These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods

First post First post
Author
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#181 - 2015-10-04 11:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
It makes me laugh when some greasy neckbeard acts like he has all the answers and calls everyone else an idiot... Get down of your high horse kid.

A counter? They will be countered the same way ECM & damps are... Oh and good luck co-ordinating you Ishtar fleet to disrupts every ship in the enemy fleet.Roll

Weapon desruption should be viewed exactly the same as damps. You only need one damp and you can affect any ships target time/range, and I don't think weapon desruption should be any different.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#182 - 2015-10-04 11:56:02 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
It makes me laugh when some greasy neckbeard acts like he has all the answers and calls everyone else an idiot... Get down of your high horse kid.

A counter? They will be countered the same way ECM & damps are... Oh and good luck co-ordinating you Ishtar fleet to disrupts every ship in the enemy fleet.Roll

Weapon desruption should be viewed exactly the same as damps. You only need one damp and you can affect any ships target time/range, and I don't think weapon description should be any different.


But most ships can say whatever at 1 unbonused damp, however most turret ships are screwed even by just 1 unbonused td. Take the frigate meta, trapfits with ab/scram/web/td do well, and they only work vs turret ships. No other ewar is as effective as the td on a unbonused hull, the weakness of those td scram kiters are misisles and drones, with the same mod beeing able to be used vs missiles it gets truely lame in anything not drone fit.


Just remember the old td hookbill and how strong it was, it would just get stronger. It also would massively screw over any smaller entity upengaging, as a range reduction is very hard to counter.

This is all targeted at the 1 mod, different scrips idea. While i think its a truely bad mod to be added (it is a boring td copy, stop taking the lazy way out @ccp and balance missiles properly) it doesnt screw over the meta to much in a unheathly way.
Aivlis Eldelbar
Foxholers
Outfoxed
#183 - 2015-10-04 12:43:36 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
One of the most important questions regarding missile performance, specifically larger missiles, is whether or not the Missile Guidance Enhancers/Computers have succeeded in helping these platforms.

I have some information about their adoption rates, but I personally wonder if the pilots using them are doing so for reasons other than "they are great at missile damage application" such as:

  • Using them for range
  • Using them to make up for Aegis stacking penalties
  • Using them out of curiosity


I'm going to try to find out how these modules have affected larger ship efficacy, not just popularity of the ships or these modules.

My guess is that they haven't significantly helped larger missiles (though I won't speak for light missile boats). If that's the case, I'm afraid the net result here is missiles as a platform will be even weaker than they were pre-Aegis (when missiles were supposed to be buffed). Since it was largely agreed at the time missiles were not in a happy place (and perhaps still aren't), this scenario could be very, very sad for missile pilots.


I use them for range on niche torp fits and nothing else. The problem is the same as with using tracking scripts on large artillery guns, the base numbers are so low that a %-based increase does nothing, so large missiles remain screwed overall. They work just fine in PvE, sure, but the speed creep of the recent years means they lack viable prey in the PvP ecosystem.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#184 - 2015-10-04 12:47:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Fozzie, it seems we have all forgotten the TD drones.Question Will they now get a missile disruption effect too? They should.


Also, please reduce the base turret and missile effects of these mods, and claw back the loss with increased buffs for the specialized TD boats so as to compensate.


And please consider my TP and TP boat idea before any more nerfs to drone boats and drones themselves. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6077768#post6077768 Scripts for painters would be ok because painters would still be the weakest racial ewar relative to the other racial ewars. And the TP drones will have to get both effects as well.

Hmm, TP drones to affect target ship drone performance, that work better than defender missiles ever did.Lol

edit: of course it all would have been more elegant to have working defender missiles and or point defense turrets. But mid slot modules and ewar drones will have to do. Surely the coding and taxing of computational resources is a huge hurdle for defenders and point defense turrets.

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.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#185 - 2015-10-04 13:04:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Defender missiles are a very poor counter (that should be completely repurposed rather than tweaked) and the inability to impact missiles has always been a major problem for Amarrian Weapon Disruption ships.


So why is it that you're proposing to re-invent the wheel with a completely new set of modules, and further homogenising the weapon systems of Eve, rather than fixing/repurposing the Defender Missiles (which already exist) into a viable missile counter?

The more I look at this the less I'm sold on it.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Umino Iruka
#186 - 2015-10-04 13:23:09 UTC
This is stupid!

"Let's add a different module and different scripts in a fake attempt to actually bring the Amarr E-war up to snuff..."


Integrate the damn missile tracking disruption effects into the existing modules and scripts and stop trying to re-invent the light bulb!
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#187 - 2015-10-04 13:49:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!


You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#188 - 2015-10-04 14:06:16 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!


You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.

That is because they had to be careful not to tip missiles into op status especially when they had no working dedicated antimissile ewar in the game. So now they are buffing those new missile modules.

I don't know how long you have been playing this game but about 4 years ago iirc there was an attempt to rework missiles and the test server quickly showed it didn't take much for them to become massively op. Missile tweaking is probably their most difficult weapon system to get right. Not much room for error between useless and clearly op. Taking smaller steps is the right thing for the balancing team to do.

Thankfully now it wont just be a game where TD hookbills can neuter turret frigs. Hookbills and Garmurs and such will have to deal with the possibility of ewar ******* their **** up. This is good for the game.

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.

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#189 - 2015-10-04 14:28:19 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Moac Tor wrote:
afkalt wrote:
So for all the 'one wtfpwnsauce' mod proponents:

What's your counter when we land an Ishtar fleet on you with 2 of these on every boat?

I'll help: anything not a drone comp will die in a fire because I can stop all incoming damage dead.

You can stop all incoming damage? You must be joking... You are worried about two unbonused tracking disruptors which will be heavily impacted by the stacking penalty, and you would be wasting all of your midslots. I can't see anyone even trying to use such a doctrine.

The whole point of the Ishtar blob is that it doesn't need to concern itself with manually targeting each ship, trying to coordinate spreading the ewar in a big blob of alliance F1 monkeys for relatively little effect will not be very likely to happen.

Also you forget that CCP can balance using the tracking disruptor's modifiers, and even buff some of the weaker missile systems. So combining both effects into a tracking disruptor module does not necessarily mean that this will be unbalanced as you can tweak the other variables. I think HAM, HAML, and Torps will need buffs anyway regardless.


Oh so you mean if they completely rebalance everything around the stupid idea it'll be less stupid?

Or, you know, they could just not break everything in the first place.


And yeah, unbonused TD ARE that good. You know why they aren't prolific now? Because missiles and drones. Make it one mod and you're good to go vs everything but drones.

Even stacking, taking two unbonused mods you'll drop HML range to under 20. Or have them hit like citadel missiles.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#190 - 2015-10-04 14:50:02 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!


You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.

That is because they had to be careful not to tip missiles into op status especially when they had no working dedicated antimissile ewar in the game. So now they are buffing those new missile modules.

I don't know how long you have been playing this game but about 4 years ago iirc there was an attempt to rework missiles and the test server quickly showed it didn't take much for them to become massively op. Missile tweaking is probably their most difficult weapon system to get right. Not much room for error between useless and clearly op. Taking smaller steps is the right thing for the balancing team to do.

Thankfully now it wont just be a game where TD hookbills can neuter turret frigs. Hookbills and Garmurs and such will have to deal with the possibility of ewar ******* their **** up. This is good for the game.


Quote:

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.


^^ that's the justification used for introducing these modules in the first place, AEGIS was a failure, not only did it fail to "enhance" missiles as we were promised, it effectively nerfed them.

The Hookbill is by far the least used of the three faction frigs, it really doesn't need any more problems. HAM's, Torps, and Heavies also don't need any more problems and these modules will affect them far more than they affect Light missiles. Mordu's ships are broken, they effectively get 5 powerful bonuses that all compliment kiting on fast agile hulls where other pirate ships get 3... they can't be used as the standard by which all missile ships need to be balanced.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#191 - 2015-10-04 14:58:20 UTC
There are a lot of solutions that aren't unilateral -- I think people are seeing this as black and white.

There's no reason you have to buff or nerf all missiles across the board. For instance, you could improve explosion radius and velocity on torpedoes without touching light missiles. You could lower flight time on missiles with good range, then drastically increase the range bonuses on missile guidance modules to compensate, while helping missiles that had bad range.

I have to say however that I agree with people against "just make this a script." If you make it a script, TDs as-is could become so versatile there'd be no reason not to use them. Would the people advocating the script option be willing to lower the efficacy of TDs across the board to compensate for this?

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#192 - 2015-10-04 15:16:42 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
How would it not be balanced?

It is logical and more efficient to change existing weapon disrupters.


it's not the eve way ..

you want 1 thing that does 'all the things'

separate modules means you gets to make a choice
and you suffer if you make the wrong choice






also
still waiting for the news that missiles will be given the potential to do critical hits
after all this will bring them in line with both drones and turrets
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#193 - 2015-10-04 15:30:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
afkalt wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
afkalt wrote:
So for all the 'one wtfpwnsauce' mod proponents:

What's your counter when we land an Ishtar fleet on you with 2 of these on every boat?

I'll help: anything not a drone comp will die in a fire because I can stop all incoming damage dead.

You can stop all incoming damage? You must be joking... You are worried about two unbonused tracking disruptors which will be heavily impacted by the stacking penalty, and you would be wasting all of your midslots. I can't see anyone even trying to use such a doctrine.

The whole point of the Ishtar blob is that it doesn't need to concern itself with manually targeting each ship, trying to coordinate spreading the ewar in a big blob of alliance F1 monkeys for relatively little effect will not be very likely to happen.

Also you forget that CCP can balance using the tracking disruptor's modifiers, and even buff some of the weaker missile systems. So combining both effects into a tracking disruptor module does not necessarily mean that this will be unbalanced as you can tweak the other variables. I think HAM, HAML, and Torps will need buffs anyway regardless.


Oh so you mean if they completely rebalance everything around the stupid idea it'll be less stupid?

Or, you know, they could just not break everything in the first place.


And yeah, unbonused TD ARE that good. You know why they aren't prolific now? Because missiles and drones. Make it one mod and you're good to go vs everything but drones.

Even stacking, taking two unbonused mods you'll drop HML range to under 20. Or have them hit like citadel missiles.

Dual TD ishtar blobs will not be a thing of that I am very sure NPC alt.

Mid slots are highly valuable in PvP. This is part of the reason you need to implement this as a script or they will be used rarely. By making this scripted and balancing around that at least the module won't border on an interesting gimmick as the current missile enhancing module have been so far.

Also two unbonused TDs will knock a caracal down to 37km range. That is still pretty good although it is not under 20km as you are thinking. And good luck getting a blob to spread the ewar over an entire enemy fleet.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#194 - 2015-10-04 15:36:44 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!


You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.


Like the one ship that want +/- 0 is the dunk phoenix...
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#195 - 2015-10-04 15:40:48 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Moac Tor wrote:
afkalt wrote:
So for all the 'one wtfpwnsauce' mod proponents:

What's your counter when we land an Ishtar fleet on you with 2 of these on every boat?

I'll help: anything not a drone comp will die in a fire because I can stop all incoming damage dead.

You can stop all incoming damage? You must be joking... You are worried about two unbonused tracking disruptors which will be heavily impacted by the stacking penalty, and you would be wasting all of your midslots. I can't see anyone even trying to use such a doctrine.

The whole point of the Ishtar blob is that it doesn't need to concern itself with manually targeting each ship, trying to coordinate spreading the ewar in a big blob of alliance F1 monkeys for relatively little effect will not be very likely to happen.

Also you forget that CCP can balance using the tracking disruptor's modifiers, and even buff some of the weaker missile systems. So combining both effects into a tracking disruptor module does not necessarily mean that this will be unbalanced as you can tweak the other variables. I think HAM, HAML, and Torps will need buffs anyway regardless.


Oh so you mean if they completely rebalance everything around the stupid idea it'll be less stupid?

Or, you know, they could just not break everything in the first place.


And yeah, unbonused TD ARE that good. You know why they aren't prolific now? Because missiles and drones. Make it one mod and you're good to go vs everything but drones.

Even stacking, taking two unbonused mods you'll drop HML range to under 20. Or have them hit like citadel missiles.

Dual TD ishtar blobs will not be a thing of that I am very sure NPC alt.

Mid slots are highly valuable in PvP. This is part of the reason you need to implement this as a script or they will be used rarely. By making this scripted and balancing around that at least the module won't border on an interesting gimmick as the current missile enhancing module have been so far.

Also two unbonused TDs will knock a caracal down to 37km range. That is still pretty good although it is not under 20km as you are thinking. And good luck getting a blob to spread the ewar over an entire enemy fleet.



Caracal is ranged bonused, don't lecture me on mechanics when you miss things like that. Also it would make the missiles slow enough to be effectively outrun, real range would be nowhere near that.

You clearly have little idea how this would pan out at the fleet level.

Thank goodness CCP know better.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#196 - 2015-10-04 16:05:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
afkalt wrote:
Caracal is ranged bonused, don't lecture me on mechanics when you miss things like that. Also it would make the missiles slow enough to be effectively outrun, real range would be nowhere near that.

You clearly have little idea how this would pan out at the fleet level.

Thank goodness CCP know better.

You seem to be fixated on using unbonused and suboptimal setups. What are the two main missile doctrine ships... The Caracal and Cerberus; both have velocity and flight time bonuses.

Anyway, that is enough of trying to get an angry NPC alt to see sense for one day. *chuckles*
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#197 - 2015-10-04 16:11:47 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Caracal is ranged bonused, don't lecture me on mechanics when you miss things like that. Also it would make the missiles slow enough to be effectively outrun, real range would be nowhere near that.

You clearly have little idea how this would pan out at the fleet level.

Thank goodness CCP know better.

You seem to be fixated on using unbonused and suboptimal setups. What are the two main missile doctrine ships... The Caracal and Cerberus; both have velocity and flight time bonuses.

Anyway, that is enough of trying to get an angry NPC alt to see sense for one day. *chuckles*


Irrelevant, it is application you'd hit vs HML. Only RLML would one consider range, and probably not then.

It CANNOT be one mod.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#198 - 2015-10-04 16:46:46 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!


You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.


Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#199 - 2015-10-04 16:52:47 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


At the same time, we're planning on making a slight buff pass on the Missile Guidance modules that were introduced in Aegis. Their range bonuses don't need any more improvements, but we are currently planning on buffing their explosion radius and explosion velocity bonuses by ~10%. We'd then observe how that change is received on TQ and decide if we want to go farther or not.!


You were told a hundred times in the AEGIS feed back thread that your new modules were ****, and you didn't listen. You added stacking penalties to rigs so the net affect of your change was a missile nerf, so there is no need for this ewar to compensate because you didn't buff anything in aegis.


Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads.


How would you know, they never even made it in a working state to Sisi. The stacking was missing on the first go around, then they were nerfbatted AND stacking added.

They never made it as they should have in the first instance - original values with stacking.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2015-10-04 17:00:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Would the people advocating the script option be willing to lower the efficacy of TDs across the board to compensate for this?


Sure. They are already strong on unbounded ships anyway, so a bit of a nerf might be ok.

Are remote tracking links going to be changed to affect missiles stats?