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) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
5096
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:06:18 -
[1] - Quote
Heyo
It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?
Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated. Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before. Some specifics on the new modules:
We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods.
The numbers:
Missile Guidance Enhancer I 10 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer 8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 6.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment.
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!
@ccp_rise
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1421
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:08:14 -
[2] - Quote
CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare.
Are these stacking penalised? Are rigs now stacking penalised? (I believe they are not atm) What wins the priority battle give them above?
Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare. |
Hanazava Karyna
The Foundation Of Mammon
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:10:15 -
[3] - Quote
Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2902
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:12:17 -
[4] - Quote
I have to agree, CPU needs are kind of high considering launchers have high CPU needs as well as launcher rigging uses lots of CPU as well.
Edit: Contrary to my past statements, you could also use this as an opportunity to remove the Caldari kinetic damage lock.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
Jassmin Joy
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
308
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:13:26 -
[5] - Quote
Any thoughts on the effectiveness of SmartBombs on missiles and the ability to firewall them? |
Kelron Renalard
Know your Role EON Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:25:50 -
[6] - Quote
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. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1126
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:30:17 -
[7] - Quote
are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate?
specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1422
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:33:28 -
[8] - Quote
Capqu wrote:are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate?
specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below
I don't think any small ships are going to be using these tbh, they have scant enough low slots as it is and the CPU in the mid modules is pretty damned oppressive.
If that is reduced, might become an issue. |
Saeka Tyr
Sanctuary of Shadows Triumvirate.
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:46:21 -
[9] - Quote
Capqu wrote:are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate?
specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below
your idea is bad. missile boats are in a bad enough state as it is. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
12966
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:47:08 -
[10] - Quote
Jassmin Joy wrote:Any thoughts on the effectiveness of SmartBombs on missiles and the ability to firewall them? Yes, but we haven't had a chance to post that thread quite yet.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
Escobar Slim III
YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS
137
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:47:19 -
[11] - Quote
posting in ccp rise thread he is my faverite. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1126
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:48:57 -
[12] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Capqu wrote:are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate?
specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below I don't think any small ships are going to be using these tbh, they have scant enough low slots as it is and the CPU in the mid modules is pretty damned oppressive. If that is reduced, might become an issue. [Flycatcher, aa]
Ballistic Control System II
5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Medium Shield Extender II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile Light Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Light Missile [Empty High slot]
Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst II
122 km range 220 dps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:50:54 -
[13] - Quote
Ground floor!
Looks like this will help some... fingers crossed HAMs are a viable weapon system with this.
I still think all missiles could do with their velocity doubled and flight time halved, like the mordu ships' bonus.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Dora Adant
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:51:04 -
[14] - Quote
what about ewar? are you going to add those to?
seems like a fairly important point, don't implement this without also implementing the counter
next thing you know we're getting a missile dominated alliance tournament... |
Harkin Issier
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 12:56:46 -
[15] - Quote
CCP did you mix up Computers and Enhancers?
Tracking Computers are weaker than Tracking Enhancers, but they can be scripted to perform better than the Enhancer in the scripted trait's effect.
Currently you've listed the MGC to be FAR more effective (31% more) than the MGE, while retaining the ability to be scripted.
Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 6.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
Unless you're going to let the Enhancers be scripted? |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1126
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:02:20 -
[16] - Quote
[Talwar, tfi]
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
110~km range 150 dps 10 mil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:02:23 -
[17] - Quote
or perhaps he listed the max values with scripts loaded. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1126
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:03:36 -
[18] - Quote
Saeka Tyr wrote:Capqu wrote:are you going to nerf the base range/application of any missiles to compensate?
specifically i think nerfing light and cruise missiles by 1 TE would be good, cruise because you're gonna have enough slots on a battleship to get it back and beyond what it is already (which is pretty good) and lights because lights are already very strong and adding more options for them might push them to oppressive on destroyers and below your idea is bad. missile boats are in a bad enough state as it is.
light missiles in a bad state? LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:04:40 -
[19] - Quote
Capqu wrote:[Talwar, tfi]
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
110~km range 150 dps 10 mil
That's damn spiffy for a T1 Ship. A bay of ammo will cost almost as much as the rest of the ship.
|
Kalen Pavle
Cerberus Federation Gentlemen's.Club
29
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:05:28 -
[20] - Quote
What about kinetic locked ships, and the fact that missile application is still much worse than turret or sentry due to missile travel mechanics? |
|
Samira Kernher
Praetorian Auxiliary Force Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
1656
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:06:38 -
[21] - Quote
Really needs an anti-missile tracking disruptor to go with these additions.
Also, it's so fitting that these missile modules are coming with the Aegis release.
"Embrace those who would learn, defeat those who would make mockery of God's way. Through the penance of deeds, the sins of forefathers may eventually be washed away."
-- His Royal Highness the Heir Yonis Ardishapur
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1095
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:09:51 -
[22] - Quote
rockets could do with lower volume
torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?)
and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
760
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:10:20 -
[23] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote:What about kinetic locked ships, and the fact that missile application is still much worse than turret or sentry due to missile travel mechanics?
I'm guessing that kinetic lock is going to stay just like it is, as they enjoy the 'flavor' it provides.
They are increasing damage on missiles, which will increase applied damage as well, in addition to giving you 2 new module types to improve application. There's also the Mordu ships with that funky bonus... seems like application is getting some fairly serious love with both recent changes and this package. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1406
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:14:33 -
[24] - Quote
Good god the amount of Drakes/Tengu's that are going to be flying everywhere...
Also.. lets make Garmurs and Orthurus's even more absurd :-)
Heavy's needed a buff, but the lack of a direct ewar counter on these is disturbing.
Yaay!!!!
|
Aeon Veritas
Lobach Inc. Easily Offended
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:15:03 -
[25] - Quote
Looks nice, but Harkin Issier has a point.
Harkin Issier wrote:CCP did you mix up Computers and Enhancers? .... Also looking forward to have the matching EWAR implemented. Please also implement Remote Missile Guidance Computer and maybe change the Scimitar remote tracking computer bonus to missile guidance? Or a lower bonus to both...
afkalt wrote:Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size) +1 for this
General module tiericide thoughts
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
289
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:16:39 -
[26] - Quote
This going to be so pretty disaster. Ewar modules on weapon system that takes time to apply damage (flight time)? Kinetic lock? You don't have to write devblog about it, simple answers are best: yes, no, we think about it...
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
325
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:18:52 -
[27] - Quote
afkalt wrote:CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare.
Are these stacking penalised? Are rigs now stacking penalised? (I believe they are not atm) What wins the priority battle give them above?
Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size)
Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare.
Its the same cpu requirement for these mods as TE/TC. If you swap a bcu for an MTE then youll have MORE available CPU. I dont foresee fitting being an issue. I fly caldari/missile boats quite often, should be fine.
Good changes IMO, and the mods dont seem overly strong, but enough to consider them useful in certain fits.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Matt Faithbringer
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:18:59 -
[28] - Quote
I see great future for bombers.. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:20:40 -
[29] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:rockets could do with lower volume
torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?)
and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work.
I don't know about the Rocket Volume thing, but your point on Torps is right on. They have absurd low range for a battleship weapon system, almost as bad as Blasters though with the right ammo you can reach out with falloff at least.
Your point about Skirmish Links does not really hold water, considering Armor and Siege links work pretty good for mitigating damage too. |
stoicfaux
5922
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:26:17 -
[30] - Quote
Normalized values in terms of how they affect the 2nd part of the missile formula
250.0% - 60% Web 156.3% - bonused PWNAGE TP (e.g. Golem) (skills V) 146.9% - MGC II @ 19% w/Precision Script 137.5% - PWNAGE TP (skills V) 135.3% - MGC I @ 15% w/Precision Script 125.0% - Rigor II 121.0% - MGC II @ 9.5% 120.0% - Flare II 117.6% - Rigor I 116.2% - MGC I @ 7.5% 115.0% - Flare I 113.9% - MGE II (6.5%) 110.5% - MGE I (5%)
edit: Added T1 values.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems
152
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:26:48 -
[31] - Quote
For the sake of opinion and such, I would prefer to see missile disruption added to weapon disruptor rather than having them be their own module. Tweaks to the base weapon disruptor's would be needed along with buffs to bonused hulls so that they remain strong on bonused ships but weaker on unbonused hulls. Similar to what happened with damps and jams in the past.
Also I like the missile changes, think torps and Hams could use a tad more range but we can see. |
Womyn Power
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
103
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:30:33 -
[32] - Quote
im glad it was u rise
but you shouldve done this a long time ago |
Valkin Mordirc
1129
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:31:01 -
[33] - Quote
I'd personally would be very very happy if the kinetic lock to Caldari ships would be removed, and to see the CPU for Caldari ship (Or missile cpu brought down) increased slightly as shield/missiles make for a headache in fitting but on the contrary Blasters/Armor and a Gallente ship allow for plenty of fitting room.
Overall though, I am happy to see this, ^..^
#DeleteTheWeak
|
El Space Mariachi
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
197
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:31:48 -
[34] - Quote
looks a little strong, the few armor tanked missile ships are going to be disgustingly good with these changes. heaven knows missiles need some love though, glad something is being done about it.
gay gamers for jesus
|
Xavier Azabu
Fluid Motion Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:38:18 -
[35] - Quote
For all the people crying for ewar you have the options of smartbombs to mitigate damage or damps on range for kiters already if you're concerned about that.
Good luck to future tacklers. You gon' get alpha'd! |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1423
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:38:46 -
[36] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:afkalt wrote:CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare.
Are these stacking penalised? Are rigs now stacking penalised? (I believe they are not atm) What wins the priority battle give them above?
Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size)
Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare. Its the same cpu requirement for these mods as TE/TC. If you swap a bcu for an MTE then youll have MORE available CPU. I dont foresee fitting being an issue. I fly caldari/missile boats quite often, should be fine. Good changes IMO, and the mods dont seem overly strong, but enough to consider them useful in certain fits.
Yes but gunboats are not (really) CPU bound. Most missile boats are. Exceptions exist, of course, but in general terms it holds.
A lot of missile ships run painters - swapping a painter out for these mods means:
Significantly more resource needed (CPU) Slight improvement over said PWNAGE Loss of boost to fleet due to dropping said PWNAGE.
That feels a little...off kilter. Tbh the CPU should probably be swapped given one is a gang helper, but that's obviously a mad change which screws with things all over the place but for me - gang assist should be a higher "cost" than "self assist". |
Rob Kashuken
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
79
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:40:51 -
[37] - Quote
Drakefleet will rise again!
I'd agree that CPU requirements are going to be a little tight, but that can usually be worked around.
Add me to the list of people suggesting that the Caldari-Kinetic lock should be broken, we'd like more choices to be enabled.
And, as an Ewar specialist, could the Crucifier's Tracking disruptors be made to be applied (either through a module application redesign (preferred), or a new script) to affect missile ships? Caldari can jam everything (given chance), Gallente can damp everything effectively, Minmatar's TP bonuses work across the board, but the Amarr primary ewar option only affects turret ships - it is completely useless against missile and neuting ships. |
stoicfaux
5922
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:43:24 -
[38] - Quote
El Space Mariachi wrote:looks a little strong, the few armor tanked missile ships are going to be disgustingly good with these changes. heaven knows missiles need some love though, glad something is being done about it. Yes, they're a bit strong because, IMHO, missile ships are "required" to fit as many damage application modules as possibles (e.g. Rigors and TPs,) whereas gunships can manage transversal to land big guns on small ships. (Yes, I know guns/missiles are still an apples and oranges situation.) In theory, a strong MGC would allow PvP missile ships to free up rig slots. OTOH, it could lead to big missiles blapping little ships.
However, on the PvE side, the MGC is a bit overpowered.
Except for the Mission Golem. I will still use Cruise missiles on my Golem despite the torp buff and MGC, but I should be able to use Warp Speed rigs instead of Rigors and compensate by running a mix of TPs and MGCs. However, my Vargur will still outperform the Golem for mission running.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
TinkerHell
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
157
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:46:32 -
[39] - Quote
I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?
The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.
I see this going well. |
EVE-Lotteries
EVE-Lotteries Corporation
15
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:47:07 -
[40] - Quote
Makes the actual TD works on that please.
You miss blink ? Come and play with us at EVE-Lotteries.com !
|
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:47:26 -
[41] - Quote
When do you plan to have these on singularity? Will there be remote missile enhancers (like remote tracking computers) and bonused ships for these? |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
794
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:47:32 -
[42] - Quote
I take that the computer will have scripts?
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Alexander McKeon
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
94
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:48:20 -
[43] - Quote
When can we expect to see these on SISI for testing? Hopefully soon, given how near we are to the release window. |
stoicfaux
5922
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:54:37 -
[44] - Quote
TinkerHell wrote:I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?
The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.
I see this going well. Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles + TiDi = increased cardiovascular related reductions in Hamster resources
Worst case, I tell my kids their hamsters died suddenly in the night, and I ship them[1] off to the London data center.
[1] The hamsters, not the kids. The kids get shipped in the Fall.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
El Liptonez
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
31
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:56:03 -
[45] - Quote
Any chance of a m-¦ reduction on heavy missiles as well? 4 damage types x 3 ammo types (faction, precision, fury) makes for 12 sets of missiles that one should carry in PVP. Especially in a RHML boat the amount of cargo required for heavy missiles is extraordinary compared to the other ammo types. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1424
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:56:10 -
[46] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:However, on the PvE side, the MGC is a bit overpowered. *cough* Typhoon? *cough*
Believe me, armor phoon with RHML is going to be a beast in PvP.
It might even be strong enough to upset the cruiser meta applecart.
[Oh god get it off me, Typhoon] Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II 1600mm Steel Plates II Armor Explosive Hardener II
Large Micro Jump Drive 500MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II Tracking Computer II Tracking Computer II
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Large Anti-Explosive Pump I Large Anti-Kinetic Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I |
Credacom
Aperture Harmonics K162
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:56:31 -
[47] - Quote
Really cool stuff but we will need better counter options and be ready to make some quick changes to RMLs of both types. Stuff is going to get crazy real fast.
Legions .... |
Tonrak awesomesauce
Imploding Turtles Rising in Outerspace Gravity Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 13:56:35 -
[48] - Quote
Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application |
Capitol One
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
185
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:02:56 -
[49] - Quote
Can you also please reduce the volume of cruise missiles? |
Kiddoomer
ScrewWork Inc.
61
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:03:57 -
[50] - Quote
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application
I agree, I really would like to use them the same way than HAM but they just don't do it for missile BS.
The modules seem fine, and glad to see finally a buff to HM, my drake will be happy to finally undock , but wonder why people ask for a ewar, b'cause ECM and Dampener do the job fine.
A survey scanner tweak and new mining methods: interactive mining
|
|
Claud Tiberius
118
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:05:01 -
[51] - Quote
Can CCP or someone else please explain why there's going to be this missile balance package. Is their an issue with the current system? Is the package just designed to add more variety to missile combat?
Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.
|
Eridon Hermetz
Ghosts'n Stuff Drama Sutra
34
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:05:05 -
[52] - Quote
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application
and fitting issue .... |
Matt Faithbringer
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:06:30 -
[53] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote: Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles
Honestly I cannot imagine designing it like this from software standpoint.. IMHO it's more probably the MGC boost and TD will be calculated when launching the missile and tweak it's stats. Recalculating it on the fly each server tick would be idiotic, too taxing on the hw
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1097
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:10:39 -
[54] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:rockets could do with lower volume
torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?)
and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work. I don't know about the Rocket Volume thing, but your point on Torps is right on. They have absurd low range for a battleship weapon system, almost as bad as Blasters though with the right ammo you can reach out with falloff at least. Your point about Skirmish Links does not really hold water, considering Armor and Siege links work pretty good for mitigating damage too.
tank links are broken for sure, but they don't affect damage mitigation. |
Gunnsmoke
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:11:26 -
[55] - Quote
El Space Mariachi wrote:looks a little strong, the few armor tanked missile ships are going to be disgustingly good with these changes. heaven knows missiles need some love though, glad something is being done about it.
The Prophecy
This does not suck
|
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
358
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:12:52 -
[56] - Quote
First, removing Caldari Kinetic lock is a necessity. The Cerberus will always be 3/4's as good as it can be, or less due to Gallente bias (Ishtar lol) and kinetic resists, because of this ancient ship bonus. Missile specialists would not lock themselves into using one particular missile, while drone specialists utilize all drone types, and projectile specialists use all types of ammunition. It makes no sense.
Second, why are you not increasing the range / application on torpedoes? They will continue to languish in uselessness, many battleships cannot sacrifice that many low slots to make them worthwhile, except perhaps Minmatar. Buffing a battleship weapon system at this point is a good idea.
Third, Heavy Missiles still need application buffs. 5% damage increase will effectively do almost nothing as you never apply your paper dps anyway. A Cerberus only has 4 low slots. In pvp, you pretty much require a damage control, so realistically you only have 3 (you might be able to get away with a nano instead of DC if you are running a sniper fleet). Two need to be BCU's to make the damage worthwhile, the third would probably be a guidance enhancer which comes at the cost of speed on an already horribly slow ship. If you sacrifice a mid, you lose an application Ewar module like a web or painter, for an application module....(?) or you sacrifice tank.
A small step in the right direction, but it will still be drones (ishtars) online. |
DFA200
Hard vs Soft
14
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:14:42 -
[57] - Quote
So you are buffing the the weapon system that is basically invulnerable. I think missiles might need something, but they also need a counter. Tracking disruptors should affect missiles in some way. Until that happens, I can't support these changes. |
Canenald
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
75
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:17:18 -
[58] - Quote
How about you fix fofos and make defender missiles not useless while you are at it? Thanks. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2534
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:17:45 -
[59] - Quote
What ever happened to the 5% heavy missile buff mentioned in the o7 show |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1750
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:20:10 -
[60] - Quote
I find it interesting that the missile versions of TCs and TEs have the same CPU requirements as their turret counterparts, yet BCUs require more CPU than turret damage mods.
For a dev: did you chose the level of buffage of the new mods to be lower than the turret counterparts to accommodate the equal CPU usage, or are you just giving missiles a free ride on this one? Is it safe to assume that the bonuses from these new modules are stacking penalized like their turret counterparts?
Please note that I am not complaining. I am simply curious and am rather excited to see how these play out. I do have to say though, a Phoenix with 3x midslot missile mods will be...interesting....
My Many Misadventures
I seek to create content, not become content.
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
|
Nalren
Aperture Harmonics K162
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:23:09 -
[61] - Quote
Rowells wrote:What ever happened to the 5% heavy missile buff mentioned in the o7 show Is this the one you mean?
CCP Rise wrote: Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1097
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:23:10 -
[62] - Quote
Rowells wrote:What ever happened to the 5% heavy missile buff mentioned in the o7 show
did you read the post |
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
1095
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:25:19 -
[63] - Quote
When can we expect he disruption modules |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
102
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:30:05 -
[64] - Quote
Rowells wrote:What ever happened to the 5% heavy missile buff mentioned in the o7 show
It is part of the first post. ;) |
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
794
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:30:47 -
[65] - Quote
Phoenix is the new and undisputed KING of wormholes, and sleeper escalations.
|
stoicfaux
5924
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:32:13 -
[66] - Quote
Phaade wrote:First, removing Caldari Kinetic lock is a necessity. The Cerberus will always be 3/4's as good as it can be, or less due to Gallente bias (Ishtar lol) and kinetic resists, because of this ancient ship bonus. Missile specialists would not lock themselves into using one particular missile, while drone specialists utilize all drone types, and projectile specialists use all types of ammunition. It makes no sense.
Shhhhhhh! You're talking to CCP "M. Shyamalan" Rise who likes to add a twist to things. Do you really want the Ishtar's bonuses to only apply to Gallente drones, i.e. Ogres and Gardes?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Kallen Kozukie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:34:47 -
[67] - Quote
"These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated."
Does that affect velocity or flight time for missiles for the range script? |
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
102
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:41:24 -
[68] - Quote
There is a problem with the ewar to this modules.
Either we would need a completely new shipclasses to have bonuses to the ewar, or change the current ewar ships to bonus to missile also.
One option would be to change the tracking disruptors to weapon disruptors and just give scripts to each weapon type. That would also increase the usage of TD (or WD) in small scale / solo and not only in the bigger fleetfights. It would become a universal module to disrupt all kind of damage, but drone damage (yes u can TD a drone, but in reality that is unusable in 99.9% of cases). |
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
406
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:45:24 -
[69] - Quote
Any thoughts of creating a tracking disruptor equivalent for missiles?
.
|
Nimrodion
Xanthium Prime
49
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:48:39 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Is that 5% increase per level or total increase regardless of skills?
CCP Rise wrote:Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
Are these numbers for MGCs running with or without scripts, and if they are with scripts, what's gonna be the bonus while running unscripted? |
|
stoicfaux
5925
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:50:21 -
[71] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:Any thoughts of creating a tracking disruptor equivalent for missiles? None what-so-ever: "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."
/RTFMOP
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2534
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:52:10 -
[72] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:did you read the post Ari Cho wrote:It is part of the first post. ;) Nalren wrote:Is this the one you mean? This isn't the first case of illiteracy this morning. Maybe I should go back to bed. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1750
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:52:32 -
[73] - Quote
I may have to steal that....
My Many Misadventures
I seek to create content, not become content.
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
507
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:52:42 -
[74] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:TinkerHell wrote:I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?
The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.
I see this going well. Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles + TiDi = increased cardiovascular related reductions in Hamster resources Worst case, I tell my kids their hamsters died suddenly in the night, and I ship them[1] off to the London data center. [1] The hamsters, not the kids. The kids get shipped in the Fall. Bull ****. No heavier load than any other ewar. Better than the server having to calculate the actual position in space of all those missiles relative to the position and area of effect of a raft of smarties going off.
TDs should be much easier on the server than firewall usage.
Rise and Fozzie, where is the TD effect to counter the use of these modules. Pretty soon you will have all missiles all the time murdering small ships with no end. How does this Balance anything?
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
507
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:55:08 -
[75] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:Any thoughts of creating a tracking disruptor equivalent for missiles? None what-so-ever:"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." /RTF MOP Don't be so smug. It is not none what so ever. Just more of the SOON. Hope that really is soon this time because no one will be flying anything small soon.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1750
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:55:33 -
[76] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:stoicfaux wrote:TinkerHell wrote:I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?
The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.
I see this going well. Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles + TiDi = increased cardiovascular related reductions in Hamster resources Worst case, I tell my kids their hamsters died suddenly in the night, and I ship them[1] off to the London data center. [1] The hamsters, not the kids. The kids get shipped in the Fall. Bull ****. No heavier load than any other ewar. Better than the server having to calculate the actual position in space of all those missiles relative to the position and area of effect of a raft of smarties going off. TDs should be much easier on the server than firewall usage. Rise and Fozzie, where is the TD effect to counter the use of these modules. Pretty soon you will have all missiles all the time murdering small ships with no end. How does this Balance anything? As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome.
My Many Misadventures
I seek to create content, not become content.
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2080
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:56:44 -
[77] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Jassmin Joy wrote:Any thoughts on the effectiveness of SmartBombs on missiles and the ability to firewall them? Yes, but we haven't had a chance to post that thread quite yet.
Will Smartbombs be the only viable counter to missiles? are you considering making a new Ewar against them? perhaps enhancing defender missiles to be useful like you target the ship and it destroys some but not all of the incoming missiles to reduce damage?
Maybe make defender missiles a mid slot and they can act like point defense? how will this affect the Phoenix?
oh and most important...
Happening status?
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1750
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:57:03 -
[78] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:Any thoughts of creating a tracking disruptor equivalent for missiles? None what-so-ever:"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." /RTF MOP Don't be so smug. It is not none what so ever. Just more of the SOON. Hope that really is soon this time because no one will be flying anything small soon. You missed the point I think. At the bottom of Rise's OP (which is what stoicfaux linked), Rise talks about adding missile-based EWAR eventually, just not right now.
My Many Misadventures
I seek to create content, not become content.
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2080
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 14:58:21 -
[79] - Quote
Capqu wrote:[Talwar, tfi]
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
110~km range 150 dps 10 mil
gal ewar for the counter. activate ALL the sensor damps
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2080
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:00:45 -
[80] - Quote
EVE-Lotteries wrote:Makes the actual TD works on that please.
My thoughts on counters for missiles and ECM/TD enhancement
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2081
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:02:13 -
[81] - Quote
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application
its almost like there is a new mod that is designed to enhance the torps to be more precise and go longer range...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
93
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:06:33 -
[82] - Quote
I think a better solution to missiles disruption would be this. Create a Defender missile mod small, medium, and large. Make this a mid slot mod so it fits more in line with other EWAR mods. Give the Falcon and Rook and Kitsune a bonus to rate of fire of defender missiles. Change the damage type of defenders to omni. You now have all Recon and EWAR frigs with 2 EWAR mods each. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
358
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:07:28 -
[83] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:rockets could do with lower volume
torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?)
and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work.
+1
Please remove links! |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1117
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:08:37 -
[84] - Quote
Good changes, but I find that Capqu is usually right about these sorts of things. You might consider his comments carefully regarding light missiles.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
stoicfaux
5925
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:08:56 -
[85] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Andre Vauban wrote:Any thoughts of creating a tracking disruptor equivalent for missiles? None what-so-ever:"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." /RTF MOP Don't be so smug. It is not none what so ever. Just more of the SOON. Hope that really is soon this time because no one will be flying anything small soon. "None what-so-ever" in this context was polite sarcasm, i.e. I was emphasizing that the question was covered in the original post. Probably should have gone with "Nope, none whatsoever" instead.
Or maybe, "none whatsoever" in this context implies a lack of faith in CCP's determination in overcoming the technical issues, thus implying that MGEs/MGCs will remain "overpowered" for the long haul. So, still sarcasm.
/always_have_more_than_one_reason_for_doing_something...
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Ghaustyl Kathix
Quantum Singularities Half Massed
57
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:09:02 -
[86] - Quote
I'm a little disappointed in these missile changes, to be honest. Even if there's a problem with missiles, this approach just makes them even more like turrets. I would have preferred a solution that didn't just copy how turrets do things. I think the biggest problem with missiles is almost all missile-boats are shield-tanked, which severely limits their options. The Typhoon, Sacrilege, Damnation, Vengeance and Gnosis being the only armor-tanked missile-bonused ships.
Regarding EWar, make defender missiles a mid-slot and make them not suck?
MeBiatch wrote:Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application its almost like there is a new mod that is designed to enhance the torps to be more precise and go longer range... Target painters and stasis webs, as well. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
508
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:29:54 -
[87] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote: As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome. Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server.
Bronson Hughes wrote: You missed the point I think. At the bottom of Rise's OP (which is what stoicfaux linked), Rise talks about adding missile-based EWAR eventually, just not right now. No I didn't. That is why I alliterated the soon.
While I hate ecm and what it does currently. It would not be a fix to change it to what you suggest. ECM has a valid use as a counter to logi and remote effects.
TD makes more sense since the TD boats are not used much anyway.
But at least you were thinking creatively. I presented a thread about an option to give painters an anti drone control effect, control range or less likely tracking on them. All I got was flames. But Im still of the opinion that that could work. A painted ship could be so electromagnetically lit up that it would interfere with the base control range, Drone Link Augmenters, and/or Omni effects. And likewise, dedicated painter boats are not used as much as the Damp or ECM boats.
edit : defenders suck, and always will. and if ever they somehow didn't they would still require a launcher slot which many ships do not have.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
M1k3y Koontz
Respawn Disabled Initiative Mercenaries
761
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:38:43 -
[88] - Quote
TinkerHell wrote:I dont even get why these are needed.
Because missiles (other than RLMLs) are ****.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1750
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:41:48 -
[89] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote: As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome. Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server. I am 90% certain that target-related values (target velocity, signature radius, resists, etc.) are calculated at impact. This would include the target being painted, webbed, running a prop mod, etc.
As for the missile buffing mods, in order to get the full benefit of the velocity/flight time bonuses, they would have to be applied at launch. Since it doesn't make much sense to me to have a module apply some of its bonuses at launch and some at impact, I'm guessing that the missile explosion velocity and explosion radius bonuses would be applied at launch as well.
This last bit is pure speculation mind you.
EDIT: Clarified the first bit.
My Many Misadventures
I seek to create content, not become content.
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
310
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:42:49 -
[90] - Quote
So, suddenly a weapon system that truly sucked for pvp (with a few hull-bonused exceptions), now does not suck. For some reason I am reminded of the heady days of blapping countless goon drakes (because that's all they were allowed to fly).
Looking forward to this change! |
|
Brain Eater
Ship Sinkas LLC
11
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:53:21 -
[91] - Quote
I think the fitting is actually reasonable for the smaller sized ships like the jackdaw. It gives players the opportunity to make actual choices on their fits for missile boats as opposed to "active vs passive". |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
325
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:55:12 -
[92] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote: As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome. Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server. While I hate ecm and what it does currently. It would not be a fix to change it to what you suggest. ECM has a valid use as a counter to logi and remote effects. TD makes more sense since the TD boats are not used much anyway..
Where have you been? TD ships like sentinels, crucifiers and arbitrators/curse are friggin everywhere. Makes my sleip, nado, pest, any arty boat cry a river of tears when theyre around. They completely neuter turret ships (as intended). Really dont want one module affecting 2 completely different weapon systems. A sentinel is countered by missiles and a cap booster. If its TD bonus applies to missile disruption now, it can fly with impunity. The sentinel is already borderline OP for an EWAR ship, with its speeds/neuts/TD/drones.
Modifying sensor damps might make more sense. Since it would be a gal counter to caldari weapon. Plus sensor dampening would make more sense against missiles than "tracking disruption". Damped sensors cant guide missiles as efficiently. Maybe an added script.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 15:57:14 -
[93] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:or perhaps he listed the max values with scripts loaded.
I suspect these are unscripted.
With Missiles these stats come in pairs: explosion radius/velocity for application and missile velocity/flight time for range. So MGE II is equivalent to having +13% range and +13% application. While a TE gives +10% optimal +20% falloff and +9.5% tracking.
Scripted MGC II **could be** : +38% range or application Scripted TC II: +15% Optimal and +30% falloff or +30% tracking |
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:05:19 -
[94] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:[quote=Mike Voidstar][quote=Harkin Issier]CCP did you mix up Computers and Enhancers?
[url=https://o.smium.org/db/comparetypes/1999,1978/auto]Scripted MGC II **could be** : +38% range or application +41.61% range from one MGC, +92.3% from two +46.9% application from one MGC, +105.1% from two (speaking in explosion velocity terms which is closest in missile area to tracking - because it gets increasing bonuses) |
Elana Apgar
Static-Noise Upholders
56
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:11:13 -
[95] - Quote
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
Jams work quite well I find. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:11:35 -
[96] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:I think a better solution to missiles disruption would be this. Create a Defender missile mod small, medium, and large. Make this a mid slot mod so it fits more in line with other EWAR mods. Give the Falcon and Rook and Kitsune a bonus to rate of fire of defender missiles. Change the damage type of defenders to omni. You now have all Recon and EWAR frigs with 2 EWAR mods each.
I like the idea of defender missiles getting changed to where they make sense to equip as a missile counter or removed and replaced with a new counter module.
If a new module then: I don't think TD modules should change. I think ships with TD bonuses could also be bonused for the new MGD module but it would force a choice of how many TD you fit and how many MGD you fit. Or perhaps give the bonus to one of the ewar ship lines that is lacking the most.
Damps and ECM still counter missile ships and missiles are the only weapon system smartbombs can counter. So CCP needs to approach the balance of countering missiles with care. |
Elana Apgar
Static-Noise Upholders
56
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:13:55 -
[97] - Quote
DFA200 wrote:So you are buffing the the weapon system that is basically invulnerable. I think missiles might need something, but they also need a counter. Tracking disruptors should affect missiles in some way. Until that happens, I can't support these changes.
Jams will counter missiles. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:15:44 -
[98] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:Scripted MGC II **could be** : +38% range or application With current stats: Range scripted: +41.61% range from one MGC, +92.3% from two Application scripted: +46.9% application from one MGC, +105.1% from two (speaking in explosion velocity terms which is closest in missile area to tracking - because it gets increasing bonuses) Sorry you lost me on this. I was posting the display numbers from the module are you posting the numbers after applying relational math? |
Mario Putzo
1434
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:16:03 -
[99] - 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.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1099
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:18:06 -
[100] - Quote
so how about auto-targeting rockets/hams/torps, and the option of not having them shoot drones |
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
252
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:22:12 -
[101] - Quote
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.
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
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
795
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:25:35 -
[102] - 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.
They need it ontop of the new mods, ship speeds have almost doubled in some cases, what was balanced once is trash now.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:27:39 -
[103] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:Scripted MGC II **could be** : +38% range or application With current stats: Range scripted: +41.61% range from one MGC, +92.3% from two Application scripted: +46.9% application from one MGC, +105.1% from two (speaking in explosion velocity terms which is closest in missile area to tracking - because it gets increasing bonuses) Sorry you lost me on this. I was posting the display numbers from the module are you posting the numbers after applying relational math? So I could have written out as: Scripted: +19% Explosion velocity and radius or +19% Missile velocity and travel time Range, flight time and explosion velocity get increasing bonuses (high is good - +50% is +50% increase in efficiency). Explosion radius is diminishing bonus (low is good, -50% is +100% increase in efficiency).
1 range scripted: (1+0.19)+ù(1+0.19) = 1.4161 (+41.6%) 2 range scripted: (1+0.19)+ù(1+0.19)+ù(1+0.19+ù0.87)+ù(1+0.19+ù0.87) = 1.922956304 (+92.3%) 1 accuracy scripted: (1+0.19)++(1GêÆ0.19) = 1.469135802 (+46.9%) 2 accuracy scripted: (1+0.19)++(1GêÆ0.19)+ù(1+0.19+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.19+ù0.87) = 2.051017073 (+105%)
Where 0.87 is stacking penalty for 2nd strongest modifier in a stacking penalty chain (2 separate chains on per-target attribute basis) |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2082
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:35:39 -
[104] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote: As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome. Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server. Bronson Hughes wrote: You missed the point I think. At the bottom of Rise's OP (which is what stoicfaux linked), Rise talks about adding missile-based EWAR eventually, just not right now. No I didn't. That is why I alliterated the soon. While I hate ecm and what it does currently. It would not be a fix to change it to what you suggest. ECM has a valid use as a counter to logi and remote effects. TD makes more sense since the TD boats are not used much anyway. But at least you were thinking creatively. I presented a thread about an option to give painters an anti drone control effect, control range or less likely tracking on them. All I got was flames. But Im still of the opinion that that could work. A painted ship could be so electromagnetically lit up that it would interfere with the base control range, Drone Link Augmenters, and/or Omni effects. And likewise, dedicated painter boats are not used as much as the Damp or ECM boats. edit : defenders suck, and always will. and if ever they somehow didn't they would still require a launcher slot which many ships do not have.
agreeded... I am personally I hate ECM but i can see how those who like it and want it to stay.. but that does not mean we dont need an Ewar counter to missiles and a effective counter to drones...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2082
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:36:45 -
[105] - Quote
Elana Apgar wrote:DFA200 wrote:So you are buffing the the weapon system that is basically invulnerable. I think missiles might need something, but they also need a counter. Tracking disruptors should affect missiles in some way. Until that happens, I can't support these changes. Jams will counter missiles.
FYP
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Kipper Deeplung
Elewaitor
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:42:23 -
[106] - Quote
This may be a good time to make the festival launcher into something more or make an evolution of it into a Chaff/Flare launcher or some similar type of countermeasure.
The Chaff/ Flare should probably be an ammo type similar to bomb in it's mechanics but slower in movement (5-10kps). It's should have a rate of fire similar to a rocket launcher but with a reload time like a RLM launcher and an charge limit similar to the ASB or AAR. The charge itself has an AOE of 5-10km It should not be 100% effective either. I know it's ability to "firewall" is a bit much but that will depend really on the pilots using the countermeasure and now they actively shape the field of combat. Even with a successful firewall of this type of countermeasure a percentage of damage so maybe 5-15% of the missiles that pass within the charges AOE will not be fooled and still make it to the target. Almost all of us have watched missiles move around so it's also possible for the ship who used the countermeasure to move in just a way to make the missile change to a flight path that could avoid the countermeasure all together.
When looking at manufacturing this new type of charge, I would look towards stuff like stront, heavy water, nanites, tungsten, titanium, and/or any of the minerals.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:44:44 -
[107] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote: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. They need it ontop of the new mods, ship speeds have almost doubled in some cases, what was balanced once is trash now.
QFT.
The only heavies ill continue to use are RHML. Since BS have the space for the mods. Maybe not the full 12% since we have these mods now, but 5-8% could help along with the dmg buff.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Helo Dhals
I Pay Hookers 2 Leave Allibaitors
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:53:36 -
[108] - Quote
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
You mean sensor dampeners? |
Mario Putzo
1434
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 16:59:42 -
[109] - 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. |
D4RK51DE1
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:04:29 -
[110] - Quote
Capqu wrote:[Talwar, tfi]
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
110~km range 150 dps 10 mil
So compared to a 150mm rail longbow corm it does cost about the same, does about the same DPS has about the same range.
on the plus side this probably has a better tank and 3x the volley
on the minus side 110km of missile delay |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2083
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:05:23 -
[111] - Quote
Helo Dhals wrote:Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. You mean sensor dampeners?
no thats used against targeting in general... with that logic just get rid of TP and TD right?
what he means is the EQ of a TP but for missiles...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Leonardo Adami
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:05:47 -
[112] - Quote
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. |
Alexis Nightwish
250
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:08:27 -
[113] - Quote
While I like these additions, without a concomitant nerf to the Garmur and Orthrus, I see these cancerous ships becoming a full blown plague.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Juan Mileghere
Incident Command Southern Star Dominion
31
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:14:32 -
[114] - Quote
TDs should affect Missles now as well...
Blobbing Explained
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2084
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:14:46 -
[115] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:While I like these additions, without a concomitant nerf to the Garmur and Orthrus, I see these cancerous ships becoming a full blown plague.
reduce garmur max target range to 25km... that way it forces a sensor booster or else the damps will be a hard counter...
for the orthrus reduce the targeting range to 45km...
so now these ships will be countered by sensor damps... force them in close and a chance to be scrammed... lechasis would be a good counter to these ships.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Mario Putzo
1434
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:16:40 -
[116] - 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. |
Leonardo Adami
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:20:11 -
[117] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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. If anything, they could use a raw damage reduction...so Arties truly stand out as the kings of Alpha and roll the DPS back into a reduction on Heavy Launcher ROF.
The amount of whine from this one is strong. Whine you must not , quit EVE you must. |
stoicfaux
5926
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:40:55 -
[118] - Quote
edit: In other words, here is how you take advantage of the fact that TPs and MGC/MGEs don't stack with each other.
In the context of the 2nd part of the missile formula, here is the effective bonus of each module after stacking penalties (for 5 modules) are applied.
For example, for a Golem with its TP bonus, this is the order for filling your seven mids with TPs and MGC IIs with Precision scripts: 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%
A Typhoon, with non-bonused TPs should fit TPs and MGC IIs with scripts in this order: 146.91% MGC II w/ Prec 140.77% MGC II w/ Prec 137.50% PWNAGE 132.59% PWNAGE 126.77% MGC II w/ Prec Adding a MGE II (which would be the 5th module for stacking purposes) in the lows would provide: 101.47% MGE II
Below are the stacking penalized values for each module.
156.25% PWNAGE 50% Bonus (e.g. Golem) 148.89% PWNAGE 50% 132.10% PWNAGE 50% 115.92% PWNAGE 50% 105.96% PWNAGE 50%
137.50% PWNAGE 132.59% PWNAGE 121.40% PWNAGE 110.61% PWNAGE 103.97% PWNAGE
=======================
146.91% MGC II w/ Prec 140.77% MGC II w/ Prec 126.77% MGC II w/ Prec 113.27% MGC II w/ Prec 104.97% MGC II w/ Prec
135.29% MGC I w/Prec 130.67% MGC I w/Prec 120.14% MGC I w/Prec 109.99% MGC I w/Prec 103.74% MGC I w/Prec
120.99% MGC II 118.25% MGC II 111.98% MGC II 105.94% MGC II 102.23% MGC II
116.22% MGC I 114.09% MGC I 109.25% MGC I 104.59% MGC I 101.72% MGC I
113.90% MGE II 112.08% MGE II 107.93% MGE II 103.93% MGE II 101.47% MGE II
110.53% MGE I 109.15% MGE I 106.01% MGE I 102.98% MGE I 101.12% MGE I
======================= For completeness, here are rigor/flare rigs (which don't suffer stacking penalties.)
125.00% Rigor II 120.00% Flare II 117.65% Rigor I 115.00% Flare I
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:46:15 -
[119] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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. If anything, they could use a raw damage reduction...so Arties truly stand out as the kings of Alpha and roll the DPS back into a reduction on Heavy Launcher ROF.
Why should there only be one high alpha choice? Not everyone likes Minmitar ships, not everyone likes projectiles, heavies competing for alpha is good for game choices. |
Brewmeron
Duke of the Day Hard Knocks Citizens
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 17:56:06 -
[120] - Quote
I'm still curious to where on earth the counter to these are, in Crucible I believe you, yourself said that you are looking into introducing tracking disruptors for missiles, but you wanted to wait to gather data on the recent changes you made to missiles so you could balance them fairly, that was now, what? 3 Years ago, and now you want to BUFF missiles by giving them a tracking boosting module and still have not released a disruption module, come on, get it together, i'm all for these modules but only IF you release a disruptor for missile too. |
|
Gugl1 Molou
Cause For Concern Easily Excited
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:01:09 -
[121] - Quote
I sense armor phoenix's or low-tank shield phoenix's will be a thing after these changes. Imagine a double Missile Guidance Computer II fit to a phoenix to blap subcaps...
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
327
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:15:09 -
[122] - Quote
Gugl1 Molou wrote:I sense armor phoenix's or low-tank shield phoenix's will be a thing after these changes. Imagine a double Missile Guidance Computer II fit to a phoenix to blap subcaps...
Bring it on. Outside of web range and having an ab should still be enough to speed tank them. Then counter drop a dread, profit.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Daemun Khanid
Sanctus Imperialis
99
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:15:45 -
[123] - Quote
I like missiles, I don't like these changes. None of these ships were designed or balanced with these extra modules in mind. Turret ships are designed with the idea in mind that you need "x" number of slots for offensive and "x" number of slots for defensive while maintaining the option to choose between the 2. Missile boats were NOT. All this if going to do is put a few pathetically weak ship fits out there that people will try and then say "screw that." With most of my missile ships now the tank is comparable to turret ships, dps is less but application (in most cases) is pretty good. So you're making modules that A. Are just going to reduce the missile boats tank and/or dps so that they are (even more) sub par. B. Do nothing to actually increase dps, just improve application and range. C. If anti-missile modules are introduced missile ships will just become more worthless and speed will continue to be king.
Perhaps in null-sec where engagements might be more likely to happen out in open space with large alpha fleets the range and application improvements might be worth while. But in FW space where most combat takes place on a button and where anything outside 20k just means you don't have point, your target leaves at will. So you can take your 100km range and ... well needless to say I don't want it. But pretty much everything lately seems to be all about the null-sec so I guess it's on deaf ears anyway.
This entire thing seems very poorly thought out and should not be introduced unless part of a fully worked package of missile ship balancing, DPS and EHP balancing, improvement module balancing, ammo balancing and counter-module balancing. This just reeks of the same lack of real consideration that was put into polarized modules.
If missiles are weak, buff missiles. Injecting new modules just complicates things and creates new issues all across the spectrum.
DON'T RELEASE CONTENT FOR THE SAKE OF "CONTENT"
Daemun of Khanid
|
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:19:53 -
[124] - Quote
I'm pretty happy about these changes, they've been a long time coming.
A couple of concerns though, as speed has increased dramatically over the last two years, and sig has recently decreased with the restrained warp drives. Larger sized missiles could probably use a more comprehensive rebalance than the 5% buff to HMs. Light missiles might end up being a little too powerful with these things, though.
Also, really looking forward to new e-war, hopefully it's something a little more out of the box than effects like the TD. A good change and a big step in the right direction. |
Gugl1 Molou
Cause For Concern Easily Excited
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:22:13 -
[125] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Gugl1 Molou wrote:I sense armor phoenix's or low-tank shield phoenix's will be a thing after these changes. Imagine a double Missile Guidance Computer II fit to a phoenix to blap subcaps...
Bring it on. Outside of web range and having an ab should still be enough to speed tank them. Then counter drop a dread, profit.
It doesn't take a genious to counter it, but personally I would usually not drop on someone that could potentially just speed/sig tank the damage and run away. You usually dont drop on anything bigger than a battlecruiser to begin with, but these changes might make it viable to drop virtually anything. |
Arla Sarain
501
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:35:34 -
[126] - Quote
Make it so TDs work on missiles.
Drone-ships are underpowered yeah? Need more incentive to fly drone ships as an adversary to neuting TD ships as opposed to flying virtually anything else. Like AC/blaster/laser and the soon to be TDd missile ships. |
Dean Wong
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 18:50:14 -
[127] - Quote
My crystalball tells me of a new doctrine...
Sacrilege? Anyone? |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:03:31 -
[128] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:I like missiles, I don't like these changes. None of these ships were designed or balanced with these extra modules in mind. Turret ships are designed with the idea in mind that you need "x" number of slots for offensive and "x" number of slots for defensive while maintaining the option to choose between the 2. Missile boats were NOT. All this if going to do is put a few pathetically weak ship fits out there that people will try and then say "screw that." With most of my missile ships now the tank is comparable to turret ships, dps is less but application (in most cases) is pretty good. So you're making modules that A. Are just going to reduce the missile boats tank and/or dps so that they are (even more) sub par. B. Do nothing to actually increase dps, just improve application and range. C. If anti-missile modules are introduced missile ships will just become more worthless and speed will continue to be king. ...
While I appreciate your point of view and agree missiles could use some application love, I wonder if the solution would be toning down the new modules slightly, while increasing some base stats mainly explosion radius and velocity. So those that can't fit a new module benefit and those that can benefit more.
A. DPS is only as good as its application, which is why people have complained about Heavy Missiles so much for PvP. Modules that improve application, increase your damage output; no reason to be hung up on DPS numbers. If you are trading a BCS for a MGE then you have to weigh the damage application improvement over the loss of base damage. If you are trading a midslot for a MGC you are trading utility or tank for more range and or application. Again an interesting choice.
I think modules that open up more choices are worth while. Keep in mind that you can also now choose between getting range/application out of rig slots thus opening those slots for tank or dps as well. |
Kalen Pavle
Cerberus Federation Gentlemen's.Club
29
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:03:34 -
[129] - Quote
Brewmeron wrote:I'm still curious to where on earth the counter to these are, in Crucible I believe you, yourself said that you are looking into introducing tracking disruptors for missiles, but you wanted to wait to gather data on the recent changes you made to missiles so you could balance them fairly, that was now, what? 3 Years ago, and now you want to BUFF missiles by giving them a tracking boosting module and still have not released a disruption module, come on, get it together, i'm all for these modules but only IF you release a disruptor for missile too.
Firewalls? Flying away really quickly? ECM? Damps?
Turrets have tracking disruptors and maybe neuts. Missiles can be negated by moving away from your target and smartbombs. Things do not have to be the same to be equal. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:16:12 -
[130] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?
Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated. Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before. Some specifics on the new modules:
We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods.
The numbers:
Missile Guidance Enhancer I 10 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer 8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 6.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment.
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! I found myself reply to others in the thread and figured I should reply to OP as well. I like these changes. It is going to open a wider range of usable fits as well as move certain ships from undesirable to playable. Initially these modules look strong, but I have not run numbers to see how many modules various ships can and should fit. If most ships are going to be limited to 1 or 2 and new counter measures are in the works, then I think they will work out fine.
Releasing the bonusing modules before the negating should work out in a positive way because it will incitegreater enthusiasm for missile ships and get more people flying them, thus increasing their presence in the meta more significantly. Then releasing the disruption modules, hopefully in the near future, will again be met with enthusiasm as countering the missile ships more effectively will be desired. Or it could be found that current means are counter enough, though I think might not prove true.
Good work CCP, thank you for listening to us when expressed ourselves stating missile ships needed more options and MGE/C were asked for. |
|
Helo Dhals
I Pay Hookers 2 Leave Allibaitors
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:26:47 -
[131] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Helo Dhals wrote:Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. You mean sensor dampeners? no thats used against targeting in general... with that logic just get rid of TP and TD right? what he means is the EQ of a TP but for missiles...
Defender missiles that actually work? |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1474
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:39:24 -
[132] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:stoicfaux wrote:TinkerHell wrote:I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?
The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.
I see this going well. Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles + TiDi = increased cardiovascular related reductions in Hamster resources Worst case, I tell my kids their hamsters died suddenly in the night, and I ship them[1] off to the London data center. [1] The hamsters, not the kids. The kids get shipped in the Fall. Bull ****. No heavier load than any other ewar. Better than the server having to calculate the actual position in space of all those missiles relative to the position and area of effect of a raft of smarties going off. TDs should be much easier on the server than firewall usage. Rise and Fozzie, where is the TD effect to counter the use of these modules. Pretty soon you will have all missiles all the time murdering small ships with no end. How does this Balance anything?
Reread about where they go on a missile ship.
MGE or BCU in the low-slot --> Trade Raw DPS for +Range and Damage Application MGC or Tank in the mid-slot --> Trade Tank for +Range or Damage Application
Why is this not a wonderful thing I hear you ask. You are asking right ?
The low-slot module Trades Raw DPS for improved application of any damage done. However .. the major limiting factor with missiles in damage application is missile/target size varience
ie .. it's only going to be useful to fit these modules if your shooting Frigate sized targets with Cruiser+ sized missiles. in short your reducing your aver-all maximum dps so that you can hit smaller targets better
Situationaly advantageous, but hardly worthy of the "we're going to be over-run by missile boats" proclamation of doom your espousing.
not forgetting of course that the mid-slot is also where the TP goes, and the AB goes, and the webbifier goes ... etc. |
Alexis Nightwish
250
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:46:17 -
[133] - 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! So when drones, a delayed damage, destroyable weapon system got ODTLs and ODTEs there was no intent to add anti-drone EWAR, yet when you add similar modules for missiles, you intend to add anti-missile EWAR. Seems legit.
I'm getting pretty ******* tired of drones being king.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1516
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 19:58:32 -
[134] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish 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.
Let us know what you think! So when drones, a delayed damage, destroyable weapon system got ODTLs and ODTEs there was no intent to add anti-drone EWAR, yet when you add similar modules for missiles, you intend to add anti-missile EWAR. Seems legit. I'm getting pretty ******* tired of drones being king. Drones are fragile turrets. They can be directly engaged by any other weapon rather than just smartbombs and defenders, the latter of which goes unused and the former requires dedicating fitting and numbers for the task. Further smartbombs can be a far greater threat to orbiting drones. They can also be individually TD'd but that falls short of practical.
The 2 aren't the apples to apples comparison you are presenting. |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
195
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:24:30 -
[135] - Quote
While I agree that more variety is better, this has a chance of being one of those cases where the end result is you having to sacrifice a slot to keep the previous level of effectiveness or be nerfed. More specifically:
-Missiles themselves are nerfed to keep them from being overpowered. Result: loss of damage and/or application unless you sacrifice tank/utility/BCUs to counter the change with MGE or MCE.
-The missile tracking disruption is tacked on to tracking disruptor. Result: tracking disruptor becomes a really lucrative if not a must-have defensive module and missile ships lose tank/utility/dps to the MGE or MCE if they want to keep the current level of effectiveness. True for gunboats too in a part as the tracking disruptor becomes more common in fits.
-Missile disruptor gets its own module. Better case for the above, but rather than the current situation of simply using a TP or web to improve application some ships are able to counter the effect. As an addition, there is assumedly no way of telling when a ship is fitted with a missile disruptor before engaging in combat, making the choice of engaging less of an informed choice and more of a gamble. Net result: lowered application towards some targets, more randomness you cannot have an influence on.
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
Market Wizard
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:34:20 -
[136] - Quote
With all the suggestions about adding missile disruption into the TD mods which seems like a great idea, why not just shove the new missile bonuses into the existing computers and enhancers and call them weapons computers and weapons enhancers.
Benefits: You dont use the same icon for the new stuff that is already used by old stuff There is no extra complexity for the amount of modules in game (counteracting the current purpose of tiericide) Creating a disruption system is as easy as just plugging bonuses into the current disruptors (same for comps and enhancers) You dont have to add new ships or bonuses to current ships to have dedicated disruption
Problems: You cant tweak fitting for just missile ships because they are rolled into the mods used by turrets ships (or vice-versa) You would have to rename mods and scripts so they are not confusing to new players
Thoughts? Anything I missed? |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
509
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:35:42 -
[137] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote: Damps and ECM still counter missile ships and missiles are the only weapon system smartbombs can counter. So CCP needs to approach the balance of countering missiles with care. Not true. Smarties counter drones. And were created for that purpose. Of course you can also shoot the drones if you wait to target them.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
vikari
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
125
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:39:37 -
[138] - Quote
I believe scripts would be important. The having all four bonuses is ok, but it should be limited on how strong they are, while a script could then push a single number or maybe 2 numbers higher. Missiles have that benefit of the best damage control and range of any weapon. I'd like to see limits on their bonuses much more in line with a tracking computer. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
509
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:41:40 -
[139] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote: Firewalls? Flying away really quickly? ECM? Damps?
Turrets have tracking disruptors and maybe neuts. Missiles can be negated by moving away from your target and smartbombs. Things do not have to be the same to be equal. Of course ecm and damps don't effect turrets as well And flying in a way to reduce tracking doesn't either.
Your list is only firewall. That was never meant to be the counter to missiles. It was created to address the lack of a dedicated antimissile ewar when Drakes were everywhere.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Gleb Koskov
Hedion University Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:44:53 -
[140] - Quote
In the past the only way to diminish your explosion radius and velocity would have been through the use of specific rigs, grabbing a set of implants or find a hull that filled the desired bonus to precision or range.
With these new modules giving bonuses to four respective stats, doesn't these make the rigs obsolete specially since having your computers scripted offers almost a bonus of 20% for both precision or range stats and they only offer one bonus in one of these areas? Will CCP be planning to bake Flare / Rigors, Fuel Cache / Bay Thrusters into each other in the future, and maybe perhaps looking into the penalties associated with these? |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1935
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:49:15 -
[141] - Quote
Gleb Koskov wrote:In the past the only way to diminish your explosion radius and velocity would have been through the use of specific rigs, grabbing a set of implants or find a hull that filled the desired bonus to precision or range.
With these new modules giving bonuses to four respective stats, doesn't these make the rigs obsolete specially since having your computers scripted offers almost a bonus of 20% for both precision or range stats and they only offer one bonus in one of these areas? Will CCP be planning to bake Flare / Rigors, Fuel Cache / Bay Thrusters into each other in the future, and maybe perhaps looking into the penalties associated with these?
They didn't do that for gunnery rigs so I don't see them doing it for the missile ones. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:49:21 -
[142] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Kalen Pavle wrote: Firewalls? Flying away really quickly? ECM? Damps?
Turrets have tracking disruptors and maybe neuts. Missiles can be negated by moving away from your target and smartbombs. Things do not have to be the same to be equal. Of course ecm and damps don't effect turrets as well And flying in a way to reduce tracking doesn't either. Your list is only firewall. That was never meant to be the counter to missiles. It was created to address the lack of a dedicated antimissile ewar when Drakes were everywhere. You don't need to fly in a way to "reduce tracking" for missiles, you just need to be moving. You can have a 0 angular velocity while moving and suffer no turret damage reduction but the fact that you are moving reduces missile damage application.
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1311
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 20:56:06 -
[143] - Quote
Typical CCP procedure is to post the stats for scriptable modules used without scripts or heat. Scripts typically reduce one set of bonuses to 0 and double the other set. So we're looking at a 19% reduction to expRad and expVel, or a 19% increase in both missile velocity and flight time, which is also good.
Counter to extreme missile range is still damps, which are Gallente. his fits well with lore. GL to CCP on the missile disruptors. I know you need it.
5% bonus to Heavy missile damage is.... lel. But in combination with the new mods, it may be enough. Guess we'll see.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Leonardo Adami
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:01:42 -
[144] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:I like missiles, I don't like these changes. None of these ships were designed or balanced with these extra modules in mind. Turret ships are designed with the idea in mind that you need "x" number of slots for offensive and "x" number of slots for defensive while maintaining the option to choose between the 2. Missile boats were NOT. All this if going to do is put a few pathetically weak ship fits out there that people will try and then say "screw that." With most of my missile ships now the tank is comparable to turret ships, dps is less but application (in most cases) is pretty good. So you're making modules that A. Are just going to reduce the missile boats tank and/or dps so that they are (even more) sub par. B. Do nothing to actually increase dps, just improve application and range. C. If anti-missile modules are introduced missile ships will just become more worthless and speed will continue to be king.
Perhaps in null-sec where engagements might be more likely to happen out in open space with large alpha fleets the range and application improvements might be worth while. But in FW space where most combat takes place on a button and where anything outside 20k just means you don't have point, your target leaves at will. So you can take your 100km range and ... well needless to say I don't want it. But pretty much everything lately seems to be all about the null-sec so I guess it's on deaf ears anyway.
This entire thing seems very poorly thought out and should not be introduced unless part of a fully worked package of missile ship balancing, DPS and EHP balancing, improvement module balancing, ammo balancing and counter-module balancing. This just reeks of the same lack of real consideration that was put into polarized modules.
If missiles are weak, buff missiles. Injecting new modules just complicates things and creates new issues all across the spectrum.
DON'T RELEASE CONTENT FOR THE SAKE OF "CONTENT"
qq
Edit, also you're not taking into account to fit these new modules you either a ) give up dps for trading in a BCU or b) give up EHP with losing a mid slot that would be used for shields |
Wizzard117
Wizzard117 Corporation
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:07:58 -
[145] - Quote
How about 4 diffrerent script variations that actually influence only missile velocity OR missile flight time OR missile explosion radius OR missile explosion velocity.
This could create even more variety as - one may want TP and MGC with missile explosion velocity - one might go for webs and MGC with explosion radius - one may want to choose between TP and MGC with explosion radius based on their preferred distance - so on
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:12:39 -
[146] - Quote
Gleb Koskov wrote:In the past the only way to diminish your explosion radius and velocity would have been through the use of specific rigs, grabbing a set of implants or find a hull that filled the desired bonus to precision or range.
With these new modules giving bonuses to four respective stats, doesn't these make the rigs obsolete specially since having your computers scripted offers almost a bonus of 20% for both precision or range stats and they only offer one bonus in one of these areas? Will CCP be planning to bake Flare / Rigors, Fuel Cache / Bay Thrusters into each other in the future, and maybe perhaps looking into the penalties associated with these? Not every missile ship will want to use a module slot for these 4 stats and may prefer to use the rig options. This will be especially true of missile frigates with limited slots. |
Viribus
DEEP.DARK.FANTASY
351
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:19:29 -
[147] - Quote
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
Missiles already have inherent disadvantages to guns, like destructibility and travel time, doesn't it make sense for them to have inherent advantages as well?
Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall.
watch me be a scurb and get owned
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:19:29 -
[148] - Quote
Leonardo Adami wrote:Edit, also you're not taking into account to fit these new modules you either a ) give up dps for trading in a BCU or b) give up EHP with losing a mid slot that would be used for shields This logic would leave TP's unused for the same reason. If you can't fit these because of slot counts you weren't fitting target painters but no one argues for their removal because of it. These are the same, those ships that have the room to spare will use them, those that can't won't. This isn't a bad thing. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
509
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:33:29 -
[149] - Quote
Viribus wrote: Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall. Which appears to be getting various module and ammo treatments to dissuade the use of it. Watch the o7 show and read the blogs. Firewalll was an ingenious invention of players to address the lack of missile defense when Drake missile spam was omnipresent because drakes were omnipresent. And with the perma mwd drakes it wasn't always effective. But now it is getting nerfed. So there will be a need for a dedicated antimissile ewar.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Michael Oskold
Adversity. Northern Coalition.
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:35:29 -
[150] - Quote
man, caracal navys may actually not be **** anymore lel
have heavies that apply to frigs is pretty baller B)
gun have to train them missile skills now :/ |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2085
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:39:11 -
[151] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. Missiles already have inherent disadvantages to guns, like destructibility and travel time, doesn't it make sense for them to have inherent advantages as well? Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall.
no it does not... in fact in real life ECM is used against missiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16246
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:41:11 -
[152] - Quote
My minds-a-tingling.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
429
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:44:12 -
[153] - Quote
So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Viribus
DEEP.DARK.FANTASY
351
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:55:35 -
[154] - Quote
Hey CCP could you give some rationale for torps having the exact same range as HAMs despite supposedly being a larger weapon system? Every missile and turret in the game gets increased range as it goes up in scale, with the sole exception of torps
Coincidentally, the only ships that actually use torps in PVP are bombers
watch me be a scurb and get owned
|
Viribus
DEEP.DARK.FANTASY
351
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:56:20 -
[155] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Viribus wrote:Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. Missiles already have inherent disadvantages to guns, like destructibility and travel time, doesn't it make sense for them to have inherent advantages as well? Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall. no it does not... in fact in real life ECM is used against missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_countermeasure
Oh okay if it's done in real life it makes complete sense for a sci-fi videogame set in a different galaxy
watch me be a scurb and get owned
|
Viribus
DEEP.DARK.FANTASY
351
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:59:14 -
[156] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Viribus wrote: Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall. Which appears to be getting various module and ammo treatments to dissuade the use of it. Watch the o7 show and read the blogs. Firewalll was an ingenious invention of players to address the lack of missile defense when Drake missile spam was omnipresent because drakes were omnipresent. And with the perma mwd drakes it wasn't always effective. But now it is getting nerfed. So there will be a need for a dedicated antimissile ewar.
Honestly more than anything I don't think missiles need any more help being completely irrelevant in PVP (with the sole exception of light missiles)
MIssiles are already so universally terrible the only reason people seem to want anti-missile EWAR is some weird desire for everything to be the same
watch me be a scurb and get owned
|
Wizzard117
Wizzard117 Corporation
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:06:27 -
[157] - Quote
btw also How about Remote Missile Guidance modules for logistic ships? |
stoicfaux
5926
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:22:22 -
[158] - Quote
Wizzard117 wrote:btw also How about Remote Missile Guidance modules for logistic ships? Target Painters.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Ele Rebellion
Dead Star Syndicate
48
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:23:26 -
[159] - Quote
Will the computers use scripts?
If so, what will be effected by the scripts? I assume one script will effect 2 of the 4 areas? Will it be an explosion script for explosion velocity and radius and a flight script for speed and flight time? |
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:27:15 -
[160] - Quote
While you are changing the missiles mods....
Can you re balance the ballistic controls please take a look at the tech2 vs an afordable / but usable meta.
I have used Hyrbids damage mods to compare but you can take any turret damage mod and it will be the same
Ballistic controls come in 3 flavors "hard to fit tech2", "trash", or "really expensive"
the same can be told for drone damage amps, tech2, trash, or really expensive.. except they don't volley your cpu fitting quite as much as bc !
Yet for turrets there are lots of options, and afforable fit-able options
ballistic controll II fitting 40 +10 Damage -10.5% duration
800k isk
Muon Coil bolt array 1 fitting 39 +8.4 Damage -9% duration
950k isk
Magnetic Feild Stabilizer II fitting 30 +10% Damage -10.5% duration
800k isk
Magnetic Vortex stabilizer I fitting 34 +9.8% damage -10.5% duration
270k isk |
|
Sleepaz Den
Artificial Memories
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:35:18 -
[161] - Quote
Rapid heavy Barghs look promising. 900dps with CN at 160km is a fair deal. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:36:36 -
[162] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect? |
Syrias Bizniz
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
405
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 22:36:54 -
[163] - Quote
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahaha. Ahahahahahaha. AHAHA...Ha....
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!121!121!!!1
tl;dr: Dis gon be gud. |
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
431
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:05:38 -
[164] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect?
I would presume it is at least a little bit of the former.
Rightfully so, people regularly ask when heavies and HAMs are going to be worthwhile; currently they can't apply their damage in most situations without lots of help. LMLs and RLMLs are at the top of the weapon system heap, half because they are so good, and half because everything out there worth flying is so fast and small. HAMs and heavies work just fine against battlecruisers and battleships, but they still aren't exactly common outside of niche situations, so fitting the bigger missule systems is often a poor choice. It would be better to see where HAMs and heavies fall after they tone down the speed and kite meta, which is a good deal of the reason why HAMs and heavies are so useless.
No one would be complaining about HAMs if there were great herds of battlecruisers roaming the expanses of New Eden.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:15:59 -
[165] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect? I would presume it is at least a little bit of the former. Rightfully so, people regularly ask when heavies and HAMs are going to be worthwhile; currently they can't apply their damage in most situations without lots of help. LMLs and RLMLs are at the top of the weapon system heap, half because they are so good, and half because everything out there worth flying is so fast and small. HAMs and heavies work just fine against battlecruisers and battleships, but they still aren't exactly common outside of niche situations, so fitting the bigger missule systems is often a poor choice. It would be better to see where HAMs and heavies fall after they tone down the speed and kite meta, which is a good deal of the reason why HAMs and heavies are so useless. No one would be complaining about HAMs if there were great herds of battlecruisers roaming the expanses of New Eden.
This is true, it is not just that they are bad in terms of damage application balance, it is also that so many ships running oversized afterburners in the same class and smaller classes means they suffer even more.
|
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:18:53 -
[166] - Quote
Sleepaz Den wrote:Rapid heavy Barghs look promising. 900dps with CN at 160km is a fair deal.
yeah even rapid heavy on things like Armageddon (has the mids to use the mods + damage buff) look interesting
|
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union Mordus Angels
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:25:38 -
[167] - Quote
I'm very glad to see these are going to be added. The hint about missile disruption also suggests we may be coming to a rebalance of ECM soon as well. I'll post more specific feedback about these modules soon.
Considering all of these changes, please also look at the SP investment for missiles compared to other weapon systems. Here is a thread which outlines the concerns and potential solutions:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5832789
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:39:15 -
[168] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect? I would presume it is at least a little bit of the former. Rightfully so, people regularly ask when heavies and HAMs are going to be worthwhile; currently they can't apply their damage in most situations without lots of help. LMLs and RLMLs are at the top of the weapon system heap, half because they are so good, and half because everything out there worth flying is so fast and small. HAMs and heavies work just fine against battlecruisers and battleships, but they still aren't exactly common outside of niche situations, so fitting the bigger missule systems is often a poor choice. It would be better to see where HAMs and heavies fall after they tone down the speed and kite meta, which is a good deal of the reason why HAMs and heavies are so useless. No one would be complaining about HAMs if there were great herds of battlecruisers roaming the expanses of New Eden. I'm not in disagreement with the idea of light missiles being fine or larger platforms having issues in the current meta. I'm rather wondering how those facts translate to this specifically to the reasoning for this change. Granted the mods will likely find a home more commonly on larger platforms, I'm just not finding a strong association since, as you pointed out, it makes no sense since the effect would be negligible at best for most platforms effected.
Also didn't this idea start prior to the current meta and the rebalances that led to it? |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
509
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:39:35 -
[169] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Viribus wrote: Besides, at the fleet level they already have a really effective counter in the form of firewall. Which appears to be getting various module and ammo treatments to dissuade the use of it. Watch the o7 show and read the blogs. Firewalll was an ingenious invention of players to address the lack of missile defense when Drake missile spam was omnipresent because drakes were omnipresent. And with the perma mwd drakes it wasn't always effective. But now it is getting nerfed. So there will be a need for a dedicated antimissile ewar. Honestly more than anything I don't think missiles need any more help being completely irrelevant in PVP (with the sole exception of light missiles) MIssiles are already so universally terrible the only reason people seem to want anti-missile EWAR is some weird desire for everything to be the same No. Missiles actually aren't that bad where I fly.
Im in FW. This is mostly small gang or solo even. Currently missile boats have lots of fun fitting TD to use on turret boats but not vice versa. The reason I or we want a dedicated anti missile ewar is because there is nothing left but try to tank or out dps missile boats.
Of course garmurs and worms are broken op for other reasons. But giving them and RLML cruisers potential help with these new modules is not helping the situation.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
13476
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 23:53:14 -
[170] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect?
Not even treating the symptoms, it will actively make it worse, since missiles will see a huge power boost against everything in the game except the toxic speed creep.
That said, missiles needed an update for a while now, so I am glad they are being looked at. And that further said, I do not think this is the way to go about it. But, one way or another, our feedback really hasn't mattered in a long time about things like this, so we will wait and see, and probably laugh about the inevitable unforeseen consequences of these changes.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
432
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 00:04:09 -
[171] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Also didn't this idea start prior to the current meta and the rebalances that led to it?
I'm not entirely sure where the idea actually originates from. Pretty much every permutation of giving one weapon or tank system's uniqueness to another has been suggested here or elsewhere for as long as I've been around. I don't think it's possible or relevant to know where it actually came from.
The timing of it is suspicious is all, which implicates it as a response (re: band aid fix) for missiles to the meta. Before the warp changes, bigger missiles weren't actually too bad because people actually few BCs and sometimes even BS. Now that the warp changes have been around for a good while, and the full consequences of it are established on the meta, this seems a response to the terrible usage metrics of the bigger missile systems. Basically, its been wanted for a very long time, but only in an era when the bigger missile systems are functionally worthless is it seeing the light of day.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 00:16:43 -
[172] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Also didn't this idea start prior to the current meta and the rebalances that led to it? I'm not entirely sure where the idea actually originates from. Pretty much every permutation of giving one weapon or tank system's uniqueness to another has been suggested here or elsewhere for as long as I've been around. I don't think it's possible or relevant to know where it actually came from. The timing of it is suspicious is all, which implicates it as a response (re: band aid fix) for missiles to the meta. Before the warp changes, bigger missiles weren't actually too bad because people actually few BCs and sometimes even BS. Now that the warp changes have been around for a good while, and the full consequences of it are established on the meta, this seems a response to the terrible usage metrics of the bigger missile systems. Basically, its been wanted for a very long time, but only in an era when the bigger missile systems are functionally worthless is it seeing the light of day. Yet back when larger missiles "weren't to bad" is when CCP first proposed doing this IIRC. And likely it was delayed due to the very issues preventing ewar counters currently. If we ignore that then the implication may stand, but I don't feel that is fair. Basically if entire classes of ships are gathering dust I don't think anyone is suggesting transferring damage application to a different mod for a weapon that only applies to a subset of those ships is the answer.
The idea that missile damage application could solve any issues with BC's and BS's as a whole seems so absurd that I can't help but doubt it could be the reasoning, moreso than any implication the timing could create. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
13476
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 00:40:05 -
[173] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: The idea that a missile damage application move could solve any issues with BC's and BS's as a whole seems so absurd that I can't help but doubt it could be the reasoning, moreso than any implication the timing could create.
No less absurd than fixing bombers by gutting fleet warp, but here we are.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Viribus
DEEP.DARK.FANTASY
352
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 00:55:59 -
[174] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Viribus wrote:[ Honestly more than anything I don't think missiles need any more help being completely irrelevant in PVP (with the sole exception of light missiles)
MIssiles are already so universally terrible the only reason people seem to want anti-missile EWAR is some weird desire for everything to be the same No. Missiles actually aren't that bad where I fly. Im in FW. This is mostly small gang or solo even. Currently missile boats have lots of fun fitting TD to use on turret boats but not vice versa. The reason I or we want a dedicated anti missile ewar is because there is nothing left but try to tank or out dps missile boats. Of course garmurs and worms are broken op for other reasons. But giving them and RLML cruisers potential help with these new modules is not helping the situation.
Allow me to emphasize an excerpt from my post:
Quote:Honestly more than anything I don't think missiles need any more help being completely irrelevant in PVP (with the sole exception of light missiles)
watch me be a scurb and get owned
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 00:58:16 -
[175] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: The idea that a missile damage application move could solve any issues with BC's and BS's as a whole seems so absurd that I can't help but doubt it could be the reasoning, moreso than any implication the timing could create.
No less absurd than fixing bombers by gutting fleet warp, but here we are. Fair enough... |
Servant's Lord
Radical Astronauts Plundering Eve WormHole Occupation and Resource Exploitation
89
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 01:36:09 -
[176] - Quote
Hello.
CCPls. **** 'cray. |
DHB WildCat
Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep
468
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 01:53:29 -
[177] - Quote
In my honest opinion Rise....... you should not implement these changes until the defensive equivilant modules are ready to go.
170 km on cerb with rlml.
rhml from bharg hitting at over 140km with even better application now, not to mention that rediculous long point range..........
I can go on, but I hope you will see that without defensive mods you are going to break eve pretty fast.
At least caldari will rule eve for a little while lol! |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
13477
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 02:15:21 -
[178] - Quote
DHB WildCat wrote: At least caldari will rule eve for a little while lol!
I wouldn't be happy about this were I you. I forsee this leading up to a savage nerf of missiles eventually, when CCP finally wakes up and tones down the speed creep, abrogating the necessity of this buff completely. And if they do anything, they don't nerf by halves.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 02:25:04 -
[179] - Quote
Add some kind of Higgs Missile that hits fast objects hard but can't harm immobile ones. /speedcreep |
stoicfaux
5927
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 02:29:13 -
[180] - Quote
Speed Creep + Valkyrie + VR - DUST 514 as a separate game - WiS/WoD[1] + CCP encouraging individual roles in fleets == EVE will become more twitchy in order to appeal to the future "army of one" playerbase.
[1] Seeing as how Dust didn't do so well as a separate game from EVE, and due to the technical difficulties in importing WoD engine components into EVE as WiS, I wouldn't be surprised if the core aspects of Valkyrie (the speed, twitchiness, and VR) were incorporated into EVE proper (albeit slowed down a bit.)
/tinfoil_in_bulk
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
Dani Maulerant
Order of the Valkyrie LOADED-DICE
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 04:49:53 -
[181] - Quote
If this allows for TD's to affect missiles, I hope it's not a whole different module, but rather scripts for the current TD modules. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
568
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 08:11:03 -
[182] - Quote
I have felt for a long time that heavies just needed more raw damage. I would quote my own posts but that's a lot of work for no reason.
Thanks to the balance team for taking this route with heavies. Indeed they might even need another small damage boost in a while.
As far as the missile mids and lows go I'm not sold on the idea but reserve criticism for later. 5% of one application stat or another is not the same as turret mids which give crazy **** like 15% to multiple stats.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
333
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 08:58:52 -
[183] - Quote
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. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
290
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 09:15:40 -
[184] - Quote
I don't like the way this modules being implemented. Without promised ewar how do they estimate in what state missiles are? If they become OP, nerfbat will come and missiles guidance modules will be necessity ( and we will have tanking problems here). This isn't nerfing Ishtar by 2,5% at stat. I feel it's like "we don't know what to do with missiles, so let's introduce new modules and see what happen". S*** storm will happen. Rise admited somewhere that there's a thin line between missiles being underpowered and overpowered.
For those who want "tracking disruptors" working on missiles. There's no such thing as "tracking" with missiles. What stat should be affected then? It's not that simple as with turrets tracking.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 09:31:41 -
[185] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:For those who want "tracking disruptors" working on missiles. There's no such thing as "tracking" with missiles. What stat should be affected then? It's not that simple as with turrets tracking. Just rename to weapon disruptors, why won't it work?
|
Arla Sarain
506
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 10:10:07 -
[186] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Why won't it work?
Keras Authion wrote: -The missile tracking disruption is tacked on to tracking disruptor. Result: tracking disruptor becomes a really lucrative if not a must-have defensive module and missile ships lose tank/utility/dps to the MGE or MCE if they want to keep the current level of effectiveness. True for gunboats too in a part as the tracking disruptor becomes more common in fits.
Staple fits will include tackle, TD and drones for damage.
Hence no missile TD. Anything that these module will bring can be countered by damps. |
Duchess Starbuckington
Starbuckington Manor
341
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 10:16:13 -
[187] - Quote
This is fantastic stuff. However:
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
... I will admit I'm kinda in agreement with Hanazava. The cynical side of me (read: 90% of me) expected you to nerf missiles and require these new mods just to keep them workable. You didn't, and I kinda want to hug the devs in charge of it, but I think the time has come for maybe alternate TD scripts? Or a missile specific TD.
TLDR: Overjoyed that missiles are getting some love, and think this is great stuff, but I think it's now the right time to add in a countermodule. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2453
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 10:50:19 -
[188] - Quote
Capqu wrote:[Talwar, tfi]
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
110~km range 150 dps 10 mil
Lock range 72km.
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 ~~
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
290
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 10:59:38 -
[189] - Quote
As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Gorski Car
628
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 12:10:54 -
[190] - Quote
These modules are really strong.
Collect this post
|
|
Mornak
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 13:23:07 -
[191] - Quote
What will happen if i turn off / swap script of one of these modules while missiles are already on there way? ...is the missiles boni defined at launch or recalculated mid-flight? |
Lisa Sophie d'Elancourt
Empusa.
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 13:31:17 -
[192] - Quote
I like this.
What could you do else here CCP? 1. decrease volume of HMs and HAMs too 2. remove kinetic lock 3. do something with garmur and orthrus - they ruin the game (as well as svipul) and need nerf. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
102
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 13:36:50 -
[193] - Quote
Lisa Sophie d'Elancourt wrote:I like this.
What could you do else here CCP? 1. decrease volume of HMs and HAMs too 2. remove kinetic lock 3. do something with garmur and orthrus - they ruin the game (as well as svipul) and need nerf.
Svipul and Confessor got nerfed already. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
252
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 14:30:17 -
[194] - Quote
I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros.
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
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
102
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 15:11:51 -
[195] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros.
I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on? |
Porucznik Borewicz
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
39
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 15:24:00 -
[196] - 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. Looks interesting. I think having a single weapon systems disruptor would be enough. Just add functionality to the Tracking Disruptor that is already in the game, change the module name to something more general and make it run 4 different scripts, 2 for turrets and 2 for missile launchers. |
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
57
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 18:47:13 -
[197] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Jassmin Joy wrote:Any thoughts on the effectiveness of SmartBombs on missiles and the ability to firewall them? Yes, but we haven't had a chance to post that thread quite yet.
Dear Fozzy,
SmartBombs are reaaaaaalllly overdue for a revise. Please please please |
Xequecal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
333
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 18:47:56 -
[198] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros. I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on?
The rigs don't have them. |
stoicfaux
5927
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:07:40 -
[199] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros. I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on? The potential imbalance is that TPs, MGC/MGEs, Rigor/Flare rigs, and Webs do not stack against each other and since their effects on the 2nd part of the missile damage formula are multiplicative, it could potentially lead to something nasty.
For example, rough numbers show that a Cruise Phoenix with 4 MGCs/wScripts, coupled with a Hyena or Rapier(?) that can land 3 bonused TPs and a 60% web on a shield tanked MWD'ing Ishtar can one shot the Ishtar (however links might save the Ishtar.) I wouldn't consider that a particularly imbalanced edge case though.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2085
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:19:08 -
[200] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules.
against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it.
What i would propose...is this
Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM.
ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker)
This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2085
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:20:19 -
[201] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz 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. Looks interesting. I think having a single weapon systems disruptor would be enough. Just add functionality to the Tracking Disruptor that is already in the game, change the module name to something more general and make it run 4 different scripts, 2 for turrets and 2 for missile launchers.
if you did this TD would be the new multi spec ECM we used to see on every ship... cant say that i support... it should be a separate mod all together
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 19:44:12 -
[202] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules. against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it. What i would propose...is this Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM. ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker) This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.
Not sure if makes sense lore-wise.. caldari, the missile race would have ewar AGAINST missiles? If it should be racial ewar, it should be gallente IMHO |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
509
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 20:22:18 -
[203] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: if you did this TD would be the new multi spec ECM we used to see on every ship... cant say that i support... it should be a separate mod all together Which is precisely why they should nerf the base stats on TDs, and then do a counterbalancing buff on TD boats. This would essentially be doing to TD boats what was done to ECM boats years ago. Make them desired ships to have in fleets. It should also be done for damp and painter boats as well. Currently the only ewar mods that don't function worth a crap on non bonused hulls are ecm modules. That was entirely to bury the ecm of doom fitting regimen.
Matt Faithbringer wrote: Not sure if makes sense lore-wise.. caldari, the missile race would have ewar AGAINST missiles? If it should be racial ewar, it should be gallente IMHO Yeah it wouldn't make sense to have ecm be antimissile ewar. However, as much as it would make lore sense to do it to damps, damps and damp usage are already rather strong.
Having TDs affect missiles would be consistent with lore now that Minmatar has a missile boat line of ships. And as long as the TDs themselves get a base stat nerf, the ecm module treatment, TDs will not become the new multispecs of doom.
This is also why I proposed in a thread a couple months ago that painters be given a secondary anti drone effect. The lore would make sense in that Amarr now has a comprehensive line of drone boats. The technobabble explanation could be that being painted causes a lot of em communication interference between a host ship and its drones. Thus the drone control range could receive a hit. This would address a lot of the nano sentry Ishtar complaints. As long as the effect is slight enough it would necessitate some further fitting and rig choices on drone boats.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 21:06:48 -
[204] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:MeBiatch wrote: if you did this TD would be the new multi spec ECM we used to see on every ship... cant say that i support... it should be a separate mod all together Which is precisely why they should nerf the base stats on TDs, and then do a counterbalancing buff on TD boats. This would essentially be doing to TD boats what was done to ECM boats years ago. Make them desired ships to have in fleets. It should also be done for damp and painter boats as well. Currently the only ewar mods that don't function worth a crap on non bonused hulls are ecm modules. That was entirely to bury the ecm of doom fitting regimen. Matt Faithbringer wrote: Not sure if makes sense lore-wise.. caldari, the missile race would have ewar AGAINST missiles? If it should be racial ewar, it should be gallente IMHO Yeah it wouldn't make sense to have ecm be antimissile ewar. However, as much as it would make lore sense to do it to damps, damps and damp usage are already rather strong. Having TDs affect missiles would be consistent with lore now that Minmatar has a missile boat line of ships. And as long as the TDs themselves get a base stat nerf, the ecm module treatment, TDs will not become the new multispecs of doom. This is also why I proposed in a thread a couple months ago that painters be given a secondary anti drone effect. The lore would make sense in that Amarr now has a comprehensive line of drone boats. The technobabble explanation could be that being painted causes a lot of em communication interference between a host ship and its drones. Thus the drone control range could receive a hit. This would address a lot of the nano sentry Ishtar complaints. As long as the effect is slight enough it would necessitate some further fitting and rig choices on drone boats.
well, you can already shoot down drones... |
Arla Sarain
507
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 22:00:46 -
[205] - Quote
Nerf rockets during the missile balance package.
They project further than small ACs, have same paper DPS but apply damage better, and apply full damage to a single webbed target. ACs on the other hand deal roughly 80% of their DPS at half fall-off. Outside of 50% falloff bonused hulls, this range is usually at around 5-6km. |
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 22:51:00 -
[206] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules. against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it. What i would propose...is this Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM. ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker) This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.
Yes this interesting all other races have dual ewar........ to think about this look at electronic attack ships
Keres Point range + damps Sentinel TD + Neut Range/ neut strengh Hyena Web Range + TP Kitsune ECM ? infact most people simply opt to fly the griffin, not to say it is a bad ship but expensive 1 trick pony and cant fight in novice plex |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
102
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 00:01:00 -
[207] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Airi Cho wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros. I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on? The potential imbalance is that TPs, MGC/MGEs, Rigor/Flare rigs, and Webs do not stack against each other and since their effects on the 2nd part of the missile damage formula are multiplicative, it could potentially lead to something nasty. For example, rough numbers show that a Cruise Phoenix with 4 MGCs/wScripts, coupled with a Hyena or Rapier(?) that can land 3 bonused TPs and a 60% web on a shield tanked MWD'ing Ishtar can one shot the Ishtar (however links might save the Ishtar.) I wouldn't consider that a particularly imbalanced edge case though.
webs, TP arent missile specific
turrets have similar range/tracking rigs that give the same benefit. (although you dont see them used that often) The modules for the turrets on the other hands are kinda popular ... so i dont see why this would suddenly unbalance the meta so badly. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
37
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 02:20:09 -
[208] - Quote
ivona fly wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Jeremiah Saken wrote:As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules. against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it. What i would propose...is this Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM. ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker) This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles. Yes this interesting all other races have dual ewar........ to think about this look at electronic attack ships Keres Point range + damps Sentinel TD + Neut Range/ neut strengh Hyena Web Range + TPKitsune ECM ? infact most people simply opt to fly the griffin, not to say it is a bad ship but expensive 1 trick pony and cant fight in novice plex This seems to make pretty good sense. Like any module it can be used by anyone but Caldari ewar ships would get a 2nd bonus. This would also force them them to choose the value of equipping such a module over ECM.
|
Silverbackyererse
The Church of Awesome Heiian Conglomerate
142
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 02:33:17 -
[209] - Quote
I likey.
Gotta make a trade-off choice when fitting either of these mods on most launcher ships.
Seems like a welcome change to a very average medium sized couple of weapons systems.
Also +1 to removing the launcher kinetic/explosive lock on those hulls that have them. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
100
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 07:24:28 -
[210] - Quote
Rise, have you thought about remote missile tracking enhancement? |
|
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. |
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 04:20:15 -
[241] - Quote
Why do some guys want to apply Tracking Disruption on non-tracking weapon systems? How about using Damps to mitigate their range hmmm...?
Because when the evil missile boat and the beloved turret boat are both within engagement range, the turrets win on DPS alone.
Really looking forward to this! Next patch is going to be so brilliant [evil, maniacal cackling] |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 04:32:58 -
[242] - Quote
Porucznik Borewicz 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. Looks interesting. I think having a single weapon systems disruptor would be enough. Just add functionality to the Tracking Disruptor that is already in the game, change the module name to something more general and make it run 4 different scripts, 2 for turrets and 2 for missile launchers.
No. If you do that, then I want a Drone Repellant in there as well. Please let there be difference between the weapon systems? Pretty please? Let there be Cyclone! Let there be Drake once more! Let there be Phoenix (provided dreads will still be any good come FozzieSov ;-) |
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 07:09:26 -
[243] - 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.
FTFY: Absolutely beautifully brutal. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1437
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 09:03:45 -
[244] - Quote
Reminder: Need clarity on stacking penalties please.
And script effects - are the assumptions made valid? |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
751
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 09:29:11 -
[245] - Quote
I have only one question: Wouldn't these missile TE/TCs put even Light missile engagement ranges well past 100 km mark - would that be intended?
I think it's the same kind of issue as the base drone stats staying unchanged IIRC on the introduction of DDAs.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 10:10:31 -
[246] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:I have only one question: Wouldn't these missile TE/TCs put even Light missile engagement ranges well past 100 km mark - would that be intended? I think it's the same kind of issue as the base drone stats staying unchanged IIRC on the introduction of DDAs. Fitting one of these on a caracal for example will require foregoing another mod. Whether it's a nano or BCU. It's a tradeoff for supposedly better damage application. Now to take advantage of a 100km missile range, a caracal will need a sebo to achieve this which in turn means much less tank or no TP. Sniping harpy/corm fits already hit targets out to this range and they don't have to deal with the 100km damage delay or the target supposedly warping off before damage is even applied.
|
AskariRising
ROGUE RELICS
68
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 12:12:11 -
[247] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:I have only one question: Wouldn't these missile TE/TCs put even Light missile engagement ranges well past 100 km mark - would that be intended? I think it's the same kind of issue as the base drone stats staying unchanged IIRC on the introduction of DDAs. Fitting one of these on a caracal for example will require foregoing another mod. Whether it's a nano or BCU. It's a tradeoff for supposedly better damage application. Now to take advantage of a 100km missile range, a caracal will need a sebo to achieve this which in turn means much less tank or no TP. Sniping harpy/corm fits already hit targets out to this range and they don't have to deal with the 100km damage delay or the target supposedly warping off before damage is even applied.
its an issue on a caracal yes.
but a kestrel is a different story. kestrel vs corm, the kestrel has far better lock range.
a kestrel vs harpy, the kestrel has better range. a kestrel can hit targets at 97km just using rigs.
ive got a kessy right now thats cap stable with a lock range at 126km, a top speed of 2815m/s, and a missile range of 97km.
these new computers will increase my range even further.
|
Kione Keikira
Sleepless Guardians Unreachable
14
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 12:32:54 -
[248] - Quote
There are still huge problems when fitting Torpedoes on anything that's not a Bomber. There is barely any reason to fit them, especially when so many frigates / cruisers are around. RHML take far fewer resources, apply way better and actually have a chance of hitting a fast target instead of not even hitting.
The RNI has 2k PG ( and 550 CPU ) left after fitting T2 Torps, so you have fitting problems with PG and CPU. It's something that can't be fixed with just an implant so you lose rig / low slots without doing any fancy stuff like dual Cap Booster or MJD + MWD. Other weapon types don't have nearly this much of an issue when fitting their close range weapons.
Master of being misunderstood.
|
stoicfaux
5960
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 12:35:19 -
[249] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Reminder: Need clarity on stacking penalties please.
And script effects - are the assumptions made valid? The placeholders are listed as being stacking penalized: http://gyazo.com/b3680269c04beee50a0e70e70ae841f2
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
1439
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 12:41:14 -
[250] - Quote
Yes - but stacking with rigs, or not? Stacking with hull bonuses, or not? (like how the resist bonus stacks with the first invuln on such ships). Indeed, stacking with 1 mid and 1 low fit?
Stacking with each other is one thing - I'm more interested in the other parts.
Also confirming napkin math suggests the RHML armored phoon may well be the new overlords, if one can avoid bombs. It can get hilarious DPS out and applied. |
|
stoicfaux
5963
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:11:01 -
[251] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Yes - but stacking with rigs, or not? Stacking with hull bonuses, or not? (like how the resist bonus stacks with the first invuln on such ships). Indeed, stacking with 1 mid and 1 low fit? Stacking with each other is one thing - I'm more interested in the other parts. Also confirming napkin math suggests the RHML armored phoon may well be the new overlords, if one can avoid bombs. It can get hilarious DPS out and applied.
Start here: https://onceamonthmeals.com/how-it-works/
Attributes, not modules, stack. Not all bonuses stack. Rigor/Flare rigs are not stacking penalized. Neither are hull bonuses, implants, skills, etc.
In this case, MGCs and MGEs will stack with each other because they affect the same attributes (and the modules are listed as stacking penalized.)
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
1439
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:19:53 -
[252] - Quote
Hull bonuses are, or rather - stack as a hardener (taking the resist ones as an example). Stick an invuln on a worm, for example. You would expect an EM resist of 20% (hull) + 30% (Single invuln) but you get 44%.
The same, first hardener on a non resist bonused hull gives 30% EM resist.
So I'm worried these mods will stack with CNR/phoon/golem/etc/etc ship hull bonuses right out the door. It's unclear. |
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:26:37 -
[253] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Hull bonuses are, or rather - stack as a hardener (taking the resist ones as an example). Stick an invuln on a worm, for example. You would expect an EM resist of 20% (hull) + 30% (Single invuln) but you get 44%.
The same, first hardener on a non resist bonused hull gives 30% EM resist.
So I'm worried these mods will stack with CNR/phoon/golem/etc/etc ship hull bonuses right out the door. It's unclear.
You might be wrong there... 20% hull and 30% should be 44% if not stacking penalized... 20 + ((100 - 20) * 0.3) = 44, as expected.
The question here is whether it will be stacking penalized with rigs and stuff... Taking resist as comparable example is not really useful since with resist you have 100% as max. The same could be sad for explosion radius (0), but not for explosion velocity.. Or velocity, or missile flight time. Those just don't have "max" value, so you can't use resists as example here.. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1439
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 14:29:36 -
[254] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:afkalt wrote:Hull bonuses are, or rather - stack as a hardener (taking the resist ones as an example). Stick an invuln on a worm, for example. You would expect an EM resist of 20% (hull) + 30% (Single invuln) but you get 44%.
The same, first hardener on a non resist bonused hull gives 30% EM resist.
So I'm worried these mods will stack with CNR/phoon/golem/etc/etc ship hull bonuses right out the door. It's unclear. You might be wrong there... 20% hull and 30% should be 44% if not stacking penalized... 20 + ((100 - 20) * 0.3) = 44, as expected. The question here is whether it will be stacking penalized with rigs and stuff... Taking resist as comparable example is not really useful since with resist you have 100% as max. The same could be sad for explosion radius (0), but not for explosion velocity..
Then why is the unbonused hull going to 30%? Or am I oversimplifying? It's possible, I'm tired. Maybe best ignoring me, not at my sharpest. I picked EM since it starts at 0. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
753
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:29:29 -
[255] - Quote
So what of RL/HMLs? Rage & Fury against everything?
Turrets still get zero - so get rekt?
// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)]
//
[Cruisers Online]
|
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:46:08 -
[256] - Quote
CCP finally decided to invent missile assistance modules. yay! Now I can negotiate mid or low modules with rigs :)
One wondering. Any plans to make some remote modules? It would be great when they come up together.
And, like everyone here says that corresponding EWAR on missile should exist, how about a different mechanism from a td, chaffs - making some of incoming missiles miss the target and/or deals less damage.
It may work in some range - say, chaffs are effective for all the ships in radius 5km, or maybe just for the ship which activates it.
Or simply making the defense missiles be more effective than now + plus making them into mid modules? lol |
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
31
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:31:53 -
[257] - Quote
Samira Kernher wrote:Really needs an anti-missile tracking disruptor to go with these additions. Also, it's so fitting that these missile modules are coming with the Aegis release.
it is called defender missiles. |
Kaleesa
Paradox Collective Project.Mayhem.
31
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:36:03 -
[258] - Quote
Can we get these modules seeded on SISI please?! |
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:42:14 -
[259] - Quote
Styphon the Black wrote:Samira Kernher wrote:Really needs an anti-missile tracking disruptor to go with these additions. Also, it's so fitting that these missile modules are coming with the Aegis release. it is called defender missiles.
well I never used it but everyone say it is broken and not really usable |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
312
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:48:21 -
[260] - Quote
I'm actually glad there will be no additional electronic warfare applicable to missile doctrines in this patch. It's not needed. Missile boats are hugely susceptible to damps, ecm, and the missiles themselves by smartbombs. That's more than enough. Especially considering the HUGE handicap of delayed damage. |
|
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 22:08:13 -
[261] - Quote
AskariRising wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:I have only one question: Wouldn't these missile TE/TCs put even Light missile engagement ranges well past 100 km mark - would that be intended? I think it's the same kind of issue as the base drone stats staying unchanged IIRC on the introduction of DDAs. Fitting one of these on a caracal for example will require foregoing another mod. Whether it's a nano or BCU. It's a tradeoff for supposedly better damage application. Now to take advantage of a 100km missile range, a caracal will need a sebo to achieve this which in turn means much less tank or no TP. Sniping harpy/corm fits already hit targets out to this range and they don't have to deal with the 100km damage delay or the target supposedly warping off before damage is even applied. its an issue on a caracal yes. but a kestrel is a different story. kestrel vs corm, the kestrel has far better lock range. a kestrel vs harpy, the kestrel has better range. a kestrel can hit targets at 97km just using rigs. ive got a kessy right now thats cap stable with a lock range at 126km, a top speed of 2815m/s, and a missile range of 97km. these new computers will increase my range even further. How long exactly do you have to wait for said missiles to hit your targets? Turrets don't possess such a delay and as such are inherently better for blapping and sniping even though their reach is a bit less. So, it's only normal to expect missiles to hit out to much farther ranges as compensation for ridiculous damage application delay. This won't change much in pvp as most people will still have ample time to get away while the missiles are approaching. The same thing can be said for turrets. You will be popped before you can even react if they have enough alpha. Garmurs and other succesful pvp missile boats will have to forgo important mods that constitute their speed and tank in other to fit this modules. I don't see a problem here. At least, for now. |
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4458
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 03:42:07 -
[262] - Quote
I can't wait for the inevitable drone|projectile|laser|hybrid whine threads once these are released...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1445
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 09:13:47 -
[263] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I can't wait for the inevitable drone|projectile|laser|hybrid whine threads once these are released...
I'm wary, I think there are a few hulls that are going to be a little bit OTT with these and CCP never nerf problem hulls, they rinse the entire weapon system instead. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
170
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 13:06:55 -
[264] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:AskariRising wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:I have only one question: Wouldn't these missile TE/TCs put even Light missile engagement ranges well past 100 km mark - would that be intended? I think it's the same kind of issue as the base drone stats staying unchanged IIRC on the introduction of DDAs. Fitting one of these on a caracal for example will require foregoing another mod. Whether it's a nano or BCU. It's a tradeoff for supposedly better damage application. Now to take advantage of a 100km missile range, a caracal will need a sebo to achieve this which in turn means much less tank or no TP. Sniping harpy/corm fits already hit targets out to this range and they don't have to deal with the 100km damage delay or the target supposedly warping off before damage is even applied. its an issue on a caracal yes. but a kestrel is a different story. kestrel vs corm, the kestrel has far better lock range. a kestrel vs harpy, the kestrel has better range. a kestrel can hit targets at 97km just using rigs. ive got a kessy right now thats cap stable with a lock range at 126km, a top speed of 2815m/s, and a missile range of 97km. these new computers will increase my range even further. How long exactly do you have to wait for said missiles to hit your targets? Turrets don't possess such a delay and as such are inherently better for blapping and sniping even though their reach is a bit less. So, it's only normal to expect missiles to hit out to much farther ranges as compensation for ridiculous damage application delay. This won't change much in pvp as most people will still have ample time to get away while the missiles are approaching. The same thing can be said for turrets. You will be popped before you can even react if they have enough alpha. Garmurs and other succesful pvp missile boats will have to forgo important mods that constitute their speed and tank in other to fit this modules. I don't see a problem here. At least, for now.
It seems only people who use missiles understand the significance of delayed dps. Especially for fleet's and gangs at long ranges where you can have 2 flights of missiles in the air at any given time, huge amounts of dps are wasted on targets that have already been destroyed: could be half of your dps could be even more if you're not making any attempt manage it or count volley's. Imagine a blob of Drakes firing at a primary at long distance, if only half of the alpha is needed to destroy that target then the rest is wasted, if you don't count your volley's then you could end up with some of your fleet sending a second volley etc, that's why they don't work well with incursions. Also instant dps with insta lock means turrets can blap without needing to point this makes them a better choice for gate camping. Missiles can't be balanced directly against instant dps turrets or even drones, they don't scale well even without firewalling, and the dps/range difference is cancelled out by poor damage application against small moving targets.
I like the changes, I expected them to change the base stats on missiles but this is better because it gives more fitting options and more room for specialized fits while forcing trade-offs. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1447
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 13:08:54 -
[265] - Quote
Actually the single biggest drawback of delayed DPS is not the lost vollies (dead is dead) it is the inability to effectively target switch because the logi and targets get a massive telegraph that the fleet has retargeted.
I suggested a change to redboxing to compensate, but people went ape. /shrug. "Feature", apparently. |
stoicfaux
5973
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 13:49:34 -
[266] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote: It seems only people who use missiles understand the significance of delayed dps. Especially for fleet's and gangs at long ranges where you can have 2 flights of missiles in the air at any given time, huge amounts of dps are wasted on targets that have already been destroyed
Why is why in my heart of hearts, I hope that CCP has decided that the Mordu 200% missile velocity, 50% flight time experiment is a success[1], and the concept is ready to be rolled out to other missile ships.
[1] i.e. the server doesn't explode and/or the missiles don't travel backwards in time and hit before they launch.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
stoicfaux
5973
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 14:18:46 -
[267] - Quote
Modules are on Sisi:
MGC II requires Trajectory Analysis IV MGE II requires Weapons Upgrades IV
Scripts increase one set of bonuses by 100% and reduce the other set by 100%. (But Sisi is displaying "[no messageID: 309645]" instead of the actual attribute names for some reason.) So standard TC type stuff.
Ooopsie, the MGE and MGC only affect Missile Velocity, Explosion Velocity and Explosion Radius. No Missile Flight Time.... Must be a work in progress?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_CLlTV8bSxNSjJJaUxuSkJDMlE/view?usp=sharing
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Scott Webb
Scott Webb Corp
15
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:25:44 -
[268] - Quote
Hegelian dialectic strikes again with you lot. You create the problem(supposed buff to missle application) People then bleet, it's not fair.......Then you come in with the nerfs waiting in the wings in the form of some ewar disruption mods that adversely effect missles. Seriously, why don't you openly display your lodge number and be done with it :) |
Elana Apgar
Static-Noise Upholders
56
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:56:18 -
[269] - Quote
Will you be making Remote Missile Computers like you have Remote Tracking Enhancers? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1447
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:07:34 -
[270] - Quote
Trajectory analysis?! What? Surely a copypasta error cloning the mods? |
|
Feodor Romanov
Blitzkrieg Federation OLD MAN GANG
12
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:25:54 -
[271] - Quote
I like what you are doing. Missiles definitely need a boost. But I do not understand, why I need to fit "Missile Guidance Enhancers", when i can fit ballistic controls(BC). Rise new modules char-tics to be comparable with Ballistic controls. Or make new modules more profiled with one bonus, for example: +25% missile max velocity or +25% exp. radius. bonus. |
stoicfaux
5975
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:53:39 -
[272] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Trajectory analysis?! What? Surely a copypasta error cloning the mods? Well, missiles are just slow moving guided bullets...
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Feodor Romanov
Blitzkrieg Federation OLD MAN GANG
12
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:54:43 -
[273] - Quote
Only Light missiles is good enough to be used. Other apply damage very badly. For example heavy missile Cerberus is useless against frigs or AB cruisers, while Ishtar apply good damage to any type of ships. I am sure missiles need more damage applying capabilities, for example explosion velocity boost or changing of DRF and DRS.
PS: Caldari kinetic damage bonus is mad! All 3 other nations have ability to choose damage type, but not Caldari. Even Amarrs and Matars have better missile boats then "missile profiled" Caldari.
|
stoicfaux
5975
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:57:58 -
[274] - Quote
Feodor Romanov wrote: I like what you are doing. Missiles definitely need a boost. But I do not understand, why I need to fit "Missile Guidance Enhancers", when i can fit ballistic controls(BC). Rise new modules char-tics to be comparable with Ballistic controls. Or make new modules more profiled with one bonus, for example: +25% missile max velocity or +25% exp. radius. bonus. Yeah, I could see a more focused MGC as being a low slot item instead of a mid slot item, i.e. trading rof/damage mode for an application mod. The only trouble would be balancing it with ships like the Typhoon with its plethora of lows.
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
1448
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 19:21:03 -
[275] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:afkalt wrote:Trajectory analysis?! What? Surely a copypasta error cloning the mods? Well, missiles are just slow moving guided bullets...
Well yes, but what the hell is a newbie wanting to train that and gunnery IV for, if they're a dedicated missile jock?
It's madness.
Sure, most people wont notice but still! |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
510
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 19:49:50 -
[276] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Styphon the Black wrote:Samira Kernher wrote:Really needs an anti-missile tracking disruptor to go with these additions. Also, it's so fitting that these missile modules are coming with the Aegis release. it is called defender missiles. well I never used it but everyone say it is broken and not really usable Yeah, they are broken. Don't see much demand for them on the markets do you. Also, they require a launcher slot. Many ships in this game with no launcher slots. Forget that they even exist, they are complete trash. Even FoF missiles work better than defender missiles and that's saying a lot.
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Why do some guys want to apply Tracking Disruption on non-tracking weapon systems? How about using Damps to mitigate their range hmmm...?
Because when the evil missile boat and the beloved turret boat are both within engagement range, the turrets win on DPS alone.
Really looking forward to this! Next patch is going to be so brilliant [evil, maniacal cackling] You seem to have not been reading the thread, and your little over one year in this game lack of experience is showing.
Anyway, if you have some philosophical objection to tracking disruption on a non tracking weapon system, where then is you consternation at tracking enhancement on those same weapon systems.
And no, the beloved turret boat does not win on DPS alone. Often the missile boat is shield and sometimes will fit a TD or two [dual TD Hookbill] to partially or completely screw over the turret dps.
As for fleet battles and ewar, if CCP is going to be taking away the efficacy of firewalling it damn well better have something better to take its place. TD boats should be getting more use in this game against both turret and missile fleet comps. However, atm everything is ecm and damp boats for fleets.
Lastly, damps are just as effective against turret boats as missile boats because, tada, lock range and/or lock time has nothing to do with whether you are using turrets or missiles.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 20:26:13 -
[277] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:The only trouble would be balancing it with ships like the Typhoon with its plethora of lows.
...which is filled with Ballistic Control Units currently. Better application, less DPS? Still fair. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 20:51:17 -
[278] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:You seem to have not been reading the thread, and your little over one year in this game lack of experience is showing. Anyway, if you have some philosophical objection to tracking disruption on a non tracking weapon system, where then is you consternation at tracking enhancement on those same weapon systems. And no, the beloved turret boat does not win on DPS alone. Often the missile boat is shield and sometimes will fit a TD or two [dual TD Hookbill] to partially or completely screw over the turret dps. As for fleet battles and ewar, if CCP is going to be taking away the efficacy of firewalling it damn well better have something better to take its place. TD boats should be getting more use in this game against both turret and missile fleet comps. However, atm everything is ecm and damp boats for fleets. Lastly, damps are just as effective against turret boats as missile boats because, tada, lock range and/or lock time has nothing to do with whether you are using turrets or missiles.
I shall read between objections based on "my experience" -- although tr%#@%% nope- not going there. Moving on.
I'll even humour you and grant you have half a point there. But still... NOT IN THE TRACKING DISRUPTOR! Make it a separate module, but don't extend the usefulness of the tracking disruptor to counter "all kinds of incoming DPS". Such a "can't hit me" mod already exists and it's called ECM.
It was mostly the extention of the TD that worried me. I do not object to a different module -- more tough choices, more variety is always better. That said, Yes I love my Hookbill and yes I put TDs (and other fun stuff) in there as well; but when people get all up close and personal I DO feel severely out-DPSsed. You don't? How jolly for you. I was under the impression short-range weapon systems did a lot more damage than long range weaponry (countered by damps); and when one looks closely at short range weapon systems, Rockets and HAMs deal sub-par damage.
But ... sub-par damage *that hits*. Which is good. Now if everybody starts fitting TDs because a couple of scripts make them roflstomp against anyone, then I must object. |
Elsa Hayes
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
81
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 20:58:13 -
[279] - Quote
Any "missile package" should include a look at ship bonuses related to missiles as well and here caldari should be ridden of that abysmal kinetic bonus and it should be replaced with something else. Preferably a damage bonus for all the according missiles like 5% heavy missile damage or something. Or an explosion velocity/radius bonus if you are afraid of too much dps vs 1 type of target.
I am sure someone has already suggested this but it does no harm to mention it again, it is neither logical nor does it add any flavor since other races are not plague by such constrictions.
Kill it kill it naoh, that stupid kinetic bonus!
Also if you call it missile package should you not take a long overdue look at precision missiles as well? Right now, in most cases they are not worth using at all, that should not be the case. Precision missiles have been in a sorry state for years now overshadowed by rage and faction ammo and are long long overdue for an overhaul especially heavy precision and cruise precision missiles, because right now they are not really very "precise". |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
510
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 21:03:50 -
[280] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Now if everybody starts fitting TDs because a couple of scripts make them roflstomp against anyone, then I must object. Of course. This is probably the only, but unstated, reason TDs aren't being introduced at the same time. The devs are very aware of not creating a new multispec as of old. However, for some reason they appear to have an aversion to using the same remedy to prevent the TD becoming the new old multispec. That is to nerf the base effect on the TD module itself, and give a counterbalancing buff to the TD boat TD bonuses.
What is the problem with it Rise and Fozzie? Just do the ecm boat thing with all the other ewar? It worked for ECM. It can work for damps, painters, and TDs. Painter and TD boats are not seen much. Any tom **** or harry can fit damps, TDs, or painters in a spare mid. So presently there is no or little desirability to fly these ships. But lending them their ewar roles back, by giving them the ecm boat treatment, would make the game more diverse actually.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 00:40:56 -
[281] - Quote
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
It's called ECM |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
511
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 02:52:47 -
[282] - Quote
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?
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1451
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 09:01:14 -
[283] - Quote
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 ;) |
Skyler Hawk
Boars on Parade The Tuskers Co.
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 11:41:02 -
[284] - Quote
When can we expect information on the scripts for the missile guidance computers? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1452
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 12:05:02 -
[285] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:When can we expect information on the scripts for the missile guidance computers?
I believe they are on sisi |
Mario Putzo
1437
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 13:38:29 -
[286] - 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. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1481
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 14:14:40 -
[287] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
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!
When these adjustments are complete will you be ensuring that missiles will not hit for 0 points of damage? Or will the application of these e-war changes effectively give targets sufficient speed to escape the explosion radius?
Always scoring 'a hit' was one of the few strengths of missile usage.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1941
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 14:24:26 -
[288] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
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! When these adjustments are complete will you be ensuring that missiles will not hit for 0 points of damage? Or will the application of these e-war changes effectively give targets sufficient speed to escape the explosion radius? Always scoring 'a hit' was one of the few strengths of missile usage.
If you can script against missile speed, it will be rather fun to see how many ship can just outrun missiles... |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
511
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 16:19:27 -
[289] - Quote
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?
Besides that firewalling is not used in FW and lowsec in general due to standing and or sec level hits from the use of smarties. Also, smarties are in the game as another antidrone defense, other than waiting on the drones to get targeted and then shoot them. Oh, how about that reasoning back at ya. I should be able to target missiles and shoot them.
There should be something in the game to evade missiles, since defenders are worthless and require a launcher slot anyway.
CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1481
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 16:23:11 -
[290] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:
If you can script against missile speed, it will be rather fun to see how many ship can just outrun missiles...
That could be the reason for the delay. With turrets when you nuke their effective range, it doesn't affect their ability to actually apply any damage.
*worst case scenario* A CM travels at 10,575 m/s with a flight time of 15.75s Giving a range of 166.56 km
If the e-war effect is capped at 90% (similar to Webs & Damps) you get a missile velocity of 1057 m/s a reduced flight time of 1.57s
Script choice of Velocity OR flight time Drops the range to 16.66km
If the script affects both values Range drops to 1.67km
1057 m/s is still going to be fast enough to hit other Battleships even if fitted with an AB some MWD equipped Battleships will be fast enough to out-run the missile
Put a MWD on anything smaller and they become invulnerable to CM's despite the sig-bloom |
|
Mario Putzo
1438
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 16:25:55 -
[291] - 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. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine In Tea We Trust
909
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 16:30:33 -
[292] - Quote
This looks like an improvement, I look forward to trying it out. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 22:29:31 -
[293] - Quote
Tried them out on Sisi, bunch of bugs.
They stop during warp (pretty sure other tracking computers don't). When I removed a script, stats didn't change, neither on guidance computer, nor on launcher. It were still working as if it's scripted. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4460
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 02:33:30 -
[294] - Quote
With this change torpedoes are finally a viable alternative to cruise missiles. Now we just need to revise the explosion radius for torpedoes to less than cruise missiles and we'll be good to go.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4461
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 03:03:27 -
[295] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I'm wary, I think there are a few hulls that are going to be a little bit OTT with these and CCP never nerf problem hulls, they rinse the entire weapon system instead. These modules really allow you rob Peter by paying Paul, so there's definite tradeoffs. More likely se'll see fits that previously had 4x BCUs run a passive MGC instead since that will easily offset the +2.5% damage of the 4th BCU.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
James Baboli
Novablasters
922
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 05:23:58 -
[296] - Quote
I retract my earlier skeptism about these modules due to time on target. It will remain a niche use of very specifically set up ships with little application in most fights involving missile boats, and will almost require a stupid or extremely heavily tackled opponent.
In other words, jackdaw can only stack a max of 3 volleys, even with mode swapping and over heating, and 2 seems to be the hard limit on anything else not coming out of rapid launchers, which might be able to get 3 in perfect setups but are practically limited to 2.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Dino Zavr
Shadow Owls
38
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 09:15:26 -
[297] - 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.
I would like to wonder how many different E-War modules we would have to carry with us and how do we quickly refiit Trackdis with Missiles one in PVP engagements? Why not to allow existing tracking disruptors work against new feature? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1460
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 10:20:20 -
[298] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:afkalt wrote:I'm wary, I think there are a few hulls that are going to be a little bit OTT with these and CCP never nerf problem hulls, they rinse the entire weapon system instead. These modules really allow you rob Peter by paying Paul, so there's definite tradeoffs. More likely se'll see fits that previously had 4x BCUs run a passive MGC instead since that will easily offset the +2.5% damage of the 4th BCU.
Remember there are a couple of boats with enough ancillary mids to make these a really viable proposition to get around TP stacking. I'm looking at you, HAMcriledge and RHMLPhoon and some odd bhargy fits. |
Skyler Hawk
Boars on Parade The Tuskers Co.
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 10:23:16 -
[299] - Quote
These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 35% boost to tracking on a turret. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4463
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 11:18:56 -
[300] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 30% boost to tracking on a turret. Actually, the current velocity bonus (there is no range bonus) for a scripted MGC on SiSi is only 21%. And this is stacking penalized. Heavy use of these will seriously cut into any shield tank, tackle or EW. You can't make a direct comparison between missiles and guns, because it's apples to oranges (or grapes to sour grapes).
afkalt wrote:Remember there are a couple of boats with enough ancillary mids to make these a really viable proposition to get around TP stacking. I'm looking at you, HAMcriledge and RHMLPhoon and some odd bhargy fits. Typhoons don't get any kind of range bonus to begin with, so best case scenario is that 2-3 of these put them on par with the Ravens in terms of missile range. That really precludes any kind of effective shield tank for a Typhoon, so I think these modules are really going to be a catch-22 in terms of tradeoffs and sacrifices.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1461
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 11:28:58 -
[301] - Quote
I posted a phoon earlier in this thread. It'll be sick for small fights. I don't recall if it was AAR or buffer because either fits and works.
You can squeeze something like 90k ehp out them, and still have something like 700 dps and THREE of the new mods in the mids, plus prop mod PLUS LMJD
I don't think for a second the large fleet meta will move, but small gangs these are fairly game changing. |
Skyler Hawk
Boars on Parade The Tuskers Co.
40
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 11:33:25 -
[302] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 30% boost to tracking on a turret. Actually, the current velocity bonus (there is no range bonus) for a scripted MGC on SiSi is only 21%. And this is stacking penalized. Heavy use of these will seriously cut into any shield tank, tackle or EW. You can't make a direct comparison between missiles and guns, because it's apples to oranges (or grapes to sour grapes). You're wrong, sorry - a missile range script doubles the MGC's base bonuses to both flight time and missile velocity to 19% each. The combined effect is to increase overall range by 41.6%. For example, on SiSi right now a flycatcher with a base missile range of 63 km using faction ammo has its range increase to 89 km when you activate a range-scripted MGC. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1481
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 12:04:19 -
[303] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 30% boost to tracking on a turret. Actually, the current velocity bonus (there is no range bonus) for a scripted MGC on SiSi is only 21%. And this is stacking penalized. Heavy use of these will seriously cut into any shield tank, tackle or EW. You can't make a direct comparison between missiles and guns, because it's apples to oranges (or grapes to sour grapes). You're wrong, sorry - a missile range script doubles the MGC's base bonuses to both flight time and missile velocity to 19% each. The combined effect is to increase overall range by 41.6%. For example, on SiSi right now a flycatcher with a base missile range of 63 km using faction ammo has its range increase to 89 km when you activate a range-scripted MGC.
No he's right
Your comparing 2 completely weapon systems that apply their damage through 2 completely different calculations.
Missile Range is a static TxV=R sum, chance to hit is not impacted as long R remains valid Turret Range is an additive O+F where the chance to hit tends to 0 as F increases
FYI O+F is effective range O+(Fx2.6) is maximum range
and yes at F x 2.6 your chance to hit is about 1% ... but that hit can also CRITICALLY HIT something that missiles cannot do turrets can miss or crit missiles only ever hit
It may in future be possible for missiles to "miss" when these e-war features become live, but I very much doubt they will receive the crit hit function that turrets currently enjoy to compensate |
Sky Marshal
Core Industry. Circle-Of-Two
66
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 13:02:33 -
[304] - Quote
Apart some PVE ships who can afford that, and some specific ships of other races, I don't see where this new modules will be used. Caldari ships won't really get any boost, because Tackle/Tank/Damage choose two...
I am still about to switch to an Eagle, guns are better. The last time I used a Cerberus in a big fleet fight, the missiles didn't reach the targets before they were destroyed... Damn Ishtars. |
stoicfaux
5987
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 13:12:58 -
[305] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Skyler Hawk wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: Actually, the current velocity bonus (there is no range bonus) for a scripted MGC on SiSi is only 21%. And this is stacking penalized. Heavy use of these will seriously cut into any shield tank, tackle or EW. You can't make a direct comparison between missiles and guns, because it's apples to oranges (or grapes to sour grapes).
You're wrong, sorry - a missile range script doubles the MGC's base bonuses to both flight time and missile velocity to 19% each. The combined effect is to increase overall range by 41.6%. For example, on SiSi right now a flycatcher with a base missile range of 63 km using faction ammo has its range increase to 89 km when you activate a range-scripted MGC. No he's right Your comparing 2 completely weapon systems that apply their damage through 2 completely different calculations. Actually, everyone is right. Sisi doesn't display a flight time bonus, so folks are working with different assumptions and getting different conclusions.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
5222
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:21:37 -
[306] - Quote
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!
@ccp_rise
|
|
Mario Putzo
1439
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:33:50 -
[307] - 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.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1913
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:39:28 -
[308] - 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!
I'm not sure about the need for uniformity between the two.
First off, missile travel time is a pain because of delayed damage and reduce effective range for the non-fleeing missile user. Having a decent boost was nice for that, and well deserved.
Second, missile damage application is rarely satisfactory, a stasis is mandatory in most cases, except that it is often not possible using long range missiles. Which are the ones needing the more love. If you compare the missile damage application against turret application, you will see why missile appmication mods or stats desperately need help. And if you factor-in the overall lower dps + not-so-nerfed firewalling, I wonder if it will be viable for medium to large gang pvp. Although the number one issue by FAR is delayed damage. This is a huuuuge downside in a game where logistics are so powerful that mpst tactics rely on outpacing them.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Callisto Helix
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
22
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:40:39 -
[309] - 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!
As the missile damage application formula is so horribly broken in its current state, I think it's okay if the missile damage application mods are significantly more powerful than their turret counterparts.
Unless you're going to be re-balancing that formula as well, in which case this might end up working out okay in the end. |
Skir Skor
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
18
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:54:08 -
[310] - Quote
The FOF missiles are in a really bad spot atm . Any chance of some love?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL4Z5GM92Qg |
|
stoicfaux
5987
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 14:54:52 -
[311] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
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).
And bananas should be as difficult to peel as apples? =/
Missiles are *very* different from guns and have a *very* different set of problems to overcome. Why should "missile TCs" be limited by "gun TCs"? Personally, I was liking the current stats as a way of getting away from the need to mount "mandatory" rigor rigs.
Can you please provide the a bit more of the reasoning for reducing their bonuses?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
stoicfaux
5988
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:15:51 -
[312] - Quote
Updated with the new and reduced MGC/MGE values.
Normalized values in terms of how they affect the 2nd part of the missile formula
250.0% - 60% Web 222.2% - 55% Web 200.0% - 50% Web 187.5% - 2x Rigor II, Flare II 179.7% - 2x Rigor II, Flare I 162.8% - 3x Rigor I 156.3% - bonused PWNAGE TP (e.g. Golem) (skills V) 156.3% - 2x Rigor II 138.4% - 2x Rigor I 137.5% - PWNAGE TP (skills V) 135.3% - MGC II @ 15% w/Precision Script 127.3% - Compact MGC @ 12% w/Precision Script 125.0% - Rigor II 122.2% - MGC I @ 10% w/Precision Script 120.0% - Flare II 117.6% - Rigor I 116.2% - MGC II @ 7.5% 115.0% - Flare I 112.8% - Compact MGC @ 6% 111.6% - MGE II @ 5.5% 110.5% - MGC I @ 5% 110.5% - Compact MGE @ 5% 109.4% - MGE I @ 4.5%
Missile distance: (missile flight/speed rigs are stacking penalized)
123.2% - MGC II @ 11% w/Range Script 120.0% - T2 rig @ 20% 118.8% - MGC Compact @ 9% w/Range Script 116.6% - MGC I @ 8% w/Range Script 115.0% - T2 rig @ 15% 112.4% - MGE II @ 6% 111.3% - MGC I @ 5.5% 111.3% - MGE Compact @ 5.5% 110.3% - MGE I @ 5% 109.5% - MGC Compact @ 4.5% 108.2% - MGC I @ 4%
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1423
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:23:01 -
[313] - Quote
The drake was happy for a few moments there..
Oh well :-).
Yaay!!!!
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1943
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:40:14 -
[314] - Quote
Stoicfaux, for the sake of completeness, can you add 90% webs (serpentis) to the list? |
stoicfaux
5988
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:48:24 -
[315] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Stoicfaux, for the sake of completeness, can you add 90% webs (serpentis) to the list? Bwahahhahaha! 1 / ( 1 - .9) = 10 aka 1,000%. When you've slowed something that much, then (normally) the 1st part of the missile formula takes precedent over the 2nd part, i.e. it all comes down to missile radius versus target radius at that point, namely S / E.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:51:36 -
[316] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?
Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated. Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before. Some specifics on the new modules:
We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods.
The numbers:
Missile Guidance Enhancer I 10 CPU, 1 PG, 4.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer 8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 5.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 6% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 6% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment.
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! While the initial numbers seemed very strong the new numbers are definitely more average. I hope you have a genuine willingness to boost numbers after release if you don't see desired results.
Personally, if there was a base missile buff for velocity and explosion velocity then I think these new module stats would be on target. But with missile application against speed being as poor as it is to begin with, these modules do not compensate enough for that.
But I am glad CCP has introduced modules to help the situation and give more meaningful fitting choices to missile ships. I just hope, especially for heavy missiles and larger, that balancing will find a place to make these ships competitive and desirable.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1943
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 15:54:34 -
[317] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Stoicfaux, for the sake of completeness, can you add 90% webs (serpentis) to the list? Bwahahhahaha! 1 / ( 1 - .9) = 10 aka 1,000%. When you've slowed something that much, then (normally) the 1st part of the missile formula takes precedent over the 2nd part, i.e. it all comes down to missile radius versus target radius at that point, namely S / E.
I was expecting a rather high value but not 1000% but I'm bad at formula so meh...
The fact that you still fight something at that point with missiles while tracking become borderline irrelevant should be noted imo. Guns can work on one part of their difficulties to achieve constant good hits while missile have to work both side at the same time...
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1318
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:06:21 -
[318] - Quote
I didn't want to say anything because of the possibility of jinxing the whole damn thing. But as soon as I tried the MGC last night, I knew it was going to get nerfed. >40% range bonus was very strong.
But the application bonuses too? Those definitely weren't OP.
Is there a reason for the MGE having stronger range stats than application stats, while the MGC has stronger application stats than range? Maybe because of the ability to script for range on the MGC?
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Gorski Car
635
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:08:00 -
[319] - Quote
These stats are much better.
Collect this post
|
bunzing heet
Demon-War-Lords SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:09:04 -
[320] - Quote
Skyler Hawk wrote:These things are overpowered to the point of being broken as it stands. A single range-scripted MGC increases range by 42% whereas a range-scripted tracking computer gives a 15% increase to optimal and 30% to falloff, which is much less powerful. It's harder to directly compare the difference in damage application between a tracking-scripted TC and a precision-scripted MGC due to the differences between the tracking and missile damage equations, but in practical terms the improvement in application that you get from the scripted MGCs is vastly more significant than a 30% boost to tracking on a turret.
That's because you can outrun missiles and really need that range to compensate for that As for the application it's needed as well to get the larger missiles on track with the rest of the weapon systems
Fly safe keep killing
And remember
I'm watching you !!!!
|
|
stoicfaux
5989
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:35:13 -
[321] - Quote
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...
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1319
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:36:27 -
[322] - Quote
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.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
stoicfaux
5989
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:44:50 -
[323] - Quote
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.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Mario Putzo
1442
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:57:01 -
[324] - 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? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1465
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:04:32 -
[325] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Updated with the new and reduced MGC/MGE values. Normalized values in terms of how they affect the 2nd part of the missile formula 1,000.0% - 90% Web (At which point the 1st part of the missile formula overrides the 2nd part, so this isn't relevant.) 250.0% - 60% Web 222.2% - 55% Web 200.0% - 50% Web 187.5% - 2x Rigor II, Flare II 179.7% - 2x Rigor II, Flare I 162.8% - 3x Rigor I 156.3% - bonused PWNAGE TP (e.g. Golem) (skills V) 156.3% - 2x Rigor II 138.4% - 2x Rigor I 137.5% - PWNAGE TP (skills V) 135.3% - MGC II @ 15% w/Precision Script 127.3% - Compact MGC @ 12% w/Precision Script 125.0% - Rigor II 122.2% - MGC I @ 10% w/Precision Script 120.0% - Flare II 117.6% - Rigor I 116.2% - MGC II @ 7.5% 115.0% - Flare I 112.8% - Compact MGC @ 6% 111.6% - MGE II @ 5.5% 110.5% - MGC I @ 5% 110.5% - Compact MGE @ 5% 109.4% - MGE I @ 4.5%
Missile distance: (missile flight/speed rigs are stacking penalized) 123.2% - MGC II @ 11% w/Range Script 120.0% - T2 rig @ 20% 118.8% - MGC Compact @ 9% w/Range Script 116.6% - MGC I @ 8% w/Range Script 115.0% - T2 rig @ 15% 112.4% - MGE II @ 6% 111.3% - MGC I @ 5.5% 111.3% - MGE Compact @ 5.5% 110.3% - MGE I @ 5% 109.5% - MGC Compact @ 4.5% 108.2% - MGC I @ 4%
So basically they're pointless for application now.
Le Sigh. |
Altarica
The Pale Eye
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:19:00 -
[326] - Quote
afkalt wrote: So basically they're pointless for application now.
Le Sigh.
Are we surprised?
That maybe missiles would be (more) viable again (other than RLML Orthrus) ?
No sadly we are not surprised.
Don't forget there is still the anti missile EW to come.
Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all |
bunzing heet
Demon-War-Lords SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:23:15 -
[327] - Quote
Altarica wrote:afkalt wrote: So basically they're pointless for application now.
Le Sigh.
Are we surprised? That maybe missiles would be (more) viable again (other than RLML Orthrus) ? No sadly we are not surprised. Don't forget there is still the anti missile EW to come. Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all
Give me back my words because you just used them
Fly safe keep killing
And remember
I'm watching you !!!!
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
297
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:30:55 -
[328] - Quote
Altarica wrote:Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all Roll Easy to predict. When I read "meaningfull choices" or something like that I know it will be bad.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Mario Putzo
1442
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:31:01 -
[329] - 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? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1468
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:33:58 -
[330] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Hello
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).
And bananas should be as difficult to peel as apples? =/ Missiles are *very* different from guns and have a *very* different set of problems to overcome. Why should "missile TCs" be limited by "gun TCs"? Personally, I was liking the current stats as a way of getting away from the need to mount "mandatory" rigor rigs. Can you please provide a bit more of the reasoning for reducing their bonuses?
Now I have a real keyboard Ill add my voice to this.
@Rise - turret comparisons are both dangerous and flawed.
I don't see the threadnought of feedback on that sub forum, where is the problem, the evidence for these being OTT as was?
Missiles being different to turrets (or "Missile envy") is an exceptionally poor reason to selectively balance them.
I mean for example, warhead upgrades vs surgical strike, for example - we are content to have missiles getting the lower value here. Or are we going to address that? Missiles can be firewalled, turrets cannot. Targets can warp off before missiles hit, not so with turrets. Missiles in flight disappear if you die, turret damage is not lost. And so on, and so on. Are we addressing these glaring weaknesses of missiles? No we are not.
You've basically said here that "missiles cant have nice things because turrets guys will be sad and jealous". That's....just awful.
These mods in the initial cut finally gave the opportunity for a handful of missile ships to be genuinely valued assets to a fleet but now....now there's just no point. None at all. |
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
471
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:44:33 -
[331] - Quote
You're probably wrong at least here. If accuracy bonuses are getting penalized - they're getting penalized everywhere, including the rigs. Thus, 3 rigors would be 147.9%. |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:48:44 -
[332] - Quote
What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1472
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:50:28 -
[333] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:You're probably wrong at least here. If accuracy bonuses are getting penalized - they're getting penalized everywhere, including the rigs. Thus, 3 rigors would be 147.9%.
It's Stoicfaux math, I just quoted |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2063
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:51:35 -
[334] - Quote
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.
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
2063
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:52:57 -
[335] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts.
For that to happen you need proper targets fro them (BC sized).
And btw.. when in hell you see turret battleships so much? They are rare as well :P
"If brute force does not solve your problem.... then you are surely not using enough!"
For the rest hire PoH |
Recruitment
|
Mario Putzo
1444
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 17:58:08 -
[336] - 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) |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
179
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:00:34 -
[337] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts. Can't put rigors everywhere. For example, a fleet ham sacrilege gets very interesting gains with MGCs, and it has no slots to spare for any missile rigs. I imagine phoon would benefit greatly from this stuff too. |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:08:06 -
[338] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts. For that to happen you need proper targets fro them (BC sized). And btw.. when in hell you see turret battleships so much? They are rare as well :P I still see blaster fitted megas and vindis regularly. Machariels are still as popular as ever. APOC navy issues are still a staple when it comes to reliably projecting dps while standing your ground. When was the last time you saw a torp raven or a SNI or RNI? Torps are currently only useful on bombers and the golem. Even with the barghest, you fit RHMLs all day. You would be ******** to fit torps on any other ship for whatever the occasion. The fact that everyone is willing to deal with a 35 second reload delay shows how useless missiles can be at the top end. |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:11:36 -
[339] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts. Can't put rigors everywhere. For example, a fleet ham sacrilege gets very interesting gains with MGCs, and it has no slots to spare for any missile rigs. I imagine phoon would benefit greatly from this stuff too. TPs still trounce them and even more so in a fleet of HACs.
|
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
179
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:21:24 -
[340] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:TPs still trounce them and even more so in a fleet of HACs.
Stacking penalty, what is it? |
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:21:58 -
[341] - Quote
Wow. Harsh backlash with the nerf there Rise.
Everyone was hoping that T2 Rigor/Flare rigging missile ships wouldn't be a necessity after this. The MGC were way to strong when you originally posted them, but now the MGC II is useless compared to its competition. The pwnage.
Please please PPPPPLLLELEEEEEAAAASEEEESSE settle on numbers half way in between the original and the new nerfed values.
MGE I - 5% Compact MGE I - 5% MGE II - 6% MGC I - 6% Compact MGC I - 7% MGC II - 8%
All bonus values across the board like you had them listed... I liked that. It gives me a warm feeling inside. The MGE is looking spot on. Damage or a Good buff to range/application. These will see a lot of use because of balanced trade offs for other low modules.
But if you don't make the MGC better for the host ship than a pwnage, you won't see much usage of them. It makes sense, the module that only helps me hit my target should be stronger than the module that helps the whole gang hit its target. If this were the case, it would put a lot of pressure on missile gangs to bring bonus'd painters so everyone could fit MGC in their previous application mid. They would compound on the bonus'd painters and would be a great advantage for setting up a coherent doctrine roam for your gang. This advantage would be great for missile boats.
This release is SO close to being amazing. I understand these numbers are very fiddly. Remember that these do not have to match application values of the turret counterparts because a target farther away is easier to track than a target closer. A Dramiel with 0 rads can be hit by a sniper Dread for full damage. Missiles do not get this benefit. please make these modules more powerful to offset this issue, or strip the Sig shot/Sig of target element out of the turret tracking equation and allow small ships to true sig tank turrets. Or do the inverse with the missile forumula. But as long as those formulas are different, the balance for their separate modules must be different. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1472
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:29:58 -
[342] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:TPs still trounce them and even more so in a fleet of HACs.
Stacking penalty, what is it?
Of very little consequence once you hit it due to the formula, is what it is. Plus a HAM doctrine that doesn't have webs is ... well... you know.
Quite why a gang assist mod is STRONGER than a personal mod and easier to fit is nothing short of preposterous. |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:31:05 -
[343] - Quote
Torgeir Hekard wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:TPs still trounce them and even more so in a fleet of HACs.
Stacking penalty, what is it? Obviously, the benefits cap at around 3 or 4 TPs but it's still better than each HAC fitting a MGCII with precision scripts unless i'm wrong somewhere. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2092
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:39:50 -
[344] - Quote
I would love it if FOF missiles could be set to attack the broadcast target... almost like assigning drones...
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
Cede Forster
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
145
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:47:24 -
[345] - 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!
There is actually a logic flaw in this approach because of how turrets work in oppose to missiles.
As soon a target is far enough away, the transverse speed becomes irrelevant for turrets, the damage is exclusively decided by the question if the target is within optimal range.
The same situation does not occur for missiles, because the damage application is based on speed and not on the direction of the ship. A ship will speed tank missiles at 1km as good as at 249 km. This requires for the same application of damage to counter the effect of the speed tank AND extend the range to reach the target. Additionally the limit of missle flight time means that a fast traveling ship is able to reduce the application further by reducing the effective range orbiting the target at a high range to increase the missile flight path.
You can of course adjust the modules so it allows comparative application of damage on range, but this will create a disproportional advantage in close range.
The idea that you can make missile modules work comparative to turret modules is simply not working. I am a bit too lazy to do this right now, but you can solve the turret damage equation against the missile damage equation to proof that it wont be possible to solve the equation to the same damage applicability for turrets and missiles on all ranges, because of the effect that the vector of the speed has to the damage application of turrets based on distance. It is just in the nature of the damage application formulas to make it impossible to be comparative unless you want to change the engine substantially.
The only realistic solution that you can implement on the short term is to separate the modules for long range missiles and short range missiles (Module that only affects LM, HM, CM and another set that affects R,HAM,TORP). |
Kalen Pavle
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
29
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:48:27 -
[346] - Quote
Missiles:
Almost useful again, but then CCP decided it's still drones online. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:52:32 -
[347] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Wow. Harsh backlash with the nerf there Rise.
Everyone was hoping that T2 Rigor/Flare rigging missile ships wouldn't be a necessity after this. The MGC were way to strong when you originally posted them, but now the MGC II is useless compared to its competition. The pwnage.
Please please PPPPPLLLELEEEEEAAAASEEEESSE settle on numbers half way in between the original and the new nerfed values.
MGE I - 5% Compact MGE I - 5% MGE II - 6% MGC I - 6% Compact MGC I - 7% MGC II - 8%
All bonus values across the board like you had them listed... I liked that. It gives me a warm feeling inside. The MGE is looking spot on. Damage or a Good buff to range/application. These will see a lot of use because of balanced trade offs for other low modules.
But if you don't make the MGC better for the host ship than a pwnage, you won't see much usage of them. It makes sense, the module that only helps me hit my target should be stronger than the module that helps the whole gang hit its target. If this were the case, it would put a lot of pressure on missile gangs to bring bonus'd painters so everyone could fit MGC in their previous application mid. They would compound on the bonus'd painters and would be a great advantage for setting up a coherent doctrine roam for your gang. This advantage would be great for missile boats.
This release is SO close to being amazing. I understand these numbers are very fiddly. Remember that these do not have to match application values of the turret counterparts because a target farther away is easier to track than a target closer. A Dramiel with 0 rads can be hit by a sniper Dread for full damage. Missiles do not get this benefit. please make these modules more powerful to offset this issue, or strip the Sig shot/Sig of target element out of the turret tracking equation and allow small ships to true sig tank turrets. Or do the inverse with the missile forumula. But as long as those formulas are different, the balance for their separate modules must be different.
I don't think a single value makes sense because missiles need more application bonuses than range bonuses. I think original application values were good, and the range were too good. I'd leave range where it is now, and see how it plays out. But the application bonuses need to go back to where they were. Missile velocity and explosion radius values are not directly comparable to tracking values, and the module's bonus to these stats should not be compared to turret stats.
TLDR: Range nerf understandable, Application nerf not good.
|
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
73
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:05:45 -
[348] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Is this part implying that the bonuses from Warhead Rigor/Flare Catalysts are also stacking penalized now? Because if so, these changes will literally destroy the viability of non-light missiles, whichever way you look at it. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1946
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:05:47 -
[349] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:Torgeir Hekard wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:TPs still trounce them and even more so in a fleet of HACs.
Stacking penalty, what is it? Obviously, the benefits cap at around 3 or 4 TPs but it's still better than each HAC fitting a MGCII with precision scripts unless i'm wrong somewhere.
If your gang is large enough, you could have a bunch fitting the TP to help the whole gang with extra over the cap because you can lose some dudes and the rest with the mod because why not once you have a bunch of backup TP already in fleet. It require a gang of a decent size to begin being worthwhile but it's like that for any gang boost mods.
You could also use the mod and have TPs applied by support ships. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1946
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:08:45 -
[350] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Is this part implying that the bonuses from Warhead Rigor/Flare Catalysts are also stacking penalized now? Because if so, these changes will literally destroy the viability of non-light missiles, whichever way you look at it.
If this si the case, it's gonna be grand. Design a module to boost missile effectively turning into a nerf before they even add the missile E-WAR. |
|
Anthar Thebess
1166
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:10:28 -
[351] - Quote
Can we get module increasing missile speed? Why we cannot have highs slot missile enhancing module - just to oppose , and have new options. The only potential ship that could abuse them is golem - but no one will put permanent doctrine using this hull.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
James Baboli
Novablasters
924
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:14:35 -
[352] - Quote
While I criticized them for ToT viability, I very much liked the application bonuses. This, this just dumps on missiles. Adding a stronger buff to their application via these modules would be a good thing. A very good thing.
As they are, they're underpowered for anything but running rapids with FOFs against drones as a utility high.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:18:15 -
[353] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Wow. Harsh backlash with the nerf there Rise.
Everyone was hoping that T2 Rigor/Flare rigging missile ships wouldn't be a necessity after this. The MGC were way to strong when you originally posted them, but now the MGC II is useless compared to its competition. The pwnage.
Please please PPPPPLLLELEEEEEAAAASEEEESSE settle on numbers half way in between the original and the new nerfed values.
MGE I - 5% Compact MGE I - 5% MGE II - 6% MGC I - 6% Compact MGC I - 7% MGC II - 8%
All bonus values across the board like you had them listed... I liked that. It gives me a warm feeling inside. The MGE is looking spot on. Damage or a Good buff to range/application. These will see a lot of use because of balanced trade offs for other low modules.
But if you don't make the MGC better for the host ship than a pwnage, you won't see much usage of them. It makes sense, the module that only helps me hit my target should be stronger than the module that helps the whole gang hit its target. If this were the case, it would put a lot of pressure on missile gangs to bring bonus'd painters so everyone could fit MGC in their previous application mid. They would compound on the bonus'd painters and would be a great advantage for setting up a coherent doctrine roam for your gang. This advantage would be great for missile boats.
This release is SO close to being amazing. I understand these numbers are very fiddly. Remember that these do not have to match application values of the turret counterparts because a target farther away is easier to track than a target closer. A Dramiel with 0 rads can be hit by a sniper Dread for full damage. Missiles do not get this benefit. please make these modules more powerful to offset this issue, or strip the Sig shot/Sig of target element out of the turret tracking equation and allow small ships to true sig tank turrets. Or do the inverse with the missile forumula. But as long as those formulas are different, the balance for their separate modules must be different. I don't think a single value makes sense because missiles need more application bonuses than range bonuses. I think original application values were good, and the range were too good. I'd leave range where it is now, and see how it plays out. But the application bonuses need to go back to where they were. Missile velocity and explosion radius values are not directly comparable to tracking values, and the module's bonus to these stats should not be compared to turret stats. TLDR: Range nerf understandable, Application nerf not good.
This is very true. Another solution that i think would be very acceptable would be to separate the range and application bonus's on MGE into two separate lines of modules. You get more range, or more application. Then when the tiericide hits TE's, they can also be separated. More range, or more application. With modules getting buffed values for either. But now obviously not having both. |
Legion40k
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
97
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:20:40 -
[354] - 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!
NOOOOOOOOOO xD it was rather powerful but it was FUN
[EDIT] okay that nerf is a bit harsh O.o |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:22:49 -
[355] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote: This is very true. Another solution that i think would be very acceptable would be to separate the range and application bonus's on MGE into two separate lines of modules. You get more range, or more application. Then when the tiericide hits TE's, they can also be separated. More range, or more application. With modules getting buffed values for either. But now obviously not having both.
Hmmm, that idea has merit, though I wonder how many people like the fact that adding 1 low slot boosts range and tracking and would not want it split? If you fit 2 it should be no net difference as you just fit one for range, one for application. But for those wanting more of only one stat and wanting to use a low..... more module, more choices..... |
Kalen Pavle
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
30
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:24:22 -
[356] - Quote
Confirming bonuses are now not good enough to justify losing a tank slot or a bcu for them with Caldari's 1-4 low slot ships. If I want to drop tank I may as well just fit a TP since it helps everyone shooting the target. |
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
170
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:25:34 -
[357] - Quote
If the eventual compensation for these MGCs is anti-missile ewar (SoonGäó), then it seems like their introduction will actually add up to being a substantial nerf to the weapon system they're meant to buff.
Not that I'm against that, exactly. |
stoicfaux
5997
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:27:08 -
[358] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Is this part implying that the bonuses from Warhead Rigor/Flare Catalysts are also stacking penalized now? Because if so, these changes will literally destroy the viability of non-light missiles, whichever way you look at it. No, no, read it again. CCP Rise is referring to the modules (MGC/MGE) being stacking penalized.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract O X I D E
408
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:27:53 -
[359] - Quote
Another classic CCP funny... Good job everyone involved, you got a lot of the community excited and then sprung the punchline. Well done. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
264
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:42:15 -
[360] - Quote
What about scripting and/or overheating on MGCs?
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Wow. Harsh backlash with the nerf there Rise.
Everyone was hoping that T2 Rigor/Flare rigging missile ships wouldn't be a necessity after this. The MGC were way to strong when you originally posted them, but now the MGC II is useless compared to its competition. The pwnage.
Please please PPPPPLLLELEEEEEAAAASEEEESSE settle on numbers half way in between the original and the new nerfed values.
MGE I - 5% Compact MGE I - 5% MGE II - 6% MGC I - 6% Compact MGC I - 7% MGC II - 8%
All bonus values across the board like you had them listed... I liked that. It gives me a warm feeling inside. The MGE is looking spot on. Damage or a Good buff to range/application. These will see a lot of use because of balanced trade offs for other low modules.
But if you don't make the MGC better for the host ship than a pwnage, you won't see much usage of them. It makes sense, the module that only helps me hit my target should be stronger than the module that helps the whole gang hit its target. If this were the case, it would put a lot of pressure on missile gangs to bring bonus'd painters so everyone could fit MGC in their previous application mid. They would compound on the bonus'd painters and would be a great advantage for setting up a coherent doctrine roam for your gang. This advantage would be great for missile boats.
This release is SO close to being amazing. I understand these numbers are very fiddly. Remember that these do not have to match application values of the turret counterparts because a target farther away is easier to track than a target closer. A Dramiel with 0 rads can be hit by a sniper Dread for full damage. Missiles do not get this benefit. please make these modules more powerful to offset this issue, or strip the Sig shot/Sig of target element out of the turret tracking equation and allow small ships to true sig tank turrets. Or do the inverse with the missile forumula. But as long as those formulas are different, the balance for their separate modules must be different.
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
|
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
46
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:53:33 -
[361] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:What about scripting and/or overheating on MGCs?
Scripting is good. Overheating could be more complicated compared to turret tracking is, due to delayed damage from travel. Are only the missiles that hit while overheat is on affected or are the bonuses applying when the missile fires? Would you need/want to get your missiles in the air before overheating MGC so that you are not wasting heat damage? |
Kallen Kozukie
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:57:57 -
[362] - Quote
Damage was never the problem with missiles, flight time, firewalls and APPLICATION was.
The 5% damage bonus to heavys is near useless, we live in cruisers online atm, applying that damage is near impossible in the kitey meta we find ourselves in.
I don't see why the missile modules need to be similar to tracking comps for turrets at all, it's not like you can outrun turret fire, it's not like turrets lose application the same way missiles do.
I was excited for this release, and then CCP killed my enthusiasm rather quickly.
People get excited when they see thier missile boat does X damage in eft, but not many realize the actual damage output is FAR lower than the paper dps numbers on EFT, the speed of all ships has gone up so much you would be better served throwing rocks out of your viewport.
The things missles need to be competitive is 1. velocity - Travel time is far too ridiculous with missles, drop the flight time if you have to to keep similar ranges, but they NEED more velocity, this would also help counter firewalls by lowering the amount of time there is to react and start smart bombing
2. application - I can understand the need to perhaps tone down the distance bonus on the new mods sure, but the application is really needed on all types of missles, even lights have a hard time applying full damage to frigs, and they are MEANT to destroy frigs, there is no choice of missle in PVP, everyone runs navy's to try and mitigate damage loss, while keeping damage numbers up. Turrets dont have this problem, you have long range ammo that does slightly less dps on paper, and short range ammo that tends to do more. you see a lot more variety from turrets because they basically apply the same if you fly the ship well. |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:03:16 -
[363] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: This is very true. Another solution that i think would be very acceptable would be to separate the range and application bonus's on MGE into two separate lines of modules. You get more range, or more application. Then when the tiericide hits TE's, they can also be separated. More range, or more application. With modules getting buffed values for either. But now obviously not having both.
Hmmm, that idea has merit, though I wonder how many people like the fact that adding 1 low slot boosts range and tracking and would not want it split? If you fit 2 it should be no net difference as you just fit one for range, one for application. But for those wanting more of only one stat and wanting to use a low..... more module, more choices..... Edit: Or make the low slot modules script-able too?
Possibly. The flavor argument is that it is not an active module, cannot be scripted, and thus gives a generic improvement to all applicable stats. With the midslot module being active, scriptable, and more powerful, but taking up a significantly more valuable slot. Lets be honest here, even on armor tank ships, mids are more valuable than lows, there are lists upon lists of things that would be desirable in a mid. PVP fits rarely see TE's, because armor ships can run rigs for application or just pilot better. Missile ships do not have this advantage.
I think a larger big picture question here is "how does CCP want missiles to perform?"
Consider a theoretical turret with "x"km optimal, 0 falloff, and tracking such that it applies full dps at 50% of its total range. And a missile with "x"km total range. The target that these two weapons are shooting at is applying maximum angular velocity. The application slope of the turret goes from 0% application to 100% at half its range, with the remaining half its range gaining an application buffer, such that if its application or the speed of the opponent turns counter to its favor, it would still apply full damage.
Should the missile apply damage based on the equivalent turrets application at half its range or even more? Then the missile would do full damage across the entire range regardless of piloting skill. Everyone agrees that this would be OP. Then what? 25%? And how much is the application buffer 'worth' to the balancing considerations? Missile explosion radius cannot be made to shrink as the missile travels to give missiles an equivalent to this... or can it?
How about calculating a generic average damage that the turret can do across its entire engagement range and basing the missile damage off that? Conceptually "on grid" if this ship was slowly spiraling inwards towards the turret ship, the total damage applied to the target from "x" range down to 0 should be the same for both the turret and the missile. This provides a balance between the piloting and variability in turret application and the consistent but lower dps of missiles.
How then does eve weapon systems stack up? Do missiles apply a net average of turret dps across their entire engagement range? Its almost impossible to tell, piloting, webs, TP's, fitting, piloting, falloff, piloting, and player actions commonly referred to as piloting make balancing skill based combat systems against build based RTS like systems nearly impossible.
As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle. |
Tosawa Komarui
Exit-Strategy Exit Strategy..
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:36:45 -
[364] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:[quote=Terra Chrall][quote=Kasia en Tilavine]
As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
if they are either op or useless, then they are not working, and need a complete redesign on how they work mechanically |
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:43:23 -
[365] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves.
Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1946
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:51:30 -
[366] - Quote
Chan'aar wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves. Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place.
"Meaningful choices"
... |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:53:53 -
[367] - Quote
Chan'aar wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves. Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place. Yes and no. The issue is two fold. Current missile application could use base stat increases. Missile velocity too but with flight time trade off since range is not the real issue. Tweaking base application stats should be done even with the new modules. The new modules then allow choices for low/med/rig slots to be used for improving the stats you need for your setup.
If you want more range or application right now, you can fit some rigs. That is your only choice. Now you have more more options. If you go with a mid over a rig, you might fit a damage rig or fitting rig instead.
The modules are a good thing regardless. But they are not the full solution in my mind. |
Voodoo Solitaire
Is it Cake
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:08:18 -
[368] - Quote
Dear Rise, Fozzie et al, This balancing business is reaching the end of the road. Why come up with new stats for the missile mods in the first place if they then need to be nerfed so quickly? You're clearly guessing what at what you think might be 'balanced'. But true balance, in this game, is unattainable. And boring. You would be better off aiming at a series of subtle, cyclical imbalances to keep the game fun. A balanced, flat game would be boring as it simply wouldn't matter what anyone flew any more. I'm not sure I relish the prospect of years of watching CCP people fine tuning numbers by lesser and lesser degrees.
So, you should have let the original stats stay as they were and trusted your initial instincts. Put the (unadjusted) mods live on TQ and watch people enjoy missiles as they become fun again. If they turn out to be OP then you can nerf them later. Just like you did with drone hulls, remember? |
Funless Saisima
Strange Energy The Bastion
62
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:08:58 -
[369] - Quote
So instead of it having slightly higher stats than turrets (because, you know missiles have delay damage, can be firewalled, can be speed tanked, have kinetic lock on most of the ships), it gets worse stats than the equivalent turret computer. Having a drake/nighthawk fleet was fun for one day I guess. |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
73
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:24:59 -
[370] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:probag Bear wrote:CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Is this part implying that the bonuses from Warhead Rigor/Flare Catalysts are also stacking penalized now? Because if so, these changes will literally destroy the viability of non-light missiles, whichever way you look at it. No, no, read it again. CCP Rise is referring to the modules (MGC/MGE) being stacking penalized.
My big concern is that it could be read either as "the modules are now stacking penalized" or "explosion radius/velocity is now stacking penalized".
If it's the former, eh, it makes a newly-introduced module weaker; it doesn't affect current capability of missile ships (and it's a very understandable change).
If it's the latter though, capital and large-missile boats are completely destroyed, and most medium-missile boats are heavily nerfed. |
|
Alexis Nightwish
293
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 22:55:47 -
[371] - Quote
probag Bear wrote:stoicfaux wrote:probag Bear wrote:CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Is this part implying that the bonuses from Warhead Rigor/Flare Catalysts are also stacking penalized now? Because if so, these changes will literally destroy the viability of non-light missiles, whichever way you look at it. No, no, read it again. CCP Rise is referring to the modules (MGC/MGE) being stacking penalized. My big concern is that it could be read either as "the modules are now stacking penalized" or "explosion radius/velocity is now stacking penalized". If it's the former, eh, it makes a newly-introduced module weaker; it doesn't affect current capability of missile ships (and it's a very understandable change). If it's the latter though, capital and large-missile boats are completely destroyed, and most medium-missile boats are heavily nerfed. I've never heard of modules that stack-penalize with each other, but do not stack-penalize with rigs that have the same effect, so I can't imagine that Flares and Rigors won't be screwed over.
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.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
471
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 23:10:53 -
[372] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Wow. Harsh backlash with the nerf there Rise.
Everyone was hoping that T2 Rigor/Flare rigging missile ships wouldn't be a necessity after this. The MGC were way to strong when you originally posted them, but now the MGC II is useless compared to its competition. The pwnage. This is not 100% true. PWNAGE is +37.5%, but it is applied often with stacking. It is in same stacking penalty chain with MWD sig blow and shield rig blow, for example, thus vs ship which burns using MWD you will have +32.6% actual sig blow (and if they're shield rigged - even less), and MGC is stronger with +35.3%.
Besides, it gives you option to have range when necessary.
Besides, it gives you option to stack both sig blow from TPs (from tp-bonused ships like vigils) and accuracy bonuses on missiles, compared to just TPs (what people usually do here).
Overall i think people expected these modules to 100% solve missile application bonuses automagically, but while i understand that, i think proper 'fix' would be to change base missile stats - not all of missile ships will be able to fit these, and with old stats they would be a must-have, thus making balancing around them pretty hard (missiles would be superstrong on ships which can afford to spam MGC's and weak on the ships which can't). |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
695
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 23:33:38 -
[373] - Quote
Gorski Car wrote:These stats are much better.
No they are not.
CCP Rise, I am very disappointed by those new values and you know how passionate I am about missiles, which has something to do with me being present when missile damage was a boolean value - yes or no (in range or not).
I still stand by my post that missiles should always apply 100% - reistance of shield or armor or hull resistance damage at missile speed x flight time. Turrets have more range, more damage and wrecking shots.
As soon as missile speed x flight time is reached a missiles disappears into the void of space - the end.
If a turret reaches optimal + 2x falloff it can still vaporize a ship and turret range is ALWAYS optimal + 2x falloff, regardless of speed of hunter-hunted.
Missile range is an average of speed x flight time and in 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all cases all parties are moving.
It escapes me why a long range weapon NEEDS a short range application mod to work (stasis web anyone?).
Since you are from the US you may want to take CCP Fozzie and CCP Tuxford to a trip to the home of the brave and let the US Navy show of some missiles and show you how they work. You can ask a Colonel what will happen to a motorcycle rider if you accidently drop a Tomahawk tatical missiles on him.
Here's a hint, the medicial examiner will only have carbon ash to work with and no the motorcycle cannot outrun anything.
And here are acceptable values for explosion velocity for all missiles: 299.792.458 m/s and 0.000000000000001m explosion radius. With those values most of the missiles problem will be solved.
That will help kiting with missiles and everyone will be pleased.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
HiddenPorpoise
Expendable Miscreants
380
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:35:43 -
[374] - Quote
I suppose the biggest question is: why would I use a MGC that's going to cost my rigor a stacking penalty when I could save 19 CPU and boost everyone elses' targeting with a painter? |
Sumeragy
Revolution of Chaos Nemesis Enterprises.
11
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:46:21 -
[375] - Quote
Well +1 on the old Stats. I was testing the new Modules on Sisis and its fun to fly Missile Ships again. I hope you will look on the Range of Torp Missiles so they get buffed in Range to match the other Turret close Combat Weapons.
To the New stats: I think that Range should stay as it was because i think the more OP stat is the Missile Explosiv Radius. That Missiles can apply their damage better and also always hit might kill Frigates to fast. The Range itself doesn-¦t matters that much but that it was easy for my to kill frigates in a mission and even whit one shot, might be the grater Danger to this Modules. Keep the Range and nerv only the Explosiv Radius Bonuses. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:51:28 -
[376] - Quote
Rise wouldn't it not make more sense to leave the script and module values at the original stats but introduce a negative modifier to each script to compensate? IE 100% Increase to Explo velocity -25% missile velocity as an example. Something to give, as you said, options to people with downsides to keep it balanced.
You either apply damage perfectly, have range, or have the ability to hit a very fast target. These are the types of situations missiles have issues with and the MGE/MGC have the opportunity to expand the weapon system rather than contract it as you have currently done. Additionally if you gave the MGE/MGC a longer cycle time like drone omnis it would encourage smart play rather than an omnibus style weapon enhancement. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
171
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 01:58:04 -
[377] - 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!
Massive blunt nerf before they even got near TQ and they look weaker than missile rigs already. I mean why would i want to waste a mid slot and 35 CPU on a module that gives me +11% flight time, and +11% missile velocity when I can use a far less valuable rig slot and no fitting cost for a straight +20% missile velocity? Missile speed is more important than overall range in nearly every scenario so I'm going to stick with rigs if I want range. The damage application is more complicated but I understand the rule of thumb here is that there's no point buffing explosion velocity past a certain point so it's almost always best to fit rigors rather than flares, which makes me wonder is '-20% explosion radius' better or '-15% explosion radius +15% explosion velocity'? It's moot anyway because I'm certain rigs + target painters will be better than any number of these modules for damage application especially in gangs, and the low slot modules I mean come on whats the point of these even existing now? I'd rather fit a nano.
Either way we're back to square one: rigs and pwnage, so this achieves little or nothing and missiles remain bad apart from stealth bombers and light missiles. Some said in the reveal thread this would be 1 step forward 2 steps back type of deal and I'm sorry now that I disagreed because they are right, you're going to give missiles this and then introduce missile ewar as if missiles need more problems. I'm disappointed, this won't drag missiles out of the wilderness and if they bring in ewar now it will be the final nail in the coffin.
If you must reign in the power just remove the weird double bonuses and do it like this:
Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG, 15% bonus to explosion radius and 12.5% bonus to missile velocity
much cleaner and only slightly more effective than the current rig options, anyone saying missiles will somehow jump from practically unused to OP with a slight buff like that at the cost of tank/ewar/tackle is off their meds and should be ignored until they get a run on TQ. Frankly even if they were right and missiles suddenly became OP most people would be glad to see a change for a while and it would be easy to correct unlike some of the other cancers in the game. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
171
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 02:24:12 -
[378] - Quote
Also I just checked and missile damage application rigs were not stacking penalized before this... if you introduce stacking penalties on rigs now in exchange for these weak ass modules you've nerfed missiles again, especially large missiles. How can you justify that?
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4463
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 02:55:24 -
[379] - Quote
I would comment, but it would just further illustrate what has been several years of disappointing implementations regarding missiles.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1169
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 03:33:59 -
[380] - Quote
Altarica wrote:[quote=afkalt] Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all
I knew it!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1169
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 03:41:00 -
[381] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Chan'aar wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves. Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place. "Meaningful choices" ...
Every Eve player should probably just go sit in the corner in the fetal position rocking back and forth whenever a developer starts talking about "meaningful choices." Especially where missiles or drones are concerned.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
264
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 04:08:04 -
[382] - Quote
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
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
|
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
432
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 04:35:09 -
[383] - Quote
Straight from one extreme to the other in typical ccp fashion.
The tracking enhancers seem quite bad. Their bonuses get squashed by stacking penalties and as such they end up being fairly useless. Most missile ships are quite low on slots as it is and with the current stats it just isnt worth it to fit a guidance until you have 4 BCUs.
Case in point, you get essentially the same range from a single scripted guidance computer as you do with two of the lowslot guidance enhancers. Obviously this ignores the tracking bonus but you can easily swap scripts and far outclass them in that regard too, not to mention the effects of overheating. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1947
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 04:40:33 -
[384] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Chan'aar wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote: As CCP bros in the past have said, balancing missile systems is knife edge work, they're either OP or useless. Its very hard for them to be anything in the middle.
By introducing the MGC's and MGE's they have made that job harder for themselves. Surely it would have been easier to apply small tweaks to the missile base stats in every six week patch window so they could monitor things over a year or so until missiles got to a good place. "Meaningful choices" ... Every Eve player should probably just go sit in the corner in the fetal position rocking back and forth whenever a developer starts talking about "meaningful choices." Especially where missiles or drones are concerned.
We will have meaningful choice to fit those mods on our ship granting us meaningful choice with single damage type bonus.
Dem kinetic locked missile boats will be such meaningful choice to use now I just can't even. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13520
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 05:00:54 -
[385] - Quote
So... anyone else fail to see why you'd run the newly nerfed mods over a target painter? I sure can't.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 05:24:57 -
[386] - 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
Could you backup your claims with numbers that show that this is exactly the case? I'd like to see a number of current missile pvp ships with fittings that will be overpowered with the additon of said new modules in their old form without having to sacrifice something in return. Feel free to use any missile ship and it would be nice if you stuck to their original sized weapon systems and not rapid launchers. For example: Caracal, Typhoon, Raven, Bellicose, Tengu, Sacrilege, etc... |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
74
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 05:52:54 -
[387] - Quote
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
Wingspann is being generous when he says "New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered". |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1947
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 06:06:22 -
[388] - Quote
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. |
Mario Putzo
1458
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 07:15:04 -
[389] - 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. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
699
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 07:29:33 -
[390] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:...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.
*cough*.. and add explosion velocity.
Don't forget that you want to kite with heavy missiles. If you need to web someone for your long range gun to work you have a bad gun.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
|
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 TQCurrently: 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. |
|
stoicfaux
6010
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 13:48:20 -
[421] - 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. 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.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
213
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:00:05 -
[422] - Quote
wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots???
if so, man. this is a hell of a buff |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1149
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:01:13 -
[423] - Quote
I think the range bonus needs to be removed and the expl and rad need to be moved into different scripts
missiles were not really hurting any for range (some even have to much already)
and although splitting scripts does require you to give up more tank the current set up may be just a little strong imo
the scrip splitting i could be convinced is not needed but there is no way we need more range on missiles
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1182
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:08:11 -
[424] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I think the range bonus needs to be removed and the expl and rad need to be moved into different scripts
missiles were not really hurting any for range (some even have to much already)
and although splitting scripts does require you to give up more tank the current set up may be just a little strong imo
the scrip splitting i could be convinced is not needed but there is no way we need more range on missiles
im more surprised they left HAM's at the same range as torps...
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
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
472
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:12:14 -
[425] - Quote
gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right? |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
213
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:22:43 -
[426] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right?
i don't know i don't fly any missile ship bigger than a frigate |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13521
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:31:03 -
[427] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right? i don't know i don't fly any missile ship bigger than a frigate
I fly a Sacrilege, Gila, and Rattlesnake, and that's about it. And the missiles are not why I fly them, it's more something I have to deal with to get their kickass hulls.
Once I train into Command Ships, I damn sure won't be using the missile variants of any of them.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1482
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:46:50 -
[428] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right?
And the golem dudes running double rigor II, with no third rig are stuck |
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
472
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:56:27 -
[429] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right? And the golem dudes running double rigor II, with no third rig are stuck Not really. Two t2 rigors now are +56.25%, with stacking penalty applied +51.33%. Sure it's worse, but very insignificantly. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1482
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 15:03:14 -
[430] - Quote
I suppose I can take solace in being right about a nerf with these mods.
And that I fly all the marauders lol |
|
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 15:15:01 -
[431] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right? By your calculation moving to a flare post stacking is still worse than three rigor pre stacking. And really, a flare isnt as good as a rigor to begin with. |
stoicfaux
6010
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 15:15:53 -
[432] - Quote
Here's something to lighten the mood: Gunship Pr0n!
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Mario Putzo
1458
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 15:34:53 -
[433] - Quote
Oooo I hope they do the Bismark next. |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
77
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 15:35:05 -
[434] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote: 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.
I'm quoting this only because you seem to be assuming that a T2 flare is better than a 3rd T1 rigor.
Kadesh Priestess wrote: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.
There's a single problem with your math: you haven't looked at the missile formula. Improvements to explosion velocity literally do nothing outside of point-range kitey PvP.
Examples of situations, and quick blurbs on the impact of explosion velocity:
- Long-range fleet battle on a non-bonused hull. Explosion velocity would be a big problem here. Which, I imagine, is why there are no fleets that fall into this category.
- Long-range battle on a non-battleship bonused hull (such as the Cerberus). Explosion velocity is almost entirely a non-factor.
- Short-range battle. Short-range means you will have tackle; specifically, web. Explosion velocity is a complete non-factor already.
- Capital ships (solo or fleet). Thanks to Fozzie, explosion velocity will never be a problem, though you still won't be able to apply full damage to stationary triage'd carriers.
- Sniper-range solo PvP. This is not a situation that exists in Eve, nor one that ever will. Not only is travel time a major factor, but your target will find it easy to break whatever tackle they're under and warp off.
- Close-range non-Golem solo PvP. Once again, you have tackle, which means scram+web, which means explosion velocity is always a non-factor.
(this is already covered by the above, but Stealth Bomber solo PvP, not only will explosion velocity always be a non-factor, but this play-style will get hit particularly hard by the explosion radius nerf)
- Cruiser+Frigate point-range kitey PvP. Explosion velocity matters a lot, and your math is accurate
- Close-range Golem solo PvP. Against frigates and frigates alone, explosion velocity would help, and your math is accurate.
- Sniper Golem fleet. Nobody runs these today, so who knows, maybe this could actually benefit from explosion velocity bonuses if they want to take on Ishtars. But I personally don't see such a fleet being run un-ironically.
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right?
It won't have the same efficiency now. You've run the numbers: you get 11% less damage application after stacking penalties, and, most importantly, there's literally no way to get that 11% back. An 11% damage nerf is huge, not "pretty much [the] same".
And all of this is ignoring the fact that if stacking penalties are added, Crash will also be stacking penalized. Everyone who uses capital missiles uses Crash, and a good chunk of the people using large missiles also do. Drug usage is more subjective though, since you can't approximate it from just Jita + Amarr sale volume. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
213
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 15:36:27 -
[435] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:afkalt wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right? And the golem dudes running double rigor II, with no third rig are stuck Not really. Two t2 rigors now are +56.25%, with stacking penalty applied +51.33%. Sure it's worse, but very insignificantly.
ok i got it : so they are boosting missile ships but first step is nerfing them... this looks more and more some sort of "freighter boost", so in the end you will need to fit one of the new mods to get about the stats you had before "boost"... so i got an ideea:
CCP Rise pls don't boost missile ships!
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 15:41:33 -
[436] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:I think the range bonus needs to be removed and the expl and rad need to be moved into different scripts
missiles were not really hurting any for range (some even have to much already)
and although splitting scripts does require you to give up more tank the current set up may be just a little strong imo
the scrip splitting i could be convinced is not needed but there is no way we need more range on missiles
Yeah the range... I think I agree with you there, the missiles that are hurting won't benefit much from it but lights and stealth bombers just become stupid with range buffs so maybe they should drop that or there are other options:
Someone above mentioned the mordu's legion bonus which is a great idea, so a script that halves flight time and doubles missile velocity could be unique and useful without affecting range. Maybe not as strong as that but just for example
Another idea could be make the low slot modules only affect missile velocity ~12%? and the mid slot mods only affect damage appliaction. I know some minmattar ships have extra lows but really 10-12% isn't much when you realize that rigs can already do 15-20% and this would be at the cost of raw damage or tank or speed, all significant trade-offs for range.
Or like you say just remove the range bonus altogether and let people use rigs for that like they are now, and make these significantly better at dmg application than the existing pwnage set ups. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 15:43:58 -
[437] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:afkalt wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right? And the golem dudes running double rigor II, with no third rig are stuck Not really. Two t2 rigors now are +56.25%, with stacking penalty applied +51.33%. Sure it's worse, but very insignificantly. ok i got it : so they are boosting missile ships but first step is nerfing them... this looks more and more some sort of "freighter boost", so in the end you will need to fit one of the new mods to get about the stats you had before "boost"... so i got an ideea: CCP Rise pls don't boost missile ships! Yeah this isgetting stupid. If its too hard to give us these mods without potentially breaking the game with rhml phoons oneshotting frigates all day then obviously they should forget these modules entirely. Just fix the base stats of all missiles and call it a day. Give torps more range, nerf sb torp range bonus, fix application for heavies cruise and torp and nerf light missile range. Then call it a damn day and get some gin. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
177
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 16:17:49 -
[438] - Quote
afkalt wrote: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.
It's less strange when you look at their killboards, okay for everyone else to use but not good enough for them... except nobody else is using them either. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1176
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 16:43:05 -
[439] - Quote
We killed a bunch of cruise Ravens during a Titan save fight in Fountain last winter.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
472
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 16:45:57 -
[440] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:gascanu wrote:wait! wait! are you guys saying that after this buff to missiles we will need 3 rig slots and 1 med slot to get the stats you now have with only 3 rig slots??? if so, man. this is a hell of a buff Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right? By your calculation moving to a flare post stacking is still worse than three rigor pre stacking. And really, a flare isnt as good as a rigor to begin with. t2 flare is better than t1 rigor unless target is extremely small for missile type, scrammed and highly immobile.
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage
There're 3 key components in play:
1) 1 - its role is to never let missile do more damage than it does according to its stats (i.e. make sure damage multiplier never goes more than 1) 2) target signature / explosion radius - its role is to not let "big" missiles reliably hit frigates for 100% of damage even when they're highly immobilized 3) ((target signature * missile explosion velocity) / (missile explosion radius * target velocity)) ^ (ln drf / ln 5.5) - it defines missile application vs relatively mobile targets
Unless you're brawling and applying multiple webs or shooting big ships with small missiles, 3rd part of missile formula will be in play.
For example, you're shooting mwd'ing vexor w/o links or TPs applied (870 sig, 1677 speed) with HML tengu with 3 rigors (2 t2, 1 t1 - 57.1 explo rad, 122 m/s explo velocity using CN ammo) or 2 t2 rigors and 1 t2 flare (67.2 explo rad, 146 explo velocity).
1st component - constant of 1 2nd - 3 rigors: 870++57.1 = 15.23, rigors + flare: 870++67.2 = 12.946 3rd - 3 rigors: ((870+ù122)++(57.1+ù1677))^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 1.072, rigors + flare: ((870+ù146)++(67.2+ù1677))^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 1.085
Okay this is probably bad example because both components are bigger than 1 and will be capped by 1st part of equation, let's use full skirmish-linked plated ishtar (1698 m/s, 332 sig) instead:
1st component - constant of 1 2nd - 3 rigors: 332++57.1= 5.8, rigors + flare: 332++67.2 = 4.94 3rd - 3 rigors: ((322+ù122)++(57.1+ù1698))^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 0.53987, rigors + flare: ((322+ù146)++(67.2+ù1698))^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 0.546
As you can see, for rigors + flare multiplier is slightly bigger. Now, why is that happening and when rigors are actually better?
- Rigors are better strictly when you're shooting target which has signature radius (after all TP modifications) smaller than your missile explosion radius AND it is highly immobilized (usually means scram + couple of webs on frig w/o AB vs HMs). For brawling HAM ships which want to kill frigs faster and don't have tons of external TPs 3rd rigor can be better indeed. - 3rd part of equation comes in play when ships are moving freely, and all of its 4 main variables (missile ev, missile er, target sig, target speed) are mutually multiplied/divided, it means that increase by 2 times in explo velocity is equal to 2 times increase in target signature, decrease by 2 times of target speed or decrease by 2 times in explosion radius. If converting rigor value to flare equivalent, you get 1++(1GêÆ0.15) = 1.176 factor for t1 rigor, and 1.2 for t2 flare. T2 flare clearly wins, it provides bigger multiplier, which will be raised to a positive power, and resulting number will always be bigger for 3rd part of equation.
probag Bear wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:Well 2 t2 rigors + 1 t2 flare will have pretty much same efficiency as now. When you pimp out missile range, you don't fit 3 hydraulic bay thrusters, right? It won't have the same efficiency now. You've run the numbers: you get 11% less damage application after stacking penalties, and, most importantly, there's literally no way to get that 11% back. An 11% damage nerf is huge, not "pretty much [the] same". And all of this is ignoring the fact that if stacking penalties are added, Crash will also be stacking penalized. Everyone who uses capital missiles uses Crash, and a good chunk of the people using large missiles also do. Drug usage is more subjective though, since you can't approximate it from just Jita + Amarr sale volume. Get your math straight dude. I will repeat comparison (and let's assume base value is 100, although it doesn't matter which we pick for base):
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%
For case with t2 rigors + t2 flare, 181.6++187.5 = 0.968533333 (-3.15%) For case with just 2 t2 rigors, 151.33++156.25 = 0.968512 (very same -3.15%)
Your issue here is that you compare bonuses, but not final values. +1% to dmg and +2% to dmg won't be 2 times different, they will differ by a factor of 1.0099 - which is completely different significant order.
Also you have to remember that this is all just multiplier for 3rd part of formula, which is then raised to a power, which further reduces difference between different values. For example:
151.33^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 30.715979323 156.25^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 31.393875425
1st is less than 2nd by 2.2%. This almost always depends on missile type (different drf values), but difference in final result of 3rd part will always be smaller than difference in its primary factor before raising to a power. |
|
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
79
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 17:30:08 -
[441] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:t2 flare is better than t1 rigor unless target is extremely small for missile type, scrammed and highly immobile.
That's the point: there are literally only 4 PvP situations where your target is not small for missile type or scrammed and webbed. They are
- Sniper-fits on non-bonused hulls without proper accompanying light tackle. Which is undeniably moronic.
- Sniper Golem fleets. Same as the above, only I could see it actually happen as a joke fleet. It remains an idea that can never be practical though.
- Close-range Golem solo PvP versus frigates. Frigates, and frigates alone, because your dual-web will even slow cruisers enough. I think you'd agree that this is a pretty fringe situation.
- Frigate / Orthrus point-range kitey PvP. This is very common, explosion velocity matters a lot, and a buff to explosion velocity would actually have a large impact here. But you don't balance around a single PvP scenario, at the cost of severely nerfing all other PvP scenarios. These may be the plurality of missile fits, I'll give you that, but they are far from the majority. Download kb data if you want to check for yourself.
Quote:http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Missile_Damage There're 3 key components in play: 1) 1 - its role is to never let missile do more damage than it does according to its stats (i.e. make sure damage multiplier never goes more than 1) 2) target signature / explosion radius - its role is to not let "big" missiles reliably hit frigates for 100% of damage even when they're highly immobilized 3) ((target signature * missile explosion velocity) / (missile explosion radius * target velocity)) ^ (ln drf / ln 5.5) - it defines missile application vs relatively mobile targets Unless you're brawling and applying multiple webs or shooting big ships with small missiles, 3rd part of missile formula will be in play.
Please tell me what scenario I've missed where you are not applying multiple webs, shooting big ships with small missiles, or shooting equal-sized ships from a hull with an explosion velocity bonus (Cerberus fleets).
Quote: For example, you're shooting mwd'ing vexor w/o links or TPs applied (870 sig, 1677 speed) with HML tengu with 3 rigors (2 t2, 1 t1 - 57.1 explo rad, 122 m/s explo velocity using CN ammo) or 2 t2 rigors and 1 t2 flare (67.2 explo rad, 146 explo velocity).
1st component - constant of 1 2nd - 3 rigors: 870++57.1 = 15.23, rigors + flare: 870++67.2 = 12.946 3rd - 3 rigors: ((870+ù122)++(57.1+ù1677))^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 1.072, rigors + flare: ((870+ù146)++(67.2+ù1677))^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 1.085
Okay this is probably bad example because both components are bigger than 1 and will be capped by 1st part of equation, let's use full skirmish-linked plated ishtar (1698 m/s, 332 sig) instead:
1st component - constant of 1 2nd - 3 rigors: 332++57.1= 5.8, rigors + flare: 332++67.2 = 4.94 3rd - 3 rigors: ((322+ù122)++(57.1+ù1698))^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 0.53987, rigors + flare: ((322+ù146)++(67.2+ù1698))^(ln(3.2)++ln(5.5)) = 0.546
Ok, here I am lost. Your first example is clearly implausible and will never happen in-game, and already the missile damage formula falls through to your case 1. Your second example is even more absurd, and even then, it nearly falls through to your case 1. Give me actual realistic examples and I can concede your point. But so far, you've only used examples completely removed from reality, and it's still backing up my point.
Quote: As you can see, for rigors + flare multiplier is slightly bigger. Now, why is that happening and when rigors are actually better?
(rest of your quote removed due to character limit)
You realize that with this explanation, you just reinforced my point? Your second case, "when ships are moving freely", is not something that will ever happen in-game, with the single exception of solo point-range-kiting frigs. No organization will ever bring "brawling HAM" ships to kill frigs fast, and they will most definitely not do so with no web support.
Quote:Get your math straight dude. I will repeat comparison (and let's assume base value is 100, although it doesn't matter which we pick for base):
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%
For case with t2 rigors + t2 flare, 181.6++187.5 = 0.968533333 (-3.15%) For case with just 2 t2 rigors, 151.33++156.25 = 0.968512 (very same -3.15%)
Your issue here is that you compare bonuses, but not final values. +1% to dmg will not be 2 times weaker than +2% to dmg, they will differ by a factor of just 1.0099 - which is completely different significant order.
The relevant calculations from this quote:
" TQ 2 t2 rigors + t1 rigor: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.15) = +83.8% accuracy Penalized 2 t2 rigors + t1 rigor: 1++(1GêÆ0.2)++(1GêÆ0.2+ù0.87)++(1GêÆ0.15+ù0.57) = +65.5% "
1.838/1.655 = 1.11. Which is exactly the number I was referencing. 2 T2 rigors + 1 T1 rigor is the only fitting relevant, bar Golems, and it just so happens to be the only one you didn't run the numbers all the way through on. It doesn't matter that 2 x T2 rigors + 1 x T2 flare will only be nerfed by 3% when it's a stupid fit.
"No, crash will not be stacking penalized because it belongs to Implant category (which is immune to penalization)."
My bad, I don't know enough about how drugs work. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
267
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 17:43:14 -
[442] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote: 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.
I don't think you have carefully enough read through other people's calculations regarding stacking penalties then to understand my concerns. Those concerns lie on top of the nerfed stats being useless.
I ignored everything else since it's either needless grandstanding or misguided accusations based on the assumption that year-old videos edited for entertainment value are factual documentaries.
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
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1482
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 17:43:45 -
[443] - Quote
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. |
Mario Putzo
1458
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 18:20:20 -
[444] - 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. |
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
474
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 18:31:16 -
[445] - Quote
Your classification of pvp situations is pretty flexible.
> 1) Sniper-fits on non-bonused hulls without proper accompanying light tackle. Which is undeniably moronic Flying in missile fleet w/o massive TP abuse (at least, let's say, 3 bonused and preferably linked TPs) is also moronic. TPs usually make 2nd part of equation bigger than 1 and minmum is then transferred to 3rd or 1st even with tackle on the field. Unless you're shooting frigs with torps, obviously.
I can make classification too, when 3rd rigor is better: 1) Solo HAM ship with 2 webs and scram vs small frigs 2) Cruise missile or torps used against scrammed+webbed frigs (if they're just webbed, 2nd part of equation is likely to be bigger than 1) 3) Phoenix trying to blap cruisers slowed down + scrammed by its support
I think that's all? I can easily merge it into one point, "you're trying to shoot ship which is massively tackled and 2 sizes below size of your missiles". I don't think it often happens too, except for blap phoenix/levi, stacking penalty will hurt it indeed, but i don't think it's necessarily bad thing.
probag Bear wrote: Ok, here I am lost. Your first example is clearly implausible and will never happen in-game, and already the missile damage formula falls through to your case 1. Your second example is even more absurd, and even then, it nearly falls through to your case 1. Give me actual realistic examples and I can concede your point. But so far, you've only used examples completely removed from reality, and it's still backing up my point. I can replace HM tengu with cruise barghest and vexor with dual-webbed (huginn) and TP'ed ishtar, result will be the same, 2nd part won't be in play.
probag Bear wrote:You realize that with this explanation, you just reinforced my point? Your second case, "when ships are moving freely", is not something that will ever happen in-game, with the single exception of solo point-range-kiting frigs. No organization will ever bring "brawling HAM" ships to kill frigs fast, and they will most definitely not do so with no web support. There were multiple conditions, not just 'moving freely'. It has to have smaller sig than explosion velocity besides other things, and if it's webbed+TP'ed while mwd'ing - this condition most likely fails, and value of 2nd part exceeds 1.
probag Bear wrote:1.838/1.655 = 1.11. Which is exactly the number I was referencing. 2 T2 rigors + 1 T1 rigor is the only fitting relevant, bar Golems, and it just so happens to be the only one you didn't run the numbers all the way through on. It doesn't matter that 2 x T2 rigors + 1 x T2 flare will only be nerfed by 3% when it's a stupid fit. Well if you want to keep using 3x rigors even though 3rd has 57% efficiency - sure.
By the way, i'm curious, what are 'real' pvp situations you talked about, where 3rd rigor matters more than t2 flare? |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
179
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 18:39:17 -
[446] - Quote
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. |
Mario Putzo
1458
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 18:49:08 -
[447] - 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 -
[448] - 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. |
Kadesh Priestess
This Game Is Terrible Warlords of the Deep
474
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:05:55 -
[449] - Quote
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'. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1176
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:14:51 -
[450] - Quote
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-temptation
I 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.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
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.
|
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 16:20:09 -
[481] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: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); this makes it comparable to the Raven in terms of relationship between Battlecruisers and Battleships. 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 (At least the addition of Faction modules will offset the recent MGC/MGE 'nerf'.)
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.
Missile Naga GÇó The Naga gets reverted back to a missile Battlecruiser (yes, it was a missile behemoth to begin with): 5% torpedo and cruise missile damage and 10% missile velocity per level.
man that would be nice.. |
Mario Putzo
1460
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 16:22:29 -
[482] - Quote
=( Don't change my Naga! |
bunzing heet
Demon-War-Lords SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 16:25:12 -
[483] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: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); this makes it comparable to the Raven in terms of relationship between Battlecruisers and Battleships. 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 (At least the addition of Faction modules will offset the recent MGC/MGE 'nerf'.)
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.
Missile Naga GÇó The Naga gets reverted back to a missile Battlecruiser (yes, it was a missile behemoth to begin with): 5% torpedo and cruise missile damage and 10% missile velocity per level. man that would be nice..
All i can say is yes yes yes
Fly safe keep killing
And remember
I'm watching you !!!!
|
Lisa Sophie d'Elancourt
Empusa.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 16:50:45 -
[484] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: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); this makes it comparable to the Raven in terms of relationship between Battlecruisers and Battleships. 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 (At least the addition of Faction modules will offset the recent MGC/MGE 'nerf'.)
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.
Missile Naga GÇó The Naga gets reverted back to a missile Battlecruiser (yes, it was a missile behemoth to begin with): 5% torpedo and cruise missile damage and 10% missile velocity per level.
Very nice suggestions. +1 |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
80
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 17:12:07 -
[485] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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.
This man has a great point that I can't believe anyone's thought of so far.
Tracking computers don't increase absolute range, they increase effective range for the purposes of damage application. Let's say you have a turret with a range-scripted TC that hits for 110 at 50km and 80 at 100km. If you turn off the TC, you now hit for 100 at 50km and 50 at 100km. You don't hit for 0 at 100km, you just hit for less.
Missiles do not and can not work the same way. Either they hit targets at a certain range for full damage, or they hit for 0 damage. "Range" is far from the same concept for both weapon systems.
Take missile range out of MGEs and MGTs. It's only causing problems right now. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1487
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 17:30:57 -
[486] - Quote
So, you asked for more feedback. You've got it...it's fairly unanimous...will there be another revision, or do the poor turret users with percentile envy have the only voice on missile balance? |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
186
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 17:37:20 -
[487] - Quote
Before anything is done mordu's legion ships should be nerfed: make the hulls slower for a start, then either remove the point range bonus and keep scram range bonus as is... or remove the scram range bonus and reduce point range bonus to 5% per level.
Nerf light missile flight time by ~20%
No split bonuses on new missile modules because -15% explosion radius + 15% explosion velocity =/= +30% tracking due to the way the missile formula works.
Also +6% missile flight time +6% missile velocity =/= +15% Optimal and +30% falloff. Delayed dps means missile range depends on what the target is doing and isn't true unless the target is stationary. So the modules are not even the same as turret equivalents as it stands now.
Instead: -30% explosion radius would be better than splitting it between exp velocity and radius and a closer equivalent to +30% tracking.
+30% missile velocity would be a truer range bonus than split between flight time and velocity.
It looks tidier as well. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
705
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 17:44:39 -
[488] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:A Comprehensive Missile Balance Package (In addition to the proposed Aegis changes.)
GÇó Buzzard gets a +5% damage bonus to rockets and light missiles...
Shortend for reading and a +1 with a slight change, the Buzzard shouldn't decloak for any other reason than gates or dropping probes, so a bonus for probing or virus coherence along those lines (for all covert ops) would fit here better.
But Arthur, you nailed it.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 18:16:48 -
[489] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: 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 is pointless. ER is a more powerful value to begin with. It applies to both parts of the missile equation and is also a reductive value. Reducing ER by 50% doubles application. Increasing EV by 50% only increases application by 50%. No one would ever script for EV for any reason. Ever.
ER = Sig of your turrets shot
EV = Tracking
Total range of your missile = Optimal (missiles have no falloff)
These modules should not be boosting ER, as there is no way to reduce the sig of a turrets shot. However, ships cannot sig tank turrets. This needs to be dealt with in a later expansion by adding true sig tanking of turret shots or removing true sig tanking of missile systems. Either way works fine for me.
What about:
+15% to Explosion Velocity +5% to missile Velocity +7.5% to missile flight time
The 2 scripts would function as the scripts for turrets do. either massively improving your application at close range for hitting AB small ships that are scam disrupted from mid to close kiting ranges. 10-20km...
+30% to Explosion velocity +0% to missile Velocity +0% to missile flight time
The second script would be the equivalent of the long range script. No application bonus, but a small buff to optimal with a larger buff to falloff. Flight time is more analogous to fallout because your tracking application might be perfect, but you still have a chance to "miss" be virtue of the missiles not reaching your target, with Velocity being optimal, because the missiles reach your target faster and hit.
+0% to Explosion velocity +10% to missile velocity +15% to missile flight time
This would need to be coupled with the addition of true sig tanking from the turret application equation and the conversion of all rigor rigs into flare rigs, with all missiles getting equal ER to SigOfShot value for equivalent Turret system.
But CCP does not have the balls to do this.
In the meantime +1 to the comprehensive change to missile ships listed earlier....
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4481
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 19:30:21 -
[490] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:=( Don't change my Naga! Haha!
Fourteen Maken wrote:Before anything is done mordu's legion ships should be nerfed... I stopped reading at about this point.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Legion40k
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
97
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 20:12:42 -
[491] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:A Comprehensive Missile Balance Package (In addition to the proposed Aegis changes.)
Remove Kinetic Pigeon Holes
Nerf Light Missiles; Buff Rockets; Buff Heavy Missiles; Buff Torpedoes; Buff Heavy Assault Missiles
Nerf Bomber Capacity
New Faction Missile Modules
Mordus Legion Ship Changes
Missile Naga
I'm cool with this being an /actual/ balance pass on missiles. They're versatile but not OP when done like that ^^^^
Though I will note that as much as people want a missile Naga, it aint gonna happen let's be honest..rather than try to make more ships fire ze missilez lets just fix what we've got |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract O X I D E
412
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 20:25:25 -
[492] - Quote
Legion40k wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:A Comprehensive Missile Balance Package (In addition to the proposed Aegis changes.)
Remove Kinetic Pigeon Holes
Nerf Light Missiles; Buff Rockets; Buff Heavy Missiles; Buff Torpedoes; Buff Heavy Assault Missiles
Nerf Bomber Capacity
New Faction Missile Modules
Mordus Legion Ship Changes
Missile Naga
I'm cool with this being an /actual/ balance pass on missiles. They're versatile but not OP when done like that ^^^^ Though I will note that as much as people want a missile Naga, it aint gonna happen let's be honest..rather than try to make more ships fire ze missilez lets just fix what we've got I agree about Arthur's post, looks much better than what CCP has come up with and then nerfed because.... something.
The reason people want a missile Naga isn't necessarily out of dislike for the hybrid Naga, but currently if you want to fire large missiles you have 2 choices: 1) Battleship, with everything else that goes with flying a battleship 2) Bomber, limited to torps
Large drones (Sentries, because Medium and Heavy drones are quasi-mid-sized) can be used effectively on multiple platforms. Large hybrids have 2 non-BS hulls, lazors get 1 of course, and lastly projectiles can be fired from a mid-sized hull. Compare that with large missiles where you either fly a battleship hull which has multiple downsides to flying a Tier 3 BC, there are upsides as well, to be fair, or you can put torps on a bomber. The hybrid Naga does not have to be taken away, what if the Tornado and Naga both got missile bonuses to compliment their current bonuses? The end result would be that hybrids and missiles would both have 2 platforms with 2 different uses. The Tornado could, for example, get cruise bonuses while the Naga would get torpedo oriented bonuses, thereby increasing the number of choices, options, and viability of large missiles without taking anything away from turrets. With missile mods and some tweaks to missile speed the Tornado could use cruise missiles to take advantage of their delayed, but strong, alpha. The uses for a Torpedo Naga are, I am sure, quite obvious.
Just a thought.
Have a nice day, |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4484
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 22:08:21 -
[493] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:The uses for a Torpedo Naga are, I am sure, quite obvious. Ganking Tornados comes to mind...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract O X I D E
413
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 22:27:31 -
[494] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:The uses for a Torpedo Naga are, I am sure, quite obvious. Ganking Tornados comes to mind... UArty would still probably prevail. Unless people wanted to do close range torp ganking. Hmmm.... Freighters suddenly get missile launcher slots for Defenders? |
Cecil B Heimerdinger
My very own little corporation
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.29 22:58:24 -
[495] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:The uses for a Torpedo Naga are, I am sure, quite obvious. Ganking Tornados comes to mind...
Torpnados |
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 00:29:20 -
[496] - 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. A Golem bonused Target Painter is better than 5%/level bonus to explosion radius and only 2.4% worse than 7.5%/level. Honestly, the bonus for the Caldri Navy ships is one of the weakest ship bonuses; it is only slightly better than a t2 Rigor.
Arthur Aihaken wrote:A Comprehensive Missile Balance Package (In addition to the proposed Aegis changes.)
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 velocity 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
Missile Naga GÇó The Naga gets reverted back to a missile Battlecruiser (yes, it was a missile behemoth to begin with): 5% torpedo and cruise missile damage and 10% missile velocity per level. Do you mean +30/-30 m/s for rockets and light missiles? That torpedo buff would be reverted very quickly because it is too strong. I would honestly love to see a missile buff, but buffing medium and large missiles would cause more problems than they solve. When you buff missiles too much, they hit everything too well. The damage function needs to change.
I do not think a missile Naga is a good idea when the only way to effectively apply missile damage is with a web or two. Also, increasing explosion velocity does not help as much as you would think.
Mario Putzo wrote: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 The missile damage equation does not work that way. Everyone would use the ER script because it would be better in every situation. People assume that rigor rigs are better than flare rigs only because of the increase in damage for small targets. This is not entirely true. T2 rigors give a 25% bonus while T2 flares give a 20% bonus when applied to the missile equation.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1199
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 02:23:28 -
[497] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:=( Don't change my Naga!
I support all Arthur's suggested changes, except for the Naga. I like it as a turret boat.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4488
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 05:37:10 -
[498] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote:Do you mean +30/-30 m/s for rockets and light missiles? That torpedo buff would be reverted very quickly because it is too strong. I would honestly love to see a missile buff, but buffing medium and large missiles would cause more problems than they solve. When you buff missiles too much, they hit everything too well. The damage function needs to change.
I do not think a missile Naga is a good idea when the only way to effectively apply missile damage is with a web or two. Also, increasing explosion velocity does not help as much as you would think. No, I meant basically switch the explosion velocity bonus between rockets and light missiles (I believe the difference is -¦20m/s, but I could be mistaken). Rockets get slightly better damage application to encourage more use and it's a slight nerf to light missiles. The "buff" is actually just a slight rollback from the original heavy missile nerf and improved damage application for heavy assault missiles so that there's a reasonable short-range alternative to rapid light missile launchers. As for large missiles, torpedoes are already seeing a volume decrease - this is simply to address the poor damage application vs. cruise missiles. And yes, while this does benefit bombers - I did propose a capacity nerf to offset this somewhat.
An increase to explosion velocity is always beneficial, and adjusting it has less adverse effects than tweaking raw damage, rate of fire or explosion radius. I believe the bonus I indicated for the Naga was missile velocity, so basically it delivers raw damage over range. The Naga overshadows the Rokh, and I'd really rather see the bonuses from the Naga switched to the Rokh so it becomes a dedicated sniper and the Naga a support missile gunboat.
For the sake of discussion, let's assume we don't want the Naga to overshadow any of the other existing missile platforms. It would probably make more sense to give it some bonuses along these lines:
GÇó 10% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile velocity GÇó 10% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile flight time
This gives it the longest large missile base range which could lead to some interesting fleet/bombardment options.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4489
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 07:07:14 -
[499] - Quote
So CCP Rise, Aegis is out in just over a week. Any chance on joining the discussion or relenting on some of the stat nerfs?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 07:59:42 -
[500] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So CCP Rise, Aegis is out in just over a week. Any chance on joining the discussion or relenting on some of the stat nerfs?
The best they would give us is "going live with these modules, we'll see how they do!". And given the next month of people using them to see if they are worth it, we will see them declare OP success. Meanwhile, in terms of total damage dealt increases with missiles, "the logs will show nothing".
These modules replace Ballistic Controls, Tanking modules, Tackle, E-war, or other midslot utility. Each of those things either make missiles do more damage, or give missile ships more staying power on grid through tank/enemy disruption/self support, or hold enemy ships in place (tackle) longer, allowing missiles to be fired for longer, thus doing more damage.
Considering that July will be the month of experimenting with these live on TQ... If AUGUST sees more total PVP missile damage done, then OP success. Because the decrease in Tank/E-war/Tackle/rawDPS is being successfully compensated for with more application, and there are use cases for these modules to be helpful to groups. Whether these relegate missile ships to tankless back line snipers to make your blaster tackle more potent on the enemy, or decloak wonder-death, then they have ultimately found use by the comunity. Which i guess works out to a net gain for missile ships.
I for one wouldn't mind flying no tank long range missile ships that hide behind the back line logi and hammer on larger targets or tackled targets to help break them. Their potential power in allowing Rapid fit Caracals to put dps pressure on "safe" logi or e-war ships just kiting the field might be something tremendously useful.
Eve is waiting. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1490
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 08:41:26 -
[501] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So CCP Rise, Aegis is out in just over a week. Any chance on joining the discussion or relenting on some of the stat nerfs?
You must be new here. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1203
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 09:03:55 -
[502] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So CCP Rise, Aegis is out in just over a week. Any chance on joining the discussion or relenting on some of the stat nerfs?
Thank you for the laugh, Arthur.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
708
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 09:55:45 -
[503] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:...I for one wouldn't mind flying no tank long range missile ships that hide behind the back line logi and hammer on larger targets or tackled targets to help break them. Their potential power in allowing Rapid fit Caracals to put dps pressure on "safe" logi or e-war ships just kiting the field might be something tremendously useful...Eve is waiting.
Just shortened for reading purposes. I hate to take the wind out of your sails but I did try the mods and I wouldn't give my hopes up. SiSi pvp is very different from what is going on on TQ but you will see trends and new metas happening and developing quickly but I couldn't see much of an increase of missile activity.
I did try torpedos on a Navy Raven and you could see a small improvement but not that much that you will see torpedo-nano Ravens again (Band of goofswarm, you still hold a grudge for so many years??).
Simply put, the mods are not strong enough to ditch a ballistic control for an enhancer or a shield extender for a computer, so CCP Rise, did you talk to the fellas yesterday and give us some good news?
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1490
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 10:01:10 -
[504] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Simply put, the mods are not strong enough to ditch a ballistic control for an enhancer or a shield extender for a computer, so CCP Rise, did you talk to the fellas yesterday and give us some good news?
Or to swap out a PWNAGE for, really. |
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
899
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 10:58:23 -
[505] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:=( Don't change my Naga! I support all Arthur's suggested changes, except for the Naga. I like it as a turret boat.
Why? just get a talos....
No Worries
|
Kryzin
Crack Rock Inc. Serenitas Solutus
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 11:20:36 -
[506] - Quote
missile boats are in a bad shape as it is, these enhancements dont seem to buff them at all, apart from the heavy missile increase which is needed, i dont even use them as they are a waste of time, pve only. torps having 24 half to what 12? yea thats a great idea. sure they got alot of alpha but they are terrible for dps compared with gunships, range? whats that.. u gotta get in close to trap anyhow and then ur gonna get melted.
in all seriousness, missile boats are CPU poor, no ones gonna give up their ballistic slots for example for increased velocity as fire rate stays the same and dps is considerably then nerfed. at present equal for equal pew pew ships pwn missile boats EOS.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
304
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 11:23:46 -
[507] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:So CCP Rise, Aegis is out in just over a week. Any chance on joining the discussion or relenting on some of the stat nerfs? Thank you for the laugh, Arthur. It was laugh, but his missiles changes proposal crush Rise "balance package". I just realized that by learning missiles skills I learn for kinetic damage mostly. Weapon skills and supporting skills for only one type of damage. Whole "missiles have selectable damage" is lie. Using EM missiles with tengu is like using lasers on Moa.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Kryzin
Crack Rock Inc. Serenitas Solutus
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 11:29:18 -
[508] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: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); this makes it comparable to the Raven in terms of relationship between Battlecruisers and Battleships. 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 (At least the addition of Faction modules will offset the recent MGC/MGE 'nerf'.)
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.
Missile Naga GÇó The Naga gets reverted back to a missile Battlecruiser (yes, it was a missile behemoth to begin with): 5% torpedo and cruise missile damage and 10% missile velocity per level. man that would be nice..
i like alot of these suggestions but not really the mordus ones, as you forget how squishy those ships are so nerfing them would not go down very well.
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
896
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 12:25:33 -
[509] - Quote
afkalt wrote:elitatwo wrote:Simply put, the mods are not strong enough to ditch a ballistic control for an enhancer or a shield extender for a computer, so CCP Rise, did you talk to the fellas yesterday and give us some good news? Or to swap out a PWNAGE for, really. They can improve your performance when you are in group and can benefit from mitigating stacking penalties. So it kind of makes sense if you consider that apparently gang/fleet work which is what most of these changes are aimed for - maybe.
Not really sure otherwise. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1492
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 12:43:54 -
[510] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:afkalt wrote:elitatwo wrote:Simply put, the mods are not strong enough to ditch a ballistic control for an enhancer or a shield extender for a computer, so CCP Rise, did you talk to the fellas yesterday and give us some good news? Or to swap out a PWNAGE for, really. They can improve your performance when you are in group and can benefit from mitigating stacking penalties. So it kind of makes sense if you consider that apparently gang/fleet work which is what most of these changes are aimed for - maybe. Not really sure otherwise.
Indeed, however imo, by the time stacking matters for the PWNAGE it's almost irrelevant. Plus they boost the whole gang, and spares are good, easier to fit compared to new mods AND the mods stack too.
Also trade tank or dps (unless you're a phoon).
So a huginn supported phoon fleet....maybe. Everyone else? Enjoy new stacking penalties on your rigs and use a TP like nothing has changed. |
|
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 16:04:07 -
[511] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:So CCP Rise, Aegis is out in just over a week. Any chance on joining the discussion or relenting on some of the stat nerfs? The best they would give us is "going live with these modules, we'll see how they do!". And given the next month of people using them to see if they are worth it, we will see them declare OP success. Meanwhile, in terms of total damage dealt increases with missiles, "the logs will show nothing". These modules replace Ballistic Controls, Tanking modules, Tackle, E-war, or other midslot utility. Each of those things either make missiles do more damage, or give missile ships more staying power on grid through tank/enemy disruption/self support, or hold enemy ships in place (tackle) longer, allowing missiles to be fired for longer, thus doing more damage. Considering that July will be the month of experimenting with these live on TQ... If AUGUST sees more total PVP missile damage done, then OP success. Because the decrease in Tank/E-war/Tackle/rawDPS is being successfully compensated for with more application, and there are use cases for these modules to be helpful to groups. Whether these relegate missile ships to tankless back line snipers to make your blaster tackle more potent on the enemy, or decloak wonder-death, then they have ultimately found use by the comunity. Which i guess works out to a net gain for missile ships. I for one wouldn't mind flying no tank long range missile ships that hide behind the back line logi and hammer on larger targets or tackled targets to help break them. Their potential power in allowing Rapid fit Caracals to put dps pressure on "safe" logi or e-war ships just kiting the field might be something tremendously useful. Eve is waiting. You might see more total activity with missiles due to people thinking this package is a buff to missiles rather than being a nerf. Op success
To Rise: you're an ass. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
709
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 16:04:22 -
[512] - Quote
Aww man, looks like it's going to be 'screw yall'.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1323
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 16:25:46 -
[513] - Quote
Bumping for 7.5% bonuses to each category for MGC II.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1493
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 16:58:50 -
[514] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Aww man, looks like it's going to be 'screw yall'.
Sounds about right, 18 pages of 'you're doing it right' followed by about half a dozen of 'the revision is bad'
Rarely have the community been so unified so naturally we'll not be listened to |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 17:10:30 -
[515] - Quote
afkalt wrote:elitatwo wrote:Aww man, looks like it's going to be 'screw yall'. Sounds about right, 18 pages of 'you're doing it right' followed by about half a dozen of 'the revision is bad' Rarely have the community been so unified so naturally we'll not be listened to Star map Skins Overview changes Missile mods Almost fleet warp change So many positive changes recently..
Eugh. Ccp get it together |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 17:29:47 -
[516] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:A Comprehensive Missile Balance Package (In addition to the proposed Aegis changes.)
Remove Kinetic Pigeon Holes ...
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 velocity 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)
...
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.
Missile Naga GÇó The Naga gets reverted back to a missile Battlecruiser (yes, it was a missile behemoth to begin with): 5% torpedo and cruise missile damage and 10% missile velocity per level.
- Removal of the kinetic lock would make a lot of people happy. What if instead of a 5% Heavy Missile damage increase all medium missile ships got a 10% damage role bonus to their factions prefered damage type...you know, to keep the flavor while not pigeon holed.
- Light missiles on most frigates and destroyers are fine as they are. RLML might need a look over, though I think the reload timer is already a sufficient balancing point. I like the rest of the buffs but think the Torpedoes one is too strong.
- Completely disagree about Bomber cargo capacity. Last time I checked bombs are still big, 75m3, and cargo space is not only used for ammo, so I am strongly against this suggestion as not well thought out compared to the rest of your post.
- The Mordus ships are strong but I don't think they warrant a complete change to their bonuses.
- A missile Naga would be great, but changing a ships weapon system is not really fair to those that fly them and like them. If you wanted to make the Naga a dual bonused ship that could fit either weapon system that would be cool. And give the ship an element of surprise until you see it shoot.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
714
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 21:07:45 -
[517] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:... A missile Naga would be great, but changing a ships weapon system is not really fair... Wait, since when was that ever considered??
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 21:18:53 -
[518] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:... A missile Naga would be great, but changing a ships weapon system is not really fair... Wait, since when was that ever considered?? When it was on the test system a long, long time ago. But Arthur Aihaken brought it up in his wish list for missile balance changes. Hence me quoting him and commenting on his list. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
714
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 21:58:21 -
[519] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:elitatwo wrote:Terra Chrall wrote:... A missile Naga would be great, but changing a ships weapon system is not really fair... Wait, since when was that ever considered?? When it was on the test system a long, long time ago. But Arthur Aihaken brought it up in his wish list for missile balance changes. Hence me quoting him and commenting on his list.
Wasn't directed at you, silly. (add my unhealthy amount of sarcasm and you'll see: EVE Community 0 : 1 CCP)
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.30 22:07:08 -
[520] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:Do you mean +30/-30 m/s for rockets and light missiles? That torpedo buff would be reverted very quickly because it is too strong. I would honestly love to see a missile buff, but buffing medium and large missiles would cause more problems than they solve. When you buff missiles too much, they hit everything too well. The damage function needs to change.
I do not think a missile Naga is a good idea when the only way to effectively apply missile damage is with a web or two. Also, increasing explosion velocity does not help as much as you would think. No, I meant basically switch the explosion velocity bonus between rockets and light missiles (I believe the difference is -¦20m/s, but I could be mistaken). Rockets get slightly better damage application to encourage more use and it's a slight nerf to light missiles. The "buff" is actually just a slight rollback from the original heavy missile nerf and improved damage application for heavy assault missiles so that there's a reasonable short-range alternative to rapid light missile launchers. As for large missiles, torpedoes are already seeing a volume decrease - this is simply to address the poor damage application vs. cruise missiles. And yes, while this does benefit bombers - I did propose a capacity nerf to offset this somewhat. An increase to explosion velocity is always beneficial, and adjusting it has less adverse effects than tweaking raw damage, rate of fire or explosion radius. I believe the bonus I indicated for the Naga was missile velocity, so basically it delivers raw damage over range. The Naga overshadows the Rokh, and I'd really rather see the bonuses from the Naga switched to the Rokh so it becomes a dedicated sniper and the Naga a support missile gunboat. For the sake of discussion, let's assume we don't want the Naga to overshadow any of the other existing missile platforms. It would probably make more sense to give it some bonuses along these lines: GÇó 10% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile velocity GÇó 10% bonus to torpedo and cruise missile flight time This gives it the longest large missile base range which could lead to some interesting fleet/bombardment options. If I understood correctly, you want to switch the explosion velocity between rockets (ER-15 EV-225) and light missiles (ER-30 EV-255). Rockets already have great damage application, and I think rockets are outclassed by light missiles mostly because of the range difference. For example, it is difficult to get rocket damage below 30% for any frigate, and a Slasher with a OH 1 MN Afterburner II would be at ~40% (~64% with a OH 5MN Microwarpdrive II). You might as well view the rocket stats as ER-30 EV-450. As long as you don't shoot at anything below a 30 m signature radius, it is exactly the same as ER-15 EV-225. The torpedo change is just too strong.
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.
I am indifferent to the Naga change, but for any sniping missile ship the bonus should be for missile velocity and not flight time. That would help missile ships apply damage at long ranges.
|
|
Mario Putzo
1465
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 05:55:06 -
[521] - 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. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2492
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 07:00:18 -
[522] - Quote
lol, he said medium arty. What is medium arty?
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 ~~
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 07:13:55 -
[523] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:lol, he said medium arty. What is medium arty?
I thought those were called railguns? All you bitter vets using legacy names... So confusing. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1495
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 07:17:21 -
[524] - Quote
Oi, alphacane is still a thing. |
Alexiel Fireborn
Atreides Heavy Factory
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 10:28:25 -
[525] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: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); this makes it comparable to the Raven in terms of relationship between Battlecruisers and Battleships. 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 velocity 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 (At least the addition of Faction modules will offset the recent MGC/MGE 'nerf'.)
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.
Missile Naga GÇó The Naga gets reverted back to a missile Battlecruiser (yes, it was a missile behemoth to begin with): 5% torpedo and cruise missile damage and 10% missile velocity per level.
Arthur Aihaken for President ! +1
|
Alexiel Fireborn
Atreides Heavy Factory
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 10:35:40 -
[526] - Quote
Tengu Accelerated Ejection subsystem gets a +5% missile damage bonus
well , maybe 7.5% sounds much much better , sorry it`s my favorite ship :) |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
304
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 10:52:04 -
[527] - Quote
Alexiel Fireborn wrote: Tengu Accelerated Ejection subsystem gets a +5% missile damage bonus
well , maybe 7.5% sounds much much better , sorry it`s my favorite ship :)
Arthur just switch existing bonuses to all 4 damage types. I think if kinetic lock will be removed someday (hope so) and ships would keep current dmg bonuses some other stats must be nerfed. Tengu for example: +5% missile damage but +5 ROF (-2,5%) +5% velocity (-2,5%). So damage would be selectable but restrainted by other stats.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
213
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 11:36:12 -
[528] - Quote
ok, so are the missile rigs stacking penalized now or not? or we will find out in the patch day? |
Kestielh Mechielv
21st Mordu's Legion
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 11:49:37 -
[529] - Quote
To all people crying about not having EWAR against missiles.....Learn to play...Yes there is one available and its called ''DAMPENER''. You should more be worried about EWAR against DRONES since drone when engaged there is no possibilities to counter them except to destroye them...
same for missiles with smartbombs...but you can also use dampeners..without lock you can't shoot!
By the way nice change. But I hope they did not forget HAM who is actually close to useless since rapid light missiles are more interesting on cruiser size missile boat than any HAM ''too short range'' for what they do on field. |
Kalen Pavle
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
42
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 12:08:55 -
[530] - Quote
The midslot mod to counter missile damage is the afterburner. |
|
stoicfaux
6036
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 12:31:27 -
[531] - Quote
gascanu wrote:ok, so are the missile rigs stacking penalized now or not? or we will find out in the patch day? Well, Rigors are stacking penalized on Sisi, and the missile guidance modules have the revised stats, so a) CCP is still working on a fix to allow rigors/flares to remain unstacked while the missile guidance modules remain stacking penalized, or
b) Rigors/Flares will be stacking penalized by design, or
c) Both a & b. CCP is quietly working on fixing the problem but hasn't announced anything so as to be able to claim "it's by design" if they fail, or "Ta-da! Who loves their missile boat players?!?" if they succeed. Meaning, if they announced stacked rigors/flares were a bug and then couldn't fix the problem, they would be hounded by a rabid player base until the end of time to fix it.
=/
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
1499
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 12:37:57 -
[532] - Quote
d) This thread is long abandoned and they don't care and the never not nerf caldari train continues unmolested. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
718
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 13:30:50 -
[533] - Quote
afkalt wrote:d) This thread is long abandoned and they don't care and the never not nerf caldari train continues unmolested.
e) those responsible for desicion making went on the summer holidays and read the forums for entertaining only, indirectly mocking us for even trying.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1173
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 14:10:04 -
[534] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:afkalt wrote:d) This thread is long abandoned and they don't care and the never not nerf caldari train continues unmolested. e) those responsible for desicion making went on the summer holidays and read the forums for entertaining only, indirectly mocking us for even trying.
600 eyes though see more than 12, atleast regarding possible issues and complications that arise. Want to impose that is the main benefit of those threads, remember the sabre with 10AU/s warpspeed before the spacebreak changes, when that bubble went up before the DIC was on your overview. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1503
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 14:30:40 -
[535] - Quote
And yet the more frequent release cycle allows them to make slightly more ambitious changes because they're easy and quick to cycle. Yet we pre-nerf mods before they are even out "because turrets" and slap some stacking penalties on systems already hurting for application. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract O X I D E
414
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 15:12:20 -
[536] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote:The midslot mod to counter missile damage is the afterburner. You forgot that every ship comes with a pre-installed missile counter, the engine. Just by turning it on, in literally any direction, you too can say "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" and charge directly into the path of missiles and watch as they "always hit" until you kill the poor bastard. |
stoicfaux
6040
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 16:20:22 -
[537] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:afkalt wrote:d) This thread is long abandoned and they don't care and the never not nerf caldari train continues unmolested. e) those responsible for desicion making went on the summer holidays and read the forums for entertaining only, indirectly mocking us for even trying. Personally, I blame the guy who, earlier in the thread, pointed out that missiles don't get wrecking hits, thus prompting CCP Rise to say "Oh, I'll show you missile wrecking hits..."
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
214
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 16:24:23 -
[538] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:elitatwo wrote:afkalt wrote:d) This thread is long abandoned and they don't care and the never not nerf caldari train continues unmolested. e) those responsible for desicion making went on the summer holidays and read the forums for entertaining only, indirectly mocking us for even trying. 600 eyes though see more than 12, atleast regarding possible issues and complications that arise. Want to impose that is the main benefit of those threads, remember the sabre with 10AU/s warpspeed before the spacebreak changes, when that bubble went up before the DIC was on your overview.
and i remember how long it took till they decided it was game breaking, almost made it live; so, to be honest there is almost no point in going and testing stuff on sisi anymore; ccp will do whatever they think it's good, and if some of the changes concur with general player opinion, then they'll go "oh look, thx to your feedback we changed this and that", if no, bad luck, "maybe we'll hack some more next time"... |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 16:34:42 -
[539] - Quote
If rigs are now stacking penalized, can I change my vote to no we don't want these modules? For smaller ships rigs are what get used the most for range and application. If these now do less and I can't equip a new MGC/E this is a nerf to a system that didn't need a nerf.
If you can get the balance right, i am all for the newness. I am a CCP supporter and promoter, I want to believe that you are making things better for missile users. Please prove my faith in you correct. |
Thomas Orgazolic
Celestari Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 17:00:30 -
[540] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:rockets could do with lower volume
torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?)
and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work. I don't know about the Rocket Volume thing, but your point on Torps is right on. They have absurd low range for a battleship weapon system, almost as bad as Blasters though with the right ammo you can reach out with falloff at least. Your point about Skirmish Links does not really hold water, considering Armor and Siege links work pretty good for mitigating damage too.
I have to agree. Rockets' volume is their one benefit. |
|
Mario Putzo
1467
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 18:19:35 -
[541] - 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.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
307
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 18:29:32 -
[542] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote:If rigs are now stacking penalized, can I change my vote to no we don't want these modules? For smaller ships rigs are what get used the most for range and application. If these now do less and I can't equip a new MGC/E this is a nerf to a system that didn't need a nerf.
If you can get the balance right, i am all for the newness. I am a CCP supporter and promoter, I want to believe that you are making things better for missile users. Please prove my faith in you correct. This will end exactly as frighters change. I have two words for you: "meaningfull choices". Nerf from the begining, I told you all. They will gather intel about change from TQ, chewing the results (devs are really bad at statistics) so I pressume missiles will be usefull in 1,5 to 2 years.
OF: anybody know how many devs taking care about balancing? Is it just Rise and Fozzman? Because both are losing it imo.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 18:55:36 -
[543] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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. The DRF controls how quickly missile damage drops. I agree that the DRF helps a little, but it also hurts missiles like HAMs and torpedoes. HAM damage % is actually only applied better than a HM for a very small window even though HAMs have better application stats. The DRF for HAMs should probably be below 4. For torpedoes, the DRF must be high so that they can not apply their damage too well to small targets, but this causes torpedoes to be terrible at applying damage to intended targets too. The MVF is an analysis tool, so I do not know how that helps.
By unintended targets I mean smaller ones because all weapons apply damage well to larger targets.
A 5% increase to EV (explosion velocity) causes between a 2.77% and 5% increase in damage when the when applicable (1.05^(ln(DRF)/ln(5.5)).
A 5% decrease to ER (explosion radius) causes either a ~5.26% (1/.95) or between a 2.92% and 5.26% increase in damage when applicable (1.05263^(ln(DRF)/ln(5.5)).
Roughly speaking, "when applicable" is when damage application is below 100%. A change from 140 to 125 (or 105 to 93.75 at level 5 skills) would cause at least a 8% increase for both frigates and cruisers. I am curious how you got those numbers.
|
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 19:01:20 -
[544] - Quote
is it just me or has the amount of interaction / back-and-forth between the community and the dev's decreased in these balancing threads?
I am sure we used to have some blue bar's appear just about everyday back at the beginning of teircide and the balance pass. These days its "here are the new numbers" then if we are lucky an "ok we had a read and have changed the numbers slightly".
|
Kalen Pavle
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 19:14:26 -
[545] - Quote
Chan'aar wrote:is it just me or has the amount of interaction / back-and-forth between the community and the dev's decreased in these balancing threads? I am sure we used to have some blue bar's appear just about everyday back at the beginning of teircide and the balance pass. These days its "here are the new numbers" then if we are lucky an "ok we had a read and have changed the numbers slightly".
The game is easier to balance when everyone has to fly the same ships because only 3 of them are viable. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 19:16:49 -
[546] - Quote
Chan'aar wrote:is it just me or has the amount of interaction / back-and-forth between the community and the dev's decreased in these balancing threads? I am sure we used to have some blue bar's appear just about everyday back at the beginning of teircide and the balance pass. These days its "here are the new numbers" then if we are lucky an "ok we had a read and have changed the numbers slightly". Ccp doesnt give a **** and have not for months now. They need to forget this rapid developmen cycle and reprioritize. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
187
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 19:17:43 -
[547] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote: Is it just Rise and Fozzman? Because both are losing it imo.
I think they just listen to all the wrong people.
Ship balance is in a really bad place now when I look at my own killboard i see 2 missile boats killed out of 40 or 50: an rlml caracal and one kestrel. That's what I'm seeing in space when I roam and it's all backed up by the usage stats from killboards and even CCP's own metrics. It's not good enough when 4 of the 6 missile sizes are rarely used in pvp, it feels like every time they try to do something for missiles all the whining turret and drone neckbeards come out in force and make all kinds of absurd sweeping statements. My favorite ship's are the Tristan's, Thrashers Cormorants Algos and Harpies, so I'm not just a missile fanboy, I hardly ever use missiles unless I'm asked to, but look at the people arguing against missile buffs and changes nearly always neckbeards that only fly one race of ships (usually Gallente or Amarr) These people should not be taken seriously anymore listening to them all the time is what made this mess in the first place and it is a mess. The most important metric for ship balance should be usage stats. We can blame Rise and Fozzie but the buck stops with Ytterbuim, even if he's not the one driving the agenda he should at least have stepped in to make changes before now. |
Karti Aivo
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 19:46:04 -
[548] - Quote
Basicly every ship that uses application rigs right now on Live server (looking at you frigates!) now needs 2-3 of the new modules to get the same values they got now, so i guess missiles end up less viable with the current stats |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
307
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 19:46:37 -
[549] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote: We can blame Rise and Fozzie but the buck stops with Ytterbuim, even if he's not the one driving the agenda he should at least have stepped in to make changes before now. I don't know how is their key to balance ships. For example proposal change to Tempest hull. Ok I don't fly it, don't know in what place it is. So now we will have some change to BS hull, so what? How do they estimate the ship is balanced? Usage? Damage? We need whole class to look at from PvP perspective, all they can is tweak one perk per hull... State of missile ships? I fly Stratios or VNI lately, so much better damage selection not to mention application.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract O X I D E
416
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 20:01:06 -
[550] - Quote
Chan'aar wrote:is it just me or has the amount of interaction / back-and-forth between the community and the dev's decreased in these balancing threads? I am sure we used to have some blue bar's appear just about everyday back at the beginning of teircide and the balance pass. These days its "here are the new numbers" then if we are lucky an "ok we had a read and have changed the numbers slightly". From what I've seen, and I could be wrong, CCP devs prefer to speak from on high when it comes to missiles. They don't seem to like a lot of discourse about the subject. This is why it is not uncommonly said that certain appendages are rigid from hate when missiles come up. I can't say for certain but I think that, at the least, missiles give devs the heebie jeebies. This.... uneasiness is exhibited when they try to force missiles into the turret mold when, in the past, they have justified missile imbalance because they're different from turrets.
Typed from my phone, just in case there are errors. |
|
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 21:27:22 -
[551] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Chan'aar wrote:is it just me or has the amount of interaction / back-and-forth between the community and the dev's decreased in these balancing threads? I am sure we used to have some blue bar's appear just about everyday back at the beginning of teircide and the balance pass. These days its "here are the new numbers" then if we are lucky an "ok we had a read and have changed the numbers slightly". From what I've seen, and I could be wrong, CCP devs prefer to speak from on high when it comes to missiles. They don't seem to like a lot of discourse about the subject. This is why it is not uncommonly said that certain appendages are rigid from hate when missiles come up. I can't say for certain but I think that, at the least, missiles give devs the heebie jeebies. This.... uneasiness is exhibited when they try to force missiles into the turret mold when, in the past, they have justified missile imbalance because they're different from turrets. Typed from my phone, just in case there are errors. I honestly believe that missiles are a nightmare to balance, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. The reason Rise gave for toning down the numbers seems to suggest that their is no effort to keep missiles as a unique weapon system. It bothers me that Rise has refused some changes to drones so they remain different and does a 180 in this thread.
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1176
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 22:04:04 -
[552] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote: We can blame Rise and Fozzie but the buck stops with Ytterbuim, even if he's not the one driving the agenda he should at least have stepped in to make changes before now. I don't know how is their key to balance ships. For example proposal change to Tempest hull. Ok I don't fly it, don't know in what place it is. So now we will have some change to BS hull, so what?
The Tempest never was a truly bad choice in a cruiser meta simply for having 2 heavy neuts while not being that slow. Just put any cruiser/BC next to a tempest in pointrange and see the cap drained. However the dps has been so anemic at 20k you'd usually be just better off flying a geddon, which also neuts, but has rapid heavies and drones. Some traits next to each other: Tempest got more dps, goes a bit faster, the geddon has longer range on the neuts and can choose from light to heavy drones. So the geddon isn't flat-out better at a tempest's job. |
stoicfaux
6044
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 22:23:31 -
[553] - Quote
*chuckle* How do you balance weapons when ship hulls have huge weapon bonuses/modifiers? There's a reason why every balancing blog nowadays uses the term "effective guns," "effective launchers," and/or "effective drones."
I, for one, am quite looking forward to watching CCP try to balance Rapid Launchers after the Jackdaw's reload bonus gets applied to a cruiser/BC/BS hull.
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
723
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 22:54:40 -
[554] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:*chuckle* How do you balance weapons when ship hulls have huge weapon bonuses/modifiers? There's a reason why every balancing blog nowadays uses the term "effective guns," "effective launchers," and/or "effective drones."
I, for one, am quite looking forward to watching CCP try to balance Rapid Launchers after the Jackdaw's reload bonus gets applied to a cruiser/BC/BS hull.
The day it hit TQ, I'll bring my Drake
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 23:09:18 -
[555] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Chan'aar wrote:is it just me or has the amount of interaction / back-and-forth between the community and the dev's decreased in these balancing threads? I am sure we used to have some blue bar's appear just about everyday back at the beginning of teircide and the balance pass. These days its "here are the new numbers" then if we are lucky an "ok we had a read and have changed the numbers slightly". From what I've seen, and I could be wrong, CCP devs prefer to speak from on high when it comes to missiles. They don't seem to like a lot of discourse about the subject. This is why it is not uncommonly said that certain appendages are rigid from hate when missiles come up. I can't say for certain but I think that, at the least, missiles give devs the heebie jeebies. This.... uneasiness is exhibited when they try to force missiles into the turret mold when, in the past, they have justified missile imbalance because they're different from turrets. Typed from my phone, just in case there are errors. I honestly believe that missiles are a nightmare to balance, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. The reason Rise gave for toning down the numbers seems to suggest that their is no effort to keep missiles as a unique weapon system. It bothers me that Rise has refused some changes to drones so they remain different and does a 180 in this thread. If missiles are so hard to balance then these modules just make the problem worse. They should not go live. Ccp is opening pandora's box and they won't be able to close it. Missiles will always be either weak or op, never balanced. Worse than the way they are now. |
Arla Sarain
531
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 00:08:22 -
[556] - Quote
I think proper balancing of missiles cannot avoid doing a full analytical breakdown. Following the dumbfire "Ishtar treatment" where you do small changes every update won't cut it.
The reality is that missiles have few real-time, reactive counters. That is burning away from the missiles and exploit their malleable effective range. That and ABs were the only real counters to missiles.
Missiles in general are not weak - the apply damage always and at ranges reaching as far as railguns. You definitely cannot apply previous turret principles to balance missiles.
Hence as the above post states, these upgrades are just a knee jerk reaction to the cries of "turrets have these modules - missiles should too" which is not a wise action. |
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 00:12:03 -
[557] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:Chan'aar wrote:is it just me or has the amount of interaction / back-and-forth between the community and the dev's decreased in these balancing threads? I am sure we used to have some blue bar's appear just about everyday back at the beginning of teircide and the balance pass. These days its "here are the new numbers" then if we are lucky an "ok we had a read and have changed the numbers slightly". From what I've seen, and I could be wrong, CCP devs prefer to speak from on high when it comes to missiles. They don't seem to like a lot of discourse about the subject. This is why it is not uncommonly said that certain appendages are rigid from hate when missiles come up. I can't say for certain but I think that, at the least, missiles give devs the heebie jeebies. This.... uneasiness is exhibited when they try to force missiles into the turret mold when, in the past, they have justified missile imbalance because they're different from turrets. Typed from my phone, just in case there are errors. I honestly believe that missiles are a nightmare to balance, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. The reason Rise gave for toning down the numbers seems to suggest that their is no effort to keep missiles as a unique weapon system. It bothers me that Rise has refused some changes to drones so they remain different and does a 180 in this thread. If missiles are so hard to balance then these modules just make the problem worse. They should not go live. Ccp is opening pandora's box and they won't be able to close it. Missiles will always be either weak or op, never balanced. Worse than the way they are now. The problem will not get worse because the modules are not strong enough to make anything worse. However, I am pretty sure we are going to see is the rise of the Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher. Most battleships have one bonus for RHML and the worst bonus (RoF), but with the new module they should be competitive. Battleships also have the extra slots that smaller ships do not. Nothing will be broken, but we will have another strange weapon system like RLML.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
724
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 00:20:35 -
[558] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:...If missiles are so hard to balance then these modules just make the problem worse. They should not go live. Ccp is opening pandora's box and they won't be able to close it. Missiles will always be either weak or op, never balanced. Worse than the way they are now.
I don't believe they are and I disagree on them getting overpowered, I mean overpowered to what?
The other day on SiSi I insta-popped that poor Crow (distance was 33km and I adjusted my position slightly to a very low transversal value and BOOM) in a Nightmare with tachyons, go figure. Now let's make a thread that claim that all turrets in EVE are overpowered too. Imagine the following threadnought..
Nope, since you cannot fit torpedo launchers to Caracals anymore the volley damage is appropiate to the missile launcher amount and ship size.
What people are whining about are values from third party applications that almost show all information. How dare a missile volley applies damage from 0- flight time x missile speed (this one is very important)??
They never have but since the introduction of polarized guns they could now.
In the early days of New Eden missiles had almost 100% application but they couldn't reach that 100% volley damage and many ships used to have one or two launcher hardpoints, where crafty people put rocket launchers on to have defender missiles.
In case missiles would get 100% application those defender missiles will shoot down incoming missiles already and smartbombs can kill them to, that doesn't change.
Now the fear of those whiners and carebears is that with 100% application comes 100% damage which is not the same, so theoretical 1500hp damage volley from 6 grouped launchers can only do 100 / 80 / 70 / 50% of that 1500hp damage (base shield resistance values) which used to be multiplied with a factor but I don't recall the formular for that, it is somewhere in the old forums archive.
Since I am pvping I have some experience how a fight starts or how fast things can deteriorate or suddenly be turned depending what happens and the most common experience is that most people are starting to bail when a fight doesn't go as they had hoped. Instead of making fun of missiles they should be taken a lot more serious, guns are taken serious all the time and for them the range does not change, for missles the range is not a constant but a maximum IF the ship fireing the missiles is sitting still AND IF the target is sitting still and only then true.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
570
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 00:21:07 -
[559] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:*chuckle* How do you balance weapons when ship hulls have huge weapon bonuses/modifiers? There's a reason why every balancing blog nowadays uses the term "effective guns," "effective launchers," and/or "effective drones."
I, for one, am quite looking forward to watching CCP try to balance Rapid Launchers after the Jackdaw's reload bonus gets applied to a cruiser/BC/BS hull.
Why would they ever do that?
Personally I think the new modules are great and they're more effective than painters against frigates and destroyers. I've been experimenting quite a bit with heavies since the changes launched on sisi and I will say that I approve.
It remains to be seen whether or not heavy missile boats will become worth the buy&fly for the average joe (I don't see it happening) but this is a massive first step in the right direction.
If or when CCP decides to introduce missile specific ewar they can damned well script ecm aswell so that I can be a furious ******* to as many people as possible. You get blanket ewar? So do I.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1221
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 01:32:06 -
[560] - Quote
Typically, we hear back from developers on Fridays...
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4491
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 01:49:23 -
[561] - Quote
2 years, and once again - nothing's changed.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
307
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 06:25:35 -
[562] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Personally I think the new modules are great and they're more effective than painters against frigates and destroyers. I've been experimenting quite a bit with heavies since the changes launched on sisi and I will say that I approve. Painters are weak modules for fighting frigs. 30% out of almost nothing won't help anyway. So what was the field test? You killed them with 5 volleys instead of 6 now?
Arla Sarain wrote:I think proper balancing of missiles cannot avoid doing a full analytical breakdown. Following the dumbfire "Ishtar treatment" where you do small changes every update won't cut it.
The reality is that missiles have few real-time, reactive counters. That is burning away from the missiles and exploit their malleable effective range. That and ABs were the only real counters to missiles.
Missiles in general are not weak - the apply damage always and at ranges reaching as far as railguns. You definitely cannot apply previous turret principles to balance missiles.
Hence as the above post states, these upgrades are just a knee jerk reaction to the cries of "turrets have these modules - missiles should too" which is not a wise action. Fully agree. New modules takes tank slots? Why not give them range bonus like I would do with turrets...when the most usefull are webs and scrams when using missiles.
If current missiles formula is bad, change it Rise. Don't bring more values to the equation you can't solve. If missiles will become 4th turret system I don't care. If I can choose from 4 same weapon systems (but different damage) it is meaningful choice.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
570
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 11:34:39 -
[563] - Quote
You could always ask for something more modest like changing the DRF of some missile types to be less penalising especially against their own weight class of target?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1517
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 11:45:37 -
[564] - Quote
I think it would be more reasonable to not NERF the existing modules because of these new ones.
"Hey guys, new mods, they'll really help the application problem." >>Fantastic, nice one...a few reservations on specific hulls but looking good. Good job guys! "LOL J/K. We're nerfing the mods before live and nerfing the rigs you currently have. Because :turrets: LOOOOOOOL"
Thanks. Thanks a lot. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
214
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 12:55:49 -
[565] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I think it would be more reasonable to not NERF the existing modules because of these new ones.
"Hey guys, new mods, they'll really help the application problem." >>Fantastic, nice one...a few reservations on specific hulls but looking good. Good job guys! "LOL J/K. We're nerfing the mods before live and nerfing the rigs you currently have. Because :turrets: LOOOOOOOL"
Thanks. Thanks a lot.
hehe, to be honest, i have no hopes they give 2 cents on what players say; i'll just get my popcorn and wait for the rage thread when this nerf hit tranq |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
570
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:14:19 -
[566] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I think it would be more reasonable to not NERF the existing modules because of these new ones.
"Hey guys, new mods, they'll really help the application problem." >>Fantastic, nice one...a few reservations on specific hulls but looking good. Good job guys! "LOL J/K. We're nerfing the mods before live and nerfing the rigs you currently have. Because :turrets: LOOOOOOOL"
Thanks. Thanks a lot.
I've been very vocal about missiles needing a buff for a long long time. I think this is an improvement overall and a stacking penalty on rigs only mission runners fit is hardly a thing to write home about.
Unless you have some real life - actually used - examples to support what you're saying? Or as the famous saying goes "do you have a single piece of evidence to back that up?"
I just don't buy it. Unless you're fitting a t2 flare to every ship you fly in pvp I just don't see the issue.
And those rigs share stacking penalties with tracking xomoutrrs for turrets too unless I am completely mistaken
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Saberlily Whyteshadow
Perkone Caldari State
75
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:31:18 -
[567] - Quote
Just double the missile velocity and remove the flight time for both modules, this makes missiles so much more enjoyable to use |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
727
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:34:12 -
[568] - Quote
Saberlily Whyteshadow wrote:Just double the missile velocity and remove the flight time for both modules, this makes missiles so much more enjoyable to use
...but seeing your impending doom is part of the thrill. The missile speed and flight times are fine, leave them as is except for torpedos.
I want my torpedo Raven back, the 90km range one.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1535
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:37:28 -
[569] - Quote
I use 2+ application rigs in PvP all the time.
I have several cerberus laying about with RLML and dual rigor II because they are hilarious to kill interceptors with. Cerbs have the range and tank to get away with it pretty well and it really makes a big, big difference. By the time the first missile hits, another two vollies are in flight and unless he was aligned, they're basically dead. No-one ever expects that amount of damage to come down to a fast target like an inty and with the small gap between rounds landing, it's usually all too late.
Yup, turrets stack, they also do NOT have the application problems missiles have. They are also completely different and that is where these mods went off the rails the minute someone said "BUT MAH TURRETS!!!".
Put it this way - did anyone, ANYONE ever complain that these rigs should have a stacking penalty? Were they overpowered and needed brought into line? Hell no. Not ever.
Just because a questionable system (RHML) on a couple of hulls can make this work is not a good reason to be nerfing everything and everyone who used the rigs. Nor is using "but turrets!!!!" as a reason for changing numbers.
What is a good reason for this would be evidence, some math about things applying too well. A demonstration that a typical hull will be too strong and not using the odd outlier.
There's none of that, there is simply "have some stacking penalties, the turret users got percentile envy, so tough *******. #DealWithIt".
Disappointing doesn't even cover it. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
570
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:42:57 -
[570] - Quote
The midslot pulls double duty as a 18% flare and as a budget tp... while I'd like the cerb to drop a low and gain a mid that doesn't seem likely to happen. Stacking penalties only mean like 4% of the modifier for the second module ergo your 20% rigor drops to 19.2% or so. Not a very big deal.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1538
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 14:49:28 -
[571] - Quote
Yet remains an overall nerf which was not remotely needed. No-one ever accused missiles of applying too well with rigs.
And why did we get the nerf? Because :turrets: (that's a **** reason and you know it.) and "feedback" - which I sure as hell can't find and it wasn't this thread. The fact the things need gunnery skills was brought up ages ago but they've only just noticed it in the test server thread (of one page...)
Again, can we expect the missile skills to start to match gunnery ones? They're overshadowed at every turn....of course not. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1952
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 15:02:26 -
[572] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Yet remains an overall nerf which was not remotely needed. No-one ever accused missiles of applying too well with rigs.
And why did we get the nerf? Because :turrets: (that's a **** reason and you know it.) and "feedback" - which I sure as hell can't find and it wasn't this thread. The fact the things need gunnery skills was brought up ages ago but they've only just noticed it in the test server thread (of one page...)
Again, can we expect the missile skills to start to match gunnery ones? They're overshadowed at every turn....of course not.
What gunnery skill did they put as requirement beside the obvious weapon upgrade which is in gunnery just because it has to be somewhere and nobody want to have to train a clone of it just for missiles. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1952
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 15:03:45 -
[573] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:The midslot pulls double duty as a 18% flare and as a budget tp... while I'd like the cerb to drop a low and gain a mid that doesn't seem likely to happen. Stacking penalties only mean like 4% of the modifier for the second module ergo your 20% rigor drops to 17.9% or so. Not a very big deal.
If it's not a very big deal, why can't it stays as it was before? It's not a big deal anyway right? |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
321
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 15:11:27 -
[574] - Quote
Looks like for any serious fleet doctrine missiles will remain crap. Sure, you can recover a miniscule amount of damage application with the new modules, provided you further sacrifice your other critical fittings such as tank.
And hopefully we will have anti-missile specific ECM modules to finally put the last nail in this weapon systems coffin. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1953
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 15:56:34 -
[575] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Looks like for any serious fleet doctrine missiles will remain crap. Sure, you can recover a miniscule amount of damage application with the new modules, provided you further sacrifice your other critical fittings such as tank.
And hopefully we will have anti-missile specific ECM modules to finally put the last nail in this weapon systems coffin.
"Can I bring my draek?" will be an even better joke so I guess we are not empty handed... |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
321
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 16:20:37 -
[576] - Quote
Yep, still better damage application with Lazors on your draek than with missiles. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1544
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 17:55:22 -
[577] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:afkalt wrote:Yet remains an overall nerf which was not remotely needed. No-one ever accused missiles of applying too well with rigs.
And why did we get the nerf? Because :turrets: (that's a **** reason and you know it.) and "feedback" - which I sure as hell can't find and it wasn't this thread. The fact the things need gunnery skills was brought up ages ago but they've only just noticed it in the test server thread (of one page...)
Again, can we expect the missile skills to start to match gunnery ones? They're overshadowed at every turn....of course not. What gunnery skill did they put as requirement beside the obvious weapon upgrade which is in gunnery just because it has to be somewhere and nobody want to have to train a clone of it just for missiles.
Trajectory analysis. Which also requires gunnery IV.
We pointed it out on page 14 of this thread. After "great feedback", the nerf came on page 16. No mention of shady skill requirements
CCP seemingly didn't know about the bad skill until they got around to this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=431553&find=unread which they responded to yesterday - 4-5 or so days after they were first told in the "great feedback thread".
So you'll have to forgive me if I suspect they've ignored a bunch of this feedback.
Maybe they've not, but by gods it looks fairly damning - not even acknowledging it at the same time as the nerf. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
728
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:32:56 -
[578] - Quote
At least we know now that we can stop giving feedback all together here, since Rise only reads reddit and not the forums anymore..
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 18:52:52 -
[579] - Quote
While we typically never get a final say in anything eve related(we are not the developers after all) I am concerned with the nature of this thread on a single ground. The lack of direct feedback after the revisions when an obvious and reasoned community response pretty much requires one.
I understand the developer mantra of "sometimes it is wiser to say nothing" when being forced to make a change for the good of a game system. We don't know future plans. Other changes in the pipe might make a visibly terrible change now seem reasonable in 6 months.
However.. In this case this logic no longer applies.
CCP has stated they discussed this with CSMs and players. I do not see the fears presented in reddit or ccps forums. I have not heard of any discussions between people on webshows. There is zero public information to the nature of numbers of these discussions. The modules in question did not even get properly applied to the test server to be tested before being summarily nerfed and additional penalties applied. No public information exists to balance the nature of your actions.
If we were talking about CCP stock purchases the SEC would be crawling up someones rear end about now.
Take 30 minutes. Explain the why.. and if the position is still "deal with it the change will go live" then, as has been told to players before, HTFU and say it. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 19:14:05 -
[580] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:2 years, and once again - nothing's changed. But the world refused to change |
|
stoicfaux
6050
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 19:54:35 -
[581] - Quote
Google docs spreadsheet: Stoicfaux: Informational Spreadsheet: Missile Applied Damage (You will want to make a copy of the spreadsheet so you can take advantage of all the dropdown lists, etc.)
Ideally, this can help the community by providing a preview of the expected rigor/flare nerf, how useful the new missile modules are, and the overall state of missiles.
Screenshot: HMLs start off rough Screenshot: Added some modules
You can see the missile formula results for no prop, AB, and MWD. You can add stacking or non-stacking penalized rigs, the new missile modules, TP (PWNAGE), Webs, links, and some implants.
I'm mostly sure I've double checked that everything is accurate. The target list is unrealistic in that a used empty fits and slapped on an AB and MWD to get some raw numbers.
I need the community (that would be you) to provide me with some "common" or generally accepted PvP fit ships for a frigate, interceptor, a cruiser or two, and a Svipul that I can add to the spreadsheet. EVE-(gate) mail me the fit in EFT format, por favor.
Once I get a few PvP fits and you guys vet the spreadsheet, I'll post a proper thread in Ships & Modules.
TIA.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
273
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 21:10:00 -
[582] - Quote
This is a great suggestion, and might make balancing these variables easier, instead of tying them together.
probag Bear wrote:Mario Putzo wrote: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. This man has a great point that I can't believe no one's thought of so far. Tracking computers don't increase absolute range, they increase effective range for the purposes of damage application. Let's say you have a turret with a range-scripted TC that hits for 110 at 50km and 80 at 100km. If you turn off the TC, you now hit for 100 at 50km and 50 at 100km. You don't hit for 0 at 100km, you just hit for less. Missiles do not and can not work the same way. Either they hit targets at a certain range for full damage, or they hit for 0 damage. "Range" is far from the same concept for both weapon systems. Take missile range out of MGEs and MGTs. It's only causing problems right now.
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
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1325
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 21:31:31 -
[583] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote: The problem will not get worse because the modules are not strong enough to make anything worse. However, I am pretty sure we are going to see is the rise of the Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher. Most battleships have one bonus for RHML and the worst bonus (RoF), but with the new module they should be competitive. Battleships also have the extra slots that smaller ships do not. Nothing will be broken, but we will have another strange weapon system like RLML.
Actually, there are exactly 6 BS that have bonuses that apply to RHML. They are the Raven, Scorpion Navy Issue, and the Typhoon, all with the same 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF. The Typhoon Fleet Issue has a 7.5% per level bonus to heavy missile damage. The Rattlesnake gets a 10% per level bonus to all missiles kinetic and thermal damage, and the Barghest gets a flat 50% bonus to all missile ranges, and a 5% per level bonus to all missile damage. Any other bonuses are to cruise missiles and torpedoes.
None of them has an application bonus that applies to heavy missiles. Only one of them has two bonuses to heavy missiles.
Also, let this be our daily reminder that MGC II needs 7.5% base bonuses to each category.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
jimmy recard
Shits N Giggles
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 22:45:03 -
[584] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Jassmin Joy wrote:Any thoughts on the effectiveness of SmartBombs on missiles and the ability to firewall them? Yes, but we haven't had a chance to post that thread quite yet.
Pity you cant really use firewall in highsec.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
728
|
Posted - 2015.07.02 22:56:48 -
[585] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:This is a great suggestion, and might make balancing these variables easier, instead of tying them together..
If you are in communication with CCP please let us know the non-NDA stuff that caused that desicion. Someone in the CSM 'upset' that missiles might be considered a weapon system at some point?
Did the hamsters compain?
This is e2 calling from Kaimon II - Moon 10, CCP do you read us? I repeat, do you read, CCP??
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Commander Spurty
Dimension Door We need wards.
1488
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 03:55:11 -
[586] - Quote
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.
What is ECM for 10 points bob?
There are good ships
And wood ships
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are
Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
stoicfaux
6054
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 05:50:03 -
[587] - Quote
Commander Spurty wrote:Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. What is ECM for 10 points bob? ECM doesn't work on missiles.
/pedantic
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Voltrix
Voltryx
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 07:17:21 -
[588] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote:What about kinetic locked ships, and the fact that missile application is still much worse than turret or sentry due to missile travel mechanics?
Indeed, delayed DPS has been an issue that makes missile boats suffer from so much... |
Voltrix
Voltryx
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 07:49:12 -
[589] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:I like missiles, I don't like these changes. None of these ships were designed or balanced with these extra modules in mind. Turret ships are designed with the idea in mind that you need "x" number of slots for offensive and "x" number of slots for defensive while maintaining the option to choose between the 2. Missile boats were NOT. All this if going to do is put a few pathetically weak ship fits out there that people will try and then say "screw that." With most of my missile ships now the tank is comparable to turret ships, dps is less but application (in most cases) is pretty good. So you're making modules that A. Are just going to reduce the missile boats tank and/or dps so that they are (even more) sub par. B. Do nothing to actually increase dps, just improve application and range. C. If anti-missile modules are introduced missile ships will just become more worthless and speed will continue to be king.
Perhaps in null-sec where engagements might be more likely to happen out in open space with large alpha fleets the range and application improvements might be worth while. But in FW space where most combat takes place on a button and where anything outside 20k just means you don't have point, your target leaves at will. So you can take your 100km range and ... well needless to say I don't want it. But pretty much everything lately seems to be all about the null-sec so I guess it's on deaf ears anyway.
This entire thing seems very poorly thought out and should not be introduced unless part of a fully worked package of missile ship balancing, DPS and EHP balancing, improvement module balancing, ammo balancing and counter-module balancing. This just reeks of the same lack of real consideration that was put into polarized modules.
If missiles are weak, buff missiles. Injecting new modules just complicates things and creates new issues all across the spectrum.
DON'T RELEASE CONTENT FOR THE SAKE OF "CONTENT" Agreed! Having to trade tank for no increase in DPS, faster flight time (less delayed DPS), etc means that missile boats will continue to suck... or worse. |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 10:24:16 -
[590] - Quote
Perhaps a rework of the available t2 missile types in conjunction with an ammo bay for all ships size appropriately for their given hulls ammo type would make things more viable?
A baseline t1 ammo type (for the purposes of showing relative stats) with 10 application 10 damage and 10 range. CN ammo would be 10a 11d 10r.
T2 fury would be 9a 14d 5r ( I'm shooting at something big, real close ) T2 precision would be 14a 9d 5r ( I'm shooting at something small, real close)
The close range missiles t2 advantage lies in doing more damage/application in exchange for their reduced range, just like turret ammo types that allow for far more power at significantly closer ranges. With the requirement that you change ammo if your opponent moves out of range.
Then there would be a corresponding pair of longer ranged damage and precision missiles...
T2 "siege" would be 8a 12d 15r ( I'm shooting at something big, far away ) T2 "sniper" would be 12a 8d 15r ( I'm shooting at something small, far away )
The longer range missiles net no application/damage, because their t2 advantage over t1 is in their greater range. But with a selectable lean for damage or application, there will be situations for each.
Because of the increase in potential range from t2 ammo, the base ranges of missile systems will have to be reduce considerably.
max level lights should hit 25 km with t1 ammo. This means that with close range ammo, lights can kite just outside web/scram range and hit for higher damage. With opponents having piloting options for slingshoting them into tackle range, but can still hit out to long point range with t1, free of slingshot into web risk. With sniper ammo bringing them back up to their ranges now, with appropriate performance.
Max level heavies should reach 45km. That means they can kite t2 bonus'd points free of tackle with t1 or bring themselves into BS neut range with close range high damage ammo. Or snipe from 65 as they do now. (Give or take) with about the same performance as CN Missiles if you choose the appropriate damage or precision missiles for the situation.
Max level cruise missiles should reach 80km. With high dps still beyond bonus point range, or snipe from 120 as they do now (give or take) with about CN performance.
This obviously would stretch to rockets/ham/torp, making missile ships carry huge numbers of variable missile types. The player skill then comes not from piloting your turrets into place for your ammo, but picking targets and ammo on the fly to maximize your ships performance. A stealth buff to the jackdaws reload bonus, since ammo switching would become very important. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1965
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 12:40:42 -
[591] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Commander Spurty wrote:Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. What is ECM for 10 points bob? ECM doesn't work on missiles. /pedantic
It sure work a whole lot better on missile than on drones... |
Arla Sarain
532
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 14:27:20 -
[592] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Commander Spurty wrote:Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. What is ECM for 10 points bob? ECM doesn't work on missiles. /pedantic It sure work a whole lot better on missile than on drones... You just shoot drones apparently. Assuming you stand still so they can't exploit their dumb tracking bollocks and land 3 wreckings shots after the first 2 high quality hits.
Make drones missiles and exclude them from the 150% - 300% random damage! |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
275
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:07:21 -
[593] - Quote
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.
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
|
Mario Putzo
1470
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:17:42 -
[594] - 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. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1568
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:18:27 -
[595] - 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.
I guess that's confirmation they literally don't give a single crap about feedback huh?
And that they are overpowered today so need some more penalties added.
Sigh. |
Dave Stark
7498
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:18:56 -
[596] - 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.
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? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1568
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:22:41 -
[597] - 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?
Yes |
Mario Putzo
1470
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:24:19 -
[598] - 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.
|
Dave Stark
7498
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:35:33 -
[599] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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 and there probably will never be a reason to use them, unless you going for some super long range missile ship or something.
indeed, yes it will be the third module.
fantastic.
so let's look at rigor rigs. 20% bonus, that's 44% for 2. (i assume they multiply not add)
afterwards first rig will give 20% second rig will give 17.4% and a t2 low slot thingy will give 3.42%
multiply all of those together for.... 45.69%. (40.88% without the t2 low slot thingy) |
stoicfaux
6055
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:39:03 -
[600] - Quote
On the plus side, since a MGC II w/Prec script is essentially a Rigor I + Flare I, you can now trade a mid slot to get two rig slots back.
Who exactly benefits from all this? * Fits that use one flare/rigor rig and don't have the CPU/mid free for MGCs are unaffected. * Fits that use multiple TPs and no rigor/flare rigs are getting buffed slightly (MGC doesn't stack with TPs.) * Long range (sniping) missile fits that ran TPs in deep fallout will probably benefit from MGCs. * PvE fits that run with three Rigor rigs are nerfed (and will need to replace one of those Rigors with a Flare to minimize stacking penalty.) * Fits that need missile range over applied damage will benefit assuming they can fit enough MGC/MGEs without gimping themselves.
Personal Whinging: My "One Shot Non-Elite NPC Cruisers in Missions Using Fury Cruise Missiles" 4 TP + 2xRigor Golem still cannot replace the Rigor rigs for Warp speed rigs. But to be fair, it does see a tiny improvement in efficiency by swapping one TP for an MGCII w/Prec script.
tl;dr - An entire missile balance package that maybe ships like the Typhoon can take advantage of, and even that is somewhat debatable.
/grumble
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1237
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:44:01 -
[601] - 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.
Thank you for the answer.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Dave Stark
7498
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 15:45:07 -
[602] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:tl;dr - An entire missile balance package that maybe ships like the Typhoon can take advantage of, and even that is somewhat debatable.
/grumble
and a nerf to every ship using multiple application rigs, which due to how missiles work is going to be nearly all of them. |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1325
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 16:34:38 -
[603] - Quote
This thread went the same as the Recon thread.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Mario Putzo
1471
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 16:36:51 -
[604] - 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. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
308
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 16:38:12 -
[605] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Who exactly benefits from all this? * Fits that use one flare/rigor rig and don't have the CPU/mid free for MGCs are unaffected. * Fits that use multiple TPs and no rigor/flare rigs are getting buffed slightly (MGC doesn't stack with TPs.) * Long range (sniping) missile fits that ran TPs in deep fallout will probably benefit from MGCs. * PvE fits that run with three Rigor rigs are nerfed (and will need to replace one of those Rigors with a Flare to minimize stacking penalty.) * Fits that need missile range over applied damage will benefit assuming they can fit enough MGC/MGEs without gimping themselves. Doesn't looks so bad. Balancing ship PvE wise is wrong, CCP don't give a s*** about pve anyway.
Soldarius wrote:This thread went the same as the Recon thread. What happen in recon thread, at some point I've stopped following it?
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1568
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 16:40:44 -
[606] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:stoicfaux wrote:tl;dr - An entire missile balance package that maybe ships like the Typhoon can take advantage of, and even that is somewhat debatable.
/grumble
and a nerf to every ship using multiple application rigs, which due to how missiles work is going to be nearly all of them.
But they were overpowered!
Something, something turret penis/statistic envy |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract O X I D E
421
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 17:26:35 -
[607] - Quote
Guys, can I bring a Drake? Rise said they were getting buffed, so surely they're going to be better than they were. Right? |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 17:32:18 -
[608] - Quote
Mario Putzo 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. Missiles must have been OP for CCP to decide to nerf them again. Exactly, which is why missile ships top the killboard charts and deal the most damage per ship class. /Sarcasm |
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 17:47:42 -
[609] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:This is a great suggestion, and might make balancing these variables easier, instead of tying them together. Mario Putzo wrote: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) Both ER and EV are already tied together, and the ER script is better in every possible situation. There are only two differences that I can find between ER and EV. First, bonuses for ER are more effective than the same bonus for EV. For example, a 20% reduction in ER gives a 1.25 multiplier while a 25% bonus to EV is needed to give the same multiplier. Second, an ER bonus raises the damage for targets with low speeds and a signature lower than the missile ER while EV does not. In other words if the target signature is greater than the ER of the missile, ER and EV affect damage in exactly the same manner.
Soldarius wrote:GreyGryphon wrote: The problem will not get worse because the modules are not strong enough to make anything worse. However, I am pretty sure we are going to see is the rise of the Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher. Most battleships have one bonus for RHML and the worst bonus (RoF), but with the new module they should be competitive. Battleships also have the extra slots that smaller ships do not. Nothing will be broken, but we will have another strange weapon system like RLML.
Actually, there are exactly 6 BS that have bonuses that apply to RHML. They are the Raven, Scorpion Navy Issue, and the Typhoon, all with the same 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF. The Typhoon Fleet Issue has a 7.5% per level bonus to heavy missile damage. The Rattlesnake gets a 10% per level bonus to all missiles kinetic and thermal damage, and the Barghest gets a flat 50% bonus to all missile ranges, and a 5% per level bonus to all missile damage. Any other bonuses are to cruise missiles and torpedoes. None of them has an application bonus that applies to heavy missiles. Only one of them has two bonuses to heavy missiles. Also, let this be our daily reminder that MGC II needs 7.5% base bonuses to each category. There are 8 if you include T2 BS like the Widow and Golem. The Widow has a 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF. The Golem gets 100% bonus damage to heavy missile damage.
For some reason, cruisers get a 50% bonus to max velocity at perfect skills for light missiles, but BS do not get that bonus for heavy missiles. Gorski Car said this on reddit "The missile TCs in particular were too strong in their pre nerf stage. With a range script you boosted both speed and fuel by almost 20%. This created some really oppressive scenarios with certain ships. Things like 180km RLML Cerbs shooting super fast missiles protecting the grid from frigs..." Maybe the velocity bonus for light missile on cruisers should have been removed along with a reduction in the range of long range missiles instead of changing the MGC and MGE.
Note: BC do not have any bonuses for either weapon system.
Missile Rebalance
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1572
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 18:03:15 -
[610] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:This is a great suggestion, and might make balancing these variables easier, instead of tying them together. Mario Putzo wrote: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) Both ER and EV are already tied together, and the ER script is better in every possible situation. There are only two differences that I can find between ER and EV. First, bonuses for ER are more effective than the same bonus for EV. For example, a 20% reduction in ER gives a 1.25 multiplier while a 25% bonus to EV is needed to give the same multiplier. Second, an ER bonus raises the damage for targets with low speeds and a signature lower than the missile ER while EV does not. In other words if the target signature is greater than the ER of the missile, ER and EV affect damage in exactly the same manner. Soldarius wrote:GreyGryphon wrote: The problem will not get worse because the modules are not strong enough to make anything worse. However, I am pretty sure we are going to see is the rise of the Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher. Most battleships have one bonus for RHML and the worst bonus (RoF), but with the new module they should be competitive. Battleships also have the extra slots that smaller ships do not. Nothing will be broken, but we will have another strange weapon system like RLML.
Actually, there are exactly 6 BS that have bonuses that apply to RHML. They are the Raven, Scorpion Navy Issue, and the Typhoon, all with the same 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF. The Typhoon Fleet Issue has a 7.5% per level bonus to heavy missile damage. The Rattlesnake gets a 10% per level bonus to all missiles kinetic and thermal damage, and the Barghest gets a flat 50% bonus to all missile ranges, and a 5% per level bonus to all missile damage. Any other bonuses are to cruise missiles and torpedoes. None of them has an application bonus that applies to heavy missiles. Only one of them has two bonuses to heavy missiles. Also, let this be our daily reminder that MGC II needs 7.5% base bonuses to each category. There are 8 if you include T2 BS like the Widow and Golem. The Widow has a 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF. The Golem gets 100% bonus damage to heavy missile damage. For some reason, cruisers get a 50% bonus to max velocity at perfect skills for light missiles, but BS do not get that bonus for heavy missiles. Gorski Car said this on reddit "The missile TCs in particular were too strong in their pre nerf stage. With a range script you boosted both speed and fuel by almost 20%. This created some really oppressive scenarios with certain ships. Things like 180km RLML Cerbs shooting super fast missiles protecting the grid from frigs..." Maybe the velocity bonus for light missile on cruisers should have been removed along with a reduction in the range of long range missiles instead of changing the MGC and MGE. Note: BC do not have any bonuses for either weapon system.
Somehow I don't think that extra 50km range was a big deal when they can toss RLML missiles at 133km @11.8km/s today.
Damned sure not a good enough reason to make rigor/flare stack like they do now.
And best not mention the locking range, or lack thereof. Or the fact a cerb with a two slot tank (or less, rigs, mids dedicated to range, sebos and prop mod) will fold like a deck of cards to a stiff breeze, no....best freak out and stomp on them quickly. Heaven forfend an outlier hull got a little tweak to make the mods practical for everyone else. If required
/shakes_head |
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 18:41:00 -
[611] - Quote
Why is a CSM answering a question asked to the devs?
Though that said I guess we can all rest easy knowing all threads in this forum are utterly useless if a closed door secret meeting without any oversight feels differently than it does.
The very worst overall weapons platform for PVP in the game gets nerfed without a single hard number to show why.. Whelp it is a dictatorship not a democracy so I guess par for the course? |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract O X I D E
421
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 18:47:33 -
[612] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Why is a CSM answering a question asked to the devs?
Though that said I guess we can all rest easy knowing all threads in this forum are utterly useless if a closed door secret meeting without any oversight feels differently than it does.
The very worst overall weapons platform for PVP in the game gets nerfed without a single hard number to show why.. Whelp it is a dictatorship not a democracy so I guess par for the course? Well, at least he's trying. More than we are able to say about the devs at the moment. Maybe they're doing something, maybe they're looking at new stats, or maybe they're making Drake shaped voodoo dolls and visiting atrocities upon them in remembrance of their sins. Who knows?
Hmmmm... now for something constructive. Rise, I appreciate your attempt to discover what balancing means but I fear that you have gone the wrong direction. Take these changes, print them out, then ball up the paper and throw it away. Once you have done that, look at some of the very detailed suggestions in this thread, print them out and put them up on a board. Stare at them for a while and you'll notice a trend, they make missiles better rather than bending them over for the sake of turrets. Or maybe you could answer the questions we have been asking in this "feedback thread" that serves more as a soapbox for you to stand upon than a place for actual feedback. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1970
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 18:57:03 -
[613] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
Somehow I don't think that extra 50km range was a big deal when they can toss RLML missiles at 133km @11.8km/s today.
Damned sure not a good enough reason to make rigor/flare stack like they do now.
And best not mention the locking range, or lack thereof. Or the fact a cerb with a two slot tank (or less, rigs, mids dedicated to range, sebos and prop mod) will fold like a deck of cards to a stiff breeze, no....best freak out and stomp on them quickly. Heaven forfend an outlier hull got a little tweak to make the mods practical for everyone else. If required
/shakes_head
And if the inty was more than like 55km away from the cerb, he has the time to align out and enter warp even with a MWD running... |
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 19:01:30 -
[614] - Quote
2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).
2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors.
Missile Rebalance
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1970
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 19:09:37 -
[615] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote:2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).
2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors.
6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web... |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 19:13:23 -
[616] - Quote
I should make it clear that I have no issue with the CSMs or with Chance for bringing any info to this thread...
The problem is he, nor any other CSM, has direct authority to do that without it being hearsay.
They are unpaid users of CCPs product enlisted by player elections to provide advice. In other words they are a focus group. Sending a CSM here to bring any information to paying customers is disgusting. If I took one of my customers and had them go around and tell all my other customers how I'm changing my products I'd be out of business in a week.
If these changes have been vetted by clear information for the good of eve then fine.. all well and good. Shockingly enough I actually support CCP in many of the changes they have made over the last few years even if I disagree with some of them out of personal preference.
My issue is with the conduct of these discussions. If you enlist your player base to provide feedback.. then it is a two way street. Everything we the players have at our disposal is contradicting the gigantic volume of no information from CCP.. so where exactly is our carrot for providing any future feedback? |
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 19:20:45 -
[617] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Why is a CSM answering a question asked to the devs?
That is a very good (and telling) question.
CCP Dev "Hey missile fans here is something to help you out, MGC's and MGE's ... oh no wait, we can't help missiles, here have a nerf instead."
|
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 19:38:34 -
[618] - Quote
I'm going to have to bring out a cat picture to communicate my opinion about this change and it's handling.
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
215
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 20:25:26 -
[619] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Let us know what you think!
we think you should stop. just that : stop. leave missiles alone or if not call some dev who knows how they work and hand this rebalance to him; it's pretty clear you have no idea what to do with them
oh, and thx for all the responses and all the feedback you provided into this topic...and the dda change one. how was it again, "eve belong to the players and we promise not to ignore them again" or something like that? well, i guess some ppl never learn
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1581
|
Posted - 2015.07.03 23:46:54 -
[620] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote: If these changes have been vetted by clear information for the good of eve then fine.. all well and good. Shockingly enough I actually support CCP in many of the changes they have made over the last few years even if I disagree with some of them out of personal preference.
My issue is with the conduct of these discussions. If you enlist your player base to provide feedback.. then it is a two way street. Everything we the players have at our disposal is contradicting the gigantic volume of no information from CCP.. so where exactly is our carrot for providing any future feedback?
This. Exactly this.
Nerfs/buffs should be brought down with numbers, irrefutable statistics and data supporting them.
I actually don't care that you're backtracking and nerfing, it is how it was handled.
No math No stats No justification beyond a CCP handwave.
You didn't even give the time of day to justify the changes to the existing things. What is particularly galling is that in general the community are sympathetic towards "legacy code" type issues - which the stacking rigs clearly are.
That you don't even have the decency to confirm they stack, that it's legacy code necessitated by the new mods is downright disrespectful.
I'm supportive of a lot of controversial CCP calls, but this is a bridge too far.
We're neither idiots nor small children, stop treating us like it when you could so easily prove the point mathematically. |
|
Catherine Laartii
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
548
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 00:40:25 -
[621] - 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. then is the only advantage of the new modules utility and extra range? I mean, not wasting rigs will be great, but how much more application are we talking here with the new mods vs the current un-stacked rigs? |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2500
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 01:13:27 -
[622] - Quote
Wow. When you have to rely on Chance Ravinne to give your feedback things must be getting desperate.
Like, what's concurrent max logins at? 24K? 21K weeknights?
These are either useless modules, or overpowered modules. The problem is caused exclusively by ships with range projection traits (ie; missile velocity or flight time). Range buffs are always a huge benefit to ships trying to use what should be short range, high DPS weapons for long range combat. This then spills over into RLML fits which get ALL the benefits for the want of a tackler in gang.
eg; afkalt says there's some drawbacks to RLML cerbs. Yes, to be completely safe from any frig gang all they need is a tackle option on field. So you've got the Garmur. Job is done - you get 130km to 200km RLML Cerbs murdering frigates like it's going out of style, never in danger, no realistic counter, all they need is a Garmur. Done.
or you get HAM orthrus with a long-range web on field (eg; Huginn) and suddenly it's 600 DPS to 60-70km HAM orthrus. The problem again is range buffs in the hull.
Both annoying fleet doctrines to come up against, but not enough to call missiles so broken they need nerfing of rigs, nor are missiles so OP they need nerfing.
Right now missiles are in second place to drones, and excluding rails on Eagles, Tengus, and Proteus, are effective fleet weapons. Cerbs with HML's and HAMs are effective small gang and small fleet boats. Typhoons could, if ishtars weren't so oppressive, be truly good (also, no one's training Minnie BS because Gallente, so it's a hard ship to turn around training wise).
Putting in frankly pointless modules doesn't buff missiles. They don't need this pointless micro-buff. They don't need a nerf by making rigs stacking penalised.
I mean, if you want to stacking penalise rigs, make it uniform - make trimarks and field extenders stacking penalised. make aux nano pumps stacking penalised.
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 ~~
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 01:56:12 -
[623] - Quote
Wow.
Its been a couple years since i started playing, and i've heard stories about CCP just totally jacking stuff up in the past. For me, this is the first colossal **** up that i've seen from CCP. When Seagull took over, me and my friend were really excited for EVE finally having some new directives, fresh ideas, bold changes. We were ready for the crazy cowboy ideas that would get released, and then toned down as real feedback was experienced live on TQ.
This. This is just a disappointment across the board. My first serious CCP disappointment. A threadnaught of ire and calls for change. Serious mathematically calculated answers and analysis. SPREADSHEETS FOR GODS SAKE. For one of the first times ever, an entire community in agreement that X was Y because of Z. And we got not a single post by a single dev from any department of CCP. NO ONE, had ANYTHING to say to us about all the well reasoned, calculated feedback. And now the useless **** is going live just to confuse and hurt all the people who were not present in this thread to know what is happening.
Tons of people will try these out, thinking that they do something. I don't know how long it will take for the community at large to realize, but it will just make them bitter and unhappy when they do.
These threads are supposed to be for feedback right? Here's your feedback.
-1 bright eyed newbro +1 jaded bittervet |
Sarkelias Anophius
Strange Energy The Bastion
38
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 03:17:04 -
[624] - Quote
The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.
Let me go over a few facts.
1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE.
2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff.
3) Modules: Regardless of anything else, there is now a set of modules that increases missile range and application. This is a buff; there's simply no way around it - you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots. No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TEs. What ships benefit from these modules, you say? I have no idea, probably ones that already have a spare mid or low slot and just need that little boost to be useful in some way - like the Claymore, Nighthawk, Drake, Sacrilege, Damnation, Legion, Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Navy Caracal... It's not a huge list, sure, but this buff is strictly and only a buff, for all these ships, many of which are among the least used ships in the game in their missile damage configurations.
tl;dr I hate people who do nothing but whinge and ***** about every little thing and talk about how bad it's going to be. Yes it sucks that torps and cruise are still pretty bad. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback. But my god, you people sound like a bunch of whiney silver spooning shitlords. |
stoicfaux
6057
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 04:29:43 -
[625] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.
Let me go over a few facts.
1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE. PvE ships have the luxury of being able to mount multiple application mods. If you can't make the MGC/MGE work on PvE ships, then the modules are in trouble. Given how tight CPU can be on missile PvE boats, using the CPU hogging MGC is going to be a challenge. Given that a meta 4 TP outperforms the MGC II w/Precision script, there's less reason to fiddle with the MGC. Personally, I would expect a lot of folks to simply swap the 3rd rigor with a Flare to avoid the worst of the stacking penalties.
Quote:2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff. T1/Faction HMLs can't even apply full damage to propless cruisers. That 5% is going to be less then 5% effective unless your target is webbed or hit with multiple TPs.
Quote:3) Modules: Regardless of anything else, there is now a set of modules that increases missile range and application. This is a buff; there's simply no way around it - you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots. No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TEs. We already had a module. A 16 cpu TP provides a 37.5% boost. A 35 cpu MGC II with Precision script provides a 35.3% boost. =/
If you mount multiple TPs, then using an MGC instead of a 2nd TP would be a bit more efficient since TPs and MGCs don't stack. How many PvP fits mount multiple TPs? How many missile boats have the CPU to fit an MGC?
Gangs or fleets that provide dedicated TP boats would benefit from replacing their TPs with MGCs (provided they have the spare CPU.)
Or you can use the MGC II to get a ~23% boost to range, or two for a ~47% range boost. If you're using long range missiles, then your hull probably already has a range bonus build in, never mind that long range missiles tend to have plenty of range to begin with. If you're using short range missiles, then you're probably better of ffitting tank or webs or anything but range boosting MGCs.
Quote:What ships benefit from these modules, you say? I have no idea, probably ones that already have a spare mid or low slot and just need that little boost to be useful in some way - like the Claymore, Nighthawk, Drake, Sacrilege, Damnation, Legion, Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Navy Caracal... It's not a huge list, sure, but this buff is strictly and only a buff, for all these ships, many of which are among the least used ships in the game in their missile damage configurations. And there's the rub. Go find some fits that can actually make non-trivial use of the MGC/MGE.
On the positive side, now that the modules will be in game, their stats should be easy to tweak.
Edit: Yeah, I understand your concern about the negativity, but please understand that the negativity is mostly about people suddenly having high hopes for missiles only to find their hoped crushed with unexpected stat changes delivered in an opaque manner. Now we're left scratching our heads trying to figure out what to do with what is now a very underwhelming missile balance pass.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 04:43:17 -
[626] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote: For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices.
In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff.
Modules: you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots.
No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TE's.
. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback.
Let me go over some facts.
1) if you're not rigging for application and low slotting for damage while flying a ship fit and designed around providing your tackle as much "out of range" dps as possible, then youre doing it wrong, back line, tackle free missile bombardment ships should have at least 2 rigor rigs. T2 if you're pimping, t1 if your flying cheap.
2) not a single person is complaining about the 5% alpha increase. Except that one guy who thinks medium Arties are an option.
3) these modules are so weak for their slot value, they're basically pointless. There is a list of maybe 10 things that would be better to fit than an MGC and at least 4 things better than an MGE. Rigs are so much more effective than these that with stacking penalties, these modules give tiny percentile boosts, basically unnoticeable.
I was hoping that an MGE would be worth replacing the third ballistic for with the bonus to range as an added advantage. As it stands with double rigor rigs, it can only replace a 4th ballistic if you can find a purpose to 10% more range.
4) TE and TC are both stronger because you can pilot your ship to improve your application various slingshot and align maneuvers can be used to take a 30% increase and make it feel like a doubling in tracking. Bad piloting can also make it meaningless. But at the high end, users improve the turret systems numbers significantly.
5)"it would be nice?" - that's what these threads ARE. Feedback threads. For gathering and engaging with players ideas. And they aren't being used for that in this case, because CCP won't have answers for us. It's embarrassing really. |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 07:45:20 -
[627] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.
tl;dr I hate people who do nothing but whinge and ***** about every little thing and talk about how bad it's going to be. Yes it sucks that torps and cruise are still pretty bad. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback. But my god, you people sound like a bunch of whiney silver spooning shitlords. Cool story, bruh. |
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
82
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 10:26:01 -
[628] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote: 1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE. 2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff.
Just looking at WH losses on the first two pages of zkillboard: https://zkillboard.com/kill/47049016/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/47024578/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/47024551/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/47024528/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46946550/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46777996/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46755320/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46671845/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46439289/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46386280/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46256088/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46029792/ https://zkillboard.com/kill/46946550/
Looks to me like stacking missile application rigs is extremely common for PvP. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
277
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 12:18:33 -
[629] - Quote
Whether you consider what we do PVP or not, double Rigor Catalyst rigs are also wholly standard for torpedo bombers.
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
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 12:56:44 -
[630] - Quote
After extensively going over all possible missile ships the nerfed numbers are most likely thanks to bombers and bombers alone.
Which again.. makes zero sense. A solo bomber could, in theory, get an explosion radius of pretty darn close to fury light missiles. Doing this requires zero tank whatsoever. The massively increased applied damage to a target would be the only significant change to the original mods.
More and more this change looks to be still a backroom deal. I challenge anyone to actually post numbers showing how this will be good for eve. Even in the abstract.
So far I've come up with nothing. Worse it makes any possible missile based counters to the ishtar less effective. At the end of the day this change ensures the status quo of eve will be maintained and the only actual people it will hurt are new players who now have even less application until they get their skillpoints up. Even the 5% HM buff is lost in the noise of the application nerf which suggests CCP KNEW the stacking penalties would heavily impact the weapon system.
So is this the new future of EVE? The age of feedback and logical reasoning gone? |
|
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
309
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 17:04:52 -
[631] - Quote
This isnt the first time ccp just went and ignored dozens of posts of feedback. Look at the icon fiasco just last month |
Sierra Spurgeon
101st E. Company
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 22:17:04 -
[632] - Quote
i would think this is a good time to fix defender missiles a bit. the e-war for missiles is missiles |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
189
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 22:52:16 -
[633] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.
Let me go over a few facts.
1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE.
2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff.
3) Modules: Regardless of anything else, there is now a set of modules that increases missile range and application. This is a buff; there's simply no way around it - you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots. No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TEs. What ships benefit from these modules, you say? I have no idea, probably ones that already have a spare mid or low slot and just need that little boost to be useful in some way - like the Claymore, Nighthawk, Drake, Sacrilege, Damnation, Legion, Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Navy Caracal... It's not a huge list, sure, but this buff is strictly and only a buff, for all these ships, many of which are among the least used ships in the game in their missile damage configurations.
tl;dr I hate people who do nothing but whinge and ***** about every little thing and talk about how bad it's going to be. Yes it sucks that torps and cruise are still pretty bad. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback. But my god, you people sound like a bunch of whiney silver spooning shitlords.
Basically you're saying:
1) PVE Missile boats have been nerfed
2) PVP Missile boats haven't been nerfed because hardly anyone used application rigs
3) Missile boats have been unquestionably buffed because they have even more modules that hardly anyone will use to chose from.
These modules offer very slight improvement over the existing non-stacking penalized rigs (that hardly anyone uses), more importantly they use mid/low slots and cost CPU. So in effect missiles were nerfed, only very slightly and only some fits that used rigs but the fact remains we were promised good things were coming for missiles in this patch and this is the opposite, why should people be positive about that? |
Mario Putzo
1474
|
Posted - 2015.07.04 23:01:56 -
[634] - 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. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
479
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 01:22:15 -
[635] - Quote
Wow.
I don't really know what to say. I've purposely stayed out of this one because it was looking pretty descent right off the bat. Funny...I was actually looking forward to this. Damn, we had this...
Well, happy 4th, guys. I'm kind of hoping that makes this a little less depressing, but it probably won't.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
479
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 01:25:53 -
[636] - 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 honestly need to just dump the damned things and introduce a proper AMS from scratch. They wouldn't even need to wait until they did, no one would miss them enough that they couldn't yank them now and come up with something better later.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
571
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 01:39:32 -
[637] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).
2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors. 6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web...
I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Chris Winter
Winters Are Coming
638
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 01:48:49 -
[638] - Quote
A post that was supposed to contain buffs for missiles has turned into nerfs for missiles.
Thanks, CCP! Looks like I'm still not actually coming back to play any time soon.
Can we please just get missiles removed from the game and all SP refunded? I mean, that seems to be what CCP wants... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1977
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 01:52:57 -
[639] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).
2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors. 6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web... I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs
It's still 6 slots. What kind of fit has 6 slots open for application? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1241
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 02:35:42 -
[640] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).
2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors. 6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web... I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs It's still 6 slots. What kind of fit has 6 slots open for application?
My ratting Phoenix?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
Stormbringer999s
Demonic. Dominatus Atrum Mortis
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 03:31:33 -
[641] - Quote
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.
and you can't be anything but a troll right?
"this thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of."
the community was excited about the package that promised so much until this...............
"Small update for you on the new modules."
"we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit"
"stronger than their tracking counterparts"
and then there was this...........
"Okay everyone so officially, for the record, application rig bonuses will be stacking penalized" backyard deal
so yeah, you must be trolling right, because after a promising start I can guarentee you no one around here is excited about the introduction of the new modules. Yes there are some niche platforms that work but there are many more that don't and never will until serious changes are implemented. These modules represented a chance for pilots to dust of their phoons etc and get them into the game, shake up the meta a little, but no, other weapon platforms cry foul, CCP renege on the package as a whole, and if that wasn't enough they take it one step further and **** with application rigs. So yeah, no matter how hard CCP or "shitlords" like youself try to spin it, we're lured here with promises of change but end up being bent over a barrel and ****** up the arse.
Now, no one that I know enjoys being in that position, but if that's your thing my friend then simple join the CCP train and your guaranteed to get what you've been looking for :')
|
Daemun Khanid
Sanctus Imperialis
112
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 03:42:26 -
[642] - Quote
Called it 20 pages ago. This missile "package" is a brown paper bag full of feces left on a door step.
Daemun of Khanid
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16321
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 05:45:07 -
[643] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).
2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors. 6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web... I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs It's still 6 slots. What kind of fit has 6 slots open for application?
I have a few...
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
571
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 11:01:02 -
[644] - Quote
Yes so rni and typhoon will get a lot of mileage from these mids. By stretching native bonuses further.
Not to forget the golem also gets an explosion velocity bonus too I think so you could fit one and pvp with it in rhml configurations.
Phoenix? Yes. Some missile cruisers, most missile BC and up will have more to gain from these than a target painter and certainly any calnavy ship will get a lot from them.
It's entirely up for debate whether you're better off fitting something else to anything non-caldari though. Kind of like fitting a flare instead of a rigor to a rocket ship for reasons that are immediately obvious.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1821
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 12:33:17 -
[645] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote: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
Pretty much this. With the first pass CCP gave us too much, then to fix it they took too much away.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
AskariRising
ROGUE RELICS
69
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 16:42:53 -
[646] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote: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
Pretty much this. With the first pass CCP gave us too much, then to fix it they took too much away.
i thought the goal of all this was to encourage more missile based combat...
now that missiles are worse than before, should i feel encouraged to use missile boats?
i think not |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1483
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 18:18:42 -
[647] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Called it 20 pages ago. This missile "package" is a brown paper bag full of feces left on a door step.
I called it before the 1st post |
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 18:37:35 -
[648] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:stoicfaux wrote:TinkerHell wrote:I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?
The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.
I see this going well. Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles + TiDi = increased cardiovascular related reductions in Hamster resources Worst case, I tell my kids their hamsters died suddenly in the night, and I ship them[1] off to the London data center. [1] The hamsters, not the kids. The kids get shipped in the Fall. Bull ****. No heavier load than any other ewar. Better than the server having to calculate the actual position in space of all those missiles relative to the position and area of effect of a raft of smarties going off. TDs should be much easier on the server than firewall usage. Rise and Fozzie, where is the TD effect to counter the use of these modules. Pretty soon you will have all missiles all the time murdering small ships with no end. How does this Balance anything? As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome.
I've heard about these.. "defender missiles".. apparently you use them to stop incoming missiles.. never tried them though |
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 18:46:29 -
[649] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote: Modifying sensor damps might make more sense. Since it would be a gal counter to caldari weapon. Plus sensor dampening would make more sense against missiles than "tracking disruption". Damped sensors cant guide missiles as efficiently. Maybe an added script.
Sensor damps still work. unless they are FOF (auto-targeting), you cant shoot them unless they are target locked.
|
stoicfaux
6062
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 18:48:28 -
[650] - Quote
Vailen Sere wrote:I've heard about these.. " defender missiles".. apparently you use them to stop incoming missiles.. never tried them though The only reason to train defender missiles is when you're mapped for prec/will attributes so that you can apply the eventual skill point refund of the defender skill to a charisma based skill.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 18:49:49 -
[651] - 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. Yes, the implication of what these do to bombers makes for an amazing alpha frigate. |
Mario Putzo
1478
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 18:55:26 -
[652] - 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. |
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 18:59:05 -
[653] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:I like missiles, I don't like these changes. None of these ships were designed or balanced with these extra modules in mind. Turret ships are designed with the idea in mind that you need "x" number of slots for offensive and "x" number of slots for defensive while maintaining the option to choose between the 2. Missile boats were NOT. All this if going to do is put a few pathetically weak ship fits out there that people will try and then say "screw that." With most of my missile ships now the tank is comparable to turret ships, dps is less but application (in most cases) is pretty good. So you're making modules that A. Are just going to reduce the missile boats tank and/or dps so that they are (even more) sub par. B. Do nothing to actually increase dps, just improve application and range. C. If anti-missile modules are introduced missile ships will just become more worthless and speed will continue to be king.
Perhaps in null-sec where engagements might be more likely to happen out in open space with large alpha fleets the range and application improvements might be worth while. But in FW space where most combat takes place on a button and where anything outside 20k just means you don't have point, your target leaves at will. So you can take your 100km range and ... well needless to say I don't want it. But pretty much everything lately seems to be all about the null-sec so I guess it's on deaf ears anyway.
This entire thing seems very poorly thought out and should not be introduced unless part of a fully worked package of missile ship balancing, DPS and EHP balancing, improvement module balancing, ammo balancing and counter-module balancing. This just reeks of the same lack of real consideration that was put into polarized modules.
If missiles are weak, buff missiles. Injecting new modules just complicates things and creates new issues all across the spectrum.
DON'T RELEASE CONTENT FOR THE SAKE OF "CONTENT" And if you can script those missiles for increased velocity on a cerb you wouldn't? |
Dave Stark
7502
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 19:00:39 -
[654] - Quote
Markos Cerrilus wrote: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. Yes, the implication of what these do to bombers makes for an amazing alpha frigate.
won't do **** for bombers. they lack slots for a start. not to mention the fact that rigs are now stacking penalised makes it even worse.
you either take a direct damage nerf to fit a low slot module, or you trade survivability or a TP for extra application (that isn't extra since your rigs are now stacking penalised (and you may have just traded a TP for it)).
these new modules ain't going to do a fat lot for bombers. |
Mario Putzo
1478
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 19:03:17 -
[655] - 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.
|
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 19:16:03 -
[656] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vic Jefferson wrote:So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease. Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect? Not even treating the symptoms, it will actively make it worse, since missiles will see a huge power boost against everything in the game except the toxic speed creep. That said, missiles needed an update for a while now, so I am glad they are being looked at. And that further said, I do not think this is the way to go about it. But, one way or another, our feedback really hasn't mattered in a long time about things like this, so we will wait and see, and probably laugh about the inevitable unforeseen consequences of these changes.
I have to re-look at 75% of my pvp fits because of this. I'm going to have to look really hard at the bellicose and see about fitting heavies on it. |
Sean Crees
Sean's Solo Corp
9
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 19:19:50 -
[657] - 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!
Instead of adding modules that disrupt missiles, why not just have existing tracking disruptors affect missiles launchers for either range or explosion radius/velocity. Tracking disruption is easily the worst of the EWAR's because it doesn't work against all types of weapon systems like the other EWAR's do. And while your at it, make it work against drone range or drone optimal/tracking while your at it. You're always saying you want an indirect nerf for Ishtars. |
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 19:25:25 -
[658] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Capqu wrote:[Talwar, tfi]
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
110~km range 150 dps 10 mil Lock range 72km. Whats the lock range with 3 sensor disruptors on (celestis)? Point of argument is people saying no ewar currently counters missiles.
|
Arla Sarain
533
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 19:29:06 -
[659] - Quote
Markos Cerrilus wrote:Trinkets friend wrote:Capqu wrote:[Talwar, tfi]
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I
110~km range 150 dps 10 mil Lock range 72km. Whats the lock range with 3 sensor disruptors on (celestis)? Point of argument is people saying no ewar currently counters missiles. Does it matter?
Your enemy is kiting you at 100km, edge of their lock range. You damp with one damp and they lose almost half of their lock range.
I mean, outside of cruise missiles that reach 200km, what else is there? LMLs reach 100km on select hulls, but outside of that, would it really matter? |
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 19:31:17 -
[660] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:MeBiatch wrote: if you did this TD would be the new multi spec ECM we used to see on every ship... cant say that i support... it should be a separate mod all together Which is precisely why they should nerf the base stats on TDs, and then do a counterbalancing buff on TD boats. This would essentially be doing to TD boats what was done to ECM boats years ago. Make them desired ships to have in fleets. It should also be done for damp and painter boats as well. Currently the only ewar mods that don't function worth a crap on non bonused hulls are ecm modules. That was entirely to bury the ecm of doom fitting regimen. Matt Faithbringer wrote: Not sure if makes sense lore-wise.. caldari, the missile race would have ewar AGAINST missiles? If it should be racial ewar, it should be gallente IMHO Yeah it wouldn't make sense to have ecm be antimissile ewar. However, as much as it would make lore sense to do it to damps, damps and damp usage are already rather strong. Having TDs affect missiles would be consistent with lore now that Minmatar has a missile boat line of ships. And as long as the TDs themselves get a base stat nerf, the ecm module treatment, TDs will not become the new multispecs of doom. This is also why I proposed in a thread a couple months ago that painters be given a secondary anti drone effect. The lore would make sense in that Amarr now has a comprehensive line of drone boats. The technobabble explanation could be that being painted causes a lot of em communication interference between a host ship and its drones. Thus the drone control range could receive a hit. This would address a lot of the nano sentry Ishtar complaints. As long as the effect is slight enough it would necessitate some further fitting and rig choices on drone boats. Amarr has the TD boats don't they? |
|
Mario Putzo
1478
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 21:02:46 -
[661] - 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? |
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.05 21:07:36 -
[662] - Quote
AskariRising wrote:Zekora Rally wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:I have only one question: Wouldn't these missile TE/TCs put even Light missile engagement ranges well past 100 km mark - would that be intended? I think it's the same kind of issue as the base drone stats staying unchanged IIRC on the introduction of DDAs. Fitting one of these on a caracal for example will require foregoing another mod. Whether it's a nano or BCU. It's a tradeoff for supposedly better damage application. Now to take advantage of a 100km missile range, a caracal will need a sebo to achieve this which in turn means much less tank or no TP. Sniping harpy/corm fits already hit targets out to this range and they don't have to deal with the 100km damage delay or the target supposedly warping off before damage is even applied. its an issue on a caracal yes. but a kestrel is a different story. kestrel vs corm, the kestrel has far better lock range. a kestrel vs harpy, the kestrel has better range. a kestrel can hit targets at 97km just using rigs. ive got a kessy right now thats cap stable with a lock range at 126km, a top speed of 2815m/s, and a missile range of 97km. these new computers will increase my range even further.
Someone posted earlier about the velocity meta. Try a Garmur.. with current speed meta Garmur/ Orthrus is the only ships applying missile dmg to catch the speed fits.. unless you can get close to slow them down.. which means they made a mistake.
|
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 00:49:48 -
[663] - Quote
The re-adjustment went too deep. Suggestion:
Add back some of the explosion radius/velocity to increase dmg application across the board and remove from the mods.
Than it gives you two stats to manipulate same as the targeting computers, allowing them to be scripted.
Or as posted above, these come in on niche fits, and will mostly be unused. |
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems
365
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 02:57:46 -
[664] - Quote
They really put CCP's best and brightest on this one.
LOL, so small minded. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
685
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 04:09:40 -
[665] - Quote
Phaade wrote:They really put CCP's best and brightest on this one.
LOL, so small minded.
TBH..after this patch I would recommend CCP put the Missile QA people on the drone QA team and well...stick the current drone QA team somewhere else (they are moving offices....lots of creative jobs come to mind, like why pay movers when you have employees already). Missile QA team went from getting our hope up to dashing them just on sisi alone. I will even be nice and say they have some "they were op" basis. I would give them kudos for that if actually legit. in a mere few weeks they killed a great idea we have wanted for years. May hate the results of that but have to admire in some sick way the efficacy and skill that requires.
Now lets pull drone QA and put these people here. If they apply the same level of effort....because of drones will suck for all all boats by (US) labor day. They'd at least kill the 1-2 problem children in the process. Missile QA team could pull this off. Sure as hell did damn fine work making me even go this crap isn't go to work out half decent even for my rattler. And that has slots to work with. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
480
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 05:31:29 -
[666] - Quote
Ditto. I may slap a MGC II on my Golem in place of a 3rd TP, but certainly not because it would be better. I keep a 3rd TP on mainly for module redundancy, so that in cases where one of the first two fail to land a cycle, the 3rd offers a chance to make up for it. It'll be a move more for "science" on my part. At least I won't need to replace one of the rigors. Really feels like one step forward, two steps back. Except, we never even got to the one step forward part. Shame, really.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
388
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 07:22:17 -
[667] - Quote
Well at least they didn't dump things down
that is a lot of switching modules and riggs switching and calculating, to get the same results |
Rea Rose
Geuzen Inc
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 09:20:56 -
[668] - Quote
I can see myself using the low slot one.
or bite the bullet, learn sentry's and get a rattlesnake :) |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1327
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 14:32:54 -
[669] - Quote
Daily reminder that 7.5% bonuses all around for MGC II should be the norm.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Lise ap Nuygen
United Conflict Space Command Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 14:49:02 -
[670] - Quote
defender missiles need serious AI work. when a launcher loaded with defenders is assigned to a target, it 'should' launch a defender automatically when the target launches a missile -- if the defending launcher is ready to launch. [it is the player's responsibility to assure that the combination of range and speeds allows the defender missile to hit the incoming missile.]
defender missiles "should" also target drones controlled by the targeted ship ...
imho, these are the substitute for EWAR type modules that are effective against missile equipped opponents. No new module or idea needed -- just make the existing defender missile system work.
ECM and sensor dampers will already work against missile equipped opponents -- except those using Auto-Targeting missiles.
{Aside: please fix auto-targeting missiles so that they select ships emitting active ECM first and then sensor damp second. the priority is to get your targeting back up, not to try to kill the ship that accidentally hits you first ...} |
|
Tyape
Love the DaKa
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 14:57:22 -
[671] - Quote
Not to complain, but the new missile modules make me a little sad. Missiles and turrets are becoming more and more similar and bland. With the new modules, the only substantial difference between missiles and projectiles will be flight time. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1603
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 14:58:35 -
[672] - Quote
Tyape wrote:Not to complain, but the new missile modules make me a little sad. Missiles and turrets are becoming more and more similar and bland. With the new modules, the only substantial difference between missiles and projectiles will be flight time.
Well that, and the fact turrets are viable. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1983
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 15:24:37 -
[673] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Tyape wrote:Not to complain, but the new missile modules make me a little sad. Missiles and turrets are becoming more and more similar and bland. With the new modules, the only substantial difference between missiles and projectiles will be flight time. Well that, and the fact turrets are viable.
When the option you have in most case is to shoot downsized missiles (all rapid system) or out of class (torpedo on a frig hull) you know a system is kinda broken. |
Capqu
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1151
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 15:43:15 -
[674] - Quote
Core Defense Field Extender
Trimark Armor Pump
no stacking penalties, most common rigs in the game
better add stacking penalties to rigors LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1825
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 16:54:48 -
[675] - Quote
Capqu wrote:Core Defense Field Extender
Trimark Armor Pump
no stacking penalties, most common rigs in the game
better add stacking penalties to rigors LOL Different game mechanic than missile stats.
No item that adds raw HP or a percentage of HP is stacking penalized.
Every item that modifies weapon performance except missile rigs is stacking penalized. The missile rigs becoming stacking penalized is a necessary, albeit horribly ill-timed, step to maintain consistency with core game mechanics. I see it as a bug fix more than anything. To those who are saying that the lack of penalty made up for poor performance, I say that the problem is with missiles, not the rigs. Letting one set of rigs stay bugged for years to compensate for poor missile performance says a lot about how bad off missiles really are overall.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1984
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 17:09:29 -
[676] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Capqu wrote:Core Defense Field Extender
Trimark Armor Pump
no stacking penalties, most common rigs in the game
better add stacking penalties to rigors LOL Different game mechanic than missile stats. No item that adds raw HP or a percentage of HP is stacking penalized. Every item that modifies weapon performance except missile rigs is stacking penalized. The missile rigs becoming stacking penalized is a necessary, albeit horribly ill-timed, step to maintain consistency with core game mechanics. I see it as a bug fix more than anything. To those who are saying that the lack of penalty made up for poor performance, I say that the problem is with missiles, not the rigs. Letting one set of rigs stay bugged for years to compensate for poor missile performance says a lot about how bad off missiles really are overall.
Then maybe they could fix the issue while fixing the rigs instead of giving us a sub-par mod as an excuse to be touching missile and fix the stacking irregularity. |
Torrent Talon
Partial Guidance
17
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 18:10:34 -
[677] - Quote
not trying to be pedantic, but to fit the current missile enhancing modules, should these not be called 'ballistic guidance enhancer/computer' |
Kamahl Daikun
Back To Basics.
65
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 18:29:54 -
[678] - Quote
Eh...
I started with Caldari. For PvE, Caldari ships are pretty awesome. In fact, they're still pretty awesome. However, when I want to PvP, I almost never pick Caldari for obvious reasons. With these new changes to missile modules, I'm contemplating spamming someone at CCP with requests for a SP refund.
These new modules aren't fixing the problem. Furthermore, I don't expect to see a return of Heavy Missiles either. Since their damage wasn't exactly the main problem anyway. Lastly, what hulls use Torpedoes? I'm honestly curious. I can't remember the last time I've seen anyone use Torps in PvP. Even Bombers don't use Torps. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1825
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 18:30:59 -
[679] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:Different game mechanic than missile stats.
No item that adds raw HP or a percentage of HP is stacking penalized.
Every item that modifies weapon performance except missile rigs is stacking penalized. The missile rigs becoming stacking penalized is a necessary, albeit horribly ill-timed, step to maintain consistency with core game mechanics. I see it as a bug fix more than anything. To those who are saying that the lack of penalty made up for poor performance, I say that the problem is with missiles, not the rigs. Letting one set of rigs stay bugged for years to compensate for poor missile performance says a lot about how bad off missiles really are overall. Then maybe they could fix the issue while fixing the rigs instead of giving us a sub-par mod as an excuse to be touching missile and fix the stacking irregularity. I agree 100%. Sadly, CCP doesn't.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 18:56:06 -
[680] - Quote
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?
In that case missiles should be able to crit.
Dampner's are not specific either, you can still cut the legs off any missile ship with a proper fit celestis.
You want ewar specifically for missiles? thats going to need to be a new ship and and a new module. Very Niche fit. It's going to get burned alot.
Fix defender missiles. Done. |
|
SirSoda Dominic
Concordiat Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 19:20:51 -
[681] - Quote
Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. smart bombs |
Dave Stark
7502
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 19:49:01 -
[682] - Quote
Kamahl Daikun wrote:Even Bombers don't use Torps.
uhh, yeah they do. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 19:54:18 -
[683] - Quote
Kamahl Daikun wrote:Eh...
I started with Caldari. For PvE, Caldari ships are pretty awesome. In fact, they're still pretty awesome. However, when I want to PvP, I almost never pick Caldari for obvious reasons. With these new changes to missile modules, I'm contemplating spamming someone at CCP with requests for a SP refund.
These new modules aren't fixing the problem. Furthermore, I don't expect to see a return of Heavy Missiles either. Since their damage wasn't exactly the main problem anyway. Lastly, what hulls use Torpedoes? I'm honestly curious. I can't remember the last time I've seen anyone use Torps in PvP. Even Bombers don't use Torps.
It's simple. Caldari pilots need to embace the missile hulls from Amarr or Minmatar. Obviously those of us who like our Caldari ships keep on flying them regardless.. up to a point.
I love my missile ships, but I decided to move on and fly ECM. so I can still use my missiles to kill drones and people dont mind me in their fleets :) |
Zekora Rally
Negative Density Whatever.
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 20:09:27 -
[684] - Quote
Just sold my golem and bought a paladin. Jokes on you. |
Kamahl Daikun
Back To Basics.
65
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 20:29:47 -
[685] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:Kamahl Daikun wrote:Even Bombers don't use Torps. uhh, yeah they do.
Can't remember the last time I was flying in Null and thought to myself "Better watch out for those bomber torps!" |
Mario Putzo
1482
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 20:33:52 -
[686] - 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!
|
michaeltward
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 21:49:03 -
[687] - Quote
To all those people asking for a missile specific ewar type.
Ask yourself how many people would actually carry around an ewar module that only effects missiles? I would bet not many.
And secondly you have ******* damps and ecm that work just fine stop crying about nothing.
The amount of times ive been damped in lowsec is stupid im surprised people are not screaming damps are op. |
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract O X I D E
424
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 22:00:09 -
[688] - Quote
I don't think I've posted today, so I figure I'll have a little fun. When rise announced, earlier in the year, that missiles were going to get some attention I was a bit excited and decided to start some missile-specific cross-training. As it stands now, I think I'll probably wind up dumping missiles for turrets if this trend continues. I already have trouble applying missile damage without dedicated support and this is another step in a long line of "nerfs" to missiles that really serve to push turret skills further up my skill queue. /rant Since I am nearly positive that no one at CCP has bothered to dirty their hands with this "feedback thread" for at least a week. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
481
|
Posted - 2015.07.06 22:20:23 -
[689] - Quote
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:I don't think I've posted today, so I figure I'll have a little fun. When rise announced, earlier in the year, that missiles were going to get some attention I was a bit excited and decided to start some missile-specific cross-training. As it stands now, I think I'll probably wind up dumping missiles for turrets if this trend continues. I already have trouble applying missile damage without dedicated support and this is another step in a long line of "nerfs" to missiles that really serve to push turret skills further up my skill queue. /rant Since I am nearly positive that no one at CCP has bothered to dirty their hands with this "feedback thread" for at least a week.
Considering Aegis' patch notes were public as early as this weekend, I'm quite positive as well.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
280
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 01:06:22 -
[690] - Quote
Kamahl Daikun wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Kamahl Daikun wrote:Even Bombers don't use Torps. uhh, yeah they do. Can't remember the last time I was flying in Null and thought to myself "Better watch out for those bomber torps!"
Flying through Nullsec, it's unlikely you will run into random torpedo bombers. They don't make for great hunting ships solo or in smaller fleets, with narrow engagement profiles. And if you're encountering a larger fleet, it's probably for bombing runs...
But torpedoes are extremely common, if not the default for solo bombers as well as any use in lowsec since you can't use bombs there. In w-space where bombers can sit invisible to local they make better hunters. Hell I built an entire corporation around people flying torpedo bombers.
And hey, "This is Eve" trailer features several bomber wings specifically commanded "All torpedoes on the Dominix, Dominix, Dominix."
I'm sure if you look through kills by bombers on ZKB you'll find a great deal of them are via torpedo.
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
|
|
stardog Arkaral
Warrior of the One
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 01:45:32 -
[691] - Quote
OMG Finally something for my tengu... |
bassy nook
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 02:26:25 -
[692] - Quote
afkalt wrote:CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare.
Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare.
Gods, leave the Minmatar ships alone. Everyone poopoos the ships but for some reason people always join the battle-cry " nerf the minmatar, they're too ugly!".
Wait and see how the patches work out please. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1607
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 05:55:42 -
[693] - Quote
bassy nook wrote:afkalt wrote:CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare.
Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare. Gods, leave the Minmatar ships alone. Everyone poopoos the ships but for some reason people always join the battle-cry " nerf the minmatar, they're too ugly!". Wait and see how the patches work out please.
Don't worry, they have went from questionable to about the only ship getting any use out of these. |
Shing Thsu
hirr Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 07:44:49 -
[694] - Quote
So CCP RISE tell us, is this a big nerf to all misile boats ?
since u dudes came up with new misle mods but u havent add any freee slots to any misile boats so if ppl will like to put em on their ship, its gona be quite a big nerf to tank/speed/agility/... for example caldari ships are all slow and most of em are shield tanked with a hole in resistance, cant imagine how cerb fitted with these new mods will perform.
So CCP RISE are there any comparisms with old misile ships setups and misile boats with these new mods fitted ?
(PS: as usual no answear is also answear :p)
For all grammar n.a.z.i and likes n.a.z.i one word: nasra+Ñ !
|
Shing Thsu
hirr Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 07:47:22 -
[695] - Quote
SirSoda Dominic wrote:Hanazava Karyna wrote:Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles. smart bombs
ecm burst should do that, like from 5 misiles only 4 or 3 will hit u, solved
For all grammar n.a.z.i and likes n.a.z.i one word: nasra+Ñ !
|
Matou83
WHITE FLAG. The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 09:18:01 -
[696] - Quote
hey serisously ccp you very ******** for nerf ishtar.... the ishtar base is very low middle dps and you need to tank armor ? Hey **** you!!!! if you continue to nerf her we'll all go on flying dangerous or starcitizen
Cordialement |
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
406
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 09:58:36 -
[697] - Quote
Torps on bombers is far more common than bombs. Just read the killboards. It is a fact.
10-50 bombers + a Rapier kills just about anything in just a few torp launcher cycles. Some bombers have paint, but a dual webbing+ painting Rapier means even frigates pop fast. I don't even use damage application rigs on my bombers.
You get 500DPS out of a bomber (3-4k alpha) and that is all applied to BS and still pretty well applied to cruisers and up. Oh and a +50km range.
As for the changes. Yea these mods need to be stacking penalized, but at the some time i think some buffs on stats are needed so they are worth it.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Dave Stark
7503
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 10:19:35 -
[698] - Quote
Kamahl Daikun wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Kamahl Daikun wrote:Even Bombers don't use Torps. uhh, yeah they do. Can't remember the last time I was flying in Null and thought to myself "Better watch out for those bomber torps!"
funfact: not all pvp happens in null. |
Azure Rayl
Hedion University Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 10:26:34 -
[699] - Quote
So do these new missile modules stack with flare/rigor rigs? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1607
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 10:53:15 -
[700] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Torps on bombers is far more common than bombs. Just read the killboards. It is a fact.
10-50 bombers + a Rapier kills just about anything in just a few torp launcher cycles. Some bombers have paint, but a dual webbing+ painting Rapier means even frigates pop fast. I don't even use damage application rigs on my bombers.
You get 500DPS out of a bomber (3-4k alpha) and that is all applied to BS and still pretty well applied to cruisers and up. Oh and a +50km range.
As for the changes. Yea these mods need to be stacking penalized, but at the some time i think some buffs on stats are needed so they are worth it.
To be fair, 10-50 ANYTHING + rapier kills just about anything non capital pretty damned quickly. Even projectile ships |
|
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 11:07:12 -
[701] - Quote
Tracking Disruptors should not effect a missile, Missiles need to find a target and lock it then launch. TD's should only effect turret based systems be it on a transverse path or stationary/moving tracking a moving ship into the crosshairs / firezone the instant fire and hit weapon systems.
Missiles ewar needs to be revised to have either Chaff / flare or Anti Missile System like close in very fast autocannons / Rapid AC's / Hybrid Rapid Flares.
I dont like or dislike the new mods but with them being added without a ship/s in mind i can only see it causing the nerf bat being released and then current caldari ships being rebalanced again.
|
Swan Marsh
Planetary Research and Investments
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 11:27:41 -
[702] - Quote
always thought a counter to missiles was EMC |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1607
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 11:48:43 -
[703] - Quote
The storage vendor? |
Elisk Skyforge
Night Raven Task Force
79
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 12:12:39 -
[704] - Quote
Missile flight time doesnt seem to have been added yet on Tranquility with both enhancers and computers or was it removed without announcement ? |
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 12:20:10 -
[705] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:This is a great suggestion, and might make balancing these variables easier, instead of tying them together. probag Bear wrote:Mario Putzo wrote: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. This man has a great point that I can't believe no one's thought of so far. Tracking computers don't increase absolute range, they increase effective range for the purposes of damage application. Let's say you have a turret with a range-scripted TC that hits for 110 at 50km and 80 at 100km. If you turn off the TC, you now hit for 100 at 50km and 50 at 100km. You don't hit for 0 at 100km, you just hit for less. Missiles do not and can not work the same way. Either they hit targets at a certain range for full damage, or they hit for 0 damage. "Range" is far from the same concept for both weapon systems. Take missile range out of MGEs and MGTs. It's only causing problems right now.
Dear Mr. Torpedo delivery agent and CSM representative, please stop top posting. It's driving me mad. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
482
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 12:54:16 -
[706] - Quote
Elisk Skyforge wrote:Missile flight time doesnt seem to have been added yet on Tranquility with both enhancers and computers or was it removed without announcement ?
Oh, good! It just keeps getting better, doesn't it? Missile flight time is indeed absent from the attributes pages of both modules. Because we needed that one too, right?
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1607
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 13:00:39 -
[707] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Elisk Skyforge wrote:Missile flight time doesnt seem to have been added yet on Tranquility with both enhancers and computers or was it removed without announcement ? Oh, good! It just keeps getting better, doesn't it? Missile flight time is indeed absent from the attributes pages of both modules. Because we needed that one too, right?
It reads more like a symptom (badly written) of the fact half the new stuff isn't seeded.
CCP Phantom wrote:Known issues- Hecate Traits text has lines that are out of order
- Gallente Tactical Destroyer skillbook has not been seeded
- Missile Guidance Computer I Blueprint has not been seeded
- Missile Precision Script Blueprint and Missile Range Script Blueprint has not been seeded
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1986
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 13:13:26 -
[708] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Elisk Skyforge wrote:Missile flight time doesnt seem to have been added yet on Tranquility with both enhancers and computers or was it removed without announcement ? Oh, good! It just keeps getting better, doesn't it? Missile flight time is indeed absent from the attributes pages of both modules. Because we needed that one too, right? It reads more like a symptom (badly written) of the fact half the new stuff isn't seeded. CCP Phantom wrote:Known issues- Hecate Traits text has lines that are out of order
- Gallente Tactical Destroyer skillbook has not been seeded
- Missile Guidance Computer I Blueprint has not been seeded
- Missile Precision Script Blueprint and Missile Range Script Blueprint has not been seeded
Precision script and range script are only that, script. For all we know, they decided to only add missile speed and slash off the flight time because :reasons:. If they upped the velocity bonus to counter the potential removal of flight time, i'd be happy. Adding application delay to missile is just be stupid anyway. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1608
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 13:20:02 -
[709] - Quote
Indeed, I guess we'll find out when the deployment successfully re-completes tomorrow :) |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1743
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 16:42:54 -
[710] - Quote
Oh dear God! Could we please just once, when a bonus is offered, not have it taken back with both hands? It was nice to see 5% on heavy missiles, but no, not to be, lets stack missile application Rigs to make the things even more bloody useless. The trolling from CCP is getting way beyond a joke!
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4494
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:08:18 -
[711] - Quote
Quote:"The bonuses from missile guidance modules and missile rigs to explosion radius and explosion velocity are now stacking penalized." And the hits just keep on coming... -10 for this whole missile "balance" package. Have we not previously established that CCP Fail completely sucks when it comes to any kind of balance?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
370
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 17:51:31 -
[712] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Oh dear God! Could we please just once, when a bonus is offered, not have it taken back with both hands? It was nice to see 5% on heavy missiles, but no, not to be, lets stack missile application Rigs to make the things even more bloody useless. The trolling from CCP is getting way beyond a joke!
Maybe this is CCP's way of saying they can not make a missile TD. So they're purposely dumbing down the new mods and fixing the stacking penalty.
Then in a couple months, there will be no new announcements on missile TD, and it will be forgotten. Which tbh is fine. Damps/ECM are already effective counters. Yes there are FoF missiles, but they are hilariously ineffective unless there is only a single griffin/maulus on field hugging you, with no drones out. Dont even get me started on needing to reload to FoF on a rapid launcher.
Face it, missiles are not immune to the same fitting/stacking penalties as turrets and their rigs. And its easy insurance to prevent HML spam from making a comeback by having a 3 rigor drake with some MTE's in its lows and not having stacking penalties in the rigs.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Mario Putzo
1494
|
Posted - 2015.07.07 19:37:53 -
[713] - 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. |
Dave Stark
7504
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 05:29:19 -
[714] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Indeed, I guess we'll find out when the deployment successfully re-completes tomorrow :)
to avoid such embarrassments, perhaps CCP should invest in setting up an additional server purely for testing things. maybe even open it up to the players. "two heads are better than one".
oh, wait.... |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1611
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 07:07:07 -
[715] - Quote
Dave Stark wrote:afkalt wrote:Indeed, I guess we'll find out when the deployment successfully re-completes tomorrow :) to avoid such embarrassments, perhaps CCP should invest in setting up an additional server purely for testing things. maybe even open it up to the players. "two heads are better than one". oh, wait....
Sorry, the missiles were too overpowered to even be released there at all. It would have been the end of days. Apparently. |
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 07:23:39 -
[716] - Quote
Would be nice to get some dev post explaining missing flight time, new stacking penalties not being in patch notes and this whole clusterfuck in general. That you need one more slot to get the same application. Like missiles were OP... but I'm being naive here, we won't see dev post in this thread again |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
572
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 07:57:46 -
[717] - Quote
Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?
Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1612
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 08:13:54 -
[718] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?
Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement.
But they didn't review these rigs. In fact they didn't even MENTION THEM in the blog or this damned thread.
If one assumes they were balanced before (I don't think I've seen anyone say they were broken before), adding a penalty without a corresponding balance pass OR an explanation as to why the nerf happened, is flat out sloppy.
This set of changes has been handled particularly badly, the mods are a half arsed after thought - it's plain as day they've not read the feedback and they CANNOT have had good feedback from sisi because the mods never made it in properly before they were nerfed.
The communication and lack of transparency around these changes has been absolutely **** poor.
We have basically got global issues with missiles and they've been nerfed instead of helped.
Whilst, yes there are a couple of hulls which MIGHT benefit from these mods, they were the few that were already mostly viable.
You know, I don't even care that they nerfed everything, it's the lack of feedback as to WHY an already widely acknowledged under performing system as a whole, needed to be weakened further. It's the lack of feedback about why this mod and this mod only demands to be balanced beside turret percentages. It's the lack of feedback about why the fitting cost is so high when in 99% of cases, a PWNAGE is better, gang assist AND easier to fit.
The whole thing is pretty shameful. |
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 08:14:54 -
[719] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?
Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement.
All rigs?? So they will make trimarks stacking penalized? ****. That will seriously **** over some fits.
PS: and **** that language filter. |
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus The Camel Empire
178
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 09:16:05 -
[720] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?
Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement. All rigs?? So they will make trimarks stacking penalized? ****. That will seriously **** over some fits. PS: and **** that language filter.
Good. Less EHP = more stuff dies.
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
412
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 09:27:17 -
[721] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Torps on bombers is far more common than bombs. Just read the killboards. It is a fact.
10-50 bombers + a Rapier kills just about anything in just a few torp launcher cycles. Some bombers have paint, but a dual webbing+ painting Rapier means even frigates pop fast. I don't even use damage application rigs on my bombers.
You get 500DPS out of a bomber (3-4k alpha) and that is all applied to BS and still pretty well applied to cruisers and up. Oh and a +50km range.
As for the changes. Yea these mods need to be stacking penalized, but at the some time i think some buffs on stats are needed so they are worth it. To be fair, 10-50 ANYTHING + rapier kills just about anything non capital pretty damned quickly. Even projectile ships True. But bombers and rapiers can take a bridge via a covert cyno :D.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 09:48:00 -
[722] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?
Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement. All rigs?? So they will make trimarks stacking penalized? ****. That will seriously **** over some fits. PS: and **** that language filter. Good. Less EHP = more stuff dies.
No, Less EHP == buffer tank less viable, dual & triple MASB shield ships will be more prominent. At least from solo/small gank perspective |
LastGunslinger Tull
Chronicles of the Angry Bomber Chronicles of the Angry Wormholers
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 12:32:08 -
[723] - Quote
Thank god, missiles are finally getting some love. But i do have to point out the obvious though, missiles dont use cap so in return they eat ALOT of CPU grid. You will have to completely re-balance either the modules to make them easier to fit on a HAM caracal like they would fit on a blaster proteus or similar. When i fit tengus, drakes, caracals or even a jackdaw for that matter, even with 40m SP and near perfect fitting skills i have problems with CPU consumption. This will only make utilizing missiles effectively for most situations an excruciating pain in the ass. It MUST be a fair comparison to other platforms. |
Dave Stark
7506
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:33:57 -
[724] - Quote
LastGunslinger Tull wrote:Thank god, missiles are finally getting some love.
where? when? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1840
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:44:01 -
[725] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?
Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement. All rigs?? So they will make trimarks stacking penalized? ****. That will seriously **** over some fits. PS: and **** that language filter. Good. Less EHP = more stuff dies. Certain attributes suffer stacking penalties, certain others do not. If CCP changes raw hitpoint amounts (shield, armor, or hull) to a stacking penalized stat that would be...interesting. I haven't seen anything indicating changes that sweeping. The penalties I heard about were specifically for the rigs that currently have no drawback.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
Inaugural C&P Thunderdome Champion
|
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 02:55:03 -
[726] - Quote
Certain attributes suffer stacking penalties, certain others do not. If CCP changes raw hitpoint amounts (shield, armor, or hull) to a stacking penalized stat that would be...interesting. I haven't seen anything indicating changes that sweeping. The penalties I heard about were specifically for the rigs that currently have no drawback.[/quote]
I have to ask the question.. Was the number re-adjustment done before or after implementing the rig stacking penalties?
I have a theory that that something happened with missile coding.. and for some reason, it's extremely hard to work with.. probably after the BS (Cruise / Torp) nerf. |
Matsutatsu
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 18:27:59 -
[727] - Quote
Came back to EVE after years and what have they done to my Drake???
Surely it would make sense to boost the underused Flare rig to compensate for stacking penalties? Say, from 15% velocity boost to 20% for T1 versions.
15% increase is not equal to 15% decrease anyway, as 1 / 0.85 is not 1.15 but 1.1765.
As one parameter for missile damage equations min() function is only Rigor dependant and another is jointly Flare and Rigor dependant -
Missile damage = base damage * min(1, Rigor dependent value, Rigor and Flare dependent value).
- it would make sense for Flare to have slightly bigger effect than Rigor for joint calculation (1.2 vs 1.1765).
|
Mario Putzo
1496
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 20:23:55 -
[728] - 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.) |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
378
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 20:58:00 -
[729] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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.)
I tinkered with a few missile fits last night. Kind of discouraged to use the MTC with precision script when TP is better. Unless youre missile sniping. Which is kind of futile. Although MJD cruise missile BS can get some massive alpha from doubling up vollies. launching a couple vollies and then MJD on target to apply scram/webs and having 4-6 vollies hit in rapid succession. I cant get out of my desk when that happens. What with the raging thorax in my pants.
I also made a few HML fits, still terrible. Think we gained 100 alpha. Although my RHML phoon FI is now pushing almost 900dps in just missiles. Soo.. thx for RHML buff CCP.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
852
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 22:51:31 -
[730] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Mario Putzo wrote: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.) I tinkered with a few missile fits last night. Kind of discouraged to use the MTC with precision script when TP is better. Unless youre missile sniping. Which is kind of futile. Although MJD cruise missile BS can get some massive alpha from doubling up vollies. launching a couple vollies and then MJD on target to apply scram/webs and having 4-6 vollies hit in rapid succession. I cant get out of my desk when that happens. What with the raging thorax in my pants. I also made a few HML fits, still terrible. Think we gained 100 alpha. Although my RHML phoon FI is now pushing almost 900dps in just missiles. Soo.. thx for RHML buff CCP.
The MGC vs TP is a bit odd. TPs are better, to a certain extent... thought, they're limited by range
There's not much difference in effect, though the difference is still there. On EFT, I took a raven fitted which precision cruise missiles at lvl 5, and had it set to target an untanked, unproped Worm at all skills 5, traveling at max speed. Without factoring resists, here's what I got.
3x PWNAGE - 138 3x MGC II - 132 2x PWNAGE 1x MGC II - 150 1x PWNAGE 2x MGC II - 148 2x PWNAGE - 120 2x MGC II - 117 1 and 1 - 122 Only 1 PWNAGE - 97 Only 1 MGC II - 96 No mods - 77
This is with no rigs. In a straight up comparison, more TPs always wins, However, the best over all is 2 TP and 1 MGC, or 1 and 1 if you're only using two modules.
I find this a bit odd. I would think that 1 MGC would be better than 1 TP, and even better on a 2 v 2 comparison, but to find that the TPs are the power unit kinda defeats the purpose. I'm cool with the 2 v 1 on a 3 mod fit, but I'd think it would be best to use 2 MGC over 2 TP. Also, this is without any enhancers.. This is pure midslot with no rigs.
IDK... seems these things need a bit of buff.
The Golem is what makes it really odd. Even with the TP bonus, 2 TP and 1 MGC is the best possible option. However, unlike the Raven (with 1TP and 1MGC being the best of a 2 mod option), the Golem is better with 2 TP.
TBH, in the case of the Golem, I'd like to see its TP bonus swapped to a bonus to the effectiveness of MGCs, seeing as how with bonus and bastion, it's supposed to be a long range system, to which TPs hinder by limiting range... Bit counter intuitive. |
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
295
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 01:29:54 -
[731] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Mario Putzo wrote: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.) I tinkered with a few missile fits last night. Kind of discouraged to use the MTC with precision script when TP is better. Unless youre missile sniping. Which is kind of futile. Although MJD cruise missile BS can get some massive alpha from doubling up vollies. launching a couple vollies and then MJD on target to apply scram/webs and having 4-6 vollies hit in rapid succession. I cant get out of my desk when that happens. What with the raging thorax in my pants. I also made a few HML fits, still terrible. Think we gained 100 alpha. Although my RHML phoon FI is now pushing almost 900dps in just missiles. Soo.. thx for RHML buff CCP. The MGC vs TP is a bit odd. TPs are better, to a certain extent... thought, they're limited by range There's not much difference in effect, though the difference is still there. On EFT, I took a raven fitted which precision cruise missiles at lvl 5, and had it set to target an untanked, unproped Worm at all skills 5, traveling at max speed. Without factoring resists, here's what I got. 3x PWNAGE - 138 3x MGC II - 132 2x PWNAGE 1x MGC II - 150 1x PWNAGE 2x MGC II - 148 2x PWNAGE - 120 2x MGC II - 117 1 and 1 - 122 Only 1 PWNAGE - 97 Only 1 MGC II - 96 No mods - 77 This is with no rigs. In a straight up comparison, more TPs always wins, However, the best over all is 2 TP and 1 MGC, or 1 and 1 if you're only using two modules. I find this a bit odd. I would think that 1 MGC would be better than 1 TP, and even better on a 2 v 2 comparison, but to find that the TPs are the power unit kinda defeats the purpose. I'm cool with the 2 v 1 on a 3 mod fit, but I'd think it would be best to use 2 MGC over 2 TP. Also, this is without any enhancers.. This is pure midslot with no rigs. IDK... seems these things need a bit of buff. The Golem is what makes it really odd. Even with the TP bonus, 2 TP and 1 MGC is the best possible option. However, unlike the Raven (with 1TP and 1MGC being the best of a 2 mod option), the Golem is better with 2 TP. TBH, in the case of the Golem, I'd like to see its TP bonus swapped to a bonus to the effectiveness of MGCs, seeing as how with bonus and bastion, it's supposed to be a long range system, to which TPs hinder by limiting range... Bit counter intuitive. Edit.... Just did a bit of playing around with a web paladin vs a worm... Same scenario, only worm is taking advantage of max traversal. I threw on Fed navy multi-frequency, for the sake of factoring out t2 tracking issues. Nothing - 36 at optimal 1 t2 web - no effect 2 web - 78 at 10km (literally at 10km, DPS drops as target closes range, and obviously stops pat 10km) 3 web - 275 at 10km 1 TC T2 - 62 at optimal 2 TC - 110 at optimal 3 TC - 161 at optimal 1 web 1 TC - not worth it 2 web 1 TC - 181 at 10km 1 web 2 TC - Also not worth it So, I guess these stats make the 2 TP 1 MGC make more sense, but they differ with anything less, as maintaining range and using TCs is better in all other cases. IDK... someone else has got to make sense of this, as the stats don't make sense to me... Though, in the case of both web and TP, range is limited. Missiles also don't have the advantage of max damage on a stationary target, but that's beside the point.
Not trying to defend it, but to make another observation:
It's true TPs outperform here. But MGC have additional flexibility in that they can be scripted in and out for range when needed. You also don't need to target or cycle them onto targets as they die, so that's a small bonus. Another would be that if a target is already painted by someone else, TP automatically falls behind from stacking.
Of course the counter argument is that TP benefits the whole fleet, instead of just your ship. They're also easier to fit and I believe get a larger overheat bonus than MGC does.
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
852
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 02:17:15 -
[732] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Not trying to defend it, but to make another observation:
It's true TPs outperform here. But MGC have additional flexibility in that they can be scripted in and out for range when needed. You also don't need to target or cycle them onto targets as they die, so that's a small bonus. Another would be that if a target is already painted by someone else, TP automatically falls behind from stacking.
Of course the counter argument is that TP benefits the whole fleet, instead of just your ship. They're also easier to fit and I believe get a larger overheat bonus than MGC does.
Yeah... I was thinking the same, but then I compared it to webs, as they're the closest thing to TPs in the turret world. It seemed that 3 webs was better, but extremely limiting.
That said though, TCs were more effective in most cases. Not saying it's the same comparison, but I'd imagine that a TC is better than anything else you could use in general, up to a certain number of modules.
In the case of the MGC, I would expect 2 and 1 TP on a Raven to be the best suitable combination. I don't know... I may be rambling, but it just seems that MGCs, and my nature of less effective value MGEs, to be a bit lackluster. It's hard to compare their effectiveness to TCs and TEs though, as it's hard to compare tracking to missile exp velocity and radius.
I wonder though... In the case of the application bonus, would it be better to use just exp radius as the bonus? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1266
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 06:39:46 -
[733] - Quote
Webs benefit missiles even more, the short range is just usually the issue.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Derren Zelway
Crazy Bird Inc. Templis CALSF
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 12:20:57 -
[734] - Quote
Although the "Missile Guidance Enhancer" and "Missile Guidance Computers" are a good idea they seem to be a bit lackluster at this moment in time compared with the "equivalents" in gunnery. After playing around with PYFA for a few hours I was woefully unimpressed at what they brought to the table and only found two fits that were helpedGÇösomewhatGÇöby the "Missile Guidance Enhancer." Namely the Heavy Missile Drake and the Torpedo Raven.
With some tweaking I hope they can be worked into better shape because they are mostly eclipsed by target painters for damage application and the bonus to missile velocity is kind of marginal to sacrifice a precious mid/low slot.
I found that, outside of lobbing cruise missiles at extreme range (velocity bonused heavies are in reasonably effective TP falloff) the benefit of fitting a target painter far outweighs the "Missile Guidance Computers" because you are benefitting the damage application of yourself and everyone else who is shooting that target.
Because of this, and of course in my opinion, there should be a larger focus on missile velocity in exchange for flight time and a general increase in damage application for both of these modules so that the situations they become valuable in are more apparent.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
196
|
Posted - 2015.07.10 16:59:40 -
[735] - Quote
looks like i can push 15km more range out of my FW bomber and they will apply. whether the application is actually better I shall have to see in eve. So over all good mods please buff them somemore. |
Telinchei
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 04:34:30 -
[736] - Quote
Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves, but the icon you have provided is inconsistent with other icons in the game, which are all either isometric or orthogonal (eg, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rfW4n_6mlTU/VKzsk-51vmI/AAAAAAAALfA/6bxrnZlNuSk/s1600/heat15-2.jpg ). The current icon has the flat face of the radar/antenna sloping down *and* away from the viewer - and no other icon (apart from the conical/circular objects such as prop mods and autocannons, where this effect is impossible to remove in an isometric perspective).
Can you please make it so the stand is flat on the bottom of the icon, and the radar leans back into the plane of the screen? I realise it is a passive module and I hardly have to view it apart from the fitting window, but it is still inconsistent and a source of irritation. Thanks in advance Telinchei |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 16:11:36 -
[737] - Quote
LastGunslinger Tull wrote:Thank god, missiles are finally getting some love.
Please do not confuse promises with truth.
Promising to take your girlfriend out for a meal, doesn't do you much good when she is pissed with you for eating her meal in the restaurant, and shoving a cactus up her bum when you get home.
I love you, honest, just doesn't cut it.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
|
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
174
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 16:47:07 -
[738] - Quote
Quote:Yeah... I was thinking the same, but then I compared it to webs, as they're the closest thing to TPs in the turret world.
Actually, TPs are the closest thing to TPs in the turret world. Sig radius (divided by the turret's sig resolution) is a direct multiplier to effective tracking for turrets. If you increase sig by 30%, you've effectively increased tracking by 30%.
The difference is that webs can't be negated out of the equation for turrets like they can missiles. For missiles, once the sig factor in the min function is the lowest value, reducing the target's speed does nothing for the missile's damage. Basically, increasing the target's sig radius always increases missile damage (up to maximum damage), while reducing speed doesn't always. Both always work (again, up to maximum hit chance) for turrets. Since a 60% web has the same effect on turret hit chance as increasing the target's sig by 150%, webs are almost always the superior option, if range isn't an issue.
But TPs still affect turrets just as well as they do missiles. In fact, they affect turrets slightly better, since turret average damage increases as hit chance increases. A 30% increase to sig radius is never more than a 30% increase to missile damage. It can be and often is more than 30% for turrets.
The real problem we run into with the new modules is two-fold. First off, they are simply less powerful than TPs until TPs reach substantial stacking penalties. For the mid-slots scripted for application, this requires 2-3 TPs to already be applied before that MGC becomes a superior option.
The other issue is that the application bonus for MGCs is split between explosion radius and explosion velocity. As highlighted above, there is a very commonly reached point where additional explosion velocity doesn't do squat for the damage of missiles.
For example, a Phoenix often shoots down-class at battleships, which are essentially always sig-capped for the missile equations. A MGC scripted for application grants +15% explosion velocity and -15% explosion radius. Against a battleship, the explosion velocity is irrelevant. Beyond that, the MGC would be stacking penalized with the 3 Rigor rigs, meaning it is sitting at only 28.3% of normal effectiveness, or all of a 4.24% reduction in explosion radius (+4.43% effective target sig).
A meta4 TP with 4/5 Signature Focusing (+36% sig) would need to by at its 5th stacking penalty before the MGC becomes a better option than another TP for application. Against a hostile dread or an MWDing BS), it's a bit better, since the explosion velocity actually factors in (MGC becomes better after 3 TPs are applied, rather than 4), but it's still far down the list.
Even if we negate out the Rigor rigs and pretend we're shooting at something where both velocity and sig radius matter, the first MGC, baseline, is only 94% as effective as the first TP, and the TP applies to everyone else shooting (and take 30% less CPU to fit).
Basically, the modules are simply undertuned right now. If they provided 100% of their benefit to just Explosion Radius rather than split between Explosion Radius and Explosion Velocity, they'd be in a LOT better spot, since -30% Explosion Radius would be roughly 15% more potent than a max-skill meta4 (or T2, same bonus) TP.
That, or they could just junk that archaic sig-radius-only factor in the missile damage equation. If a Megathron can hit a stationary pod for full damage, a Raven should be able to as well. |
Lady Nadra
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 16:55:03 -
[739] - Quote
Tried out the new guidance computer modules on my tengu. Very disappointed.
With 3 rigors the explo radius of my ham rage missiles is 103m now which is.. worse then it used to be at iirc 87m! Thanks for the stacking penalty.
And.. the new guidance computer modules stack against the rigors for a double nerf right off the bat! With 3 rigors + 3 tech two application scripted guidance computers the explo radius is now at.. wait for it.. 97m !
I can't even get back to the old explosion radius I used to have, with the new modules!
The only nice part about it is you can get more range, but what I was really looking forward to was being able to actually apply the damage. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
3813
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 18:34:37 -
[740] - Quote
Since the new modules have been released, I feel HMLs are now in a worse place than ever due to the increased capabilities of HAMs. Please buff HML DPS and range by 25%.
Oh god.
|
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
735
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 19:40:03 -
[741] - Quote
Telinchei wrote:Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves...
You seem to be the first.
NOBODY ELSE IS.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Mario Putzo
1501
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 19:52:13 -
[742] - 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. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
735
|
Posted - 2015.07.11 21:04:47 -
[743] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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.
Yeah I know but that was one of the reasons the unstoppable Drake was nerfed, wasn't it? I mean, how dare a long range weapon have long range, right?
I just had another idea to even this out. Since we can all ditch the idea of damage application, how about missiles get wrecking damage instead? One or two warheads of each volley have a chance of doing 2000% damage at let's say 95% range?
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
3
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 00:13:19 -
[744] - Quote
Lady Nadra wrote:Tried out the new guidance computer modules on my tengu. Very disappointed. With 3 rigors the explo radius of my ham rage missiles is 103m now which is.. worse then it used to be at iirc 87m! Thanks for the stacking penalty. And.. the new guidance computer modules stack against the rigors for a double nerf right off the bat! With 3 rigors + 3 tech two application scripted guidance computers the explo radius is now at.. wait for it.. 97m ! I can't even get back to the old explosion radius I used to have, with the new modules! The only nice part about it is you can get more range, but what I was really looking forward to was being able to actually apply the damage. I think that range bonus played a big role in the new modules being nerfed, and it seems that most people did not have a problem with the range nerf. However the combination of stacking penalties and the reduction in application stats has made the new modules inferior to all other options for application. The stacking penalties really hurt a lot of missile fits that used rigors, and overall this was probably a nerf to all missiles except maybe heavies because of the 5% damage bonus. Rigor rig fits lost about 10% of their application, so I would think even some heavy missile fits were hurt some. I think the only fits that might have benefited from this change are for battleships because of the long range of cruise missiles and spare slots.
It would be really nice if anyone would explain what the goals of these changes were.
Missile Rebalance
|
Telinchei
EVE University Ivy League
9
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 02:18:22 -
[745] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Telinchei wrote:Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves... You seem to be the first. NOBODY ELSE IS.
I don't use missiles on my main atm, that's why. :) |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
115
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 04:07:33 -
[746] - Quote
The 5% bonus to HMLs was a nice start, but the dps still feels slightly underwhelming . I think another 5% boost to their DPS and they should be in a better place. |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
3817
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 05:25:51 -
[747] - Quote
GreyGryphon wrote:It would be really nice if anyone would explain what the goals of these changes were. To **** us all over, of course.
Oh god.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
491
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 05:59:43 -
[748] - Quote
Telinchei wrote:elitatwo wrote:Telinchei wrote:Hi all I am satisfied with the modules themselves... You seem to be the first. NOBODY ELSE IS. I don't use missiles on my main atm, that's why. :)
Ah, well that would make sense then. Touche, good sir!
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
575
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 08:29:13 -
[749] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:The 5% bonus to HMLs was a nice start, but the dps still feels slightly underwhelming . I think another 5% boost to their DPS and they should be in a better place.
HML are really more about volley than raw DPS. I've found the changes to be adequate in a number of scenarios particularly when shooting sleepers or running 3/10s with my cerb. Also it's worth noting that lowsec caracal fleets vs armour doctrines haven't been explored yet where 1 TP fleet painter and 1x MGC per ship could be useful. These modules haven't been considered for large scales yet either.
Take something uncommon like the navy drake. I'll update my pyfa to Aegis and run some hypotheticals then report here.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
575
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 09:30:23 -
[750] - Quote
And here is a cerberus fit. It's just a sample, not to be taken literally.
[Cerberus, Cerberus ASB HML]
Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II
Large Shield Booster II Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800 50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
I'd still really like the cerb to get another mid, even at the sacrifice of a high if necessary. The cerb has got very good damage but an awkward slot layout and that makes it hard to want to use.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
690
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 13:53:09 -
[751] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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.
This really. I accepted the nerf to range on HML long ago for example. And learned to live with it. even made lemons into lemonade and said well I have to be closer for TP anyway to avoid extreme falloff math. Then well as we know...this didn't even make TP worth ditching in many cases.
If the concern was this range with the original bonuses still not seeing why they didn't nerf flight time to reach old levels. I'd have accepted this. To avoid all the stuff they did do.
|
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 18:13:10 -
[752] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:It would be really nice if anyone would explain what the goals of these changes were. To **** us all over, of course.
Basically, this ^
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
738
|
Posted - 2015.07.12 20:20:37 -
[753] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:It would be really nice if anyone would explain what the goals of these changes were. To **** us all over, of course.
I would say the following happened again:
We said: "Ishtar still op!"
CCP: "Nerf missiles muahahahahahahaha!!!!!1111eleven"
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
691
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 03:32:46 -
[754] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Riot Girl wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:It would be really nice if anyone would explain what the goals of these changes were. To **** us all over, of course. I would say the following happened again: We said: "Ishtar still op!" CCP: "Nerf missiles muahahahahahahaha!!!!!1111eleven"
Actually this seems legit. They nerfed medium hybrids too. Which on some boats was a weapon to counter them somewhat. Yet another case of CCP using what could be called a Change Control Form (CCF) (others may call it other things). Document your change about to make, get it signed off on, execute the change. If something breaks....you have the CCF to go this what we did to reverse it.
They seem to be really good at this for most everything in game. Except for 1 or 2 things.... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2005
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 12:59:02 -
[755] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:elitatwo wrote:Riot Girl wrote:GreyGryphon wrote:It would be really nice if anyone would explain what the goals of these changes were. To **** us all over, of course. I would say the following happened again: We said: "Ishtar still op!" CCP: "Nerf missiles muahahahahahahaha!!!!!1111eleven" Actually this seems legit. They nerfed medium hybrids too. Which on some boats was a weapon to counter them somewhat. Yet another case of CCP using what could be called a Change Control Form (CCF) (others may call it other things). Document your change about to make, get it signed off on, execute the change. If something breaks....you have the CCF to go this what we did to reverse it. They seem to be really good at this for most everything in game. Except for 1 or 2 things....
The fact that long range hybrid got nerfed is somewhat seen as a nerf to the possible counters of Ishtar is kinda funny seeing as there is no way not to shoot in it's native T2 resist with hybrid weapons...
This also speaks volume about the effective counter this doctrine had. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
333
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 14:07:03 -
[756] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Moac Tor wrote:The 5% bonus to HMLs was a nice start, but the dps still feels slightly underwhelming . I think another 5% boost to their DPS and they should be in a better place. HML are really more about volley than raw DPS. I've found the changes to be adequate in a number of scenarios particularly when shooting sleepers or running 3/10s with my cerb. Also it's worth noting that lowsec caracal fleets vs armour doctrines haven't been explored yet where 1 TP fleet painter and 1x MGC per ship could be useful. These modules haven't been considered for large scales yet either. Take something uncommon like the navy drake. I'll update my pyfa to Aegis and run some hypotheticals then report here. [Drake Navy Issue, Drake NI HML] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Signal Amplifier II Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited 'Anointed' EM Ward Field Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer II Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Now make a fleet of them.
Maybe you could get away with using that in lowsec but that fleet will perish in null long before it can slowboat back to gate (see: bubbles).
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1641
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 15:19:54 -
[757] - Quote
As I've said before, a missile fleet will never be a thing unless there are unbelievable changes.
Reasons as follows:
Skirmish links (LOLSIG & LOLSPEED) Telegraphed damage utterly eliminating the possibility of effective target swapping Inability to blap small things at poor transversal Webs and painters help turrets just as much, in fact more because of the ability to blap small things. Firewalls remain a thing.
Take an eagle vs a cerberus with quick fit flung together.
[Cerberus, HML Fleet] Damage Control II Missile Guidance Enhancer II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II 50MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
[Eagle, Fleet] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Large F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extender Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer II
The eagle will do the same damage to the cerberus at 90+ km, it will do MORE at any shorter ranges down to about 20km.
The cerberus needs THREE application mods for this to happen. And it's still crappier.
It also suffers rather badly on the EHP front: 60k vs the eagles 90k
I've used a fully linked sleipnir for boosts here.
So, on that basis, why would I EVER undock a HML cerb for fleet work?
Delayed damage, less of it, destroyable damage, less EHP, more slots dedicated to fitting - all to do less DPS than my turret counterparts, at a high transversal?
You'd have to be high. |
Legatus1982
State Protectorate Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 16:31:38 -
[758] - Quote
afkalt wrote:As I've said before, a missile fleet will never be a thing unless there are unbelievable changes.
Reasons as follows:
Skirmish links (LOLSIG & LOLSPEED) Telegraphed damage utterly eliminating the possibility of effective target swapping Inability to blap small things at poor transversal Webs and painters help turrets just as much, in fact more because of the ability to blap small things. Firewalls remain a thing.
Take an eagle vs a cerberus with quick fit flung together.
[Cerberus, HML Fleet] Damage Control II Missile Guidance Enhancer II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II 50MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II
Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Missile
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
[Eagle, Fleet] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Large Shield Extender II Large F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extender Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Lead Charge M
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Medium Anti-Explosive Screen Reinforcer II
The eagle will do the same damage to the cerberus at 90+ km, it will do MORE at any shorter ranges down to about 20km.
The cerberus needs THREE application mods for this to happen. And it's still crappier.
It also suffers rather badly on the EHP front: 60k vs the eagles 90k
I've used a fully linked sleipnir for boosts here.
So, on that basis, why would I EVER undock a HML cerb for fleet work?
Delayed damage, less of it, destroyable damage, less EHP, more slots dedicated to fitting - all to do less DPS than my turret counterparts, at a high transversal?
You'd have to be high.
+1 Would like to see some more missile changes. Looked at some dps applications and it's quite horrible for missile boats still and the new mods don't really justify the slots they are taking in many cases.
I do see some potential in fleet scenarios but honestly don't think it'd be necessarily better than just moving some modules around so that you use a bcu or dps rig and replace the mid slot with tank or utility. The new modules really didn't seem that impressive to me when I ran the numbers. I like the ability to use scripts in the mid slot module but the low slot module just seems bad. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
334
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 17:33:18 -
[759] - Quote
Found one undeniably good use for Missile Computers: hitting faction/deadspace rats that won't let you use target painters on them (Why the F is that anyways???). But I mean, this is so niche that it falls through the crack on Niche's floor. |
Lady Nadra
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.13 19:51:06 -
[760] - Quote
afkalt wrote:As I've said before, a missile fleet will never be a thing unless there are unbelievable changes.
This game has been out for how many years now? And they come out with new vids depicting just that, fleets of missile wielding ships. That's what got me into the game actually. And they still haven't managed to figure out missiles. Ridiculous.
I have no doubt they have people that can crunch some numbers and get it done if they put their heads together. I wouldn't even care at this point if they had to completely redesign them.
|
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
493
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 01:53:44 -
[761] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Found one undeniably good use for Missile Computers: hitting faction/deadspace rats that won't let you use target painters on them (Why the F is that anyways???). But I mean, this is so niche that it falls through the crack on Niche's floor.
Right now, the HP buff is more impressive. Damage is more consistent on large rats because of that (nice stealth PVE buff). Still not quite sure they measure up to making things better for smaller threats verses a painter though; seems for now to be a little behind. Even target painters suffering stacking penalty seems to edge out ahead in most places where it should count. Being able to trade projection for application and vice versa would be nice for versatility's sake if they didn't feel like a target painter missing cycles. And that's just with the MGC2, I'm not gonna see better results with the meta and tech one variants, they'd just use less CPU. Can't really say much for the MGE's, haven't found anything I fly that can justify dropping anything else for one yet. Maybe a Typhoon/Navy 'Phoon that's shield tanked?
I'm rather curious if others are seeing better results in the PvP area. I kind of hope so, but have a feeling not.
Edit: also could make a FoF centered setup interesting in place of painters. It's something, I guess.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
313
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 06:27:40 -
[762] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Right now, the HP buff is more impressive. Damage is more consistent on large rats because of that (nice stealth PVE buff). How HP buff increase damage? NPC defenders don't work?
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1301
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 06:56:23 -
[763] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Right now, the HP buff is more impressive. Damage is more consistent on large rats because of that (nice stealth PVE buff). How HP buff increase damage? NPC defenders don't work?
Yes, NPC defenders do not work as well as they did before.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 09:12:00 -
[764] - Quote
afkalt wrote:As I've said before, a missile fleet will never be a thing unless there are unbelievable changes.
Reasons as follows:
>>> SNIP
So, on that basis, why would I EVER undock a HML cerb for fleet work?
Delayed damage, less of it, destroyable damage, less EHP, more slots dedicated to application - all to do less DPS than my turret counterparts, at a high transversal?
You'd have to be high.
Would you care to do a similar analysis using the Loki with the offensive sub that allows the use of launchers or turrets? one fleet fit for turrets, one for missiles. If it wasn't so damn late I would do it right now
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1643
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 10:35:23 -
[765] - Quote
Doesn't the Loki only have a 4 launcher config? It's never going to compete with the turret subs. |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
918
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 11:03:17 -
[766] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Doesn't the Loki only have a 4 launcher config? It's never going to compete with the turret subs. Maximum you can do is 7 highs, 4+4 hardpoints with +7.5% RoF bonus for both projectiles and missiles.
I have hard time making any sense fitting it though. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1643
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 11:51:36 -
[767] - Quote
Maybe the intent was for a 'like for like' comparison? |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
919
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 14:11:19 -
[768] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Maybe the intent was for a 'like for like' comparison?. I think the intent was to make a mixed weapon platform which didn't work out because of how damage mods work and because of slot layout too. There are cases in EVE when you can get away with mixing 2-3 weapon systems on a niche ship , but the way such ships / fits are designed are nothing like Loki, and besides those still wouldn't be using the hull as it was intended/efficient... Maybe.
Examples are likes of Geddon (when you aren't using it as neut boat), Cane (when you think that small DPS bump is what you want over utility... and these days somehow have fitting space for that) etc.
IMO you can make a hull that is somewhat comfortable with using mixed weapon systems (with one of them not being drones), but HEC Loki isn't a good example of a good fitting option I suppose. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
721
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 14:52:15 -
[769] - Quote
I've been having a good look at these modules and I only really see a reason in fitting them when you want range.
The application bonus is so small that you actually get more use out of either fitting painter instead of a MGC II or another BCS II instead of a MGE II. It's a real shame. I would have loved being able to trade DPS or tank for extreme application with missiles. However I feel the application boost is too weak to justify the CPU or slot.
If these modules literally only gave range instead of being scripted for range or application I don't think that their use would be any different.
I do admit that the range boost is very very nice. Sadly, the application boost is meaningless.
I feel the application boost needs a buff. Only a little one though. |
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 17:21:28 -
[770] - Quote
Thanks for the effort, it was late and yes the intent was to show how much help missiles still need and these "buffs" missed the mark completely.
The pre-nerf was not necessary, I think missiles suffer from the opposite issues as sentry drones, they are trying to bring them up from the bottom and a few special ships would benefit a lot more from even the smallest changes then the general use missile boats. |
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
493
|
Posted - 2015.07.14 19:29:35 -
[771] - Quote
I've decided to go back to my target painters. These things just plain suck for application. As others have said, the range increase from range scripted MGC is descent enough to make that somewhat worthy on some builds where you have a plethora of CPU and an extra mid or two to play with. In my case, I fly a Golem so have both, but then again not everyone flies Golems and the Golem is not the only ship with a target painter bonus. Mod for mod, they just don't stack up at all to TPs, even when you have several with stacking penalties applied. I said it before and still agree, trading a third TP in my case for an MGC feels like I'm missing TP cycles every time I fire at anything that isn't a BS or that it's not even on. The MCE's are even less valuable for the low slot, since you cannot focus the module to either bonus to make it relevant and low slots on a missile boat are a premium usually filled with far more critical mods. These mods are 12 years to late to be useful it seems.
You're gonna see some running around with these for a while since they are new and people will be trying to figure them out. After a while, though, when people realize their only advantage over a TP is they use less cap, they will get dumped to the side.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
741
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 02:01:34 -
[772] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:...You're gonna see some running around with these for a while since they are new and people will be trying to figure them out. After a while, though, when people realize their only advantage over a TP is they use less cap, they will get dumped to the side.
And you won't hear much disagreement here. The thing that upsets me the most is that if CCP is so afraid of upping the application of missiles they can lower some damage.
What others said already, heavy missiles didn't need the damage buff but the application buff. Back in the day when you could fly a Drake and actually sink a ship or two with her people were screaming op omg the worlds gonna die and things like that but they were not complaining that the damage was too high - it never was.
When you compare the former volley damage of the heavy missiles Drake, it was much lower than arty-canes but arty-canes were the fastest on grid and could position themselves - I know it's a very complicated concept to fly a boat and from what I have observed since I started pvping is, people are very lazy and risk averse - their loss.
Today all medium turrets have cought up to heavy missiles (the long range missiles thing, not short range CCP) and if the Drake would have the 2011 attributes back, it wouldn't break the game anymore.
Screw that, I can write essays all day long until my fingers bleed, they won't listen one bit. Better I swim over to Island and shake someone until they agree with me.
Btw. sov-sec could have waited a few days until missiles are sorted.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1304
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 04:02:41 -
[773] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:
Btw. sov-sec could have waited a few days until missiles are sorted.
I totally disagree with you here. Waiting for the new sov system was strangling 0.0. I just hope it's not already dead from so many quitting over the last few months of stagnation.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
741
|
Posted - 2015.07.15 09:30:36 -
[774] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:elitatwo wrote:
Btw. sov-sec could have waited a few days until missiles are sorted.
I totally disagree with you here. Waiting for the new sov system was strangling 0.0. I just hope it's not already dead from so many quitting over the last few months of stagnation.
That is fine, no worries. Nullsec has been struggling for years and my point was that they could have put two or three weeks time fiddling on SiSi with missiles while helping nullsec, so when both would be ready to deliver you would have had more tools available.
Completely off topic but here it goes, let's just hope it's not too little too late.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
301
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 16:51:36 -
[775] - Quote
I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global.
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
|
Matt Faithbringer
Red Horde Rising
7
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:04:17 -
[776] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global.
IMO you covert most problems..
Only thing I would add that computers are less useful for caldari ship (funny, they are missile race) since they are shield tank mostly, so it's hard to spare the midslot.. not sure how to solve this though |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
743
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:14:06 -
[777] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global.
Yes please, that would be awesome. And let them know that we are really not unreasonable here, we want the same cake that turrets and drones have, so either way you won't get shamed for flying a missile boat.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
335
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:14:12 -
[778] - Quote
Sounds good. Make sure they look at the big picture. The weakest link is Heavy Missiles. These need to be fixed in a meaningful way that makes them relevant to cruisers and battlecruisers. The focus needs to be application. And it needs to be done without nerfing everything, so it needs to be done to the missile stats themselves.
Remind CCP that most cruiser/bc fits do not have room for midslots, and if you are going to sacrifice BCU's than the trade off MUST be actually worth it.
And finally, this cannot be repeated enough: APPLICATION supercedes the need for range. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4507
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:17:22 -
[779] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global. CCP Rise needs to stick to the NPE and away from balancing, particularly missiles.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
743
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:17:42 -
[780] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global. IMO you covert most problems.. Only thing I would add that computers are less useful for caldari ship (funny, they are missile race) since they are shield tank mostly, so it's hard to spare the midslot.. not sure how to solve this though
That is THE running gag in the Iceland office. They want that I get upset here and write essays of the old days when missiles were considered dangerous and to top it of they made Amarr and slave ships better missiles ships than my fellow Caldari.
If I were on the CSM I would give them an ear full every day until they comply.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4507
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:19:54 -
[781] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:-Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus You can fix these by rolling the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses for both modules back to their pre-nerf values. Which was indicated (ignored), then requested again (and subsequently ignored again) with the nerf.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:25:14 -
[782] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global.
The only thing I would add would be a note that PVP missile issues are generally related to missile speed as well as application.
It might be worth CCPs time to look at increasing missile base velocity across the board. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4507
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:29:59 -
[783] - Quote
Torpedoes need a better application bonus: they should have an explosion radius smaller than cruise missiles. Actually, just see my comprehensive missile balance list that I posted earlier in this thread...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1658
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 17:41:18 -
[784] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global.
Fitting cost needs a long hard look.
Or change the rig penalty to like....cargo space or something. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
582
|
Posted - 2015.07.16 23:49:08 -
[785] - Quote
Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
746
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 01:06:31 -
[786] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened?
Entertainment while sitting on the beach in the holidays.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 01:35:22 -
[787] - Quote
Actually that's a simple question to answer. This thread has probably been deemed hostile to dev traffic. General PR rules say avoid hostile environments.
Downside is.. we are not hostile. This thread has remained amazingly civil considering the way our feedback was treated.
At the very least chance is attempting to get us proper dev feedback. He was already, in my opinion, mistreated by being the one to confirm issues asked directly at devs even though he has no legal authority to speak for ccp.
I sincerely hope his efforts pay off. The entire way this has been handled demands some form of response. Not for some prosaic reason as needing answers but more because of the blatant trend lately to ignore the community, math, and honest to goodness actual feedback for closed doors decisions with individuals and not backing up those decisions with actual facts. It brings several major ethical issues into question and as CCP has chosen to involve players into their testing environment they have obligated themselves to maintain proper decorum in such matters.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4513
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 01:50:32 -
[788] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened? Good one.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 10:04:34 -
[789] - Quote
+1 for Chance.
You have already secured my vote for next CSM elections.
Can we suggest getting the differential between a triple t1 rigor rigged missile system pre and post nerf added to the base modules more or less?
This would place triple rigor setups where they were before the nerf, place rigor/ flare rigging in a better place for dealing with same sized speed tanked targets but less applicable for small targets, place un-rigged missile systems in a batter state than they were while not making application setups over powered.
I feel this is a good compromise. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1186
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 11:04:02 -
[790] - Quote
they need too sort out the short range missiles, HAMS having the same range as torps is stupid and devalues range bonuses as who needs 45km HAM's? they need better damage instead of battleship range, and the knock on effect of a rocket range nerf so they don't have the same range as HAM's, they could use a damage buff with a exp rad nerf as 20 makes exp rad bonuses pointless.
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
|
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
307
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 13:40:46 -
[791] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:+1 for Chance.
You have already secured my vote for next CSM elections.
Can we suggest getting the differential between a triple t1 rigor rigged missile system pre and post nerf added to the base modules more or less?
This would place triple rigor setups where they were before the nerf, place rigor/ flare rigging in a better place for dealing with same sized speed tanked targets but less applicable for small targets, place un-rigged missile systems in a batter state than they were while not making application setups over powered.
I feel this is a good compromise.
So I agree, and especially for triple t1/double t2 I'd like to see the base stats moved to compensate. For some missiles the base expl velocity should imo see big movement too. But this is also just due to the speed meta and links etc so maybe it can be addressed indirectly.
As for why I'm doing this, is because I am a torpedo delivery professional. I live and die by missile application! And before getting in the thread I was trying to bit some of this stuff on the backend so I don't want you guys to give up hope yet!
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
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
17
|
Posted - 2015.07.17 19:33:21 -
[792] - Quote
The question, as always, is if CCP realised the issues the stacking penalty change would create and intentionally chose to go that route, OR someone tried to explain it to them but they chose to ignore it OR our balancing dream team went "duuuurrrrrr" for a few months and they didn't even expect any issues in the first place.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4513
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 00:08:51 -
[793] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:And before getting in the thread I was trying to bit some of this stuff on the backend so I don't want you guys to give up hope yet! Just remember that we're still waiting for a rapid launcher fix for swapping ammunition...
Look, this was basically a missile nerf for everything but torpedoes (capacity doubled) and heavy missiles (+5% damage increase which was offset by stacking penalties for rigors and flares). The missile modules themselves are borderline useless, because you have to effectively run twice as many to get the same benefit (which doesn't even take into consideration the stacking penalty nerf). Missile guidance enhancers are completely useless since they provide almost zero benefit while taking up a valuable low slot (Caldari ships have almost none to spare and you won't see these on any armor-based missile setups, either).
The original values were fine, but then these got halved - and then we had the stacking penalties snuck-in the day the patch notes were released. It's becoming borderline absurd how these 'balance' packages are being introduced...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
17
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 06:13:57 -
[794] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:The question, as always, is if CCP realised the issues the stacking penalty change would create and intentionally chose to go that route, OR someone tried to explain it to them but they chose to ignore it OR our balancing dream team went "duuuurrrrrr" for a few months and they didn't even expect any issues in the first place. Does it really matter? The end result is effectively the same.
It affects the approach one should/could have, for both as player as CSM member, to try and convince CCP they're doing it wrong.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2276
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 07:51:45 -
[795] - Quote
The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 10:27:24 -
[796] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all.
The base weapon stats were based on missile rigs not having stacking issues, suddenly they do but they didn't bother (for whatever reason) to address it. I expected them to change stats so that with just rigs, as it would have been before, it would now perform slightly less but making it perform better with one of the new guidance mods. It doesn't, so now missile users have to waste an extra mid slot while STILL performing worse.
Your idea about damage application is hilarious and goes exactly the other way and would have to, for the same reason, result in a rebalance (lower base dps). One of those "be careful what you wish for" which is quite apt given how people wanted these modules for years, somehow expecting a flat buff. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
224
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 10:47:50 -
[797] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global.
all this looks fine but i would advise you to avoid this one:Quote:-Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs why? well in the purest "rise buffing stile" he will probably just nerf the tp's to the lvl of the new application mods and call it buffing missiles; and no, i'm not even joking, remember when no one was using his new toys, rlml? his solution was to nerf light missile launchers so everyone had to switch to rlml >problem solved... |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
310
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 13:27:00 -
[798] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote:I am consolidating feedback from this thread and presenting it in some bullet points to CCP. I hope to get as much of this addressed as possible.
Primarily: -Address fits that relied on application modules before stacking penalties nerfed them -Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs -Make low slot application modules significant enough that stacking penalties don't wipe out their bonus -Biggest concerns are for larger missiles that rely on application bonuses -Range bonuses are generally okay now
Let me know how that sounds at the top level or if I missed something global. all this looks fine but i would advise you to avoid this one: Quote:-Make mid slot application modules competitive with TPs and/or application rigs why? well in the purest "rise buffing stile" , one day we will probably "find out" that tps are "OP"(insert some graph here), and for the good of the game he will nerf the tp's to the lvl of the new application mods and call it "ballancing" missiles; and no, i'm not even joking, remember when no one was using his new toys, rlml? his solution was to nerf light missile launchers(one day they where fine, the next day they where OP), so everyone had to switch to rlml >problem solved...
I'm sure TPs will see some kind of switchup when they get module tiericided.
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
|
stoicfaux
6146
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 14:14:13 -
[799] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote: I'm sure TPs will see some kind of switchup when they get module tiericided.
I am not looking forward to that. It will mean T2 TPs will be the stronger than meta TPs. T2's require 50% more CPU than PWNAGE, and the ships that need multiple TPs (e.g. Rattlesnake) are already CPU starved as is.
Yeah, could fit that Compact TP on a Rattlesnake, but that's going to be a (slight?) nerf due to using effective TPs. And if you can't fit a TP, then you sure as heck can't fit a 35 CPU MGC. Oh wait, Compact MGC to the rescue! Oh never mind, the Compact MGC is also 24 CPU. =/
CCP needs to stop touching missiles and missile related things until they have the time to do some serious analysis.
/rabble,rabble
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
1671
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 14:24:29 -
[800] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote: I'm sure TPs will see some kind of switchup when they get module tiericided.
I am not looking forward to that. It will mean T2 TPs will be the stronger than meta TPs. T2's require 50% more CPU than PWNAGE, and the ships that need multiple TPs (e.g. Rattlesnake) are already CPU starved as is. Yeah, could fit that Compact TP on a Rattlesnake, but that's going to be a (slight?) nerf due to using effective TPs. And if you can't fit a TP, then you sure as heck can't fit a 35 CPU MGC. Oh wait, Compact MGC to the rescue! Oh never mind, the Compact MGC is also 24 CPU. =/ CCP needs to stop touching missiles and missile related things until they have the time to do some serious analysis. /rabble,rabble
Take the hint. Fly vargurs, like all the sane people. |
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
586
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 19:07:58 -
[801] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all.
If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you.
There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:11:42 -
[802] - Quote
Note: Without having original dev notes the following is just reverse engineering from a players perspective.
100% application missiles just will never work. Its a terrible idea from every perspective. Missile need to be able to always apply SOME damage.. but at a trade off to provide effective counter options.
Missiles appear to have been designed with the intent of having application, a far superior tank, or superior range to artillery with equal effective alpha. On paper this is a great idea. It allows great flexibility for the missile weapons platform without turning them over to direct dominance of other weapon systems. Considering the nature of missiles makes them capable of operating in all other weapons systems ranges their trade offs appear to reflect directly on their raw versatility in terms of engagement.
The problem is they don't do this. It really is a razor edge to balance. Since missiles can replace every other weapons platform and have the potential to out perform multiples of those platforms a minor change can very quickly make missiles sickeningly overpowered. Drakefleet was a perfect example of this.. Other things could do what drakefleet did.. but almost nothing could do everything drakefleet did. Powercreep has since compounded the previous nerfs against missiles to drive them basically into the dirt from an effective basis.(except of course certain platforms)
These modules at inception were a great step forward in correcting the power creep and offering counters to ishtars etc. Stacking pen rigs are probably a good thing in the long run but significantly more review is needed on missiles to make them fit properly in the metas of eve. They actually returned the options function of missiles.. Either you hit like a brick hammer to the face, could pound them no matter how far they ran, or could say screw all modules and fit absurd tanks with that extra CPU. What unfortunately happened is all options were erased. You either fit them to apply damage.. or you apply nothing. The latter option, tank, isn't even an option thanks to powercreep and the fact that many fits in eve are functionally immune to missiles. These are the issues that need to be addressed. Fixing these mods to return options is only the first step.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
749
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 20:27:19 -
[803] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Note: Without having original dev notes the following is just reverse engineering from a players perspective.
100% application missiles just will never work. Its a terrible idea from every perspective. Missile need to be able to always apply SOME damage.. but at a trade off to provide effective counter options... somenonsense..
You really shouldn't let e2 see what you write or... ooops - too late!
Son, please let the grownups talk. Nevyn is right, missile need to do 100% damage and they already HAVE enough counters. If you do not know them, look them up.
It not my problem that some people are too unbright to figure this out and unless I see a gigantic payday I will not solve mankinds problems.
And now an EVE history lesson.
From 2003 to 2005 weapon system needes some tweaks but all was new and nobody had the skills to see what those weapons could actually do. Listen noobs everywhere, we started with much less than you and we stayed because it was hard.
After a few tweaks here and there and powergrid increases weapons where okay. Missiles did have 100% application but for the last time they where never able to do 100% damage, which seems to be most pilots comprehension problem.
100% application is not 100% damage and it never was.
Now a tiny detail which get forgotten really fast when it comes to missiles - the big picture of things.
While missiles had 100% application IF you could not outrun them or smartbomb them dead and as a tradeoff all turrets - drones and fighters has turrets too folks - has wrecking shots which is 3x 100%.
Speaking of op and missiles do not belong in one sentence and if you would have listened to me last year, we didn't have to have this conversation.
Now if only someone told you this a year ago - wait I did
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1675
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 21:43:08 -
[804] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine. The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem. Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all. If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you. There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.
That would hold more water if DPS wasn't anaemic. If it was on par the turrets, fine, but it ain't - not by a loooooooong way. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2277
|
Posted - 2015.07.18 22:15:39 -
[805] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote: If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you.
There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.
100% BEFORE all fittings, boosts & boosters on the correct size target is not hilarious. It is exactly what guns have. With piloting and neither of you using any fittings you can keep 100% DPS application with guns. Now add in prop mods, boosts, implants, boosters and everything that changes sig size and speed..... And you no longer have 100% application in real situations, but you have started from a sensible place and no longer need to pile 6 mods onto your ship in order to create application.
Sure you will nail a webbed scrammed TP'ed ship...... But you will do that with guns also. So it's pretty irrelevant using that case. Shooting the kitting ships will still be seriously low application as will shooting unwebbed/unscrammed frigates.
Sure, paper DPS might also end up needing a downwards tweak, but if applied DPS actually goes up, who gives a damn about paper DPS changes when currently paper DPS is a myth anyway. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
586
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 04:18:53 -
[806] - Quote
For the moment then I would posit that you use TD against turret ships to reduce their dps if you can't do anything else. Woe the day when missiles get their equivalent even though you'll barely see them.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 04:38:46 -
[807] - Quote
I will clarify my previous comment. I see ZERO issue with equal class perfect application. A battleship vs a battleship should be applying its full strike or at the very least within the same damage band of comparable weapon systems.
You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?
Does application need a serious look? Oh hell yes. That's why many of us are baffled by the nerfs to application. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
749
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 04:53:34 -
[808] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:...You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?..
That minmatar tang and the moros can do it, why should the Phoenix be different? As long as dreads can shoot subcapitals I don't see a reason why the Phoenix should be the exception.
I do not need to advertise anything. In nine years I have repeated myself often enough. I still want 100% application across the board but I can be persuated to settle for the same size thing.
And the next one who writes about a tracking disrupter for missiles will get disrupted in a way that is to gruesome to write down.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
25
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 06:42:36 -
[809] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:I will clarify my previous comment. I see ZERO issue with equal class perfect application. A battleship vs a battleship should be applying its full strike or at the very least within the same damage band of comparable weapon systems.
You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?
Does application need a serious look? Oh hell yes. That's why many of us are baffled by the nerfs to application.
Application issues, even to same size targets, forces one to give their fit, tactic and possible teamwork a good think. Removing that means you suddenly have free extra slots and require a whole lot less planning. So they'd have to then rebalance all the ships involved to make up for that and there's no need to do that because it IS balanced, at least it was till they introduced stacking on the missile rigs. No reason to make a complete 180 fitting/balance logic wise and redo everything.
Also, missiles are so easy to use with zero piloting input and pretty much range independent performance that it has to, somehow, be given downsides. Application of their damage IS that downside, forcing to adapt fit or accept the lowered damage. You can't just go "yeah lets change it to 100% application vs same size target" and leave it at that, it would create a MASSIVE balance change. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
25
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 06:50:53 -
[810] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I still want 100% application across the board but I can be persuated to settle for the same size thing.
And the next one who writes about a tracking disrupter for missiles will get disrupted in a way that is to gruesome to write down.
Full 100% application is silly and removes any sort of tactics and choices from the game creating a massive power creep. EVE had it early on and while it was hilarious it was also dumb.
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2279
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 06:59:46 -
[811] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:I will clarify my previous comment. I see ZERO issue with equal class perfect application. A battleship vs a battleship should be applying its full strike or at the very least within the same damage band of comparable weapon systems.
You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?
Does application need a serious look? Oh hell yes. That's why many of us are baffled by the nerfs to application. Uh no, that is not what I was saying at all. Go back and read, I very specifically was saying 'same class before any fittings, boosts, implants or boosters'. I am talking about BS vs BS or Cruiser vs Cruiser. Cruiser vs Cruiser is one of the worst with Heavy missiles down as low as 60% application vs certain unfitted cruisers. Light missiles/Rockets are fairly good in this regard already so not much would need to change there.
As for 'application issues cause thinking about fitting'. I am talking about UNFITTED HULLS. Caps since you seem to be missing it every time. As soon as they fit a prop mod of any sort, command boosts, implants, or boosters which affect sig, suddenly you no longer have perfect application, meaning you STILL have to think about your fit. You are just no longer forced into a bunch of application mods just to do any damage at all to a target. Look at your standard gun fit, it doesn't come with 6 application modules. Neither should missiles have to. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1679
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 08:14:38 -
[812] - Quote
Other folk were talking about 100% down all ship sizes (which would be whack) |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
26
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 08:43:00 -
[813] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Uh no, that is not what I was saying at all. Go back and read, I very specifically was saying 'same class before any fittings, boosts, implants or boosters'. I am talking about BS vs BS or Cruiser vs Cruiser. Cruiser vs Cruiser is one of the worst with Heavy missiles down as low as 60% application vs certain unfitted cruisers. Light missiles/Rockets are fairly good in this regard already so not much would need to change there.
As for 'application issues cause thinking about fitting'. I am talking about UNFITTED HULLS. Caps since you seem to be missing it every time. As soon as they fit a prop mod of any sort, command boosts, implants, or boosters which affect sig, suddenly you no longer have perfect application, meaning you STILL have to think about your fit. You are just no longer forced into a bunch of application mods just to do any damage at all to a target. Look at your standard gun fit, it doesn't come with 6 application modules. Neither should missiles have to.
Missiles apply their damage regardless of range, turrets do not and may/will require ammo swapping (costing time and thus dps) to even TRY doing damage at all ranges. You can't just point at one stat and go "see, that's worse!" |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1679
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 09:09:09 -
[814] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Uh no, that is not what I was saying at all. Go back and read, I very specifically was saying 'same class before any fittings, boosts, implants or boosters'. I am talking about BS vs BS or Cruiser vs Cruiser. Cruiser vs Cruiser is one of the worst with Heavy missiles down as low as 60% application vs certain unfitted cruisers. Light missiles/Rockets are fairly good in this regard already so not much would need to change there.
As for 'application issues cause thinking about fitting'. I am talking about UNFITTED HULLS. Caps since you seem to be missing it every time. As soon as they fit a prop mod of any sort, command boosts, implants, or boosters which affect sig, suddenly you no longer have perfect application, meaning you STILL have to think about your fit. You are just no longer forced into a bunch of application mods just to do any damage at all to a target. Look at your standard gun fit, it doesn't come with 6 application modules. Neither should missiles have to. Missiles apply their damage regardless of range, turrets do not and may/will require ammo swapping (costing time and thus dps) to even TRY doing damage at all ranges. You can't just point at one stat and go "see, that's worse!"
But it's not one stat. Links in play, as a fleet will have: Fleet fit eagle WILL outdamage a fleet cerb HML from 22km-116km.
The eagle has 50% more EHP to boot, because it doesn't need to **** away THREE slots to get that damage level. And, hilariously, with THREE damage mods the cerb picks up a mighty 53% of damage applied. THREE mods, barely over HALF paper DPS.
And that's at a 90 degree angle of movement to get transversal up.
Heavy missiles are not at the races. It is not "one stat", it's ALL of them. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2591
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 09:31:09 -
[815] - Quote
So....is anyone actually using these modules at all? I can't see anyone doing it.
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 ~~
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
26
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 09:38:58 -
[816] - Quote
afkalt wrote:But it's not one stat. Links in play, as a fleet will have: Fleet fit eagle WILL outdamage a fleet cerb HML from 22km-116km.
The eagle has 50% more EHP to boot, because it doesn't need to **** away THREE slots to get that damage level. And, hilariously, with THREE damage mods the cerb picks up a mighty 53% of damage applied. THREE mods, barely over HALF paper DPS.
And that's at a 90 degree angle of movement to get transversal up.
Heavy missiles are not at the races. It is not "one stat", it's ALL of them.
"Medium rails are still silly"
Yes.
Also, name any other cruiser than can do that reliably and I'll name few others that will perform worse. So effectively you're saying "this ship and fit is NOT top of the list (but also certainly not on the bottom) vs a specific target (ABing cruiser) and therefore its weapon system sucks and needs buffing".
Other than that your statement is disingenuous, it CAN do similar (technically slightly more but... really) at that 116km but in order to then also apply decent damage at short range he has to swap ammo and if you have to change targets/ranges all the time that's going to be problematic. Also, above that 116km you stated the Cerb wins. Again, NOT having to switch ammo in regards to range is a big bonus and just because you can't somehow quantify that in stats doesn't mean it's not weighed in with balancing. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1679
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 10:01:02 -
[817] - Quote
Apparently you've overlooked the ludicrous fitting to get there and the fact it STILL only does 53% of paper DPS.
At the end of the day, there are NO missile fleet level doctrines out there for a reason.
They have a slew of frankly insurmountable disadvantages and all people ever see is "they never miss". Boo hoo, not even never missing is good enough for these to see use because it is simply unimportant. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
26
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 10:15:14 -
[818] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Apparently you've overlooked the ludicrous fitting to get there and the fact it STILL only does 53% of paper DPS.
But it'll also apply it up close, meaning it's more difficult to counter. If you catch Eagles up close their damage is going to be minimal. I'm not disputing that heavies could need a better balancing pass than "gief 5%" (Explosion velocity should have a good look at) but the "make it 100% vs even size targets" is dumb as fck.
And again, comparing it to the one ship/fit that in this very specific scenario is obviously better than any other option isn't helpful, at least not from a "buff this weapon system" pov.
Quote:At the end of the day, there are NO missile fleet level doctrines out there for a reason.
How many medium blaster doctrines are there, or AC ones. Also, fleets isn't the only form of pvp and just because it's not the best there doesn't mean it sucks. I really comes back to the age old thing: heavy missiles have an above average range, both for medium weapons specifically as compared to all weapon sizes in general. And that has to come at a cost, if you don't like that cost then don't use that weapon system or ask for the range to be dropped in favour of applied dps. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1679
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 10:37:24 -
[819] - Quote
You can compare them to just about any non-foobar ship out there and they're garbage with the odd exception hull.
They're crap we all know it. It's been demonstrated countless times both through straight up math/EFT charts and what we al know and see in game.
To say non-small missiles don't need help is like denying the old ishtar supremacy. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
26
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 10:44:24 -
[820] - Quote
Heavy missiles need a more/different buff than 5% flat damage, that's no secret and frankly I don't understand how our balancing dream team thought it would somehow solve the issues. But that doesn't mean that one should point at a very specific ship/fit in a very specific scenario and base all your balancing statements on that. Missiles have too many advantages, not necessarily quantifiable ones, to only look at stats and go "make them on par". |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
749
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 14:55:35 -
[821] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:...Full 100% application is silly and removes any sort of tactics and choices from the game creating a massive power creep. EVE had it early on and while it was hilarious it was also dumb.
You do realize that 100% application would also apply to defender missiles right?
Anyhow to balance missiles we could also introduce a damage delay to all turrets, a defender anti-shell turret, make turret shells destructable and give missile wrecking explosions.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
864
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 15:30:49 -
[822] - Quote
Ok, so I attempted to use 3 of these with precision scripts on a Torp Golem. They were terribad..
I went back to using triple PWNAGE TPs.
MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp. They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them... they're great for range, but that's it. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4514
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 16:25:12 -
[823] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp. They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them... they're great for range, but that's it. This is basically what the general consensus has been, yes. And I'm not even sure they're that great for range; is it really worth a mid slot to pick up 10% flight time and 10% velocity with an active module? On a Golem I think you'd be better off with a passive T2 hydraulic rig that gets you a flat 20% velocity and use the mid for a target painter, stasis web, large micro jump drive, etc. I can't even see how a MTC would be beneficial on smaller ships as the mids are even more crucial there. Extra range is borderline useless without any kind of appreciable damage application, and you're going to consistently lose volleys to lead time unless you're running one or the Mordu ships.
Those that said this was going to be a missile nerf from the outset basically called it.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4514
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 16:30:02 -
[824] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Missiles have too many advantages, not necessarily quantifiable ones, to only look at stats and go "make them on par". And of course this is why Drakes with heavy missiles dominate fleet engagements...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
27
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 16:57:49 -
[825] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Missiles have too many advantages, not necessarily quantifiable ones, to only look at stats and go "make them on par". And of course this is why Drakes with heavy missiles dominate fleet engagements...
Which other CBC dominates fleet engagements, exactly: none of them. On the whole Heavies aren't bad for the range they have, they just have too much range with too little application so that's easily solved methinks. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
864
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 19:41:29 -
[826] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp. They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them... they're great for range, but that's it. This is basically what the general consensus has been, yes. And I'm not even sure they're that great for range; is it really worth a mid slot to pick up 10% flight time and 10% velocity with an active module? On a Golem I think you'd be better off with a passive T2 hydraulic rig that gets you a flat 20% velocity and use the mid for a target painter, stasis web, large micro jump drive, etc. I can't even see how a MTC would be beneficial on smaller ships as the mids are even more crucial there. Extra range is borderline useless without any kind of appreciable damage application, and you're going to consistently lose volleys to lead time unless you're running one or the Mordu ships. Those that said this was going to be a missile nerf from the outset basically called it.
See, here's the problem.
Even outside of optimal, the TPs on a Golem still perform better than MTCs. Now, on a Raven, I don't know. I think a TP is still better than an MTC, but I don't know by how much.
It seems like the MTC is really only effective for heavy missiles, which have poor application, but also have poor range. However, I still feel that they're the only missiles that would be more positively effected by MTC than any other missile system. Rockets and lights don't really need application bonuses, as they're already quite effective, rockets have good enough range for brawling, and lights actually have great range for a frig class weapon.
IDK.. I guess they're broken either way.. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
29
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:14:30 -
[827] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:See, here's the problem.
Even outside of optimal, the TPs on a Golem still perform better than MTCs. Now, on a Raven, I don't know. I think a TP is still better than an MTC, but I don't know by how much.
It seems like the MTC is really only effective for heavy missiles, which have poor application, but also have poor range. However, I still feel that they're the only missiles that would be more positively effected by MTC than any other missile system. Rockets and lights don't really need application bonuses, as they're already quite effective, rockets have good enough range for brawling, and lights actually have great range for a frig class weapon.
IDK.. I guess they're broken either way..
If you confess to not knowing and state that heavies have.... poor range, perhaps it's best to not post?
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
864
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 21:29:23 -
[828] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:See, here's the problem.
Even outside of optimal, the TPs on a Golem still perform better than MTCs. Now, on a Raven, I don't know. I think a TP is still better than an MTC, but I don't know by how much.
It seems like the MTC is really only effective for heavy missiles, which have poor application, but also have poor range. However, I still feel that they're the only missiles that would be more positively effected by MTC than any other missile system. Rockets and lights don't really need application bonuses, as they're already quite effective, rockets have good enough range for brawling, and lights actually have great range for a frig class weapon.
IDK.. I guess they're broken either way.. If you confess to not knowing and state that heavies have.... poor range, perhaps it's best to not post?
Well, that consideration is really more based off what they used to be, and how ineffective their application is. You would assume that their lack luster application would be countered by range.
Factoring range alone, they're OK... Once you factor in application, you would assume their range would be greater to compensate for application.
IMO, missiles seemed to be a bit backwards across the board, really. Short range missiles have worse application, despite the shorter range.
Application is essentially tracking for missiles. With turrets, short range have more damage and better tracking. long range have, well, greater range, typically by quite a bit.
In the case of missiles, short range means worse application with higher DPS. Why does a cruise missile have better application at short range, with less module assistance, than torps? That would be like swapping rail and blaster tracking.
Back on topic though, when CCP nerfed heavies, they should have nerfed range OR application. Instead, they nerfed both and gave a lack luster weapon system. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2279
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 23:25:35 -
[829] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote: Missiles apply their damage regardless of range, turrets do not and may/will require ammo swapping (costing time and thus dps) to even TRY doing damage at all ranges. You can't just point at one stat and go "see, that's worse!"
Range on missiles is dictated by overtake velocity. Not just paper range. Guns their range is exactly what you see. And missiles have a range with no fall off at all. So..... Come back with a better argument than the one that missiles range is somehow better than guns. As soon as you introduce the target ships velocity into the equation missile range can be decreased dramatically simply by flying away from the shooting ship. Or even orbiting around it decreases the effective range. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
29
|
Posted - 2015.07.19 23:34:29 -
[830] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote: Missiles apply their damage regardless of range, turrets do not and may/will require ammo swapping (costing time and thus dps) to even TRY doing damage at all ranges. You can't just point at one stat and go "see, that's worse!"
Range on missiles is dictated by overtake velocity. Not just paper range. Guns their range is exactly what you see. And missiles have a range with no fall off at all. So..... Come back with a better argument than the one that missiles range is somehow better than guns. As soon as you introduce the target ships velocity into the equation missile range can be decreased dramatically simply by flying away from the shooting ship. Or even orbiting around it decreases the effective range.
Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4514
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 01:51:02 -
[831] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand. Missiles do not work at all of their ranges equally well. I would point out the rationale why, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. So if you truly believe this, then feel free to venture solo into low-sec with a Navy Drake. Let us know where to send flowers to next of kin...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
30
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 03:34:27 -
[832] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand. Missiles do not work at all of their ranges equally well. I would point out the rationale why, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. So if you truly believe this, then feel free to venture solo into low-sec with a Navy Drake. Let us know where to send flowers to next of kin...
Do tell us how it would end any different from any other BC using turrets. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
750
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 04:11:38 -
[833] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:...- side note -
Anyone who solos in a CBC and gets kited to death is a fcking moron. So if you're trying to go there I'll just laugh at you.
Please stop posting alltogether. I was already here when missiles had 100% application and it was percieved as the end of the world because NOBODY had the skills and gear we do have now.
Maybe your mind is not capable of comprehending that missiles are not all weapons in EVE and you can still yolo-swap-Ishtar-sentry everyone the same way you can now.
Missiles come with enough downsides and that people didn't use all the tools we have already is not my fault - it's theirs.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
868
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 04:27:12 -
[834] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand. Missiles do not work at all of their ranges equally well. I would point out the rationale why, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. So if you truly believe this, then feel free to venture solo into low-sec with a Navy Drake. Let us know where to send flowers to next of kin... Do tell us how it would end any different from any other BC using turrets. - side note - Anyone who solos in a CBC and gets kited to death is a fcking moron. So if you're trying to go there I'll just laugh at you.
If my range is 50kms with missiles, I will not hit a moving target if he is at 50kms.
Also, I have seen missiles hit for 0 damage before.
I've also seen a frigate 9km from a BS, using a warp scram, orbit at max speed with a missile volley chasing it, until the missiles ran out of gas.
There's this silly little rumor that has always gone around that missiles always hit... Yes, the most definitely always hit structures and parked ships. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
31
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 06:34:05 -
[835] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:...- side note -
Anyone who solos in a CBC and gets kited to death is a fcking moron. So if you're trying to go there I'll just laugh at you. Please stop posting alltogether. I was already here when missiles had 100% application and it was percieved as the end of the world because NOBODY had the skills and gear we do have now. Maybe your mind is not capable of comprehending that missiles are not all weapons in EVE and you can still yolo-swap-Ishtar-sentry everyone the same way you can now. Missiles come with enough downsides and that people didn't use all the tools we have already is not my fault - it's theirs.
100% application means frigates get one shot by a cruise missile volley and while hilarious for a little bit it also renders frigates completely useless. Back then it sortof worked (not really) because the frigates themselves ALSO ran cruise missiles. You asking, in this current EVE where frigates do not have similar dps or volley, for 100% application means that we might as well delete frigates altogether.
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
31
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 06:37:03 -
[836] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I've also seen a frigate 9km from a BS, using a warp scram, orbit at max speed with a missile volley chasing it, until the missiles ran out of gas.
There's this silly little rumor that has always gone around that missiles always hit... Yes, the most definitely always hit structures and parked ships.
That has nothing to do with the range of the frigate but with its speed. And stop over exaggerating. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
31
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 06:41:21 -
[837] - Quote
And to the both of you, and anyone else chiming in on this: The REASON you'd have to be a fcking moron to get kited in a solo CBC is because non-idiots fit MJD on them which is a direct counter to kiting. It will save you in the majority of situations because the chance of running into a point range bonused ship that's actually using scrams is VERY slim, especially so in low sec.
This has NOTHING to do with said CBC being missile based or not. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
750
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 13:52:36 -
[838] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:100% application means frigates get one shot by a cruise missile volley and while hilarious for a little bit it also renders frigates completely useless. Back then it sortof worked (not really) because the frigates themselves ALSO ran cruise missiles. You asking, in this current EVE where frigates do not have similar dps or volley, for 100% application means that we might as well delete frigates altogether.
Whenever you hit approach on a turret boat, yes even a dread, a frigate wil get vaporized with one single shot. Now let's remove turrets from the game since they are all op.
Again, you do realize that our one time use artillery-drones do need to be launched and fly to their destination first right?
People always will come up with counters and even if we would get 100% application back, you do need a target lock on something to shoot and a frigate takes like an hour to lock. By the time a Raven appears on grid and has slowed down enough to make a target lock in the first place, your gang might have put her into armor already.
You need to look at it from ALL angles, not a (as in one) single edge-case scenario to "proove" your point.
I am still willing to go with Nevyn's approach IF they change the damage application formular to ditch the speed part and only let the target signature decide how much damage is applied.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
42
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:35:33 -
[839] - Quote
Stop being dumb. |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1348
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 14:55:32 -
[840] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Ok, so I attempted to use 3 of these with precision scripts on a Torp Golem. They were terribad..
I went back to using triple PWNAGE TPs.
MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp. They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them... they're great for range, but that's it.
Dude, Golem has the same TP bonuses as a Hyena or Huginn! Its like a torp BS and a recon wrapped into one. What did you think was going to happen? Thats like comparing watermelons to oranges. Yes, they are both fruits. But that's about it. Ofc you would use MGC on a golem for range and not precision, and stick with the massively bonused TPs for better application.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
870
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:05:42 -
[841] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Ok, so I attempted to use 3 of these with precision scripts on a Torp Golem. They were terribad..
I went back to using triple PWNAGE TPs.
MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp. They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them... they're great for range, but that's it. Dude, Golem has the same TP bonuses as a Hyena or Huginn! Its like a torp BS and a recon wrapped into one. What did you think was going to happen? Thats like comparing watermelons to oranges. Yes, they are both fruits. But that's about it. Ofc you would use MGC on a golem for range and not precision, and stick with the massively bonused TPs for better application.
This is true. However, the outcome is the same on a Raven, or really any ship for that matter. TPs aren't a system specific to missiles, and truthfully, I even a caldai ewar system.
The Golem's bonus, while it does help, shouldn't override missile application. I look as it like the Vindicator. Vindi has an awesome web bonus tha helps with tracking, but it doesn't replace tracking.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1685
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 15:36:32 -
[842] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Soldarius wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Ok, so I attempted to use 3 of these with precision scripts on a Torp Golem. They were terribad..
I went back to using triple PWNAGE TPs.
MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp. They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them... they're great for range, but that's it. Dude, Golem has the same TP bonuses as a Hyena or Huginn! Its like a torp BS and a recon wrapped into one. What did you think was going to happen? Thats like comparing watermelons to oranges. Yes, they are both fruits. But that's about it. Ofc you would use MGC on a golem for range and not precision, and stick with the massively bonused TPs for better application. This is true. However, the outcome is the same on a Raven, or really any ship for that matter. TPs aren't a system specific to missiles, and truthfully, I even a caldai ewar system. The Golem's bonus, while it does help, shouldn't override missile application. I look as it like the Vindicator. Vindi has an awesome web bonus tha helps with tracking, but it doesn't replace tracking.
They're always worse until there are 3+ TPs in play, even then still not fabulous and DAMNED sure not worth the trade offs.
To recap compared to a TP:
Higher fitting cost Non-gang assisting Costs more cap to activate (although higher cycle time arguably offsets) WORSE benefit.
The low slot is also worse for you until you have a FORTH BCU to replace, because you know, a lot of people roll like that
Yeah I can totally get behind these being used....
Edit: I suppose the lack of falloff would be "a thing" if only missiles existed as a fleet level option....but they do not so.....you know....curate's egg. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
870
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 16:21:56 -
[843] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Soldarius wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Ok, so I attempted to use 3 of these with precision scripts on a Torp Golem. They were terribad..
I went back to using triple PWNAGE TPs.
MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp. They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them... they're great for range, but that's it. Dude, Golem has the same TP bonuses as a Hyena or Huginn! Its like a torp BS and a recon wrapped into one. What did you think was going to happen? Thats like comparing watermelons to oranges. Yes, they are both fruits. But that's about it. Ofc you would use MGC on a golem for range and not precision, and stick with the massively bonused TPs for better application. This is true. However, the outcome is the same on a Raven, or really any ship for that matter. TPs aren't a system specific to missiles, and truthfully, I even a caldai ewar system. The Golem's bonus, while it does help, shouldn't override missile application. I look as it like the Vindicator. Vindi has an awesome web bonus tha helps with tracking, but it doesn't replace tracking. They're always worse until there are 3+ TPs in play, even then still not fabulous and DAMNED sure not worth the trade offs. To recap compared to a TP: Higher fitting cost Non-gang assisting Costs more cap to activate (although higher cycle time arguably offsets) WORSE benefit. The low slot is also worse for you until you have a FORTH BCU to replace, because you know, a lot of people roll like that Yeah I can totally get behind these being used.... Edit: I suppose the lack of falloff would be "a thing" if only missiles existed as a fleet level option....but they do not so.....you know....curate's egg.
TBH, using Jav Torps out to 84kms (with my fit and implants), Using PWNAGE TPs, I can 1 volley most frigs in a mission. With the MGCs, it was taking me 2-4 volleys. Despite being well outside the optimal of PWNAGE, they still performed significantly better. Again, this is in a Golem, which is bonused for it, but being that far out of optimal should have made a significant difference.
In a Raven, 3 TPs means you can swap one for a MGC, and be better off.. HOWEVER, most people don't fit 3 TPs on a Raven, and you would be MUCH MUCH better off using a web as opposed to the MGC...
MGC is only effective outside of TP and web range.. This essentially means that you need to be shooting at targets that are outside max targetting range of un-moduled missile boats. And honestly, who uses a missile boat to snip? About the only time I see this done is against structures, to which you don't need application bonuses. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4517
|
Posted - 2015.07.20 17:19:46 -
[844] - Quote
MGEs are worse than a T1 rigor, T1 flare or meta target painter (regardless of hull bonuses). If you're going to drop a 4th T2 BCU it will be to utilize a T2 DCU as opposed to anything else. In fact, I'm not even sure the application benefits of a T2 MGE offset a 4th T2 BCU.
MGCs only benefit is in a missile-based gang environment where you have a TP-bonused hull already painting targets, you're not utilizing rigors or flares in your rig slots (for whatever reason), you have no free low slots and can spare a mid slot for a scripted MCG to enhance your damage application. Really, though - a single T1 rigor is worth more than a scripted T2 MCG since a straight explosion radius bonus is worth more than a combination of explosion radius and explosion velocity.
MGEs and MGS really have one application: range extension. This is not really advantageous for torpedoes outside of a Barghest because the velocity of torpedoes is abysmally slow (and I'm not sure there's any application where you'd want to snipe with torpedoes as opposed to cruise missiles). While you can utilize Javelins to boost range, you're actually more effective with cruise launchers and Precision ammunition. And you don't typically need to boost cruise missile range (even with Fury ammunition). Range benefits really seem geared towards light missiles (and rapid light missile launchers), assault missiles and some applications of heavy missiles.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Vibiana
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 01:56:29 -
[845] - Quote
Moar range for sacrelige? Sounds good'nuff. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
518
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 02:31:25 -
[846] - Quote
I'm honestly considering as to whether or not it would make better sense if they just strip the app bonuses off of these things and focus on making them strictly a projection module. Why not? I can't really see the app bonuses going anywhere anyways and the marginal range buffs being the only really worth while reason to bring these at all makes bringing one for anything other than a bad idea, and even that on its own is a tough call to make since it still cuts into using other critical modules on both the med and low slot ends.
Come to think of it, that may actually be better anyways as it removes the issue of these modules having to live up to competing with other well established modules and allows them to focus on providing an ability said existing modules can't provide: projection. BCS's give ROF and damage, TP's for application and a fleet EWAR asset, and MCG/MCE for range. I don't know what you would have to do with the MGC scripting, though.
Back to the current situation at hand, an MGC scripted for range is already a "maybe" for some possible setups, and that's the absolute most useful out of all six modules. This only makes the other five appear largely useless right off the bat. Later faction variants might help save them if nothing else is done to them, but they'd have to be really good to make up for their meta-5-and-below cousins at this point. Hopefully, we won't have to wait that long for CCP to wake up.
I don't know; either way missiles are in for a rough ride this year it seems, and I have ominous doubts that the worst is over.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2286
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 03:12:23 -
[847] - Quote
The application bonus is theoretically useful in a gang/fleet situation where you have a dedicated TP boat. Since you fitting TP's runs into stacking issues while your personal MGC's don't have stacking issues with the TP from the dedicated boat.
However the problem is that the MGC is being used as a band-aid for poor base application, without extra slots being given to fit it. Meaning that sure you can up your application in a gang/fleet situation, but only at the cost of tank or DPS. Which doesn't solve the issue of missiles being inferior overall.
They just need the application raised so firing inside class (Normal HM's at Cruisers, Rage at BC's) does 100% at a bare unfitted hull. And have a velocity sufficient to sensibly catch a normal MWD'ing cruiser running away with at least 50% real range. Then the weapon systems can actually be balanced after that application change properly.
Actual range of a missile = overtake velocity * flight time If your missile goes 2k for 10s and the target goes 2k, it has 0 real range. If your missile goes 2k for 10s and the target goes 1.9k it has a massive 1km real range If your missile goes 2k for 10s and the target goes 1k it has a 10km real range. So actual missile range is not as obvious as it appears. ---- |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 04:27:30 -
[848] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:They just need the application raised so firing inside class (Normal HM's at Cruisers, Rage at BC's) does 100% at a bare unfitted hull. And have a velocity sufficient to sensibly catch a normal MWD'ing cruiser running away with at least 50% real range. Then the weapon systems can actually be balanced after that application change properly.
Sure, if you remove the falloff part of turrets and add that range to its optimal.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
518
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 04:48:33 -
[849] - Quote
As is with changes like this, I'm rather curious to know what CCP's thoughts are on this. What parts do they agree with or disagree? Is their something they are seeing that we are not? Are they busy working up more refine and revised plan of attack, or are they happy with where things are so far? Their silence could be a very good or very bad thing. I'll admit I don't really blame them for keeping quiet. Lord knows, sometimes that might actually be for the best, even if it is and has always been a bit frustrating. I just wish I knew what they are thinking.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
872
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 05:33:10 -
[850] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:As is with changes like this, I'm rather curious to know what CCP's thoughts are on this. What parts do they agree with or disagree? Is their something they are seeing that we are not? Are they busy working up more refine and revised plan of attack, or are they happy with where things are so far? Their silence could be a very good or very bad thing. I'll admit I don't really blame them for keeping quiet. Lord knows, sometimes that might actually be for the best, even if it is and has always been a bit frustrating. I just wish I knew what they are thinking.
I almost get the feeling that CCP is gonna pop out and say
"HA!!! We told you these wouldn't work!!!" |
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2288
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 05:36:01 -
[851] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: I almost get the feeling that CCP is gonna pop out and say
"HA!!! We told you these wouldn't work!!!"
Except we all told CCP they wouldn't work on their own without a proper rebalance of base missile stats anyway. So..... yea? |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4517
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 06:09:08 -
[852] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:I just wish I knew what they are thinking. "Did we honestly let CCP Rise touch missiles again?"
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
874
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 06:18:37 -
[853] - Quote
I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 07:29:45 -
[854] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something.
You don't have to wonder, if there wasn't any stacking penalty on the rigs & guidance it would be lol overpowered. It makes sense for them to introduce penalties now that there's also modules for it but they didn't really think it through enough, or at all. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1686
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 07:54:19 -
[855] - Quote
What they SHOULD have done is added stacking and left the application values alone. But nooooooooo "MAH TURRETZZZZZ!!!! NEED PERCENTS!!!!!!11111" |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
588
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 07:58:34 -
[856] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something.
There are scant few ships that would sacrifice mids for the MGC is the common complaint.
Whether that's actually true is a matter for debate.
ps give the cerb another mid.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1686
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 08:08:10 -
[857] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something. There are scant few ships that would sacrifice mids for the MGC is the common complaint. Whether that's actually true is a matter for debate. ps give the cerb another mid.
The problem is on many levels.
- Most barely have the slot to give, if it was good enough though....armor ships would be the exception but even then...
- A PWNAGE is universally better, even in a stacking situation redundancy on a fleet assist mod is preferred so the loss of one ship doesn't gimp all the DPS.
- They are FAR too hard to fit and a even a rigor I is better
- Said rigor ALSO is easier to fit.
I mean really, in how many other cases is a T1 rig BETTER than a DEDICATED, ACTIVE AND SCRIPTED module?
And yes, I'm aware this is just asking for the nerf hammer on the rigs but screw it. Might as well make sure they're dead forever. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
752
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 12:10:08 -
[858] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:They just need the application raised so firing inside class (Normal HM's at Cruisers, Rage at BC's) does 100% at a bare unfitted hull. And have a velocity sufficient to sensibly catch a normal MWD'ing cruiser running away with at least 50% real range. Then the weapon systems can actually be balanced after that application change properly. Sure, if you remove the falloff part of turrets and add that range to its optimal.
Now that we know you ARE daft, I advise you to stay quiet.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
stoicfaux
6154
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 12:45:02 -
[859] - Quote
afkalt wrote: I mean really, in how many other cases is a T1 rig BETTER than a DEDICATED, ACTIVE AND SCRIPTED module?
You're a bit off there, chief. A scripted MGC II is the equivalent of a T1 Rigor and a T1 Flare.
Which sounds great on paper, because it potentially freed missiles boats from the Tyranny of Mandatory Rigs. Which, oddly enough, didn't quite happen because you wind up either fitting a CPU rig to fit the MGC, or the loss of the mid to an MGC required you to use both now-free rigs to replace whatever the mid held before.
In other words, using an MGC to free up two rig slots tends to turn into a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation, despite the 1 mid <=> 2 rig slots swap. =/
So yeah, I'm on board with the whole "missile stats need to be adjusted because fiddling with modules/rigs isn't working" line of reasoning. However, Fleet TPs + MGCs could be overpowered, but with the stacking penalties and high CPU cost of the MGC, I'm not sure even that optimum use case is a problem.
[1] Outside the standard use case of fleets in which Someone Else(tm) provides the TPs.
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
1690
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 13:00:57 -
[860] - Quote
But is the flare not essentially ignored at the breakpoint anyway? I forget |
|
stoicfaux
6156
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:10:52 -
[861] - Quote
afkalt wrote:But is the flare not essentially ignored at the breakpoint anyway? I forget The flare is ignored when MF1 < MF2. Which normally happens when the target is moving very, very, very slowly.
So the flare is still useful in most cases. But two stacking penalized Rigor I rigs are better-ish than a unstacked (Rigor I + Flare I). They're equal as far as MF2 is concerned, but the rigors are better when/if MF1 kicks in.
=/
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 14:44:26 -
[862] - Quote
As I see it the ships that benefit the most from this change are the ones that get a missile range bonus (although, obviously, not for all uses) because it allows them to use the "unguided" missiles and get away with it range wise. A Cerb with 2 MGC gets close to 70km from normal T1 HAMs and their application is pretty good, for PVE that would mean adding one T2 rigor (just to augment application when you go for range script) leaving 1 rigs slot for "whatever". Then you can actively choose between full range, full application or a mix of one each.
Suddenly a Cerb isn't that bad a choice for PVE, it's the same with other HAM boats with a range bonus and also ranged torp ships. The old "unguided have **** application" really is gone, for the most part, and you could even come up with HAM kiters. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
519
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 19:05:54 -
[863] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:As I see it the ships that benefit the most from this change are the ones that get a missile range bonus (although, obviously, not for all uses) because it allows them to use the "unguided" missiles and get away with it range wise. A Cerb with 2 MGC gets close to 70km from normal T1 HAMs and their application is pretty good, for PVE that would mean adding one T2 rigor (just to augment application when you go for range script) leaving 1 rigs slot for "whatever". Then you can actively choose between full range, full application or a mix of one each.
Suddenly a Cerb isn't that bad a choice for PVE, it's the same with other HAM boats with a range bonus and also ranged torp ships. The old "unguided have **** application" really is gone, for the most part, and you could even come up with HAM kiters.
On top of actually looking like a bad ass now after it's visual overhaul. Oddly shaped, though it has a menacing look to it...reminds me of a Stormcrow (Clan Hell's Horses would be proud I think).
I agree with you on that sentiment; shorter ranged unguided launchers on boats with built-in projection bonuses could use these to some effect with range in mind, though torpedoes sort of lag behind somewhat. Compared to your example, a Golem out of bastion needs two range scripted MGC 2's and a Large T2 HBT/RFCP combo to push standard and faction torps to just over 60Km, while going into bastion pushes them to about 77Km. Javelin does get up to 92-116Km, while Rage falls about 10Km behind standards both in and out. It's not bad, just not better than Cruises still -- which is its own issue separate from these modules.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
876
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 19:36:33 -
[864] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:As I see it the ships that benefit the most from this change are the ones that get a missile range bonus (although, obviously, not for all uses) because it allows them to use the "unguided" missiles and get away with it range wise. A Cerb with 2 MGC gets close to 70km from normal T1 HAMs and their application is pretty good, for PVE that would mean adding one T2 rigor (just to augment application when you go for range script) leaving 1 rigs slot for "whatever". Then you can actively choose between full range, full application or a mix of one each.
Suddenly a Cerb isn't that bad a choice for PVE, it's the same with other HAM boats with a range bonus and also ranged torp ships. The old "unguided have **** application" really is gone, for the most part, and you could even come up with HAM kiters. On top of actually looking like a bad ass now after it's visual overhaul. Oddly shaped, though it has a menacing look to it...reminds me of a Stormcrow (Clan Hell's Horses would be proud I think). I agree with you on that sentiment; shorter ranged unguided launchers on boats with built-in projection bonuses could use these to some effect with range in mind, though torpedoes sort of lag behind somewhat. Compared to your example, a Golem out of bastion needs two range scripted MGC 2's and a Large T2 HBT/RFCP combo to push standard and faction torps to just over 60Km, while going into bastion pushes them to about 77Km. Javelin does get up to 92-116Km, while Rage falls about 10Km behind standards both in and out. It's not bad, just not better than Cruises still -- which is its own issue separate from these modules.
With a torp Golem, using MGC 2's in any manner is fail. I have a Golem using t2 torps, t2 range rigs, and 5% implants. I can hit 84km with Javs, when in Bastion. This is a decent enough range, but even outside of PWNAGE optimal, they still perform significantly better than MGCs. In the case of range use, having range rigs might allow you to hit further, but without the application, it's fail. 3 MGCs vs 3 TPs - I can single Volley a frig with TPs but require up to 4 volleys using MGCs with precision scripts. Imagine how much more fail it would be if I tried to use those MGCs for the extended range?
As I said, it seems that heavy missile systems are best effected by MGCs than any other missile system, but even at that, I still don't think they're as beneficial as a TP. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 21:12:01 -
[865] - Quote
Well, a Golem is a bit the odd one out due to its bonuses but look at this: Range for when you need it, application vs short range frigates.
[Tengu, LVL 4] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
10MN Afterburner II Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Thermic Dissipation Field II Caldari Navy Kinetic Deflection Field Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Range Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Range Script
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
876
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 21:45:13 -
[866] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Well, a Golem is a bit the odd one out due to its bonuses but look at this: Range for when you need it, application vs short range frigates. This is obviously just PVE but as said there's now more options for HAM kiters in pvp, be it solo or small group.
[Tengu, LVL 4] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
10MN Afterburner II Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Thermic Dissipation Field II Caldari Navy Kinetic Deflection Field Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Range Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Range Script
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II
Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
[Cerberus, lvl 4] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
10MN Afterburner II Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Kinetic Deflection Field II Kinetic Deflection Field II Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
Medium Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Medium Warhead Flare Catalyst II
Hornet II x3
That's what I've said though. heavy missile systems (including hams) are the missile systems most effected by these modules. This is due to their lack luster application, which makes their range lack luster by comparison. Thus, the modules seem more effective on these ships.
Doesn't make the modules good, just means HMLs and HAMs are bad.
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 21:53:28 -
[867] - Quote
HAMs are awesome, just not for everything (obviously). |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
876
|
Posted - 2015.07.21 22:15:06 -
[868] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:HAMs are awesome, just not for everything (obviously).
Well... I suppose. don't use them too much, but I think these modules just go to show the weaknesses of the missile systems, but doesn't solve their issues as well as other options.
IE, range rigs are better for distance than the MGC, while TPs are better for application than the MGCs.
Goes to show how ineffective missiles are at range, and how reliant of application they are.
It doesn't matter what missile system you are flying, you either need range or you need application.
Honestly, CCP could have just given TPs longer range to better suit long range missiles, while buffing range rigs a bit for short range systems.
Having to choose between range and application doesn't work for missiles the way it does for turrets, as turrets can negate tracking issues without modules and can somewhat negate range issues with ammo up to max range. Missiles cannot negate sig radius without module assistance, and cannot adjust to range very well, as you lose application. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
519
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 03:13:44 -
[869] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:HAMs are awesome, just not for everything (obviously).
Yup. Though, it helps that HML's are pretty terrible, imho. So much to the point that I'll fit lights or rapid lights sooner than HML's on my cruisers. Application from lights are already pretty well set and range is pretty easy to maximize on them. I tried to give HML's a chance again after the 5% damage buff, but I can't really even tell the difference between before and after...they still suck. If CCP is serious about giving HML's some real love, they need to make them apply better so that the damage can stick.
I had hoped that maybe the modules with application scripts would be good enough make up for it; they help, at least a little. But, then again, I'm still faced with the original issue of, "Why this when a TP just works so much better?"
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 08:18:51 -
[870] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:"Why this when a TP just works so much better?"
- doesn't need to be activated on each and every target (which is especially annoying at longer ranges as you have to wait for the missiles to hit before switching, and then you have cycle times etc) - works outside 45km where TP is unreliable
Not always needed or useful but it makes sense for them to not work as well as TPs, otherwise there'd be no reason to use those.
|
|
Matt Faithbringer
Rapid Withdrawal
9
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 08:30:54 -
[871] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:"Why this when a TP just works so much better?" Not always needed or useful but it makes sense for them to not work as well as TPs, otherwise there'd be no reason to use those.
Not true, TP helps whole gang, MGC just you. Now you have gang-wide assist module stronger then module that helps just to you. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 08:37:02 -
[872] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:"Why this when a TP just works so much better?" Not always needed or useful but it makes sense for them to not work as well as TPs, otherwise there'd be no reason to use those. Not true, TP helps whole gang, MGC just you. Now you have gang-wide assist module stronger then module that helps just to you.
Not everyone does fleet pvp, and even then you still have performance issues outside 45km. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1693
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 09:10:55 -
[873] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:"Why this when a TP just works so much better?" Not always needed or useful but it makes sense for them to not work as well as TPs, otherwise there'd be no reason to use those. Not true, TP helps whole gang, MGC just you. Now you have gang-wide assist module stronger then module that helps just to you. Not everyone does fleet pvp, and even then you still have performance issues outside 45km.
To be fair if it's not fleet pvp then the range is basically irrelevant as it's well beyond your effective tackle limits. It's also still 80% effective at 90km alone and can be linked to be improved.
Hell a target painter even helps your drones. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
755
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 09:25:50 -
[874] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:"Why this when a TP just works so much better?" Not always needed or useful but it makes sense for them to not work as well as TPs, otherwise there'd be no reason to use those. Not true, TP helps whole gang, MGC just you. Now you have gang-wide assist module stronger then module that helps just to you. Not everyone does fleet pvp, and even then you still have performance issues outside 45km.
Let's put it this way, you don't need to put any kind of application module on any turret boat and can still hit stuff. Missile ships HAVE to put at least two of those on to do any considerable amount of damage if any.
Poking things with one hitpoint cannot be considered as 'they always hit'.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 11:01:06 -
[875] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Let's put it this way, you don't need to put any kind of application module on any turret boat and can still hit stuff.
As ignorant statements go, that's a big one.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1694
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 11:12:56 -
[876] - Quote
She has a point, I have a number of turret ships without TCs or TEs and they do just fine - primarily because of lower caliber weapons (and AC tracking ammo) which missiles cannot do (rapid X do not count). They are brawlers, to be fair and I suppose technically a web counts as an application mod maybe. Turrets lacking mods can be offset by good piloting, too.
I have zero missile hulls without some manner of application mod/rig which are not using small missiles. I also have zero missile hulls in service not using small missiles. This is not a coincidence. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
877
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 16:29:05 -
[877] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
I suppose it can also change scripts mid fight so you can shoot further than your lock range. YAY, said no-one ever. People won't be flipping scripts mid fight. Ever. Range scripts would require a build around them, not a swap in combat.
I must agree that the ability to swap to range scripts is redundant, as you'll lose application. They might be useful for a Rapid light cruiser, but this is typically a PVP fit, which doesn't need the additional range, and will likely have a web fit, which is more beneficial than a MGC, and if they're kiting, then a TP would do better.
With TPs being more effective up to 100kms, and structure bashing being the only thing that MAY happen (but not likely) past 100km, don't require application.
This means that there is literally no reason to use an MGC over any other application effecting module.
If in brawling range, webs are the best. Inside 100kms, TPs are the best. Nothing happens with missiles outside 100kms because the time on target is too ridiculous.
Quote:elitatwo wrote: Let's put it this way, you don't need to put any kind of application module on any turret boat and can still hit stuff.
As ignorant statements go, that's a big one.
Ironically, despite how ignorant it may seem, it is true. You can put Arty on a hybrid bonused boat and still do damage, though it may be a bad idea, but it used to happen.
That said, Elitatwo's comment is on the basis of fighting NPCs where tracking is less of a concern when they're on the approach, as they don't try to negate damage. A turret with no tracking bonuses and no modules to up tracking, can still hammer a target when tracking is not a concern.
You can have a frig sitting still, but HMLs, HAMs, Torps, and Cruise are still going to need application modules in order to hit. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
327
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 16:47:33 -
[878] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:"Why this when a TP just works so much better?" Not always needed or useful but it makes sense for them to not work as well as TPs, otherwise there'd be no reason to use those. Not true, TP helps whole gang, MGC just you. Now you have gang-wide assist module stronger then module that helps just to you. Not everyone does fleet pvp, and even then you still have performance issues outside 45km. To be fair if it's not fleet pvp then the range is basically irrelevant as it's well beyond your effective tackle limits. It's also still 80% effective at 90km alone and can be linked to be improved. Hell a target painter even helps your drones. Edit: TP bonuses:
- Assists everyone on every level - damage, drones, lock time, even bombs.
- Less than half the fitting cost
- Remains >=80% effective before links out to 90km. That's 50% further than HML out the box and about the max effective engagement range of a caracal with a bonus. So really this presents an "issue" for cruise hulls and cerberus.
- Cycle time is not an issue nor is juggling targets because the HML speed is sufficiently low, that the 5 second cycle time of the TP means that effectively being able to miss a cycle is almost irrelevant because it would be so rare.
- As discussed infowar links boost this mod making it massively more effective and at serious ranges
- Fall off/optimal is irrelevant at small scale because you're going to be in range anyway to hold tackle. At the fleet scale...links baby. And also no-one uses missiles in fleets ever.
- Really, NO-ONE uses a missile fleet. Not even the most special of snowflakes.
The MGC....well for tiny targets there's an arguable bonus, however to lose all of the above....no thanks. I suppose it can also change scripts mid fight so you can shoot further than your lock range. YAY, said no-one ever. People won't be flipping scripts mid fight. Ever. Range scripts would require a build around them, not a swap in combat. Careful what you say, you might cause Rise to nerf target painters.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
755
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 16:49:45 -
[879] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Let's put it this way, you don't need to put any kind of application module on any turret boat and can still hit stuff. As ignorant statements go, that's a big one.
You can troll me all you want but tranversal is a thing, you know..
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
878
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 16:54:29 -
[880] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote: Careful what you say, you might cause Rise to nerf target painters.
lol, the odd thing is, I'm more worried about this happening than I am about fixing the broken MGCs.
I might also note, no one in their right mind is going to use an MGE, so they might as well remove them. Even if they're made better, no one will use them as missile boats don't have the spare low slots. If they did, we'd use them for DCUs, CO-Processor, or something to help velocity/agility. |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
756
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 16:55:03 -
[881] - Quote
afkalt wrote:She has something of a point, I have a number of turret ships without TCs or TEs and they do just fine - primarily because of lower caliber weapons (and AC tracking ammo) which missiles cannot do (rapid X do not count). They are brawlers, to be fair and I suppose technically a web counts as an application mod maybe. Turrets lacking mods can be offset by good piloting, too.
I have zero missile hulls without some manner of application mod/rig which are not using small missiles. I also have zero missile hulls in service not using small missiles. This is not a coincidence.
Thank you, akfalt. Actually I meant my Confessor which kills ships just fine without application mods or heat sinks, so my lasers hit just fine and even in a ship like a Nightmare you just need to position yourself in a way that lowers your transversal and even the smallest ships go boom.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
522
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 18:05:55 -
[882] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Hakaari Inkuran wrote: Careful what you say, you might cause Rise to nerf target painters.
lol, the odd thing is, I'm more worried about this happening than I am about fixing the broken MGCs. I might also note, no one in their right mind is going to use an MGE, so they might as well remove them. Even if they're made better, no one will use them as missile boats don't have the spare low slots. If they did, we'd use them for DCUs, CO-Processor, or something to help velocity/agility.
^ This. To put it simply, guess what every CNR or tengu I've ever seen to date have fixed to the 5th low, whether it's for PVE or other general shenanigans. That or a sig amp.
As far as fears go...hmm, aren't missiles and their associated launchers still due for metacide? Not excited. Call me a pessimist, at least I won't be surprised when that **** hits the fan. And if I am, then for once it was a good surprise.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
318
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 19:08:42 -
[883] - Quote
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Careful what you say, you might cause Rise to nerf target painters. I bet he will, because of meaningful choices ofc.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
878
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 19:10:06 -
[884] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Hakaari Inkuran wrote:Careful what you say, you might cause Rise to nerf target painters. I bet he will, because of meaningful choices ofc.
If that is the case, most meaningful choices will be - don't fly missile boats.
We've been down that road before. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 20:52:25 -
[885] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Let's put it this way, you don't need to put any kind of application module on any turret boat and can still hit stuff. As ignorant statements go, that's a big one. You can troll me all you want but tranversal is a thing, you know..
It's a dumb, ignorant ******** moronic clown statement. Only backed by people with either an agenda or a limited understanding on how stuff works. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
878
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 20:57:58 -
[886] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Let's put it this way, you don't need to put any kind of application module on any turret boat and can still hit stuff. As ignorant statements go, that's a big one. You can troll me all you want but tranversal is a thing, you know.. It's a dumb, ignorant ******** moronic clown statement. Only backed by people with either an agenda or a limited understanding on how stuff works. Just like your 100% application moronic clown statement.
What limited understanding?
The fact that ships with tracking bonuses and high tracking turrets don't need much tracking module assistance or that fact that no traversal (such as approaching NPCs) don't require tracking at all?
Or are we not understanding how none of this applies to missiles? |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
43
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:34:30 -
[887] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Let's put it this way, you don't need to put any kind of application module on any turret boat and can still hit stuff. As ignorant statements go, that's a big one. You can troll me all you want but tranversal is a thing, you know.. It's a dumb, ignorant ******** moronic clown statement. Only backed by people with either an agenda or a limited understanding on how stuff works. Just like your 100% application moronic clown statement. What limited understanding? The fact that ships with tracking bonuses and high tracking turrets don't need much tracking module assistance or that fact that no traversal (such as approaching NPCs) don't require tracking at all? Or are we not understanding how none of this applies to missiles?
Yes, all turret ships have a tracking bonus and all turrets have high tracking and aren't at all helped by increased tracking. If you start to use that sort of logic then we might as well state that missiles do just fine vs non-AB and non-moving targets. Your (not so) hidden agenda is showing. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4519
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 21:58:58 -
[888] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Yes, all turret ships have a tracking bonus and all turrets have high tracking and aren't at all helped by increased tracking or range. If you start to use that sort of logic then we might as well state that missiles do just fine vs non-AB and non-moving targets. Your (not so) hidden agenda is showing. Yes, can we please dispense with the missile vs. gunnery debate? Drones are simply more Op than both...
Missiles Pros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage and can apply any damage type. Not affected by transversal or radial target velocity. Looks cool. Ideal against structures (big, stationary). Cons: Can never deal critical damage (maximum is 100%), adversely affected by target velocity (target can outrun or drastically reduce damage by accelerating), lead time to impact (can cause lost volleys and target can maneuver to reduce damage) and can be destroyed by 'firewalling' (smartbombs). Medium and large missiles have trouble applying damage against smaller classes of ships without the use of target painters, stasis webs or missile enhancements (guidance computers, rigors and flares). Fleets and Incursions: Due to missile lead time, they are typically not well-suited for large fleet engagements or incursions where they cannot apply instant damage. Exceptions: FoF (auto-targeting) missiles are ECM-immune at the expense of about 20% less raw damage. However, they will always (and only) lock onto and attack the closest target, so this can be challenging against multiple adversaries and drones. Defender missiles are unfortunately just crap at present.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
878
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:05:13 -
[889] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Yes, all turret ships have a tracking bonus and all turrets have high tracking and aren't at all helped by increased tracking or range. If you start to use that sort of logic then we might as well state that missiles do just fine vs non-AB and non-moving targets. Your (not so) hidden agenda is showing.
Did I say ALL? That I did not. And yes, my NOT SO hidden agenda is showing.
That NOT SO hidden agenda is to make missiles worth the fitting costs in PVP. Sure, they do just fine in PVE, but we all know this is quite a different game.
I have destroyed frigs with lasers and no tracking bonus or modules to aid tracking by countering traversal and/or catching them on alignment.
However, using missiles, I have never destroyed ANY player ships without the use of TPs, webs, and/or application rigs with any missile system larger than lights, unless using them against a ship larger than the intended usage, IE - heavies against a BS.
Even in BS with bonuses to missile exp radius and/or velocity, it still requires the use of at least one module to aid, regardless of target movement, size, or velocity.
Not saying missiles need to be able to hit every target will full damage, but if they're going to give us a module to apply more DPS, then it needs to be a module worth the fitting costs. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
879
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:08:59 -
[890] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Yes, all turret ships have a tracking bonus and all turrets have high tracking and aren't at all helped by increased tracking or range. If you start to use that sort of logic then we might as well state that missiles do just fine vs non-AB and non-moving targets. Your (not so) hidden agenda is showing. Yes, can we please dispense with the missile vs. gunnery debate? Drones are simply more Op than both... MissilesPros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage and can apply any damage type. Not affected by transversal or radial target velocity. Looks cool. Ideal against structures (big, stationary). Cons: Can never deal critical damage (maximum is 100%), adversely affected by target velocity (target can outrun or drastically reduce damage by accelerating), lead time to impact (can cause lost volleys and target can maneuver to reduce damage) and can be destroyed by 'firewalling' (smartbombs). Medium and large missiles have trouble applying damage against smaller classes of ships without the use of target painters, stasis webs or missile enhancements (guidance computers, rigors and flares). Fleets and Incursions: Due to missile lead time, they are typically not well-suited for large fleet engagements or incursions where they cannot apply instant damage. Exceptions: FoF (auto-targeting) missiles are ECM-immune at the expense of about 20% less raw damage. However, they will always (and only) lock onto and attack the closest target, so this can be challenging against multiple adversaries and drones. Defender missiles are unfortunately just crap at present.
Don't forget, missiles actually have issues applying damage to target of their same class. IE, fury torps will not hit a BS for full damage, regardless of movement, without the aid of a module. |
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:50:40 -
[891] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Yes, all turret ships have a tracking bonus and all turrets have high tracking and aren't at all helped by increased tracking or range. If you start to use that sort of logic then we might as well state that missiles do just fine vs non-AB and non-moving targets. Your (not so) hidden agenda is showing. Yes, can we please dispense with the missile vs. gunnery debate? Drones are simply more Op than both... MissilesPros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage and can apply any damage type. Not affected by transversal or radial target velocity. Looks cool. Ideal against structures (big, stationary). Cons: Can never deal critical damage (maximum is 100%), adversely affected by target velocity (target can outrun or drastically reduce damage by accelerating), lead time to impact (can cause lost volleys and target can maneuver to reduce damage) and can be destroyed by 'firewalling' (smartbombs). Medium and large missiles have trouble applying damage against smaller classes of ships without the use of target painters, stasis webs or missile enhancements (guidance computers, rigors and flares). Fleets and Incursions: Due to missile lead time, they are typically not well-suited for large fleet engagements or incursions where they cannot apply instant damage. Exceptions: FoF (auto-targeting) missiles are ECM-immune at the expense of about 20% less raw damage. However, they will always (and only) lock onto and attack the closest target, so this can be challenging against multiple adversaries and drones. Defender missiles are unfortunately just crap at present. Don't forget, missiles actually have issues applying damage to target of their same class. IE, fury torps will not hit a BS for full damage, regardless of movement, without the aid of a module.
show me fury torps? if you mean rage then yes that is there trade off (more dmg for reduced range and larger velocity and expolsion radius) . This holds true for heavy assault rage missiles |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2299
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 22:59:13 -
[892] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:
show me fury torps? if you mean rage then yes that is there trade off (more dmg for reduced range and larger velocity and expolsion radius) . This holds true for heavy assault rage missiles
Random T1 BS. 485 Sig, 115 Velocity. NORMAL Torp. Explosion Radius 450, Explosion Velocity 71m/s. Rage. Explosion Radius 750, Velocity 61m/s.
Do you really think that's balanced that a NORMAL torpedo doesn't have the explosion velocity to apply to an UNFITTED Battleship. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:06:44 -
[893] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lady Rift wrote:
show me fury torps? if you mean rage then yes that is there trade off (more dmg for reduced range and larger velocity and expolsion radius) . This holds true for heavy assault rage missiles
Random T1 BS. 485 Sig, 115 Velocity. NORMAL Torp. Explosion Radius 450, Explosion Velocity 71m/s. Rage. Explosion Radius 750, Velocity 61m/s. Do you really think that's balanced that a NORMAL torpedo doesn't have the explosion velocity to apply to an UNFITTED Battleship.
please use skills as no one states the range of there guns or missiles without skill (rage torps are 7.5km and 9km for normal) rage torps 91.5 exp vel and 580.5 exp rad normal t1 torps 106.5 exp vel and 337.5 exp rad
battle ships range between 350 (might be 400 for the lowest?) and above for sig unfit. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
880
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:09:53 -
[894] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Yes, all turret ships have a tracking bonus and all turrets have high tracking and aren't at all helped by increased tracking or range. If you start to use that sort of logic then we might as well state that missiles do just fine vs non-AB and non-moving targets. Your (not so) hidden agenda is showing. Yes, can we please dispense with the missile vs. gunnery debate? Drones are simply more Op than both... MissilesPros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage and can apply any damage type. Not affected by transversal or radial target velocity. Looks cool. Ideal against structures (big, stationary). Cons: Can never deal critical damage (maximum is 100%), adversely affected by target velocity (target can outrun or drastically reduce damage by accelerating), lead time to impact (can cause lost volleys and target can maneuver to reduce damage) and can be destroyed by 'firewalling' (smartbombs). Medium and large missiles have trouble applying damage against smaller classes of ships without the use of target painters, stasis webs or missile enhancements (guidance computers, rigors and flares). Fleets and Incursions: Due to missile lead time, they are typically not well-suited for large fleet engagements or incursions where they cannot apply instant damage. Exceptions: FoF (auto-targeting) missiles are ECM-immune at the expense of about 20% less raw damage. However, they will always (and only) lock onto and attack the closest target, so this can be challenging against multiple adversaries and drones. Defender missiles are unfortunately just crap at present. Don't forget, missiles actually have issues applying damage to target of their same class. IE, fury torps will not hit a BS for full damage, regardless of movement, without the aid of a module. show me fury torps? if you mean rage then yes that is there trade off (more dmg for reduced range and larger velocity and expolsion radius) . This holds true for heavy assault rage missiles
My mistake.. Yes I meant rage. Turrets typically get better tracking (IE application) with short range systems, despite having higher dps. (except in the case of T2 ammunition, which has a tracking penalty). Though, I will say there aren't many people that use T2 close range ammo in PVP, unless tracking is less of a concern. (Vindicator)
All that said, turrets can use tracking modules which are quite effective for turrets, due to their base tracking to begin with. Missiles have quite large exp radius and slow exp velocity when competing in their class.
People say missiles aren't effected by traversal. Well, this isn't entirely true. They're not effected by traversal in the sense that turrets are. However, you can hit an aligned and approaching target harder than you can hit an aligned a fleeing target or an orbiting target.
I don't know why CCP does it this way, but missiles explode in front of an approaching target, where as they explode behind a fleeting or orbiting target. You can double check me on this, but as I have used many missiles in controlled situations (which is against NPCs with predictable patterns), this is always the case. All missiles have a better chance of destroying an approaching target than an orbiting or fleeing target.
I find this fact to be counter intuitive to what missiles are and personally think it needs to be change so that missiles explode in the same spot, regardless of target trajectory.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:22:43 -
[895] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Yes, all turret ships have a tracking bonus and all turrets have high tracking and aren't at all helped by increased tracking or range. If you start to use that sort of logic then we might as well state that missiles do just fine vs non-AB and non-moving targets. Your (not so) hidden agenda is showing. Yes, can we please dispense with the missile vs. gunnery debate? Drones are simply more Op than both... MissilesPros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage and can apply any damage type. Not affected by transversal or radial target velocity. Looks cool. Ideal against structures (big, stationary). Cons: Can never deal critical damage (maximum is 100%), adversely affected by target velocity (target can outrun or drastically reduce damage by accelerating), lead time to impact (can cause lost volleys and target can maneuver to reduce damage) and can be destroyed by 'firewalling' (smartbombs). Medium and large missiles have trouble applying damage against smaller classes of ships without the use of target painters, stasis webs or missile enhancements (guidance computers, rigors and flares). Fleets and Incursions: Due to missile lead time, they are typically not well-suited for large fleet engagements or incursions where they cannot apply instant damage. Exceptions: FoF (auto-targeting) missiles are ECM-immune at the expense of about 20% less raw damage. However, they will always (and only) lock onto and attack the closest target, so this can be challenging against multiple adversaries and drones. Defender missiles are unfortunately just crap at present. Don't forget, missiles actually have issues applying damage to target of their same class. IE, fury torps will not hit a BS for full damage, regardless of movement, without the aid of a module. show me fury torps? if you mean rage then yes that is there trade off (more dmg for reduced range and larger velocity and expolsion radius) . This holds true for heavy assault rage missiles My mistake.. Yes I meant rage. Turrets typically get better tracking (IE application) with short range systems, despite having higher dps. (except in the case of T2 ammunition, which has a tracking penalty). Though, I will say there aren't many people that use T2 close range ammo in PVP, unless tracking is less of a concern. (Vindicator) All that said, turrets can use tracking modules which are quite effective for turrets, due to their base tracking to begin with. Missiles have quite large exp radius and slow exp velocity when competing in their class. People say missiles aren't effected by traversal. Well, this isn't entirely true. They're not effected by traversal in the sense that turrets are. However, you can hit an aligned and approaching target harder than you can hit an aligned a fleeing target or an orbiting target. I don't know why CCP does it this way, but missiles explode in front of an approaching target, where as they explode behind a fleeting or orbiting target. You can double check me on this, but as I have used many missiles in controlled situations (which is against NPCs with predictable patterns), this is always the case. All missiles have a better chance of destroying an approaching target than an orbiting or fleeing target. I find this fact to be counter intuitive to what missiles are and personally think it needs to be change so that missiles explode in the same spot, regardless of target trajectory.
explain to me how weather they explode in front or behind changes things in relation to how they do dmg? As in use the formula that is sued to calculate dmg. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2299
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:24:56 -
[896] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:
please use skills as no one states the range of there guns or missiles without skill (rage torps are 7.5km and 9km for normal) rage torps 91.5 exp vel and 580.5 exp rad normal t1 torps 106.5 exp vel and 337.5 exp rad
battle ships range between 350 (might be 400 for the lowest?) and above for sig unfit.
And if you want to use skills, please use them for the standard velocity also.... Which still leaves Torpedoes just as unable to apply damage because of explosion velocity. And Torpedoes are in a much better place than Heavy Missiles & HAM's.
Standard Heavy. 140 Radius 81 Velocity Standard HAM. 125 Radius 101 Velocity Random T1 cruiser. 100 Radius, 250 Velocity!
These are standard missiles trying to apply damage to a ship of their own size. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:31:01 -
[897] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lady Rift wrote:
please use skills as no one states the range of there guns or missiles without skill (rage torps are 7.5km and 9km for normal) rage torps 91.5 exp vel and 580.5 exp rad normal t1 torps 106.5 exp vel and 337.5 exp rad
battle ships range between 350 (might be 400 for the lowest?) and above for sig unfit.
And if you want to use skills, please use them for the standard velocity also.... Which still leaves Torpedoes just as unable to apply damage because of explosion velocity. And Torpedoes are in a much better place than Heavy Missiles & HAM's. Standard Heavy. 140 Radius 81 Velocity Standard HAM. 125 Radius 101 Velocity Random T1 cruiser. 100 Radius, 250 Velocity! These are standard missiles trying to apply damage to a ship of their own size. This is all before any fittings for speed, sig radius, implants, boosts & boosters. Those are what the Modules should be to offset. Not the unfitted hulls stats.
first off im not defending missiles as they are. Just that someone said that torps cant even hit an unfit battleship irregardless of speed and backed that up with an unskilled pilot. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4519
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:32:21 -
[898] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Missiles Pros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage.... Don't forget, missiles actually have issues applying damage to target of their same class. IE, fury torps will not hit a BS for full damage, regardless of movement, without the aid of a module. Emphasis on "some damage".
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
880
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:37:22 -
[899] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:
please use skills as no one states the range of there guns or missiles without skill (rage torps are 7.5km and 9km for normal) rage torps 91.5 exp vel and 580.5 exp rad normal t1 torps 106.5 exp vel and 337.5 exp rad
battle ships range between 350 (might be 400 for the lowest?) and above for sig unfit.
What I find odd is that there are no ships in Eve that are bonused to exp velocity AND radius. It's always one or the other. On top of that, you have missile boats like the Corax and Hawk that are designed to take down small, fast ships, but they're given a missile velocity bonus? How in the crap does that help? They're using small enough missiles to catch the target, but their exp velocity isn't enough to catch the target, and their radius isn't enough, in some cases even with the bonus to exp radius or exp velocity.
That said, lets take a look at your number.
Torps on a Raven Navy, shooting at an unfitted raven Navy. All skills lvl 5 (EFT, and RNI get an exp radius bonus) Mjolnir torps t1- Full application at 499 Rage - 57.2% application at 386 Javelin - Full application at 449 What Rage takes to apply full damage - 2 PWNAGE target painters OR 1 web and TP (10km)(just trying to factor a web in somewhere and dual web has no effect) OR 3x MGC II with precision scripts.
Why does a ship bonused to application still require as many modules for full application? Even worse, the unbonused Raven takes 4 freaking TPs for full application at range!!! And the sig radius of a Navy Raven is 410m..
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:42:01 -
[900] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:
please use skills as no one states the range of there guns or missiles without skill (rage torps are 7.5km and 9km for normal) rage torps 91.5 exp vel and 580.5 exp rad normal t1 torps 106.5 exp vel and 337.5 exp rad
battle ships range between 350 (might be 400 for the lowest?) and above for sig unfit.
What I find odd is that there are no ships in Eve that are bonused to exp velocity AND radius. It's always one or the other. On top of that, you have missile boats like the Corax and Hawk that are designed to take down small, fast ships, but they're given a missile velocity bonus? How in the crap does that help? They're using small enough missiles to catch the target, but their exp velocity isn't enough to catch the target, and their radius isn't enough, in some cases even with the bonus to exp radius or exp velocity. That said, lets take a look at your number. Torps on a Raven Navy, shooting at an unfitted raven Navy. All skills lvl 5 (EFT, and RNI get an exp radius bonus) Mjolnir torps t1- Full application at 499 Rage - 57.2% application at 386 Javelin - Full application at 449 What Rage takes to apply full damage - 2 PWNAGE target painters OR 1 web and TP (10km)(just trying to factor a web in somewhere and dual web has no effect) OR 3x MGC II with precision scripts. Why does a ship bonused to application still require as many modules for full application? Even worse, the unbonused Raven takes 4 freaking TPs for full application at range!!! And the sig radius of a Navy Raven is 410m..
stop using missiles designed to shoot bigger things than you. javlin or faction /t1 all do full dmg for sig with a base battleship. |
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
880
|
Posted - 2015.07.22 23:42:07 -
[901] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Missiles Pros: Will always hit their target if they can catch it, will always apply at least some damage.... Don't forget, missiles actually have issues applying damage to target of their same class. IE, fury torps will not hit a BS for full damage, regardless of movement, without the aid of a module. Emphasis on "some damage".
If you count 0 damage as some damage, you would be correct.
Seriously, even if a missile is fast enough to catch the target, they can actually outrun the exp velocity as well. Not many things worse than seeing a ticker for "You volley of missiles hit for 0 damage"
It does happen. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:09:55 -
[902] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:It does happen.
Just as turrets miss, that also happens and actually quite a lot more than missiles in that regard. When will people realise that making up boogieman stories, creating very specific scenarios and then go "look, SEE, it sucks" isn't helping their case. Because it's so obviously biased and contrived no one who matters will fall for it. If you want to, at least try, make a case you HAVE to be impartial, objective and realistic. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
880
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:10:35 -
[903] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:
please use skills as no one states the range of there guns or missiles without skill (rage torps are 7.5km and 9km for normal) rage torps 91.5 exp vel and 580.5 exp rad normal t1 torps 106.5 exp vel and 337.5 exp rad
battle ships range between 350 (might be 400 for the lowest?) and above for sig unfit.
What I find odd is that there are no ships in Eve that are bonused to exp velocity AND radius. It's always one or the other. On top of that, you have missile boats like the Corax and Hawk that are designed to take down small, fast ships, but they're given a missile velocity bonus? How in the crap does that help? They're using small enough missiles to catch the target, but their exp velocity isn't enough to catch the target, and their radius isn't enough, in some cases even with the bonus to exp radius or exp velocity. That said, lets take a look at your number. Torps on a Raven Navy, shooting at an unfitted raven Navy. All skills lvl 5 (EFT, and RNI get an exp radius bonus) Mjolnir torps t1- Full application at 499 Rage - 57.2% application at 386 Javelin - Full application at 449 What Rage takes to apply full damage - 2 PWNAGE target painters OR 1 web and TP (10km)(just trying to factor a web in somewhere and dual web has no effect) OR 3x MGC II with precision scripts. Why does a ship bonused to application still require as many modules for full application? Even worse, the unbonused Raven takes 4 freaking TPs for full application at range!!! And the sig radius of a Navy Raven is 410m.. stop using missiles designed to shoot bigger things than you. javlin or faction /t1 all do full dmg for sig with a base battleship.
Yes, my stats show this. However, t1 is 26% less damage than rage, and Navy is 15% less dps. Meanwhile, an Apoc Navy (tracking bonused) can hit for full dps with the aid of just one TC II with tracking script at optimal, with max traversal, can also mitigate traversal through piloting, and can web within 10km to reduce traversal.
Mind you, EFT can't display damage mitigation of exp velocity vs direction of ship, which as I've stated, you hit approaching targets for more than fleeing or orbiting targets due to the location of the explosion.
Oh, and it still takes 1 TP for a Navy Raven to hit another Navy Raven for full damage when the target is sitting still. It takes two in a standard Raven hitting a stationary navy raven.
This is probably a bit too descriptive, as it's not to support my cause, nor deny your argument. It's just numbers I felt like throwing out there.
It's just to say that high damage, close range missiles will always require module assistance to hit even a stationary target, unless the target is a larger class ship.
The main thing I'm pointing out is that even if EFT shows full application against a moving target, you will not get full application in game, as some damage will be mitigated by velocity due to the nature of missiles.
No missile has a fast enough exp velocity to catch every moving ship regardless of what or how many modules you use, there will always be a ship fast enough to mitigate at least some damage. This is not the case with turrets. Given the right weapon system and enough tracking and/or support modules, even the fastest ships can still be hit for full application and then some.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
880
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:11:29 -
[904] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:It does happen. Just as turrets miss, that also happens and actually quite a lot more than missiles in that regard. When will people realise that making up boogieman stories, creating very specific scenarios and then go "look, SEE, it sucks" isn't helping their case. Because it's so obviously biased and contrived no one who matters will fall for it. If you want to, at least try, make a case you HAVE to be impartial, objective and realistic.
But I thought you said missiles don't miss?
I wasn't pointing out that missiles miss like turrets, but instead pointing out that missiles do miss. And despite your suggestion on it being a "boogieman" story, it happens more often than you would think. |
stoicfaux
6160
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:31:16 -
[905] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: What I find odd is that there are no ships in Eve that are bonused to exp velocity AND radius. It's always one or the other.
Expl radius and velocity are essentially interchangeable except against really slow moving targets.
Look at the second part of the missile formula: ( S/E * Ve/Vt) ^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)) )
Note the (S/E * Ve/Vt) and how everything is multiplied together? This means that the Rigor/Flare bonuses are also multiplied together. In other words, a Rigor I is 1/.85 * E. A Flare I is 1.15 * Ve.
15% Explosion Radius: 1/.85 * S/E * Ve/Vt 15% Explosion Velocity: 1.15 * S/E * Ve/Vt Both: 1/.85 * 1.15 * S/E * Ve/Vt
Everything is multiplied against everything, so modifiers to Explosion Radius are modifiers to Explosion Velocity and vice versa. Flare, Rigors, Webs, and TPs are the same as well. A 30% TP is a 30% Flare. A 60% web is a 40% rigor. A 60% web is a 250% TP or Flare. Etc.
Which means that a Flare or Rigor (or TP or Web) helps against both target sig and target velocity in the 2nd part of the missile formula.
The only differences are: a) rigors affect E, which means that 15% rigor is 1/.85 or 1.176, so a 15% Rigor is a 17.6% Flare. b) rigors also work on the first part of the missile formula, which is just (S/E), which caps damage to slow moving targets.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
stoicfaux
6160
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:35:21 -
[906] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: Mind you, EFT can't display damage mitigation of exp velocity vs direction of ship, which as I've stated, you hit approaching targets for more than fleeing or orbiting targets due to the location of the explosion.
No. But that would be an interesting feature.
Quote:The main thing I'm pointing out is that even if EFT shows full application against a moving target, you will not get full application in game, as some damage will be mitigated by velocity due to the nature of missiles. EFT is correct.
You're reading too much into the missile damage formulas by applying real world logic. The EVE-Uni link in my previous post should help.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:38:36 -
[907] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:
please use skills as no one states the range of there guns or missiles without skill (rage torps are 7.5km and 9km for normal) rage torps 91.5 exp vel and 580.5 exp rad normal t1 torps 106.5 exp vel and 337.5 exp rad
battle ships range between 350 (might be 400 for the lowest?) and above for sig unfit.
What I find odd is that there are no ships in Eve that are bonused to exp velocity AND radius. It's always one or the other. On top of that, you have missile boats like the Corax and Hawk that are designed to take down small, fast ships, but they're given a missile velocity bonus? How in the crap does that help? They're using small enough missiles to catch the target, but their exp velocity isn't enough to catch the target, and their radius isn't enough, in some cases even with the bonus to exp radius or exp velocity. That said, lets take a look at your number. Torps on a Raven Navy, shooting at an unfitted raven Navy. All skills lvl 5 (EFT, and RNI get an exp radius bonus) Mjolnir torps t1- Full application at 499 Rage - 57.2% application at 386 Javelin - Full application at 449 What Rage takes to apply full damage - 2 PWNAGE target painters OR 1 web and TP (10km)(just trying to factor a web in somewhere and dual web has no effect) OR 3x MGC II with precision scripts. Why does a ship bonused to application still require as many modules for full application? Even worse, the unbonused Raven takes 4 freaking TPs for full application at range!!! And the sig radius of a Navy Raven is 410m.. stop using missiles designed to shoot bigger things than you. javlin or faction /t1 all do full dmg for sig with a base battleship. Yes, my stats show this. However, t1 is 26% less damage than rage, and Navy is 15% less dps. Meanwhile, an Apoc Navy (tracking bonused) can hit for full dps with the aid of just one TC II with tracking script at optimal, with max traversal, can also mitigate traversal through piloting, and can web within 10km to reduce traversal. Mind you, EFT can't display damage mitigation of exp velocity vs direction of ship, which as I've stated, you hit approaching targets for more than fleeing or orbiting targets due to the location of the explosion. Oh, and it still takes 1 TP for a Navy Raven to hit another Navy Raven for full damage when the target is sitting still. It takes two in a standard Raven hitting a stationary navy raven. This is probably a bit too descriptive, as it's not to support my cause, nor deny your argument. It's just numbers I felt like throwing out there. It's just to say that high damage, close range missiles will always require module assistance to hit even a stationary target, unless the target is a larger class ship. The main thing I'm pointing out is that even if EFT shows full application against a moving target, you will not get full application in game, as some damage will be mitigated by velocity due to the nature of missiles. No missile has a fast enough exp velocity to catch every moving ship regardless of what or how many modules you use, there will always be a ship fast enough to mitigate at least some damage. This is not the case with turrets. Given the right weapon system and enough tracking and/or support modules, even the fastest ships can still be hit for full application and then some.
again you are picking the worst ammo for the job and claiming that missiles are under powered/bad because of it. rage also has a higher dmg reduction factor.
missiles are bad enough on there own you don't need to skew them to make them look worst than they are.
90% webs x3 as with a scram unrealistic (normal webs work) maybe but you are claiming that no matter how many support mods you can't make missiles hit with good application.
also where in the math does it show that a target moving closer or away takes more or less dmg from missiles. |
stoicfaux
6161
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:50:34 -
[908] - Quote
Here's a spreadsheet that you can play with: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=428613
When I pick my morale up out of the sewer, I'll post a cleaner, friendlier version of it. Someday.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
880
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:54:27 -
[909] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: Mind you, EFT can't display damage mitigation of exp velocity vs direction of ship, which as I've stated, you hit approaching targets for more than fleeing or orbiting targets due to the location of the explosion.
No. But that would be an interesting feature. Quote:The main thing I'm pointing out is that even if EFT shows full application against a moving target, you will not get full application in game, as some damage will be mitigated by velocity due to the nature of missiles. EFT is correct. You're reading too much into the missile damage formulas by applying real world logic. The EVE-Uni link in my previous post should help.
Exp velocity and exp radius are not interchangeable.
Lets assume your exp radius can hit your intended target for full damage, assuming no movement. Then, you can still fit exp velocity mods to negate ship velocity.
Now, lets assume you're hitting an immobile target, but is smaller than your exp radius. More exp radius will not aid in more damage.
Now, lets assume the target ship is smaller than your exp radius and faster than your exp velocity. This one is a toss up, as I've never tested it. if you fit radius mods, then he'll still be able to outrun the exp mitigating damage, but if you fit velocity, then they're mitigating damage by sig tanking. It is in this very specific case that exp velocity and radius may be interchangeable, but you're likely screwed in this case regardless, as you're using the wrong sized weapons, and/or the target is effectively out classing you.
Oddly enough, a Garmur can actually mitigate damage from its very own missiles. It has a bonus to missile velocity, so the missiles will catch it, but it has no bonus to application.
Some people forget that the time it takes a missile to reach the target has no effect on the outcome of the missile explosion.
Oh, and EFT is not correct. I shoot NPCs all day long with a torp Golem and 3 PWNAGE, which is likely the most "controlled" testing that can be done. I am certain of my hypothesis of missiles not having the same effect on orbiting and fleeing targets, as they do approaching targets, regardless of the target painters. In fact, I've tested it many times as I am always trying to optimize my fittings and/or attack strategies.
It seems to me that missiles do not impact on the same part of the target ship, but instead impact with the edge of the "hit box" of the target ship, and hit on the side they're coming from. It would appear that them flying through the explosion has more effect than them flying away from the explosion. I'm sure I've had this conversation with someone before.
Who knows, I could be wrong, but my testings show otherwise. Would be nice to see if CCP can prove or disprove my hypothesis. The suggestion on paper is that it has no effect, but in application, it appears otherwise. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4519
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 00:58:03 -
[910] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:stop using missiles designed to shoot bigger things than you. javlin or faction /t1 all do full dmg for sig with a base battleship. Javelin torpedoes provide range - not damage application (so Faction torpedoes are your best option). And Precision cruise missiles still have better damage application than any torpedo - regardless of raw damage. Explosion radius excels over explosion velocity in any scenario regardless (see missile formula). Of course beggars can't be choosers, so given a choice of either or none I'd take anything...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
881
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 01:01:34 -
[911] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: again you are picking the worst ammo for the job and claiming that missiles are under powered/bad because of it. rage also has a higher dmg reduction factor.
See, herein lies the problem.. Rage torps are intended to be used against other BSs specifically, so why then am I supposed to use a lower class torp to hit the intended target for rage torps?
Quote:missiles are bad enough on there own you don't need to skew them to make them look worst than they are. I'm not trying to make them look worse, I'm just pointing out the facts of why they are bad.
Quote:90% webs x3 as with a scram unrealistic (normal webs work) maybe but you are claiming that no matter how many support mods you can't make missiles hit with good application. No, I'm stating that it takes a large amount of support mods to make missiles hit for good application, regardless of target movement or ship bonuses.
Quote:also where in the math does it show that a target moving closer or away takes more or less dmg from missiles. That's the problem. The math doesn't show it, but in game application does. BUT, since the math doesn't show it, everyone assumes it's a non-factor.
I'm simply trying to point out that this may very well be a factor and it's something CCP needs to physically look into, instead of just assuming that the math knows all. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4519
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 01:04:07 -
[912] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:The math doesn't show it, but in game application does. BUT, since the math doesn't show it, everyone assumes it's a non-factor. 1. If you outrun (or outmaneuver) the missile, it does no damage. 2. If you accelerate to full velocity you can usually mitigate in excess of 25% of potential damage. This is before things like microwarpdrives, afterburners or micro jump drives.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
881
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 01:10:40 -
[913] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:The math doesn't show it, but in game application does. BUT, since the math doesn't show it, everyone assumes it's a non-factor. 1. If you outrun (or outmaneuver) the missile, it does no damage. 2. If you accelerate to full velocity you can usually mitigate in excess of 25% of potential damage. This is before things like microwarpdrives, afterburners or micro jump drives.
Yes, but the conversation is on whether target direction of travel has effect on applied damage.
If the missiles hit in the middle of the "hit box"(we'll use this term), then it's safe to assume that regardless of direction, the same amount of damage will be applied.
HOWEVER, if the missiles hit as the edge of the hit box, than it is possible that they take more damage flying into the radius, where as it popping on the back end of their hit box would allow them to get more of their ship outside the radius before the damage is applied, thus mitigating more damage.
As I've said, it appears that in game application shows the later of the two to be the case.
Edit, as far as what the math shows. I don't think it factors where the missile hits in relation to the trajectory of the target ship. Though again, if it hits the middle of the hit box, it shouldn't have to factor that in. If it doesn't hit in the middle (which I don't think it does) than either missiles need to be fixed to do so, or the math needs to be adjusted to factor this in. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 01:23:48 -
[914] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:The math doesn't show it, but in game application does. BUT, since the math doesn't show it, everyone assumes it's a non-factor. 1. If you outrun (or outmaneuver) the missile, it does no damage. 2. If you accelerate to full velocity you can usually mitigate in excess of 25% of potential damage. This is before things like microwarpdrives, afterburners or micro jump drives. Yes, but the conversation is on whether target direction of travel has effect on applied damage. If the missiles hit in the middle of the "hit box"(we'll use this term), then it's safe to assume that regardless of direction, the same amount of damage will be applied. HOWEVER, if the missiles hit as the edge of the hit box, than it is possible that they take more damage flying into the radius, where as it popping on the back end of their hit box would allow them to get more of their ship outside the radius before the damage is applied, thus mitigating more damage. As I've said, it appears that in game application shows the later of the two to be the case. Edit, as far as what the math shows. I don't think it factors where the missile hits in relation to the trajectory of the target ship. Though again, if it hits the middle of the hit box, it shouldn't have to factor that in. If it doesn't hit in the middle (which I don't think it does) than either missiles need to be fixed to do so, or the math needs to be adjusted to factor this in.
I'll add my in game experience to your and that is I NPC cheat so either do the testing and record it all with actual player ships getting shot. cause right now all you have is your game experience that this happens.
in all my time shooting NPC's with torps I have never seen it and the only thing I want is a 1000mn afterburner for my battleship. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 01:37:50 -
[915] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Lady Rift wrote:stop using missiles designed to shoot bigger things than you. javlin or faction /t1 all do full dmg for sig with a base battleship. Javelin torpedoes provide range - not damage application (so Faction torpedoes are your best option). And Precision cruise missiles still have better damage application than any torpedo - regardless of raw damage. Explosion radius excels over explosion velocity in any scenario regardless (see missile formula). Of course beggars can't be choosers, so given a choice of either or none I'd take anything...
javs have the same application numbers as navy/t1 which is why I included them. He keeps using rage torps as examples of how much torps miss/get dmg reduced.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
882
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 02:06:26 -
[916] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Lady Rift wrote:stop using missiles designed to shoot bigger things than you. javlin or faction /t1 all do full dmg for sig with a base battleship. Javelin torpedoes provide range - not damage application (so Faction torpedoes are your best option). And Precision cruise missiles still have better damage application than any torpedo - regardless of raw damage. Explosion radius excels over explosion velocity in any scenario regardless (see missile formula). Of course beggars can't be choosers, so given a choice of either or none I'd take anything... javs have the same application numbers as navy/t1 which is why I included them. He keeps using rage torps as examples of how much torps miss/get dmg reduced.
I do that because rage is intended for use against BSs, yet has poor application to said target. Why have rage when you're telling me not to use it???
Javs are intended for range/applied damage to smaller targets. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 02:27:53 -
[917] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Lady Rift wrote:stop using missiles designed to shoot bigger things than you. javlin or faction /t1 all do full dmg for sig with a base battleship. Javelin torpedoes provide range - not damage application (so Faction torpedoes are your best option). And Precision cruise missiles still have better damage application than any torpedo - regardless of raw damage. Explosion radius excels over explosion velocity in any scenario regardless (see missile formula). Of course beggars can't be choosers, so given a choice of either or none I'd take anything... javs have the same application numbers as navy/t1 which is why I included them. He keeps using rage torps as examples of how much torps miss/get dmg reduced. I do that because rage is intended for use against BSs, yet has poor application to said target. Why have rage when you're telling me not to use it??? Javs are intended for range/applied damage to smaller targets.
jav ONLY DO RANGE
and the description of rage nova is "An ultra-heavy nuclear missile. While it is a slow projectile, its sheer damage potential is simply staggering. This modified version of the Nova Torpedo packs a considerably stronger punch, but as a result is heavier and slower. This makes it very effective against larger targets, but markedly less effective against smaller and more agile targets."
i bolded the important part. normal torps are for shooting battleships , rage is for larger things (caps,structures, battleships that have been ewar'ed into acceptable targets). javs is for range. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 03:31:17 -
[918] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: jav ONLY DO RANGE
and the description of rage nova is "An ultra-heavy nuclear missile. While it is a slow projectile, its sheer damage potential is simply staggering. This modified version of the Nova Torpedo packs a considerably stronger punch, but as a result is heavier and slower. This makes it very effective against larger targets, but markedly less effective against smaller and more agile targets."
i bolded the important part. normal torps are for shooting battleships , rage is for larger things (caps,structures, battleships that have been ewar'ed into acceptable targets). javs is for range.
Ok, so you're correct on the jav, but they have the same application as Navy, but with greater range.
Now, as far as your quoting; Since you highlighted the part that supports your claims, i'll highlight the part that supports my claims. Funny how you catch the part that supports your claims, but completely ignore the rest, thus taking it out of context. Larger targets are battleships.. Smaller targets are everything smaller.
So, you're trying to say that rage torps aren't effective for anything but supers and structures. If that's the case, then how come they don't have more DPS than other short range weapons?? |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4519
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 03:37:44 -
[919] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:If you count 0 damage as some damage, you would be correct.
Seriously, even if a missile is fast enough to catch the target, they can actually outrun the exp velocity as well. Not many things worse than seeing a ticker for "You volley of missiles hit for 0 damage"
It does happen. Even if a target's velocity exceeds the missile explosion velocity there will still be some damage if the missile makes contact. How much will depend on the target signature vs. the missile explosion radius. Sometimes that's effectively zero.
Lady Rift wrote:javs have the same application numbers as navy/t1 which is why I included them. He keeps using rage torps as examples of how much torps miss/get dmg reduced. Correct. Except Faction torpedoes do more damage so you'll see more applied damage vs. Javelins (and typically more than Rage, unless the target is ballooned and stationary). I love torpedoes - but they're so godawful slow...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 03:41:23 -
[920] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote: jav ONLY DO RANGE
and the description of rage nova is "An ultra-heavy nuclear missile. While it is a slow projectile, its sheer damage potential is simply staggering. This modified version of the Nova Torpedo packs a considerably stronger punch, but as a result is heavier and slower. This makes it very effective against larger targets, but markedly less effective against smaller and more agile targets."
i bolded the important part. normal torps are for shooting battleships , rage is for larger things (caps,structures, battleships that have been ewar'ed into acceptable targets). javs is for range.
Ok, so you're correct on the jav, but they have the same application as Navy, but with greater range. Now, as far as your quoting; Since you highlighted the part that supports your claims, i'll highlight the part that supports my claims. Funny how you catch the part that supports your claims, but completely ignore the rest, thus taking it out of context. Larger targets are battleships.. Smaller targets are everything smaller. So, you're trying to say that rage torps aren't effective for anything but supers and structures. If that's the case, then how come they don't have more DPS than other short range weapons??
larger ships arent battleships when its a battleship weapon. You have to go up a class size from the platform they are mostly intended for (SB being the anomaly). size is relative to what size they are used on. So yes as intended they stink at hitting smaller than a battleship.
Im saying that unless you are going to web/tp/ewar a battleship then don't use rage.
Javs have worst dmg than navy they do t1 dmg out to longer range. where navy are just t1 with better dmg. rage is shorter range with higher dmg for worst application also with a higher DRF which i assume is a negative from looking at the dmg formula that eve uses.
I don't think missiles are in a good place but you don't have to go out of your way to make them look bad. |
|
stoicfaux
6162
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 03:46:45 -
[921] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: Exp velocity and exp radius are not interchangeable.
Mostly incorrect.
Quote:I shoot NPCs all day long with a torp Golem and 3 PWNAGE, which is likely the most "controlled" testing that can be done. I am certain of my hypothesis of missiles not having the same effect on orbiting and fleeing targets, as they do approaching targets, regardless of the target painters.
Use 4 TPs to ensure max damage against orbiting non-elite NPC cruisers in Level 4s. See first link below. Actually, after Aegis, use 3 TPs and a scripted MGC II.
Quote:In fact, I've tested it many times as I am always trying to optimize my fittings and/or attack strategies.
It seems to me that missiles do not impact on the same part of the target ship, but instead impact with the edge of the "hit box" of the target ship, and hit on the side they're coming from. It would appear that them flying through the explosion has more effect than them flying away from the explosion. I'm sure I've had this conversation with someone before.
Who knows, I could be wrong, but my testings show otherwise. Would be nice to see if CCP can prove or disprove my hypothesis. The suggestion on paper is that it has no effect, but in application, it appears otherwise. Either things have changed recently (i.e. stealth change) or your testing methodology is wrong. Do you know that NPCs have a cruise (orbit) velocity and a faster maxVelocity they use to get into orbit range? Or that the target's armor and shield resists can be different (e.g. 40% shield versus explosive, and 80% armor versus explosive.) Or that a certain named NPC in a level 4 mission can kill multiple cruise missiles with one defender? (Or used to be able to, with the missile HP buff in Aegis, it might be down to 1 missile now.) Those can explain your varying damage.
I've done a bit of research into this, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4450779 http://eve-search.com/thread/230551-1
In the spreadsheet in the first link, unhide the A through AA column to see NPC stats and then plug them into the missile damage formulas and see if your in-game damage matches the formula results.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 03:55:27 -
[922] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:If you count 0 damage as some damage, you would be correct.
Seriously, even if a missile is fast enough to catch the target, they can actually outrun the exp velocity as well. Not many things worse than seeing a ticker for "You volley of missiles hit for 0 damage"
It does happen. Even if a target's velocity exceeds the missile explosion velocity there will still be some damage if the missile makes contact. How much will depend on the target signature vs. the missile explosion radius. Sometimes that's effectively zero. Lady Rift wrote:javs have the same application numbers as navy/t1 which is why I included them. He keeps using rage torps as examples of how much torps miss/get dmg reduced. Correct. Except Faction torpedoes do more damage so you'll see more applied damage vs. Javelins (and typically more than Rage, unless the target is ballooned and stationary). I love torpedoes - but they're so godawful slow...
i know but the focus was on how it applied.
I love them also but waiting for them to travel the ~110 km to hit takes a while. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 04:18:57 -
[923] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:If you count 0 damage as some damage, you would be correct.
Seriously, even if a missile is fast enough to catch the target, they can actually outrun the exp velocity as well. Not many things worse than seeing a ticker for "You volley of missiles hit for 0 damage"
It does happen. Even if a target's velocity exceeds the missile explosion velocity there will still be some damage if the missile makes contact. How much will depend on the target signature vs. the missile explosion radius. Sometimes that's effectively zero. Lady Rift wrote:javs have the same application numbers as navy/t1 which is why I included them. He keeps using rage torps as examples of how much torps miss/get dmg reduced. Correct. Except Faction torpedoes do more damage so you'll see more applied damage vs. Javelins (and typically more than Rage, unless the target is ballooned and stationary). I love torpedoes - but they're so godawful slow... i know but the focus was on how it applied. I love them also but waiting for them to travel the ~110 km to hit takes a while.
Agreed.. I went back to cruise on my golem cause of how bad the travel time on Torps is. Drives me nuts. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 04:33:16 -
[924] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: Exp velocity and exp radius are not interchangeable.
Mostly incorrect. Quote:I shoot NPCs all day long with a torp Golem and 3 PWNAGE, which is likely the most "controlled" testing that can be done. I am certain of my hypothesis of missiles not having the same effect on orbiting and fleeing targets, as they do approaching targets, regardless of the target painters.
Use 4 TPs to ensure max damage against orbiting non-elite NPC cruisers in Level 4s. See first link below. Actually, after Aegis, use 3 TPs and a scripted MGC II. Quote:In fact, I've tested it many times as I am always trying to optimize my fittings and/or attack strategies.
It seems to me that missiles do not impact on the same part of the target ship, but instead impact with the edge of the "hit box" of the target ship, and hit on the side they're coming from. It would appear that them flying through the explosion has more effect than them flying away from the explosion. I'm sure I've had this conversation with someone before.
Who knows, I could be wrong, but my testings show otherwise. Would be nice to see if CCP can prove or disprove my hypothesis. The suggestion on paper is that it has no effect, but in application, it appears otherwise. Either things have changed recently (i.e. stealth change) or your testing methodology is wrong. Do you know that NPCs have a cruise (orbit) velocity and a faster maxVelocity they use to get into orbit range? Or that the target's armor and shield resists can be different (e.g. 40% shield versus explosive, and 80% armor versus explosive.) Or that a certain named NPC in a level 4 mission can kill multiple cruise missiles with one defender? (Or used to be able to, with the missile HP buff in Aegis, it might be down to 1 missile now.) Those can explain your varying damage. I've done a bit of research into this, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4450779 http://eve-search.com/thread/230551-1 In the spreadsheet in the first link, unhide the A through AA column to see NPC stats and then plug them into the missile damage formulas and see if your in-game damage matches the formula results.
Actually, I've noticed this effect as long as I've been playing Eve. As far as your suggestion on higher velocity while in route, I had thought this might come up, so I already knew what I would say. In the case of higher velocity while in route, this should have a negative effect on missiles, as higher velocity would mean more mitigation. In most cases, the NPCs don't use MWD, so this is a non-factor. In the case of resists, NPCs of the same name are essentially a copy/paste. This these two combined would suggest that I would have higher application on an orbiting NPC than I would an approaching NPC of the same name. This is not the case. I always have higher applied damage on an approaching NPC than an orbiting one.
As far as your spread sheets go, if they do not factor the location of the missile explosion, they cannot factor trajectory mitigation. Again, if the missile explodes in the middle of the hit box, this has no effect; if it explodes on the edge of the hit box, it has a large effect.
I ask you to test it on the test server. I don't have another account, nor anyone with test server access in my corp. Take a Raven with Cruise missiles and no application mods and shoot at an approaching frig. Then, shoot at an orbiting frig and see if the applied damage is any different. No damage mods is so that you don't just one shot them, and using a frig instead of a larger ship is so the applied damage is as low as possible.
I may test it myself if I can find someone to join me, for my corp.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 04:34:14 -
[925] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:If you count 0 damage as some damage, you would be correct.
Seriously, even if a missile is fast enough to catch the target, they can actually outrun the exp velocity as well. Not many things worse than seeing a ticker for "You volley of missiles hit for 0 damage"
It does happen. Even if a target's velocity exceeds the missile explosion velocity there will still be some damage if the missile makes contact. How much will depend on the target signature vs. the missile explosion radius. Sometimes that's effectively zero. Lady Rift wrote:javs have the same application numbers as navy/t1 which is why I included them. He keeps using rage torps as examples of how much torps miss/get dmg reduced. Correct. Except Faction torpedoes do more damage so you'll see more applied damage vs. Javelins (and typically more than Rage, unless the target is ballooned and stationary). I love torpedoes - but they're so godawful slow... i know but the focus was on how it applied. I love them also but waiting for them to travel the ~110 km to hit takes a while. Agreed.. I went back to cruise on my golem cause of how bad the travel time on Torps is. Drives me nuts.
i would also switch but ccp doesn't let me fit cruise :( |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
6195
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 05:15:37 -
[926] - Quote
Nuked some off topic posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
318
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 07:58:37 -
[927] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Now, they could possibly introduce a HIGH SLOT module that buffs range. Missiles are more like drones than they are turrets, so do like with drones and allow a range mod to be fitted in the HS. This means certain missile boats will be able to increase range with the HS modules due to ultility highs, but will have to choose between utility and range. Other missile boats that don't have a free HS are typically used for brawl/kite fits anyway, to which they don't need the addl range. If CCP wishes to factor this in, then give some more missile boats utility highs. Why everybody want range on missiles? They need time to hit target, the bigger the longer. Delayed damage is huge problem, why eveybody using sentries? Range will push missiles into auxilla dps hulls. This is not straight: I lose some tank but gain some range. They started balance from a** side. They need to differ missiles range / launchers/ ammo. Then introduce new modules, maybe even prenerfed. Then tweaking them.
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 09:47:04 -
[928] - Quote
if CCP is worried about these modules providing a more substantial bonus than TC and TE's, why not buff TC and TE's? When was the last time you saw a precious mid used for a TC in PVP? TE's and to a smaller degree TC's see some use on auto cannon boats because the falloff bonus is so much greater than the optimal/tracking bonus's. But the overall lackluster projection you get out of them is rarely meaningful enough to drop an extra web, TP or Sebo.
Battleships that have more than 2 lows for damage mods see them as well, but not to an overwhelming amount.
I would rather see all the weapons systems get some love if it means missile damage can finally be meaningful. And the increase in the application we would see for turrets would only serve to bring turrets up to max application a little more often, whereas it might bring missile application up far more proportionally.
I want to add that I have many fits for turret boats, and none of them use application mods. There is a reason for this. I have many fits for missile boats, ALL of them except my vengeance and hawk fits have application mods. There is a reason for this.
Until the reason for this is dealt with, CCP will continue to see dank turrets and anemic missiles. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1698
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 09:48:40 -
[929] - Quote
If you make turrets better at the same time, you will simply maintain the same gap as before, except now everyone makes isk faster. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:14:45 -
[930] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Now, they could possibly introduce a HIGH SLOT module that buffs range. Missiles are more like drones than they are turrets, so do like with drones and allow a range mod to be fitted in the HS. This means certain missile boats will be able to increase range with the HS modules due to ultility highs, but will have to choose between utility and range. Other missile boats that don't have a free HS are typically used for brawl/kite fits anyway, to which they don't need the addl range. If CCP wishes to factor this in, then give some more missile boats utility highs. Why everybody want range on missiles? They need time to hit target, the bigger the longer. Delayed damage is huge problem, why eveybody using sentries? Range will push missiles into auxilla dps hulls. This is not straight: I lose some tank but gain some range. They started balance from a** side. They need to differ missiles range / launchers/ ammo. Then introduce new modules, maybe even prenerfed. Then tweaking them.
Drop base range on guided missiles, that means they can get buffed to keep "dps vs projection" balanced, replace precision missiles with javelin versions. Just don't touch light missile dps because they're already quite good.
It really isn't difficult and has been stated again and again.
Unguided missiles are doing fine atm. |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
757
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 10:23:28 -
[931] - Quote
afkalt wrote:If you make turrets better at the same time, you will simply maintain the same gap as before, except now everyone makes isk faster.
Yeah and the upward spiral continues. That is not our intention. That is not my intention. People are always very quick in screaming overpowered but the thing I am being accused of the most is not looking at the big picture but I do.
Whenever this discussion comes up the point of view becomes very narrow and it is all forgotten that missiles are not the only thing that can shoot stuff.
Remember medium railguns used to be a joke for over a decade? Now that railguns do damage people scream overpowered again. But it was totally fine when minmatar guns were fit on everything with a turret slot for over four years.
That capsuleers were so used to a turret boat and keeping their transversal up while approaching a missiles wasn't giving them the same result it is overpowered all of a sudden. They had much more range with that approach - how dare they?
Oceans later missile application became the running gag that never got old.
I am not talking about damage in hitpoints, I am trying to get application for all my fellow Caldari pilots. Missile damage got increased as "compensation" but the damage wasn't really in question all these years - the application was.
CCP may even decrease the damage of missiles back to 2009 values for all I care but increase the application theirof.
And please for arguments sake, please everyone remember that missiles need to be launched first, then accelerate and fly around for some time to do damage if any.
Any more comparisons with turrets are moot at this point, I heard them all, we heard them all. Go ahead and take a look, I do use turret boats all the time and yes I really do have 173 million skillpoints to back up my claims about them and other things.
I may still be the carebear that could but I do much more pvp lately (plus the occasional pve to fund new ways to blow up stuff).
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1217
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 11:02:13 -
[932] - Quote
elitatwo wrote: Oceans later missile application became the running gag that never got old.
I never got that part. Some three years ago, I started a dedicated missile alt because that comment seemed fishy even back then. Like 2 months in on that toon, missiles struck me as bonkers/OP and I trained for a tengu (since I had the linkalt anyways). So excuse me if my opinions on missiles diverge from yours.
Fighting a turretboat in a sabre, I can get under the guns most of the time. Fighting a HML boat, I just can't. He's not dumb, so he loads precisions and even when you're in a small vessel they do hurt. A lot. Significantly more than the cruiser with OP turrets that just can't apply any damage.
Surely you've also had moments where you've shot down bombers and sabres with a cruise raven that didn't have anything fitted to enhance tracking, show me the 1400mm artillery ship that does the same.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 11:23:55 -
[933] - Quote
afkalt wrote:If you make turrets better at the same time, you will simply maintain the same gap as before, except now everyone makes isk faster.
That makes no sense, how will ISO get made faster when turrets hit rats 100% as is? Is more than 100% application going to magically increase base damage? No.
In pvp, all turrets can hit anything at their optimal regardless of size if the pilot is good at flying, a TC and TE buff would only lower the skill bar for that 100% application if the pilot was willing to fit one. Essentially "pvp flight assist". Whereas on missile ships, there is no flying the pilot can do to improve damage, meaning application mods are damage mods. Only affecting certain areas of the damage curve as it applies to smaller and faster targets. MGE's are direct competitors to ballistic controls with the added benefit of range increase. They have to be competitive in that sense, and the MGC is a morally damage mod that reduces tank/utility. It has to be valued against those things in terms of value. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1698
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 11:26:20 -
[934] - Quote
Consider things like machariels, vargurs - they fight in falloff. Extending range makes more DPS.
Blaster boats are in a similar position. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
318
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 12:24:39 -
[935] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Unguided missiles are doing fine atm. and maybe it's time to remove guided-unguided names because they are both guided for short/long range. There are no unguided missiles in this game (bombs maybe).
Lloyd Roses wrote:Fighting a turretboat in a sabre, I can get under the guns most of the time. Fighting a HML boat, I just can't. He's not dumb, so he loads precisions and even when you're in a small vessel they do hurt. A lot. Significantly more than the cruiser with OP turrets that just can't apply any damage. and I have problems to kill astero with my drake (precisions, full flight of drones in blackhole) What does that prove? Astero is OP or Sabre has weak tank? Depends on fit I guess.
Maybe we need different approach here, which hulls would be OP if modules hit TQ without nerfs?
"-What are you doing?"
"-Docking."(...)
-"It's not possible"
-"No, it's necessary."
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 12:42:39 -
[936] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Consider things like machariels, vargurs - they fight in falloff. Extending range makes more DPS.
Blaster boats are in a similar position: More range means short range high DPS ammo gains engagement range.
See also: Dreads in cap escalations with even more tracking.
Fighting in buffed falloff is exactly what I said. It's a module assisting your piloting, range can be drawn in as well as pointing your ship and controlling your speed and alignment to improve that damage just like the TC allows you to do that easier and at greater ranges. It does not improve your damage. The TC only makes that easier.
When application is subpar with turrets, fly better. When application is subpar with missiles, cry.
Getting something we apply good piloting to to improve missile damage variably with skill, would be amazing.
And cap escalations are already min maxed and broken income. They are a whole separate issue. |
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
392
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 12:53:42 -
[937] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Unguided missiles are doing fine atm.
Torps aren't doing fine.
They're working on stealth bombers a ship that aside from being able to Cloak, move and align at frigate speed needs:
10% bonus on explosion radius and explosion velocity a level 20% bonus on missile velocity a level and 15% damage a level
to let them be good.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 13:24:04 -
[938] - Quote
People used to claim that if CCP buffed missile velocity and reduced flight time, so that missiles went faster to the same range, that it would break mechanics.
This has been disproved by the Mordus Legion ships.
The Barghest is a better example to use as the kiting capability of the other two is OP.
CCP can easily double missile velocity and half flight time, which would make missiles much more effective in PVP. It would also means we don't have 3 flights of missiles out at once, which is annoying as hell.
This won't fix application issues, but it will fix time on target and make ranged missile fits viable outside of large fleet combat. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
757
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 14:30:24 -
[939] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:-shortened- Surely you've also had moments where you've shot down bombers and sabres with a cruise raven that didn't have anything fitted to enhance tracking, show me the 1400mm artillery ship that does the same.
If I may be so bold and talk about a ship that I have never flown and have no plan on flying it, the tornado. If I am not mistaken you can fit the 1400mm artilleries on it. Now when you fly a turret boat with long range guns, you want to be as mobile as possible and you want to be at range away from your target. You also want to fly in the opposite direction of where your target is which greatly improves your damage application. Your target my know this but let's say it is too slow to keep up.
From hereon out it becomes an angles game. Imagine your ship at a dot in space and your target as another dot in space. Your target maybe slower and mostly likely able to kill the tornado but it is too slow to keep up but it still tries.
Now here is the bullet point. Your target puts her or himself in a terrible position since the straighter the line between those two dots in space become, the better you track. In this case the low base tracking of the 1400mm guns is totally irrelevant, only the range is important for calculating damage - devastating damage.
From my experience with lasers and railguns I strongly believe you will fit tracking enhancers on that tornado but even if you don't and have 2 nanos on and manage to keep your distance and angle in a good position (rapidly clicking in space like a mad girl) to correct your angles while you hammer your target down.
Now humans are a prime example of training habits and keeping them and while it is possible to fly in a way to not get hit and under your guns it is usually bad to try the same with missile ships. The only thing that will happen is that the missile range will increase and everything is op.
Instead of flying away and warping to a better position they keep trying the very same thing they should already know will have the same result every time.
Back in the day when missiles had 100% application missiles where balanced by the fact that you can shoot them down, no weapon grouping and smaller ships could outrun the missile velocity until the flighttime ran out.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels
729
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 14:56:56 -
[940] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:People used to claim that if CCP buffed missile velocity and reduced flight time, so that missiles went faster to the same range, that it would break mechanics.
This has been disproved by the Mordus Legion ships.
The Barghest is a better example to use as the kiting capability of the other two is OP.
CCP can easily double missile velocity and half flight time, which would make missiles much more effective in PVP. It would also means we don't have 3 flights of missiles out at once, which is annoying as hell.
This won't fix application issues, but it will fix time on target and make ranged missile fits viable outside of large fleet combat.
The thing is though, when it comes to range, LR missiles have LR turrets beat every time. Also, the fact is that missile boats don't have to worry about tracking. Just application. This is a big deal as it means, if it ever happened, When a HML Drake fleet squares off against a Railgun Ferox fleet, the Drake fleet could go into point blank range and deal the same dps as it would at max range. The Ferox fleet however will find tracking at point blank range extremely difficult.
This is the tradeoff with missile flight time. It's a balancing factor.
Instant damage is extremely useful in game which almost relegates missile DPS as secondary. However, nothing can comete with a Cruise Raven for damage projection however 10 seconds for those missiles to reach 100km range is frustrating.
I'm surprised "Doppler Ravens" don't get used though. Those things are a very interesting concept as a "shock" platform |
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 15:12:00 -
[941] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: The thing is though, when it comes to range, LR missiles have LR turrets beat every time. Also, the fact is that missile boats don't have to worry about tracking. Just application. This is a big deal as it means, if it ever happened, When a HML Drake fleet squares off against a Railgun Ferox fleet, the Drake fleet could go into point blank range and deal the same dps as it would at max range. The Ferox fleet however will find tracking at point blank range extremely difficult.
This is the tradeoff with missile flight time. It's a balancing factor.
Instant damage is extremely useful in game which almost relegates missile DPS as secondary. However, nothing can comete with a Cruise Raven for damage projection however 10 seconds for those missiles to reach 100km range is frustrating.
I'm surprised "Doppler Ravens" don't get used though. Those things are a very interesting concept as a "shock" platform
See, here's the problem with that Concept. Missiles do have the best damage at long range, but no one uses them at long range, unless in a fleet fight where the target is already locked down. That said, it's still preferred that you bring a long range turret boat for instant application because no one wants to wait for missiles to arrive. You can lose part of your fleet before the first missile volley even hits the target, in some cases.
However, long range fights aren't too common due to your mentioned reduced DPS concern. This puts your targets in close range, where turrets will always out DPS missiles, and you're typically locked down enough to where tracking isn't an issue.
This is why kite missile fits are typically the only used options for missiles, unless you're going in your face HAMs. I think even most frigs will use lights over rockets, and same is the case for destroyers. In the case of cruisers, HMLs suck so bad that cruisers typically always fit rapid lights.
Buffing missile velocity at the cost of flight time doesn't increase application, but instead increases time to target, which will help to make long range missile systems (apart from lights) actually used. The only time I ever really see cruise missiles being used in PVP is at the Alliance tournament, but even then they're out shined by turret boats. |
Matt Faithbringer
Rapid Withdrawal
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 15:14:14 -
[942] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:...but instead decreases time to target
FTFY
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1698
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 15:18:15 -
[943] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I'm surprised "Doppler Ravens" don't get used though. Those things are a very interesting concept as a "shock" platform
Logi invalidates it, basically. Unless each volley will alpha a target off field, it's otherwise impossible to target swap effectively.
If you ARE alphaing things, the massive delay between redbox and impact means they could even warp off to a tactical, should the so choose.
And the thing is, if you have that many raven pilots, you're better off in turret boats like NApocs. You'll still alpha everything, without the travel time and all the bad stuff it brings with it.
And as the guy above me points out, if you die with missiles in flight, they disappear. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 15:22:40 -
[944] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:...but instead decreases time to target FTFY
My bad.. Good catch.. fixed. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 16:57:49 -
[945] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Now here is the bullet point. Your target puts her or himself in a terrible position since the straighter the line between those two dots in space become, the better you track. In this case the low base tracking of the 1400mm guns is totally irrelevant, only the range is important for calculating damage - devastating damage.
You have absolutely no clue, that or you're stating silliness on purpose to try and make your 100% application idea sound logical. either way: you're so wrong it's not even funny.
you could fly a MWD merlin almost straight at that Tornado and it would miss each and every time (apart from wrecking obviously). Versus a MWD Caracal you'd easily lose about 30% applied damage if he'd approach at ~10 degree angle, get it to 20 degrees and the applied damage becomes negligible. And it's not like those ships are the fastest & low sig representatives of their ship class.
It's almost as if turrets require tracking mods outside ideal (read: non-realistic) scenarios. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
757
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 17:34:05 -
[946] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Now here is the bullet point. Your target puts her or himself in a terrible position since the straighter the line between those two dots in space become, the better you track. In this case the low base tracking of the 1400mm guns is totally irrelevant, only the range is important for calculating damage - devastating damage. You have absolutely no clue, that or you're stating silliness on purpose to try and make your 100% application idea sound logical. either way: you're so wrong it's not even funny. you could fly a MWD merlin almost straight at that Tornado and it would miss each and every time (apart from wrecking obviously). Versus a MWD Caracal you'd easily lose about 30% applied damage if he'd approach at ~10 degree angle, get it to 20 degrees and the applied damage becomes negligible. And it's not like those ships are the fastest & low sig representatives of their ship class. It's almost as if turrets require tracking mods outside ideal (read: non-realistic) scenarios.
I really have enough of you! You are 2 days old and talk to me?? Remove yourself from planet Earth or I do.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 17:45:07 -
[947] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Now here is the bullet point. Your target puts her or himself in a terrible position since the straighter the line between those two dots in space become, the better you track. In this case the low base tracking of the 1400mm guns is totally irrelevant, only the range is important for calculating damage - devastating damage. You have absolutely no clue, that or you're stating silliness on purpose to try and make your 100% application idea sound logical. either way: you're so wrong it's not even funny. you could fly a MWD merlin almost straight at that Tornado and it would miss each and every time (apart from wrecking obviously). Versus a MWD Caracal you'd easily lose about 30% applied damage if he'd approach at ~10 degree angle, get it to 20 degrees and the applied damage becomes negligible. And it's not like those ships are the fastest & low sig representatives of their ship class. It's almost as if turrets require tracking mods outside ideal (read: non-realistic) scenarios. I really have enough of you! You are 2 days old and talk to me?? Remove yourself from planet Earth or I do.
You'll notice his corp is "Say No to Features".
That set aside. What in the actual F#CK???
If you fly a Merlin straight at a Tornado, you will be blasted into Oblivion. If that Merlin is also running MWD, you might as well eject, because that Tornado will 1 shot you off the field.
As far as his suggestion of "non-realistic" scenarios. I have blasted frigs off the field with an Tach fitted Oracle several times. I can counter tracking issues by countering traversal, I can catch them on alignment, and I can catch them on a turn. All of this without tracking mods.
Sniper fits rely HEAVILY on catching the target out of traversal. Not too long back, just about everyone had a Tornado with 1400s sitting 200km off the gate blasting ships as soon as they came out of cloak... If you came at them, they'd warp to another Snip position and blast you from there.
I would Like Tiberius Heth to name me one time where he has seen a missile boat used for sniping. If he can, the I'll call him a flat out liar. |
stoicfaux
6162
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 20:23:44 -
[948] - Quote
At the risk of derailing the conversation with a non-negative post, it looks you can now fly a Golem with Warp Speed Rigs That Can One-Shot Non-Elite NPC Cruisers with Fury Ammo in Level 4 Missions, or GWSRTCOSNENPCCFAL4M for short.
The downside is that you need 3 RF TPs and 5% dmg, explosion radius and explosion velocity rigs, so it's a bit of a price jump but the inclusion of warp speed rigs almost makes the Golem competitive in level 4s.
[Golem, Level 4 with Warp Rigs] Ballistic Control System II Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Micro Jump Drive Republic Fleet Target Painter Republic Fleet Target Painter Republic Fleet Target Painter Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script
Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Cruise Missile Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Bastion Module I
Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4519
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 20:49:29 -
[949] - Quote
Time to avert ones eyes from this train wreck... To make these modules more feasible, they should be adjusted as follows:
Missile Guidance Enhancer II Explosion Velocity Bonus 7.5% (was 5.5%) Explosion Radius Bonus -7.5% (was -5.5%) Missile Velocity Bonus 15% (was 6%) Flight Time Bonus 0% (was 6%)
Missile Guidance Computer Explosion Velocity Bonus 9.5% (was 7.5%) Explosion Radius Bonus -9.5% (was -7.5%) Missile Velocity Bonus 10% (was 5.5%) Flight Time Bonus 0% (was 5.5%)
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1699
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 20:54:24 -
[950] - Quote
I take it you mean elite?
That's a hell of a bling when this will compete just as well (in my experience).
[Vargur, Cheap] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Republic Fleet Gyrostabilizer Republic Fleet Gyrostabilizer Damage Control II
Large Micro Jump Drive Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
800mm Repeating Cannon II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Cannon II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Cannon II, Republic Fleet EMP L 800mm Repeating Cannon II, Republic Fleet EMP L Small Tractor Beam I Small Tractor Beam I Salvager I Bastion Module I
Large Projectile Ambit Extension I Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I
I think I have 3% damage implants and 3% RoF. Pretty sure it's over 1000 dps on the sheet.
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4519
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 21:11:15 -
[951] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I take it you mean elite? That's a hell of a bling when this will compete just as well (in my experience). Except we're discussing missiles and missile application.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 21:34:49 -
[952] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:At the risk of derailing the conversation with a non-negative post, it looks you can now fly a Golem with Warp Speed Rigs That Can One-Shot Non-Elite NPC Cruisers with Fury Ammo in Level 4 Missions, or GWSRTCOSNENPCCFAL4M for short. The downside is that you need 3 RF TPs and 5% dmg, explosion radius and explosion velocity implants, so it's a bit of a price jump but the inclusion of warp speed rigs almost makes the Golem competitive in level 4s. [Golem, Level 4 with Warp Rigs] Ballistic Control System II Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Micro Jump Drive Republic Fleet Target Painter Republic Fleet Target Painter Republic Fleet Target Painter Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Mjolnir Fury Cruise Missile Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Bastion Module I Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II Large Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
It may just be me, but this fit looks like crap. You'd be just fine with 3 TP, or 2 TP and a MGC II. Or, drop the warp rigs and put application rigs, plus 2 MGC II and not have to worry about range. Then you get two more mids.
IDK... That fit just seems kinda meh.. |
stoicfaux
6162
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 21:57:14 -
[953] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:It may just be me, but this fit looks like crap. You'd be just fine with 3 TP, or 2 TP and a MGC II. Or, drop the warp rigs and put application rigs, plus 2 MGC II and not have to worry about range. Then you get two more mids.
IDK... That fit just seems kinda meh.. It's you. I'm thinking you missed that this is a Cruise Golem for Level 4 mission running that can use Fury ammo to one shot non-elite NPC cruisers.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
stoicfaux
6162
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 22:07:43 -
[954] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I take it you mean elite?
That's a hell of a bling when this will compete just as well (in my experience).
[Vargur, Cheap]
The Vargur doesn't "compete just as well." The Vargur is faster. (Well, there are couple of missions where a Golem could blitz faster, e.g. rage torp golem for damsel.)
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
883
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 22:35:40 -
[955] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:It may just be me, but this fit looks like crap. You'd be just fine with 3 TP, or 2 TP and a MGC II. Or, drop the warp rigs and put application rigs, plus 2 MGC II and not have to worry about range. Then you get two more mids.
IDK... That fit just seems kinda meh.. It's you. I'm thinking you missed that this is a Cruise Golem for Level 4 mission running that can use Fury ammo to one shot non-elite NPC cruisers.
I got that, I'm just thinking you don't need 4 modules to 1 shot. You can Probably do it with 3 and have an extra mid for more tank. Or, you can fit application rigs. I really don't think the extra 1au war speed is really worth the isk costs to put those rigs on.
I can 1 shot non-elite frigs with just 3 target painters, same BCU setup as you, and a T2 Califaction rig. Well.. I think I also have a 5% damage, 5% RoF, and a 5% application rig, but point still stands. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
758
|
Posted - 2015.07.23 23:46:10 -
[956] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:At the risk of derailing the conversation with a non-negative post...
Which I for one would welcome.
Moving on and fittings aside you still have 4 application mods on and if you don't want to, you don't have to put any on a turret boat.
I can live with one application mod and in some edge cases two but when I have to fit all slots with application mods then we have a problem, Houston.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
884
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 00:19:48 -
[957] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:stoicfaux wrote:At the risk of derailing the conversation with a non-negative post... Which I for one would welcome. Moving on and fittings aside you still have 4 application mods on and if you don't want to, you don't have to put any on a turret boat. I can live with one application mod and in some edge cases two but when I have to fit all slots with application mods then we have a problem, Houston.
I used to mission in Nightmare, until they finally fixed the Golem, or rather, added bastion. (didn't really fix the ship, just gave it a good module.)
In that Nightmare, I had Tachyon lasers, a 100mn AB, a web and 1 or 2 TCs. (I'm thinking I dropped down to 1 when I realized how effective I could be.)
I would blast frigs at range with Navy Infrared, which is the furthest range ammo I used, and would only use up to navy Multi. If a frig got in orbit, I would web, pop in tracking script, and blap. If I still couldn't hit them, I'd gas it and kick in AB to go almost 700m/s.
That's essentially two modules for application, and one as a back-up, that I had for gate chasing anyway. I don't remember ever using the AB to counter range, as I would blap the frigs long before they ever got in orbit. Only time this was an issue was when they were at orbit range at warp in... In which case, i used drones most of the time anyway.
As far as missiles go, I've always used at least two TPs, but preferably 3. Apparently, you have to fit 4 to apply full damage on non-elite frigs, regardless of range, trajectory, or anything else.
IMO, this is just too much, especially considering most missile BSs don't have the slots to give up for that many application modules. As far as the MGEs go, why would I give up anything in my low slots for that piece of junk? I lose 42 DPS, gain range with cruise that I don't need (I can't even target to my max range without it), and I get what? Another 6 m/s exp velocity and reduce my exp radius by less than 25m?
Not worth it by any means.
I would rather see high slot range modules, like with drones, that are all velocity and no flight time. And would also like to see TPs changed to somewhat match what I mentioned in an earlier comment.
That, I could use. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
758
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 00:48:28 -
[958] - Quote
Sounds good. Now all the need to do is to convince CCP that the Ishtar is underpowered and needs a lot of help that might help them to buff missile application.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
884
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 00:54:08 -
[959] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Sounds good. Now all the need to do is to convince CCP that the Ishtar is underpowered and needs a lot of help that might help them to buff missile application.
I'm just saying, the modules they added don't fix anything. They could have changed TPs and added a high slot range mod and it would have had a much better outcome.
I'm not speaking on the missiles themselves. they're still F'd up. I'm only speaking the MGC and MGE. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4521
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 01:03:02 -
[960] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Sounds good. Now all the need to do is to convince CCP that the Ishtar is underpowered and needs a lot of help that might help them to buff missile application. Let's please leave the Ishtar out of this...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2060
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 03:11:40 -
[961] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:
you could fly a MWD merlin almost straight at that Tornado and it would miss each and every time (apart from wrecking obviously). Versus a MWD Caracal you'd easily lose about 30% applied damage if he'd approach at ~10 degree angle, get it to 20 degrees and the applied damage becomes negligible. And it's not like those ships are the fastest & low sig representatives of their ship class.
http://imgur.com/lQiERIX
Tornado firing 1400mm at a MWD merlin in a straight line with Quake L and no other mods fitted. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 03:58:36 -
[962] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:You'll notice his corp is "Say No to Features".
That set aside. What in the actual F#CK???
If you fly a Merlin straight at a Tornado, you will be blasted into Oblivion. If that Merlin is also running MWD, you might as well eject, because that Tornado will 1 shot you off the field.
As far as his suggestion of "non-realistic" scenarios. I have blasted frigs off the field with an Tach fitted Oracle several times. I can counter tracking issues by countering traversal, I can catch them on alignment, and I can catch them on a turn. All of this without tracking mods.
Sniper fits rely HEAVILY on catching the target out of traversal. Not too long back, just about everyone had a Tornado with 1400s sitting 200km off the gate blasting ships as soon as they came out of cloak... If you came at them, they'd warp to another Snip position and blast you from there.
I would Like Tiberius Heth to name me one time where he has seen a missile boat used for sniping. If he can, the I'll call him a flat out liar.
So in your hyperbole you forget to actually read. I said ALMOST straight and it's true. A frigate lolling about with some transversal is almost never going to get hit by 1400s at any range (again bar wrecking shots). |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 03:59:54 -
[963] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:
you could fly a MWD merlin almost straight at that Tornado and it would miss each and every time (apart from wrecking obviously). Versus a MWD Caracal you'd easily lose about 30% applied damage if he'd approach at ~10 degree angle, get it to 20 degrees and the applied damage becomes negligible. And it's not like those ships are the fastest & low sig representatives of their ship class.
http://imgur.com/lQiERIX Tornado firing 1400mm at a MWD merlin in a straight line with Quake L and no other mods fitted.
Which part of "almost" don't you get. Give it some angle, show us the results. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
884
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 04:44:14 -
[964] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:You'll notice his corp is "Say No to Features".
That set aside. What in the actual F#CK???
If you fly a Merlin straight at a Tornado, you will be blasted into Oblivion. If that Merlin is also running MWD, you might as well eject, because that Tornado will 1 shot you off the field.
As far as his suggestion of "non-realistic" scenarios. I have blasted frigs off the field with an Tach fitted Oracle several times. I can counter tracking issues by countering traversal, I can catch them on alignment, and I can catch them on a turn. All of this without tracking mods.
Sniper fits rely HEAVILY on catching the target out of traversal. Not too long back, just about everyone had a Tornado with 1400s sitting 200km off the gate blasting ships as soon as they came out of cloak... If you came at them, they'd warp to another Snip position and blast you from there.
I would Like Tiberius Heth to name me one time where he has seen a missile boat used for sniping. If he can, the I'll call him a flat out liar. So in your hyperbole you forget to actually read. I said ALMOST straight and it's true. A frigate lolling about with some transversal is almost never going to get hit by 1400s at any range (again bar wrecking shots).
Frig is flying slightly towards my right... i'll go right as well to cut traversal.
Either way, you have a LOT better chance of getting a kill shot on that frig than a cruise missile does. Cruise might hit it, but they'll need to hit it 20 times to kill it. One shot from your 1400s, and it's gone. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2060
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 04:59:44 -
[965] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:
you could fly a MWD merlin almost straight at that Tornado and it would miss each and every time (apart from wrecking obviously). Versus a MWD Caracal you'd easily lose about 30% applied damage if he'd approach at ~10 degree angle, get it to 20 degrees and the applied damage becomes negligible. And it's not like those ships are the fastest & low sig representatives of their ship class.
http://imgur.com/lQiERIX Tornado firing 1400mm at a MWD merlin in a straight line with Quake L and no other mods fitted. Which part of "almost" don't you get. Give it some angle, show us the results.
http://imgur.com/ktJAvV1
Merlin with an actual fit instead of naked and 1 tracking comp on the nado.
is 10 degree almost enough? |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 05:14:15 -
[966] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Frig is flying slightly towards my right... i'll go right as well to cut traversal.
Either way, you have a LOT better chance of getting a kill shot on that frig than a cruise missile does. Cruise might hit it, but they'll need to hit it 20 times to kill it. One shot from your 1400s, and it's gone.
Here's some graphs
0 angle, a bit of angle and some 30 degree angle. max dps with fit (is an incomplete fit but that doesn't change anything in this regard) is 691. I even use Quake to increase the chances of success.
With a little bit of angle only 110 dps remains which is about 16%, so on average about every 6 volleys that's going to hit. Cycle time is just over 16 seconds resulting in one single hit every 103 seconds (resulting in a kill). In the mean time the Merlin could have covered close to 3k km.
With 30 degrees of angle only 28 dps remains. [math happens]... once every 410 seconds, on average.
And with small angles having THAT much of an impact, the chance of your amazing piloting skills making up for it all resulting in anywhere decent chance to hit is... still the same. VERY low. |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 05:17:33 -
[967] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:RNI and Ratle shoot the correct missiles (caldari navy because rage would be stupid...) and of course since I proabbly "cheated" by using a tracaking comp on teh nado, I put a guidance computer II on both missile ships with precision script.
Nono, remove both:) Their statement was that turrets don't need tracking modules. I already agreed to the fact that the guidance mods aren't up to par and need rebalancing.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2060
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 05:49:44 -
[968] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:RNI and Ratle shoot the correct missiles (caldari navy because rage would be stupid...) and of course since I proabbly "cheated" by using a tracaking comp on teh nado, I put a guidance computer II on both missile ships with precision script. Nono, remove both:) Their statement was that turrets don't need tracking modules. I already agreed to the fact that the guidance mods aren't up to par and need rebalancing.
What's the fudge factor on piloting skill? I'm pretty sure you could reduce the angular velocity to nothing if the merlin is far enough at a slight angle but there is no way in hell to really account for that in a graph.
no comp at all and 15 degree...
http://imgur.com/9g0dtbM
or 20...
http://imgur.com/YC3SMyD
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 06:09:28 -
[969] - Quote
Fairly similar to my numbers as yours is a fitted merlin while mine is an empty one as it's a decent average for all the other frigs.
Simply put: that merlin could fly around for a LONG time before it would finally get hit and this whole "turrets don't need tracking modules, see how OP they are. Please buff missiles so they have 100% application" is silly nonsense. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
884
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 15:34:18 -
[970] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Fairly similar to my numbers as yours is a fitted merlin while mine is an empty one as it's a decent average for all the other frigs.
Simply put: that merlin could fly around for a LONG time before it would finally get hit and this whole "turrets don't need tracking modules, see how OP they are. Please buff missiles so they have 100% application" is silly nonsense.
No one said or suggested any of that... If they did, that person is wrong.
We are simply stating that it is possible to have an effective turret boat without the use of tracking bonuses or Modules.
However, a missile as any range will always require at least one application mod to apply full damage. The only time this doesn't apply is when the ship is a larger class than the missiles are intended for. |
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 15:54:15 -
[971] - Quote
Yes, they did. It's just that most of it got deleted. Here's some of the stuff that's still there.
elitatwo wrote:Let's put it this way, you don't need to put any kind of application module on any turret boat and can still hit stuff. Missile ships HAVE to put at least two of those on to do any considerable amount of damage if any.
Poking things with one hitpoint cannot be considered as 'they always hit'.
elitatwo wrote:Thank you, akfalt. Actually I meant my Confessor which kills ships just fine without application mods or heat sinks, so my lasers hit just fine and even in a ship like a Nightmare you just need to position yourself in a way that lowers your transversal and even the smallest ships go boom.
This hilarious post
And this one
This one is also great
So, how about people stop making overly exaggerated claims and obviously construed scenarios to act as basis for silly changes that make no sense whatsoever. And instead focus on realistic, balanced and workable ideas and solutions.
- diminish the target speed factor in the whole damage calculation, not to zero (I'm looking at you e2) but lower it to a point where it works fine. This is to counteract the loss of application due to the rigor/flare rig stacking penalty changes
- do so slightly more for HML
- up the stats on the application bonus of the guidance modules, leave range alone
- then decide to leave HML as is or drop range by a bit allowing for a slight flat dps buff. I'm talking small numbers here, 5% or so
Suddenly missiles work better where an MGC is a viable module for some situations (but obviously not all). Will that counter the Petes? No it won't because they're Petes for a reason: difficult to counter. You don't balance by bringing other stuff up to the same lvl as hilariously overpowered nonsense, you do it by nuking that nonsense's capabilities which in this case are medium rails, T3 nonsense and gang links. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
759
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 17:42:11 -
[972] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:some stuff and keeps attacking me..
Listen, kid, only my friends are allowed to call me e2 and you are not one of them. IF you need to talk to me my first name is 'your majesty' and no, I do not make jokes - puns sometimes or sarcasm but I do not make jokes.
With that out of the way, how in the Empress name can you even talk about high level weapon balance with 2 days of skill training? Have you even ever flown a ship?
When I read from Kagura or baltec1 or James and many others I know that they have and that they can steer a discussion into a proper direction. What Nevyn proposed sounds worth my while and I can very safely say that he knows what he is talking about, so will listen what each and all of them have to say. We may or not agree on anything but that is fine. That doesn't mean that either of us is wrong or right.
That tornado example was meant for Lloyd Roses in response to his question. Rest assured, I know he is a very capable pilot and even though I don't use minmatar tech, he knowns that I know my turrets.
This totally ignored feedback thread is about missile application mods that are not worth the slot they want us to put them in and just like that Incarna debacle they didn't listen.
I have been around here for nine years. In any company I would be senior executive something by now. Wether or not CCP finds it amusing or listens what I say, people tend to give you the benefit of a doubt with that much experience and listen to me. What I don't want is for everyone to like me or vanity, nor do I seek attention. But I can ask that my fellow capsuleer show me at least some kind of respect.
You do not.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
44
|
Posted - 2015.07.24 18:09:42 -
[973] - Quote
And you've just outed yourself to be a clown, well done.
|
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
848
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 00:53:08 -
[974] - Quote
I've removed an off-topic post.
Quote:27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.
Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 02:14:42 -
[975] - Quote
finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
886
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 04:30:40 -
[976] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective.
May I ask what you're flying in?
I fly a Golem and have tried them with both Torps and cruise. In both cases, 3 TPs or 2tps and a web always performed better.
I don't need the range for cruise, and if I try to use them to add range to Torps, then I lose application. That said, my max lock range is 118km, and my TPs seem to still be more effective at that range, dispite being well out of optimal.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 05:19:32 -
[977] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective. May I ask what you're flying in? I fly a Golem and have tried them with both Torps and cruise. In both cases, 3 TPs or 2tps and a web always performed better. I don't need the range for cruise, and if I try to use them to add range to Torps, then I lose application. That said, my max lock range is 118km, and my TPs seem to still be more effective at that range, dispite being well out of optimal.
purifier, max lock range of 97 navy torps to 96.5 with range script 87 with no script and 81km off or with precision script. really wanted to get to 100-110km range so I would always be in range when I land and the old set up did this with javs (boo lower dps) or 87km with navy torps. On the new one javs are pointless so most of the range is lost cause of lock range and the loss of dps from javs is more than the couple of seconds to get in range of target.
so i don't have many lows or mids to put into application. they replaced a sensor booster and a co-pro and a missile range rig for 1 low slot, 1 mid slot and a targeting range rig, now needs implants but I don't mind giving up the slot in my head to make it fit.
also before commenting this is for missions in FW which are all single kill ones or 6 targets (don't does these) |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
46
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 06:49:06 -
[978] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective. May I ask what you're flying in? I fly a Golem and have tried them with both Torps and cruise. In both cases, 3 TPs or 2tps and a web always performed better. I don't need the range for cruise, and if I try to use them to add range to Torps, then I lose application. That said, my max lock range is 118km, and my TPs seem to still be more effective at that range, dispite being well out of optimal.
Again, the Golem gets bonused TP so you're never EVER going to see a reason to fit them there, unless you want the range. Also TP is binary, they either will work or they don't and at 100km they have a bout a 50% chance to apply (assuming maxed TP skills). |
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
46
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 06:52:55 -
[979] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective.
Previously it made the most sense to fit 2 rigors (being a T2 ship), now it makes more sense to fit 1 rigor and 1 flare and even with a precision script MGC you will perform LESS than before the changes when you'd just use rigs. That's the big gripe, the actual problem: due to the stacking changes you're now forced to waste a mid slot while still doing worse than before. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
886
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 07:16:52 -
[980] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective. May I ask what you're flying in? I fly a Golem and have tried them with both Torps and cruise. In both cases, 3 TPs or 2tps and a web always performed better. I don't need the range for cruise, and if I try to use them to add range to Torps, then I lose application. That said, my max lock range is 118km, and my TPs seem to still be more effective at that range, dispite being well out of optimal. Again, the Golem gets bonused TP so you're never EVER going to see a reason to fit them there, unless you want the range. Also TP is binary, they either will work or they don't and at 100km they have a bout a 50% chance to apply (assuming maxed TP skills).
Oh, well aware. I was just pointing out that well outside of optimal, they still perform significantly better. That said, I had fitted up a Manticore the same way, and had the same general outcome. Regardless of range, the TPs outperformed the MGC 2 with precision script.
While I'm at it, I'd also like to point out a couple things. 1) most systems that would be best served by the range bonus are also the ones that are more reliant on the application bonus. IE, short range missile and HMLs. Long range missiles are less reliant on application and range. So it's a catch 22 for shorts, and redundant for longs.
2) Notice how no one speaks of the MGE... It's useless in all cases. |
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
527
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 07:29:44 -
[981] - Quote
I agree that, yes, the divide between TP's and these modules are far less pronounce with cases where you can neither afford to bring a plethora of TP's nor when there are bonused from the hull like the Golem.
Having said that, I agree with Joe on the sentiment that TP's still have a pretty sizable edge over MGC's 1 to 1, bonuses or not. And, we actually have mentioned the MGE once or twice...even if only to state how they do absolutely bubkiss compared to alternative lows.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Tiberius Heth
Say No to Features
46
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 07:38:50 -
[982] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:I agree that, yes, the divide between TP's and these modules are far less pronounce with cases where you can neither afford to bring a plethora of TP's nor when there are bonused from the hull like the Golem.
Having said that, I agree with Joe on the sentiment that TP's still have a pretty sizable edge over MGC's 1 to 1, bonuses or not. And, we actually have mentioned the MGE once or twice...even if only to state how they do absolutely bubkiss compared to alternative lows.
True but MGC have two things in their favour:
1) they don't need to be activated per target. Which ever way you look at it manually painting each and every target is annoying as hell, in pve anyway. 2) they work regardless of range, not really useful when using the short range missiles but when using heavies at their max or better yet Cruise then TP are going to struggle at longer ranges
Doesn't make up for the fact that well fitted ships now perform worse than before the changes but they are useful no matter what. Would MGC/missiles get balanced to where they should be those two will be massive boons. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
527
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 08:08:16 -
[983] - Quote
Also true, they are not without their selling points. On top of those abilities, the MGC's can be scripted to focus on either or, too. Personally, though, I don't feel they are quite enough to make up for their shortcomings. Again, personally, mind you. I'm sure others can and will find ways to make them work well enough for them. I do think the fact that missiles in general have not been given an intimate balancing pass only helps to corrode those advantages in my mind and maybe others as well, so perhaps they will in a much better place afterwards. Tough to say until after missiles are tended to more properly.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
588
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 08:41:52 -
[984] - Quote
Most missiles are balanced around having bleed on a single-webbed AB target of the same size. At least that's what I see. If you can apply 2 webs to a target then things get exciting (also you no longer have a need for mgc unless the enemy are overloaded on links or oversized AB).
A fairly capable fleet of hml could conceivably consist of a pair of huginns with 1tp 1web and any damage bonused ship with a single mgc in the mid per ship. If you wanted to get really pedantic there are other things you could add but for a basic missile fleet this is functional.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
886
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 16:27:03 -
[985] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Most missiles are balanced around having bleed on a single-webbed AB target of the same size. At least that's what I see. If you can apply 2 webs to a target then things get exciting (also you no longer have a need for mgc unless the enemy are overloaded on links or oversized AB).
A fairly capable fleet of hml could conceivably consist of a pair of huginns with 1tp 1web and any damage bonused ship with a single mgc in the mid per ship. If you wanted to get really pedantic there are other things you could add but for a basic missile fleet this is functional.
That's putting a whole lot of faith into a small amount of ships for the application of the entire fleet. You'd be better off dropping the MGC and having everyone fit a TP. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
588
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 17:12:56 -
[986] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Most missiles are balanced around having bleed on a single-webbed AB target of the same size. At least that's what I see. If you can apply 2 webs to a target then things get exciting (also you no longer have a need for mgc unless the enemy are overloaded on links or oversized AB).
A fairly capable fleet of hml could conceivably consist of a pair of huginns with 1tp 1web and any damage bonused ship with a single mgc in the mid per ship. If you wanted to get really pedantic there are other things you could add but for a basic missile fleet this is functional. That's putting a whole lot of faith into a small amount of ships for the application of the entire fleet. You'd be better off dropping the MGC and having everyone fit a TP.
And still get speed tanked once the sigR portion of the formula reaches 1?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
886
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 17:37:35 -
[987] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Most missiles are balanced around having bleed on a single-webbed AB target of the same size. At least that's what I see. If you can apply 2 webs to a target then things get exciting (also you no longer have a need for mgc unless the enemy are overloaded on links or oversized AB).
A fairly capable fleet of hml could conceivably consist of a pair of huginns with 1tp 1web and any damage bonused ship with a single mgc in the mid per ship. If you wanted to get really pedantic there are other things you could add but for a basic missile fleet this is functional. That's putting a whole lot of faith into a small amount of ships for the application of the entire fleet. You'd be better off dropping the MGC and having everyone fit a TP. And still get speed tanked once the sigR portion of the formula reaches 1?
And this is part of why missiles aren't that popular in fleets..
However, you're always going to need tackle, but having a dedicated TP boat, when you can just put 1 TP on each ship, is a waist of a pilot. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
588
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 03:55:19 -
[988] - Quote
And that depends entirely on the level of engagement. If we presume this fight takes place in lowsec then every missile ship is fitting a point and a tp. That's 1/3rd of your slots on the generous ships. Prop mod that's either half or 1 slot left.
I'd rather invest in a couple of dedicated boats at that point.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Oxide Ammar
208
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 11:37:44 -
[989] - Quote
[Nemesis, Alpha Strike Nemesis]
Missile Guidance Enhancer II Ballistic Control System II
1MN Afterburner II Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Inferno Javelin Torpedo Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Inferno Javelin Torpedo Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Inferno Javelin Torpedo Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [Empty High slot]
Small Warhead Rigor Catalyst II Small Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
Zainou 'Gypsy' CPU Management EE-603 Zainou 'Deadeye' Missile Projection MP-703 Zainou 'Deadeye' Guided Missile Precision GP-803 Zainou 'Deadeye' Target Navigation Prediction TN-903 Crash Booster
7.3k/s torp speed, 186m explosion radius overheated
still torpedoes flight time sucks though, since range is your tank.
Lady Areola Fappington: -áSolo PVP isn't dead!-á You just need to make sure you have your booster, remote rep, cyno, and emergency Falcon alts logged in and ready before you do any solo PVPing.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 02:09:46 -
[990] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Lady Rift wrote:finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective. Previously it made the most sense to fit 2 rigors (being a T2 ship), if you now use a MGC it makes more sense to fit 1 rigor and 1 flare and even with a precision script MGC you will perform LESS than before the changes when you'd just use rigs. That's the big gripe, the actual problem: due to the stacking changes you're now forced to waste a mid slot while still doing worse than before.
expect that I don't have the rig slots after range rigs for either flare or rigor. Also only ever shooting at structures and battleships in the mission I do so 337 exp radius and 160m/s exp velocity without implants or drugs gets me enough application most of the time.
Now I can get the range out of other mods and with knowledge of the mission more application if range is already good enough.
Now I could go really bling and start to use faction BCS and then a 3rd BCS one of them makes more sense than the MGE but I still find that a little cost prohibitive.
Well now i see it in EFT I might have to try it.
[Purifier, stupid bling] Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Ballistic Control System II
1MN Afterburner II Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Range Script Medium Shield Extender II
Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [empty high slot]
Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II
can bling out the afterburner also. 794dps with my skills 811 all V. 3rd navy BCS only nets another 10dps. only needs 6% cpu which is geno's + 1% slot 6. targeting range of 97km navy missile range of 89 with range script.
of course once I start feeling/wanting to min-max everything then a 3 link booster will start following me around I think.
|
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
887
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 04:35:47 -
[991] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Tiberius Heth wrote:Lady Rift wrote:finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective. Previously it made the most sense to fit 2 rigors (being a T2 ship), if you now use a MGC it makes more sense to fit 1 rigor and 1 flare and even with a precision script MGC you will perform LESS than before the changes when you'd just use rigs. That's the big gripe, the actual problem: due to the stacking changes you're now forced to waste a mid slot while still doing worse than before. expect that I don't have the rig slots after range rigs for either flare or rigor. Also only ever shooting at structures and battleships in the mission I do so 337 exp radius and 160m/s exp velocity without implants or drugs gets me enough application most of the time. Now I can get the range out of other mods and with knowledge of the mission more application if range is already good enough. Now I could go really bling and start to use faction BCS and then a 3rd BCS one of them makes more sense than the MGE but I still find that a little cost prohibitive. Well now i see it in EFT I might have to try it. [Purifier, stupid bling] Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Ballistic Control System II 1MN Afterburner II Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Range Script Medium Shield Extender II Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Polarized Torpedo Launcher, Caldari Navy Mjolnir Torpedo Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [empty high slot] Small Ionic Field Projector II Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II can bling out the afterburner also. 794dps with my skills 811 all V. 3rd navy BCS only nets another 10dps. only needs 6% cpu which is geno's + 1% slot 6. targeting range of 97km navy missile range of 89 with range script. of course once I start feeling/wanting to min-max everything then a 3 link booster will start following me around I think.
Uhh.. There's a few issues with that fit that will help you out.
1) polarized launchers take all your resists. The shield extender is going you no good. Get rid of it
2) without range rigs, you're looking at 60km with caldari navy torps. Unless the target is locked down by a friendly, then they'll warp long before the torps hit. If they are locked down, then your friendlies will have the target down before your missiles hit. Drop the range rig and either fit application, or more DPS.
3) PWNAGE TPs have a 30 km range. Take out the MGC and fit two TPs(one in the empty mid from the shield extender) and now you have more fitting capability. You can possibly put on a MWD. At 40km, you're either too far for your target to hit, or you'll be too fast for the target to track.
All this leads to why the MGC sucks. 1) If you're in a boat that needs the range, you're also in need of the application, so it's a catch 22.
2) missile flight time at range negates any reason to be at extended ranges. 40km is the furthest you want to be with any missile system, due to flight time, which is significantly more true for torps.
3) TPs are stronger within the ranges that you want to be using missiles.
4) all this coupled with the reduced fitting costs of TPs make MGCs even less useful.
5) if you want that kind of range with a Bomber, you might as well fit cruise missiles.
See, what's funny about the MGC is how the bonus works. If you're shooting cruise at range, you would want the MGC for application, as you're going to be outside TP optimal. However, since they have a smaller exp radius than torps, you actually get less bonus effect from the MGC.
If you're trying to get range with torps, you already have significantly less range than with cruise. Based on the low range of torps, you're getting less bonus than cruise, which don't need the extra range.
The way the go bi using system works, it's counter intuitive. Long range missiles need a higher bonus to application from MGCs to suggest use over TPs, while TPs are the best choice for Short range missiles due to the range limitation. However, short range missiles need a higher range bonus to make up for their native short range, while long range missiles don't need range bonuses, and if they do, they're best suited with a rig.
The problem then becomes, how do you make this work? Well, you can't unless you give MGCs different bonuses to short and long range missiles, which I don't see happening.
The best option here is to redesign range rigs and TPs.
Design range rigs to give high bonuses to range. This will buff short range missiles, while being somewhat redundant to long range missiles, due to their application time and natively high range already.
Then, design TPs to no longer have an optimal, but instead to have a max range.. The shorter the range, the higher the bonus, making them more effective for short range missiles, where more bonus is needed, while giving long range missiles a less effective version (which is fine considering they need less) but it gives them a version that is effective for their intended range.
Now, you can get rid of MGCs and MGEs all together, as they don't fit well with any build and are especially less useful than anything else. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
197
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 05:30:30 -
[992] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:[quote=Tiberius Heth][quote=Lady Rift] quotes and things
Uhh.. There's a few issues with that fit that will help you out. 1) polarized launchers take all your resists. The shield extender is going you no good. Get rid of it 2) without range rigs, you're looking at 60km with caldari navy torps. Unless the target is locked down by a friendly, then they'll warp long before the torps hit. If they are locked down, then your friendlies will have the target down before your missiles hit. Drop the range rig and either fit application, or more DPS. 3) PWNAGE TPs have a 30 km range. Take out the MGC and fit two TPs(one in the empty mid from the shield extender) and now you have more fitting capability. You can possibly put on a MWD. At 40km, you're either too far for your target to hit, or you'll be too fast for the target to track. All this leads to why the MGC sucks. 1) If you're in a boat that needs the range, you're also in need of the application, so it's a catch 22. 2) missile flight time at range negates any reason to be at extended ranges. 40km is the furthest you want to be with any missile system, due to flight time, which is significantly more true for torps. 3) TPs are stronger within the ranges that you want to be using missiles. 4) all this coupled with the reduced fitting costs of TPs make MGCs even less useful. 5) if you want that kind of range with a Bomber, you might as well fit cruise missiles. See, what's funny about the MGC is how the bonus works. If you're shooting cruise at range, you would want the MGC for application, as you're going to be outside TP optimal. However, since they have a smaller exp radius than torps, you actually get less bonus effect from the MGC. If you're trying to get range with torps, you already have significantly less range than with cruise. Based on the low range of torps, you're getting less bonus than cruise, which don't need the extra range. The way the go bi using system works, it's counter intuitive. Long range missiles need a higher bonus to application from MGCs to suggest use over TPs, while TPs are the best choice for Short range missiles due to the range limitation. However, short range missiles need a higher range bonus to make up for their native short range, while long range missiles don't need range bonuses, and if they do, they're best suited with a rig. The problem then becomes, how do you make this work? Well, you can't unless you give MGCs different bonuses to short and long range missiles, which I don't see happening. The best option here is to redesign range rigs and TPs. Design range rigs to give high bonuses to range. This will buff short range missiles, while being somewhat redundant to long range missiles, due to their application time and natively high range already. Then, design TPs to no longer have an optimal, but instead to have a max range.. The shorter the range, the higher the bonus, making them more effective for short range missiles, where more bonus is needed, while giving long range missiles a less effective version (which is fine considering they need less) but it gives them a version that is effective for their intended range. Now, you can get rid of MGCs and MGEs all together, as they don't fit well with any build and are especially less useful than anything else.
you cant fit curises on a bomber. And for these missions where you start out at 100~110km. To slow boat with just an afterburner 40-50 km while also keeping traversal up against the ship you are approaching is a pain (the bomber does ~850m/s straight at target those torps are doing 6.5km/s). Also note it take less than 1 reload per mission. I want to start shooting right away. I have never seen a normal mission rat warp away from me no matter how long I took to kill it.
As i said I hate the aggravation of when a TP misses. even if its still better at the 100km range.
FW missions are all in low sec with lots of every size npc rats. size and traversal are the only thing that keeps you alive. A medium extender lets you take one shot instead of just becoming a pod while Polarized launchers get rid of your resists but as a bomber has bad resist anyway it doesn't change anything also 12 less cpu per launcher on a ship that is starved for cpu.
i could run with out polarized launcher and no tank but then its the same thing as polarized + med extender as both can only take 1 shot.
There is a reason I state what I'm using it for each time I talk about them because it is a very specialized role on which I put even more conditions.
Also note I do not run the bling only the launchers. You can't cloak within 30km of the mission beacon anymore and rats change targets.
So unless someone wants to give SB back their cruise missiles that they once had I need to make torps go out to 100km ish to make my life easier and do as much dmg as possible.
Edit: before making suggestion know that - it has to start shooting when it lands up to 110km away from target. This means targeting and missile range. - as much dps as possible without to much bling - can't cloak to get into range - needs to survive a hit from a amarr battleship (for when I mess up traversals) - be fast and slippery enough to get though many gates without being caught |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
887
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 05:44:43 -
[993] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: you cant fit curises on a bomber. And for these missions where you start out at 100~110km. To slow boat with just an afterburner 40-50 km while also keeping traversal up against the ship you are approaching is a pain (the bomber does ~850m/s straight at target those torps are doing 6.5km/s). Also note it take less than 1 reload per mission. I want to start shooting right away. I have never seen a normal mission rat warp away from me no matter how long I took to kill it.
As i said I hate the aggravation of when a TP misses. even if its still better at the 100km range.
FW missions are all in low sec with lots of every size npc rats. size and traversal are the only thing that keeps you alive. A medium extender lets you take one shot instead of just becoming a pod while Polarized launchers get rid of your resists but as a bomber has bad resist anyway it doesn't change anything also 12 less cpu per launcher on a ship that is starved for cpu.
i could run with out polarized launcher and no tank but then its the same thing as polarized + med extender as both can only take 1 shot.
There is a reason I state what I'm using it for each time I talk about them because it is a very specialized role on which I put even more conditions.
Also note I do not run the bling only the launchers. You can't cloak within 30km of the mission beacon anymore and rats change targets.
So unless someone wants to give SB back their cruise missiles that they once had I need to make torps go out to 100km ish to make my life easier and do as much dmg as possible.
Edit: before making suggestion know that - it has to start shooting when it lands up to 110km away from target. This means targeting and missile range. - as much dps as possible without to much bling - can't cloak to get into range - needs to survive a hit from a amarr battleship (for when I mess up traversals) - be fast and slippery enough to get though many gates without being caught
Ahh, see, that's where you lost me... I was assuming bomber, so PVP fit... Didn't realize that was a PVE fit, which makes more sense.
That said, I still think my suggestion or rebalancing TPs and range rigs would suit you better than MGCs. Even without that, TPs and range rigs are still better than MGCs, but as you stated, at 100kms TPs aren't always hitting. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1710
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 18:36:52 -
[994] - Quote
Tiberius Heth wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Lady Rift wrote:finally got off my butt to log in and fit these mods. I like them for my pve. for the same range i get a sub 300 exp radius and 180 exp vel vs 330 and 160. plus i can get more application if I wanted to get closer. Had to change a rig and use implants for fitting to get a low and a mid to fit.
I'm really curious how strong it would of been prenerf. As i like them currently for my needs. and more range and application can only make my pve more effective. May I ask what you're flying in? I fly a Golem and have tried them with both Torps and cruise. In both cases, 3 TPs or 2tps and a web always performed better. I don't need the range for cruise, and if I try to use them to add range to Torps, then I lose application. That said, my max lock range is 118km, and my TPs seem to still be more effective at that range, dispite being well out of optimal. Again, the Golem gets bonused TP so you're never EVER going to see a reason to fit them there, unless you want the range. Also TP is binary, they either will work or they don't and at 100km they have a bout a 50% chance to apply (assuming maxed TP skills).
It is ~80% effective at 50% falloff. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
769
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 20:58:03 -
[995] - Quote
Whenever this comes up all turrets and drones and smartbombs and logi only have terrible downsides and nobody ever uses them and when missiles want to have a say in a fight it is totally overpowered, the end of the world of warcraft the end of nullsec the end of faction warfare and the end of suicide ganking mining barges.
For the last time the range that all turrets have to reach to do zero damage is optimal + 2x falloff. At optimal + falloff you start doing 50% damage not zero and the range of all turrets is always the same, regardless of your movement or anyone elses.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4523
|
Posted - 2015.07.29 00:06:19 -
[996] - Quote
So, what's the consensus? Missiles still suck and drones are Op, yes? Once again CCP Fall threw us a bone... laced with strychnine.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
770
|
Posted - 2015.07.29 01:02:26 -
[997] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So, what's the consensus? Missiles still suck and drones are Op, yes? Once again CCP Fall threw us a bone... laced with strychnine.
Well to answer that we have to have a readit or facetwitter and thumble account, since the CCP dev no longer talk to us one here. The forums are dead.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Matt Faithbringer
Rapid Withdrawal
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.29 07:43:29 -
[998] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:So, what's the consensus? Missiles still suck and drones are Op, yes? Once again CCP Fall threw us a bone... laced with strychnine. Well to answer that we have to have a readit or facetwitter and thumble account, since the CCP dev no longer talk to us one here. The forums are dead.
yeah, but reddit is fun. So many high SP people there. Nowhere else I saw so many people, everyone with S h i t Posting V. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4526
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 00:20:05 -
[999] - Quote
Back to our own private discussion (since no one from CCP is chiming in)... Other than freeing up slots for Hyperspacial rigs, is there really any other use for the MGC? Especially on a ship like the Golem which arguably has a fairly decent TP bonus.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Mario Putzo
1504
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 01:29:07 -
[1000] - 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. |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
770
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 04:09:49 -
[1001] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Back to our own private discussion (since no one from CCP is chiming in)... Other than freeing up slots for Hyperspacial rigs, is there really any other use for the MGC? Especially on a ship like the Golem which arguably has a fairly decent TP bonus.
And the almost surprising answer is a stunning no.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4526
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 05:24:40 -
[1002] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:how about we fix this too.
not only do missiles deal less peak damage against like sized targets, less applied damage against like sized targets compared to similar sized turrets...they also have worse accuracy (against larger targets!) despite "apparently" hitting 100% of the time...about that. Except 11/20 isn't even remotely close to 100% - not by a long shot... This seems to be primarily affecting rapid launchers. Wait, who introduced these again? Could it be they're simply firing too fast, which wasn't a problem with the original RLMLs and the first iteration of RHMLs? It's too bad no one ever entertained the idea of slowing them down, increasing ammunition capacity and reducing reload time. Oh wait, we did...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 07:17:44 -
[1003] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f38ok/major_bug_with_missile_volleys_completely/
. [/quote]
Lolololol this is hilarious.
How long until ccp responds? Days? Weeks?
This is an interesting glitch. I would like to know more about why. It kind of looks like something to do with travel time and the server tick. More sconce needs to be done. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4527
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 07:40:25 -
[1004] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Lolololol this is hilarious. How long until ccp responds? Days? Weeks?
This is an interesting glitch. I would like to know more about why. It kind of looks like something to do with travel time and the server tick. More sconce needs to be done. Hey, did I mention we're still waiting for the rapid launcher ammunition swap fix? But since this isn't a 'design' issue, I suspect we'll see a much faster response.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 08:18:29 -
[1005] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Lolololol this is hilarious. How long until ccp responds? Days? Weeks?
This is an interesting glitch. I would like to know more about why. It kind of looks like something to do with travel time and the server tick. More sconce needs to be done. Hey, did I mention we're still waiting for the rapid launcher ammunition swap fix? But since this isn't a 'design' issue, I suspect we'll see a much faster response.
What "rapid launcher ammo swap fix"?
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
770
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 08:38:24 -
[1006] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Lolololol this is hilarious. How long until ccp responds? Days? Weeks?
This is an interesting glitch. I would like to know more about why. It kind of looks like something to do with travel time and the server tick. More sconce needs to be done. Hey, did I mention we're still waiting for the rapid launcher ammunition swap fix? But since this isn't a 'design' issue, I suspect we'll see a much faster response.
They say hope dies last. It's still early, the office just opened so let them have their coffee first.
Moving on, I don't expect anything anymore at this time. Much talk, no action. They also say, you only miss something when you don't have it anymore. So many things are taken for granted these days, WE are taken for granted. We let us treat like people we represent to be. Cold, cutthroat, evil and most of all forgiving.
Yes, forgiving!
Think about this. The next time a good thing comes our way, all the bad shall be forgiven. Break our trust, shame on you, break it again shame on us. I am free to admit that I may squat about game design but I do know enough about ship vs ship combat in EVE to plead my case. Too bad this is not a democracy but the modern age dictatorship and the people have to take what they have been given or else.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4527
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 08:43:00 -
[1007] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:What "rapid launcher ammo swap fix"? Exactly.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Anthar Thebess
1246
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 08:53:07 -
[1008] - Quote
So many prople moved from ishtars to missle doctrines ( cerberus mostly )
I think simplest solution will be for CCP to create, optimal range and falloff for missile Falloff range : last tick Optimal , every thing not last tick.
Bug solved.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
589
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 12:30:34 -
[1009] - Quote
How much is there left to say?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
887
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 12:47:29 -
[1010] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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 peak damage against like sized targets, less applied damage against like sized targets compared to similar sized turrets...they also have worse accuracy (against larger targets!) 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.
Holy crap... I thought I was going crazy. No one else seems to share this issue with me.
I will say, this issue is not limited to rapid launchers.
I have had the issue with torps and cruise missiles on my Golem, as well as with lights on a jackdaw. It seems to be extremely random. I ran all 6 rooms of angel extravaganza and didn't see the issue once, but then I ran Rogue Drone Harassment which is only one room, and watched it happen 5 times. This was with a cruise Golem in Bastion, which obviously doesn't have any range issues. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4527
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 14:13:26 -
[1011] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I have had the issue with torps and cruise missiles on my Golem, as well as with lights on a jackdaw. It seems to be extremely random. I ran all 6 rooms of angel extravaganza and didn't see the issue once, but then I ran Rogue Drone Harassment which is only one room, and watched it happen 5 times. This was with a cruise Golem in Bastion, which obviously doesn't have any range issues. Apparently this might be linked to grouping launchers. Individual volleys for the time being?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
887
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 15:01:37 -
[1012] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I have had the issue with torps and cruise missiles on my Golem, as well as with lights on a jackdaw. It seems to be extremely random. I ran all 6 rooms of angel extravaganza and didn't see the issue once, but then I ran Rogue Drone Harassment which is only one room, and watched it happen 5 times. This was with a cruise Golem in Bastion, which obviously doesn't have any range issues. Apparently this might be linked to grouping launchers. Individual volleys for the time being?
Well, that might address the issue, or it may make it more prevalent. If it's tied to grouping then yes, but it's tied to server ticks or something like that, it'll happen more often. |
Matt Faithbringer
Rapid Withdrawal
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 15:42:19 -
[1013] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I have had the issue with torps and cruise missiles on my Golem, as well as with lights on a jackdaw. It seems to be extremely random. I ran all 6 rooms of angel extravaganza and didn't see the issue once, but then I ran Rogue Drone Harassment which is only one room, and watched it happen 5 times. This was with a cruise Golem in Bastion, which obviously doesn't have any range issues. Apparently this might be linked to grouping launchers. Individual volleys for the time being? Well, that might address the issue, or it may make it more prevalent. If it's tied to grouping then yes, but it's tied to server ticks or something like that, it'll happen more often.
well if I remember something from my math classes it should happen more often, but to the same percentage of the damage, so dps shouldn't change |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
199
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 16:14:52 -
[1014] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I have had the issue with torps and cruise missiles on my Golem, as well as with lights on a jackdaw. It seems to be extremely random. I ran all 6 rooms of angel extravaganza and didn't see the issue once, but then I ran Rogue Drone Harassment which is only one room, and watched it happen 5 times. This was with a cruise Golem in Bastion, which obviously doesn't have any range issues. Apparently this might be linked to grouping launchers. Individual volleys for the time being? Well, that might address the issue, or it may make it more prevalent. If it's tied to grouping then yes, but it's tied to server ticks or something like that, it'll happen more often. well if I remember something from my math classes it should happen more often, but to the same percentage of the damage, so dps shouldn't change
unless its an issue with group of launchers that is causing this and ungrouped launcher don't have the bug. This assumes that its an issue of group vs ungroup which we dont know. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
887
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 16:26:38 -
[1015] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I have had the issue with torps and cruise missiles on my Golem, as well as with lights on a jackdaw. It seems to be extremely random. I ran all 6 rooms of angel extravaganza and didn't see the issue once, but then I ran Rogue Drone Harassment which is only one room, and watched it happen 5 times. This was with a cruise Golem in Bastion, which obviously doesn't have any range issues. Apparently this might be linked to grouping launchers. Individual volleys for the time being? Well, that might address the issue, or it may make it more prevalent. If it's tied to grouping then yes, but it's tied to server ticks or something like that, it'll happen more often. well if I remember something from my math classes it should happen more often, but to the same percentage of the damage, so dps shouldn't change unless its an issue with group of launchers that is causing this and ungrouped launcher don't have the bug. This assumes that its an issue of group vs ungroup which we dont know.
Yes, if it's a grouping issue, then ungrouping would give more DPS.
HOWEVER, if it's a server tick issue or some other such bug, ungrouping could cause even further reduced dps, as there's a higher chance for more missiles to be effected by the issue.
Edit.... I don't have an alt account or someone who's willing to sit on the test server with me, trying this out. Is there anyway someone else can run some tests? On second thought, I may be able to do it as well by flying out to null and pounding on a structure for a while. |
stoicfaux
6176
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 18:52:36 -
[1016] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote: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 peak damage against like sized targets, less applied damage against like sized targets compared to similar sized turrets...they also have worse accuracy (against larger targets!) 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. Yawn... Here's a thread from 2010: Golem pilots/Raven pilots - Torp glitch?
I did some testing prior to that and wierdness happens to missiles at the edge of the range. Also, don't forget that missiles take time to accelerate. The in-game display may or may not take acceleration time into account, i.e. The Big Ninetails Thread of Useful FormulaeGäó -> TRUE Missile Range.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
887
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 19:20:51 -
[1017] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Mario Putzo wrote: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 peak damage against like sized targets, less applied damage against like sized targets compared to similar sized turrets...they also have worse accuracy (against larger targets!) 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. Yawn... Here's a thread from 2010: Golem pilots/Raven pilots - Torp glitch?I did some testing prior to that and wierdness happens to missiles at the edge of the range. Also, don't forget that missiles take time to accelerate. The in-game display may or may not take acceleration time into account, i.e. The Big Ninetails Thread of Useful FormulaeGäó -> TRUE Missile Range. edit: Ah yes, good times, good times: http://eve-search.com/thread/1307419-0
We're all aware that you don't get the listed range in actual use. What we're speaking of is a completely different issue.
I have a cruise Golem. Out of bastion, my fury cruise missiles have a 166km range. My lock range IN bastion is only 118km, not to mention my range is then increased to 208km.
Despite having the range to hit anything I can target, I sometimes have missile volleys disappear when shooting a target 40kms away.
What you're explaining is if your torps say you have 60km range, you really only have 55km range, and if the target is moving, you have less and less range the faster the target goes.
Completely different issue.
|
Matt Faithbringer
Rapid Withdrawal
10
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 19:38:35 -
[1018] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Mario Putzo wrote: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 peak damage against like sized targets, less applied damage against like sized targets compared to similar sized turrets...they also have worse accuracy (against larger targets!) 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. Yawn... Here's a thread from 2010: Golem pilots/Raven pilots - Torp glitch?I did some testing prior to that and wierdness happens to missiles at the edge of the range. Also, don't forget that missiles take time to accelerate. The in-game display may or may not take acceleration time into account, i.e. The Big Ninetails Thread of Useful FormulaeGäó -> TRUE Missile Range. edit: Ah yes, good times, good times: http://eve-search.com/thread/1307419-0
The issue here is that if both ships are not moving, missiles should *always hit* or *always miss*, not *sometimes hit* |
stoicfaux
6176
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 19:43:01 -
[1019] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: We're all aware that you don't get the listed range in actual use. What we're speaking of is a completely different issue.
I have a cruise Golem. Out of bastion, my fury cruise missiles have a 166km range. My lock range IN bastion is only 118km, not to mention my range is then increased to 208km.
Despite having the range to hit anything I can target, I sometimes have missile volleys disappear when shooting a target 40kms away.
The reddit post mentions edge of missile range (and with the Mordu velocity bonus that's a pretty big edge.) Which is what I was going by.
If you really are losing missiles at 40km out of 208km, then that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I would check the local log to make sure it wasn't a visual/graphic problem, and if we're talking about shooting NPCs: * there's one name NPC in missions with Defenders that could wipe out multiple missiles. But that's probably a non-issue post-Aegis missile HP buff. Was this 40km problem pre-Aegis? * NPCs will sometimes speed away (aka pseudo-war) if you get too far from their origin point, IIRC. * your missiles disappear if you warp
Quote:What you're explaining is if your torps say you have 60km range, you really only have 55km range, and if the target is moving, you have less and less range the faster the target goes.
No. With both shooter and target at zero velocity near the max range of missiles also resulted in inconsistent hits. This is old behavior. (Movement had no real impact when I tested back in 2010, but then I was shooting at a shuttle and not a fast moving mwd frigate.)
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
stoicfaux
6176
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 20:01:19 -
[1020] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote: The issue here is that if both ships are not moving, missiles should *always hit* or *always miss*, not *sometimes hit*
Okay. They don't always miss or hit at the edge of rnage. My personal theory was that it was something to do with the server tick.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1496553&page=1#15 Post #15. stoicfaux GallentePosted - 2011.04.29 14:19:00
Quote:Quote: Originally by: Tippia
where maybe just under a second was wasted on the missile taking a little spin around the target before actually hitting.
The little spin wasn't happening when I was testing. To add insult to injury, in another test I found the maximum consistent range that I could hit the stationary shuttle, and then I set the shuttle to orbit the Raven. The torps, already at their max range, had no problem hitting the moving Raven, which casts doubt on the 'moving target' theory. My personal theory is that it has something to do with the server heartbeat/tick/cycle. It looks like Eve uses a lot of floats so you wind up with 8.123456789 type numbers. If Eve's heartbeat is one second (meaning Eve checks things every second,) but if timestamps are in milliseconds (in thousandths of a second) then you might have the case where you fire a quarter of a second into a tick and you lose (or gain) that quarter second when the server runs its calculations on every full second. Example: 00:00:00 - server tick 00:00:00.250 - user fires torpedo (with 9 second flight time) 00:00:01 - server launches torpedo 00:00:02 - server determines if torpedo is out of fuel but uses 00:00:00.250 for the flight time calculations. Thus torpedo has thus been flying for 1.750 seconds. ... 00:00:08 - Is torp out of fuel? Torp has been flying for 7.75 seconds. 00:00:09 - Is torp out of fuel? Torp has been flying for 8.75 seconds. Which rounds up to 9, so the server decides that the torpedo is done flying, and you lose a quarter second of flight time. Again, personal theory, no real proof.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4527
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 20:47:29 -
[1021] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:The reddit post mentions edge of missile range (and with the Mordu velocity bonus that's a pretty big edge.) Which is what I was going by. Does this affect Mordu ships more than others?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
535
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 21:32:26 -
[1022] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:stoicfaux wrote:The reddit post mentions edge of missile range (and with the Mordu velocity bonus that's a pretty big edge.) Which is what I was going by. Does this affect Mordu ships more than others?
According to the general consensus of the reddit discussion, yes. They are drawing on the assumption that the Mordus ships' rather abnormal projection buff is why they are more susceptible to the problem. It's believed that since the velocity buff/flight time nerf means missiles will fly faster but last shorter, that translates to a much wider distance loss if you were to lose a second of flight time, making it more noticeable on a Mordus ship.
It's definitely obvious that we are collectively pointing out more than one issue/bug/odd behavior. The reddit's observations, Joe's bug, and the age old missile issue of range being less precise than how it works for guns are possible three separate and isolated events. Either that or they are one and the same, but are being exacerbated in some way differently in each scenario.
The only other issue I've seen besides the one Joe describes and the fact that missile range is a little unreliable at near-to-edge is the one related to the Bastion module, whereby the act of entering or exiting Bastion Mode after missiles have been fired but before they should have registered a hit fail to apply any damage. They visually hit, but there is no hit reg. This is regardless of range, missile/launcher type or variant, grouped or ungrouped, target type, etc. This has been reproducible without fail for me and others since the Bastion Module was introduced.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4527
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 21:42:55 -
[1023] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:According to the general consensus of the reddit discussion, yes. They are drawing on the assumption that the Mordus ships' rather abnormal projection buff is why they are more susceptible to the problem. It's believed that since the velocity buff/flight time nerf means missiles will fly faster but last shorter, that translates to a much wider distance loss if you were to lose a second of flight time, making it more noticeable on a Mordus ship. I wonder if this is being exacerbated or otherwise affected by the MGC or MGE.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
535
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 21:51:10 -
[1024] - Quote
Not so sure of that, given the MGC/MGE is a relatively new module addition where as these issues have mostly been observed prior to and continue to happen regardless of the modules' presence. It doesn't seem to matter if you are using them or not, and I doubt they are to blame either.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4527
|
Posted - 2015.07.30 21:53:46 -
[1025] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Not so sure of that, given the MGC/MGE is a relatively new module addition where as these issues have mostly been observed prior to and continue to happen regardless of the modules' presence. It doesn't seem to matter if you are using them or not, and I doubt they are to blame either. And I completely forgot that the vast majority of missile players aren't using them...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
342
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 13:46:26 -
[1026] - Quote
Just wish CCP would just get over with it and fix the base application stats of heavy missiles. The new modules are lousy, and not really viable for use on any ship platform intended for using heavy missile launchers. |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
590
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 14:05:04 -
[1027] - Quote
SFM Hobb3s wrote:Just wish CCP would just get over with it and fix the base application stats of heavy missiles. The new modules are lousy, and not really viable for use on any ship platform intended for using heavy missile launchers.
They're fleet modules that relieve effort from individuals in having to paint their own targets (and lost painter hits due to server ticks) not to mention that their benefit scales infinitely across the whole distance of the missiles flight time while painters suffer fall off to 0% in time.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
535
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 17:36:38 -
[1028] - Quote
It's odd. At first glance, these things are pretty lousy, yeah. But, if CCP runs through a missile weapons pass and is generous in certain areas where they are hurting, these modules will make a bit better sense. Having a module that isn't a rig providing range is potentially a pretty sweet deal on it's own, it's just so damn hard to justify the cost in fitting and slot layout on more than a handful of ships and fits. Notably, if FoF's were more often used for instance, these can be good substitute for TP's, but again in really only a pinch. I still feel like MGE's just need to be scraped, as they are way down at the bottom of the food chain where low slot mods are concerned, and buffing them enough to be much more useful might actually make them too OP anyways.
I also still feel like CCP should at least consider whether or not these modules should be refocused towards providing a benefit (like range) that the other mid and low slot modules just don't offer rather than making them senselessly compete for a place on the fitting window. That kind of friction is what's really hurting these modules; they aren't necessarily too weak per say, just too much weaker than other options that we've been using for years already.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
888
|
Posted - 2015.07.31 18:24:31 -
[1029] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:It's odd. At first glance, these things are pretty lousy, yeah. But, if CCP runs through a missile weapons pass and is generous in certain areas where they are hurting, these modules will make a bit better sense. Having a module that isn't a rig providing range is potentially a pretty sweet deal on it's own, it's just so damn hard to justify the cost in fitting and slot layout on more than a handful of ships and fits. Notably, if FoF's were more often used for instance, these can be good substitute for TP's, but again in really only a pinch. I still feel like MGE's just need to be scraped, as they are way down at the bottom of the food chain where low slot mods are concerned, and buffing them enough to be much more useful might actually make them too OP anyways.
I also still feel like CCP should at least consider whether or not these modules should be refocused towards providing a benefit (like range) that the other mid and low slot modules just don't offer rather than making them senselessly compete for a place on the fitting window. That kind of friction is what's really hurting these modules; they aren't necessarily too weak per say, just too much weaker than other options that we've been using for years already.
Actually, Sir Livingston just posted a video up on his "Eve is Easy" youtube of using an FoF tengu with 2 MGCs... I commended him for actually finding a viable use for MGCs; Though, it doesn't make FoFs funtional missiles for anything better than burning through HS sites trying to farm out escalations. |
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
308
|
Posted - 2015.08.01 03:20:42 -
[1030] - Quote
FoF missiles are still completely broken for PVP and have been for over a year. I tested them on Singularity recently, and while being jammed even with valid targets on grid, they refused to fire. An example video of this (not mine):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE
I logged EBR-41489 - Auto-Targeting Missiles Completely Broken - which is attached to an internal CCP bug. |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3354
|
Posted - 2015.08.01 05:07:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:FoF missiles are still completely broken for PVP and have been for over a year. I tested them on Singularity recently, and while being jammed even with valid targets on grid, they refused to fire. An example video of this (not mine): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE I logged EBR-41489 - Auto-Targeting Missiles Completely Broken - which is attached to an internal CCP bug.
thats interesting. would be funny if ccp would have overlooked that most of crimewatch is disabled in nullsec and that those auto targeting missiles are basically following crimewatch flags to find targets.
last time i used them in low they worked fine and i was able to hit a keres with a heretic, my main issue was always that they usually went for drones instead of ewar ships. So if you had a few tristans around you and a maulus they where completely ineffective all you did was to kill 2 goblins before exploding
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
590
|
Posted - 2015.08.01 05:38:03 -
[1032] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:It's odd. At first glance, these things are pretty lousy, yeah. But, if CCP runs through a missile weapons pass and is generous in certain areas where they are hurting, these modules will make a bit better sense. Having a module that isn't a rig providing range is potentially a pretty sweet deal on it's own, it's just so damn hard to justify the cost in fitting and slot layout on more than a handful of ships and fits. Notably, if FoF's were more often used for instance, these can be good substitute for TP's, but again in really only a pinch. I still feel like MGE's just need to be scraped, as they are way down at the bottom of the food chain where low slot mods are concerned, and buffing them enough to be much more useful might actually make them too OP anyways.
I also still feel like CCP should at least consider whether or not these modules should be refocused towards providing a benefit (like range) that the other mid and low slot modules just don't offer rather than making them senselessly compete for a place on the fitting window. That kind of friction is what's really hurting these modules; they aren't necessarily too weak per say, just too much weaker than other options that we've been using for years already.
Well I'll agree with you that I'd have more use from the MGE if it gave mostly just range and very little application. There would be viable builds opened up from like that torp battleships etc.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.08.01 07:39:37 -
[1033] - Quote
Under some more stress tests, the MGC seems to have a small niche on suplimentary dps sniper ships like talwars and kite caracals. If they're willing to go OS prop/ no tank type of setups. The MGE continues to be totally worthless. The bonus is not competitive with a third BCU, nano, or SigAmp for the kite type setups.
just like everyone said when you released the new values. Also, CCP, please hire someone who completed some form of college math course please. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 01:34:37 -
[1034] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Under some more stress tests, the MGC seems to have a small niche on suplimentary dps sniper ships like talwars and kite caracals. If they're willing to go OS prop/ no tank type of setups. Quite possibly. Also setups where you need to utilize your rigs to expand your power grid, where you're limited to 2 rigs or only have 350 configuration (examples). I would add the caveat that I don't see MGCs being utilized that much outside of T2 or T3 hulls because you simply don't have the free mid slots and/or can afford to really give up tank.
Two precision-scripted MGCs will net you ~30% explosion radius/~30% explosion velocity, which is roughly equivalent to a pair of T2 rigors and a T2 flare (roughly, mind you - as I realize a setup with rigs provide slightly more damage application). Arguably the MGCs are more cost effective than the T2 rigs, so this is another consideration.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 03:27:15 -
[1035] - Quote
Exactly, for OS prop setups, they allow a shuffle trade, you give up tank, move your application to mids, move your PG mods to rigs, and gain BCUs. But this is hilariously niche, and leaves you dead if you come up against a turret boat that can track you. Often possible with an eagle that has a single TC in the mid. Which will still be tanked, unlike you. So what's the point?
Mods not worth their slot cost IMO. Need slight buff for MGC and huge buff for MGE. |
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 05:34:21 -
[1036] - Quote
Basically, I am a heavy PVE user so I almost have no idea about PVP(afaik, I haven't ever seen a missile-based fleet in PVP, just heard some). So, here I'm talking about PVE-biased view.
After I investigated the new modules, I found it is really worthless with the stacking penalty. Rather it is worse than before.
IMO, the critical reason why missiles are useless is all about the sigR problem. And this patch made missiles more harsh to deal with that.
Turrets CAN make a situation to give full damage with their over-sized turrets. When target is not moving (making tracking part 0 even the sigR is small, it does not matter) and target is in optimal range (making range part 0), they can do full damage.
Missiles CANNOT make a situation due to the sigR problem. You cannot make a 40m sigR frig bigger than 137m even if you put ALL the target painters in EVE and your over-sized(cruise or torpedo) missiles have far bigger expR thus cannot do their full damage.
Then, I have no doubt why turrets are preferred since they CAN MAKE the situation and pew pew whatever I want. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 06:22:04 -
[1037] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:But this is hilariously niche, and leaves you dead if you come up against a turret boat that can track you. Very niche. Like "rare" PvE niche... Just for kicks I took the Tengu configuration from SirLiv's video and tweaked it a bit (Obfuscation Manifold, 3x Faction BCUs/~+6% DPS and a T2 Warhead Calefaction rig to get another ~+5% DPS as this setup only has 3 lows; I dumped T1 Hyperspacials in the remaining slots, swapped the MWD for a Deadspace passive kinetic amplifier and went with Faction HMLs to reduce the power grid requirement). With Ascendancy/Missile implants and full missile skills it was warping along at 9 AU/s and putting out just shy of 600 DPS (600+ DPS pverheated). Faction launchers make a huge difference for FoF missiles as they have a higher rate of fire (even with T2 HMLs/Heavy Missile Specialization V) and hold +5 more rounds of ammunition.
As expected, it worked quite well running pretty much any type of standard HS combat site (then again, it worked fine with rigors prior to MGCs too...). Downside is a huge EM hole and a lot of shiny tied up in a fit with a very low rate of return (not even sure running HS combat sites rates above mining). There's no way I'd sacrifice two mid slots on a Tengu and pooch the tank other than sh*ts and giggles. And we're still talking PvE - nevermind PvP!
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 07:20:18 -
[1038] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
If you ran 3x rigors prior it's slightly less effective now in terms of damage application. Thus, a T1 flare is now worth more than a T1 rigor for a third rig. Running either MGCs or MGEs in combination with rigors or flares is only going to see marginal gains (certainly not more than what you're sacrificing in the process).
Let's not go down the turret vs. missile vs. drone path... Turrets can apply full (and more damage), but they also frequently miss (missiles do as well, but not to the same extent). With larger ships and turrets you need a combination of straight vectors, distance or target painters and webs (usually 2/3).
Looking at a few popular examples for ships, would you use a MGC or MGE on (PvE only):
1. Golem. Nope. 2x T2 rigors and 2 TPs allow you to blap most frigates with single Faction volleys. Yes, you have to activate TPs, and yes - there is falloff - but TPs and rigors aren't stacking penalized together, and the Golem gets a whopping +50% TP bonus. Plus it has no low slots and few (if any) mids to sacrifice. Definitely nope.
...
I'm sure I've only made a dent and omitted quite a few, but the premise is basically the same: MGCs and MGEs are inherently underpowered.
Actually, I use MGCs, but not MGEs since most Caldari ships are short of low slots.
For an instance, my Golem has 2 TPs, 2 MGCs and 2 T2 Rigors. But this is not just enough for my PVE situation. I mostly run vanguard incursions which the Sansha frigs takes the major portion of targets and far more stronger than elite frigs in mission. But even with MGCs, TPs and Rigors, the precision missiles lack of damage(which makes it worthless compared to turret ships), others lack of expR.
If somebody says shooting frigs with over-sized missiles wrong, I'd like to say the same thing to the turrets.
Put things aside, I totally agree to your last mention. They are so underpowerd. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
890
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 08:00:31 -
[1039] - Quote
What I'm seeing as the major issue with these modules is that missiles essentially have two different effects for application and range.
You have exp velocity and exp radius. Then, you have missile velocity and missile flight time.
Now, this works out for the missiles as a stand alone system, but when you try to add modifiers, it becomes complicated.
In the case of range, that is easy. We're always going to want velocity over flight time. so the issue with MGE and MGC, as far as range goes, can simply be addressed by applying all buffs to velocity. (though, you do have the issue of stacking penalties, which is the complication here)
As far as application goes, it's tricky business. At a stationary or slow moving target, it's all about exp radius. For a target moving at a moderate speed, both are equally important. Against a fast moving target, the system favors exp velocity, though a smaller target will sway how important radius is, but it is still less important than velocity.
What's weird (and I've never seen someone actually mention it as an issue) is that when a target is moving very fast speed, reducing your exp radius can actually hurt you more than help you. What I mean by this is, if you're already having issues with the target mitigating damage by out-running the exp velocity, this becomes worse when you reduce the exp radius, as they then have to out-run the velocity but in a smaller area, thus reducing the amount of time they spend inside the radius.
You then have the situations where you come across an immobile or webbed to hell target, to which exp velocity is basically meaningless. This causes the exp velocity bonus of MGEs and MGCs to be virtually useless.
You also have an odd case with short range missiles that turrets (if used properly) do not share the same concerns. This is, when you need range. You can increase your range, but at the cost of application. Now, the reason I say turrets don't share this concern is, while they do lose tracking while fitting range scripts, they can negate the tracking issues by catching targets on alignment, catching them on a turn, following travel direction, and hitting a slow/immobile target. Missiles cannot do this, which means application modification is always required, unless the target is a larger class than what your missiles are intended for (IE lights shooting a cruiser). There's basically no way to address this issue without removing a stat and/or always giving missiles some sort of application bonus, even with range modules.
As far as the varying importance of exp radius vs exp velocity... Well, this could possibly be addressed by having a exp velocity script, exp radius script, and a combined script. However, you again face the issue of stacking penalties, which are the bane of missiles systems, probably more so than any other weapon. It's kind of a catch 22.... Perhaps missiles just need to altogether go back to the drawing board.
It's a bit weird that introducing a module, that was intended to help missiles, has instead caused their blemishes to stand out; Kinda like when you're staining wood and it causes the imperfections to show... |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1713
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 09:08:27 -
[1040] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: What's weird (and I've never seen someone actually mention it as an issue) is that when a target is moving very fast speed, reducing your exp radius can actually hurt you more than help you. What I mean by this is, if you're already having issues with the target mitigating damage by out-running the exp velocity, this becomes worse when you reduce the exp radius, as they then have to out-run the velocity but in a smaller area, thus reducing the amount of time they spend inside the radius.
It doesnt work like that.
The formula applies instantly, the target doesnt actually travel through the explosion. It's all just fluff to explain the existence of the formula.
The problem with fleeting ships is that missile range is (missile speed - target speed) * flight time.
So for example a drake shooting at a cynabal doing 3km/s which is trying to burn away has an effective range of
(6450-3000)*9.75 = 33.6km and not ~62.9 it might do.
Of course this goes both ways as when things burn at missiles they can burn into range, in my experience though, this doesn't happen often enough to offset the issue. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 09:15:26 -
[1041] - Quote
BN0216 Lim wrote:For an instance, my Golem has 2 TPs, 2 MGCs and 2 T2 Rigors. But this is not just enough for my PVE situation. I mostly run vanguard incursions which the Sansha frigs takes the major portion of targets and far more stronger than elite frigs in mission. But even with MGCs, TPs and Rigors, the precision missiles lack of damage(which makes it worthless compared to turret ships), others lack of expR. The only aspect you could change is switching to RHMLs utilizing Precision ammo, but you take a huge range hit. The 35-second reload time could be a deal killer as well.
Joe Risalo wrote:It's a bit weird that introducing a module, that was intended to help missiles, has instead caused their blemishes to stand out; Kinda like when you're staining wood and it causes the imperfections to show... Yes. Yes it is.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
773
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 09:31:55 -
[1042] - Quote
Joe, that was perfection!
So here is what I want CCP, you ditch the explosion velocity or explosion radius part and the drf part from all missiles and give the modules the one that's left - missiles fixed.
Than give small and large railguns +20% damage and rocket at +15% damage and we have all weapon system fix, two bird one stone.
I am on fire this morning.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
891
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 09:52:19 -
[1043] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Joe, that was perfection!
So here is what I want CCP, you ditch the explosion velocity or explosion radius part and the drf part from all missiles and give the modules the one that's left - missiles fixed.
Than give small and large railguns +20% damage and rocket at +15% damage and we have all weapon system fix, two bird one stone.
I am on fire this morning.
My opinion, get rid of exp velocity and flight time.
Exp velocity is a bit of a weird aspect and I believe is a lingering aspect of when missiles were AoE. It is likely too difficult for CCP to work with, as they likely don't understand it anymore than we do.
As far as flight time, removing this and instead going to a simple max range not only makes makes balancing missile velocity easier, but also relieves the range loss issues caused by acceleration time.
Then, all you have to worry about is a script for exp radius and a max range script. As far as missile velocity, well... I'm not sure where to go on this, but if you change the others you could likely make it 100km/s and it wouldn't effect range or application, apart from catching frigs. I'm not suggesting that speed, I'm just using it as an example. I would imagine that any missile could go 10km/s and it wouldn't effect application, as damage would be solely based on radius. Sig is essentially the missile version of tracking. You might always be able to apply damage with my suggestion, but since you now only have 1 application factor to balance, it becomes much easier to establish pros and cons. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
774
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 12:17:12 -
[1044] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:My opinion, get rid of exp velocity and flight time.
Exp velocity is a bit of a weird aspect and I believe is a lingering aspect of when missiles were AoE. It is likely too difficult for CCP to work with, as they likely don't understand it anymore than we do.
As far as flight time, removing this and instead going to a simple max range not only makes makes balancing missile velocity easier, but also relieves the range loss issues caused by acceleration time.
Then, all you have to worry about is a script for exp radius and a max range script. As far as missile velocity, well... I'm not sure where to go on this, but if you change the others you could likely make it 100km/s and it wouldn't effect range or application, apart from catching frigs. I'm not suggesting that speed, I'm just using it as an example. I would imagine that any missile could go 10km/s and it wouldn't effect application, as damage would be solely based on radius. Sig is essentially the missile version of tracking. You might always be able to apply damage with my suggestion, but since you now only have 1 application factor to balance, it becomes much easier to establish pros and cons.
My apologies for quoting. I would like to ask you and everyone else that we get a consensus on how to proceed and I strongly believe that removing that second part of the missile formular we have something solid.
About the missile velocity and flight time I wouldn't want to change much since this was an inbuild weakness even when they had 100% application. And even if we finally get that back citadel torpedos and cruise missiles speed could be changed to flight time so a Megathron and a Raven can outrun them with an mwd on.
A that unlucky frigate pilot that runs into them is responsible for not paying attention, not a mechanics fault. It never was.
I remember back in the day when the Manticore had that cruise missile bonus but they were so slow that you could have launched them from 200km away to a battleship and the battleship pilot could see them approaching him, go to out with his friends and eat a pizza and come back hours later and warp away (quoted from the old forums).
Most pilots from that area don't want it back because they remember it differently than I and none of the mechanics that played into that 'overpoered' perception went away many ages ago. So no, you cannot fit 5 mwds anymore and you should not fit 8 heat sinks on an Apocolypse because of stacking penalties.
What they may percieve as menace to interceptors and the like CCP can always slow heavy missiles and hams down enough to not be a real thread to them and links already make yolo-overpowered things possible that even we vets say they should be nerfed.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
891
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 14:00:53 -
[1045] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:My opinion, get rid of exp velocity and flight time.
Exp velocity is a bit of a weird aspect and I believe is a lingering aspect of when missiles were AoE. It is likely too difficult for CCP to work with, as they likely don't understand it anymore than we do.
As far as flight time, removing this and instead going to a simple max range not only makes makes balancing missile velocity easier, but also relieves the range loss issues caused by acceleration time.
Then, all you have to worry about is a script for exp radius and a max range script. As far as missile velocity, well... I'm not sure where to go on this, but if you change the others you could likely make it 100km/s and it wouldn't effect range or application, apart from catching frigs. I'm not suggesting that speed, I'm just using it as an example. I would imagine that any missile could go 10km/s and it wouldn't effect application, as damage would be solely based on radius. Sig is essentially the missile version of tracking. You might always be able to apply damage with my suggestion, but since you now only have 1 application factor to balance, it becomes much easier to establish pros and cons. My apologies for quoting. I would like to ask you and everyone else that we get a consensus on how to proceed and I strongly believe that removing that second part of the missile formular we have something solid. About the missile velocity and flight time I wouldn't want to change much since this was an inbuild weakness even when they had 100% application. And even if we finally get that back citadel torpedos and cruise missiles speed could be changed to flight time so a Megathron and a Raven can outrun them with an mwd on. A that unlucky frigate pilot that runs into them is responsible for not paying attention, not a mechanics fault. It never was. I remember back in the day when the Manticore had that cruise missile bonus but they were so slow that you could have launched them from 200km away to a battleship and the battleship pilot could see them approaching him, go to out with his friends and eat a pizza and come back hours later and warp away (quoted from the old forums). Most pilots from that area don't want it back because they remember it differently than I and none of the mechanics that played into that 'overpoered' perception went away many ages ago. So no, you cannot fit 5 mwds anymore and you should not fit 8 heat sinks on an Apocolypse because of stacking penalties. What they may percieve as menace to interceptors and the like CCP can always slow heavy missiles and hams down enough to not be a real thread to them and links already make yolo-overpowered things possible that even we vets say they should be nerfed.
Well, we can still remove exp velocity and remove flight time in exchange for a max range. You wouldn't need to boost missile velocity at all for this change, but with it, you would be able to hit your intended range (minus target movement of course) without being hindered by missile acceleration.
So, you'd have a Fury cruise missile with Say 150km range, flying say 1750km/s. With this, then regardless of missile velocity or acceleration, you would be guaranteed to hit your intended target at 150kms as long as they were stationary. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 15:29:35 -
[1046] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:So, you'd have a Fury cruise missile with Say 150km range, flying say 1750km/s. I assume there's a typo in there somewhere.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
891
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 15:44:37 -
[1047] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:So, you'd have a Fury cruise missile with Say 150km range, flying say 1750km/s. I assume there's a typo in there somewhere.
I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I just gave it as a general example to say that you can leave missile velocity alone, then kill flight time and instead just go with a max range, which alleviates the issue of missile acceleration. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 16:50:31 -
[1048] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I just gave it as a general example to say that you can leave missile velocity alone, then kill flight time and instead just go with a max range, which alleviates the issue of missile acceleration. Sure, I'd love 1750km/s. Insta-volley! Or did you mean 1750m/s (which would be a tad on the slow side, even for torpedoes) or 17500m/s (which would be a bit faster than your typical cruise missile)?
But back to your idea... Rather than scrapping explosion velocity and nixing flight time, I'd rather see increased missile velocity have an effect on target inertia or velocity.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
891
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 18:08:24 -
[1049] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, so I just gave it as a general example to say that you can leave missile velocity alone, then kill flight time and instead just go with a max range, which alleviates the issue of missile acceleration. Sure, I'd love 1750km/s. Insta-volley! Or did you mean 1750m/s (which would be a tad on the slow side, even for torpedoes) or 17500m/s (which would be a bit faster than your typical cruise missile)? But back to your idea... Rather than scrapping explosion velocity and nixing flight time, I'd rather see increased missile velocity have an effect on target inertia or velocity.
My bad on the typo...
Well, if you nixed exp velocity then you wouldn't have to worry about velocity vs velocity, but instead focus on radius.
That said, that change would really hurt slow moving missiles, especially torps. |
stoicfaux
6180
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 19:12:11 -
[1050] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: At a stationary or slow moving target, it's all about exp radius.
For a target moving at a moderate speed, both are equally important.
Against a fast moving target, the system favors exp velocity, though a smaller target will sway how important radius is, but it is still less important than velocity.
Correct. The first part of the missile damage formula is dominant.
Incorrect. Neither one is more "important" than the other. See next line.
Incorrect. Since everything is multiplied together in the "speed" portion of the missile damage formula, it doesn't matter what bonuses you have, be it TP, Flare, Rigor, MGC, MGE, Web, use Precision missiles, etc. because it's all just: TP_Bonus * 1/RigorBonus * FlareBonus * 1/(1-WebBonus) * etc. * TargetSig * 1/ExplosionRadius * ExplosionVelocity * 1/TargetVelocity.
Although to be pedantic, a point of Explosion Radius or Target Velocity is worth 1.01 points of Explosion Velocity or Target Painting. Which is one reason why Rigor rigs are better than, and require more calibration, than Flare rigs
Quote:You then have the situations where you come across an immobile or webbed to hell target, to which exp velocity is basically meaningless. This causes the exp velocity bonus of MGEs and MGCs to be virtually useless. True, but it *is* an intentional damage cap, otherwise large missiles could potentially do full damage to frigates. Capital missiles doing full damage to webbed frigates would probably be considered a problem to some people, especially since CCP did consider that gun Titans blapping sub-caps to be a problem.
Point is, the damage cap is a balance thing and balance tends to complicate change proposals.
Quote:As far as the varying importance of exp radius vs exp velocity... Well, this could possibly be addressed by having a exp velocity script, exp radius script, and a combined script. That could be interesting in that it would grant better control over minimizing stacking penalties assuming the single-attribute scripts were boosted to match their current effects, (i.e. a 26% bonus expl radius only script and 35% expl velocity only script,) instead of the current 15% bonus to two attributes.
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
775
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 20:19:07 -
[1051] - Quote
I already gave a solution. Joe and I just couldn't agree on the missile speed vs flight time thing but our consensus was that the damage application formular need to go- errm I mean altered to be only signature radius reliant.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
stoicfaux
6182
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 21:45:10 -
[1052] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I already gave a solution. Joe and I just couldn't agree on the missile speed vs flight time thing but our consensus was that the damage application formular need to go- errm I mean altered to be only signature radius reliant. Eh, Joe's lack of understanding of how the damage formula works doesn't inspire confidence and thus support.
Going to a single attribute is a big change. It would require the removal of existing rigs, changing hull bonuses, changing attributes on all missiles at once, etc. Changing *everything* at once is simply not a good idea. The level of effort required, and the level of risk is extreme.
The easier alternative is to simply tweak the attributes of select missiles (e.g. HMLs) and/or module stats (e.g. MGE.) The existing damage formula is well known and understood, so the analysis of such small quick changes is easier to perform and to understand.
More importantly, it will be easier to convince CCP to make a series of small changes rather than implement a complete overhaul. A complete overhaul is a "bell the cat" scenario. There's no point if CCP can't/won't implement a proposed solution.
tl;dr - We're nowhere near the "scrap it all and start over" point.
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
stoicfaux
6183
|
Posted - 2015.08.02 23:02:39 -
[1053] - Quote
TBH, tweaking the Explosion Velocity attribute on problematic missiles is probably the easiest way to fix individual missiles. The sig radius formula (S/Er) acts as a backstop (limit) on the damage that large missiles can do to small ships, which reduces the impact of any unintended consequences of Expl Velocity tweaks.
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
778
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 00:11:11 -
[1054] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:TBH, tweaking the Explosion Velocity attribute on problematic missiles is probably the easiest way to fix individual missiles. The sig radius formula (S/Er) acts as a backstop (limit) on the damage that large missiles can do to small ships, which reduces the impact of any unintended consequences of Expl Velocity tweaks.
Well there are just a few tiny things that would make medium and large missiles better, give them rage rocket explosion radius and explosion velocity values and they are close to okay-ish.
Oh btw, I like you signature, dear. Maybe a tiny change, if I may? Reduce the time to seven days and include all market bots with a 60 minute redocking timer just because.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 01:00:43 -
[1055] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Eh, Joe's lack of understanding of how the damage formula works doesn't inspire confidence and thus support. I'm inclined to agree. Nothing against Joe, but stoicfaux has a very comprehensive understanding of how the missile formula works, and he's right that simply eliminating a few variables will not only ignore the problem but cause numerous new ones. A while back I played around with the missile DRF values and a slight increase (~10%) to missile explosion velocity and it solved (at least on paper) the majority of the problems with missiles applying damage to stationary or slow-moving targets, so I think stoicfaux is on the right track with his assessment and suggestion.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 03:57:14 -
[1056] - Quote
I found an alternative use for the MGC in a Golem configuration, but it requires a bit of abstract thinking to make it work. First and foremost, this is a PvE configuration for optimizing L4s. Second, to get the most out of this setup you need to run Ascendancy and +5 missile implants. Third, missile V skills are key. Bear in-mind that you can probably get away with some +3 implants and IV skills, but your mileage will really vary depending on mission.
Golem 4x Faction* Cruise Launchers (Caldari Navy or Dread Guristas) Mjolnir/Inferno/Scourge/Nova Auto-targeting Cruise Missiles Bastion Module I 3x Small Tractor Beam II Mobile Tractor Unit
1x Gist C-Type 500MN Microwarpdrive 2x Gistum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field 1x Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster (I prefer the Gistum A-Type, but $$) 3x Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script
2x Faction Ballistic Control Unit (Caldary Navy or Dread Guristas) 2x Ballistic Control Unit II**
2x Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II 15x Salvage Drone I
*Faction launchers are key as they have a higher ROF and hold more ammunition **Upgrading to Faction BCUs will yield another ~1-2% DPS)
With my skills, implants and setup my Golem puts out just over 800 DPS utilizing FoF ammunition (just over 1000 DPS with Faction). The FoF cruise missiles have an explosion radius of 132m and explosion velocity of just over 193m/sec, which will single-volley most cruisers and frigates. I have them grouped in banks of 2 and stagger to ensure minimal ammunition wastage. Even though FoF missiles do about 20% less actual DPS, there is no delay in either locking targets or waiting for launcher cycles to finish - so the actual damage application is fairly close. Plus, not having to use target painters means I don't have to manually lock targets and can instead use the Golem's 11-target capacity to focus solely on salvage. Ascendancy implants yield a 2.94 AU/s warp speed which makes a noticeable difference.
For missile-based L4 ships, it's really Golem, Golem and then Golem. You have over twice the cargo capacity with half the ammunition usage, higher warp speed and as good if not better damage application than a Navy Raven (due to changes to stacking penalties for rigors). The ability to tank and AFK most missions speaks for itself, and this is before we even touch base on the salvage capabilities.
Gistum gear is the most effective in terms of power consumption and ensures you can pretty much run cap stable, although it is a bit pricier (Golem hulls are over $1.2-billion so make your own determination what you're comfortable spending). I rarely need to use Bastion but it's always there as a last recourse. The only thing you need to watch with FoF missiles is that they will only go after the closest target. So you'll often see groups of NPCs clustered together at the same range alternating by a few meters to shift damage around. When this happens, just switch to Faction missiles and blast 'em. I never use Fury ammunition because what you gain in raw DPS you lose to significantly less damage application, lower ammunition capacity with T2 launchers and a slower ROF.
Comments welcome.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
891
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 06:01:34 -
[1057] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Eh, Joe's lack of understanding of how the damage formula works doesn't inspire confidence and thus support. I'm inclined to agree. Nothing against Joe, but stoicfaux has a very comprehensive understanding of how the missile formula works, and he's right that simply eliminating a few variables will not only ignore the problem - but cause numerous new ones. A while back I played around with the missile DRF values and a slight increase (~10%) to missile explosion velocity and it solved (at least on paper) the majority of the problems with missiles applying damage to stationary or slow-moving targets, so I think stoicfaux is on the right track with his assessment and suggestion.
I suppose I'm having problems understanding exp velocity. I get radius, as well as missile velocity and flight time, including acceleration.
It seems that exp velocity doesn't actually represent what someone with common sense would think exp velocity means. If you can modify exp velocity and it actually have an effect on an immobile target;
Then yes, you are correct in saying that I do not understand the formula, as it would appear the exp velocity factor in the formula is gibberish.
It appears that y'all are basically explaining that exp velocity is not actually exp velocity, but instead some random damage modifier that is dictated by Unicorns, dwarfs, elves, and other forms of make believe....
Just saying.. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
891
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 06:12:18 -
[1058] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I found an alternative use for the MGC in a Golem configuration, but it requires a bit of abstract thinking to make it work. First and foremost, this is a PvE configuration for optimizing L4s. Second, to get the most out of this setup you need to run Ascendancy and +5 missile implants. Third, missile V skills are key. Bear in-mind that you can probably get away with some +3 implants and IV skills, but your mileage will really vary depending on mission.
Golem 4x Faction* Cruise Launchers (Caldari Navy or Dread Guristas) Mjolnir/Inferno/Scourge/Nova Auto-targeting Cruise Missiles Bastion Module I 3x Small Tractor Beam II Mobile Tractor Unit
1x Gist C-Type 500MN Microwarpdrive 2x Gistum C-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field 1x Gistum C-Type Medium Shield Booster (I prefer the Gistum A-Type, but $$) 3x Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script
2x Faction Ballistic Control Unit (Caldary Navy or Dread Guristas) 2x Ballistic Control Unit II**
2x Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II 15x Salvage Drone I
*Faction launchers are key as they have a higher ROF and hold more ammunition **Upgrading to Faction BCUs will yield another ~1-2% DPS)
With my skills, implants and setup my Golem puts out just over 800 DPS utilizing FoF ammunition (just over 1000 DPS with Faction). The FoF cruise missiles have an explosion radius of 132m and explosion velocity of just over 193m/sec, which will single-volley most cruisers and frigates. I have them grouped in banks of 2 and stagger to ensure minimal ammunition wastage. Even though FoF missiles do about 20% less actual DPS, there is no delay in either locking targets or waiting for launcher cycles to finish - so the actual damage application is fairly close. Plus, not having to use target painters means I don't have to manually lock targets and can instead use the Golem's 11-target capacity to focus solely on salvage. Ascendancy implants yield a 2.94 AU/s warp speed which makes a noticeable difference.
For missile-based L4 ships, it's really Golem, Golem and then Golem. You have over twice the cargo capacity with half the ammunition usage, higher warp speed and as good if not better damage application than a Navy Raven (due to changes to stacking penalties for rigors). The ability to tank and AFK most missions speaks for itself, and this is before we even touch base on the salvage capabilities.
Gistum gear is the most effective in terms of power consumption and ensures you can pretty much run cap stable, although it is a bit pricier (Golem hulls are over $1.2-billion so make your own determination what you're comfortable spending). I rarely need to use Bastion but it's always there as a last recourse. The only thing you need to watch with FoF missiles is that they will only go after the closest target. So you'll often see groups of NPCs clustered together at the same range alternating by a few meters to shift damage around. When this happens, just switch to Faction missiles and blast 'em. I never use Fury ammunition because what you gain in raw DPS you lose to significantly less damage application, lower ammunition capacity with T2 launchers and a slower ROF.
Comments welcome.
I was going to say that Bastion will increase your fof range, but holy crap, I didn't realize they could go so far. They out-range everything else.. out of bastion they hit 233km with my stats/skills, and hit like 290km or so in bastion.
lol... it's funny that these modules have apparently given a somewhat fix to fofs, but makes other missile types show their flaws. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 06:30:03 -
[1059] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I suppose I'm having problems understanding exp velocity. I get radius, as well as missile velocity and flight time, including acceleration.
It seems that exp velocity doesn't actually represent what someone with common sense would think exp velocity means. If you can modify exp velocity and it actually have an effect on an immobile target;
Then yes, you are correct in saying that I do not understand the formula, as it would appear the exp velocity factor in the formula is gibberish.
It appears that y'all are basically explaining that exp velocity is not actually exp velocity, but instead some random damage modifier that is dictated by Unicorns, dwarfs, elves, and other forms of make believe....Just saying.. It's Dark Elves, actually.
Here's a condensed version of how the missile formula is applied. Missiles start @ 100% damage and go down from there. It actually works a bit differently than I describe, but this is the gist of it.
1. If the target is moving <= explosion velocity, then explosion velocity is essentially disregarded (skip to step 2). Otherwise, missile damage is tentatively reduced by a ratio that corresponds to how much faster the target is moving. 2. Next we look at the target's signature as compared to the explosion radius. This is adversely affected by any signature bloom from a MWD or target painters. If the target's modified signature falls below the explosion radius, missile damage is further reduced and applied (skip to step 4). Otherwise, continue to step 3. 3. Claw back. This is the interesting part. If the target's modified signature exceeds the explosion radius, missile damage is increased. This can actually increase missile damage back to 100% (but no more than 100%) since it also offsets any shortfall in explosion velocity against the target velocity (this is why rigors and explosion radius are more powerful in the equation). 4. Missile DRF (damage reduction factor) is applied.
Basically the formula is this: damage = D * min (1,S/E,(S/E*Ve/Vt)^ln(drf)/ln(5.5))
Here's a good article that describes everything in greater detail.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
779
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 07:49:51 -
[1060] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote: -just shortened because it get's too long to quote- Comments welcome.
#1: Whom do I have to 'offer' myself to to get a blue tagged response here?
#2: Why does CCP hate Caldari so much?
#3: Now that one interceptor can disband all sov-sec and sov-sec is fixed, can we focus back to important things like missiles?
#4: Why do missile modules take so much cpu?
#5: Can I bring my Drake again?
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4530
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 09:36:22 -
[1061] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I was going to say that Bastion will increase your fof range, but holy crap, I didn't realize they could go so far. They out-range everything else.. out of bastion they hit 233km with my stats/skills, and hit like 290km or so in bastion.
lol... it's funny that these modules have apparently given a somewhat fix to fofs, but makes other missile types show their flaws Yes, 233km sounds about right with a +5 missile projection implant. You can actually hit out to over 400km with the Barghest, although I'm honestly not sure the target would even be on grid...
elitatwo wrote:#1: Whom do I have to 'offer' myself to to get a blue tagged response here? #2: Why does CCP hate Caldari so much? #3: Now that one interceptor can disband all sov-sec and sov-sec is fixed, can we focus back to important things like missiles? #4: Why do missile modules take so much cpu? #5: Can I bring my Drake again? 1. Good luck with that. 2. I believe it's missiles in general, with Caldari taking the unfortunate hit. 3. I suspect that the 'Gong Show' that is FozzieSov will drag on well into 2016... 4. Because they suck. Not that the majority of feedback was really given any consideration... 5. Since the heavy missile nerf all other weapon systems have been substantially buffed, so...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
779
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 12:53:54 -
[1062] - Quote
Arthur, that was rethorical
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
537
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 17:02:22 -
[1063] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Arthur, that was rethorical
I'm beginning to think the "...what do you guys think?" part in CCP's usual feedback threads are rhetorical. I figure some PR guy has the rest of CCP on a tight leash, which would be normally understandable, but I'm starting to wonder what is the point then of these "Here's what we have planned for (insert future expansion name)" threads; simply to brace us for impending impact?
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4531
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 18:56:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:I'm beginning to think the "...what do you guys think?" part in CCP's usual feedback threads are rhetorical. I figure some PR guy has the rest of CCP on a tight leash, which would be normally understandable, but I'm starting to wonder what is the point then of these "Here's what we have planned for (insert future expansion name)" threads; simply to brace us for impending impact? Yes... But what do you think about that?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
781
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 17:21:13 -
[1065] - Quote
/me pokes the microphone "Hello..?"
"echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "missiles still need help" "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.." "echo.."
Okay I left one hint in here but I feel so alone and abandonned now
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4531
|
Posted - 2015.08.04 22:56:24 -
[1066] - Quote
So let's see what we have to look forward to in Galatea... GÇó Dominix re-design GÇó Camera kill-shot update (but no new cool explosions) GÇó Previously-announced fleep warp mechanics
And what's not in Galatea... GÇó Update to the MGC and MGE GÇó Proper missile rebalance package
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4531
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 00:20:33 -
[1067] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods. Except most of us aren't happy with the numbers. But here's what you can do to fix them.
Missile Guidance Enhancer I ... 5%(+0.5) Ev, 5% Er Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer ... 6% Ev (+1.0), 6% (+0.5) Er Missile Guidance Enhancer II ... 7.5% (+2.0) Ev, 7.5% (+1.5) Er Mordus Legion Guidance Enhancer ... 10% Ev, 10% Er, 7.5% Mv, 7.5% Ft
Missile Guidance Computer I ... 6% (+1.0) Ev, 6% (+1.0) Er Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer ... 7.5% (+1.5) Ev, 7.5% (+1.5) Er Missile Guidance Computer II ... 8.5% (+1.0) Ev, 8.5% (+1.0) Er Caldari Navy Guidance Computer ... 10% Ev, 10% Er, 6% Mv, 6% Ft Dread Guristas Guidance Computer ... 10% Ev, 10% Er, 6% Mv, 6% Ft
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
783
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 07:49:35 -
[1068] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Let us know what you think!
We did. Now we are drawing cricles and repeatedly say the same things over and over again, mixed up with some more or less entertaining interludes and the common piano playing Fedos in the mix.
Now the 1 million isk question from us to you is, what do you think?
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1750
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 12:13:24 -
[1069] - Quote
Maybe this is the thread to ressurect my old idea
Short version: Add launchers which modify ammo properties - so long range ones add range but reduce precision, short range ones reduce range but add precision.
Long verison with some copy pasting:
It would give missiles some fine tuning options.
It would be to mirror the guns having smaller sized turrets per size class.
So guns have, for example:
Small Size 1 [Meta 1-N] Small Size 2 [Meta 1-N] Small Size 3 [Meta 1-N] Medium Size 1 [Meta 1-N] Medium Size 2 [Meta 1-N] Medium Size 3 [Meta 1-N]
And so on
Launchers have:
Small size 1 [Meta 1-N] Medium size 1 [Meta 1-N] Large size 1 [Meta 1-N]
Add some more sizes, modify properties to give players meaningful choices and CCP no longer have to balance a weapon system doing XXX DPS at 0-250km.
As I see it: >It would allow pilots to fit for a more defined role >Allow CCP to have some flexibility in controlling the launchers and their meta with a lot more precision. >Give launcher users fitting compromises - Currently there is no launcher equivalent analogous to dropping 425mm to 220mm AC's for fitting reasons >Mitigates the problem of trying to balance a 0-100km+ weapon system into something which is "fair" across all ranges by breaking that engagement range down into chunks. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
783
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 14:18:31 -
[1070] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Maybe this is the thread to ressurect my old ideaShort version: Add launchers which modify ammo properties - so long range ones add range but reduce precision, short range ones reduce range but add precision.
Don't forget that missiles are drones in that they have the modifiers on them and the launchers on have a maxium ammo, reload time and cycle time on them, the missiles are not changed.
But maybe they can do it now.
My last offer would be to give all missles 5m explosion radius and 300m/s explosion velocity - missiles fixed and we can take another look at some tech one destroyers, Black Ops, small railguns, large railguns, remove capital ships and make some less useful subsystems more useful.
Then we can conquer the universe with what we want and not what we have to.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
|
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 15:25:46 -
[1071] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I was going to say that Bastion will increase your fof range, but holy crap, I didn't realize they could go so far. They out-range everything else.. out of bastion they hit 233km with my stats/skills, and hit like 290km or so in bastion.
lol... it's funny that these modules have apparently given a somewhat fix to fofs, but makes other missile types show their flaws Yes, 233km sounds about right with a +5 missile projection implant. You can actually hit out to over 400km with the Barghest, although I'm honestly not sure the target would even be on grid...
I think you are confusing the role bonus of Barghest which the actual range bonus would be as same as a Raven or a Golem. It increases 200% of velocity, but decrease 50% of flight time = (1+2) x (1-0.5) = 1.5 which is equivalent to 50% increase of velocity of Ravens.
But anyhow, I don't need 223km or 400km missiles. I don't need an AFK golem.
I need... nothing with this ****. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4536
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 15:57:55 -
[1072] - Quote
BN0216 Lim wrote:I think you are confusing the role bonus of Barghest which the actual range bonus would be as same as a Raven or a Golem. It increases 200% of velocity, but decrease 50% of flight time = (1+2) x (1-0.5) = 1.5 which is equivalent to 50% increase of velocity of Ravens.
But anyhow, I don't need 223km or 400km missiles. I don't need an AFK golem. I need... nothing with this ****. I'm definitely not. I won't go into details how you can get 400km+ out of a Barghest - but it involves implants, rigs and utilizing both your lows and mids with MGEs and MGCs. The rig and slot configuration is different with the ships you mention, so even with the Golem's Bastion bonus it still falls short of the Barghest. You can probably get close to the same range with either of the Ravens, but you're going to seriously impair DPS in the process. There's also the huge difference in velocity, which really precludes using anything other than a Barghest (since you're looking at upwards of a half minute to reach these ranges otherwise). In any event, I was merely illustrating that you could get this range - not that it was necessarily feasible or even practical.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4554
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 03:45:31 -
[1073] - Quote
These modules are officially useless. After spending several weeks trying to get them to work on just about every level across multiple hulls, I'm officially giving up. Here are a few points to ponder (feel free to experiment to draw your own conclusions):
GÇó Stacking penalties. The new stacking penalties have almost no impact on previous fits. T2 ships like the Cerberus and Golem only have 2 rig slots anyway, and most setups with three rig slots typically featured a pair of T2 rigors and a single T1 or T2 flare (depending on calibration available). These penalties serve only to deter running more than two of the new missile modules, which is kind of a joke when low slots are typically a premium on any ship - let alone missile-based hulls.
GÇó Rigors rule. Based on the current missile formula, rigors still reign supreme. Unlike flares (which cease having any effect once you reach or exceed a target's velocity), reducing your missile explosion radius below the target's signature has a retroactive effect on target velocity. A scripted MGC II gives you 15% explosion radius, 15% explosion velocity, requires CPU and is an active module. Against a stationary target or one where the base missile velocity already matches or exceeds target velocity - the MGC is worth less than a T2 rigor. The benefit from a passive MGE II is even more marginal, as it yields a whopping 5.5% explosion radius and 5.5% explosion velocity. Against a moving target, this is even less beneficial than a single T1 rigor. Heck, even a T1 flare provides more damage application than a MGE II. And again, it's not like low slots grow on trees (especially on ships like the Cerberus, Tengu or Golem).
GÇó Flight time. I honestly have no idea why this variable was even included - because it's borderline useless. Anyone that flies missile ships knows that unless it's a free hull bonus, you run hydraulic rigs to increase your missile velocity (and subsequent range). This not only reduces the frequency of lost volleys in transit, but increases the difficulty to outrun your missiles. Flight time and rocket fuel cache rigs do neither. So would you run a scripted MGC II just to give you +11% missile velocity?
GÇó Fitting requirements and tradeoffs. I won't even comment on the excessively high CPU requirements for these modules, but I'll once again point out that low slots are almost an endangered species on most missile-based ships. MGEs are a lost cause, so I'm going to skip over these entirely. Since a comparison has already been made between rigs and MGCs, let's look at target painters, stasis webs and warp scramblers. There is absolutely zero reason to run a MGC over a target painter, and outside of PvE stasis webs and warp scramblers are going to be far more important modules. In fact, almost anything is more valuable than a mid-slot MGC (any capacitor or shield augmentation, for example).
What's to be done? These modules (and the "missile rebalance" package is an unmitigated disaster, and the only solution is to apply fire in liberal quantities... This need to be entirely scrapped and redesigned from the ground up.
1. Missiles operate at a fundamentally different level than drones or guns, so trying to make them behave in a similar fashion is an effort in futility (they need something unique). That being said, it should also be pointed out that T2 launchers do not benefit in the same manner with respect to specialization that T2 guns do (T2 gunnery specialization augments Faction ammunition, but T2 missile specialization has no effect on Faction ammunition). There's also the higher skill requirements, but I digress... 2. Missile formula (provided it can be found in the Legacy code, it's due for an update). 3. Kinetic pigeon-holing. Nuff said.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4556
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 04:08:45 -
[1074] - Quote
Missile Rebalance
GÇó Switch back to the old icons (no disrespect to the art department, but the new ones are not as nice as the originals)
GÇó Missile Guidance Computers (MGC) and Missile Guidance Enhancers (MGE) are scrapped, and become the following new passive modules with the same fitting requirements: - Missile Cache (MC), mid-slot (stacking penalized). Increases launcher ammunition capacity by 5/10/15%/20% (Meta, I, II, Faction). - Missile Fire Control (MFC), low-slot (stacking penalized). Decreases launcher reload time by 10/15/20%/25% (Meta, I, II, Faction).
GÇó This means the only way to apply missile damage is through rigs, implants, target painters, stasis webs or warp scramblers (or any combination thereof). No missile disruption modules or missile disruption tracking scripts.
GÇó The missile formula is tweaked as follows, to allow for "critical" damage. This means that if a ship has a target 'dead to rights', then (and only then) missiles can apply up to 10% more critical damage. This will typically mean both exceeding the target velocity and falling under the target signature. - old forumla = base damage * min[1, S/E, (S/E*Ve/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)] - new forumla = base damage * min[1.1, S/E, (S/E*Ve/Vt)^(ln(drf)/ln(5.5)]
GÇó All kinetic pigeon-holing dies a horrible death. There are too many ships to list, but the Drake instead receives a 25% bonus to ROF instead of a 50% bonus to kinetic damage.
GÇó The explosion velocity bonus between rockets and light missiles is swapped. All other missiles receive a 10% increase to their base explosion velocity.
GÇó All missile hit points are increased by an additional 50%
GÇó All missile flight time is reduced by 25% and missile velocity subsequently increased by 25%
GÇó Changes to various implants that allow missile users to also utilize all 6 Faction implants without impacting damage. This change obsoletes a few missile implants and introduces two new ones, which also bringing small missile implants on par with their gunnery counterparts.
GÇó The following implants are shuffled around: - Zainou 'Snapshot' Light Missiles LM-901 through LM-906 become LM-601 through LM-606 (slot 6) - Zainou 'Snapshot' Rockets RD-901 through RD-906 become RD-601 through RD-606 (slot 6) - Zainou 'Deadeye' implants MB-701 through MB-706 become MB-801 through MB-806 (slot 8) - Zainou 'Deadeye' implants MP-701 through MP-706 become MP-901 through MP-906 (slot 9) - Zainou 'Snapshot' FOF FR-1001 through FR-1006 become FR-901 through FR-906 (slot 9) - Zainou 'Snapshot' Cruise (CM-601 through CM-606) and Zainou 'Snapshot' Torpedo (TD-601 through TD-606) become CM-701 through CM-706 and TD-601 and TD-606, respectively (slot 7)
GÇó New missile implants are added (players now have a choice of more damage or the previous rate of fire) - Zainou 'Snapshot' Warhead WH-701 through WH-706, adds a 1-6% increase to all missile damage
GÇó Thus, missile implants are now categorized as follows: - Slot 6: CPU Efficiency, Light Missiles, Rockets - Slot 7: Heavy Missiles, Heavy Assault Missiles, Cruise Missiles, Torpedoes - Slot 8: Missile Bombardment, Guided Missile Precision, Defender Missiles - Slot 9: Missile Projection, Target Navigation Prediction, FOF Explosion Radius - Slot 10: Ballistic Smartlink, Rapid Launch, Warhead
GÇó Reintroduction of Faction FOF (auto-targeting) missiles for FW (only) LP redemption.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
735
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 06:57:41 -
[1075] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:These modules are officially useless.
I find the range bonuses they give to be pretty spectacular.
They're essentially just like tracking computers. Almost exclusively used to boost range and not really used to boost tracking as they aren't better than a web.
Seems okay. Even though it is a bit "meh" |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4558
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 07:23:41 -
[1076] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I find the range bonuses they give to be pretty spectacular.
They're essentially just like tracking computers. Almost exclusively used to boost range and not really used to boost tracking as they aren't better than a web. Seems okay. Even though it is a bit "meh" How do you figure exactly? A T2 hydraulic rig will basically get you the same range increase as a scripted MCG II. Passively. The rig is actually worth more since as it's fully applied to missile velocity. On anything larger than a cruiser you don't need to boost the range, most missile-based cruisers already have decent range and I can't see a MGC replacing a mid or low slot on a frigate or destroyer. Unless I'm missing something?
The only place I can see these modules being of any (limited) benefit are on Phoenix dreadnoughts and Leviathan titans since they're going to be far cheaper than rigor or flare rigs.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
735
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 07:50:20 -
[1077] - Quote
The same can be said about turret rigs and tracking computers.
Missile Tracking computers are balanced to give similar results to turret tracking computers. Maybe both need a buff to be more viable. |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1020
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 13:04:22 -
[1078] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:That being said, it should also be pointed out that T2 launchers do not benefit in the same manner with respect to specialization that T2 guns do (T2 gunnery specialization augments Faction ammunition, but T2 missile specialization has no effect on Faction ammunition). Can you elaborate on that? Unless I'm reading it wrong, specialization skills affect rate of fire of T2 launchers regardless of charge used.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4561
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 14:42:18 -
[1079] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Can you elaborate on that? Unless I'm reading it wrong, specialization skills affect rate of fire of T2 launchers regardless of charge used. Yes they do, but unlike T2 guns - T2 launchers are still slower than Faction launchers (even with specialization V). There's also the difference in ammunition capacity, so utilizing Faction ammunition in Faction launchers will still deliver more overall damage. With T2 guns, you have an identical rate of fire and identical ammunition capacity to Faction guns - so the T2 guns apply more overall damage utilizing Faction ammunition.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1793
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 15:01:44 -
[1080] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:The same can be said about turret rigs and tracking computers.
Missile Tracking computers are balanced to give similar results to turret tracking computers. Maybe both need a buff to be more viable.
Problem is that is like comparing apples and deckchairs.
Missile damage is consistent irrespective of range, turret is not. To try and balance the mods based on their percentages is futile at best, stupid at worst.
Not that it matters, we're talking to an empty chair at this point. |
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
896
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 16:42:48 -
[1081] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:These modules are officially useless.
I find the range bonuses they give to be pretty spectacular. They're essentially just like tracking computers. Almost exclusively used to boost range and not really used to boost tracking as they aren't better than a web. Seems okay. Even though it is a bit "meh"
See, here's the problem with the web argument. Everyone says that the one true benefit of missiles is the application across all effective ranges.
The fact that a web outperforms isn't a problem, but the fact that a web outperforms by a significant amount IS the problem. To the point where you're better off getting within 10km and webbing than you are at range.
This negates the reason for using long range missiles. If you're going to be within 10km anyway, might as well fit close range weapons, which makes long range missiles virtually useless outside of the alliance tournament.
Also, the fact that TPs are generally more effective inside 100kms negates the point of using these modules at all, as you basically never see a missile boat being used outside that range, not to mention that TPs have less fitting costs and less cap usage.
The other problem is that more than one MGC is always stacking penalized, since it applies dual script bonuses. If you could put a exp radius and exp velocity script, or flight time and velocity script, then these modules might actually be useful. As it sits now,'you're better off fitting the rigs and using TPs, as you'll be able to get either range AND application in some short range missile cases, or application with more application for things like long range missiles or brawling short range fits.
The only situation where an MGC is a better choice is with FoF missiles. It might also be noted that the MGE is useless in virtually ALL situations and might as well be removed. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
437
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 16:45:37 -
[1082] - Quote
Just as an update I am still working to get traction on this. Trying to grab the right people, been a little difficult. Wont let this fall off the radar.
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
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4561
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 17:32:10 -
[1083] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:If you could put a exp radius and exp velocity script, or flight time and velocity script, then these modules might actually be useful. Except explosion radius always trumps explosion velocity, so given a choice the answer is obvious. The primary reason to fit flare rigs is that you lack the calibration for a third rigor rig. With the new stacking penalties, a T1 flare will almost always provide more benefit than a T1 rigor (this was not the case previously).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
898
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 17:49:23 -
[1084] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:If you could put a exp radius and exp velocity script, or flight time and velocity script, then these modules might actually be useful. Except explosion radius always trumps explosion velocity, so given a choice the answer is obvious. The primary reason to fit flare rigs is that you lack the calibration for a third rigor rig. With the new stacking penalties, a T1 flare will almost always provide more benefit than a T1 rigor (this was not the case previously).
Yes, but I'm speaking more specifically of scripts for the MGC. With something like heavy missiles, dual exp radius scripts may suit it better, despite the stacking penalty. However, Torps and cruise missiles might benefit better from fitting exp radius and exp velocity scripts, as their overall effectiveness would be increased more without the stacking penalties.
In either case, I still don't see the MGCs competing with rigs and TPs/webs in any scenario. They've got to outshine TPs up to a certain stacking penalty in order to justify use within 100km. And they've got to have enough bonus to justify range usage as an option compared to close range and webs.
Honestly, I say just get rid of the things and rework rigs and TPs. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4562
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 18:46:01 -
[1085] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Honestly, I say just get rid of the things and rework rigs and TPs. I think target painters and rigs are fine and don't need any adjustment (target painters already had a balance pass). I think the +5% damage to all heavy missiles and reduction in torpedo size were good improvements. I'm not even necessarily opposed to the stacking penalties that were introduced, as they have minimal impact.
I hate these new missile guidance modules. They had potential with the original values, were still promising with the stacking penalties but were subsequently nerfed into the ground with the final unceremonious release.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 18:52:57 -
[1086] - Quote
Here I talk a little off topic, but related to the missile system.
I would rather hope CCP re-invent missile damage formula. (but in the end, there is only 'changes' not 'invents' )
It is somewhat un-intuitive in terms of the explosion radius. I have questioned myself why the larger missile are not effective as in a real world's one. In real world, the bigger explosion radius is thought to be a stronger explosion since we expect the more explosives for a larger explosion. Then I found the formula is lack of something.
- Actually, I'm not a expert on this topic and the below is assumption-based sentences.
Explosions do damage things with its fragments' kinetic energy caused by the shockwave of explosion which is the basis of the current missile damage formula. But I found explosions do damage things with the power of shockwave itself, too. I guess that the power of shockwave can be represented as a pressure. And the pressure affects equally on the surface of the thing which means it will get the same pressure at any point of surface. Thus the damage by the pressure will not depend on the SIZE of the thing.
One other thing is from the mechanism of the proximity fuse used by the anti-air missiles. The more target is smaller and faster, the more missile will miss the target. So most of anti-air missiles are taking proximity fuse to detonate itself near the target. But when the target is not moving fast, the proximity fuse will no longer be needed or it will actually hit the target. This means the fast movement is an actual problem of hitting missiles. And I guess the missiles will be more guided when the target is exposing more signatures.
So...
I suggest the missile formula to be more affected by the speed of target, making the explosion velocity a dominant factor than the explosion radius and signature radius.
The explosion radius and the signature radius will affect the damage with the factor of target velocity. So, if the target is stopped, the expR and sigR will not affect the damage.
Simply, long story short, changing expR to expV, sigR to Target speed and vice versa in the existing formula would be the result of this suggestion. And we might need more values changed - ship bonuses, base stat values, etc. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4562
|
Posted - 2015.08.12 19:08:36 -
[1087] - Quote
BN0216 Lim wrote:Simply, long story short, changing expR to expV, sigR to Target speed and vice versa in the existing formula would be the result of this suggestion. And we might need more values changed - ship bonuses, base stat values, etc. These variables are already in the missile formula.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 05:00:10 -
[1088] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:BN0216 Lim wrote:Simply, long story short, changing expR to expV, sigR to Target speed and vice versa in the existing formula would be the result of this suggestion. And we might need more values changed - ship bonuses, base stat values, etc. These variables are already in the missile formula.
I say Yes, at the same time, No. If the formula is changed like what I said, then only the second part will be changed to the velocity part from the radius part.
But I found myself that the above sentences were not fully applying my suggestion.
Arrangement of my suggestion here:
1. Target velocity and explosion velocity become the dominant factor of the missile formula 2. Application of signature radius will change along with the target's speed. The slower the target, the larger signature radius will be. i.e., the curve of signature radius application to target's velocity will look like y = 1/x where y-axis is signature radius modifier, x-axis is speed of target. But it will remain its maximum sigR as its own sigR. 3. Introduce detonation distance replacing explosion radius. This will indicate how close the missile will detonate from the target. The bigger detonation distance, the far explosion done from the target, thus giving less damage. (This is just renaming of the explosion radius for more intuitively understandable term)
Applying the above aspects altogether, I made a rough sketch of new missile formula: Damage = D * min[1, (ExpV/TargetV) * max[SigR, SigR/TargetV] / DetD]
where ExpV = Explosion Velocity TargetV = Target Velocity SigR = Signature Radius DetD = Detonation Distance
This is almost same as the existing formula except sigR/expR term does not exist anymore and the sigR term in the last formula is now given as a max function.
I ignored some modifiers existed in existing formula. Someone may add constants to adjust the values (especially for SigR/TargetV part). |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4564
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 05:23:38 -
[1089] - Quote
BN0216 Lim wrote:This is almost same as the existing formula except sigR/expR term does not exist anymore and the sigR term in the last formula is now given as a max function. The reason that explosion radius is more prominent in the formula (and why it should be) is two-fold. First, no matter what - you will never (ever) be able to boost missile explosion velocity beyond potential target velocity. Even the use of stasis webs would not be able to entirely accomplish this against a fast ship. Second, there are numerous modules that have signature penalties that benefit missile explosion radius, including but not limited to: shield extenders, microwarpdrives, field extender rigs, hyperspacial rigs and inertial stabilizers.
One of the main methods to counter small signatures is through the use of target painters. Under your proposed formula, these would become effectively useless - not including rendering inert several target painter-bonused hulls and numerous tactics and strategies. Another consideration is that rigors currently cost more in terms of calibration (since they have more value), so this would not only completely destroy their market value - but create untold problems with how to remove unremovable rigs from ships or reimburse players in the tens of millions to destroy and replace these with flares.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 07:37:27 -
[1090] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:BN0216 Lim wrote:This is almost same as the existing formula except sigR/expR term does not exist anymore and the sigR term in the last formula is now given as a max function. The reason that explosion radius is more prominent in the formula (and why it should be) is two-fold. First, no matter what - you will never (ever) be able to boost missile explosion velocity beyond potential target velocity. Even the use of stasis webs would not be able to entirely accomplish this against a fast ship. Second, there are numerous modules that have signature penalties that benefit missile explosion radius, including but not limited to: shield extenders, microwarpdrives, field extender rigs, hyperspacial rigs and inertial stabilizers. One of the main methods to counter small signatures is through the use of target painters. Under your proposed formula, these would become effectively useless - not including rendering inert several target painter-bonused hulls and numerous tactics and strategies. Another consideration is that rigors currently cost more in terms of calibration (since they have more value), so this would not only completely destroy their market value - but create untold problems with how to remove unremovable rigs from ships or reimburse players in the tens of millions to destroy and replace these with flares.
Note that the basis of my suggestion comes from this idea: why a small but immobile target is taking a small damage when it is actually hit by large missiles?
For the first part - explosion velocity will not reach as fast as the target velocity
is not going to happen by modifying the base stats of missiles. Applying missile velocity + explosion velocity would be an alternative solution. (This idea comes from the situation of firing something on moving object, e.g. throwing a ball in a moving train)
And to be honest, this term, ExpV/TargetV is as same as the existing formula.
For the second part - signature radius is more useful for current missile system and your formula is going to make it useless
is not true with my suggested formula. In the part of signature radius, max[sigR, sigR/TargetV], is still affected by the target painters which will increase the sigR value which is as same as the existing formula.
The target velocity part should be adjusted with some constants (like turret signature size) because the signature radius gets bigger and the velocity gets smaller when the size of the ship enlarges.
In conclusion, the actual differences compared to the previous formula are: 1. remove the second, sigR/expR term 2. modify sigR as max[sigR, sigR/TargetV] |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4565
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 09:08:15 -
[1091] - Quote
BN0216 Lim wrote:is not going to happen by modifying the base stats of missiles. Applying missile velocity + explosion velocity would be an alternative solution. (This idea comes from the situation of firing something on moving object, e.g. throwing a ball in a moving train) While I appreciate that you're trying to participate in the discussion - it's clear that with this suggestion you don't have a lot of experience with missiles and/or understand the radically different missile-based hull bonuses. Mordu's Legion ships have between 2-4x the missile velocity of comparable ships - which means you'd never fly anything else.
There is a simple and straightforward solution to address the majority of deficiencies in missiles: GÇó Swap the explosion radius bonus between light missiles and rockets, and buff the explosion velocity on all medium and large missiles by 10%. This will improve (but not completely resolve) issues with applying damage to stationary or non-afterburning targets. GÇó Rather than buffing missile damage, change the minimum value in the missile formula from 1.0 to 1.1 to extend missiles the potential to deliver "critical" damage. This would be in scenarios where both the target signature radius and target velocity have been exceeded, and will typically only effect stationary or large targets. GÇó Missile guidance computers and enhancers need to be reworked.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Janeway84
Def Squadron Pride Before Fall
174
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 09:38:26 -
[1092] - Quote
When will the new mods see a updated balance pass? |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
226
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 10:52:32 -
[1093] - Quote
Janeway84 wrote:When will the new mods see a updated balance pass?
6+ moths after release, i will say |
BN0216 Lim
Members of Sheol
1
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 11:48:27 -
[1094] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:BN0216 Lim wrote:is not going to happen by modifying the base stats of missiles. Applying missile velocity + explosion velocity would be an alternative solution. (This idea comes from the situation of firing something on moving object, e.g. throwing a ball in a moving train) While I appreciate that you're trying to participate in the discussion - it's clear that with this suggestion you don't have a lot of experience with missiles and/or understand the radically different missile-based hull bonuses. Mordu's Legion ships have between 2-4x the missile velocity of comparable ships - which means you'd never fly anything else. There is a simple and straightforward solution to address the majority of deficiencies in missiles: GÇó Swap the explosion radius bonus between light missiles and rockets, and buff the explosion velocity on all medium and large missiles by 10%. This will improve (but not completely resolve) issues with applying damage to stationary or non-afterburning targets. GÇó Rather than buffing missile damage, change the minimum value in the missile formula from 1.0 to 1.1 to extend missiles the potential to deliver "critical" damage. This would be in scenarios where both the target signature radius and target velocity have been exceeded, and will typically only effect stationary or large targets. GÇó Missile guidance computers and enhancers need to be reworked.
Uh.. Increasing explosion velocity helps for a stationary target? I don't believe it. Did you mean explosion radius?
Missile velocity + explosion velocity was just a pop-up solution in my head and I think we don't need any changes to it since explosion velocity part is working good I guess.
Plus, if CCP would like to take my suggestion, then I guess they will change the other related factors, too. Since I'm not the developer of CCP, I'm just giving a rough, incomplete suggestion here.
Nonetheless, this is just my wish list and it is not related to the new modules, so I'd like to stop it here.
By the way, I agree to your opinions about the new modules. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
899
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 13:49:41 -
[1095] - Quote
BN0216 Lim wrote:[quote=Arthur Aihaken] Uh.. Increasing explosion velocity helps for a stationary target? I don't believe it. Did you mean explosion radius?
Missile velocity + explosion velocity was just a pop-up solution in my head and I think we don't need any changes to it since explosion velocity part is working good I guess.
Plus, if CCP would like to take my suggestion, then I guess they will change the other related factors, too. Since I'm not the developer of CCP, I'm just giving a rough, incomplete suggestion here.
Nonetheless, this is just my wish list and it is not related to the new modules, so I'd like to stop it here.
By the way, I agree to your opinions about the new modules.
I am personally not a fan of the way exp velocity is handled. The fact that you can never get full application to a moving target is extremely annoying, especially when you consider we don't get wrecking blows and things of that nature. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
806
|
Posted - 2015.08.13 14:40:39 -
[1096] - Quote
Hence I suggested they ditch that second part of missile formular and call it a day.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4571
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:27:39 -
[1097] - Quote
These modules still need to be buffed, but... ...with a set of +5 missile implants, they do show promise in one configuration.
Scorpion Navy Issue 2x Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II (FoF) 4x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Fury or Faction) Auto Targeting System II
500MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability II Pith C-Type Large Shield Booster 4x Missile Guidance Computer II (4x Precision/2 Range scripts)
4x Ballistic Control Unit II Damage Control II
3x Large Hyperspacial Velocity Optimizer II .....
One of the drawbacks with missiles is that they're slow. Not artillery slow, but cruise missiles are second last in terms of rate of fire. And unless you're running a missile velocity-bonused hull, they take a lot longer to reach their targets. Combined with the lead time to target, it means you're looking at 1-2 cycles after your last volley has launched before you can confidently switch targets (NPC ships have a wicked tendency to generate a last-second repair cycle while missiles are in-transit).
The Scorpion Navy Issue features a rate of fire bonus which gets the cycle time of most cruise missile launchers down to around the 6-second mark. On paper it's less damage as a whole, but applied quicker. While this consumes higher quantities of ammunition, it's much more satisfying seeing damage applied more rapidly to targets (even if it's slightly less damage). The Scorpion Navy Issue features 8 mid slots in addition to a set of shield resistance bonuses, and combined with an extra low and high utility slot it's actually the perfect setup.
First and foremost, this setup sports a significant tank at around 100k EHP. Second, it allows you to run four scripted MGCs without really sacrificing much. Third, this frees up the rigs to increase the warp speed (with Ascendancy implants) to over 4.5 AU/s - so it gets around really quick.
One thing that is immediately apparent is that I'm running two different missile systems on this. The cruise launchers are designated for taking out larger targets with Fury ammunition while the rapid heavy launchers are setup with auto-targeting missiles to take out anything that ventures too close (and with the MGCs all running precision scripts, they are very effective at this). The auto targeting system is present in a passive mode to extend the number of target acquisitions to 10, and in a pinch it can be activated to automatically target anything hostile within 60km. Last but not least, the Scorpion Navy Issue sports 75mbit of drone bandwidth which is enough for a mix of light and heavy drones to harass targets.
By running a set of range-scripted MGCs it increases the optimal engagement from 60km to 100km. The Scorpion Navy Issue also features an insane targeting range, so you can lock and hit almost everything with minimal maneuvering and without requiring modules or rigs to boost sensor strength.
The fit I'm running is over 1000 DPS, and while I can honestly say that I don't think it's necessarily any faster at completing missions than a Golem, Barghest or Raven Navy Issue - it's a heck of a lot more fun seeing volleys of missiles launched at 2-6 second intervals (regardless of velocity missiles all seem to take the same 1-1.5 second launch animation).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
901
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 14:45:58 -
[1098] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:These modules still need to be buffed, but... ...with a set of +5 missile implants, they do show promise in one configuration.
Scorpion Navy Issue 2x Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II (FoF) 4x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Fury or Faction) Auto Targeting System II
500MN Microwarpdrive II 2x Adaptive Invulnerability II Pith C-Type Large Shield Booster 4x Missile Guidance Computer II (4x Precision/2 Range scripts)
4x Ballistic Control Unit II Damage Control II
3x Large Hyperspacial Velocity Optimizer II .....
One of the drawbacks with missiles is that they're slow. Not artillery slow, but cruise missiles are second last in terms of rate of fire. And unless you're running a missile velocity-bonused hull, they take a lot longer to reach their targets. Combined with the lead time to target, it means you're looking at 1-2 cycles after your last volley has launched before you can confidently switch targets (NPC ships have a wicked tendency to generate a last-second repair cycle while missiles are in-transit).
The Scorpion Navy Issue features a rate of fire bonus which gets the cycle time of most cruise missile launchers down to around the 6-second mark. On paper it's less damage as a whole, but applied quicker. While this consumes higher quantities of ammunition, it's much more satisfying seeing damage applied more rapidly to targets (even if it's slightly less damage). The Scorpion Navy Issue features 8 mid slots in addition to a set of shield resistance bonuses, and combined with an extra low and high utility slot it's actually the perfect setup.
First and foremost, this setup sports a significant tank at around 100k EHP. Second, it allows you to run four scripted MGCs without really sacrificing much. Third, this frees up the rigs to increase the warp speed (with Ascendancy implants) to over 4.5 AU/s - so it gets around really quick.
One thing that is immediately apparent is that I'm running two different missile systems on this. The cruise launchers are designated for taking out larger targets with Fury ammunition while the rapid heavy launchers are setup with auto-targeting missiles to take out anything that ventures too close (and with the MGCs all running precision scripts, they are very effective at this). The auto targeting system is present in a passive mode to extend the number of target acquisitions to 10, and in a pinch it can be activated to automatically target anything hostile within 60km. Last but not least, the Scorpion Navy Issue sports 75mbit of drone bandwidth which is enough for a mix of light and heavy drones to harass targets.
By running a set of range-scripted MGCs it increases the optimal engagement from 60km to 100km. The Scorpion Navy Issue also features an insane targeting range, so you can lock and hit almost everything with minimal maneuvering and without requiring modules or rigs to boost sensor strength.
The fit I'm running is over 1000 DPS, and while I can honestly say that I don't think it's necessarily any faster at completing missions than a Golem, Barghest or Raven Navy Issue - it's a heck of a lot more fun seeing volleys of missiles launched at 2-6 second intervals (regardless of velocity missiles all seem to take the same 1-1.5 second launch animation).
I question why you wouldn't just rock a full set of cruise launchers. Why the rapid heavies? With RoF bonus of the ship, combined with high RoF on RHML, they're firing at an insane rate, which is costing you more in ammo than it's worth, not to mention the long reload.
Also, past 1 or 2 MGC, you're better off with target painters, though, if you're shooting at multiple targets at once, I can see where MGCs would be beneficial.
I would also like to know how beneficial that 3rd and 4th MGC are when you're fitting a full set of precision scripts. I don't think they give much in the way of bonus at that point.
Lastly, this fit provides no PVP capability, outside of dps. There's no argument that use can be found for these modules in PVE, though it's situational and/or ship/missile specific, but in PVP they have almost no merit as they're not worth the fitting costs for the limited engagement ranges missiles are forced into. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4571
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 18:22:19 -
[1099] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I question why you wouldn't just rock a full set of cruise launchers. Why the rapid heavies? With RoF bonus of the ship, combined with high RoF on RHML, they're firing at an insane rate, which is costing you more in ammo than it's worth, not to mention the long reload.
Also, past 1 or 2 MGC, you're better off with target painters, though, if you're shooting at multiple targets at once, I can see where MGCs would be beneficial.
I would also like to know how beneficial that 3rd and 4th MGC are when you're fitting a full set of precision scripts. I don't think they give much in the way of bonus at that point.
Lastly, this fit provides no PVP capability, outside of dps. There's no argument that use can be found for these modules in PVE, though it's situational and/or ship/missile specific, but in PVP they have almost no merit as they're not worth the fitting costs for the limited engagement ranges missiles are forced into. Pest control.
Combined with the missile implants, I believe the last two precision-scripted MGCs yield about 25%. I'm going off memory, but I believe it gets the heavy missile explosion radius down to around 60m. And yes, it's a rather insane rate of fire - but the two rapid launchers literally melt anything small that ventures within 40km. I've only run a few missions with it so far, but I alternate between 2 precision/2 range and 4 precision depending on the mission. For ones like "Damsel in Distress" and "Stop the Thief" where you're dealing with lots of small ships and short ranges, 4 precision scripts is the way to go.
No argument - it burns through ammunition quite a bit faster. And even with 2 range scripts you lose a few volleys between targets with the rapid launchers. The tradeoff is that you can use your drones to apply full DPS to larger targets and not worry about micromanaging them against smaller targets where cruise missiles aren't anywhere near as effective. Auto-targeting missiles are really critical with the high-rate of fire, because you just can't track, lock and apply damage fast enough otherwise. This also frees up one's attention span to focus entirely on applying damage with the cruise launchers and drones.
It's simply a lot of fun to fly with this setup. Getting around is insanely quick (this includes acceleration gates), it's cap stable if you drop down to a medium Deadspace shield booster, you can lock 10 targets out to over 100km and you dictate standard or extended range for engagements. Neither the Raven or the Typhoon has the tank to pull this off, and you lose quite a bit of damage application if you have to drop down to MGEs for either. The Typhoon does have the same explosion velocity bonus as the Golem, but this doesn't apply to any missile systems outside cruise or torpedoes. You could probably come close by swapping out a hyperspacial rig for a rigor without too much of a hit to warp speed (especially with Ascendancy implants), so there's certainly some flexibility there.
I also agree that there's limited PvP value with this particular configuration, and you'd almost certainly change things as it's heavily-geared towards PvE. For example: I'd drop two BCUs in favor of two passive MGEs, replace the hyperspacial rigs with field extender rigs, run all rapid heavy missile launchers, swap the auto targeting system for a neutralizer and replace the four MGCs with a capacitor booster, tackle, web and ancillary shield boosters. Entirely different application, of course.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
901
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 19:35:23 -
[1100] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Pest control.
I'm wondering though, If you took off the cruise and just went with pure RHMLs, all ungrouped and just let the FoF go crazy, what would that look like.
Ungrouping them would reduce the ammo consumption a bit, but may also cause issues with target swapping as ranges change. |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4572
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:15:27 -
[1101] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I'm wondering though, If you took off the cruise and just went with pure RHMLs, all ungrouped and just let the FoF go crazy, what would that look like.
Ungrouping them would reduce the ammo consumption a bit, but may also cause issues with target swapping as ranges change. Fireworks. You potentially lose quite a bit with a RoF bonus on rapid launchers, but on the flip side it does spew them out at a really rapid pace. That's why I've left it at 2 launchers - it's enough at this speed to deal with frigates, destroyers and most cruisers at short ranges - and the 35-second reload time isn't as readily apparent when you're also running cruise launchers. I also find that if I occasionally use FoF in the cruise launchers the rapids often take out the shields and armor and then the cruise delivers the finishing blow.
With 2 missile systems and different rates of fire, FoF missiles also seem a bit more effective at adjusting to NPC spawns at different ranges. So while you're waiting for the next cruise volley to cycle the rapids get 2-3 volleys into the next target. The main benefit of all this is that it doesn't feel slow, you're not counting volleys for the most part and gameplay generally seems much more engaging.
Having eight mid slots and being able to script range with a pair of MGCs really helps, as the Scorpion isn't exactly a speedy ship by any means. It really eliminates a lot of unnecessary maneuvering, and against large targets you can actually just run all four MGCs scripted for range. I would really consider this particular setup a niche application though.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
901
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:22:07 -
[1102] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I'm wondering though, If you took off the cruise and just went with pure RHMLs, all ungrouped and just let the FoF go crazy, what would that look like.
Ungrouping them would reduce the ammo consumption a bit, but may also cause issues with target swapping as ranges change. Fireworks. You potentially lose quite a bit with a RoF bonus on rapid launchers, but on the flip side it does spew them out at a really rapid pace. That's why I've left it at 2 launchers - it's enough at this speed to deal with frigates, destroyers and most cruisers at short ranges - and the 35-second reload time isn't as readily apparent when you're also running cruise launchers. I also find that if I occasionally use FoF in the cruise launchers the rapids often take out the shields and armor and then the cruise delivers the finishing blow. With 2 missile systems and different rates of fire, FoF missiles also seem a bit more effective at adjusting to NPC spawns at different ranges. So while you're waiting for the next cruise cycle the rapids get 2-3 volleys into the next target. The main benefit of all this is that it doesn't feel slow, you're not counting volleys for the most part and gameplay generally seems much more engaging.
I despise volley counting despite always having to count. I really wish CCP would rebalance all missile systems on RoF compared to velocity and range of said missiles, so that you never have more than one volley in the air at any given time. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4572
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:36:09 -
[1103] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I despise volley counting despite always having to count. I really wish CCP would rebalance all missile systems on RoF compared to velocity and range of said missiles, so that you never have more than one volley in the air at any given time. I lose more than a few volleys in this setup utilizing FoF missiles. However, it's a riot to pilot this setup and FoF missiles are cheap to manufacture. So I don't count - and I don't care. Cry havoc and let slip the drones of war!
You can easily lose volleys even with range-bonused Mordu's Legion ships, and part of this is the 1-1.5 second launch cycle that missiles seem to go through regardless of velocity - so I'm not entirely sure this can ever be mitigated 100%.
I really can't express how refreshing gameplay is with this particular setup. Yes, it's not the most efficient - but it always feels like I'm doing something. Which is a far cry from counting missile volleys, waiting for lengthy missile cycles or reload times.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
901
|
Posted - 2015.08.14 23:44:14 -
[1104] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:I despise volley counting despite always having to count. I really wish CCP would rebalance all missile systems on RoF compared to velocity and range of said missiles, so that you never have more than one volley in the air at any given time. I lose more than a few volleys in this setup utilizing FoF missiles. However, it's a riot to pilot this setup and FoF missiles are cheap to manufacture. So I don't count - and I don't care. Cry havoc and let slip the drones of war! You can easily lose volleys even with range-bonused Mordu's Legion ships, and part of this is the 1-1.5 second launch cycle that missiles seem to go through regardless of velocity - so I'm not entirely sure this can ever be mitigated 100%. I really can't express how refreshing gameplay is with this particular setup. Yes, it's not the most efficient - but it always feels like I'm doing something. Which is a far cry from counting missile volleys, waiting for lengthy missile cycles or reload times.
I think I might fit my Golem with RHMLs and FoF just for the hell of it... Might be nice to sit there and not have to do anything for a while. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4572
|
Posted - 2015.08.15 00:05:58 -
[1105] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I think I might fit my Golem with RHMLs and FoF just for the hell of it... Might be nice to sit there and not have to do anything for a while. Just remember that rapid launchers don't receive the inherent missile velocity bonus, so you'll want to range script it for certain. The Barghest is best in this role (+200% missile velocity, +10% higher DPS) - but even then I still find myself waiting for long reloads.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4579
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 18:12:28 -
[1106] - Quote
So Galatea is out next week. The new missile modules still suck (that is to say, they are extremely undesirable). Is anyone really using these over rigors, flares, hydraulic rigs and target painters beyond theorycrafting?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
902
|
Posted - 2015.08.17 18:15:21 -
[1107] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So Galatea is out next week. The new missile modules still suck (that is to say, they are extremely undesirable). Is anyone really using these over rigors, flares, hydraulic rigs and target painters beyond theorycrafting?
Galatea? |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4581
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 00:51:38 -
[1108] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Galatea? The next release stated for August 25.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
902
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 01:31:39 -
[1109] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Galatea? The next release stated for August 25.
Yeah, I finally figured that out. Just don't know what's in it other than more skins.. Maybe it was on o7 show.. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4582
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 01:48:45 -
[1110] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Yeah, I finally figured that out. Just don't know what's in it other than more skins.. Maybe it was on o7 show.. There's a cool Blood Raven SKIN. Is it ironic that the art department has done more for missiles this month than certain devs? (pretty sure the art department was largely on vacation too)
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
555
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 02:45:57 -
[1111] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Yeah, I finally figured that out. Just don't know what's in it other than more skins.. Maybe it was on o7 show.. There's a cool Blood Raven SKIN. Is it ironic that the art department has done more for missiles this month than certain devs? (pretty sure the art department was largely on vacation too)
Gotta love it when we're ass-backwards, right?I feel like Eve is becoming a T3 with the fly-backwards glitch hanging around. That, or there were a few times while I was in the military it felt like this...
Btw, again Art delivers. You guys haven't dissapointed me yet!
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4582
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 03:10:58 -
[1112] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Btw, again Art delivers. You guys haven't dissapointed me yet! The Art and Mac team are definitely on my Christmas card/gift basket list this year.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Rek Seven
The Scope Gallente Federation
1986
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 08:57:16 -
[1113] - Quote
What is more effective for a stealth bombers torps; missile guidance systems or target painters?
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Jezza McWaffle
ShipRekt
241
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 09:51:55 -
[1114] - Quote
As far as I can see the most effective still is in order for sig radius bonus, painters > rigors > scripted modules. It confounds me why the new scripted modules are quite significantly worse than painters given that painters help everyone in your fleet not just yourself.
Take a look at my startup C5 PvP WH corp adventures, we are recruiting
|
Rek Seven
The Scope Gallente Federation
1986
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 10:05:16 -
[1115] - Quote
Cool thanks, in that case i'll stick with the target painters that are also less cpu intensive
You sound like an idiot when you say "create content" when you mean find a fight, gank, etc... Stop it!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
902
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 13:29:03 -
[1116] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Cool thanks, in that case i'll stick with the target painters that are also less cpu intensive
I think they're also less PG and cap intensive as well. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4588
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 14:47:40 -
[1117] - Quote
Jezza McWaffle wrote:As far as I can see the most effective still is in order for sig radius bonus, painters > rigors > scripted modules. It confounds me why the new scripted modules are quite significantly worse than painters given that painters help everyone in your fleet not just yourself. You're not the only one confounded and confused...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
555
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 17:07:44 -
[1118] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Cool thanks, in that case i'll stick with the target painters that are also less cpu intensive I think they're also less PG and cap intensive as well.
TP's use more cap, but are not on as often at a time. MGC 2 uses 7 for 10 sec, while a Meta 4 TP uses 8 for 5 sec (reduced to 6 with Target Painting maxed), so the difference either way is negligible. Obviously, higher grade TP's will use slightly more cap as you go up the ladder, but meta 4 is already ahead of the best of these mods anyways. That might change after TP's get any treatment from metacide, but it won't likely be substantially different.
If you can, for what it's worth, bring a dedicated EWAR boat like a Rapier or a Hyena along with your bombers to be the TP platform, then MGC's can be used in concert to better effect since they can give either/both range and a little more application, but in most cases the a TP is the winner for more useful application effects. Bringing a mixture of TP's and MGC's are really only useful if your have so many of one or the other that stacking penalties are too bloated and bring both in that case helps to split the bill down the middle and maximize their effect, but again TP's will likely have the priority.
Then, again, I'm just repeating everything we've stated already several times over in this thread. I'm starting to run out of legit reasons to come to the forums at all anymore.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
902
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 18:08:31 -
[1119] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Cool thanks, in that case i'll stick with the target painters that are also less cpu intensive I think they're also less PG and cap intensive as well. TP's use more cap, but are not on as often at a time. MGC 2 uses 7 for 10 sec, while a Meta 4 TP uses 8 for 5 sec (reduced to 6 with Target Painting maxed), so the difference either way is negligible. Obviously, higher grade TP's will use slightly more cap as you go up the ladder, but meta 4 is already ahead of the best of these mods anyways. That might change after TP's get any treatment from metacide, but it won't likely be substantially different. If you can, for what it's worth, bring a dedicated EWAR boat like a Rapier or a Hyena along with your bombers to be the TP platform, then MGC's can be used in concert to better effect since they can give either/both range and a little more application, but in most cases the a TP is the winner for more useful application effects. Bringing a mixture of TP's and MGC's are really only useful if your have so many of one or the other that stacking penalties are too bloated and bring both in that case helps to split the bill down the middle and maximize their effect, but again TP's will likely have the priority. Then, again, I'm just repeating everything we've stated already several times over in this thread. I'm starting to run out of legit reasons to come to the forums at all anymore.
Here's the thing. Many people have mentioned that these mods become more useful when you have a dedicated TP boat. However, for years with missiles, when bringing a dedicated TP boat, the missile boats will typically not bring TPs, and at most fit application rigs. Thus leaving mid slots open for tank, velocity, and/or ewar.
Why would we trade application and/or range rigs for MGCs, when that leaves us with less utility, seeing as how rig slots are generally unneeded for anything else. |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4592
|
Posted - 2015.08.18 20:38:54 -
[1120] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Why would we trade application and/or range rigs for MGCs, when that leaves us with less utility, seeing as how rig slots are generally unneeded for anything else. stoicfaux summed it up best: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5847341#post5847341
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4593
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 02:40:58 -
[1121] - Quote
This is exactly the kind of update I was expecting... "unstickied".
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
902
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 02:43:26 -
[1122] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:This is exactly the kind of update I was expecting... "unstickied".
In regards to "If you build it, they will come."
"If you ignore it, they will leave." is also true |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
555
|
Posted - 2015.08.19 06:17:22 -
[1123] - Quote
Well, I guess that's my queue to unsub from the thread then. Can't wait for the EWAR module, btw. On the bright side, I'd say CCP might be understandably more concerned with how the Sov changes have and future changes will fair...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=441365&find=unread
Yep, already there's some hate and discontent in that one, too.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Atuesuel
Shits N Giggles
7
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 16:01:12 -
[1124] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?
Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated. Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before. Some specifics on the new modules:
We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods.
The numbers:
Missile Guidance Enhancer I 10 CPU, 1 PG, 4.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer 8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 5.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 6% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 6% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment.
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!
So now that missiles have enhancers when the ****! are we going to get e-war that works on missiles ??
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
905
|
Posted - 2015.08.21 17:16:47 -
[1125] - Quote
Atuesuel wrote:CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?
Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated. Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before. Some specifics on the new modules:
We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods.
The numbers:
Missile Guidance Enhancer I 10 CPU, 1 PG, 4.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer 8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 5.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 6% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 6% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment.
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! So now that missiles have enhancers when the ****! are we going to get e-war that works on missiles ??
When missiles are effective enough to actually need e-war. No need to make missiles worse without making them better first. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
557
|
Posted - 2015.08.22 00:21:47 -
[1126] - Quote
When CCP releases them...which, unfortunately, won't likely have anything to do with timing it to when missiles actually need them. Joe is at least right about when they should be released, just not necessarily when they will be released.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
53
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 09:19:35 -
[1127] - Quote
I donGÇÖt think Defenders are the answer to mitigating missile damage here.
Turret damage can be mitigated by ECM, damps, and TPGÇÖs. A turret ship pilot can fit ECCM, Sebos, tracking computers, and turrets with high tracking to counter this.
Missile damage can be mitigated by ECM, damps, and defenders. A missile ship pilot can also fit ECCM and Sebos, but canGÇÖt do anything about defenders.
Defenders are unique (and terrible) in that they require ammunition and a regular missile launcher GÇô none of the other counter measures have this requirement, and there are plenty of ships out there that canGÇÖt fit a missile launcher at all.
What is needed is a new mid slot module GÇô call it a GÇ£Missile point defenceGÇ¥ module. It would represent something like the Phalanx CIWS LINK used today, but with lasers to explain the lack of an ammo requirement.
Each module fitted should be capable of engaging a certain number of missiles per second (so it can be overwhelmed by large numbers of incoming missiles) and have a percent chance of destroying each missile engaged. It should be possible to load scripts which give it a better chance of destroying different types of missiles (small / medium / large?) at the cost of reduced chance of destroying the un-scripted types. The module cycle time should be long enough to prevent rapidly switching scripts GÇô this makes the script choice a bit more important.
Very importantly, the speed of the ship mounting the system should have a negative impact on the chance to destroy incoming missiles. This means that very fast ships that already mitigate lots of missile damage do not benefit as much from this module.
Higher meta versions would be able to engage more targets or have a better chance of destroying a missile, or even have a better base chance of destroying one type but worse for others, etc
Just my 2c. |
O2 jayjay
Failed Diplomacy Dirt Nap Squad.
27
|
Posted - 2015.09.02 13:33:16 -
[1128] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Heyo
It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?
Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated. Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before. Some specifics on the new modules:
We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods.
The numbers:
Missile Guidance Enhancer I 10 CPU, 1 PG, 4.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer 8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Enhancer II 15 CPU, 1 PG, 5.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 6% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
Missile Guidance Computer I 28 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Astro-Inertial Compact Missile Guidance Computer 24 CPU, 1 PG 6% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 4.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time Missile Guidance Computer II 35 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius and 5.5% bonus to missile velocity and missile flight time
These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment.
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!
Why do missles need a buff? Since blaster have no range and requires you to sit on top of your target while dealing only therm and kin damage, are they going to get a buff? Or are is every weapon system going to do %10 less damage then blasters but have %2000 the range. Im just asking for a better isolation when it comes to different weapons. Nothing should hit harder then blasters but with all these buffs to other weapons lately and their ability to switch damage types. Blasters are staring to become to dumb man weapon.
|
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
394
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 10:40:08 -
[1129] - Quote
Has there been any feedback, from CCP, since the deployment of these modules?
In combination with the introduction of the stacking penalties? |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 12:33:27 -
[1130] - Quote
Unfortunately no there has been no response. The topic has quite obviously been deemed hostile or toxic and standard practice is to ignore such things.
I know chance is still trying to get a statement but how much traction he is getting is still unknown. |
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
758
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 13:50:10 -
[1131] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Unfortunately no there has been no response. The topic has quite obviously been deemed hostile or toxic and standard practice is to ignore such things.
I know chance is still trying to get a statement but how much traction he is getting is still unknown.
This.
Or probably half jest/half truth.....they'd have to be used en masse to have something to say about it really lol. Saw em, eft'd them, ran them a little and....said well let me put that TP back on as well I have maxed skills for them and just one tp seemed to fair pretty good against what was becoming a 1 mid 1 lo slot missile mod fit.
For how I run my ships....range was never an issue I needed fixing tbh. Range was not a missile issue, to me and many others I assume. I will even state, again, I'd have given the caveat of less range to boost the stats I do care about. And the 2 slots was too deep a tradeoff when tp did me fine with just 1 slot (assuming typical 1 tp fit, not say golem).
Did a rather unscientific study here for proof of heavy use. Googled say tengu fit and looked for new mods used. Cricket cricket. Saw fits prepatch galore. very few saying omfg yes......run these new mods. I tbh fit blind here and just swapped crap....I could not find a front runner to be the new "vanilla" fit with these to be a base to work from.
When marauders got bastion....google would find these edge out old school marauders hit wise not even asking for it in the query as a comparison.
My off the cuff evaluation of this....people didn't rush to the market for these. They have to be used heavily to be abused or to even make comment. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
915
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 14:02:23 -
[1132] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Nafensoriel wrote:Unfortunately no there has been no response. The topic has quite obviously been deemed hostile or toxic and standard practice is to ignore such things.
I know chance is still trying to get a statement but how much traction he is getting is still unknown. This. Or probably half jest/half truth.....they'd have to be used en masse to have something to say about it really lol. Saw em, eft'd them, ran them a little and....said well let me put that TP back on as well I have maxed skills for them and just one tp seemed to fair pretty good against what was becoming a 1 mid 1 lo slot missile mod fit. For how I run my ships....range was never an issue I needed fixing tbh. Range was not a missile issue, to me and many others I assume. I will even state, again, I'd have given the caveat of less range to boost the stats I do care about. And the 2 slots was too deep a tradeoff when tp did me fine with just 1 slot (assuming typical 1 tp fit, not say golem). Did a rather unscientific study here for proof of heavy use. Googled say tengu fit and looked for new mods used. Cricket cricket. Saw fits prepatch galore. very few saying omfg yes......run these new mods. I tbh fit blind here and just swapped crap....I could not find a front runner to be the new "vanilla" fit with these to be a base to work from. When marauders got bastion....google would find these edge out old school marauders hit wise not even asking for it in the query as a comparison. My off the cuff evaluation of this....people didn't rush to the market for these. They have to be used heavily to be abused or to even make comment.
In my playing, the only time MGCs have outperformed TPs is when firing fof missiles. Oddly enough, it gave fof much needed love, but is fail for everything else. That said, you'll notice I only mention MGCs... the MGE is useless in all manners.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 18:46:54 -
[1133] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:In my playing, the only time MGCs have outperformed TPs is when firing fof missiles. Oddly enough, it gave fof much needed love, but is fail for everything else. That said, you'll notice I only mention MGCs... the MGE is useless in all manners. This is more or less my take on them as well. I did find that when range-scripted these do make torpedoes a more viable option for PvE, but only on certain ships and missions (cruise missiles still reign supreme overall). On Golems two precision-scripted MGCs can replace two of three or four TPs that one typically finds - allowing Hyperspacial rigs to be used for boosting warp speed.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
915
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 19:07:57 -
[1134] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:In my playing, the only time MGCs have outperformed TPs is when firing fof missiles. Oddly enough, it gave fof much needed love, but is fail for everything else. That said, you'll notice I only mention MGCs... the MGE is useless in all manners. This is more or less my take on them as well. I did find that when range-scripted these do make torpedoes a more viable option for PvE, but only on certain ships and missions (cruise missiles still reign supreme overall). On Golems two precision-scripted MGCs can replace two of three or four TPs that one typically finds - allowing Hyperspacial rigs to be used for boosting warp speed.
the problem with that is, MGCs still give less effect that TPs, especially on the Golem with its TP bonus. However, there's also the issue with range. Torps can have decent range with bastion, but not enough to make up for immobility. I typically fit 2x t2 range rigs in order to give me about 80km range with Javs. You can't use range scripts on MGC or else you lose application, which in the case of torps, is extremely important. |
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 19:17:25 -
[1135] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:the problem with that is, MGCs still give less effect that TPs, especially on the Golem with its TP bonus. However, there's also the issue with range. Torps can have decent range with bastion, but not enough to make up for immobility. I typically fit 2x t2 range rigs in order to give me about 80km range with Javs. You can't use range scripts on MGC or else you lose application, which in the case of torps, is extremely important. Yes, but the damage application with two meta TPs and two precision-scripted MGCs is greater than four Faction TPs - without the use of rigors or flares, either (you can one-shot frigates using T2 Fury ammunition, V skills and missile implants). The problem with torpedoes is that they're just so freakin' slow. Even with hydraulics, range-scripted MGCs and Bastion you're hard-pressed to get the speed above 6km/sec. So shooting out to targets @80km with Javelin torpedoes is literally like watching paint dry.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
915
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 19:21:29 -
[1136] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:the problem with that is, MGCs still give less effect that TPs, especially on the Golem with its TP bonus. However, there's also the issue with range. Torps can have decent range with bastion, but not enough to make up for immobility. I typically fit 2x t2 range rigs in order to give me about 80km range with Javs. You can't use range scripts on MGC or else you lose application, which in the case of torps, is extremely important. Yes, but the damage application with two meta TPs and two precision-scripted MGCs is greater than four Faction TPs - without the use of rigors or flares, either (you can one-shot frigates using T2 Fury ammunition, V skills and missile implants). The problem with torpedoes is that they're just so freakin' slow. Even with hydraulics, range-scripted MGCs and Bastion you're hard-pressed to get the speed above 6km/sec. So shooting out to targets @80km with Javelin torpedoes is literally like watching paint dry.
Agreed.. I hate torp velocity.
My point on the scripts though is, if you're going for range, stick with rigs, as you'll need the mids for application, when using torps. |
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 19:47:50 -
[1137] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Agreed.. I hate torp velocity. My point on the scripts though is, if you're going for range, stick with rigs, as you'll need the mids for application, when using torps. Surprisingly enough, you don't need as much damage application with torpedoes because they do a lot more damage than cruise missiles. What I found is that a pair of MGCs to alternate between range-boosting and damage application in conjunction with a pair of target painters worked best. I've since switched back to cruise missiles because even with the slower rate of fire I almost never have to maneuver around and am rarely forced to use Bastion.
If torpedoes were twice as fast as cruise missiles - then we'd be talking.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
915
|
Posted - 2015.09.03 20:32:30 -
[1138] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Agreed.. I hate torp velocity. My point on the scripts though is, if you're going for range, stick with rigs, as you'll need the mids for application, when using torps. Surprisingly enough, you don't need as much damage application with torpedoes because they do a lot more damage than cruise missiles. What I found is that a pair of MGCs to alternate between range-boosting and damage application in conjunction with a pair of target painters worked best. I've since switched back to cruise missiles because even with the slower rate of fire I almost never have to maneuver around and am rarely forced to use Bastion. If torpedoes were twice as fast as cruise missiles - then we'd be talking.
I use range rigs and 3x PWNAGE.
Though, I too typically only use cruise due to range, application, and engagement time; with dps and em shield rigs.
I will say though, I've had fun using fof missiles lately with 3x MGC precision scripted.
I'm probably going to revert back to 2 MGCs with precision and fit a cap booster. I get a lot of missions with neuts, which just recently got me killed. Granted, cap isn't why I died.... I tried to disengage bastion, so that I could warp before I was capless. However, when bastion cycle ended, it kept blinking red, but would not dis-engage... So I clicked it a couple times and it wouldn't do anything. So I waited for a few more seconds and once it stopped blinking, it engaged a new cycle, which got me neuted out and killed... Currently have a ticket in on this, so we'll see how that goes.
Point is, You don't need more than 3 application mods and none of them are MGEs... Those things just suck... |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
586
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 00:20:53 -
[1139] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:If torpedoes were twice as fast as cruise missiles - then we'd be talking.
This is the one sole issue I have with torps on something like a Golem (or anything for that matter) at this point. For me, the projection, not application, is the more problematic situation regarding torpedoes. And, since Rubicon and these modules, I would say that largely projection overall is in a much better place with the idea of a torp Golem, but the missile velocity when I ran the numbers in Pyfa when these modules were first announce, my jaw literally dropped. Cruise missiles on my build WITHOUT projection rigs or MGC's hit nearly 14km, and torps WITH projection rigs and MGC's barely make less than half that. Oddly, I had halfway thought I would have disliked the application numbers more so that range, but they were in fact fine, even compared to Cruises the raw damage largely makes the weaker application seem pretty irrelevant as long as you are in range to hit.
I know I would likely switch to torps on my Golem in a heartbeat if CCP were to trade flight time for velocity evenly to maintain the same ranges but give a little more speed to the damn things (fingers are crossed). I would even start using MGC's more often to boot, too. I just wish they weren't so seemingly niche, but either CCP is fine with where they are or at the very least don't have enough data to go off of. The MGE's are still another story and, quite honestly, could be scrapped for all I care. They may just leave them in anyways for consistency's sake.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 01:46:51 -
[1140] - Quote
Actually one of the few hulls I don't see mentioned by pretty much anyone is the RHML snake. It's one of the few CPU limited hulls that can't "quite" use its full potential... unless you slap RHMLs on it. MGCs work more effectively in this case by giving a range option without really hurting application since obviously you are using HM. Bling of course not required.. This fit skirts with a vindicator for top end damage with a significantly higher tank and considerably more effective range.
[Rattlesnake, RHML Flex]
Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Kinetic Deflection Field II Thermic Dissipation Field II Omnidirectional Tracking Link II (no script.. actually allows for earlier application of damage) Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script 100MN Afterburner II
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Drone Link Augmentor II
Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
The switch to HM also allows for this hull to use a native warp speed implant which puts the snake on par with marauders.
Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-615 Zainou 'Snapshot' Heavy Missiles HM-705 Zainou 'Deadeye' Guided Missile Precision GP-805 Zainou 'Deadeye' Target Navigation Prediction TN-905 Zainou 'Deadeye' Rapid Launch RL-1005
Downside is.. the fits pretty much HiSec only and honestly one of the only ship in the game where MGCs are functionally superior to TPs.
So bluntly.. MGCs are useful.. MGE are barely functional(phoenix can use them) but both are niche mods that really didn't warrant dev time in their current configuration. They offer no real options and actually caused a global nerf of all other missile fits in the process. |
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
916
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 03:47:10 -
[1141] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Actually one of the few hulls I don't see mentioned by pretty much anyone is the RHML snake. It's one of the few CPU limited hulls that can't "quite" use its full potential... unless you slap RHMLs on it. MGCs work more effectively in this case by giving a range option without really hurting application since obviously you are using HM. Bling of course not required.. This fit skirts with a vindicator for top end damage with a significantly higher tank and considerably more effective range.
[Rattlesnake, RHML Flex]
Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Kinetic Deflection Field II Thermic Dissipation Field II Omnidirectional Tracking Link II (no script.. actually allows for earlier application of damage) Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script 100MN Afterburner II
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Drone Link Augmentor II
Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen. Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings..
IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird.. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
586
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 03:59:15 -
[1142] - Quote
Yeah, the rarity of use where these modules are actually better or even on par with TPs or other already used modules sucks, but the rig penalties and prospects of a dedicated missile EWAR module in the future to add to it is what stung me the most, too. Granted, the HP buff is nice as it negates NPC defenders quite nicely (though that's an unintended side-effect) and the torpedo volume being halved is okay, the nerfs hurt nearly anyone using missiles and neither the modules nor the honestly laughable damage buff on heavies make up for it. Feels like it was a timid shuffle forward and two hops backwards to me.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
586
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 04:03:15 -
[1143] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Nafensoriel wrote:Actually one of the few hulls I don't see mentioned by pretty much anyone is the RHML snake. It's one of the few CPU limited hulls that can't "quite" use its full potential... unless you slap RHMLs on it. MGCs work more effectively in this case by giving a range option without really hurting application since obviously you are using HM. Bling of course not required.. This fit skirts with a vindicator for top end damage with a significantly higher tank and considerably more effective range.
[Rattlesnake, RHML Flex]
Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
Pithum C-Type Medium Shield Booster Kinetic Deflection Field II Thermic Dissipation Field II Omnidirectional Tracking Link II (no script.. actually allows for earlier application of damage) Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Precision Script 100MN Afterburner II
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Inferno Fury Heavy Missile Drone Link Augmentor II
Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Drone Speed Augmentor II Large Warhead Rigor Catalyst II
That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen. Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings.. IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird..
Now, hit reload...
Granted, Snake drones do well even on their own, but I've never seen a rapid launcher build for PVE work I've liked. Also, Snakes use to be nothing but tank because we didn't always have drone mods to throw in the lows or good reasons for BCSs and fewer drone mods to throw in the mids that made sense, so more room for SPRs and Extenders. They can still tank, but can now serve up some nice Vindi-level woop-ass too.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
759
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 04:52:05 -
[1144] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen. Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings..
IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird..
RLML I can't comment on....the reload headaches I hear make them not so liked to some people. Others like them though so to each their own as always. Will try at some point but have not rushed to it tbh.
Not being passive though...snakes run very decent being active tanked. This can get you a 3 slot mid slot tank (passives usually 4, so a 1 slot saving there for something else) and frees up all lows for damage and such. Has the 100mn AB and not all the sig radius hits of passive tank/mods...while not great at it being a BS its also getting some damage reduction with ghetto sig tanking (ghetto as well besides mach....this not really a BS's thing lol).
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
917
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 05:53:44 -
[1145] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Joe Risalo wrote: That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen. Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings..
IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird..
RLML I can't comment on....the reload headaches I hear make them not so liked to some people. Others like them though so to each their own as always. Will try at some point but have not rushed to it tbh. Not being passive though...snakes run very decent being active tanked. This can get you a 3 slot mid slot tank (passives usually 4, so a 1 slot saving there for something else) and frees up all lows for damage and such. Has the 100mn AB and not all the sig radius hits of passive tank/mods...while not great at it being a BS its also getting some damage reduction with ghetto sig tanking (ghetto as well besides mach....this not really a BS's thing lol).
My problem is, I hate combo damage bonuses because it makes it harder to build a viable fit especially with missiles. If you fit for drones, then your missiles are almost useless due to low damage and application, and your drones aren't that powerful. If you fit for missiles, your drones are almost useless in the same manner. If you try to optimize both, then you end up gimped on tank and/or utility.. This isnt as big of an issue for turret/drone bonus, as your turrets or your drones can have good applied damage with low or no traversal.
I kinda wish it took a different route on the missile bonus, such as bonus to rapid lights instead of heavies and up. I say this because it would make it a more versatile ship, which its tank suits, while keeping lower damage than most pirate hulls.
But, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, with this ship, TPs are again better suited as they support both drones and missiles. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 06:30:33 -
[1146] - Quote
Using RHML in PVE is more thought engaging than cruise or torps. You do have to volley count especially at ranges in excess of 50km. That fit handles reloads just fine and can wipe out several battleships before it needs to reload. With a 3km/s gecko or 2km/s+ faction drone you don't really have to wait to apply full 1900 nearly perfectly applied damage to anything within 50km.
Operationally its one of the more fun fits you can fly. Yes RHML reloads are a rather terrible design choice.. but I personally view bad design as a challenge to overcome. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1853
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 07:07:25 -
[1147] - Quote
If RHML did not have the long reload times, they would be HML and thus not have the spike DPS. They wouldn't even exist. So, it's not a terrible design choice, it's what defines the RHML's function.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 07:36:47 -
[1148] - Quote
No it is a terrible design choice. The ideology is a burst DPS weapon. Locking a user out for half a minute does not promote active gaming.
Its more effective to use volley mechanics or small clip sizes with a moderate reload speed. A 10 Missile clip with a 5s reload would actually give tactical flexibility, burst dps, and make it considerably less of a headache to use. 90s firing time+25s reload for 25 rounds vs 36s firing time + 5 s reload for 10 rounds Identical DPS.. better flexibility. Mission goal of burst DPS accomplished. |
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1853
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 08:40:07 -
[1149] - Quote
Not in the slightest. You can fire a lot longer and a lot more often with your approach than with the current approach. This removes a lot of consideration for which targets to engage with remaining missiles in the launcher and to live with the results if you too a wrong choice. Rapid launchers are supposed to require you to take the long reload into consideration when you evaluate which targets to engage. If there is no long reload time, this entire tactical assessment process is gone.
Your approach with even shorter reload times than standard launchers is more akin to their steady DPS and not to Burst DPS.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1923
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 09:07:29 -
[1150] - Quote
My biggest peeve with Rapid XX is that they completely bugger the balance between "weapon damage increased by X%" and "ROF increased by X%" |
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 15:08:05 -
[1151] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:Using RHML in PVE is more thought engaging than cruise or torps. You do have to volley count especially at ranges in excess of 50km. That fit handles reloads just fine and can wipe out several battleships before it needs to reload. With a 3km/s gecko or 2km/s+ faction drone you don't really have to wait to apply full 1900 nearly perfectly applied damage to anything within 50km. Yes, but that's paper DPS under optimal conditions. It doesn't take into account things like mission travel time, launcher reload time, drone transit time - or just in-game maneuvering. Your Rattlesnake fit doesn't have a MWD or MJD for getting around, so with a 100MN afterburner you will rarely be able to apply maximum damage with your RHMLs or Geckos. Without a tracking script Geckos can't consistently hit frigates and even with MGCs you're going to burn through a lot Fury ammo against smaller ships.
I'll take my 1200+ DPS/4.48 AU/s Golem and stack it up against this Rattlesnake fit any time.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 15:28:11 -
[1152] - Quote
Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
591
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 17:02:35 -
[1153] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.
Maybe they ought to drop the current stats off the MGEs and throw in a sort of Mordus Legion style velocity buff/flight time nerf. It wouldn't really help Mordus ships and the like that already have ridiculous velocity, but that would make me think about dropping a BCS on a torp ship...maybe. Bad idea, I know, but the current MGEs are just as bad an idea to begin with, might as well roll around in the mud and see if another bad idea happens to be better.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 17:48:09 -
[1154] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Maybe they ought to drop the current stats off the MGEs and throw in a sort of Mordus Legion style velocity buff/flight time nerf. It wouldn't really help Mordus ships and the like that already have ridiculous velocity, but that would make me think about dropping a BCS on a torp ship...maybe. Bad idea, I know, but the current MGEs are just as bad an idea to begin with, might as well roll around in the mud and see if another bad idea happens to be better. I would have preferred if they just stuck with a bonus to missile velocity instead of missile velocity and flight time. It would make both the MGC and particularly the MGE infinitely more valuable, and then they could buff the values on the MGE since it would be stacking-penalized. Range is almost never the issue - it's the slow application of damage due to missile velocity.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
918
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 18:24:47 -
[1155] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.
They free up rig slots, but present the same or less bonus as rigs. Personally, Hyperspacial rigs aren't as worthwhile as range rigs for torps, application rigs for rapid heavies, and damage/ tank rig for cruise missiles.
Granted, this is measured by Golem fitting, but can be applied on other BS class missile hulls as well.
We'll use a Raven. (all fits are based on PVE, lvl 5 skills, with no mods apart from MGC, TP, and missile rigs) Intended target is an all skills V Worm, with no prop, and no tank factored. (rigs will be focused on missiles, so I will use as many missile rigs as possible)
Torps - 2x TP - T2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel, t1 hydraulic. Rage - 39dps / 41km Jav - 51dps / 74km (not factoring TP falloff/optimal) T1 - 60dps / 49km
Torps - 2x MGC - T2 rigor, t2 flare, range scripted Rage - 18dps / 37km Jav - 24dps / 67km T1 - 28dps / 45km
Torps - 2x MGC - t2 rigor, t2 flare, precision scripted Rage - 28dps / 25km Jav - 36dps / 45km T1 - 42dps / 30km
TP with range rigs wins
Cruise - 2x TP - t1 calefaction, t1 rigor, (leaves rig slot open for t2 EM resist or flare) (range doesn't matter) Fury - 56dps Precision - 130dps T1 - 81dps
Cruise - 2x MGC - rigs remain the same, precison scripted Fury - 30dps Precision - 77dps T1 - 43dps
No need for a MGC range scripted
TP wins again.
RHML - 2x TP - t2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel (last rig slot optional for tank or application) Fury - 79dps / 68km Precision - 201dps / 45km T1 - 151dps / 90km
RHML - 2x MGC - t2 rigor, t2 flare, range scripted Fury - 67dps / 70km Precision - 187dps / 46km T1 - 133dps / 93km
RHML - 2x MGC - t2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel, precision scripted Fury - 77dps / 68km Precision - 205dps / 45km T1 - 148dps / 90km
TP maintains highest DPS, while MGC range scripted has best range... However, the low addl range does not overvalue the reduced damage.
Therefore, TP with range rigs wins again.
Mind you, these are optimal PVE fits for a Raven, being that 2 midslots are best used for application/projection, as well as two rigs..
While You could combine ranged rigs with range scripts, the heavily reduced application is not worth it, not to mention the stacking penalties makes it generally sub-optimal. The same would be said for stacking precision scripts and precision rigs.
Now, someone will likely argue that MGCs are applicable for all ranges, while TPs are limited in range. However, that argument isn't valid within 100km, which applies more specifically to torp and RHML, while cruise are typically not used outside 100km either. That factor applies to both PVP and PVE, due to the time it takes for missiles to hit a target.
Now, there's also fitting costs. TPs use more cap, but are less than half the CPU costs, which matters more than cap, IMO. |
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4622
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 21:07:43 -
[1156] - Quote
The only ship that can really pull off torpedoes in PvE is the Golem, and this is mainly because you have to sacrifice so much to extend range to be somewhat on par with cruise missiles - so damage application is essential. At best, torpedoes will pop the occasional Elite rattleship in one less volley at a slighter faster rate. At worst, you lose any DPS gain by being out of position and having to either maneuver or switch missiles.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
826
|
Posted - 2015.09.04 22:29:20 -
[1157] - Quote
Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4623
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 01:08:22 -
[1158] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
592
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 01:13:09 -
[1159] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again?
Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application".
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
918
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 02:01:22 -
[1160] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again? Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application".
It's more than just that. There's a lot of missile balance that needs to happen, and one of them is a nerf.
1) Bonuses to light missile range needs to be removed from all cruiser and BC (if applicable) class hulls. this will help to balance RHML and make HML and HAM more viable on cruisers.
2) HAMs and HMLs need to have their fitting costs reduced to be more viable on cruisers. Missile BCs would have their fitting capability reduced in order to stay balanced.
3) HAMs and HMLs need to have their application increased to be more viable against cruiser class hulls, thus making heavy fitted cruisers more viable, and making missile BCs more viable.
4) Torps and possibly cruise missiles need to have their velocities increased at the cost of flight time, thus retaining the same range. Alternate 4) I would prefer to see all missiles have their velocity and flight time balanced in a way to where there is only ever 1 volley in the air at a time. Thus alleviating us from the headache of volley counting and waisted volleys.
5) I'm not too familiar with LML and Rockets, so it would be up to someone else to say what's wrong with them.
6) MGE needs to be removed.. It is a worthless module
7) MGCs need to be given individual scripts for flight time, velocity, explosion velocity, and explosion radius. This is to negate stacking penalties, which I feel are the crippling factor that makes these modules less viable than their rig counterparts.
8) I would love to see exp velocity done away with. It is a jacked up mechanic that does nothing but keep missiles from every being able to do full damage on a moving target, regardless of sig, unlike turrets.
|
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
593
|
Posted - 2015.09.05 02:30:04 -
[1161] - Quote
As far as number 5 goes, neither am I, but I remember people stating that one of the application stats on rockets and LMs need to be swapped.
Something else to add, defenders need either to be removed or repatriated into a high slot mod that is no longer hardpoint bound (or make one for missile users and different one for gunships; defenders and ballistic point defense), be far more autonomous than how it works now, and have a fleet capacity rather than only protecting the host ship. I would vote for it being replaced with a more EWAR like mod if that's what CCP intends, but I'd be contempt with a Defenders 2.0 rebalance.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4623
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 03:54:10 -
[1162] - Quote
I thought the bug with scripting MGCs had been squashed? ie: When you load a script into the MGC then unload it, it doesn't revert to the default values of the MGC (it retains the scripted value) You have to dock or refit the MGC to clear the values.
Also, even though most of us aren't exactly thrilled (perhaps that's an understatement) with the MGC and MGEs, will we be seeing any Faction versions anytime soon?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
829
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 06:40:31 -
[1163] - Quote
Light missiles and rockets are fine, hams and heavy missiles aren't, torpedos and up aren't. Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss. The solution was to fiddle with the explosion velocity and radius values - just put the rocket values on - and missiles are fine.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4623
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 10:08:53 -
[1164] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss. I liked the original RLML and first draft of the RHML.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
862
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 12:08:32 -
[1165] - Quote
Rapid missiles are still dominating the meta, we need a rebalance and the missile td modules.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
920
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 14:21:09 -
[1166] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Rapid missiles are still dominating the meta, we need a rebalance and the missile td modules.
I dislike the idea of missile TDs.
1) because apart from Rapids, missiles are already the weaker option.
2) Because more MGCs and other modifying options are not powerful enough to ever help counteract.
3) because if scripted to negate missile range, you're being redundant, as they already have too much range to counter, or are close enough for it not to matter. A Raven has more than enough range with any missile system for PVP, yet that range is rarely used. That would basically only work for the alliance tournament.
4) if scripted for application TD, then there's no point in using missiles, as missiles are already too heavily effected by application. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
829
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 14:45:29 -
[1167] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss. I liked the original RLML and first draft of the RHML.
So did I but now they are trying to make a missile launcher into a machine gun and it only works because of the server ticks. Hashtag temporalmechanics
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
761
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 14:50:59 -
[1168] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Baali Tekitsu wrote:Rapid missiles are still dominating the meta, we need a rebalance and the missile td modules. I dislike the idea of missile TDs. 1) because apart from Rapids, missiles are already the weaker option. 2) Because more MGCs and other modifying options are not powerful enough to ever help counteract. 3) because if scripted to negate missile range, you're being redundant, as they already have too much range to counter, or are close enough for it not to matter. A Raven has more than enough range with any missile system for PVP, yet that range is rarely used. That would basically only work for the alliance tournament. 4) if scripted for application TD, then there's no point in using missiles, as missiles are already too heavily effected by application.
This really.
It be more possible if the new missile mods performed on par with turret TC and TE. This however was something ccp clearly avoided even on sisi with their alterations.
With some turrets I get lots of options. Good hull tracking bonus, tc/te, drop down to smaller bores....I can mitigate to varying levels some TD hits. Missiles lack this.
Rapids "fix"this really by the good old mantra that has been the basis of suppressive fire for years. You shoot lots of rounds down range really fast...something is gonna get hit and hit more often than a slower rate of fire weapon. Does it work? yes. Should it be the basis to nerf slower firing launchers? No.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Chig
4624
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 17:27:35 -
[1169] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I dislike the idea of missile TDs. Pretty much this.
We already have damps and ECM as counters, in addition to the potential to actually outrun missiles under certain conditions. This doesn't even include smartbombs, Defender missiles and time to impact. While missiles do deliver fixed damage - they also can't hit for critical damage, either. So if the current iteration of MGCs and MGEs are more or less fixed in stone (and I think it's unlikely we'll see any changes at this point), missile TDs will just nerf missiles again.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
128
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 19:25:21 -
[1170] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again? Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application". It's more than just that. There's a lot of missile balance that needs to happen, and one of them is a nerf.
9) fix error with fit cost between Cruise Launcher and Torpedo Launcher.
Short range weapon should use less CPU/PG than long range weapon
|
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
921
|
Posted - 2015.09.06 19:29:31 -
[1171] - Quote
unidenify wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:elitatwo wrote:Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime. Sorry, what's the solution again? Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application". It's more than just that. There's a lot of missile balance that needs to happen, and one of them is a nerf. 9) fix error with fit cost between Cruise Launcher and Torpedo Launcher. Short range weapon should use less CPU/PG than long range weapon
I agree to that, and have always wondered this. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1928
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 07:58:10 -
[1172] - Quote
So....quick question - RHML were dominant in terms of DPS in the AT - did ANY of those ship losses have the new mods? |
Arthur Aihaken
Perkone Caldari State
4628
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 10:32:29 -
[1173] - Quote
afkalt wrote:So....quick question - RHML were dominant in terms of DPS in the AT - did ANY of those ship losses have the new mods? Interesting question.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
921
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 11:23:28 -
[1174] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:afkalt wrote:So....quick question - RHML were dominant in terms of DPS in the AT - did ANY of those ship losses have the new mods? Interesting question.
The answer is likely yes.. However, it's a open ended question, because it's a pre-determined fleet build which likely had ships for dedicated TPs, even if un-bonused. Also, TPs are stacking penalized. Which means at a certain number of TPs on a target, 3-4?, localized modifiers become the only viable option. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1928
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 11:29:25 -
[1175] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:afkalt wrote:So....quick question - RHML were dominant in terms of DPS in the AT - did ANY of those ship losses have the new mods? Interesting question. The answer is likely yes.. However, it's a open ended question, because it's a pre-determined fleet build which likely had ships for dedicated TPs, even if un-bonused. Also, TPs are stacking penalized. Which means at a certain number of TPs on a target, 3-4?, localized modifiers become the only viable option.
My money is on no. For various reasons, but I think no... |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
642
|
Posted - 2015.09.07 11:59:00 -
[1176] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:afkalt wrote:So....quick question - RHML were dominant in terms of DPS in the AT - did ANY of those ship losses have the new mods? Interesting question. The answer is likely yes.. However, it's a open ended question, because it's a pre-determined fleet build which likely had ships for dedicated TPs, even if un-bonused. Also, TPs are stacking penalized. Which means at a certain number of TPs on a target, 3-4?, localized modifiers become the only viable option. My money is on no. For various reasons, but I think no...
You realise you can just load up the system it took place in and look for yourself? It was live on TQ btw.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Teddy KGB
Stand Alone Forces
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 15:32:23 -
[1177] - Quote
Houston we have a problem The problem of RLM is the explosion signature. Logis mostly armor like oneiros and guardian have low signature radius so they can tank much more dps than other bigger ships as its hard to make a perfect hit with big guns. Even when it gets to a big fleets. And especially when it get to a big fleets that signature is what make them survive if logi pilots are moving in space. Also turret ships can use "look at" button and set a vector of their own movement to make their hits more precise. And thats what make difference between skillfull player and newbie. But now we have just cerberus fleets killing everything cos they dont give a sh... about signature radius lol.. Now numbers. I neve come without them
Cerberus with RLM hit 1500 alpha damage with 2.5 seconds ROF (2.1 overloaded) Lets take most tanked logi (oneiros) over 70k EHP with bonuses with a casual number of 15 cerberuses in fleet we kill oneiros with 3-4 hits with 22500 alpha which mean 6-8 seconds overloaded Now oneiros lock other oneiros in 3.3 seconds (with standard skill bonuse from leadership at lvl5) + 3 seconds for overloaded remote repairers cycle overloaded, and yes +0.5-1.5 seconds to react on broadcast. So what we;ve got? When i lock logi in my fleet it appears to be already dead.
And yes. Lets make new rapid light guns that firing with 600 dps on 70km from turret HACs... with 2.0 tracking. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
34
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 19:09:55 -
[1178] - Quote
For all those claiming RLML / RHML need to go ..... consider that this is exactly one of those things that makes missiles so unique: I can fit a small weapon on a medium sized ship, or a medium-sized weapon on a battleship. I use them for the application they provide.
Especially on non-droneboat hulls, these rapid launchers are the only thing that allow me to pop undersized targets. I wouldn't dismiss them so easily. Would be interested in a "gunship" battleship hull with a dual bonus for medium and large turrets, but for now, a few support launchers are my best bet. |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1393
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 19:42:26 -
[1179] - Quote
afkalt wrote:So....quick question - RHML were dominant in terms of DPS in the AT - did ANY of those ship losses have the new mods?
https://zkillboard.com/ship/11993/region/10000004/losses
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
|
|
|
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] |