These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#841 - 2015-07-20 15:05:42 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
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.






This is true. However, the outcome is the same on a Raven, or really any ship for that matter.
TPs aren't a system specific to missiles, and truthfully, I even a caldai ewar system.

The Golem's bonus, while it does help, shouldn't override missile application.
I look as it like the Vindicator. Vindi has an awesome web bonus tha helps with tracking, but it doesn't replace tracking.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#842 - 2015-07-20 15:36:32 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Joe Risalo wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
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.






This is true. However, the outcome is the same on a Raven, or really any ship for that matter.
TPs aren't a system specific to missiles, and truthfully, I even a caldai ewar system.

The Golem's bonus, while it does help, shouldn't override missile application.
I look as it like the Vindicator. Vindi has an awesome web bonus tha helps with tracking, but it doesn't replace tracking.



They're always worse until there are 3+ TPs in play, even then still not fabulous and DAMNED sure not worth the trade offs.

To recap compared to a TP:

Higher fitting cost
Non-gang assisting
Costs more cap to activate (although higher cycle time arguably offsets)
WORSE benefit.

The low slot is also worse for you until you have a FORTH BCU to replace, because you know, a lot of people roll like that Roll


Yeah I can totally get behind these being used....Roll


Edit: I suppose the lack of falloff would be "a thing" if only missiles existed as a fleet level option....but they do not so.....you know....curate's egg.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#843 - 2015-07-20 16:21:56 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Soldarius wrote:
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.






This is true. However, the outcome is the same on a Raven, or really any ship for that matter.
TPs aren't a system specific to missiles, and truthfully, I even a caldai ewar system.

The Golem's bonus, while it does help, shouldn't override missile application.
I look as it like the Vindicator. Vindi has an awesome web bonus tha helps with tracking, but it doesn't replace tracking.



They're always worse until there are 3+ TPs in play, even then still not fabulous and DAMNED sure not worth the trade offs.

To recap compared to a TP:

Higher fitting cost
Non-gang assisting
Costs more cap to activate (although higher cycle time arguably offsets)
WORSE benefit.

The low slot is also worse for you until you have a FORTH BCU to replace, because you know, a lot of people roll like that Roll


Yeah I can totally get behind these being used....Roll


Edit: I suppose the lack of falloff would be "a thing" if only missiles existed as a fleet level option....but they do not so.....you know....curate's egg.


TBH, using Jav Torps out to 84kms (with my fit and implants), Using PWNAGE TPs, I can 1 volley most frigs in a mission.
With the MGCs, it was taking me 2-4 volleys.
Despite being well outside the optimal of PWNAGE, they still performed significantly better.
Again, this is in a Golem, which is bonused for it, but being that far out of optimal should have made a significant difference.

In a Raven, 3 TPs means you can swap one for a MGC, and be better off.. HOWEVER, most people don't fit 3 TPs on a Raven, and you would be MUCH MUCH better off using a web as opposed to the MGC...

MGC is only effective outside of TP and web range.. This essentially means that you need to be shooting at targets that are outside max targetting range of un-moduled missile boats.
And honestly, who uses a missile boat to snip?
About the only time I see this done is against structures, to which you don't need application bonuses.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#844 - 2015-07-20 17:19:46 UTC
MGEs are worse than a T1 rigor, T1 flare or meta target painter (regardless of hull bonuses). If you're going to drop a 4th T2 BCU it will be to utilize a T2 DCU as opposed to anything else. In fact, I'm not even sure the application benefits of a T2 MGE offset a 4th T2 BCU.

MGCs only benefit is in a missile-based gang environment where you have a TP-bonused hull already painting targets, you're not utilizing rigors or flares in your rig slots (for whatever reason), you have no free low slots and can spare a mid slot for a scripted MCG to enhance your damage application. Really, though - a single T1 rigor is worth more than a scripted T2 MCG since a straight explosion radius bonus is worth more than a combination of explosion radius and explosion velocity.

MGEs and MGS really have one application: range extension. This is not really advantageous for torpedoes outside of a Barghest because the velocity of torpedoes is abysmally slow (and I'm not sure there's any application where you'd want to snipe with torpedoes as opposed to cruise missiles). While you can utilize Javelins to boost range, you're actually more effective with cruise launchers and Precision ammunition. And you don't typically need to boost cruise missile range (even with Fury ammunition). Range benefits really seem geared towards light missiles (and rapid light missile launchers), assault missiles and some applications of heavy missiles.

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

Vibiana
Frontier Trading Company
#845 - 2015-07-21 01:56:29 UTC
Moar range for sacrelige? Sounds good'nuff.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#846 - 2015-07-21 02:31:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
I'm honestly considering as to whether or not it would make better sense if they just strip the app bonuses off of these things and focus on making them strictly a projection module. Why not? I can't really see the app bonuses going anywhere anyways and the marginal range buffs being the only really worth while reason to bring these at all makes bringing one for anything other than a bad idea, and even that on its own is a tough call to make since it still cuts into using other critical modules on both the med and low slot ends.

Come to think of it, that may actually be better anyways as it removes the issue of these modules having to live up to competing with other well established modules and allows them to focus on providing an ability said existing modules can't provide: projection. BCS's give ROF and damage, TP's for application and a fleet EWAR asset, and MCG/MCE for range. I don't know what you would have to do with the MGC scripting, though.

Back to the current situation at hand, an MGC scripted for range is already a "maybe" for some possible setups, and that's the absolute most useful out of all six modules. This only makes the other five appear largely useless right off the bat. Later faction variants might help save them if nothing else is done to them, but they'd have to be really good to make up for their meta-5-and-below cousins at this point. Hopefully, we won't have to wait that long for CCP to wake up.

I don't know; either way missiles are in for a rough ride this year it seems, and I have ominous doubts that the worst is over.

"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."

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#847 - 2015-07-21 03:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
The application bonus is theoretically useful in a gang/fleet situation where you have a dedicated TP boat.
Since you fitting TP's runs into stacking issues while your personal MGC's don't have stacking issues with the TP from the dedicated boat.

However the problem is that the MGC is being used as a band-aid for poor base application, without extra slots being given to fit it. Meaning that sure you can up your application in a gang/fleet situation, but only at the cost of tank or DPS. Which doesn't solve the issue of missiles being inferior overall.

They just need the application raised so firing inside class (Normal HM's at Cruisers, Rage at BC's) does 100% at a bare unfitted hull. And have a velocity sufficient to sensibly catch a normal MWD'ing cruiser running away with at least 50% real range. Then the weapon systems can actually be balanced after that application change properly.


Actual range of a missile = overtake velocity * flight time
If your missile goes 2k for 10s and the target goes 2k, it has 0 real range.
If your missile goes 2k for 10s and the target goes 1.9k it has a massive 1km real range
If your missile goes 2k for 10s and the target goes 1k it has a 10km real range.
So actual missile range is not as obvious as it appears.
----
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#848 - 2015-07-21 04:27:30 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
They just need the application raised so firing inside class (Normal HM's at Cruisers, Rage at BC's) does 100% at a bare unfitted hull. And have a velocity sufficient to sensibly catch a normal MWD'ing cruiser running away with at least 50% real range. Then the weapon systems can actually be balanced after that application change properly.


Sure, if you remove the falloff part of turrets and add that range to its optimal.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#849 - 2015-07-21 04:48:33 UTC
As is with changes like this, I'm rather curious to know what CCP's thoughts are on this. What parts do they agree with or disagree? Is their something they are seeing that we are not? Are they busy working up more refine and revised plan of attack, or are they happy with where things are so far? Their silence could be a very good or very bad thing. I'll admit I don't really blame them for keeping quiet. Lord knows, sometimes that might actually be for the best, even if it is and has always been a bit frustrating. I just wish I knew what they are thinking.

"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."

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#850 - 2015-07-21 05:33:10 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
As is with changes like this, I'm rather curious to know what CCP's thoughts are on this. What parts do they agree with or disagree? Is their something they are seeing that we are not? Are they busy working up more refine and revised plan of attack, or are they happy with where things are so far? Their silence could be a very good or very bad thing. I'll admit I don't really blame them for keeping quiet. Lord knows, sometimes that might actually be for the best, even if it is and has always been a bit frustrating. I just wish I knew what they are thinking.



I almost get the feeling that CCP is gonna pop out and say

"HA!!! We told you these wouldn't work!!!"
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#851 - 2015-07-21 05:36:01 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I almost get the feeling that CCP is gonna pop out and say

"HA!!! We told you these wouldn't work!!!"

Except we all told CCP they wouldn't work on their own without a proper rebalance of base missile stats anyway. So..... yea?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#852 - 2015-07-21 06:09:08 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
I just wish I knew what they are thinking.

"Did we honestly let CCP Rise touch missiles again?"

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#853 - 2015-07-21 06:18:37 UTC
I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#854 - 2015-07-21 07:29:45 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something.


You don't have to wonder, if there wasn't any stacking penalty on the rigs & guidance it would be lol overpowered. It makes sense for them to introduce penalties now that there's also modules for it but they didn't really think it through enough, or at all.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#855 - 2015-07-21 07:54:19 UTC
What they SHOULD have done is added stacking and left the application values alone. But nooooooooo "MAH TURRETZZZZZ!!!! NEED PERCENTS!!!!!!11111"
Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#856 - 2015-07-21 07:58:34 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something.


There are scant few ships that would sacrifice mids for the MGC is the common complaint.

Whether that's actually true is a matter for debate.

ps give the cerb another mid.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#857 - 2015-07-21 08:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm wondering.... Maybe if you took away the stacking penalty, they might be worth something.


There are scant few ships that would sacrifice mids for the MGC is the common complaint.

Whether that's actually true is a matter for debate.

ps give the cerb another mid.



The problem is on many levels.



  • Most barely have the slot to give, if it was good enough though....armor ships would be the exception but even then...
  • A PWNAGE is universally better, even in a stacking situation redundancy on a fleet assist mod is preferred so the loss of one ship doesn't gimp all the DPS.
  • They are FAR too hard to fit and a even a rigor I is better
  • Said rigor ALSO is easier to fit.



I mean really, in how many other cases is a T1 rig BETTER than a DEDICATED, ACTIVE AND SCRIPTED module?

And yes, I'm aware this is just asking for the nerf hammer on the rigs but screw it. Might as well make sure they're dead forever.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#858 - 2015-07-21 12:10:08 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
They just need the application raised so firing inside class (Normal HM's at Cruisers, Rage at BC's) does 100% at a bare unfitted hull. And have a velocity sufficient to sensibly catch a normal MWD'ing cruiser running away with at least 50% real range. Then the weapon systems can actually be balanced after that application change properly.


Sure, if you remove the falloff part of turrets and add that range to its optimal.


Now that we know you ARE daft, I advise you to stay quiet.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

stoicfaux
#859 - 2015-07-21 12:45:02 UTC
afkalt wrote:

I mean really, in how many other cases is a T1 rig BETTER than a DEDICATED, ACTIVE AND SCRIPTED module?


You're a bit off there, chief. A scripted MGC II is the equivalent of a T1 Rigor and a T1 Flare.

Which sounds great on paper, because it potentially freed missiles boats from the Tyranny of Mandatory Rigs. Which, oddly enough, didn't quite happen because you wind up either fitting a CPU rig to fit the MGC, or the loss of the mid to an MGC required you to use both now-free rigs to replace whatever the mid held before.

In other words, using an MGC to free up two rig slots tends to turn into a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation, despite the 1 mid <=> 2 rig slots swap. =/

So yeah, I'm on board with the whole "missile stats need to be adjusted because fiddling with modules/rigs isn't working" line of reasoning. However, Fleet TPs + MGCs could be overpowered, but with the stacking penalties and high CPU cost of the MGC, I'm not sure even that optimum use case is a problem.


[1] Outside the standard use case of fleets in which Someone Else(tm) provides the TPs.


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

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#860 - 2015-07-21 13:00:57 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
But is the flare not essentially ignored at the breakpoint anyway? I forget What?