Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2022
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:47:51 -
[181] - Quote
It makes me laugh when some greasy neckbeard acts like he has all the answers and calls everyone else an idiot... Get down of your high horse kid.
A counter? They will be countered the same way ECM & damps are... Oh and good luck co-ordinating you Ishtar fleet to disrupts every ship in the enemy fleet.
Weapon desruption should be viewed exactly the same as damps. You only need one damp and you can affect any ships target time/range, and I don't think weapon desruption should be any different.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:56:02 -
[182] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:It makes me laugh when some greasy neckbeard acts like he has all the answers and calls everyone else an idiot... Get down of your high horse kid. A counter? They will be countered the same way ECM & damps are... Oh and good luck co-ordinating you Ishtar fleet to disrupts every ship in the enemy fleet. Weapon desruption should be viewed exactly the same as damps. You only need one damp and you can affect any ships target time/range, and I don't think weapon description should be any different.
But most ships can say whatever at 1 unbonused damp, however most turret ships are screwed even by just 1 unbonused td. Take the frigate meta, trapfits with ab/scram/web/td do well, and they only work vs turret ships. No other ewar is as effective as the td on a unbonused hull, the weakness of those td scram kiters are misisles and drones, with the same mod beeing able to be used vs missiles it gets truely lame in anything not drone fit.
Just remember the old td hookbill and how strong it was, it would just get stronger. It also would massively screw over any smaller entity upengaging, as a range reduction is very hard to counter.
This is all targeted at the 1 mod, different scrips idea. While i think its a truely bad mod to be added (it is a boring td copy, stop taking the lazy way out @ccp and balance missiles properly) it doesnt screw over the meta to much in a unheathly way. |
Aivlis Eldelbar
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Curatores Veritatis Alliance
108
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 12:43:36 -
[183] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:One of the most important questions regarding missile performance, specifically larger missiles, is whether or not the Missile Guidance Enhancers/Computers have succeeded in helping these platforms. I have some information about their adoption rates, but I personally wonder if the pilots using them are doing so for reasons other than "they are great at missile damage application" such as:
- Using them for range
- Using them to make up for Aegis stacking penalties
- Using them out of curiosity
I'm going to try to find out how these modules have affected larger ship efficacy, not just popularity of the ships or these modules. My guess is that they haven't significantly helped larger missiles (though I won't speak for light missile boats). If that's the case, I'm afraid the net result here is missiles as a platform will be even weaker than they were pre-Aegis (when missiles were supposed to be buffed). Since it was largely agreed at the time missiles were not in a happy place (and perhaps still aren't), this scenario could be very, very sad for missile pilots.
I use them for range on niche torp fits and nothing else. The problem is the same as with using tracking scripts on large artillery guns, the base numbers are so low that a %-based increase does nothing, so large missiles remain screwed overall. They work just fine in PvE, sure, but the speed creep of the recent years means they lack viable prey in the PvP ecosystem. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
528
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 12:47:42 -
[184] - Quote
Fozzie, it seems we have all forgotten the TD drones. Will they now get a missile disruption effect too? They should.
Also, please reduce the base turret and missile effects of these mods, and claw back the loss with increased buffs for the specialized TD boats so as to compensate.
And please consider my TP and TP boat idea before any more nerfs to drone boats and drones themselves. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6077768#post6077768
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.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3336
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 13:04:45 -
[185] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Defender missiles are a very poor counter (that should be completely repurposed rather than tweaked) and the inability to impact missiles has always been a major problem for Amarrian Weapon Disruption ships.
So why is it that you're proposing to re-invent the wheel with a completely new set of modules, and further homogenising the weapon systems of Eve, rather than fixing/repurposing the Defender Missiles (which already exist) into a viable missile counter?
The more I look at this the less I'm sold on it.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Umino Iruka
Ultramar Independent Contracting
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 13:23:09 -
[186] - Quote
This is stupid!
"Let's add a different module and different scripts in a fake attempt to actually bring the Amarr E-war up to snuff..."
Integrate the damn missile tracking disruption effects into the existing modules and scripts and stop trying to re-invent the light bulb! |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
201
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 13:49:36 -
[187] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
528
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 14:06:16 -
[188] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis. That is because they had to be careful not to tip missiles into op status especially when they had no working dedicated antimissile ewar in the game. So now they are buffing those new missile modules.
I don't know how long you have been playing this game but about 4 years ago iirc there was an attempt to rework missiles and the test server quickly showed it didn't take much for them to become massively op. Missile tweaking is probably their most difficult weapon system to get right. Not much room for error between useless and clearly op. Taking smaller steps is the right thing for the balancing team to do.
Thankfully now it wont just be a game where TD hookbills can neuter turret frigs. Hookbills and Garmurs and such will have to deal with the possibility of ewar ******* their **** up. This is good for the game.
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
2100
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 14:28:19 -
[189] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:afkalt wrote:So for all the 'one wtfpwnsauce' mod proponents:
What's your counter when we land an Ishtar fleet on you with 2 of these on every boat?
I'll help: anything not a drone comp will die in a fire because I can stop all incoming damage dead. You can stop all incoming damage? You must be joking... You are worried about two unbonused tracking disruptors which will be heavily impacted by the stacking penalty, and you would be wasting all of your midslots. I can't see anyone even trying to use such a doctrine. The whole point of the Ishtar blob is that it doesn't need to concern itself with manually targeting each ship, trying to coordinate spreading the ewar in a big blob of alliance F1 monkeys for relatively little effect will not be very likely to happen. Also you forget that CCP can balance using the tracking disruptor's modifiers, and even buff some of the weaker missile systems. So combining both effects into a tracking disruptor module does not necessarily mean that this will be unbalanced as you can tweak the other variables. I think HAM, HAML, and Torps will need buffs anyway regardless.
Oh so you mean if they completely rebalance everything around the stupid idea it'll be less stupid?
Or, you know, they could just not break everything in the first place.
And yeah, unbonused TD ARE that good. You know why they aren't prolific now? Because missiles and drones. Make it one mod and you're good to go vs everything but drones.
Even stacking, taking two unbonused mods you'll drop HML range to under 20. Or have them hit like citadel missiles. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
201
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 14:50:02 -
[190] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis. That is because they had to be careful not to tip missiles into op status especially when they had no working dedicated antimissile ewar in the game. So now they are buffing those new missile modules. I don't know how long you have been playing this game but about 4 years ago iirc there was an attempt to rework missiles and the test server quickly showed it didn't take much for them to become massively op. Missile tweaking is probably their most difficult weapon system to get right. Not much room for error between useless and clearly op. Taking smaller steps is the right thing for the balancing team to do. Thankfully now it wont just be a game where TD hookbills can neuter turret frigs. Hookbills and Garmurs and such will have to deal with the possibility of ewar ******* their **** up. This is good for the game.
Quote: 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.
^^ that's the justification used for introducing these modules in the first place, AEGIS was a failure, not only did it fail to "enhance" missiles as we were promised, it effectively nerfed them.
The Hookbill is by far the least used of the three faction frigs, it really doesn't need any more problems. HAM's, Torps, and Heavies also don't need any more problems and these modules will affect them far more than they affect Light missiles. Mordu's ships are broken, they effectively get 5 powerful bonuses that all compliment kiting on fast agile hulls where other pirate ships get 3... they can't be used as the standard by which all missile ships need to be balanced.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
529
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 14:58:20 -
[191] - Quote
There are a lot of solutions that aren't unilateral -- I think people are seeing this as black and white.
There's no reason you have to buff or nerf all missiles across the board. For instance, you could improve explosion radius and velocity on torpedoes without touching light missiles. You could lower flight time on missiles with good range, then drastically increase the range bonuses on missile guidance modules to compensate, while helping missiles that had bad range.
I have to say however that I agree with people against "just make this a script." If you make it a script, TDs as-is could become so versatile there'd be no reason not to use them. Would the people advocating the script option be willing to lower the efficacy of TDs across the board to compensate for this?
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
|
Kitty Bear
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
1527
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 15:16:42 -
[192] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:How would it not be balanced?
It is logical and more efficient to change existing weapon disrupters.
it's not the eve way ..
you want 1 thing that does 'all the things'
separate modules means you gets to make a choice and you suffer if you make the wrong choice
also still waiting for the news that missiles will be given the potential to do critical hits after all this will bring them in line with both drones and turrets |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
156
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 15:30:02 -
[193] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Moac Tor wrote:afkalt wrote:So for all the 'one wtfpwnsauce' mod proponents:
What's your counter when we land an Ishtar fleet on you with 2 of these on every boat?
I'll help: anything not a drone comp will die in a fire because I can stop all incoming damage dead. You can stop all incoming damage? You must be joking... You are worried about two unbonused tracking disruptors which will be heavily impacted by the stacking penalty, and you would be wasting all of your midslots. I can't see anyone even trying to use such a doctrine. The whole point of the Ishtar blob is that it doesn't need to concern itself with manually targeting each ship, trying to coordinate spreading the ewar in a big blob of alliance F1 monkeys for relatively little effect will not be very likely to happen. Also you forget that CCP can balance using the tracking disruptor's modifiers, and even buff some of the weaker missile systems. So combining both effects into a tracking disruptor module does not necessarily mean that this will be unbalanced as you can tweak the other variables. I think HAM, HAML, and Torps will need buffs anyway regardless. Oh so you mean if they completely rebalance everything around the stupid idea it'll be less stupid? Or, you know, they could just not break everything in the first place. And yeah, unbonused TD ARE that good. You know why they aren't prolific now? Because missiles and drones. Make it one mod and you're good to go vs everything but drones. Even stacking, taking two unbonused mods you'll drop HML range to under 20. Or have them hit like citadel missiles. Dual TD ishtar blobs will not be a thing of that I am very sure NPC alt.
Mid slots are highly valuable in PvP. This is part of the reason you need to implement this as a script or they will be used rarely. By making this scripted and balancing around that at least the module won't border on an interesting gimmick as the current missile enhancing module have been so far.
Also two unbonused TDs will knock a caracal down to 37km range. That is still pretty good although it is not under 20km as you are thinking. And good luck getting a blob to spread the ewar over an entire enemy fleet.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1273
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 15:36:44 -
[194] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.
Like the one ship that want +/- 0 is the dunk phoenix... |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2102
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 15:40:48 -
[195] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:afkalt wrote:Moac Tor wrote:afkalt wrote:So for all the 'one wtfpwnsauce' mod proponents:
What's your counter when we land an Ishtar fleet on you with 2 of these on every boat?
I'll help: anything not a drone comp will die in a fire because I can stop all incoming damage dead. You can stop all incoming damage? You must be joking... You are worried about two unbonused tracking disruptors which will be heavily impacted by the stacking penalty, and you would be wasting all of your midslots. I can't see anyone even trying to use such a doctrine. The whole point of the Ishtar blob is that it doesn't need to concern itself with manually targeting each ship, trying to coordinate spreading the ewar in a big blob of alliance F1 monkeys for relatively little effect will not be very likely to happen. Also you forget that CCP can balance using the tracking disruptor's modifiers, and even buff some of the weaker missile systems. So combining both effects into a tracking disruptor module does not necessarily mean that this will be unbalanced as you can tweak the other variables. I think HAM, HAML, and Torps will need buffs anyway regardless. Oh so you mean if they completely rebalance everything around the stupid idea it'll be less stupid? Or, you know, they could just not break everything in the first place. And yeah, unbonused TD ARE that good. You know why they aren't prolific now? Because missiles and drones. Make it one mod and you're good to go vs everything but drones. Even stacking, taking two unbonused mods you'll drop HML range to under 20. Or have them hit like citadel missiles. Dual TD ishtar blobs will not be a thing of that I am very sure NPC alt. Mid slots are highly valuable in PvP. This is part of the reason you need to implement this as a script or they will be used rarely. By making this scripted and balancing around that at least the module won't border on an interesting gimmick as the current missile enhancing module have been so far. Also two unbonused TDs will knock a caracal down to 37km range. That is still pretty good although it is not under 20km as you are thinking. And good luck getting a blob to spread the ewar over an entire enemy fleet.
Caracal is ranged bonused, don't lecture me on mechanics when you miss things like that. Also it would make the missiles slow enough to be effectively outrun, real range would be nowhere near that.
You clearly have little idea how this would pan out at the fleet level.
Thank goodness CCP know better. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
156
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 16:05:08 -
[196] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Caracal is ranged bonused, don't lecture me on mechanics when you miss things like that. Also it would make the missiles slow enough to be effectively outrun, real range would be nowhere near that.
You clearly have little idea how this would pan out at the fleet level.
Thank goodness CCP know better. You seem to be fixated on using unbonused and suboptimal setups. What are the two main missile doctrine ships... The Caracal and Cerberus; both have velocity and flight time bonuses.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2102
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 16:11:47 -
[197] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:afkalt wrote:Caracal is ranged bonused, don't lecture me on mechanics when you miss things like that. Also it would make the missiles slow enough to be effectively outrun, real range would be nowhere near that.
You clearly have little idea how this would pan out at the fleet level.
Thank goodness CCP know better. You seem to be fixated on using unbonused and suboptimal setups. What are the two main missile doctrine ships... The Caracal and Cerberus; both have velocity and flight time bonuses. Anyway, that is enough of trying to get an angry NPC alt to see sense for one day. *chuckles*
Irrelevant, it is application you'd hit vs HML. Only RLML would one consider range, and probably not then.
It CANNOT be one mod. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 16:46:46 -
[198] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.
Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2102
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 16:52:47 -
[199] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis. Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads.
How would you know, they never even made it in a working state to Sisi. The stacking was missing on the first go around, then they were nerfbatted AND stacking added.
They never made it as they should have in the first instance - original values with stacking. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2023
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 17:00:38 -
[200] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:Would the people advocating the script option be willing to lower the efficacy of TDs across the board to compensate for this?
Sure. They are already strong on unbounded ships anyway, so a bit of a nerf might be ok.
Are remote tracking links going to be changed to affect missiles stats?
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
|
stoicfaux
6249
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 17:28:48 -
[201] - Quote
Hal Morsh wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Is it just me or does it feel like missiles and related mods are being balanced around Rapids and the Mordu ships?
Anyway, if missile disruptors become a problem, everyone will just switch to using Missile Drones (because drones tend to solve most ECM problems.)
Personally, I'm holding out for CCP to announce Drone Drones. (Drones that have their own drones.)
Drones do not use missles. Caldari drones use hybrids, but they still do kinetic. I was riffing on drones > ECM, implying that "missile drones" would be the only way that missiles would be effective if the missile disruptors went in with their current stats...
/and_this_is_why_I_don't_do_comedy_for_a_living
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
203
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 17:32:15 -
[202] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis. Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads.
pre aegis rigs and target painters were better in just about every way, how do you reach the conclusion they are "very good" ?
Apart from a very few fringe cases they are worse than what we had before.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
383
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 17:40:43 -
[203] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:There's no reason you have to buff or nerf all missiles across the board. For instance, you could improve explosion radius and velocity on torpedoes without touching light missiles. You could lower flight time on missiles with good range, then drastically increase the range bonuses on missile guidance modules to compensate, while helping missiles that had bad range. That why it would be better to do modules and ammo tiercide first then introduce new tracking and disruptor devices. Now it will be completely mess. It's like balancing D3 dessies now. We will have new T2 dessies soon so whole "balancing" will start from the beginning, what the point here?
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1845
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 17:57:26 -
[204] - Quote
I went to look for a quantum rise missile change devblog... can't find one I did find the speed one and that has some good lines: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/speed-rebalanced/
and the patchnotes alone aren't very helpful http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-quantum-rise-1
Quote:All missile types have been balanced to ensure that oversized missiles do not have too much of an effect on smaller ships. As before, ships are still protected from larger missiles by their signature radius. When going sufficiently fast, the damage taken from missiles is reduced by the signature radius to speed ratio, rather than just speed. Going faster or reducing the signature radius will reduce missile damage further. For a ship with the same signature radius as the missile's explosion radius, the missile's explosion velocity indicates the speed at which the missile damage starts to get reduced. The new formula allows for speed tanking using afterburners. In fact, afterburners will in general be more effective than micro warp drive for speed tanking missiles.
found the thread! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=899873 would have been easier but all the oldforums links are broken, and the "external link" filter just makes it a nightmare
the link to where "here" goes to in the last link: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=861746
sadly this was the days where "We don't talk about our formulas as a rule, sorry :)"
great now I've done so much digging I forgot what my initial point was. I think it had something to do with why they did whatever they did with the formula but well, see above. I suppose a lot of the why is established through explanations of ideals about the formula. Also makes me wonder what the pre QR formula was. I remember missiles overall being pretty usable then except vs nano ships where they were almost completely ineffective. either not catching the target, or hitting for near 0 damage.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1845
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 18:00:56 -
[205] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Hal Morsh wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Is it just me or does it feel like missiles and related mods are being balanced around Rapids and the Mordu ships?
Anyway, if missile disruptors become a problem, everyone will just switch to using Missile Drones (because drones tend to solve most ECM problems.)
Personally, I'm holding out for CCP to announce Drone Drones. (Drones that have their own drones.)
Drones do not use missles. Caldari drones use hybrids, but they still do kinetic. I was riffing on drones > ECM, implying that "missile drones" would be the only way that missiles would be effective if the missile disruptors went in with their current stats... /and_this_is_why_I_don't_do_comedy_for_a_living
I thought it was an obvious joke
@ChainsawPlankto
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 18:05:10 -
[206] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis. Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads. pre aegis rigs and target painters were better in just about every way, how do you reach the conclusion they are "very good" ? Apart from a very few fringe cases they are worse than what we had before.
cause its one mod? |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
531
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 18:17:54 -
[207] - Quote
Pre-nerf MGCs were absurdly good because *there were no stacking penalties.*
I understand CCP wished to standardize effects and introduce stacking penalties to explosion stats, but I had asked and hoped that they would choose either/or with module nerfs and stacking penalties, not both.
As a result we got modules that underperform what rigs used to do 1:1, or are forced to exist to make up for stacking penalties.
There are benefits to say MGCs. The versatility to swap range/application on the fly. The ease of putting them on/off unlike rigs, at a far smaller cost. Lack of cycle times for changing targets like painters.
But in terms of being items that drastically helped large missiles apply damage, they just fall short to rigs and painters. And the MGEs even more so.
I had originally suggested that unlike guns, the more powerful application effects could be low slot items, with significant fitting costs. This could mean that instead of BCSes + pointless MGEs, you might choose to forego damage and ROF in favor of well applied burst damage.
I had also hoped range and application could be split to separate modules and balanced separately, with application stats and scripts balanced for size/speed, giving more nobs foe fine tuning.
With those ideas out the window, I am hoping MGEs can get a bigger boost, and that base stats on the missiles that suck get a slight bump. This will ensure MG mods plus the already solid missiles don't become OP.
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
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 18:21:42 -
[208] - Quote
rlmls are great with mgcs, hams can be great, rhmls are great. The rest sucks anyways. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
203
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 19:11:37 -
[209] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!
You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis. Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads. pre aegis rigs and target painters were better in just about every way, how do you reach the conclusion they are "very good" ? Apart from a very few fringe cases they are worse than what we had before. cause its one mod?
It's one mod that takes up a mid slot and fitting resources and still manages to be less effective than the equivalent rigs for most purposes.
I think it's because of the way the bonuses are split between flight time/velocity and exp radius/exp velocity. If they just gave a bonus to Missile velocity, and a bonus to explosion radius they might actually have be useful.
Missile guidance Computer II +15% missile velocity (+30% with script) -15% explosion radius (-30% with script)
What's wrong with that? Why make it so complicated by splitting bonuses, when they split the application bonuses you're only really getting the benefit of one at a time so half of it is wasted and that's not the case with rigs, and when it comes to range people want missile velocity not longer flight time. Even with this missiles like HAM's Torpedo's Heavies will still struggle, but rapids will always be strong.
Here are the changes I'd like to see: 1) Remove split bonuses from Missile tracking computers and enhancers
2) Nerf Mordu's hulls! They get too many strong bonuses: Missile velocity is a strong bonus on it's own without also giving it extra range. please increase the flight time penalty so it's at the same range as unbonused but with faster missiles. Also remove either the Scram bonus or the Disruptor bonus.
3) Nerf Rapids by increasing the fitting costs so you can't easily over tank with them. Give them the fitting cost of HAM's and give HAM's the fitting cost Rapid lights have now.
3) Do the same with Torps and Rapid heavies, just switch the fitting costs around.
4) Buff damage application on Torps, Heavies, and HAM's
5) Nerf flight time on light missiles by about 10%
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 20:07:17 -
[210] - Quote
cause they are intended to stack, and if they wouldnt it would be totally broken. MGCs are fine 100%. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |