These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods

First post First post
Author
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#221 - 2015-10-05 05:01:43 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
One of the most important questions regarding missile performance, specifically larger missiles, is whether or not the Missile Guidance Enhancers/Computers have succeeded in helping these platforms.

I have some information about their adoption rates, but I personally wonder if the pilots using them are doing so for reasons other than "they are great at missile damage application" such as:

  • Using them for range
  • Using them to make up for Aegis stacking penalties
  • Using them out of curiosity


I'm going to try to find out how these modules have affected larger ship efficacy, not just popularity of the ships or these modules.

My guess is that they haven't significantly helped larger missiles (though I won't speak for light missile boats). If that's the case, I'm afraid the net result here is missiles as a platform will be even weaker than they were pre-Aegis (when missiles were supposed to be buffed). Since it was largely agreed at the time missiles were not in a happy place (and perhaps still aren't), this scenario could be very, very sad for missile pilots.


Phoenix in C4 Black hole effect. Single shots everything. 1 x scripted MGC and 1 x MGE, + TP's from a Vigil. As Chainsaw Plankton says, you have to do the maths, which is hard. But once you've done it, you push it into broken territory. I'm happy with the way my OTT Golem works.

Typhoons, we have found 2 x TP's and 1 x TP + MGC is equivalent for application work. The biggest hit to us was actually the rig stacking penalty introduction, it used to be that you could get your cruise Phoon's missiles behaving better than light missiles. I have been able to single-shot ceptors and garmurs with a Phoon. Again, you do the maths, then fit.

Aside from those 2 examples there is literally no point. You cannot push the envelope far enough to actually make a difference. it's better to not fly the ship at all than take a missile boat out and fail, because...yet again...if the maths do not favour you, there is no skill in missile boats beyond knowing what not to fights.

Missile Disruptors will totally trash cruiser and battleship missiles, and hence, extinguish them from the PVP meta entirely.
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#222 - 2015-10-05 05:51:13 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Precision script and range script I assume? So a precision script would remove 30% explosion velocity AND increase explosion radius by 30%?


This kills the missile pvp.


Wrt trinkets post this is not empty quoting.

Work should be done on missiles first before introducing ways of making them worse. Are missiles really so equally balanced across all types and all sizes that a one-size-fits-all ewar is warrented or required?

That's a serious question btw, are they prenerfing drake/cerb fleets with these? Why couldn't they do the same thing to ishtars 2 years ago?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#223 - 2015-10-05 05:57:15 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I'm not arguing that missiles do or don't need range, only listing objective facts about the modules. Even if you contend missiles don't currently need range, we can imagine a future balance pass where somehow they do, which would increase the value of these items.

And surely there are scenarios where the range has value, even if they are fringe cases. If you have ever wished to shoot at a target 1 km outside of your range, it would be better in that precise moment to have a MGC than a target painter, since painting something you can't hit is pointless.*

I never thought range + application should be linked to one module anyway. Having a separate range module, then a module with sig or speed based application would be, IMO more interesting.

* yeah yeah helps the fleet, I know


Well I didn't say that they don't need range at all, my point was that I am okay-ish with the range cruiser missiles and heavy missiles have (now). I am painfully aware that the biggest complaint are light missiles on a pirate boat.
And guess what, pirate ships are supposed to be the end of the food-chain in case of power - exceeding battlecruisers.

Anyhow, I am not entirely against the missile computer thingies but the lowslot thingies are as useless as herpies. The computers are okay and can bring missiles (no not the light ones) to a level I can almost agree upon.

Now the second idea in this case was to give the defender missiles we already have 100% application as a missile counter to not break EVE instead of the tracking disruptors. Maybe you can talk to the team (5-O I think) about it?

Again this would only affect defender missiles, the light and heavy ones - there are only two in the game. Put it on SiSi and let us try them out.

Oh and don't forget to unbreak torpedos (no I don't fly bombers). Torpedos should have 40km range on my Raven, 300m explosion radius (rage) and 100m/s exlposion velocity (also the rage ones).

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#224 - 2015-10-05 06:18:22 UTC
While the idea of a defensive missile smacks highly of military space opera there is one situation where it would be an issue.. possibly even gamebreakingly.

TiDi.

Yes the game is "supposed" to function normally but slower up to 10% TiDi.. but in reality things start breaking early. Especially when that "thing" is a missile that has to track another missile. With server tics you'd probably have phantom hit situations where the defender literally had no effect as well. Heck right now missiles have issues with hitting on the edges of tics.

Honestly from a raw mechanics thing defenders as a concept are terrible. Logically in real life they make sense... practically they just cant work without major sacrifices unless ccp just want to space magic crap(which is terrible code.. please dont space magic).

You'd probably get more usage and differentiated tactics if you broke apart armor/hardeners to something akin to ablative vs reactive.
(Ablative(which is a form of reactive) creates a spall layer and disrupts physical/energy rounds theoretically while reactive(explosive plating) physically uses directed blasts to divert and disrupt an incoming explosive typically missile based.)
Honestly such a split of defenses would definitely shake up metas and give missiles an absolute roll in the rock paper scissors doctrine game.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2015-10-05 07:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
I have a couple more concerns with regards the strength of these on unbonused hulls.

1) Unbonused range disruption to turrets can be soft countered by an ammo swap - less DPS, but not zero. Missiles Cannot do this, no range, no DPS.
2) Unbonused tracking speed disruption is eminently manageable by manually piloting, for example a maller with scorch would start to track like a 200mm rail thorax - in other words perfectly manageable by piloting. Missiles cannot do a thing to manually mitigate these mods.

Test case I used: Bellicose with a single HML shooting 100% unfit thorax moving at 300m/s. Single unbonused disruptor: Removes 46.1% of the missile damage. Options available to the missile pilot.....Zero.

A second unbonused effect only knocks it back to 57.7% damage removed.

Keep in mind that is removing applied damage, which in my test case is already 25% of paper speak DPS.

i.e. paper damage is 224 per hit, applied damage to the unfit 300m/s thorax is 52.2 (23.3% of paper), with the MD it is down to 28.1 (12.5% of paper).

I realise these are effectively unfit, but the aim of the test was to see the disruption of a single/dual unbonused mod. It's....too good imo, considering the pilot can't do anything about it.

I really think you're going to want to reign in the unbonused values and boost the specialist hulls to level it off.


Caveat: I think my math is accurate but it is very early - if someone disagrees let me know please.
Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Infinite Pew
#226 - 2015-10-05 08:06:44 UTC
Very sad face to see "Missile Tracking Disruptors" rather than a reworking of the defender missile system. I just feel that it homogenizes the EWAR system. If you can disrupt turrets and missiles now you really should be able to disrupt the tracking of a ship's drones by TD'ing the parent ship with a "Drone Disruption" module.

Anyway. I really feel you're missing the mark by going down the EWAR route with a clearly extremely powerful module instead of creating a proper point defense system.

If you created a new racial PDS that destroyed the missiles and drones of a targeted ship you would create a new role within a fleet.

However. This is the way you're going. I don't like it but I know I can't change anything.

By the way. The new EvE Updates site is awesome and almost all of the changes coming are awesome. I just don't like this missile disruption concept when PDS could have fixed many problems in game including bombers.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2015-10-05 08:18:24 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
If you created a new racial PDS that destroyed the missiles and drones of a targeted ship you would create a new role within a fleet.


Faster cycling smartbombs, less cap use. Would probably do it. Makes firewalling easier.

Speaking of, is firewalling going to be removed now, since we now have legit anti-missile ewar?

In fact, I seem to recall (from players admittedly) that a lot of the reasons missiles are sub-par were because "they have no ewar"....any sign of that changing? Nerf RxML as required to make it work.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#228 - 2015-10-05 08:40:22 UTC
I'm not really thrilled of this idea, we've asked for feed back on the whole Aegis thing, didn't get any.

and now there's the next row of modules, lots of missiles are still in a bad place.

they already have delayed damage, can be destroyed by smart bombs, can be rendered all but useless by speed which somehow keeps increasing almost every update. take longer to train than turrets, aren't even close to being predominantly used in PvP, have many hulls that are damage locked.

and the counter is putting a missile guidance module. (which is rather high on its CPU need)

before you could choose to drop a mid or low slot and therefor damage or tank for range and/or application now it you have to fit this module for the fact that it's the only way to counter a disruptor. ( I already hear people saying, so do turret ships, then take in mind that those where balanced with these modules already in place, not to mention the possibility to at least somewhat counter the effects by piloting and ammo switching)



W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#229 - 2015-10-05 08:48:54 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads.


Please stop, my belly can't handle your cute attempts of comprehension. Let's the grownups talk.


Post with your main if you want to be rude, otherwise lol.
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
#230 - 2015-10-05 08:49:15 UTC
Can you add faction and deadspace guided missile mods and missile TD's ofc ! Smile
Aivlis Eldelbar
Foxholers
Outfoxed
#231 - 2015-10-05 09:53:58 UTC
To be perfectly honest, the introduction of missile disruptors seems completely pointless to me right now. Are Drake fleets blotting out the sky? Are Cruise Ravens an actual thing and I hadn't noticed?

The consensus seems to be that RLM platforms are overperforming while almost every other missile class is pointless, particularly large missiles. Torp range is a joke outside heavily bonused hulls, heavy missiles can't apply even half of their paper dps to targets in their own size class, cruise missiles ae unable to use their range because of a myriad reasons (firewall/warping out targets).

If these are imlemented there will be four ways to completely nullify the damage of a missile fleet: firewall, outrunning the missiles, warping out once the volley is on its way, and disrupting their range. And since mitigating missile damage is already much easier than avoiding gun damage (fly fast vs. maximize transversal) this just adds to the pile of reasons missiles are in such a bad spot overall.

A couple of proposals:

- If you're removing the old advantage of missiles of not being susceptible to ewar, let them have critical hits now.
- Buff HML and Torp application; also cruise missile speed.
- Remove firewall; I personaly think it's great, but its just not fair for so many counters to exist to a weapon system with subpar damage and application to start with.
- Change misile skill descriptions to state that these aren't CCP-approved weapons and you should consider the SP invested a waste :P
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#232 - 2015-10-05 10:31:39 UTC
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:

- Change misile skill descriptions to state that these aren't CCP-approved weapons and you should consider the SP invested a waste :P


I lol'd Lol
Madgic
Nexis.
Entropic Collective
#233 - 2015-10-05 11:15:15 UTC
Every time they do something positive to make missiles even slightly Viable, along comes another Nerf to push them back to mission Boats, we don't all fly Alliance tourney doctrines,
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#234 - 2015-10-05 11:25:21 UTC
Can we have missiles tracking disruptors instead ECM as guristas e-war? They are fighting caldari mainly (missiles users).

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#235 - 2015-10-05 11:33:47 UTC
Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?

At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.

As for this module I would suggest a tracking disruption module which effects missiles and turrets. Mid slots are the most valuable slots in PvP for most ships and so fitting one of each for missiles and turrets is impractical; even fitting one is a big compromise for most ships.

Also it would be better to have a module that soft counters both weapon systems than one which hard counters one of the other. Soft counters make for more interesting PvP as with hard counters the fight is decided before you even engage.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#236 - 2015-10-05 11:44:37 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?

At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.

As for this module I would suggest a tracking disruption module which effects missiles and turrets. Mid slots are the most valuable slots in PvP for most ships and so fitting one of each for missiles and turrets is impractical; even fitting one is a big compromise for most ships.

Also it would be better to have a module that soft counters both weapon systems than one which hard counters one of the other. Soft counters make for more interesting PvP as with hard counters the fight is decided before you even engage.

Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#237 - 2015-10-05 12:05:24 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Fozzie, do you not think a better idea would be to hold back with these missile modules and then release then as part of a wider missile rebalance?

At the moment there are some circumstances in which missiles are borderline OP, and some which a practically worthless. We need a missile tiericide much like we had ship tiericide. Missiles are in such a state at the moment that it would be foolish for us to throw numbers forward without a wide and comprehensive look at the whole picture.




This!

The more I think of it, the more I think the current idea, will be a waist of time.

create a new module and to have it compete with other module it has to be so powerful that it renders missiles useless.
or it will get nice place with my defender missiles in this container of curiosities.


make it a script and every body and his mother will carry it, in that case the least you must do is limit the effects of speed tanking missiles and in that case we're back at reballancing missiles.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#238 - 2015-10-05 13:01:40 UTC
When I use Rockets I find a lot of my volleys go missing even when the target is in range, I think when missiles are launched they fly out of the launchers in random directions, then correct course and chase down the target. This is a big issue on short range missiles where they have maybe 3 seconds of flight time and only do 2500m/s, how will a Rocket vengeance perform with 2 of these unbonused applied to it? It's rockets will have less than 2 seconds flight time, the missiles will do about 1800m/s and the first second they'll be flying out in random directions... I'm guessing it won't hit anything.

Missile range is totally different than Turret range, these modules are going to kill short range missile fits especially on hulls with no range bonuses, and they will also kill larger missiles which already have serious application problems. So basically more reason to use rapids.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#239 - 2015-10-05 13:22:39 UTC
Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:

Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.

Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.

Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active?
A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.

Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative?
A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#240 - 2015-10-05 13:28:46 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks thanks for the feedback so far. To answer a few of the common questions:

Q: Why make separate modules instead of using a script on existing TDs?
A: We believe that the script method would make TDs too powerful. Using separate modules means that weapon disruption ships can hedge their bets by fitting a spread of TDs and MDs, but that they'll have smaller numbers of each.

Q: Isn't 45% reduction to both flight time and velocity too much, since the effect stacks?
A: It's true that the effect of the two range attributes stack, so at the maximum (range scripted, on a bonused ship with links and heat) level the Missile Disruptor would reduce the total effective missile range by ~70%. However this is actually still less powerful than current Tracking Disruptors, which provide a -86% reduction in both optimal and falloff when using the same ship and bonuses.

Q: Will these disruptors apply to missiles already in flight, or just missiles fired while the disruptor is active?
A: Only missiles fired while the disruptor is active will be affected.

Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative?
A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.


86% and 70% .. don't those numbers seem a little excessive?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using