These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1041 - 2015-08-12 18:46:01 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Honestly, I say just get rid of the things and rework rigs and TPs.

I think target painters and rigs are fine and don't need any adjustment (target painters already had a balance pass). I think the +5% damage to all heavy missiles and reduction in torpedo size were good improvements. I'm not even necessarily opposed to the stacking penalties that were introduced, as they have minimal impact.

I hate these new missile guidance modules.
They had potential with the original values, were still promising with the stacking penalties but were subsequently nerfed into the ground with the final unceremonious release.

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

BN0216 Lim
AMC.
Tactical Farmers
#1042 - 2015-08-12 18:52:57 UTC  |  Edited by: BN0216 Lim
Here I talk a little off topic, but related to the missile system.


I would rather hope CCP re-invent missile damage formula. (but in the end, there is only 'changes' not 'invents' Big smile)

It is somewhat un-intuitive in terms of the explosion radius. I have questioned myself why the larger missile are not effective as in a real world's one. In real world, the bigger explosion radius is thought to be a stronger explosion since we expect the more explosives for a larger explosion. Then I found the formula is lack of something.



  • Real world observations

- Actually, I'm not a expert on this topic and the below is assumption-based sentences. Blink

Explosions do damage things with its fragments' kinetic energy caused by the shockwave of explosion which is the basis of the current missile damage formula. But I found explosions do damage things with the power of shockwave itself, too. I guess that the power of shockwave can be represented as a pressure. And the pressure affects equally on the surface of the thing which means it will get the same pressure at any point of surface. Thus the damage by the pressure will not depend on the SIZE of the thing.

One other thing is from the mechanism of the proximity fuse used by the anti-air missiles. The more target is smaller and faster, the more missile will miss the target. So most of anti-air missiles are taking proximity fuse to detonate itself near the target.
But how about when the target is not moving fast? The proximity fuse will no longer be needed and the missile can actually hit the target. This means the fast movement is an actual problem of the missiles.
But I guess the missiles can be more guided when the target is exposing more signatures, anyway.


So...


  • Suggestion

I suggest the missile formula to be more affected by the speed of target, making the explosion velocity a dominant factor than the explosion radius and signature radius.

The explosion radius and the signature radius will affect the damage with the factor of target velocity. So, if the target is stopped, the expR and sigR will not affect the damage.



Simply, long story short, changing expR to expV, sigR to Target speed and vice versa in the existing formula would be the result of this suggestion. And we might need more values changed - ship bonuses, base stat values, etc.

EDIT : the above sentence is not actually applying my suggestions. See my recent posts for the adjusted one.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1043 - 2015-08-12 19:08:36 UTC
BN0216 Lim wrote:
Simply, long story short, changing expR to expV, sigR to Target speed and vice versa in the existing formula would be the result of this suggestion. And we might need more values changed - ship bonuses, base stat values, etc.

These variables are already in the missile formula.

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

BN0216 Lim
AMC.
Tactical Farmers
#1044 - 2015-08-13 05:00:10 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
BN0216 Lim wrote:
Simply, long story short, changing expR to expV, sigR to Target speed and vice versa in the existing formula would be the result of this suggestion. And we might need more values changed - ship bonuses, base stat values, etc.

These variables are already in the missile formula.


I say Yes, at the same time, No. If the formula is changed like what I said, then only the second part will be changed to the velocity part from the radius part.

But I found myself that the above sentences were not fully applying my suggestion.

Arrangement of my suggestion here:

1. Target velocity and explosion velocity become the dominant factor of the missile formula
2. Application of signature radius will change along with the target's speed. The slower the target, the larger signature radius will be.
i.e., the curve of signature radius application to target's velocity will look like y = 1/x where y-axis is signature radius modifier, x-axis is speed of target.
But it will remain its maximum sigR as its own sigR.
3. Introduce detonation distance replacing explosion radius. This will indicate how close the missile will detonate from the target. The bigger detonation distance, the far explosion done from the target, thus giving less damage. (This is just renaming of the explosion radius for more intuitively understandable term)

Applying the above aspects altogether, I made a rough sketch of new missile formula:
Damage = D * min[1, (ExpV/TargetV) * max[SigR, SigR/TargetV] / DetD]

where
ExpV = Explosion Velocity
TargetV = Target Velocity
SigR = Signature Radius
DetD = Detonation Distance

This is almost same as the existing formula except sigR/expR term does not exist anymore and the sigR term in the last formula is now given as a max function.

I ignored some modifiers existed in existing formula. Someone may add constants to adjust the values (especially for SigR/TargetV part).
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1045 - 2015-08-13 05:23:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
BN0216 Lim wrote:
This is almost same as the existing formula except sigR/expR term does not exist anymore and the sigR term in the last formula is now given as a max function.

The reason that explosion radius is more prominent in the formula (and why it should be) is two-fold. First, no matter what - you will never (ever) be able to boost missile explosion velocity beyond potential target velocity. Even the use of stasis webs would not be able to entirely accomplish this against a fast ship. Second, there are numerous modules that have signature penalties that benefit missile explosion radius, including but not limited to: shield extenders, microwarpdrives, field extender rigs, hyperspacial rigs and inertial stabilizers.

One of the main methods to counter small signatures is through the use of target painters. Under your proposed formula, these would become effectively useless - not including rendering inert several target painter-bonused hulls and numerous tactics and strategies. Another consideration is that rigors currently cost more in terms of calibration (since they have more value), so this would not only completely destroy their market value - but create untold problems with how to remove unremovable rigs from ships or reimburse players in the tens of millions to destroy and replace these with flares.

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

BN0216 Lim
AMC.
Tactical Farmers
#1046 - 2015-08-13 07:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: BN0216 Lim
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
BN0216 Lim wrote:
This is almost same as the existing formula except sigR/expR term does not exist anymore and the sigR term in the last formula is now given as a max function.

The reason that explosion radius is more prominent in the formula (and why it should be) is two-fold. First, no matter what - you will never (ever) be able to boost missile explosion velocity beyond potential target velocity. Even the use of stasis webs would not be able to entirely accomplish this against a fast ship. Second, there are numerous modules that have signature penalties that benefit missile explosion radius, including but not limited to: shield extenders, microwarpdrives, field extender rigs, hyperspacial rigs and inertial stabilizers.

One of the main methods to counter small signatures is through the use of target painters. Under your proposed formula, these would become effectively useless - not including rendering inert several target painter-bonused hulls and numerous tactics and strategies. Another consideration is that rigors currently cost more in terms of calibration (since they have more value), so this would not only completely destroy their market value - but create untold problems with how to remove unremovable rigs from ships or reimburse players in the tens of millions to destroy and replace these with flares.


(Not necessary but I hope you note that the basis of my suggestion comes from this idea: why a small but immobile target is taking a small damage when it is actually hit by large missiles?)

For the first part - explosion velocity will not reach as fast as the target velocity

is not going to happen by modifying the base stats of missiles. Applying missile velocity + explosion velocity would be an alternative solution. (This idea comes from the situation of firing something on moving object, e.g. throwing a ball in a moving train)

And to be honest, this term, ExpV/TargetV is as same as the existing formula.



For the second part - signature radius is more useful for current missile system and your formula is going to make it useless

is not true with my suggested formula. In the part of signature radius, max[sigR, sigR/TargetV], is still affected by the target painters which will increase the sigR value which is as same as the existing formula.

The target velocity part should be adjusted with some constants (like turret signature size) because the signature radius gets bigger and the velocity gets smaller when the size of the ship enlarges.


In conclusion, the actual differences compared to the previous formula are:
1. removal of the second term of the min function (sigR/expR)
2. modification of sigR to max[sigR, sigR/TargetV]
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1047 - 2015-08-13 09:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
BN0216 Lim wrote:
is not going to happen by modifying the base stats of missiles. Applying missile velocity + explosion velocity would be an alternative solution. (This idea comes from the situation of firing something on moving object, e.g. throwing a ball in a moving train)

While I appreciate that you're trying to participate in the discussion - it's clear that with this suggestion you don't have a lot of experience with missiles and/or understand the radically different missile-based hull bonuses. Mordu's Legion ships have between 2-4x the missile velocity of comparable ships - which means you'd never fly anything else.

There is a simple and straightforward solution to address the majority of deficiencies in missiles:
• Swap the explosion radius bonus between light missiles and rockets, and buff the explosion velocity on all medium and large missiles by 10%. This will improve (but not completely resolve) issues with applying damage to stationary or non-afterburning targets.
• Rather than buffing missile damage, change the minimum value in the missile formula from 1.0 to 1.1 to extend missiles the potential to deliver "critical" damage. This would be in scenarios where both the target signature radius and target velocity have been exceeded, and will typically only effect stationary or large targets.
• Missile guidance computers and enhancers need to be reworked.

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

Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
#1048 - 2015-08-13 09:38:26 UTC
When will the new mods see a updated balance pass? P
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#1049 - 2015-08-13 10:52:32 UTC
Janeway84 wrote:
When will the new mods see a updated balance pass? P


6+ moths after release, i will say Blink
BN0216 Lim
AMC.
Tactical Farmers
#1050 - 2015-08-13 11:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: BN0216 Lim
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
BN0216 Lim wrote:
is not going to happen by modifying the base stats of missiles. Applying missile velocity + explosion velocity would be an alternative solution. (This idea comes from the situation of firing something on moving object, e.g. throwing a ball in a moving train)

While I appreciate that you're trying to participate in the discussion - it's clear that with this suggestion you don't have a lot of experience with missiles and/or understand the radically different missile-based hull bonuses. Mordu's Legion ships have between 2-4x the missile velocity of comparable ships - which means you'd never fly anything else.

There is a simple and straightforward solution to address the majority of deficiencies in missiles:
• Swap the explosion radius bonus between light missiles and rockets, and buff the explosion velocity on all medium and large missiles by 10%. This will improve (but not completely resolve) issues with applying damage to stationary or non-afterburning targets.
• Rather than buffing missile damage, change the minimum value in the missile formula from 1.0 to 1.1 to extend missiles the potential to deliver "critical" damage. This would be in scenarios where both the target signature radius and target velocity have been exceeded, and will typically only effect stationary or large targets.
• Missile guidance computers and enhancers need to be reworked.


Uh.. Increasing explosion velocity helps for a stationary target? I don't believe it. Did you mean explosion radius?

Missile velocity + explosion velocity was just a pop-up solution in my head and I think we don't need any changes to it since explosion velocity part is working good I guess.

Plus, if CCP would like to take my suggestion, then I guess they will change the other related factors, too. Since I'm not the developer of CCP, I'm just giving a rough, incomplete suggestion here.

Nonetheless, this is just my wish list and it is not related to the new modules, so I'd like to stop it here.

By the way, I agree to your opinions about the new modules.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1051 - 2015-08-13 13:49:41 UTC
BN0216 Lim wrote:
[quote=Arthur Aihaken]
Uh.. Increasing explosion velocity helps for a stationary target? I don't believe it. Did you mean explosion radius?

Missile velocity + explosion velocity was just a pop-up solution in my head and I think we don't need any changes to it since explosion velocity part is working good I guess.

Plus, if CCP would like to take my suggestion, then I guess they will change the other related factors, too. Since I'm not the developer of CCP, I'm just giving a rough, incomplete suggestion here.

Nonetheless, this is just my wish list and it is not related to the new modules, so I'd like to stop it here.

By the way, I agree to your opinions about the new modules.


I am personally not a fan of the way exp velocity is handled.
The fact that you can never get full application to a moving target is extremely annoying, especially when you consider we don't get wrecking blows and things of that nature.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#1052 - 2015-08-13 14:40:39 UTC
Hence I suggested they ditch that second part of missile formular and call it a day.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1053 - 2015-08-14 14:27:39 UTC
These modules still need to be buffed, but...
...with a set of +5 missile implants, they do show promise in one configuration.

Scorpion Navy Issue
2x Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II (FoF)
4x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Fury or Faction)
Auto Targeting System II

500MN Microwarpdrive II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability II
Pith C-Type Large Shield Booster
4x Missile Guidance Computer II (4x Precision/2 Range scripts)

4x Ballistic Control Unit II
Damage Control II

3x Large Hyperspacial Velocity Optimizer II
.....

One of the drawbacks with missiles is that they're slow. Not artillery slow, but cruise missiles are second last in terms of rate of fire. And unless you're running a missile velocity-bonused hull, they take a lot longer to reach their targets. Combined with the lead time to target, it means you're looking at 1-2 cycles after your last volley has launched before you can confidently switch targets (NPC ships have a wicked tendency to generate a last-second repair cycle while missiles are in-transit).

The Scorpion Navy Issue features a rate of fire bonus which gets the cycle time of most cruise missile launchers down to around the 6-second mark. On paper it's less damage as a whole, but applied quicker. While this consumes higher quantities of ammunition, it's much more satisfying seeing damage applied more rapidly to targets (even if it's slightly less damage). The Scorpion Navy Issue features 8 mid slots in addition to a set of shield resistance bonuses, and combined with an extra low and high utility slot it's actually the perfect setup.

First and foremost, this setup sports a significant tank at around 100k EHP. Second, it allows you to run four scripted MGCs without really sacrificing much. Third, this frees up the rigs to increase the warp speed (with Ascendancy implants) to over 4.5 AU/s - so it gets around really quick.

One thing that is immediately apparent is that I'm running two different missile systems on this. The cruise launchers are designated for taking out larger targets with Fury ammunition while the rapid heavy launchers are setup with auto-targeting missiles to take out anything that ventures too close (and with the MGCs all running precision scripts, they are very effective at this). The auto targeting system is present in a passive mode to extend the number of target acquisitions to 10, and in a pinch it can be activated to automatically target anything hostile within 60km. Last but not least, the Scorpion Navy Issue sports 75mbit of drone bandwidth which is enough for a mix of light and heavy drones to harass targets.

By running a set of range-scripted MGCs it increases the optimal engagement from 60km to 100km. The Scorpion Navy Issue also features an insane targeting range, so you can lock and hit almost everything with minimal maneuvering and without requiring modules or rigs to boost sensor strength.

The fit I'm running is over 1000 DPS, and while I can honestly say that I don't think it's necessarily any faster at completing missions than a Golem, Barghest or Raven Navy Issue - it's a heck of a lot more fun seeing volleys of missiles launched at 2-6 second intervals (regardless of velocity missiles all seem to take the same 1-1.5 second launch animation).

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1054 - 2015-08-14 14:45:58 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
These modules still need to be buffed, but...
...with a set of +5 missile implants, they do show promise in one configuration.

Scorpion Navy Issue
2x Rapid Heavy Missile Launcher II (FoF)
4x Cruise Missile Launcher II (Fury or Faction)
Auto Targeting System II

500MN Microwarpdrive II
2x Adaptive Invulnerability II
Pith C-Type Large Shield Booster
4x Missile Guidance Computer II (4x Precision/2 Range scripts)

4x Ballistic Control Unit II
Damage Control II

3x Large Hyperspacial Velocity Optimizer II
.....

One of the drawbacks with missiles is that they're slow. Not artillery slow, but cruise missiles are second last in terms of rate of fire. And unless you're running a missile velocity-bonused hull, they take a lot longer to reach their targets. Combined with the lead time to target, it means you're looking at 1-2 cycles after your last volley has launched before you can confidently switch targets (NPC ships have a wicked tendency to generate a last-second repair cycle while missiles are in-transit).

The Scorpion Navy Issue features a rate of fire bonus which gets the cycle time of most cruise missile launchers down to around the 6-second mark. On paper it's less damage as a whole, but applied quicker. While this consumes higher quantities of ammunition, it's much more satisfying seeing damage applied more rapidly to targets (even if it's slightly less damage). The Scorpion Navy Issue features 8 mid slots in addition to a set of shield resistance bonuses, and combined with an extra low and high utility slot it's actually the perfect setup.

First and foremost, this setup sports a significant tank at around 100k EHP. Second, it allows you to run four scripted MGCs without really sacrificing much. Third, this frees up the rigs to increase the warp speed (with Ascendancy implants) to over 4.5 AU/s - so it gets around really quick.

One thing that is immediately apparent is that I'm running two different missile systems on this. The cruise launchers are designated for taking out larger targets with Fury ammunition while the rapid heavy launchers are setup with auto-targeting missiles to take out anything that ventures too close (and with the MGCs all running precision scripts, they are very effective at this). The auto targeting system is present in a passive mode to extend the number of target acquisitions to 10, and in a pinch it can be activated to automatically target anything hostile within 60km. Last but not least, the Scorpion Navy Issue sports 75mbit of drone bandwidth which is enough for a mix of light and heavy drones to harass targets.

By running a set of range-scripted MGCs it increases the optimal engagement from 60km to 100km. The Scorpion Navy Issue also features an insane targeting range, so you can lock and hit almost everything with minimal maneuvering and without requiring modules or rigs to boost sensor strength.

The fit I'm running is over 1000 DPS, and while I can honestly say that I don't think it's necessarily any faster at completing missions than a Golem, Barghest or Raven Navy Issue - it's a heck of a lot more fun seeing volleys of missiles launched at 2-6 second intervals (regardless of velocity missiles all seem to take the same 1-1.5 second launch animation).


I question why you wouldn't just rock a full set of cruise launchers.
Why the rapid heavies? With RoF bonus of the ship, combined with high RoF on RHML, they're firing at an insane rate, which is costing you more in ammo than it's worth, not to mention the long reload.

Also, past 1 or 2 MGC, you're better off with target painters, though, if you're shooting at multiple targets at once, I can see where MGCs would be beneficial.

I would also like to know how beneficial that 3rd and 4th MGC are when you're fitting a full set of precision scripts.
I don't think they give much in the way of bonus at that point.

Lastly, this fit provides no PVP capability, outside of dps.
There's no argument that use can be found for these modules in PVE, though it's situational and/or ship/missile specific, but in PVP they have almost no merit as they're not worth the fitting costs for the limited engagement ranges missiles are forced into.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1055 - 2015-08-14 18:22:19 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
I question why you wouldn't just rock a full set of cruise launchers.
Why the rapid heavies? With RoF bonus of the ship, combined with high RoF on RHML, they're firing at an insane rate, which is costing you more in ammo than it's worth, not to mention the long reload.

Also, past 1 or 2 MGC, you're better off with target painters, though, if you're shooting at multiple targets at once, I can see where MGCs would be beneficial.

I would also like to know how beneficial that 3rd and 4th MGC are when you're fitting a full set of precision scripts.
I don't think they give much in the way of bonus at that point.

Lastly, this fit provides no PVP capability, outside of dps.
There's no argument that use can be found for these modules in PVE, though it's situational and/or ship/missile specific, but in PVP they have almost no merit as they're not worth the fitting costs for the limited engagement ranges missiles are forced into.

Pest control. Big smile

Combined with the missile implants, I believe the last two precision-scripted MGCs yield about 25%. I'm going off memory, but I believe it gets the heavy missile explosion radius down to around 60m. And yes, it's a rather insane rate of fire - but the two rapid launchers literally melt anything small that ventures within 40km. I've only run a few missions with it so far, but I alternate between 2 precision/2 range and 4 precision depending on the mission. For ones like "Damsel in Distress" and "Stop the Thief" where you're dealing with lots of small ships and short ranges, 4 precision scripts is the way to go.

No argument - it burns through ammunition quite a bit faster. And even with 2 range scripts you lose a few volleys between targets with the rapid launchers. The tradeoff is that you can use your drones to apply full DPS to larger targets and not worry about micromanaging them against smaller targets where cruise missiles aren't anywhere near as effective. Auto-targeting missiles are really critical with the high-rate of fire, because you just can't track, lock and apply damage fast enough otherwise. This also frees up one's attention span to focus entirely on applying damage with the cruise launchers and drones.

It's simply a lot of fun to fly with this setup. Getting around is insanely quick (this includes acceleration gates), it's cap stable if you drop down to a medium Deadspace shield booster, you can lock 10 targets out to over 100km and you dictate standard or extended range for engagements. Neither the Raven or the Typhoon has the tank to pull this off, and you lose quite a bit of damage application if you have to drop down to MGEs for either. The Typhoon does have the same explosion velocity bonus as the Golem, but this doesn't apply to any missile systems outside cruise or torpedoes. You could probably come close by swapping out a hyperspacial rig for a rigor without too much of a hit to warp speed (especially with Ascendancy implants), so there's certainly some flexibility there.

I also agree that there's limited PvP value with this particular configuration, and you'd almost certainly change things as it's heavily-geared towards PvE. For example: I'd drop two BCUs in favor of two passive MGEs, replace the hyperspacial rigs with field extender rigs, run all rapid heavy missile launchers, swap the auto targeting system for a neutralizer and replace the four MGCs with a capacitor booster, tackle, web and ancillary shield boosters. Entirely different application, of course.

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1056 - 2015-08-14 19:35:23 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:

Pest control. Big smile


I'm wondering though, If you took off the cruise and just went with pure RHMLs, all ungrouped and just let the FoF go crazy, what would that look like.

Ungrouping them would reduce the ammo consumption a bit, but may also cause issues with target swapping as ranges change.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1057 - 2015-08-14 23:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm wondering though, If you took off the cruise and just went with pure RHMLs, all ungrouped and just let the FoF go crazy, what would that look like.

Ungrouping them would reduce the ammo consumption a bit, but may also cause issues with target swapping as ranges change.

Fireworks. You potentially lose quite a bit with a RoF bonus on rapid launchers, but on the flip side it does spew them out at a really rapid pace. That's why I've left it at 2 launchers - it's enough at this speed to deal with frigates, destroyers and most cruisers at short ranges - and the 35-second reload time isn't as readily apparent when you're also running cruise launchers. I also find that if I occasionally use FoF in the cruise launchers the rapids often take out the shields and armor and then the cruise delivers the finishing blow.

With 2 missile systems and different rates of fire, FoF missiles also seem a bit more effective at adjusting to NPC spawns at different ranges. So while you're waiting for the next cruise volley to cycle the rapids get 2-3 volleys into the next target. The main benefit of all this is that it doesn't feel slow, you're not counting volleys for the most part and gameplay generally seems much more engaging.

Having eight mid slots and being able to script range with a pair of MGCs really helps, as the Scorpion isn't exactly a speedy ship by any means. It really eliminates a lot of unnecessary maneuvering, and against large targets you can actually just run all four MGCs scripted for range. I would really consider this particular setup a niche application though.

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1058 - 2015-08-14 23:22:07 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I'm wondering though, If you took off the cruise and just went with pure RHMLs, all ungrouped and just let the FoF go crazy, what would that look like.

Ungrouping them would reduce the ammo consumption a bit, but may also cause issues with target swapping as ranges change.

Fireworks. You potentially lose quite a bit with a RoF bonus on rapid launchers, but on the flip side it does spew them out at a really rapid pace. That's why I've left it at 2 launchers - it's enough at this speed to deal with frigates, destroyers and most cruisers at short ranges - and the 35-second reload time isn't as readily apparent when you're also running cruise launchers. I also find that if I occasionally use FoF in the cruise launchers the rapids often take out the shields and armor and then the cruise delivers the finishing blow.

With 2 missile systems and different rates of fire, FoF missiles also seem a bit more effective at adjusting to NPC spawns at different ranges. So while you're waiting for the next cruise cycle the rapids get 2-3 volleys into the next target. The main benefit of all this is that it doesn't feel slow, you're not counting volleys for the most part and gameplay generally seems much more engaging.



I despise volley counting despite always having to count.
I really wish CCP would rebalance all missile systems on RoF compared to velocity and range of said missiles, so that you never have more than one volley in the air at any given time.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1059 - 2015-08-14 23:36:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Joe Risalo wrote:
I despise volley counting despite always having to count.
I really wish CCP would rebalance all missile systems on RoF compared to velocity and range of said missiles, so that you never have more than one volley in the air at any given time.

I lose more than a few volleys in this setup utilizing FoF missiles. However, it's a riot to pilot this setup and FoF missiles are cheap to manufacture. So I don't count - and I don't care. Cry havoc and let slip the drones of war!

You can easily lose volleys even with range-bonused Mordu's Legion ships, and part of this is the 1-1.5 second launch cycle that missiles seem to go through regardless of velocity - so I'm not entirely sure this can ever be mitigated 100%.

I really can't express how refreshing gameplay is with this particular setup. Yes, it's not the most efficient - but it always feels like I'm doing something. Which is a far cry from counting missile volleys, waiting for lengthy missile cycles or reload times.

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1060 - 2015-08-14 23:44:14 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I despise volley counting despite always having to count.
I really wish CCP would rebalance all missile systems on RoF compared to velocity and range of said missiles, so that you never have more than one volley in the air at any given time.

I lose more than a few volleys in this setup utilizing FoF missiles. However, it's a riot to pilot this setup and FoF missiles are cheap to manufacture. So I don't count - and I don't care. Cry havoc and let slip the drones of war!

You can easily lose volleys even with range-bonused Mordu's Legion ships, and part of this is the 1-1.5 second launch cycle that missiles seem to go through regardless of velocity - so I'm not entirely sure this can ever be mitigated 100%.

I really can't express how refreshing gameplay is with this particular setup. Yes, it's not the most efficient - but it always feels like I'm doing something. Which is a far cry from counting missile volleys, waiting for lengthy missile cycles or reload times.


I think I might fit my Golem with RHMLs and FoF just for the hell of it... Might be nice to sit there and not have to do anything for a while.