These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1101 - 2015-09-04 05:53:44 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

That is the most Odd fit I've ever seen.
Did I miss something, cause snakes used to be passive shield tanking kings..

IDK.. that fit just seems.... weird..



RLML I can't comment on....the reload headaches I hear make them not so liked to some people. Others like them though so to each their own as always. Will try at some point but have not rushed to it tbh.


Not being passive though...snakes run very decent being active tanked. This can get you a 3 slot mid slot tank (passives usually 4, so a 1 slot saving there for something else) and frees up all lows for damage and such. Has the 100mn AB and not all the sig radius hits of passive tank/mods...while not great at it being a BS its also getting some damage reduction with ghetto sig tanking (ghetto as well besides mach....this not really a BS's thing lol).



My problem is, I hate combo damage bonuses because it makes it harder to build a viable fit especially with missiles.
If you fit for drones, then your missiles are almost useless due to low damage and application, and your drones aren't that powerful. If you fit for missiles, your drones are almost useless in the same manner.
If you try to optimize both, then you end up gimped on tank and/or utility..
This isnt as big of an issue for turret/drone bonus, as your turrets or your drones can have good applied damage with low or no traversal.

I kinda wish it took a different route on the missile bonus, such as bonus to rapid lights instead of heavies and up.
I say this because it would make it a more versatile ship, which its tank suits, while keeping lower damage than most pirate hulls.

But, that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
However, with this ship, TPs are again better suited as they support both drones and missiles.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1102 - 2015-09-04 06:30:33 UTC
Using RHML in PVE is more thought engaging than cruise or torps. You do have to volley count especially at ranges in excess of 50km. That fit handles reloads just fine and can wipe out several battleships before it needs to reload. With a 3km/s gecko or 2km/s+ faction drone you don't really have to wait to apply full 1900 nearly perfectly applied damage to anything within 50km.

Operationally its one of the more fun fits you can fly. Yes RHML reloads are a rather terrible design choice.. but I personally view bad design as a challenge to overcome.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1103 - 2015-09-04 07:07:25 UTC
If RHML did not have the long reload times, they would be HML and thus not have the spike DPS. They wouldn't even exist. So, it's not a terrible design choice, it's what defines the RHML's function.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1104 - 2015-09-04 07:36:47 UTC
No it is a terrible design choice. The ideology is a burst DPS weapon. Locking a user out for half a minute does not promote active gaming.

Its more effective to use volley mechanics or small clip sizes with a moderate reload speed.
A 10 Missile clip with a 5s reload would actually give tactical flexibility, burst dps, and make it considerably less of a headache to use.
90s firing time+25s reload for 25 rounds vs 36s firing time + 5 s reload for 10 rounds
Identical DPS.. better flexibility. Mission goal of burst DPS accomplished.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1105 - 2015-09-04 08:40:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Not in the slightest. You can fire a lot longer and a lot more often with your approach than with the current approach. This removes a lot of consideration for which targets to engage with remaining missiles in the launcher and to live with the results if you made a wrong choice. Rapid launchers are supposed to require you to take the long reload into consideration when you evaluate which targets to engage. If there is no long reload time, this entire tactical assessment process is gone.

Your approach with even shorter reload times than standard launchers is more akin to their steady DPS and not to Burst DPS.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1106 - 2015-09-04 09:07:29 UTC
My biggest peeve with Rapid XX is that they completely bugger the balance between "weapon damage increased by X%" and "ROF increased by X%"
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1107 - 2015-09-04 15:08:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Nafensoriel wrote:
Using RHML in PVE is more thought engaging than cruise or torps. You do have to volley count especially at ranges in excess of 50km. That fit handles reloads just fine and can wipe out several battleships before it needs to reload. With a 3km/s gecko or 2km/s+ faction drone you don't really have to wait to apply full 1900 nearly perfectly applied damage to anything within 50km.

Yes, but that's paper DPS under optimal conditions. It doesn't take into account things like mission travel time, launcher reload time, drone transit time - or just in-game maneuvering. Your Rattlesnake fit doesn't have a MWD or MJD for getting around, so with a 100MN afterburner you will rarely be able to apply maximum damage with your RHMLs or Geckos. Without a tracking script Geckos can't consistently hit frigates and even with MGCs you're going to burn through a lot Fury ammo against smaller ships.

I'll take my 1200+ DPS/4.48 AU/s Golem and stack it up against this Rattlesnake fit any time.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1108 - 2015-09-04 15:28:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#1109 - 2015-09-04 17:02:35 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.


Maybe they ought to drop the current stats off the MGEs and throw in a sort of Mordus Legion style velocity buff/flight time nerf. It wouldn't really help Mordus ships and the like that already have ridiculous velocity, but that would make me think about dropping a BCS on a torp ship...maybe. Bad idea, I know, but the current MGEs are just as bad an idea to begin with, might as well roll around in the mud and see if another bad idea happens to be better.

"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."
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1110 - 2015-09-04 17:48:09 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Maybe they ought to drop the current stats off the MGEs and throw in a sort of Mordus Legion style velocity buff/flight time nerf. It wouldn't really help Mordus ships and the like that already have ridiculous velocity, but that would make me think about dropping a BCS on a torp ship...maybe. Bad idea, I know, but the current MGEs are just as bad an idea to begin with, might as well roll around in the mud and see if another bad idea happens to be better.

I would have preferred if they just stuck with a bonus to missile velocity instead of missile velocity and flight time. It would make both the MGC and particularly the MGE infinitely more valuable, and then they could buff the values on the MGE since it would be stacking-penalized. Range is almost never the issue - it's the slow application of damage due to missile velocity.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1111 - 2015-09-04 18:24:47 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Anyway, back on topic... The main advantage with MGCs is that they free up your rig slots. This gain is most apparent on battleships as you can then utilize Hyperspacial rigs instead of rigors (+50% warp speed and a huge cost savings). There's almost no benefit to MGEs unless you have an extra low slot (rare) and really need the range. If you're running any kind of rapid fit a MGE is a better choice than a fourth BCU, but this is generally the exception rather than the rule.



They free up rig slots, but present the same or less bonus as rigs.
Personally, Hyperspacial rigs aren't as worthwhile as range rigs for torps, application rigs for rapid heavies, and damage/ tank rig for cruise missiles.


Granted, this is measured by Golem fitting, but can be applied on other BS class missile hulls as well.

We'll use a Raven. (all fits are based on PVE, lvl 5 skills, with no mods apart from MGC, TP, and missile rigs)
Intended target is an all skills V Worm, with no prop, and no tank factored. (rigs will be focused on missiles, so I will use as many missile rigs as possible)

Torps - 2x TP - T2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel, t1 hydraulic.
Rage - 39dps / 41km
Jav - 51dps / 74km (not factoring TP falloff/optimal)
T1 - 60dps / 49km

Torps - 2x MGC - T2 rigor, t2 flare, range scripted
Rage - 18dps / 37km
Jav - 24dps / 67km
T1 - 28dps / 45km

Torps - 2x MGC - t2 rigor, t2 flare, precision scripted
Rage - 28dps / 25km
Jav - 36dps / 45km
T1 - 42dps / 30km

TP with range rigs wins


Cruise - 2x TP - t1 calefaction, t1 rigor, (leaves rig slot open for t2 EM resist or flare) (range doesn't matter)
Fury - 56dps
Precision - 130dps
T1 - 81dps

Cruise - 2x MGC - rigs remain the same, precison scripted
Fury - 30dps
Precision - 77dps
T1 - 43dps

No need for a MGC range scripted

TP wins again.


RHML - 2x TP - t2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel (last rig slot optional for tank or application)
Fury - 79dps / 68km
Precision - 201dps / 45km
T1 - 151dps / 90km

RHML - 2x MGC - t2 rigor, t2 flare, range scripted
Fury - 67dps / 70km
Precision - 187dps / 46km
T1 - 133dps / 93km

RHML - 2x MGC - t2 hydraulic, t2 rocket fuel, precision scripted
Fury - 77dps / 68km
Precision - 205dps / 45km
T1 - 148dps / 90km

TP maintains highest DPS, while MGC range scripted has best range... However, the low addl range does not overvalue the reduced damage.

Therefore, TP with range rigs wins again.


Mind you, these are optimal PVE fits for a Raven, being that 2 midslots are best used for application/projection, as well as two rigs..

While You could combine ranged rigs with range scripts, the heavily reduced application is not worth it, not to mention the stacking penalties makes it generally sub-optimal.
The same would be said for stacking precision scripts and precision rigs.


Now, someone will likely argue that MGCs are applicable for all ranges, while TPs are limited in range.
However, that argument isn't valid within 100km, which applies more specifically to torp and RHML, while cruise are typically not used outside 100km either.
That factor applies to both PVP and PVE, due to the time it takes for missiles to hit a target.

Now, there's also fitting costs.
TPs use more cap, but are less than half the CPU costs, which matters more than cap, IMO.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1112 - 2015-09-04 21:07:43 UTC
The only ship that can really pull off torpedoes in PvE is the Golem, and this is mainly because you have to sacrifice so much to extend range to be somewhat on par with cruise missiles - so damage application is essential. At best, torpedoes will pop the occasional Elite rattleship in one less volley at a slighter faster rate. At worst, you lose any DPS gain by being out of position and having to either maneuver or switch missiles.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1113 - 2015-09-04 22:29:20 UTC
Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1114 - 2015-09-05 01:08:22 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime.

Sorry, what's the solution again? Lol

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#1115 - 2015-09-05 01:13:09 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime.

Sorry, what's the solution again? Lol


Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application".

"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."
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1116 - 2015-09-05 02:01:22 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
elitatwo wrote:
Which is very exciting but doesn't fix heavy missiles and heavy assault missiles. The solution is already on the table and nullsec can entosis themselves in the meantime.

Sorry, what's the solution again? Lol


Well, a 5% damage buff certainly isn't it. Keyword is "Application".


It's more than just that.
There's a lot of missile balance that needs to happen, and one of them is a nerf.

1) Bonuses to light missile range needs to be removed from all cruiser and BC (if applicable) class hulls. this will help to balance RHML and make HML and HAM more viable on cruisers.

2) HAMs and HMLs need to have their fitting costs reduced to be more viable on cruisers. Missile BCs would have their fitting capability reduced in order to stay balanced.

3) HAMs and HMLs need to have their application increased to be more viable against cruiser class hulls, thus making heavy fitted cruisers more viable, and making missile BCs more viable.

4) Torps and possibly cruise missiles need to have their velocities increased at the cost of flight time, thus retaining the same range.
Alternate 4) I would prefer to see all missiles have their velocity and flight time balanced in a way to where there is only ever
1 volley in the air at a time. Thus alleviating us from the headache of volley counting and waisted volleys.

5) I'm not too familiar with LML and Rockets, so it would be up to someone else to say what's wrong with them.

6) MGE needs to be removed.. It is a worthless module

7) MGCs need to be given individual scripts for flight time, velocity, explosion velocity, and explosion radius. This is to negate stacking penalties, which I feel are the crippling factor that makes these modules less viable than their rig counterparts.

8) I would love to see exp velocity done away with. It is a jacked up mechanic that does nothing but keep missiles from every being able to do full damage on a moving target, regardless of sig, unlike turrets.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#1117 - 2015-09-05 02:30:04 UTC
As far as number 5 goes, neither am I, but I remember people stating that one of the application stats on rockets and LMs need to be swapped.

Something else to add, defenders need either to be removed or repatriated into a high slot mod that is no longer hardpoint bound (or make one for missile users and different one for gunships; defenders and ballistic point defense), be far more autonomous than how it works now, and have a fleet capacity rather than only protecting the host ship. I would vote for it being replaced with a more EWAR like mod if that's what CCP intends, but I'd be contempt with a Defenders 2.0 rebalance.

"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."
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1118 - 2015-09-06 03:54:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
I thought the bug with scripting MGCs had been squashed? ie: When you load a script into the MGC, activate then unload it - it doesn't revert to the default values of the MGC (it retains the previous scripted values). You have to dock or refit and swap the MGC(s) to reset back to the defaults. I guess it could be a feature unless you want to switch between range and precision scripts. I wasn't able to reproduce this bug; anyone else run into it?

Also, even though most of us aren't exactly thrilled (perhaps that's an understatement) with the MGC and MGEs, will we be seeing any Faction versions anytime soon?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#1119 - 2015-09-06 06:40:31 UTC
Light missiles and rockets are fine, hams and heavy missiles aren't, torpedos and up aren't. Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss.
The solution was to fiddle with the explosion velocity and radius values - just put the rocket values on - and missiles are fine.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1120 - 2015-09-06 10:08:53 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Oh and rapid launchers can go into the abyss.

I liked the original RLML and first draft of the RHML.

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