These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#21 - 2015-06-19 13:06:38 UTC
Really needs an anti-missile tracking disruptor to go with these additions.

Also, it's so fitting that these missile modules are coming with the Aegis release.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#22 - 2015-06-19 13:09:51 UTC
rockets could do with lower volume

torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?)

and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#23 - 2015-06-19 13:10:20 UTC
Kalen Pavle wrote:
What about kinetic locked ships, and the fact that missile application is still much worse than turret or sentry due to missile travel mechanics?


I'm guessing that kinetic lock is going to stay just like it is, as they enjoy the 'flavor' it provides.

They are increasing damage on missiles, which will increase applied damage as well, in addition to giving you 2 new module types to improve application. There's also the Mordu ships with that funky bonus... seems like application is getting some fairly serious love with both recent changes and this package.
Phoenix Jones
The Markoni Dragons
#24 - 2015-06-19 13:14:33 UTC
Good god the amount of Drakes/Tengu's that are going to be flying everywhere...

Also.. lets make Garmurs and Orthurus's even more absurd :-)

Heavy's needed a buff, but the lack of a direct ewar counter on these is disturbing.

Yaay!!!!

Aeon Veritas
Black OP - Mining and Research
UNITATO SQUAD
#25 - 2015-06-19 13:15:03 UTC
Looks nice, but Harkin Issier has a point.
Harkin Issier wrote:
CCP did you mix up Computers and Enhancers?
....

Also looking forward to have the matching EWAR implemented.
Please also implement Remote Missile Guidance Computer and maybe change the Scimitar remote tracking computer bonus to missile guidance? Or a lower bonus to both...

afkalt wrote:
Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size)
+1 for this
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#26 - 2015-06-19 13:16:39 UTC
This going to be so pretty disaster. Ewar modules on weapon system that takes time to apply damage (flight time)?
Kinetic lock? You don't have to write devblog about it, simple answers are best: yes, no, we think about it...

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

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#27 - 2015-06-19 13:18:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Stitch Kaneland
afkalt wrote:
CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare.


Are these stacking penalised?
Are rigs now stacking penalised? (I believe they are not atm)
What wins the priority battle give them above?


Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size)


Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare.


Its the same cpu requirement for these mods as TE/TC. If you swap a bcu for an MTE then youll have MORE available CPU. I dont foresee fitting being an issue. I fly caldari/missile boats quite often, should be fine.

Good changes IMO, and the mods dont seem overly strong, but enough to consider them useful in certain fits.
Matt Faithbringer
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2015-06-19 13:18:59 UTC
I see great future for bombers..
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#29 - 2015-06-19 13:20:40 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
rockets could do with lower volume

torps need better fitting and range (rockets 10km, hams 20km, torps 20km, what?)

and as always, missiles will always be garbage while skirmish links are around. missile damage is basically determined by speed:sig. you can't improve speed:sig by ~80% and still expect missiles to work.



I don't know about the Rocket Volume thing, but your point on Torps is right on. They have absurd low range for a battleship weapon system, almost as bad as Blasters though with the right ammo you can reach out with falloff at least.

Your point about Skirmish Links does not really hold water, considering Armor and Siege links work pretty good for mitigating damage too.
stoicfaux
#30 - 2015-06-19 13:26:17 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
ACHTUNG! Module stats were changed. New numbers here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5847341#post5847341

Normalized values in terms of how they affect the 2nd part of the missile formula

250.0% - 60% Web
187.5% - 2x Rigor II, Flare II
179.7% - 2x Rigor II, Flare I
162.8% - 3x Rigor I
156.3% - bonused PWNAGE TP (e.g. Golem)  (skills V)
156.3% - 2x Rigor II
146.9% - MGC II @ 19% w/Precision Script
138.4% - 2x Rigor I
137.5% - PWNAGE TP (skills V)
135.3% - MGC I @ 15% w/Precision Script
125.0% - Rigor II
121.0% - MGC II @ 9.5%
120.0% - Flare II
117.6% - Rigor I
116.2% - MGC I @ 7.5%
115.0% - Flare I
113.9% - MGE II (6.5%)
110.5% - MGE I (5%)




edit: Added T1 values.
edit2: Added common rigor/flare combos

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#31 - 2015-06-19 13:26:48 UTC
For the sake of opinion and such, I would prefer to see missile disruption added to weapon disruptor rather than having them be their own module. Tweaks to the base weapon disruptor's would be needed along with buffs to bonused hulls so that they remain strong on bonused ships but weaker on unbonused hulls. Similar to what happened with damps and jams in the past.

Also I like the missile changes, think torps and Hams could use a tad more range but we can see.
Womyn Power
Lynch Squad
#32 - 2015-06-19 13:30:33 UTC
im glad it was u rise

but you shouldve done this a long time ago
Valkin Mordirc
#33 - 2015-06-19 13:31:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
I'd personally would be very very happy if the kinetic lock to Caldari ships would be removed, and to see the CPU for Caldari ship (Or missile cpu brought down) increased slightly as shield/missiles make for a headache in fitting but on the contrary Blasters/Armor and a Gallente ship allow for plenty of fitting room.


Overall though, I am happy to see this, ^..^


Edit: Also when do you expect to let us know about the CBC and Faction CBC balance pass to be public? That is what I am most interested in personally.
#DeleteTheWeak
El Space Mariachi
Zero Fun Allowed
#34 - 2015-06-19 13:31:48 UTC
looks a little strong, the few armor tanked missile ships are going to be disgustingly good with these changes. heaven knows missiles need some love though, glad something is being done about it.

gay gamers for jesus

Xavier Azabu
Half Empty
#35 - 2015-06-19 13:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Xavier Azabu
For all the people crying for ewar you have the options of smartbombs to mitigate damage or damps on range for kiters already if you're concerned about that.

Good luck to future tacklers. You gon' get alpha'd!
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2015-06-19 13:38:46 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
afkalt wrote:
CPU feels high for missile boats which are CPU limited - especially given the cost of a PWNAGE by compare.


Are these stacking penalised?
Are rigs now stacking penalised? (I believe they are not atm)
What wins the priority battle give them above?


Have you considered speeding up all missile precision variants (with a corresponding flight time decrease to maintain range) in order to have a better chance of making contact with the expected target (which is obviously small and fast relative to the launcher hull size)


Are you going to look at the phoon(s)? They the one hull class I'm worried about abusing these mods. It'll be a murder machine of little compare.


Its the same cpu requirement for these mods as TE/TC. If you swap a bcu for an MTE then youll have MORE available CPU. I dont foresee fitting being an issue. I fly caldari/missile boats quite often, should be fine.

Good changes IMO, and the mods dont seem overly strong, but enough to consider them useful in certain fits.


Yes but gunboats are not (really) CPU bound. Most missile boats are. Exceptions exist, of course, but in general terms it holds.

A lot of missile ships run painters - swapping a painter out for these mods means:

Significantly more resource needed (CPU)
Slight improvement over said PWNAGE
Loss of boost to fleet due to dropping said PWNAGE.

That feels a little...off kilter. Tbh the CPU should probably be swapped given one is a gang helper, but that's obviously a mad change which screws with things all over the place but for me - gang assist should be a higher "cost" than "self assist".
Rob Kashuken
Row Row Fight the Power
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#37 - 2015-06-19 13:40:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Kashuken
I'd agree that CPU requirements are going to be a little tight, but that can usually be worked around.

Add me to the list of people suggesting that the Caldari-Kinetic lock should be broken, we'd like more choices to be enabled.

And, as an Ewar specialist, could the Crucifier's Tracking disruptors be made to be applied (either through a module application redesign (preferred), or a new script) to affect missile ships? Caldari can jam everything (given chance), Gallente can damp everything effectively, Minmatar's TP bonuses work across the board, but the Amarr primary ewar option only affects turret ships - it is completely useless against missile and neuting ships.
stoicfaux
#38 - 2015-06-19 13:43:24 UTC  |  Edited by: stoicfaux
El Space Mariachi wrote:
looks a little strong, the few armor tanked missile ships are going to be disgustingly good with these changes. heaven knows missiles need some love though, glad something is being done about it.

Yes, they're a bit strong because, IMHO, missile ships are "required" to fit as many damage application modules as possible (e.g. Rigors and TPs,) whereas gunships can manage transversal to land big guns on small ships. (Yes, I know guns/missiles are still an apples and oranges situation.) In theory, a strong MGC would allow PvP missile ships to free up rig slots. OTOH, it could lead to big missiles blapping little ships.


However, on the PvE side, the MGC is a bit overpowered. *cough* Typhoon? *cough*

Except for the Mission Golem. I will still use Cruise missiles on my Golem despite the torp buff and MGC, but I should be able to use Warp Speed rigs instead of Rigors and compensate by running a mix of TPs and MGCs. However, my Vargur will still outperform the Golem for mission running.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

TinkerHell
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#39 - 2015-06-19 13:46:32 UTC
I dont even get why these are needed. Why are missiles now being made the same as guns?

The same...yet not effected by TDs or an equivalent ewar.

I see this going well.
EVE-Lotteries
EVE-Lotteries Corporation
#40 - 2015-06-19 13:47:07 UTC
Makes the actual TD works on that please.

You miss blink ? Come and play with us at EVE-Lotteries.com !