These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kadesh Priestess
New Order Outreach Division
CODE.
#41 - 2015-06-19 13:47:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadesh Priestess
When do you plan to have these on singularity?
Will there be remote missile enhancers (like remote tracking computers) and bonused ships for these?
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#42 - 2015-06-19 13:47:32 UTC
I take that the computer will have scripts?

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE

Alexander McKeon
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-06-19 13:48:20 UTC
When can we expect to see these on SISI for testing? Hopefully soon, given how near we are to the release window.
stoicfaux
#44 - 2015-06-19 13:54:37 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
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.

Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles + TiDi = increased cardiovascular related reductions in Hamster resources

Worst case, I tell my kids their hamsters died suddenly in the night, and I ship them[1] off to the London data center.


[1] The hamsters, not the kids. The kids get shipped in the Fall.

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

El Liptonez
Adversity.
Snuffed Out
#45 - 2015-06-19 13:56:03 UTC
Any chance of a m³ reduction on heavy missiles as well? 4 damage types x 3 ammo types (faction, precision, fury) makes for 12 sets of missiles that one should carry in PVP. Especially in a RHML boat the amount of cargo required for heavy missiles is extraordinary compared to the other ammo types.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2015-06-19 13:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
stoicfaux wrote:
However, on the PvE side, the MGC is a bit overpowered. *cough* Typhoon? *cough*


Believe me, armor phoon with RHML is going to be a beast in PvP.

It might even be strong enough to upset the cruiser meta applecart.



[Oh god get it off me, Typhoon]
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
1600mm Steel Plates II
Armor Explosive Hardener II

Large Micro Jump Drive
500MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive
Tracking Computer II
Tracking Computer II
Tracking Computer II

Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile
Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Inferno Heavy Missile
Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I

Large Anti-Explosive Pump I
Large Anti-Kinetic Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Credacom
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#47 - 2015-06-19 13:56:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Credacom
Really cool stuff but we will need better counter options and be ready to make some quick changes to RMLs of both types. Stuff is going to get crazy real fast.

Legions ....
Tonrak awesomesauce
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#48 - 2015-06-19 13:56:35 UTC
Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application
Capitol One
The Congregation
Same Great Taste
#49 - 2015-06-19 14:02:56 UTC
Can you also please reduce the volume of cruise missiles?
Kiddoomer
The Red Sequence
#50 - 2015-06-19 14:03:57 UTC
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:
Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application


I agree, I really would like to use them the same way than HAM but they just don't do it for missile BS.

The modules seem fine, and glad to see finally a buff to HM, my drake will be happy to finally undock Big smile, but wonder why people ask for a ewar, b'cause ECM and Dampener do the job fine.

In the name of Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen : “Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”

Claud Tiberius
Shadows of Eden
#51 - 2015-06-19 14:05:01 UTC
Can CCP or someone else please explain why there's going to be this missile balance package.
Is their an issue with the current system?
Is the package just designed to add more variety to missile combat?

Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.

Eridon Hermetz
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2015-06-19 14:05:05 UTC
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:
Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application


and fitting issue ....
Matt Faithbringer
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#53 - 2015-06-19 14:06:30 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:

Missile Spam + MGCs providing updates to missiles in flight + TD affecting missiles


Honestly I cannot imagine designing it like this from software standpoint.. IMHO it's more probably the MGC boost and TD will be calculated when launching the missile and tweak it's stats. Recalculating it on the fly each server tick would be idiotic, too taxing on the hw
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#54 - 2015-06-19 14:10:39 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.


tank links are broken for sure, but they don't affect damage mitigation.
Gunnsmoke
Doomheim
#55 - 2015-06-19 14:11:26 UTC
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.


The Prophecy Shocked

This does not suck Cool
Phaade
Proioxis Assault Force
Rogue Caldari Union
#56 - 2015-06-19 14:12:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
First, removing Caldari Kinetic lock is a necessity. The Cerberus will always be 3/4's as good as it can be, or less due to Gallente bias (Ishtar lol) and kinetic resists, because of this ancient ship bonus. Missile specialists would not lock themselves into using one particular missile, while drone specialists utilize all drone types, and projectile specialists use all types of ammunition. It makes no sense.

Second, why are you not increasing the range / application on torpedoes? They will continue to languish in uselessness, many battleships cannot sacrifice that many low slots to make them worthwhile, except perhaps Minmatar. Buffing a battleship weapon system at this point is a good idea.

Third, Heavy Missiles still need application buffs. 5% damage increase will effectively do almost nothing as you never apply your paper dps anyway. A Cerberus only has 4 low slots. In pvp, you pretty much require a damage control, so realistically you only have 3 (you might be able to get away with a nano instead of DC if you are running a sniper fleet). Two need to be BCU's to make the damage worthwhile, the third would probably be a guidance enhancer which comes at the cost of speed on an already horribly slow ship. If you sacrifice a mid, you lose an application Ewar module like a web or painter, for an application module....(?) or you sacrifice tank.

Edit: Javelin and precision missiles need large buffs, or changes, to make them worthwhile. Consider these long range missiles over something like null, scorch, or barrage. There is no comparison.

A small step in the right direction, but it will still be drones (ishtars) online.
DFA200
Hard vs Soft
#57 - 2015-06-19 14:14:42 UTC
So you are buffing the the weapon system that is basically invulnerable. I think missiles might need something, but they also need a counter. Tracking disruptors should affect missiles in some way. Until that happens, I can't support these changes.
Canenald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#58 - 2015-06-19 14:17:18 UTC
How about you fix fofos and make defender missiles not useless while you are at it? Thanks.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#59 - 2015-06-19 14:17:45 UTC
What ever happened to the 5% heavy missile buff mentioned in the o7 show
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#60 - 2015-06-19 14:20:10 UTC
I find it interesting that the missile versions of TCs and TEs have the same CPU requirements as their turret counterparts, yet BCUs require more CPU than turret damage mods.

For a dev: did you chose the level of buffage of the new mods to be lower than the turret counterparts to accommodate the equal CPU usage, or are you just giving missiles a free ride on this one? Is it safe to assume that the bonuses from these new modules are stacking penalized like their turret counterparts?

Please note that I am not complaining. I am simply curious and am rather excited to see how these play out. I do have to say though, a Phoenix with 3x midslot missile mods will be...interesting....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs