Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You can fix these by rolling the explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses for both modules back to their pre-nerf values. Which was indicated (ignored), then requested again (and subsequently ignored again) with the nerf.

Torpedoes need a better application bonus: they should have an explosion radius smaller than cruise missiles. Actually, just see my comprehensive missile balance list that I posted earlier in this thread...

Why is chance the one doing the feedback stuff when this is a thread the devs themselves opened?

Actually that's a simple question to answer. This thread has probably been deemed hostile to dev traffic. General PR rules say avoid hostile environments.

Downside is.. we are not hostile. This thread has remained amazingly civil considering the way our feedback was treated.

At the very least chance is attempting to get us proper dev feedback. He was already, in my opinion, mistreated by being the one to confirm issues asked directly at devs even though he has no legal authority to speak for ccp.

I sincerely hope his efforts pay off. The entire way this has been handled demands some form of response. Not for some prosaic reason as needing answers but more because of the blatant trend lately to ignore the community, math, and honest to goodness actual feedback for closed doors decisions with individuals and not backing up those decisions with actual facts. It brings several major ethical issues into question and as CCP has chosen to involve players into their testing environment they have obligated themselves to maintain proper decorum in such matters.

+1 for Chance.

You have already secured my vote for next CSM elections.

Can we suggest getting the differential between a triple t1 rigor rigged missile system pre and post nerf added to the base modules more or less?

This would place triple rigor setups where they were before the nerf, place rigor/ flare rigging in a better place for dealing with same sized speed tanked targets but less applicable for small targets, place un-rigged missile systems in a batter state than they were while not making application setups over powered.

I feel this is a good compromise.

So I agree, and especially for triple t1/double t2 I'd like to see the base stats moved to compensate. For some missiles the base expl velocity should imo see big movement too. But this is also just due to the speed meta and links etc so maybe it can be addressed indirectly.

As for why I'm doing this, is because I am a torpedo delivery professional. I live and die by missile application! And before getting in the thread I was trying to bit some of this stuff on the backend so I don't want you guys to give up hope yet!

Just remember that we're still waiting for a rapid launcher fix for swapping ammunition...

Look, this was basically a missile nerf for everything but torpedoes (capacity doubled) and heavy missiles (+5% damage increase which was offset by stacking penalties for rigors and flares). The missile modules themselves are borderline useless, because you have to effectively run twice as many to get the same benefit (which doesn't even take into consideration the stacking penalty nerf). Missile guidance enhancers are completely useless since they provide almost zero benefit while taking up a valuable low slot (Caldari ships have almost none to spare and you won't see these on any armor-based missile setups, either).

The original values were fine, but then these got halved - and then we had the stacking penalties snuck-in the day the patch notes were released. It's becoming borderline absurd how these 'balance' packages are being introduced... Testing feedback is all but ignored and any and all constructive criticism and feedback in the dev posts are completely tuned out. I have to basically follow Reddit as opposed to the "official" CCP dev posts to actually get many key details a lot of the time. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?


Does it really matter? The end result is effectively the same.

The problem is not in the modules or the rigs or the stacking penalties. All these things are fine.
The problem is in the base weapon stats. When 40% of your damage against the same class ship is mitigated BEFORE boosts/prop mods/boosters there is a significant problem.
Change that figure to be 100% with standard missiles against the appropriate sized class, then you have a better match up and you aren't employing all your rigs simply to get any application at all.

all this looks fine but i would advise you to avoid this one:
why? well in the purest "rise buffing stile" , one day we will probably "find out" that tps are "OP"(insert some graph here), and for the good of the game he will nerf the tp's to the lvl of the new application mods and call it "ballancing" missiles;
and no, i'm not even joking, remember when no one was using his new toys, rlml? his solution was to nerf light missile launchers(one day they where fine, the next day they where OP), so everyone had to switch to rlml >problem solved...

I am not looking forward to that. It will mean T2 TPs will be the stronger than meta TPs. T2's require 50% more CPU than PWNAGE, and the ships that need multiple TPs (e.g. Rattlesnake) are already CPU starved as is.

Yeah, could fit that Compact TP on a Rattlesnake, but that's going to be a (slight?) nerf due to using effective TPs. And if you can't fit a TP, then you sure as heck can't fit a 35 CPU MGC. Oh wait, Compact MGC to the rescue! Oh never mind, the Compact MGC is also 24 CPU. =/


CCP needs to stop touching missiles and missile related things until they have the time to do some serious analysis.


/rabble,rabble