Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Wow. Harsh backlash with the nerf there Rise.

Everyone was hoping that T2 Rigor/Flare rigging missile ships wouldn't be a necessity after this. The MGC were way to strong when you originally posted them, but now the MGC II is useless compared to its competition. The pwnage.

Please please PPPPPLLLELEEEEEAAAASEEEESSE settle on numbers half way in between the original and the new nerfed values.

MGE I - 5%
Compact MGE I - 5%
MGE II - 6%
MGC I - 6%
Compact MGC I - 7%
MGC II - 8%


All bonus values across the board like you had them listed... I liked that. It gives me a warm feeling inside. The MGE is looking spot on. Damage or a Good buff to range/application. These will see a lot of use because of balanced trade offs for other low modules.

But if you don't make the MGC better for the host ship than a pwnage, you won't see much usage of them. It makes sense, the module that only helps me hit my target should be stronger than the module that helps the whole gang hit its target. If this were the case, it would put a lot of pressure on missile gangs to bring bonus'd painters so everyone could fit MGC in their previous application mid. They would compound on the bonus'd painters and would be a great advantage for setting up a coherent doctrine roam for your gang. This advantage would be great for missile boats.

This release is SO close to being amazing. I understand these numbers are very fiddly. Remember that these do not have to match application values of the turret counterparts because a target farther away is easier to track than a target closer. A Dramiel with 0 rads can be hit by a sniper Dread for full damage. Missiles do not get this benefit. please make these modules more powerful to offset this issue, or strip the Sig shot/Sig of target element out of the turret tracking equation and allow small ships to true sig tank turrets. Or do the inverse with the missile forumula. But as long as those formulas are different, the balance for their separate modules must be different.

Obviously, the benefits cap at around 3 or 4 TPs but it's still better than each HAC fitting a MGCII with precision scripts unless i'm wrong somewhere.

There is actually a logic flaw in this approach because of how turrets work in oppose to missiles.

As soon a target is far enough away, the transverse speed becomes irrelevant for turrets, the damage is exclusively decided by the question if the target is within optimal range.

The same situation does not occur for missiles, because the damage application is based on speed and not on the direction of the ship. A ship will speed tank missiles at 1km as good as at 249 km. This requires for the same application of damage to counter the effect of the speed tank AND extend the range to reach the target. Additionally the limit of missle flight time means that a fast traveling ship is able to reduce the application further by reducing the effective range orbiting the target at a high range to increase the missile flight path.

You can of course adjust the modules so it allows comparative application of damage on range, but this will create a disproportional advantage in close range.

The idea that you can make missile modules work comparative to turret modules is simply not working. I am a bit too lazy to do this right now, but you can solve the turret damage equation against the missile damage equation to proof that it wont be possible to solve the equation to the same damage applicability for turrets and missiles on all ranges, because of the effect that the vector of the speed has to the damage application of turrets based on distance. It is just in the nature of the damage application formulas to make it impossible to be comparative unless you want to change the engine substantially.

Essentially the formular comes down to (when in optimal)

Signature * SpeedTracking / SignatureTracking * Speed
vs
Signature * SpeedTracking / SignatureTracking * TransversalSpeed

The only realistic solution that you can implement on the short term is to separate the modules for long range missiles and short range missiles (Module that only affects LM, HM, CM and another set that affects R,HAM,TORP).

I don't think a single value makes sense because missiles need more application bonuses than range bonuses. I think original application values were good, and the range were too good. I'd leave range where it is now, and see how it plays out. But the application bonuses need to go back to where they were. Missile velocity and explosion radius values are not directly comparable to tracking values, and the module's bonus to these stats should not be compared to turret stats.

TLDR: Range nerf understandable, Application nerf not good.

If your gang is large enough, you could have a bunch fitting the TP to help the whole gang with extra over the cap because you can lose some dudes and the rest with the mod because why not once you have a bunch of backup TP already in fleet. It require a gang of a decent size to begin being worthwhile but it's like that for any gang boost mods.

You could also use the mod and have TPs applied by support ships.

Can we get module increasing missile speed?
Why we cannot have highs slot missile enhancing module - just to oppose , and have new options.
The only potential ship that could abuse them is golem - but no one will put permanent doctrine using this hull.

This is very true. Another solution that i think would be very acceptable would be to separate the range and application bonus's on MGE into two separate lines of modules. You get more range, or more application. Then when the tiericide hits TE's, they can also be separated. More range, or more application. With modules getting buffed values for either. But now obviously not having both.

Hmmm, that idea has merit, though I wonder how many people like the fact that adding 1 low slot boosts range and tracking and would not want it split? If you fit 2 it should be no net difference as you just fit one for range, one for application. But for those wanting more of only one stat and wanting to use a low..... more module, more choices.....

Edit: Or make the low slot modules script-able too?

If the eventual compensation for these MGCs is anti-missile ewar (Soon™), then it seems like their introduction will actually add up to being a substantial nerf to the weapon system they're meant to buff.

Not that I'm against that, exactly.

Another classic CCP funny... Good job everyone involved, you got a lot of the community excited and then sprung the punchline. Well done.