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) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13323
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:05:46 -
[1] - Quote
Hey folks! If you've followed our development over the past few years you'll know that the idea of tracking disruptors for missiles has been bouncing around for a long time. 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. We think that adding Missile Disruptors will create some interesting new fitting options, especially for ships with bonuses to weapon disruption.
We're now planning on releasing these new modules in our December release, and we're ready to start getting your feedback! These disruptors would be seperate modules within the same group as Tracking Disruptors. They will use the same skills and get the same bonuses as Tracking Disurptors (so for example a Pilgrim would automatically get bonuses for these modules). Pilots will be able to choose what combo of missile and tracking disruptors to fit on their ships, based on what they expect to face. We're planning on introducing T1, T2 and named versions with faction options being considered.
We expect that the stats will need extensive tweaking and playtesting, but here's what we're working with at the moment:
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.
We're really interested in your feedback and we have plenty of time to get these properly adjusted before release. These changes are currently planned for our December release.
Keep an eye out for an announcement later today from CCP Seagull who will be going over some more stuff coming soon, as well as more announcements in the weeks leading up to EVE Vegas.
Let us know what you think!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Yadaryon Vondawn
Alius Itineris Virtus
30
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:12:20 -
[2] - Quote
-will edit- |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1124
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:12:22 -
[3] - Quote
:o |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
919
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:12:46 -
[4] - Quote
I have been a fan of the idea for a long time and this is great.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2295
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:15:01 -
[5] - Quote
Precision script and range script I assume? So a precision script would remove 30% explosion velocity AND increase explosion radium by 30%? |
Selto Black
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:15:03 -
[6] - Quote
Those that fight garmurs and orthoruses in lowsec thank you. |
DaJokr
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
27
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:18:24 -
[7] - Quote
This means you're adding remote missile guidance enhancers to match all the other modules and balance it out, correct? |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
260
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:19:24 -
[8] - Quote
A nice addition to the game and a nice tweak to the existing guidance mods as well. |
Kiki Abraxas
Cap's R Us
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:19:30 -
[9] - Quote
why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** |
Metal Icarus
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
744
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:19:44 -
[10] - Quote
yay more ewar! \o/ |
|
Laetitia Nzero
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
243
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:19:50 -
[11] - Quote
This is cool. Now nobody will laugh when I bring my Sentinel :D |
O'nira
Litla Sundlaugin
72
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:20:01 -
[12] - Quote
Any chance of faction Missile Computers and enhancers? |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
5587
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:21:13 -
[13] - Quote
Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new ****
Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal.
Woo! CSM X!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Genghis Tron
Boom Squad
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:23:01 -
[14] - Quote
Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new ****
I agree with this! Since you are literally the only person working at CCP, Fozzie, you really ought to stick on one project and stop multi-tasking. Put down that slice of pizza! You can't eat and dev at the same time. Do one thing. I'm paying for this game, listen to meeee!
Also, love the idea. This has been much needed for quite some time. Keep up the great work CCP!
BOOM SHAKALAKA
|
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
919
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:24:24 -
[15] - Quote
By the way, are they going to affect fighter bombers like tracking disruptors affect turret drones?
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
521
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:24:28 -
[16] - Quote
Without having done any math yet because mathishard, looks good! +1 |
Treya Neverette
Sinful Dick's Goathouse of Fun
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:24:55 -
[17] - Quote
Please make defender missiles anti-drone missiles. |
Ripard Teg
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
1076
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:29:22 -
[18] - Quote
If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module?
As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them.
aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2295
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:31:05 -
[19] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them. INB4 mobile depot. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1124
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:34:13 -
[20] - Quote
can we rename tracking disruptors to turret disruptors or something while we're at it? 'optimal range tracking disruptors' is so dumb. |
|
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
361
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:34:31 -
[21] - Quote
I've expected to see these for a while, and generally I'm in favor of them.
I do wonder why you've chosen to give this new EWAR ability to Amarr however - yes it fits alongside Tracking Disruptors, but Amarr already get Tracking Disruption and Energy Neutralizers as a primary and secondary EWAR on their class ships. So now they're going to have Missile Disruption as well?
Caldari ships only get ECM and... ECM. That's it - they have no secondary EWAR capability on their Electronic Attack Ships, or Recon Ships.
Unless you are also planning on introducing a drone counter EWAR system, would it not make more sense to give this ability to Caldari ships? I understand that may take more work to revamp all of the ships, but if an ECM rebalance is in the works anyway, logically it would make sense to give drone and missile EWAR to Caldari ships.
I've outlined a bit more detail on this here, and I believe Corbexx may have sent it your way:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3itkns/rogue_drone_battleship_grasping_robot_arms_have/cuke0v4 |
The Slayer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
275
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:35:46 -
[22] - Quote
Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new ****
If only there were multiple teams who could work on multiple things at multiple times, you multiple goddam ******. |
Hendrink Collie
Blood Oath Foundation Adaptation.
70
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:39:15 -
[23] - Quote
Exciting stuff. Should help against those angsty orths. |
Ben Ishikela
64
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:39:30 -
[24] - Quote
Awesome! --- Now add some AoE effect to missile explosion, ( ... and work out the CONCORD problems ). Then they actually matter and are a difference to guns. I'd like the feeling/story of it. ...and btw would be a nice tool against nooby anchoring blobs. also nice to have gilas shooting their own drones. lol ---
Remove JumpFreighters/CloakHauler/CloakTrick and make a new T2Freighter(mjd&LotsOfCargo&moreTank, but no JumpDrive). Because we need more opportunities for piracy, escorts and decentralised economy! ...also Convoys.
|
sytaqe violacea
Circus of midnight
33
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:40:33 -
[25] - Quote
Do you have any plan to add bonus about this modules on any ship? |
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
197
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:42:51 -
[26] - 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.
Just to clarify, are you going to raise the stats by 10% (ie. 5% to 5.5%) of the current or to around total of 10% bonus?
This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
|
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
32
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:43:55 -
[27] - Quote
Some Missing Modules: Missile Guidance Link => Tracking Link Drone Tracking Disruptor => As a contra for the Omnidirectional Tracking Link
Some of my Corpies are very concerned Missile Doctrines will become useless, i hope you guys dont screw up the balancing in the first place. For example is the damage application of T2 HAMs on Cruisers a bit weak already, you won't hit much with a disruptor module. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3331
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:44:30 -
[28] - Quote
Missile disrupting scripts for the existing tracking disruptors would seem to be a much neater solution than a whole new range of modules, is there a reason why you've taken this route instead?
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.
|
Mia Markaya
Unlimited Blade Works.
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:44:58 -
[29] - Quote
What if you just changed Tracking Disruptors to Disruptors and gave them 4 scripts? 2 for turrets, 2 for missiles.
Damps will still be better overall imo. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1124
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:49:41 -
[30] - Quote
Mia Markaya wrote:What if you just changed Tracking Disruptors to "Weapon Disruptor" and gave them 4 scripts? 2 for turrets, 2 for missiles.
Damps will still be better overall imo, if you can't lock, you can't DPS at all.
the way it is is good. if it's all in one module I can just show up in my 5 tracking disruptor curse and shut everyone down except drones. if you make me choose the number of modules of each type to fit, well, it's sort of like racial ecm rather than just making multis as powerful as racials. tracking disruptors are plenty good already. |
|
Xindi Kraid
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
1050
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:50:07 -
[31] - Quote
Adding my support to the make it a script idea. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
509
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 17:54:13 -
[32] - Quote
I am concerned that missiles could take too large of a hit here, in addition to some application losses from the Aegis stacking penalty introduction. I'd love to see base application stats looked at even if it means nerfing say bombers to compensate for increased torpedo viability.
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
2078
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:00:06 -
[33] - Quote
I'll await the inevitable math, but these feel too strong, on a gut feel.
Turrets can manually fly to compensate unbounsed TD, there is NOTHING a missile pilot can do to the same effect. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1829
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:00:33 -
[34] - Quote
general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
297
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:03:43 -
[35] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) +1 to the missile script approach
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Johnny Twelvebore
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
72
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:03:47 -
[36] - Quote
I'd put in another vote for using the existing mod (perhaps with a missile script) as when you go out roaming you have no idea what you're going to come up against and having to make the call between one or the other is annoying. If a ship has the role of disruptor then it should be able to disrupt.
Perhaps in null where you may have an idea what the enemy will bring then the choice of missiles vs turrets disruption would be easier (although I don't think this module is widely used in big fleet warfare) but in low where most of the smaller fights happen and people actually use these modules we certainly have no idea what we will fight.
Just my 2p worth..
Bloody hell, another eve blog! http://johnnytwelvebore.wordpress.com
|
Elemenohpee
Output Industries
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:04:08 -
[37] - Quote
Is this going to also apply to NPC's?
So for example will sansha and blood raider tracking disrupter's effect missiles?
Because if they do I can almost hear the tsunami of bear tears |
Maxxor Brutor
Unsettled Unsettled.
89
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:04:29 -
[38] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles.
DaJokr wrote:This means you're adding remote missile guidance enhancers to match all the other modules and balance it out, correct?
Not empty quoting. CCpppplz!
|
Divine Entervention
Rational Chaos Inc. Phoebe Freeport Republic
650
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:05:13 -
[39] - Quote
I'm glad to hear this. Thanks. |
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
330
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:05:22 -
[40] - Quote
Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Because what you don't seem to understand is that there are multiple teams within CCP that deal with multiple projects at once and time spent developing a few new things here and there DOES NOT MEAN time is being taken away from "fixing" sov mechanics.
Seriously people, educate yourself a little bit about how businesses run before you make an idiot of yourself. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2078
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:05:32 -
[41] - Quote
And definitely NOT one scripted mod, as I'll simply put a TD on EVERY SINGLE ship. Because why would I not.... |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
79
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:10:14 -
[42] - Quote
Good general direction and nice information flow. +1 from me
Though it may be worth considering a ROF script as well. There are certain situations where point blank crippling the dps of a missile/torp ship would be beneficial as well as add more tactical depth. The idea would also apply well to turret ships for similar reasons. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
577
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:12:31 -
[43] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :)
I like separate modules. Otherwise one ship can defend against any threat with a single mod. At least you have to choose the mod and cant just blanket every circumstance. Course mobile depots will work around this, but at least you cant change mid fight.
Welp, its going to be sentinels, crucifiers, arbitrator, curse/pilgrim online after this. Like LS needs more of these flying around. Indirect drone buff as theyre the only weapon system that doesnt have an ewar counter.
Will adapt as usual, but heavies are going to be even more useless except in niche scenarios.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1124
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:18:57 -
[44] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?
do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered? |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2078
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:20:52 -
[45] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?
do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered?
Do people remember there are more missile systems than that? |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3400
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:25:32 -
[46] - Quote
my sentinel is ready
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
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1125
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:27:11 -
[47] - Quote
afkalt wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?
do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered? Do people remember there are more missile systems than that?
yeah but nobody is using them |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2078
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:29:21 -
[48] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:afkalt wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?
do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered? Do people remember there are more missile systems than that? yeah but nobody is using them
So we fix the systems with problems, we don't sledgehammer everything else along the way. |
Muon Farstrider
Partial Safety
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:29:25 -
[49] - Quote
In my opinion, I'd rather just add these capabilities to the existing tracking disruptor modules (and probably rename them). Just have the base module do all four effects in addition to the current three effects, then give it all 4 scripts.
Why? Well, tracking disruption is already not that strongly used, partly because it doesn't affect so many ships. If you make separate missile and tracking disruptors, you still have the same problem. Either you have to know in advance exactly what you're fighting, or else you'll either be stuck with useless ewar modules if you guess wrong or have to reduce your overall ability to disrupt any one type of target by fitting a mix. Meanwhile, damps and target paints work on everything. And while racial ecm is a thing, an off-race jammer still at least has partial effectiveness.
If it's deemed too much to have one disruption module fully effective against both weapon types, then I would alternately suggest following the pattern of ECM by giving each disruptor the ability to affect the opposite weapon type at half effectiveness. (So, for example, a T2 tracking disruptor would still have its current -17.2% base tracking/optimal/falloff, and then also have -4.5% flight time/velocity, -6% explosion velocity, and +6% explosion radius. A T2 missile disruptor would have full strength missile disruption stats and half strength turret disruption stats. Fitting either of them with a range or application script would appropriately remove/double the penalties for both weapon types.) This at least avoids the problem of getting caught with a literally useless ewar module, while still preserving the relevance of correctly choosing your module type if that is deemed desirable.
Also, while this might seem a bit odd in light of what I wrote above, I'm a bit concerned that this whole thing might represent too severe a decrease in the overall viability of missiles. Missiles not having any ewar counter *was* weird and probably should have been corrected, but that was arguably one of the things helping balance them. Not all missiles are bad - rockets and light missiles, for example, are in a good place overall (and RLML can even be argued to be a bit OP) - but there are a fair number of missile types and platforms that are struggling. (Oddities like BCUs inexplicably using 25% more CPU than turret damage modules or the absence of remote missile guidance computers don't help either.) It's probably time to take another pass at individual missile types and hulls and see if they need buffing. (And for pete's sake, if you're not going to remove damage type locking, at least give those hulls half-strength bonuses to the other types just so that the designed advantage of missiles being able to switch damage types isn't *completely* negated for them.) |
Riela Tanal
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:30:06 -
[50] - Quote
As has been stated by others. If they go with the script method, every ship will fit just one of these tracking disruptors and swap the script out for whatever weapon type they are fighting. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1125
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:30:12 -
[51] - Quote
afkalt wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:afkalt wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?
do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered? Do people remember there are more missile systems than that? yeah but nobody is using them So we fix the systems with problems, we don't sledgehammer everything else along the way.
not sure how a general missile buff to compensate for missile disruptors achieves that |
h4kun4
Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion
32
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:30:16 -
[52] - Quote
I suppose that the decision to add an extra module instead of making a script is to not make it OP, i think it is a good decision, so have to think about what you do when you fit the ship |
Mario Putzo
1522
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:33:50 -
[53] - Quote
Sure would be nice to have missiles feel balanced before you go making ways to make them less effective. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
12188
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:36:38 -
[54] - Quote
yeaaaaaaaaay, **** you drake! back in yer box!
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2078
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:36:44 -
[55] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: not sure how a general missile buff to compensate for missile disruptors achieves that
Because if 75% of the systems are weak and 25% are too good, we reign in th 25% and give the 75% a leg up.
Hit quote limit |
Goran Mitelek
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:45:11 -
[56] - Quote
* Would like to see torps on battleships being a more viable choice. * +1 vote for Faction Tracking Mods (+ storyline and even purples) * Curious to see how missile disruptors work out * Curious to see what else one can do with defender missiles. One idea is to remove their missile hardpoint requirement like with festival launchers. Give them a chaff launcher or something weird that can fit to a utility high slot. Might make em a wee bit overpowered, but if their cpu and grid costs are high enough it may well compensate. Or otherwise for a utility launcher give em a speed buff but a rof penalty or something like. Just an idea. Use it, don't use it, whatever. * EWAR as a whole, and ECCM especially needs a drastic, drastic, drastic overhaul, with ECCM's becoming more effective imo as well. The ECCM mechanics are weird, and class type dont benefit above omni in any particular way. I would advise that you figure out what you are going to do with EWAR and ECCM as a whole before implementing mechanics for disruptors. |
Leucy Kerastase
650BN
31
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:45:32 -
[57] - Quote
sytaqe violacea wrote:Do you have any plan to add bonus about this modules on any ship?
CCP Fozzie wrote:These disruptors would be seperate modules within the same group as Tracking Disruptors. They will use the same skills and get the same bonuses as Tracking Disurptors (so for example a Pilgrim would automatically get bonuses for these modules). |
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
141
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:50:50 -
[58] - Quote
I have big concern that I would like to see to be addressed.
current missile has issue where any change on missile range during in flight cause it to disappear
it is common knowledge among Golem pilot that once missile get in flight and bastion either go online or offline after launch, Missile simple disappear.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
577
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 18:52:22 -
[59] - Quote
Muon Farstrider wrote:In my opinion, I'd rather just add these capabilities to the existing tracking disruptor modules (and probably rename them). Just have the base module do all four effects in addition to the current three effects, then give it all 4 scripts.
Why? Well, tracking disruption is already not that strongly used, partly because it doesn't affect so many ships. If you make separate missile and tracking disruptors, you still have the same problem. Either you have to know in advance exactly what you're fighting, or else you'll either be stuck with useless ewar modules if you guess wrong or have to reduce your overall ability to disrupt any one type of target by fitting a mix. Meanwhile, damps and target paints work on everything. And while racial ecm is a thing, an off-race jammer still at least has partial effectiveness.
If it's deemed too much to have one disruption module fully effective against both weapon types, then I would alternately suggest following the pattern of ECM by giving each disruptor the ability to affect the opposite weapon type at half effectiveness. (So, for example, a T2 tracking disruptor would still have its current -17.2% base tracking/optimal/falloff, and then also have -4.5% flight time/velocity, -6% explosion velocity, and +6% explosion radius. A T2 missile disruptor would have full strength missile disruption stats and half strength turret disruption stats. Fitting either of them with a range or application script would appropriately remove/double the penalties for both weapon types.) This at least avoids the problem of getting caught with a literally useless ewar module, while still preserving the relevance of correctly choosing your module type if that is deemed desirable.
Also, while this might seem a bit odd in light of what I wrote above, I'm a bit concerned that this whole thing might represent too severe a decrease in the overall viability of missiles. Missiles not having any ewar counter *was* weird and probably should have been corrected, but that was arguably one of the things helping balance them. Not all missiles are bad - rockets and light missiles, for example, are in a good place overall (and RLML can even be argued to be a bit OP) - but there are a fair number of missile types and platforms that are struggling. (Oddities like BCUs inexplicably using 25% more CPU than turret damage modules or the absence of remote missile guidance computers don't help either.) It's probably time to take another pass at individual missile types and hulls and see if they need buffing. (And for pete's sake, if you're not going to remove damage type locking, at least give those hulls half-strength bonuses to the other types just so that the designed advantage of missiles being able to switch damage types isn't *completely* negated for them.)
I stopped reading when you said tracking disruption is rarely used. Think you should fly around a bit more. TDs are everywhere in LS, and seems most gangs i run into have either a sentinel or curse and even an arbitrator on hand. Hell even newbros have made me useless with a crucifier.
Its actually just as devasting as being damped, since i cant hit **** 8km from me with large guns when theyre right inline with me. No to it being in the same module, it would be OP and every risk averse gang will have a curse/sentinel to go along with their falcon/kitsune. Neut and TD all the things.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1126
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:03:56 -
[60] - Quote
afkalt wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: not sure how a general missile buff to compensate for missile disruptors achieves that
Because if 75% of the systems are weak and 25% are too good, we reign in th 25% and give the 75% a leg up. Hit quote limit
non-rapid/light missiles are fine. you just never see them because rapids and lights are op |
|
Koshka narkotikov
Black Omega Security The OSS
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:05:30 -
[61] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) I like separate modules. Otherwise one ship can defend against any threat with a single mod. At least you have to choose the mod and cant just blanket every circumstance. Course mobile depots will work around this, but at least you cant change mid fight. Welp, its going to be sentinels, crucifiers, arbitrator, curse/pilgrim online after this. Like LS needs more of these flying around. Indirect drone buff as theyre the only weapon system that doesnt have an ewar counter. Will adapt as usual, but heavies are going to be even more useless except in niche scenarios.
So you mean they would work like every other form of ecm where they work no matter what on every ship? Even ecm matched against the incorrect sensor type still has a chance to jam even if a low one.
Id much rather see this as a script since as it is tracking disrupting is by far the most inflexible of the ecm variants. |
Fifth Blade
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
63
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:06:40 -
[62] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them. Came here to say the exact same thing. From the same perspective (small gang). Please do this. |
Anthar Thebess
1317
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:06:44 -
[63] - Quote
Interesting. But instead lets make this totally different EWAR.
My proposal. 1. Make anti missile modules only available in pirate faction lp stores. 2. Make this module area effect , similar to Remote ECM burst - affected missiles will lose target and don't hit target 3. Give Scorpion the ability to use this modules in full extent 4. Buff missile EHP , to make smartbomb firewall hard to achieve
This way we will introduce totally new mechanic.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Beidorion eldwardan
Corporation Danmark Tactical Narcotics Team
39
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:08:48 -
[64] - Quote
did not read the commets
but i love ccp and even you Fozzie
i have been waiting for anti missile ewar for six years - thank you for telling me what i am getting for christmas |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1200
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:09:01 -
[65] - Quote
all e-war needs nerfs though and how about drone e-war next?
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3400
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:09:24 -
[66] - Quote
something tells me there will be a HAM, torp, cruise buff in conjunction with this mod. Because things like torp ravens will hate those new mods.
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
|
Mario Putzo
1526
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:10:14 -
[67] - Quote
Out of curiosity, will there also be a "Remote Guidance Link" being implemented? In the sense Remote Tracking Links provide Optimal, fall off and Tracking benefits from a third party ship?
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1200
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:10:31 -
[68] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:something tells me there will be a HAM, torp, cruise buff in conjunction with this mod. Because things like torp ravens will hate those new mods.
HAM's and rockets need a range nerf .. they are both a class up atm from what they should be.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
3288
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:10:35 -
[69] - Quote
Are the T1, names and T2 variants going to be pre-tericided?
Because as it stands electronic warfare modules suffer from the Meta 4 being objectively the best problem pretty much across the board. |
Clare Cooke
Low Risk
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:12:05 -
[70] - Quote
adding another mod because the other missile mods you introduced are now making it able for a titan to kill a bunch of frig sized ships....
ooops i broke it again! |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2079
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:12:29 -
[71] - Quote
Fifth Blade wrote:Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them. Came here to say the exact same thing. From the same perspective (small gang). Please do this.
Because it's FAR too strong on unbonused hulls; people don't do it today because it only gets turrets - but make it both and it's all you'll see. Ever. |
Knut Svanskern
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:12:49 -
[72] - Quote
As always changes bring fresh wind and new meta will come out of this ! |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
240
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:13:41 -
[73] - Quote
Riela Tanal wrote:As has been stated by others. If they go with the script method, every ship will fit just one of these tracking disruptors and swap the script out for whatever weapon type they are fighting.
Like everyone does with damps? Oh, wait....
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2079
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:16:42 -
[74] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Riela Tanal wrote:As has been stated by others. If they go with the script method, every ship will fit just one of these tracking disruptors and swap the script out for whatever weapon type they are fighting. Like everyone does with damps? Oh, wait....
Unbonused damp does nothing against loads of hulls - who cares if a HAC loses 15km target range, for example.. This is not the case with these mods/TD. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
938
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:19:08 -
[75] - Quote
Ya!!!! Missiles are FINALLY doing good again!!! Wait.. what? Oh, anti-missile ewar?!?!?!?!?
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
On a more serious note, why couldn't defenders just be made functional as opposed to introducing yet another module?? |
Mr Hyde113
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
189
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:22:32 -
[76] - Quote
Quote: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.
I agree 100%. When they were initially going to be released, I know CCP Rise announced that they were toning down the original bonuses. I thought this was a mistake on the precision side of things. Glad to see a change in direction, it will be a welcome buff, especially for bigger missiles. |
Arya Alderian
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:31:46 -
[77] - Quote
Make ot a script for regular tracking disruptor mod.
Ships wont fit 1 or each.
This idea of a new mod is terrible |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2297
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:35:43 -
[78] - Quote
Arya Alderian wrote:Make ot a script for regular tracking disruptor mod.
Ships wont fit 1 or each.
This idea of a new mod is terrible
A long range mod that counter any weapon system beside drones is a good idea? |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
2101
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:38:51 -
[79] - Quote
Awesome. .. thumbs up on this one... cant wait to play with setups on sisi
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people...
CCP Goliath wrote:
Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
253
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:40:58 -
[80] - Quote
rip missiles |
|
violtr
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:48:31 -
[81] - Quote
So, missiles are the only weapon type that people can reduce players dps with smart bombs and cut any incoming missiles dps, where as auto cannons, energy beams and hybrids turrets people cannont reduce their dmg out put so why mess with missiles more when they are already at a disadvantage over other weapons. Not to mention the sacrifice of not having a fall off range and instant dps ie blaping. Also missile users also have to battle explosion radius ontop of that as well. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
14565
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:53:58 -
[82] - Quote
Don't some of those numbers seems rather... harsh? Especially when velocity and flight time are both being cut down by the module.
Combined with application debuffs as well? It just seems pretty harsh on the old missile user.
Granted, an anti missile module is extremely specialized since the majority of the ships in the game use turrets, but even then, having it act as such a hard counter is unwarranted in my opinion, particularly since projection is one of the few strengths of the missile weapon class as it is.
"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.
|
Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2479
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:54:35 -
[83] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) A single scripted module capable of mitigating both turret and missile damage would be practically compulsory and make drones even stronger. I like the idea of separate ewar modules even though it will be more difficult to use this way.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1830
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:55:11 -
[84] - Quote
Clare Cooke wrote:adding another mod because the other missile mods you introduced are now making it able for a titan to kill a bunch of frig sized ships....
ooops i broke it again! considering ewar doesn't work on titans
also if you dedicate a bunch of slots to damage and application you are less effective else where. Although there are interesting interactions between webs, painters, rigors, flares, MGC, MGE, and crash booster, that do make things apply much better, it seems like a lot of effort where a gunship can just say haha transversal ka pow!
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2558
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:57:26 -
[85] - Quote
My vote is for a weakening of the anti missile effect, especially the explosion speed & radius part, but having them as one module with TD.
Not only do I feel that it is unreasonable that all the other races get 1 Ewar that works against everyone, but also PvE If you have it as one module then a single TD in PvE affects all ships equally. Separate modules means you then have to create new missile disruptor ships in PvE. And I feel it is important that weapon systems be mostly equal in PvE and how NPC's disrupt them also. |
Arec Bardwin
1870
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:57:29 -
[86] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) Guess which module would be mandatory to fit if you added missile disruption to the existing modules.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1200
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 19:57:50 -
[87] - Quote
if webs weren't so powerful that would make tracking mods more required especially for missile ships.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
375
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:01:49 -
[88] - Quote
Hahaahhhaha I fell sorry for all of you missile pvpers. First they introduce new "mods". Now they nerf missiles without proper balance them. Just to use new mods they introduced lately. "Circle of life and death" - Mr. Zorg. It's like - CCP guys, ceptors won't work with new FOZZIESOV.
Ps. my resonable and calm feadback, Fozzman: you forget to buff galls at the same time.
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1381
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:15:25 -
[89] - 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.
What CCP Rise taketh, CCP Fozzie giveth right back.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1830
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:16:08 -
[90] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:general buffs to missiles also incoming to balance this out? Outside of frigate sized missiles, missiles just don't seem like a great weapon type. that said I don't have the math wizardry or usage stats to really check, but it seems HML lose out on damage to MWDing cruisers to RLML even after reloads. add links and bleh. maybe just always fly with a rapier?
do people actually believe that rapid launchers aren't massively overpowered? at this point I doubt it. but I'm still going to question the effectiveness of other launchers
@ChainsawPlankto
|
|
Aisha Shimaya
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:22:39 -
[91] - Quote
Zappity wrote: A single scripted module capable of mitigating both turret and missile damage would be practically compulsory and make drones even stronger. I like the idea of separate ewar modules even though it will be more difficult to use this way.
Maybe lower the disruptor effect a bit and make it work on drones too ? |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1381
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:23:06 -
[92] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:I've expected to see these for a while, and generally I'm in favor of them. I do wonder why you've chosen to give this new EWAR ability to Amarr however - yes it fits alongside Tracking Disruptors, but Amarr already get Tracking Disruption and Energy Neutralizers as a primary and secondary EWAR on their class ships. So now they're going to have Missile Disruption as well? Caldari ships only get ECM and... ECM. That's it - they have no secondary EWAR capability on their Electronic Attack Ships, or Recon Ships. Unless you are also planning on introducing a drone counter EWAR system, would it not make more sense to give this ability to Caldari ships? I understand that may take more work to revamp all of the ships, but if an ECM rebalance is in the works anyway, logically it would make sense to give drone and missile EWAR to Caldari ships. I've outlined a bit more detail on this here, and I believe Corbexx may have sent it your way: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3itkns/rogue_drone_battleship_grasping_robot_arms_have/cuke0v4
The short answer is that "tracking disruption" is Amarr EWAR. However, your argument is very persuasive.
Thoughts, CCP Fozzie?
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:36:39 -
[93] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them.
cause that would make them op as hell and the got to mod for every spare mid |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4685
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:40:47 -
[94] - Quote
Well, this is quite possibly the biggest missile nerf in EVE history. You might as well just eliminate all missile systems other than rapid light and heavy launchers, because after this you won't be able to even hit a battleship with heavy assault or heavy missiles - let alone torpedoes or cruise missiles.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
141
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:42:46 -
[95] - Quote
unidenify wrote:I have big concern that I would like to see to be addressed.
current missile has issue where any change on missile range during in flight cause it to disappear
it is common knowledge among Golem pilot that once missile get in flight and bastion either go online or offline after launch, Missile simple disappear.
need to quote this again because this is important issue if we were to bring disruptor into missile |
Solarus Explorer
The Church of Awesome Heiian Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 20:55:33 -
[96] - Quote
This mod single-handedly kills all missile fits using medium and large missiles, and quite handsomely nerfs the small missiles as well. While this would be appreciated by people who fight garmurs and orhtrus's in low-sec (they wont hit anything now with a single sentinel on field)...... it also makes all the larger missiles totally useless, as they were pretty close to being useless already frankly.
Well.......... adapt and live....... Sentinels is the new low-sec meta ! |
Nix Pardus
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 21:02:37 -
[97] - Quote
Has CCP found a fix for the bug where missiles with partial seconds of flight time loose their last tick of flight?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f38ok/major_bug_with_missile_volleys_completely/
If it isn't fixed this will compound with the effects of missile disruptors and make them more powerful than intended. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
864
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 21:07:48 -
[98] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Bienator II wrote:something tells me there will be a HAM, torp, cruise buff in conjunction with this mod. Because things like torp ravens will hate those new mods. HAM's and rockets need a range nerf .. they are both a class up atm from what they should be.
Please stop!
And don't let e2 see the thread, this is really important. When she comes back on Friday evening after visiting her parents - ohohhhh..
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
1972
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 21:21:28 -
[99] - Quote
1- Thank you for not making an omni module that works on both turrets and missiles, leave more depth of choice and reason to have good intel.
2- I assume that the reduction of flight time and flight speed will apply on the same script? If so that's completely not okay! Reducing flight time and flight speed by 50% equals a 75% reduction in range, you should rebalance those values so that the TOTAL is 50%, instead of 50% on each stat.
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - Ex-BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2480
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 21:33:32 -
[100] - Quote
I'm a bit worried that drones will become even more powerful now. An AoE TD smartbomb would be nice. Or just have a TD affect a ship's drones as well as turrets.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
865
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 21:37:32 -
[101] - Quote
I leave you for a few hours and what do I get when I come back?
Dear CCP Fozzie, I have a couple or Navy buddies that owe me a favour and they are willing to give you are free of charge demonstration on how missiles work.
And if someone else needs a free of charge rocket demonstration, like Harvey does, I am willing to show you why you are mistaken.
What comes to mind at first? NO. Double NO. And of course HELL NO.
It is fine that you do not know the game mechanics quite as good as I do, you haven't been here long enough to see the error of your ways.
Let me elaborate. AGAIN.
When you finally give missiles back the application they once had, it will apply to all missiles. For the very, very slow, this means that defender missiles will recieve the biggest buff in the history of mankind.
If you find yourself a small missile ship gang, you can form your anti-missile gang with the same ships, just not as many and shoot most of the missiles down with rocket launcher (again for the very, very slow, you put the now freshly buffed and very, very useful defender missiles into the rocket launchers and press FONE) Caracal's.
Funny sidenote, the "friend or foe" missile has a very different name in the Air Force. They call them "fire and forget" missiles.
Now 80% of said missile gang in destroyed before the rest of your gang with beam Omens start working on them (or Zealots if you have them.)
Opponents Caracals disarmed. Fight lost.
For the capsuleers that believe something is overpowered, they should definately re-read of the definition of "overpowered". CCP made it very clear how they define something as overpowered.
A not funny sidenote, the energy neutralizer module fits into this category.
Now for the last time, missiles need to be taken seriously before you start throwing more unnecessary counters to them in the box.
And no I will not respond in kind. I hate to repeat myself over and over and over again.
You can read my esseys again if you want, I gave an explanation often enough.
On the ECM thing for Caldari there is a tiny error in the description of the ECM, which is the Caldari only sometimes get ECM. Everyone always get their ewar.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Warde Guildencrantz
Tundragon
1208
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 21:53:11 -
[102] - Quote
Sounds good, as much as I will be annoyed by these when I fly missile-based ships, not like I can't easily use them in 1v1s to screw over other missile-based ships.
TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
293
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 22:09:10 -
[103] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :)
I assume they want to ensure that one ship can't do it all - switch from one type of disruption to another (turret versus missile guidance). Also, EWAR is not across the board: There are multiple type of ECM depending on the ship target type as well as damps being seperate.
Now, what would be convenient, and very over powered, would be to have one type of EWAR module and just use scripts to change what it does: damps to ECM to tracking disruption to missile guidance disruption. |
Dani Maulerant
Order of the Valkyrie LOADED-DICE
37
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 22:09:59 -
[104] - Quote
I strongly believe it should rather be a script for current TD's that convert them to missile disruptors. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
519
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 22:47:45 -
[105] - Quote
BTW thanks Fozzie for including the buff to Missile Guidance Enhancers/Computers in this change. This is something I have been hoping for for some time and asking for as a result of the somewhat sudden Aegis release nerfs to these modules.
Ultimately I think 10% is going to be good enough for Missile Guidance Computers (mid slots), since this will put them very closely in line with T2 application rigs. They won't be *as* good as TPs, but they are more flexible.
Still concerned the lowslot modules, Missile Guidance Enhancers, will need more love. Current bonuses are so low that 10% will barely eke over stacking penalties. I get the feeling a 20-25% buff will ultimately be what makes them worthwhile.
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 Mathusia
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 22:49:02 -
[106] - Quote
The proposed effects seem quite weak compared to the effect TD's have on turrets. With an unbonused hull I can expect 40% range reduction against a turret with the optimal script but a 30% reduction in flight time doesn't even equate to a 30% in range because the missile range is still buoyed up by missile speed.
That said I'm glad it's being introduced given that TD fits are generally weak against missile boats. |
Marech Bhayanaka
Misfits United I N G L O R I O U S
58
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 22:55:35 -
[107] - Quote
Riela Tanal wrote:As has been stated by others. If they go with the script method, every ship will fit just one of these tracking disruptors and swap the script out for whatever weapon type they are fighting. In the same way that every ship currently fits a sensor damp or ECM module?
Oh wait ... That hasn't actually happened, has it?
Marech. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1239
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 22:57:15 -
[108] - Quote
so as predicted that "buff" to missiles is playing its course
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Marech Bhayanaka
Misfits United I N G L O R I O U S
58
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 22:59:15 -
[109] - Quote
Petrified wrote: Now, what would be convenient, and very over powered, would be to have one type of EWAR module and just use scripts to change what it does: damps to ECM to tracking disruption to missile guidance disruption.
Damps work against all turret and missile ships, as do the generic ECM modules.
Marech. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:04:07 -
[110] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I leave you for a few hours and what do I get when I come back?
Dear CCP Fozzie, I have a couple or Navy buddies that owe me a favour and they are willing to give you are free of charge demonstration on how missiles work.
And if someone else needs a free of charge rocket demonstration, like Harvey does, I am willing to show you why you are mistaken.
What comes to mind at first? NO. Double NO. And of course HELL NO.
It is fine that you do not know the game mechanics quite as good as I do, you haven't been here long enough to see the error of your ways.
Let me elaborate. AGAIN.
When you finally give missiles back the application they once had, it will apply to all missiles. For the very, very slow, this means that defender missiles will recieve the biggest buff in the history of mankind.
If you find yourself a small missile ship gang, you can form your anti-missile gang with the same ships, just not as many and shoot most of the missiles down with rocket launcher (again for the very, very slow, you put the now freshly buffed and very, very useful defender missiles into the rocket launchers and press FONE) Caracal's.
Funny sidenote, the "friend or foe" missile has a very different name in the Air Force. They call them "fire and forget" missiles.
Now 80% of said missile gang in destroyed before the rest of your gang with beam Omens start working on them (or Zealots if you have them.)
Opponents Caracals disarmed. Fight lost.
For the capsuleers that believe something is overpowered, they should definately re-read of the definition of "overpowered". CCP made it very clear how they define something as overpowered.
A not funny sidenote, the energy neutralizer module fits into this category.
Now for the last time, missiles need to be taken seriously before you start throwing more unnecessary counters to them in the box.
And no I will not respond in kind. I hate to repeat myself over and over and over again.
You can read my esseys again if you want, I gave an explanation often enough.
On the ECM thing for Caldari there is a tiny error in the description of the ECM, which is the Caldari only sometimes get ECM. Everyone always get their ewar.
this is comedy gold |
|
CaptainMorgan49
Troglodytes of Narnia
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:09:41 -
[111] - Quote
I'd agree with the missile guidance buffs empirically because I very rarely see those modules fitted to ships when people I know in eve are linking fits for every job imaginable or creating new doctrines; it follows therefore that they are not currently powerful enough to make them worth their weight in most setups.
I also like the idea of adding missile disruption to the ECM and turret disruption modules already in eve and feel they will fit in rather well.
To all those people who said "why not just have a single disruptor and then use scripts to target missiles or guns", I would say "for the same reason there isn't one ECM module and a script for each sensor type; Because it would be overpowered." I would also point out that every new type of module in eve widens the array of combat situation, which is great for variety in the game. |
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:12:41 -
[112] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:afkalt wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote: not sure how a general missile buff to compensate for missile disruptors achieves that
Because if 75% of the systems are weak and 25% are too good, we reign in th 25% and give the 75% a leg up. Hit quote limit non-rapid/light missiles are fine. you just never see them because rapids and lights are op
I would hazard a guess that the reason you never see non-rapid/light missiles is because they are CRAP. While rapid lights and lights might be OP (and I'm still not sold on that) having only one or two usable weapon system classes for an ENTIRE race of ships seems a little one-sided. Glad those of us who fly Caldari don't fly their battleships . . . |
Matt Faithbringer
Rapid Withdrawal
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:12:54 -
[113] - Quote
I hope we will be able to request refund on SP invested into missiles since you are nerfing them to the ground with this module. |
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
94
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:18:35 -
[114] - Quote
Matt Faithbringer wrote:I hope we will be able to request refund on SP invested into missiles since you are nerfing them to the ground with this module.
You can request that, but the answer will always be no |
Matt Faithbringer
Rapid Withdrawal
21
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:20:09 -
[115] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Matt Faithbringer wrote:I hope we will be able to request refund on SP invested into missiles since you are nerfing them to the ground with this module. You can request that, but the answer will always be no
I know, but come one, that module will render missiles almost useless |
Thirdsin
The Red Island Foundation Shadow Cartel
31
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:25:02 -
[116] - Quote
DaJokr wrote:This means you're adding remote missile guidance enhancers to match all the other modules and balance it out, correct?
^this ccp |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1200
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:27:00 -
[117] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:BTW thanks Fozzie for including the buff to Missile Guidance Enhancers/Computers in this change. This is something I have been hoping for for some time and asking for as a result of the somewhat sudden Aegis release nerfs to these modules.
Ultimately I think 10% is going to be good enough for Missile Guidance Computers (mid slots), since this will put them very closely in line with T2 application rigs. They won't be *as* good as TPs, but they are more flexible.
Still concerned the lowslot modules, Missile Guidance Enhancers, will need more love. Current bonuses are so low that 10% will barely eke over stacking penalties. I get the feeling a 20-25% buff will ultimately be what makes them worthwhile.
m.. they are underwhelming mods atm, and having things like TP's and webs being more universal for just as good if not better at the job its very questionable they will ever be used much without nerfs too the aforementioned.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Niriel Greez
Specimen 794 Project.Mayhem.
34
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:32:42 -
[118] - Quote
Before addressing some of the issues light missiles currently have with this 'fix', how about we look at fixing existing application issues of anything not light missiles?
Torpedoes and HMLs, and perhaps cruise to a certain extent, need some love. Ship velocity in particular has too much of an impact on damage application. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1835
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:37:32 -
[119] - Quote
Tiberius Mathusia wrote:The proposed effects seem quite weak compared to the effect TD's have on turrets. With an unbonused hull I can expect 40% range reduction against a turret with the optimal script but a 30% reduction in flight time doesn't even equate to a 30% in range because the missile range is still buoyed up by missile speed.
That said I'm glad it's being introduced given that TD fits are generally weak against missile boats. considering that missile guidance computers add speed and time with a range script, I would assume that using a range script will drop flight speed and flight time. Seems pretty strong on the range side.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Jaiimez Skor
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
121
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:43:35 -
[120] - Quote
My main dislike is the requirement to have 2 modules I am supportive of the idea of having a missile disruption script and gun disruption script but they all fit into the same module so instead of tracking disruptors we just have weapon disruptors. If this doesn't happen it will still make TD's MD's completely useless outside of blob warfare where you know what the other blob is bringing and can fit accordingly for small gang and roaming, other forms of ewar will still out-perform this to the point where it's not worth the fitting slot. |
|
Jaiimez Skor
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
121
|
Posted - 2015.10.02 23:45:27 -
[121] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them. INB4 mobile depot. Yes because hostile fleets have been known to hang around for 60s for you to online your depot to refit specifically to fight them. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
941
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:03:59 -
[122] - Quote
Them being seperate modules means 1 of 2 things will happen.
1) everyone will use them, thus missiles will suck.
Or
2) No one uses them and everything stays how it is now.
Either way, I don't think these modules need to exist.
I personally feel that defenders need to be taken back to the drawing board instead.
Rename them point defense. No longer require a missile (or even turret hard point), are a utility high slot module, and effect the TARGET ship. So, instead of only defending yourself, they defend whomever the target is shooting at. This is more balanced than a defense module that will shoot any missile fired at the fleet (which has been suggested), which would also be extremely difficult to code, as the system would have to differentiate friendly vs non-friendly volleys.
Then, give certain specialty ships, like the Golem, a missile HP bonus. |
Kari Trace
33
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:04:51 -
[123] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :)
I tend to agree with this. Change the disruptor to a 'Remote Weapon Disruptor' and add the missile based scripts as options. Do we really need -another- module?
I like making things explode.
Kari Trace
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2760
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:07:09 -
[124] - Quote
I'm not fully aware of what order the math is done, but will a MTD take effect only before a missile is fired or will it shorten the range/application of a missile currently in the air? |
Justa Hunni
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:15:54 -
[125] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Them being seperate modules means 1 of 2 things will happen.
1) everyone will use them, thus missiles will suck.
Or
2) No one uses them and everything stays how it is now.
. . . and missiles will still suck
|
Amber Starview
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:25:26 -
[126] - Quote
Complicating a easy fix by not adding it to TD ...weapon disruption sounds good as suggested above just nerf the stuffing out of every ewar unless it's specialised hull (T1 or T2) or well skilled but make it easy to understand and fit and use for noobs but hard to master
|
Silverbackyererse
The Church of Awesome Heiian Conglomerate
158
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:36:55 -
[127] - Quote
Sincerely hope that you do actually playtest and tweak those numbers - a lot! Have very few issues with a TD bonus ship creating havoc with a launcher ship but the numbers on the non TD bonus ships look excessive.
Goodonya for making the module specific and not just adding a new script into the current tracking disruptor module. That part seems quite sensible.
Any fitting figures / cap usage details in mind for these new modules? Assume they will be similar to current TD mods? Will there be four scripts introduced for each of the performance criteria of missiles? ie. Flight time script, velocity script, ex radius script, ex vel script or is it a one script screws everything plan? |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1700
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 00:37:54 -
[128] - Quote
afkalt wrote:And definitely NOT one scripted mod, as I'll simply put a TD on EVERY SINGLE ship. Because why would I not....
This is a good point so I'll re-iterate it
|
Aaron Rentz
Blackstone and Fairfield Transuniversal Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 01:33:09 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks! If you've followed our development over the past few years you'll know that the idea of tracking disruptors for missiles has been bouncing around for a long time. 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. We think that adding Missile Disruptors will create some interesting new fitting options, especially for ships with bonuses to weapon disruption.
...
They will use the same skills and get the same bonuses as Tracking Disurptors (so for example a Pilgrim would automatically get bonuses for these modules). Pilots will be able to choose what combo of missile and tracking disruptors to fit on their ships, based on what they expect to face.
We're really interested in your feedback and we have plenty of time to get these properly adjusted before release. These changes are currently planned for our December release.
Keep an eye out for an announcement later today from CCP Seagull who will be going over some more stuff coming soon, as well as more announcements in the weeks leading up to EVE Vegas.
Let us know what you think!
NO NO NO Emphatically NO, I freaking mean NO!
I've never felt butt hurt in this game until now. So much Ill just make a couple comments and then go calm down somewhere.
1. yes missiles are the best weapon systems in the game BUT only if u take the months to train them to max levels ... the train to be able to get there is Miles longer than any other weapons system in the game, My God it has its OWN folder in the Skill List and 24 skills compared to 39 for ALL the other systems combined!. For that reason many people do not train missiles and why they complain about those that do being able to snipe at them from 250K away.
2. There are already many counters and mechanics of the game that work AGAINST Missiles. A. They do damage only after time to travel. B. They vanish if the firing ship is destroyed or goes off grid. C. Fast ships can outrun them completely or until they run out of fuel. D. DPS wise they are not that great, Your counters will make that even worse big time. E. at long range an attacked ship has time to warp away or use MJD to avoid, or turn and run out of range, even without your changes.
3. I totally endorse buffing Antimissile missiles, just make them usable, like Make ALL Launchers script-able that will A. Script that will only use interception missiles to be protect missiles attacking u B. Script that even allows u to defend friends (activate with script and then fire at your friend. (it will now shoot down missile going for your friend) C. with no script and interceptors loaded it will take out any missile in range.
Imagine a ship with many high-slots that uses combinations of those scripts and u have the equivalent of a missile defense cruiser. a real world type of ship and a totally NEW battle tactic - instead of losing a current one.
You already make ships, weapons and everything else too equal already. having to use 3 guys to take on one ship to be equal is not evil, its fun, come on - stop this.
I don't understand why u wish to Nerf them -- when all i hear in game is people laughing at them all day, you have those logs in help chat look them up. Unless it IS actually true that u listen to only the majority of the the players in the game (unfortunatly most of which belong to just one group who have their own agenda and WAY to much say in how this game is played, mostly to their beneficent). You really really need to start listening to individuals a lot more than you actually do.
All the idea above were off the top of my head WHILE I was more angry than i have been in years, and im sure ill think of tons more after i calm myself.
NO NO NO, NO to more MISSILE ECM, we have that already in target Lock ECM plus all the above |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
225
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 01:49:21 -
[130] - Quote
Aaron Rentz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks! If you've followed our development over the past few years you'll know that the idea of tracking disruptors for missiles has been bouncing around for a long time. 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. We think that adding Missile Disruptors will create some interesting new fitting options, especially for ships with bonuses to weapon disruption.
...
They will use the same skills and get the same bonuses as Tracking Disurptors (so for example a Pilgrim would automatically get bonuses for these modules). Pilots will be able to choose what combo of missile and tracking disruptors to fit on their ships, based on what they expect to face.
We're really interested in your feedback and we have plenty of time to get these properly adjusted before release. These changes are currently planned for our December release.
Keep an eye out for an announcement later today from CCP Seagull who will be going over some more stuff coming soon, as well as more announcements in the weeks leading up to EVE Vegas.
Let us know what you think! NO NO NO Emphatically NO, I freaking mean NO! I've never felt butt hurt in this game until now. So much Ill just make a couple comments and then go calm down somewhere. 1. yes missiles are the best weapon systems in the game BUT only if u take the months to train them to max levels ... the train to be able to get there is Miles longer than any other weapons system in the game, My God it has its OWN folder in the Skill List and 24 skills compared to 39 for ALL the other systems combined!. For that reason many people do not train missiles and why they complain about those that do being able to snipe at them from 250K away. 2. There are already many counters and mechanics of the game that work AGAINST Missiles. A. They do damage only after time to travel. B. They vanish if the firing ship is destroyed or goes off grid. C. Fast ships can outrun them completely or until they run out of fuel. D. DPS wise they are not that great, Your counters will make that even worse big time. E. at long range an attacked ship has time to warp away or use MJD to avoid, or turn and run out of range, even without your changes. 3. I totally endorse buffing Antimissile missiles, just make them usable, like Make ALL Launchers script-able that will A. Script that will only use interception missiles to be protect missiles attacking u B. Script that even allows u to defend friends (activate with script and then fire at your friend. (it will now shoot down missile going for your friend) C. with no script and interceptors loaded it will take out any missile in range. Imagine a ship with many high-slots that uses combinations of those scripts and u have the equivalent of a missile defense cruiser. a real world type of ship and a totally NEW battle tactic - instead of losing a current one. You already make ships, weapons and everything else too equal already. having to use 3 guys to take on one ship to be equal is not evil, its fun, come on - stop this. I don't understand why u wish to Nerf them -- when all i hear in game is people laughing at them all day, you have those logs in help chat look them up. Unless it IS actually true that u listen to only the majority of the the players in the game (unfortunatly most of which belong to just one group who have their own agenda and WAY to much say in how this game is played, mostly to their beneficent). You really really need to start listening to individuals a lot more than you actually do. All the idea above were off the top of my head WHILE I was more angry than i have been in years, and im sure ill think of tons more after i calm myself. NO NO NO, NO to more MISSILE ECM, we have that already in target Lock ECM plus all the above
drones have there own category also. |
|
Aaron Rentz
Blackstone and Fairfield Transuniversal Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 02:10:13 -
[131] - Quote
Now u did it, drone disruptors will be next. LOL
o7 for not trolling me right off the bat, TY Much o7 LOL |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
403
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 02:16:11 -
[132] - Quote
Saisin wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) +1 to the missile script approach
-1 from me. If there is just a script to change, TD's will be way to powerful. Choice and consequences and stuff.... ;) |
Sitting Bull Lakota
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
11
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 02:28:47 -
[133] - Quote
I put down a thread a while ago on this topic, and I'm going to repeat the theme here.
There are 5 offensive weapon systems: 1. Lasers turrets 2. Projectile turrets 3. Hybrid turrets 4. Missile launchers 5. Drones
We have one module that affects 3 of those 5. Tracking disruptors have 3 modes based on script: 1. Tracking Speed disruption only (Tracking script) 2. Optimal/Falloff disruption only (Range script) 3. All of the above but to a lesser degree (no script) Tracking disruptors affect most ships in the eve universe. As an ewar class, they sacrifice effectiveness against every type of ship for a more reliable form of disruption against some of them.
If we are going to add another weapon disruption system, it needs to be effective against the remaining two weapon systems. Pilots should not be forced to pidgeonhole their fits so that they counter one aspect of one of the two less common (by number of ships favoring it, not current missile kite meta).
We should add a module that affects missiles and drones with 3 modes based on script: 1. Drone and Missile disruption. Decreases max velocity of both. (No script) 2. Missile disruption only. Decreases missile max velocity and increases explosion radius. (missile script) 3. Drone disruption only. Decreases drone max velocity, optimal/falloff range, and tracking. (drone script)
This would give us a module to disrupt the other 2 of the 5 weapon systems. There aren't enough missile ships to justify an exclusively anti missile module, let alone 4 anti missile modules. Likewise there aren't enough drone ships to justify a single anti drone module.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
664
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 02:43:08 -
[134] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Precision script and range script I assume? So a precision script would remove 30% explosion velocity AND increase explosion radius by 30%?
This kills the missile pvp.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Inslander Wessette
Killers of Paranoid Souls Imminent Threat
24
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 04:09:23 -
[135] - Quote
Nice one Fozzie . Past 2 patches have been brilliant . Keep it up bro .
+ 1 across the board . Make it happen . Too long have garmurs and orthrus ruled the kite meta . |
Kesthely
0rizen Irregulars Sev3rance
175
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 04:29:12 -
[136] - Quote
Little bit concerned about the double negative impact missile velocity disruption would have for the slower missiles. It seems that you'll be able to outfly missiles completly even at short range orbits.
Especially Rockets (2250 m/s base speed), Heavy assault missiles (2250 m/s base speed) and Torpedo's (1500m/s base speed) will take a big hit.
Id rather see an increase in the flight time reduction to obtain similar results |
Solaris Vex
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 04:58:30 -
[137] - Quote
Right now people won't bring ECM without knowing exactly what type of jam their going to need and I suspect these new mods won't see much use for the same reason, their useless against the majority of ships. Just add missile disruption to normal tracking disruptors. |
Jus'not N'miFace
Sheep Teet Industries
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 05:12:47 -
[138] - Quote
^ this should be one module with added scripts to be in line with all other ewar one mod |
Alexander McKeon
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
124
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 05:41:36 -
[139] - Quote
Solaris Vex wrote:Right now people won't bring ECM without knowing exactly what type of jam their going to need and I suspect these new mods won't see much use for the same reason, their useless against the majority of ships. Just add missile disruption to normal tracking disruptors. This is a terrible idea because having a one-size-fits all counter to any sort of enemy fleet both obviates any sort of need to gather intel on the hostile fleet comp and would require a significant rebalance of tracking disruptors if one module could simply say "no" to enemy dps. It's really the same logic behind why omni ECM has a far lower strength than the racial specific type; if you grant extreme versatility to a module, the power level ought to decrease accordingly.
My concern with these new modules is two-fold; missile velocities are already a problem both in terms of delayed application wasting DPS for larger fleets and small kiting ships being able to simply out-run your dps. Guns don't suffer from an incapability to apply damage to something within their tracking / range envelope, and neither should missiles. My other concern is that some classes, particularly Torpedoes and Heavies, already have quite mediocre application (and range for torps) when compared to similar turret-based systems and thus need guidance modules to get on an even playing field, and adding disruption options without making the baseline performance acceptable will just knock them back into unsuitability. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2781
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 07:19:49 -
[140] - Quote
I think this is going to be a bad ide, particularly for battleships.
My reasoning is this. Firstly, battleships cannot afford much (if any) spare slots in the majority of PVP layouts for MGC's and MGE's. This is because most missile battleships are Caldari or derivatives, and cannot give up any mid slots. The only BS which can actually fit and would wish to fit MGC's is the Typhoon, and perhaps an armour/hull tanked Barghest.
Therefore missile disruptors, while needed to deal with RLML fit cruisers, will adversely impact battleship missile performance.
The ships which *can* fit midslot utilities are frigates and cruisers, and T3D's, and mostly this is kite-fit ships, which battleship missiles realistically have real problems applying damage to. This is because to increase damage, you need webs and paints in abundance. One missile disruptor can utterly destroy your damage application.
eg, a Raven with cruise would have 248m / 178m/s versus, say, an Ishtar with midslot EWAR utility - speed 1388 sig 508. Raven paper DPS is 583. Applied DPS is 125.
a 12% nerf to ER = 173 and EV = 231m/s Raven paper DPS is 583. Applied DPS is about 108.
So...with the addition of one Missile Disruptor (unscripted) you shed a significant amount of DPS, going from "lol, Raven" to "lolol Raven" as far as the Ishtar is concerned. Now, if the ishtar pilot does the maths his two options are 30% ER script or 30% EV script. 30% nerf to EV = 91 applied DPS because it goes off sig 30% nerf to ER = 98 applied DPS
So against missile boats, if you are kitey, you'll choose sig. uh, i mean EV scripts.
in essence, a Missile Disruptor is akin to a sig radius cloak for anything fighting against missile boats. The difference with how this works as opposed to TD's is quite stark. Consider this working out of turret sig radius parameters. If you drop your sig radius below the gun resolution, tracking and optimal don't matter anymore. The same happens with missiles - you trash their application parameters enough and the applied DPS drops terribly.
Now, yes, ordinarily you would play a RPS game and counter-countermeasures, but we are talking about EVE, where fittings and spare slots are not falling out of the tree except into the laps of a lot of frigates, some AHACs, and T3D's. Very few BS have the tank or resist profiles or hull bonuses (eg, typhoon) towards application of missiles and cannot reasonably give up more and more slots to MGC's to deal with ewar.
Thus, this will really be the death knell for Ravens, Phoons and various other missile boats in PVP.
You really need to have a look at whether the weapons and ammo in the game are even capable of doing what they are supposed to do. Like, can cruiser weapons track the current cruiser sig and speed combos which exist (*cough* orthrus *cough* confessors)? Do the missiles which you can load in to weapons have the proper speed, EV and ER to apply to their intended targets? Or even their most common targets, if someone wants to trot out the "BS must shewt BS" BS - BS spend most of their time shooting cruiser sized objects.
I think that, particularly, battleship missiles are terrible at their job, unless you want to load RHML's onto your ravens and suck versus anything with a logi.
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 ~~
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2094
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 07:44:12 -
[141] - Quote
Jus'not N'miFace wrote:^ this should be one module with added scripts to be in line with all other ewar one mod
What, like ECM..... |
Kitty Bear
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
1527
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 08:22:15 -
[142] - Quote
the question that still has not been answered will missiles be able to 'miss' their targets whilst affected by these modules
|
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
1517
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 08:24:21 -
[143] - Quote
Sounds like a fine idea to me. Perhaps this could replace Caldari's ECM ships so just like Amarr Ewar is TD Caldari Ewar could be MD. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
428
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 08:29:36 -
[144] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:the way it is is good. if it's all in one module I can just show up in my 5 tracking disruptor curse and shut everyone down except drones. if you make me choose the number of modules of each type to fit, well, it's sort of like racial ecm rather than just making multis as powerful as racials. tracking disruptors are plenty good already. That works for the Curse, and might work for the Pilgrim since the range buff (old, short-range Pilgrim however struggled for 1 TD slot - I haven't looked at mine since the change but I guess that the midslot load has eased somewhat); but if you only have space for one disruption module it's not viable. It pushes disrution (weapon disruption) ships more to the strategies of Falcons and so forth where, fitted for disruption, that becomes their only role - and I'm not sure weapon disruption is powerful enough to support that. |
Fazayek
NOOBIAN UNION Bright Side of Death
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 08:40:34 -
[145] - Quote
I think missle disruptor should be Caldari specific module. I mean, all other races have 2 ewar types |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2094
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 08:48:09 -
[146] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:the way it is is good. if it's all in one module I can just show up in my 5 tracking disruptor curse and shut everyone down except drones. if you make me choose the number of modules of each type to fit, well, it's sort of like racial ecm rather than just making multis as powerful as racials. tracking disruptors are plenty good already. That works for the Curse, and might work for the Pilgrim since the range buff (old, short-range Pilgrim however struggled for 1 TD slot - I haven't looked at mine since the change but I guess that the midslot load has eased somewhat); but if you only have space for one disruption module it's not viable. It pushes disrution (weapon disruption) ships more to the strategies of Falcons and so forth where, fitted for disruption, that becomes their only role - and I'm not sure weapon disruption is powerful enough to support that.
Sack that, with one mod I can obliterate the DPS of every non-drone ship in the game.
I can half missile ship range. HALF it. Lol. I can make faction heavies hit like fury cruise. I can make pulse track like rails.
All with an instant script change. On UNBONUSED hulls.
I'd have them on EVERY boat yesterday.
What you're forgetting is unbonused ECM was gutted because of this, TDs have not been.
If this becomes one mod, it's going to be TD drone boats online. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
948
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 10:44:43 -
[147] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Fifth Blade wrote:Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them. Came here to say the exact same thing. From the same perspective (small gang). Please do this. Because it's FAR too strong on unbonused hulls; people don't do it today because it only gets turrets - but make it both and it's all you'll see. Ever. I really don't know why the **** people are advocating for a combined module. What you're saying is blatantly obvious but certain people seem to be completely blind to reality. |
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
413
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 10:59:17 -
[148] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:the question that still has not been answered will missiles be able to 'miss' their targets whilst affected by these modules
Yes.
You will know when this happens when your UI tells you you did "0 damage". Every time that happens, your missiles "missed". |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1202
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 14:23:21 -
[149] - Quote
a quick summary here
- HAM's need webs too apply any decent amount of damage - HAM range needs decoupling from torps
- light missiles apply dps too well LML and RLML need balancing around ROF, thus a light missile damage nerf - torps are terrible at applying dps without webs/TP's/scrams
- missiles need better basic stats - webs/TP's need nerfing too allow missile tracking mods too have any chance
all in all a thorough balance of missiles and related mods are needed not just a few lame missile mods thrown in and hope there used.
also drone e-war is much needed
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4689
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 14:27:53 -
[150] - Quote
So,when are we finally going to nerf drones to the level of all other weapon systems and start limiting drone types to ship class?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Matt Faithbringer
Rapid Withdrawal
22
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 15:01:06 -
[151] - Quote
I think you should increase the numbers of range and velocity little bit and remove the disruption effect to application (== explosion velocity & radius), since missile application mostly sucks already |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1128
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 15:12:22 -
[152] - Quote
Jacob Holland wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:the way it is is good. if it's all in one module I can just show up in my 5 tracking disruptor curse and shut everyone down except drones. if you make me choose the number of modules of each type to fit, well, it's sort of like racial ecm rather than just making multis as powerful as racials. tracking disruptors are plenty good already. That works for the Curse, and might work for the Pilgrim since the range buff (old, short-range Pilgrim however struggled for 1 TD slot - I haven't looked at mine since the change but I guess that the midslot load has eased somewhat); but if you only have space for one disruption module it's not viable. It pushes disrution (weapon disruption) ships more to the strategies of Falcons and so forth where, fitted for disruption, that becomes their only role - and I'm not sure weapon disruption is powerful enough to support that.
it is powerful enough for that. and they all do damage and tank properly and have highs. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1840
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 17:11:09 -
[153] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:the question that still has not been answered will missiles be able to 'miss' their targets whilst affected by these modules
Yes. You will know when this happens when your UI tells you you did "0 damage". Every time that happens, your missiles "missed".
There is no log entry about the missiles that have missed. and with -60% flight speed and -60% flight time, they are probably going to miss a lot. unbonused light missiles go 5.6km/s or so, jumps up to 8.4km/s with a 10% per lv bonus. Cruise missiles are a bit faster at ~7km/s, and 10.5km/s on a bonused ship. although with their application you are probably better off just precision damping. and heavies go about 6.5 to 9.5. Then there is the mordus line with ludicrous speed
I'm not sure if 0 damage is a thing, although back in the nano days most missiles that could even catch their targets did something like 0.1 damage or whatnot. although it has been a while and I might not be remembering exactly right.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2097
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 17:25:53 -
[154] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:the question that still has not been answered will missiles be able to 'miss' their targets whilst affected by these modules
Yes. You will know when this happens when your UI tells you you did "0 damage". Every time that happens, your missiles "missed". There is no log entry about the missiles that have missed. and with -60% flight speed and -60% flight time, they are probably going to miss a lot. unbonused light missiles go 5.6km/s or so, jumps up to 8.4km/s with a 10% per lv bonus. Cruise missiles are a bit faster at ~7km/s, and 10.5km/s on a bonused ship. although with their application you are probably better off just precision damping. and heavies go about 6.5 to 9.5. Then there is the mordus line with ludicrous speed I'm not sure if 0 damage is a thing, although back in the nano days most missiles that could even catch their targets did something like 0.1 damage or whatnot. although it has been a while and I might not be remembering exactly right.
I think he's referring to this anomaly: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f38ok/major_bug_with_missile_volleys_completely/ |
stoicfaux
6244
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 18:09:18 -
[155] - Quote
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.)
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
2097
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 18:22:05 -
[156] - Quote
It's not just you. |
Hal Morsh
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
416
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 19:08:18 -
[157] - Quote
Treya Neverette wrote:Please make defender missiles anti-drone missiles.
Auto targeting missles go for the closest target. Including drones.
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.
Dun'Gal > Hal is simply an imperfect ai, though if drunkeness ever gets programmed into ai's I foresee both a hilarious and tragic end to humanity.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1840
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 19:26:13 -
[158] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:the question that still has not been answered will missiles be able to 'miss' their targets whilst affected by these modules
Yes. You will know when this happens when your UI tells you you did "0 damage". Every time that happens, your missiles "missed". There is no log entry about the missiles that have missed. and with -60% flight speed and -60% flight time, they are probably going to miss a lot. unbonused light missiles go 5.6km/s or so, jumps up to 8.4km/s with a 10% per lv bonus. Cruise missiles are a bit faster at ~7km/s, and 10.5km/s on a bonused ship. although with their application you are probably better off just precision damping. and heavies go about 6.5 to 9.5. Then there is the mordus line with ludicrous speed I'm not sure if 0 damage is a thing, although back in the nano days most missiles that could even catch their targets did something like 0.1 damage or whatnot. although it has been a while and I might not be remembering exactly right. I think he's referring to this anomaly: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f38ok/major_bug_with_missile_volleys_completely/ missiles have to accelerate up to speed, it has been pretty well documented. Especially back when people were theory crafting torp golems. Although the way it is inconsistent between volleys is a little odd. I do remember a CCPer saying back in the nano days they couldn't just make missiles go faster because they broke the physics engine, so I always thought the huge missile velocity bonus on mordus ships was funny.
this is a thread (from 2013) that I could find somewhat easily, and I say "(but it has been a few years)" : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2777613
I kept digging, here's a 2010 thread that haphazardly lops 10% of range off to account for missile acceleration: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1272939
we attributed it to the target moving which apparently might not be the case, but it is pretty much how missiles have worked for a long time (if not always). could very well also be a server tick issue. I noticed big variances in my damage on a burner mission recently, where I was damn near at max range.
Edit: the more I think about it the more it seems like a server tick issue, especially with the mordus ship losing ~15% range, the way acceleration works I would expect it to lose less range
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Opertone
The Poverty Line
330
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 22:57:59 -
[159] - Quote
who flies missile ships here???
aha, nobody does... and all you want is to nerf my ISHTAR and my missile boats
tracking disruptors for missiles - I do not really want it.
Technically it is silly.
Work on effective FoF missiles. It will make me happy.
Now the truth... nobody tracking disrupts missiles. Instead, ECM countermeasures are used on local hull, so that all missiles that were fired get diverted this or that way. Either they miss completely, or deliver less damage as they hit local hull less accurately.
Only incoming missiles can be set off their target to reduce incoming damage. Not jamming certain spaceship, so all his missile bombardment gets worse.
Drop this horrible idea.
All games become poor by design, when all differences get nullified and all bonuses become equal and unified.
bad example orcs get 25% more armor, human get 25% more armor - totally stupid. good example human get 25% more armor, orcs get 25% more speed - very fun, variable strategies.
Do not make everything unified and similar.
This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.
|
Kel hound
The Scope Gallente Federation
136
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 23:04:05 -
[160] - Quote
Neat.
...Why does this need to be a new module? Is there some reason that existing tracking disruptors could not have this functionality added into their existing profile? Could you not augment disruptors with a script? This seems unnecessarily complicated. |
|
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
414
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 23:43:46 -
[161] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:Owen Levanth wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:the question that still has not been answered will missiles be able to 'miss' their targets whilst affected by these modules
Yes. You will know when this happens when your UI tells you you did "0 damage". Every time that happens, your missiles "missed". There is no log entry about the missiles that have missed. and with -60% flight speed and -60% flight time, they are probably going to miss a lot. unbonused light missiles go 5.6km/s or so, jumps up to 8.4km/s with a 10% per lv bonus. Cruise missiles are a bit faster at ~7km/s, and 10.5km/s on a bonused ship. although with their application you are probably better off just precision damping. and heavies go about 6.5 to 9.5. Then there is the mordus line with ludicrous speed I'm not sure if 0 damage is a thing, although back in the nano days most missiles that could even catch their targets did something like 0.1 damage or whatnot. although it has been a while and I might not be remembering exactly right. I think he's referring to this anomaly: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3f38ok/major_bug_with_missile_volleys_completely/
Actually, I was joking |
Asuna Crossbreed
Redemption Road Affirmative.
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.03 23:51:40 -
[162] - Quote
So there is a lot of arguments for having missiles just be affected by tracking disruptors and not have their own module. I happen to agree with this. but I think the scripts that focus on missiles should still added for the weapon disruptors. Also like damps and jams before them the base module needs a small nerf and then the bonus buffed on the bonused hulls.
The reasons for this.
Ships that fit Weapon disruptors don't have very many mids, that in combination with scripts and the redundancy that is present in damps and ecm would be lost making fitting them a gamble at best.
The reason for the nerf is to make these ships both more necessary and powerful, because as of now weapon disruption is a joke on these hulls, not because of the bonuses, but because they have few mids and limited effect where the WDs can be spread throughout the fleet.
|
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
521
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 00:08:45 -
[163] - Quote
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.
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
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2760
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 00:17:42 -
[164] - Quote
Mostly use it for the flexibility. A rig can increase application or range, but you can't change it on the fly (one reason I don't use turret rigs as much over tracking computers). |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
526
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 01:05:23 -
[165] - Quote
Asuna Crossbreed wrote: So there is a lot of arguments for having missiles just be affected by tracking disruptors and not have their own module. I happen to agree with this. but I think the scripts that focus on missiles should still added for the weapon disruptors. Also like damps and jams before them the base module needs a small nerf and then the bonus buffed on the bonused hulls.
The reasons for this.
Ships that fit Weapon disruptors don't have very many mids, that in combination with scripts and the redundancy that is present in damps and ecm would be lost making fitting them a gamble at best.
The reason for the nerf is to make these ships both more necessary and powerful, because as of now weapon disruption is a joke on these hulls, not because of the bonuses, but because they have few mids and limited effect where the WDs can be spread throughout the fleet. Its been said many times itt, having one scripted TD would make every ship a TD whore. Nobody wants that. It was not on this character, but I remember the time of the multispec of doom. Do not ever go back to that day.
Agreed that TDs in general for both missiles and guns should have weaker base stats and then give a buff to TD boats for using them. This also will avoid any possible filling of mids with TDs on any ship with a spare mid. And it will increase the utility of a class of ships that have been lacking in comparison to the likes of griffins, blackbirds, maulus, and Celestis.
Now about painters. Nerf the base stats on them. Then buff back the loss on the ships specialized for painters. These ships need more desirability. Except the Golem. It really should have never got Minmatar ewar bonus in the first place.
Then, how about scripting them. One script to keep the present effect, increased sig. The new other script would be a drone communication interference script. It could have a drone control range and drone tracking effect. Neither should be very strong, but just enough to be noticeable and make the fitting of DLA and Omnis work for it. And this would give Minmatar an anti drone ewar since Amarr is getting an anti missile 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.
|
Tahna Rouspel
US Green Building Council
109
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 02:35:54 -
[166] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them.
I second this motion!
It will be difficult to justify using the module unless you know specifically that the enemy fleet is mostly missile based. It would be far more elegant to wrap the missile disruptor into the current tracking disruptor. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2761
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 02:53:27 -
[167] - Quote
I would honestly rather start off with separate modules than going all the way and molding it into one. Not specifically to protect missile uniqueness (MGC/MGE bonuses could be further enhanced for that), but to keep tracking disrupters from being a whole solution to 2/3 primary weapon types in the game, leaving only drones unaffected. If the module isn't used relative to missiles as tracking disrupt or is to drones, then just convert it over to a tracking disruptor and leave scripts separate. If that's still not enough, then mold the scripts together too.
Another idea is to have both modules disrupt turrets and missiles, but specialize in one or the other. Similar to racial hammers having one strong and the rest weak. |
Aliath Sunstrike
61
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 04:54:50 -
[168] - Quote
....andddddd you are going to give traditional Caldari missile boats more speed to compensate .....righhhhhttt???!
Also - adding my +1s below.
1) + 1 to this being a script rolled into current tracking disruptors. Easy, less module give and take but still you need to be prepared. K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid. Just nerf disruptors a tad to compensate...especially the states you linked for the Missile disruptor module. I think that is O.P. Again, you will probably just say...keep it separate modules. And again, I will say ...KISS
2) So FOF missiles are finally going away then? Not that they actually contributed much to missile doctrine, but that should be compensated for in missile effectiveness. I am on the boat here overall with most posters....I feel like Missiles will be nerfed too hard with this script - potential module. It should still be a script too.
3) Defender missiles - remove - fine. But either fix them and make a dedicated missile wall ship that uses them (much like SmartBomb setups...or a module that does JUST defenders. If you can't fix them, fine. No love lost. No one really uses them...BUT, they could be cool.
4) Drone scripts...not in favor. Drones are fragile, you have a limited supply. They can be smartbombed, targeted, etc.
5) What chainsaw plankton said about missiles.
6) +1 to what the CSM rep Chance Ravinne and others said above too. My suspicions exactly post Aegis. Missiles just don't FEEL RIGHT. Those changes didn't seem to work well. I figure you guys at CCP have a game plan and that was PART of it. But overall, you do this missile disruption thing...and you better just REWORK MISSILE SYSTEMS/RIGS/MODULES/EWAR/BOATS from the ground up.
7) + 1 You need a new remote tracking enhancer module for missiles then too if you implement this. Let's be fair.
My two cents.
EDIT - Oh and Missile Battleships...oww.
Continuous player since 2007.
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
142
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 05:41:34 -
[169] - 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 Computer for range on my Tengu
only benefit from enchancer/computer for my Missile BS is that MGE is slight more effective than fourth BCS thus change my layout from 3 CN BCS + 1 T2 BCS to 3 CN BCS + 1 T2 MGE
however it is up to debate as triple TP on my golem may make 4 BCS to be more effective when use against BS/BC target |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
1841
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 05:45:52 -
[170] - 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 just don't use anything that isn't a frigate sized missile. the one place I've tried MGC/MGE is on a kite garmur for burner missions. which is something I probably won't be using often.
when using missiles I have to do math and stuff. I'm playing a video game, not worth it! guns I just minimize transversal and blap. with missiles I feel like I'd need to pay someone to fly a rapier around with me. I feel like there is just too much silliness going on in the missile damage formula. While I was digging through threads earlier someone said something about a dread being able to blap a pod, where a light missile gets a damage reduction. Light missiles may have been buffed since but I think the general point is there.
The big problem, missiles get too big of a buff and they are super duper good. Someone was saying that large missiles were destroying frigates with heated missile guidance computers when they first showed up on sisi.
my alt has perfect missile skills and I just can't stand using them. they were kinda cool as a newb, shooting glowing balls of death, plus everyone said to use them. but however many buff/nerf cycles later... nope! Although in pve you can get away with damage application rigs, painters, MGC and whatnot. A pvp ship fit like that is DoA.
speaking of that, can we get glowing balls of death back please! I don't even see missiles in flight anymore.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2021
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 07:42:34 -
[171] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :)
THIS
It seems pointless in adding a new module when the existing tracking disrupters could be tweaked to affect missiles and scripts added.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2098
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 09:25:13 -
[172] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) THIS It seems pointless in adding a new module when the existing tracking disrupters could be tweaked to affect missiles and scripts added.
The point is balance.
You people are fools, you have no idea the armageddon this idea invites.
Thankfully, I have faith the devs aren't this stupid. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
353
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 10:07:22 -
[173] - Quote
Asuna Crossbreed wrote:So there is a lot of arguments for having missiles just be affected by tracking disruptors and not have their own module. I happen to agree with this. but I think the scripts that focus on missiles should still added for the weapon disruptors. Also like damps and jams before them the base module needs a small nerf and then the bonus buffed on the bonused hulls.
The reasons for this.
Ships that fit Weapon disruptors don't have very many mids, that in combination with scripts and the redundancy that is present in damps and ecm would be lost making fitting them a gamble at best.
The reason for the nerf is to make these ships both more necessary and powerful, because as of now weapon disruption is a joke on these hulls, not because of the bonuses, but because they have few mids and limited effect where the WDs can be spread throughout the fleet.
Thats true if tds could only be fitted to bonused hulls. In reality you are going to throw them in every spare midslot, which is going to be effective vs the majority of ships roaming atm. Dual td condor bringing up memories? |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2021
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 10:15:18 -
[174] - Quote
How would it not be balanced?
It is logical and more efficient to change existing weapon disrupters.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
378
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 10:25:13 -
[175] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:How would it not be balanced? One module to disrupt them all? I call that too powerfull and inbalanced.
Those modules can't disrupt stats like in turret one. Turrets hits instantly, missiles take time to hit target.
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
281
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:08:56 -
[176] - Quote
I kinda prefer missiles to remain 'different' to turrets - I'd prefer to see a proper 'CIWS' module for knocking down missiles, rather than a slightly different version of a tracking disruptor.
Question (from a 'fluff'/'Lore' whore POV): how does EWAR, that's basically a derivative of something that messes with turret targeting systems, make a missile travel more slowly?..... )
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
156
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:16:19 -
[177] - Quote
Looks good. Although I disagree that there should be two separate modules for turrets and missiles. Like others have said using a script to switch between missiles and turrets will be a much better option. If you think this is too overpowered then balance using other variables.
I think this module will be great at bringing some of the more OP missile based ships into line, although your going to need to look at buffing HAMLs, HMLs, and Torps.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2098
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:19:33 -
[178] - Quote
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. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
156
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:38:04 -
[179] - Quote
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.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
Rolle Shana
Armilies Corporation
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 11:42:58 -
[180] - Quote
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.
Sounds like the only viable fleet damage will be drones after this. I think missiles are pretty good as they are, hitting smaller targets has a reduced damage anyway, and using speed will always reduce the damage anyway.
You can easily firewall a larger fleets missiles. Not sure this nerf is really what the game needs at the moment, sure I am biased as I use missiles myself, but they aren't the weaponsystem I'd nerf first. This will just make the curse the instawin ship on the field, as missiles has prettymuch been thr best and only viable counter against them without bringing out anything much larger or shinier |
|
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%. |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1242
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 20:57:41 -
[211] - 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
Cough* bombers
But his point still stands it's not missiles that need an EWAR counter it's drones
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
motie one
Secret Passage
44
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 21:25:11 -
[212] - Quote
I can see how the new module may be interesting, and encourage different choices.
I am not in favour of the suggestion in retrospect of rolling scripts into the existing tracking disruptors, this would almost make them a compulsory fit, stay with the original proposal.
I am really concerned however that the new module affects both flight time and speed, as well as the option of scripting instead for both missile damage application stats.
This is really powerful, affecting just flight time, or scripting to just affect explosion radius could make sense, but when both range or application stats apply it will really cause missiles to be a truly miserable experience.
You may have buffs to certain missiles in plan to make the whole experience better, but without these, we really are going to regret using Missiles in a lot of situations. Possibly more than you intend.
Anyway, just my opinion, I am sure in play testing a lot of the issues will become clearer allowing for a good resolution. |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
360
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 21:48:06 -
[213] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote: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.
I think the problem is with the base stats for heavies, hams and to a lesser extent cruise and torps. The computers, enhancers and disruptors seem fine in theory but they are operating on ammo which is not in a good place. I would prefer to see heavies and hams sorted before piling secondary issues on top. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
868
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 22:47:34 -
[214] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads.
Please stop, my belly can't handle your cute attempts of comprehension. Let's the grownups talk.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
868
|
Posted - 2015.10.04 22:51:01 -
[215] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote: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..
Chance dear, no missile user needs more range, only application. Some very slow noobs from two days ago will not comprehend it but I am here long enough.
My predictions always come true. Some of them take longer but it still holds.
What about giving defender missiles full application instead?
You can "test-run" defender missiles with full 100% application, no matter what day of the week it is and see how that goes.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 00:09:58 -
[216] - Quote
No they dont e2. You just whine louder than the Imperium forum CTA. To be entirely honest its an impressive talent.
Small things to note.. These module will by nature punish missile boats to what seems to be an excessive amount.. However remember CCP balances off meta statistics.. No one is arguing the dominance of RLML boats. The effect or the missile disruptors will be profound but not out of line with similar effects of a tracking disruptor fleet against a turret using enemy. Considering to be useful you have to know the enemy fleet comp to properly shut down a certain doctrine... this severity is acceptable provided the disruptors remain two independent mods.
As to the buff to MGCs... I was one of the biggest opponents of the nerfed numbers but honestly after spending the time to fly fits and see what they succeed at or fail at they were not very off balance to TPs. The nerf was still a terrible knee jerk reaction that shouldn't have happened.. but the mods have a defined purpose on many hulls. Mostly in allowing normally short ranged weapon systems to suddenly become mid ranged/long ranged weapon systems. The 10%ev/er bonus puts them fairly in line with a TP for most fitting purposes.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Black Hydra Consortium.
5386
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 00:19:14 -
[217] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :)
I agree with this.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 00:21:33 -
[218] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) I agree with this.
Easy to answer.. One mod would basically revert eve to drones online. A single EWAR fit that can shut down all but one weapon system? Not a good idea. By keeping two modules you require FCs to utilize scouts or risk being neutralized by enemy ewar... it also means defenders can fit to fight an attackers ship types thus gaining an advantage against larger fleets attacking them. |
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services The WINGSPAN Logo Alliance
539
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 00:59:17 -
[219] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Chance Ravinne wrote: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.. Chance dear, no missile user needs more range, only application. Some very slow noobs from two days ago will not comprehend it but I am here long enough. My predictions always come true. Some of them take longer but it still holds. What about giving defender missiles full application instead? You can "test-run" defender missiles with full 100% application, no matter what day of the week it is and see how that goes.
I'm not arguing that missiles do or don't need range, only listing objective facts about the modules. Even if you contend missiles don't currently need range, we can imagine a future balance pass where somehow they do, which would increase the value of these items.
And surely there are scenarios where the range has value, even if they are fringe cases. If you have ever wished to shoot at a target 1 km outside of your range, it would be better in that precise moment to have a MGC than a target painter, since painting something you can't hit is pointless.*
I never thought range + application should be linked to one module anyway. Having a separate range module, then a module with sig or speed based application would be, IMO more interesting.
* yeah yeah helps the fleet, I know
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
|
Madrax573
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 03:20:58 -
[220] - Quote
Here we go again making everything in eve function like everything else in eve.....
There really wasn't any need for missile enhancing modules and then subsequently missile damping modules. I guess missiles are just like turrets now. Yay! Victory for the whiners that couldn't be bothered to learn something unique in eve.
Such a pity. |
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2791
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 05:01:43 -
[221] - 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.
Phoenix in C4 Black hole effect. Single shots everything. 1 x scripted MGC and 1 x MGE, + TP's from a Vigil. As Chainsaw Plankton says, you have to do the maths, which is hard. But once you've done it, you push it into broken territory. I'm happy with the way my OTT Golem works.
Typhoons, we have found 2 x TP's and 1 x TP + MGC is equivalent for application work. The biggest hit to us was actually the rig stacking penalty introduction, it used to be that you could get your cruise Phoon's missiles behaving better than light missiles. I have been able to single-shot ceptors and garmurs with a Phoon. Again, you do the maths, then fit.
Aside from those 2 examples there is literally no point. You cannot push the envelope far enough to actually make a difference. it's better to not fly the ship at all than take a missile boat out and fail, because...yet again...if the maths do not favour you, there is no skill in missile boats beyond knowing what not to fights.
Missile Disruptors will totally trash cruiser and battleship missiles, and hence, extinguish them from the PVP meta entirely.
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 ~~
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
670
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 05:51:13 -
[222] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Precision script and range script I assume? So a precision script would remove 30% explosion velocity AND increase explosion radius by 30%? This kills the missile pvp.
Wrt trinkets post this is not empty quoting.
Work should be done on missiles first before introducing ways of making them worse. Are missiles really so equally balanced across all types and all sizes that a one-size-fits-all ewar is warrented or required?
That's a serious question btw, are they prenerfing drake/cerb fleets with these? Why couldn't they do the same thing to ishtars 2 years ago?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
868
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 05:57:15 -
[223] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I'm not arguing that missiles do or don't need range, only listing objective facts about the modules. Even if you contend missiles don't currently need range, we can imagine a future balance pass where somehow they do, which would increase the value of these items.
And surely there are scenarios where the range has value, even if they are fringe cases. If you have ever wished to shoot at a target 1 km outside of your range, it would be better in that precise moment to have a MGC than a target painter, since painting something you can't hit is pointless.*
I never thought range + application should be linked to one module anyway. Having a separate range module, then a module with sig or speed based application would be, IMO more interesting.
* yeah yeah helps the fleet, I know
Well I didn't say that they don't need range at all, my point was that I am okay-ish with the range cruiser missiles and heavy missiles have (now). I am painfully aware that the biggest complaint are light missiles on a pirate boat. And guess what, pirate ships are supposed to be the end of the food-chain in case of power - exceeding battlecruisers.
Anyhow, I am not entirely against the missile computer thingies but the lowslot thingies are as useless as herpies. The computers are okay and can bring missiles (no not the light ones) to a level I can almost agree upon.
Now the second idea in this case was to give the defender missiles we already have 100% application as a missile counter to not break EVE instead of the tracking disruptors. Maybe you can talk to the team (5-O I think) about it?
Again this would only affect defender missiles, the light and heavy ones - there are only two in the game. Put it on SiSi and let us try them out.
Oh and don't forget to unbreak torpedos (no I don't fly bombers). Torpedos should have 40km range on my Raven, 300m explosion radius (rage) and 100m/s exlposion velocity (also the rage ones).
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 06:18:22 -
[224] - Quote
While the idea of a defensive missile smacks highly of military space opera there is one situation where it would be an issue.. possibly even gamebreakingly.
TiDi.
Yes the game is "supposed" to function normally but slower up to 10% TiDi.. but in reality things start breaking early. Especially when that "thing" is a missile that has to track another missile. With server tics you'd probably have phantom hit situations where the defender literally had no effect as well. Heck right now missiles have issues with hitting on the edges of tics.
Honestly from a raw mechanics thing defenders as a concept are terrible. Logically in real life they make sense... practically they just cant work without major sacrifices unless ccp just want to space magic crap(which is terrible code.. please dont space magic).
You'd probably get more usage and differentiated tactics if you broke apart armor/hardeners to something akin to ablative vs reactive. (Ablative(which is a form of reactive) creates a spall layer and disrupts physical/energy rounds theoretically while reactive(explosive plating) physically uses directed blasts to divert and disrupt an incoming explosive typically missile based.) Honestly such a split of defenses would definitely shake up metas and give missiles an absolute roll in the rock paper scissors doctrine game. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2103
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 07:18:39 -
[225] - Quote
I have a couple more concerns with regards the strength of these on unbonused hulls.
1) Unbonused range disruption to turrets can be soft countered by an ammo swap - less DPS, but not zero. Missiles Cannot do this, no range, no DPS. 2) Unbonused tracking speed disruption is eminently manageable by manually piloting, for example a maller with scorch would start to track like a 200mm rail thorax - in other words perfectly manageable by piloting. Missiles cannot do a thing to manually mitigate these mods.
Test case I used: Bellicose with a single HML shooting 100% unfit thorax moving at 300m/s. Single unbonused disruptor: Removes 46.1% of the missile damage. Options available to the missile pilot.....Zero.
A second unbonused effect only knocks it back to 57.7% damage removed.
Keep in mind that is removing applied damage, which in my test case is already 25% of paper speak DPS.
i.e. paper damage is 224 per hit, applied damage to the unfit 300m/s thorax is 52.2 (23.3% of paper), with the MD it is down to 28.1 (12.5% of paper).
I realise these are effectively unfit, but the aim of the test was to see the disruption of a single/dual unbonused mod. It's....too good imo, considering the pilot can't do anything about it.
I really think you're going to want to reign in the unbonused values and boost the specialist hulls to level it off.
Caveat: I think my math is accurate but it is very early - if someone disagrees let me know please. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
757
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 08:06:44 -
[226] - Quote
Very sad face to see "Missile Tracking Disruptors" rather than a reworking of the defender missile system. I just feel that it homogenizes the EWAR system. If you can disrupt turrets and missiles now you really should be able to disrupt the tracking of a ship's drones by TD'ing the parent ship with a "Drone Disruption" module.
Anyway. I really feel you're missing the mark by going down the EWAR route with a clearly extremely powerful module instead of creating a proper point defense system.
If you created a new racial PDS that destroyed the missiles and drones of a targeted ship you would create a new role within a fleet.
However. This is the way you're going. I don't like it but I know I can't change anything.
By the way. The new EvE Updates site is awesome and almost all of the changes coming are awesome. I just don't like this missile disruption concept when PDS could have fixed many problems in game including bombers. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2104
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 08:18:24 -
[227] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:If you created a new racial PDS that destroyed the missiles and drones of a targeted ship you would create a new role within a fleet.
Faster cycling smartbombs, less cap use. Would probably do it. Makes firewalling easier.
Speaking of, is firewalling going to be removed now, since we now have legit anti-missile ewar?
In fact, I seem to recall (from players admittedly) that a lot of the reasons missiles are sub-par were because "they have no ewar"....any sign of that changing? Nerf RxML as required to make it work. |
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
394
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 08:40:22 -
[228] - Quote
I'm not really thrilled of this idea, we've asked for feed back on the whole Aegis thing, didn't get any.
and now there's the next row of modules, lots of missiles are still in a bad place.
they already have delayed damage, can be destroyed by smart bombs, can be rendered all but useless by speed which somehow keeps increasing almost every update. take longer to train than turrets, aren't even close to being predominantly used in PvP, have many hulls that are damage locked.
and the counter is putting a missile guidance module. (which is rather high on its CPU need)
before you could choose to drop a mid or low slot and therefor damage or tank for range and/or application now it you have to fit this module for the fact that it's the only way to counter a disruptor. ( I already hear people saying, so do turret ships, then take in mind that those where balanced with these modules already in place, not to mention the possibility to at least somewhat counter the effects by piloting and ammo switching)
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 08:48:54 -
[229] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads. Please stop, my belly can't handle your cute attempts of comprehension. Let's the grownups talk.
Post with your main if you want to be rude, otherwise lol. |
Janeway84
Def Squadron Pride Before Fall
177
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 08:49:15 -
[230] - Quote
Can you add faction and deadspace guided missile mods and missile TD's ofc ! |
|
Aivlis Eldelbar
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Curatores Veritatis Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 09:53:58 -
[231] - Quote
To be perfectly honest, the introduction of missile disruptors seems completely pointless to me right now. Are Drake fleets blotting out the sky? Are Cruise Ravens an actual thing and I hadn't noticed?
The consensus seems to be that RLM platforms are overperforming while almost every other missile class is pointless, particularly large missiles. Torp range is a joke outside heavily bonused hulls, heavy missiles can't apply even half of their paper dps to targets in their own size class, cruise missiles ae unable to use their range because of a myriad reasons (firewall/warping out targets).
If these are imlemented there will be four ways to completely nullify the damage of a missile fleet: firewall, outrunning the missiles, warping out once the volley is on its way, and disrupting their range. And since mitigating missile damage is already much easier than avoiding gun damage (fly fast vs. maximize transversal) this just adds to the pile of reasons missiles are in such a bad spot overall.
A couple of proposals:
- If you're removing the old advantage of missiles of not being susceptible to ewar, let them have critical hits now. - Buff HML and Torp application; also cruise missile speed. - Remove firewall; I personaly think it's great, but its just not fair for so many counters to exist to a weapon system with subpar damage and application to start with. - Change misile skill descriptions to state that these aren't CCP-approved weapons and you should consider the SP invested a waste :P |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2105
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 10:31:39 -
[232] - Quote
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: - Change misile skill descriptions to state that these aren't CCP-approved weapons and you should consider the SP invested a waste :P
I lol'd |
Madgic
Nexis. Usurper.
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 11:15:15 -
[233] - Quote
Every time they do something positive to make missiles even slightly Viable, along comes another Nerf to push them back to mission Boats, we don't all fly Alliance tourney doctrines, |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
391
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 11:25:21 -
[234] - Quote
Can we have missiles tracking disruptors instead ECM as guristas e-war? They are fighting caldari mainly (missiles users).
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
156
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 11:33:47 -
[235] - Quote
Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?
At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.
As for this module I would suggest a tracking disruption module which effects missiles and turrets. Mid slots are the most valuable slots in PvP for most ships and so fitting one of each for missiles and turrets is impractical; even fitting one is a big compromise for most ships.
Also it would be better to have a module that soft counters both weapon systems than one which hard counters one of the other. Soft counters make for more interesting PvP as with hard counters the fight is decided before you even engage.
Suggestion for a rebalance of ECM - Modulated ECM Effects
|
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
355
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 11:44:37 -
[236] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?
At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.
As for this module I would suggest a tracking disruption module which effects missiles and turrets. Mid slots are the most valuable slots in PvP for most ships and so fitting one of each for missiles and turrets is impractical; even fitting one is a big compromise for most ships.
Also it would be better to have a module that soft counters both weapon systems than one which hard counters one of the other. Soft counters make for more interesting PvP as with hard counters the fight is decided before you even engage.
|
Mike Whiite
Geuzen Inc
394
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 12:05:24 -
[237] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?
At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.
This!
The more I think of it, the more I think the current idea, will be a waist of time.
create a new module and to have it compete with other module it has to be so powerful that it renders missiles useless. or it will get nice place with my defender missiles in this container of curiosities.
make it a script and every body and his mother will carry it, in that case the least you must do is limit the effects of speed tanking missiles and in that case we're back at reballancing missiles. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:01:40 -
[238] - Quote
When I use Rockets I find a lot of my volleys go missing even when the target is in range, I think when missiles are launched they fly out of the launchers in random directions, then correct course and chase down the target. This is a big issue on short range missiles where they have maybe 3 seconds of flight time and only do 2500m/s, how will a Rocket vengeance perform with 2 of these unbonused applied to it? It's rockets will have less than 2 seconds flight time, the missiles will do about 1800m/s and the first second they'll be flying out in random directions... I'm guessing it won't hit anything.
Missile range is totally different than Turret range, these modules are going to kill short range missile fits especially on hulls with no range bonuses, and they will also kill larger missiles which already have serious application problems. So basically more reason to use rapids.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13343
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:22:39 -
[239] - Quote
Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active? A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.
Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative? A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1203
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:28:46 -
[240] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active? A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.
Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative? A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.
86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:33:44 -
[241] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active? A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.
Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative? A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.
Even with -80% a turret still has range, if rockets lose 70% of their range they probably won't hit anything... have you done any testing on this?
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Krughor Khan
State Protectorate Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:40:49 -
[242] - Quote
Im still in the pvp noob phase of "loose some ships until you find your playing style and score some", but since all turrets and missiles will have a disruptor module that counters them, what about drones?
More power to the tristan/comet/algos trinity in fw, since none of them are seriously affected by any td like module (comet can still load something like iridium, iron or spike to still hit a bit)? Why should gallente be the more viable pvp option?
I would like to read the opinions of more experienced pvp players, but please dont start saying that other faction's ships are equally balanced because if this measure goes ahead you can render all of their ships next to useless with a single mod (or am I missing something?). |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2111
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:46:43 -
[243] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff?
Most are stacked to one or the other.
No-one cares if lasers lose a little falloff/projectiles lose some optimal.
Missiles do not have this luxury as time*speed are married. Plus you're making flat out out-running the missiles even more viable (when it has no right to be, as speed already hits application) by attacking speed.
Likewise, I cannot outrun gun rounds.
Finally, I CANNOT swap long range ammo into most launcher systems (javelin aside)...all, ALL turrets have the option to reload long range ammunition.
If you MUST slash it by so much, nuke flight time only please, it's already frustrating enough watching cruisers run away from heavy missiles on non-speed bonused ships. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1203
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:47:01 -
[244] - Quote
Krughor Khan wrote: Im still in the pvp noob phase of "loose some ships until you find your playing style and score some", but since all turrets and missiles will have a disruptor module that counters them, what about drones?
More power to the tristan/comet/algos trinity in fw, since none of them are seriously affected by any td like module (comet can still load something like iridium, iron or spike to still hit a bit)? Why should gallente be the more viable pvp option?
I would like to read the opinions of more experienced pvp players, but please dont start saying that other faction's ships are equally balanced because if this measure goes ahead you can render all of their ships next to useless with a single mod (or am I missing something?).
drone e-war is definitely needed and current e-war is too powerful, 86% and 70% for disruptors is far too much, then you have damps and ecm along with cap warfare... along with things like webs, which ofc has no impact on drones but can prevent other ships from getting close enough too hit anything..
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Ju0ZaS
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
97
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:48:45 -
[245] - Quote
Auto targetting missiles should be excluded from the disruption imo. Jams don't effect them either.
Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
528
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:50:36 -
[246] - Quote
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:To be perfectly honest, the introduction of missile disruptors seems completely pointless to me right now. Are Drake fleets blotting out the sky? Are Cruise Ravens an actual thing and I hadn't noticed?
If these are imlemented there will be four ways to completely nullify the damage of a missile fleet: firewall, outrunning the missiles, warping out once the volley is on its way, and disrupting their range. And since mitigating missile damage is already much easier than avoiding gun damage (fly fast vs. maximize transversal) this just adds to the pile of reasons missiles are in such a bad spot overall.
A couple of proposals:
- If you're removing the old advantage of missiles of not being susceptible to ewar, let them have critical hits now. - Buff HML and Torp application; also cruise missile speed. - Remove firewall; I personaly think it's great, but its just not fair for so many counters to exist to a weapon system with subpar damage and application to start with. - Change misile skill descriptions to state that these aren't CCP-approved weapons and you should consider the SP invested a waste :P You forgot to add TDs to turret counters They are quite popular in that regard.
Cruise Ravens will never be an actual thing outside of pve because delayed damage will always be there. There is no buff or nerf that can affect any other characteristic of cruise missiles enough to make Ravens a pvp thing. The only reason drone boats are a fleet doctrine is sentries. There would be no Ishtars if they had to wait for slow as molasses heavy drones to plod from one target to another. Gilas are actually niche because of the ridiculous buff on mediums. If it weren't so over the top you probably wouldn't see them either. Delayed damage is what messes with large long range missiles.
As for Drake or Navy Drake fleets it is still too early to tell what affect on usage has resulted from the BC rebalance.
Missile speed can only go so far. Years ago there was an overall speed nerf on ships because it was causing severe problems with the games computations. Again, missiles can only be made to go so fast before they present a similar problem. Fozzie would know where that threshold is, but I suspect it is rather near to current missile speeds or it would be an obvious adjustment to help missiles. Maybe there is a little room for increased missile speed.
Similarly, when you mess too much with explosion parameters you risk making any missile good for any size or speed ship. Then missile ships dont have to think and have no counters. Turrets have tracking parameters radii, optimal, and falloff. At long range where the angular motion of a target is low, but the target is still within optimal the long range large turrets will hit, and will blap. But increase the angular motion enough and they miss completely. One has to avoid the clicking of approach if you are in something small going after something large. HMs used to be good for hitting just about anything. Now they are not. This is good. If you want critical hit calculations for missiles then say hello to complete misses as well, even if the missile is otherwise caught up to the target and exploding fast enough.
Firewall has been recently nerfed. It takes some thinking though. For instance, if you just blindly keep shooting the same type missile into a smartie and don't figure out what damage type smartie you are dealing with then too bad. Firewall was only a player invention to somehow overcome the missile spam of massed Drakes. Smarties were originally meant and still work as anti drone defense. If the Drake fleets reappear we will see what effect the nerf had.
Certainly ship v missile speed should be looked at again. Missiles should have an advantage. That people can construct ridiculous speed ships means some of the speed mods need some nerfing imo. You may not have been around for the past speed nerf but it was a very heated flame war on the forums. But I think most would agree now that the game is better for it.
Your last comment is just silly. CCP devs are not and never have been concerned with Caldari over Amarr or vice versa or any combination. Even if it has felt that way. For a long time Amarr was total ****. Gallente was **** for a while until the DDAs. Believe me, since 2006 I have never seen the game in as good a state of balance as it is now. Well except maybe when sniper BSs ruled fleet warfare. Because there was no one racial sniper BS that was clearly better than the others. But then there were plenty of problems associated with that era that are thankfully gone now.
These new modules make the game combat tactics more complex. This is good. And it will be a continuing dance of adjustments. So much better now than year after year of Drake fleets in the not so distant past.
To those saying, but defender missiles. Argh. Those things have been ass stink from the getgo. And there have been dev posts about how complex and taxing on resources the coding would have to be to fix them. Defender missiles might actually work better as anti drone weapons since they go after the closest thing and drones in orbit don't move as fast as missiles. MTD modules are better imo. Easy to see them as electronic jamming pointed specifically at missiles to make their guidance computers waste fuel from faulty flight paths or explode in the wrong place etc.
Careful though if defenders do get reworked to anti drone. Because then a lot of changes will come. Including the necessity of a launcher slot on just about every ship. And if drones become too killable then hello another round of drone buffs. And so it goes
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
528
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:57:20 -
[247] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active? A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.
Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative? A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%. 86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive? They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls.
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.
|
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
381
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:58:39 -
[248] - Quote
Ju0ZaS wrote:Auto targetting missiles should be excluded from the disruption imo. Jams don't effect them either. Maybe that would give people more of a reason to at least have some in their cargo?
That's assuming Auto-Targeting missiles work in PVP, which they haven't for at least the last year. I tested this recently on SiSi and they are still broken. Logged EBR-41489 which is attached to an internal bug.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL4Z5GM92Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE
That said, I think excluding auto-targeting missiles from the disruption would be a good balance - if the above problems can be fixed. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
225
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 13:59:54 -
[249] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active? A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.
Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative? A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%. 86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive? They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls.
those stats are from a bonused hull and links and heat. its says so right beofre the % are listed. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
528
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 14:06:12 -
[250] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: those stats are from a bonused hull and links and heat. its says so right beofre the % are listed. at me, back to what I should be doing. Trying to do two things at once will result in neither being done well.
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.
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1203
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 14:09:22 -
[251] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Lady Rift wrote: those stats are from a bonused hull and links and heat. its says so right beofre the % are listed. at me, back to what I should be doing. Trying to do two things at once will result in neither being done well.
even so, it shouldn't be possible under any circumstances too do that much
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Aivlis Eldelbar
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve Curatores Veritatis Alliance
117
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 14:45:27 -
[252] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?
At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.
As for this module I would suggest a tracking disruption module which effects missiles and turrets. Mid slots are the most valuable slots in PvP for most ships and so fitting one of each for missiles and turrets is impractical; even fitting one is a big compromise for most ships.
Also it would be better to have a module that soft counters both weapon systems than one which hard counters one of the other. Soft counters make for more interesting PvP as with hard counters the fight is decided before you even engage.
Not empty quoting.
Even though I am still unsold on the supposed benefits of merging both effects into the existing tracking disruptor, missiles need a thorough look at.
I guess the joke in my last suggestion didn't translate well, my apologies. I do not really believe devs are lore-biased, but that doesn't change the fact that missiles are in a bad spot application-wise and have been there for a long time.
Other than that, I fail to see the point you're making beyond applauding complexity, reminiscing about the golden age of nano fits and explaining how tracking works. In reply, I agree on the first count, with some reservations; no, I wasn't around for nanophoons but it does look hilarious on video; and I am quite aware of how the tracking formulae work, they are not that complicated.
The main technical limitation I see with missile speed is currently aparent on the Mordu's hulls, where ultra-fast missiles lead to inconsistent ranges, ie: 10km/s missiles paired with a 1Hz server mean your range fluctuates by up to 9km (0.9s of flight time).
Heavy missiles aren't good for hitting shield + MWD cruisers right now, so I wonder what are they supposed to hit. Their application was nerfed way too far and never again looked at.
Firewalling is more difficult now? Marginally, and with most viable missile platforms being kinetic-locked, it's not that hard to pick the right smarbombs, is it?
I agree on delayed damage being one of the main issues with large missiles... yet it isn't on RML doctrines and wasn't on Drakes, so I guess upping the speed does work to mitigate that particular problem.
Lastly, the difference between missile range disruption and gun optimal disruption lies in the fact that a gun can still hit to beyond it's falloff, if rarely, while missiles can't hit at all, and with a speed reduction they become even easier to outrun, which is silly. The effect is much worse on missiles, so I'd call for the scripts to affect onlt flight time, not speed. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
32
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 15:23:29 -
[253] - Quote
Amber Starview wrote:Complicating a easy fix by not adding it to TD ...weapon disruption sounds good as suggested above just nerf the stuffing out of every ewar unless it's specialised hull (T1 or T2) or well skilled but make it easy to understand and fit and use for noobs but hard to master
... and this is not yet the case? Because your unbonussed TP or ECM is so massively overpowered? They are easy to understand, noobs can fly Executioners and Griffins to great effect, and you DO need to invest considerable time to become somewhat decent at your ewars "to master it" as you say.
Missile Disruptor as a separate module, okay - but please make sure to not obsolete DAMPS. If ONE scripted MD can practically kill the engagement range of a ship down to the equivalent of TWO damps, then there is a problem. Don't get me wrong, killing missile range is a good thing in certain situations -- but there are plenty of missiles (HAMS, Torps on anything but a bomber, Rockets) that already have no range whatsoever --> It would take only one MD to utterly kill their DPS.
Not to mention many missiles already have a pretty nasty (and frustrating) counter: you can simply OUTRUN them. Orbit fast enough en your HAMs/Torps are useless. MWD away in a straight line and you can even outrun light missiles (from anything but a Garmur).
I can totally see why you'd want anti-missile EWAR but for the love of god, (1) crank up the speed on all missiles, (2) go easy on the nerfs there cowboy! Remember: you can always buff the module if it's perceived too weak. Starting if off like this is harsh. VERY harsh.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13346
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 15:27:16 -
[254] - Quote
afkalt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses. But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff? That's not how math works. It doesn't matter whether a turret is more falloff heavy or more optimal heavy. Since both attributes are impacted equally, the effective range of the turret is simply reduced by 86% across the board.
Deacon Abox wrote:Harvey James wrote: 86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?
They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls. Those numbers are only obtainable on bonuses hulls (along with max skills, links and heat).
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
unidenify
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
145
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 15:32:18 -
[255] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:afkalt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses. But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff? That's not how math works. It doesn't matter whether a turret is more falloff heavy or more optimal heavy. Since both attributes are impacted equally, the effective range of the turret is simply reduced by 86% across the board. Deacon Abox wrote:Harvey James wrote: 86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?
They do. TDs and MDs should be weaker on unbonused hulls. If those stats are to remain make them only obtainable on bonused hulls. Those numbers are only obtainable on bonuses hulls (along with max skills, links and heat).
so those Amarr EWAR ship will have bonus for missile disruptor or you have different idea as give it to Caldari as second EWAR? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2301
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 15:33:37 -
[256] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:afkalt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses. But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff? That's not how math works. It doesn't matter whether a turret is more falloff heavy or more optimal heavy. Since both attributes are impacted equally, the effective range of the turret is simply reduced by 86% across the board.
How much range does auto-cannon lose from their optimal being cut by 43%?
CCP Fozzie wrote: Those numbers are only obtainable on bonuses hulls (along with max skills, links and heat).
Or use a second slot on your ship... |
Lev Ironwill
Dark Nebula Academy O X I D E
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 15:43:10 -
[257] - Quote
Since missiles and turrets, which have historically been promoted as different, are becoming very similar, does that mean that CCP is happy with the current state of missiles as a whole? Is it intended for Heavies to be a joke? Is it intended for speed creep to curb stomp application before the fight even starts? Is it intended for cruise missiles to be relegated to missions (not even Incursion PvE because flight time) and for torps to be relegated to Stealth Bombers and structure grinding?
The biggest problem with missiles isn't that Rapid launchers are cancer, primarily Rapid Lights, rather it is that the weapons they are supposed to be competing with for slots are utter trash. Why would I fit Heavies on a Caracal when RLML's, even with reload, will outperform them? The answer is when you have a blob of them to be able to fling corpses and still win the blobfest. The takeaway from this is to stop making missiles more like turrets with mods and put some serious work into making ALL of them viable. You want player feedback? Ask around for fitting advice about missiles and you're going to hear RHML's on BS's and RLML's on BC's and Cruisers (with the occasional HAM fit) and of course rockets and lights on frigs/dessies. As I mentioned, cruises are only going to be advocated for missions and torps will only be fitted for structure grinding. Heavies are trying to compete for the Most Niche Fit award and HAM's are, at best, situational. The recent changes have made me really and truly start regretting skilling into missiles.
When Sentry Ishtar blobs darkened the skies you didn't introduce drone EWAR, you started tweaking stats to fix the problem. Now that Rapid launchers (and Mordu's hulls) are starting to have aspirations of the same role you are throwing out the ability to neuter any missile hull rather than fixing the actual problem. This is where allegations of bias come from. (Insert Archer "Do you want ants" meme here) |
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
192
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 15:56:16 -
[258] - Quote
I wonder if anyone uses torps. I mean other than on stealth bombers. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2113
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 15:58:16 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: That's not how math works. It doesn't matter whether a turret is more falloff heavy or more optimal heavy. Since both attributes are impacted equally, the effective range of the turret is simply reduced by 86% across the board.
I read it differently, fair enough.
And the other concerns? Outrunning missiles, for example.
Or that a turret can load long range ammo to compensate, or just manage transversal to mitigate - no such options exist beyond javelin for missiles. Precision are already too slow as it is |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 16:00:47 -
[260] - Quote
A major factor of missile disruption is that it gives OPTIONS to the dev team.
Do we actually need missile disruption? Yes. Hell yes. Why? Because it gives an FC a direct counter to cerb fleets as an example. Does it negatively hit cruise pvp boats or possibly gut RHML boats? Yes possibly.. but because people can now COUNTER these fits... they can and will be looked at for buffage by the dev team if needed.
You cant have your cake without a neighborhood bully who likes that flavor. This is a PVP game. Rock paper scissors is the absolute god. Anything which violates that truism doesn't need to exist and we've all seen how destructive such a ship can be(ishtar anyone?)
Additionally to anyone who is saying the missile mod reduction is to heavy...realize disruption is brutal. Reloading ammo doesn't really help and its laughable people seriously suggest "just switch to long range ammo" . All long range ammo does while under TD is make you have an illusion of hitting anything for any meaningful amount. Disruption is what is termed as a "hard counter" If the enemy FC sees you are all ranged turret boats he can switch to a fleet that will out range your optimal and then TD the hell out of you. You currently see cerbs/caras out more because they currently cant be disrupted and always have sniper grade optimals. Disruption means more counters, more thinking, and more diversified metas. This is a GOOD thing people. |
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2113
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 16:04:42 -
[261] - Quote
It's not hard counter on unbonused hulls; my fear is that the missile one is. |
W0lf Crendraven
Welfcorp
356
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 16:11:16 -
[262] - Quote
I think tds, and these new missile tds, have some fundamental flaws. No matter what people say, tds are absurdly broken if used right (i.e bonused hull, max skills, with info links), you are looking at 0.0 + 0.1 km ranges on battleships like the machariel which will always take it out of the game, no matter the piloting. However, damps (and ecm to some degree) are always effective, tds while extremely powerfull just dont have any use vs specific damage types and always lose to damps.
Tds and missile tds can go 2 ways, either no one fits them as they are to niche to use (sort of like eccm) or they get to the damp level.
And lastly, ewar is **** for the game, we need less of it, not more of it!! |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1129
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 16:28:43 -
[263] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: max skills, links and heat
links are getting fixed soon though right |
Solarus Explorer
The Church of Awesome Heiian Conglomerate
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 16:37:52 -
[264] - Quote
Given the current state of missiles overall....... I think this is a bad idea.
Medium and Large missiles really need a significant application buff first, before any broad missile nerf should be considered.
I would also echo the sentiment that the game needs less ewar in general, not more. Tbh, if the game goes on to become ewar-online, its not gonna be fun anymore for me at least. |
Lev Ironwill
Dark Nebula Academy O X I D E
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 16:47:55 -
[265] - Quote
On a semi-related note, and not to put him in a tough spot, Gorski does good write-ups and I would be interested to see his take on the current state of missiles re: application and viability
More on topic, I cannot state enough that missiles need a good, hard look before you start complicating the issue even further. If this is a band-aid to make more players happy, then just say so. If this is part of a larger missile tiericide/balancing, then just say so. Right now it feels like you're hemming and hawing without really doing much of anything constructive for missiles. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1204
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 17:00:23 -
[266] - Quote
please consider nerfing the base stats or maybe scripts of TD's and MD's
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 17:03:26 -
[267] - Quote
afkalt wrote:It's not hard counter on unbonused hulls; my fear is that the missile one is.
Compare the effects of one unbonused disruptor on a maller and a belli (both hulls with only damage bonuses to keep it simple).
For example, beams in IN Standard range have approx the same threat range as TD aurora, tracking is worse, of course but I can fly against that.
Bonused hulls are welcome to wreck things, it's the regular hulls I'm most bothered about. These need the ECM treatment, all of them
I wouldn't like to undock solo in any short range missile fit, or anything bigger than a frigate knowing these are out there. Light missiles okay - you see the disruptor icon you know it's time to disengage and move on, but you don't have that option with rocket fits. The same thing with cruisers, now an RLML Caracal can be kited to death by a t1 frigate, bellicose can definitely be kited - you'd be crazy to take the chance imo, there are bound to be people out there specifically hunting missile ships with suprise fits. RIP RHML's and battlecruisers, even with an MJD if you run into a gang there's bound to be one of them carrying a disruptor.
This is overkill especially given the already bad state of most missiles, we badly need ewar for drones but no mention of that ever happening
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Alexis Nightwish
333
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 17:09:41 -
[268] - Quote
Soooooooooooo, when can we expect to see drone disruption modules?
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 17:14:20 -
[269] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Soooooooooooo, when can we expect to see drone disruption modules?
Why don't they just make tracking disruptors affect all drones, turrets, and missile launchers connected to any ship they are targeted on, but make them slightly weaker?
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1204
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 17:31:41 -
[270] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Soooooooooooo, when can we expect to see drone disruption modules? Why don't they just make tracking disruptors affect all drones, turrets, and missile launchers connected to any ship they are targeted on, but make them slightly weaker?
i could understand tracking disruptors affecting the tracking on the drones, but not on missiles aswell it would be OP, you would have omni- curses of doom all over the place
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name, remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
|
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
381
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 17:53:46 -
[271] - Quote
It's tough trying to predict the bigger picture, but when talking about EWAR I think we have to talk about ECM.
ECM needs a full rebalance. Caldari need a secondary EWAR characteristic. To spell it out:
-Minmatar: Target Painters + Web Range -Gallente: Sensor Dampeners + Warp Disruption Range -Amarr: Tracking Disruption + Energy Neutralizers -Caldari: ECM + ??????
To me, Missile and Drone disruption EWAR would make sense to be on Caldari hulls. It would be forward thinking to do this now, and then revamp ECM into something that does Drone disruption. CCP Rise tweeted something to this effect a few months ago, as an idea for a new ECM type. Here's a good article Suitonia did on it.
Because we are only having a discussion on these changes in small iterations - such as the Missile Guidance Computer and now this thread, it's hard to understand the plan for the big picture. I have no idea what the larger plan is for fixing missile balance, ECM, Drones Disruption, etc. Can we have a broader discussion around this? |
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Winmatar Republic
44
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 17:54:21 -
[272] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:afkalt wrote:It's not hard counter on unbonused hulls; my fear is that the missile one is.
Compare the effects of one unbonused disruptor on a maller and a belli (both hulls with only damage bonuses to keep it simple).
For example, beams in IN Standard range have approx the same threat range as TD aurora, tracking is worse, of course but I can fly against that.
Bonused hulls are welcome to wreck things, it's the regular hulls I'm most bothered about. These need the ECM treatment, all of them I wouldn't like to undock solo in any short range missile fit, or anything bigger than a frigate knowing these are out there. Light missiles okay - you see the disruptor icon you know it's time to disengage and move on, but you don't have that option with rocket fits. The same thing with cruisers, now an RLML Caracal can be kited to death by a t1 frigate, bellicose can definitely be kited - you'd be crazy to take the chance imo, there are bound to be people out there specifically hunting missile ships with suprise fits. RIP RHML's and missile battlecruisers, even with an MJD if you run into a gang there's bound to be one of them carrying a disruptor. This is overkill especially given the already bad state of most missiles, we badly need ewar for drones but no mention of that ever happening
I guess you also don't undock solo in any short range turret ships either knowing there are T1 frigs who can kite you to death using a TD. |
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
381
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 17:55:04 -
[273] - Quote
Duplicate Post. |
Mr Grape Drink
Sugar - Water - Purple Winmatar Republic
45
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 18:17:54 -
[274] - Quote
What about remote assistance mods? Anything like that planned to match the remote tracking links? Every other ewar can be countered with remote assistance. Even TP kinda with sig boosts. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
167
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 18:27:12 -
[275] - Quote
You plan on giving this new ewar module to amarr? Why not switch it so every race get a tier 1 and tier 2 bonused ewar capability?
For example:
Minmatar: target painters and neuts - incapacitating the cap hungry amarr ships Amarr: Tracking disruptors and webs - slowing down the fast minmatar ships Gallente: Damps and missile disruptors (a very anti-Caldari set of EWAR) Caldari: ECM and long points (makes sense for a sniper race like caldari, also fits well with modus legion ships)
I realize such a change is a huge balance issue though :)
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
208
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 19:10:08 -
[276] - Quote
Mr Grape Drink wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:afkalt wrote:It's not hard counter on unbonused hulls; my fear is that the missile one is.
Compare the effects of one unbonused disruptor on a maller and a belli (both hulls with only damage bonuses to keep it simple).
For example, beams in IN Standard range have approx the same threat range as TD aurora, tracking is worse, of course but I can fly against that.
Bonused hulls are welcome to wreck things, it's the regular hulls I'm most bothered about. These need the ECM treatment, all of them I wouldn't like to undock solo in any short range missile fit, or anything bigger than a frigate knowing these are out there. Light missiles okay - you see the disruptor icon you know it's time to disengage and move on, but you don't have that option with rocket fits. The same thing with cruisers, now an RLML Caracal can be kited to death by a t1 frigate, bellicose can definitely be kited - you'd be crazy to take the chance imo, there are bound to be people out there specifically hunting missile ships with suprise fits. RIP RHML's and missile battlecruisers, even with an MJD if you run into a gang there's bound to be one of them carrying a disruptor. This is overkill especially given the already bad state of most missiles, we badly need ewar for drones but no mention of that ever happening I guess you also don't undock solo in any short range turret ships either knowing there are T1 frigs who can kite you to death using a TD.
To be fair I don't normally undock solo in short range turret ships either, and for exactly that reason - but I take your point. I went for a roam in a moa just to test a lolfit with an oversized prop mod and I was constantly paranoid about kiters, I felt like a sitting duck the whole time but at least I knew I could beat other brawlers... not sure I'd be happy with an RLML Bellicose that's vulnerable to brawlers and kiters.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Arla Sarain
666
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 19:40:28 -
[277] - Quote
Stealth buff to drone ships. GG. |
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
205
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 19:47:23 -
[278] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:can we rename tracking disruptors to turret disruptors or something while we're at it? 'optimal range tracking disruptors' is so dumb.
or better make it a weapon disruptor and let it be scripted for missles or turrets, or would that be OP ?
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2303
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:00:34 -
[279] - Quote
Light missile with no velocity bonus against a all V scripted bonused ship will get a max velocity of 3887.438 m/s. 2 module on that same ship and it drop to 2843.917 m/s. |
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
205
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:24:46 -
[280] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Light missile with no velocity bonus against a all V scripted bonused ship will get a max velocity of 3887.438 m/s. 2 module on that same ship and it drop to 2843.917 m/s.
cool, whats your point?
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
208
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:37:40 -
[281] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Light missile with no velocity bonus against a all V scripted bonused ship will get a max velocity of 3887.438 m/s. 2 module on that same ship and it drop to 2843.917 m/s. cool, whats your point?
you couldn't hit a cruiser outside scram range with those let alone a frigate.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 20:58:39 -
[282] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Light missile with no velocity bonus against a all V scripted bonused ship will get a max velocity of 3887.438 m/s. 2 module on that same ship and it drop to 2843.917 m/s. cool, whats your point? you couldn't hit a cruiser outside scram range with those let alone a frigate.
You can only really hit stuff not moving at all at 10km.
A condor using light missiles and boost + MWD will outpace it's own missile by nearly 500 m/s when hit by a single mod. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2114
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 22:23:07 -
[283] - Quote
My linked cyclone does 3km/s with no implants.... Just sayin'
That's a battlecruiser..... |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1130
|
Posted - 2015.10.05 22:53:08 -
[284] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:can we rename tracking disruptors to turret disruptors or something while we're at it? 'optimal range tracking disruptors' is so dumb. or better make it a weapon disruptor and let it be scripted for missles or turrets, or would that be OP ?
that would be op |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2562
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 00:42:06 -
[285] - Quote
Consider, especially with medium missiles & torps, that the issue is in the missile base stats, not the disruptors. |
Enso Nibbana
Brahman
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 01:30:23 -
[286] - Quote
I for one welcome our new ewar overlords. now all we need is a drone hacking module with an rng aspect to take control of fielded drones ;P |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2799
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 01:34:07 -
[287] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
OK, so that is one MD with scripts, links, heat from a Sentinel.
What does a 70% reduction in missile range actually look like? Boat w/ no projection bonus Rockets = 3km Normal / 2.53 Rage / 4.56 Javelin LML / RLML = 12.3km Normal / 9.48 Fury / 6.3km precision HML = 18.87 normal / 14.16 Fury / 9.42 Precision HAMs = 6km Normal / 5km Rage / 10.1km Javelin Cruise = 44.4km normal / 33.3km Fury / 22.2km Precision Torpedoes = 6km Normal / 5km Rage / 10km Javelin
You can basically double that for an unbonused Missile Disruptor (because the penalty is half, ie; 35% stacked); Rockets = 6 Normal / 5 Rage / 9 Javelin LML / RLML = 24.6 Normal / 19 Fury / 12.6 precision HML = 38 normal / 28 Fury / 19 Precision HAMs = 12 Normal / 10 Rage / 20 Javelin Cruise = 85 normal / 66.5 Fury / 44.5 Precision Torpedoes = 12 Normal / 10 Rage / 20 Javelin
And then, obviously, add 25% for a 5% per level projection bonus and 50% for a 10% bonus, and adjust for Mordu ships.
Analysis Lets take a ship with a utility mid like, say an Orthrus, which catches a Drake. The orthrus has a 36km unheated point, and lays a single scripted unbonused MD on the Drake. It can kite any HAM drake it wants forever. HML Drakes with Fury are toast, and precision are toast.
But also, then, on top of that we can look at the missile velocity vs orthrus velocity. The Drake's heavy missiles are slowed to 2418m/s from a bonused TD and 5240m/s unbonused. HAMs velocity is cut to 1265m/s with bonused MD, and 2,742m/s unbonused MD. Your Orthrus goes along at 2,325m/s, so it can outrun all HAM DPS entirely, if it strays within range. The HML data is a bit more problematic because the missiles actually hit, but now we have to consider the effects of sig/ER and speed/EV.
Even ignoring that, unaffected HML's apply 75% to an orthrus with 1925m sig MWDing at 2325m/s (444 paper, 325 applied, as calculated by Pyfa). If you kludge it a bit by just increasing the apparent velocity of the Orthrus relative to the attack (ie divide 2,325/0.65 = 3,576 apparrent) then applied DPS goes from 444 paper to 287.
if we then consider a further 12% fiddle in the sig from a nerf to ER (1900 down to 1,672) then DPS drops from 287 to 264.
Therefore one unbonused Missile Disruptor will halve a Drake's applied DPS. A bonused MD will drop the applied DPS by 75% to ~156 but at this point the EV is so terribly low it also starts affecting things. Plus, of course, the missile flight time is so terrible that even normal HML's can only fly 18.8km.
I haven't even bothered modeling what happens to a HAM boat's DPS because there is no point. Even an unbonused MD totally trashes the range such that it doesn't matter - you can't hit anything, and your missiles get kited by anything. Also, forget non-bomber Torpedoes and all forms of Rocketry.
Welcome to Fozzie's great new world of midslot EWAR utility boats trashing anything, and woe betide anyone caught by a Curse with a single bonused MD. Let alone two; with two you can scram-kite HAM boats with webs and scrams with utter impunity.
Finally, there's the projection bonuses on some hulls. Yes, 25% or 50% range sounds great. But remember, these boats get a buff to flight time OR velocity, not both. A HAM Cyclone, for instance gains 25% velocity but then it will lose 35% range from an unbonused MD. It's still nett down.
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 ~~
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2763
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 02:06:40 -
[288] - Quote
Maybe you should compare it to something similar and then explain how its broken. |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 04:31:49 -
[289] - Quote
I'm glad I only trained 1.6M sp in missiles so far. Switching to drones, ftw... |
Ferrucio Surge
Solaris Legionnaires
24
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 05:38:34 -
[290] - Quote
RIP Missiles |
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
398
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 05:56:24 -
[291] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Stealth buff to drone ships. GG. Stealth? CCP mentioned somewhere drones can't be disrupted because of game code.
HML drakes are OP -> nerf HML Mordus ships are OP -> introduce new MD's modules that will hit all missiles badly Make sense.
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
869
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 06:40:56 -
[292] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:Stealth buff to drone ships. GG. Stealth? CCP mentioned somewhere drones can't be disrupted because of game code. HML drakes are OP -> nerf HML Mordus ships are OP -> introduce new MD's modules that will hit all missiles badly Make sense.
Aww man I was hoping they would nerf the Ishtar instead. You as in, Ishtar OP - nerf missiles
I am agreeing with Harvey on a nerf to tracking disruptors. Two nights ago I my pulse-mare was made painfully aware of how much unlinked tracking disruptors can break your turrets.
It's may only been Sanshas (the Centus kind) but it still holds. Tracking disruptors can make your ship have a very bad day.
But I think it is going to be fine.
CCP is planning of giving Caldari ships the answer to all prayers - the drifter doomsday turret, right?
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
398
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 07:58:05 -
[293] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I am agreeing with Harvey on a nerf to tracking disruptors. Two nights ago I my pulse-mare was made painfully aware of how much unlinked tracking disruptors can break your turrets. There is a e-war modules tiercide planned on winter, next will be EECM and I really hope they will start be usefull.
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1247
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 08:58:03 -
[294] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Light missile with no velocity bonus against a all V scripted bonused ship will get a max velocity of 3887.438 m/s. 2 module on that same ship and it drop to 2843.917 m/s. cool, whats your point? you couldn't hit a cruiser outside scram range with those let alone a frigate.
... you mean just like when a td hits a turret ship?
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1247
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 08:59:11 -
[295] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:elitatwo wrote:I am agreeing with Harvey on a nerf to tracking disruptors. Two nights ago I my pulse-mare was made painfully aware of how much unlinked tracking disruptors can break your turrets. There is a e-war modules tiercide planned on winter, next will be EECM and I really hope they will start be usefull.
How the hell is eccm not useful
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
398
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 09:01:31 -
[296] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: How the hell is eccm not useful
Are they? Against guri ECM?
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
869
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 10:01:06 -
[297] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: How the hell is eccm not useful
Are they? Against guri ECM?
If you can look behind my sarcasm there is always a message hidden. Why do you think I said that the Caldari only "sometimes" get their ewar?
Even the sla- eeh barbariens get two kinds of ewar - Caldari sometimes. Maybe I am the only one but I always liked the jamming that the Guristas have going, which gives them an added source of danger.
Of course it is annoying but not less annoying than your ship being turn offline by one module (the Curse is cursed..).
While being useful, eccm is one of those modules that you have to decide it is worth fitting on. Logi pilot will always want one on.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
757
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 10:11:44 -
[298] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:Stealth buff to drone ships. GG. Stealth? CCP mentioned somewhere drones can't be disrupted because of game code.
Sorry. But I believe that this is utter nonsense. If you can increase every drone attribute with modules and rigs fitted to a ship, some of those modules require to be active, you can apply a remote "debuff" effect to those modules as well. Essentially you would be using an Omni Directional tracking link with a negative buff and using it as a targeted module.
So, potentially, possible modules that could exist are:
Omni Directional Tracking Disruptors. Drone Control Range Damps Drone Navigation Disruptors (reduce speed of drones)
All of these above modules would have countered the Ishtar problem and maybe then we wouldn't have had a hideous couple of years of Ishtars online.
If defender missiles or a PDS system actually worked, bombers wouldn't be a problem.
I still stand by my idea that a working point defense system would be far better than EWAR for missile disruption. It would be far more versatile, visually stunning and actually fix two broken things in the game. |
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
398
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 10:25:16 -
[299] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:If you can look behind my sarcasm there is always a message hidden. Why do you think I said that the Caldari only "sometimes" get their ewar? Last time I've checked guri mission on tengu, I was perma jammed by few cruisers. Hard to call that sometimes. Maybe they were changed since them but I don't recall any tweaks. If want to introduce new e-war for missiles there need to be countermeasure for it.
Spugg Galdon wrote:Sorry. But I believe that this is utter nonsense. You're not the only one. There was something about formula spread between used drones, I don't remember, technical issue.
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
870
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 10:38:31 -
[300] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:...only shortened to not get a wall of text...
All of these above modules would have countered the Ishtar problem and maybe then we wouldn't have had a hideous couple of years of Ishtars online.
If defender missiles or a PDS system actually worked, bombers wouldn't be a problem.
I still stand by my idea that a working point defense system would be far better than EWAR for missile disruption. It would be far more versatile, visually stunning and actually fix two broken things in the game.
I agree. What would you think making defender missiles work for a change? I think giving at least them full application since they only target missiles would go a long way.
If my guestimates are correct two heavy defenders would be necessary to down a citadel cruise missile or torpedo. There could be counter missile doctrines based on the same ships but with defender missiles as ammo or even just a mixed fleet with a handful of dedicated anti-missile ships. Would become as much important as tackle is.
I think this has merrit.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
757
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 11:21:49 -
[301] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:
I agree. What would you think making defender missiles work for a change? .
Okay, from a previous few posts I have condensed my thoughts on a valid point defense system as an alternative to GÇ£Tracking DisruptorsGÇ¥ for missiles.
Why don't we have functioning, smart, point defense systems? A point defense system that can shoot down drones and missiles? It would actually make far more sense than a "Missile Tracking Disruptor"
The module would be a simple high slot module, not a launcher or turret. This allows it to be fitted in any high slot. The module could either be sized or could have a very unique fitting attribute in that it uses a percentage of the ships CPU and PG meaning it can be fitted to any sized ship. This style of fitting attribute would reflect in the number of point defense batteryGÇÖs fitted to a ship dependant on the overall size of the ship.
The racial Point Defense System (PDS) would then have three different ammo types: Anti Missile Anti Drone Anti Bomb
These ammo types would all deal a "special" type of damage. For arguments sake, we'll call it "Snowflake". Snowflake is a special damage type that is "invisible" to the player. You will never see snowflake damage or resists in any GÇ£Show InfoGÇ¥ window. All items other than missiles, drones and bombs have a 100% resistance to it.
This will prevent PDS being used as an offensive weapon.
Now, the PDS is activated on a target ship, just like defender missiles work now. If you are using anti missile ammo, that ship will require to be launching missiles for it to activate. Same goes for drones. The PDS will then shoot down missiles or drones that the targeted ship GÇ£ownsGÇ¥ effectively.
If Anti Bomb ammo is loaded, it will work exactly how FoF/Auto Targeting missiles work now with the caveat that their only valid target are bombs. This will allow the ship to effectively defend against bombers without having to target the bombs/bombers themselves.
Guess what else all of this would fix? !!Bombers!!
Ammo reload takes 30 seconds which can give windows of opportunity.
It could even be racial!
Amarr point defense lasers would be best vs missiles - instant damage, good range but poor tracking vs drones at short range.
Caldari point defense missiles would be the "all rounder". Okay vs drones and missiles due to not requiring tracking but travel time
Galente Point Defense Blasters would be best vs drones - poor range but excellent application and damage
Minmatar Point Defense Guns would be another all rounder but lower projection with higher RoF.
I can't tell you how much I would love a Destroyer hull fitted out with point defense flying amongst the fleet performing the "Screening" role. You could even have a T2 version!
Yes, a fleet of battleships protected by a squadron of point defense Destroyers would be immune to bombers.
Also, Destroyers are squishy so it wouldn't be difficult to clear the field of enemy Point Defense.
It would actually create a lot of new game play that is extremely newbro friendly as any fleet commander will want some screening destroyers in his/her fleet.
Que fleet commanders screaming "POINT DEFENSE! POINT DEFENSE!" when they see bombers decloaking and the newbros flying Defense Destroyers (GÇ£DDGÇ¥GÇÖs or GÇ£Dee DeeGÇÖsGÇ¥) screening the fleet hit their PDS modules that were pre loaded with anti bomb ammo.
If you're the newbro who saves the fleet of battleships from the bombing run you will be sat there with a massive erection smile.
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
724
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 11:31:53 -
[302] - Quote
Johnny Twelvebore wrote:I'd put in another vote for using the existing mod (perhaps with a missile script) as when you go out roaming you have no idea what you're going to come up against and having to make the call between one or the other is annoying. If a ship has the role of disruptor then it should be able to disrupt.
Perhaps in null where you may have an idea what the enemy will bring then the choice of missiles vs turrets disruption would be easier (although I don't think this module is widely used in big fleet warfare) but in low where most of the smaller fights happen and people actually use these modules we certainly have no idea what we will fight.
Just my 2p worth.. Lets really balance this, 1 ECM module that can fit scripts for different races.
Because having to make a call about what race you may be fighting is just so hard and really unfair if your in a small gang. (sarcasm intended)
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2304
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 12:50:44 -
[303] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Johnny Twelvebore wrote:I'd put in another vote for using the existing mod (perhaps with a missile script) as when you go out roaming you have no idea what you're going to come up against and having to make the call between one or the other is annoying. If a ship has the role of disruptor then it should be able to disrupt.
Perhaps in null where you may have an idea what the enemy will bring then the choice of missiles vs turrets disruption would be easier (although I don't think this module is widely used in big fleet warfare) but in low where most of the smaller fights happen and people actually use these modules we certainly have no idea what we will fight.
Just my 2p worth.. Lets really balance this, 1 ECM module that can fit scripts for different races. Because having to make a call about what race you may be fighting is just so hard and really unfair if your in a small gang. (sarcasm intended)
That would be hilarious.
Broken but still hilarious. |
Predator BOA
Bastards Of Anarchy System Inc. SONS of BANE
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 13:32:57 -
[304] - Quote
When would there be Faction Guidance Computers put into the game? Plus what would the Stats be on it ? |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
871
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 14:53:38 -
[305] - Quote
Predator BOA wrote:When would there be Faction Guidance Computers put into the game? Plus what would the Stats be on it ?
And I wanna blabla.. You guys and your pimp-my-ride-obsessions
Are you aware that not all modules have / need a faction one? Then some modules have faction ones but the tech2 are more desireable.
I'll take an Estamel's modified every day if we could increase the drop rates a bit..
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2655
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 20:34:44 -
[306] - Quote
I like the idea of keeping these as separate modules which are strong, but I feel that the current numbers aren't very strong for the missile disruptors. Turret disruptors are much stronger and more of your targets will be turret ships. If anything, the missile disruptors should be equally strong. Having such a powerful disruption module is okay because it doesn't work on every target. That's the big balancing factor with racial ECM jammers. Sensor dampeners and target painters are weaker because they work on pretty much every target.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2562
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 21:08:46 -
[307] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: Lets really balance this, 1 ECM module that can fit scripts for different races.
Because having to make a call about what race you may be fighting is just so hard and really unfair if your in a small gang. (sarcasm intended)
How about one ECM module that doesn't even need scripts. Lets be really OP and call it something like, ummm.... Multispectrum ECM, yea, that's a good name for it. |
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
208
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 21:10:53 -
[308] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:I like the idea of keeping these as separate modules which are strong, but I feel that the current numbers aren't very strong for the missile disruptors. Turret disruptors are much stronger and more of your targets will be turret ships. If anything, the missile disruptors should be equally strong. Having such a powerful disruption module is okay because it doesn't work on every target. That's the big balancing factor with racial ECM jammers. Sensor dampeners and target painters are weaker because they work on pretty much every target.
These are already pretty much an I win button against missile ships.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
724
|
Posted - 2015.10.06 23:46:28 -
[309] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Lets really balance this, 1 ECM module that can fit scripts for different races.
Because having to make a call about what race you may be fighting is just so hard and really unfair if your in a small gang. (sarcasm intended)
How about one ECM module that doesn't even need scripts. Lets be really OP and call it something like, ummm.... Multispectrum ECM, yea, that's a good name for it. Yeah but they don't have the same strength as racial ECM. So why should ECM be less effective than disruptors?
A module (multispectrum ecm) that is 50% less effective than racial jams, is not balanced if a Tracking Disruptor is able to fit missile scripts.
Eve is about fitting choices not 1 module fits all.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2805
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 00:03:06 -
[310] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: Okay, from a previous few posts I have condensed my thoughts on a valid point defense system as an alternative to GÇ£Tracking DisruptorsGÇ¥ for missiles.
Why don't we have functioning, smart, point defense systems? A point defense system that can shoot down drones and missiles? It would actually make far more sense than a "Missile Tracking Disruptor"
The module would be a simple high slot module, not a launcher or turret. This allows it to be fitted in any high slot. The module could either be sized or could have a very unique fitting attribute in that it uses a percentage of the ships CPU and PG meaning it can be fitted to any sized ship. This style of fitting attribute would reflect in the number of point defense batteryGÇÖs fitted to a ship dependant on the overall size of the ship.
The racial Point Defense System (PDS) would then have three different ammo types: Anti Missile Anti Drone Anti Bomb
These ammo types would all deal a "special" type of damage. For arguments sake, we'll call it "Snowflake". Snowflake is a special damage type that is "invisible" to the player. You will never see snowflake damage or resists in any GÇ£Show InfoGÇ¥ window. All items other than missiles, drones and bombs have a 100% resistance to it.
This will prevent PDS being used as an offensive weapon.
Now, the PDS is activated on a target ship, just like defender missiles work now. If you are using anti missile ammo, that ship will require to be launching missiles for it to activate. Same goes for drones. The PDS will then shoot down missiles or drones that the targeted ship GÇ£ownsGÇ¥ effectively.
If Anti Bomb ammo is loaded, it will work exactly how FoF/Auto Targeting missiles work now with the caveat that their only valid target are bombs. This will allow the ship to effectively defend against bombers without having to target the bombs/bombers themselves.
Guess what else all of this would fix? !!Bombers!!
Ammo reload takes 30 seconds which can give windows of opportunity.
It could even be racial!
Amarr point defense lasers would be best vs missiles - instant damage, good range but poor tracking vs drones at short range.
Caldari point defense missiles would be the "all rounder". Okay vs drones and missiles due to not requiring tracking but travel time
Galente Point Defense Blasters would be best vs drones - poor range but excellent application and damage
Minmatar Point Defense Guns would be another all rounder but lower projection with higher RoF.
This idea has been broached a bunch of times over the past 3-4 years.
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 ~~
|
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2763
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 00:24:56 -
[311] - Quote
afkalt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses. But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff? Most are stacked to one or the other. No-one cares if lasers lose a little falloff/projectiles lose some optimal. Missiles do not have this luxury as time*speed are married. Plus you're making flat out out-running the missiles even more viable (when it has no right to be, as speed already hits application) by attacking speed. Likewise, I cannot outrun gun rounds. Finally, I CANNOT swap long range ammo into most launcher systems (javelin aside)...all, ALL turrets have the option to reload long range ammunition. If you MUST slash it by so much, nuke flight time only please, it's already frustrating enough watching cruisers run away from heavy missiles on non-speed bonused ships. It's not a combined bonus of optimal/falloff. It's a 86% loss for optimal and 86% loss for fallof. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 02:43:17 -
[312] - Quote
To the people trying to say point defense or active missiles launched at other active missiles are a great idea... Please take a moment to google 3D math equations that would relate to your ideas before posting them. Then google what these equations would do to a server with 700+ people in a fight. Then realize that any time such a system was used en masse you would cripple the local nodes even with small fleet fights. Not to mention that the "tics" the server uses to calculate such things would innately cause them to basically fail over 30% of the time. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2118
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 06:23:42 -
[313] - Quote
Rowells wrote:afkalt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses. But how many turrets have a 50/50 split between optimal and falloff? Most are stacked to one or the other. No-one cares if lasers lose a little falloff/projectiles lose some optimal. Missiles do not have this luxury as time*speed are married. Plus you're making flat out out-running the missiles even more viable (when it has no right to be, as speed already hits application) by attacking speed. Likewise, I cannot outrun gun rounds. Finally, I CANNOT swap long range ammo into most launcher systems (javelin aside)...all, ALL turrets have the option to reload long range ammunition. If you MUST slash it by so much, nuke flight time only please, it's already frustrating enough watching cruisers run away from heavy missiles on non-speed bonused ships. It's not a combined bonus of optimal/falloff. It's a 86% loss for optimal and 86% loss for fallof.
Yes, he said. I read it differently.
My concerns about unbonused still stand though.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2118
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 06:25:34 -
[314] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:To the people trying to say point defense or active missiles launched at other active missiles are a great idea... Please take a moment to google 3D math equations that would relate to your ideas before posting them. Then google what these equations would do to a server with 700+ people in a fight. Then realize that any time such a system was used en masse you would cripple the local nodes even with small fleet fights. Not to mention that the "tics" the server uses to calculate such things would innately cause them to basically fail over 30% of the time.
Yes. The only way would be a ship with bonuses to smart bombs to make a more effective firewall. Reduce cycle time/cap/etc.
However I would contend with these mods coming, fire walling should go completely anyway. |
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
758
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 08:15:40 -
[315] - Quote
Nafensoriel wrote:To the people trying to say point defense or active missiles launched at other active missiles are a great idea... Please take a moment to google 3D math equations that would relate to your ideas before posting them. Then google what these equations would do to a server with 700+ people in a fight. Then realize that any time such a system was used en masse you would cripple the local nodes even with small fleet fights. Not to mention that the "tics" the server uses to calculate such things would innately cause them to basically fail over 30% of the time.
BiaB would probably make this a non issue.
Thing is we already have this in game (defender missiles). It's just not effective.
Also, [AFAIK] grouped missiles don't work as a group of multiple missiles. They look like they are but they are not. They are a "Super Missile" with a a cumulative HP pool and damage value that is the sum of all the missiles. You can then lower this damage value by lowering the HP pool with SB's or defender missiles. The client also renders this visually by showing you number of missiles left in the super missile.
The other side of the coin is also that the server needs to do all these calculations constantly for missiles in flight. If you destroy those missiles the calculations no longer need to be carried out so the problem of server load would self medicate.
I also wonder how missile disruption modules would effect missiles already in flight and then when falloff range begins to make the effectiveness of said modules sporadic, would the server then not be forced to "re-calculate" on and off causing more load? |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
254
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 09:56:47 -
[316] - Quote
i think introducing this new mods without a missile rebalance is a mistake; wasn't the missile lowish dps a trade for the "they always hit" memo?
also CCP just increased missile hp some time ago to make them less vulnerable to smartbombs: now decreasing velocity will make them even more vulnerable to smartbombs... and since citadel weapons will be aoe missiles and smartbombs i don't think missiles ships will be in a good spot...
if CCP want to make missiles ships pve only, well they can do it ofc, i just don't think it will be very good for the game; but again, what do i know...
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1262
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 10:39:34 -
[317] - Quote
gascanu wrote:i think introducing this new mods without a missile rebalance is a mistake; wasn't the missile lowish dps a trade for the "they always hit" memo? also CCP just increased missile hp some time ago to make them less vulnerable to smartbombs: now decreasing velocity will make them even more vulnerable to smartbombs... and since citadel weapons will be aoe missiles and smartbombs i don't think missiles ships will be in a good spot... if CCP want to make missiles ships pve only, well they can do it ofc, i just don't think it will be very good for the game; but again, what do i know...
Not that your later point isn't valued but hasn't ccp done 3 or 4 balance pages on missiles recently building up to this
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3? Corp Stasis
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
399
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 10:46:11 -
[318] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Not that your later point isn't valued but hasn't ccp done 3 or 4 balance pages on missiles recently building up to this
You mean damage buff to HML and at the same time stacking penalties nerf to all missiles? Right.
"(...) I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas (...)"
|
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
394
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 11:07:52 -
[319] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:gascanu wrote:i think introducing this new mods without a missile rebalance is a mistake; wasn't the missile lowish dps a trade for the "they always hit" memo? also CCP just increased missile hp some time ago to make them less vulnerable to smartbombs: now decreasing velocity will make them even more vulnerable to smartbombs... and since citadel weapons will be aoe missiles and smartbombs i don't think missiles ships will be in a good spot... if CCP want to make missiles ships pve only, well they can do it ofc, i just don't think it will be very good for the game; but again, what do i know... Not that your later point isn't valued but hasn't ccp done 3 or 4 balance pages on missiles recently building up to this
That is part of why I'm so skeptical.
read back on the last Balance round, it got a great announcement on the o7 show, a thread on this forum, with a first days feedback. that they would be nerfed.
-Testers had to find out that stacking penalties where introduce to the point people had to point out it wasn't in the original patch notes, that got a reaction.
-The guidance modules came out as quick and cheap copy paste of turret guidance modules, even the bpo's where build around turret guidance modules, hilarious data cores needed or production. I believe they have still the same fitting costs (which are high on CPU, the same thing that is high on launchers and shields)
- scripts weren't available
when it finally did work it was quite clear the modules did preform not very well, aside from a few niche fits.
and although asked, no feedback what so ever?
and here 3 months later comes and answer, we're going to put extra anti missile modules in. and to compensate we're going to buff our new module a bit.
The current missiles ships weren't designed around this new system, which means they need to drop other things to compensate, further lowering their DPS and or Tank.
|
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
254
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 11:18:26 -
[320] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:gascanu wrote:i think introducing this new mods without a missile rebalance is a mistake; wasn't the missile lowish dps a trade for the "they always hit" memo? also CCP just increased missile hp some time ago to make them less vulnerable to smartbombs: now decreasing velocity will make them even more vulnerable to smartbombs... and since citadel weapons will be aoe missiles and smartbombs i don't think missiles ships will be in a good spot... if CCP want to make missiles ships pve only, well they can do it ofc, i just don't think it will be very good for the game; but again, what do i know... Not that your later point isn't valued but hasn't ccp done 3 or 4 balance pages on missiles recently building up to this
balance pages yes, good changes... not really just look at overall usage, except for 2-3 ships with very strong bonuses there are no room for missile doctrines; they have a spot on small solo pvp using rockets/light missiles, and that's where this distruptors will do most of they're dmg; one more thing, guns have optimal and faloff, usually one much larger than the other; so a 200mm autocanon will be hurt in his fallof, yes, but no one will care about 50m reduction into his optimal, while missiles having only optimal will take double hit |
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 12:33:44 -
[321] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:~Snipsnip~ BiaB would probably make this a non issue.
Thing is we already have this in game (defender missiles). It's just not effective.
Also, [AFAIK] grouped missiles don't work as a group of multiple missiles. They look like they are but they are not. They are a "Super Missile" with a a cumulative HP pool and damage value that is the sum of all the missiles. You can then lower this damage value by lowering the HP pool with SB's or defender missiles. The client also renders this visually by showing you number of missiles left in the super missile.
The other side of the coin is also that the server needs to do all these calculations constantly for missiles in flight. If you destroy those missiles the calculations no longer need to be carried out so the problem of server load would self medicate.
I also wonder how missile disruption modules would effect missiles already in flight and then when falloff range begins to make the effectiveness of said modules sporadic, would the server then not be forced to "re-calculate" on and off causing more load? BIAB wont make servers calculate faster. All BIAB is free up server load/read times to allow MORE things to happen and to prevent latency from causing an issue in larger fights or higher population systems. Think about BIAB as a high efficiency two sided compression system. It just ensures that for one event(transferring) is done with far less active load than before. Once you are loaded BIAB doesn't really do much.
Yes each individual ship compresses all its missiles into one "group" to the server(fozzi correct if I'm in error here please) However, You are only thinking of the calculations from one side. If you have a PD/defender ship vs a fleet of cerbs you have limited options. You either space magic damage away with a flat reduction(this is bad. Space magic is bad). You have the module be completely ineffective because it only targets one enemy ships missiles at a time... Finally you do the most effective system which is having the defensive system target ALL incoming hostile targets for interdiction much the same way an actual missile defense system(like PHALANX CIWS) works. Trouble is to actually do this you need specialized systems to calculate best fire rates and target priorities.. in EVE or really any game thats an absurd thing to ask for. It's one of the main reasons you rarely, if ever, see real point defense in any video game.
This problem exists with smartbombs as well. Every time you fire one off it has to interact with everything it hits. If i had to guess smartbombs are a problem to the devs when performance is discussed. I think they get away with it by simply doing one volume calculation and then applying an effect to everything inside that volume. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2120
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 13:00:29 -
[322] - Quote
Yup...so...y'know...with these mods let's just get rid of the lot.
Now we have solid anti-missile ewar, let's drop the crappy, lag inducing edge case stuff that we had to make do with previously.
Unless there is a good reason to keep special snowflake extra ewar for missiles for a reason beyond "lolmissiles". |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
501
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 13:37:12 -
[323] - Quote
Once you make this then you have to make a drone tracking disruptor.
drones will be the only offensive system that is completely immune to ewar at all.
there needs to be a td that effects the main ship and stops sending the attack message to the drones. or just makes them predict trajectories incorrectly and miss their shots.
Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
758
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 13:52:25 -
[324] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote:Once you make this then you have to make a drone tracking disruptor.
drones will be the only offensive system that is completely immune to ewar at all.
there needs to be a td that effects the main ship and stops sending the attack message to the drones. or just makes them predict trajectories incorrectly and miss their shots.
Was asked for but denied.
Shame. Ishtars online is one of things that killed EvE [IMHO].
No. You can't have my stuff. |
Miron Tacza
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 16:03:01 -
[325] - Quote
A scene during a fight, let's jump into the Missile ship:
Hello Missiles, I'm a Missile (tracking) Disruptor.
Missiles: Hello MD
MD: I'm just telling you're capsuler you got Missiledisruppted.
Missiles: What does that mean?
MD: Well, regardless of your speed and the amount of fuel you're filled with, I say you're slower and you have less Traveltime. So you won't reach the same Distance.
Missiles: How can that work? Our Speed is given by our casing (burner) and the flight time by the amount of fuel we have. How shall that even be possible that we can't fly the same distance anymore.
MD: Don't ask me, I'm just the Module brought into this mechanics to have something similar to TDs.
Missiles: OK lets believe there's some magic way you can Influence our flighttime or speed. Is that all you can do?
MD: Nope, Scripted the right way I can make your explosions bigger.
Missiles: .......................
Here we better jump out again, before the missiles get really angry and blow up in the launcher.
Just exyplain me how that should be possible at all. And all only because of the RLML on Orthruses. Just nerf them if everybody whines about them?
How many Missile ships get flown? And about how many are the people complaining they're to strong. I just can think of Mordus Legion ships. With rockets and Lights (not RLML) seems everything ok. All other missiles are called crap. Only the RHML seems to be used sometimes, but even then People say it's ok,t not great. You needed to buff HMs short ago and they still don't get used. So tell me where is the reason for MD?????
Ok I'm a Rookie, I still have to learn a lot in this game but I'm allowed to have an opinion. I started the game and fell in Love with Missiles. so I wanted to only learn Missiles and Missile ships. Maybe thats why am that much pissed off.
Ok at least I can stop my Missileskills in the Queue and Replace them with Turret skills. Please forgive my bad english. |
Kitty Bear
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
1527
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 16:08:25 -
[326] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote:
drones will be the only offensive system that is completely immune to ewar at all.
can't lock and apply ewar to drones ??
did I miss that memo |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
591
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 16:23:48 -
[327] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote:
drones will be the only offensive system that is completely immune to ewar at all.
can't lock and apply ewar to drones ?? did I miss that memo
I think its alittle stupid to apply ewar to drones, except in certain scenarios like you outnumber your opponent, so you jam his drones for lulz. But in a 1v1 there is no ship that will be fit with 5 TDs or 5 damps, or 5 ECM mods. 1 TD on a turret ship = RIP turret tracking or optimal, for all the guns on that ship. 1 MD on a missile ship = RIP all your missiles. 1 TD on 1 out of 5 drones = Oh lol, lemme rescoop and relaunch while you are still being plinked away by 4 other drones.
So what.. maybe a 20% dmg loss if you never rescoop as opposed to a 100% damage loss to missiles if they never hit the target. Saying you can ewar drones and that somehow means they shouldnt have their own ewar against them is silly.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
227
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 16:37:33 -
[328] - Quote
Miron Tacza wrote:A scene during a fight, let's jump into the Missile ship:
Hello Missiles, I'm a Missile (tracking) Disruptor.
Missiles: Hello MD
MD: I'm just telling you're capsuler you got Missiledisruppted.
Missiles: What does that mean?
MD: Well, regardless of your speed and the amount of fuel you're filled with, I say you're slower and you have less Traveltime. So you won't reach the same Distance.
Missiles: How can that work? Our Speed is given by our casing (burner) and the flight time by the amount of fuel we have. How shall that even be possible that we can't fly the same distance anymore.
MD: Don't ask me, I'm just the Module brought into this mechanics to have something similar to TDs.
Missiles: OK lets believe there's some magic way you can Influence our flighttime or speed. Is that all you can do?
MD: Nope, Scripted the right way I can make your explosions bigger.
Missiles: .......................
Here we better jump out again, before the missiles get really angry and blow up in the launcher.
Just exyplain me how that should be possible at all. And all only because of the RLML on Orthruses. Just nerf them if everybody whines about them?
How many Missile ships get flown? And about how many are the people complaining they're to strong. I just can think of Mordus Legion ships. With rockets and Lights (not RLML) seems everything ok. All other missiles are called crap. Only the RHML seems to be used sometimes, but even then People say it's ok,t not great. You needed to buff HMs short ago and they still don't get used. So tell me where is the reason for MD?????
Ok I'm a Rookie, I still have to learn a lot in this game but I'm allowed to have an opinion. I started the game and fell in Love with Missiles. so I wanted to only learn Missiles and Missile ships. Maybe thats why am that much pissed off.
Ok at least I can stop my Missileskills in the Queue and Replace them with Turret skills. Please forgive my bad english.
you know there's 2 skills that you you train up in your mind that allow your missiles to go further? cause eve always functions on logic |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2313
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 17:24:12 -
[329] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote:
drones will be the only offensive system that is completely immune to ewar at all.
can't lock and apply ewar to drones ?? did I miss that memo I think its alittle stupid to apply ewar to drones, except in certain scenarios like you outnumber your opponent, so you jam his drones for lulz. But in a 1v1 there is no ship that will be fit with 5 TDs or 5 damps, or 5 ECM mods. 1 TD on a turret ship = RIP turret tracking or optimal, for all the guns on that ship. 1 MD on a missile ship = RIP all your missiles. 1 TD on 1 out of 5 drones = Oh lol, lemme rescoop and relaunch while you are still being plinked away by 4 other drones. So what.. maybe a 20% dmg loss if you never rescoop as opposed to a 100% damage loss to missiles if they never hit the target. Saying you can ewar drones and that somehow means they shouldnt have their own ewar against them is silly.
You could always shitfit a curse with 5 TD and play wack a mole on drones. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
501
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 18:03:35 -
[330] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote:
drones will be the only offensive system that is completely immune to ewar at all.
can't lock and apply ewar to drones ?? did I miss that memo did i miss the memo where this isnt a solo game? yes let me carry around 10 td's to counter just 2 pilots. genius.
Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
|
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
592
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 18:06:32 -
[331] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Kitty Bear wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote:
drones will be the only offensive system that is completely immune to ewar at all.
can't lock and apply ewar to drones ?? did I miss that memo I think its alittle stupid to apply ewar to drones, except in certain scenarios like you outnumber your opponent, so you jam his drones for lulz. But in a 1v1 there is no ship that will be fit with 5 TDs or 5 damps, or 5 ECM mods. 1 TD on a turret ship = RIP turret tracking or optimal, for all the guns on that ship. 1 MD on a missile ship = RIP all your missiles. 1 TD on 1 out of 5 drones = Oh lol, lemme rescoop and relaunch while you are still being plinked away by 4 other drones. So what.. maybe a 20% dmg loss if you never rescoop as opposed to a 100% damage loss to missiles if they never hit the target. Saying you can ewar drones and that somehow means they shouldnt have their own ewar against them is silly. You could always shitfit a curse with 5 TD and play wack a mole on drones.
Bolded for emphasis.
Granted i know you're not serious, but you dont need to shitfit a curse/pilgrim/sentinel to absolutely murder a turret and soon to be missile ship, but you must do it to apply EWAR to drones, for one ship. Not including if youre fighting more than 1 drone ship, then what... shitfit all the things?
That same shitfit curse could disable 5 turret ships, where it can only disable one drone ship. Or 2.5 gurista ships. This is assuming they dont juggle drones, forcing you to reacquire lock on the drones every few seconds.
Like ive mentioned before, ill adapt to this change as usual, but its basically killing all other missiles to fix RLML. People who say no one uses TDs really need to go out and roam once in awhile. I had to deal with a sentinel and a 15man gang just last night. These new missile ewar mods will be on every ship or stored for quick changing in station or mobile depot. Or there will be sentinels with both flying around for maximum coverage.
It just seems that once again drones are the master race and dont get a single ewar module that affects all drones equally. CCP can i have a mod that reduces drone bandwidth plz? So i can take your 5 drones down to 1 or 2?
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
|
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 19:39:42 -
[332] - Quote
Drones don't exactly need ewar. Though this would depend on where CCP wants drones to fit into the meta.
If drone hulls are meant to be the "jack of all trades" then allowing them to be ewar immune isn't immediately a bad thing provided: 1] Drones never exceed a more specialized hulls abilities(IE they would always be worse than a sniper ship at sniping) 2] Their effective application was always less than the weapon system they are competing against. 3] They remain destroyable and with a limited storage capacity.
Except for a few hulls this actually applies. It gives drone hulls the niche of being able to handle multiple situations without actually being better than what they are fighting.
It also lets things like disruptors have a critical niche as well. Remember ROCK - PAPER - SCISSORS.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2763
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 19:48:50 -
[333] - Quote
Technically speaking, you can damp/jam the controlling ship (not necessarily the host), and if the timing is right you can prevent proper control. They will still auto-aggress if they were prepared for it. But if I drop drones too late, I may have to wait or need to assign to a unjammed partner. Does take the drones out of the game, but it does reduce the effectiveness.
Worst case, drone specific ewar would disrupt control range or something else drone specific. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2763
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 22:54:33 -
[334] - Quote
Miron Tacza wrote:Just exyplain me how that should be possible at all. Firstly, gameplay takes an upfront seat when it comes to adjustments and how everything is balanced. It's better to have a fun, diverse game, rather than trying to make a lore-based one (also far simpler and easier). Keep in mind, lore in a situation like this, is easily bent and flexed. There are very few limitations to what you can make up as lore reasons for things.
Game balance aside, there ways to disrupt a missile's effectiveness in the real world today.
Short version: screw with their navigation.
Long version: (this not comprehensive nor does it include every possible aspect of different systems. Just the basic ideas) Missile guidance systems are divided between GOT (go-on-target) and GOLIS (go-on-location-in-space) systems.
GOLIS systems basically go to a specific place. An ICBM or many cruise missiles (real-life) use systems such as this. The target needs to be stationary or mostly stationary for them to work effectively. The benefit of this is that a target tracking suite is not needed on the missile, leaving more room for any number of other things (counter-countermeasures, bigger payload, more fuel, etc.). All necessary data o the target is input before the missile is fired. On mobile platforms, this data might be constantly updated until the last micro-second before launch. At a bare minimum, the GOLIS system requires at least a single point of reference in order to operate properly. Some systems use satellites, stars, or other natural/artificial fixed points. Some are even loaded with topographical data to use as a fixed point (the point is isn't necessarily a single place, but a comparison of multiple within the data). These are sel-contained and require no further assistance to do their job. Fire and forget.
Keep in mind, missiles are designed to fit a particular size so that they can be launched from whatever is carrying them. The difference in size of man carried surface-to-air missiles, missiles loaded on jets, and missiles fired from tubes on a submarine, can have major impact on squeezing as much use out of every cubic centimeter of the missile.
GOT guidance systems are composed of a target tracker, missile tracker, and guidance computer. Target tracker tracks the position of the target, relative to the sensor. Missile tracker system determine the missile's location (or more properly, determines it's new location) relative to where it was. The guidance computer is similar to the one on a GOLIS system, does lots of quick trigonometry to calculate a path to the target. The difference being, GOT computers utilize data from both trackers where the GOLIS uses the preset data and its fixed points. GOT can tell if their target has moved and adjust accordingly. GOT missiles are also capable of using remote sensors, instead of ones located on itself. It will communicate remotely with these sensors (usually home-based, sometimes part of a wider network) to do the same job.
Both systems can be fired from a stationary or moving platform.
Here lies the biggest difference: so long as a GOLIS system can determine its position, it can find a way to its target. A GOLIS system, relies on updating external data in order to know where to hit. This leaves GOT systems vulnerable to interference of its sensors, giving it bad data. GOLIS is a bit harder to disrupt, since trying to change the input from a static location (how does one jam stars???) is more difficult than pointing a jammer at the missile (direction and sensor type plays a big role in this).
How does this apply to Eve?
Well, I could easily be wrong, but I'm going to assume that spaceship missiles use GOT, since their targets are most likely moving, and possibly very fast too. Knowing what the system is, a ship can design its countermeasures around changing the information provided by sensors, either on the origin ship or the missile itself (i'll explain a problem with this in a second).
Now, since the game has limitations in computing power, some shortcuts and assumptions are needed to ensure smooth and consistent operation.
Examples:
Signature Radius:
Signature radius can be seen as how well the guidance computer (more accurately, it's sensors) can determine the location of the ship. the smaller the sig radius, the less accurate the data is. This is where the warhead will try to go, and will determine where the missile will explode. Another assumption I will make, is that Eve missiles use location to determine detonation, rather than impact. Why? Shields. I don't know if it explained for certain, but I believe it is safe to assume a shield bubble or surface, can be adjusted in size (kind of like stretching a balloon). The bigger the volume covered the weaker it is. So a shield could be manipulated to extend very far from the ship, causing the resulting explosion to be farther from the hull (shields are not solid, and this can be seen when a shield with low hp can bleed damage to the armor). It is also likely that Eve missiles use a directed explosion to efficiently use energy against the target. Adjustments to other missile aspects can effect this, and this is how we see explosion radius. If the explosion 'cone' is larger than the ship, most of the damage is thrown into empty space. So with those assumptions, we know a missile will attempt to explode as close to the target ship as it can, without being fooled by a shield stretch.
Explosion Velocity:
There are a couple aspects that will contribute to this value. All are plausible, and Eve likely just lumps them together for simplicity.
Firstly, how fast is the energy from the explosion moving? This aspect is easily seen when using an every day water hose, and extremely well seen with pressure-washers. When a fluid (explosion can be considered 'mostly' fluid, since it is made of expanding gases and - CONTINUED ON NEXT POST |
Dani Maulerant
Order of the Valkyrie LOADED-DICE
37
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 23:14:07 -
[335] - Quote
Miron Tacza wrote:A scene during a fight, let's jump into the Missile ship:
Hello Missiles, I'm a Missile (tracking) Disruptor.
Missiles: Hello MD
MD: I'm just telling you're capsuler you got Missiledisruppted.
Missiles: What does that mean?
MD: Well, regardless of your speed and the amount of fuel you're filled with, I say you're slower and you have less Traveltime. So you won't reach the same Distance.
Missiles: How can that work? Our Speed is given by our casing (burner) and the flight time by the amount of fuel we have. How shall that even be possible that we can't fly the same distance anymore.
MD: Don't ask me, I'm just the Module brought into this mechanics to have something similar to TDs.
Missiles: OK lets believe there's some magic way you can Influence our flighttime or speed. Is that all you can do?
MD: Nope, Scripted the right way I can make your explosions bigger.
Missiles: .......................
Here we better jump out again, before the missiles get really angry and blow up in the launcher.
Just exyplain me how that should be possible at all. And all only because of the RLML on Orthruses. Just nerf them if everybody whines about them?
How many Missile ships get flown? And about how many are the people complaining they're to strong. I just can think of Mordus Legion ships. With rockets and Lights (not RLML) seems everything ok. All other missiles are called crap. Only the RHML seems to be used sometimes, but even then People say it's ok,t not great. You needed to buff HMs short ago and they still don't get used. So tell me where is the reason for MD?????
Ok I'm a Rookie, I still have to learn a lot in this game but I'm allowed to have an opinion. I started the game and fell in Love with Missiles. so I wanted to only learn Missiles and Missile ships. Maybe thats why am that much pissed off.
Ok at least I can stop my Missileskills in the Queue and Replace them with Turret skills. Please forgive my bad english.
I imagine it does operate on same principles as the TD. They infect and cripple guidance systems. On a turret that would be obviously the mounting rotor control and targeting computers. But for a missile, I would believe these missiles carry on board electronics that regulate various features.
The Missile TD affects things like the fuel regulator causing it to burn less efficiently. As for a larger explosion, perhaps the missile load has a shaped charge and casing sort of mechanic that doesn't trigger or arm at appropriate range, allowing the explosion to take a larger radius instead of a controlled blast.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2763
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 23:20:44 -
[336] - Quote
particles of shrapnel acting similar to fluid particles. When the exit of a given tube or warhead is made smaller, the fluid will move faster since more particles must move through the smaller space in the same amount of time (see: Bernoulli Principle). If the size of the cone is larger, the material moves slower, if it is smaller, material moves faster. Knowing a missile explodes near it's target, this leaves a gap of time where the particles are moving toward the target at whtever velocity they have. This time could determine if a ship is still fully within the radius of the explosion cone. If the material moves too slow, the ship could either fully escape the damage, or move far enough to only receive part of it, reducing its overall impact. It's almost like dodging the thousands of tiny 'bullets' ejecting from the warhead.
The only other aspect that I can think of to affect explosion velocity, is the agility of the ship. Not the agility we see in game (time it takes to reach top speed), but all the micro-adjustments that aren't calculated in-game. A ship turning slightly at an angle (in the real universe) could mitigate damage to a smaller profile on the ship, rather than being hit 'broadside' and absorbing more of the energy in more places. A skilled pilot could, in essence, make an evasive maneuver to turn his tempest at an angle from the explosion and avoid or deflect a greater part of the energy. The of course, using the same skill, to correct his angle so he doesn't lose much momentum in the greater direction of his movement.
Aside from Sig radius and Explosion velocity, continue reading with this in mind: Eve trying to simplify and reduce computing need, does not allow you to target missiles (not that many ships would have the time), allow you to shoot them. Even if missiles could be targeted and shot, consider that it would drastically reduce the chance of doing anything meaningful to the 2-8 different missiles approaching. This is why defender missiles really suck, and why smartbombs are beautifully effective (no need to target or aim).
"Ok, Rowells. You have literally scared away the children and given me cancer with this Wll-o-text. GET TO THE DAMN POINT!!
Since you asked so nicely:
Here are a couple plausible methods on how Missile Tracking Disruption works:
Firstly, the module is not necessarily a single object on the ship, but a suite of different tools tuned to different methods. They can work on different aspects of the multiple missiles in order to accomplish the same thing. Most likely (as the name implies) the modules confuse the missile as to the actual location and/or size of the ship. The modules can be scripted and tuned for either specific purpose.
The second method is that the missiles are remotely guided (still using GOT) from data given by the origin ship. This also explains why you ca just fire the missiles and point at the target, if the origin ship does not have any data. So, the MTD would disrupt the communications between the host ship and the missile, making it less effective.
Since we can't target missiles (and don't want server hamsters dying every time a claymore undocks (so many missiles, such a short time), we relegate the task to simply targetting the ships.
"Still doesn't explain the shorter range."
Actually it does. Since the warhead is constantly receiving interference and incomplete data, it makes inefficient decisions. It's like a drunk driver and a formula-one driver in a drag race. The drunk missiles makes overcorrections and bad adjustments, costing it precious fuel. Whereas the formula-one racer is focused and fully aware of the road ahead.
Ok, so I'm done. Splerge over. Return to your lives citizens. |
Miron Tacza
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 00:09:12 -
[337] - Quote
Ok thank you all for the nice and well thought explanations. I think of missiles preloaded with fuel and a preadjusted burnvelocity. So they burn a given time and a given speed. All the GOT does is steering the missile by changing direction.
Ok let's asume you' re right. Then we can go and say let the signature radius increase to 10km for a frigate and missiles will explode way outside of the physical hull of the ship. So no missiles will ever effect spaceshipa again.
Ok jokes aside: I know they want something against missiles simillar to TDs.
But remember: Charges, Bullets and Laserrays can't be firewalled. They can't be defender missiled.
It just feels wrong to MD a ship and those missiles just fly 12km instead of 40km. I Think MDs like this are not the right way.
Maybe MDs affecting the rate of fire, but I think that can easily get even worse than the planned ones |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
724
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 09:06:54 -
[338] - Quote
Bottom line really with this is; A few years ago CCP nerfed missiles - They were crap for a long time. CCP created a new module (removing a module that was supposed to be OP replacing it with the new 'balanced" Rapid Launchers) that is now considered OP due to CCP releasing a new ship with extreme bonuses to rapid launchers.
CCP gave missiles an ever so slight buff that made some of them usable (in pvp) again.
Now because "some" ship / launcher configurations are considered OP by some - Missiles get another nice nerf to put them right back to where they were (if not worse) prior to the minor buff they received (only a few months ago).
CCP balance logic at its all time best. Nerf a whole class of weapons (and every single missile ship) because we made a mistake and made ONE new ship too powerful.
-- - -- - -- Heavy missiles are just above crap, Hams are ok if your shooting battlecruisers (or MWD shield cruisers) and above - Soon, Heavy missiles will only be useful for PVE (again) and Hams will simply not be worth fitting. Don't forget the poor lumbering Phoenix, which for the first time in years is more than a paperweight, will become less useful, than a paperweight. 1 or 2 ships that use missiles have anything like decent damage application and the whole range of missile ships now gets a nerf because of it.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2131
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 10:18:23 -
[339] - Quote
Probably too late for this, but can we look at the fittings for the guidance mods please? A copypasta of turrets doesn't work so well for missiles .
Or change the rig penalties.
Please |
Kitty Bear
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
1527
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 10:26:17 -
[340] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote: did i miss the memo where this isnt a solo game? yes let me carry around 10 td's to counter just 2 pilots. genius.
whilst clearly you're not.
drones are ----> autonomous which means ewar applied to the ship launching them is irrelevant to their ability to function
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2131
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 10:30:17 -
[341] - Quote
Hey, what happens if I hit a bomber with these before he launches bombs? (You know, if they're bad)
Do they affect the bomb? |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
632
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 11:27:26 -
[342] - Quote
Until CCP wises up and tiericides the launchers and missiles individually, treating each launcher and missile type with it's own array of changes that are by now even more so sorely needed rather than trying to retawd-strength hammer them all into line with these one-size-fits-all dice rolls they seem to be so fond of pooping out, missiles will continue to remain in the **** poor and lopsided shape they are in now well into next year.
No, I'm not against adding these mods to Eve. In fact, I'm all for it. Defenders just plane suck, and this will help to be a far more effective substitute for said defenders. That 5% damage buff you gave heavies is a step in the right direction, albeit a weak one as many would argue, but a step in the right direction nonetheless. Missile systems need, now more than ever, that; specific adjustments and fixes to specific areas of the missile family of weapons targeting specific issues -- key word, in case it didn't smack you in the face by now, is "specific". Some missiles and launchers are fine and in good shape, some could use a boost, and some are miserable. Nailing them all with the same nerfs is not enough. I don't really have the energy to really say more (lack of good sleep, a cold, and a crappy week can be a literal pain), but that's just my mind on the matter.
PS, the buffs to MGC's/MGE's are nice, but I'd bet they might need a bit more aggressive approach. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast, but don't be surprised if the MGE's especially will need a bit more push to be worthwhile to take, EWAR mod or not.
Ugh, Advil is starting to kick in (FINALLY!). I'm gonna sleep...hopefully...
"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
950
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 16:50:12 -
[343] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Them being seperate modules means 1 of 2 things will happen.
1) everyone will use them, thus missiles will suck.
Or
2) No one uses them and everything stays how it is now.
Either way, I don't think these modules need to exist.
I personally feel that defenders need to be taken back to the drawing board instead.
Rename them point defense. No longer require a missile (or even turret hard point), are a utility high slot module, and effect the TARGET ship. So, instead of only defending yourself, they defend whomever the target is shooting at. This is more balanced than a defense module that will shoot any missile fired at the fleet (which has been suggested), which would also be extremely difficult to code, as the system would have to differentiate friendly vs non-friendly volleys.
Then, give certain specialty ships, like the Golem, a missile HP bonus.
Going to quote my comment, as it's been liked a few times but disappeared to the nether due to many off topic posts. |
Sgt Ocker
Military Bustards FUBAR.
726
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 21:57:06 -
[344] - Quote
A new use for the festival launcher - Anti drone launcher
Re-purpose it to fit "defender missiles", can be fit to any highslot, they only attack drones and are target specific. You lock a ship and he deploys drones, your "defender missiles" will attack those drones, 1 missile per volley, 5 second ROF (so it isn't OP) and the launcher will auto target 1 drone until it is dead or recalled.
Damage applied should be balanced by the size of the drone it is hitting, a fast moving light drone will take far less damage than a sentry but can still die in about the same time. A light drone orbiting and shooting you could take 5 or 6 volleys to destroy, a sentry drone would also take 5 or 6 volleys to destroy but a heavy drone may take up to 10 volleys to be destroyed depending on its (ship) bonuses.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode -
Vice Admiral, Forum Dictator, Arrogant Nobody
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1450
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 23:56:11 -
[345] - Quote
So, these won't affect fof missiles right? (Just as the other types of ewar effectively don't.)
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
633
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 01:26:21 -
[346] - Quote
So, couple of questions for clarity's sake, if you will.
A. Given that ships with tracking disruption bonuses will inherent missile disruption bonuses, will the value of the bonuses change at all to reflect that addition? The reason for asking this is that such a change potentially offers an effective buff to aforementioned EWAR boats at no apparent added cost simply to facilitate them being missile disruption specialists.
B. You stated that links, overheating, and such will all play a role in missile disruption effects. Is it safe to assume that Tracking Diagnostic Subroutines will also inherent the same adjustments, or will they be given an alternate rig module, or no rig to improve them at all?
C. Finally, considering we know only their primary stats so far, their EWAR debuffs, what of the other fundamental stats such as PG and CPU prereqs, cap use and cycle timers? Are they set to resemble their TD cousins?
C 2, C harder. Okay, really finally this time, what's planned for their icons? Same for now or totally brand-spanking new fresh out of the Art oven?
Forgive me if any or all of these have been more or less answered already, but I am NOT going to read all near-20 pages of banter. To be fair, nor would I expect anyone else to either.
PS: I am also a little curious of the FoF and Bomb queries above 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."
|
Spugg Galdon
Nisroc Angels FETID
758
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 06:51:29 -
[347] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote: did i miss the memo where this isnt a solo game? yes let me carry around 10 td's to counter just 2 pilots. genius.
whilst clearly you're not. drones are ----> autonomouswhich means ewar applied to the ship launching them is irrelevant to their ability to function
Your logic is flawed and your information incorrect.
First..... your information. Drones are "semi-autonomous". They still require input from the parent ship. Source: Link
Second... the parent ship and/or capsuleer has a direct and profound effect on the drones attributes including HP's, damage dealt, tracking, velocity, optimal and falloff ranges and control range. If the parent ship has this amount of governance over the drones capability then applying EWAR to the parent ship should effect the drones capability also.
Bottom line. There should be anti drone EWAR to balance it all out. |
Me ofcourse
State Protectorate Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 11:30:23 -
[348] - Quote
Quote:http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67557/1/MissileDisruptor.jpg
why not give the role to caldari ewar ships?
all other race's ewar platforms have two types of ewar as it is with the exception of caldari
Amarr has Neuts + tracking disruption
Gallente has Point range + Damps
Minmatar has Webs + Target Painters
while caldari only has ECM |
McReaction
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
11
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 11:35:25 -
[349] - Quote
NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
DEFENDER MISSILES !!! PLEASE BUFF !!! THE MISSILE HEAVEN CAN EXIST !!!
With love -mc |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
502
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 19:05:40 -
[350] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote: did i miss the memo where this isnt a solo game? yes let me carry around 10 td's to counter just 2 pilots. genius.
whilst clearly you're not. drones are ----> autonomouswhich means ewar applied to the ship launching them is irrelevant to their ability to function except in reality.
Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2326
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 19:29:31 -
[351] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Hey, what happens if I hit a bomber with these before he launches bombs? (You know, if they're bad)
Do they affect the bomb?
I'm pretty sure those attributes are not affected since they are not affected by the skill that modify those. The skill for missile velocity does not affect the velocity of bombs for example. |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
46
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 20:27:56 -
[352] - Quote
I throw my hat in with the
"combine them with the TD module and nerf the base modules while bringing up the specific hull bonus to 10% per level."
OR, you could fix defender missiles by making defender missiles target a single ship and shoot any missiles launched by that ship. For balance sake, they would destroy between 2 and 3 times the dps off the enemy ship. maybe just 2x. a single caracal could switch to defender missiles and negate a group of kestrels by ungrouping the launchers, or shut down a cerb and a jackdaw or, 2 other caracals.... etc.
and the sentinel, crucifier, pilgrim, curse, and arbitrator could fit launchers and load defenders for disruption of missile ships. the sentinel/crucifier would need 2 launchers, as well as the pilgrim and arbitrator needing 4 launcher hard points in order to mount effective missile disruption capabilities.
the defender module would cycle without using charges indefinitely until the charges were all used on active missile targets, if a missile from the parent ship is detected, the launcher fires a round regardless of cycle time. the missile has high base speed and low travel time.
But that plan is if you want missiles to be something unique and cool. a utility delivery system, rather than a cookie cutter damage system.
What about AOE flak missiles for killing drones?
chaff missiles for providing a low level of omni ewar to a target? a small amount of scan res damp, lock range damp, ecm, paint, and sensor strength drop. very low levels, but a general ship disruption effect.
heat pulse missiles? a small amount of thermal damage, say, 1/3 of a ships normal missile dps but with heat added to the highs, mids and lows of the target ship?
FoF launched cloak detection missiles that fire out in random directions that can de-cloak anything on grid if they get within decloak range?
This is where you decide CCP. Do you want to balanced, nerf, and rebalance until missiles are just a turret with hit lag? or do you want missiles to be something interesting and compelling? Now is the time. Please make the right choice, even if it is the long path with more work ahead of you. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
95
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 21:11:05 -
[353] - Quote
One last attempt here..
Defender missiles aint gonna happen folks. Let me spell out the whys.
EVE operates on "tics" and when an enemy launches a missile at you that takes 2 whole seconds(or one "tic") before you, the victim, even knows the missile is in space. After that two seconds even if it was 100% automatic defender missiles would take 2 seconds to respond because the action has to roll into another server tic. Then if everything went perfectly on the THIRD server tic the defender would have to close on the hostile missile cluster. If these two don't meet during this server tic the fundamental way sh*t works says the chances of a f*ckup is high.
In most cases missiles are in the air for(and its being bolded for emphasis)LESS THAN FOUR SECONDS. This means that even in PERFECT LATENCY SITUATIONS the defender will NEVER EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK. In other words due to the way the game is fundamentally constructed the concept of player defender missiles is never going to work period dot end. CCP will not recode the entire server base just to allow a single module to work..
The only reason defender missiles work for NPCs is that NPCs are handled entirely server side so things like latency doesn't functionally apply to them the way it does to other players.
Additionally mobile "aoe effects" again.. not really going to happen. Smartbombs only work because they are mounted on generally slow hulls. Remember a ship in EVE Online is a dot with a vector on a 3D graph. Volume draws against moving objects within a 2s tic system mean trying to "hit" an object becomes retardedly complex. Even if you timestamp the hell out of things. It's not an efficient use of resources and thus falls squarely in the area of "terrible design".
Modules work so well because its built on a cycle. Once on the server calculates if the effect hits the target and if so does it have any falloff penalties. After that calculation the effect is simply applied until it triggers an out of range, one of the two targets no longer exist, or the cycle ends and is not reapplied. Very low cost, Very efficient, Very good code. It allows for fights to work without causing CCP engineers to run around with fire extinguishers every 15 minutes on a Saturday.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7180
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 22:57:19 -
[354] - Quote
It would appear that Drakes are going to be cheap.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
854
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 03:20:49 -
[355] - Quote
Oh God damn it, I just got my Drake blueprint out after years stored away. I guess I will have to get a Ferrox blueprint.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves."
The Trial - Franz Kafka-á
|
Feodor Romanov
Blitzkrieg Federation NEOS FLEET
20
|
Posted - 2015.10.10 08:22:52 -
[356] - Quote
Well, we need drone disruptors now |
Chjna
the Goose Flock
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 05:01:49 -
[357] - Quote
Will make Missile Blap Dread and Titan even more op. gj ccp.
Remove T2 BPOs
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
73
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 09:31:58 -
[358] - Quote
My concern is that tracking disruption can still have its effect mitigated to a degree by traversal management. There is not a way of doing this for the missile modules it seems. |
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1730
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 10:07:21 -
[359] - Quote
Feodor Romanov wrote:Well, we need drone disruptors now
I would say not actually. You can jam/damp the hull. You can kill the drones whereas a drone boat can't kill your guns. Drones are either at range so can be tanked/avoided all together or smart bombed if close in. Drive a boat away from it's sentries and it loses a good percentage of it's firepower and bay allowance. Smartbomb and the droneboat loses its firepower all together.
How would this even work? Drone jam one boat and they will assign drones to an unjammed drone boat. What is the eccm for such a boat?
Drones are an entirely different weapon system and as such the modules that assist/affect guns don't teally make sense or apply. Allowing defenders to target drones could work and a missile defence destroyer would be a nice algos variant. Mainly because I want a tech II algos :)
By the same argument above I don't really think that the missile modules propsed work well either. Again making defenders work better would be a nicer option, perhaps with modules that work to boost there efficiency rather than target to attacking missile boat (we already have jammers, damps etc for the hull). Something like defender launch boosters to double rof or range based on scripts , defender tracking boosters etc.
Maybe introduce small turrets that are the old WWII battleship DP secondary armament equivalent, dual barrels turrets with high tracking but lower dps, or lower tracking with higher dps depending on the script and/or ammo loaded (so defender turret CIWS in this case). Make the DP turrets less dps than the dedicated small turrets though so there is still a real choice between full dps or lower dps with more defence options. Defender turrets and defender missiles would just use the same background calculations for damage reduction. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4694
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 12:03:53 -
[360] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative? A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%. While any improvement is of course appreciated, in lieu of the missile disruptors the MGCs and MGEs need to be buffed to the original proposed values. In addition, medium and large missiles need some serious attention with respect to damage application.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 19:13:19 -
[361] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs.. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 19:18:15 -
[362] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:I've expected to see these for a while, and generally I'm in favor of them. I do wonder why you've chosen to give this new EWAR ability to Amarr however - yes it fits alongside Tracking Disruptors, but Amarr already get Tracking Disruption and Energy Neutralizers as a primary and secondary EWAR on their class ships. So now they're going to have Missile Disruption as well? Caldari ships only get ECM and... ECM. That's it - they have no secondary EWAR capability on their Electronic Attack Ships, or Recon Ships. Unless you are also planning on introducing a drone counter EWAR system, would it not make more sense to give this ability to Caldari ships? I understand that may take more work to revamp all of the ships, but if an ECM rebalance is in the works anyway, logically it would make sense to give drone and missile EWAR to Caldari ships. I've outlined a bit more detail on this here, and I believe Corbexx may have sent it your way: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3itkns/rogue_drone_battleship_grasping_robot_arms_have/cuke0v4 that they might have to look at ewar modules and balancing those and making a pass at ewar balancing.
That is going to bring a lot of positive/negative feedback when they.. i.e. if they add those in, they might actually have to make ecm one module and boost the multispectral ecm to current levels of the other ecm types to make it equal to other current ewar, instead of having to pack 6 for a rainbow fit on a falcon/scorpion and use a single plate for tank. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.11 20:33:06 -
[363] - Quote
Koshka narkotikov wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) I like separate modules. Otherwise one ship can defend against any threat with a single mod. At least you have to choose the mod and cant just blanket every circumstance. Course mobile depots will work around this, but at least you cant change mid fight. Welp, its going to be sentinels, crucifiers, arbitrator, curse/pilgrim online after this. Like LS needs more of these flying around. Indirect drone buff as theyre the only weapon system that doesnt have an ewar counter. Will adapt as usual, but heavies are going to be even more useless except in niche scenarios. So you mean they would work like every other form of ecm where they work no matter what on every ship? Even ecm matched against the incorrect sensor type still has a chance to jam even if a low one. Id much rather see this as a script since as it is tracking disrupting is by far the most inflexible of the ecm variants. than you want to make it chance based like ecm? can the other ewartypes also be matched based as well than? play the RNG game. It gets annoying with them faction cruisers that have stronger sensors than T1 BC's. |
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems
159
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 20:13:48 -
[364] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:Koshka narkotikov wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) I like separate modules. Otherwise one ship can defend against any threat with a single mod. At least you have to choose the mod and cant just blanket every circumstance. Course mobile depots will work around this, but at least you cant change mid fight. Welp, its going to be sentinels, crucifiers, arbitrator, curse/pilgrim online after this. Like LS needs more of these flying around. Indirect drone buff as theyre the only weapon system that doesnt have an ewar counter. Will adapt as usual, but heavies are going to be even more useless except in niche scenarios. So you mean they would work like every other form of ecm where they work no matter what on every ship? Even ecm matched against the incorrect sensor type still has a chance to jam even if a low one. Id much rather see this as a script since as it is tracking disrupting is by far the most inflexible of the ecm variants. than you want to make it chance based like ecm? can the other ewartypes also be matched based as well than? play the RNG game. It gets annoying with them faction cruisers that have stronger sensors than T1 BC's.
I think he means like every other Ewar, in which case he is correct. Every ewar except Tracking computers and these new modules work on every ship in the game that isnt ewar immune. It would be a massive oversight in balancing its actual usefulness if you needed diffrent mods. And the simple solution to the number one complaint here (that all ships will fit a Weapon disruptor) is that you debonus the module and add bonuses to the hull to compensate.
|
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2030
|
Posted - 2015.10.12 22:36:21 -
[365] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs..
Well No. Ecm and damps are completely different. Ecm is a chanced based lock breaker while damps lessen your lock range/speed. Tracking disrupters should be used to reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships weapons.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 16:41:22 -
[366] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs.. Well No. Ecm and damps are completely different. Ecm is a chanced based lock breaker while damps lessen your lock range/speed. Tracking disrupters should be used to reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships weapons.
TRACKING disrupters reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships TRACKING, a missiles that explode dont track anything and fuel/speed for the missile dont need any tracking either |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
228
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 17:45:43 -
[367] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs.. Well No. Ecm and damps are completely different. Ecm is a chanced based lock breaker while damps lessen your lock range/speed. Tracking disrupters should be used to reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships weapons. TRACKING disrupters reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships TRACKING, a missiles that explode dont track anything and fuel/speed for the missile dont need any tracking either
which is why the new mod for missiles is called missile disruption and only effect missiles that are launched with the mod acting on the ship. The mod wont affect missile already in space. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2030
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 17:57:04 -
[368] - Quote
Yeah i think i am on board with the separate mods now. It would probably bee too op if it was one mod that disrupts all weapons.
ECM - Is balanced by being racial specific Damps - range damps can be mitigated by getting close the the target Tracking/missile disruption - will be balanced by bringing alternative weapon system
Seems fine.
Dear eve players, please try and use the word "content" less and instead, be specific. Thanks
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.13 22:25:10 -
[369] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal.
I just want to throw this out.. in a rare case, you could have a frigate gang running around with a couple of these and totally cripple battleships from bieng able to do anything. It can even make a marauder with its bonus to TP's moot if done wrong.
I forsee lots of ravens burning from this.
How much of the missile guidance module buff comes from this vs the hasty release?
Will the use of a tracking computer mitigate this as well as a Sebo does a Damp? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2785
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 03:54:58 -
[370] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought process behind creating a new module for this :) Because if it blocked all weapons it would be an auto "I win!" module. Like if you combined the eccm module effect with SEBO's and now you counter Damps and ECM. or maybe fix warp stabs to also counter webs.. Well No. Ecm and damps are completely different. Ecm is a chanced based lock breaker while damps lessen your lock range/speed. Tracking disrupters should be used to reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships weapons. TRACKING disrupters reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships TRACKING, a missiles that explode dont track anything and fuel/speed for the missile dont need any tracking either https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance
Quote:In every Go-Onto-Target system there are three subsystems:
Target tracker Missile tracker Guidance computer I have a nice little post a few pages back with explanation of you like. |
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
228
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 04:10:33 -
[371] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal. I just want to throw this out.. in a rare case, you could have a frigate gang running around with a couple of these and totally cripple battleships from bieng able to do anything. It can even make a marauder with its bonus to TP's moot if done wrong. I forsee lots of ravens burning from this. How much of the missile guidance module buff comes from this vs the hasty release? Will the use of a tracking computer mitigate this as well as a Sebo does a Damp?
marauders are immune to ewar (well they can be) so no marauder is going to care about it just like they dont care about TC/damps/ecm |
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 05:47:57 -
[372] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:
TRACKING disrupters reduce the effectiveness of a hostile ships TRACKING, a missiles that explode dont track anything and fuel/speed for the missile dont need any tracking either
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance Quote:In every Go-Onto-Target system there are three subsystems:
Target tracker Missile tracker Guidance computer I have a nice little post a few pages back with explanation of you like.
All these are used to make the missile hit the target, since missiles always hit when in range (ingame) we can ignore those 3 things. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 05:51:53 -
[373] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal. I just want to throw this out.. in a rare case, you could have a frigate gang running around with a couple of these and totally cripple battleships from bieng able to do anything. It can even make a marauder with its bonus to TP's moot if done wrong. I forsee lots of ravens burning from this. How much of the missile guidance module buff comes from this vs the hasty release? Will the use of a tracking computer mitigate this as well as a Sebo does a Damp? marauders are immune to ewar (well they can be) so no marauder is going to care about it just like they dont care about TC/damps/ecm if you go bastion and leave yourself stuck. I meant in terms of the Golems bonus to TP's to deal damage, which is still in open discussion that it takes a golem 3 tp's to hit exceptionally anything frigate sized. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
228
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 06:44:46 -
[374] - Quote
Poranius Fisc wrote:Lady Rift wrote:Poranius Fisc wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal. I just want to throw this out.. in a rare case, you could have a frigate gang running around with a couple of these and totally cripple battleships from bieng able to do anything. It can even make a marauder with its bonus to TP's moot if done wrong. I forsee lots of ravens burning from this. How much of the missile guidance module buff comes from this vs the hasty release? Will the use of a tracking computer mitigate this as well as a Sebo does a Damp? marauders are immune to ewar (well they can be) so no marauder is going to care about it just like they dont care about TC/damps/ecm if you go bastion and leave yourself stuck. I meant in terms of the Golems bonus to TP's to deal damage, which is still in open discussion that it takes a golem 3 tp's to hit exceptionally anything frigate sized.
shouldnt be that bad with cruse and those tps will massively help your drones. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
241
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 14:13:41 -
[375] - Quote
You know, I'm convinced. Earlier I sided with people saying they wanted all this in one mod, but a lot of good points were made that if this were a scripted module, it'd be OP. It would be.
ECM is still an outlier, but only because every single facet of ECM is terrible. Need to devote a bunch of mids to rainbow (on a predominantly shield-based race, no less!), RNG-based mechanic, etc.
I see a lot of people voicing concerns over these modules and I see the root of the problem being missile mechanics. Can't have good missiles because missiles always hit, and that makes balancing missiles a b-----. That we have weapons in this game that provide something different than turrets is a good thing, but missiles as they currently are, are not fit to the game well. The game really shines with the complexity and skillful use of turrets, and falls flat with missiles. Missiles as a system need to be overhauled in their entirety before they well and truly work well within this game. Maybe give them a falloff area where there's a genuine % chance of miss? I don't know. But missiles are going to continue to be a sore spot and neigh-impossible to balance well for the foreseeable future.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2334
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 14:42:35 -
[376] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:You know, I'm convinced. Earlier I sided with people saying they wanted all this in one mod, but a lot of good points were made that if this were a scripted module, it'd be OP. It would be.
ECM is still an outlier, but only because every single facet of ECM is terrible. Need to devote a bunch of mids to rainbow (on a predominantly shield-based race, no less!), RNG-based mechanic, etc.
I see a lot of people voicing concerns over these modules and I see the root of the problem being missile mechanics. Can't have good missiles because missiles always hit, and that makes balancing missiles a b-----. That we have weapons in this game that provide something different than turrets is a good thing, but missiles as they currently are, are not fit to the game well. The game really shines with the complexity and skillful use of turrets, and falls flat with missiles. Missiles as a system need to be overhauled in their entirety before they well and truly work well within this game. Maybe give them a falloff area where there's a genuine % chance of miss? I don't know. But missiles are going to continue to be a sore spot and neigh-impossible to balance well for the foreseeable future.
Every time they add modifier like those disruptor to the equation of missile balancing it makes the damn thing even more of a clusterfuck to balance. |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 01:18:14 -
[377] - Quote
RL missiles are countered in a number of different ways. From stealth (unable to lock or 'home' the missile), to chaff and flares, or to various intercepting techniques. Understandably Eve cannot have that level of complexity, but I do like that this is an active module and offers some form of electronic counter to the missile weapon systems.
That said I think it goes a little too far and will make missiles virtually useless. Invariably it can also be seen as a buff to drones at a time that they were being reigned in. The defender missiles would have made an excellent anti-drone weapons choice.
Oh well, I'm still early in my training and can choose where to put my ISK. Drones seem the best choice for my money. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
125
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 03:03:53 -
[378] - Quote
This is just a blurb attempting to explain some major differences in missile theory and why "hard scifi" generally does things the way they do. Hopefully it will explain why interfering with the ship is more likely than actually messing directly with the missiles.
On a planetary body missiles eventually cap out in size as technology advances. Once you have a powerplant capable of traveling the diameter of the planet you dont really need more range. Thus you can design missiles to be self contained "smart" weapons as you miniaturize the power system. Maximum size is always a concern however because of atmospheric flight issues and the fact that you have a gravity well. Navigation is also considerably easier as you have a fixed body to run any positioning by.
In space... all these tricks go away and mass of missiles is no longer a significant concern. This is a massively radical shift in both methods and technology needed. This is furthur compounded by the fact that a ship will always have superior sensors, computers, and telemetry than a missile. Generally in a space situation the firing ship would become the "anchor" for navigation purposes. The ships superior optics and sensors would become the eyes on the long trip to the target. All the missile has to do is maintain link with its ship and accelerate like mad. Once its limited optics and computer systems is within range to be effective youd only have seconds left anyway.
Thus in many ways a missile in space will most likely have more in common with a "fly by wire" missile system than it does with an actual smart weapon on earth today. The majority of its flight will be controlled by the ship that launched it until it can acquire its target itself.
Thus.. as in most hard scifi.. the means to stop yourself from getting hit revolve around making the ship harder to acquire(signature) and screwing with the telemetry systems of the firing ship(disruptors). The eve universe carries on this tradition of jam the ship not the missile in lore. It seems weird but it actually has foundations in logic and design theory. Space changes many of the ways you look at doing things. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 22:41:38 -
[379] - Quote
Zakks wrote:RL missiles are countered in a number of different ways. From stealth (unable to lock or 'home' the missile), to chaff and flares, or to various intercepting techniques. Understandably Eve cannot have that level of complexity, but I do like that this is an active module and offers some form of electronic counter to the missile weapon systems.
That said I think it goes a little too far and will make missiles virtually useless. Invariably it can also be seen as a buff to drones at a time that they were being reigned in. The defender missiles would have made an excellent anti-drone weapons choice.
Oh well, I'm still early in my training and can choose where to put my ISK. Drones seem the best choice for my money. Auto missiles.. which are not all that intuitive. Yup. drones are only done in by shooting them down, which also only works with missiles which can be "firewalled" like drones and shot down using defender missiles.
I rally haven't seen much talk about the new missile guidance computers.. it looks like fit for fir the TP's still win (except at long ranges, that missiles do not really see much use (from what I've seen, constant blasts to the pheonix as its a "poco basher"). |
Resinball
The Dysfunctionals Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 03:08:05 -
[380] - Quote
need to buff their damage if your going to make them target disrupt-able.
not powerful enough due to the fact it's the only system that requires time to hit the target..... |
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2787
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 05:23:52 -
[381] - Quote
Resinball wrote:need to buff their damage if your going to make them target disrupt-able.
not powerful enough due to the fact it's the only system that requires time to hit the target..... *looks at drones* |
Zakks
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 05:44:52 -
[382] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Resinball wrote:need to buff their damage if your going to make them target disrupt-able.
not powerful enough due to the fact it's the only system that requires time to hit the target..... *looks at drones*
Sentries?
|
kelvin oriley
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
6
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 17:33:27 -
[383] - Quote
dear ccp
please make this far more simple and use the weopen disruption moduals that allready exist and just add the scrips for the missiles
the choices on the market are too many all ready when it comes to ewar and from a training new bros point of view this is just going to make it far more painfull
adding this would make it far more intresting deciding what scrip and when in the heat of battle just like what damege type to use it keeps the heart pumping and keeps the pvp to the grid and not the meta having it your way means the battles are decided before you undock
|
Mario Putzo
1548
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 18:13:34 -
[384] - Quote
So are we getting Remote Guidance systems (akin to Remote Tracking Links)? Yes or no? If not why not? |
Norn Thilnir
Naragnir
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 11:56:29 -
[385] - Quote
Two comments:
(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.
The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.
(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Paisti Syndicate
559
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 12:26:13 -
[386] - Quote
Norn Thilnir wrote:Two comments:
(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.
The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.
(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some.
Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex. |
bunzing heet
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 13:02:14 -
[387] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Norn Thilnir wrote:Two comments:
(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.
The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.
(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some. Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex.
They dont need to be removed that's just overkill I don't like that all weapon system are becoming similar to each other And I fear this will just kill most caldari ships due to better options Fleets and solo PvP will be affected a lot I don't like being the negative nancy But I really and trully hate these upcoming missile disruption modules We will see what happens
Fly safe keep killing
And remember
I'm watching you !!!!
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
213
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 17:48:44 -
[388] - Quote
bunzing heet wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Norn Thilnir wrote:Two comments:
(1) While I like the idea of fitting options and compromises, I am worried that the current dev resources EVE management are committing to balancing will be insufficient to properly balance the increased complexity.
The fact that missiles had no disruption made them unique. In fact, there was a time that optimal range disruption did not affect falloff. While it arguably made weapon disruption a poor choice against AC/Artillery, it did provide AC and artillery with an advantage. Taking these advantages away, meant that they required further balancing in other ways.
(2) Arguably the strongest other argument against missile disruption is that it takes away from the uniqueness of missiles.
Same argument can also be used against RMLs and missile upgrades. Missiles were uniquely weak at applying damage to smaller and faster targets, not anymore. So you missile users gain some, lose some. Imho missiles are a bad mechanic and should be completely removed instead of trying to make them fit in EVE combat with all these gimmicky fixex. They dont need to be removed that's just overkill I don't like that all weapon system are becoming similar to each other And I fear this will just kill most caldari ships due to better options Fleets and solo PvP will be affected a lot I don't like being the negative nancy But I really and trully hate these upcoming missile disruption modules We will see what happens
I agree, but i'd say it's going to hit the non range bonused missiles even harder and that's mostly minmattar and amarr.
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4697
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 16:36:55 -
[389] - Quote
When is the issue of large missile implants conflicting with Omega implants finally going to be addressed?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
O2 jayjay
Sickology Together We Solo
32
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 23:07:10 -
[390] - Quote
Not trying to be negative but youre slowly making all the ships the same. These changes are trimming down what makes ships unique. Missles have a flight time which delays damage and can also be out ran. No need to have the ability to distrupt their guidance system. My 2-ó |
|
bunzing heet
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 23:39:05 -
[391] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:Not trying to be negative but youre slowly making all the ships the same. These changes are trimming down what makes ships unique. Missles have a flight time which delays damage and can also be out ran. No need to have the ability to distrupt their guidance system. My 2-ó
I agree if it were to effect missile speed and not expl radius and velocity I could live with it but this just doesn't make sense to me Maybe it just me aye
Fly safe keep killing
And remember
I'm watching you !!!!
|
ROXGenghis
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
218
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 02:08:09 -
[392] - Quote
Sorry I'm tardy to the feedback party, but that's my jam. Someone in this thread suggested moving these new MD bonuses to Caldari ships because Caldari only have one form of ewar and the suggested change would _kind of_ be giving Amarr three types of ewar.
I just want to point out that, from a lore perspective (groan, and I'm not even an RP'er), a MD bonus would be more appropriate for an Amarr hull because their natural enemy are the missile-spewing Caldari. If anything, you'd want to move TD bonuses to another race...maybe to Minmatar, since their natural enemy are laser-pewing Amarr and many folks consider the Minnie painter bonus under-utilized (because in fleets you only need a few paints, and in solo there's always a better module). Heck, maybe the Minnie TD bonus should go to another race to counter Minnie's speed and sig radius advantages.
Not that I'm suggesting such a radical and probably unworkable juggling happen! And I'll get to an actual, relevant but possibly bad idea in the next paragraph. But as long as I'm on the subject of ewar balancing, recall that someone has suggested re-purposing defender missiles to counter drones. If this were to happen, it might finally be the opportunity to give the Caldari their long-missing second form of "ewar" (actually, "specialized defensive countermeasure") because the drone-spawning Gallente are the Caldari's natural enemy and it may be too powerful for every race of ships to be able to counter drones with a utility highslot. And...no. As I write that, I'm imagining ECM boats capable of shutting down their main counter and...no, sorry. But I'll leave this here as a small thought exercise and a lesson/warning to others. And add that this has implications in general against any future/proposed anti-drone countermeasure: you'd have to make sure ECM boats couldn't use it. (And you thought I went off in the weeds in my second paragraph!)
***Finally, back on the actual thread topic of MDs, I agree that as they stand, TDs and MDs need to be two separate modules to avoid OP'ness and being a "must-fit" module on every PVP ship. However, if you reduced the effectiveness of both TDs and MDs, maybe you could consolidate them into a single, more generally applicable but less powerful module. And, in so doing, counter some of the game's current complexity and proliferation trends. (Asterisks surround this paragraph because it's actually relevant to the thread; sorry I got off course above.)***
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
34
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 04:18:32 -
[393] - Quote
ROXGenghis wrote: I just want to point out that, from a lore perspective (groan, and I'm not even an RP'er), a MD bonus would be more appropriate for an Amarr hull because their natural enemy are the missile-spewing Caldari.
I believe your statement to be in error. Amarr and Caldari are allies. Logic would dictate it'd be a Gallente thing, being a direct counter to Caldari.
Then again, logic would suggest FIXING heavy/ham/cruise missiles and time-to-impact to avoid outrunning them... but I'm not complaining. I just kicked missiles off my skillcue again and dust off the old Arbitrator. Still seems odd to me a light missile can't keep up with a frigate. Torp range on battleships is also off. In fact there's too many thing going wrong before "missile disruption" I don't see a need for these modules at all - save to counter Garmurs and Orthruses, yet the killer here is not the hull nor the missiles-- it's the offgrid booster.
But I digress. Point I was going to make: the enemies of the State would be either Minmatar or Gallente.
HOWEVER. Since many races seem to mostly counter their OWN weapons, Caldari would also be a good pick for the Missile Disruptor -- after all, Minmatar speed/sigtank --> Webs & Target Painters. Amarr lasers --> Neuts & Tracking Disruptors.
Minmatar never have any trouble hitting Amarr, so TP was definitely not intended for those situations. Long-webbing the slowest ships in the game seems a bit overkill too. And tell me, how well do Caldari jams work against drone boats? Capping out a Minmatar won't keep him from ripping you a new butthole either ... therefore, assuming EWAR is tied to the "natural enemy" is already a long shot. Doesn't matter though if you mixing up the natural enemies lore-wise ;-) |
ROXGenghis
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
218
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 08:17:15 -
[394] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:ROXGenghis wrote: I just want to point out that, from a lore perspective (groan, and I'm not even an RP'er), a MD bonus would be more appropriate for an Amarr hull because their natural enemy are the missile-spewing Caldari.
I believe your statement to be in error. Amarr and Caldari are allies. Logic would dictate it'd be a Gallente thing, being a direct counter to Caldari. [and a lot of other good points]
Thanks for pointing out my myriad errors politely. I appreciate it! And even though I said I wasn't an RP'er, the me from 9 years ago would have known you to be correct about everything. So I guess I have to put it down to bittervet senescence.
Luckily, the whole thing was an aside that's easily ignored for the purposes of the MD balance discussion.
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1404
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 15:14:49 -
[395] - Quote
Fifth Blade wrote:Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them. Came here to say the exact same thing. From the same perspective (small gang). Please do this.
Tracking disruptors would be way overpowered if it just needed a script to disrupt missiles.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Perrdy Lady
Hedion University Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2015.10.19 19:04:01 -
[396] - Quote
More missile nerfs, why am I not surprised? |
Lara Sunji
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.21 04:59:50 -
[397] - Quote
This wasn't a planned feature that's crystal clear to me, they just threw it in there to add to the list of stuff to make it look impressive. Well I'm far from impressed. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2015.10.23 21:24:40 -
[398] - Quote
Has the December release stuff landed on SiSi yet?
Please do not release till its fully looked at in a live-ish state. |
Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
2
|
Posted - 2015.10.24 08:02:20 -
[399] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote: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?
Ok so Caldari got the jackdaw and t3d didn't get banned from small plexs... when is this happening? Hookbill finally looks like it can compete with the comet Missiles get nerfed Gals get navy maulus
GG
I try and fight comets with a TD it does virtually nothing against someone with skill (optimal/tracking disruption can be easily removed as an issue by simply repositioning your ship.
Now how are missile disruptors going to work, in a equally pitiful manner, probably not I bet they will be incomparably OP compared with TD, and will basically render them useless for hitting things outside web/scram range. Also remembering turrets have instant alpha
gg
We sometimes run a corax fit with 3 tds to fight catalysts Will be interesting to see what happens when gals have missile disrupting Algos fleets fighting missile ships that can hardly hit the ship yet alone medium drones
Now what about a damage saturation = damage reduction mechanic for ships? i.e. limiting the amount of damage received per tick That would solve half of the problems with alpha doctrine everyone goes on about very easily. |
Pieter Patrick
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 01:21:35 -
[400] - Quote
Missles are not the best weapen. ...But I like them. I only trained missles-skills... all to level 5. Looks likes the end for missles... And a total wasted of level 5 skills. :-)
Question; why should I still want to use missles in the future.
|
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4707
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 03:59:35 -
[401] - Quote
Pieter Patrick wrote:I only trained missles-skills... all to level 5. Looks likes the end for missles... And a total wasted of level 5 skills. :-) It's only a waste if you trained Defender missiles to V...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4707
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 04:03:27 -
[402] - 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. What is the possibility of getting the Missile Guidance Enhancer buffed by 20% instead of 10%? ie: GÇó Missile Guidance Enhancer I: 5% Ev, -5% Er GÇó Pro-Nav Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer: 6.25% Ev, -6.25% Er GÇó Missile Guidance Enhancer II: 7.5% Ev, -7.5% Er
Any timeframe on the Faction and possible Officer versions of the MGE and MGC?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
641
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 04:22:14 -
[403] - Quote
The Enhancers do, without a doubt, need a bigger buff than the Comps. Right now, they don't even come close to competing with alternate low slot mods, where as the Comps are in a far more comfortable place even compared to other mid slot mods. 20% seems reasonable to start with, I think. Higher Meta versions should also not be forgotten, especially if the Disruptors are getting Meta 6 on up 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."
|
token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
7
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 05:58:48 -
[404] - Quote
If smartbombs no longer affect missiles, this will be a great change. If they do and these are introduced, there is no place for missile boats in large scale pvp.
Firewalls are already irritating, this would make things quite a bit worse. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
641
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 21:11:18 -
[405] - Quote
Maybe the Enhancers could have a missile HP or magazine capacity buff to help it stand out more. Personally, I still feel that they ought to be retooled to benefit the user in a way outside the realm of the currently chosen stats. A 10% buff is a start, but I fear it'll be no better received than the 5% damage buff for heavies, which did more to at least confirm for us that CCP agrees heavies are in need of help than actually help them directly.
"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."
|
Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
4
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 05:51:46 -
[406] - Quote
If they treated missiles and drones somewhat equally
Things would be better |
Pieter Patrick
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 06:40:37 -
[407] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Pieter Patrick wrote:I only trained missles-skills... all to level 5. Looks likes the end for missles... And a total wasted of level 5 skills. :-) It's only a waste if you trained Defender missiles to V... You're so right! :-) I trained defenders only untill level 2, than I realised how useless they are.
Now I train Targetpainting level 5. But I don't know what to do at this moment. I'm not whining, but it's a pitty. (And I realize that the game can evolve in any way it want.) |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm NEOS FLEET
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 16:07:18 -
[408] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
You are wrong.
In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause:
1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 3) VIgil some application bonuses -> some use in missle fleets 4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.
How it can be too powerfull if it is scripted module is beyond me, as it remains useless against primary EWAR fleet targets.
You forcing an already gimped EWAR to make "sacrifaces" and not adding it any extra utility. People will not start to use amarr EWAR after that changes.
We need adaptable module for all race EWAR, not to 3/4 of current selection.
Even better if you add optimal+falloff for remote reps, and ability to disrpt it with amarr EWAR, after that is all becomes much more interesting instrantly. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
896
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 16:46:19 -
[409] - Quote
Idame Isqua wrote:If they treated missiles and drones somewhat equally
Things would be better
It's what I was trying to do for ages now. Glad to see I'm not the only one.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
896
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 16:50:01 -
[410] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:...4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.
Thank you for bringing it up, so it doesn't always come from me alone, fighting the windmills-
Yes I am Satans advocate, there is no god only the Devil himself. When you need one or more ships to make a weapon system work, that weapon system has a problem - a big one.
CCP Fozzie, do you now see that problem?
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2015.10.29 20:04:00 -
[411] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Mad Abbat wrote:...4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc. Thank you for bringing it up, so it doesn't always come from me alone, fighting the windmills- Yes I am Satans advocate, there is no god only the Devil himself. When you need one or more ships to make a weapon system work, that weapon system has a problem - a big one. CCP Fozzie, do you now see that problem? Like missiles? |
token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
8
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 01:51:04 -
[412] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
You are wrong. In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause: 1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 3) Vigil add some application bonuses -> usefull in missle fleets4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc. How it can be too powerfull if it is scripted module is beyond me, as it remains useless against primary EWAR fleet targets, you can't even take out anti-support wing, as it made of musslie and turret boats in unknown mix. You forcing an already gimped EWAR to make "sacrifaces" and not adding it any extra utility. People will not start to use amarr EWAR after that changes. We need adaptable module for all race EWAR, not to 3/4 of current selection. Even better if you add optimal+falloff for remote reps, and ability to disrpt it with amarr EWAR, after that is all becomes much more interesting instrantly.
To be fair, increased sig radius makes it easier for allies to lock onto a new primary as well as track smaller sigged targets in turret fleets. It's not just for missiles.
|
Cerulean Ice
EVE University Ivy League
49
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 07:44:11 -
[413] - Quote
I'm really hoping this change comes with the removal of Defender Missiles. Defenders are pretty much useless, while MDs sound useful.
Cerulean Ice, Professor, E-UNI
|
Fourteen Maken
Omega Industry Inc. The Ditanian Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 18:20:29 -
[414] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Missile range =/= turret range Missile application =/= Turret application
Missiles are delayed dps, reducing the speed doesn't just reduce range it also makes it easier to outrun the missiles, turrets don't have this issue
The range disruption script on missile TD's is too strong, and the Application bonus on Missile guidance computers and enhancers is far too weak because you keep comparing them directly with turret modules.
For guidance computers 15% explosion velocity bonus and 15% explosion radius reduction bonus is not the same as 30% better tracking. the formula only considers the value of the worst of the two; not both at the same time so you only ever get at most 15% bonus to application while turrets get 30% better tracking from their module. BUT missile damage application is not the same as tracking either, because tracking is only of benefit when the angular velocity of your target is higher than your tracking so 30% better tracking either gives no additional application or 100% additional application depending on the situation.
There are too many variables to make direct comparisons between Missile and Turret Tracking Computers, or missile and turret tacking disruptors. All I know is the Missile tracking computers are worse than what we had before, we can make direct comparisons there, and what we had before wasn't good enough to begin with so why are you now bringing in another module to make life even more miserable for missile pilots?
Support a fairer loyalty point market for faction war:
The sinews of war; infinite money.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
762
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 22:21:07 -
[415] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Missile range =/= turret range Missile application =/= Turret application Missiles are delayed dps, reducing the speed doesn't just reduce range it also makes it easier to outrun the missiles, turrets don't have this issue The range disruption script on missile TD's is too strong, and the Application bonus on Missile guidance computers and enhancers is far too weak because you keep comparing them directly with turret modules. For guidance computers 15% explosion velocity bonus and 15% explosion radius reduction bonus is not the same as 30% better tracking. the formula only considers the value of the worst of the two; not both at the same time so you only ever get at most 15% bonus to application while turrets get 30% better tracking from their module. BUT missile damage application is not the same as tracking either, because tracking is only of benefit when the angular velocity of your target is higher than your tracking so 30% better tracking either gives no additional application or 100% additional application depending on the situation. There are too many variables to make direct comparisons between Missile and Turret Tracking Computers, or missile and turret tacking disruptors. All I know is the Missile tracking computers are worse than what we had before, we can make direct comparisons there, and what we had before wasn't good enough to begin with so why are you now bringing in another module to make life even more miserable for missile pilots? While playing a few years ago, on a quiet winters night - Fozzie was killed by a Drake He has hated all missile pilots since.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
token trade alt
Slamming Mad B-Balls
8
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 03:52:49 -
[416] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Fourteen Maken wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Missile range =/= turret range Missile application =/= Turret application Missiles are delayed dps, reducing the speed doesn't just reduce range it also makes it easier to outrun the missiles, turrets don't have this issue The range disruption script on missile TD's is too strong, and the Application bonus on Missile guidance computers and enhancers is far too weak because you keep comparing them directly with turret modules. For guidance computers 15% explosion velocity bonus and 15% explosion radius reduction bonus is not the same as 30% better tracking. the formula only considers the value of the worst of the two; not both at the same time so you only ever get at most 15% bonus to application while turrets get 30% better tracking from their module. BUT missile damage application is not the same as tracking either, because tracking is only of benefit when the angular velocity of your target is higher than your tracking so 30% better tracking either gives no additional application or 100% additional application depending on the situation. There are too many variables to make direct comparisons between Missile and Turret Tracking Computers, or missile and turret tacking disruptors. All I know is the Missile tracking computers are worse than what we had before, we can make direct comparisons there, and what we had before wasn't good enough to begin with so why are you now bringing in another module to make life even more miserable for missile pilots? While playing a few years ago, on a quiet winters night - Fozzie was killed by a Drake He has hated all missile pilots since.
Tbh that's kind of what the latest development process seems to be like. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
35
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 05:08:00 -
[417] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:
In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause:
1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 3) Vigil add some application bonuses -> usefull in missle fleets 4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.
Now that's a load of baloney if I ever seen one. Maulus damps affect my brawler how exactly? Yup: not at all. Griffin does what to a droneboat? Bubkes. Vigils add application in missile fleets; because we need application; because current meta revolves around -oh snap!- RLML. Oops. Ergo, no one ever uses Vigils. They might, in Cerberus fleets; although in general a TP is an afterthought, by no means your first choice if you can only dedicate a few guys to EWAR and you have to pick and choose. Presented the choice between a Maulus, a Griffin or a Vigil, nobody would pick the Vigil. (and a Maulus is only bang-for-your-buck if you bring a couple of those).
Crucifiers are useless because they "only affect turrets" you say? ... thereby taking care of like 70% of all ships out there. Sweet. Optimal Range scripts on snipers and blasterboats; Tracking Disruption scripts on lasers, also snipers and all gunsizes bigger than your own. "Useless" he says - hah!
Now, imagine if you will that the Crucifier pilot could simply swap out a script and stop ANY weapon system except drones at will, from long range ... where would that leave the other EWARs ?? It'd do the same job a griffin does, without being chance-based. It'd outperform the Maulus by taking brawling ships out of the picture as well; and it'd completely roflstomp the already rather underwhelming, highly situational Vigil.
Granted, Maulus and Griffin are the T1 EWAR frigs of choice. Because their T2 EWAR frigs are a bit ... weak in comparison. A Keres is essentially an interceptor with damps -- which is great except when you already have great tackle in fleet, you might just as well settle for its T1 counterpart. A Kitsune is ..... well, still a Griffin. Just more of it. On the other hand, you can't get a Vigil to do a Hyena's job or a Crucifier to replace the Sentinel.
That's what makes those two T1 frigs so popular. It's not that the Crucifier is bad; it's that Sentinels are even better! |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
235
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 14:15:00 -
[418] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Mad Abbat wrote:
In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause:
1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 3) Vigil add some application bonuses -> usefull in missle fleets 4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.
Now that's a load of baloney if I ever seen one. Maulus damps affect my brawler how exactly? Yup: not at all. Griffin does what to a droneboat? Bubkes. Vigils add application in missile fleets; because we need application; because current meta revolves around -oh snap!- RLML. Oops. Ergo, no one ever uses Vigils. They might, in Cerberus fleets; although in general a TP is an afterthought, by no means your first choice if you can only dedicate a few guys to EWAR and you have to pick and choose. Presented the choice between a Maulus, a Griffin or a Vigil, nobody would pick the Vigil. (and a Maulus is only bang-for-your-buck if you bring a couple of those). Crucifiers are useless because they "only affect turrets" you say? ... thereby taking care of like 70% of all ships out there. Sweet. Optimal Range scripts on snipers and blasterboats; Tracking Disruption scripts on lasers, also snipers and all gunsizes bigger than your own. "Useless" he says - hah! Now, imagine if you will that the Crucifier pilot could simply swap out a script and stop ANY weapon system except drones at will, from long range ... where would that leave the other EWARs ?? It'd do the same job a griffin does, without being chance-based. It'd outperform the Maulus by taking brawling ships out of the picture as well; and it'd completely roflstomp the already rather underwhelming, highly situational Vigil. Granted, Maulus and Griffin are the T1 EWAR frigs of choice. Because their T2 EWAR frigs are a bit ... weak in comparison. A Keres is essentially an interceptor with damps -- which is great except when you already have great tackle in fleet, you might just as well settle for its T1 counterpart. A Kitsune is ..... well, still a Griffin. Just more of it. On the other hand, you can't get a Vigil to do a Hyena's job or a Crucifier to replace the Sentinel. That's what makes those two T1 frigs so popular. It's not that the Crucifier is bad; it's that Sentinels are even better!
nothing works on drone boats. target painters help tracking on turrets. Damps can make your brawler take 2.5 life times to lock.
|
Bloodmyst Ranwar
Leviathan Rising Affirmative.
145
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 00:08:31 -
[419] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks! If you've followed our development over the past few years you'll know that the idea of tracking disruptors for missiles has been bouncing around for a long time. 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. We think that adding Missile Disruptors will create some interesting new fitting options, especially for ships with bonuses to weapon disruption.
We're now planning on releasing these new modules in our December release, and we're ready to start getting your feedback! These disruptors would be seperate modules within the same group as Tracking Disruptors. They will use the same skills and get the same bonuses as Tracking Disurptors (so for example a Pilgrim would automatically get bonuses for these modules). Pilots will be able to choose what combo of missile and tracking disruptors to fit on their ships, based on what they expect to face. We're planning on introducing T1, T2 and named versions with faction options being considered.
We expect that the stats will need extensive tweaking and playtesting, but here's what we're working with at the moment: [img]http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67557/1/MissileDisruptor.jpg[/img]
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.
We're really interested in your feedback and we have plenty of time to get these properly adjusted before release. These changes are currently planned for our December release.
Q/A:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks? A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.
Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active? A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.
Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative? A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.
Let us know what you think!
Given the current meta of Eve (Garmurs, Orthrus, Rapid Light Missile systems), I think a Missile Disruption module is long overdue.
Just a suggestion however, instead of the module requiring a mid slot,can we change the module so it has the ability to be fitted to a utility high slot?
Currently, utility high slots are used mostly for Neutralizers, Nosferatus and Rocket/Missile Launchers. Giving this new module the ability to be fit into a utility high would provide many more interesting fits, without putting such a dampener on most fits we see to date.
The abundant presence of spam T3D's, Orthruses, Garmurs and Rapid Light missiles has pretty much almost destroyed any type of Frigate play. Yes we have Novice plexes in FW..... but in nullsec, it really just isn't viable anymore. Giving these modules the ability to be fit into a utility high, would at least bring a little hope back to Frigate play in Nullsec anyway. |
Nafensoriel
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
177
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 02:20:09 -
[420] - Quote
Ewar in utility highs? That won't totally imbalance EWAR hulls and make for hilarious situations where you completely lockdown literally everything you run into.
Seriously though the midslot limitation is part of balance. They generally contain things that lock down an enemy either by stabbing them, webbing them, or preventing them from dictating the fight the way they might otherwise choose to. If you take any of these items and expand them outside of the midslot with exclusivity you will automatically grant whatever that item is an insane buff via power creep. The choice to fit that item suddenly becomes very easy and thus the risk associated with NOT having said item along goes away as well.
I'm sorry but highslot EWAR without making literally everything highslot would just make a balance nightmare. |
|
Bloodmyst Ranwar
Leviathan Rising Affirmative.
145
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 02:31:49 -
[421] - Quote
Because the current T3D/Garmur/Orthrus/Rapid Missile Systems meta isn't already a "balance nightmare." |
Bloodmyst Ranwar
Leviathan Rising Affirmative.
145
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 02:38:38 -
[422] - Quote
Bloodmyst Ranwar wrote:Nafensoriel wrote:Ewar in utility highs? That won't totally imbalance EWAR hulls and make for hilarious situations where you completely lockdown literally everything you run into.
Seriously though the midslot limitation is part of balance. They generally contain things that lock down an enemy either by stabbing them, webbing them, or preventing them from dictating the fight the way they might otherwise choose to. If you take any of these items and expand them outside of the midslot with exclusivity you will automatically grant whatever that item is an insane buff via power creep. The choice to fit that item suddenly becomes very easy and thus the risk associated with NOT having said item along goes away as well.
I'm sorry but highslot EWAR without making literally everything highslot would just make a balance nightmare. Because the current T3D/Garmur/Orthrus/Rapid Missile Systems meta isn't already a "balance nightmare."
And if the point you are trying to make is in fact true, is it really that hard to prevent EWAR hulls from fitting these in their high slots?
Take a moment, take EWAR hulls out of the equation. Now do you really think it will be that much of a problem?
|
Zakks
Zakks Shop
13
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 06:47:01 -
[423] - Quote
Bloodmyst Ranwar wrote:Bloodmyst Ranwar wrote:Nafensoriel wrote:Ewar in utility highs? That won't totally imbalance EWAR hulls and make for hilarious situations where you completely lockdown literally everything you run into.
Seriously though the midslot limitation is part of balance. They generally contain things that lock down an enemy either by stabbing them, webbing them, or preventing them from dictating the fight the way they might otherwise choose to. If you take any of these items and expand them outside of the midslot with exclusivity you will automatically grant whatever that item is an insane buff via power creep. The choice to fit that item suddenly becomes very easy and thus the risk associated with NOT having said item along goes away as well.
I'm sorry but highslot EWAR without making literally everything highslot would just make a balance nightmare. Because the current T3D/Garmur/Orthrus/Rapid Missile Systems meta isn't already a "balance nightmare." And if the point you are trying to make is in fact true, is it really that hard to prevent EWAR hulls from fitting these in their high slots? Take a moment, take EWAR hulls out of the equation. Now do you really think it will be that much of a problem?
I think Drone-boats would become massively OP with your idea of ewar in the highslots. That's just one hull meta. I can think of other OP fittings with highslot ewar too, none of which are natural ewar ships. Your idea might work for your limited use, but will unbalance too many other ships. |
Skyler Hawk
Boars on Parade The Tuskers Co.
63
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 12:14:18 -
[424] - Quote
When can we expect these to be on SiSi for testing? |
Pandora Bokks
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2015.11.10 10:23:38 -
[425] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:If they're going to use the same skills/bonuses as Tracking Disruptors, why not just use missile disruption scripts for the existing Tracking Disruptors instead of a new module? As always ( ), my thinking here is geared toward small gang, who while roaming are not going to know if they're going to be facing turret ships or missile ships until they're facing them.
No, this would make TD mandatory on unbonused hulls and nerf ships with low number of mid slots even more. Novice FW plexes would be Hookbill online. |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm NEOS FLEET
9
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 03:23:33 -
[426] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
What Day One of Amarr Championships told us?
1) never bring TD *even on bonussed hulls* vs guaranteed opponent's turret setup, you'll be better off with ECM/dumps or one more DPS ship. 2) Unbonussed TD? Why even bother? 3) If you *belive in TDs* and bring it in its perfect matchup, enjoy its uselessness and get rekd by unbonussed ECM or one more line ship that ignoring your EWAR by just pressing "keep at 500"
|
Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
10
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 15:16:26 -
[427] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
What Day One of Amarr Championships told us? 1) never bring TD *even on bonussed hulls* vs guaranteed opponent's turret setup, you'll be better off with ECM/dumps or one more DPS ship. 2) Unbonussed TD? Why even bother? 3) If you *belive in TDs* and bring it in its perfect matchup, enjoy its uselessness and get rekd by unbonussed ECM or one more line ship that ignoring your EWAR by just pressing "keep at 500"
Did you know TD also has a tracking script?
Try orbiting at 500m instead of keeping at range with that bad boy loaded.
|
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
772
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 15:19:47 -
[428] - Quote
Idame Isqua wrote:Mad Abbat wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:
Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs? A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.
What Day One of Amarr Championships told us? 1) never bring TD *even on bonussed hulls* vs guaranteed opponent's turret setup, you'll be better off with ECM/dumps or one more DPS ship. 2) Unbonussed TD? Why even bother? 3) If you *belive in TDs* and bring it in its perfect matchup, enjoy its uselessness and get rekd by unbonussed ECM or one more line ship that ignoring your EWAR by just pressing "keep at 500" Did you know TD also has a tracking script? Try orbiting at 500m instead of keeping at range with that bad boy loaded. ECM burst.. Your dead.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Why can't CCP see the obvious - Large dominating groups are bad for Eve.
|
Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
10
|
Posted - 2015.11.12 15:21:21 -
[429] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: ECM burst.. Your dead.
Lol who gets jammed
Bads that's who
|
Shitposting Forum Alt
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 01:21:20 -
[430] - Quote
This is so irrational. The whole point of missiles vs turrets was that they were different. Now youve got missile tracking computers and missile tracking disruptors? That's ******* ********, sorry. |
|
Kitty Bear
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club
1527
|
Posted - 2015.11.14 13:45:13 -
[431] - Quote
Shitposting Forum Alt wrote:This is so irrational. The whole point of missiles vs turrets was that they were different. Now youve got missile tracking computers and missile tracking disruptors? That doesn't make any sense. Why even have missiles?
because the turret crybabies have whined for so long that ccp has finally caved in. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
37
|
Posted - 2015.11.16 09:39:48 -
[432] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote: 1) never bring TD *even on bonussed hulls* vs guaranteed opponent's turret setup, you'll be better off with ECM/dumps or one more DPS ship. 2) Unbonussed TD? Why even bother? 3) If you *belive in TDs* and bring it in its perfect matchup, enjoy its uselessness and get rekd by unbonussed ECM or one more line ship that ignoring your EWAR by just pressing "keep at 500"
1. If your bonused TD isn't working, you're doing it wrong.
2. agreed.
3a. unbonused ECM overpowered too huh? Dear Lord, please stay off the paranoia cereals for a week or so. Yes it does land the occasional jam. It is after all chance based. That chance however is very slim, so you are complaining said module does its job every once in a blue moon? I for one wouldn't count on a lone unbonused ECM to save my life.
3b. "keep at 500" improves tracking. It also makes You easier to hit for the very same reason. Your argument mainly illustrates your utter lack of comprehension on how to properly use a tracking disruptor. I'll walk you through it in a nutshell:
against short-range weapons, use Optimal Range scripts. Watch DPS markedly go down. against long-range weapons, use Tracking Disruption scripts. Watch snipers hit for ****. against being unable to keep the enemy at range, use the appropriate module - eg Web, scram. A Tracking disruptor cannot save you when neither tracking speed nor optimal range can be disrupted. When that is the case, the culprit is poor range dictation. Fit nano, dualprop, secundary web, polycarbon engine housing but don't expect the TD to simply "invalidate that guy's turrets over there". As you pointed out: the savvy pilot can and will work around it. Even if that means setting himself up to receive more damage from you.
To be entirely honest, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... but I think I hear somebody complaining becoz Falcon. Allow me to raise one last counter-argument to set the record straight. Crucifiers, Arbitrators, Curses and Pilgrims deal decent DPS, supported by TD for defense. Yes you read the correct: the TD is essentially part of their tank. Griffins, Blackbirds, Rooks and Falcons on the other hand do bubkes for damage. Zilch. Nada. They are paperthin to boot. Their ONLY purpose is to ECM the everloving crap out of everything, and it takes no less than 4 mids, 2 lows and 2 rigs to really start packing a punch. What it boils down to, is that one should not only judge the module, but also the hull this module is intended for. I will grant you that Tracking Disruptors have a less dramatic impact than ECMs, although combined with the shiphull this balances out quite nicely.
TDs are okay. They're not magic, nor are they intended to be. If you claim you can't see a tangible difference with or without, then please get out of the Crucifier's cockpit and let someone else drive it for you. |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm NEOS FLEET
9
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 09:30:30 -
[433] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:[quote=Mad Abbat] TDs are okay. They're not magic, nor are they intended to be. If you claim you can't see a tangible difference with or without, then please get out of the Crucifier's cockpit and let someone else drive it for you.
wtf is that wall of stupidity.
Look at replays in AT, and recent Amarr championships.
How many TDs in AT? dumps - check ECM - check Webs - check TPs - check
TD? lolwut is that.
AC is a perfect mathup for TD and guess what? Nobody bothers with bringging it, beacasue its garbage and subpar choice, and if team does, that team ends up kicked out by sane people. |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation Just let it happen
421
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 12:40:58 -
[434] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:[quote=Mad Abbat] TDs are okay. They're not magic, nor are they intended to be. If you claim you can't see a tangible difference with or without, then please get out of the Crucifier's cockpit and let someone else drive it for you. wtf is that wall of stupidity. Look at replays in AT, and recent Amarr championships. How many TDs in AT? dumps - check ECM - check Webs - check TPs - check TD? lolwut is that. AC is a perfect mathup for TD and guess what? Nobody bothers with bringging it, beacasue its garbage and subpar choice, and if team does, that team ends up kicked out by sane people.
Because scheduled tournaments with rules, limited points, limited pilots, ship bans and a 100km radius arena are so representative of the overall meta of the game. Right.
TDS are fine. They're good enough as is and we definitely don't need a "one module fits all" thing going on with missile scripts on a single TD module. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
242
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 15:30:39 -
[435] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:[quote=Mad Abbat] TDs are okay. They're not magic, nor are they intended to be. If you claim you can't see a tangible difference with or without, then please get out of the Crucifier's cockpit and let someone else drive it for you. wtf is that wall of stupidity. Look at replays in AT, and recent Amarr championships. How many TDs in AT? dumps - check ECM - check Webs - check TPs - check TD? lolwut is that. AC is a perfect mathup for TD and guess what? Nobody bothers with bringging it, beacasue its garbage and subpar choice, and if team does, that team ends up kicked out by sane people.
how many long points where used in at? |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
37
|
Posted - 2015.11.17 16:21:50 -
[436] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:[quote=Mad Abbat] TDs are okay. They're not magic, nor are they intended to be. If you claim you can't see a tangible difference with or without, then please get out of the Crucifier's cockpit and let someone else drive it for you. wtf is that wall of stupidity. Look at replays in AT, and recent Amarr championships. How many TDs in AT? dumps - check ECM - check Webs - check TPs - check TD? lolwut is that. AC is a perfect mathup for TD and guess what? Nobody bothers with bringging it, beacasue its garbage and subpar choice, and if team does, that team ends up kicked out by sane people.
I always love replies where not one thing I said is addressed ;-) You didn't bring a TD so it sucks balls? Yup. I can totally see that. I didn't bring a Gila either so you can imagine what a crappy boat it is. I'll be honest: I didn't watch the tournament. Because burn empire burn. But I have been an EWAR pilot since like forever, so please do tell me what You think is wrong with the TD in its current state. Not what you've seen on television or whatnot -- did you personally use it, and if so, how did it fail you?
I'll give you another thing to ponder: is there any situation where TDs (on their appropriate hull, mind you) trump other EWARs? Sure there is! Brawling comes to mind. ECM? Too thin. Damps? May hinder target acquisition somewhat, but again nope. Target Painters? Yeah, that helps; although you'll rely on someone else to apply the deeps. Tracking Disruptors? Boss! Good tanks, good damage output, mitigates incoming damage ... what's not to love?
Here's another one: TDs are generally more useful in small gangs, where you don't have enough numbers to make damps count or you'd lose too much DPS in dedicated EWAR pilots. Quite useful against larger ships whose tracking is already struggling, yet which also happen to have targeting range in abundance.
Now, to get back on topic: if one were to include missile disruption scripts into TDs as well, they would be too versatile and start overpowering the other EWARs.
(and no, a simple reference to a match where allegedly no TD was used won't talk you out of this one son. "lolwut" is about as useful as not posting at all). Good day to you too, Sir. |
Esnaelc Sin'led
The Unchained Club
40
|
Posted - 2015.11.19 11:57:46 -
[437] - Quote
Are you planning on adding med slots for specialised Tracking Disruptive boats ? Or isn't it better to just add new scripts, and not new modules ? Or is it to leave players chose carefully which modules they fit.
I remember as a new player who chose Amarr i always asked myself why my Crucifier had no Missile Disruption, good addition to the game ! For once, unlike drones, you seem to anticipate WAYYY earlier the "missile meta" growing up those days. (along with tweaks on Mordus Legion ships). +1 |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
654
|
Posted - 2015.11.19 17:51:42 -
[438] - Quote
Esnaelc Sin'led wrote:Are you planning on adding med slots for specialised Tracking Disruptive boats ? Or isn't it better to just add new scripts, and not new modules ? Or is it to leave players chose carefully which modules they fit.
I remember as a new player who chose Amarr i always asked myself why my Crucifier had no Missile Disruption, good addition to the game ! For once, unlike drones, you seem to anticipate WAYYY earlier the "missile meta" growing up those days. (along with tweaks on Mordus Legion ships). +1
3rd option more than likely. They're already going to receive additions to their bonuses to include MD's once they are released, no reason to give them extra mids considering how powerful these will be unbonused versus a missile boat. The choice of having a seperate MD module versus a script for TD's has already been addressed.
"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."
|
Iam Widdershins
Puppies and Christmas
895
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 04:17:21 -
[439] - Quote
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?
I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :) Basically, there is less tactical variation and decision behind putting together the ewar for your gang/fleet if it's all the same thing. Missiles are already fairly balanced without ANY form of disruption, and already struggle in their competition vs guns; expanding ewar coverage to slam their effectiveness into the ground with a single blindly-fit weapon disruption platform would be a significant nerf.
And to CCP: Sounds good, I like this decision. Any news on the possibility of remote missile guidance to go alongside remote tracking computers, with accompanied bonuses on the Minmatar and Gallente logistics?
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
112
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 05:23:53 -
[440] - Quote
May have already been answered, but I assume that the optimal range and falloff of these new missile disruptors are the same as with the current turret disruptors, given they will be using the same skills.
Much the same with fitting requirements, are they going to be much the same as what the turret disruptors are? I would like to think so. |
|
Samaz Ralan
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 20:02:29 -
[441] - Quote
It seems logical that the Gallente Ewar ships would get a bonus to Missile Disruption... does ecm turn off a gallente ship's drones? |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
281
|
Posted - 2015.11.21 21:27:19 -
[442] - Quote
Yay... now the lowest dps weapon in the game can do even less damage!
Been around since the beginning.
|
Queotzcatl
RENEGADES YIY HEKATEK
10
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 15:21:44 -
[443] - Quote
I think we much need T2 F.O.F. . at this point.. a type uneffected by all sorts of disruption.
AND make at least some missile ships undisruptable. I am thinking about MORDU's especially. Don't forget missiles are SMART in reality. I'm against this TD missile module. What about Drones then? Kill velocity of a missile is going to hurt so bad a missile ship effectiveness that is almost baerely hitting small targets, it will kill it definitely. Rethink the whole please, kill flight time is one thing, velocity is another... |
Queotzcatl
RENEGADES YIY HEKATEK
10
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 15:41:38 -
[444] - Quote
Samaz Ralan wrote:It seems logical that the Gallente Ewar ships would get a bonus to Missile Disruption... does ecm turn off a gallente ship's drones?
Drones can be set to Aggressive... why Caldari dont get some smart anti/drone F.o.F. instead? |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
112
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 20:48:26 -
[445] - Quote
What are the full stats for these new modules?
That info being released before December? |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1455
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 22:21:27 -
[446] - Quote
So some sort of drone telemetry disruptors are next, right?
We have omnidirectional tracking enhancers and omnidirectional tracking links. (low and midslot items)
We need a counter. Probably more-so than we needed a counter for missiles.
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2829
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 03:00:30 -
[447] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote:So some sort of drone telemetry disruptors are next, right? I remember a few months back there were tweets and such that hinted it was an upcoming thing. Haven't heard of it since unfortunately. |
Mike Whiite
Space Mutts
394
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 14:56:13 -
[448] - Quote
is any of this on the test server yet, or can we except the same, glorious devotion to testing and tweaking as the missile guidance modules?
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2927
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 14:45:12 -
[449] - Quote
Just going to go ahead and say, before MD's go live, this is a stupid idea and CCP Larrikin should be ashamed. Bad Aussie. Bad.
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2464
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 15:03:37 -
[450] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Just going to go ahead and say, before MD's go live, this is a stupid idea and CCP Larrikin should be ashamed. Bad Aussie. Bad.
No no no.
It's right an proper that there are more counters to missiles than guns, that they do less paper and applied DPS. Or something. |
|
Queotzcatl
RENEGADES YIY HEKATEK
10
|
Posted - 2015.11.27 23:25:20 -
[451] - Quote
Remember is already quite a pain have to kill some stupidly fast warp disruption drones while Ecm'd and only thing you got is some stupid F.O.F. missiles, now add to that dwarfed missiles velocity and flight time kill... eventually could they go backwards???
It could be ok but at least Buff all of missiles velocity altogether... ....just my opinion.. |
Wanda Fayne
State Protectorate Caldari State
115
|
Posted - 2015.11.27 23:40:00 -
[452] - Quote
We get the remote missile tracking module at the time of the missile disruptor release too*
*I'm just going to assume this is true.
|
Chan'aar
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2015.11.28 18:08:17 -
[453] - Quote
Chance Ravinne wrote:I am concerned that missiles could take too large of a hit here, in addition to some application losses from the Aegis stacking penalty introduction. I'd love to see base application stats looked at even if it means nerfing say bombers to compensate for increased torpedo viability.
This, missile application needs to be looked at across all sizes. |
Arthur Aihaken
State Protectorate Caldari State
4763
|
Posted - 2015.11.28 18:14:02 -
[454] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:We get the remote missile tracking module at the time of the missile disruptor release too* Right...
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Bloody Ozran
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2015.11.28 21:05:35 -
[455] - Quote
As a new guy I feel kinda weird about this, ecm affects all, though you need a specific item to use it for full effect, but damps on maulus I fly often is just so strong, works on anything, even logistic ships. But as I want to fly amarr I felt that crucifier is just not as good, then I heard about missile disruption and I was like yay \o/, it won't be that weird to bring it in a fleet if I dont know what we will fight, but meh, it will.
Why is it that damps are so strong, webs and painters also work on all, but amarr t1 ewar frig doesnt get real love here, by adding another item I need to fit instead of a script as some people suggest. It would be still weaker compared to damps, but I could finally fly it without feeling useless when missile ships appear. Total balance is impossible, but at least getting closer is a good goal and imo the script version of this idea would be getting closer to balanced ewar options.
Now, and even after, it is just maulus all the way over crucifier. :( |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1968
|
Posted - 2015.11.28 22:26:39 -
[456] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:We get the remote missile tracking module at the time of the missile disruptor release too*
*I'm just going to assume this is true.
LOL
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
921
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 01:03:20 -
[457] - Quote
Bloody Ozran wrote:As a new guy I feel kinda weird about this, ecm affects all..
... I stopped reading right there.
Let me explain what an ECM module does, it insta-pops all ships at activation, disbands all alliances, captures all stations, kills all gates and crushes all wormhole connections.
By using one of them you become invulnarable for the whole duration, all supercap are being destroyed, all wallets are emptied and the market erased. All buy orders are cancled and all sell order are cancled. All assests you have will be deleted and everyone has to start over with an Ibis.
Good luck!
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2842
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 01:12:09 -
[458] - Quote
Wanda Fayne wrote:We get the remote missile tracking module at the time of the missile disruptor release too*
*I'm just going to assume this is true.
I wish. That's what's really missing in all these changes. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2842
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 01:15:13 -
[459] - Quote
Bloody Ozran wrote:As a new guy I feel kinda weird about this, ecm affects all, though you need a specific item to use it for full effect, but damps on maulus I fly often is just so strong, works on anything, even logistic ships. But as I want to fly amarr I felt that crucifier is just not as good, then I heard about missile disruption and I was like yay \o/, it won't be that weird to bring it in a fleet if I dont know what we will fight, but meh, it will.
Why is it that damps are so strong, webs and painters also work on all, but amarr t1 ewar frig doesnt get real love here, by adding another item I need to fit instead of a script as some people suggest. It would be still weaker compared to damps, but I could finally fly it without feeling useless when missile ships appear. Total balance is impossible, but at least getting closer is a good goal and imo the script version of this idea would be getting closer to balanced ewar options.
Now, and even after, it is just maulus all the way over crucifier. :( The thing about damps is that their dependence on a static battlefield. If someone is already close and locked on a target, a damp does nothing.
the ways to maneuver around the negative bonus are easy to do, but the power is in forcing a choice for the pilots being damped. |
Otso Bakarti
Filial Pariahs
490
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 12:46:49 -
[460] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal. Some times I think that people don't realize the impact of not having unlimited personnel and funding, as well as the natural fact of the 24-hour day. Also, it seems the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is lost on some people.
Paranoia strikes deep....
|
|
EvilDoomer
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 21:45:34 -
[461] - Quote
Genghis Tron wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** I agree with this! Since you are literally the only person working at CCP, Fozzie, you really ought to stick on one project and stop multi-tasking. Put down that slice of pizza! You can't eat and dev at the same time. Do one thing. I'm paying for this game, listen to meeee! Also, love the idea. This has been much needed for quite some time. Keep up the great work CCP!
Fozzie should be fired! for messing up the game that he dont even play!
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1002
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 22:21:26 -
[462] - Quote
I have a concern...
While missile velocity is tied to range, it's more relevant to consider it the same as tracking. I say this because low base velocity means inability to hit small, fast moving targets.
MDs effecting flight time as well as velocity means that they are reducing your range, as well as reducing your relative "tracking".
It's a bit different for exp velocity and radius, but is still problematic. By effecting exp velocity, you're effecting my ability to hit moving targets. By reducing exp radius, you're effecting my ability to hit the broad side of a barn, which is already an issue with some missile systems.
I personally think that MDs should effect ONLY flight time and exp velocity. Now, if they're scripted for flight time, they have to be outside of a certain range, instead of using it to kite your missiles. With exp velocity script, you're effectively reducing your ability to hit moving targets, while not effecting your ability to hit stationary targets.
I personally believe this is the best coarse of action. With TD scripted for tracking, you reduce the ability to hit moving targets, with no effect on stationary targets. With script for optimal/falloff, you're reducing range without effecting tracking.
Does anyone else see the unequal variation here? |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
671
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 23:11:38 -
[463] - Quote
Won't really matter until CCP finally wises up and actually rebalances missiles like people have been saying, rather than completely avoiding do anything of the sort and instead coming up with more and more ways to nerf all of them the same way because a few ships have made some missiles seem a little too strong. Why it seems like CCP thinks all missiles and launchers are the same and need the same across-the-board changes is beyond me.
Part of me is just really hoping CCP is just stumped on what to do with missiles and haven't really decided what they want to do to them on an individual case-by-case scale and they are in the meantime getting all of the extra crap out of the way for now. I know none of them like to make potentially empty promises which is why they are strangely silent at times, but it'd sure be nice to know what they are thinking sometimes nonetheless. What's the plan of attack after releasing these, or are we really just winging it from expansion to expansion?
Don't get me wrong, you guys do awesome work, but sometimes you guys worry 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."
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1002
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 00:29:16 -
[464] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Won't really matter until CCP finally wises up and actually rebalances missiles like people have been saying, rather than completely avoiding do anything of the sort and instead coming up with more and more ways to nerf all of them the same way because a few ships have made some missiles seem a little too strong. Why it seems like CCP thinks all missiles and launchers are the same and need the same across-the-board changes is beyond me.
Part of me is just really hoping CCP is just stumped on what to do with missiles and haven't really decided what they want to do to them on an individual case-by-case scale and they are in the meantime getting all of the extra crap out of the way for now. I know none of them like to make potentially empty promises which is why they are strangely silent at times, but it'd sure be nice to know what they are thinking sometimes nonetheless. What's the plan of attack after releasing these, or are we really just winging it from expansion to expansion?
Don't get me wrong, you guys do awesome work, but sometimes you guys worry me. Thing is, CCP puts these threads up in order to get feedback, as there are a lot more heads that could potentially come up with concerns that the staff/team at CCP may have overlooked.
When you create a thread with 20+ pages of feedback, mostly stating the issues with the design, you'd think they would consider that, being the reasoning for the thread in the first place.
If they're not going to consider player input, then why ask for feedback, or an open thread? Hell, why even mention it before it goes active?
We players stated the concerns with MGCs and MGEs, it went ignored by CCP. Now they are making changes. We spoke of the issues with several ships that have been rebalanced before release, now they have gone back and changed some, and have more left..
It seems like a recurring theme here.. Suggest a change/addition, players express concerns, CCP pushes plan, issues expressed by player occur, CCP reverts/modifies several months later. If there are any concerns with the new iterations, repeat process...
There have been a few cases where they have modified a change before pushing live, but it seems that these situations boil down to very obvious oversights that attention is brought to. If the issue isn't "that" blatantly obvious to CCP, they'll ignore cries of foul, until the issue has broken the live server..
IE, said ship is OP. Players state issue before release, CCP pushes release, players take advantage of the issue in order to overpower others for the sake of SOV, KMs,'tears, cheers, and rage quits. After several months of this, CCP comes back and says "oops" and makes changes, yet all of the loss that occured during the process is not covered, despite the players having informed them of the issue before implementation.
So, it's there bad for not listening to the players, but it's your bad for any losses accrued due to said issue. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4774
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 01:32:18 -
[465] - Quote
So seriously, when do we get to see: GÇó Remote Missile Guidance Computers GÇó Faction Missile Guidance Computers, Missile Guidance Enhancers and Remote Missile Guidance Computers
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
112
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 15:39:52 -
[466] - Quote
When do we get to see the actual module stats for these?
Can't imagine they are coming in a weeks time when there doesn't even seem to be hardly any info out for them. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
672
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 16:55:42 -
[467] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:When do we get to see the actual module stats for these?
Can't imagine they are coming in a weeks time when there doesn't even seem to be hardly any info out for them.
They've already stated it's for the December release, so unless they pull a 180 on that and decide to hold off on them until January or later, expect to see them hitting TQ in a week.
"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."
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
112
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 18:01:35 -
[468] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Shalashaska Adam wrote:When do we get to see the actual module stats for these?
Can't imagine they are coming in a weeks time when there doesn't even seem to be hardly any info out for them. They've already stated it's for the December release, so unless they pull a 180 on that and decide to hold off on them until January or later, expect to see them hitting TQ in a week.
I'd expect to see them on sisi by now, or at the least have the module stats in this thread.
While I presume stuff like fitting, cap use, range, etc, are all the same as the turret counterparts, would be nice to know. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
672
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 18:08:19 -
[469] - Quote
If nothing else, we'll likely know by the end of the work week either way. CCP has been pretty on the ball lately with publishing the patch notes for expansion by the weekend prior to. Wonder if anything different has been posted on reddit.
"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
CODE.d
4775
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 22:14:32 -
[470] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:I'd expect to see them on sisi by now, or at the least have the module stats in this thread. They're still not on SiSi yet?!
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Matthew Dust
Valklear Legionnaires Minmatar Republic Marines
46
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 22:40:25 -
[471] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks! If you've followed our development over the past few years you'll know that the idea of tracking disruptors for missiles has been bouncing around for a long time. 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. We think that adding Missile Disruptors will create some interesting new fitting options, especially for ships with bonuses to weapon disruption.
We're now planning on releasing these new modules in our December release, and we're ready to start getting your feedback! These disruptors would be seperate modules within the same group as Tracking Disruptors. They will use the same skills and get the same bonuses as Tracking Disurptors (so for example a Pilgrim would automatically get bonuses for these modules). Pilots will be able to choose what combo of missile and tracking disruptors to fit on their ships, based on what they expect to face.
Sorry Fozzie Bear,
But this needs to be said, of all the EWAR that needs to be completely repurposed it would have been Minmatar EWAR. UNLESS YOU'RE A HARDCORE BELLICOSE/VIGIL FAN, I think everyone would agree that target painters (while useful, specifically in conjunction with caldari fleets) that for Minmatar ships it's next to useless. It's literally the least popular ewar there is in the game, and the ships that get bonuses to it? Just as unpopular. There's a reason no one fits huggins and rapiers with anything but webs, and that's because webs are more effective than target painting when it comes to aiding in damage application.
Let's review, Amarr T1 ships already get bonuses to neuts, tracking disruptors, and now missile guidance disruption? (Amarr and Caldari are the only ones with dedicated EWAR Battleships.)
I'm not saying don't add the module, but seriously, consider target painters as an all around ship module, and give minmatar the ewar they deserve and need, I'd even settle for the Minmatar roles applied on Serpentis Ships and Blood Raider Ships (WEB STRENGTH/WEB RANGE) this wouldn't break the game since it would only apply to the Bellicose/Vigil (terrible DPS only need the bonus to web range [re work navy ewar frig] ) and the huggin/rapier (already have the bonus to range. so just give them strength so they don't have to triple web one ship)
Seriously I bet there isn't one developer on your team who's like, yeah Minmatar target painters are a decent racial ewar. If NPC's could talk, they would get rid of it and up the webbing technology. |
PAPULA
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
74
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 05:54:48 -
[472] - Quote
If you're adding tracking distruption and ewar against missiles, you need to take a look at some ship bonuses. For example all turret ships get bonus to damage, missile ships normally don't get bonus to damage, because right of now missiles couldn't get disrupted.
Example: 1. Kronos gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage 2. Vargur gets 8 Turrets + 33% Damage (25% ROF) 3. Tempest gets 6 Turrets + 25% Damage + 49.5% Damage (37.5% ROF) which gets you 11.2125 turrets 4. Abaddon gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage 5. Paladin gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage
6. Golem gets 8 Launchers, no Damage bonus 7. Raven gets 8 Launchers 8. Raven Navy Issue gets 8 Launchers |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm NEOS FLEET
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 07:11:27 -
[473] - Quote
Pls add damage bonus to my apoc and apoc NI too. And don't forget the rokh :D |
Mike Whiite
Space Mutts
395
|
Posted - 2015.12.01 08:01:23 -
[474] - Quote
It looks a lot like this is following the same course as the Missile Guidance modules, which comes down to no or very little testing, cheap copy past trick on the turret modules, resulting in, messy blue prints asking for the same materials as e turret version.
followed some hidden nerf on missiles them self, followed by a deafening silence from defs.
PAPULA wrote:If you're adding tracking distruption and ewar against missiles, you need to take a look at some ship bonuses. For example all turret ships get bonus to damage, missile ships normally don't get bonus to damage, because right of now missiles couldn't get disrupted.
Example: 1. Kronos gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage 2. Vargur gets 8 Turrets + 33% Damage (25% ROF) 3. Tempest gets 6 Turrets + 25% Damage + 49.5% Damage (37.5% ROF) which gets you 11.2125 turrets 4. Abaddon gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage 5. Paladin gets 8 Turrets + 25% Damage
6. Golem gets 8 Launchers, no Damage bonus 7. Raven gets 8 Launchers 8. Raven Navy Issue gets 8 Launchers
While excellent points things run deeper than that, the guidance modules, being cheap copy pastes, from their turret counterparts are rather expensive on the CPU front, which ways heavy on the missile shield ships that already need a lot of CPU.
Quote:Pls add damage bonus to my apoc and apoc NI too. Big smile And don't forget the rokh :D
No problem, as long as they take the same base damage as missiles, lose critical hits, clip size and reload time. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
113
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 15:50:05 -
[475] - Quote
http://imgur.com/a/OU5WU
Missile Disruptors now on sisi.
Quite concerned with how sharply the range is cut for the meta mods, given that half of their purpose is directly tied to it.
Right now we have the Balmer tracking disruptor, with 32 cpu and the full 72km range and power of the T2 disruptor.
In comparison, the only missile disruptor that will fit within 32 cpu, has just 60km range, in addition to its weaker power.
I assume the tracking disruptors are due for a tiericide at some point, otherwise the disparity between them is quite a lot.
I think 48km for T2, 46km for the Highstroke, 44km for the compact and enduring, and 42km for the T1, would be better.
I assume when the tracking counterparts are tiericided, they will be changed to essentially match these new missile ones.
We have a fit that operates at 70km currently with balmers. With a compact MD we would have such a large reduction in range by comparison. It will only have a 50% chance of applying at 70km, compared to 100% for the balmer TD. |
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 17:18:57 -
[476] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:http://imgur.com/a/OU5WU
Missile Disruptors now on sisi.
Quite concerned with how sharply the range is cut for the meta mods, given that half of their purpose is directly tied to it.
Right now we have the Balmer tracking disruptor, with 32 cpu and the full 48km range and power of the T2 disruptor.
In comparison, the only missile disruptor that will fit within 32 cpu, has just 40km range, in addition to its weaker power.
I think 48km for T2, 46km for the Highstroke, 44km for the compact and enduring, and 42km for the T1, would be better.
I assume when the tracking counterparts are tiericided, they will be changed to essentially match these new missile ones.
Currently they all have varying range improvements over the T1 disruptor, 44km being the basic middle ground.
Perhaps also tone down the CPU requirements for these. 48 CPU is an enormous amount for frigates to use.
The enormous 10 second cycle time is also a killer for smaller scale fights, these aren't very frigate friendly.
Thoughts Fozzie? Would be nice to have a little feedback and forth for these before they get released.
Cap Warfare was the first ewar to get "touched" by module tiercide. So, without further info brought out, I am guessing this all ties into a full blown e-war rebalance. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
113
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 18:12:30 -
[477] - Quote
Vailen Sere wrote:Cap Warfare was the first ewar to get "touched" by module tiercide. So, without further info brought out, I am guessing this all ties into a full blown e-war rebalance.
Turret disruptors are sure to get tiericided also, but I don't think there's an active intention to nerf their range.
Given the T1 and T2 remain the same, I just think the average range nerf for the meta options is just a minor overlook. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1249
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 19:24:31 -
[478] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:Vailen Sere wrote:Cap Warfare was the first ewar to get "touched" by module tiercide. So, without further info brought out, I am guessing this all ties into a full blown e-war rebalance. Turret disruptors are sure to get tiericided also, but I don't think there's an active intention to nerf their range. Given the T1 and T2 remain the same, I just think the average range nerf for the meta options is just a minor overlook.
there should be an active intention too nerf there strength, just another reason why drones are dominant is all the easy ways too nerf turrets and now missiles into uselessness.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
113
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 19:36:04 -
[479] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: there should be an active intention too nerf there strength, just another reason why drones are dominant is all the easy ways too nerf turrets and now missiles into uselessness.
I don't think TD's or MD's are overpowered. They take up alot of cpu, and important midslots, for a disruptive effect on only one kind of weapon system. You just don't see them on that many fits, for those reasons alone. If they sucked as well, you just wouldn't see them at all.
Drones having less counter-play I'm sure will get addressed at some point with some anti-drone ewar of some kind. Which would itself be quite easy to balance because once again you have to actually fit the module in the first place for it to be used. The amount of use the TD sees now is no real cause for concern, it's frequency on the most common fits is quite balanced.
Damps, disruptors, paints, are all pretty fine as they are. Neuts are far more common, but are also fine.
ECM itself I think could stand to be changed, not because its too commonplace, just because its effect is too chance based. |
EvilDoomer
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
2
|
Posted - 2015.12.04 16:16:50 -
[480] - Quote
Matthew Dust wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks! If you've followed our development over the past few years you'll know that the idea of tracking disruptors for missiles has been bouncing around for a long time. 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. We think that adding Missile Disruptors will create some interesting new fitting options, especially for ships with bonuses to weapon disruption.
We're now planning on releasing these new modules in our December release, and we're ready to start getting your feedback! These disruptors would be seperate modules within the same group as Tracking Disruptors. They will use the same skills and get the same bonuses as Tracking Disurptors (so for example a Pilgrim would automatically get bonuses for these modules). Pilots will be able to choose what combo of missile and tracking disruptors to fit on their ships, based on what they expect to face.
Sorry Fozzie Bear, But this needs to be said, of all the EWAR that needs to be completely repurposed it would have been Minmatar EWAR. UNLESS YOU'RE A HARDCORE BELLICOSE/VIGIL FAN, I think everyone would agree that target painters (while useful, specifically in conjunction with caldari fleets) that for Minmatar ships it's next to useless. It's literally the least popular ewar there is in the game, and the ships that get bonuses to it? Just as unpopular. There's a reason no one fits huggins and rapiers with anything but webs, and that's because webs are more effective than target painting when it comes to aiding in damage application. Let's review, Amarr T1 ships already get bonuses to neuts, tracking disruptors, and now missile guidance disruption? (Amarr and Caldari are the only ones with dedicated EWAR Battleships.) I'm not saying don't add the module, but seriously, consider target painters as an all around ship module, and give minmatar the ewar they deserve and need, I'd even settle for the Minmatar roles applied on Serpentis Ships and Blood Raider Ships (WEB STRENGTH/WEB RANGE) this wouldn't break the game since it would only apply to the Bellicose/Vigil (terrible DPS only need the bonus to web range [re work navy ewar frig] ) and the huggin/rapier (already have the bonus to range. so just give them strength so they don't have to triple web one ship) Seriously I bet there isn't one developer on your team who's like, yeah Minmatar target painters are a decent racial ewar. If NPC's could talk, they would get rid of it and up the webbing technology.
The real problem is that CCP Devs dont play the game everyday. And have no clue on whats good or bad. They listen to noobs that have been playing for 2 months and forget about peeps that have been in game for years. CCP wake up your killing this game with your GAME MECHANIC fixes!!! stop changing stuff to act like real world and precision missiles and fall off and that kind of stuff. YOUR killing this game and not fixing the stuff that really matters instead of add new features and Heck with problems. WAKE UP!
Trol troll trolllll
CCP start making the game fun again! Maybe play the actual game!! You nerfs and new additions are not making the game fun or adding new players. Missiles don't work, POS lasers cannot hit a slow moving bomber, Mines lost, Capitals are useless.
|
|
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
116
|
Posted - 2015.12.04 18:44:04 -
[481] - Quote
Doesnt appear to have been any feedback opportunity for these.
Only hit sisi a day before the final patch notes were released.
Little disappointed in that tbh. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2957
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 01:49:45 -
[482] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:Harvey James wrote: there should be an active intention too nerf there strength, just another reason why drones are dominant is all the easy ways too nerf turrets and now missiles into uselessness.
I don't think TD's or MD's are overpowered. They take up alot of cpu, and important midslots, for a disruptive effect on only one kind of weapon system. You just don't see them on that many fits, for those reasons alone. If they sucked as well, you just wouldn't see them at all. Drones having less counter-play I'm sure will get addressed at some point with some anti-drone ewar of some kind. Which would itself be quite easy to balance because once again you have to actually fit the module in the first place for it to be used. The amount of use the TD sees now is no real cause for concern, it's frequency on the most common fits is quite balanced. Damps, disruptors, paints, are all pretty fine as they are. Neuts are far more common, but are also fine. ECM itself I think could stand to be changed, not because its too commonplace, just because its effect is chance based.
The problem with statements like "they take up alot of CPU" is that it is false. Armour ships can free up CPU for midslot utility EWAR (the ubiquitous TD's everywhere T1 frig fits, for instance) by using resistance platings instead of EANMs. They can also fit CPU rigs (cheap as). A lot of what should theoretically be shield fit frigs, for instance, run small AAR's and midslot EWAR setups - for instance the Slasher, Condor, etc.
You also erroneously state "You just don't see them on that many fits, for those reasons alone". this is a nonsense; if the fit doesn't work, it's not a fit.
What you should be saying actually supports the view that MD's and midslot EWAR profliferation is bad, and that is: people will adjust the meta to take advantage of the MD's, TD's etc to further exacerbate midslot EWAR AAR solo boats (with links!), or armour tanked boats where resistance tank is moved to the rigs (where it is CPU free).
You clearly know nothing about how to fit a ship if you complain that high-resist shield buffer is unviable. Of course it is - which is why you'll see so many Vexors or Ishtars packing MD/TD midslots running around.
[Vexor, MD-TD]
1600mm Steel Plates II Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
MD or TD MD or TD 50MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Warp Disruptor II
Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Etc
[Slasher, MD-TD]
Small Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Dark Blood Adaptive Nano Plating
5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Warp Disruptor II Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I
200mm AutoCannon II, Barrage S 200mm AutoCannon II, Barrage S 200mm AutoCannon II, Barrage S [Empty High slot]
Small Auxiliary Nano Pump I Small Auxiliary Nano Pump I Small Anti-Explosive Pump I
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm NEOS FLEET
23
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 07:20:26 -
[483] - Quote
Interesting concepts, but.. Slasher has no cap to run this cap load and will be shredded by any combat frig with web. Comet for example, as most common frig in fw. There will be no kiting with 1600 plate and 3 armor rigs, not in a vexor anyways. And when you'll get scramwebbed, TDs will not help you, as TD/MD is a form of range control, just worse one than web/scram/dump.
If you TD optimal -> keep at "close" If you TD tracking -> keep at "scramkite"
Advantage of TDs? Approaching 0. You'd be better with active tank (speed) and dumps in meds, where target cant even lock you to apply hard tackle, let alone DPS.
If you are kiting in a kiting ship dupms is a superior form of range control, as it doesn't care about missiles, turrests, drones, reps whatever.. Or long webs doesnt care about what type of weapon type target has, you can just dictate and move to advantageous possition (kite/close orbit). |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
2957
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 09:21:08 -
[484] - Quote
Oh. My. God. Do you mean to say that you shouldn't pick on ever ship you come up against with a Slasher? Wow, that's news to me. i was about to suggest you go and use that Slasher against a Vindicator within its web range! Silly me!
Are we discussing tracking disruptors on a missile disruptor thread? Why, yes, yes we are! How silly of me that pyfa doesn't have these missile disruptors loaded and I didn't stipulate (because it should be eyeball-bleedingly obvious) that I was proving that MD's could be stacked on to ships.
Maybe you should consider the thrust of the argument not cherry pick an example where a faction frigate would tear you a new one against one of the weakest and most useless frigates in the game. I mean, just sayin'
consider the Slasher as throwaway tackle on, say, a HAM Legion. Or a Raven. Or a Sacrilege. Or a Cyclone. Or a HAM Tengu, kiting it's slow carcass at 20km while pushing -17% (unscripted) flight time, velocity bonuses for a total of -34% range, dropping its HAM range down to 10km.
Oh, oh! Or...or...maybe it is a Sentinel, and it gets a bonus to the MD's! And with 2 MD's unscripted the HAM range of the Tengu is like, 5km. And then you have neuts. And cap out the Tengu while AB scramkiting it with no web!
Amazing! Holy schnitzels! Why pick on Comets at all? Just use your AB slasher with scripted MD on the right Tengu and you're getting where I am going with my point! Holy, it's like midslot EWAR proliferation is such a thing that you can even use a gang of frigates to totally tear any cruiser to pieces now! LOLOL!!!!!!ONEONEFUCKINGONE!!!!!!
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm NEOS FLEET
23
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 10:45:41 -
[485] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Oh. My. God. Do you mean to say that you shouldn't pick on ever ship you come up against with a Slasher? Wow, that's news to me. i was about to suggest you go and use that Slasher against a Vindicator within its web range! Silly me!
that is the most common ship in FW zone, mb on par with trisnan. Thats why I picked it, Silly you.
Trinkets friend wrote: Are we discussing tracking disruptors on a missile disruptor thread? Why, yes, yes we are! How silly of me that pyfa doesn't have these missile disruptors loaded and I didn't stipulate (because it should be eyeball-bleedingly obvious) that I was proving that MD's could be stacked on to ships.
if you fit MD you can't fight turret ships, if you fit TD, you can't fight Missle ships, and drone boats will eat you alive regardless what you fit. Have FUN LOOKING for the fight you can take. in the mean time, say thx to Fozzie.
Trinkets friend wrote: consider the Slasher as throwaway tackle on, say, a HAM Legion. Or a Raven. Or a Sacrilege. Or a Cyclone. Or a HAM Tengu, kiting it's slow carcass at 20km while pushing -17% (unscripted) flight time, velocity bonuses for a total of -34% range, dropping its HAM range down to 10km.
Oh, oh! Or...or...maybe it is a Sentinel, and it gets a bonus to the MD's! And with 2 MD's unscripted the HAM range of the Tengu is like, 5km. And then you have neuts. And cap out the Tengu while AB scramkiting it with no web!
Amazing! Holy schnitzels! Why pick on Comets at all? Just use your AB slasher with scripted MD on the right Tengu and you're getting where I am going with my point! Holy, it's like midslot EWAR proliferation is such a thing that you can even use a gang of frigates to totally tear any cruiser to pieces now! LOLOL!!!!!!ONEONEFUCKINGONE!!!!!!
rly?
why whould one even consider it? Just grab a inty/garmur, orbit at 35-55 and chillax. 0 risk. 0 skill. 0 loses. |
Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
12
|
Posted - 2015.12.05 12:43:47 -
[486] - Quote
+1 to
Caldari need ewar that isnt jams Defender and Auto targeting missiles need a buff/do stuff Caldari need unique anti drone weapon
about these anti missile things these currently look way to strong you have forgot that if I tracking disrupt a ship that ship can move in space and nullify 100% my ewar with these things your inventing nothing can be done to counter them simply by moving my ship I have to use a module which I do not need if I'm using turrets
Something like a velocity/flight time penalty would of been appropriate scripted so that either the missile takes longer to get there or the missile has less range
|
Epsilon Ex
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 00:04:42 -
[487] - Quote
Turrets can already get tracking disrupted, which you can work around.
Drones can already be destroyed, which you can work around.
Missile disruption make sense. If they script for range, then move your ship closer. If they script for precision, then web and paint the target and it doesn't matter. There is still counter-play, which is what CCP wants. All weapon systems now have counter-play and all counter-weapon systems have counter-play. Counter counter counter.
To people complaining about missile damage, it's the only weapon system that does full damage from 0km to max range, requires no capacitor, and cannot be "reasonably" stopped like drones (any weapon system can also be used to kill drones. Can't shoot missiles down with blasters, but you can cap out the blaster boat who will no longer be able to fire).
All I hear is wah wah wah, I like missiles, please don't make anything that negatively affects the thing I like. Your argument is invalid |
Mike Whiite
Space Mutts
395
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 07:39:03 -
[488] - Quote
Epsilon Ex wrote:
To people complaining about missile damage, it's the only weapon system that does full damage from 0km to max range, requires no capacitor, and cannot be "reasonably" stopped like drones (any weapon system can also be used to kill drones. Can't shoot missiles down with blasters, but you can cap out the blaster boat who will no longer be able to fire).
No it doesn't and yes you can.
A quick look at the missile formula, show you're wrong
and while not being able to shout them down with blasters, you can out run them.
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1015
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 08:50:04 -
[489] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:Epsilon Ex wrote:
To people complaining about missile damage, it's the only weapon system that does full damage from 0km to max range, requires no capacitor, and cannot be "reasonably" stopped like drones (any weapon system can also be used to kill drones. Can't shoot missiles down with blasters, but you can cap out the blaster boat who will no longer be able to fire).
No it doesn't and yes you can. A quick look at the missile formula, show you're wrong and while not being able to shout them down with blasters, you can out run them.
This essentially.. I've seen a missile volley hit for 0 damage, as a result of exp velocity. This may be considered a "hit" in technical terms, but you've gotta be kidding me if you consider as such.. |
Chihiro Chugakusei
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
67
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 19:05:17 -
[490] - Quote
I thought the idea was not to homogenize everything. That has been the argument whenever I suggest something like this. I am surprised this idea got passed. This seems like a significant nerf to missiles for no reason. I think its really dumb, but since it was released i guess its here to stay now.
Keep it up, +1
|
|
Chihiro Chugakusei
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
67
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 19:13:40 -
[491] - Quote
Epsilon Ex wrote:Turrets can already get tracking disrupted, which you can work around. Drones can already be destroyed, which you can work around. Missile disruption make sense. If they script for range, then move your ship closer. If they script for precision, then web and paint the target and it doesn't matter. There is still counter-play, which is what CCP wants. All weapon systems now have counter-play and all counter-weapon systems have counter-play. Counter counter counter. To people complaining about missile damage, it's the only weapon system that does full damage from 0km to max range, requires no capacitor, and cannot be "reasonably" stopped like drones (any weapon system can also be used to kill drones. Can't shoot missiles down with blasters, but you can cap out the blaster boat who will no longer be able to fire). All I hear is wah wah wah, I like missiles, please don't make anything that negatively affects the thing I like. Your argument is invalid
Missiles already do **** damage against moving, and small targets. Try using a missile once in a while.
Keep it up, +1
|
Chihiro Chugakusei
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
67
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 19:37:08 -
[492] - Quote
Just looking at the module stats and seeing that there is no counter. What is the counter for this module supposed to be if you're in a missile ship? If im in a turret ship I can move away to get better transversal, or web (most ships are already fit with web) and negate the disruptor. If im in a missile ship, I need to web and target paint. Ships have to do more to counter this and im sorry but not everyone flies in a fleet. -
Especially that explosion radius and velocity script, I'm looking at it and it is insane. From the perspective of disruption, you can play with explosion velocity, but you should definitely not touch explosion radius. I'll probably do 30% less damage with rockets, to a frigate that isnt even moving.
Keep it up, +1
|
Chihiro Chugakusei
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
67
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 20:04:56 -
[493] - Quote
violtr wrote:So, missiles are the only weapon type that people can reduce players dps with smart bombs and cut any incoming missiles dps, where as auto cannons, energy beams and hybrids turrets people cannont reduce their dmg out put so why mess with missiles more when they are already at a disadvantage over other weapons. Not to mention the sacrifice of not having a fall off range and instant dps ie blaping. Also missile users also have to battle explosion radius ontop of that as well.
This.
Keep it up, +1
|
Ammirix
Port Eden
6
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 21:21:08 -
[494] - Quote
Hello
I cant find anything about Remote Missile Guidance Computers..
do they not come with this update tomorrow? |
Saracena
Infinatech
35
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 21:52:57 -
[495] - Quote
This seems like a rather large nerf to an already mediocre damage application platform.
If it was truly about diversity then there would be remote guidance mods introduced at the same time, as many in this thread have already mentioned.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out ingame, as always, but not a huge fan of this particular change. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
691
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 23:22:42 -
[496] - Quote
Ammirix wrote:Hello
I cant find anything about Remote Missile Guidance Computers..
do they not come with this update tomorrow?
Nothing on the patch notes suggest that will be included, but I have a feeling they will be releasing something along those lines soon after. My guess is they are giving the MGC/MGE buff to make them a bit more relevant and help a bit until remote versions are released, and some of the new items on Sisi seem to make reference to a remote guidance module. Honestly, the MGE needs a bigger one, but that's another fight all together.
"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
691
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 23:33:37 -
[497] - Quote
Saracena wrote:This seems like a rather large nerf to an already mediocre damage application platform.
If it was truly about diversity then there would be remote guidance mods introduced at the same time, as many in this thread have already mentioned.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out ingame, as always, but not a huge fan of this particular change.
My hope is that they will be taking that into account once they inevitably, and finally, decide to give missile systems a proper balancing pass. I don't disagree with putting these modules in the game, in fact I support the idea of an anti-missile EWAR mod, especially given that defenders are in such a horrid way. But this was not the right time for it. CCP is on the right track, but they're going the wrong way.
At the very least, these disrupters should have been released in conjunction with a remote module family rather than just the disrupters on there own. If the remote modules, should they be in the works, are not ready for deployment yet, the the disrupters should be held off until then. I figured that's what the whole idea of the 6-week cycles were meant to permit that CCP can't really do with a 6-month cycle as easily.
"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."
|
Zakks
Zakks Shop
20
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 01:59:57 -
[498] - Quote
The command destroyers will also pull missiles with the Micro Jump Field generator. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6172053#post6172053
Missiles/rockets getting whacked bigtime. With no missile rebalance or friendly tracking module announced they will be in a sorry state for a while.
|
Bianca Niam
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 11:31:36 -
[499] - Quote
Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2857
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 17:29:04 -
[500] - Quote
Bianca Niam wrote:Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever. you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you |
|
Sky Marshal
Core Industry. Circle-Of-Two
88
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 00:28:57 -
[501] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Bianca Niam wrote:Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever. you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you You do realize that the old proverb -½ Caldari : Tank, Electronic Warfare, Damage. Take only 2 of them. -+ is still there ? Losing one more medium slot in a Caldari ship is NOT an option.
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
336
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 00:41:14 -
[502] - Quote
Sky Marshal wrote:Rowells wrote:Bianca Niam wrote:Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever. you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you You do realize that the old proverb -½ Caldari : Tank, Electronic Warfare, Damage. Take only 2 of them. -+ is still there ? Losing one more medium slot in a Caldari ship is NOT an option. Use the low slot one then.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1022
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 01:12:01 -
[503] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Sky Marshal wrote:Rowells wrote:Bianca Niam wrote:Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever. you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you You do realize that the old proverb -½ Caldari : Tank, Electronic Warfare, Damage. Take only 2 of them. -+ is still there ? Losing one more medium slot in a Caldari ship is NOT an option. Use the low slot one then.
I don't know that I've ever had a low slot available for the low module.. Not would I want to use it. Basically, all the MGC does is allow me to replace a TP.
For those making claims that it evens playing field, since turrets have disrupters and drones can be killed; You must first consider that missiles already require assistance in order to apply optimal damage to ships in their class. IE: heavies against cruisers and cruise/torp against another BS.
You must then also consider that when your tracking disrupted, they effect your ability to hit moving targets without effecting the ability to hit stationary targets; while being range disrupted, it doesn't effect your ability to track targets within range.
Now, factor missile disrupters. If fitted to disrupt range, they reduce your range, as well as reduce the ability to hit fast targets, as it will reduce velocity on top of flight time. If fitted to disrupt application, they will effect your ability to hit moving targets via exp velocity, but also your ability to hit stationary targets via exp radius.
Basically, regardless of script, you will effect my ship in two different aspects. How does this seem like balance? Missiles already have these issues and require modules to address them. Now, they will need even more modules. A Raven fitted with torps or cruise already needs 2-3 MGCs to get full applications against another BS hull,'moving or not moving, with or without a prop mod.. Am I now supposed to fit 4-6 MGCs? Am I then supposed to fit an armor tank and forgo damage modules?
See, in a turret or drone boat, you typically already have relatively good tracking and application against like size hulls. You add modules in order to increase your effectiveness against smaller targets and/or to counter TDs; so for a turret boat, these modules become an addition as opposed to a necessity. For missile boats larger than a destroyer, module assistance is a necessity when using their standard weapon classes.
As a side note, turrets have variations that can allow for more variable and durable fits by going with smaller sized turrets, which will likely be balanced to make lower and mid sized turret variations even more viable, while the larger variants in a class will be optimal for a destroyer, in the case of smaller, and BCs in the case of med turrets, which is somewhat already the case.
For missiles, heavies, and especially HAMs, are difficult to build viable fits with on cruiser hulls; suggesting that their balance is focused around BCs. Honestly, their needs to be another class of missiles for cruiser hulls, thus leaving heavy systems for BCs, though they still need balance for the better.
Overall point, MDs only make the flaws with missiles stand out that much more. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2857
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 02:51:30 -
[504] - Quote
Sky Marshal wrote:Rowells wrote:Bianca Niam wrote:Cant believe ccp is nerfing missiles yet again and without any counter whatsoever. you missed the whole missile guidance computers, didn't you You do realize that the old proverb -½ Caldari : Tank, Electronic Warfare, Damage. Take only 2 of them. -+ is still there ? Losing one more medium slot in a Caldari ship is NOT an option. English? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2857
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 03:22:21 -
[505] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:Raven fitted with torps or cruise already needs 2-3 MGCs to get full applications against another BS hull,'moving or not moving, with or without a prop mod.. Am I now supposed to fit 4-6 MGCs? Am I then supposed to fit an armor tank and forgo damage modules? your going to have to back that up.
And before any mentions it again, please inform me of this stationary target that has a small enough sig to avoid damage so much. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1024
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 04:06:38 -
[506] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:Raven fitted with torps or cruise already needs 2-3 MGCs to get full applications against another BS hull,'moving or not moving, with or without a prop mod.. Am I now supposed to fit 4-6 MGCs? Am I then supposed to fit an armor tank and forgo damage modules? your going to have to back that up. And before any mentions it again, please inform me of this stationary target that has a small enough sig to avoid damage so much.
Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5. The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410. This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.
If the target Raven is moving at full speed, with no prop mod, it takes 2 MGCs with precision to get full application with fury missiles, while rage torps need still require 3.
That's not even factoring a prop mod on the target ship, as a simple afterburner means you'll need 3 MGCs and 3 PWNAGE TPs for fury cruise, while torps can use 3 MGCs and 4 PWNAGE TPs and STILL not get full application.
So, the amount of MGCs I suggested is only slightly varied in the case of fury cruise only needing 1 for a stationary target, and the fact that past 3 MGCs, you're better off with TPs. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4812
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 05:57:19 -
[507] - Quote
Zakks wrote:Missiles/rockets getting whacked bigtime. With no missile rebalance or friendly tracking module announced they will be in a sorry state for a while more. Fixed it for you.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2758
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 10:20:06 -
[508] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:
Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5. The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410. This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.
Fury and rage are your high damage bad application missiles that are meant to be fired at either capitals, or targets heavily webbed and painted.
Please at least understand what missiles you should be using for what target before you try and pull numbers out of the air. For a better comparison, please use Navy missiles, since that's the PvP standard really. Or at least standard missiles. |
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1026
|
Posted - 2015.12.09 14:55:22 -
[509] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:
Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5. The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410. This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.
Fury and rage are your high damage bad application missiles that are meant to be fired at either capitals, or targets heavily webbed and painted. Please at least understand what missiles you should be using for what target before you try and pull numbers out of the air. For a better comparison, please use Navy missiles, since that's the PvP standard really. Or at least standard missiles.
That's the PVP standard because Fury and Precision generally suck in PVP. Fury and Rage are NOT meant to hit capitals, structures, and heavily webbed and painted targets as you suggest.
If that were the case, than why do blasters, rails, pulses, beams, ACs, and arty's all work perfectly fine against BS class hulls with t2 ammo? |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4815
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 02:18:59 -
[510] - Quote
For missile to be effective in PvP you really need to drop down a size, ie: Battleship -+ Rapid Heavy Launchers Cruiser -+ Rapid Light Launchers
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2762
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 02:45:13 -
[511] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote: Edit... Forgot to mention the needs of navy against a target raven with a AB.
Ah, so now it's an unwebbed BS with an AB, AB's being ideal for countering missiles..... And you are expecting 100% application vs this, something that a lot of turrets also will be unable to achieve. Talk about moving the goalposts for your argument.
Also a lot of T2 ammo is not ideal to use in many circumstances, thus why turret boats will carry normal ammo as well. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
336
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 02:48:43 -
[512] - Quote
Furys and rage work well vs larger targets, much like void, hail, conflag and so on work well against the same or at very close range.
The low slot guidance enhancers work much like tracking enhancers, and so you can't really complain about one and not the other. It just depends on if you want to sacrifice a low for application.
I wouldn't mind seeing hamls and hmls buffed a bit in relation to their application though. Although missiles as are whole are quite oppressive in the right hands. *looks at mordus*
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Joe Risalo
State War Academy Caldari State
1027
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 03:54:28 -
[513] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Furys and rage work well vs larger targets, much like void, hail, conflag and so on work well against the same or at very close range.
The low slot guidance enhancers work much like tracking enhancers, and so you can't really complain about one and not the other. It just depends on if you want to sacrifice a low for application.
I wouldn't mind seeing hamls and hmls buffed a bit in relation to their application though. Although missiles as are whole are quite oppressive in the right hands. *looks at mordus*
One line of ships that performs well with missile does not make missile perform well.
Also, torps a cruise missiles could use a bit of rebalance as well. I can live with cruise missiles as they are, but torps aren't too grand.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Ah, so now it's an unwebbed BS with an AB, AB's being ideal for countering missiles..... And you are expecting 100% application vs this, something that a lot of turrets also will be unable to achieve. Talk about moving the goalposts for your argument.
Also a lot of T2 ammo is not ideal to use in many circumstances, thus why turret boats will carry normal ammo as well.
Missile boats large than a frig typically don't use webs, as they typically rely on range.. This may be different with armor boats, but this is generally specific to shield and missile combo.
You may find it on a ham tengu or drake, and possibly a torp BS (which you rarely see outside the alliance tournament anymore)..
Most of the cruiser hulls rely on kite fits, so a web means nothing as they will get pwned by the other weapon systems within web range.
And I did not move the goal posts. I was presenting the fact that turrets can get more efficiency with less modules with or without disruption.
|
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 22:42:25 -
[514] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Kiki Abraxas wrote:why not fix things that are broken such as sov mechanics :) and then go back to adding new **** Sometimes I think that people just don't understand that not all development is created equal. That's right, so if it's totally OP'd , we won't see a fix for at least 6 months cause of that missile "love to nerf" relationship. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
793
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 23:51:50 -
[515] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:
Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5. The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410. This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.
Fury and rage are your high damage bad application missiles that are meant to be fired at either capitals, or targets heavily webbed and painted. Please at least understand what missiles you should be using for what target before you try and pull numbers out of the air. For a better comparison, please use Navy missiles, since that's the PvP standard really. Or at least standard missiles. And right there is the problem with "High Damage Anti Ship" missiles, hams and torps, that is what they are called but don't bother using them for that, they are however great for shooting pocos ans pos's. Rage torps are even ok to shoot another battleship (in pvp), as long as it is painted, webbed and your stationary, any transversal will kill your application.
A little test of the "new" MGC precision scripted (in place of the web) on a hamgu (with 1 T2 damage application rig) running besieged sites. It took 9 min 30 sec to complete with Rage. With web and no MGC it took 7 mins. With MGE and no web the site exploded before the last npc died. With web and MGE it took 10 mins 45 secs to complete (dropping the DCU to fit the MGE really hurts DPS and the MGE doesn't make up for it via applying what dps you have left better). That is cruiser size weapon shooting primarily battleship hulls. You can by keeping trans low knock a few seconds off the time to complete with a web, with a MGC or MGE it didn't make enough difference to be noticeable. Running these sites using navy hams, not only takes longer but often ends up costing you more than you'll make from the site as the drops are not reliable, damage application is a little better with navies but the amount applied is far lower. The few cruisers in the sites do die faster with navies but the 10 seconds between switching ammo all but negates the use of navies. With Rage they die in 4 or 5 volleys (15 seconds at most), with navies they die in 3 volleys plus the 10 seconds to reload (around 15 seconds).
I know, this is a PVE scenario but I wanted to test them somewhere the results are always the same (same amount of battleships and cruisers spawn each time and at approximately the same ranges) against something a class (or 2) above the hamgu. My skills are all at 5 except Ham spec which is at 4, using no implants or drugs. I ran 10 besieged sites and took the best time from each config. I plan on doing this again with a railgu, just for comparison.
Nevyn, Your right, you shouldn't use T2 ammo for pvp. Isn't it a shame that missile boats are unable to use T2 ammo for PVP. Not sure any other weapon system is restricted to faction ammo for pvping.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2881
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 00:47:10 -
[516] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: And right there is the problem with "High Damage Anti Ship" missiles, hams and torps, that is what they are called but don't bother using them for that, they are however great for shooting pocos ans pos's. Rage torps are even ok to shoot another battleship (in pvp), as long as it is painted, webbed and your stationary, any transversal will kill your application.
Uh wtf? Your own movement has nothing to do with missile application at all. You obviously have no real clue how missiles work.
And yes, missiles do have some issues. Precision type missiles especially suffer badly as they need vastly more velocity since you shoot them at small fast targets, HM's and HAM's have terrible application in general (Though a Tengu is still OP). But the stuff you are going on about is not the problem. |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 04:02:47 -
[517] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: And right there is the problem with "High Damage Anti Ship" missiles, hams and torps, that is what they are called but don't bother using them for that, they are however great for shooting pocos ans pos's. Rage torps are even ok to shoot another battleship (in pvp), as long as it is painted, webbed and your stationary, any transversal will kill your application.
Uh wtf? Your own movement has nothing to do with missile application at all. You obviously have no real clue how missiles work. And yes, missiles do have some issues. Precision type missiles especially suffer badly as they need vastly more velocity since you shoot them at small fast targets, HM's and HAM's have terrible application in general (Though a Tengu is still OP). But the stuff you are going on about is not the problem. Yeah.
The rebalance is on the ammo type itself.
Anti-Ship missiles have rediculous explosions radius's for application which would feed into "Missile tracking"
The range is dictate dy missile type an if its action or not.. which works that same was as gunnery ammo, But in short Range "Higher tracking", they have technicallyu "worse tracking", unless you throw in rigs.
I think its more of a balance issue due to complicated mechnics involving factors that are not present in gunnery.
Just my oppinion. I could be wrong. |
Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
17
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 08:33:44 -
[518] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Mad Abbat wrote:
In current meta Any racial EWAR is usefull, except Amarr, bacause:
1) Maulus can dump any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 2) Griffin can jamm any targets, regaradless of its type -> heavy use 3) Vigil add some application bonuses -> usefull in missle fleets 4) Crusifier can TD only turrets, making it useless for fleets, where you have to take out logi, ewar, missle, drone boats etc.
Now that's a load of baloney if I ever seen one. Maulus damps affect my brawler how exactly? Yup: not at all. Griffin does what to a droneboat? Bubkes. Vigils add application in missile fleets; because we need application; because current meta revolves around -oh snap!- RLML. Oops. Ergo, no one ever uses Vigils. They might, in Cerberus fleets; although in general a TP is an afterthought, by no means your first choice if you can only dedicate a few guys to EWAR and you have to pick and choose. Presented the choice between a Maulus, a Griffin or a Vigil, nobody would pick the Vigil. (and a Maulus is only bang-for-your-buck if you bring a couple of those). Crucifiers are useless because they "only affect turrets" you say? ... thereby taking care of like 70% of all ships out there. Sweet. Optimal Range scripts on snipers and blasterboats; Tracking Disruption scripts on lasers, also snipers and all gunsizes bigger than your own. "Useless" he says - hah! Now, imagine if you will that the Crucifier pilot could simply swap out a script and stop ANY weapon system except drones at will, from long range ... where would that leave the other EWARs ?? It'd do the same job a griffin does, without being chance-based. It'd outperform the Maulus by taking brawling ships out of the picture as well; and it'd completely roflstomp the already rather underwhelming, highly situational Vigil. Granted, Maulus and Griffin are the T1 EWAR frigs of choice. Because their T2 EWAR frigs are a bit ... weak in comparison. A Keres is essentially an interceptor with damps -- which is great except when you already have great tackle in fleet, you might just as well settle for its T1 counterpart. A Kitsune is ..... well, still a Griffin. Just more of it. On the other hand, you can't get a Vigil to do a Hyena's job or a Crucifier to replace the Sentinel. That's what makes those two T1 frigs so popular. It's not that the Crucifier is bad; it's that Sentinels are even better! nothing works on drone boats. target painters help tracking on turrets. Damps can make your brawler take 2.5 life times to lock.
"Missile range =/= turret range Missile application =/= Turret application"
Good poasting
Basically KISS = keep it simple stupid
turret disruption is entirely different from missile disruption which is entirely different from "drone disruption" which is only slightly different from Cheese which is entirely different from rotten milk which is entirely different from soy milk
And I believe it is important to understand these basic principles of eve. |
FireFrost
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 21:18:43 -
[519] - Quote
lol lets just keep nerfing caldari , that seems like a great plan , we re the only race that gets kinetic bonus's only , amarr gets all dmg bonus min all dmg to missles why are we left out with kinetic? , I'm only joking , we should just have 1 ship that we can use that's projectile based and full of nuets and disrupters , cause lets face it that's all pvp ers use pointless to use missles in pvp , lasers do ok but most use projectiles , so we re just getting the kewl race out of the game entirely lol caldari are sexy their ships don't look like a huge female marriage enhancer , they don't have duct tape holding them together , I don't even play the game any more I just train skills in a station , which now my ships will be rust covered lol , it gonna get to a point where no one plays this game anymore , ah the good ole days of running 20-30 missions to get a plex , then china got in and boom 200mil to 800 mil for plexs now theyre over 1.2 bil each , since pvp is soley dependant on what kind of internet you have theres tons of players that don't play because you cant do much content with out pvping someone that's on a massive internet connection , how about adding non pvp stuff for those of us that just like playing the game? id love to just fart around in a highsec wormhole where I can gradualy build a carrier to just cruise around in by myself lol |
Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
17
|
Posted - 2015.12.19 10:32:01 -
[520] - Quote
FireFrost wrote:lol lets just keep nerfing caldari , that seems like a great plan , we re the only race that gets kinetic bonus's only , amarr gets all dmg bonus min all dmg to missles why are we left out with kinetic? , I'm only joking , we should just have 1 ship that we can use that's projectile based and full of nuets and disrupters , cause lets face it that's all pvp ers use pointless to use missles in pvp , lasers do ok but most use projectiles , so we re just getting the kewl race out of the game entirely lol caldari are sexy their ships don't look like a huge female marriage enhancer , they don't have duct tape holding them together , I don't even play the game any more I just train skills in a station , which now my ships will be rust covered lol , it gonna get to a point where no one plays this game anymore , ah the good ole days of running 20-30 missions to get a plex , then china got in and boom 200mil to 800 mil for plexs now theyre over 1.2 bil each , since pvp is soley dependant on what kind of internet you have theres tons of players that don't play because you cant do much content with out pvping someone that's on a massive internet connection , how about adding non pvp stuff for those of us that just like playing the game? id love to just fart around in a highsec wormhole where I can gradualy build a carrier to just cruise around in by myself lol
Living the dream
I just re read OP
So you're telling me
Missile disruption will reduce both flight time and velocity or explosion velocity and explosion radius
...
what
last time I checked turret disruption only involved optimal range (not fall off) or tracking speed (not rate of fire)
or am I playing the wrong game?
so confused right now, its like I'm playing a game entirely different from what the developers are
this is the eve online forum right?
-_- |
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
771
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 03:29:33 -
[521] - Quote
Uh...wait a minute. Pretty sure last I checked tracking disruption affects both falloff and optimal. That, and maybe I also missed where MD's affect RoF?
Now, you have me confused.
"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
1192
|
Posted - 2015.12.20 03:56:45 -
[522] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Uh...wait a minute. Pretty sure last I checked tracking disruption affects both falloff and optimal. That, and maybe I also missed where MD's affect RoF?
Now, you have me confused.
Yeah..'that person's comment is a bit broken... |
Vailen Sere
The Oasis Group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 21:59:57 -
[523] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Joe Risalo wrote:
Fury cruise missiles on a Raven, with all skills 5, has an explosion radius of 425.25.. Rage torps on a Raven, all skills 5, has an exp radius of 580.5. The Raven itself has a sig radius of 410. This means a fury cruise Raven needs 1 MGC with precision script to get full application, while a rage torp raven needs 3.. That's against a stationary target.
Fury and rage are your high damage bad application missiles that are meant to be fired at either capitals, or targets heavily webbed and painted. Please at least understand what missiles you should be using for what target before you try and pull numbers out of the air. For a better comparison, please use Navy missiles, since that's the PvP standard really. Or at least standard missiles.
No.. Citadel cruises and Citadel torps are meant for caps. They go on dreads.
You cant have High damage and poor application.
Your saying all other weapon systems require this, as well, which is not the case.
Also, the navy missiles should still have lower explosion velocity number closer to sig radius to apply damage. They are lower than T2 missiles, but not by enough. Explosion velicties don't match either.
You are stipulating that missiles are all meant to go "1 up" to apply full damage and every other weapon is at it's level class. So all missile ships are designed to kill ships in higher tiers (a missile frigate/destroyer is meant to kill a cruiser), which is not how it works. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
174
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 22:13:31 -
[524] - Quote
More Paint guys. Always more paint. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4929
|
Posted - 2015.12.31 13:30:02 -
[525] - Quote
When might we expect Faction and Officer missile guidance computers and missile guidance enhancers?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13547
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 14:33:24 -
[526] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:When might we expect Faction and Officer missile guidance computers and missile guidance enhancers? We're starting off by observing how the initial batch gets used. I expect that we'll add more variations at the same time as a balance pass in the future.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
771
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 23:15:45 -
[527] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:When might we expect Faction and Officer missile guidance computers and missile guidance enhancers? We're starting off by observing how the initial batch gets used. I expect that we'll add more variations at the same time as a balance pass in the future.
That's good news. Thank you.
"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."
|
Wanda Fayne
136
|
Posted - 2016.01.06 23:58:18 -
[528] - Quote
Don't forget about the remote missile tracking modules too. |
klana depp
Tr0pa de elite. Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.07 13:34:38 -
[529] - Quote
kinda unrelated, but still throwing this idea out there..
can we get a buff to the "firewall" concept?
these disruption modules are probably maybe useful in small scale warfare, but not for 50v50 fights.
what about creating a ship (more like role) that can fit large smartbombs at reduced fitting/cap cost? much like logis can fit large reps, a t2 cruiser that can fit both 3-4 large smartbombs (and ~perma run them) as well as a decent local tank (like a huginn maybe?)..
bring a few of those to big fights and piloting skill becomes a whole new thing.... |
Rosal Milag
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2016.01.07 19:13:39 -
[530] - Quote
klana depp wrote:kinda unrelated, but still throwing this idea out there..
can we get a buff to the "firewall" concept?
these disruption modules are probably maybe useful in small scale warfare, but not for 50v50 fights.
what about creating a ship (more like role) that can fit large smartbombs at reduced fitting/cap cost? much like logis can fit large reps, a t2 cruiser that can fit both 3-4 large smartbombs (and ~perma run them) as well as a decent local tank (like a huginn maybe?)..
bring a few of those to big fights and piloting skill becomes a whole new thing....
Doesn't give a boost to piloting skill. Completely wrecks the use of missile boats and lets turret ships carry on without change.
If currently a fleet is anchored on one ship, logi 30km off of them, the direction of missile volley is known. To avoid your entire volley of missiles from being killed, you now have to spread out in a ball, probably 50 km across. Now you have increased the damage delay even further as some pilots have to shoot across an additional 50 km, which could be well over a 5 second increase in damage. This still doesn't work against a group of these ships spread into your fleet, where missiles from any direction will be killed.
The only new dynamic it introduces is that these ships are going to be primaried if there are any missile boats on grid or completely useless if turret ships are shooting you.
A better suggestion is to give missiles a resist bonus to all but one, weakest to its own damage type. So the smart bomber has to decide if he should go disco (all 4 damages) against an unknown fleet comp or carry all 4 damage and refit as you know what is being used.
Final issue is with pipebombs and smart bomb ratting. Battleships aren't stable with 8 bombs going off. If you can use a t2 ship for a lower price, capstable, and a decent tank, cruisers are going to replace battleships, again. For smart bomb ratting, the signature of your ship hurts, as battleship rats will hit a battleship harder than a cruiser. So would I choose a cruiser to smartbomb in if I get the same results? Yes. |
|
Eris Tsasa
Sky Fighters
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.07 21:39:13 -
[531] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:When might we expect Faction and Officer missile guidance computers and missile guidance enhancers? We're starting off by observing how the initial batch gets used. I expect that we'll add more variations at the same time as a balance pass in the future.
When will tracking disrupt drones apply to missiles, or drones for that effect? |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
773
|
Posted - 2016.01.08 02:26:11 -
[532] - Quote
klana depp wrote:kinda unrelated, but still throwing this idea out there..
can we get a buff to the "firewall" concept?
these disruption modules are probably maybe useful in small scale warfare, but not for 50v50 fights.
what about creating a ship (more like role) that can fit large smartbombs at reduced fitting/cap cost? much like logis can fit large reps, a t2 cruiser that can fit both 3-4 large smartbombs (and ~perma run them) as well as a decent local tank (like a huginn maybe?)..
bring a few of those to big fights and piloting skill becomes a whole new thing....
Don't know how much stock I should put in it, but I'm still really hoping for and holding out for CCP to turning Defenders into a much more reliable and proper AMS with a capacity to operate in fleets. Right now, it's a mortally wounded animal screaming for a merciful end, hoping someone will gut up and shoot it in the head to put it out of its misery.
I wouldn't mind seeing a more dedicated disco boat as well, though, not just for filling the role of fleet missile counter.
"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."
|
Eris Tsasa
Sky Fighters
1
|
Posted - 2016.01.08 12:37:46 -
[533] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:klana depp wrote:kinda unrelated, but still throwing this idea out there..
can we get a buff to the "firewall" concept?
these disruption modules are probably maybe useful in small scale warfare, but not for 50v50 fights.
what about creating a ship (more like role) that can fit large smartbombs at reduced fitting/cap cost? much like logis can fit large reps, a t2 cruiser that can fit both 3-4 large smartbombs (and ~perma run them) as well as a decent local tank (like a huginn maybe?)..
bring a few of those to big fights and piloting skill becomes a whole new thing.... Don't know how much stock I should put in it, but I'm still really hoping for and holding out for CCP to turning Defenders into a much more reliable and proper AMS with a capacity to operate in fleets. Right now, it's a mortally wounded animal screaming for a merciful end, hoping someone will gut up and shoot it in the head to put it out of its misery. I wouldn't mind seeing a more dedicated disco boat as well, though, not just for filling the role of fleet missile counter.
Didn't they recently give missiles more ehp, to make it a bit harder to blow them up in route to whatever is being shot at? |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
773
|
Posted - 2016.01.08 14:14:11 -
[534] - Quote
To make it harder to firewall. All the more reason defenders either need to be replaced by something better, scrapped entirely, or given A LOT of attention, arguably more so than anything else related to missiles.
"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."
|
Steve Spooner
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
162
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 09:29:48 -
[535] - Quote
Would the buffs to missile guidance computers make them better than target painters when scripted for explosive radius/velocity? As it stands a target painter helps apply damage far better than a MGC and if there isn't a noticeable difference than there is no reason to use a MGC over TP. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
775
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 10:38:24 -
[536] - Quote
Steve Spooner wrote:Would the buffs to missile guidance computers make them better than target painters when scripted for explosive radius/velocity? As it stands a target painter helps apply damage far better than a MGC and if there isn't a noticeable difference than there is no reason to use a MGC over TP.
I don't think it will help fits that are not already using them over a TP, as in I don't think it will make them anymore relevant than they already are, which isn't much outside of really niche to begin with. MGE's are still a big fat question mark, since BCU's are still ahead by a long shot unless you have more low slots than you know what to do with.
There's aren't any Caldari boats that I know has that, the Phoon and Navy Phoon are technically armor boats so you could run a gimped shield tank, and the Barghest ha 6 lows. Even then, DDA's would still likely be better for the Phoons or just sticking with an armo fit anyways and the Barghest could get more out of other mods, like overdrives or the such. Even the CNR, which has often a fifth low not filled with a BCU due to stacking, often stands to gain more from other mods much as the Barghest. Especially where MGE's are concerned, I feel like the buff CCP gave them since it's no more than the one the MGC's got is more like the 5% raw damage buff they gave Heavies last year...at best, it serves to acknowledge CCP agrees that a buff is need, though this may not be enough to fix them.
Hopefully, CCP will be able to continue to iterate on them once they hit missiles with an overhaul. As Fozzie stated earlier, their best shot right now is to see where they are at by observing player behavior and continue to tweak things as they go.
"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."
|
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2016.01.09 21:23:30 -
[537] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:When might we expect Faction and Officer missile guidance computers and missile guidance enhancers? We're starting off by observing how the initial batch gets used. I expect that we'll add more variations at the same time as a balance pass in the future.
So you ARE planning on an E-WAR mod balance eventually?
Hardest for last? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2480
|
Posted - 2016.01.12 14:59:08 -
[538] - Quote
klana depp wrote:kinda unrelated, but still throwing this idea out there..
can we get a buff to the "firewall" concept?
these disruption modules are probably maybe useful in small scale warfare, but not for 50v50 fights.
what about creating a ship (more like role) that can fit large smartbombs at reduced fitting/cap cost? much like logis can fit large reps, a t2 cruiser that can fit both 3-4 large smartbombs (and ~perma run them) as well as a decent local tank (like a huginn maybe?)..
bring a few of those to big fights and piloting skill becomes a whole new thing....
As soon as we get a damage denial module to counter turrets in the same way. |
klana depp
Tr0pa de elite. Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2016.01.12 21:36:53 -
[539] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:klana depp wrote:kinda unrelated, but still throwing this idea out there..
can we get a buff to the "firewall" concept?
these disruption modules are probably maybe useful in small scale warfare, but not for 50v50 fights.
what about creating a ship (more like role) that can fit large smartbombs at reduced fitting/cap cost? much like logis can fit large reps, a t2 cruiser that can fit both 3-4 large smartbombs (and ~perma run them) as well as a decent local tank (like a huginn maybe?)..
bring a few of those to big fights and piloting skill becomes a whole new thing.... As soon as we get a damage denial module to counter turrets in the same way.
sig tanking and actually moving around? i know its not a perfect counter, but neither is firewalling, even if you have good pilots dont get me wrong im not saying it should be possible to easily kill 99% of the missiles.. thats not what i want either..
then again, yeah, maybe defender missiles could actually do this a lot better... |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2016.01.13 00:23:01 -
[540] - Quote
[quote=klana depp sig tanking and actually moving around? i know its not a perfect counter, but neither is firewalling, even if you have good pilots dont get me wrong im not saying it should be possible to easily kill 99% of the missiles.. thats not what i want either..
then again, yeah, maybe defender missiles could actually do this a lot better...[/quote] by sig tanking and moving you can easily dump 30% of the damage and if you have a missile disruptor fiited, they may get to do 25% of their damage to a moving ship.
To counter requires hurting dps or tank to do damage.
So, if you find a missile Pilot hitting you very well, he probably isn't doing as much damage as he could.. its a weird math problem between damage application vs damage #, and its further skewed between missile and turrets with turrets being able to crit and that not even making it on paper dps. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2502
|
Posted - 2016.01.14 22:04:18 -
[541] - Quote
klana depp wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:klana depp wrote:kinda unrelated, but still throwing this idea out there..
can we get a buff to the "firewall" concept?
these disruption modules are probably maybe useful in small scale warfare, but not for 50v50 fights.
what about creating a ship (more like role) that can fit large smartbombs at reduced fitting/cap cost? much like logis can fit large reps, a t2 cruiser that can fit both 3-4 large smartbombs (and ~perma run them) as well as a decent local tank (like a huginn maybe?)..
bring a few of those to big fights and piloting skill becomes a whole new thing.... As soon as we get a damage denial module to counter turrets in the same way. sig tanking and actually moving around? i know its not a perfect counter, but neither is firewalling, even if you have good pilots dont get me wrong im not saying it should be possible to easily kill 99% of the missiles.. thats not what i want either.. then again, yeah, maybe defender missiles could actually do this a lot better...
Having a small sig and moving is also a counter to turret tracking except it's easier against missiles because a straight line will do to fight the explosion velocity while it can have a rather small effect VS tracking.
So again, can we get a real damage denial system against turret before buffing the already existing one for missiles? |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
178
|
Posted - 2016.01.15 07:09:56 -
[542] - Quote
I attacked a Dramiel yesterday with my Crow. He was in half structure and decided to bail, so he burnt away in a straight line until he got out of my point range.
My light missiles could no longer hit him because he OUTRAN them. This is a LIGHT MISSILE. A caldari navy, top of the line anti-frig missile shot from a top of the line Caldari missile interceptor.
Surely you can figure out what is broken here?
CCP - for the love of god: a missile is supposed to be Fast enough to catch up with its target!!! I don't care how the game engine works; please *make* it work or apply the damage anyway and don't care about the visuals ;-) |
Aeryn Maricadie
Periphery Bound New Signature
24
|
Posted - 2016.03.07 20:54:34 -
[543] - Quote
I get not wanting to make the one module do both because it would be OP, but how about one that does both with reduced effectiveness? This would be like the ECM module, you can choose to jam specific targeting systems better (Ladar/gravimetric/etc.) but at reduced effectiveness of others, or you can choose the general purpose jammer which is middle of the road on everything. |
Demonstheses
Broski North
0
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 03:43:21 -
[544] - Quote
I am confused why Missile Disruptors exist. Who would even use such a thing? No one uses missiles anyway!
Missiles are absolute trash as they stand. They do insanely low damage compared to guns since they are easily countered by speed and signature radius, they already can be destroyed by smart-bombs, defender missiles can destroy missiles...how many more ways can we nerf missiles? |
Motorbit
HildCo Interplanetar Villore Accords
49
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 13:32:24 -
[545] - Quote
from what i observe, in pvp, missiles exept light missiles and rockets are quite unpopular. i hoped that the guidance computers would at least allow medum missiles perform well against cruiser sized targets. but it does not seem so. even with computers a ham fitted cruiser has to bad damage application as everything goes so fast. 30% debuff for both explo size and velocity and they proably wont even apply dmg vs battle cruisers anymore.
under this light... cant break whats already broken, and at the very least this will make it possible to counter rlml kiting cruisers - if one can prepeare for the fight.
still, i think it was a good idea to look at all the missile weapons when introducing these disruptors. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
224
|
Posted - 2016.03.29 13:50:50 -
[546] - Quote
on bonused hulls (Cyclone, Sacrilege, Typhoon, Cerberus, Caracal, Orthrus, ...) they work quite well. (HAMs and Heavies I mean)
Still feel missiles should at least be able to catch up with the targets though. Nothing a friendly web can't fix, but the punishment is harsh don't you think? Going from reasonable DPS to none at all, despite the target being well in range?
That's sooo nineties |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5063
|
Posted - 2016.05.09 19:25:14 -
[547] - Quote
So when are we finally going to see: 1. Remote missile guidance computers? 2. Faction and Officer variants of missile guidance computers and missile guidance enhancers and Faction variants of guidance disruptors and remote missile guidance computers?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Idame Isqua
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
30
|
Posted - 2016.05.10 10:54:58 -
[548] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:on bonused hulls (Cyclone, Sacrilege, Typhoon, Cerberus, Caracal, Orthrus, ...) they work quite well. (HAMs and Heavies I mean) Still feel missiles should at least be able to catch up with the targets though. Nothing a friendly web can't fix, but the punishment is harsh don't you think? Going from reasonable DPS to none at all, despite the target being well in range? That's sooo nineties
A HAM cyclone applies non-significant DPS to a t1 cruiser hull... I had a cyclone it died (to a gila) the only damage I ever did was to BS hulls Caracal Navy Issues are great for HAMs HMs however
Also confirmed none uses missile disruption ever |
Ormarr Kai
Doughboys
28
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 18:27:21 -
[549] - Quote
Will it shoot off flares ? Now that would be cool! |
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2016.06.16 20:25:16 -
[550] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:So when are we finally going to see: 1. Remote missile guidance computers? 2. Faction and Officer variants of missile guidance computers and missile guidance enhancers and Faction variants of guidance disruptors and remote missile guidance computers?
Forget the guidance computers unless your long range.. short range, Target Painter's soundly beat the missile guidance computers. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: [one page] |