These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gugl1 Molou
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#121 - 2015-06-19 18:01:09 UTC
I sense armor phoenix's or low-tank shield phoenix's will be a thing after these changes. Imagine a double Missile Guidance Computer II fit to a phoenix to blap subcaps...
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#122 - 2015-06-19 18:15:09 UTC
Gugl1 Molou wrote:
I sense armor phoenix's or low-tank shield phoenix's will be a thing after these changes. Imagine a double Missile Guidance Computer II fit to a phoenix to blap subcaps...


Bring it on. Outside of web range and having an ab should still be enough to speed tank them. Then counter drop a dread, profit.

Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS

Make the Muninn great again!
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#123 - 2015-06-19 18:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Daemun Khanid
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"

Daemun of Khanid
FT Cold
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2015-06-19 18:19:53 UTC
I'm pretty happy about these changes, they've been a long time coming.

A couple of concerns though, as speed has increased dramatically over the last two years, and sig has recently decreased with the restrained warp drives. Larger sized missiles could probably use a more comprehensive rebalance than the 5% buff to HMs. Light missiles might end up being a little too powerful with these things, though.

Also, really looking forward to new e-war, hopefully it's something a little more out of the box than effects like the TD. A good change and a big step in the right direction.
Gugl1 Molou
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#125 - 2015-06-19 18:22:13 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Gugl1 Molou wrote:
I sense armor phoenix's or low-tank shield phoenix's will be a thing after these changes. Imagine a double Missile Guidance Computer II fit to a phoenix to blap subcaps...


Bring it on. Outside of web range and having an ab should still be enough to speed tank them. Then counter drop a dread, profit.



It doesn't take a genious to counter it, but personally I would usually not drop on someone that could potentially just speed/sig tank the damage and run away. You usually dont drop on anything bigger than a battlecruiser to begin with, but these changes might make it viable to drop virtually anything.
Arla Sarain
#126 - 2015-06-19 18:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Make it so TDs work on missiles.



Drone-ships are underpowered yeah? Need more incentive to fly drone ships as an adversary to neuting TD ships as opposed to flying virtually anything else. Like AC/blaster/laser and the soon to be TDd missile ships.
Dean Wong
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#127 - 2015-06-19 18:50:14 UTC
My crystalball tells me of a new doctrine...

Sacrilege? Anyone?
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#128 - 2015-06-19 19:03:31 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.
...

While I appreciate your point of view and agree missiles could use some application love, I wonder if the solution would be toning down the new modules slightly, while increasing some base stats mainly explosion radius and velocity on missiles. So those that can't fit a new module benefit and those that can benefit more.

A. DPS is only as good as its application, which is why people have complained about Heavy Missiles so much for PvP. Modules that improve application, increase your damage output; no reason to be hung up on DPS numbers. If you are trading a BCS for a MGE then you have to weigh the damage application improvement over the loss of base damage. If you are trading a midslot for a MGC you are trading utility or tank for more range and or application. Again an interesting choice.

I think modules that open up more choices are worth while. Keep in mind that you can also now choose between getting range/application out of rig slots thus opening those slots for tank or dps as well.
Kalen Pavle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#129 - 2015-06-19 19:03:34 UTC
Brewmeron wrote:
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.


Firewalls? Flying away really quickly? ECM? Damps?

Turrets have tracking disruptors and maybe neuts. Missiles can be negated by moving away from your target and smartbombs. Things do not have to be the same to be equal.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#130 - 2015-06-19 19:16:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Terra Chrall
CCP Rise wrote:
Heyo

It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!

This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?

  • Missile Guidance Enhancers - Low slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity
  • Missile Guidance Computers - Mid slot modules that increase missile explosion velocity, lower explosion radius, increase missile flight time and increase missile velocity. These modules can use Missile Precision and Missile Range scripts and can of course be overheated.
  • Heavy Missile Damage is being increased by 5% for all Heavy Missile Types
  • Torpedo volume is being reduced by half, meaning you can fit twice as many Torpedo's in all launchers (except polarized, which have had their capacity reduced) as before.

    • Some specifics on the new modules:

    We are starting with 3 types in each group. Tech I, Compact (lower fitting requirements), and Tech II. Faction variations would certainly be on the table for later releases when we are happy with the tuning of numbers on these first mods.

    The numbers:

    Missile Guidance Enhancer I
    10 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
    Compact Missile Guidance Enhancer
    8 CPU, 1 PG, 5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
    Missile Guidance Enhancer II
    15 CPU, 1 PG, 6.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time

    Missile Guidance Computer I
    28 CPU, 1 PG, 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
    Compact Missile Guidance Computer
    24 CPU, 1 PG 7.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time
    Missile Guidance Computer II
    35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time

    These are set very close to the corresponding turret module numbers and may need adjustment after deployment.

    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!

    I found myself reply to others in the thread and figured I should reply to OP as well. I like these changes. It is going to open a wider range of usable fits as well as move certain ships from undesirable to playable. Initially these modules look strong, but I have not run numbers to see how many modules various ships can and should fit. If most ships are going to be limited to 1 or 2 and new counter measures are in the works, then I think they will work out fine.

    Releasing the bonusing modules before the negating should work out in a positive way because it will incitegreater enthusiasm for missile ships and get more people flying them, thus increasing their presence in the meta more significantly. Then releasing the disruption modules, hopefully in the near future, will again be met with enthusiasm as countering the missile ships more effectively will be desired. Or it could be found that current means are counter enough, though I think might not prove true.

    Good work CCP, thank you for listening to us when expressed ourselves stating missile ships needed more options and MGE/C were asked for.
    Helo Dhals
    Relapse Anonymous
    Sedition.
    #131 - 2015-06-19 19:26:47 UTC
    MeBiatch wrote:
    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...


    Defender missiles that actually work?
    Kitty Bear
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #132 - 2015-06-19 19:39:24 UTC
    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?



    Reread about where they go on a missile ship.

    MGE or BCU in the low-slot --> Trade Raw DPS for +Range and Damage Application
    MGC or Tank in the mid-slot --> Trade Tank for +Range or Damage Application

    Why is this not a wonderful thing I hear you ask.
    You are asking right ?

    The low-slot module Trades Raw DPS for improved application of any damage done.
    However .. the major limiting factor with missiles in damage application is missile/target size varience

    ie .. it's only going to be useful to fit these modules if your shooting Frigate sized targets with Cruiser+ sized missiles.
    in short your reducing your aver-all maximum dps so that you can hit smaller targets better

    Situationaly advantageous, but hardly worthy of the "we're going to be over-run by missile boats" proclamation of doom your espousing.

    not forgetting of course that the mid-slot is also where the TP goes, and the AB goes, and the webbifier goes ... etc.
    Alexis Nightwish
    #133 - 2015-06-19 19:46:17 UTC
    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!

    So when drones, a delayed damage, destroyable weapon system got ODTLs and ODTEs there was no intent to add anti-drone EWAR, yet when you add similar modules for missiles, you intend to add anti-missile EWAR. Seems legit.

    I'm getting pretty ******* tired of drones being king.

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

    EVE Online's "I win!" Button

    Fixing bombs, not the bombers
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #134 - 2015-06-19 19:58:32 UTC
    Alexis Nightwish wrote:
    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!

    So when drones, a delayed damage, destroyable weapon system got ODTLs and ODTEs there was no intent to add anti-drone EWAR, yet when you add similar modules for missiles, you intend to add anti-missile EWAR. Seems legit.

    I'm getting pretty ******* tired of drones being king.

    Drones are fragile turrets. They can be directly engaged by any other weapon rather than just smartbombs and defenders, the latter of which goes unused and the former requires dedicating fitting and numbers for the task. Further smartbombs can be a far greater threat to orbiting drones. They can also be individually TD'd but that falls short of practical.

    The 2 aren't the apples to apples comparison you are presenting.
    Keras Authion
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #135 - 2015-06-19 20:24:30 UTC
    While I agree that more variety is better, this has a chance of being one of those cases where the end result is you having to sacrifice a slot to keep the previous level of effectiveness or be nerfed. More specifically:

    -Missiles themselves are nerfed to keep them from being overpowered. Result: loss of damage and/or application unless you sacrifice tank/utility/BCUs to counter the change with MGE or MCE.

    -The missile tracking disruption is tacked on to tracking disruptor. Result: tracking disruptor becomes a really lucrative if not a must-have defensive module and missile ships lose tank/utility/dps to the MGE or MCE if they want to keep the current level of effectiveness. True for gunboats too in a part as the tracking disruptor becomes more common in fits.

    -Missile disruptor gets its own module. Better case for the above, but rather than the current situation of simply using a TP or web to improve application some ships are able to counter the effect. As an addition, there is assumedly no way of telling when a ship is fitted with a missile disruptor before engaging in combat, making the choice of engaging less of an informed choice and more of a gamble. Net result: lowered application towards some targets, more randomness you cannot have an influence on.

    This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
    Market Wizard
    Doomheim
    #136 - 2015-06-19 20:34:20 UTC
    With all the suggestions about adding missile disruption into the TD mods which seems like a great idea, why not just shove the new missile bonuses into the existing computers and enhancers and call them weapons computers and weapons enhancers.

    Benefits:
    You dont use the same icon for the new stuff that is already used by old stuff
    There is no extra complexity for the amount of modules in game (counteracting the current purpose of tiericide)
    Creating a disruption system is as easy as just plugging bonuses into the current disruptors (same for comps and enhancers)
    You dont have to add new ships or bonuses to current ships to have dedicated disruption

    Problems:
    You cant tweak fitting for just missile ships because they are rolled into the mods used by turrets ships (or vice-versa)
    You would have to rename mods and scripts so they are not confusing to new players


    Thoughts? Anything I missed?
    Deacon Abox
    Black Eagle5
    #137 - 2015-06-19 20:35:42 UTC
    Terra Chrall wrote:
    Damps and ECM still counter missile ships and missiles are the only weapon system smartbombs can counter. So CCP needs to approach the balance of countering missiles with care.

    Not true. Smarties counter drones. And were created for that purpose. Of course you can also shoot the drones if you wait to target them.

    CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

    vikari
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #138 - 2015-06-19 20:39:37 UTC
    I believe scripts would be important. The having all four bonuses is ok, but it should be limited on how strong they are, while a script could then push a single number or maybe 2 numbers higher. Missiles have that benefit of the best damage control and range of any weapon. I'd like to see limits on their bonuses much more in line with a tracking computer.
    Deacon Abox
    Black Eagle5
    #139 - 2015-06-19 20:41:40 UTC
    Kalen Pavle wrote:
    Firewalls? Flying away really quickly? ECM? Damps?

    Turrets have tracking disruptors and maybe neuts. Missiles can be negated by moving away from your target and smartbombs. Things do not have to be the same to be equal.

    Of course ecm and damps don't effect turrets as well Roll And flying in a way to reduce tracking doesn't either.Ugh

    Your list is only firewall. That was never meant to be the counter to missiles. It was created to address the lack of a dedicated antimissile ewar when Drakes were everywhere.

    CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

    Gleb Koskov
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #140 - 2015-06-19 20:44:53 UTC
    In the past the only way to diminish your explosion radius and velocity would have been through the use of specific rigs, grabbing a set of implants or find a hull that filled the desired bonus to precision or range.

    With these new modules giving bonuses to four respective stats, doesn't these make the rigs obsolete specially since having your computers scripted offers almost a bonus of 20% for both precision or range stats and they only offer one bonus in one of these areas? Will CCP be planning to bake Flare / Rigors, Fuel Cache / Bay Thrusters into each other in the future, and maybe perhaps looking into the penalties associated with these?