Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Im still in the pvp noob phase of "loose some ships until you find your playing style and score some", but since all turrets and missiles will have a disruptor module that counters them, what about drones?

More power to the tristan/comet/algos trinity in fw, since none of them are seriously affected by any td like module (comet can still load something like iridium, iron or spike to still hit a bit)? Why should gallente be the more viable pvp option?

I would like to read the opinions of more experienced pvp players, but please dont start saying that other faction's ships are equally balanced because if this measure goes ahead you can render all of their ships next to useless with a single mod (or am I missing something?).

drone e-war is definitely needed and current e-war is too powerful, 86% and 70% for disruptors is far too much, then you have damps and ecm along with cap warfare... along with things like webs, which ofc has no impact on drones but can prevent other ships from getting close enough too hit anything..

You forgot to add TDs to turret counters They are quite popular in that regard.

Cruise Ravens will never be an actual thing outside of pve because delayed damage will always be there. There is no buff or nerf that can affect any other characteristic of cruise missiles enough to make Ravens a pvp thing. The only reason drone boats are a fleet doctrine is sentries. There would be no Ishtars if they had to wait for slow as molasses heavy drones to plod from one target to another. Gilas are actually niche because of the ridiculous buff on mediums. If it weren't so over the top you probably wouldn't see them either. Delayed damage is what messes with large long range missiles.

As for Drake or Navy Drake fleets it is still too early to tell what affect on usage has resulted from the BC rebalance.

Missile speed can only go so far. Years ago there was an overall speed nerf on ships because it was causing severe problems with the games computations. Again, missiles can only be made to go so fast before they present a similar problem. Fozzie would know where that threshold is, but I suspect it is rather near to current missile speeds or it would be an obvious adjustment to help missiles. Maybe there is a little room for increased missile speed.

Similarly, when you mess too much with explosion parameters you risk making any missile good for any size or speed ship. Then missile ships dont have to think and have no counters. Turrets have tracking parameters radii, optimal, and falloff. At long range where the angular motion of a target is low, but the target is still within optimal the long range large turrets will hit, and will blap. But increase the angular motion enough and they miss completely. One has to avoid the clicking of approach if you are in something small going after something large. HMs used to be good for hitting just about anything. Now they are not. This is good. If you want critical hit calculations for missiles then say hello to complete misses as well, even if the missile is otherwise caught up to the target and exploding fast enough.

Firewall has been recently nerfed. It takes some thinking though. For instance, if you just blindly keep shooting the same type missile into a smartie and don't figure out what damage type smartie you are dealing with then too bad. Firewall was only a player invention to somehow overcome the missile spam of massed Drakes. Smarties were originally meant and still work as anti drone defense. If the Drake fleets reappear we will see what effect the nerf had.

Certainly ship v missile speed should be looked at again. Missiles should have an advantage. That people can construct ridiculous speed ships means some of the speed mods need some nerfing imo. You may not have been around for the past speed nerf but it was a very heated flame war on the forums. But I think most would agree now that the game is better for it.

Your last comment is just silly. CCP devs are not and never have been concerned with Caldari over Amarr or vice versa or any combination. Even if it has felt that way. For a long time Amarr was total ****. Gallente was **** for a while until the DDAs. Believe me, since 2006 I have never seen the game in as good a state of balance as it is now. Well except maybe when sniper BSs ruled fleet warfare. Because there was no one racial sniper BS that was clearly better than the others. But then there were plenty of problems associated with that era that are thankfully gone now.

These new modules make the game combat tactics more complex. This is good. And it will be a continuing dance of adjustments. So much better now than year after year of Drake fleets in the not so distant past.

To those saying, but defender missiles. Argh. Those things have been ass stink from the getgo. And there have been dev posts about how complex and taxing on resources the coding would have to be to fix them. Defender missiles might actually work better as anti drone weapons since they go after the closest thing and drones in orbit don't move as fast as missiles. MTD modules are better imo. Easy to see them as electronic jamming pointed specifically at missiles to make their guidance computers waste fuel from faulty flight paths or explode in the wrong place etc.

Careful though if defenders do get reworked to anti drone. Because then a lot of changes will come. Including the necessity of a launcher slot on just about every ship. And if drones become too killable then hello another round of drone buffs. And so it goes

That's assuming Auto-Targeting missiles work in PVP, which they haven't for at least the last year. I tested this recently on SiSi and they are still broken. Logged EBR-41489 which is attached to an internal bug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL4Z5GM92Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9_N1ugYSE

That said, I think excluding auto-targeting missiles from the disruption would be a good balance - if the above problems can be fixed.

at me, back to what I should be doing. Trying to do two things at once will result in neither being done well.

Not empty quoting.

Even though I am still unsold on the supposed benefits of merging both effects into the existing tracking disruptor, missiles need a thorough look at.




I guess the joke in my last suggestion didn't translate well, my apologies. I do not really believe devs are lore-biased, but that doesn't change the fact that missiles are in a bad spot application-wise and have been there for a long time.

Other than that, I fail to see the point you're making beyond applauding complexity, reminiscing about the golden age of nano fits and explaining how tracking works. In reply, I agree on the first count, with some reservations; no, I wasn't around for nanophoons but it does look hilarious on video; and I am quite aware of how the tracking formulae work, they are not that complicated.

The main technical limitation I see with missile speed is currently aparent on the Mordu's hulls, where ultra-fast missiles lead to inconsistent ranges, ie: 10km/s missiles paired with a 1Hz server mean your range fluctuates by up to 9km (0.9s of flight time).

Heavy missiles aren't good for hitting shield + MWD cruisers right now, so I wonder what are they supposed to hit. Their application was nerfed way too far and never again looked at.

Firewalling is more difficult now? Marginally, and with most viable missile platforms being kinetic-locked, it's not that hard to pick the right smarbombs, is it?

I agree on delayed damage being one of the main issues with large missiles... yet it isn't on RML doctrines and wasn't on Drakes, so I guess upping the speed does work to mitigate that particular problem.

Lastly, the difference between missile range disruption and gun optimal disruption lies in the fact that a gun can still hit to beyond it's falloff, if rarely, while missiles can't hit at all, and with a speed reduction they become even easier to outrun, which is silly. The effect is much worse on missiles, so I'd call for the scripts to affect onlt flight time, not speed.

That's not how math works. It doesn't matter whether a turret is more falloff heavy or more optimal heavy. Since both attributes are impacted equally, the effective range of the turret is simply reduced by 86% across the board.



Those numbers are only obtainable on bonuses hulls (along with max skills, links and heat).

EDIT : Brain malfunction about range... My bad.



Or use a second slot on your ship...

I wonder if anyone uses torps. I mean other than on stealth bombers.

A major factor of missile disruption is that it gives OPTIONS to the dev team.

Do we actually need missile disruption? Yes. Hell yes.
Why?
Because it gives an FC a direct counter to cerb fleets as an example. Does it negatively hit cruise pvp boats or possibly gut RHML boats? Yes possibly.. but because people can now COUNTER these fits... they can and will be looked at for buffage by the dev team if needed.

You cant have your cake without a neighborhood bully who likes that flavor. This is a PVP game. Rock paper scissors is the absolute god. Anything which violates that truism doesn't need to exist and we've all seen how destructive such a ship can be(ishtar anyone?)

Additionally to anyone who is saying the missile mod reduction is to heavy...realize disruption is brutal. Reloading ammo doesn't really help and its laughable people seriously suggest "just switch to long range ammo" . All long range ammo does while under TD is make you have an illusion of hitting anything for any meaningful amount.
Disruption is what is termed as a "hard counter" If the enemy FC sees you are all ranged turret boats he can switch to a fleet that will out range your optimal and then TD the hell out of you. You currently see cerbs/caras out more because they currently cant be disrupted and always have sniper grade optimals. Disruption means more counters, more thinking, and more diversified metas. This is a GOOD thing people.