Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Every Eve player should probably just go sit in the corner in the fetal position rocking back and forth whenever a developer starts talking about "meaningful choices." Especially where missiles or drones are concerned.

Straight from one extreme to the other in typical ccp fashion.

The tracking enhancers seem quite bad. Their bonuses get squashed by stacking penalties and as such they end up being fairly useless. Most missile ships are quite low on slots as it is and with the current stats it just isnt worth it to fit a guidance until you have 4 BCUs.

Case in point, you get essentially the same range from a single scripted guidance computer as you do with two of the lowslot guidance enhancers. Obviously this ignores the tracking bonus but you can easily swap scripts and far outclass them in that regard too, not to mention the effects of overheating.

So... anyone else fail to see why you'd run the newly nerfed mods over a target painter? I sure can't.

If this speculation is true, and rigs are being stacking penalized,

It will be mathematically impossible to ever get missile application bonuses as high as those currently achievable on TQ


Currently:
2 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst II + 1 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst I give -45.6% explosion radius.

As proposed:
2 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst II + 1 x Warhead Rigor Catalyst I + 6 tracking scripted Missile Guidance Computer II would give -43.4% explosion radius


Wingspan is being generous when he says "New nerfed mods + new stacking penalties: Underpowered".

The main problem is you are putting all these bonuses on 1 module. Effectively increasing your Explosion Radius and Explosion Velocity is a 2 for 1.

TCs Optimal or Tracking Speed. a 1 for 1.

It should be Explosion Radius and Missile Velocity

Why these.
Explosion Radius is essentially optimal range. If a signature is snakker than then explosion radius it will not take full damage due to how the "spheres" fit together, if a ship is smaller than the explosion radius it does not receive full damage because the explosion passes it in a smaller area. If the Radius is smaller the explosion is more concentrated thus "hitting" the signature for more effective damage.

Missile Velocity is chosen simply because it cuts down on the longevity of applying DPS, faster it flies the quicker it gets there. This limits ships ability to effective kite missiles in a longer range orbit since speeds should exceed capabilities of ship speeds. Meaning the range is a "true" range and not one that will shrink if another ship can kit the speed long enough.

Midslots
8%/9%/10%
Scripts
100% to Explosion Radius
100% to Missile Velocity

These numbers effectively represent the use of 1.5 Rig Slots (with 1 script) Represnting a Combo of 100% Application Rig, and 50% Range rig (or vice versa).

Low Slots should be
10/11/12

Representing roughly 1.2 effective rig slots

This allows for near seamless optioning between 1 mid or 1 low or 1 rig with 1 med being weighted slightly higher than other due to fitting, it being an active module, it taking up a mid slot (most missile ships are shielded)

And of course secondarily

Do not add 5% to heavy missile damage, this will only step on the toes of Arties. Again as ive been stating for a long time, revert the +12% explosion radius change to heavy missiles, this is really all you need to do for heavy missiles.

Thing is, unless you're shooting like...fury cruise at frigates, the sig bloom by the time the stacking hurts is almost iirelevent. Unless I miss my guess, it is early.

Plus extra painters offers offer contingency against losses.


I'm genuinely staggered, staggered that the reason is "They give a bigger percentage bonus on the mod than the turret equivalent" as if the systems are in any way whatsoever comparable like that. To even have that mindset, the very notion that such a comparison is valid blows my mind.

Surgical strike is 50% more effective than warhead upgrades, by this "logic" should that be buffed too? Rapid firing vs rapid launch is 33% stronger....So when can we expect rises here, I mean if turrets and missiles are somehow to be compared like for like?

Of course not, because this notion is ludicrous, so why in gods name are you using that logic for the new mods?

Armour Torp Typhoon with a row of MGC and painters is going to be scary.

With no due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. I base this on the fact you fit your bombers with ISK, not sense, have demonstrated absolutely zero workin in the above "analysis" and are generally more concerned with tawdry self-aggrandisement than keeping stackin penalties in the discussion.

Really, bombers with 'application' fits aren't going to benefit much from even very powerful MGC's or MGE's. This is because bombers either kill things or do not. There is no solo or fleet option where anything except massed EWAR (read: damps) and massed DPS actually does anything. it's an ambush ship, and in your case, you ambush haulers, so any ideas you have around whether torpedoes are balanced now or could become unbalanced with these modules is entirely irrelevant.

The real discussion being had by real adults is centred around ships like the Orthrus, Cerberus, Caracal and Sacs, Prohpecies, Cyclones (the real HAM boats), or Typhoons.

This is because, MGC/MGE's or not, you are either fitting these modules to go with long-rane HML kite fits (Orthrus, Cerb, Caracal) or HAM boats (All the above, but now include Sac and Cyclone) or you stretch up to Typhoons, which is one of the only boats which has the CPU and midslots spare to begin abusing these.

The real complain with the new, nerfed modules is that they will be useless. No. They will just not be worthwhile. I haven't read anywhere that the current missile performance will be nerfed before introducing the MGC/MGE, thus requiring these modules to pull it back up.

Secondly, if the rigor rigs and flare catalyst rigs are stacking penalised with the MGC/MGE, this also does not actually nerf missiles. It just means that you can't take what you have now, strip out tank or gank, and get uber application fits. So you get stackin penalties? Big deal. it's just like BCU's and bay loading rigs, which cost you CPU.

Or, you can sit down in PYFA or EFT, and maybe remove the rior rigs and replace them with something else by virtue of having an MGC or MGE. Maybe it works out better to have tank in your rigs vs stackin penalised invuls, which you've replaced with an MGC. I don't know.

But unless people show examples, then simplistic crap like the above doesn't do anything for the debate around balance. it just puts an opinion on the table.

- - - -

For anyone not crippled in the logic department, say CCP Rise, who is reading this far down the balance discussion, here's my concerns.

1) Wolf-Rayets.
What crazy crack pipe is TF smoking? The RLML Cerb crack pipe, where RLML fits in Wolf Rayet wormholes look like:
6 x RLML
MWD
3 x MGC's
SeBo's
3 x BCU
1 x MGE
Bay Thruster rig
T2 Calefaction
C6 Wolf Rayet you will be getting 1621 DPS, with no need for a tank, you're shooting at 140km with perfect precision!

2) Black Holes
C4 Black Hole (cause no one lives C5-C6 much) Cruise Phoons packing 2 MGC's and 2 MGE's. Riht now you get 152m explosion radius and 223m/s explosion velocity. With those EWAR mods on, and 3 rigor rigs you'll get that down to 120m / 275m/s. That's....light missile territory, with 688 DPS cruise missiles (200km range) on a battleship. Not bad, you have to admit, but getting a bit broken.

Let alone a shield Barghest with souped up lows and rigs. Right now C4 BH it's 29km/s velocity. With MGE's you''ll top 32km/s, and better than 230m radius, 200m/s explosion velocity.

But, finally, the Torp Cavalry Raven is back on the cards!!!1!
Fully tricked out, you can et the torp Raven in a C4 BH to HML-levels of application, without going over the top. All you need, really, are webs, and you've suddenly got 1200 DPS out to 70km with pretty much decent application vs cruisers. Arguably it's what the Raven needs, but we're talking torp Ravens.

I remain to be convinced that we need these modules AT ALL, given the above edge cases. Sure, it's not like C6 W-R Cerbs will blot out the sun in nullsec (least until you make the supercarriers into the hypothesised broadcasters of system effects....pls do this, it would be awesome) but W-R fighting is already basically who can bring a bunch of RLML damping ships to the hole first, very boring and lame game play.

So, please at least run these through your calculators, CCP Rise, and consider whether it's a good idea.

Application bonuses are not only explosion radius.

2 t2 rigors, 1 t1 rigor on tq: 1÷(1−0.2)÷(1−0.2)÷(1−0.15) = +83.8% application
2 MGCs scripted for accuracy: (1+0.15)÷(1−0.15)×(1+0.15×0.87)÷(1−0.15×0.87) = +75.9%
2 MGCs and single t2 rigor: 1÷(1−0.2)×(1+0.15)÷(1−0.15×0.87)×(1+0.15×0.87)÷(1−0.15×0.57) = +104%
3 MGCs: (1+0.15)÷(1−0.15)×(1+0.15×0.87)÷(1−0.15×0.87)×(1+0.15×0.57)÷(1−0.15×0.57) = +108.8%

Thus, 2 MGCs with additional rig/mgc already exceed old rigor spam values.

I wish CCP did separate damage mods, +20% damage and +20% rof instead of current mix 10/10.5 on a single module.

....either that or racial AAA Guns.