with a promise ( soon (tm) ) for a fix. How on eath is that delivering good game content?
Don't get me wrong, these mods are long overdue. But at least get some disruptions to go with it as well. For all I care buff Defender missiles so they actually do something.
Cause if these new disruptor mods take to long people will ask for a nerf bat, and we all know ccp swings that bat often and misses as much as hitting their mark.... |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1128
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 13:38:56 -
[217] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Rise, have you thought about remote missile tracking enhancement?
These should definitely be added. Might even add another special bonus to certain ships, as we currently have with the Scimitar and Oneiros.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|

Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
171
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 21:21:27 -
[218] - Quote
anything about (new) skill requirements for these modules?
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|

Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1479
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 22:19:00 -
[219] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:anything about (new) skill requirements for these modules?
Should be the same as for TC/TE's
I see no valid reason why they would need a separate skill |

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1182
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 22:34:32 -
[220] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:GetSirrus wrote:Rise, have you thought about remote missile tracking enhancement? These should definitely be added. Might even add another special bonus to certain ships, as we currently have with the Scimitar and Oneiros.
add it too the basilisk
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
|

M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 23:19:50 -
[221] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Kelron Renalard wrote:Quote:Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Does this include Heavy Assault Missile? I'm not sure about it. HAM's are already incredibly powerful and does not need a buff.
That's why all missile cruisers are using RLMLs, right?
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|

M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 23:23:08 -
[222] - Quote
159Pinky wrote: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. So, rather than you guys delivering a full package, you decide to go for half a thing with a promise ( soon (tm) ) for a fix. How on eath is that delivering good game content? Don't get me wrong, these mods are long overdue. But at least get some disruptions to go with it as well. For all I care buff Defender missiles so they actually do something. Cause if these new disruptor mods take to long people will ask for a nerf bat, and we all know ccp swings that bat often and misses as much as hitting their mark....
If these are ready, why delay them? Put them in and let people use them while working on further balancing
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|

Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
819
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 01:16:23 -
[223] - Quote
Question in regards to the Golem.
Will the Golem remain bonuses to TPs? If so, will it be better to use these, or TPs? If not, will the Golem potentially be given other bonuses?
Seems like if you keep the TP bonus, it will either be useless, or a hendered option( having optimal and falloff).
Would like to know.. |

Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
253
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 01:36:19 -
[224] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Question in regards to the Golem.
Will the Golem remain bonuses to TPs? If so, will it be better to use these, or TPs? If not, will the Golem potentially be given other bonuses?
Seems like if you keep the TP bonus, it will either be useless, or a hendered option( having optimal and falloff).
Would like to know..
Something to consider: while these modules have (current) paper stats better than a target painter for application, they also only affect your own damage. A target painter of course helps apply damage for everyone and everything in your fleet.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|

Iyacia Cyric'ai
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
162
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 01:52:06 -
[225] - Quote
If or when you do add a way for missiles to be disrupted, please make it it's own module or as a script for dampeners and not tracking disruptors. Tracking disruptors are already powerful enough and giving it a missile disruption script would be way overpowered. Tracking disruptors would basically be about as compulsory a module for PvP as points and scrams. |

stoicfaux
5928
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 02:10:55 -
[226] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Question in regards to the Golem.
Will the Golem remain bonuses to TPs? If so, will it be better to use these, or TPs? If not, will the Golem potentially be given other bonuses?
Seems like if you keep the TP bonus, it will either be useless, or a hendered option( having optimal and falloff).
Would like to know.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5832118#post5832118
156.25% PWNAGE 50% Bonus (e.g. Golem) 148.89% PWNAGE 50% 146.91% MGC II w/ Prec 140.77% MGC II w/ Prec 132.10% PWNAGE 50% 126.77% MGC II w/ Prec 115.92% PWNAGE 50%
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|

Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4458
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 03:33:29 -
[227] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:156.25% PWNAGE 50% Bonus (e.g. Golem) 148.89% PWNAGE 50% 146.91% MGC II w/ Prec 140.77% MGC II w/ Prec 132.10% PWNAGE 50% 126.77% MGC II w/ Prec 115.92% PWNAGE 50% If I understand this correctly, you're stating 2 target painters followed by 2 missile guidance computers (scripted) should be the new meta on Golems vs. 3-4 target painters, yes?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|

Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
819
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 04:08:33 -
[228] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Question in regards to the Golem.
Will the Golem remain bonuses to TPs? If so, will it be better to use these, or TPs? If not, will the Golem potentially be given other bonuses?
Seems like if you keep the TP bonus, it will either be useless, or a hendered option( having optimal and falloff).
Would like to know.. Something to consider: while these modules have (current) paper stats better than a target painter for application, they also only affect your own damage. A target painter of course helps apply damage for everyone and everything in your fleet.
This is correct, however, in both PVE and PVP the Golem is typically used solo. If someone wishes to fleet, it's better to bring a different boat, as without bastion the Golem is meh... |

d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
186
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 05:21:02 -
[229] - Quote
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
Jam the missile boat. Smartbomb the missiles. Damp the missile boat so you are out of its locking range.
Missile defenders still a thing? If yes, use em... shoot down the incoming missiles or something. |

Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
869
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 06:52:29 -
[230] - Quote
A word of warning: unlike optimal and falloff of guns, missile velocity and flight time are multiplicative when it comes to determining effective range. You can see how drastic it is when you look at how missile range is penalized for not having perfect skills (it helps that numbers given by skills are huge, but point stands).
Please consider this when determining effectiveness of missile scripts and overheating bonuses. |
|

Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
386
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 07:58:15 -
[231] - Quote
I like these changes, they will need some fine tuning and there is a need to look at E-war in general, but it's a good first step.
While you guys are at it:
Could you look in the enormous difference in SP that is needed to train missiles to Turrets? |

Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
389
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:35:07 -
[232] - Quote
A reason to fly a phoenix finally. And dust of those old phoons i have lying around.
Yes i think these mods are a great addition. The ewar mods when they arrive will also be interesting. Expecting more fleets to get good at firewalling with these changes.
Hell you may even be allowed to finally bring that drake on fleets again :D.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|

Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:23:32 -
[233] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:A word of warning: unlike optimal and falloff of guns, missile velocity and flight time are multiplicative when it comes to determining effective range. You can see how drastic it is when you look at how missile range is penalized for not having perfect skills (it helps that numbers given by skills are huge, but point stands).
Please consider this when determining effectiveness of missile scripts and overheating bonuses. I agree, but also keep in mind missiles are one of the few weapons that a ship, with speed, can increase the effective range my moving away from the missile ship and really fast ships can outrun the weapon all together. |

stoicfaux
5928
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:37:18 -
[234] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:stoicfaux wrote:156.25% PWNAGE 50% Bonus (e.g. Golem) 148.89% PWNAGE 50% 146.91% MGC II w/ Prec 140.77% MGC II w/ Prec 132.10% PWNAGE 50% 126.77% MGC II w/ Prec 115.92% PWNAGE 50% If I understand this correctly, you're stating 2 target painters followed by 2 missile guidance computers (scripted) should be the new meta on Golems vs. 3-4 target painters, yes? Yes.
In theory, (still spreadsheeting the details,) a 4 TP Golem designed to one-shot non-elite NPC cruisers, could drop the Rigor rigs and upgrade to two RF TPs + 2 MGCs II w/Prec script. Which would (finally) allow a mission Golem to use warp speed rigs.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|

159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
20
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 18:44:58 -
[235] - Quote
M1k3y Koontz wrote:If these are ready, why delay them? Put them in and let people use them while working on further balancing
I know this further balancing, the fact that they say: technical issues means we'll wait for years.
|

Skyler Hawk
Boars on Parade The Tuskers Co.
37
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 23:37:16 -
[236] - Quote
Need details on the scripts for the MGCs but these things seem to have the potential to be quite overpowered if you just follow the pattern established with Tracking Computers and simply have the scripts double half the unscripted values while setting the other half to zero. |

Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
260
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 00:00:33 -
[237] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:Need details on the scripts for the MGCs but these things seem to have the potential to be quite overpowered if you just follow the pattern established with Tracking Computers and simply have the scripts double half the unscripted values while setting the other half to zero.
Indeed. Can you imagine what a Nemesis with 3 of these puppies, scripted for damage application and overheated on all modules, would do?
I know there could be stacking penalties -- so let's say 2 of them plus a target painter. Absolutely beautiful.
I meant brutal. Absolutely brutal.
You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
|

Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
819
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 00:58:20 -
[238] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:Need details on the scripts for the MGCs but these things seem to have the potential to be quite overpowered if you just follow the pattern established with Tracking Computers and simply have the scripts double half the unscripted values while setting the other half to zero. Indeed. Can you imagine what a Nemesis with 3 of these puppies, scripted for damage application and overheated on all modules, would do? I know there could be stacking penalties -- so let's say 2 of them plus a target painter. Absolutely beautiful. I meant brutal. Absolutely brutal.
Ahh hell... I just realized it was you... Just got finished watching you solo the drake on youtube.
Anywho, with what you've just mentioned, I'm wondering if these modules/scripts makes certain missile boats (especially in the case of bombers) overshadow other options by quite a bit?
Examples would basically be all Minmatar missile boats (due to a more balanced mid/low ratio), and/or if it makes certain Caldari missile boats more powerful than, say an Amarr missile boat or the reverse effect.... |

Glathull
Warlock Assassins
1063
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 02:02:13 -
[239] - Quote
This is the best EvE news I've heard in a long time. From the ashes and misery of nerfdom my beloved drakes will rise up and fly again. And promptly die in a fire as usual, but whatever.
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
|

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2244
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 02:04:47 -
[240] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote: I agree, but also keep in mind missiles are one of the few weapons that a ship, with speed, can increase the effective range my moving away from the missile ship and really fast ships can outrun the weapon all together.
To put it in a better way. True missile range is determined by overtake velocity.
Take a ship going at 2000m/s away from you. Now consider a missile at 2,000, 2,100 & 2,200. Flight time 10 seconds. The effective range at which you can shoot at the ship with the first missile is 0. Because it will never catch the ship. The second missile has an effective range of 1000m The third missile has an effective range of 2000m This is despite the technical range on all three being 20-22km.
Obviously if they aren't flying directly away from you this means your missiles can try and cut the corner to some extent, but lacking true brains they aim straight at where the target is now to do so rather than future predict meaning unless they are coming head on into you, the last part is almost always a true stern chase.
Hence why in this era of ships going faster again (though not as crazy as nano age I know), missiles are really suffering because the real effective range is dropping dramatically. |
|
|
|
|
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 |