These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

[December] Missile Disruptors and Tweaks to Missile Guidance Mods

First post First post
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#341 - 2015-10-08 10:30:17 UTC
Hey, what happens if I hit a bomber with these before he launches bombs? (You know, if they're bad)

Do they affect the bomb?
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#342 - 2015-10-08 11:27:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
Until CCP wises up and tiericides the launchers and missiles individually, treating each launcher and missile type with it's own array of changes that are by now even more so sorely needed rather than trying to retawd-strength hammer them all into line with these one-size-fits-all dice rolls they seem to be so fond of pooping out, missiles will continue to remain in the **** poor and lopsided shape they are in now well into next year.

No, I'm not against adding these mods to Eve. In fact, I'm all for it. Defenders just plane suck, and this will help to be a far more effective substitute for said defenders. That 5% damage buff you gave heavies is a step in the right direction, albeit a weak one as many would argue, but a step in the right direction nonetheless. Missile systems need, now more than ever, that; specific adjustments and fixes to specific areas of the missile family of weapons targeting specific issues -- key word, in case it didn't smack you in the face by now, is "specific". Some missiles and launchers are fine and in good shape, some could use a boost, and some are miserable. Nailing them all with the same nerfs is not enough. I don't really have the energy to really say more (lack of good sleep, a cold, and a crappy week can be a literal pain), but that's just my mind on the matter.

PS, the buffs to MGC's/MGE's are nice, but I'd bet they might need a bit more aggressive approach. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast, but don't be surprised if the MGE's especially will need a bit more push to be worthwhile to take, EWAR mod or not.

Ugh, Advil is starting to kick in (FINALLY!). I'm gonna sleep...hopefully...


"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#343 - 2015-10-08 16:50:12 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Them being seperate modules means 1 of 2 things will happen.

1) everyone will use them, thus missiles will suck.


2) No one uses them and everything stays how it is now.

Either way, I don't think these modules need to exist.

I personally feel that defenders need to be taken back to the drawing board instead.

Rename them point defense. No longer require a missile (or even turret hard point), are a utility high slot module, and effect the TARGET ship.
So, instead of only defending yourself, they defend whomever the target is shooting at.
This is more balanced than a defense module that will shoot any missile fired at the fleet (which has been suggested), which would also be extremely difficult to code, as the system would have to differentiate friendly vs non-friendly volleys.

Then, give certain specialty ships, like the Golem, a missile HP bonus.

Going to quote my comment, as it's been liked a few times but disappeared to the nether due to many off topic posts.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#344 - 2015-10-08 21:57:06 UTC
A new use for the festival launcher - Anti drone launcher

Re-purpose it to fit "defender missiles", can be fit to any highslot, they only attack drones and are target specific.
You lock a ship and he deploys drones, your "defender missiles" will attack those drones, 1 missile per volley, 5 second ROF (so it isn't OP) and the launcher will auto target 1 drone until it is dead or recalled.

Damage applied should be balanced by the size of the drone it is hitting, a fast moving light drone will take far less damage than a sentry but can still die in about the same time. A light drone orbiting and shooting you could take 5 or 6 volleys to destroy, a sentry drone would also take 5 or 6 volleys to destroy but a heavy drone may take up to 10 volleys to be destroyed depending on its (ship) bonuses.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#345 - 2015-10-08 23:56:11 UTC
So, these won't affect fof missiles right? (Just as the other types of ewar effectively don't.)

Do not run. We are your friends.

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#346 - 2015-10-09 01:26:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
So, couple of questions for clarity's sake, if you will.

A. Given that ships with tracking disruption bonuses will inherent missile disruption bonuses, will the value of the bonuses change at all to reflect that addition? The reason for asking this is that such a change potentially offers an effective buff to aforementioned EWAR boats at no apparent added cost simply to facilitate them being missile disruption specialists.

B. You stated that links, overheating, and such will all play a role in missile disruption effects. Is it safe to assume that Tracking Diagnostic Subroutines will also inherent the same adjustments, or will they be given an alternate rig module, or no rig to improve them at all?

C. Finally, considering we know only their primary stats so far, their EWAR debuffs, what of the other fundamental stats such as PG and CPU prereqs, cap use and cycle timers? Are they set to resemble their TD cousins?

C 2, C harder. Okay, really finally this time, what's planned for their icons? Same for now or totally brand-spanking new fresh out of the Art oven?

Forgive me if any or all of these have been more or less answered already, but I am NOT going to read all near-20 pages of banter. To be fair, nor would I expect anyone else to either.

PS: I am also a little curious of the FoF and Bomb queries above as well.


"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Spugg Galdon
Last Rites.
Infinite Pew
#347 - 2015-10-09 06:51:29 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Flyinghotpocket wrote:

did i miss the memo where this isnt a solo game? yes let me carry around 10 td's to counter just 2 pilots. genius.

whilst clearly you're not.

drones are ----> autonomous
which means ewar applied to the ship launching them is irrelevant to their ability to function

Your logic is flawed and your information incorrect.

First..... your information. Drones are "semi-autonomous". They still require input from the parent ship.
Source: Link

Second... the parent ship and/or capsuleer has a direct and profound effect on the drones attributes including HP's, damage dealt, tracking, velocity, optimal and falloff ranges and control range. If the parent ship has this amount of governance over the drones capability then applying EWAR to the parent ship should effect the drones capability also.

Bottom line. There should be anti drone EWAR to balance it all out.
Me ofcourse
Goonswarm Federation
#348 - 2015-10-09 11:30:23 UTC

why not give the role to caldari ewar ships?

all other race's ewar platforms have two types of ewar as it is with the exception of caldari

Amarr has Neuts + tracking disruption

Gallente has Point range + Damps

Minmatar has Webs + Target Painters

while caldari only has ECM
I'm Sorry Shoot What?
The Weekend Warriors
#349 - 2015-10-09 11:35:25 UTC  |  Edited by: McReaction

Current methods of negating missile damage that turret based ships are not dealing with:


With love
#350 - 2015-10-09 19:05:40 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Flyinghotpocket wrote:

did i miss the memo where this isnt a solo game? yes let me carry around 10 td's to counter just 2 pilots. genius.

whilst clearly you're not.

drones are ----> autonomous
which means ewar applied to the ship launching them is irrelevant to their ability to function

except in reality.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro

Frostys Virpio
Goonswarm Federation
#351 - 2015-10-09 19:29:31 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Hey, what happens if I hit a bomber with these before he launches bombs? (You know, if they're bad)

Do they affect the bomb?

I'm pretty sure those attributes are not affected since they are not affected by the skill that modify those. The skill for missile velocity does not affect the velocity of bombs for example.
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#352 - 2015-10-09 20:27:56 UTC
I throw my hat in with the

"combine them with the TD module and nerf the base modules while bringing up the specific hull bonus to 10% per level."

OR, you could fix defender missiles by making defender missiles target a single ship and shoot any missiles launched by that ship. For balance sake, they would destroy between 2 and 3 times the dps off the enemy ship. maybe just 2x. a single caracal could switch to defender missiles and negate a group of kestrels by ungrouping the launchers, or shut down a cerb and a jackdaw or, 2 other caracals.... etc.

and the sentinel, crucifier, pilgrim, curse, and arbitrator could fit launchers and load defenders for disruption of missile ships. the sentinel/crucifier would need 2 launchers, as well as the pilgrim and arbitrator needing 4 launcher hard points in order to mount effective missile disruption capabilities.

the defender module would cycle without using charges indefinitely until the charges were all used on active missile targets, if a missile from the parent ship is detected, the launcher fires a round regardless of cycle time. the missile has high base speed and low travel time.

But that plan is if you want missiles to be something unique and cool. a utility delivery system, rather than a cookie cutter damage system.

What about AOE flak missiles for killing drones?

chaff missiles for providing a low level of omni ewar to a target? a small amount of scan res damp, lock range damp, ecm, paint, and sensor strength drop. very low levels, but a general ship disruption effect.

heat pulse missiles? a small amount of thermal damage, say, 1/3 of a ships normal missile dps but with heat added to the highs, mids and lows of the target ship?

FoF launched cloak detection missiles that fire out in random directions that can de-cloak anything on grid if they get within decloak range?

This is where you decide CCP. Do you want to balanced, nerf, and rebalance until missiles are just a turret with hit lag? or do you want missiles to be something interesting and compelling? Now is the time. Please make the right choice, even if it is the long path with more work ahead of you.
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#353 - 2015-10-09 21:11:05 UTC
One last attempt here..

Defender missiles aint gonna happen folks. Let me spell out the whys.

EVE operates on "tics" and when an enemy launches a missile at you that takes 2 whole seconds(or one "tic") before you, the victim, even knows the missile is in space. After that two seconds even if it was 100% automatic defender missiles would take 2 seconds to respond because the action has to roll into another server tic. Then if everything went perfectly on the THIRD server tic the defender would have to close on the hostile missile cluster. If these two don't meet during this server tic the fundamental way sh*t works says the chances of a f*ckup is high.

In most cases missiles are in the air for(and its being bolded for emphasis)LESS THAN FOUR SECONDS.
This means that even in PERFECT LATENCY SITUATIONS the defender will NEVER EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK.
In other words due to the way the game is fundamentally constructed the concept of player defender missiles is never going to work period dot end. CCP will not recode the entire server base just to allow a single module to work..

The only reason defender missiles work for NPCs is that NPCs are handled entirely server side so things like latency doesn't functionally apply to them the way it does to other players.

Additionally mobile "aoe effects" again.. not really going to happen. Smartbombs only work because they are mounted on generally slow hulls. Remember a ship in EVE Online is a dot with a vector on a 3D graph. Volume draws against moving objects within a 2s tic system mean trying to "hit" an object becomes retardedly complex. Even if you timestamp the hell out of things. It's not an efficient use of resources and thus falls squarely in the area of "terrible design".

Modules work so well because its built on a cycle. Once on the server calculates if the effect hits the target and if so does it have any falloff penalties. After that calculation the effect is simply applied until it triggers an out of range, one of the two targets no longer exist, or the cycle ends and is not reapplied. Very low cost, Very efficient, Very good code. It allows for fights to work without causing CCP engineers to run around with fire extinguishers every 15 minutes on a Saturday.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#354 - 2015-10-09 22:57:19 UTC
It would appear that Drakes are going to be cheap.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Falin Whalen
Goonswarm Federation
#355 - 2015-10-10 03:20:49 UTC
Oh God damn it, I just got my Drake blueprint out after years stored away. I guess I will have to get a Ferrox blueprint.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 

Feodor Romanov
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#356 - 2015-10-10 08:22:52 UTC
Well, we need drone disruptors now
the Goose Flock
#357 - 2015-10-11 05:01:49 UTC
Will make Missile Blap Dread and Titan even more op.
gj ccp.

Remove T2 BPOs

Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#358 - 2015-10-11 09:31:58 UTC
My concern is that tracking disruption can still have its effect mitigated to a degree by traversal management. There is not a way of doing this for the missile modules it seems.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#359 - 2015-10-11 10:07:21 UTC
Feodor Romanov wrote:
Well, we need drone disruptors now

I would say not actually. You can jam/damp the hull. You can kill the drones whereas a drone boat can't kill your guns. Drones are either at range so can be tanked/avoided all together or smart bombed if close in. Drive a boat away from it's sentries and it loses a good percentage of it's firepower and bay allowance. Smartbomb and the droneboat loses its firepower all together.

How would this even work? Drone jam one boat and they will assign drones to an unjammed drone boat. What is the eccm for such a boat?

Drones are an entirely different weapon system and as such the modules that assist/affect guns don't teally make sense or apply. Allowing defenders to target drones could work and a missile defence destroyer would be a nice algos variant. Mainly because I want a tech II algos :)

By the same argument above I don't really think that the missile modules propsed work well either. Again making defenders work better would be a nicer option, perhaps with modules that work to boost there efficiency rather than target to attacking missile boat (we already have jammers, damps etc for the hull). Something like defender launch boosters to double rof or range based on scripts , defender tracking boosters etc.

Maybe introduce small turrets that are the old WWII battleship DP secondary armament equivalent, dual barrels turrets with high tracking but lower dps, or lower tracking with higher dps depending on the script and/or ammo loaded (so defender turret CIWS in this case). Make the DP turrets less dps than the dedicated small turrets though so there is still a real choice between full dps or lower dps with more defence options. Defender turrets and defender missiles would just use the same background calculations for damage reduction.
Arthur Aihaken
#360 - 2015-10-11 12:03:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q: Is the 10% buff to Guidance Computers and Guidance Enhancers absolute or relative?
A: Relative. So for instance a T1 unscripted Guidance Computer would provide 5.5% bonuses to explosion radius and explosion velocity, rather than the current 5%.

While any improvement is of course appreciated, in lieu of the missile disruptors the MGCs and MGEs need to be buffed to the original proposed values. In addition, medium and large missiles need some serious attention with respect to damage application.

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