These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Eckyy
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#3561 - 2012-09-29 18:25:56 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
You mean the general superiority like HG Slaves?



At least as far as PvE goes.

Active shield tanking is much stronger than active armor tanking even when you don't factor in pirate implants, and especially when you get into the realm of faction and dedspace modules.

With only T1/T2 mods, a passive shield tank is more often than not a better tank than active armor on ships smaller than BS, even on ships with bonuses to it like the Myrmidon.
Eckyy
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#3562 - 2012-09-29 18:27:36 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Well, I don't know about the superiority of shield tanking.

So far it seems that shield boats do have more capability of fitting more dps modules, and with TEs they'll get more effective dps and range.

However, from all the playing around that I've done with eft and from general discussions with other players, it also appears that armor tanks are capable of fitting more durable tanks.

The way I was thinking, maybe just remove tracking computers and make TEs omni slot, so they could go in either the mid or low slots.

I've felt this way about cap rechargers and shield rechargers. Shield boats rarely get to use them and what is available is low slots is less effective than mid slot cap and shield recharge.


You bring up some valid points. CCP set things up so that they are the way they are intentionally, but I suspect that the way they are may not be what's best for the current status quo.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3563 - 2012-09-29 18:30:38 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Noemi Nagano wrote:
You mean the general superiority like HG Slaves?

Why are you bringing these up? As if everyone that armor tanks is running around with slave implant sets What?


Yeah, i'm gonna have to agree.

Personally I don't consider implants when considering balance.

Mostly because they don't make that much of a difference by any means, but also because most players don't use them in pvp.

And in pve most players are still a long way from even considering slave implants.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3564 - 2012-09-29 18:38:16 UTC
Eckyy wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Well, I don't know about the superiority of shield tanking.

So far it seems that shield boats do have more capability of fitting more dps modules, and with TEs they'll get more effective dps and range.

However, from all the playing around that I've done with eft and from general discussions with other players, it also appears that armor tanks are capable of fitting more durable tanks.

The way I was thinking, maybe just remove tracking computers and make TEs omni slot, so they could go in either the mid or low slots.

I've felt this way about cap rechargers and shield rechargers. Shield boats rarely get to use them and what is available is low slots is less effective than mid slot cap and shield recharge.


You bring up some valid points. CCP set things up so that they are the way they are intentionally, but I suspect that the way they are may not be what's best for the current status quo.



Yeah, while I do agree that we don't need every ship to be the same, at the same time I feel that we've got too many modules and in some cases these modules create too much of a seperation between missile and turret or shield and armor.
The modules even help to create issues between ewar ships.

For instance, with the changes to missiles tracking disruptors will feel extremely powerful.
However, this isn't going to be fixed with less, but rather with more.

For instance, I feel that there needs to be an individual script for each disruption type, I.E. turret optimal, turret tracking, missile range, and missile exp radius.
Then, introduce an exchange timer when swapping scripts.

Back on topic though, in some cases less is more, and I think making TEs, cap rechargers, and shield rechagers low and midslot capable might help. (who even uses shield rechargers in their mids?)
Doddy
Excidium.
#3565 - 2012-09-29 19:10:51 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Eckyy wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Well, I don't know about the superiority of shield tanking.

So far it seems that shield boats do have more capability of fitting more dps modules, and with TEs they'll get more effective dps and range.

However, from all the playing around that I've done with eft and from general discussions with other players, it also appears that armor tanks are capable of fitting more durable tanks.

The way I was thinking, maybe just remove tracking computers and make TEs omni slot, so they could go in either the mid or low slots.

I've felt this way about cap rechargers and shield rechargers. Shield boats rarely get to use them and what is available is low slots is less effective than mid slot cap and shield recharge.


You bring up some valid points. CCP set things up so that they are the way they are intentionally, but I suspect that the way they are may not be what's best for the current status quo.



Yeah, while I do agree that we don't need every ship to be the same, at the same time I feel that we've got too many modules and in some cases these modules create too much of a seperation between missile and turret or shield and armor.
The modules even help to create issues between ewar ships.

For instance, with the changes to missiles tracking disruptors will feel extremely powerful.
However, this isn't going to be fixed with less, but rather with more.

For instance, I feel that there needs to be an individual script for each disruption type, I.E. turret optimal, turret tracking, missile range, and missile exp radius.
Then, introduce an exchange timer when swapping scripts.

Back on topic though, in some cases less is more, and I think making TEs, cap rechargers, and shield rechagers low and midslot capable might help. (who even uses shield rechargers in their mids?)


Why? Just to make shield tanking even easier?
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3566 - 2012-09-29 19:14:24 UTC  |  Edited by: HELLBOUNDMAN
Doddy wrote:
HBM wrote:



Yeah, while I do agree that we don't need every ship to be the same, at the same time I feel that we've got too many modules and in some cases these modules create too much of a seperation between missile and turret or shield and armor.
The modules even help to create issues between ewar ships.

For instance, with the changes to missiles tracking disruptors will feel extremely powerful.
However, this isn't going to be fixed with less, but rather with more.

For instance, I feel that there needs to be an individual script for each disruption type, I.E. turret optimal, turret tracking, missile range, and missile exp radius.
Then, introduce an exchange timer when swapping scripts.

Back on topic though, in some cases less is more, and I think making TEs, cap rechargers, and shield rechagers low and midslot capable might help. (who even uses shield rechargers in their mids?)


Why? Just to make shield tanking even easier?


These are the kind of responses you get from people who come in halfway through the conversation.
Doddy
Excidium.
#3567 - 2012-09-29 19:34:23 UTC
The whole point of eves split weapon system and split tanking system is to get to the same place by different roads. If you want to make the roads the same there is no point in having differences in the first place.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3568 - 2012-09-29 19:52:10 UTC
Doddy wrote:
The whole point of eves split weapon system and split tanking system is to get to the same place by different roads. If you want to make the roads the same there is no point in having differences in the first place.



That's what I got at in a point above.

We dont' want armor tanking and shield tanking to be exactly alike, but there are places where they get too far apart.

Same can be said between missiles and turrets.

For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers.

With shield tanks they have to use cap flux coils and cap relays, but they would be greatly helped by being able to use cap rechargers that can be used in mid slots on armor boats...

So, there are times where there's too much differenciation and other times where there's not enough.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3569 - 2012-09-29 20:00:05 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers.


TEs don't give big bonus to optimal range. TC with optimal range script is better for that.
Sigras
Conglomo
#3570 - 2012-09-29 20:11:39 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers.


TEs don't give big bonus to optimal range. TC with optimal range script is better for that.

ummm no, that is wrong.

TCs with the tracking script give more tracking than a TE, but TEs give 15% optimal and 30% falloff; TCs with a range script give 15% optimal and 30% falloff.
Doddy
Excidium.
#3571 - 2012-09-29 20:25:04 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Doddy wrote:
The whole point of eves split weapon system and split tanking system is to get to the same place by different roads. If you want to make the roads the same there is no point in having differences in the first place.



That's what I got at in a point above.

We dont' want armor tanking and shield tanking to be exactly alike, but there are places where they get too far apart.

Same can be said between missiles and turrets.

For instance, turret boats would be geatly assisted if TEs were mid slot accessible because they're better than tracking computers.

With shield tanks they have to use cap flux coils and cap relays, but they would be greatly helped by being able to use cap rechargers that can be used in mid slots on armor boats...

So, there are times where there's too much differenciation and other times where there's not enough.


But turret boats and shield tankers are not the ones needing assisted .....

In any case TEs are not any better than Tcs, they are quite balanced really. TC doesn' get the slight tracking improvement when optimal scripted but in exchange can use tracking script and be better, is fine.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3572 - 2012-09-29 20:44:47 UTC
I don't know....

As much as it's hard to let go of m side of the argument for waiting till bs rebalance before the nerf.

I'm afraid CCP doesn't care what missile boaters think.

Pretty sure it's happening without anything to fill the gap whether we like it or not...


SO, I think i'm done with this thread...If not with the game.. At least until bs rebalance...
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3573 - 2012-09-29 20:59:41 UTC
Eckyy wrote:
Noemi Nagano wrote:
You mean the general superiority like HG Slaves?



At least as far as PvE goes.

Active shield tanking is much stronger than active armor tanking even when you don't factor in pirate implants, and especially when you get into the realm of faction and dedspace modules.

With only T1/T2 mods, a passive shield tank is more often than not a better tank than active armor on ships smaller than BS, even on ships with bonuses to it like the Myrmidon.


You got a fair point, in PvE Armortanking is subpar compared to Shieldtanks. But in PvP this is not the same, acitve shield tanks are used there, same as shield buffers, but armor buffer is considered to be at least competitive, and HG Slavesets can put those buffers into really insane regions. And I cant repeat this too often - the game is mostly balanced around PvP, which is ok for me.

I see no more answers to my question about the imbalance between Torp/CM vs Arty/AC, and Golem vs Vargur performance. So I take it as a confirmation of my assumption, and people accept there cant be balance as long as so many ships and weapons are not in line. I wonder if this will lead to a more reasonable approach of the Dev in charge, and he will try to leave every race at least with some working ships for combat/DPS.
S4nn4
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#3574 - 2012-09-29 21:50:52 UTC  |  Edited by: S4nn4
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tracking/Range Mods and Ewar
-These changes apply equally to guided and unguided missiles
-Modify tracking enhancers and tracking computers to affect:
Max flight time (with optimal range script)
Explosion radius and explosion velocity (with tracking speed script)
-Make TDs affect Missiles
Tracking speed disruption script lowers explosion velocity and increases explosion radius
Optimal range disruption script lowers flight time


@ Fozzie (in case you are still reading this thread)

When tracking influence both the Explosion radius and the Explosion velocity of missiles, it will create unwanted complications when comparing a Tracking Computer and a Target Painter. This can easily lead to a case where a TC is better for torpedoes while a TP is better for standard missiles, due to the difference in drf values (i can back this up with math if requested, but i will not be trolled into typing it in for just anyone).
EDIT: Perhaps a better way to describe the issue, is that several TC's will cause accelerating gains, while several TP's gives a flat increase. Stacking TC's (and remote tracking links) could then have a risk of producing silly results. And the only way to keep TP's as viable modules would have to be to really gimp the TC's.

As an alternative I suggest that tracking can only effect one value, just like it was on SiSi when missile tracking was first brought up several months ago. This will make the drf problem go away.

-If explosion radius is chosen only the targets size will be important. This will help both against small targets and against fast moving targets (in accordance with the missile damage equation). While this choice is a little boring, it will make TP's and TC's easy to compare, since they practically do the exact same thing

-If explosion velocity is chosen only target speed will be important. This will help only against targets that are using high speed to reduce missile damage. Personally i like this choice more, to me it feels more like tracking when the missiles are able to catch moving targets better, and it is in spirit very similar to turrets tracking.

I know that the size choice is technically better. But that is the domain of target painters. TP's needs to be good enough to justify the minmatar to have that as their racial ewar, and to make it worth its two skills, and having to activate it on each target as well as the additional cap use. This must be measured against the flexibility of the TC, which can with a simple script change suddenly improve the range instead. It is better if the TC can complement the TP, than make it obsolete.
Eckyy
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#3575 - 2012-09-29 22:02:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Eckyy
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
I don't know....

As much as it's hard to let go of m side of the argument for waiting till bs rebalance before the nerf.

I'm afraid CCP doesn't care what missile boaters think.

Pretty sure it's happening without anything to fill the gap whether we like it or not...


SO, I think i'm done with this thread...If not with the game.. At least until bs rebalance...


I recently started a new toon after not playing for several years. I've been playing for about 3 months and I am up to 5mil SP. I have Amarr Cruiser and Frigate to V, T2 small lasers, T2 small and medium drones, and I'm working on Destroyers V and T2 medium guns. I can already use almost all relevant T2 armor tanking modules at the medium and small level (I'm lacking EANM II) as well as a full T2 passive shield tank. I have Engineering and Electronics at V, and Weapon Upgrades at IV.

Honestly how long does it take to train something else if you're disappointed in how the ships you trained perform, or don't like how they fly?

You could get into an Amarr BS with BS 4 in like a week, and get all relevant large Amarr gun skills to 4 in another week and a half or so (assuming you started with zero skills), and use faction turrets. A Nightmare with Navy beams is a wicked awesome mission boat and it benefits from Caldari BS V.

Really, I think you're being overdramatic. Had I picked Caldari, I probably would've shrugged at this point and kept training.

_______________

Can you link your Tengu fit please? I'd like to play with it a bit.

(or anybody can link the common L4 Tengu fit)
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3576 - 2012-09-29 22:09:05 UTC
Eckyy wrote:
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
I don't know....

As much as it's hard to let go of m side of the argument for waiting till bs rebalance before the nerf.

I'm afraid CCP doesn't care what missile boaters think.

Pretty sure it's happening without anything to fill the gap whether we like it or not...


SO, I think i'm done with this thread...If not with the game.. At least until bs rebalance...


I recently started a new toon after not playing for several years. I've been playing for about 3 months and I am up to 5mil SP. I have Amarr Cruiser and Frigate to V, T2 small lasers, T2 small and medium drones, and I'm working on Destroyers V and T2 medium guns. I can already use almost all relevant T2 armor tanking modules at the medium and small level (I'm lacking EANM II) as well as a full T2 passive shield tank. I have Engineering and Electronics at V, and Weapon Upgrades at IV.

Honestly how long does it take to train something else if you're disappointed in how the ships you trained perform, or don't like how they fly?

You could get into an Amarr BS with BS 4 in like a week, and get all relevant large Amarr gun skills to 4 in another week and a half or so (assuming you started with zero skills), and use faction turrets. A Nightmare with Navy beams is a wicked awesome mission boat and it benefits from Caldari BS V.

Really, I think you're being overdramatic. Had I picked Caldari, I probably would've shrugged at this point and kept training.

_______________

Can you link your Tengu fit please? I'd like to play with it a bit.

(or anybody can link the common L4 Tengu fit)


Yeah, but to train a turret boat to the efficiency I have missiles at will take quite some time. At least 100 days.

I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.

It should be available with my current weapon systems.
Lili Lu
#3577 - 2012-09-29 22:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
S4nn4 wrote:

When tracking influence both the Explosion radius and the Explosion velocity of missiles, it will create unwanted complications when comparing a Tracking Computer and a Target Painter. This can easily lead to a case where a TC is better for torpedoes while a TP is better for standard missiles, due to the difference in drf values (i can back this up with math if requested, but i will not be trolled into typing it in for just anyone).

As an alternative I suggest that tracking can only effect one value, just like it was on SiSi when missile tracking was first brought up several months ago. This will make the drf problem go away.

-If explosion radius is chosen only the targets size will be important. This will help both against small targets and against fast moving targets (in accordance with the missile damage equation). While this choice is a little boring, it will make TP's and TC's easy to compare, since they practically do the exact same thing

-If explosion velocity is chosen only target speed will be important. This will help only against targets that are using high speed to reduce missile damage. Personally i like this choice more, to me it feels more like tracking when the missiles are able to catch moving targets better, and it is in spirit very similar to turrets tracking.

I know that the size choice is technically better. But that is the domain of target painters. TP's needs to be good enough to justify the minmatar to have that as their racial ewar, and to make it worth its two skills, and having to activate it on each target as well as the additional cap use. This must be measured against the flexibility of the TC, which can with a simple script change suddenly improve the range instead. It is better if the TC can complement the TP, than make it obsolete.

Good post.

Explosion radius and target signature could be viewed as an factors external to a missile. While explosion velocity could be viewed as internal to the missiles coding, components, and guidance. And thus more able to be influenced by the "tracking" mod on the host missile boat.

And I agree. TPs need to have their value (seeing as it is the weakest of the ewars) preserved. Webs and scrams will still be fit by anyone, but specialized painter boats need to have even more value than they have now.
Aaron Greil
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#3578 - 2012-09-29 22:20:24 UTC
I don't know if there has been any more consideration about making a separate module for missiles rather than adding additional effects to the tracking enhancer/computer. Seriously, i think this would be a major help, and help keep the diversity between guns and missiles. This would allow fittings for the new mods to be tailored for missile ships.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#3579 - 2012-09-29 22:22:31 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
I see no more answers to my question about the imbalance between Torp/CM vs Arty/AC, and Golem vs Vargur performance. So I take it as a confirmation of my assumption, and people accept there cant be balance as long as so many ships and weapons are not in line.


Look again.

Quote:
1. Some ships have to be worse than others, equality is virtually impossible. This is not justification for change unless you can demonstrate that the gap is excessive. You should either demonstrate that the Golem is excessively poor relative to the other three Marauders and therefore deserves to be boosted, or that the Vargur is excessively good and deserves to be nerfed. Or both, conceivably. You will also need to account for the missile TCs about to introduced. This is tricky because we don't know their stats. Since I don't run missions, I can comment no further, but you will probably need to post mission completion times for a representative sample of L4 missions in various factions' space.
Eckyy
United Caldari Navy
United Caldari Space Command.
#3580 - 2012-09-29 22:51:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Eckyy
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Yeah, but to train a turret boat to the efficiency I have missiles at will take quite some time. At least 100 days.

I shouldn't have to cross train to another weapon system to get efficiency.

It should be available with my current weapon systems.


If Caldari missile ships are still superior to turret ships with BS IV and Large guns IV, I'd say the difference really isn't very big - cents on the dollar, so to speak.

If you're interested, I really do recommend the Nightmare path, you'll be pleasantly surprised with how well it works.

[Nightmare, 1]
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II

Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
100MN Afterburner II
Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
X-Large Shield Booster II
Shield Boost Amplifier II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
Imperial Navy Tachyon Beam Laser, Imperial Navy Multifrequency L
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Large Energy Discharge Elutriation II
Large Energy Discharge Elutriation I
Large Ancillary Current Router I


All V and T2 fit (except for guns - Navy Tachs) and Navy Multi, you can lob 820 gun DPS out to 43+41km. You can also tank 475 rainbow DPS (382dps sustained) using a T2 cap injector, or 464dps (368 sustained) against EM/Therm using specific hardeners. It has an afterburner and can do 317m/s. It has the tracking to hit most cruisers orbiting at 20km, though those that get closer will have to be killed by drones.

Sound pretty comparable to your Tengu eh? Faction fit it and it really starts to shine.

/Sarcasm. Honestly, the Tengu is OP.