These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#621 - 2015-07-04 00:40:25 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Okay everyone so officially, for the record, application rig bonuses will be stacking penalized with both each other and with the new application modules. I'm sorry I couldn't get that made clearer sooner, and I was hoping it would be in the patch notes.

then is the only advantage of the new modules utility and extra range? I mean, not wasting rigs will be great, but how much more application are we talking here with the new mods vs the current un-stacked rigs?
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#622 - 2015-07-04 01:13:27 UTC
Wow. When you have to rely on Chance Ravinne to give your feedback things must be getting desperate.

Like, what's concurrent max logins at? 24K? 21K weeknights?

These are either useless modules, or overpowered modules. The problem is caused exclusively by ships with range projection traits (ie; missile velocity or flight time). Range buffs are always a huge benefit to ships trying to use what should be short range, high DPS weapons for long range combat. This then spills over into RLML fits which get ALL the benefits for the want of a tackler in gang.

eg; afkalt says there's some drawbacks to RLML cerbs. Yes, to be completely safe from any frig gang all they need is a tackle option on field. So you've got the Garmur. Job is done - you get 130km to 200km RLML Cerbs murdering frigates like it's going out of style, never in danger, no realistic counter, all they need is a Garmur. Done.

or you get HAM orthrus with a long-range web on field (eg; Huginn) and suddenly it's 600 DPS to 60-70km HAM orthrus. The problem again is range buffs in the hull.

Both annoying fleet doctrines to come up against, but not enough to call missiles so broken they need nerfing of rigs, nor are missiles so OP they need nerfing.

Right now missiles are in second place to drones, and excluding rails on Eagles, Tengus, and Proteus, are effective fleet weapons. Cerbs with HML's and HAMs are effective small gang and small fleet boats. Typhoons could, if ishtars weren't so oppressive, be truly good (also, no one's training Minnie BS because Gallente, so it's a hard ship to turn around training wise).

Putting in frankly pointless modules doesn't buff missiles. They don't need this pointless micro-buff. They don't need a nerf by making rigs stacking penalised.

I mean, if you want to stacking penalise rigs, make it uniform - make trimarks and field extenders stacking penalised. make aux nano pumps stacking penalised.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#623 - 2015-07-04 01:56:12 UTC
Wow.

Its been a couple years since i started playing, and i've heard stories about CCP just totally jacking stuff up in the past. For me, this is the first colossal **** up that i've seen from CCP. When Seagull took over, me and my friend were really excited for EVE finally having some new directives, fresh ideas, bold changes. We were ready for the crazy cowboy ideas that would get released, and then toned down as real feedback was experienced live on TQ.

This. This is just a disappointment across the board. My first serious CCP disappointment. A threadnaught of ire and calls for change. Serious mathematically calculated answers and analysis. SPREADSHEETS FOR GODS SAKE. For one of the first times ever, an entire community in agreement that X was Y because of Z. And we got not a single post by a single dev from any department of CCP. NO ONE, had ANYTHING to say to us about all the well reasoned, calculated feedback. And now the useless **** is going live just to confuse and hurt all the people who were not present in this thread to know what is happening.

Tons of people will try these out, thinking that they do something. I don't know how long it will take for the community at large to realize, but it will just make them bitter and unhappy when they do.

These threads are supposed to be for feedback right? Here's your feedback.

-1 bright eyed newbro
+1 jaded bittervet
Sarkelias Anophius
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#624 - 2015-07-04 03:17:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarkelias Anophius
The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.

Let me go over a few facts.

1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE.

2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff.

3) Modules: Regardless of anything else, there is now a set of modules that increases missile range and application. This is a buff; there's simply no way around it - you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots. No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TEs.
What ships benefit from these modules, you say? I have no idea, probably ones that already have a spare mid or low slot and just need that little boost to be useful in some way - like the Claymore, Nighthawk, Drake, Sacrilege, Damnation, Legion, Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Navy Caracal...
It's not a huge list, sure, but this buff is strictly and only a buff, for all these ships, many of which are among the least used ships in the game in their missile damage configurations.

tl;dr I hate people who do nothing but whinge and ***** about every little thing and talk about how bad it's going to be. Yes it sucks that torps and cruise are still pretty bad. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback. But my god, you people sound like a bunch of whiney silver spooning shitlords.
stoicfaux
#625 - 2015-07-04 04:29:43 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.

Let me go over a few facts.

1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE.

PvE ships have the luxury of being able to mount multiple application mods. If you can't make the MGC/MGE work on PvE ships, then the modules are in trouble. Given how tight CPU can be on missile PvE boats, using the CPU hogging MGC is going to be a challenge. Given that a meta 4 TP outperforms the MGC II w/Precision script, there's less reason to fiddle with the MGC. Personally, I would expect a lot of folks to simply swap the 3rd rigor with a Flare to avoid the worst of the stacking penalties.


Quote:
2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff.

T1/Faction HMLs can't even apply full damage to propless cruisers. That 5% is going to be less then 5% effective unless your target is webbed or hit with multiple TPs.

Quote:
3) Modules: Regardless of anything else, there is now a set of modules that increases missile range and application. This is a buff; there's simply no way around it - you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots. No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TEs.

We already had a module. A 16 cpu TP provides a 37.5% boost. A 35 cpu MGC II with Precision script provides a 35.3% boost. =/

If you mount multiple TPs, then using an MGC instead of a 2nd TP would be a bit more efficient since TPs and MGCs don't stack. How many PvP fits mount multiple TPs? How many missile boats have the CPU to fit an MGC?

Gangs or fleets that provide dedicated TP boats would benefit from replacing their TPs with MGCs (provided they have the spare CPU.)

Or you can use the MGC II to get a ~23% boost to range, or two for a ~47% range boost. If you're using long range missiles, then your hull probably already has a range bonus build in, never mind that long range missiles tend to have plenty of range to begin with. If you're using short range missiles, then you're probably better of ffitting tank or webs or anything but range boosting MGCs.


Quote:
What ships benefit from these modules, you say? I have no idea, probably ones that already have a spare mid or low slot and just need that little boost to be useful in some way - like the Claymore, Nighthawk, Drake, Sacrilege, Damnation, Legion, Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Navy Caracal...
It's not a huge list, sure, but this buff is strictly and only a buff, for all these ships, many of which are among the least used ships in the game in their missile damage configurations.

And there's the rub. Go find some fits that can actually make non-trivial use of the MGC/MGE. Sad


On the positive side, now that the modules will be in game, their stats should be easy to tweak.


Edit: Yeah, I understand your concern about the negativity, but please understand that the negativity is mostly about people suddenly having high hopes for missiles only to find their hoped crushed with unexpected stat changes delivered in an opaque manner. Now we're left scratching our heads trying to figure out what to do with what is now a very underwhelming missile balance pass.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#626 - 2015-07-04 04:43:17 UTC
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:

For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices.

In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff.

Modules: you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots.

No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TE's.

. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback.

Let me go over some facts.

1) if you're not rigging for application and low slotting for damage while flying a ship fit and designed around providing your tackle as much "out of range" dps as possible, then youre doing it wrong, back line, tackle free missile bombardment ships should have at least 2 rigor rigs. T2 if you're pimping, t1 if your flying cheap.

2) not a single person is complaining about the 5% alpha increase. Except that one guy who thinks medium Arties are an option.

3) these modules are so weak for their slot value, they're basically pointless. There is a list of maybe 10 things that would be better to fit than an MGC and at least 4 things better than an MGE. Rigs are so much more effective than these that with stacking penalties, these modules give tiny percentile boosts, basically unnoticeable.

I was hoping that an MGE would be worth replacing the third ballistic for with the bonus to range as an added advantage. As it stands with double rigor rigs, it can only replace a 4th ballistic if you can find a purpose to 10% more range.

4) TE and TC are both stronger because you can pilot your ship to improve your application various slingshot and align maneuvers can be used to take a 30% increase and make it feel like a doubling in tracking. Bad piloting can also make it meaningless. But at the high end, users improve the turret systems numbers significantly.

5)"it would be nice?" - that's what these threads ARE. Feedback threads. For gathering and engaging with players ideas. And they aren't being used for that in this case, because CCP won't have answers for us. It's embarrassing really.
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#627 - 2015-07-04 07:45:20 UTC
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.

tl;dr I hate people who do nothing but whinge and ***** about every little thing and talk about how bad it's going to be. Yes it sucks that torps and cruise are still pretty bad. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback. But my god, you people sound like a bunch of whiney silver spooning shitlords.

Cool story, bruh.
probag Bear
Xiong Offices
#628 - 2015-07-04 10:26:01 UTC  |  Edited by: probag Bear
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:

1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE.
2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff.


Just looking at WH losses on the first two pages of zkillboard:
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47049016/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47024578/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47024551/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/47024528/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46946550/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46777996/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46755320/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46671845/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46439289/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46386280/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46256088/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46029792/
https://zkillboard.com/kill/46946550/

Looks to me like stacking missile application rigs is extremely common for PvP.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#629 - 2015-07-04 12:18:33 UTC
Whether you consider what we do PVP or not, double Rigor Catalyst rigs are also wholly standard for torpedo bombers.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#630 - 2015-07-04 12:56:44 UTC
After extensively going over all possible missile ships the nerfed numbers are most likely thanks to bombers and bombers alone.

Which again.. makes zero sense. A solo bomber could, in theory, get an explosion radius of pretty darn close to fury light missiles. Doing this requires zero tank whatsoever. The massively increased applied damage to a target would be the only significant change to the original mods.

More and more this change looks to be still a backroom deal. I challenge anyone to actually post numbers showing how this will be good for eve. Even in the abstract.

So far I've come up with nothing. Worse it makes any possible missile based counters to the ishtar less effective. At the end of the day this change ensures the status quo of eve will be maintained and the only actual people it will hurt are new players who now have even less application until they get their skillpoints up. Even the 5% HM buff is lost in the noise of the application nerf which suggests CCP KNEW the stacking penalties would heavily impact the weapon system.

So is this the new future of EVE? The age of feedback and logical reasoning gone?
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#631 - 2015-07-04 17:04:52 UTC
This isnt the first time ccp just went and ignored dozens of posts of feedback. Look at the icon fiasco just last month
Sierra Spurgeon
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#632 - 2015-07-04 22:17:04 UTC
i would think this is a good time to fix defender missiles a bit. the e-war for missiles is missiles Twisted
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#633 - 2015-07-04 22:52:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Fourteen Maken
Sarkelias Anophius wrote:
The amount of negativity every single person in this thread exudes is absolutely mind boggling.

Let me go over a few facts.

1) Exactly one form of gameplay is penalized by stacking rigs; that form of gameplay is running sites, missions and anoms in missile ships. That really only means three or four ships (Navy Ravens, Scorps, Tengus.... maybe someone uses another PvE missile boat?) and they will see a 3-7% decrease in effectiveness of rigs. Cry me a river, this game has never been balanced around PvE.

2) For any PvP application, no one used missile rigs anyway, so no one even notices. RIP "nerf". In the meantime, the midrange alpha-based missile system gets a 5% buff to, surprise surprise, its alpha... a low overall DPS increase, but a meaningful buff to its primary function. That's right, it's a buff.

3) Modules: Regardless of anything else, there is now a set of modules that increases missile range and application. This is a buff; there's simply no way around it - you can increase missile damage and application without sacrificing tank or mobility rig slots. No the percentages aren't huge. Neither are the percentages on TCs and TEs.
What ships benefit from these modules, you say? I have no idea, probably ones that already have a spare mid or low slot and just need that little boost to be useful in some way - like the Claymore, Nighthawk, Drake, Sacrilege, Damnation, Legion, Typhoon, Fleet Typhoon, Navy Caracal...
It's not a huge list, sure, but this buff is strictly and only a buff, for all these ships, many of which are among the least used ships in the game in their missile damage configurations.

tl;dr I hate people who do nothing but whinge and ***** about every little thing and talk about how bad it's going to be. Yes it sucks that torps and cruise are still pretty bad. Yes it'd be nice to have more active dev feedback. But my god, you people sound like a bunch of whiney silver spooning shitlords.


Basically you're saying:

1) PVE Missile boats have been nerfed

2) PVP Missile boats haven't been nerfed because hardly anyone used application rigs

3) Missile boats have been unquestionably buffed because they have even more modules that hardly anyone will use to chose from.

These modules offer very slight improvement over the existing non-stacking penalized rigs (that hardly anyone uses), more importantly they use mid/low slots and cost CPU. So in effect missiles were nerfed, only some fits that used rigs but the fact remains we were promised good things were coming for missiles in this patch and this is the opposite, why should people be positive about that?
Mario Putzo
#634 - 2015-07-04 23:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Sierra Spurgeon wrote:
i would think this is a good time to fix defender missiles a bit. the e-war for missiles is missiles Twisted

They can't even do regular missiles right.

CCP: Hey guys missiles suck so we going to provide some options to make them better with these changes.
Most of EVE(based on proportional response, of course): Right on awesome! now I only need 2 modules to match the effective % damage application as Turrets + TC
OneGuy(probably): But DRAEKS!!!1111one! AND TURETS!
CCP: DID HE SAY DRAEKS!!!1111one! AND TURETS!
CCP: Based on feedback we have decided to make all missiles worse than they are today...
Most of EVE: Um what, why? so now i need to use 4 slots to match a TC?
CCP: Was AFK.
Most of EVE: Here is a bunch of math that shows your change is stupid and is a net nerf to all missile users.
CCP: Has left the conversation.
CSM: Confirming missiles suck...more.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#635 - 2015-07-05 01:22:15 UTC
Wow.

I don't really know what to say. I've purposely stayed out of this one because it was looking pretty descent right off the bat. Funny...I was actually looking forward to this. Damn, we had this...

Well, happy 4th, guys. I'm kind of hoping that makes this a little less depressing, but it probably won't.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#636 - 2015-07-05 01:25:53 UTC
Sierra Spurgeon wrote:
i would think this is a good time to fix defender missiles a bit. the e-war for missiles is missiles Twisted


They honestly need to just dump the damned things and introduce a proper AMS from scratch. They wouldn't even need to wait until they did, no one would miss them enough that they couldn't yank them now and come up with something better later.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#637 - 2015-07-05 01:39:32 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:
2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).

2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors.


6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web...


I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#638 - 2015-07-05 01:48:49 UTC
A post that was supposed to contain buffs for missiles has turned into nerfs for missiles.

Thanks, CCP! Looks like I'm still not actually coming back to play any time soon.

Can we please just get missiles removed from the game and all SP refunded? I mean, that seems to be what CCP wants...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#639 - 2015-07-05 01:52:57 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:
2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).

2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors.


6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web...


I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs


It's still 6 slots. What kind of fit has 6 slots open for application?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#640 - 2015-07-05 02:35:42 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:
2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).

2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors.


6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web...


I can promise you rigors stretch further than webs


It's still 6 slots. What kind of fit has 6 slots open for application?


My ratting Phoenix?

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