These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#81 - 2015-06-19 15:02:13 UTC
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:
Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application


its almost like there is a new mod that is designed to enhance the torps to be more precise and go longer range...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#82 - 2015-06-19 15:06:33 UTC
I think a better solution to missiles disruption would be this. Create a Defender missile mod small, medium, and large. Make this a mid slot mod so it fits more in line with other EWAR mods. Give the Falcon and Rook and Kitsune a bonus to rate of fire of defender missiles. Change the damage type of defenders to omni. You now have all Recon and EWAR frigs with 2 EWAR mods each.
Phaade
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#83 - 2015-06-19 15:07:28 UTC
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.


+1

Please remove links!
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#84 - 2015-06-19 15:08:37 UTC
Good changes, but I find that Capqu is usually right about these sorts of things. You might consider his comments carefully regarding light missiles.

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

stoicfaux
#85 - 2015-06-19 15:08:56 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Andre Vauban wrote:
Any thoughts of creating a tracking disruptor equivalent for missiles?

None what-so-ever:
"We would have liked to include disruption modules to go along with these enhancement modules but there are actually some technical hurdles we need to figure out and we didn't want to keep holding back on adding these in the mean time. Look for those sometime in the future."

/RTFMOP Big smile

Don't be so smug. It is not none what so ever. Just more of the SOON. Hope that really is soon this time because no one will be flying anything small soon. Ugh

"None what-so-ever" in this context was polite sarcasm, i.e. I was emphasizing that the question was covered in the original post. Probably should have gone with "Nope, none whatsoever" instead.

Or maybe, "none whatsoever" in this context implies a lack of faith in CCP's determination in overcoming the technical issues, thus implying that MGEs/MGCs will remain "overpowered" for the long haul. So, still sarcasm.


/always_have_more_than_one_reason_for_doing_something...

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

Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
#86 - 2015-06-19 15:09:02 UTC
I'm a little disappointed in these missile changes, to be honest. Even if there's a problem with missiles, this approach just makes them even more like turrets. I would have preferred a solution that didn't just copy how turrets do things. I think the biggest problem with missiles is almost all missile-boats are shield-tanked, which severely limits their options. The Typhoon, Sacrilege, Damnation, Vengeance and Gnosis being the only armor-tanked missile-bonused ships.

Regarding EWar, make defender missiles a mid-slot and make them not suck?

MeBiatch wrote:
Tonrak awesomesauce wrote:
Is there any news regarding torpedoes? They are really bad currently, both lacking range and damage application


its almost like there is a new mod that is designed to enhance the torps to be more precise and go longer range...

Target painters and stasis webs, as well.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#87 - 2015-06-19 15:29:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Bronson Hughes wrote:
As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome.

Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server.

Bronson Hughes wrote:
You missed the point I think. At the bottom of Rise's OP (which is what stoicfaux linked), Rise talks about adding missile-based EWAR eventually, just not right now.

No I didn't. That is why I alliterated the soon.Blink


While I hate ecm and what it does currently. It would not be a fix to change it to what you suggest. ECM has a valid use as a counter to logi and remote effects.

TD makes more sense since the TD boats are not used much anyway.

But at least you were thinking creatively. I presented a thread about an option to give painters an anti drone control effect, control range or less likely tracking on them. All I got was flames. But Im still of the opinion that that could work. A painted ship could be so electromagnetically lit up that it would interfere with the base control range, Drone Link Augmenters, and/or Omni effects. And likewise, dedicated painter boats are not used as much as the Damp or ECM boats.

edit : defenders suck, and always will. and if ever they somehow didn't they would still require a launcher slot which many ships do not have.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

M1k3y Koontz
Speaker for the Dead
Stay Feral
#88 - 2015-06-19 15:38:43 UTC
TinkerHell wrote:
I dont even get why these are needed.


Because missiles (other than RLMLs) are ****.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#89 - 2015-06-19 15:41:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Deacon Abox wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome.

Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server.

I am 90% certain that target-related values (target velocity, signature radius, resists, etc.) are calculated at impact. This would include the target being painted, webbed, running a prop mod, etc.

As for the missile buffing mods, in order to get the full benefit of the velocity/flight time bonuses, they would have to be applied at launch. Since it doesn't make much sense to me to have a module apply some of its bonuses at launch and some at impact, I'm guessing that the missile explosion velocity and explosion radius bonuses would be applied at launch as well.

This last bit is pure speculation mind you.

EDIT: Clarified the first bit.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#90 - 2015-06-19 15:42:49 UTC
So, suddenly a weapon system that truly sucked for pvp (with a few hull-bonused exceptions), now does not suck.
For some reason I am reminded of the heady days of blapping countless goon drakes (because that's all they were allowed to fly).

Looking forward to this change!
Brain Eater
Essence Industries
#91 - 2015-06-19 15:53:21 UTC
I think the fitting is actually reasonable for the smaller sized ships like the jackdaw. It gives players the opportunity to make actual choices on their fits for missile boats as opposed to "active vs passive".
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#92 - 2015-06-19 15:55:12 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
As long as any eventual missile EWAR only effects missiles at the time they're launched there shouldn't be any more server load than there is currently. If CCP tries to apply missile EWAR to missiles in flight though, that could potentially become burdensome.

Of course. Ive often wondered whether my missiles are getting the effect of a painter if its activated after the missiles were already in flight. That is, does the server calculate the explosion effects on launch and just apply them when they reach the target or does it do a recalculation on impact. Turning these missile tracking enhancing mods on after launch could then also become problematical for the server.



While I hate ecm and what it does currently. It would not be a fix to change it to what you suggest. ECM has a valid use as a counter to logi and remote effects.

TD makes more sense since the TD boats are not used much anyway..


Where have you been? TD ships like sentinels, crucifiers and arbitrators/curse are friggin everywhere. Makes my sleip, nado, pest, any arty boat cry a river of tears when theyre around. They completely neuter turret ships (as intended). Really dont want one module affecting 2 completely different weapon systems. A sentinel is countered by missiles and a cap booster. If its TD bonus applies to missile disruption now, it can fly with impunity. The sentinel is already borderline OP for an EWAR ship, with its speeds/neuts/TD/drones.

Modifying sensor damps might make more sense. Since it would be a gal counter to caldari weapon. Plus sensor dampening would make more sense against missiles than "tracking disruption". Damped sensors cant guide missiles as efficiently. Maybe an added script.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#93 - 2015-06-19 15:57:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Terra Chrall
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Harkin Issier wrote:
CCP did you mix up Computers and Enhancers?

Tracking Computers are weaker than Tracking Enhancers, but they can be scripted to perform better than the Enhancer in the scripted trait's effect.

Currently you've listed the MGC to be FAR more effective (31% more) than the MGE, while retaining the ability to be scripted.

Missile Guidance Enhancer II
15 CPU, 1 PG, 6.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time

Missile Guidance Computer II
35 CPU, 1 PG 9.5% bonus to explosion velocity, explosion radius, missile velocity and missile flight time

Unless you're going to let the Enhancers be scripted?


or perhaps he listed the max values with scripts loaded.


I suspect these are unscripted.

With Missiles these stats come in pairs: explosion radius/velocity for application and missile velocity/flight time for range. So MGE II is equivalent to having +13% range and +13% application. While a TE gives +10% optimal +20% falloff and +9.5% tracking.

Scripted MGC II **could be** : +38% range or application
Scripted TC II: +15% Optimal and +30% falloff or +30% tracking
Kadesh Priestess
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#94 - 2015-06-19 16:05:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadesh Priestess
Terra Chrall wrote:
Scripted MGC II **could be** : +38% range or application

With current stats:
Range scripted: +41.61% range from one MGC, +92.3% from two
Application scripted: +46.9% application from one MGC, +105.1% from two (speaking in explosion velocity terms which is closest in missile area to tracking - because it gets increasing bonuses)
Elana Apgar
Allspark Industries
#95 - 2015-06-19 16:11:13 UTC
Hanazava Karyna wrote:
Now we need only some effective EWAR that works on missiles.


Jams work quite well I find.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#96 - 2015-06-19 16:11:35 UTC
Fredric Wolf wrote:
I think a better solution to missiles disruption would be this. Create a Defender missile mod small, medium, and large. Make this a mid slot mod so it fits more in line with other EWAR mods. Give the Falcon and Rook and Kitsune a bonus to rate of fire of defender missiles. Change the damage type of defenders to omni. You now have all Recon and EWAR frigs with 2 EWAR mods each.


I like the idea of defender missiles getting changed to where they make sense to equip as a missile counter or removed and replaced with a new counter module.

If a new module then: I don't think TD modules should change. I think ships with TD bonuses could also be bonused for the new MGD module but it would force a choice of how many TD you fit and how many MGD you fit. Or perhaps give the bonus to one of the ewar ship lines that is lacking the most.

Damps and ECM still counter missile ships and missiles are the only weapon system smartbombs can counter. So CCP needs to approach the balance of countering missiles with care.
Elana Apgar
Allspark Industries
#97 - 2015-06-19 16:13:55 UTC
DFA200 wrote:
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.


Jams will counter missiles.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#98 - 2015-06-19 16:15:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Terra Chrall
Kadesh Priestess wrote:
Terra Chrall wrote:
Scripted MGC II **could be** : +38% range or application

With current stats:
Range scripted: +41.61% range from one MGC, +92.3% from two
Application scripted: +46.9% application from one MGC, +105.1% from two (speaking in explosion velocity terms which is closest in missile area to tracking - because it gets increasing bonuses)

Sorry you lost me on this. I was posting the display numbers from the module are you posting the numbers after applying relational math?

So I could have written out as: Scripted: +19% Explosion velocity and radius or +19% Missile velocity and travel time
Mario Putzo
#99 - 2015-06-19 16:16:03 UTC
HMs do not need a direct damage increase.

They need you to revert the 12% reduction in explosion radius done in 2012 sometime. Thats it.

Presently even with application mods in Rigs, HMs are losing nearly 40% of their DPS in application vs Turrets who lose only around 30% (arties 35%) using only 1 Tracking Comp + Tracking Speed.

Just remove the explosion radius change, so HMs can hit similar application numbers. Their peak DPS and Alpha are fine.

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#100 - 2015-06-19 16:18:06 UTC
so how about auto-targeting rockets/hams/torps, and the option of not having them shoot drones