These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#601 - 2015-07-03 15:44:01 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Okay everyone so officially, for the record, application rig bonuses will be stacking penalized with both each other and with the new application modules. I'm sorry I couldn't get that made clearer sooner, and I was hoping it would be in the patch notes.


Thank you for the answer.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Dave stark
#602 - 2015-07-03 15:45:07 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
tl;dr - An entire missile balance package that maybe ships like the Typhoon can take advantage of, and even that is somewhat debatable.


/grumble


and a nerf to every ship using multiple application rigs, which due to how missiles work is going to be nearly all of them.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#603 - 2015-07-03 16:34:38 UTC
This thread went the same as the Recon thread.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Mario Putzo
#604 - 2015-07-03 16:36:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Soldarius wrote:
This thread went the same as the Recon thread.


What do ya mean by that. Heavy Missiles are getting a net 1% damage increase from where we are today. You should be thankful.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#605 - 2015-07-03 16:38:12 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Who exactly benefits from all this?
* Fits that use one flare/rigor rig and don't have the CPU/mid free for MGCs are unaffected.
* Fits that use multiple TPs and no rigor/flare rigs are getting buffed slightly (MGC doesn't stack with TPs.)
* Long range (sniping) missile fits that ran TPs in deep fallout will probably benefit from MGCs.
* PvE fits that run with three Rigor rigs are nerfed (and will need to replace one of those Rigors with a Flare to minimize stacking penalty.)
* Fits that need missile range over applied damage will benefit assuming they can fit enough MGC/MGEs without gimping themselves.

Doesn't looks so bad. Balancing ship PvE wise is wrong, CCP don't give a s*** about pve anyway.

Soldarius wrote:
This thread went the same as the Recon thread.

What happen in recon thread, at some point I've stopped following it?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#606 - 2015-07-03 16:40:44 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
tl;dr - An entire missile balance package that maybe ships like the Typhoon can take advantage of, and even that is somewhat debatable.


/grumble


and a nerf to every ship using multiple application rigs, which due to how missiles work is going to be nearly all of them.


But they were overpowered!

Something, something turret penis/statistic envy
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#607 - 2015-07-03 17:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Guys, can I bring a Drake? Rise said they were getting buffed, so surely they're going to be better than they were. Right?

Edit: I'm not sure how to fit my new, badass Drake. Do I use pulse or beam lasers?
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#608 - 2015-07-03 17:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Zekora Rally
Mario Putzo wrote:
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Okay everyone so officially, for the record, application rig bonuses will be stacking penalized with both each other and with the new application modules. I'm sorry I couldn't get that made clearer sooner, and I was hoping it would be in the patch notes.


Missiles must have been OP for CCP to decide to nerf them again.

Exactly, which is why missile ships top the killboard charts and deal the most damage per ship class. /Sarcasm

http://i.imgur.com/yfeQpc4.jpg
The link above shows the dire state that missile platforms are in and yet this is what CCP devs manage to put together as a solution which is not surprising in the least since all our feedback have been thrown into the wind and no one knows exactly where all the feedback they actually used to make the final changes came from. Members of the csm that contributed to said change haven't said jack rabbit in this thread pertaining to why said changes were made and I certainly won't be voting for anyone currently there for the next CSM.

At the end of the day, torps will still be useless on anything other than stealth bombers. Everyone will still be using rapid launchers despite ridiculous reload times.
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#609 - 2015-07-03 17:47:42 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
This is a great suggestion, and might make balancing these variables easier, instead of tying them together.

Mario Putzo wrote:
However i would take it one step further and actually just remove the Range benefit entirely to a second module. To me it seems like an unneeded adjustment for 1, and is probably the reason these modules look wonky numbers wise compared to TC's and TE's. This would give us 1 module type with the following.

7.5% ER and 7.5% EV

Scripted either
15% ER and 7.5% EV (100% increase to ER script)
7.5% ER and 15% EV (100% increase to EV script)

Both ER and EV are already tied together, and the ER script is better in every possible situation. There are only two differences that I can find between ER and EV. First, bonuses for ER are more effective than the same bonus for EV. For example, a 20% reduction in ER gives a 1.25 multiplier while a 25% bonus to EV is needed to give the same multiplier. Second, an ER bonus raises the damage for targets with low speeds and a signature lower than the missile ER while EV does not. In other words if the target signature is greater than the ER of the missile, ER and EV affect damage in exactly the same manner.


Soldarius wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:

The problem will not get worse because the modules are not strong enough to make anything worse. However, I am pretty sure we are going to see is the rise of the Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher. Most battleships have one bonus for RHML and the worst bonus (RoF), but with the new module they should be competitive. Battleships also have the extra slots that smaller ships do not. Nothing will be broken, but we will have another strange weapon system like RLML.


Actually, there are exactly 6 BS that have bonuses that apply to RHML. They are the Raven, Scorpion Navy Issue, and the Typhoon, all with the same 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF. The Typhoon Fleet Issue has a 7.5% per level bonus to heavy missile damage. The Rattlesnake gets a 10% per level bonus to all missiles kinetic and thermal damage, and the Barghest gets a flat 50% bonus to all missile ranges, and a 5% per level bonus to all missile damage. Any other bonuses are to cruise missiles and torpedoes.

None of them has an application bonus that applies to heavy missiles. Only one of them has two bonuses to heavy missiles.

Also, let this be our daily reminder that MGC II needs 7.5% base bonuses to each category.

There are 8 if you include T2 BS like the Widow and Golem.
The Widow has a 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF.
The Golem gets 100% bonus damage to heavy missile damage.

For some reason, cruisers get a 50% bonus to max velocity at perfect skills for light missiles, but BS do not get that bonus for heavy missiles. Gorski Car said this on reddit "The missile TCs in particular were too strong in their pre nerf stage. With a range script you boosted both speed and fuel by almost 20%. This created some really oppressive scenarios with certain ships. Things like 180km RLML Cerbs shooting super fast missiles protecting the grid from frigs..." Maybe the velocity bonus for light missile on cruisers should have been removed along with a reduction in the range of long range missiles instead of changing the MGC and MGE.

Note: BC do not have any bonuses for either weapon system.

Missile Rebalance
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#610 - 2015-07-03 18:03:15 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
GreyGryphon wrote:
Chance Ravinne wrote:
This is a great suggestion, and might make balancing these variables easier, instead of tying them together.

Mario Putzo wrote:
However i would take it one step further and actually just remove the Range benefit entirely to a second module. To me it seems like an unneeded adjustment for 1, and is probably the reason these modules look wonky numbers wise compared to TC's and TE's. This would give us 1 module type with the following.

7.5% ER and 7.5% EV

Scripted either
15% ER and 7.5% EV (100% increase to ER script)
7.5% ER and 15% EV (100% increase to EV script)

Both ER and EV are already tied together, and the ER script is better in every possible situation. There are only two differences that I can find between ER and EV. First, bonuses for ER are more effective than the same bonus for EV. For example, a 20% reduction in ER gives a 1.25 multiplier while a 25% bonus to EV is needed to give the same multiplier. Second, an ER bonus raises the damage for targets with low speeds and a signature lower than the missile ER while EV does not. In other words if the target signature is greater than the ER of the missile, ER and EV affect damage in exactly the same manner.


Soldarius wrote:
GreyGryphon wrote:

The problem will not get worse because the modules are not strong enough to make anything worse. However, I am pretty sure we are going to see is the rise of the Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher. Most battleships have one bonus for RHML and the worst bonus (RoF), but with the new module they should be competitive. Battleships also have the extra slots that smaller ships do not. Nothing will be broken, but we will have another strange weapon system like RLML.


Actually, there are exactly 6 BS that have bonuses that apply to RHML. They are the Raven, Scorpion Navy Issue, and the Typhoon, all with the same 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF. The Typhoon Fleet Issue has a 7.5% per level bonus to heavy missile damage. The Rattlesnake gets a 10% per level bonus to all missiles kinetic and thermal damage, and the Barghest gets a flat 50% bonus to all missile ranges, and a 5% per level bonus to all missile damage. Any other bonuses are to cruise missiles and torpedoes.

None of them has an application bonus that applies to heavy missiles. Only one of them has two bonuses to heavy missiles.

Also, let this be our daily reminder that MGC II needs 7.5% base bonuses to each category.

There are 8 if you include T2 BS like the Widow and Golem.
The Widow has a 5% per level bonus to RHML RoF.
The Golem gets 100% bonus damage to heavy missile damage.

For some reason, cruisers get a 50% bonus to max velocity at perfect skills for light missiles, but BS do not get that bonus for heavy missiles. Gorski Car said this on reddit "The missile TCs in particular were too strong in their pre nerf stage. With a range script you boosted both speed and fuel by almost 20%. This created some really oppressive scenarios with certain ships. Things like 180km RLML Cerbs shooting super fast missiles protecting the grid from frigs..." Maybe the velocity bonus for light missile on cruisers should have been removed along with a reduction in the range of long range missiles instead of changing the MGC and MGE.

Note: BC do not have any bonuses for either weapon system.



Somehow I don't think that extra 50km range was a big deal when they can toss RLML missiles at 133km @11.8km/s today.

Damned sure not a good enough reason to make rigor/flare stack like they do now.

And best not mention the locking range, or lack thereof. Or the fact a cerb with a two slot tank (or less, rigs, mids dedicated to range, sebos and prop mod) will fold like a deck of cards to a stiff breeze, no....best freak out and stomp on them quickly. Heaven forfend an outlier hull got a little tweak to make the mods practical for everyone else. If required

/shakes_head
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#611 - 2015-07-03 18:41:00 UTC
Why is a CSM answering a question asked to the devs?

Though that said I guess we can all rest easy knowing all threads in this forum are utterly useless if a closed door secret meeting without any oversight feels differently than it does.


The very worst overall weapons platform for PVP in the game gets nerfed without a single hard number to show why..
Whelp it is a dictatorship not a democracy so I guess par for the course?
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#612 - 2015-07-03 18:47:33 UTC  |  Edited by: scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Nafensoriel wrote:
Why is a CSM answering a question asked to the devs?

Though that said I guess we can all rest easy knowing all threads in this forum are utterly useless if a closed door secret meeting without any oversight feels differently than it does.


The very worst overall weapons platform for PVP in the game gets nerfed without a single hard number to show why..
Whelp it is a dictatorship not a democracy so I guess par for the course?

Well, at least he's trying. More than we are able to say about the devs at the moment. Maybe they're doing something, maybe they're looking at new stats, or maybe they're making Drake shaped voodoo dolls and visiting atrocities upon them in remembrance of their sins. Who knows?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#613 - 2015-07-03 18:57:03 UTC
afkalt wrote:



Somehow I don't think that extra 50km range was a big deal when they can toss RLML missiles at 133km @11.8km/s today.

Damned sure not a good enough reason to make rigor/flare stack like they do now.

And best not mention the locking range, or lack thereof. Or the fact a cerb with a two slot tank (or less, rigs, mids dedicated to range, sebos and prop mod) will fold like a deck of cards to a stiff breeze, no....best freak out and stomp on them quickly. Heaven forfend an outlier hull got a little tweak to make the mods practical for everyone else. If required

/shakes_head


And if the inty was more than like 55km away from the cerb, he has the time to align out and enter warp even with a MWD running...
GreyGryphon
The Spartains
#614 - 2015-07-03 19:01:30 UTC
2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).

2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors.

Missile Rebalance
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#615 - 2015-07-03 19:09:37 UTC
GreyGryphon wrote:
2 T2 Rigors and 1 T1 Rigor now provide a bonus of ~165% with stacking penalties instead of ~184% (about a 10% decrease).

2 T2 Rigors, 1 T1 Rigor, and three MGC II @ 15% with stacking penalties provides a bonus of 249%. This is about the same as one 60% web. It would be ~384% without stacking penalties on rigors.


6 slots of a fit dedicated to application to get over a web...
Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#616 - 2015-07-03 19:13:23 UTC
I should make it clear that I have no issue with the CSMs or with Chance for bringing any info to this thread...

The problem is he, nor any other CSM, has direct authority to do that without it being hearsay.

They are unpaid users of CCPs product enlisted by player elections to provide advice. In other words they are a focus group.
Sending a CSM here to bring any information to paying customers is disgusting. If I took one of my customers and had them go around and tell all my other customers how I'm changing my products I'd be out of business in a week.



If these changes have been vetted by clear information for the good of eve then fine.. all well and good. Shockingly enough I actually support CCP in many of the changes they have made over the last few years even if I disagree with some of them out of personal preference.

My issue is with the conduct of these discussions. If you enlist your player base to provide feedback.. then it is a two way street. Everything we the players have at our disposal is contradicting the gigantic volume of no information from CCP.. so where exactly is our carrot for providing any future feedback?
Chan'aar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#617 - 2015-07-03 19:20:45 UTC
Nafensoriel wrote:
Why is a CSM answering a question asked to the devs?



That is a very good (and telling) question.

CCP Dev "Hey missile fans here is something to help you out, MGC's and MGE's ... oh no wait, we can't help missiles, here have a nerf instead."

Roll
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#618 - 2015-07-03 19:38:34 UTC
I'm going to have to bring out a cat picture to communicate my opinion about this change and it's handling.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#619 - 2015-07-03 20:25:26 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Heyo

It's getting pretty close to release and I have a lot of balance changes we need to talk about!

This thread is for discussion on a package of missile changes that we are pretty excited to see the results of. So what's in this package?

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................




Let us know what you think!


we think you should stop. just that : stop. leave missiles alone or if not call some dev who knows how they work and hand this rebalance to him; it's pretty clear you have no idea what to do with them

oh, and thx for all the responses and all the feedback you provided into this topic...and the dda change one. how was it again, "eve belong to the players and we promise not to ignore them again" or something like that?
well, i guess some ppl never learn
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#620 - 2015-07-03 23:46:54 UTC
Nafensoriel wrote:

If these changes have been vetted by clear information for the good of eve then fine.. all well and good. Shockingly enough I actually support CCP in many of the changes they have made over the last few years even if I disagree with some of them out of personal preference.

My issue is with the conduct of these discussions. If you enlist your player base to provide feedback.. then it is a two way street. Everything we the players have at our disposal is contradicting the gigantic volume of no information from CCP.. so where exactly is our carrot for providing any future feedback?



This. Exactly this.

Nerfs/buffs should be brought down with numbers, irrefutable statistics and data supporting them.

I actually don't care that you're backtracking and nerfing, it is how it was handled.

No math
No stats
No justification beyond a CCP handwave.

You didn't even give the time of day to justify the changes to the existing things. What is particularly galling is that in general the community are sympathetic towards "legacy code" type issues - which the stacking rigs clearly are.

That you don't even have the decency to confirm they stack, that it's legacy code necessitated by the new mods is downright disrespectful.

I'm supportive of a lot of controversial CCP calls, but this is a bridge too far.

We're neither idiots nor small children, stop treating us like it when you could so easily prove the point mathematically.