Player Features and Ideas Discussion

No, Less EHP == buffer tank less viable, dual & triple MASB shield ships will be more prominent. At least from solo/small gank perspective

where? when?

Certain attributes suffer stacking penalties, certain others do not. If CCP changes raw hitpoint amounts (shield, armor, or hull) to a stacking penalized stat that would be...interesting. I haven't seen anything indicating changes that sweeping. The penalties I heard about were specifically for the rigs that currently have no drawback.[/quote]

I have to ask the question.. Was the number re-adjustment done before or after implementing the rig stacking penalties?

I have a theory that that something happened with missile coding.. and for some reason, it's extremely hard to work with.. probably after the BS (Cruise / Torp) nerf.

Application bonus is kind of lack luster...I think that it should scale from 8% T1 > 10%T2. The range bonus is solid, maybe even a bit to strong, time will tell but I can for see some interesting "brawling" missile ships with Javelins out to 44KM+ (depending if you have native range bonus or not).

Anyhow, its obvious why these were pre-nerfed. Having the increase to absolute range attached to application modding is pretty ********.

(Oh and PSA for yall...Heavy Missiles still suck.)

The MGC vs TP is a bit odd.
TPs are better, to a certain extent... thought, they're limited by range

There's not much difference in effect, though the difference is still there.
On EFT, I took a raven fitted which precision cruise missiles at lvl 5, and had it set to target an untanked, unproped Worm at all skills 5, traveling at max speed.
Without factoring resists, here's what I got.

3x PWNAGE - 138
3x MGC II - 132
2x PWNAGE 1x MGC II - 150
1x PWNAGE 2x MGC II - 148
2x PWNAGE - 120
2x MGC II - 117
1 and 1 - 122
Only 1 PWNAGE - 97
Only 1 MGC II - 96
No mods - 77

This is with no rigs.
In a straight up comparison, more TPs always wins, However, the best over all is 2 TP and 1 MGC, or 1 and 1 if you're only using two modules.

I find this a bit odd. I would think that 1 MGC would be better than 1 TP, and even better on a 2 v 2 comparison, but to find that the TPs are the power unit kinda defeats the purpose.
I'm cool with the 2 v 1 on a 3 mod fit, but I'd think it would be best to use 2 MGC over 2 TP.
Also, this is without any enhancers.. This is pure midslot with no rigs.

IDK... seems these things need a bit of buff.

The Golem is what makes it really odd. Even with the TP bonus, 2 TP and 1 MGC is the best possible option.
However, unlike the Raven (with 1TP and 1MGC being the best of a 2 mod option), the Golem is better with 2 TP.

TBH, in the case of the Golem, I'd like to see its TP bonus swapped to a bonus to the effectiveness of MGCs, seeing as how with bonus and bastion, it's supposed to be a long range system, to which TPs hinder by limiting range... Bit counter intuitive.



Edit.... Just did a bit of playing around with a web paladin vs a worm... Same scenario, only worm is taking advantage of max traversal.

I threw on Fed navy multi-frequency, for the sake of factoring out t2 tracking issues.
Nothing - 36 at optimal
1 t2 web - no effect
2 web - 78 at 10km (literally at 10km, DPS drops as target closes range, and obviously stops pat 10km)
3 web - 275 at 10km
1 TC T2 - 62 at optimal
2 TC - 110 at optimal
3 TC - 161 at optimal
1 web 1 TC - not worth it
2 web 1 TC - 181 at 10km
1 web 2 TC - Also not worth it

So, I guess these stats make the 2 TP 1 MGC make more sense, but they differ with anything less, as maintaining range and using TCs is better in all other cases.

IDK... someone else has got to make sense of this, as the stats don't make sense to me... Though, in the case of both web and TP, range is limited.

Missiles also don't have the advantage of max damage on a stationary target, but that's beside the point.

Yeah... I was thinking the same, but then I compared it to webs, as they're the closest thing to TPs in the turret world.
It seemed that 3 webs was better, but extremely limiting.

That said though, TCs were more effective in most cases.
Not saying it's the same comparison, but I'd imagine that a TC is better than anything else you could use in general, up to a certain number of modules.

In the case of the MGC, I would expect 2 and 1 TP on a Raven to be the best suitable combination.
I don't know... I may be rambling, but it just seems that MGCs, and my nature of less effective value MGEs, to be a bit lackluster.
It's hard to compare their effectiveness to TCs and TEs though, as it's hard to compare tracking to missile exp velocity and radius.

I wonder though... In the case of the application bonus, would it be better to use just exp radius as the bonus?

Although the "Missile Guidance Enhancer" and "Missile Guidance Computers" are a good idea they seem to be a bit lackluster at this moment in time compared with the "equivalents" in gunnery. After playing around with PYFA for a few hours I was woefully unimpressed at what they brought to the table and only found two fits that were helped—somewhat—by the "Missile Guidance Enhancer." Namely the Heavy Missile Drake and the Torpedo Raven.

With some tweaking I hope they can be worked into better shape because they are mostly eclipsed by target painters for damage application and the bonus to missile velocity is kind of marginal to sacrifice a precious mid/low slot.

I found that, outside of lobbing cruise missiles at extreme range (velocity bonused heavies are in reasonably effective TP falloff) the benefit of fitting a target painter far outweighs the "Missile Guidance Computers" because you are benefitting the damage application of yourself and everyone else who is shooting that target.

Because of this, and of course in my opinion, there should be a larger focus on missile velocity in exchange for flight time and a general increase in damage application for both of these modules so that the situations they become valuable in are more apparent.

Hi all
I am satisfied with the modules themselves, but the icon you have provided is inconsistent with other icons in the game, which are all either isometric or orthogonal (eg, http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rfW4n_6mlTU/VKzsk-51vmI/AAAAAAAALfA/6bxrnZlNuSk/s1600/heat15-2.jpg ). The current icon has the flat face of the radar/antenna sloping down *and* away from the viewer - and no other icon (apart from the conical/circular objects such as prop mods and autocannons, where this effect is impossible to remove in an isometric perspective).

Can you please make it so the stand is flat on the bottom of the icon, and the radar leans back into the plane of the screen? I realise it is a passive module and I hardly have to view it apart from the fitting window, but it is still inconsistent and a source of irritation.
Thanks in advance
Telinchei

Actually, TPs are the closest thing to TPs in the turret world. Sig radius (divided by the turret's sig resolution) is a direct multiplier to effective tracking for turrets. If you increase sig by 30%, you've effectively increased tracking by 30%.

The difference is that webs can't be negated out of the equation for turrets like they can missiles. For missiles, once the sig factor in the min function is the lowest value, reducing the target's speed does nothing for the missile's damage. Basically, increasing the target's sig radius always increases missile damage (up to maximum damage), while reducing speed doesn't always. Both always work (again, up to maximum hit chance) for turrets. Since a 60% web has the same effect on turret hit chance as increasing the target's sig by 150%, webs are almost always the superior option, if range isn't an issue.

But TPs still affect turrets just as well as they do missiles. In fact, they affect turrets slightly better, since turret average damage increases as hit chance increases. A 30% increase to sig radius is never more than a 30% increase to missile damage. It can be and often is more than 30% for turrets.

The real problem we run into with the new modules is two-fold. First off, they are simply less powerful than TPs until TPs reach substantial stacking penalties. For the mid-slots scripted for application, this requires 2-3 TPs to already be applied before that MGC becomes a superior option.

The other issue is that the application bonus for MGCs is split between explosion radius and explosion velocity. As highlighted above, there is a very commonly reached point where additional explosion velocity doesn't do squat for the damage of missiles.

For example, a Phoenix often shoots down-class at battleships, which are essentially always sig-capped for the missile equations. A MGC scripted for application grants +15% explosion velocity and -15% explosion radius. Against a battleship, the explosion velocity is irrelevant. Beyond that, the MGC would be stacking penalized with the 3 Rigor rigs, meaning it is sitting at only 28.3% of normal effectiveness, or all of a 4.24% reduction in explosion radius (+4.43% effective target sig).

A meta4 TP with 4/5 Signature Focusing (+36% sig) would need to by at its 5th stacking penalty before the MGC becomes a better option than another TP for application. Against a hostile dread or an MWDing BS), it's a bit better, since the explosion velocity actually factors in (MGC becomes better after 3 TPs are applied, rather than 4), but it's still far down the list.

Even if we negate out the Rigor rigs and pretend we're shooting at something where both velocity and sig radius matter, the first MGC, baseline, is only 94% as effective as the first TP, and the TP applies to everyone else shooting (and take 30% less CPU to fit).

Basically, the modules are simply undertuned right now. If they provided 100% of their benefit to just Explosion Radius rather than split between Explosion Radius and Explosion Velocity, they'd be in a LOT better spot, since -30% Explosion Radius would be roughly 15% more potent than a max-skill meta4 (or T2, same bonus) TP.

That, or they could just junk that archaic sig-radius-only factor in the missile damage equation. If a Megathron can hit a stationary pod for full damage, a Raven should be able to as well.

Since the new modules have been released, I feel HMLs are now in a worse place than ever due to the increased capabilities of HAMs. Please buff HML DPS and range by 25%.