Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I have to ask why do you want to make ewar mods against missiles when we have ways already. It's called ecm and damps.
Missiles have worse dmg application from all possible weapon types, they are easy to mitigate by speed and sig tanking.
Needs many many seconds to actually hit target so why making some mods that will reduce their range or make bigger explosion radius.
I'm light missile user in FW and rail guns with insta dmg are just better in every way. Usually it takes 6-7 second for my missiles to hit target and enemy does 3-4 rail weapon cycles in that time, dealing more dmg to me than I do to him with 1 volley!

If you want to implement some missile distributors then you should look at missile dmg formula and do complete overhaul, maybe add area dmg again so we can have some reason to use missiles. Because as I say, one AB frigate will mitigate huge chunk of LM dps and I cannot imagine how this will look like when enemy has some way how to manipulate my missile stats like explosion radius or velocity.

But ....... 2 Guidance Computers? Then where does my tank go?? If I sacrifice 2 midslots I really don't want to slap on rigs as well.

Oh and by the way, is anyone actually using "Precision" missiles? Because contrary to the advertisement on the package they are not very precise at all and ... well ... I don't like to resort to black/white thinking but Presicion Missiles = EPIC FAIL. They can't even hit or reach (range issues) the shipclass they're supposed to hit?!? Auto Targetting missiles? *ROFL* Defender Missiles? Worst spent 640 skillpoints ever. So basically, there's Faction and there's Fury. Not to mention locked in Kinetic in several cases. So, while you're at it ..... give the Precision some love?

following this thread, it's pretty clear TP owns this new Guidance Computer. As for the Guidance Enhancers (lowslot), is there any benefit in using them over Ballistic Control Units?

I am all in favour of low/midslots since I might finally be able to pick and choose a rig for my boat; but assuming we NEED at least two of those just to hit the shipsize the missile is designed for is somewhat skewed. If the bonusses are worth it, hell, why not-- but please do keep in mind we're not all flying these big ass fleetfights where the target is 5x Target Painted. I need my mids for tank and tackle; I need my lows for ... oh wait Caldari don't have lows (LOL) ... I guess what I'm trying to say is: I can spare one or two slots but I expect to feel a different flavour when I do.

I was really looking forward to some new, SURPRISING Heavy Missile P*wnmobiles; the kind of vessel you cannot predict beforehand if it'll be HAMs, RLMLs or Heavies -- with the possibility of building a custom "Gotcha MoFo LoLLL" Torpedo boat that could hit Battlecruisers surprisingly well at uncharacteristic ranges...

Options, options, options ..... not even released and already but a dream. A missed opportunity for new and exciting experiments. Someone else a couple of posts ago coined the idea of releasing somewhere between the first and the current stats, and I second that motion. Don't pre-nerf it. Let it roll off the assembly line and see what happens.

Another 2 cents from yours truly (cents not stacking penalized :-)

Due to how dogma works, it's impossible to have stacking penalties on regular modules and have them absent on rigs.

I wasn't doing balance conclusions. I just showed that dude had his math completely wrong.

If doing balance conclusions, however, i think that application of most missile classes is good enough already.

Rockets (hard tackle, often with web)
HAMs (often because of hard tackle too)
LMLs and RLMLs (application + range they provide is OP for frigs and antisupport ships)
RHMLs on ships like barghests look good as well

Especially if you consider promised link changes (which will make facing +20% velocity -34% sig linked ships less likely). Link nerf will be the biggest boost to missile application.

There're few missile types which might be lacking:

Torps (need more range imo, except for bombers)
HMLs (need much better application, all other LR med weapons were boosted since HM tengus were popular) - but if they're boosted, it's important to double-check efficiency of RHML
Cruise (they probably need just minor application improvement, but in their current form they are probably too okayish)

If stats of guidance mods were kept the same - it would make good missiles look better, and worse missiles still would be bad. Thus i think balance tweaks to make HMs viable again need to be done specifically on heavy missiles and/or their launchers, not on modules which apply to all missile types.

This is my personal opinion ofc, i'm not fan of "missiles should always apply 100%" like one dude said here. I would rather prefer LR turrets missing more often vs ships which are smaller than their gun class, rather than missiles getting perfect application vs frigs at 100km.

It's weird. People keep saying cruise are ok, I've fought in every area of space and I've never even seen one launched.

[blink]FFS, people! CCP Rise didn't say he was making Rigors/Flares stacking penalized. He said that the MGC/MGE modules on Sisi didn't have their attributes stacking penalized yet, and it would be corrected in the next Sisi build.[/blink]

The modules will stack with each other. They will NOT stack with Rigors/Flares or implants or skills that affect explosion radius/velocity and flight time/speed.


FYI, the MGC/MGE modules are NOT fully implemented on Sisi:
* neither module shows the flight time bonus
* they still show the pre-nerf values
* the MGC Precision script modifies: "aoeCloudSizebonus", "aoeVelocityBonus", "explosionDelayBonus", and "missileVelocityBonus"...
* the MGC II requires Trajectory Analysis which is a Gunnery skill...
* and apparently, the attributes on the MGC/MGE aren't stacking penalized yet.


/it's_like_the_35_second_reload_applies_to_people's_brains_as_well...

Damage controls don't stack with shield hardeners or shield resist rigs.

adding stacking penalties to rigs rarely seen

the most popular rigs in the game aka cdfes and trimarks still don't penalize

what an absolute joke

It's possible to put rigs/modules into different stacking penalty chains, but dogma doesn't support what you want.

To make MGCs stacking penalizable, target attribute (aoeCloudSize) has to be set as penalizable. It will automatically make any modifications on it subject for stacking penalization, except for modifications coming from penalization immune categories (ships, implants, skills, subsystems). Rigs belong to Modules category and obviously it cannot be marked as immune for stacking penalization (even if rigs are moved to its own category - remember tracking rigs being in separate stacking penalty chain, allowing to blap frigs in machs easy? it would be even worse if rigs were marked so).

There's possibility to put them into different stacking penalty chains (currently they're in the same postPercent chain); it's possible to move rigs to, let's say postMul and have rigs penalized only against each other, but it's not possible to have them unpenalized at all.

Regarding rigs efficiency:
TQ 2 t2 rigors + t1 rigor: 1÷(1−0.2)÷(1−0.2)÷(1−0.15) = +83.8% accuracy
TQ 2 t2 rigors + t2 flare: 1÷(1−0.2)÷(1−0.2)×(1+0.2) = +87.5%
Penalized 2 t2 rigors + t1 rigor: 1÷(1−0.2)÷(1−0.2×0.87)÷(1−0.15×0.57) = +65.5%
Penalized 2 t2 rigors + t2 flare: 1÷(1−0.2)÷(1−0.2×0.87)×(1+0.2) = +81.6%

Thus with just 3 t2 rigs you're reaching pretty much old efficiency of triple rigors.

Damage control is stacking penalized with reactive hardener and iirc wolf-rayet armor resist bonus (preMul stacking penalty chain) and resist mods stack against each other in postPercent stacking penalty chain.

This is however bad example, because you can't have several DCs fitted thus outcome is not obvious. That's why i asked to find some rigs which are not stacking penalized against each other at all, while modules which affect the same target attribute are stacking penalized.

Hint: you won't find these. Because dogma doesn't support this scenario by its design.

That would make things "interesting." Do you happen to have a source for that?