These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Aegis] Missile balance package

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Stormbringer999s
OpSec.
Wrong Hole.
#641 - 2015-07-05 03:31:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Stormbringer999s
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.


and you can't be anything but a troll right?

"this thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of."

"may need adjustment after deployment"

the community was excited about the package that promised so much until this...............

"Small update for you on the new modules." (read FU missile pilots)

"we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit" (no really, FU missile pilots)

"stronger than their tracking counterparts" seriously??? comparing apples with oranges??? wtf???

and then there was this...........

"Okay everyone so officially, for the record, application rig bonuses will be stacking penalized" backyard deal

so yeah, you must be trolling right, because after a promising start I can guarentee you no one around here is excited about the introduction of the new modules. Yes there are some niche platforms that work but there are many more that don't and never will until serious changes are implemented. These modules represented a chance for pilots to dust of their phoons etc and get into the game, shake up the meta a little, but no, maybe other weapon platforms cried foul, or maybe CCP realised server lag was going to become prevelant again. The "why" isn't really important, we'll never truely know, but rather than addressing any potential concerns and/or issues appropriately, they renege on the package as a whole, and if that wasn't enough they take it one step further and **** with application rigs. So yeah, no matter how hard CCP or "shitlords" like youself try to spin it, we're lured here with promises of positive changes to the missile platform but end up being bent over a barrel and ****** up the arse.

Now, no one that I know enjoys being in that position, but if that's your thing my friend then simply join the CCP train and your guaranteed to get what you've been looking for :')
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#642 - 2015-07-05 03:42:26 UTC
Called it 20 pages ago. This missile "package" is a brown paper bag full of feces left on a door step.

Daemun of Khanid
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#643 - 2015-07-05 05:45:07 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:
2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).

2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors.


6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web...


I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs


It's still 6 slots. What kind of fit has 6 slots open for application?


I have a few...
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#644 - 2015-07-05 11:01:02 UTC
Yes so rni and typhoon will get a lot of mileage from these mids. By stretching native bonuses further.

Not to forget the golem also gets an explosion velocity bonus too I think so you could fit one and pvp with it in rhml configurations.

Phoenix? Yes. Some missile cruisers, most missile BC and up will have more to gain from these than a target painter and certainly any calnavy ship will get a lot from them.

It's entirely up for debate whether you're better off fitting something else to anything non-caldari though. Kind of like fitting a flare instead of a rigor to a rocket ship for reasons that are immediately obvious.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#645 - 2015-07-05 12:33:17 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
In shorthand:


  • New powerful mods + new stacking penalties: Good
  • New nerfed mods + old non-penalized stacking: Good
  • New powerful mods + old non-penalized stacking: Overpowered
  • New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered


Pretty much this. With the first pass CCP gave us too much, then to fix it they took too much away.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
AskariRising
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#646 - 2015-07-05 16:42:53 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Chance Ravinne wrote:
In shorthand:


  • New powerful mods + new stacking penalties: Good
  • New nerfed mods + old non-penalized stacking: Good
  • New powerful mods + old non-penalized stacking: Overpowered
  • New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered


Pretty much this. With the first pass CCP gave us too much, then to fix it they took too much away.


i thought the goal of all this was to encourage more missile based combat...

now that missiles are worse than before, should i feel encouraged to use missile boats?

i think not
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#647 - 2015-07-05 18:18:42 UTC
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Called it 20 pages ago. This missile "package" is a brown paper bag full of feces left on a door step.


I called it before the 1st post
Vailen Sere
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#648 - 2015-07-05 18:37:35 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
TinkerHell wrote:
I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?

The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.

I see this going well.

Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles + TiDi = increased cardiovascular related reductions in Hamster resources

Worst case, I tell my kids their hamsters died suddenly in the night, and I ship them[1] off to the London data center.


[1] The hamsters, not the kids. The kids get shipped in the Fall.


Bull ****. No heavier load than any other ewar. Better than the server having to calculate the actual position in space of all those missiles relative to the position and area of effect of a raft of smarties going off.

TDs should be much easier on the server than firewall usage.

Rise and Fozzie, where is the TD effect to counter the use of these modules. Pretty soon you will have all missiles all the time murdering small ships with no end. Straight How does this Balance anything?

As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome.



I've heard about these.. "defender missiles".. apparently you use them to stop incoming missiles.. never tried them though
Vailen Sere
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#649 - 2015-07-05 18:46:29 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Modifying sensor damps might make more sense. Since it would be a gal counter to caldari weapon. Plus sensor dampening would make more sense against missiles than "tracking disruption". Damped sensors cant guide missiles as efficiently. Maybe an added script.


Sensor damps still work. unless they are FOF (auto-targeting), you cant shoot them unless they are target locked.
stoicfaux
#650 - 2015-07-05 18:48:28 UTC
Vailen Sere wrote:
I've heard about these.. "defender missiles".. apparently you use them to stop incoming missiles.. never tried them though

The only reason to train defender missiles is when you're mapped for prec/will attributes so that you can apply the eventual skill point refund of the defender skill to a charisma based skill.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#651 - 2015-07-05 18:49:49 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
HMs do not need a direct damage increase.

They need you to revert the 12% reduction in explosion radius done in 2012 sometime. Thats it.

Presently even with application mods in Rigs, HMs are losing nearly 40% of their DPS in application vs Turrets who lose only around 30% (arties 35%) using only 1 Tracking Comp + Tracking Speed.

Just remove the explosion radius change, so HMs can hit similar application numbers. Their peak DPS and Alpha are fine.



The new application modules will specifically help address this issue, as long as you are willing to fit at least one.

Yes, the implication of what these do to bombers makes for an amazing alpha frigate.
Mario Putzo
#652 - 2015-07-05 18:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Best thing they could do is change ECM to a scripted module that does

Script A) By jamming the guidance system of missiles they do not take the optimal path to a target
-x% flight time from missiles thus reduced range

Script B) By jamming the host ships sensor network the control range of drones is decreased
-x% drone control range.

ECM Burst modules will remain as target breakers.

But thats a topic for a different discussion i think. Still waiting on CCP to let us know the details behind why Missile enhancement mods need to be the same as Turret enhancing mods, when the systems do not function the same, and Turrets are already well ahead in application as is. Not that I expect any correspondence 2 days ahead of the patch since we have had none in the 10 days since Rise told us of revisions to the modules...maybe CSM will come let us know since CCP can't be assed to respond to feedback they requested.
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#653 - 2015-07-05 18:59:05 UTC
Daemun Khanid wrote:
I like missiles, I don't like these changes. None of these ships were designed or balanced with these extra modules in mind. Turret ships are designed with the idea in mind that you need "x" number of slots for offensive and "x" number of slots for defensive while maintaining the option to choose between the 2. Missile boats were NOT. All this if going to do is put a few pathetically weak ship fits out there that people will try and then say "screw that." With most of my missile ships now the tank is comparable to turret ships, dps is less but application (in most cases) is pretty good. So you're making modules that
A. Are just going to reduce the missile boats tank and/or dps so that they are (even more) sub par.
B. Do nothing to actually increase dps, just improve application and range.
C. If anti-missile modules are introduced missile ships will just become more worthless and speed will continue to be king.

Perhaps in null-sec where engagements might be more likely to happen out in open space with large alpha fleets the range and application improvements might be worth while. But in FW space where most combat takes place on a button and where anything outside 20k just means you don't have point, your target leaves at will. So you can take your 100km range and ... well needless to say I don't want it. But pretty much everything lately seems to be all about the null-sec so I guess it's on deaf ears anyway.

This entire thing seems very poorly thought out and should not be introduced unless part of a fully worked package of missile ship balancing, DPS and EHP balancing, improvement module balancing, ammo balancing and counter-module balancing. This just reeks of the same lack of real consideration that was put into polarized modules.

If missiles are weak, buff missiles. Injecting new modules just complicates things and creates new issues all across the spectrum.

DON'T RELEASE CONTENT FOR THE SAKE OF "CONTENT"

And if you can script those missiles for increased velocity on a cerb you wouldn't?
Dave Stark
#654 - 2015-07-05 19:00:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Markos Cerrilus wrote:
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
HMs do not need a direct damage increase.

They need you to revert the 12% reduction in explosion radius done in 2012 sometime. Thats it.

Presently even with application mods in Rigs, HMs are losing nearly 40% of their DPS in application vs Turrets who lose only around 30% (arties 35%) using only 1 Tracking Comp + Tracking Speed.

Just remove the explosion radius change, so HMs can hit similar application numbers. Their peak DPS and Alpha are fine.



The new application modules will specifically help address this issue, as long as you are willing to fit at least one.

Yes, the implication of what these do to bombers makes for an amazing alpha frigate.


won't do **** for bombers. they lack slots for a start. not to mention the fact that rigs are now stacking penalised makes it even worse.

you either take a direct damage nerf to fit a low slot module, or you trade survivability or a TP for extra application (that isn't extra since your rigs are now stacking penalised (and you may have just traded a TP for it)).

these new modules ain't going to do a fat lot for bombers.
Mario Putzo
#655 - 2015-07-05 19:03:17 UTC
Markos Cerrilus wrote:

And if you can script those missiles for increased velocity on a cerb you wouldn't?


Thats why they can't balance these modules properly. The missile RANGE increase has nothing to do with application calculation. Rise claims to want to mirror the bonuses from TC's but Optimal Range on TC's directly impacts application, they are not the same thing.

IMO the flight time/velocity portion shouldn't even exist, since it is contrary to what an application module is intended for. If anything it should be a second module entirely because it has 0 impact on application values.
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#656 - 2015-07-05 19:16:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Vic Jefferson wrote:
So you are treating the symptoms again, rather than the disease. Speed meta is the disease.

Is this change actually intended to treat any symptom of that issue, or is that just a minor side effect?


Not even treating the symptoms, it will actively make it worse, since missiles will see a huge power boost against everything in the game except the toxic speed creep.

That said, missiles needed an update for a while now, so I am glad they are being looked at. And that further said, I do not think this is the way to go about it. But, one way or another, our feedback really hasn't mattered in a long time about things like this, so we will wait and see, and probably laugh about the inevitable unforeseen consequences of these changes.


I have to re-look at 75% of my pvp fits because of this. I'm going to have to look really hard at the bellicose and see about fitting heavies on it.
Sean Crees
Sean's Safe Haven
#657 - 2015-07-05 19:19:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sean Crees
CCP Rise wrote:


We would have liked to include disruption modules to go along with these enhancement modules but there are actually some technical hurdles we need to figure out and we didn't want to keep holding back on adding these in the mean time. Look for those sometime in the future.

Let us know what you think!


Instead of adding modules that disrupt missiles, why not just have existing tracking disruptors affect missiles launchers for either range or explosion radius/velocity. Tracking disruption is easily the worst of the EWAR's because it doesn't work against all types of weapon systems like the other EWAR's do. And while your at it, make it work against drone range or drone optimal/tracking while your at it. You're always saying you want an indirect nerf for Ishtars.
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#658 - 2015-07-05 19:25:25 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
Capqu wrote:
[Talwar, tfi]

Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II

5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script

Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile

Small Ionic Field Projector II
Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I

110~km range
150 dps
10 mil


Lock range 72km.

Whats the lock range with 3 sensor disruptors on (celestis)? Point of argument is people saying no ewar currently counters missiles.
Arla Sarain
#659 - 2015-07-05 19:29:06 UTC
Markos Cerrilus wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:
Capqu wrote:
[Talwar, tfi]

Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation
Damage Control II
Ballistic Control System II

5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range Script
F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Targeting Range Script

Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile
Arbalest Compact Light Missile Launcher, Caldari Navy Nova Light Missile

Small Ionic Field Projector II
Small Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I
Small Warhead Calefaction Catalyst I

110~km range
150 dps
10 mil


Lock range 72km.

Whats the lock range with 3 sensor disruptors on (celestis)? Point of argument is people saying no ewar currently counters missiles.

Does it matter?

Your enemy is kiting you at 100km, edge of their lock range. You damp with one damp and they lose almost half of their lock range.

I mean, outside of cruise missiles that reach 200km, what else is there? LMLs reach 100km on select hulls, but outside of that, would it really matter?
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#660 - 2015-07-05 19:31:17 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
if you did this TD would be the new multi spec ECM we used to see on every ship... cant say that i support... it should be a separate mod all together

Which is precisely why they should nerf the base stats on TDs, and then do a counterbalancing buff on TD boats. This would essentially be doing to TD boats what was done to ECM boats years ago. Make them desired ships to have in fleets. It should also be done for damp and painter boats as well. Currently the only ewar mods that don't function worth a crap on non bonused hulls are ecm modules. That was entirely to bury the ecm of doom fitting regimen.

Matt Faithbringer wrote:
Not sure if makes sense lore-wise.. caldari, the missile race would have ewar AGAINST missiles? If it should be racial ewar, it should be gallente IMHO

Yeah it wouldn't make sense to have ecm be antimissile ewar. However, as much as it would make lore sense to do it to damps, damps and damp usage are already rather strong.

Having TDs affect missiles would be consistent with lore now that Minmatar has a missile boat line of ships. And as long as the TDs themselves get a base stat nerf, the ecm module treatment, TDs will not become the new multispecs of doom.

This is also why I proposed in a thread a couple months ago that painters be given a secondary anti drone effect. The lore would make sense in that Amarr now has a comprehensive line of drone boats. The technobabble explanation could be that being painted causes a lot of em communication interference between a host ship and its drones. Thus the drone control range could receive a hit. This would address a lot of the nano sentry Ishtar complaints. As long as the effect is slight enough it would necessitate some further fitting and rig choices on drone boats.

Amarr has the TD boats don't they?