These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mario Putzo
#661 - 2015-07-05 21:02:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Just an hourly (or so) reminder these changes suck.

What does it mean to you.

As a shield missile ship in order to keep the same application you get from rigs today, you must choose. Less DPS, or Less tank. This is not only about application, this is a direct impact on all shield missile ships. Or you must sacrifice further any utility slots all ready marginalized by limited slots due to shield tanking.

Less Tank + Same Application
Less Gank + Same Application
Less Utility + Same Application

Is this ultimately necessary? Where is the abort button?
Markos Cerrilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#662 - 2015-07-05 21:07:36 UTC
AskariRising wrote:
Zekora Rally wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
I have only one question: Wouldn't these missile TE/TCs put even Light missile engagement ranges well past 100 km mark - would that be intended?

I think it's the same kind of issue as the base drone stats staying unchanged IIRC on the introduction of DDAs. Smile
Fitting one of these on a caracal for example will require foregoing another mod. Whether it's a nano or BCU. It's a tradeoff for supposedly better damage application. Now to take advantage of a 100km missile range, a caracal will need a sebo to achieve this which in turn means much less tank or no TP. Sniping harpy/corm fits already hit targets out to this range and they don't have to deal with the 100km damage delay or the target supposedly warping off before damage is even applied.




its an issue on a caracal yes.

but a kestrel is a different story. kestrel vs corm, the kestrel has far better lock range.

a kestrel vs harpy, the kestrel has better range. a kestrel can hit targets at 97km just using rigs.

ive got a kessy right now thats cap stable with a lock range at 126km, a top speed of 2815m/s, and a missile range of 97km.

these new computers will increase my range even further.




Someone posted earlier about the velocity meta.
Try a Garmur.. with current speed meta Garmur/ Orthrus is the only ships applying missile dmg to catch the speed fits.. unless you can get close to slow them down.. which means they made a mistake.
Vailen Sere
State War Academy
Caldari State
#663 - 2015-07-06 00:49:48 UTC
The re-adjustment went too deep.
Suggestion:

Add back some of the explosion radius/velocity to increase dmg application across the board and remove from the mods.

Than it gives you two stats to manipulate same as the targeting computers, allowing them to be scripted.

Or as posted above, these come in on niche fits, and will mostly be unused.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#664 - 2015-07-06 02:57:46 UTC
They really put CCP's best and brightest on this one.

LOL, so small minded.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#665 - 2015-07-06 04:09:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Phaade wrote:
They really put CCP's best and brightest on this one.

LOL, so small minded.



TBH..after this patch I would recommend CCP put the Missile QA people on the drone QA team and well...stick the current drone QA team somewhere else (they are moving offices....lots of creative jobs come to mind, like why pay movers when you have employees already). Missile QA team went from getting our hope up to dashing them just on sisi alone. I will even be nice and say they have some "they were op" basis. I would give them kudos for that if actually legit. in a mere few weeks they killed a great idea we have wanted for years. May hate the results of that but have to admire in some sick way the efficacy and skill that requires.

Now lets pull drone QA and put these people here. If they apply the same level of effort....because of drones will suck for all all boats by (US) labor day. They'd at least kill the 1-2 problem children in the process. Missile QA team could pull this off. Sure as hell did damn fine work making me even go this crap isn't going to work out half decent even for my rattler. And that has slots to work with.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#666 - 2015-07-06 05:31:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
Ditto. I may slap a MGC II on my Golem in place of a 3rd TP, but certainly not because it would be better. I keep a 3rd TP on mainly for module redundancy, so that in cases where one of the first two fail to land a cycle, the 3rd offers a chance to make up for it. It'll be a move more for "science" on my part. At least I won't need to replace one of the rigors. Really feels like one step forward, two steps back. Except, we never even got to the one step forward part. Shame, really.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#667 - 2015-07-06 07:22:17 UTC
Well at least they didn't dump things down Big smile

that is a lot of switching modules and riggs switching and calculating, to get the same results Cool
Rea Rose
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#668 - 2015-07-06 09:20:56 UTC
I can see myself using the low slot one.

or bite the bullet, learn sentry's and get a rattlesnake :)
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#669 - 2015-07-06 14:32:54 UTC
Daily reminder that 7.5% bonuses all around for MGC II should be the norm.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Lise ap Nuygen
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#670 - 2015-07-06 14:49:02 UTC
defender missiles need serious AI work. when a launcher loaded with defenders is assigned to a target, it 'should' launch a defender automatically when the target launches a missile -- if the defending launcher is ready to launch. [it is the player's responsibility to assure that the combination of range and speeds allows the defender missile to hit the incoming missile.]

defender missiles "should" also target drones controlled by the targeted ship ...


imho, these are the substitute for EWAR type modules that are effective against missile equipped opponents. No new module or idea needed -- just make the existing defender missile system work.

ECM and sensor dampers will already work against missile equipped opponents -- except those using Auto-Targeting missiles.


{Aside: please fix auto-targeting missiles so that they select ships emitting active ECM first and then sensor damp second. the priority is to get your targeting back up, not to try to kill the ship that accidentally hits you first ...}
Tyape
Love the DaKa
#671 - 2015-07-06 14:57:22 UTC
Not to complain, but the new missile modules make me a little sad. Missiles and turrets are becoming more and more similar and bland. With the new modules, the only substantial difference between missiles and projectiles will be flight time.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#672 - 2015-07-06 14:58:35 UTC
Tyape wrote:
Not to complain, but the new missile modules make me a little sad. Missiles and turrets are becoming more and more similar and bland. With the new modules, the only substantial difference between missiles and projectiles will be flight time.



Well that, and the fact turrets are viable.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#673 - 2015-07-06 15:24:37 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Tyape wrote:
Not to complain, but the new missile modules make me a little sad. Missiles and turrets are becoming more and more similar and bland. With the new modules, the only substantial difference between missiles and projectiles will be flight time.



Well that, and the fact turrets are viable.


When the option you have in most case is to shoot downsized missiles (all rapid system) or out of class (torpedo on a frig hull) you know a system is kinda broken.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#674 - 2015-07-06 15:43:15 UTC
Core Defense Field Extender

Trimark Armor Pump



no stacking penalties, most common rigs in the game

better add stacking penalties to rigors LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#675 - 2015-07-06 16:54:48 UTC
Capqu wrote:
Core Defense Field Extender

Trimark Armor Pump



no stacking penalties, most common rigs in the game

better add stacking penalties to rigors LOL

Different game mechanic than missile stats.

No item that adds raw HP or a percentage of HP is stacking penalized.

Every item that modifies weapon performance except missile rigs is stacking penalized. The missile rigs becoming stacking penalized is a necessary, albeit horribly ill-timed, step to maintain consistency with core game mechanics. I see it as a bug fix more than anything. To those who are saying that the lack of penalty made up for poor performance, I say that the problem is with missiles, not the rigs. Letting one set of rigs stay bugged for years to compensate for poor missile performance says a lot about how bad off missiles really are overall.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#676 - 2015-07-06 17:09:29 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Capqu wrote:
Core Defense Field Extender

Trimark Armor Pump



no stacking penalties, most common rigs in the game

better add stacking penalties to rigors LOL

Different game mechanic than missile stats.

No item that adds raw HP or a percentage of HP is stacking penalized.

Every item that modifies weapon performance except missile rigs is stacking penalized. The missile rigs becoming stacking penalized is a necessary, albeit horribly ill-timed, step to maintain consistency with core game mechanics. I see it as a bug fix more than anything. To those who are saying that the lack of penalty made up for poor performance, I say that the problem is with missiles, not the rigs. Letting one set of rigs stay bugged for years to compensate for poor missile performance says a lot about how bad off missiles really are overall.


Then maybe they could fix the issue while fixing the rigs instead of giving us a sub-par mod as an excuse to be touching missile and fix the stacking irregularity.
Torrent Talon
Hierarch Apotheosis Consortium
#677 - 2015-07-06 18:10:34 UTC
not trying to be pedantic, but to fit the current missile enhancing modules, should these not be called 'ballistic guidance enhancer/computer'
Kamahl Daikun
State War Academy
Caldari State
#678 - 2015-07-06 18:29:54 UTC
Eh...

I started with Caldari. For PvE, Caldari ships are pretty awesome. In fact, they're still pretty awesome.
However, when I want to PvP, I almost never pick Caldari for obvious reasons. With these new changes to missile modules, I'm contemplating spamming someone at CCP with requests for a SP refund.

These new modules aren't fixing the problem. Furthermore, I don't expect to see a return of Heavy Missiles either. Since their damage wasn't exactly the main problem anyway.
Lastly, what hulls use Torpedoes? I'm honestly curious. I can't remember the last time I've seen anyone use Torps in PvP. Even Bombers don't use Torps.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#679 - 2015-07-06 18:30:59 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Different game mechanic than missile stats.

No item that adds raw HP or a percentage of HP is stacking penalized.

Every item that modifies weapon performance except missile rigs is stacking penalized. The missile rigs becoming stacking penalized is a necessary, albeit horribly ill-timed, step to maintain consistency with core game mechanics. I see it as a bug fix more than anything. To those who are saying that the lack of penalty made up for poor performance, I say that the problem is with missiles, not the rigs. Letting one set of rigs stay bugged for years to compensate for poor missile performance says a lot about how bad off missiles really are overall.


Then maybe they could fix the issue while fixing the rigs instead of giving us a sub-par mod as an excuse to be touching missile and fix the stacking irregularity.

I agree 100%. Sadly, CCP doesn't.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#680 - 2015-07-06 18:56:06 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Poranius Fisc wrote:
Hanazava Karyna wrote:
Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.


It's called ECM

Roll Which is not missile specific. What don't you get?


In that case missiles should be able to crit.

Dampner's are not specific either, you can still cut the legs off any missile ship with a proper fit celestis.

You want ewar specifically for missiles? thats going to need to be a new ship and and a new module. Very Niche fit. It's going to get burned alot.

Fix defender missiles. Done.