These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#801 - 2015-07-18 19:07:58 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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.


If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you.

There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#802 - 2015-07-18 20:11:42 UTC
Note: Without having original dev notes the following is just reverse engineering from a players perspective.

100% application missiles just will never work. Its a terrible idea from every perspective. Missile need to be able to always apply SOME damage.. but at a trade off to provide effective counter options.

Missiles appear to have been designed with the intent of having application, a far superior tank, or superior range to artillery with equal effective alpha. On paper this is a great idea. It allows great flexibility for the missile weapons platform without turning them over to direct dominance of other weapon systems. Considering the nature of missiles makes them capable of operating in all other weapons systems ranges their trade offs appear to reflect directly on their raw versatility in terms of engagement.

The problem is they don't do this. It really is a razor edge to balance. Since missiles can replace every other weapons platform and have the potential to out perform multiples of those platforms a minor change can very quickly make missiles sickeningly overpowered. Drakefleet was a perfect example of this.. Other things could do what drakefleet did.. but almost nothing could do everything drakefleet did. Powercreep has since compounded the previous nerfs against missiles to drive them basically into the dirt from an effective basis.(except of course certain platforms)

These modules at inception were a great step forward in correcting the power creep and offering counters to ishtars etc. Stacking pen rigs are probably a good thing in the long run but significantly more review is needed on missiles to make them fit properly in the metas of eve. They actually returned the options function of missiles.. Either you hit like a brick hammer to the face, could pound them no matter how far they ran, or could say screw all modules and fit absurd tanks with that extra CPU.
What unfortunately happened is all options were erased. You either fit them to apply damage.. or you apply nothing. The latter option, tank, isn't even an option thanks to powercreep and the fact that many fits in eve are functionally immune to missiles.
These are the issues that need to be addressed. Fixing these mods to return options is only the first step.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#803 - 2015-07-18 20:27:19 UTC
Nafensoriel wrote:
Note: Without having original dev notes the following is just reverse engineering from a players perspective.

100% application missiles just will never work. Its a terrible idea from every perspective. Missile need to be able to always apply SOME damage.. but at a trade off to provide effective counter options... somenonsense..


You really shouldn't let e2 see what you write or... ooops - too late!

Son, please let the grownups talk. Nevyn is right, missile need to do 100% damage and they already HAVE enough counters. If you do not know them, look them up.

It not my problem that some people are too unbright to figure this out and unless I see a gigantic payday I will not solve mankinds problems.

And now an EVE history lesson.

From 2003 to 2005 weapon system needes some tweaks but all was new and nobody had the skills to see what those weapons could actually do.
Listen noobs everywhere, we started with much less than you and we stayed because it was hard.

After a few tweaks here and there and powergrid increases weapons where okay. Missiles did have 100% application but for the last time they where never able to do 100% damage, which seems to be most pilots comprehension problem.

100% application is not 100% damage and it never was.

Now a tiny detail which get forgotten really fast when it comes to missiles - the big picture of things.

While missiles had 100% application IF you could not outrun them or smartbomb them dead and as a tradeoff all turrets - drones and fighters has turrets too folks - has wrecking shots which is 3x 100%.

Speaking of op and missiles do not belong in one sentence and if you would have listened to me last year, we didn't have to have this conversation.

Now if only someone told you this a year ago - wait I did

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#804 - 2015-07-18 21:43:08 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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.


If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you.

There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.


That would hold more water if DPS wasn't anaemic. If it was on par the turrets, fine, but it ain't - not by a loooooooong way.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#805 - 2015-07-18 22:15:39 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

If you don't see how 100% application wouldn't be OP I don't know how to help you.

There's a lot to consider here and while the 40% mitigation is too much you can't give them 100% application either.

100% BEFORE all fittings, boosts & boosters on the correct size target is not hilarious. It is exactly what guns have. With piloting and neither of you using any fittings you can keep 100% DPS application with guns.
Now add in prop mods, boosts, implants, boosters and everything that changes sig size and speed.....
And you no longer have 100% application in real situations, but you have started from a sensible place and no longer need to pile 6 mods onto your ship in order to create application.

Sure you will nail a webbed scrammed TP'ed ship...... But you will do that with guns also. So it's pretty irrelevant using that case. Shooting the kitting ships will still be seriously low application as will shooting unwebbed/unscrammed frigates.

Sure, paper DPS might also end up needing a downwards tweak, but if applied DPS actually goes up, who gives a damn about paper DPS changes when currently paper DPS is a myth anyway.
Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#806 - 2015-07-19 04:18:53 UTC
For the moment then I would posit that you use TD against turret ships to reduce their dps if you can't do anything else. Woe the day when missiles get their equivalent even though you'll barely see them.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#807 - 2015-07-19 04:38:46 UTC
I will clarify my previous comment. I see ZERO issue with equal class perfect application. A battleship vs a battleship should be applying its full strike or at the very least within the same damage band of comparable weapon systems.

You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?

Does application need a serious look? Oh hell yes. That's why many of us are baffled by the nerfs to application.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#808 - 2015-07-19 04:53:34 UTC
Nafensoriel wrote:
...You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?..


That minmatar tang and the moros can do it, why should the Phoenix be different? As long as dreads can shoot subcapitals I don't see a reason why the Phoenix should be the exception.

I do not need to advertise anything. In nine years I have repeated myself often enough. I still want 100% application across the board but I can be persuated to settle for the same size thing.

And the next one who writes about a tracking disrupter for missiles will get disrupted in a way that is to gruesome to write down.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#809 - 2015-07-19 06:42:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
Nafensoriel wrote:
I will clarify my previous comment. I see ZERO issue with equal class perfect application. A battleship vs a battleship should be applying its full strike or at the very least within the same damage band of comparable weapon systems.

You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?

Does application need a serious look? Oh hell yes. That's why many of us are baffled by the nerfs to application.


Application issues, even to same size targets, forces one to give their fit, tactic and possible teamwork a good think. Removing that means you suddenly have free extra slots and require a whole lot less planning. So they'd have to then rebalance all the ships involved to make up for that and there's no need to do that because it IS balanced, at least it was till they introduced stacking on the missile rigs. No reason to make a complete 180 fitting/balance logic wise and redo everything.

Also, missiles are so easy to use with zero piloting input and pretty much range independent performance that it has to, somehow, be given downsides. Application of their damage IS that downside, forcing to adapt fit or accept the lowered damage. You can't just go "yeah lets change it to 100% application vs same size target" and leave it at that, it would create a MASSIVE balance change.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#810 - 2015-07-19 06:50:53 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
I still want 100% application across the board but I can be persuated to settle for the same size thing.

And the next one who writes about a tracking disrupter for missiles will get disrupted in a way that is to gruesome to write down.


Full 100% application is silly and removes any sort of tactics and choices from the game creating a massive power creep. EVE had it early on and while it was hilarious it was also dumb.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#811 - 2015-07-19 06:59:46 UTC
Nafensoriel wrote:
I will clarify my previous comment. I see ZERO issue with equal class perfect application. A battleship vs a battleship should be applying its full strike or at the very least within the same damage band of comparable weapon systems.

You are not vocally advertising this. You are advertising perfect application in general. A cruise missile that blaps frigates is not a good thing and never will be. Or do you want a single phoenix to be able to wreck subcap gangs pretty much effortlessly?

Does application need a serious look? Oh hell yes. That's why many of us are baffled by the nerfs to application.

Uh no, that is not what I was saying at all. Go back and read, I very specifically was saying 'same class before any fittings, boosts, implants or boosters'. I am talking about BS vs BS or Cruiser vs Cruiser.
Cruiser vs Cruiser is one of the worst with Heavy missiles down as low as 60% application vs certain unfitted cruisers.
Light missiles/Rockets are fairly good in this regard already so not much would need to change there.

As for 'application issues cause thinking about fitting'. I am talking about UNFITTED HULLS. Caps since you seem to be missing it every time. As soon as they fit a prop mod of any sort, command boosts, implants, or boosters which affect sig, suddenly you no longer have perfect application, meaning you STILL have to think about your fit.
You are just no longer forced into a bunch of application mods just to do any damage at all to a target. Look at your standard gun fit, it doesn't come with 6 application modules. Neither should missiles have to.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#812 - 2015-07-19 08:14:38 UTC
Other folk were talking about 100% down all ship sizes (which would be whack)
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#813 - 2015-07-19 08:43:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Uh no, that is not what I was saying at all. Go back and read, I very specifically was saying 'same class before any fittings, boosts, implants or boosters'. I am talking about BS vs BS or Cruiser vs Cruiser.
Cruiser vs Cruiser is one of the worst with Heavy missiles down as low as 60% application vs certain unfitted cruisers.
Light missiles/Rockets are fairly good in this regard already so not much would need to change there.

As for 'application issues cause thinking about fitting'. I am talking about UNFITTED HULLS. Caps since you seem to be missing it every time. As soon as they fit a prop mod of any sort, command boosts, implants, or boosters which affect sig, suddenly you no longer have perfect application, meaning you STILL have to think about your fit.
You are just no longer forced into a bunch of application mods just to do any damage at all to a target. Look at your standard gun fit, it doesn't come with 6 application modules. Neither should missiles have to.



Missiles apply their damage regardless of range, turrets do not and may/will require ammo swapping (costing time and thus dps) to even TRY doing damage at all ranges. You can't just point at one stat and go "see, that's worse!"
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#814 - 2015-07-19 09:09:09 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Uh no, that is not what I was saying at all. Go back and read, I very specifically was saying 'same class before any fittings, boosts, implants or boosters'. I am talking about BS vs BS or Cruiser vs Cruiser.
Cruiser vs Cruiser is one of the worst with Heavy missiles down as low as 60% application vs certain unfitted cruisers.
Light missiles/Rockets are fairly good in this regard already so not much would need to change there.

As for 'application issues cause thinking about fitting'. I am talking about UNFITTED HULLS. Caps since you seem to be missing it every time. As soon as they fit a prop mod of any sort, command boosts, implants, or boosters which affect sig, suddenly you no longer have perfect application, meaning you STILL have to think about your fit.
You are just no longer forced into a bunch of application mods just to do any damage at all to a target. Look at your standard gun fit, it doesn't come with 6 application modules. Neither should missiles have to.



Missiles apply their damage regardless of range, turrets do not and may/will require ammo swapping (costing time and thus dps) to even TRY doing damage at all ranges. You can't just point at one stat and go "see, that's worse!"



But it's not one stat. Links in play, as a fleet will have: Fleet fit eagle WILL outdamage a fleet cerb HML from 22km-116km.

The eagle has 50% more EHP to boot, because it doesn't need to **** away THREE slots to get that damage level. And, hilariously, with THREE damage mods the cerb picks up a mighty 53% of damage applied. THREE mods, barely over HALF paper DPS.

And that's at a 90 degree angle of movement to get transversal up.


Heavy missiles are not at the races. It is not "one stat", it's ALL of them.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#815 - 2015-07-19 09:31:09 UTC
So....is anyone actually using these modules at all? I can't see anyone doing it.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#816 - 2015-07-19 09:38:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
afkalt wrote:
But it's not one stat. Links in play, as a fleet will have: Fleet fit eagle WILL outdamage a fleet cerb HML from 22km-116km.

The eagle has 50% more EHP to boot, because it doesn't need to **** away THREE slots to get that damage level. And, hilariously, with THREE damage mods the cerb picks up a mighty 53% of damage applied. THREE mods, barely over HALF paper DPS.

And that's at a 90 degree angle of movement to get transversal up.


Heavy missiles are not at the races. It is not "one stat", it's ALL of them.



"Medium rails are still silly"

Yes.

Also, name any other cruiser than can do that reliably and I'll name few others that will perform worse. So effectively you're saying "this ship and fit is NOT top of the list (but also certainly not on the bottom) vs a specific target (ABing cruiser) and therefore its weapon system sucks and needs buffing".


Other than that your statement is disingenuous, it CAN do similar (technically slightly more but... really) at that 116km but in order to then also apply decent damage at short range he has to swap ammo and if you have to change targets/ranges all the time that's going to be problematic. Also, above that 116km you stated the Cerb wins. Again, NOT having to switch ammo in regards to range is a big bonus and just because you can't somehow quantify that in stats doesn't mean it's not weighed in with balancing.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#817 - 2015-07-19 10:01:02 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Apparently you've overlooked the ludicrous fitting to get there and the fact it STILL only does 53% of paper DPS.


At the end of the day, there are NO missile fleet level doctrines out there for a reason.

They have a slew of frankly insurmountable disadvantages and all people ever see is "they never miss". Boo hoo, not even never missing is good enough for these to see use because it is simply unimportant at the large scale. And small too, but less obviously.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#818 - 2015-07-19 10:15:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
afkalt wrote:
Apparently you've overlooked the ludicrous fitting to get there and the fact it STILL only does 53% of paper DPS.


But it'll also apply it up close, meaning it's more difficult to counter. If you catch Eagles up close their damage is going to be minimal. I'm not disputing that heavies could need a better balancing pass than "gief 5%" (Explosion velocity should have a good look at) but the "make it 100% vs even size targets" is dumb as fck.

And again, comparing it to the one ship/fit that in this very specific scenario is obviously better than any other option isn't helpful, at least not from a "buff this weapon system" pov.

Quote:
At the end of the day, there are NO missile fleet level doctrines out there for a reason.


How many medium blaster doctrines are there, or AC ones. Also, fleets isn't the only form of pvp and just because it's not the best there doesn't mean it sucks. I really comes back to the age old thing: heavy missiles have an above average range, both for medium weapons specifically as compared to all weapon sizes in general. And that has to come at a cost, if you don't like that cost then don't use that weapon system or ask for the range to be dropped in favour of applied dps.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#819 - 2015-07-19 10:37:24 UTC
You can compare them to just about any non-foobar ship out there and they're garbage with the odd exception hull.

They're crap we all know it. It's been demonstrated countless times both through straight up math/EFT charts and what we al know and see in game.

To say non-small missiles don't need help is like denying the old ishtar supremacy.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#820 - 2015-07-19 10:44:24 UTC
Heavy missiles need a more/different buff than 5% flat damage, that's no secret and frankly I don't understand how our balancing dream team thought it would somehow solve the issues. But that doesn't mean that one should point at a very specific ship/fit in a very specific scenario and base all your balancing statements on that. Missiles have too many advantages, not necessarily quantifiable ones, to only look at stats and go "make them on par".