These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#701 - 2015-07-07 11:07:12 UTC
Tracking Disruptors should not effect a missile, Missiles need to find a target and lock it then launch. TD's should only effect turret based systems be it on a transverse path or stationary/moving tracking a moving ship into the crosshairs / firezone the instant fire and hit weapon systems.

Missiles ewar needs to be revised to have either Chaff / flare or Anti Missile System like close in very fast autocannons / Rapid AC's / Hybrid Rapid Flares.

I dont like or dislike the new mods but with them being added without a ship/s in mind i can only see it causing the nerf bat being released and then current caldari ships being rebalanced again.

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Swan Marsh
Planetary Research and Investments
#702 - 2015-07-07 11:27:41 UTC
always thought a counter to missiles was EMC
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#703 - 2015-07-07 11:48:43 UTC
The storage vendor?
Elisk Skyforge
State War Academy
#704 - 2015-07-07 12:12:39 UTC
Missile flight time doesnt seem to have been added yet on Tranquility with both enhancers and computers or was it removed without announcement ?
Matt Faithbringer
YOLO so no taxes please
#705 - 2015-07-07 12:20:10 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
This is a great suggestion, and might make balancing these variables easier, instead of tying them together.

probag Bear wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
However i would take it one step further and actually just remove the Range benefit entirely to a second module. To me it seems like an unneeded adjustment for 1, and is probably the reason these modules look wonky numbers wise compared to TC's and TE's. This would give us 1 module type with the following.

7.5% ER and 7.5% EV

Scripted either
15% ER and 7.5% EV (100% increase to ER script)
7.5% ER and 15% EV (100% increase to EV script)

This allows a player to option between the 2 application variables depending on the nature of the engagement.

Is the target being measured in the Sig/ER calculation, use the ER script
Is the target being measured in the Speed/EV calculation, use the EV script.

This functions much more closely to TCs and TEs. In the sense

ER is your Missiles Optimal Range, the smaller the better
- The smaller the explosion radius the more likely a target is going to be hit by the "shockwave" caused by the missile
compared to TC the larger your optimal range, the more likely you are to score a hit vs a target
EV is your Missiles Tracking Speed. the larger the better
- The faster the "shockwave" moves the more likely a target is going to take damage inside the radius.
compared to TC the faster your tracking speed the more likely you are to score a more direct hit vs a target.


This man has a great point that I can't believe no one's thought of so far.

Tracking computers don't increase absolute range, they increase effective range for the purposes of damage application. Let's say you have a turret with a range-scripted TC that hits for 110 at 50km and 80 at 100km. If you turn off the TC, you now hit for 100 at 50km and 50 at 100km. You don't hit for 0 at 100km, you just hit for less.

Missiles do not and can not work the same way. Either they hit targets at a certain range for full damage, or they hit for 0 damage. "Range" is far from the same concept for both weapon systems.


Take missile range out of MGEs and MGTs. It's only causing problems right now.



Dear Mr. Torpedo delivery agent and CSM representative, please stop top posting. It's driving me mad.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#706 - 2015-07-07 12:54:16 UTC
Elisk Skyforge wrote:
Missile flight time doesnt seem to have been added yet on Tranquility with both enhancers and computers or was it removed without announcement ?


Oh, good! It just keeps getting better, doesn't it? Missile flight time is indeed absent from the attributes pages of both modules. Because we needed that one too, right?

"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."

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#707 - 2015-07-07 13:00:39 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Elisk Skyforge wrote:
Missile flight time doesnt seem to have been added yet on Tranquility with both enhancers and computers or was it removed without announcement ?


Oh, good! It just keeps getting better, doesn't it? Missile flight time is indeed absent from the attributes pages of both modules. Because we needed that one too, right?



It reads more like a symptom (badly written) of the fact half the new stuff isn't seeded.

CCP Phantom wrote:
Known issues
  • Hecate Traits text has lines that are out of order
  • Gallente Tactical Destroyer skillbook has not been seeded
  • Missile Guidance Computer I Blueprint has not been seeded
  • Missile Precision Script Blueprint and Missile Range Script Blueprint has not been seeded
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#708 - 2015-07-07 13:13:26 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Elisk Skyforge wrote:
Missile flight time doesnt seem to have been added yet on Tranquility with both enhancers and computers or was it removed without announcement ?


Oh, good! It just keeps getting better, doesn't it? Missile flight time is indeed absent from the attributes pages of both modules. Because we needed that one too, right?



It reads more like a symptom (badly written) of the fact half the new stuff isn't seeded.

CCP Phantom wrote:
Known issues
  • Hecate Traits text has lines that are out of order
  • Gallente Tactical Destroyer skillbook has not been seeded
  • Missile Guidance Computer I Blueprint has not been seeded
  • Missile Precision Script Blueprint and Missile Range Script Blueprint has not been seeded


Precision script and range script are only that, script. For all we know, they decided to only add missile speed and slash off the flight time because :reasons:. If they upped the velocity bonus to counter the potential removal of flight time, i'd be happy. Adding application delay to missile is just be stupid anyway.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#709 - 2015-07-07 13:20:02 UTC
Indeed, I guess we'll find out when the deployment successfully re-completes tomorrow :)
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#710 - 2015-07-07 16:42:54 UTC
Oh dear God!
Could we please just once, when a bonus is offered, not have it taken back with both hands?
It was nice to see 5% on heavy missiles, but no, not to be, lets stack missile application Rigs to make the things even more bloody useless.
The trolling from CCP is getting way beyond a joke!Cry

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#711 - 2015-07-07 17:08:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Quote:
"The bonuses from missile guidance modules and missile rigs to explosion radius and explosion velocity are now stacking penalized."

And the hits just keep on coming... And where's the bloody fight time attribute? This was reported absent WEEKS AGO in the test forums. -10 for this whole missile "balance" package, because from what I can see it's been a complete and total CLUSTERFUCK. How can you not seed the basic T1 blueprints?! Have we not previously established that CCP Fail completely sucks when it comes to any kind of balance?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#712 - 2015-07-07 17:51:31 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Oh dear God!
Could we please just once, when a bonus is offered, not have it taken back with both hands?
It was nice to see 5% on heavy missiles, but no, not to be, lets stack missile application Rigs to make the things even more bloody useless.
The trolling from CCP is getting way beyond a joke!Cry


Maybe this is CCP's way of saying they can not make a missile TD. So they're purposely dumbing down the new mods and fixing the stacking penalty.

Then in a couple months, there will be no new announcements on missile TD, and it will be forgotten. Which tbh is fine. Damps/ECM are already effective counters. Yes there are FoF missiles, but they are hilariously ineffective unless there is only a single griffin/maulus on field hugging you, with no drones out. Dont even get me started on needing to reload to FoF on a rapid launcher.

Face it, missiles are not immune to the same fitting/stacking penalties as turrets and their rigs. And its easy insurance to prevent HML spam from making a comeback by having a 3 rigor drake with some MTE's in its lows and not having stacking penalties in the rigs.
Mario Putzo
#713 - 2015-07-07 19:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Post nerf nerf? No more missile flight time or am I missing something?

LOOOL.

Get yer **** together CCP.

But because I like repeating myself.

Drop the Missile Range Bonus, it is not equatable to Optimal Range. Actually you know what. Invite me to Iceland for the weekend, and I will balance these mods Saturday morning, and you can buy me steak Saturday night.
Dave Stark
#714 - 2015-07-08 05:29:19 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Indeed, I guess we'll find out when the deployment successfully re-completes tomorrow :)


to avoid such embarrassments, perhaps CCP should invest in setting up an additional server purely for testing things. maybe even open it up to the players. "two heads are better than one".

oh, wait....
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#715 - 2015-07-08 07:07:07 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Indeed, I guess we'll find out when the deployment successfully re-completes tomorrow :)


to avoid such embarrassments, perhaps CCP should invest in setting up an additional server purely for testing things. maybe even open it up to the players. "two heads are better than one".

oh, wait....



Sorry, the missiles were too overpowered to even be released there at all. It would have been the end of days. Apparently.
Matt Faithbringer
YOLO so no taxes please
#716 - 2015-07-08 07:23:39 UTC
Would be nice to get some dev post explaining missing flight time, new stacking penalties not being in patch notes and this whole clusterfuck in general. That you need one more slot to get the same application. Like missiles were OP... but I'm being naive here, we won't see dev post in this thread again
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#717 - 2015-07-08 07:57:46 UTC
Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?

Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#718 - 2015-07-08 08:13:54 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?

Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement.



But they didn't review these rigs. In fact they didn't even MENTION THEM in the blog or this damned thread.

If one assumes they were balanced before (I don't think I've seen anyone say they were broken before), adding a penalty without a corresponding balance pass OR an explanation as to why the nerf happened, is flat out sloppy.

This set of changes has been handled particularly badly, the mods are a half arsed after thought - it's plain as day they've not read the feedback and they CANNOT have had good feedback from sisi because the mods never made it in properly before they were nerfed.

The communication and lack of transparency around these changes has been absolutely **** poor.

We have basically got global issues with missiles and they've been nerfed instead of helped.

Whilst, yes there are a couple of hulls which MIGHT benefit from these mods, they were the few that were already mostly viable.


You know, I don't even care that they nerfed everything, it's the lack of feedback as to WHY an already widely acknowledged under performing system as a whole, needed to be weakened further. It's the lack of feedback about why this mod and this mod only demands to be balanced beside turret percentages. It's the lack of feedback about why the fitting cost is so high when in 99% of cases, a PWNAGE is better, gang assist AND easier to fit.

The whole thing is pretty shameful.
Matt Faithbringer
YOLO so no taxes please
#719 - 2015-07-08 08:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Matt Faithbringer
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?

Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement.


All rigs?? So they will make trimarks stacking penalized? ****. That will seriously **** over some fits.

PS: and **** that language filter.
Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#720 - 2015-07-08 09:16:05 UTC
Matt Faithbringer wrote:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Did everyone forget that devblog where the mentioned they were going to add (penalties) to ALL rigs as they reviewed them?

Stacking penalties were an inevitability based on that public statement.


All rigs?? So they will make trimarks stacking penalized? ****. That will seriously **** over some fits.

PS: and **** that language filter.


Good. Less EHP = more stuff dies.