These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Missile Guidance Enhancer?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caldari 5
D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. S.A.S
Affirmative.
#1 - 2015-06-04 22:26:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Caldari 5
Screenshots from SiSi
http://gyazo.com/08f9d8f3241777b7873a55e690bf3888 The descriptions for the MCEs
http://gyazo.com/08f9d8f3241777b7873a55e690bf3888 nothing on the attrib tab
http://gyazo.com/c87f5fdcd5941e09a639867b6628f1b6 they are listed on the market as Tracking Enhancers

Given the above I'm guessing that they are low slot items and will follow a similar set of fittings to other Tracking Enhancers?

Is there going to be a Dev Post in here soon about it?

Edit: also found on SiSi by another player later in the thread, Missile Guidance Computers
http://gyazo.com/b3680269c04beee50a0e70e70ae841f2 The descriptions for the MGCs, again nothing on the Attrib tab yet
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#2 - 2015-06-04 22:31:45 UTC
Ask in the test server subforum (check the sticies first obviously).
That's interesting though I'll keep an eye.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#3 - 2015-06-04 22:42:27 UTC
I agree with Ralph, better put int the Test Server Feedback.

But this is interesting, very very interesting

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#4 - 2015-06-04 22:52:49 UTC
People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.

"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."
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5 - 2015-06-04 22:54:56 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.


Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#6 - 2015-06-04 23:14:55 UTC
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.


Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...


That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters?

"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."
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#7 - 2015-06-05 00:06:52 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.


Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...


That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters?


yes, tried to tell people befor the freighter changes that it would come with some serious nerf to "compensate" for the ability to fit module/rig

If they can add tracking modules without gimping the base stats on missiles it would be a good change. Frig/Cruisers dont realy have the room or need for tracking module and battleship/dread need could use some help with application. Its not like battleships/phoenix are OP with missiles, everyone would be using them so trading tank/dps (low or med slot) for application cant be that OP either :P
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#8 - 2015-06-05 00:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: unidenify
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.


Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...


let we hope it won't be heavy missile nerf style

I gonna make guess that it would affect explosive velocity and flight time.

suppose it take low slot, it may nerf slight on missile max dps due to limit on low slot for shield missile boat.

if CPP make mid slot module, I would wage they have to nerf hard on missile due to amount of mid slot on shield missile boat
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#9 - 2015-06-05 01:20:17 UTC
I agree that the main problem with Heavy Missile and HAM's are foundational problem that need to be addressed ouside of adding an additional modules. There are also problem with Missiles that arise from the Caldari Kinetic Lock and the huge weaknesses in the BC class.

I think at the very least this will open up the Drake Navy Issue to some use, it will allow the Cerberus to use Heavy and HAMs, and it will open up more RLML anti-frigate fits.

What needs to happen along with the implementation of these modules is a Heavy and HAM missile rework, and a mass caldari hull bonus rework. Either switch all the Kinetic lock bonuses with reload time bonuses that the jackdaw got, or give them simple 5% damage or rof bonuses instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage.
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#10 - 2015-06-05 01:23:30 UTC
Wynta wrote:
I agree that the main problem with Heavy Missile and HAM's are foundational problem that need to be addressed ouside of adding an additional modules. There are also problem with Missiles that arise from the Caldari Kinetic Lock and the huge weaknesses in the BC class.

I think at the very least this will open up the Drake Navy Issue to some use, it will allow the Cerberus to use Heavy and HAMs, and it will open up more RLML anti-frigate fits.

What needs to happen along with the implementation of these modules is a Heavy and HAM missile rework, and a mass caldari hull bonus rework. Either switch all the Kinetic lock bonuses with reload time bonuses that the jackdaw got, or give them simple 5% damage or rof bonuses instead of the usual 7.5% kinetic damage.


it would also make torp boat much more viable outside of Stealth bomber/Golem
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#11 - 2015-06-05 01:35:35 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.


Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...


That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters?


O suspect that on a case by case basis you will be correct and wrong. Some missiles will get punted hard like lights and cruises while others will probably end up only marginally worse with things like webs taking up most of the slack ie rockets and torps. In fact torps would probably remain unchanged.

These new modules - what will they affect? Both ev nd es?
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#12 - 2015-06-05 01:37:52 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
People have been asking for a pass on missiles (or at least certain ones, some more dire than others). This could be CCP's answer. Surely they are not just gonna introduce some TE for missiles and that's it, since that would not be the problem all missiles have, are they? Then again, we can only assume what it will do...we'll have to wait and see if anything comes of it.


Lets all wait for the nerf that mean any missile ship need 2-3 of these modules to get back to where they are now...


That's exactly what I'm afraid of happening...and this is exactly what could do just that. Remember freighters?


O suspect that on a case by case basis you will be correct and wrong. Some missiles will get punted hard like lights and cruises while others will probably end up only marginally worse with things like webs taking up most of the slack ie rockets and torps. In fact torps would probably remain unchanged.

These new modules - what will they affect? Both ev nd es?


I have discussion with my corp, most feel that it may be same as tracking enchancer, so around 9% dps and 12-15% range for T2
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#13 - 2015-06-05 03:48:18 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's.
Why?
Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships.
In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time.
For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me?

Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). *fingers crossed*
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#14 - 2015-06-05 03:54:37 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Who's with me?


I am.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#15 - 2015-06-05 03:59:10 UTC
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's.
Why?
Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships.
In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time.
For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me?

Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). *fingers crossed*


consider that, as you said low slot would force pilot to make decision between raw dps or application dps. I am fine with this choice.

however, if they add mid-slot module as you ask. They will need to nerf missile to balance on fact every missile BS will immediate replace their TP with said module (Golem may be exception).
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#16 - 2015-06-05 04:08:52 UTC
You already do have to make fitting decisions between raw dps and application, that's not the problem.
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#17 - 2015-06-05 04:10:46 UTC
unidenify wrote:
scorchlikeshiswhiskey wrote:
Unless this comes out paired with an active, scripted mid-slot module, I am against any kind of missile specific TD's.
Why?
Because Caldari ships do not typically have enough low slots to fit these in addition to Ballistic Controls which means that fitting one of these will inherently come at the expense of damage and missile speed. Allowing TD's to effect missiles on the basis of missiles FINALLY getting a specialized application mod would be a huge blunder and, I believe, a masked nerf to missile ships.
In addition to losing damage and missile speed to fit one of these modules, missiles would still be vulnerable to firewalls as well as firing into a pre-repped ship due to flight time.
For these reasons I am currently against TD's affecting missiles. Who's with me?

Also, hopefully this will come with missile tweaks that will fix some of the more... glorious of missile... features(?). *fingers crossed*


consider that, as you said low slot would force pilot to make decision between raw dps or application dps. I am fine with this choice.

however, if they add mid-slot module as you ask. They will need to nerf missile to balance on fact every missile BS will immediate replace their TP with said module (Golem may be exception).

Just a point, I did not ask for a mid-slot module. I only stated that, without a low and mid-slot module, I am against missile-specific EWAR or TD's affecting missiles.

Also, the module would not have to infringe upon the TP, it might compliment the TP or work separately since CCP has free rein with how they would incorporate and design such a module, IF they design such a module. It is likely though that they will aim another Phoenix sized nerf bat at missiles if they do. In which case, I think I would like some time with this single module first, before my missiles once again gather dust in a hangar.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#18 - 2015-06-05 05:01:32 UTC
I've never understood the need or desire for missile td. Just turn on an afterburner you floozies. It's proven that you can mitigate 44% of missile dps using simply one non-ewar module.
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#19 - 2015-06-05 05:41:01 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
I've never understood the need or desire for missile td. Just turn on an afterburner you floozies. It's proven that you can mitigate 44% of missile dps using simply one non-ewar module.


then there are defender missile, and smartbomb.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#20 - 2015-06-05 06:07:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
People who think missiles would need to be nerfed to compensate are seriously kidding themselves. Any nerf to a missiles making even fitting a single new module required to it to bring it the the current power level is a nerf to all shield tanked. All missile systems aside from LML are in a horrible place right now for anything not PVE due to ever worsening speed creep. This module seems to me like a simplified way to rectify this without having to do a balance pass on every ship or completely redesigning the missile system itself which would include re-balancing several hull bonuses as well.


As of now missile boats (nearly all shield tanked) can fit tank and damage which is not enormously more powerful of a tank compared to their drone/turret armor based counterparts. These ships have the option to sacrifice tank for damage, and mids are considered utility for damage application/cap/prop/etc. People have been asking for years for the option of sacrificing tank for application for missile boats. This is not unbalanced, it's balance that has been sorely lacking since inception.




All that aside, once they are in the game (and hopefully same patch) I am certain many hull bonuses and missile damage/applications stats will need to be tweaked downward. But that doesn't mean this hasn't been sorely needed for a long time nor that EVERY missile type must now be nerfed. All we need now is fire walling to be made impossible, and defender missiles moved to a midslot defense module and actually made effective for all incoming missiles until you're out of charges rather than simply on target and a waste of a high slot.
123Next pageLast page