These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#101 - 2015-06-19 16:22:12 UTC
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.

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

Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#102 - 2015-06-19 16:25:35 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.



They need it ontop of the new mods, ship speeds have almost doubled in some cases, what was balanced once is trash now.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

Kadesh Priestess
New Order Outreach Division
CODE.
#103 - 2015-06-19 16:27:39 UTC
Terra Chrall wrote:
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Terra Chrall wrote:
Scripted MGC II **could be** : +38% range or application

With current stats:
Range scripted: +41.61% range from one MGC, +92.3% from two
Application scripted: +46.9% application from one MGC, +105.1% from two (speaking in explosion velocity terms which is closest in missile area to tracking - because it gets increasing bonuses)

Sorry you lost me on this. I was posting the display numbers from the module are you posting the numbers after applying relational math?

So I could have written out as: Scripted: +19% Explosion velocity and radius or +19% Missile velocity and travel time
Range, flight time and explosion velocity get increasing bonuses (high is good - +50% is +50% increase in efficiency). Explosion radius is diminishing bonus (low is good, -50% is +100% increase in efficiency).

1 range scripted: (1+0.19)×(1+0.19) = 1.4161 (+41.6%)
2 range scripted: (1+0.19)×(1+0.19)×(1+0.19×0.87)×(1+0.19×0.87) = 1.922956304 (+92.3%)
1 accuracy scripted: (1+0.19)÷(1−0.19) = 1.469135802 (+46.9%)
2 accuracy scripted: (1+0.19)÷(1−0.19)×(1+0.19×0.87)÷(1−0.19×0.87) = 2.051017073 (+105%)

Where 0.87 is stacking penalty for 2nd strongest modifier in a stacking penalty chain (2 separate chains on per-target attribute basis)
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#104 - 2015-06-19 16:35:39 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
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.

Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server.

Bronson Hughes wrote:
You missed the point I think. At the bottom of Rise's OP (which is what stoicfaux linked), Rise talks about adding missile-based EWAR eventually, just not right now.

No I didn't. That is why I alliterated the soon.Blink


While I hate ecm and what it does currently. It would not be a fix to change it to what you suggest. ECM has a valid use as a counter to logi and remote effects.

TD makes more sense since the TD boats are not used much anyway.

But at least you were thinking creatively. I presented a thread about an option to give painters an anti drone control effect, control range or less likely tracking on them. All I got was flames. But Im still of the opinion that that could work. A painted ship could be so electromagnetically lit up that it would interfere with the base control range, Drone Link Augmenters, and/or Omni effects. And likewise, dedicated painter boats are not used as much as the Damp or ECM boats.

edit : defenders suck, and always will. and if ever they somehow didn't they would still require a launcher slot which many ships do not have.


agreeded... I am personally I hate ECM but i can see how those who like it and want it to stay.. but that does not mean we dont need an Ewar counter to missiles and a effective counter to drones...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#105 - 2015-06-19 16:36:45 UTC
Elana Apgar wrote:
DFA200 wrote:
So you are buffing the the weapon system that is basically invulnerable. I think missiles might need something, but they also need a counter. Tracking disruptors should affect missiles in some way. Until that happens, I can't support these changes.


Jams will counter missiles.



FYP

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Kipper Deeplung
Elewaitor
#106 - 2015-06-19 16:42:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Kipper Deeplung
This may be a good time to make the festival launcher into something more or make an evolution of it into a Chaff/Flare launcher or some similar type of countermeasure.

The Chaff/ Flare should probably be an ammo type similar to bomb in it's mechanics but slower in movement (5-10kps). It's should have a rate of fire similar to a rocket launcher but with a reload time like a RLM launcher and an charge limit similar to the ASB or AAR. The charge itself has an AOE of 5-10km
It should not be 100% effective either. I know it's ability to "firewall" is a bit much but that will depend really on the pilots using the countermeasure and now they actively shape the field of combat. Even with a successful firewall of this type of countermeasure a percentage of damage still makes it through, so maybe 5-15% of the missiles that pass within the charges AOE will not be fooled and still make it to the target.
Almost all of us have watched missiles move around so it's also possible for the ship who used the countermeasure to move in just a way to make the missile change to a flight path that could avoid the countermeasure all together.

When looking at manufacturing this new type of charge, I would look towards stuff like stront, heavy water, nanites, tungsten, titanium, and/or any of the minerals.


(could also be a drone countermeasure too???)
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#107 - 2015-06-19 16:44:44 UTC
Baali Tekitsu 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.



They need it ontop of the new mods, ship speeds have almost doubled in some cases, what was balanced once is trash now.


QFT.

The only heavies ill continue to use are RHML. Since BS have the space for the mods. Maybe not the full 12% since we have these mods now, but 5-8% could help along with the dmg buff.
Helo Dhals
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#108 - 2015-06-19 16:53:36 UTC
Hanazava Karyna wrote:
Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.


You mean sensor dampeners?
Mario Putzo
#109 - 2015-06-19 16:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
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.


Sure they do, but it still leaves a fitting gap. HMs are so bad in application that you still lose 40% of your damage when you cram your rig slots full of Rigors and Flares. So the new Guidance Comp lets you move 3 Rigs into 1 mid to hit the same 40%. Turret ships are still sitting at ~30% application with a lone TC. To hit this similar number you still need to dedicated 2 more slots to application (low or rig) or consume another mid slot with a second GC.

Reverting the 12% reduction to explosion radius translates into about an 8% increase in applied DPS. This means using 1GC (or 3 Rigs, or any combination there of) puts HMs at 32-33% Damage loss, which is right around par with the turret ships who also only need use 1 application mod.

(all numbers vs AB caracal.)

I extensively discussed this some time ago using all kinds of fancy damage graphs and math, im not going to be assed to look for the thread though.

More over 5% increase to raw damage on HMs is only going to step on the toes of Arties in terms of Alpha damage, it really is a nonsensical change, and in fact makes Arties more or less redundant in usage simply because of the range coverage of missiles vs that of arties, not to mention selectable damage type, and the fact you can now increase missile velocity to have your alpha strike apply much faster than today.
D4RK51DE1
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#110 - 2015-06-19 17:04:29 UTC
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



So compared to a 150mm rail longbow corm it does cost about the same, does about the same DPS has about the same range.

on the plus side this probably has a better tank and 3x the volley

on the minus side 110km of missile delay
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#111 - 2015-06-19 17:05:23 UTC
Helo Dhals wrote:
Hanazava Karyna wrote:
Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.


You mean sensor dampeners?


no thats used against targeting in general... with that logic just get rid of TP and TD right?


what he means is the EQ of a TP but for missiles...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Leonardo Adami
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#112 - 2015-06-19 17:05:47 UTC
Wtf us wrong this community !?!?!? CCP finally decides to give missiles some love and most of y'all just wanna whine and b*tch about everything or cry for more...this is eve htfu and stop with all the qq. Oh and while you're at it how about Thank You CCP.
Alexis Nightwish
#113 - 2015-06-19 17:08:27 UTC
While I like these additions, without a concomitant nerf to the Garmur and Orthrus, I see these cancerous ships becoming a full blown plague.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Juan Mileghere
Sea World
#114 - 2015-06-19 17:14:32 UTC
TDs should affect Missles now as well...
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#115 - 2015-06-19 17:14:46 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
While I like these additions, without a concomitant nerf to the Garmur and Orthrus, I see these cancerous ships becoming a full blown plague.


reduce garmur max target range to 25km... that way it forces a sensor booster or else the damps will be a hard counter...

for the orthrus reduce the targeting range to 45km...

so now these ships will be countered by sensor damps... force them in close and a chance to be scrammed... lechasis would be a good counter to these ships.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Mario Putzo
#116 - 2015-06-19 17:16:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Leonardo Adami wrote:
Wtf us wrong this community !?!?!? CCP finally decides to give missiles some love and most of y'all just wanna whine and b*tch about everything or cry for more...this is eve htfu and stop with all the qq. Oh and while you're at it how about Thank You CCP.


Thanks CCP for Power Creep!

6 months from now when they have to buff medium arty damage because they decided a 5% increase to HMs was a good idea you can come back an +1 this post.

HMs do not need a raw damage bonus. They need the 12% reduction to explosion radius redacted.

If anything, they could use a raw damage reduction...so Arties truly stand out as the kings of Alpha and roll the DPS back into a reduction on Heavy Launcher ROF.
Leonardo Adami
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#117 - 2015-06-19 17:20:11 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Leonardo Adami wrote:
Wtf us wrong this community !?!?!? CCP finally decides to give missiles some love and most of y'all just wanna whine and b*tch about everything or cry for more...this is eve htfu and stop with all the qq. Oh and while you're at it how about Thank You CCP.


Thanks CCP for Power Creep!

6 months from now when they have to buff medium arty damage because they decided a 5% increase to HMs was a good idea you can come back an +1 this post.

HMs do not need a raw damage bonus. They need the 12% reduction to explosion radius redacted.

If anything, they could use a raw damage reduction...so Arties truly stand out as the kings of Alpha and roll the DPS back into a reduction on Heavy Launcher ROF.


The amount of whine from this one is strong. Whine you must not , quit EVE you must.
stoicfaux
#118 - 2015-06-19 17:40:55 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
edit: In other words, here is how you take advantage of the fact that TPs and MGC/MGEs don't stack with each other.


In the context of the 2nd part of the missile formula, here is the effective bonus of each module after stacking penalties (for 5 modules) are applied.

For example, for a Golem with its TP bonus, this is the order for filling your seven mids with TPs and MGC IIs with Precision scripts:
156.25% PWNAGE 50% Bonus (e.g. Golem)
148.89% PWNAGE 50%
146.91% MGC II w/ Prec
140.77% MGC II w/ Prec
132.10% PWNAGE 50%
126.77% MGC II w/ Prec
115.92% PWNAGE 50%

A Typhoon, with non-bonused TPs should fit TPs and MGC IIs with scripts in this order:
146.91% MGC II w/ Prec
140.77% MGC II w/ Prec
137.50% PWNAGE
132.59% PWNAGE
126.77% MGC II w/ Prec
Adding a MGE II (which would be the 5th module for stacking purposes) in the lows would provide:
101.47% MGE II


Below are the stacking penalized values for each module.

156.25%  PWNAGE 50% Bonus (e.g. Golem)
148.89%  PWNAGE 50%
132.10%  PWNAGE 50%
115.92%  PWNAGE 50%
105.96%  PWNAGE 50%

137.50%  PWNAGE
132.59%  PWNAGE
121.40%  PWNAGE
110.61%  PWNAGE
103.97%  PWNAGE

=======================

146.91%  MGC II w/ Prec
140.77%  MGC II w/ Prec
126.77%  MGC II w/ Prec
113.27%  MGC II w/ Prec
104.97%  MGC II w/ Prec

135.29%  MGC  I w/Prec
130.67%  MGC  I w/Prec
120.14%  MGC  I w/Prec
109.99%  MGC  I w/Prec
103.74%  MGC  I w/Prec

120.99%  MGC II
118.25%  MGC II
111.98%  MGC II
105.94%  MGC II
102.23%  MGC II

116.22%  MGC I
114.09%  MGC I
109.25%  MGC I
104.59%  MGC I
101.72%  MGC I

113.90%  MGE II
112.08%  MGE II
107.93%  MGE II
103.93%  MGE II
101.47%  MGE II

110.53%  MGE I
109.15%  MGE I
106.01%  MGE I
102.98%  MGE I
101.12%  MGE I

=======================
For completeness, here are rigor/flare rigs (which don't suffer stacking penalties.)

125.00%  Rigor II
120.00%  Flare II
117.65%  Rigor I
115.00%  Flare I



Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#119 - 2015-06-19 17:46:15 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Leonardo Adami wrote:
Wtf us wrong this community !?!?!? CCP finally decides to give missiles some love and most of y'all just wanna whine and b*tch about everything or cry for more...this is eve htfu and stop with all the qq. Oh and while you're at it how about Thank You CCP.


Thanks CCP for Power Creep!

6 months from now when they have to buff medium arty damage because they decided a 5% increase to HMs was a good idea you can come back an +1 this post.

HMs do not need a raw damage bonus. They need the 12% reduction to explosion radius redacted.

If anything, they could use a raw damage reduction...so Arties truly stand out as the kings of Alpha and roll the DPS back into a reduction on Heavy Launcher ROF.


Why should there only be one high alpha choice? Not everyone likes Minmitar ships, not everyone likes projectiles, heavies competing for alpha is good for game choices.
Brewmeron
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#120 - 2015-06-19 17:56:06 UTC
I'm still curious to where on earth the counter to these are, in Crucible I believe you, yourself said that you are looking into introducing tracking disruptors for missiles, but you wanted to wait to gather data on the recent changes you made to missiles so you could balance them fairly, that was now, what? 3 Years ago, and now you want to BUFF missiles by giving them a tracking boosting module and still have not released a disruption module, come on, get it together, i'm all for these modules but only IF you release a disruptor for missile too.