These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#201 - 2015-06-20 19:20:19 UTC
Porucznik Borewicz 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.
Looks interesting. I think having a single weapon systems disruptor would be enough. Just add functionality to the Tracking Disruptor that is already in the game, change the module name to something more general and make it run 4 different scripts, 2 for turrets and 2 for missile launchers.


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

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Matt Faithbringer
YOLO so no taxes please
#202 - 2015-06-20 19:44:12 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules.


against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it.

What i would propose...is this

Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM.

ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker)

This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.


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
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#203 - 2015-06-20 20:22:18 UTC
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.

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.

Matt Faithbringer
YOLO so no taxes please
#204 - 2015-06-20 21:06:48 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.


well, you can already shoot down drones...
Arla Sarain
#205 - 2015-06-20 22:00:46 UTC
Nerf rockets during the missile balance package.

They project further than small ACs, have same paper DPS but apply damage better, and apply full damage to a single webbed target. ACs on the other hand deal roughly 80% of their DPS at half fall-off. Outside of 50% falloff bonused hulls, this range is usually at around 5-6km.
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#206 - 2015-06-20 22:51:00 UTC  |  Edited by: ivona fly
MeBiatch wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules.


against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it.

What i would propose...is this

Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM.

ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker)

This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.



Yes this interesting all other races have dual ewar........ to think about this look at electronic attack ships

Keres Point range + damps
Sentinel TD + Neut Range/ neut strengh
Hyena Web Range + TP
Kitsune ECM ? infact most people simply opt to fly the griffin, not to say it is a bad ship but expensive 1 trick pony and cant fight in novice plex
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#207 - 2015-06-21 00:01:00 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Airi Cho wrote:
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I also have some concerns that without adequate stacking penalties, these modules could greatly enhance the power of gank stealth bombers. A Nemesis or Manticore with mids and lows full of these guidance modules could apply massive damage to cruisers, destroyers, and even frigates. With no recalibration delay and the element of surprise, torpedoes will far surpass rockets for assaulting small targets, including Asteros.


I don't get why everyone assumes those wouldnt have stacking penalties. What do you base such assumptions on?

The potential imbalance is that TPs, MGC/MGEs, Rigor/Flare rigs, and Webs do not stack against each other and since their effects on the 2nd part of the missile damage formula are multiplicative, it could potentially lead to something nasty.

For example, rough numbers show that a Cruise Phoenix with 4 MGCs/wScripts, coupled with a Hyena or Rapier(?) that can land 3 bonused TPs and a 60% web on a shield tanked MWD'ing Ishtar can one shot the Ishtar (however links might save the Ishtar.) I wouldn't consider that a particularly imbalanced edge case though.




webs, TP arent missile specific

turrets have similar range/tracking rigs that give the same benefit. (although you dont see them used that often)
The modules for the turrets on the other hands are kinda popular ... so i dont see why this would suddenly unbalance the meta so badly.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#208 - 2015-06-21 02:20:09 UTC
ivona fly wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
As Arla Sarain wrote. Damps will be good to countermeasure that modules.


against range scripts yes... but for close range setups damps wont cut it.

What i would propose...is this

Currently Caldari have only one form of ewar and that is ECM.

ECM is very strong because of this. I would nerf ECM so that it only breaks the lock and remove the targeting delay penalty (think of target spectrum breaker)

This would then open Caldari to a second type of ewar which IMO should be the EQ of TD but for Missiles.



Yes this interesting all other races have dual ewar........ to think about this look at electronic attack ships

Keres Point range + damps
Sentinel TD + Neut Range/ neut strengh
Hyena Web Range + TP
Kitsune ECM ? infact most people simply opt to fly the griffin, not to say it is a bad ship but expensive 1 trick pony and cant fight in novice plex

This seems to make pretty good sense. Like any module it can be used by anyone but Caldari ewar ships would get a 2nd bonus. This would also force them them to choose the value of equipping such a module over ECM.
Silverbackyererse
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#209 - 2015-06-21 02:33:17 UTC
I likey.

Gotta make a trade-off choice when fitting either of these mods on most launcher ships.

Seems like a welcome change to a very average medium sized couple of weapons systems.

Also +1 to removing the launcher kinetic/explosive lock on those hulls that have them.
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2015-06-21 07:24:28 UTC
Rise, have you thought about remote missile tracking enhancement?
Not that Forumguy
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#211 - 2015-06-21 07:37:45 UTC
Missile buff yay ! :-)
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#212 - 2015-06-21 07:52:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
CCP Rise wrote:
This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of.

Yay, finally! Here are a few specific questions, suggestions and comments:

• Are any of these modules stacking penalized with each other and/or rigs? (apologies if this was previously asked and answered, but I didn't see anything when I read through this initially)
• In addition to Faction modules, will we be exploring the addition of Officer modules as well? And if so, for Faction and Officer modules, can we mix the stats up a bit, ie: Minmatar bonuses would trend more towards explosion velocity and missile velocity with Caldari explosion radius and flight time; Officer bonuses would be geared more towards explosion radius and missile velocity.
• Can the explosion radius bonus for cruise missiles and torpedoes be switched so that torpedoes can be given serious consideration once again? The volume reduction is awesome but I think a bit of TLC for torpedoes would go a long way towards balancing torpedoes out with cruise missiles.
• Can Officer weapons (only) be allowed to utilized T2 ammunition as well as T1 and Faction? Their rarity and associated cost would tend to preclude mass use in any event.
• Can we look at allowing defender missiles in rapid light and rapid heavy launchers? While not a complete solution for defender missiles, I believe this could be a first step towards addressing some of the shortcomings.
• Is there any possibility of moving the slot 6 cruise missile and torpedo damage implants to slot 7 such that those of us who fly missile ships can actually utilize a full set of low, mid or high-grade implants?
• The Barghest. It's too freaking huge. Can we please reduce the size by 1/3 so it doesn't clip absolutely everything and anything? Also, as it currently stands - even with the +9.375% damage bonus the lack of a damage application bonuses places it almost at the bottom of the heap with most T1 missile battleships in terms of actual applied damage. Can we look at giving it a special role bonus such as a fixed missile reload time (say 25%) to balance this out a bit? Morudu's Legion SKINs...? (hint, hint)

All in all, +1 for the missile package. For those of us who trained heavily into missiles, this is a welcome addition regardless.

PS. +1 to the kinetic damage lock removal suggestion.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#213 - 2015-06-21 09:50:07 UTC
Missiles need more than just these changes while they are a welcome addition to the meta.


Missiles need to be fully effective against bare hulls of the appropriate class. (100% application of HM vs unfitted unboosted cruiser for example)
Missiles need to be fast enough to easily catch a MWD propelled ship of the appropriate class.

These are basic requirements that would be the design brief for anyone making a missile for shooting at cruisers for example. If it barely is faster than a cruiser under MWD, it's effective range vs that cruiser in anything except a head to head situation is massively reduced. I.E. Overtake velocity is important.
If the explosion velocity is lower than the bare hulls speed (no prop mod) then the missile won't be effective vs cruisers.
If the explosion radius is larger than cruisers, it also won't be effective.

So start from scratch on missile stats with those basic common sense design elements in mind, implants boosts & fittings will then be what mitigates damage, and these new modules, tp's & webs will then be what counteracts the implants, boosts & fittings. Damage may need reworking or it may not, but you have to start from a common sense position or you'll never get a good balance.
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#214 - 2015-06-21 11:08:23 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Missiles need more than just these changes while they are a welcome addition to the meta.


Missiles need to be fully effective against bare hulls of the appropriate class. (100% application of HM vs unfitted unboosted cruiser for example)
Missiles need to be fast enough to easily catch a MWD propelled ship of the appropriate class.

These are basic requirements that would be the design brief for anyone making a missile for shooting at cruisers for example. If it barely is faster than a cruiser under MWD, it's effective range vs that cruiser in anything except a head to head situation is massively reduced. I.E. Overtake velocity is important.
If the explosion velocity is lower than the bare hulls speed (no prop mod) then the missile won't be effective vs cruisers.
If the explosion radius is larger than cruisers, it also won't be effective.

So start from scratch on missile stats with those basic common sense design elements in mind, implants boosts & fittings will then be what mitigates damage, and these new modules, tp's & webs will then be what counteracts the implants, boosts & fittings. Damage may need reworking or it may not, but you have to start from a common sense position or you'll never get a good balance.


That is assuming Cruiser weapons were made to hit cruisers and not designed to do as much dmg on BC/BS from a smaller/cheaper hull :P

From my understanding the long range missiles are for engaging same size (frig vs frig, cruiser vs cruiser) while short range missiles are to hit 1-2 sizes above yourself (frig vs destroyer/cruiser, cruiser vs BC/BS
Predator BOA
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#215 - 2015-06-21 11:11:53 UTC
Gday CCP Rise

With the new Missile Guidance Enhancer and Missile Guidance Computer coming in next month. Is there going to be new skill books for them to train up in or are they going to be link to existing skills in the game?
159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#216 - 2015-06-21 11:25:40 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.



So, rather than you guys delivering a full package, you decide to go for half a thing with a promise ( soon (tm) ) for a fix. How on eath is that delivering good game content?

Don't get me wrong, these mods are long overdue. But at least get some disruptions to go with it as well. For all I care buff Defender missiles so they actually do something.

Cause if these new disruptor mods take to long people will ask for a nerf bat, and we all know ccp swings that bat often and misses as much as hitting their mark....
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#217 - 2015-06-21 13:38:56 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
GetSirrus wrote:
Rise, have you thought about remote missile tracking enhancement?


These should definitely be added. Might even add another special bonus to certain ships, as we currently have with the Scimitar and Oneiros.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#218 - 2015-06-21 21:21:27 UTC
anything about (new) skill requirements for these modules?

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#219 - 2015-06-21 22:19:00 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
anything about (new) skill requirements for these modules?


Should be the same as for TC/TE's

I see no valid reason why they would need a separate skill
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#220 - 2015-06-21 22:34:32 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
GetSirrus wrote:
Rise, have you thought about remote missile tracking enhancement?


These should definitely be added. Might even add another special bonus to certain ships, as we currently have with the Scimitar and Oneiros.


add it too the basilisk

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using