These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#821 - 2015-07-19 14:55:35 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
...Full 100% application is silly and removes any sort of tactics and choices from the game creating a massive power creep. EVE had it early on and while it was hilarious it was also dumb.


You do realize that 100% application would also apply to defender missiles right?

Anyhow to balance missiles we could also introduce a damage delay to all turrets, a defender anti-shell turret, make turret shells destructable and give missile wrecking explosions.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#822 - 2015-07-19 15:30:49 UTC
Ok, so I attempted to use 3 of these with precision scripts on a Torp Golem.
They were terribad..

I went back to using triple PWNAGE TPs.

MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp.
They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them...
they're great for range, but that's it.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#823 - 2015-07-19 16:25:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Joe Risalo wrote:
MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp.
They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them...
they're great for range, but that's it.

This is basically what the general consensus has been, yes. And I'm not even sure they're that great for range; is it really worth a mid slot to pick up 10% flight time and 10% velocity with an active module? On a Golem I think you'd be better off with a passive T2 hydraulic rig that gets you a flat 20% velocity and use the mid for a target painter, stasis web, large micro jump drive, etc. I can't even see how a MTC would be beneficial on smaller ships as the mids are even more crucial there. Extra range is borderline useless without any kind of appreciable damage application, and you're going to consistently lose volleys to lead time unless you're running one or the Mordu ships.

Those that said this was going to be a missile nerf from the outset basically called it.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#824 - 2015-07-19 16:30:02 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Missiles have too many advantages, not necessarily quantifiable ones, to only look at stats and go "make them on par".

And of course this is why Drakes with heavy missiles dominate fleet engagements...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#825 - 2015-07-19 16:57:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Missiles have too many advantages, not necessarily quantifiable ones, to only look at stats and go "make them on par".

And of course this is why Drakes with heavy missiles dominate fleet engagements...


Which other CBC dominates fleet engagements, exactly: none of them. On the whole Heavies aren't bad for the range they have, they just have too much range with too little application so that's easily solved methinks.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#826 - 2015-07-19 19:41:29 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp.
They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them...
they're great for range, but that's it.

This is basically what the general consensus has been, yes. And I'm not even sure they're that great for range; is it really worth a mid slot to pick up 10% flight time and 10% velocity with an active module? On a Golem I think you'd be better off with a passive T2 hydraulic rig that gets you a flat 20% velocity and use the mid for a target painter, stasis web, large micro jump drive, etc. I can't even see how a MTC would be beneficial on smaller ships as the mids are even more crucial there. Extra range is borderline useless without any kind of appreciable damage application, and you're going to consistently lose volleys to lead time unless you're running one or the Mordu ships.

Those that said this was going to be a missile nerf from the outset basically called it.


See, here's the problem.

Even outside of optimal, the TPs on a Golem still perform better than MTCs.
Now, on a Raven, I don't know. I think a TP is still better than an MTC, but I don't know by how much.

It seems like the MTC is really only effective for heavy missiles, which have poor application, but also have poor range.
However, I still feel that they're the only missiles that would be more positively effected by MTC than any other missile system.
Rockets and lights don't really need application bonuses, as they're already quite effective, rockets have good enough range for brawling, and lights actually have great range for a frig class weapon.

IDK.. I guess they're broken either way..
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#827 - 2015-07-19 21:14:30 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
See, here's the problem.

Even outside of optimal, the TPs on a Golem still perform better than MTCs.
Now, on a Raven, I don't know. I think a TP is still better than an MTC, but I don't know by how much.

It seems like the MTC is really only effective for heavy missiles, which have poor application, but also have poor range.
However, I still feel that they're the only missiles that would be more positively effected by MTC than any other missile system.
Rockets and lights don't really need application bonuses, as they're already quite effective, rockets have good enough range for brawling, and lights actually have great range for a frig class weapon.

IDK.. I guess they're broken either way..


If you confess to not knowing and state that heavies have.... poor range, perhaps it's best to not post?
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#828 - 2015-07-19 21:29:23 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
See, here's the problem.

Even outside of optimal, the TPs on a Golem still perform better than MTCs.
Now, on a Raven, I don't know. I think a TP is still better than an MTC, but I don't know by how much.

It seems like the MTC is really only effective for heavy missiles, which have poor application, but also have poor range.
However, I still feel that they're the only missiles that would be more positively effected by MTC than any other missile system.
Rockets and lights don't really need application bonuses, as they're already quite effective, rockets have good enough range for brawling, and lights actually have great range for a frig class weapon.

IDK.. I guess they're broken either way..


If you confess to not knowing and state that heavies have.... poor range, perhaps it's best to not post?


Well, that consideration is really more based off what they used to be, and how ineffective their application is.
You would assume that their lack luster application would be countered by range.

Factoring range alone, they're OK... Once you factor in application, you would assume their range would be greater to compensate for application.

IMO, missiles seemed to be a bit backwards across the board, really.
Short range missiles have worse application, despite the shorter range.

Application is essentially tracking for missiles.
With turrets, short range have more damage and better tracking.
long range have, well, greater range, typically by quite a bit.

In the case of missiles, short range means worse application with higher DPS.
Why does a cruise missile have better application at short range, with less module assistance, than torps?
That would be like swapping rail and blaster tracking.

Back on topic though, when CCP nerfed heavies, they should have nerfed range OR application. Instead, they nerfed both and gave a lack luster weapon system.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#829 - 2015-07-19 23:25:35 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:

Missiles apply their damage regardless of range, turrets do not and may/will require ammo swapping (costing time and thus dps) to even TRY doing damage at all ranges. You can't just point at one stat and go "see, that's worse!"

Range on missiles is dictated by overtake velocity. Not just paper range. Guns their range is exactly what you see. And missiles have a range with no fall off at all.
So..... Come back with a better argument than the one that missiles range is somehow better than guns.
As soon as you introduce the target ships velocity into the equation missile range can be decreased dramatically simply by flying away from the shooting ship. Or even orbiting around it decreases the effective range.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#830 - 2015-07-19 23:34:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:

Missiles apply their damage regardless of range, turrets do not and may/will require ammo swapping (costing time and thus dps) to even TRY doing damage at all ranges. You can't just point at one stat and go "see, that's worse!"

Range on missiles is dictated by overtake velocity. Not just paper range. Guns their range is exactly what you see. And missiles have a range with no fall off at all.
So..... Come back with a better argument than the one that missiles range is somehow better than guns.
As soon as you introduce the target ships velocity into the equation missile range can be decreased dramatically simply by flying away from the shooting ship. Or even orbiting around it decreases the effective range.


Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#831 - 2015-07-20 01:51:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand.

Missiles do not work at all of their ranges equally well. I would point out the rationale why, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. So if you truly believe this, then feel free to venture solo into low-sec with a Navy Drake. Let us know where to send flowers to next of kin...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#832 - 2015-07-20 03:34:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand.

Missiles do not work at all of their ranges equally well. I would point out the rationale why, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. So if you truly believe this, then feel free to venture solo into low-sec with a Navy Drake. Let us know where to send flowers to next of kin...


Do tell us how it would end any different from any other BC using turrets.


- side note -

Anyone who solos in a CBC and gets kited to death is a fcking moron. So if you're trying to go there I'll just laugh at you.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#833 - 2015-07-20 04:11:38 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
...- side note -

Anyone who solos in a CBC and gets kited to death is a fcking moron. So if you're trying to go there I'll just laugh at you.


Please stop posting alltogether. I was already here when missiles had 100% application and it was percieved as the end of the world because NOBODY had the skills and gear we do have now.

Maybe your mind is not capable of comprehending that missiles are not all weapons in EVE and you can still yolo-swap-Ishtar-sentry everyone the same way you can now.

Missiles come with enough downsides and that people didn't use all the tools we have already is not my fault - it's theirs.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#834 - 2015-07-20 04:27:12 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Yes and given enough transversal the turrets will also miss, so that evens out. The POINT is that missiles work at all of their ranges equally well, whereas turrets have many more variables to control in regards to optimal, falloff and ammo choices. This is not difficult to understand.

Missiles do not work at all of their ranges equally well. I would point out the rationale why, but I suspect I would be wasting my time. So if you truly believe this, then feel free to venture solo into low-sec with a Navy Drake. Let us know where to send flowers to next of kin...


Do tell us how it would end any different from any other BC using turrets.


- side note -

Anyone who solos in a CBC and gets kited to death is a fcking moron. So if you're trying to go there I'll just laugh at you.


If my range is 50kms with missiles, I will not hit a moving target if he is at 50kms.

Also, I have seen missiles hit for 0 damage before.

I've also seen a frigate 9km from a BS, using a warp scram, orbit at max speed with a missile volley chasing it, until the missiles ran out of gas.


There's this silly little rumor that has always gone around that missiles always hit...
Yes, the most definitely always hit structures and parked ships.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#835 - 2015-07-20 06:34:05 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
...- side note -

Anyone who solos in a CBC and gets kited to death is a fcking moron. So if you're trying to go there I'll just laugh at you.


Please stop posting alltogether. I was already here when missiles had 100% application and it was percieved as the end of the world because NOBODY had the skills and gear we do have now.

Maybe your mind is not capable of comprehending that missiles are not all weapons in EVE and you can still yolo-swap-Ishtar-sentry everyone the same way you can now.

Missiles come with enough downsides and that people didn't use all the tools we have already is not my fault - it's theirs.



100% application means frigates get one shot by a cruise missile volley and while hilarious for a little bit it also renders frigates completely useless. Back then it sortof worked (not really) because the frigates themselves ALSO ran cruise missiles. You asking, in this current EVE where frigates do not have similar dps or volley, for 100% application means that we might as well delete frigates altogether.


Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#836 - 2015-07-20 06:37:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
Joe Risalo wrote:
I've also seen a frigate 9km from a BS, using a warp scram, orbit at max speed with a missile volley chasing it, until the missiles ran out of gas.


There's this silly little rumor that has always gone around that missiles always hit...
Yes, the most definitely always hit structures and parked ships.


That has nothing to do with the range of the frigate but with its speed. And stop over exaggerating.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#837 - 2015-07-20 06:41:21 UTC
And to the both of you, and anyone else chiming in on this: The REASON you'd have to be a fcking moron to get kited in a solo CBC is because non-idiots fit MJD on them which is a direct counter to kiting. It will save you in the majority of situations because the chance of running into a point range bonused ship that's actually using scrams is VERY slim, especially so in low sec.

This has NOTHING to do with said CBC being missile based or not.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#838 - 2015-07-20 13:52:36 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
100% application means frigates get one shot by a cruise missile volley and while hilarious for a little bit it also renders frigates completely useless. Back then it sortof worked (not really) because the frigates themselves ALSO ran cruise missiles. You asking, in this current EVE where frigates do not have similar dps or volley, for 100% application means that we might as well delete frigates altogether.


Whenever you hit approach on a turret boat, yes even a dread, a frigate wil get vaporized with one single shot. Now let's remove turrets from the game since they are all op.

Again, you do realize that our one time use artillery-drones do need to be launched and fly to their destination first right?

People always will come up with counters and even if we would get 100% application back, you do need a target lock on something to shoot and a frigate takes like an hour to lock. By the time a Raven appears on grid and has slowed down enough to make a target lock in the first place, your gang might have put her into armor already.

You need to look at it from ALL angles, not a (as in one) single edge-case scenario to "proove" your point.

I am still willing to go with Nevyn's approach IF they change the damage application formular to ditch the speed part and only let the target signature decide how much damage is applied.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#839 - 2015-07-20 14:35:33 UTC
Stop being dumb.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#840 - 2015-07-20 14:55:32 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Ok, so I attempted to use 3 of these with precision scripts on a Torp Golem.
They were terribad..

I went back to using triple PWNAGE TPs.

MTC has nowhere near the same effect as a tracking comp.
They're virtually useless, unless you're trying to get range out of them...
they're great for range, but that's it.


Dude, Golem has the same TP bonuses as a Hyena or Huginn! Its like a torp BS and a recon wrapped into one. What did you think was going to happen? Thats like comparing watermelons to oranges. Yes, they are both fruits. But that's about it. Ofc you would use MGC on a golem for range and not precision, and stick with the massively bonused TPs for better application.




http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY