These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
stoicfaux
#201 - 2015-10-04 17:28:48 UTC
Hal Morsh wrote:

stoicfaux wrote:
Is it just me or does it feel like missiles and related mods are being balanced around Rapids and the Mordu ships?


Anyway, if missile disruptors become a problem, everyone will just switch to using Missile Drones (because drones tend to solve most ECM problems.)

Personally, I'm holding out for CCP to announce Drone Drones. (Drones that have their own drones.)




Drones do not use missles. Caldari drones use hybrids, but they still do kinetic.

I was riffing on drones > ECM, implying that "missile drones" would be the only way that missiles would be effective if the missile disruptors went in with their current stats...


/and_this_is_why_I_don't_do_comedy_for_a_living

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

Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#202 - 2015-10-04 17:32:15 UTC
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.


pre aegis rigs and target painters were better in just about every way, how do you reach the conclusion they are "very good" ?

Apart from a very few fringe cases they are worse than what we had before.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#203 - 2015-10-04 17:40:43 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
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.

That why it would be better to do modules and ammo tiercide first then introduce new tracking and disruptor devices. Now it will be completely mess. It's like balancing D3 dessies now. We will have new T2 dessies soon so whole "balancing" will start from the beginning, what the point here?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#204 - 2015-10-04 17:57:26 UTC
I went to look for a quantum rise missile change devblog... can't find one Shocked
I did find the speed one and that has some good lines: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/speed-rebalanced/

and the patchnotes alone aren't very helpful http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-quantum-rise-1
Quote:
All missile types have been balanced to ensure that oversized missiles do not have too much of an effect on smaller ships. As before, ships are still protected from larger missiles by their signature radius. When going sufficiently fast, the damage taken from missiles is reduced by the signature radius to speed ratio, rather than just speed. Going faster or reducing the signature radius will reduce missile damage further. For a ship with the same signature radius as the missile's explosion radius, the missile's explosion velocity indicates the speed at which the missile damage starts to get reduced. The new formula allows for speed tanking using afterburners. In fact, afterburners will in general be more effective than micro warp drive for speed tanking missiles.


found the thread! http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=899873 would have been easier but all the oldforums links are broken, and the "external link" filter just makes it a nightmare Evil

the link to where "here" goes to in the last link: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=861746

sadly this was the days where "We don't talk about our formulas as a rule, sorry :)"


great now I've done so much digging I forgot what my initial point was. I think it had something to do with why they did whatever they did with the formula but well, see above. I suppose a lot of the why is established through explanations of ideals about the formula. Also makes me wonder what the pre QR formula was. I remember missiles overall being pretty usable then except vs nano ships where they were almost completely ineffective. either not catching the target, or hitting for near 0 damage.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#205 - 2015-10-04 18:00:56 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Hal Morsh wrote:

stoicfaux wrote:
Is it just me or does it feel like missiles and related mods are being balanced around Rapids and the Mordu ships?


Anyway, if missile disruptors become a problem, everyone will just switch to using Missile Drones (because drones tend to solve most ECM problems.)

Personally, I'm holding out for CCP to announce Drone Drones. (Drones that have their own drones.)




Drones do not use missles. Caldari drones use hybrids, but they still do kinetic.

I was riffing on drones > ECM, implying that "missile drones" would be the only way that missiles would be effective if the missile disruptors went in with their current stats...


/and_this_is_why_I_don't_do_comedy_for_a_living


I thought it was an obvious joke

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#206 - 2015-10-04 18:05:10 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
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.


pre aegis rigs and target painters were better in just about every way, how do you reach the conclusion they are "very good" ?

Apart from a very few fringe cases they are worse than what we had before.


cause its one mod?
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#207 - 2015-10-04 18:17:54 UTC
Pre-nerf MGCs were absurdly good because *there were no stacking penalties.*


I understand CCP wished to standardize effects and introduce stacking penalties to explosion stats, but I had asked and hoped that they would choose either/or with module nerfs and stacking penalties, not both.

As a result we got modules that underperform what rigs used to do 1:1, or are forced to exist to make up for stacking penalties.

There are benefits to say MGCs. The versatility to swap range/application on the fly. The ease of putting them on/off unlike rigs, at a far smaller cost. Lack of cycle times for changing targets like painters.

But in terms of being items that drastically helped large missiles apply damage, they just fall short to rigs and painters. And the MGEs even more so.

I had originally suggested that unlike guns, the more powerful application effects could be low slot items, with significant fitting costs. This could mean that instead of BCSes + pointless MGEs, you might choose to forego damage and ROF in favor of well applied burst damage.

I had also hoped range and application could be split to separate modules and balanced separately, with application stats and scripts balanced for size/speed, giving more nobs foe fine tuning.

With those ideas out the window, I am hoping MGEs can get a bigger boost, and that base stats on the missiles that suck get a slight bump. This will ensure MG mods plus the already solid missiles don't become OP.

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

W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#208 - 2015-10-04 18:21:42 UTC
rlmls are great with mgcs, hams can be great, rhmls are great. The rest sucks anyways.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#209 - 2015-10-04 19:11:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Fourteen Maken
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Fourteen Maken wrote:
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.


pre aegis rigs and target painters were better in just about every way, how do you reach the conclusion they are "very good" ?

Apart from a very few fringe cases they are worse than what we had before.


cause its one mod?


It's one mod that takes up a mid slot and fitting resources and still manages to be less effective than the equivalent rigs for most purposes.

I think it's because of the way the bonuses are split between flight time/velocity and exp radius/exp velocity. If they just gave a bonus to Missile velocity, and a bonus to explosion radius they might actually have be useful.

Missile guidance Computer II
+15% missile velocity (+30% with script)
-15% explosion radius (-30% with script)

What's wrong with that? Why make it so complicated by splitting bonuses, when they split the application bonuses you're only really getting the benefit of one at a time so half of it is wasted and that's not the case with rigs, and when it comes to range people want missile velocity not longer flight time. Even with this missiles like HAM's Torpedo's Heavies will still struggle, but rapids will always be strong.

Here are the changes I'd like to see:
1) Remove split bonuses from Missile tracking computers and enhancers

2) Nerf Mordu's hulls! They get too many strong bonuses: Missile velocity is a strong bonus on it's own without also giving it extra range. please increase the flight time penalty so it's at the same range as unbonused but with faster missiles. Also remove either the Scram bonus or the Disruptor bonus.

3) Nerf Rapids by increasing the fitting costs so you can't easily over tank with them. Give them the fitting cost of HAM's and give HAM's the fitting cost Rapid lights have now.

3) Do the same with Torps and Rapid heavies, just switch the fitting costs around.

4) Buff damage application on Torps, Heavies, and HAM's

5) Nerf flight time on light missiles by about 10%
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#210 - 2015-10-04 20:07:17 UTC
cause they are intended to stack, and if they wouldnt it would be totally broken. MGCs are fine 100%.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#211 - 2015-10-04 20:57:41 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Hal Morsh wrote:

stoicfaux wrote:
Is it just me or does it feel like missiles and related mods are being balanced around Rapids and the Mordu ships?


Anyway, if missile disruptors become a problem, everyone will just switch to using Missile Drones (because drones tend to solve most ECM problems.)

Personally, I'm holding out for CCP to announce Drone Drones. (Drones that have their own drones.)




Drones do not use missles. Caldari drones use hybrids, but they still do kinetic.

I was riffing on drones > ECM, implying that "missile drones" would be the only way that missiles would be effective if the missile disruptors went in with their current stats...


/and_this_is_why_I_don't_do_comedy_for_a_living



Cough* bombers

But his point still stands it's not missiles that need an EWAR counter it's drones
motie one
Secret Passage
#212 - 2015-10-04 21:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: motie one
I can see how the new module may be interesting, and encourage different choices.

After initially thinking it would be a good idea, in retrospect, I am not in favour of the suggestion of rolling scripts into the existing tracking disruptors, this would almost make them a compulsory fit, I would prefer that you stay with the original proposal.

I am really concerned however that the new module is problematic, in that it affects both flight time and speed, as well as the option of scripting instead for both missile damage application stats.

This is really powerful, affecting just flight time, or scripting to just affect explosion radius could make sense, but when both range or application stats apply it will really cause missiles to be a truly miserable experience.
Ideally the modules should only become scriptable for ONE disruptive effect. I.e. Missile velocity OR flight time OR explosion radius OR explosion speed.

Transferring effects on turrets, does not scale 1-1 to missiles as you know. In one example it would be like applying double reductions to optimal, rather than some to optimal and some to falloff. Reducing range of missiles means full damage loss applies for the whole combined reduction, rather than full effects applying for optimal reduction and a diminishing effect in falloff, as that ialready does reduced damage. In short missiles will lose more damage than turrets. I see you have taken some account of this, but it is still worrying.

You may have buffs to certain missiles in plan to make the whole experience better, but without these, we really are going to regret using Missiles in a lot of situations. Possibly more than you intend.

The effect of these proposals is likely to be over-powerful on unbonused ships, but on linked and bonused ships, they will have extraordinary, and unacceptable levels of grid control. A complete I-Win module. As powerful as ECM would be with a 100% jam rate, and only requiring a single jammer per ship, if I understand the numbers correctly.

We had issues with the ishtar, I hope we do not repeat them here with new ships.

I am sure you will look into our concerns, the results may be entirely as you wish, and you have a bigger picture in mind than we can know or see. You may wish to see the whole use of missile ships toned down in PVP? It will be interesting to see what replaces them.

Anyway, just my opinion, I am sure in play testing a lot of the issues will become clearer allowing for a good resolution.

Amarr having a really strong ECM option, is a good thing. It is nice to see imaginative design, with the above reservations.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#213 - 2015-10-04 21:48:06 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Pre-nerf MGCs were absurdly good because *there were no stacking penalties.*


I understand CCP wished to standardize effects and introduce stacking penalties to explosion stats, but I had asked and hoped that they would choose either/or with module nerfs and stacking penalties, not both.

As a result we got modules that underperform what rigs used to do 1:1, or are forced to exist to make up for stacking penalties.

There are benefits to say MGCs. The versatility to swap range/application on the fly. The ease of putting them on/off unlike rigs, at a far smaller cost. Lack of cycle times for changing targets like painters.

But in terms of being items that drastically helped large missiles apply damage, they just fall short to rigs and painters. And the MGEs even more so.

I had originally suggested that unlike guns, the more powerful application effects could be low slot items, with significant fitting costs. This could mean that instead of BCSes + pointless MGEs, you might choose to forego damage and ROF in favor of well applied burst damage.

I had also hoped range and application could be split to separate modules and balanced separately, with application stats and scripts balanced for size/speed, giving more nobs foe fine tuning.

With those ideas out the window, I am hoping MGEs can get a bigger boost, and that base stats on the missiles that suck get a slight bump. This will ensure MG mods plus the already solid missiles don't become OP.


I think the problem is with the base stats for heavies, hams and to a lesser extent cruise and torps. The computers, enhancers and disruptors seem fine in theory but they are operating on ammo which is not in a good place. I would prefer to see heavies and hams sorted before piling secondary issues on top.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#214 - 2015-10-04 22:47:34 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Mgcs prenerf were retardidly broken, and still are very good, just shows how much bs ccp has to wade through in feedback theads.


Please stop, my belly can't handle your cute attempts of comprehension. Let's the grownups talk.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#215 - 2015-10-04 22:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: elitatwo
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Pre-nerf MGCs were absurdly good because *there were no stacking penalties.*


I understand CCP wished to standardize effects and introduce stacking penalties to explosion stats, but I had asked and hoped that they would choose either/or with module nerfs and stacking penalties, not both.

As a result we got modules that underperform what rigs used to do 1:1, or are forced to exist to make up for stacking penalties.

There are benefits to say MGCs. The versatility to swap range/application on the fly. The ease of putting them on/off unlike rigs, at a far smaller cost. Lack of cycle times for changing targets like painters..


Chance dear, no missile user needs more range, only application. Some very slow noobs from two days ago will not comprehend it but I am here long enough.

My predictions always come true. Some of them take longer but it still holds.


What about giving defender missiles full application instead?

You can "test-run" defender missiles with full 100% application, no matter what day of the week it is and see how that goes.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#216 - 2015-10-05 00:09:58 UTC
No they dont e2. You just whine louder than the Imperium forum CTA. To be entirely honest its an impressive talent.

Small things to note..
These module will by nature punish missile boats to what seems to be an excessive amount.. However remember CCP balances off meta statistics.. No one is arguing the dominance of RLML boats. The effect or the missile disruptors will be profound but not out of line with similar effects of a tracking disruptor fleet against a turret using enemy.
Considering to be useful you have to know the enemy fleet comp to properly shut down a certain doctrine... this severity is acceptable provided the disruptors remain two independent mods.

As to the buff to MGCs... I was one of the biggest opponents of the nerfed numbers but honestly after spending the time to fly fits and see what they succeed at or fail at they were not very off balance to TPs. The nerf was still a terrible knee jerk reaction that shouldn't have happened.. but the mods have a defined purpose on many hulls. Mostly in allowing normally short ranged weapon systems to suddenly become mid ranged/long ranged weapon systems. The 10%ev/er bonus puts them fairly in line with a TP for most fitting purposes.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#217 - 2015-10-05 00:19:14 UTC
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?

I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :)


I agree with this.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Nafensoriel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#218 - 2015-10-05 00:21:33 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Yadaryon Vondawn wrote:
Question, why not have one module? The current Disruptors, but with this added functionality. Or a missile script. Especially if you are going for solo PVP I imagine this is a bit weird. You fit one module for all turrets, except for missiles. Now you have to choose which disruptor module to fit. All other EWAR is 'across the board', why is this designed for missiles only?

I see how it creates fitting options and more choices but I am genuinely interested in the thought proces behind creating a new module for this :)


I agree with this.


Easy to answer.. One mod would basically revert eve to drones online.
A single EWAR fit that can shut down all but one weapon system? Not a good idea.
By keeping two modules you require FCs to utilize scouts or risk being neutralized by enemy ewar... it also means defenders can fit to fight an attackers ship types thus gaining an advantage against larger fleets attacking them.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#219 - 2015-10-05 00:59:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Chance Ravinne
elitatwo wrote:
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Pre-nerf MGCs were absurdly good because *there were no stacking penalties.*


I understand CCP wished to standardize effects and introduce stacking penalties to explosion stats, but I had asked and hoped that they would choose either/or with module nerfs and stacking penalties, not both.

As a result we got modules that underperform what rigs used to do 1:1, or are forced to exist to make up for stacking penalties.

There are benefits to say MGCs. The versatility to swap range/application on the fly. The ease of putting them on/off unlike rigs, at a far smaller cost. Lack of cycle times for changing targets like painters..


Chance dear, no missile user needs more range, only application. Some very slow noobs from two days ago will not comprehend it but I am here long enough.

My predictions always come true. Some of them take longer but it still holds.


What about giving defender missiles full application instead?

You can "test-run" defender missiles with full 100% application, no matter what day of the week it is and see how that goes.


I'm not arguing that missiles do or don't need range, only listing objective facts about the modules. Even if you contend missiles don't currently need range, we can imagine a future balance pass where somehow they do, which would increase the value of these items.

And surely there are scenarios where the range has value, even if they are fringe cases. If you have ever wished to shoot at a target 1 km outside of your range, it would be better in that precise moment to have a MGC than a target painter, since painting something you can't hit is pointless.*

I never thought range + application should be linked to one module anyway. Having a separate range module, then a module with sig or speed based application would be, IMO more interesting.

* yeah yeah helps the fleet, I know

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

Madrax573
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#220 - 2015-10-05 03:20:58 UTC
Here we go again making everything in eve function like everything else in eve.....

There really wasn't any need for missile enhancing modules and then subsequently missile damping modules. I guess missiles are just like turrets now. Yay! Victory for the whiners that couldn't be bothered to learn something unique in eve.

Such a pity.