These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
stoicfaux
#321 - 2015-06-26 16:35:13 UTC
Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly...

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#322 - 2015-06-26 16:36:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
stoicfaux wrote:
Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly...



That's a really interesting concept.

Faction Missile Guidance mods would obviously come from Caldari Navy, and as you say perhaps Mordu's Legion as well.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
stoicfaux
#323 - 2015-06-26 16:44:50 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly...



That's a really interesting concept.

Faction Missile Guidance mods would obviously come from Caldari Navy, and as you say perhaps Mordu's Legion as well.

And the Minmatar versions would use the SKIN system to have the missile impacts leave rust splotches on the enemy hulls.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Mario Putzo
#324 - 2015-06-26 16:57:01 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Personally, I would like to see a Mordu's Legion faction script (and faction MGE (and MGC)) that buffs missile speed greatly while reducing flight time greatly...



That's a really interesting concept.

Faction Missile Guidance mods would obviously come from Caldari Navy, and as you say perhaps Mordu's Legion as well.

And the Minmatar versions would use the SKIN system to have the missile impacts leave rust splotches on the enemy hulls.



Paintball in space?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#325 - 2015-06-26 17:04:32 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Updated with the new and reduced MGC/MGE values.

Normalized values in terms of how they affect the 2nd part of the missile formula

1,000.0% - 90% Web (At which point the 1st part of the missile formula overrides the 2nd part, so this isn't relevant.)
250.0% - 60% Web
222.2% - 55% Web
200.0% - 50% Web 
187.5% - 2x Rigor II, Flare II
179.7% - 2x Rigor II, Flare I
162.8% - 3x Rigor I
156.3% - bonused PWNAGE TP (e.g. Golem)  (skills V)
156.3% - 2x Rigor II
138.4% - 2x Rigor I
137.5% - PWNAGE TP (skills V)
135.3% - MGC II @ 15% w/Precision Script
127.3% - Compact MGC @ 12% w/Precision Script
125.0% - Rigor II
122.2% - MGC I @ 10% w/Precision Script
120.0% - Flare II
117.6% - Rigor I
116.2% - MGC II @ 7.5%
115.0% - Flare I
112.8% - Compact MGC @ 6%
111.6% - MGE II @ 5.5%
110.5% - MGC I @ 5%
110.5% - Compact MGE @ 5%
109.4% - MGE I @ 4.5%


Missile distance: (missile flight/speed rigs are stacking penalized)

123.2% - MGC II @ 11% w/Range Script
120.0% - T2 rig @ 20%
118.8% - MGC Compact @ 9% w/Range Script
116.6% - MGC I @ 8% w/Range Script
115.0% - T2 rig @ 15%
112.4% - MGE II @ 6%
111.3% - MGC I @ 5.5%
111.3% - MGE Compact @ 5.5%
110.3% - MGE I @ 5%
109.5% - MGC Compact @ 4.5%
108.2% - MGC I @ 4%


So basically they're pointless for application now.

Le Sigh.
Altarica
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#326 - 2015-06-26 17:19:00 UTC
afkalt wrote:

So basically they're pointless for application now.

Le Sigh.


Are we surprised?

That maybe missiles would be (more) viable again (other than RLML Orthrus) ?

No sadly we are not surprised.

Don't forget there is still the anti missile EW to come.

Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all Roll
bunzing heet
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#327 - 2015-06-26 17:23:15 UTC
Altarica wrote:
afkalt wrote:

So basically they're pointless for application now.

Le Sigh.


Are we surprised?

That maybe missiles would be (more) viable again (other than RLML Orthrus) ?

No sadly we are not surprised.

Don't forget there is still the anti missile EW to come.

Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all Roll



Give me back my words because you just used them

Fly safe keep killing And remember I'm watching you !!!!
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#328 - 2015-06-26 17:30:55 UTC
Altarica wrote:
Looks like this boost to missile will turn out to be another nerf after all Roll

Easy to predict. When I read "meaningfull choices" or something like that I know it will be bad.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Mario Putzo
#329 - 2015-06-26 17:31:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
afkalt wrote:

So basically they're pointless for application now.

Le Sigh.


You shouldn't be shocked. After all this is the balance team who has spent 3 years now attempting to balance drones as a weapon system...yet steadfastly refuse to take the most obvious step in doing so (match them to size appropriate hulls). The same folks who nerfed Heavy Missiles into obscurity because ONE ship that used them was heavily popular, not because it used missiles, but because it was cheap as **** to replace when lost. The same balance crew who have created a glaring gap in intership size balance by making Cruisers essentially the end all be all of cost efficient fleet setups, the same team who claim to be wary of "Power Creep" yet at every turn continue to facilitate changes based on creeping power.

Truth be told, Missiles for the most part don't even need these modules, they would be nice to have so you could make a choice, use a rig slot, or use a mid slot, or use a low slot. But in terms of necessity the only actual change missiles need is reverting the Explosion Radius change made to heavy missiles.

When Cruise Missiles can hit Cruisers for nearly the same applied % Damage as Heavy Missiles, it doesn't take a degree in mathematics to recognize the issue.

Funny thing (ha ha). Missiles Cruisers using HMLs are the best counter to Cruiser Drone Boats fielding sentries. Or they would be if Heavy Missiles weren't ****.

Is there a place we can petition Seagull to find new balance team?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#330 - 2015-06-26 17:33:58 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
stoicfaux wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Hello

Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).

And bananas should be as difficult to peel as apples? =/

Missiles are *very* different from guns and have a *very* different set of problems to overcome. Why should "missile TCs" be limited by "gun TCs"? Personally, I was liking the current stats as a way of getting away from the need to mount "mandatory" rigor rigs.

Can you please provide a bit more of the reasoning for reducing their bonuses?



Now I have a real keyboard Ill add my voice to this.

@Rise - turret comparisons are both dangerous and flawed.

I don't see the threadnought of feedback on that sub forum, where is the problem, the evidence for these being OTT as was?

Missiles being different to turrets (or "Missile envy") is an exceptionally poor reason to selectively balance them.

I mean take warhead upgrades vs surgical strike, for example - we are content to have missiles getting the lower value here. Or are we going to address that? Missiles can be firewalled, turrets cannot. Targets can warp off before missiles hit, not so with turrets. Missiles in flight disappear if you die, turret damage is not lost. And so on, and so on. Are we addressing these glaring weaknesses of missiles? No we are not.

You've basically said here that "missiles cant have nice things because turrets guys will be sad and jealous". That's....just awful.

These mods in the initial cut finally gave the opportunity for a handful of missile ships to be genuinely valued assets to a fleet but now....now there's just no point. None at all.
Kadesh Priestess
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#331 - 2015-06-26 17:44:33 UTC
afkalt wrote:


162.8% - 3x Rigor I
You're probably wrong at least here. If accuracy bonuses are getting penalized - they're getting penalized everywhere, including the rigs. Thus, 3 rigors would be 147.9%.
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#332 - 2015-06-26 17:48:44 UTC
What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#333 - 2015-06-26 17:50:28 UTC
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
afkalt wrote:


162.8% - 3x Rigor I
You're probably wrong at least here. If accuracy bonuses are getting penalized - they're getting penalized everywhere, including the rigs. Thus, 3 rigors would be 147.9%.


It's Stoicfaux math, I just quoted
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#334 - 2015-06-26 17:51:35 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Hello

Small update for you on the new modules.

First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.

Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).

I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out.

Thanks for all the feedback so far!


Nice,
So instead of needing only 3 application mods to match applied DPS % from turrets using 1 Tracking Computer I only need 4 when using heavy missiles against an AB cruiser. Pretty much right back where we are currently using all three rig slots for application purposes.

Even more reason to change that 5% HM damage change to redaction of the 12% Explosion Radius change you made 3 years ago.

Lets not also forget Turrets have more raw DPS , Turrets apply damage instantly, and turrets can not be blapped off grid losing 100% of damage. Will missiles be getting this as well? Since everything needs to be uniform?



Sorry but your statement is flawed, if it is intentional or now, I cannot say. But you cannot say that missiles need X to match turrets against a cruiser.

At WHAT RANGE? At long range the turrets indeed have a MUCH easier time to hit an AB cruiser, but at point blank range the missiles are FAR FAR superior (both are not great but missiles at least do SOME damage while turrets simply miss everything).

When you compare turrets and missiles you need to state the complete engagement envelope.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#335 - 2015-06-26 17:52:57 UTC
Zekora Rally wrote:
What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts.



For that to happen you need proper targets fro them (BC sized).

And btw.. when in hell you see turret battleships so much? They are rare as well :P

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Mario Putzo
#336 - 2015-06-26 17:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Hello

Small update for you on the new modules.

First of all, the first build that went to sisi with the new modules has several incomplete pieces, one of which was the absence of stacking penalties on the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonus for new modules. That should be fixed in the newest build.

Second of all, after some really great feedback from you guys (and from the CSM) we are going to tune the initial numbers for these modules down a bit from what was proposed in the OP. There's a few problems with the numbers proposed originally but at the end of the day it would have meant Missile Guidance Modules were substantially stronger than their tracking counterparts (around 50% stronger for the enhancer and around 33% stronger for the computer).

I'm going to just update the OP with the new numbers and you guys can let me know what you think. If you notice any other problems or bugs on sisi be sure to point them out.

Thanks for all the feedback so far!


Nice,
So instead of needing only 3 application mods to match applied DPS % from turrets using 1 Tracking Computer I only need 4 when using heavy missiles against an AB cruiser. Pretty much right back where we are currently using all three rig slots for application purposes.

Even more reason to change that 5% HM damage change to redaction of the 12% Explosion Radius change you made 3 years ago.

Lets not also forget Turrets have more raw DPS , Turrets apply damage instantly, and turrets can not be blapped off grid losing 100% of damage. Will missiles be getting this as well? Since everything needs to be uniform?



Sorry but your statement is flawed, if it is intentional or now, I cannot say. But you cannot say that missiles need X to match turrets against a cruiser.

At WHAT RANGE? At long range the turrets indeed have a MUCH easier time to hit an AB cruiser, but at point blank range the missiles are FAR FAR superior (both are not great but missiles at least do SOME damage while turrets simply miss everything).

When you compare turrets and missiles you need to state the complete engagement envelope.



Inside 10KM missile win, unless webs are applied, at which point that drops to inside 5KM, Above 10KM Turrets win all the way out to max range. This is true across all Long Range Turrets, with their only draw back being at that point changing ammo to adjust for range. A couple months back i provided numerous examples, graphs, math in a missile discussion thread comparing Heavy Missiles to Long Range Turrets of all types it is no contest, feel free to check through my post history to locate that thread.

Average DPS loss for turrets through application vs AB Cruiser (At worst possible Transversal) = ~30% for Beams and Rails, 35% for Arty, and 44% for Heavy missiles, using 3x Rigs for Missiles, and 1 TC+TS for Turrets. (and Drone Boats crush them all in terms of Range, Application, Peak DPS)
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#337 - 2015-06-26 18:00:34 UTC
Zekora Rally wrote:
What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts.

Can't put rigors everywhere.
For example, a fleet ham sacrilege gets very interesting gains with MGCs, and it has no slots to spare for any missile rigs.
I imagine phoon would benefit greatly from this stuff too.
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#338 - 2015-06-26 18:08:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Zekora Rally
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Zekora Rally wrote:
What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts.



For that to happen you need proper targets fro them (BC sized).

And btw.. when in hell you see turret battleships so much? They are rare as well :P

I still see blaster fitted megas and vindis regularly. Machariels are still as popular as ever. APOC navy issues are still a staple when it comes to reliably projecting dps while standing your ground. When was the last time you saw a torp raven or a SNI or RNI?
Torps are currently only useful on bombers and the golem. Even with the barghest, you fit RHMLs all day. You would be ******** to fit torps on any other ship for whatever the occasion.
The fact that everyone is willing to deal with a 35 second reload delay shows how useless missiles can be at the top end.
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#339 - 2015-06-26 18:11:36 UTC
Torgeir Hekard wrote:
Zekora Rally wrote:
What exactly does this fix or change? I can only see this being used mostly for its range improving bonus. TPs and Rigors still easily trounce this for damage application effectiveness; something that isn't the case for turrets. We still won't get to see torp ravens or typhoons back in pvp unlike their turret counterparts.

Can't put rigors everywhere.
For example, a fleet ham sacrilege gets very interesting gains with MGCs, and it has no slots to spare for any missile rigs.
I imagine phoon would benefit greatly from this stuff too.
TPs still trounce them and even more so in a fleet of HACs.
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#340 - 2015-06-26 18:21:24 UTC
Zekora Rally wrote:
TPs still trounce them and even more so in a fleet of HACs.

Stacking penalty, what is it?